3 ms·
That's a good point and an interesting example, but it's also irrelevant to the question of human history, unless you want to somehow impose a monoculture on th
by chatmasta 4y ago
That's a good point and an interesting example, but it's also irrelevant to the question of human history, unless you want to somehow impose a monoculture on the entire population of planet Earth, which seems difficult to achieve without some sort of unitary authoritarian world government.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoDoes human history applies to true Scotsmen as well?
- jonny_eh 4y agoApparently the Amish aren't human.
- Barrin92 4y agowhile Amish are most certainly human their existence rests on the fact that they happen to be surrounded by the mean old United States. Any moderate historical predator would otherwise make short work of them, they're a fundamentally uncompetitive civilization. This goes for all utopian model communities, Kibbutzim, etc, they exist by virtue of their host society's protection. And as such the OP is right that they have no impact on the course of history, because they have no autonomy.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago> unless you want to somehow impose a monoculture on the entire population of planet Earth Impose? No. Monoculture? No. Encourage greater consideration, yes. And we do that by being open about why we might choose to not do something, and also by being ready for other people that we cannot control who make a different choice.