3 ms·
I don't see this working in the long-term. It assumes that one can win "once-and-for-all", whereas the splintering in competing factions and the pursuit of grou
by nologic01 3y ago
I don't see this working in the long-term. It assumes that one can win "once-and-for-all", whereas the splintering in competing factions and the pursuit of group objectives with violent means seems a recurrent pattern. Historically even in absolute monarchies (where you would think power relations have been settled would be paralyzed by internal strife, infighting clans etc.)
Now, all this would be just the normal human history (and as per the article, pre-history). What changes the dynamic is the advancement of science and technology. If we assume that it is accruing monotonically (which has been the case for several centuries), then if the same social dynamic or emergent organized violence continues, at as some point even a small group that drifts into a state of feeling aggrieved could prompt vast destruction.
- itsacomment 3y ago>Historically even in absolute monarchies (where you would think power relations have been settled would be paralyzed by internal strife, infighting clans etc.) This isn't surprising at all given that "absolute monarchy" was more of a marketing term than a description of reality. England, which rather decisively cut off their monarchs' pretensions at absolute power, was far more centralized than whatever the fuck the different parlements (sp?) of France or the Spanish cortez were doing during the absolutist age.