3 ms·

> Logically, the first two civilizations to "team up" would easily handle any single civilization that challenges them. I don't think saying "logically" and th

> Logically, the first two civilizations to "team up" would easily handle any single civilization that challenges them. I don't think saying "logically" and then an unsubstantiated claim constitutes a proof. If two civilizations team up, whether that makes them stronger, weaker, or equally effective, is not certain IMO. When two human companies merge, the result is often mistrust, poor communication, poor effectiveness, and sometimes ultimately failure. Sometimes the result of the merger is more effective. A single, decisive government can run more effective than an indecisive coalition with no clear leader. I just don't see how a definitive conclusion is possible any way. Surely it would vary case by case.

underlipton 2y ago
>When two human companies merge, the result is often mistrust, poor communication, poor effectiveness, and sometimes ultimately failure. Sometimes the result of the merger is more effective. Those are all important considerations when talking about particular circumstances. Mathematically, however, 2 is greater than 1. I say "logically" in the sense that, across a broad view of conflicts, the larger combatant usually does the most damage. The reason why is particular to each conflict (more bodies to throw, more brains devoted to tech development, more industrial output, etc.), and when it does not happen, the reason why is also similarly particular. You can also argue whether the circumstances truly yield a "win" (as in asymmetric warfare that ends with the smaller force driving out the larger one on logistical grounds, despite sustaining heavier losses). (Also note that "war" is not "business"; alliances are more important when the outcome of lost battles isn't just lost access to capital, but lost lives).
- stoperaticless 2y ago
  To go from 1 to 2, is possible by alliance or by subjugation.

underlipton 2y ago

>When two human companies merge, the result is often mistrust, poor communication, poor effectiveness, and sometimes ultimately failure. Sometimes the result of the merger is more effective. Those are all important considerations when talking about particular circumstances. Mathematically, however, 2 is greater than 1. I say "logically" in the sense that, across a broad view of conflicts, the larger combatant usually does the most damage. The reason why is particular to each conflict (more bodies to throw, more brains devoted to tech development, more industrial output, etc.), and when it does not happen, the reason why is also similarly particular. You can also argue whether the circumstances truly yield a "win" (as in asymmetric warfare that ends with the smaller force driving out the larger one on logistical grounds, despite sustaining heavier losses). (Also note that "war" is not "business"; alliances are more important when the outcome of lost battles isn't just lost access to capital, but lost lives).

stoperaticless 2y ago
To go from 1 to 2, is possible by alliance or by subjugation.