5 ms·

I'm not entirely convinced that nations will play as significant a role in the coming decades as they have historically. Currently, we observe a trend where aff

I'm not entirely convinced that nations will play as significant a role in the coming decades as they have historically. Currently, we observe a trend where affluent individuals are increasingly consolidating power, a phenomenon that is becoming more apparent in the public sphere. Notably, these individuals are also at the forefront of owning and controlling advancements in artificial intelligence. Coincidentally, this trend is often referred to as 'tech fascism,' bringing us back to the dictator schema.

throwanem 1y ago
States haven't always been a major feature of power. But we've never seen the interaction of personal power with modern weaponry, by which I do not mean nukes. When it was just a question of which debauched noble could afford more thugs or better assassins, sure. But 'how many Abrams has the Doge?'
- exiguus 1y ago
  >But 'how many Abrams has the Doge?' As many as you can control with signal chat. Besides, I'm not sure if tanks like the Abrams are as important anymore. Nowadays, things like food and water really matter. For example, exporting corn is crucial. Also, having the soils needed to make modern tech, like chips and batteries, is super important. Therefore Greenland is.
  - throwanem 1y ago
    Show me the war where resources weren't important. But you fail to take my meaning, which is that of the two, bureaucracy is far more robust than aristocracy, because power held by aristocracy succeeds by lineage where that by bureaucracy does so by role - that is, in a fashion far less constrained by the available resource of satisfactory personnel. Every billionaire in function constitutes an aristocracy of one. Meanwhile, states have armed forces. A billionaire, in relying on money for power, implicitly also depends on continued access to the global financial system which gives money meaning, in order to exercise that power. States are not obligated to allow such access, and may easily prevent it in the limiting case by ensuring such trade comes with a side of explosives delivered at speed, which broadly suffices to deter desirable counterparties. Think what anyone may of such a thing, the fact is having an army or navy or air force means you can do it. Which billionaire has one of those?
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      > bureaucracy is far more robust than aristocracy, because power held by aristocracy succeeds by lineage where that by bureaucracy does so by role You are making an awful lot of assumptions there. There are plenty of real world examples where a single party having control over a process produces significantly better results (and plenty of counterexamples where it doesn't, of course). How do you justify the assumption that preparing the next generation of leadership is one or the other of those? > ... States are not obligated to allow such access, Sufficient influence can be used to ensure access until it is no longer necessary. After all the government is little more than the biggest thug in the room at the end of the day. > Which billionaire has one of those? Which billionaire has been incentivized to pursue such a goal? It's extremely expensive. Does the Saudi state count given that it's an absolute monarchy?
      - throwanem 1y ago
        Who's making value judgments here? I'm talking about what's easier or harder to destroy, and explaining what makes aristocracy so much more fragile than bureaucracy. But the idea that governments are "the biggest thug in the room" is in itself as flagrantly ideological in origin as deliberately propagandistic in the specific formulation you chose, so the answer to my question is not really in doubt. (You might also be equating bureaucracy and government, or assuming I am doing so. Neither would be sensible.) The Saudi monarchy I would characterize as a nation-state existentially dependent for that status upon its role as a valued¹ satrap, and regional linchpin, of US hegemony; after decades of wielding money and power with all the arrogant foolishness of any parvenu's fantasy, they have few obvious friends and many reliable enemies. Following the loss for any reason of that client status and the protective halo it confers, I would expect the remaining lifetime of the monarchy, and whichever of its members failed to flee in time, to be most conveniently measured in days. 1) Some might say, vastly overvalued given their longstanding unreliability and increasing irrelevance in a post-petroleum energy economy.
- int_19h 1y ago
  The more interesting question isn't "how many Abrams?" these days, but rather "how many drones?" For example, Ukraine was planning to produce 1 million drones in 2024. They actually produced >2 million. For this year, they intend to produce 4.5 million (and appear to be on track for that). What makes this especially interesting is that a single drone is cheap enough that it's possible even for individuals to own small swarms or to crowdfund larger ones. So there's no well-defined cliff of power here as there was with high-tech weaponry like tanks - you can gradually scale up to whatever resources allow. Meaning that it's much easier to be a "small feudal" type of an autocrat, for example.
  - throwanem 1y ago
    You can gradually scale to what resources allow. Governments can do so far faster and further, and often already own ordnance in a range of readily deliverable sizes, from two-thousand-pound demolition bombs to missiles suitable for use against even small general-aviation aircraft.
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      What's the difference between a feudal lord and a government again? The point here is that previously there was a stark cliff related to things like budget (more accurately several cliffs at different locations). Moving to a smooth(er) function levels the playing field to a large degree. It's also notable that semi-autonomous UAVs are extremely well suited to asymmetric warfare tactics.
      - throwanem 1y ago
        > What's the difference between a feudal lord and a government again? I don't know. Do you? My prior interlocutor cited a state in example of this putative lordlet's theoretically plausible capabilities. I see you claim there is no difference in kind and none significant in degree. But you do actually need to make an argument about that. Just saying it won't do. It's interesting you mention asymmetrical warfare, the fundamental axiom of which as a concept is that the nonstate or nonpeer force has no chance whatsoever through conventional tactics, which are far more reliable and thus invariably used for practical reasons when practicable. (Americans always get this wrong because of Vietnam. The NVA and the VC were not the same force, dammit!) To cast the conflict in such terms, with the billionaire in place of the "asymmetrical" belligerent, thus makes my point for me in neater, more concise, and no less accurate terms than I myself expected to ever get away with on this website. You have my genuine thanks for that valuable assistance in clarifying my thinking.
nerdsniper 1y ago
Across history, often the “state” is/was really just a kind of collective umbrella organization to help manage the interests of the powerful.
- exiguus 1y ago
  I agree. Initially, this power was embodied by monarchs who claimed divine right, such as god-given kings. Over time, the influence shifted towards corporations that wielded significant economic and political control. Today, it is often the super-rich individuals who hold substantial sway over both economic and political landscapes.
Mountain_Skies 1y ago
Governments remain the owners of significant weaponry and willingness to kill on a large scale. The tech world has empowered authoritarians, usually to the cheers of the ideologically aligned, but modern tech systems are as incredibly fragile as they are powerful.
heylook 1y ago
Focusing on "nations" specifically is a waste of effort. "Power structures" generically are enough. It doesn't matter whether it's technofascist fiefs, nation-states, the Illuminati, or an up-jumped HOA.

throwanem 1y ago

States haven't always been a major feature of power. But we've never seen the interaction of personal power with modern weaponry, by which I do not mean nukes. When it was just a question of which debauched noble could afford more thugs or better assassins, sure. But 'how many Abrams has the Doge?'

exiguus 1y ago
>But 'how many Abrams has the Doge?' As many as you can control with signal chat. Besides, I'm not sure if tanks like the Abrams are as important anymore. Nowadays, things like food and water really matter. For example, exporting corn is crucial. Also, having the soils needed to make modern tech, like chips and batteries, is super important. Therefore Greenland is.
- throwanem 1y ago
  Show me the war where resources weren't important. But you fail to take my meaning, which is that of the two, bureaucracy is far more robust than aristocracy, because power held by aristocracy succeeds by lineage where that by bureaucracy does so by role - that is, in a fashion far less constrained by the available resource of satisfactory personnel. Every billionaire in function constitutes an aristocracy of one. Meanwhile, states have armed forces. A billionaire, in relying on money for power, implicitly also depends on continued access to the global financial system which gives money meaning, in order to exercise that power. States are not obligated to allow such access, and may easily prevent it in the limiting case by ensuring such trade comes with a side of explosives delivered at speed, which broadly suffices to deter desirable counterparties. Think what anyone may of such a thing, the fact is having an army or navy or air force means you can do it. Which billionaire has one of those?
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    > bureaucracy is far more robust than aristocracy, because power held by aristocracy succeeds by lineage where that by bureaucracy does so by role You are making an awful lot of assumptions there. There are plenty of real world examples where a single party having control over a process produces significantly better results (and plenty of counterexamples where it doesn't, of course). How do you justify the assumption that preparing the next generation of leadership is one or the other of those? > ... States are not obligated to allow such access, Sufficient influence can be used to ensure access until it is no longer necessary. After all the government is little more than the biggest thug in the room at the end of the day. > Which billionaire has one of those? Which billionaire has been incentivized to pursue such a goal? It's extremely expensive. Does the Saudi state count given that it's an absolute monarchy?
    - throwanem 1y ago
      Who's making value judgments here? I'm talking about what's easier or harder to destroy, and explaining what makes aristocracy so much more fragile than bureaucracy. But the idea that governments are "the biggest thug in the room" is in itself as flagrantly ideological in origin as deliberately propagandistic in the specific formulation you chose, so the answer to my question is not really in doubt. (You might also be equating bureaucracy and government, or assuming I am doing so. Neither would be sensible.) The Saudi monarchy I would characterize as a nation-state existentially dependent for that status upon its role as a valued¹ satrap, and regional linchpin, of US hegemony; after decades of wielding money and power with all the arrogant foolishness of any parvenu's fantasy, they have few obvious friends and many reliable enemies. Following the loss for any reason of that client status and the protective halo it confers, I would expect the remaining lifetime of the monarchy, and whichever of its members failed to flee in time, to be most conveniently measured in days. 1) Some might say, vastly overvalued given their longstanding unreliability and increasing irrelevance in a post-petroleum energy economy.
int_19h 1y ago
The more interesting question isn't "how many Abrams?" these days, but rather "how many drones?" For example, Ukraine was planning to produce 1 million drones in 2024. They actually produced >2 million. For this year, they intend to produce 4.5 million (and appear to be on track for that). What makes this especially interesting is that a single drone is cheap enough that it's possible even for individuals to own small swarms or to crowdfund larger ones. So there's no well-defined cliff of power here as there was with high-tech weaponry like tanks - you can gradually scale up to whatever resources allow. Meaning that it's much easier to be a "small feudal" type of an autocrat, for example.
- throwanem 1y ago
  You can gradually scale to what resources allow. Governments can do so far faster and further, and often already own ordnance in a range of readily deliverable sizes, from two-thousand-pound demolition bombs to missiles suitable for use against even small general-aviation aircraft.
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    What's the difference between a feudal lord and a government again? The point here is that previously there was a stark cliff related to things like budget (more accurately several cliffs at different locations). Moving to a smooth(er) function levels the playing field to a large degree. It's also notable that semi-autonomous UAVs are extremely well suited to asymmetric warfare tactics.
    - throwanem 1y ago
      > What's the difference between a feudal lord and a government again? I don't know. Do you? My prior interlocutor cited a state in example of this putative lordlet's theoretically plausible capabilities. I see you claim there is no difference in kind and none significant in degree. But you do actually need to make an argument about that. Just saying it won't do. It's interesting you mention asymmetrical warfare, the fundamental axiom of which as a concept is that the nonstate or nonpeer force has no chance whatsoever through conventional tactics, which are far more reliable and thus invariably used for practical reasons when practicable. (Americans always get this wrong because of Vietnam. The NVA and the VC were not the same force, dammit!) To cast the conflict in such terms, with the billionaire in place of the "asymmetrical" belligerent, thus makes my point for me in neater, more concise, and no less accurate terms than I myself expected to ever get away with on this website. You have my genuine thanks for that valuable assistance in clarifying my thinking.

nerdsniper 1y ago

Across history, often the “state” is/was really just a kind of collective umbrella organization to help manage the interests of the powerful.

exiguus 1y ago
I agree. Initially, this power was embodied by monarchs who claimed divine right, such as god-given kings. Over time, the influence shifted towards corporations that wielded significant economic and political control. Today, it is often the super-rich individuals who hold substantial sway over both economic and political landscapes.

Mountain_Skies 1y ago

Governments remain the owners of significant weaponry and willingness to kill on a large scale. The tech world has empowered authoritarians, usually to the cheers of the ideologically aligned, but modern tech systems are as incredibly fragile as they are powerful.

heylook 1y ago

Focusing on "nations" specifically is a waste of effort. "Power structures" generically are enough. It doesn't matter whether it's technofascist fiefs, nation-states, the Illuminati, or an up-jumped HOA.