5 ms·

It makes perfect sense, if you view the project as an escapist fantasy that will never actually be acted upon.

zo1 11y ago
Well, there is very little place for this supposed "fantasy" to take hold. Seeing as every single piece of land on this earth has been taken up by states that refuse to part with any of the precious land they've accumulated inside their borders.
- meepmorp 11y ago
  All this really tells me is that market forces have determined that the state is the most efficient political structure. If it were otherwise, other political forms would've replaced them.
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    For what definition of efficiency? And what does a Hussein or a Castro care about efficiency?
    - meepmorp 11y ago
      If there were a system that was "better," in terms of the total way in which all of humanity measures "better," we'd be using that. That's the efficiency measure. The state arose judged against the harshest fitness measure known, the actual world.
      - dropit_sphere 11y ago
        Maybe, but live by fitness, die by fitness. Conditions change constantly, changing the selection algorithm. If the state goes down tomorrow and chaos reigns, would it be reasonable to argue against trying to change the status quo because Mad Max had been selected? "They should not be denied nor forgotten, but neither should they be worshiped. The Earth is beautiful, and bright, and kindly, but that is not all. The Earth is also terrible, and dark, and cruel. The rabbit shrieks dying in the green meadows. The mountains clench their great hands full of hidden fire. There are sharks in the sea, and there is cruelty in men’s eyes. And where men worship these things and abase themselves before them, there evil breeds; there places are made in the world where darkness gathers, places given over wholly to the Ones whom we call Nameless, the ancient and holy Powers of the Earth before the Light, the powers of the dark, of ruin, of madness…"
        meepmorp 11y ago
        > Maybe, but live by fitness, die by fitness. Conditions change constantly, changing the selection algorithm. If you look at human history over the long term, the role of the state has only expanded over that time. I'm not saying it's the only possibility, merely that it's the most successful we've ever come up with to date. > If the state goes down tomorrow and chaos reigns, would it be reasonable to argue against trying to change the status quo because Mad Max had been selected? Maybe. Ask me again when all states disappear entirely and fail to re-arise.
        dropit_sphere 11y ago
        >merely that it's the most successful we've ever come up with to date. That is a very good reason to be cautious about throwing something out wholesale. But it is also a good reason to not fear experimentation, because the official story is that it will show the incumbent to he superior. > Maybe. Ask me again when all states disappear entirely and fail to re-arise. Rather than ask a question, I'll make a statement:impersonal emergent forces of the kind we are talking about use a very greedy algorithm, and are very prone to local optima. There is a place for human assistance in finding where they "ought" to be.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - zo1 11y ago
    You know, I'd generally agree with the caveat that it is "currently" the most efficient. However, you also have to understand the behemoth that is the state. Fighting it is inherently very difficult by virtue of it not allowing competition. It's simply illegal to compete with them on their own turf (of which they have taken all). And to top it all off, it is deeply ingrained into our culture at this point. So much so that children, from a young age, are told the rules and made sure to spread them to theirs. Simple logic get's thrown out the window by usually smart/intelligent people when you discuss the ethics of the state with them.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    That's bandwagon fallacy. Besides that, you can't say for certain that the environment is selecting for efficiency rather than some other factor for which nation-states have a competitive advantage over non-state societies. Nation-states are undoubtedly best at force projection. So long as people were generally accepting of their state razing foreign cities to the ground, salting their earth, slaughtering their men, and enslaving the rest, no other political structure could compete with a nation-state, fielding a professional army funded by taxes and pillage, and secured by fortifications constructed by taxes and forced labor. If the fundamental operating principle of the world is that "might makes right" or "political power flows from the barrel of a gun", the nation-state is dominant. If the fundamental operating principle somehow shifts to "that which is hateful to you, do not do to others" or to "money makes the world go 'round", other political forms may realize an advantage over states. For now, though, states rule the whole world. The laws of the high sea are for their convenience, as TSI will discover the instant they get big enough to make their own waves.

zo1 11y ago

Well, there is very little place for this supposed "fantasy" to take hold. Seeing as every single piece of land on this earth has been taken up by states that refuse to part with any of the precious land they've accumulated inside their borders.

meepmorp 11y ago
All this really tells me is that market forces have determined that the state is the most efficient political structure. If it were otherwise, other political forms would've replaced them.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  For what definition of efficiency? And what does a Hussein or a Castro care about efficiency?
  - meepmorp 11y ago
    If there were a system that was "better," in terms of the total way in which all of humanity measures "better," we'd be using that. That's the efficiency measure. The state arose judged against the harshest fitness measure known, the actual world.
    - dropit_sphere 11y ago
      Maybe, but live by fitness, die by fitness. Conditions change constantly, changing the selection algorithm. If the state goes down tomorrow and chaos reigns, would it be reasonable to argue against trying to change the status quo because Mad Max had been selected? "They should not be denied nor forgotten, but neither should they be worshiped. The Earth is beautiful, and bright, and kindly, but that is not all. The Earth is also terrible, and dark, and cruel. The rabbit shrieks dying in the green meadows. The mountains clench their great hands full of hidden fire. There are sharks in the sea, and there is cruelty in men’s eyes. And where men worship these things and abase themselves before them, there evil breeds; there places are made in the world where darkness gathers, places given over wholly to the Ones whom we call Nameless, the ancient and holy Powers of the Earth before the Light, the powers of the dark, of ruin, of madness…"
      - meepmorp 11y ago
        > Maybe, but live by fitness, die by fitness. Conditions change constantly, changing the selection algorithm. If you look at human history over the long term, the role of the state has only expanded over that time. I'm not saying it's the only possibility, merely that it's the most successful we've ever come up with to date. > If the state goes down tomorrow and chaos reigns, would it be reasonable to argue against trying to change the status quo because Mad Max had been selected? Maybe. Ask me again when all states disappear entirely and fail to re-arise.
        dropit_sphere 11y ago
        >merely that it's the most successful we've ever come up with to date. That is a very good reason to be cautious about throwing something out wholesale. But it is also a good reason to not fear experimentation, because the official story is that it will show the incumbent to he superior. > Maybe. Ask me again when all states disappear entirely and fail to re-arise. Rather than ask a question, I'll make a statement:impersonal emergent forces of the kind we are talking about use a very greedy algorithm, and are very prone to local optima. There is a place for human assistance in finding where they "ought" to be.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- zo1 11y ago
  You know, I'd generally agree with the caveat that it is "currently" the most efficient. However, you also have to understand the behemoth that is the state. Fighting it is inherently very difficult by virtue of it not allowing competition. It's simply illegal to compete with them on their own turf (of which they have taken all). And to top it all off, it is deeply ingrained into our culture at this point. So much so that children, from a young age, are told the rules and made sure to spread them to theirs. Simple logic get's thrown out the window by usually smart/intelligent people when you discuss the ethics of the state with them.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  That's bandwagon fallacy. Besides that, you can't say for certain that the environment is selecting for efficiency rather than some other factor for which nation-states have a competitive advantage over non-state societies. Nation-states are undoubtedly best at force projection. So long as people were generally accepting of their state razing foreign cities to the ground, salting their earth, slaughtering their men, and enslaving the rest, no other political structure could compete with a nation-state, fielding a professional army funded by taxes and pillage, and secured by fortifications constructed by taxes and forced labor. If the fundamental operating principle of the world is that "might makes right" or "political power flows from the barrel of a gun", the nation-state is dominant. If the fundamental operating principle somehow shifts to "that which is hateful to you, do not do to others" or to "money makes the world go 'round", other political forms may realize an advantage over states. For now, though, states rule the whole world. The laws of the high sea are for their convenience, as TSI will discover the instant they get big enough to make their own waves.