• GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    One guy will always convince another of that. If the other guy disagrees, well, time for sticks and stones.

    My point is you either go small, and groups self assemble however you want, but you’ll have many neighbors who might not see it your way.

    Or you go big, and everyone’s efforts go to one shared goal, and everyone is a equal “citizen”. Ideally with collective shared goals folks are doing ok.

    Or you go medium, which is what we have now. Some groups are positioned and prepared to do good stuff, and others are fighting with and nail just to hold it together. There’s gonna be friction with neighbors, like with “small” but the problem is “mediums” got some real big sticks and stones.

    There’s no right answer and I obviously didn’t cover everything. But without groups of some kind, people will get picked off. There’s no period of human history that disagrees with me.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Realists?

        Provide a single example of anything aside from what I described, in any period of human history that both:

        • did not maintain power through economic or just militaristic dominance of their local region

        • did not experience conflict with their neighbors.

        They either had cohesive, hegemonic domination within their borders and geographic separation from rivals, or had challenges with bordering nation states.

        I personally hope for a star trek future