This is all old thinking. This is the kind of old world thinking that is holding the US back, because it fails to recognize one key possibility: progress. It fails to consider the possibility that a stable world order can be achieved without hegemonic dominance and violence; that global power can be diffuse, shared, and that international democracy and rule of law can maintain peace and stability.
Old as in proven? Diffuse, stable and peaceful power is infinitesimally unlikely because violence (or the threat of) is the only tool you can have in a sedentary civilization. Resources are not evenly and equitably distributed in the world, e.g. the people who can only grow wheat can’t stop the people with access to iron weapons from taking it. There’s no way to pack up their fields and run away. There is nothing to maintain an equilibrium of peace among polities except for a hierarchy of violence above or a balance of violence among them.
Let me know when you find a plausible alternative. There’s nothing special about our information age civilizations except for our vastly increased productivity and the efficiency of our violence. Somebody will always control the water/rare minerals/oil/food and that will create a power imbalance against their peers. When push comes to shove (e.g. a Carrington Event), whoever can project violence better will come out on top.
I suppose the best we could hope for is a global federation but I have no faith that something of that size + complexity could remain stable. Even if it could, it would still be subject to resource constraints and earth’s carrying capacity. Our modern infrastructure and technology all are based on the unlimited availability of non renewable resources. Once we inevitably run out of sand for concrete or petrochemicals for plastic or minerals for solar panels or arable topsoil the game is over.
My take may have come across a bit too doomer: I wouldn’t say humanity itself unavoidably fucked, and our current choices do matter for what generations may come after. My working theory is that the gravity of sedentary civilization is unavoidable due to clear benefits but it’s also inevitably self terminating. Our choice is in how we navigate it.
We can’t grow our way out of our universe’s material limits but we also can’t voluntarily exit the Nash equilibrium of our established civilization. At some point the treadmill of progress ends and we can’t avoid that no matter how slowly and carefully we approach it. After the dust settles we return to a primitivist state, except this time it is physically impossible to reach the same destructive heights. Accessible surface metals are expended, radioactive fuel is spent, mineral deposits have been tapped and diffused, etc…
Our main job is to ensure that the earth remains livable when that time comes. There’s nothing inevitable about a global nuclear apocalypse or total climate collapse. If we avoid those we can achieve something like a soft landing, but we have to accept that our global population and quality of life will plummet no matter what because it’s not sustainable in any other system. Notice that this isn’t quite the same as Anarcho-primitivism even if the end goal is similar, we can’t change the broad strokes of history but we can choose how hard we crash the plane.
This is all old thinking. This is the kind of old world thinking that is holding the US back, because it fails to recognize one key possibility: progress. It fails to consider the possibility that a stable world order can be achieved without hegemonic dominance and violence; that global power can be diffuse, shared, and that international democracy and rule of law can maintain peace and stability.
Old as in proven? Diffuse, stable and peaceful power is infinitesimally unlikely because violence (or the threat of) is the only tool you can have in a sedentary civilization. Resources are not evenly and equitably distributed in the world, e.g. the people who can only grow wheat can’t stop the people with access to iron weapons from taking it. There’s no way to pack up their fields and run away. There is nothing to maintain an equilibrium of peace among polities except for a hierarchy of violence above or a balance of violence among them.
Let me know when you find a plausible alternative. There’s nothing special about our information age civilizations except for our vastly increased productivity and the efficiency of our violence. Somebody will always control the water/rare minerals/oil/food and that will create a power imbalance against their peers. When push comes to shove (e.g. a Carrington Event), whoever can project violence better will come out on top.
I suppose the best we could hope for is a global federation but I have no faith that something of that size + complexity could remain stable. Even if it could, it would still be subject to resource constraints and earth’s carrying capacity. Our modern infrastructure and technology all are based on the unlimited availability of non renewable resources. Once we inevitably run out of sand for concrete or petrochemicals for plastic or minerals for solar panels or arable topsoil the game is over.
I know. You’ve made up your mind: a better world isn’t possible, and that’s that.
Maybe you’re right, but if you are none of this matters. We’re just fucked.
My take may have come across a bit too doomer: I wouldn’t say humanity itself unavoidably fucked, and our current choices do matter for what generations may come after. My working theory is that the gravity of sedentary civilization is unavoidable due to clear benefits but it’s also inevitably self terminating. Our choice is in how we navigate it.
We can’t grow our way out of our universe’s material limits but we also can’t voluntarily exit the Nash equilibrium of our established civilization. At some point the treadmill of progress ends and we can’t avoid that no matter how slowly and carefully we approach it. After the dust settles we return to a primitivist state, except this time it is physically impossible to reach the same destructive heights. Accessible surface metals are expended, radioactive fuel is spent, mineral deposits have been tapped and diffused, etc…
Our main job is to ensure that the earth remains livable when that time comes. There’s nothing inevitable about a global nuclear apocalypse or total climate collapse. If we avoid those we can achieve something like a soft landing, but we have to accept that our global population and quality of life will plummet no matter what because it’s not sustainable in any other system. Notice that this isn’t quite the same as Anarcho-primitivism even if the end goal is similar, we can’t change the broad strokes of history but we can choose how hard we crash the plane.