this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
656 points (94.2% liked)
196
16542 readers
2064 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
the ones who prospered were the most aggressive ones, even conquering the whole world by force, it's a survivorship bias situation.
not every group of humans is aggressive, but those eventually get conquered by the agressive ones, military power always ends up winning.
It's unscientific to say that any country, given the chance, would do the same as the europeans or the US empire did to the world.
At least the Chinese century will prove or disprove this theory, given it's the first significant power shift in the last 500 years, let's see if they will be so brutal as the US and its allies (you know who) are to the world.
I firmly doubt it, there are no signs of brutality to other nations coming from the chinese, at most you could argue of some internal issues. There are no invasions, war or regime change operations done by China yet.
As someone from the global south, I don't fear China or even Russia in the least, I only fear what the US or Europe will try to inflict in my country, like the recent regime change operations that I lived through, that was pretty harsh.
this is my fundamental gripe with the problem, yes it's technically a survivorship bias, but how do you remove it, that's the hard question.
If 10 people in a group agree to leave 10,000 USD on a table, such that after 20 minutes, they can all split it amongst themselves, and then turn off the lights in the room and plug their ears in the meantime, someone if not multiple people are going to try and take it all for themselves.
Evolution has fundamentally programmed in a form of survivorship bias within basically every species. I don't think you can separate it unfortunately.
exactly.
i wouldn't say that they would explicitly, but i would argue that being in a position of that much power, over that much of the world, in that much of a volatile position, there is a very high likelihood that they would influence some amount of the world, in a similar manner.
if we're talking about modern day china, they already do a lot of power projection in the sea, illegally, same in the air. I don't know if they're doing any predatory lending to other countries, but that could very well change in the future, so we can't say anything about it now. It's highly likely that china at least wants other countries to be dependent on themselves at the minimum, which i would argue is a form of this power projection.
They are 100% in a position to do things that are more predatory, time will tell, i predict they will, it's inevitable, but i could be wrong. Either that or china itself implodes before we get to that point, so who knows.
personally i know nothing about their military presence outside of the previously mentioned stuff. So i can't really say anything about it, but there's probably at least one bad thing they've done. Again, time will tell.
You can't remove the bias in favour of aggression, but you can decouple aggression and oppression. You need to train the non-predators to get aggressive in defending one another. Look at elephants. They're herbivores. They're not out there attacking other species to exploit them. But no predator, not even lions, fucks with elephants. Because if you fuck with elephants, they'll kick your ass.
Interesting point, based on this I could argue that military might (elephant power) is necessary for peace, if not used to coerce others
a country that builds nuclear power to protect itself but has a no first aggression rule could be a parallel to the elephants
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
That's Latin for "if you want peace, prepare for war". It was true 2000 years ago and it's true now. If you want to be a pacifist, you should learn a martial art. If you want a peaceful government, you should learn to use a gun.