Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

India

Vs.

China

http://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/pakistan-nuclear-weapons-battlefield-india-arms-race-energy-cold-war

uT1BuLYt2RU

http://rbi.org.in/scripts/images/2FRP010411_8.gif

ON, I do recall a thread (wasn't started by you but you posted in it) I posted in which they were talking about isolated towns, it was kinda like your proposed anarchy.

I'm starting to think that would work as a post-apocalyptic refuge.

wow, thats got to be an oldie... its been a long time since I've talked about anarchy as an actual system of governance rather than as a philosophy for criticizing authority (and I'm wearing my anarchist t-shirt today too )

I've sort of moved away from that type of anarchy, for 3 reasons that I think would be totally applicable even in a post apocalyptic scenario:

1) People who don't accept an anarchist system will always be better at violence than those who do.

2) the most effective anarchist system will require systems of social control and order indistinguishable in all but name from a state.

3) the same psychological principles of conformity and indoctrination would exist in an anarchist society, only conditioning people to be anarchists, which defeats the whole purpose.

I suppose my thoughts on the sort of "extreme federalism" (not sure if that makes sense to anyone from a nation that doesn't have Quebec...) I used to believe in haven't changed entirely, but I think point 1 would be the most relevant to what you are talking about. An army that comes from a top-down, militaristic society will almost always win against a bottom-up organization of people.

That being said, to the point of your thread, India and China have spent the last 10-20 years trying to normalize relations, they are at one of the lowest points of tension between the two nations in decades, and increased trade between the nations suggests there is little incentive for any conflict; military hawks are not in control of either nation. China, who I'm sure we Westerners think would be the aggressor, makes massive profit from trade with India, it would be costly in the worst way to go to war (also, India's military if considerably more modern than the Chinese, and much more experienced). True, these are two powerhouse states on eachother's border with historical tension, however, war would be so detrimental to either side it is nearly unthinkable. Neither side would emerge with a victory that was anything but Pyrrhic.

Originally posted by Oliver North
wow, thats got to be an oldie... its been a long time since I've talked about anarchy as an actual system of governance rather than as a philosophy for criticizing authority (and I'm wearing my anarchist t-shirt today too )

I've sort of moved away from that type of anarchy, for 3 reasons that I think would be totally applicable even in a post apocalyptic scenario:

1) People who don't accept an anarchist system will always be better at violence than those who do.

2) the most effective anarchist system will require systems of social control and order indistinguishable in all but name from a state.

3) the same psychological principles of conformity and indoctrination would exist in an anarchist society, only conditioning people to be anarchists, which defeats the whole purpose.

I suppose my thoughts on the sort of "extreme federalism" (not sure if that makes sense to anyone from a nation that doesn't have Quebec...) I used to believe in haven't changed entirely, but I think point 1 would be the most relevant to what you are talking about. An army that comes from a top-down, militaristic society will almost always win against a bottom-up organization of people.

That's not it, I couldn't find the word yesterday but I can now and the word is decentralization. If many Americans set up Defiance-esque towns, they become many governments, if they all find a way to communicate and trade, they become one decentralized government. If they are all on the same team, and remain that way, they can scatter, and plan a way to all be one nation. The great scattering in Dune, for instance. Less consumption of resources, as science re-improves we can do that great scattering, terraform and colonize other worlds in maybe a couple millenniums. It's a way to start fresh, to set up an eco-anarchy that allows for us to make maximum use of our resources, prevent cramming populations, and keep nature in balance. Especially if we start looking at alternative fuel-sources, green fuel sources, which would be much more practical in a small town. Then when we get there again, we will have bypassed the nuclear era and instead we can set up clean fusion. It's really a fresh start out of the nuclear fire.



You forget, though, that in many decades from now India's population will be beyond control.

As Einstein said, two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, especially not in their forms of government. Unless humanity changes in the next few decades, there will be a global calamity, Hawking says we have until 2090 to leave the planet and start colonizing elsewhere.

Those sorts of predictions are always overblown. They said the same thing about the year 2000 during the 20th century. Humanity always adapts better than many predict it will.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Those sorts of predictions are always overblown. They said the same thing about the year 2000 during the 20th century. Humanity always adapts better than many predict it will.



This. And I've seen the same type of alarmist rhetoric on other topics.

So, for another example: Is human-created climate change real? Almost certainly. Is it the doomsday prophecy some environmentalists predict? Almost certainly not.

Overpopulation is an issue in some places, or will be eventually. But honestly, reproductive liberation in many nations, and better technologies for agriculture and dissemination of existing food, could collectively do 1000s of times more good than trying to colonize space to curb overpopulation. Correct the problem, not the symptom, yeah?

No money, no market, this is an inclusive democracy. The incentive to not resist as that one will be shut off, and in the off chance that enough towns form a collaborative militia to conquer, well, it's a fight, whoever wins, wins.

You're going to be disappointed when none of that happens.

The problem is, Digi, we're not trying, it's going to get far more complex, we don't have the intell to fix the problem or treat the symptoms even if we did act before the precipice, which is uncharacteristic of us to begin with.

Originally posted by Dolos
That's not it, I couldn't find the word yesterday but I can now and the word is decentralization. If many Americans set up Defiance-esque towns, they become many governments, if they all find a way to communicate and trade, they become one decentralized government. If they are all on the same team, and remain that way, they can scatter, and plan a way to all be one nation. The great scattering in Dune, for instance. Less consumption of resources, as science re-improves we can do that great scattering, terraform and colonize other worlds in maybe a couple millenniums. It's a way to start fresh, to set up an eco-anarchy that allows for us to make maximum use of our resources, prevent cramming populations, and keep nature in balance. Especially if we start looking at alternative fuel-sources, green fuel sources, which would be much more practical in a small town. Then when we get there again, we will have bypassed the nuclear era and instead we can set up clean fusion. It's really a fresh start out of the nuclear fire.

in actual history, not science fiction, decentralization like that rarely leads to less violence. In that scenario, all that would be required is one of the townships to decide they wanted to begin conquering the others, and these "eco-anarchy" societies would crumble. Even if we assume they have the same access to military technology, they wont be organized or have the same training.

Either way, a central system has massive benefits. Imagine a situation where Hurricane Katrina or Sandy hit NO or NY with nothing but local level governance? As rich as the city of New York is, there is no way they would have been able to deal with that. There are countless examples, and this goes directly into what I was saying with point 2. Even if you want to say "but no, these cities will band together to share resources in a time of need", you have invented the state. You might come up with some nonsense term to use instead of "government", but for all intents and purposes, it is the government.

Originally posted by Dolos
You forget, though, that in many decades from now India's population will be beyond control.

those words don't actually make sense and you don't know what you are talking about if you think poverty and development is getting worse in India.

Originally posted by Dolos
As Einstein said, two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, especially not in their forms of government. Unless humanity changes in the next few decades, there will be a global calamity, Hawking says we have until 2090 to leave the planet and start colonizing elsewhere.

Neither Einstein or Hawking have any credentials in terms of the political stability of Asia and Einstein wasn't talking about politics in any way in that quote.

"their" forms of government... India is the world's largest democracy, you knew this, ya? I believe their current PM actually came from the lowest caste, they have had many female leaders, etc. In many ways, they do democracy better than we do.

China is currently ahead in...pretty much everything.

Originally posted by Dolos
You forget, though, that in many decades from now India's population will be beyond control..
How utterly and hilariously wrong you are.

Originally posted by Dolos
As Einstein said, two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, especially not in their forms of government.

No, that was Wolfgang Pauli and he was speaking exclusively about fermions (note: fermions are not a form of government).