Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

I think he was still suggesting that segregation was a good thing as recently as last year.

[scriver]

I say we do the old "government-by-games-gladiatorial" but instead of each other, all presidential candidates must be pit against a tiny coughy boi

[Naturegirl1999]

The boy would be outnumbered

[Iduno]

I say we let the volcano god decide. Whichever one the volcano god deems worthy and returns to us shall be our new ruler and reunite the nation. Until then, we form small peaceful communes.

[Naturegirl1999]

I say we let the volcano god decide. Whichever one the volcano god deems worthy and returns to us shall be our new ruler and reunite the nation. Until then, we form small peaceful communes.

small peaceful communities sound great

[dragdeler]

-

[McTraveller]

I say we let the volcano god decide. Whichever one the volcano god deems worthy and returns to us shall be our new ruler and reunite the nation. Until then, we form small peaceful communes.

small peaceful communities sound great

I dunno how you'd enforce "peaceful" but as I've said before, I'd be all for some sort of world agreement that says you aren't allowed to have a government that controls more than X people.  Once you get to some number of people, you have to split into two entities.  You can have agreements between these entities, but no entity can pass laws that govern the other entity.

I would put the limit at maybe 30 million people.

[Iduno]

I say we let the volcano god decide. Whichever one the volcano god deems worthy and returns to us shall be our new ruler and reunite the nation. Until then, we form small peaceful communes.

small peaceful communities sound great

I dunno how you'd enforce "peaceful" but as I've said before, I'd be all for some sort of world agreement that says you aren't allowed to have a government that controls more than X people.  Once you get to some number of people, you have to split into two entities.  You can have agreements between these entities, but no entity can pass laws that govern the other entity.

I would put the limit at maybe 30 million people.

I'd cap it closer to 100k. It's more difficult to care about people you'll never meet.

[Reelya]

I really don't know about that. Consider small town politics and how toxic that can be, then consider a system which is only that, and there's no higher level you can appeal to.

One problem is that you'll have some enclaves which are incredibly more wealthy than other enclaves, and there won't be any redistributive wealth going on any more. The 100K divisions will end up mostly being walled enclaves, with some extremely rich ones but many very poor ones.

[Naturegirl1999]

There can still be trades among them, just thst governments will be different. Countries trade a lot with other countries

[McTraveller]

100k is a bit too small though, you can't really have a "country" with that in the modern world.  You have to have enough people to at least have a sustainable self-sufficient population.

I mean with only 100k population, you only have maybe 50k working-age people.   I don't think you can have enough industry to have even modern health care with that few people.  You're economy would probably be based on maybe a handful of industries and have to import the rest, which is not sustainable or robust to disruptive events.

[Lord Shonus]

The notion of "small peaceful communities" is an incredibly naive idealistic notion that ignores all world history. Every time you have a bunch of small nations in one area, those nations war continuously. Doesn't matter if you're talking about Europe, Asia, Africa, or the pre-Columbian Americas. This is because no small nation will have the ability to meet their own economic needs even at the survival level, and trade runs the risk of somebody deciding not to sell to you. The closest humanity has come to peace is when nations become large enough to be largely self-sufficient, and trade becomes a matter of maximizing the economy instead of providing basic sustenance.


This is a thought experiment on the order of "what if they threw a war and nobody came?" - the most basic critical analysis proves it to be fundamentally flawed.

[Naturegirl1999]

The notion of "small peaceful communities" is an incredibly naive idealistic notion that ignores all world history. Every time you have a bunch of small nations in one area, those nations war continuously. Doesn't matter if you're talking about Europe, Asia, Africa, or the pre-Columbian Americas. This is because no small nation will have the ability to meet their own economic needs even at the survival level, and trade runs the risk of somebody deciding not to sell to you. The closest humanity has come to peace is when nations become large enough to be largely self-sufficient, and trade becomes a matter of maximizing the economy instead of providing basic sustenance.


This is a thought experiment on the order of "what if they threw a war and nobody came?" - the most basic critical analysis proves it to be fundamentally flawed.

this is a fair point. My thinking was that countries with less people require less food/water/space because there are less people to require those things. I am now curious the smallest possible country one can have thst is still self sustaining? I’d imagine e densitu plays a role, small countries in landmass and larger populations allow for easier disease spread compared to a country of the same landmass with less people, or a country with the same amount of people as country A but has more land

[dragdeler]

-

[Lord Shonus]

this is a fair point. My thinking was that countries with less people require less food/water/space because there are less people to require those things. I am now curious the smallest possible country one can have thst is still self sustaining? I’d imagine e densitu plays a role, small countries in landmass and larger populations allow for easier disease spread compared to a country of the same landmass with less people, or a country with the same amount of people as country A but has more land

It isn't just a matter of food and water, although those are important. You need lumber and stone for even the most basic building. You need wood, coal, or petroleum to make fires for heating and cooking. You need various metals to make tools. This is for a 12th century lifestyle. If you want to maintain 21st century technology, you need massive industries to produce the goods you need - and those industries need massive resources.

As it stands today, every developed nation can meet most of those needs domestically. They generally trade for some of them instead, because some resources are cheaper to obtain in different places even before you get into cost of living variances, but the ability is there. If all trade with China ceased, many tech devices would become more expensive and shorter in supply - but they would not become extinct.

The only nations that don't have the ability to meet their own needs without trade just happen to be the ones with unstable governments and constant strife with their neighbors.