reply to post by v01i0
By which I didn't mean that there should be some kind of shift towards anything. It is merely a statement.
I know, and I'm sorry if I was unclear or muddied in my response to this. My basic point is that we likely won't undergo some fundamental shift in
basic human psychology. Change of that magnitude takes a very very long time, as the biological basis for our psyche (our brains) must undergo the
same slow evolutionary process the rest of our bodies do. While it can be shaped and expressed in unique and varying ways via cultural expression, the
basics are similar across race and geography.
Basically, it's a reassurance that our psychology will not change fundamentally. As a consequence, I similarly do not see fundamental changes in
society which do not accommodate or are resultant of this basic psychology. Even if it may seem to prove rather robust, such as the wide social
differences between Chimpanzees and Bonobos.
By the way, as it is with most computer systems, the functionality is based on the user; meaning that unskilled user can crash every system. That is
so with political ideologies as well.
In the largest part, I would agree as well. The vast majority of computer errors are human caused. The vast majority of management and government
failures are, similarly, human error. Though there are issues of fundamental errors in manufacture and complexity which can contribute as well. No
matter how adept the user, Windows ME could never compare to XP in regards to security, stability, and portability. The Xbox 360 had overheating
issues that plagued launch batches, no matter how meticulously clean and gentle the user was. Further, even a computer expert cannot guarantee against
errors and conflicts when installing new hardware, updating drivers, or installing new service packs.
PCs being an open-ended system with great degrees of variability can take much longer for drivers to be written in order to ensure compatibility...
and errors in particular configurations can cause resource conflicts or other bugs. However, the new release of an ATI driver/Software rarely causes
significant portions of the market to go offline. On the inverse, console systems like the PSP or 360 have closed hardware with very little variation.
Changes can be made across an entire spectra of hardware seamlessly and automatically. However, it also ensures that that bugs and errors are every
bit as uniform. On more than one occasion, a dashboard update had to be quickly removed, the service taken offline, or additional updates added
because an error exposed vulnerabilities to modification or "bricked" the systems it was applied to.
As applied to a governmental system, such a state is vulnerable to new technologies shaping culture and society, human error, unforeseen environmental
and political complications, economic repercussions... etc. Government has to remain malleable and adaptable to changing times.. and this requires new
insight and new ideas be injected. Though order is a fragile thing, and is very difficult to regain once lost. This is where the interplay between
conservative and liberal mindsets are needed most... and where special interests and lobbyists are doing the most damage by impeding this process.
And please note, I use conservative and liberal in their basest contexts. I do not mean to refer to them in any way to the Republican or Democratic
parties. Liberal and Conservative spectrum exist in most all forms of government - from totalitarian to democratic. It's merely a measure of how open
to change and modification a position is in contrast to the rigidity of preserving an establishment or institution.
And.. Aren't modern states merely forms of glorified tribalism?
Yes, they certainly can be. The "unification" of America in the days after 9/11 could be seen as a collective response by the "American" tribe in
response to an outside antagonist. Other tribal identifiers that often divide us (race, religion, gender, political affiliation, etc) were dropped,
often voluntarily, to come together and console one another and make sense of what happened to us. Excepting, of course, for many Americans of
middle-eastern descent whom often bore the brunt of our outrage. As time went on, and the threat and pain became more distant, our other tribal groups
and identifiers took on renewed importance in our lives - and began to divide us again.
I don't have time to get into too much depth, but this then dovetails into one of the arguments for increased globalization. Thomas Hobbes suggested
that primitive tribal cultures existing close to nature without social infrastructure tended to lead lives that were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish,
and short" - not because they were close to nature or technologically unsavy - but because they constantly lived in a state of fear of being raided
or attacked by other tribes. They would often raid each other preemptively out of this fear. Instead, he suggested the establishment of the Leviathan
- a strong central governing force which could act as peace keeper and mediator between the various factions. This concept was an apparent influence
(though I don't recall a specific reference) in the call to unify the colonies under a single governmental banner via the Federalist Papers. A move
which would seek to resolve conflict between states and prevent foreign powers from splitting the colonies in conflict against one another.
I.E., a central government to whom a measure of authority was granted. Globalization is the next step, reducing conflict by building infrastructure
and stable independent societies who's prosperity rely upon each other in increased economic trade and cooperation as a means to reduce global
conflict and poverty.
I don't have the time to go into it more fully, as I have obligations to attend to. If you want to read up on the Leviathan Theory,
I'll post a link to it.
As well as a
It can well be argued that Leviathan was the first formal and most influential work on the establishment of social contracts establishing states and
Note: I don't necessarily AGREE with the Leviathan Theory as written by Hobbes, but it's an important document to understand when considering how we
got to where we are and where we're going in the future. A literal application of it cannot work in today's culture and concept of ensuring basic
For example, one of it's tenants I (and I suspect many here would) strongly disagree with was the denial of any sort of rebellion or usurpation of
the governing body. However, this particular issue had already been addressed by statesmen and philosophers long before the founding fathers, and