This page is part of the archives of the IshCon.org discussion forums, as they existed from November 2002 to January 2007. Some links and other content references may be outdated or broken. For more information about IshCon, visit www.ishcon.org.
Topic: Peer polity question
Part of the forum "Dialog Cafe" in the IshCon Forum Archive
| Poster and Date | Post |
| Ghost Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:17 PM |
Hey. The idea of the global peer polity system is that if any one polity collapses, the surrounding ones will move in to either annex it or help it reconstruct. Therefore, if the global peer polity system is to collapse, it will collapse as one piece. Doe this idea not assume that the other polities necessarily have the ability to expand into the new territory or the resources to spare to help with reconstruction? Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| Xavin Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 07:25 PM |
If they do not have the resources to expand, then they themselves are on the verge of collapse. |
| Florizel Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 07:55 PM |
I would say yeah. Along with capability there's also an assumption that the other communities have the desire to reassemble the dysfunctional one. There are certain cases in which this might not be true : nuclear fallout, toxic spores, giant malevolent sentry robots, etc. etc. |
| MatthewJ Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 08:05 PM |
"Florizel" wrote: nuclear fallout, toxic spores, giant malevolent sentry robots, etc. etc. :lol: Generally, if I resort to malevolent sentry robots in a comma list, I only use one etc. :lol: Just kidding :P Matthew |
| memeshredder Sat Sep 16th, 2006 at 01:32 AM |
could the question be asked, will everyone run out of resources at the same time, or will it happen in stages that make life either progressively better, or progressively worse ans is there anything you can personally do about the situations. Can you be in on the positive, and can you filter out the negative for personal and tribal survival? |
| Ghost Sat Sep 16th, 2006 at 01:25 PM |
Hey. Will, man, good to hear from you. "William" wrote: If they do not have the resources to expand, then they themselves are on the verge of collapse. That makes perfect ideal sense. But I think what I'm getting at is this. Say petrocollapse occurs and all of the civilisations dependent on oil go tits up. But what about the pockets of civilisation that don't? Say small country X survives intact, has the resources to expand but not the resources to expand immediately or quickly into all of the newly unoccupied space. Follow my meaning? In other words, could it be the case that the global peer polity system could collapse significantly without the need for ALL of civilisation to collapse? "Tony" wrote: could the question be asked, will everyone run out of resources at the same time, or will it happen in stages... This is the heart of my question. If it collapses all of a piece like the theory imagines, then that's one thing. But if it's possible for large segments of the global peer polity system to collapse, while other polities survive intact, that means that not only might it not happen in stages, but that civilisation might survive FAR longer than people are currently projecting. The global peer polity system seems to be a situation of pressure. There's population pressure everywhere; keeping all states densely packed. But as larger polities implode, creating low-pressure zones, the smaller polities will certainly expand, but not necessarilly FILL the new low-pressure zones. Ie, the US could easily expand into a collapsed Palau, but Palau would not be able to fill a collapsed US. So is it the case that the although the global peer polity system will collapse, that it might not take all of civilisation with it? Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| Xavin Sat Sep 16th, 2006 at 03:21 PM |
Matt, First of all, I haven't read Tainter. Everything I know I picked up from Jason, Janene, et al, so it may in fact be totally wrong. Quote: In other words, could it be the case that the global peer polity system could collapse significantly without the need for ALL of civilisation to collapse? Yes, but the peer polity system would not collapse without doing everything within its power to stay alive, which means a using every resource it can get its hands on. This would leave very few resources for any surviving civilization. Quote: If it collapses all of a piece like the theory imagines, then that's one thing. But if it's possible for large segments of the global peer polity system to collapse, while other polities survive intact, that means that not only might it not happen in stages, but that civilisation might survive FAR longer than people are currently projecting. I never got the impression that the theory states that everything collapses at the same time. There is some propagation time. Quote: So is it the case that the although the global peer polity system will collapse, that it might not take all of civilisation with it? I doubt that it will take the entirety of civilization at once, but at the same time the pockets left will be small and have few resources. --William |
| Ghost Sat Sep 16th, 2006 at 03:45 PM |
Hey, Will. "William" wrote: Yes, but the peer polity system would not collapse without doing everything within its power to stay alive, which means a using every resource it can get its hands on. This would leave very few resources for any surviving civilization... I doubt that it will take the entirety of civilization at once, but at the same time the pockets left will be small and have few resources. But there is nothing guaranteeing this, nor is there a way of predicting what resources and in what amounts they'll have access to, right? For instance, as the US collapses, it will need to use its troops on it's own people; limiting its ability to deploy troops abroad; limiting its access to foreign resources and concurently, improving the smaller polity's ability to defend local resources from the flailing polities. I'm just suggesting that it's not a fait acompli that collapsing polities will use up the world's supply of resources. "William" wrote: I never got the impression that the theory states that everything collapses at the same time. There is some propagation time. Well, not "at the same time" in terms of Tuesday, but that the entire system will collapse concurently. The idea is that if it didn't, other polities would just move in and prop-up or annex. So my question is, could smaller polities, unable to prop-up or annex the larger collapsed polites, survive intact? Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| Nene Sun Sep 17th, 2006 at 10:33 AM |
Hey Matt - I think it would be prudent to look at some examples. I think what we would find is that smaller, less oil dependant nations might be able to survive an 'oil collapse' but they would be unable to survive the collapse of thier larger neighbors: that in some way, or perhaps more like MANY ways, they are totally dependant on resources from the mega nations. Look for things like food imports, local agricultural viability (and actuality. If its all in cash crops, could it be switced to foodstuffs in the case of a sudden collapse? -- or is there any sign that they see the writing on the wall and are making a voluntary change? or is it economically possible to make that change?), economic and resource dependancies, etc. Janene |
| prometheus235 Sun Sep 17th, 2006 at 02:30 PM |
Most likely, Polity A collapses, and Polity B annexes its territory. Remember, alot of territory on earth is owned by government entites that have no real control over the land. It is very easy to say, when you are a govt, that X is your territory. I can give a couple of examples. Afghanistan for the last few hundred years has been nominally owned by a number of different polities. All tried to lay claim, but no polity, in the sense of "organized govt" as we westerners know the term, can actually control the area. From the present US-Puppet govt, to the prior Red-Puppet govt, the British before that, etc ad nauseum. With the exception of the Taliban period, this area has been not had "self-government" very long time. You could also take a gander at the US, generally up until the 1840s, but even into the early 1900s. Sure, the US Govt owned the land, but their control was very limited. In a lot of places there was literally 1 US marshal for 100 sq mi. Some places, 1/400sq mi. I have also been thinking about the currently abandoned towns in the Midwest. These seemlike a good example of an atonomous zone that is nominally claimed. You also have vast swaths of "inhospitable" territory worldwide, that are claimed, but they don't do shit with except test bombs and build political prisons. I am sure the Canadians reading this can think of areas that their govt "owns", but again only nominally. what I am saying, in short, is that it as A collapses, B will claim the land, regardless of their actual ability to effectively administrate it. Think kangaroo courts, land barons, vigilantes, etc. As B collapses, C will then grab B's territory, and it will pass down the line. Basically, the toughest mofo on the block, (metaphorically speaking), will end up trying to claim everybody's territory. Again, regardless of actual ability to administrate it. R |
| JCamasto Sun Sep 17th, 2006 at 06:19 PM |
[sidebar] Aren't you supposed to be sequestered in the mountains, counsel? [/sidebar] -Jim |
| prometheus235 Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 09:39 AM |
Yeah I was supposed to be. Sadly, my close friend's father died, and I had to spend the money earmarked for MT. Fest to go to South TX for the funeral. |
| memeshredder Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 11:32 AM |
My impression is that the way the world is is not because of resource depletion (which occurs also), but because of inability to reduce use of what would be renewable, or change from a non-renewable to a renewable. Jared Diamond makes it pretty clear that almost all failed societies failed to make that choice. But not all of their people failed to make a choice. Not all lived by the pyramid, and died by the pyramid. Many who previously plugged into their version of the Matrix did other things when that Matrix was unplugged. They weren't the helpless dummies like the denziens of today's suburbia. These serfs sure shure to surf to nowhere. We live, unfortunately, in an age where 35 to 65 percent of the people alive today have staggering, unwaivering support of the pyramid structure of today. We are a world nation of specialists, with no general knowledge. The one thing that stands between today's society and tomorrows society is knowledge. The nail in the coffin of removing man from nature, given as a gift to us by factory farming, is a ship already leaking, literally... Given the compassion of bleeding heart liberalism, expect bailouts for America on Europes behalf, a kind of repayment for the marshall plan. I would also expect that there would be few very all-white humans on this continent by the end of the century. The rebrowning project is about one third the way through, and it is proceeding nicely. 2006 is a much different year than 1992, when Ishmael came out(or was it a little earlier?). The fact is, the largest investor and producer of solar panels is also one of the alrgest oil companies. The muishrooms have unlocked the secrets of solar energy for us, and continue to move humanity forward. Praise be to the gods! |
| Ghost Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 10:52 PM |
Hey, ho. "Janene" wrote: I think what we would find is that smaller, less oil dependant nations might be able to survive an 'oil collapse' but they would be unable to survive the collapse of thier larger neighbors: that in some way, or perhaps more like MANY ways, they are totally dependant on resources from the mega nations. You never call. You never write 8) That's decent in principal, but it's not a fait acompli I would imagine. There are few third world nations that are TOTALLY dependent on larger nations. Massively sure, but not totally. But I conceed the point. If its the case is that petrocollapse WILL take out all nations in a domino effect then the polity theory is flawless. Easy, peezy, Japaneezy. Now. The global polity collapse theory states that if a polity collapses, surrounding polities will either annex it or prop it up. Meaning that individual polities can collapse while others remain intact. The collapse of the USSR is a perfect example. Meaning that it will take the collapse of all polities to end the global polity group. But the question is IF some of the large polities collapse, even a majority of them and the remaining surviving polities CANNOT annex or prop them up, can the global polity system therefore collapse WITHOUT taking out all of civilisation in its wake? Yo, Rory. Sorry to hear about your misfortunes. I hope things are ok down in LA. "Rory" wrote: Most likely, Polity A collapses, and Polity B annexes its territory. Absolutely. But my question is, what happens if polity A collapses and polity B, still intact, CANNOT annex or prop it up? (In its entirety. Maybe they nab a piece) "Rory" wrote: what I am saying, in short, is that it as A collapses, B will claim the land, regardless of their actual ability to effectively administrate it. There's a difference. Canada claims the North West passage. No one lives up there but we say it's ours. If another nation tried to claim it, by sending a ship there say, you better believe (and jokes about Canadians being pussies asside) that Canada would send frigates and fire on that ship quick fast and in a hurry. We have a long history of firing on vessels, American included, that violate our waters. Point is, no one can do anything there unless Canada says it's ok. So after the collaspe of the global peer polity system, any yahoo could claim any track of land, but if they can't enforce sovereignty, any other yahoo could move in and take it from them. This could be used to argue that the global peer polity system will never collapse, simply splinter, but from what I know of the idea, the only reason we have a GLOBAL peer polity system is because all of the land is claimed and because all of the land is defended. Take either or both of those away and there's no more global peer polity group, just a bunch of local ones that are divided by unclaimed and therefore undefended land. But that's neither here nor there. The idea is that if the global peer polity system collapses then it will collapse of a piece and take civ with it; otherwise the surviving polities would just prop up or annex the collapsed polities. My question is, if a majority of large polities collapse and smaller polities survive (thereby retaining their civilisational characteristics fully intact) CAN the global polity system collapse NOT of a piece and WIHOUT taking civ with it? Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| prometheus235 Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 01:30 AM |
right, but in the longer run, if you believe that civ has crossed the downslope of ERoI curve, those polities will eventually control the territory in name only. sure they will prop each other up, but this will only exacerbate the diminishing returns, thus collapsing civ faster. to put it better way, i liked your response to Janene. those were the "right" questions. Using your model, when Polity A collpases, of course polities B,C,D and E are going to grab chunks, possibly (probably)go to war over it. When these polities, through exacerbating diminshing returns by taking on responsibilities they can't handle in the first place, collapse they'll set off the chain reaction. Think on a longer scale, barring any bigtime nuke war or catastrophe. no land goes unclaimed. Polities will always fight for land, consequences be damned. Constant growth demands a "gimme now, i'll figure out later what to do with it" strategy. they'll burn large-than-current growth rate % resources b/c of their need to get more land, and collpase themselves that much faster. I believe that it will indeed be a domino effect. I think that it would really only take any combination of the US, Europe, USSR or China, one relatively soon after the other, to reach global collpase. I just can't see SA or the Middle East becoming straight up "real" world powers., especially not after America goes and they lose all that american money and know-how. Think of how many govts woould fall worldewide. off the top of my head, Egypt, Israel, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. Each of those countries leaders/govts live off the US tit, and doubt Musharif of Paki(or whoever) would survive very long with out our support. I speculate it will take longer than most of the current estimates. 2012 would be nice, but I am expecting 2030 or so. But i have to close with statement: "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate is always zero" R PS Matt, I appreciate the kind words. |
| Xavin Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 02:26 AM |
Matt, Right now, the global peer polity system has enough resources to maintain itself, and then some. Also, it will not willingly accept a reduction in resources or territory. In other words, its available resources won't diminish unless it hits a physical limit to production. This suggests that the only way an area could become unclaimed is if the resources available to the system were less than that necessary to maintain itself, which means that the available resources are diminishing (remember: it previously had more than enough). If available resources are diminishing past the point that the major powers of the world cannot hold their territory, then there is not a sufficient amount of resources to keep the system afloat, much less to rebuild it. Some small polities may survive, but will have extremely limited resources, and little opportunity to expand. Did that answer any of your questions? --William |
| Ghost Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 11:14 AM |
Hey, William. "William" wrote: Some small polities may survive, but will have extremely limited resources, and little opportunity to expand. This EXACTLY answers my question. IF some polities survive, THEN civilisation survives a global peer polity collapse as OPPOSED to the view that global peer polity collapse CANNOT occur unless ALL civilisaitons in the world collapse. Follow? As for opportunity to expand, we won't know that until it happens. There's a lot of information that suggests that even if civilisation survives that it will be unable to expand by exporting its way of life, but again, we won't know until it happens. Even so, civilisations don't necessarily have to expand to fill the planet to be dangerous. The Vikings are a perfect example of a civilisation that could not export its way of life but that could project force and dominate surrounding societies. Hey, Rory. Civilisations collapse. That goes without saying. The question is, will ALL civilisations collapse together as the global peer polity theory suggests or do civilisations simply rise and fall on a continuous cycle? "Rory" wrote: no land goes unclaimed. Polities will always fight for land, consequences be damned. Constant growth demands a "gimme now, i'll figure out later what to do with it" strategy. they'll burn large-than-current growth rate % resources b/c of their need to get more land, and collpase themselves that much faster. I believe that it will indeed be a domino effect. Not true and that's the entire point of the GLOBAL peer polity system. It's not about vacuum, it's about pressure. Vacuums have no inherent properties that force matter to fill them. The only reason that terrestrial vacuums are filled is because atmospheric pressure forces high pressure atmosphere into low pressure vacuums. Same with niches. Niches aren't filled because of a property of niches but because of surrounding population pressure. Without population pressure, niches are not filled. So there can be tracks of unclaimed land. The global peer polity system is an extension of the peer polity system that talks peer polities in a restricted geographical space separated from other polity groups by tracks of unclaimed land. For instance, when the Helenic empire collapsed into the Ptolemy, Seleucid, etc... kingdoms it was possible because there were no polities SURROUNDING them that could either have propped up the Helenic empire or annexed the splinter groups. But during that time, there were VAST tracks of land that were not claimed by civilsition. That's in part because they hadn't found them and in part because they could not exercise sovereignty over them. For instance, when the Europeans found Irooquois land they may have claimed it for king and country but they couldn't exercise sovereignty over it until they esatablished military dominance; by subjugating the Iroquois. So after a collapse, if Palau survives and claims Montreal, whopptie fuckin doo 8) They can't stop my tribe from being the ones who use it because they can't exercise sovreignty. So implicit in the idea of global peer polity collapse is that the GLOBAL peer polity system will cease to be, not polities in general. The theory states that the global peer polity system CAN'T collapse until it collapses as a piece because if one or more polities collaspe, the surrounding ones will swoop in and take up the slack, maintaining the global polity system. That means that global civilsiation won't go away until ALL civilisations colllapse. But what I'm suggesting and what William has seconded (so say I, mwahaha), is that if the surviving polities are not in a position to either annex or prop up the collapsed polities, the global peer polity system CAN collapse WITHOUT the need for ALL civilisations to collapse. Point is, right now the world is filled with civilisations. That's a bitch. But if some survive a collapse, we'll still have civilisation and they'll still have every chance to expand back into global civilistion. I'm not saying they will and I'm not talking about likelyhood, I'm talking about what is possible. Peace and Love and Emapthy, Matt |
| Xavin Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 02:43 PM |
Matt, My last post wasn't my best piece of writing, so a couple of big ideas didn't get through clearly. Extremely limited resources means exetremely short life span. Civilizations *must* grow, and if they can't they fail. No resources, no growth, no civilization. A peer polity system eats up all of the significant resource deposits that could sustain a civilization. When it crashes, that would leave only the insignificant resource deposits, which *might* keep a *small* civilization alive for a *short* while. --William |
| prometheus235 Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 03:24 PM |
Matt, I am not trying to be mean, but I can’t see the point in talking about theory that without a thought towards probability. I could possibly have the greatest orgasm of my life by having my nuts crunched by an alligator, but it isn’t very probable. Anything is possible, but I am not interested in possibles. get back with me when you want to talk probable. |
| Ghost Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 11:40 AM |
Hey, William. I understand the idea about extreemly limited resources. I just don't agree that it's a fait accompli. I can imagine a scenario in which a lot of the resources that allows for civilisaiton will be depleted. I cannot imagine a scenario in which these resources are depleted world wide. But that's just my opinion. If that occurs, then fine, there's nothing wrong with the idea that the global peer polity system will collapse of a piece. But the theory states clearly that it is IMPOSSIBLE for individual polities to collapse because the surrounding polities that remain intact will either annex them or prop them up, thus extending the life of the global peer polity system; the USSR being a prime example of a large polity collapsing and being propped up by surrounding polities. That EXPLICITLY means that it is possible for some polities to experience collapse conditions while others remain intact. So if individual polities can survive the collapse of their neighbour, my question is simply, what if the surviving polites can't annex of prop up the collapsing ones in their entirety? Does that scenario constitute a fatal flaw in the global peer polity collapse theory? Can the global peer polity system collapse without the need for ALL polites to collapse at the same time; or within a reasonable time-frame? Now, I think you and I agree that that is a possibility. That being the case, EXPLICIT in the theory is that if polities remain intact, they SURVIVE. As example, when the Soviet Union collapsed, or when Cuba experienced petrocollapse, or when Katrina tore New Orleans apart, or when the Congo collapsed, or when famine tore through North Korea, Ethiopia and Ireland, the surrounding polities survived intact; thus allowing them to fulfil their role in extending the life of the global peer polity system. If all of the polities go tits up within a few months or even a couple of years if the inital collapses, then the global peer polity collapse theory would be true because no polity survived. As for depleted resources, complex societies do not collapse because resources disapear, they collapse because its no longer easy to extract them in the quantities they require to fill demand. Take pertrocollapse. There will still be oil and still be reserves. But the system will collapse because of insuficient supply rather than zero supply. So when any kind of collapse occurs, resources are still there, they just go unclaimed. If any number of polities survive a global peer polity collapse and they happen to be civilisations, then civilisation survives and is given a chance to expand again. The point is, we will not know which resources are still available and in which locations and in which quantities until after a collapse, so speculating is at best a thought exercise. It's pointless to argue what will happen because that's a matter of opinion. What we can do is consider and explore the possible scenarios. Civilisation surviving a global peer polity collapse now seems like its a possible scenario to me. That, to me, is significant. Hey, Rory. If you can't see a point then why are you trying to answer my questions? While your nuts by an aligator remark is funny (for real, that's quality stuff, dude 8) ) it's facetious. I'm seriously trying to discuss a flaw I see in a theory. It's really straightforward and hardly controversial. I don't get why you need to knock it down. If you want to accept it as is, that's cool. I can dig it. But why get in the way of my trying to explore it? "Rory" wrote: Anything is possible... Not true. We live in a system. The rules are clear. You can't fly unless you're aerodynamic and can generate thrust and lift, as an example. I'm looking at rules (an ace-high straight flush beats everything), not probabilities (what are the odds of being dealt an ace-high straight flush?). The theory said something is impossible (you can't get a five of a kind). Because of that, planners aren't even considering the idea that civilsiation could survive a global peer polity collapse. I'm suggesting that something is possible (what if there is a wild card? You could get five of a kind and beat an ace-high straight flush). If it's true, then planners have to expand the scope of what they're thinking about. That's the point. If you want to wait for a conversation about probable, you're going to wait a long time. I don't make predictions... er... except that one... damn you paradox! Or is that hypocricy? .... damn you crappy vocabulary! Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| prometheus235 Wed Sep 20th, 2006 at 03:49 PM |
Quote: what if the surviving polites can't annex or prop up the collapsing ones in their entirety? Then they will claim the land, and do a piss poor job administrating it. it is going to be claimed,end of story. the whole thing is speculative. It is not even a theory, it is a hypothesis. and a flawed one at that. I will say that the answer to this question: Quote: Say small country X survives intact, has the resources to expand but not the resources to expand immediately or quickly into all of the newly unoccupied space. Follow my meaning? In other words, could it be the case that the global peer polity system could collapse significantly without the need for ALL of civilisation to collapse? is yes. |
| Ghost Fri Sep 22nd, 2006 at 11:36 AM |
Hey, Rory. "Rory" wrote: Then they will claim the land, and do a piss poor job administrating it. it is going to be claimed,end of story. That suggests that it is impossible for the global peer polity system to collapse. "Rory" wrote: I will say that the answer to this question... is yes. It certainly seems that way. I wonder how or if that affects the ideas of people who assume that civilisaiton will collapse and be rid of soon? Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| This page is part of the archives of the IshCon.org discussion forums, as they existed from November 2002 to January 2007. Some links and other content references may be outdated or broken. For more information about IshCon, visit www.ishcon.org. |