[ExI] (no subject)

Keith Henson hkeithhenson at gmail.com
Fri Sep 14 14:32:55 UTC 2012


On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:00 AM,  Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 14 September 2012 02:00, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anyway, with a slower growing population, economic growth in Northern
>> Ireland got ahead of population growth.  With the future looking
>> better, social (and other) support for the IRA "warriors" slowly
>> drained away.
>
> So, you think that with a lower birth rate and a better economy in
> XVIII century Northern America we could have been spared the popular
> support for George Washington and all the other rebellious youngsters?
> :-)

Is possible.  Though without the high birth rate in those days and the
population pressure in Europe, there would have been no colonies.

A more interesting turn would have been the US Civil War.

There are two modes for a population getting into war mode.  First is
a bleak future with attendant build up of xenophobic memes.  That was
the situation in the south, had they stayed with the Union, slaves
were on the way out.  The property value of the slaves and how they
drove the economy was obvious and they were correct.  After the war,
it took 100 years for the south to recover, not from the war damage,
but from the economic damage from freeing the slaves.

The north got into the war in a different mode, being attacked.  Being
attacked (Pearl Harbor events) will cause the attacked population to
jump into "war mode."  Had the south understood this, and not
attacked, they possibly would have been able to go their own way and
history would have been rather different.  But it's really hard for
people who have gotten into war mode to avoid really stupid actions.
Who wins is sometimes the side that makes fewer stupid moves.

Keith



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list