Looked it up, it relates to the behavior after a natural disaster. I think that’s quite a specific situation that gives everyone a common goal to work on for a relatively short period. I also think it suddenly interrupts a situation where there was a government, so people are still acting as citizens. Outside of such event, I am not sure people would work together as much. I can think of many examples where the weakening or absence of government leaves room for religious extremist organization (Irak under ISIS) or criminal organizations (Haiti currently) which are pretty much “might is right”.
No, but claiming you understand the idea well enough to argue it because you read the back cover is some “imagine a perfectly spherical organism… …and now ive solved it, why do you even have a whole department?” first year physics student walking into a bio lab level arrogance.
I don’t even think you understand the principles and ideas that would make your idea of optimal social structure even remotely plausible, much less what I’m talking about with mine (given your unwillingness to even acknowledge them), and you clearly don’t want to. Its not like youre going to tell me anything I haven’t heard before. I feel like it’s a good time for this conversation to end.
I made the effort to look up your reference, so I could understand what you said. Did you ever make such effort with mines?
Now instead of using those few lines to explain to me what I may have missed, you wrote those lines to attack me. I think you could have ended it before falling to such a low quality argumentative level.
Looked it up, it relates to the behavior after a natural disaster. I think that’s quite a specific situation that gives everyone a common goal to work on for a relatively short period. I also think it suddenly interrupts a situation where there was a government, so people are still acting as citizens. Outside of such event, I am not sure people would work together as much. I can think of many examples where the weakening or absence of government leaves room for religious extremist organization (Irak under ISIS) or criminal organizations (Haiti currently) which are pretty much “might is right”.
You looked up a book. Therefore you know its contents.
Okay.
Sorry I didn’t know you would think I had to spend a couple of days reading a book in order to be able to discuss your point.
No, but claiming you understand the idea well enough to argue it because you read the back cover is some “imagine a perfectly spherical organism… …and now ive solved it, why do you even have a whole department?” first year physics student walking into a bio lab level arrogance.
I don’t even think you understand the principles and ideas that would make your idea of optimal social structure even remotely plausible, much less what I’m talking about with mine (given your unwillingness to even acknowledge them), and you clearly don’t want to. Its not like youre going to tell me anything I haven’t heard before. I feel like it’s a good time for this conversation to end.
I made the effort to look up your reference, so I could understand what you said. Did you ever make such effort with mines?
Now instead of using those few lines to explain to me what I may have missed, you wrote those lines to attack me. I think you could have ended it before falling to such a low quality argumentative level.