What Twitter pile on are you watching right now (11 Viewers)

[Lili Marlene]

Just thinking out loud here, but if your prowess in battle is a proxy for status then that will lead to imperial expansion too (the mongols). Maybe if your culture's primary status competition is based on godliness or something then expansion is less likely? Unless you start getting into crusades/jihad

Why are you fighting in this scenario?

 

[egg_]

So I'll gain status. So men will think I'm a badass and women will want to ride me, and everyone will laugh at my jokes. Or are you asking how it came about that skill at fighting is a proxy for status?

 

[Lili Marlene]

I just don't know what you're getting at. You talk about the "main thing that drives human behaviour" but don't mention anything about food, shelter, companionship and you jumped straight to competition and fighting. I don't see it that way.

 

[Lili Marlene]

Well I don't know how to use multi-quote, but there's a few things here that other people have touched on. And to be honest I'm not sure I fully understand your point.

The British Empire grew out of Mercantilism, rather than Capitalism. But that just gave the crown more money really, but it did speed up the the Agricultural Revolution, because there was posh boys with land who could spend time thinking about how to make farming more productive. That then sped up the Industrial Revolution. The IR pulled in all the people who'd been ruined by greedy landlords from Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the North into cities. The English had ravaged everything nearby enough to make that worthwhile.

And it worked. And then there was enough posh Brits who could sit around and think about things and realise that "slavery is bad actually". So then capitalism happened instead.

There is a big religious aspect to this I think as well. That might be closer to the point you're making. Why they wanted more, I don't really know. Because it was there. Capitalism is the nicer face of Mercantilism or Privateering or Slavery. They are honourable men of god who came to save the savages with hard work and decency, and if that didn't work, then slaughter.

America and Germany industrialised much more quickly because they learned from what the English did. And they tried a bit of Empire building, but all the good shit was gone at that point.

The Russians had a go at an industrial revolution, in their own way. But eh...
And then there's Belgium.
And the French.

I suppose i'm looking at this fundamental point head on and saying that this not nearly a good enough answer and I think we all know this on some level. I don't know how many ethnographies have been written about societies where it is not at all considered natural and normal to take, take, take and make others suffer so you can have too much, but it never seems to sink in. I include myself in this.

 

[Cormcolash]

Wasn't he born outside europe and anti-roman empire?

Sexist!!

 

[seanc]

I suppose i'm looking at this fundamental point head on and saying that this not nearly a good enough answer and I think we all know this on some level. I don't know how many ethnographies have been written about societies where it is not at all considered natural and normal to take, take, take and make others suffer so you can have too much, but it never seems to sink in. I include myself in this.

I'm wading out of my depth here but,

I think the Chinese empire and the Mongols and Attilla the Hun are examples of the desire to "take, take, take"

I think empires other than the british empire just had loads of easy land to conquer. There is much more I can say, but I'm very tired. Don't take this as my definitive post.

 

[Cormcolash]

I'm wading out of my depth here but,

I think the Chinese empire and the Mongols and Attilla the Hun are examples of the desire to "take, take, take"

I think empires other than the british empire just had loads of easy land to conquer. There is much more I can say, but I'm very tired. Don't take this as my definitive post.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Lili Marlene]

I'm wading out of my depth here but,

I think the Chinese empire and the Mongols and Attilla the Hun are examples of the desire to "take, take, take"

I think empires other than the british empire just had loads of easy land to conquer. There is much more I can say, but I'm very tired. Don't take this as my definitive post.

This all comes from some stupid Tory troll saying the British empire did what every empire did and just did it better than everyone else and if you don't like it you're just jealous because they won at the competition of Empire. Maybe I was mistaken to argue about the word "Empire" in this because (by definition maybe?) an empire is always going to be about take, take, taking from others. Maybe. I did start off wondering about that.

Perhaps what I was trying to get at is that the British Empire, and imperial powers in general, are not the only ways of developing a civilization, and we should not be constrained by ideas that just because it happened one way, it was supposed to happen that way, and it always happens that way.

Makes more sense?

 

[Lili Marlene]

Age of Empires vs. Civ, WHICH IS BETTER?

 

[Cormcolash]

Age of Empires vs. Civ, WHICH IS BETTER?

FUCKIN CIV

 

[pete]

Age of Empires vs. Civ, WHICH IS BETTER?

The Settlers

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Age of Empires vs. Civ, WHICH IS BETTER?

Theme Park

 

[Lili Marlene]

The Settlers

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Aw man, I had a demo of The Settlers II, I loved it. Very cute game.

Theme Park

Populous II

 

[egg_]

I just don't know what you're getting at. You talk about the "main thing that drives human behaviour" but don't mention anything about food, shelter, companionship and you jumped straight to competition and fighting. I don't see it that way.

I only included fighting because I was talking about Mongols, so ignore that. Say in Holy Catholic Ireland people gained status by being seeing as religious, so we had huge attendance at Mass, and the 8th, and contraception being made illegal. Contraception was made illegal because someone wanted everyone to think they were holy, and in order to do that they introduced a bill to uphold Irish morality, and everyone voted for it cos they wanted to be holy too.

It's not competition, it's theatre.

And in a theatre where money is what gets the applause, then people will pursue that - and I think possibly that is the reason why Europe took over the world. It's the theatre within which money first became the best applause-getter

 

[egg_]

Perhaps what I was trying to get at is that the British Empire, and imperial powers in general, are not the only ways of developing a civilization, and we should not be constrained by ideas that just because it happened one way, it was supposed to happen that way, and it always happens that way.

FWIW I completely agree with this

 

[ann post]

I think egg should invade lilli's house.

Sometimes the theory missed out practicalities and a wider, more nuanced view can be formed only when lili hands over full deeds to egg.

 

[Unicron]

If it's a proper invasion it won't matter a jot if Lili still has the deeds. Egg owns his house now, deal with it.

 

[Lili Marlene]

I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. I only included fighting because I was talking about Mongols, so ignore that. Say in Holy Catholic Ireland people gained status by being seeing as religious, so we had huge attendance at Mass, and the 8th, and contraception being made illegal. Contraception was made illegal because someone wanted everyone to think they were holy, and in order to do that they introduced a bill to uphold Irish morality, and everyone voted for it cos they wanted to be holy too.
It's not competition, it's theatre. And in a theatre where money is what gets the applause, then people will pursue that
and I think possibly that is the reason why Europe took over the world. It's the theatre within which money first became the best applause-getter

Well for starters money only became the best applause-getter because money was forced down people's throats at the point of a bayonet, and has continued to be forced upon people with ever more sophisticated level of abstraction since. But, even leaving that aside, conceiving of theatre as an activity that is a competition for applause is already buying into a certain kind of logic that need not be the case.

 

[ann post]

If it's a proper invasion it won't matter a jot if Lili still has the deeds. Egg owns his house now, deal with it.

Already i am learning from practical application here.

 

[egg_]

Well for starters money only became the best applause-getter because money was forced down people's throats at the point of a bayonet, and has continued to be forced upon people with ever more sophisticated level of abstraction since. But, even leaving that aside, conceiving of theatre as an activity that is a competition for applause is already buying into a certain kind of logic that need not be the case.

(sighs)
For a fella who's against competition you sure are determined to turn every conversation into an argument. Carry on yourself there and let us know if you come up with anything interesting