(This is from the perspective of an imaginary observer from an imaginary origin outside of our solar system, making observations as an ultimate outsider).
Our extraterrestrial observer, Seguey, talked about the theory of Zero-Sum-Game and its role in our history. If we leave it to Seguey, the principle explains the emergence of empires and why they occurred only one at a time. There was some overlapping, for sure, but a receding empire had always been followed by an incoming one. History seems to attest to that.
Let's have Seguey explain it.
Report 4, Seguey, Sector 3rd Planet from Medium Stellar Mass
The chart below is one of the better ones I've come across. It breaks down the emergence and duration of the major empires on this planet strung together in overlapping chronology. I highlighted the "duration in years" because each of the empires lasted about 2-1/2 centuries. Make sure to read the footnote below the chart for a better context of each of the empire's duration that most historians agree with.
Sir John Glubb wrote a paper on the "Fate of Empires" in 1976. The chart was in that thesis.
The nation Dates of rise and fall Duration in years
Assyria 859-612 B.C. 247
Persia 538-330 B.C. 208
(Cyrus and his descendants)
Greece 331-100 B.C. 231
(Alexander and his successors)
Roman Republic 260-27 B.C. 233
Roman Empire 27 B.C.-A.D. 180 207
Arab Empire A.D. 634-880 246
Mameluke Empire 1250-1517 267
Ottoman Empire 1320-1570 250
Spain 1500-1750 250
Romanov Russia 1682-1916 234
Britain 1700-1950 250
"The dates given
are largely arbitrary. Empires do not usually
begin or end on a certain date. There is
normally a gradual period of expansion and
then a period of decline. "
I've witnessed earthling's history in the last five centuries and researched the rest from all available records. In the creation of empires, where one would emerge as another recedes, zero sum is manifested as in nature filling a vacuum, which occurs when the preceding empire collapses. After about ten generations, an empire goes through a dramatic decline that it is not able to recover from - ever. In other words, no past empires ever came back to re-emerge and reclaim its old status. I do not have an explanation for it.There were many smaller empires, regional in scope, that also went through the same sequences, examples of which were the various Chinese dynasties and medium to large kingdoms in western and eastern Europe.
Now, for an intriguing question. Is the country where I now reside considered an empire? Applying the same criteria as was employed to assess the previous ones, the USA is not. It has not colonized nations as a matter of policy or as a path to grow its domain through military means. It used it instead, as in the last two world wars, to help nations in Europe and Asia against unprovoked aggression. Having been a colony itself before becoming a nation, it constitutionally made it a point to not make permanent occupations of countries it fought and defeated. Helping the two countries that were its primary enemies after the last Great War - Japan and Germany - by making them recover quickly with unprecedented success in less than a generation following, was not an imperialist behavior.
The U.S. would be an empire if one were to consider that it is today the preeminent military and economic power. It would also be an empire by population. Almost 330 million people who call themselves Americans make up a large number. On the other hand, The Roman Empire was estimated to have been an aggregate of just 65 million people. However, during its time, it was then about 20 % of the total world population. Today, the U.S. makes up a mere 4.5%. Now, the two most populated countries - China and India - are each about 18% of the total world population, with over a billion people each. Those two countries together have more than a third of all humans. China, which is second to the U.S. in gross domestic product (GDP), is striving to become an empire, which was something that eluded all the previous Chinese dynasties. India, as no.6 in GDP, a distant place below China might someday be expected to vie for position of dominance.
The U.S. would be an empire if we go by how it is able to influence world culture through its economy, language, the proliferation of its arts, and as a technology driver. The Roman and Greek Empires had the same influences. Today's dominant business languages have traces of Greek and Latin root words. Both had dominance in the sciences, the arts and, aside from being world powers, they also provided the early basis for how most of today's governments work.
The U.S. would be an empire if its position of dominance is constantly being challenged, even threatened. It is. And that is why I can conclude that zero sum is what drives the emergence of empires.
This small planet is seeing so many things happening all at once. Unlike during the previous 500 years, especially in the earlier era, when the flow of information took decades to spread, instantaneity today is the norm. But the breakneck speed of technology can have some unforeseen repercussions. Back in those times, when much of history was unfolding unnoticed or unanticipated, empires declined and new ones emerged with regularity, yet only later were they analyzed or understood by historians too far removed from the actual period, least of all to have experienced how people felt, then. A quote I often heard:
‘The only thing we learn from history,’ it
has been said, ‘is that men never learn from
history.’
My observation supports the above quote. What drove the growth of empires? And what drove them to decline? Take away the catch words and phrases of nationalism, patriotism, pride, common ideology, cultural evolution, common good, faith, etc. and what I found are two basic natural motivators of all - food and territory. It took a lot of time for today's civilized society to develop from hunting/gathering tribes, from enclaves to kingdoms to present day nations, but as someone who can step out of it looking in, I can clearly see what few earthlings will admit. I went through all life cycles from the time I spent as a microorganism, then advancing from simple to complex, from solitary to tribal to kingdoms to present day national identities. Food and territory reigned supreme. No one today in advanced countries or societies will ever admit that.
In 1943, Abraham Maslow wrote a paper on "Theory of Human Motivation" and in it he came up with the "human hierarchy of needs".
Note that physiological needs are at the base of the pyramid. I would stratify each of the hierarchies further, particularly the physiological - to include individual's physical health and well being, the needs to satisfy hunger and thirst, the instinct of self preservation and procreation. Next on the chart are concerns for shelter, the home, the community, and the security of a large number of people and their physical and national boundaries. In a nutshell, the whole pyramid is supported at the bottom and held afloat by food and territory.
Advanced human societies will disagree, specially those in very well developed countries, because their hierarchy of needs are already up there in the rarefied cloud of fancy cars, fine dining, high tech gadgets, the feel-good politically correct behavior, quest for the higher meaning of life, and better health care, etc., oblivious to the struggles of third world countries where much of the population are still quite literally preoccupied with food and shelter. How quickly they forget how easily these lofty places can be torn and disrupted both by natural-caused disasters and by political errors or shifts in ideology.
Currently, human mismanagement is responsible for what is happening in Venezuela, parts of Africa, Central and South America, Syria and parts of the Middle East, parts of Asia, etc.
This planet is a virtual islet orbiting a medium sun that has finite resources and limited land that is a mere 29% of the total surface area. The planet has to support an ever increasing population. With the exception of the north and south poles, rain forests, mountain ranges, every square mile of land area and the high seas had been fought over for many centuries in the past. Territories changed hands at the cost of millions upon millions of lives. Over millennia the same major theaters of war hosted battle after battle that Gen. George Patton believed he had fought in, during his previous life, and other prior lives. He believed in reincarnation. Casualties during battles for territory were only matched by casualties from famine in one region or another and the epidemic that followed. Food and territory.
Let me discuss China because it is today fast becoming a dominant economic and military power. And it has to support over a billion people. From its history, famine ravaged Northern China in 1876-79. Drought may have combined with leadership missteps, scattered rebellion and military spending to quell civil disturbances that caused the "Incredible Famine". But that was not the last famine.
After Mao Zedong's "Great Leap Forward" in the mid 50's, famine hit China again between 1959 and 1961. It was called "The Great Chinese Famine". 15 million died from it, while the 1876-79 one was estimated to have had between 9.5 to 13 million casualties. There had been other famines in Chinese history. The Taiping Rebellion and famine killed 60 million people. Chinese historians admit that "The Great Chinese Famine". was 30% due to natural causes and 70% by mismanagement.
I will not make any conclusions in this report. All I can say is that there is enough history here on this planet to support a prediction that food and territory combined will play a role in the next big conflict if there is one in the future. An explosive population growth over the same land mass is a bubble under pressure. Zero sum is exponentially more pronounced today in a world populated by 7.2 billion people than it was when the Roman Empire emerged when there were only an estimated 300 million people on earth. Food and territory will loom even more.
Well, Seguey sent its report. It has yet to explain to us the reason it and many of its clones were dispatched eons of years ago from its home planet. Was it because its planet was also facing food and territorial issues? We need its opinion on exactly how long the U.S. ascendancy can hold on to its preeminence in economic and military power. If we begin to chart the U.S. ascendancy starting in the early 1900's, must we begin the countdown 230-250 years from that period as the basis for the expiration date of its dominance? Or, should we expect a quickening pace from internal dysfunctions, coupled with the external pressures from up and coming future empires?
Our extraterrestrial observer, Seguey, talked about the theory of Zero-Sum-Game and its role in our history. If we leave it to Seguey, the principle explains the emergence of empires and why they occurred only one at a time. There was some overlapping, for sure, but a receding empire had always been followed by an incoming one. History seems to attest to that.
Let's have Seguey explain it.
Report 4, Seguey, Sector 3rd Planet from Medium Stellar Mass
The chart below is one of the better ones I've come across. It breaks down the emergence and duration of the major empires on this planet strung together in overlapping chronology. I highlighted the "duration in years" because each of the empires lasted about 2-1/2 centuries. Make sure to read the footnote below the chart for a better context of each of the empire's duration that most historians agree with.
Sir John Glubb wrote a paper on the "Fate of Empires" in 1976. The chart was in that thesis.
The nation Dates of rise and fall Duration in years
Assyria 859-612 B.C. 247
Persia 538-330 B.C. 208
(Cyrus and his descendants)
Greece 331-100 B.C. 231
(Alexander and his successors)
Roman Republic 260-27 B.C. 233
Roman Empire 27 B.C.-A.D. 180 207
Arab Empire A.D. 634-880 246
Mameluke Empire 1250-1517 267
Ottoman Empire 1320-1570 250
Spain 1500-1750 250
Romanov Russia 1682-1916 234
Britain 1700-1950 250
"The dates given
are largely arbitrary. Empires do not usually
begin or end on a certain date. There is
normally a gradual period of expansion and
then a period of decline. "
I've witnessed earthling's history in the last five centuries and researched the rest from all available records. In the creation of empires, where one would emerge as another recedes, zero sum is manifested as in nature filling a vacuum, which occurs when the preceding empire collapses. After about ten generations, an empire goes through a dramatic decline that it is not able to recover from - ever. In other words, no past empires ever came back to re-emerge and reclaim its old status. I do not have an explanation for it.There were many smaller empires, regional in scope, that also went through the same sequences, examples of which were the various Chinese dynasties and medium to large kingdoms in western and eastern Europe.
Now, for an intriguing question. Is the country where I now reside considered an empire? Applying the same criteria as was employed to assess the previous ones, the USA is not. It has not colonized nations as a matter of policy or as a path to grow its domain through military means. It used it instead, as in the last two world wars, to help nations in Europe and Asia against unprovoked aggression. Having been a colony itself before becoming a nation, it constitutionally made it a point to not make permanent occupations of countries it fought and defeated. Helping the two countries that were its primary enemies after the last Great War - Japan and Germany - by making them recover quickly with unprecedented success in less than a generation following, was not an imperialist behavior.
The U.S. would be an empire if one were to consider that it is today the preeminent military and economic power. It would also be an empire by population. Almost 330 million people who call themselves Americans make up a large number. On the other hand, The Roman Empire was estimated to have been an aggregate of just 65 million people. However, during its time, it was then about 20 % of the total world population. Today, the U.S. makes up a mere 4.5%. Now, the two most populated countries - China and India - are each about 18% of the total world population, with over a billion people each. Those two countries together have more than a third of all humans. China, which is second to the U.S. in gross domestic product (GDP), is striving to become an empire, which was something that eluded all the previous Chinese dynasties. India, as no.6 in GDP, a distant place below China might someday be expected to vie for position of dominance.
The U.S. would be an empire if we go by how it is able to influence world culture through its economy, language, the proliferation of its arts, and as a technology driver. The Roman and Greek Empires had the same influences. Today's dominant business languages have traces of Greek and Latin root words. Both had dominance in the sciences, the arts and, aside from being world powers, they also provided the early basis for how most of today's governments work.
The U.S. would be an empire if its position of dominance is constantly being challenged, even threatened. It is. And that is why I can conclude that zero sum is what drives the emergence of empires.
This small planet is seeing so many things happening all at once. Unlike during the previous 500 years, especially in the earlier era, when the flow of information took decades to spread, instantaneity today is the norm. But the breakneck speed of technology can have some unforeseen repercussions. Back in those times, when much of history was unfolding unnoticed or unanticipated, empires declined and new ones emerged with regularity, yet only later were they analyzed or understood by historians too far removed from the actual period, least of all to have experienced how people felt, then. A quote I often heard:
‘The only thing we learn from history,’ it
has been said, ‘is that men never learn from
history.’
My observation supports the above quote. What drove the growth of empires? And what drove them to decline? Take away the catch words and phrases of nationalism, patriotism, pride, common ideology, cultural evolution, common good, faith, etc. and what I found are two basic natural motivators of all - food and territory. It took a lot of time for today's civilized society to develop from hunting/gathering tribes, from enclaves to kingdoms to present day nations, but as someone who can step out of it looking in, I can clearly see what few earthlings will admit. I went through all life cycles from the time I spent as a microorganism, then advancing from simple to complex, from solitary to tribal to kingdoms to present day national identities. Food and territory reigned supreme. No one today in advanced countries or societies will ever admit that.
In 1943, Abraham Maslow wrote a paper on "Theory of Human Motivation" and in it he came up with the "human hierarchy of needs".
Note that physiological needs are at the base of the pyramid. I would stratify each of the hierarchies further, particularly the physiological - to include individual's physical health and well being, the needs to satisfy hunger and thirst, the instinct of self preservation and procreation. Next on the chart are concerns for shelter, the home, the community, and the security of a large number of people and their physical and national boundaries. In a nutshell, the whole pyramid is supported at the bottom and held afloat by food and territory.
Advanced human societies will disagree, specially those in very well developed countries, because their hierarchy of needs are already up there in the rarefied cloud of fancy cars, fine dining, high tech gadgets, the feel-good politically correct behavior, quest for the higher meaning of life, and better health care, etc., oblivious to the struggles of third world countries where much of the population are still quite literally preoccupied with food and shelter. How quickly they forget how easily these lofty places can be torn and disrupted both by natural-caused disasters and by political errors or shifts in ideology.
Currently, human mismanagement is responsible for what is happening in Venezuela, parts of Africa, Central and South America, Syria and parts of the Middle East, parts of Asia, etc.
This planet is a virtual islet orbiting a medium sun that has finite resources and limited land that is a mere 29% of the total surface area. The planet has to support an ever increasing population. With the exception of the north and south poles, rain forests, mountain ranges, every square mile of land area and the high seas had been fought over for many centuries in the past. Territories changed hands at the cost of millions upon millions of lives. Over millennia the same major theaters of war hosted battle after battle that Gen. George Patton believed he had fought in, during his previous life, and other prior lives. He believed in reincarnation. Casualties during battles for territory were only matched by casualties from famine in one region or another and the epidemic that followed. Food and territory.
Let me discuss China because it is today fast becoming a dominant economic and military power. And it has to support over a billion people. From its history, famine ravaged Northern China in 1876-79. Drought may have combined with leadership missteps, scattered rebellion and military spending to quell civil disturbances that caused the "Incredible Famine". But that was not the last famine.
After Mao Zedong's "Great Leap Forward" in the mid 50's, famine hit China again between 1959 and 1961. It was called "The Great Chinese Famine". 15 million died from it, while the 1876-79 one was estimated to have had between 9.5 to 13 million casualties. There had been other famines in Chinese history. The Taiping Rebellion and famine killed 60 million people. Chinese historians admit that "The Great Chinese Famine". was 30% due to natural causes and 70% by mismanagement.
I will not make any conclusions in this report. All I can say is that there is enough history here on this planet to support a prediction that food and territory combined will play a role in the next big conflict if there is one in the future. An explosive population growth over the same land mass is a bubble under pressure. Zero sum is exponentially more pronounced today in a world populated by 7.2 billion people than it was when the Roman Empire emerged when there were only an estimated 300 million people on earth. Food and territory will loom even more.
Well, Seguey sent its report. It has yet to explain to us the reason it and many of its clones were dispatched eons of years ago from its home planet. Was it because its planet was also facing food and territorial issues? We need its opinion on exactly how long the U.S. ascendancy can hold on to its preeminence in economic and military power. If we begin to chart the U.S. ascendancy starting in the early 1900's, must we begin the countdown 230-250 years from that period as the basis for the expiration date of its dominance? Or, should we expect a quickening pace from internal dysfunctions, coupled with the external pressures from up and coming future empires?
No comments:
Post a Comment