nazgulnarsil comments on This Failing Earth - Less Wrong

19 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 24 May 2009 04:09PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (158)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: CronoDAS 24 May 2009 09:20:18PM *  26 points [-]

Indeed, our Earth's Westphalian concept of sovereign states is the main thing propping up Somalia and North Korea. There was a time when any state that failed that badly would be casually conquered by a more successful neighbor.

I have to disagree here. First of all, North Korea has the world's third largest army. Any state that tried to conquer it would have its hands full. Additionally, counterinsurgency warfare has become damn hard these days - consider the Soviet failure in Afghanistan during the 1980s. As Stalin observed, it takes a generation and a half to pacify a country and convert it to your ideology by force.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, conquering poorly defended land isn't profitable any more; some time around World War I, conquest became far more trouble than it's worth. Nobody wants Somalia, even if the rest of the world would be okay with someone marching an army into it. It's just not worth anything. The British Empire, a more modern example of conquest for profit, never occupied Afghanistan. It would have cost far more to subdue the natives than it would ever produce in revenue. Today, far more wealth is created by Internet startups than could be stolen by a modern-day Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan.

To put the worthlessness of Somalia into perspective, here's some numbers:

  • The GNP of Somalia is $2 billion.
  • The market capitalization of Amazon.com is $32 billion. Its revenue in 2008 was $19.1 billion, and its net income was $0.64 billion.
  • Bernie Madoff convinced people to invest at least $10 billion in a completely fraudulent stock fund, and reported $50 billion in bogus returns.
Comment author: nazgulnarsil 25 May 2009 06:38:42AM 3 points [-]

it takes a generation and a half to pacify a country and convert it to your ideology by force.

then how did colonialism work? it worked because the new war isn't the same as the old war. see: war in the era of squeamishness by the war nerd.

Comment author: taw 26 May 2009 05:14:08AM 3 points [-]

then how did colonialism work?

It's not obvious that colonialism was ever profitable other than as means of grabbing natural resources (especially arable land) in conquered countries.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 26 May 2009 02:58:51PM 0 points [-]

Colonialism was profitable to the colonists if they could get someone else to pay for the soldiers. But if the army was squeamish, it would have been such a drain on the mother country, it wouldn't have stood for it.

Comment author: CronoDAS 25 May 2009 07:54:43AM 1 point [-]

"Convert to your ideology" is the key here, I think... It's damn hard to wipe out a religion, especially those, such as some variants of Christianity and Islam, that push "your religion is the only thing that matters" up to 11. If all you care about is taking their money, I suppose you could emulate what the Mongols did in Russia and let the locals mostly govern themselves as long as they pay you your tribute.

Comment author: whpearson 25 May 2009 08:17:10AM 0 points [-]

it takes a generation and a half to pacify a country and convert it to your ideology by force.

then how did colonialism work?

While I would dispute that it necessarily takes a generation and a half to pacify all countries, it has become easier to organize and carry out insurrection in this technological era, with mobile phones and high explosives.