- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 14,215
- Reaction score
- 15,337
The pros and cons of the exponential growth of technology. Almost all information is available to all people. Those who are motivated or radical enough (not sure how much of a difference there is) will soak in as much as they can, while most people are lazy unmotivated and lazy to do the same, and so they will essentially be at the mercy of the others. Survival of the fittest is now survival of the swiftest I guess. Again, not sure there's much of a difference.I wonder to what extent advances in small arms technology have affected political stability. Consider that in the era of flintlock firearms to take maximum advantage of the technology you had to field large forces that were trained to fire in formation. That meant you also needed a certain minimum social organization and logistics that would be hard for non-state actors to emulate. You can't commit a mass shooting with a musket and trying to carry out a bombing in that era would've been difficult. To challenge an established political authority you needed to be able to organize a substantial social movement
But now small arms technology have advanced to the point that a small number of people can wreak havoc on society. Car bombs and mass shootings don't require large social movements, just relatively small cells and in the case of bombs some expertise.
Speaking of flintlock tech advancements, hard to beat the persuasion power of a pump action, short double barreled 12ga magnum shotgun. Survival of the thickest
