Assertion: Statement about heavy weapons in OP is incorrect.
In collapse scenarios any entity capable of bringing modern military technology with the attached organizational requirements to bear can and will dominate organizations which cannot.
In many collapse scenarios, political wrangling over who controls the institutions capable of managing that force becomes the dominant struggle. In Venezuela of today, for example, the government is incapable of guaranteeing security or access to reaources for the population at large, but is capable of staying in power. The standard scenario assumes that individuals can win against large, well resourced militaries, this has been true at various times in the past, but is not true today.
The ‘bronze age collapse’ is instructive, when everyone learned to make iron, barbarians destroyed every hierarchy and the cities fell. Today, any technology that can have a similar effect requires specialist knowledge and access to the fruits of infrastructure (Home-made explosives can be made from common industrial chemicals, but not really from things you can grow in your yard).
Destruction of social infrastructure will not create individual liberty, but it will scatter a bunch of toxic waste that will require even greater levels of development to clean up.
In Flint, MI, institutional collapse was followed by a loss of control of infrastructure, which lead(pun intended) to a collapse of control systems, and the resultant toxic pollution will destroy the population resident there without external intervention.
The standard scenario assumes that individuals can win against large, well resourced militaries, this has been true at various times in the past, but is not true today.
Individuals like Julian Assange or Snowden manage to hit sizable blows against nation states.
In Flint, MI, institutional collapse was followed by a loss of control of infrastructure, which lead(pun intended) to a collapse of control systems, and the resultant toxic pollution will destroy the population resident there without external intervention.
That’s not a good description of the system. Flint made a bad decision that resulted in increased lead in the water but the the amount of children with elevated levels of lead was still lower than it was a decade ago.
They certainly swung. I’m not certain that they successfully imposed their will on the activities of the nation states they attacked. Neither of them are comparable to Alaric, one is comparable to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Délicieux who despite making a big scene, had no immediate or meaningful impact on the institution he rebelled against.
Do you have a better, easier example of what I’ve described, or do you disagree with the broad statement in addition to the specific example of Flint?
The ‘bronze age collapse’ is instructive, when everyone learned to make iron, barbarians destroyed every hierarchy and the cities fell.
Not sure what your point is here—early iron-smelting cultures were not “uncivilized” in any real sense, they’re just understudied! We’ve even discovered entire sets of royal archives near Hattusa—the Hatti or Hittites being perhaps the most prominent early-iron-age civilization. Indeed, the Iron age itself may have enabled the formation of large, internally-peaceful ‘empires’ in the longer run—clearly a significant advancement in social organization!
Thank you for clarifying, in the long run, there was stability and we do not fully understand it...I believe that my assertion about the transition being messy and involving the collapse of bronze age civilizations rather than their persistence still stands though.
My point is that new developments upended the old social order, and cleared the way for the eventual rise of alternatives. Today, similar levels of destruction will be challenging to recover from, because infrastructure, once trashed, leads to things like the birth defect rate in Fallujah, not just empty space where new things can be built, and battlefields which yiels bumper crops.
Assertion: Statement about heavy weapons in OP is incorrect.
In collapse scenarios any entity capable of bringing modern military technology with the attached organizational requirements to bear can and will dominate organizations which cannot.
In many collapse scenarios, political wrangling over who controls the institutions capable of managing that force becomes the dominant struggle. In Venezuela of today, for example, the government is incapable of guaranteeing security or access to reaources for the population at large, but is capable of staying in power. The standard scenario assumes that individuals can win against large, well resourced militaries, this has been true at various times in the past, but is not true today.
The ‘bronze age collapse’ is instructive, when everyone learned to make iron, barbarians destroyed every hierarchy and the cities fell. Today, any technology that can have a similar effect requires specialist knowledge and access to the fruits of infrastructure (Home-made explosives can be made from common industrial chemicals, but not really from things you can grow in your yard).
Destruction of social infrastructure will not create individual liberty, but it will scatter a bunch of toxic waste that will require even greater levels of development to clean up.
In Flint, MI, institutional collapse was followed by a loss of control of infrastructure, which lead(pun intended) to a collapse of control systems, and the resultant toxic pollution will destroy the population resident there without external intervention.
Bad news all around when entropy wins.
Individuals like Julian Assange or Snowden manage to hit sizable blows against nation states.
That’s not a good description of the system. Flint made a bad decision that resulted in increased lead in the water but the the amount of children with elevated levels of lead was still lower than it was a decade ago.
They certainly swung. I’m not certain that they successfully imposed their will on the activities of the nation states they attacked. Neither of them are comparable to Alaric, one is comparable to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Délicieux who despite making a big scene, had no immediate or meaningful impact on the institution he rebelled against.
Do you have a better, easier example of what I’ve described, or do you disagree with the broad statement in addition to the specific example of Flint?
Not sure what your point is here—early iron-smelting cultures were not “uncivilized” in any real sense, they’re just understudied! We’ve even discovered entire sets of royal archives near Hattusa—the Hatti or Hittites being perhaps the most prominent early-iron-age civilization. Indeed, the Iron age itself may have enabled the formation of large, internally-peaceful ‘empires’ in the longer run—clearly a significant advancement in social organization!
Thank you for clarifying, in the long run, there was stability and we do not fully understand it...I believe that my assertion about the transition being messy and involving the collapse of bronze age civilizations rather than their persistence still stands though.
My point is that new developments upended the old social order, and cleared the way for the eventual rise of alternatives. Today, similar levels of destruction will be challenging to recover from, because infrastructure, once trashed, leads to things like the birth defect rate in Fallujah, not just empty space where new things can be built, and battlefields which yiels bumper crops.