Senate Pax watever-ia World/Global domination, an epic waste of time?

Some mother Kriffers are always trying to iceskate up hill.- Weasly Snipes (alterd fro profanity)

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot."- Carl Sagan

Hegemony, Empire, Most by war, a few by trade, all end up the same scatterd broken and by large forgotten. If that empire is fortunate some third rate power donning its name like a shed skin.

It's not enough to trade, but dominate trade! Secure total independence from whoever is holding something you need.

Is it simple competativeness taken too far?

Is it some quirk of human evolution that imprinteed a need to dominate deep withing the human psyche?

Is it a learned trait?

But after all the eventual collapse of various empires and hagemonies, people still try to build more. With the belief that God, technology, the cosmos, nature, justice, kittens are on their side and this time we'll do it right! but it always ends the same.

 

Total domination is arguably ultimately defeatist, competition on the whole brings the best out of everyone. One company having a market monopoly will ultimately lead to stifled innovation since they don't need to put the effort in to "beat" anyone anymore, which would can lead to consumers turning away and said company losing profit. This is whjy the free market has been so great in building the western world, it promotes competition and continued innovation.


If you are a conqueror, what happens once you no longer have enemies to fight? Sometimes the fight was the only reason for conquering in the first place.

What would have happened if the Nazis won WW2 and took over the world? With no-one left to clense and no-one fighting against him, would Hitler have got bored and disbanded it all? Would the desire for a Master Race have led to inbreeding/too small a genetic pool and ultimately destroyed the 1000 Year Reich?
Hard to say, but history tells us no Empire is everlasting and no-one is dominant forever whether they be Human or Dinosaur or Cyborg from the future etc

 

If you look at it from the point of view that "time destroys all things" then yes, everything is a waste of time

 

I'm not sure exactly what this thread is supposed to be about, Likewater. Maybe it's better to talk about examples?


Here's a list of some empires you might want to use as examples:


The Achaemenid Empire and other Persian Empires


Alexander's Empire


Roman and Byzantine Empires


The Caliphates and Ottoman Empire


Mongol Empire


Portuguese Empire


Spanish Empire


Dutch Empire


French Empire


British Empire


Russian Empire and USSR

 

lmao you forgot the american empire

 

You consider empire building as much a necessity as life itself?

 

You think Augustus Caesar, Alexander, or Napoleon would have enjoyed their life more as random nobodies?

Call it the existential tragedy of absurd human life, if you will, but once you have reached past the subsistence point, there are only so many things to do in the world. Most of human life is dominated by the competition to amass material privilege (and thereby social privilege) and thereby domination over other humans.

 

What would the American empire be anyway? Us and all our allies that may or may not listen to what we say?

 

All this alterd fro profanity!

And the Chinese seem to be doing very well with theirs too.

 

Yes, that is why I'm always disgusted and tune out whenever a politician starts talking about "national interests". Conceivably, the "national interests" of any one country on earth is for all other countries to eat **** and die, so that said country can then inherit the world and all its resources for itself.

"And furthermore, it is my belief that Carthage should be destroyed."

 

It is a politician's duty to talk about national interests. What would you have them talk about?

 

In an ideal world they'd be honest like the Romans, and say it straight: "It is my belief that Carthage should be destroyed". Why sugarcoat the law of the jungle?

 

how about all the developing world countries we've beg borrowed stolen or assassinated our way to dominion over?

 

Modern power plays just have to be cloaked in the tenets of liberalism.

 

That's adorable. If history is any indication, usually, they may. Those who may not, usually don't "may not" for very long.

 

What is the source of this inanity? does anyone know?

 

What is the inanity?

 

frank appraisal of the behaviour of hegemons?

 

The inanity would be that "modern power plays just have to be cloaked in the tenets of liberalism."

 

The source is my brain....via my experience and a critical understanding of the world.

 

I'm not saying your comment is inane. I'm saying that the fact that "modern power plays have to be cloaked in the tenets of liberalism" is inane.