Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 30th, 2025, 3:51 pm Hitler's model - that relied on plundering the wealth of neighbours - failed in less than 15 years, so there was no time to stagnate.

Yes, the issue there was Hitler's ambition and poor judgment of when to stop expanding and invading, though. If they were not defeated military would Germany have stagnated after 15 years? Maybe, but I don't think it's so clear cut.

In order to control your tiny populace, walking the line between rebellion and stagnation, you would need such an extreme level of understanding of them that you would empathise and no longer want to be cruel to them.

I think that you are making too great an assumption that understanding a population would inevitably lead to compassion or a reluctance to be cruel. Being a ruthless and unspeakably cruel giant would be far more rewarding to me than being a nice giant, irrespective of how well I understood them.

And yes, rebellion is always on the table. But for me, their rebellions wouldn’t be a problem... like I said, I would welcome the occasional rebellion. A rebellion to me would be an opportunity for me to flex by responding with disproportionate force and validates my authority. Plus, as I mentioned, I would sink my teeth into the chance to combat a tiny military as a lone colossus, swatting tiny planes zipping by my head and stepping on tanks. It would me feel like I'm Godzilla wrecking Tokyo. Actually, I would be more like King Kong since I would be a gigantic primate. As far as gargantuan apes go, though, I would be a much more calculated, good-looking, and probably better-smelling one than him though, haha.

Thrylix wrote: ↑Today, 11:30 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 30th, 2025, 3:51 pm Hitler's model - that relied on plundering the wealth of neighbours - failed in less than 15 years, so there was no time to stagnate.

Yes, the issue there was Hitler's ambition and poor judgment of when to stop expanding and invading, though. If they were not defeated military would Germany have stagnated after 15 years? Maybe, but I don't think it's so clear cut.

Expanding and invading was necessary to prop up the grandiose excesses of the regime. It was always going to fail. Kim in NK would have failed but it's convenient for Russia and China to prop him up.

Thrylix wrote: ↑Today, 11:30 am

In order to control your tiny populace, walking the line between rebellion and stagnation, you would need such an extreme level of understanding of them that you would empathise and no longer want to be cruel to them.

I think that you are making too great an assumption that understanding a population would inevitably lead to compassion or a reluctance to be cruel. Being a ruthless and unspeakably cruel giant would be far more rewarding to me than being a nice giant, irrespective of how well I understood them.

And yes, rebellion is always on the table. But for me, their rebellions wouldn’t be a problem... like I said, I would welcome the occasional rebellion. A rebellion to me would be an opportunity for me to flex by responding with disproportionate force and validates my authority. Plus, as I mentioned, I would sink my teeth into the chance to combat a tiny military as a lone colossus, swatting tiny planes zipping by my head and stepping on tanks. It would me feel like I'm Godzilla wrecking Tokyo. :mrgreen: Actually, I would be more like King Kong since I would be a gigantic primate. As far as gargantuan apes go, though, I would be a much more calculated, good-looking, and probably better-smelling one than him though, haha.

I don't find any of that relatable, aside from being better looking than King Kong (and that's a tight race). I have an excellent deodorant, so I at least have Kong beaten there.

I would rather help grow a tiny civilisation and be loved as a benevolent deity than be feared as a terrible deity; the latter would soon become a bore. Fear renders everything and everyone boring, limiting variation of behaviours and creativity.