Cold Constructs Blog

I played my favorite game (devil’s advocate) on a fun subject (empires). Turns out that the only times when civilizations made great strides (both technologically and culturally) were during times when there was an empire that ruled the known (civilized) world. The ancient Greek and Romans (who were ruined by “savages”, interestingly enough), Persia, east Asia, and the British empire. Since then the human society has converged into a global CAS–worthy civs are now surrounded by other civs with only tribes at the fringes. This CAS is quite violent, in fact it appears to be in a state of nature not unlike Hobbes’ vision of such a situation. There were many wars, but with every war there is a winner. The two World Wars determined this–it was to be the United States, the new world empire. Since then it’s been relatively quiet and the global CAS has seen developments we could not have imagined before the World Wars, with the US leading the way. The US has her armies spread across Earth, arms extended, holding back other would-be powers from causing a ruckus. And so the US is humanity’s police.

From this I gathered that we do, in fact, need an empire to keep things cool. Looking back I can see that technology has allowed this global empire to emerge–how else could you handle bouts in the Middle East while sitting in Washington DC?

Take another look. How has technology changed since this emergence? That is, how have we progressed in the past half-century? Clearly we’ve come a long way. Our communication systems most of all have gone from centralized, wired telephones to peer-based wireless computers. The question is, does this make a difference? Do we still need empire?

Depends on what you want. If it’s technological advancements, then yes, there needs to be a nation-state powerful enough to invent new stuff. Yes, we can innovate without industry, but only with things we already have–in other words, new spins on the old. If you want something as powerful as plastics, mass production, global communication systems and all that… you need a comparably powerful infrastructure to build it.

But again, look at the situation now: we have tech that allows us to communicate across the globe in mere seconds. The empires of yore didn’t have this capability. Modern empires (ones with telephones, radios, networked computers) can expand their empire much more easily while retaining solid coherence. Old empire posts essentially reverted back to the local culture, so the only difference after they were conquered was that they paid taxes to someone far far away.

This same capability can be used in the opposite way: a decentralized coalition of nations can fill the power vacuum that the empire used to, so an empire is no longer needed for progression. Of course I must point out that no progression at all is probably our best bet for survival at the moment. But I’m having too much fun, so we’ll leave that point aside. You see, an empire provided protection for her colonies, but this network of smaller nations can have an ad hoc military–one that exists only when needed (ie citizen’s army). If there’s a threat, they use the badass comm tech we’ve grown to take for granted and amass a force powerful enough to eliminate the threat, then disband. The beginnings of such a force are forming in the European Union–Britain and France are actually building three aircraft carriers which will roll out sometime in the next decade. They’re not doing this as an official EU thing, but it’s still significant as a inter-European venture, but probably not the first.

The problem is, massive military structures like those carriers are not needed and in fact a waste of resources since their upkeep is ridiculous. But then again, these carriers will be highly automated. Ah, technology to the rescue once more. If they use even more technology (say, harvest the H2 from the ocean, harness the wild winds, strong currents, and elastic waves to use as fuel for propellant and power or all of the above) those leviathans would suddenly disappear on Gaia’s radar, generating energy as it needs on its own without disrupting its environment.

So. We used to need empires to prevent random outbreaks of violence. But now… we still do. In order for a global CAS to function properly (the one with an ad hoc defensive mechanism), its agents have to share equal interest. This means you can’t have religions blowing things and people up all the time–the agents have to mind their own businesses. From there the CAS emerges as trade routes are established for cultural goods. Each agent must be entirely self-sufficient, but to spice things up (variety is the spice of life and always in demand) they trade one unique cultural product for the others’, and good times are had. So until the Middle East blows itself up for just grows up, the human world needs someone at the top to keep the flames at bay. Sometimes that means we have to use our own flames to prevent a bigger disaster. It’s the same concept as controlled burns in forests. Of course we’re only human so we make mistakes, like the US invading Iraq (yeah they had WMDs, but they were moved long before we got there). So shit happens, deal with it, move along, mind your business, have fun, and good luck. In that order.

I was just thinking how rad it would be to have multiple teachers instead of just one. I don’t mean having assistant teachers either–I’m talking about at least three (-ish?) fully qualified adults.

Each one would be a contrast to the others, so kids are more likely to identify with one of them and be more comfortable with them (makes it easier to listen). At least, the chances are higher this way (than having only one teacher).

What’s better is that one teacher would be pro one issue, while another could be con. The third could be a mediator and help interact with the class, or provide yet another perspective. This way the students will not only be taught the issue, but also get an idea of how people with differing opinions should conduct themselves.

There are downsides. It is possible this method will be more expensive just because it requires more teachers. However, each teacher isn’t burdened with the weight of the whole class–he/she only does 1/3 the work, which allows them to teach more classes than if they were the sole teacher. It’s also less stressful for each one because of the shared responsibility.

But it might be difficult to find a group of teachers that mesh well enough for a class. I’m just guessing on this one though–it might be easier than we think. See, we just have to try.

Lastly, this method isn’t suitable for higher education, due to the need for more knowledge in a particular area, requiring specialists (who are fewer in number). The required general education classes, on the other hand, would probably benefit greatly if the tri-teacher method is used.