To rule the World

[Walsingham]

While reading the Dune series of books I've been pondering the problems which must attend (conceptually) on ruling an entire world. Principally, how does one holdtogether an entire planet when most human politicians seem incapable of holding together any civilisation larger than Wigan.

 

 

Doing some wider reading I ran across a theory that communications define the size of a civilisation. Roads, originally, and rivers. They carried ideas by person and by post. Then ideas moved to the printed book, and this allowed them to move slightly faster and to establish some permanence. Then you had the far sending of communications via signal flag, telegraph, telephone, and radio. As these got bigger so too did teh Empires and civilisations you could maintain with them.

 

With me so far?

 

But it occurred to me that sending and receiving the idea is only part of the picture. I started lookng at the psychology of communications, and identified the obvious barrier, which is language. But again, this only explains so much. Until I got to the point in the psychology book discussing the theory that there is an abstract representation underpinning language, and that representation relies upon context. Context at a local level means that when I say "Meet you for tea at 1600" you can understand it is going to involve us being in proximity in the late afternoon. Context adds information, such as the knowledge that you can expect more than just hot leaf water; perhaps biscuits. But in other ways it means that I am not insulting you, or that I am insulting you. For example if I said that to the Queen it would be deliberately over-familiar.

 

It occurred to me that we have exhausted the technological barriers to sending and receiving anywhere on the world. What we lack is advances in communicating or sharing context.

 

Or was I simply in the bath too long?

[theslug]

To rule the world you need to eliminate 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the population until you are the only person left. And then you can create a species of cat humanoids to fill up the planet in place of people and who worship you as the god king of the universe. Then you can do whatever you want.

[Trenitay]

How do you expect to gather an army large enough to take over the world?

[SteveThaiBinh]

Context is a vital part of language, of course, and it's often difficult for non-native speakers of a language to catch the hidden meaning behind the actual words we say.

 

A classic example is the following conversation between a husband and wife. What does each utterance actually mean?

 

Husband: The baby's crying.

Wife: I'm in the middle of the ironing.

 

Ruling the world requires a Lingua Franca, at least among the elites, and taken over a generation or two it's not that difficult, once a nation is conquered, to produce a bilingual ruling class.

[theslug]

A classic example is the following conversation between a husband and wife. What does each utterance actually mean?

 

Husband: The baby's crying.

Wife: I'm in the middle of the ironing.

Husband: Hey sweet thang, I'm really busy watching the game right now. Would you kindly take care of our offspring since I'm the sole bread winner of the family and half your day consists of doing baby sitting and cleaning both of which are something a child could do and in fact many children often do engage in. Furthermore my resentment towards you only continues to grow each day out of our horribly depressing facade of a marriage that should have ended years ago but you insist on destroying my soul by rejecting me the only thing a man cares about in life and that is sex. I despise you, you cold hearted *****.

Wife: I would divorce you but then I'd only get half of your stuff. Instead I think I'll kill you slowly and agonizingly by grinding up aspirin into your meals until you kill over allowing me to find a new man, who can placate my need for material things and release me from the tragic circumstances of a modern day woman, guilt free.

 

I think that about sums it up.

[Darth InSidious]

How do you expect to gather an army large enough to take over the world?

Slaves, total economic dominance and a monopoly on cheese-biscuits to cripple the world middle class.

[Tigranes]

You're on the right track Walsingham. A nation or other group was never defined by its geographical proximity, or even, in essence, by its shared history / language / etc; it's the shared context and, to an extent, a shared normality (social norms) that developes, usually, from these shared histories and such.

 

Now the question is, will that ever develop in a worldwide way? I kind of doubt it for a century or two atl east.

[Rosbjerg]

Everyone knows that you must strike after the shoe event horizon.

[Guard Dog]

How do you expect to gather an army large enough to take over the world?

 

Oh heck, thats easy. First you invent a nonexistent problem like... global warming for example. Then you get a cabal of associates to pass themselves off as scientists and experts to back up your claims. Then you convince everyone it is their fault the nonexistent problem is happening in the first place and begin making dire predictions that they will all soon be dead and it's all their fault. You let that simmer for a few years, all the while continuing to make dire predictions and after a while nobody will even care that none have come true. As the saying goes, tell a lie often enough and it takes on a truth of it's own. Finally, when panic levels have hit fever pitch over you nonexistent problem, you tell everyone you have the solution that will save them all, all they have to do is follow you. Then they will give up their freedom willingly and you can do whatever you want to them. Of course, there will be few dissenters and non-believers. At first you will discredit them by questioning their intelligence when they do not believe in your non existent problem. Your cabal of associates will be helpful here. Then once you have most of the people following you they will shout down dissenters themselves. Once you have the power, you just kill them.

 

Wasn't that easy?

[Rosbjerg]

Suspiciously easy..

 

I wonder why none-one ever thought of that!?

[theslug]

How do you expect to gather an army large enough to take over the world?

 

Oh heck, thats easy. First you invent a nonexistent problem like... global warming for example. Then you get a cabal of associates to pass themselves off as scientists and experts to back up your claims. Then you convince everyone it is their fault the nonexistent problem is happening in the first place and begin making dire predictions that they will all soon be dead and it's all their fault. You let that simmer for a few years, all the while continuing to make dire predictions and after a while nobody will even care that none have come true. As the saying goes, tell a lie often enough and it takes on a truth of it's own. Finally, when panic levels have hit fever pitch over you nonexistent problem, you tell everyone you have the solution that will save them all, all they have to do is follow you. Then they will give up their freedom willingly and you can do whatever you want to them. Of course, there will be few dissenters and non-believers. At first you will discredit them by questioning their intelligence when they do not believe in your non existent problem. Your cabal of associates will be helpful here. Then once you have most of the people following you they will shout down dissenters themselves. Once you have the power, you just kill them.

 

Wasn't that easy?

Does this mean you're going to die? :'(

[SteveThaiBinh]

How do you expect to gather an army large enough to take over the world?

Oh heck, thats easy. First you take a very real problem like... global warming for example. Then you pay a cabal of associates to pass themselves off as scientists and experts to denounce it as a foreign lie. Then you convince everyone that you are surrounded by those out to threaten your very way of life, be it foreign powers or homegrown liberal secular homosexual elite, and even though the arctic ice is melting at a rate of knots, it's all wicked foreign lies. You let that simmer for a few years, all the while continuing to stoke up fear and paranoia and after a while nobody will even care what the truth is. As the saying goes, tell a lie often enough and it takes on a truth of its own. Finally, when panic levels have hit fever pitch, you tell everyone you alone can protect the Homeland, all they have to do is follow you. Then they will give up their freedom willingly and you can do whatever you want to them. Of course, there will be few dissenters and non-believers. At first you will discredit them by questioning their patriotism. Your cabal of associates will be helpful here. Then once you have most of the people following you they will shout down dissenters themselves. Once you have the power, you just kill them.

 

Wasn't that easy?

[Walsingham]

I'm not planning on doing it myself. I 'm more of a niche henchman than a dictator. There's a lot less job competition in the former than the latter.

 

I was just considering the stumbling blocks.

 

GD has hit on something there. Perhaps the point is that

 

1. Natural everyday context is never going to match, because you'll have currents and local eddies. You play football, I play football, and they're two very different things.

2. But this can be over-ridden by priority cultural features, such as an overwhelming threat. This provides a context beacon by which to navigate. Could this be an unforseen feature of the EU?

[Guard Dog]

Does this mean you're going to die? :'(

 

If a secret cabal of individuals ever did seize power, I'm sure I would be on the short list of people to be stood up and shot.

 

In fact it may have happened today. Thats ok though, I'm well armed and won't go quietly.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Guard Dog

[Wrath of Dagon]

Tsk, tsk, GD, we're all citizens of the world now. Get with the program, or you'll make the Chairman cry.

[taks]

Tsk, tsk, GD, we're all citizens of the world now. Get with the program, or you'll make the Chairman cry.

aye, comrade.

 

taks

[Nightshape]

While reading the Dune series of books I've been pondering the problems which must attend (conceptually) on ruling an entire world. Principally, how does one holdtogether an entire planet when most human politicians seem incapable of holding together any civilisation larger than Wigan.

 

 

Doing some wider reading I ran across a theory that communications define the size of a civilisation. Roads, originally, and rivers. They carried ideas by person and by post. Then ideas moved to the printed book, and this allowed them to move slightly faster and to establish some permanence. Then you had the far sending of communications via signal flag, telegraph, telephone, and radio. As these got bigger so too did teh Empires and civilisations you could maintain with them.

 

With me so far?

 

But it occurred to me that sending and receiving the idea is only part of the picture. I started lookng at the psychology of communications, and identified the obvious barrier, which is language. But again, this only explains so much. Until I got to the point in the psychology book discussing the theory that there is an abstract representation underpinning language, and that representation relies upon context. Context at a local level means that when I say "Meet you for tea at 1600" you can understand it is going to involve us being in proximity in the late afternoon. Context adds information, such as the knowledge that you can expect more than just hot leaf water; perhaps biscuits. But in other ways it means that I am not insulting you, or that I am insulting you. For example if I said that to the Queen it would be deliberately over-familiar.

 

It occurred to me that we have exhausted the technological barriers to sending and receiving anywhere on the world. What we lack is advances in communicating or sharing context.

 

Or was I simply in the bath too long?

 

Bath... But you have a point.

[Walsingham]

Thinking on this some more, it occurred to me that when one is writing a piece of prose, as fiction or fact, you need to devote some time and attention to establishing context. This in turn reflected the old adage about phrasing reports as

 

situation, complication, resolution.

 

..I must give this more thought.