alt Hacker NewsMy above post was factual/historical so I’m leaving my moral judgements here in a separate post.
I believe the Bronze Age collapse was a good and necessary thing for humanity. It was required to get out of the local stable point that post-Neolithic society had evolved and settled into.
By the 12 century BCE the noble kings that Marduk and Maat would have smiled upon had long been replaced by the same flavor of sociopaths that lurk the halls of our major governments today.
But these Bronze Age despots had a LOCK on the economy that today’s crony capitalists could only dream of. And they had a lock on the culture too, mostly via the state religion.
BUT: years of bad harvests, disasters and bad omens become increasingly hard to explain. Higher taxes and worse service from the state. No protection from invaders.
Do you revolt? Join the invaders?
No living soul, not even your oldest relatives, can remember time before the empire. No one knows what comes next, so you don’t do this high risk thing unless life really sucks. But people did, because life really sucked.
Proposition: The Bronze Age collapse is to be celebrated as a triumph of the people over the most unequal societies that have ever existed.
Replies
Current inequality is greater, not talking what AI wealth distribution will look like.
Regardless of whether this is true or not you have basically described the UK and how people think about a Russian invasion.
You already have elites siding against their own people and tyrannically collecting taxes and giving it to their Mercenary base.
It isn't hard to imagine a benevolent Sea People offering to free the locals from their despotic elite.
The Bronze Age would not have had the same migration structures obviously but one might imagine it happening locally.
What is funny is that a lot of these explanations of what happened seem to fly in the face of what people find is possible to ascribe to situations now.
That's handwaving the mass-suffering caused by systemic collapse. I have a few issues with this. The first one is dialectic, you can't posit that since the following state reached a place you're fine with later on, the process that led to it was necessary. That's thinking backwards. You don't know that it wouldn't have reached a better or equal state without collapse.
The following ones are ethical and philosophical. My own standing is that :
- Individuals can't be treated as fungible or dispensable, even when thinking in macro states. That opens the door for extreme suffering and simplistic thinking.
- On longer scales, stability wins. Collapse should be treated as a hard failure, not a mechanic.