🐈

> the collapse of a society is a response to declining marginal returns on investment in complexity > the next stressor makes the state try to unlock the next stage of complexity, which demands more resources than the population can bear.

> People keep wanting the state to do new things for them, and when they get those things, they start taking those for granted and require more benefits from the state to consider it legitimate

> The Indiana state website could much more easily build the same feature by querying their own database, but they happen to be an organization that isn’t outputting this behavior, so the only people who are doing it are outsiders who annoy them by putting load on their network

> The Romans maintained a powerful standing army, and their art does not concentrate on the mistreatment of prisoners. Classic Mayan states did not have standing armies. Their art depicts terrifying treatment of enemies. Without real strength, propaganda was the next best thing.

> he notes multiple times elsewhere that there are territories that are a net loss to conquer because the cost of administration and other complexities outweighs the benefits.

> Why can states not simply grow to their optimal size and stay there? If becoming more administratively complex would cost more than it would produce, simply do not do that.

personal note here. seems similar to how elephants cannot reduce in size to survive famine. which is similar to the innovator's dilemma a high minimum metabolism limits available paths all "innovation" seem ooda-agile-blitzkreigy w movement not limited by a supply line