All societies are fragile; it is only the individual that is fundamentally anti-fragile.
-
-
I don't understand how increased social cohesion in wartime is not a societal gain from disorder. Of course society is made of individuals, and can only change if individuals do. But there are cases where the society abstraction can benefit from disorder. Explain why not?
-
If we define antifragility as a property of a system it follows that we can predict it to be antifragile given that property, and not given a narrow set of conditions. If antifragility is conditional, dependent on circumstance, we cannot reliably claim the system as antifragile.
-
The very definition of society is social order, hence to claim that it is an antifragile system that benefits from disorder is contradictory.
-
The net benefit of social cohesion during wartime does not indicate antifragility, but robustness. If it were a truly antifragile system, we should be seeking war at all times.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.