All societies are fragile; it is only the individual that is fundamentally anti-fragile.
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.