Today's world can focus the energies of vastly more respurces, and people, than any one village or tribe. And no, fundamentally, scale is not relative. That's what scalee effects mean.
A member of Daesh, or the Russian dissident press, or Free Tibet activists, can find the resources of a nation-state or global alliance turned against the, without warning. Enemy counts are far greater. Attacks are at little or no risk.
Again: "Today the observer can be anywhere on Earth, and the data are vastly more detailed. Impunity of the observer is far greater."
I don't believe we're going to reach agreement, and we're both repeating our earlier points, which is my stop rule.
> I don't believe we're going to reach agreement, and we're both repeating our earlier points, which is my stop rule.
Fair enough, and I agree. So you don't go away empty handed, I'll note that some of your counter examples have merit and are illustrative of a valid counterargument, I just don't think they go var enough to explain away my point of view.
Also, thanks for the conversation. I've expressed this concept a few times before, but I believe this is the first substantive conversation it has generated, and it was useful in exploring it in more detail. I only wish I had more time to devote towards making my responses more coherent and substantive, but I've been pressed for time lately. (Which is not to imply that the only reason you weren't convinced is because I didn't try hard enough. I'm fully willing to concede I may be wrong.)
A member of Daesh, or the Russian dissident press, or Free Tibet activists, can find the resources of a nation-state or global alliance turned against the, without warning. Enemy counts are far greater. Attacks are at little or no risk.
Again: "Today the observer can be anywhere on Earth, and the data are vastly more detailed. Impunity of the observer is far greater."
I don't believe we're going to reach agreement, and we're both repeating our earlier points, which is my stop rule.