The "Thucydides Trap" theory is popular bunk. But it sounds really cool and topical, and <0.01% of people know enough Ancient Greek history to dismiss its faux-scholarly backstory - so of course it's a hot meme now.
Vs. in reality - the fundamental problem is stupid local optimization within the ruling elites of both the established and rising powers. In a (sane) minor power's ruling elites, an ambitious & talented person can get ahead while advocating restraint, avoiding conflicts which might lead to war, and generally playing it safe. Because in a sane minor power, most people understand that major conflicts are too likely to end horribly for them.
Not so in the ruling elites of an established or rising power. Aggressive postures, risky behaviors, and "we can get away with this" words and deeds are too often normalized and rewarded. Prudence and restraint are penalized for running contrary to short-term interests, or just the prevailing mood. (Remember that ruling elites generally live in a bubble of ambitious sycophants, theory-spinners, and talking heads.) And there are more feedback loops here. Aggressive and risk-taking leaders and organizations often respond to setbacks or anxieties by dialing up the aggression and risk.
(Yes, I both read Asimov's Foundation trilogy when young, and have a good idea of how limited his fictional psychohistory is. Unfortunately, neither China's nor the US's current leaders seem inclined to less-aggressive strategies.)
bell-cot•2h ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides_Trap#Criticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides_Trap#Methodological...
Etc., etc.
Old geezer take:
The "Thucydides Trap" theory is popular bunk. But it sounds really cool and topical, and <0.01% of people know enough Ancient Greek history to dismiss its faux-scholarly backstory - so of course it's a hot meme now.
Vs. in reality - the fundamental problem is stupid local optimization within the ruling elites of both the established and rising powers. In a (sane) minor power's ruling elites, an ambitious & talented person can get ahead while advocating restraint, avoiding conflicts which might lead to war, and generally playing it safe. Because in a sane minor power, most people understand that major conflicts are too likely to end horribly for them.
Not so in the ruling elites of an established or rising power. Aggressive postures, risky behaviors, and "we can get away with this" words and deeds are too often normalized and rewarded. Prudence and restraint are penalized for running contrary to short-term interests, or just the prevailing mood. (Remember that ruling elites generally live in a bubble of ambitious sycophants, theory-spinners, and talking heads.) And there are more feedback loops here. Aggressive and risk-taking leaders and organizations often respond to setbacks or anxieties by dialing up the aggression and risk.
(Yes, I both read Asimov's Foundation trilogy when young, and have a good idea of how limited his fictional psychohistory is. Unfortunately, neither China's nor the US's current leaders seem inclined to less-aggressive strategies.)