CIVILIZATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN ORGANIZING STRATEGY Question: –“So: (the evolutio

CIVILIZATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN ORGANIZING STRATEGY
Question:
–“So: (the evolution of coercive institutions is: )
East Asia: State>Law>Religion
Europe: Law>State>Religion
Jews: Law>Religion>State
Islam: Religion>Law>State
India: Religion>State>Law
SE Asia(Burma etc): State>Religion>Law
Is this correct?”–Brendan @TabbyTeamster

Yes, Well done 😉 But remember :
1) In the evolutionary sequence of institution formation, each is of declining influence. And so the second is weaker than the first, and third weaker than the second. And in most cases the third institution fails (which is obvious going through the list).
2) Innovative and evolutionary velocity depends on the sequence with the optimum foundation being law, state the next best foundation, and religion the worst foundation. Or well, we could argue failure at all three is the worst, but that’s not a foundation. 😉
3) When we say law we man natural law of contract for self determination, sovereignty, demonstrated interest, reciprocity, and tort, where some natural or traditional law limits the following institutions. Obviously if law is second or third to the state or religion, then the evolutionary adaptability of law to promote cooperation and suppress corruption. This is because the law provides decidability and is the ‘authority’ and not man, whether in state or religion.

If you understand this then the history of the world starts to become a very simple place. If you understand the properties of local environment that cause the selection of those institutions in that order then you’ll understand the history of the world much more so.

Then you can go and watch @Whatifalthist videos and understand them in the scientific context of evolutionary computation.

Cheers

Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation

Reply addressees: @TabbyTeamster @PaulGottfried6 @ConceptualJames