Yes, the entropy of revolution could conceivably help society reach a greater maxima. But the statistical likelihood is extremely small. Keep in mind, you aren't starting from scratch in a simulation. You'd have all the baggage from the civil war you triggered and the shocking loss of faith from corrupted revolutionary leadership, etc etc. Plus, this is all in the context of frustration that democratic progress doesn't happen fast enough.
Sensing bullshit doesn't imply that it is rational to start a revolution.
>> The problem is that the centrist impulse to avoid breaking anything that "works" has been successfully exploited to prevent effective action to address a large number of real problems. At some point, people sense the bullshit and it starts to be rational to pick revolution to escape the trap.
> But the statistical likelihood is extremely small.
My point is the "statistical likelihood" could be even smaller under the status quo.
> You'd have all the baggage from the civil war you triggered and the shocking loss of faith from corrupted revolutionary leadership, etc etc.
Also what "revolution" is has a tendency to be redefined downward, but rebutted based on the most hyperbolic versions.
> Sensing bullshit doesn't imply that it is rational to start a revolution.
The second cleverest kind of trap is the kind that convinces you it's best not escape.
Sensing bullshit doesn't imply that it is rational to start a revolution.