• WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    12 days ago

    I’ve read that their governance was geared towards stability, not growth or disruption. It helps with keeping things going for a long time.

    • pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      I’ve read that their governance was geared towards stability, not growth or disruption. It helps with keeping things going for a long time.

      I’m confused. How could their leaders earn a big enough quarterly bonus to blow on cocaine?

      Edit: This might be something modern government models could adapt and use, to everyone’s benefit… If we can just crack the cocaine challenges with it.

      I think I’m joking, except I can’t stop thinking about how a universal basic cocaine subsidy might actually be what is needed to convince a bunch of problematic leaders to retire…

    • blarghly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 days ago

      ?

      I mean, maybe - but its not hard to focus on stability instead of growth when you’re the only game in town.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        12 days ago

        They did pretty damned well against the Hittites and Lybians, Egypt only really started to struggle when the bronze age collapse happened. Frankly speaking when you are durable enough to weather an apocalypse you are doing pretty good, the only other ones I can think of that pulled the same was the Assyrians who I’m pretty sure are gonna outlast every other culture at this rate.