Civilization Is Not the Default. Violence Is(apropos.substack.com)
apropos.substack.com
Civilization Is Not the Default. Violence Is
https://apropos.substack.com/p/civilization-is-a-public-good
54 comments
So this is the argument that there's a path dependence in how peaceful a civilisation is. I think whatisalthist argued this as well - that Christianity (with largely pacifist founders) did a lot to moderate Rome, and then the Catholic Church (which some argue is the rump of the Roman empire) moderated its region of influence.
whatifalthist is a bit western centric (and a bit ... odd and extreme in some ways), but it seems reasonable, you could argue that India and China are also historically pretty peaceful (more so even than Europe), internal issues aside (yeah, Taiping rebellion, the 1940s and 50s, and any other Chinese civil conflict for example). 2 nuclear powers with the ability to rapidly create well over a million strong armies (India and China) can be having actual deaths on a contested border (e.g. the 2020 border clash) and it's no real concern, whereas in some regions a war can basically start over a mean tweet. The argument is that culture / institutions / path dependence matters.
whatifalthist is a bit western centric (and a bit ... odd and extreme in some ways), but it seems reasonable, you could argue that India and China are also historically pretty peaceful (more so even than Europe), internal issues aside (yeah, Taiping rebellion, the 1940s and 50s, and any other Chinese civil conflict for example). 2 nuclear powers with the ability to rapidly create well over a million strong armies (India and China) can be having actual deaths on a contested border (e.g. the 2020 border clash) and it's no real concern, whereas in some regions a war can basically start over a mean tweet. The argument is that culture / institutions / path dependence matters.
Depends on whether you are a bonobo or a chimpanzee.
Hm. I'm no historian but I think a broader view (ironically a relatively new one) runs counter to the claim that violence is the default. This might be more (*edit) true between empires but as far as humans and nations or proto-states go, archaeological anthropology leans away from the bthe Hobbesian view of the "state of nature" (Solitary, nasty, brutish, and short).
Possibly outside the author's Canon but D Graeber and D Wengrow's book make a pretty compelling case that most human modes of organising, historically speaking, were remarkably amicable (not universally of course) and maintained without such institutions as a monopoly on violence, property rights, and currency.
I'm not going to disagree with the forecast of increasing violence in the near future. I hope against it but the zeitgeist does not favour my wishes. But I do think that it is worth remembering that we have a history of political creativity we have somehow collectively forgotten, which happens to be very convenient (not in an by conspiratorial sense) for folks on the upper rungs of modern power structures.
Anyhow, the aforementioned book was the first I've read in a while that really rewired my personally held mythos (lowercase) and I do recommend it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything?wprov=s...
Possibly outside the author's Canon but D Graeber and D Wengrow's book make a pretty compelling case that most human modes of organising, historically speaking, were remarkably amicable (not universally of course) and maintained without such institutions as a monopoly on violence, property rights, and currency.
I'm not going to disagree with the forecast of increasing violence in the near future. I hope against it but the zeitgeist does not favour my wishes. But I do think that it is worth remembering that we have a history of political creativity we have somehow collectively forgotten, which happens to be very convenient (not in an by conspiratorial sense) for folks on the upper rungs of modern power structures.
Anyhow, the aforementioned book was the first I've read in a while that really rewired my personally held mythos (lowercase) and I do recommend it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawn_of_Everything?wprov=s...
I'm sure the author doesn't need to hear "leftist-counter-arguments 101", but the US has not dominated by peace and "through arguments rather than force".
The US has "pushed for liberalism", but only when it aligned with economic interests. There's a long list of brutal dictatorships and Islamic extremists propped-up by the US.
To give one data point (lesser known, I think), check out the book "The Jakarta Method" and learn about the ~1M Indonesians killed in this era of Pax Americana.
That being said, I agree with the author on the Enlightenment principles and can see the world getting worse in this regard.
The US has "pushed for liberalism", but only when it aligned with economic interests. There's a long list of brutal dictatorships and Islamic extremists propped-up by the US.
To give one data point (lesser known, I think), check out the book "The Jakarta Method" and learn about the ~1M Indonesians killed in this era of Pax Americana.
That being said, I agree with the author on the Enlightenment principles and can see the world getting worse in this regard.
This is true but also those that embrace violence to closely are destined to eventually fall via violence. Power through fear has very few people trying to catch it on the way down.
Everyone can have that violent tendency, the trick to acknowledge it and work around it.
It is a core tenant in Taoism "All things carry yin yet embrace yang"
Everyone can have that violent tendency, the trick to acknowledge it and work around it.
It is a core tenant in Taoism "All things carry yin yet embrace yang"
I read “Humankind” by Rutger Bregman and now think this is not true.
Thanks for the recommendation, I will check that out.
If anything, it’s a lot more optimistic about human nature than what we’re used too. It’s refreshing and well argued. Worth a read!
That is good to know. My original post was a bit reductionist, I do generally feel that people try to do good and are much more co-operative than adversarial. It is just that we can be dragged into a defensive/attack position easily if we do not keep an eye on that.
I suspect that despite all the issues of the world, we are slowly heading to a future that will be much more peaceful.
I suspect that despite all the issues of the world, we are slowly heading to a future that will be much more peaceful.
I think so too.
The book gives a lot of examples of where and how the beautiful sides op human nature surface in difficult times. It also argues that at least some of the things we hold as true (ie civilized behaviour is a thin layer of veneer) are not true.
One example is that we often think that as in "Lord of the Flies", a book that shaped us in a way, civilization slowly drains from the group as they become more primal when hunger sets in and oversight is lost. But Rutger finds an example of a real group of stranded kids, who thrived and generally showed admirable behaviour. That's just one of the examples.
The book gives a lot of examples of where and how the beautiful sides op human nature surface in difficult times. It also argues that at least some of the things we hold as true (ie civilized behaviour is a thin layer of veneer) are not true.
One example is that we often think that as in "Lord of the Flies", a book that shaped us in a way, civilization slowly drains from the group as they become more primal when hunger sets in and oversight is lost. But Rutger finds an example of a real group of stranded kids, who thrived and generally showed admirable behaviour. That's just one of the examples.
One only needs to read current medieval historians like Eleanor Janega (just to name one who's easily accessible) to know that this view of history as been pretty thoroughly debunked. The basis from which he or she argues is outdated.
> a monopoly on violence creates the institutional trust
Some of the errors in this are more glaring than others.
Some of the errors in this are more glaring than others.
I highly recommend reading War in Human Civilization, excellent book related to this topic.
And the default civilization is violent.
So let us return to the matrilineal, matrifocal ways developed by those who created and nurtured life before we had a language that covered all of our needs and build replacement civilizations from there. Time to get back into the nonbinary animist ways of being.
So let us return to the matrilineal, matrifocal ways developed by those who created and nurtured life before we had a language that covered all of our needs and build replacement civilizations from there. Time to get back into the nonbinary animist ways of being.
I take it you haven't studied those cultures you deify in any great detail have you.
I'm neither naming nor deifying any specific cultures. I'm identifying infinite categories of relationalities. So what is your actual point?
The last time that was tried, patriarchy devoured it like a delicious chocolate.
Before you can achieve your vision you will have to learn how to appease angry, lustful, ambitious men. The only way patriarchy retires for good is if it is granted a kushy pension.
Before you can achieve your vision you will have to learn how to appease angry, lustful, ambitious men. The only way patriarchy retires for good is if it is granted a kushy pension.
Nah. I prefer actual medical science keeping me from dying of typhus and cholera to praying to the spirits, but you do you.
The idea that I said something so dualistic like that or that actual caring ways couldn't possibly include healing sciences learned are both delusional projections and a form of dishonesty you practiced on yourself there.
Especially when there have been recent scientific developments regarding learning how ancient ways, such as how bilateral simulation from drumming/dancing in ceremonial ritual trance with polyphonic singing engages the brain and lays the foundation for an embodied state to approach reprocessing trauma to the point of egodeath.
Especially when there have been recent scientific developments regarding learning how ancient ways, such as how bilateral simulation from drumming/dancing in ceremonial ritual trance with polyphonic singing engages the brain and lays the foundation for an embodied state to approach reprocessing trauma to the point of egodeath.
You said we should return to a pre-civilizational state of animist goddess worship. You even implied we should abandon language. That's about as dualistic an option as one can get.
No doctor worth their salt would ever claim that ritual trance and polyphonic singing could replace modern medicine, and I'm guessing that for all of the anarcho-primitivist spiel, you probably take a Tylenol when you have a headache rather than have a shaman trepan your skull to let the demons out.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree that patriarchy and capitalism have done vast damage to the world, but the premise that humanity lived in some kind of utopian state of matriarchal harmony in the hunter-gatherer days is just naive. The base of knowledge that led to modern science and medicine isn't the product of patriarchy or capitalism, it's simply reality and that reality freely applies to everyone, everywhere.
We don't need to abandon that, we just need to find a way to apply that knowledge more equitably.
No doctor worth their salt would ever claim that ritual trance and polyphonic singing could replace modern medicine, and I'm guessing that for all of the anarcho-primitivist spiel, you probably take a Tylenol when you have a headache rather than have a shaman trepan your skull to let the demons out.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree that patriarchy and capitalism have done vast damage to the world, but the premise that humanity lived in some kind of utopian state of matriarchal harmony in the hunter-gatherer days is just naive. The base of knowledge that led to modern science and medicine isn't the product of patriarchy or capitalism, it's simply reality and that reality freely applies to everyone, everywhere.
We don't need to abandon that, we just need to find a way to apply that knowledge more equitably.
[deleted]
"Western ideals have been something genuinely new in history. The Enlightenment’s bet on reason, individual dignity, free speech, limited government, and the belief that human beings can organize their collective life through arguments rather than force produced the most prosperous, free, and peaceful societies in human history."
Most of these ideas were present in older civilizations.
Most of these ideas were present in older civilizations.
Bellum omnium contra omnes -- the war of all against all. Thomas Hobbes wrote this centuries ago. Most people here only know him as the inspiration for a tiger in a comic strip.
the article reads like some tech bro who just discovered sociology.
the article reads like some tech bro who just discovered sociology.
Civilization is violent. The Roman Empire maintained it's economy through slavery. The Catholic Church started the crusades. This is article is the usual dumb reductionist thinking that people have been spewing every year I've been alive.
> But I feel the deeper threat is internal. A generation of critical theory and identity politics has captured universities, media, and cultural institutions. The Western tradition is now taught as a system of oppression rather than the foundation of the very liberties that make the critique possible.
It always is this. The left is destroying Western Civilization. How can anyone believe this bullshit when it's 2026 and the Right is firing professors, silencing the press, and arresting people for publicly disagreeing with them. What world do you live in that you can honestly believe this.
> But I feel the deeper threat is internal. A generation of critical theory and identity politics has captured universities, media, and cultural institutions. The Western tradition is now taught as a system of oppression rather than the foundation of the very liberties that make the critique possible.
It always is this. The left is destroying Western Civilization. How can anyone believe this bullshit when it's 2026 and the Right is firing professors, silencing the press, and arresting people for publicly disagreeing with them. What world do you live in that you can honestly believe this.
Two things can both be true. The left was also firing professors. They weren't arresting people for publicly disagreeing with them; they were just showing up as "black block"/antifa and trying to physically intimidate them.
Neither side are angels. Neither side really believe in your free speech if you disagree with them.
Now, if you want to argue that the right is currently the greater threat, then sure, I can probably agree with that. The two sides try to push the other around when in power, and play the victim when out of it, and the right is currently in power. And they're currently more aggressive than I ever saw the left be. Still, the left isn't really the side of free speech either.
Neither side are angels. Neither side really believe in your free speech if you disagree with them.
Now, if you want to argue that the right is currently the greater threat, then sure, I can probably agree with that. The two sides try to push the other around when in power, and play the victim when out of it, and the right is currently in power. And they're currently more aggressive than I ever saw the left be. Still, the left isn't really the side of free speech either.
> Neither side really believe in your free speech
Only one side claimed to be "free speech absolutists".
Only one side claimed to be "free speech absolutists".
Cherry picking. The other side claimed to be the only ones to care about "black lives" while at the same time supporting burning down black owned businesses, and spreading covid during the worst of the pandemic, while being super angry about the people who didn't wear masks.
Don't fall into the trap of grouping into left/right. Individual behaviors must be judged separately: going into crowded spaces unmasked during the high of covid? Bad. Burning down a business? Bad. Getting someone fired for speech? Bad. Etc.
See how easy and clear that is? Nothing about left or right.
Don't fall into the trap of grouping into left/right. Individual behaviors must be judged separately: going into crowded spaces unmasked during the high of covid? Bad. Burning down a business? Bad. Getting someone fired for speech? Bad. Etc.
See how easy and clear that is? Nothing about left or right.
Which makes them hypocrites.
But a hypocrite that pays lip service to free speech might be better than someone who openly doesn't care for it. At least the principle remains respected.
But a hypocrite that pays lip service to free speech might be better than someone who openly doesn't care for it. At least the principle remains respected.
Meh. The principle remains "respected" with lip service. That's not respecting the principle; that's respecting the principle's ability to persuade people to vote for you.
I mean, look, there are conservatives who actually do care about free speech for everyone, not just their allies. But the "conservatives" currently in power, who claimed to be "free speech absolutists", seem more interested in control of speech as a source of power, rather than in actual free speech for all.
I mean, look, there are conservatives who actually do care about free speech for everyone, not just their allies. But the "conservatives" currently in power, who claimed to be "free speech absolutists", seem more interested in control of speech as a source of power, rather than in actual free speech for all.
> The left is destroying Western Civilization. How can anyone believe this bullshit when it's 2026 and the Right is firing professors, silencing the press, and arresting people for publicly disagreeing with them
The "left" also reduced Venezuela from the richest country on the continent to a brutal regime not long ago.
Seeing the world as "left" vs "right" is imo not helpful. It's too easy to fall into the trap of defending the "left" because you also identify with sane progressive taxes for example, and then identity confuses you and now you're trying to pretend that people getting physically assaulted on campus is ok because the left is mostly right about progressive taxes or whatever.
The crazy-left are evil because they are confused.
The crazy-right are evil because they are confused.
The "left" also reduced Venezuela from the richest country on the continent to a brutal regime not long ago.
Seeing the world as "left" vs "right" is imo not helpful. It's too easy to fall into the trap of defending the "left" because you also identify with sane progressive taxes for example, and then identity confuses you and now you're trying to pretend that people getting physically assaulted on campus is ok because the left is mostly right about progressive taxes or whatever.
The crazy-left are evil because they are confused.
The crazy-right are evil because they are confused.
>Civilization is violent. The Roman Empire maintained it's economy through slavery.
So? Slavery was the baseline back then. The question is whether the Roman Empire was more peaceful/less violent than the alternative, not whether they had slavery or some degree of violence.
>The Catholic Church started the crusades.
After centuries of arab expansion conquering over 6 centuries pre-existing Christian cities and populations in the wider middle east.
So? Slavery was the baseline back then. The question is whether the Roman Empire was more peaceful/less violent than the alternative, not whether they had slavery or some degree of violence.
>The Catholic Church started the crusades.
After centuries of arab expansion conquering over 6 centuries pre-existing Christian cities and populations in the wider middle east.
He glosses over Muslim history and al-Andalus with a "the Muslims were driven out of Spain" like Spain itself wasn't Muslim for almost 800 years. And then, the Enlightenment created the most peaceful time in human history, really? Seems like mutual assured destruction is what makes peace, not sound philosophy.
People are forgetful and argumentative, by nature. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we can have nice things.
People are forgetful and argumentative, by nature. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we can have nice things.
>He glosses over Muslim history and al-Andalus with a "the Muslims were driven out of Spain" like Spain itself wasn't Muslim for almost 800 years.
Yes, the colonists were driven out. We should celebrate any time in history native and indigenous people defeat their colonizers and reclaim their indigenous lands.
Yes, the colonists were driven out. We should celebrate any time in history native and indigenous people defeat their colonizers and reclaim their indigenous lands.
The descendants of the Muslim colonists were defeated by the descendants of the Roman colonists, fighting under the banner of the Roman Church, and not by the native and indigenous people of the Iberian peninsula.
The native and indigenous people of the Iberian peninsula would be the Celtic, Iberian, Celtiberian and Aquitanian tribes conquered, colonized, and assimilated by the Roman Republic. The land was later occupied by the Germanic peoples before entering Muslim rule.
The native and indigenous people of the Iberian peninsula would be the Celtic, Iberian, Celtiberian and Aquitanian tribes conquered, colonized, and assimilated by the Roman Republic. The land was later occupied by the Germanic peoples before entering Muslim rule.
>The descendants of the Muslim colonists
Yes, colonists, nonnative invaders.
>were defeated by the descendants of the Roman colonists
Incorrect, by native Spaniards whose ancestry is overwhelmingly indigenous:
"Modern Iberians' genetic inheritance largely derives from the pre-Roman inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula who were deeply Romanized after the conquest of the region by the ancient Romans"[0]
They are the indigenous people to Iberia, not MENA colonists nor Romans.
>fighting under the banner of the Roman Church
Not relevant, still indigenous people.
>and not by the native and indigenous people of the Iberian peninsula.
False as proven above.
>The native and indigenous people of the Iberian peninsula would be the Celtic, Iberian, Celtiberian and Aquitanian tribes conquered, colonized, and assimilated by the Roman Republic.
Spaniards are Iberian, they are the indigenous, native people to Spain. They may have been assimilated into the Roman Republic and Visigothic Kingdom, but they are the indigenous people to their lands.
>The land was later occupied by the Germanic peoples before entering Muslim rule.
Germaic influences leave a smaller genetic mark than Roman in modern Iberia.
"Spaniards, or Spanish people, are an ethnic group and nation indigenous to Spain."[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_Iberian...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards
Yes, colonists, nonnative invaders.
>were defeated by the descendants of the Roman colonists
Incorrect, by native Spaniards whose ancestry is overwhelmingly indigenous:
"Modern Iberians' genetic inheritance largely derives from the pre-Roman inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula who were deeply Romanized after the conquest of the region by the ancient Romans"[0]
They are the indigenous people to Iberia, not MENA colonists nor Romans.
>fighting under the banner of the Roman Church
Not relevant, still indigenous people.
>and not by the native and indigenous people of the Iberian peninsula.
False as proven above.
>The native and indigenous people of the Iberian peninsula would be the Celtic, Iberian, Celtiberian and Aquitanian tribes conquered, colonized, and assimilated by the Roman Republic.
Spaniards are Iberian, they are the indigenous, native people to Spain. They may have been assimilated into the Roman Republic and Visigothic Kingdom, but they are the indigenous people to their lands.
>The land was later occupied by the Germanic peoples before entering Muslim rule.
Germaic influences leave a smaller genetic mark than Roman in modern Iberia.
"Spaniards, or Spanish people, are an ethnic group and nation indigenous to Spain."[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_Iberian...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards
Many native Iberians who were Muslim were either driven out or were paid an unexpected visit by the Spanish Inquisition.
A small price to pay.
[deleted]
[deleted]
thats what all the monkeys think
The distinction isn't meaningful to me because I feel like one of the humans from Planet of the Apes here.
focusgroup0(2)
The answer to Liberalism dying isn't more Liberalism. Liberalism is dying precisely because Liberalism is wrong or at minimum, unsustainable. The attitude of the writer is exactly like the fetishists of every dead ideology, in particular Libertarians who argue "Real capitalism hasn't been tried yet!" or Communists who argue "Real communism hasn't been tried yet." These people, Liberals (capital L) included, need to get real and understand that reality is much more complicated than their specific simplistic idea of Utopia.
To save Liberalism, rather, we must first accept Liberalism is wrong. Then we must discuss what was wrong about it. Then fix those things to invent whatever ruling ideology comes next.
Here's a hint and it comes from his own writing. The "critical theory" and "identity politics" coming from within are directly a result of the nihilism and pathological individualism, respectively, that is born out of Liberalism. The US is degenerating because it lacks a prescribed morality (an unequivocal definition of what is right and wrong) and a prescribed universal identity, respectively. Things that Liberalism eschews, and things that people will find or invent elsewhere despite how many times you bemoan the death of enlightenment ideals.
To save Liberalism, rather, we must first accept Liberalism is wrong. Then we must discuss what was wrong about it. Then fix those things to invent whatever ruling ideology comes next.
Here's a hint and it comes from his own writing. The "critical theory" and "identity politics" coming from within are directly a result of the nihilism and pathological individualism, respectively, that is born out of Liberalism. The US is degenerating because it lacks a prescribed morality (an unequivocal definition of what is right and wrong) and a prescribed universal identity, respectively. Things that Liberalism eschews, and things that people will find or invent elsewhere despite how many times you bemoan the death of enlightenment ideals.
That anti-liberalism was born out of liberalism doesn't make liberalism wrong.
It's like saying all dinosaurs were birds because birds evolved from dinosaurs. It just doesn't follow that a weird offshoot now defines the entire group retroactively back in time. It makes no sense to think like this logically.
It's like saying all dinosaurs were birds because birds evolved from dinosaurs. It just doesn't follow that a weird offshoot now defines the entire group retroactively back in time. It makes no sense to think like this logically.
Your argument is unironically "real Liberalism hasn't been tried yet." "critical theory" and "identity politics" are not "weird offshoots," they are unavoidable consequences of Liberalism. No matter how many times you try Liberalism it will degenerate into exactly the current situation we are facing now.
Failing to acknowledge the structural flaws of Liberalism just opens up an opportunity for ideological revolution. If the adherents of Liberalism prefer moderation, they better had start acknowledging how it's failing people. "Just Liberal harder" won't work forever.
Failing to acknowledge the structural flaws of Liberalism just opens up an opportunity for ideological revolution. If the adherents of Liberalism prefer moderation, they better had start acknowledging how it's failing people. "Just Liberal harder" won't work forever.
> Your argument is unironically "real Liberalism hasn't been tried yet."
No, it's been tried, and most of us are living in it right now. You are attempting a strawman badly.
> "critical theory" and "identity politics" are not "weird offshoots," they are unavoidable consequences of Liberalism.
First of all "identity politics" is just the new name for "tribalism". It's older than the human race. So leave that out.
For the rest: nope. Why did it take literally hundreds of years from the start of the Enlightenment for critical race theory to go totally crazy? If it's inevitable, it should be much faster. Look at communism which inevitably becomes just garden variety authoritarian dictatorship. How long does that take? Less than a year seems to be the pattern. THAT is what inevitable from the seed looks like.
I seriously hope your definition of liberalism is very different from mine, because you're not making much sense...
No, it's been tried, and most of us are living in it right now. You are attempting a strawman badly.
> "critical theory" and "identity politics" are not "weird offshoots," they are unavoidable consequences of Liberalism.
First of all "identity politics" is just the new name for "tribalism". It's older than the human race. So leave that out.
For the rest: nope. Why did it take literally hundreds of years from the start of the Enlightenment for critical race theory to go totally crazy? If it's inevitable, it should be much faster. Look at communism which inevitably becomes just garden variety authoritarian dictatorship. How long does that take? Less than a year seems to be the pattern. THAT is what inevitable from the seed looks like.
I seriously hope your definition of liberalism is very different from mine, because you're not making much sense...
The problem with most anti-liberals is that they seem to be exclusively lunatics.
The one exception seems to be Europeans catholic monarchists. I’ve found those people to be surprisingly rational in a world dominated by low IQ populism.
The one exception seems to be Europeans catholic monarchists. I’ve found those people to be surprisingly rational in a world dominated by low IQ populism.
I've read a bit more. It's worse. Charlemagne was the grandson of Charles Martel, who famously stopped the largest Umayyad razzia in Europe (and used it to take power, and consolidate both Neustria and Austrasia). His empire was never threatened/invaded by the Umayyad, even after his death. He created the Gascony march, that did threaten the Vascon and the Umayyad before Louis le pieux was defeated by the Vascons, who created the Navarre realm, basically creating a buffer state between the Umayyad and the Carolingian empire. So for sure, they had no impact on wether the Carolingians could maintain power or not. Also, the reason Martel could take power was that the Franks already had a feudal society since at least Clovis. Also, the Carolingians did maintain power, everywhere. The successions divided the realms, but they kept power for a long, long time (I still count Capetian as Carolingian for obvious reasons)
And I'm really not a specialist of this era, I find the 16th-19th century more interesting overall. Basing any arguments on that shaky knowledge is uninteresting to me, so I will stop there, his point might be good, but the argument to reach it will be bad.