The top ten worst decisions in history

[Workable Goblin]

It's right there in the Declaration of Independence:

Of course, one could point out that it was rather the Confederacy's aim to "Form [a] Government...destructive of these ends...pursuing invariably...to reduce them under absolute Despotism". After all, one side wanted to retain human bondage, the other side was even at the start less married to it and ended by abolishing it. As written the Declaration of Independence is not a blank check to secessionism, and you can certainly make an argument that the South's secession was not in any way justified by the arguments given by the Declaration given its purpose and goals.

In any case, arguing about whether the South seceding was one of the ten worst decisions in human history seems to me to be missing the forest for the trees; the actual worst decision (or, well, one of them), without which the whole issue would have been moot, was establishing forced labor in the first place. Of course this didn't occur just one time, but I think it's fair to say that the African slave trade alone would make forced labor one of the single biggest causes of suffering and death in human history, which as per my own argument earlier makes the establishment of such forced labor an objectively terrible decision, whatever the short-term justifications.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Of course, one could point out that it was rather the Confederacy's aim to "Form [a] Government...destructive of these ends...pursuing invariably...to reduce them under absolute Despotism". After all, one side wanted to retain human bondage, the other side was even at the start less married to it and ended by abolishing it. As written the Declaration of Independence is not a blank check to secessionism, and you can certainly make an argument that the South's secession was not in any way justified by the arguments given by the Declaration given its purpose and goals.

Well, that's part of the problem, isn't it: who gets to decide what really counts as "destructive of these ends"? Regardless, though, the North's argument wasn't "The South's proposed government would be tyrannical, therefore their succession isn't covered under the Declaration of Independence," it was "Secession is treasonous and therefore wrong" -- a rather different and (at least if we accept the Thirteen Colonies' original rebellion as legitimate) much less plausible argument.

 

[RGB]

Modern science tells us that the children of diverse parents tend to be genetically stronger, since the child is built from the better genes available on both sides. Adults from geographically separate populations are less likely to share the same genetic flaws.

Modern science shows no such thing. Genetics doesn't work that way.

The most far-reaching argument you can make is that with wide outbreeding strategy you lower the chances of inbreeding-related defects. On the other hand, you introduce maladapted genes into a locally-optimized population in return.

Genetic fitness for both livestock and animals under strong selectionary pressures maximises at rather close (though not too close) relatedness levels. That's how artificial selection works and that's the main mechanism behind isolating speciation.

This is, incidentally, why the most beautiful women are often found to have mixed ancestry. Since beauty directly correlates with genetic health, this makes sense.

And this is a massive set of assumptions to unpack, most of them patently indefensible.

 

[IntellectuallyHonestRhino]

Nixon's tactics in trying to ensure his victory against McGovern.

 

[Tank Cdr]

Of course, one could point out that it was rather the Confederacy's aim to "Form [a] Government...destructive of these ends...pursuing invariably...to reduce them under absolute Despotism". After all, one side wanted to retain human bondage, the other side was even at the start less married to it and ended by abolishing it. As written the Declaration of Independence is not a blank check to secessionism, and you can certainly make an argument that the South's secession was not in any way justified by the arguments given by the Declaration given its purpose and goals.

In any case, arguing about whether the South seceding was one of the ten worst decisions in human history seems to me to be missing the forest for the trees; the actual worst decision (or, well, one of them), without which the whole issue would have been moot, was establishing forced labor in the first place. Of course this didn't occur just one time, but I think it's fair to say that the African slave trade alone would make forced labor one of the single biggest causes of suffering and death in human history, which as per my own argument earlier makes the establishment of such forced labor an objectively terrible decision, whatever the short-term justifications.

To add to your point one of the worst decisions in history, in my opinion, was not abolishing or phasing out slavery in the Constitution.

 

[Kerney]

To add to your point one of the worst decisions in history, in my opinion, was not abolishing or phasing out slavery in the Constitution.

They thought the ban on imports starting in 1808 and the non invention of the cotton gin would effectively cause it to slowly die. Unfortunately the cotton gin made slavery economically viable again.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

Modern science shows no such thing. Genetics doesn't work that way.

The most far-reaching argument you can make is that with wide outbreeding strategy you lower the chances of inbreeding-related defects. On the other hand, you introduce maladapted genes into a locally-optimized population in return.

Genetic fitness for both livestock and animals under strong selectionary pressures maximises at rather close (though not too close) relatedness levels. That's how artificial selection works and that's the main mechanism behind isolating speciation.



And this is a massive set of assumptions to unpack, most of them patently indefensible.

Interesting, thanks for posting.

Science isn't my speciality by any means. As best I can recall, I picked up the points you responded to by watching tv (admittedly not the greatest source). There was a program about beauty and it stated that symmetrical faces are rated more attractive in experiments. It further stated that facial symmetry is a sign of healthy genes. I'm sure I've read the same about most attributes of sexual attractiveness. They signal health and fertility, and other positive characteristics.

Are you saying that isn't the case?

The bit about mixed ancestry females being more attractive isn't based on anything I've read but more on observation. I certainly can't back it up with any scientific evidence. If it isn't the case though, then I'd have to attribute a number of striking examples to chance, which seems unlikely.

Can you tell us a bit more?

 

[Johnrankins]

America is the land of contradictions, one more proof of that. But yeah, I mean from a strictly practical point of view, seceding when they did, the way they did, it just got things worse for them and the United States as a whole.

The WORLD is a place of contradictions. Every culture on the planet was contradictions. It is the result of history and law being made by fallible human beings , often in a time of crisis. Contradictions are inevitable to some extent.

 

[Johnrankins]

In any case, arguing about whether the South seceding was one of the ten worst decisions in human history seems to me to be missing the forest for the trees; the actual worst decision (or, well, one of them), without which the whole issue would have been moot, was establishing forced labor in the first place.

Agreed, but you would have to go back thousands, if not tens of thousands , of years to prevent that. Slavery was long established before the African Slave Trade. Slavery was the rule, not the exception, in world history.

 

[RGB]

There was a program about beauty and it stated that symmetrical faces are rated more attractive in experiments. It further stated that facial symmetry is a sign of healthy genes. I'm sure I've read the same about most attributes of sexual attractiveness. They signal health and fertility, and other positive characteristics.

Yeah, facial symmetry isn't really a sign of some universal hybrid vigour or whatever you were suggestion earlier. It's a very local case of sexual selection mechanisms being sensitive to certain phenotype features, most of which aren't even directly genetic (a lot of what determines how your adult face looks is environmental/intrauterine/epigenetic etc, some heritable some not.)

If it isn't the case though, then I'd have to attribute a number of striking examples to chance, which seems unlikely.

I think that "beauty" beyond regularity of features is a complicated topic and has a good deal of group preferences involved in it.

Can you tell us a bit more?

I really don't have a lot of time or space to discuss all of evolution in a "worst historical mistakes" list. It was just a little appeal to not drop "it's just science" around so egregiously

 

[Worffan101]

Pearl Harbor has to be on top of that list. An own goal that even the man kicking the ball knew was an own goal, but the coach ordered it anyway because he was high on delusions of grandeur.

Buchanan shamelessly sucking up to the south was a boneheaded move, too--actually, the entire Presidency of James Buchanan deserves the #2 spot.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

Ones we've never heard of because no one survived to remember it being uttered.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Agreed, but you would have to go back thousands, if not tens of thousands , of years to prevent that. Slavery was long established before the African Slave Trade. Slavery was the rule, not the exception, in world history.

Sure, but the thread is about the worst decisions in all of history, not just recent history; the example of the African slave trade was just to illustrate that forced labor clearly meets the standards I set earlier, not because I think it marked the invention of slavery. And while the use of forced labor might not be plausibly preventable, the decisions made over and over again by what must be millions of people over history to compel the labor of others against their will are surely among the worst in history, if not individually then at least in aggregate.

 

[Johnrankins]

Sure, but the thread is about the worst decisions in all of history, not just recent history; the example of the African slave trade was just to illustrate that forced labor clearly meets the standards I set earlier, not because I think it marked the invention of slavery. And while the use of forced labor might not be plausibly preventable, the decisions made over and over again by what must be millions of people over history to compel the labor of others against their will are surely among the worst in history, if not individually then at least in aggregate.

I can't argue against that.

 

[dandan_noodles]

Sure, but the thread is about the worst decisions in all of history, not just recent history; the example of the African slave trade was just to illustrate that forced labor clearly meets the standards I set earlier, not because I think it marked the invention of slavery. And while the use of forced labor might not be plausibly preventable, the decisions made over and over again by what must be millions of people over history to compel the labor of others against their will are surely among the worst in history, if not individually then at least in aggregate.

It depends on what someone means by bad decision. I think I went into this thread looking at it in instrumental, rather than ethical terms: how well did the decision achieve the goals of the decision makers? Like Pearl Harbor would be a bad decision less because attacking neutrals is inherently wrong, and more because it got Japan engaged in a war it could not win and led to its near total destruction. In that sense, unfree labor was generally a success, as it led to immense wealth for the great landowners and general social stability.

 

[Clandango]

Agreed, but you would have to go back thousands, if not tens of thousands , of years to prevent that. Slavery was long established before the African Slave Trade. Slavery was the rule, not the exception, in world history.

Previously I don't think that people worked them quite as hard or in as inhuman conditoins. Yah, plenty of rape, branding, tortures, etc, but for the Transatlantic slave trade you have the Europeans constantly replacing dieting slaves, who they only got because they first worked almost all the Natives to death in areas used for plantations and mines. But yah, there was slavery and forced labor in a great many societies and cultures. Definetly in the Soviet Union as well, where they basically reintroduced serfdom to keep farmers in one place and to give their food to the state for free, while for the gulags they actually had the equivalent of slave raids, where they searched for geologists and arrested them so they would have free labor.

 

[Johnrankins]

Previously I don't think that people worked them quite as hard or in as inhuman conditoins. Yah, plenty of rape, branding, tortures, etc, but for the Transatlantic slave trade you have the Europeans constantly replacing dieting slaves, who they only got because they first worked almost all the Natives to death in areas used for plantations and mines.

Absolute nonsense. Slaves were dying in droves for thousands of years. Mines were considered death sentences for slaves. Castrating men to turn them into eunuchs was both painful and dangerous. A very high percentage of them died. The Aztecs bought slaves to sacrifice to the gods. Slaves were driven over deserts and mountain passes in which many of them died.

 

[ArchimedesCircle]

Nikephorus I's decision to massacre the women and children of Plisska was, in retrospect, not the best move. It did net Krum a really impressive cup though.

On the subject of Byzantium, Alexios IV inviting the crusaders into Constantinople without a way to actually pay them probably wasn't the greatest idea.

 

[Workable Goblin]

It depends on what someone means by bad decision. I think I went into this thread looking at it in instrumental, rather than ethical terms: how well did the decision achieve the goals of the decision makers?

The thread title certainly allows ethical considerations as well as instrumental ones, and I already posted an analysis of Napoleonic decision making (well, on one point) from that perspective. I think it's entirely valid to consider whether decisions produced good outcomes for the majority of people, not just the decision makers.

In that sense, unfree labor was generally a success, as it led to immense wealth for the great landowners and general social stability.

Given the long litany of slave and peasant revolts throughout history, not to mention the general fear of such that slaveholders and other users of unfree labor tended to have, I greatly question whether its creation ever improved "general social stability" even one tiny iota. It rather seems that it created tensions destined to explode in the long run and create immense human and financial costs, even if the owners tended to be able to reimpose their systems in the end. And of course the "immense wealth" of "great landowners" was a sham that stole funds that could have been used to improve the lives of everyday people and used them to pay for opulent fripperies that helped absolutely no one. So no, I don't find that unfree labor was a success even in purely instrumental terms. Europe got along just fine for thousands of years without sugar.

 

[dandan_noodles]

Given the long litany of slave and peasant revolts throughout history, not to mention the general fear of such that slaveholders and other users of unfree labor tended to have, I greatly question whether its creation ever improved "general social stability" even one tiny iota. It rather seems that it created tensions destined to explode in the long run and create immense human and financial costs, even if the owners tended to be able to reimpose their systems in the end. And of course the "immense wealth" of "great landowners" was a sham that stole funds that could have been used to improve the lives of everyday people and used them to pay for opulent fripperies that helped absolutely no one. So no, I don't find that unfree labor was a success even in purely instrumental terms. Europe got along just fine for thousands of years without sugar.

Unfree labor systems existed for thousands and thousands of years; times when slave/serf revolts permanently ended or even significantly disrupted them are quite rare in relative terms. Places like Carthage and Sparta, infamous for the oppression of their serf underclasses, were widely admired in antiquity for their stability. Aristotle noted with admiration that Carthage had never suffered a rebellion, and in Sparta, there was never civil war in Laconia; the only significant revolts were the Messenian helots, whose social organization was considerable more free than that of the Laconian helots, living as they did in their own villages rather than dispersed across Spartan settlements. Even when these systems did end, often times the magnates held the cards, as in Central and Eastern Europe. Regarding wealth, sure, it could have been dispersed among society as a whole, but in the Spartan case, the ruthless subordination of the helots gave the state distinct advantages, as it enabled them to create a uniquely large leisure class, able to pursue things like education and athletics. This fostered a culture of obedience and duty to the state; Spartan willingness to submit to formation drill and foist it on their allies undergirded the state's power.

Obviously, I'm not defending serfdom as an ethical institution; my point is that it can be very useful for social elites when you're looking at unfree labor systems in instrumental terms.