War as a Consolidator
Historically, war and conquest helped to advance civilization by allowing more efficient governance models to consume those which perform less optimally.
One might imagine that in actuality, violent governance models tend to consume peaceful ones, however this is not what the data shows. In fact, governance models more inclined to benevolence toward their own subjects don’t seem to go to war at lower rates than more cruel governance models. Governance models that rely on war to function and require new wars to stay stable are obviously an exception here, but fortunately such governments are inherently unstable as they eventually pick fights that they cannot win (the Nazi government is a good example).
While bad times can wipe out poorly performing governance models, good times also lead to instability. Throughout history, revolutions have been much more likely to happen in countries that were relatively well off.[[85]](#_ftn85) Consider the USA as an example. Of the British Colonies at the time, the American colonies were by far and away the best off—in fact, the Americans of the period were even wealthier than the British, with average annual income of £13.85 vs. £10-12.
One question we find ourselves asking is whether a decreasing reliance on land for wealth will hurt the evolution of governance models. Historically, poorly run governance models were more likely to be conquered and supplanted by superior models, but these days the motivation for conquest seems to be largely dulled. Modern sensibilities have caused countries that would traditionally have conquered and run other nations to instead install barely-functioning democracies without the cultural framework to stabilize their conquered land.