If untempered, Orthocracy could lead to a dangerously stagnant society, in the same way that Confucianism did. It has a sort of inverted problem from those that face the materialist religions (liberalism/democracy) have in practice.
What are ways we could prevent the rise of orthocracy destroying a nation as it may stagnate in the face of direct competition from other nations? Stability is good, but even I'll note that an orthocratic system could easily go too far.
I like Charles Haywood's thesis that traditional civilisation needs a Frontier to function properly. If Orthocratic civilisation will be established following a cataclysm, it will be likely the repopulation of Earth. If it will be established more gradually, it will be space. Territorial expansion functions as an effective challenge and as a way to produce new elites organically because of the immense selection pressure it places on settlers. One could argue that degeneracy is an attempt to break down human nature because there are no external frontiers to cross anymore. Of course, we could also simply reverse this and challenge ourselves to become MORE virtuous and pious every year. Human imperfection provides us with a horizon that we can pursue endlessly until we reach the eschaton.
Then again, is being "boring" and stagnant necessarily bad? Are horseshoe crabs bad for not changing for 450 million years?
Stagnancy in the near term will be a problem. Any nation or civilization that adopts a stagnant model will be out competed by neighbors. It's the main issue we're seeing with nations whose governance structures aren't well adapted to dynamism. China and India as examples of cultures that have never been very dynamic but are forced into it with questionable results.
If untempered, Orthocracy could lead to a dangerously stagnant society, in the same way that Confucianism did. It has a sort of inverted problem from those that face the materialist religions (liberalism/democracy) have in practice.
What are ways we could prevent the rise of orthocracy destroying a nation as it may stagnate in the face of direct competition from other nations? Stability is good, but even I'll note that an orthocratic system could easily go too far.
I like Charles Haywood's thesis that traditional civilisation needs a Frontier to function properly. If Orthocratic civilisation will be established following a cataclysm, it will be likely the repopulation of Earth. If it will be established more gradually, it will be space. Territorial expansion functions as an effective challenge and as a way to produce new elites organically because of the immense selection pressure it places on settlers. One could argue that degeneracy is an attempt to break down human nature because there are no external frontiers to cross anymore. Of course, we could also simply reverse this and challenge ourselves to become MORE virtuous and pious every year. Human imperfection provides us with a horizon that we can pursue endlessly until we reach the eschaton.
Then again, is being "boring" and stagnant necessarily bad? Are horseshoe crabs bad for not changing for 450 million years?
Stagnancy in the near term will be a problem. Any nation or civilization that adopts a stagnant model will be out competed by neighbors. It's the main issue we're seeing with nations whose governance structures aren't well adapted to dynamism. China and India as examples of cultures that have never been very dynamic but are forced into it with questionable results.