Quote Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII View Post
I personally would stay away from the Darwin analogy. Social Darwinism is never a good philosophy to follow as it sort of implies that the loser (in this case the Celts) is somehow biologically weaker and less human than the victor. Many civilizations have fallen throughout history, and just because they have doesn't mean that they are necessarily a lesser version of the species.

Generally, when a civilization falls, it is not because of some inherent biological defect that must be weeded out (as Darwinism implies) it is because of a lack of technology, or economic domination, or the greater military organization (or numbers, or tactics, etc.) of the enemy (the list goes on as well). It doesn't reflect on the biological fitness of an individual in that civilization. So, I don't think it's really fair to imply that the Celts were marked for extinction by natural selection. And after all, isn't EB all about fairly representing cultures?
Who was so unsophisticated and unenlightened that he was talking about biologi? What I am talking about it the organism that a state is, the autopoietic system of The State. Read some Harste and Luhman and you will know what I mean. Harste has written a fine little treatise on the matter, but it is not easily digestible,

Harste, G. 2002, Krig vs. Fred - en kode i symbolsk generaliseret kommunikation, Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus Universitet, Århus.

It is divided in both an English and a Danish version, so no worries, you can read it. But it is a challenge to understand if one does not have a background in sociology (which I had not when I had the good fortune to be taught by him back then).