The thesis seems to be to caution against automatically blaming those who might’ve benefited from a disaster, as often enough things don’t happen in a goal-directed fashion. (“To fathom a strange plot, one technique is to look at what ended up happening, assume it was the intended result, and ask who benefited.”) Not sure this is a widespread enough heuristic to be worth reining in in the form of an unconditional advice.
Oh, I hadn’t thought of this aspect, thanks! I wonder how it changes if you realize that the grasshopper helped clear the path between the anthills, which made contact (and then war and then surplus food) more likely.
The thesis seems to be to caution against automatically blaming those who might’ve benefited from a disaster, as often enough things don’t happen in a goal-directed fashion. (“To fathom a strange plot, one technique is to look at what ended up happening, assume it was the intended result, and ask who benefited.”) Not sure this is a widespread enough heuristic to be worth reining in in the form of an unconditional advice.
Oh, I hadn’t thought of this aspect, thanks! I wonder how it changes if you realize that the grasshopper helped clear the path between the anthills, which made contact (and then war and then surplus food) more likely.