>>9663274there's just a lot of ideas that sound great because they seem like easy fixes but it's only because they're ignoring all the really ugly complications. for this specific example, you aren't producing datacenters and routing services without populations centers and large-scale electronics production, which requires an abundance of very specific resources
one way of putting it is a play on the "food comes from the grocery store" - too many people also think "internet comes from the wall." and we've tethered so much of our lives onto it that a sudden collapse in it would be difficult to come back from
physical copies are easier to make and store without as much industry needed behind it, but even then, in history those were only held by the few and collected in urban centers to begin with. extensive art galleries, libraries and private collections, all of those aren't kept in randomsburg nebraska, they're kept in the big cities. if we just allowed a place like san francisco to be destroyed or something most of /pol/ would call that a good thing - yet how many things there would be lost because that's where they happened to be kept. even if you tried making digital records, there's a shitton of minor books and paintings and things that you can't find copies of online, even ignoring full detail for visual/auditory things
and that's just one city - in /pol/'s wet dream, every major city would be thrown into chaos, which would mean even greater loss not just from individual destructions but also relatively "safe" things from redundant records becoming gone. you'd get your rural country free from urban influence - and you'd promptly become even worse than china in the late 60s when they purged all their history. you'd lack industry, you'd lack many cultural icons, you'd lack infrastructure, and you'd lack the ability to learn how to recreate those things since so many records just got thrown away. you'd be "free" but also weak, vulnerable to a new conquer
