During the Second World War the Imperial Japanese believed that it was natural for them to conquer other surrounding countries, since the highest concentration of power was in Japan. Thus via a kind of osmosis in human relations this power naturally spreads out, or so the theory goes. Ian Kershaw explains Japan’s reasoning in a fantastically simple way in ‘Fateful Choices’. But Huntington’s clash of civilizations is based on exactly the same premise: that when power is consolidated in one single area it is inevitable that it seeks to exercise that power on/in the surrounding areas. And this has a vast following today (the ‘War on Terror’ follows this logic, even though it claims it doesn’t). Darwinian logic also says similar things, particularly social Darwinism. And furthermore if you trace human thought back long enough you can even find these ideas in the works of early thinkers like Thucydides.
But why entropy i hear you say? The reason why entropy is included in the title is that entropy basically involves the transition from order to disorder. What is consolidated at point one gradually spreads out into the surrounding dis-entropy. And this is very close to the above argument. Yet you very rarely get scientific explanations of human relations. Why not? Do human relations mimic science or not?