The fall of Western civilisation

[DrZoidberg]

Throughout history whenever an empire or civilization is in decline, this decline tends to spark a fervent activity in erecting huge monuments and generally just wasting what little resources they have on utter crap. It's all spent in order to prove that which everybody now knows is false, that the empire is great.

Is the election of idiot political leaders in the west the same thing happening? All these guys have in common that they talk about how awesome their country is and how much they vow to keep out immigrants. While the developing world is cheerfully chugging along, and it's not far off now when the developing world will have a standard of living on par with the west.

Are we (in the west) diverting our extra resources in some futile effort to prove our superiority? Is stuff like Brexit and Trump nothing but ego stroking of a battered and falling culture?

 

[iolo]

Throughout history whenever an empire or civilization is in decline, this decline tends to spark a fervent activity in erecting huge monuments and generally just wasting what little resources they have on utter crap. It's all spent in order to prove that which everybody now knows is false, that the empire is great.

Is the election of idiot political leaders in the west the same thing happening? All these guys have in common that they talk about how awesome their country is and how much they vow to keep out immigrants. While the developing world is cheerfully chugging along, and it's not far off now when the developing world will have a standard of living on par with the west.

Are we (in the west) diverting our extra resources in some futile effort to prove our superiority? Is stuff like Brexit and Trump nothing but ego stroking of a battered and falling culture?

The system is doing nothing for the majority, and the profiteers have to keep them aboard somehow. This sort of fascist bullshit is the usual answer: it tends to lead to war, and the ruins have to be rebuilt - but, alas, we've moved beyond that answer now.

 

[Philos]

Throughout history whenever an empire or civilization is in decline, this decline tends to spark a fervent activity in erecting huge monuments and generally just wasting what little resources they have on utter crap. It's all spent in order to prove that which everybody now knows is false, that the empire is great.

Is the election of idiot political leaders in the west the same thing happening? All these guys have in common that they talk about how awesome their country is and how much they vow to keep out immigrants. While the developing world is cheerfully chugging along, and it's not far off now when the developing world will have a standard of living on par with the west.

Are we (in the west) diverting our extra resources in some futile effort to prove our superiority? Is stuff like Brexit and Trump nothing but ego stroking of a battered and falling culture?

The system is doing nothing for the majority, and the profiteers have to keep them aboard somehow. This sort of fascist bullshit is the usual answer: it tends to lead to war, and the ruins have to be rebuilt - but, alas, we've moved beyond that answer now.

Hi,

Yes, I am in agreement with the above.

P.

 

[Trausti]

Throughout history whenever an empire or civilization is in decline, this decline tends to spark a fervent activity in erecting huge monuments and generally just wasting what little resources they have on utter crap. It's all spent in order to prove that which everybody now knows is false, that the empire is great.

Is the election of idiot political leaders in the west the same thing happening? All these guys have in common that they talk about how awesome their country is and how much they vow to keep out immigrants. While the developing world is cheerfully chugging along, and it's not far off now when the developing world will have a standard of living on par with the west.

Are we (in the west) diverting our extra resources in some futile effort to prove our superiority? Is stuff like Brexit and Trump nothing but ego stroking of a battered and falling culture?

Is there a particular empire you're analogizing to? Britain, Rome, Egypt, the Ottomans, even the USA, put up the great monuments during their height. Seems empires fall - if the fall is self-inflicted - when the currency is debased, government overspends, boundaries overextended, citizenship loosely given, and migration patterns dilute the founding population.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Throughout history whenever an empire or civilization is in decline, this decline tends to spark a fervent activity in erecting huge monuments and generally just wasting what little resources they have on utter crap. It's all spent in order to prove that which everybody now knows is false, that the empire is great.

Is the election of idiot political leaders in the west the same thing happening? All these guys have in common that they talk about how awesome their country is and how much they vow to keep out immigrants. While the developing world is cheerfully chugging along, and it's not far off now when the developing world will have a standard of living on par with the west.

Are we (in the west) diverting our extra resources in some futile effort to prove our superiority? Is stuff like Brexit and Trump nothing but ego stroking of a battered and falling culture?

Is there a particular empire you're analogizing to? Britain, Rome, Egypt, the Ottomans, even the USA, put up the great monuments during their height. Seems empires fall - if the fall is self-inflicted - when the currency is debased, government overspends, boundaries overextended, citizenship loosely given, and migration patterns dilute the founding population.

I mean the Empire of being the richest region.

Almost all major monuments go up before the fall. That may of course be an effect of monument builders constantly trying to out-do one another. So there's an evolution of grandeur. So whatever was built right before the fall, will be the greatest.

But there are examples from history. Angkor Wat was built completed only a couple of decades before it went tits up. And their empire collapsed because of over-exploitation of farmland. It was man made ecological disaster. Large building projects was the last thing they should have embarked on. Yet, they did. Similar for Easter Island. Similar for the Vikings of Greenland. There's a whole bunch of these. For the British empire, it started very tolerant and increasingly became increasingly intolerant and overtly racist, reaching it's peak before the collapse. They spent colossal amounts of money in "civilizing" India. Stuff like that.

 

[Trausti]

Is there a particular empire you're analogizing to? Britain, Rome, Egypt, the Ottomans, even the USA, put up the great monuments during their height. Seems empires fall - if the fall is self-inflicted - when the currency is debased, government overspends, boundaries overextended, citizenship loosely given, and migration patterns dilute the founding population.

I mean the Empire of being the richest region.

Almost all major monuments go up before the fall. That may of course be an effect of monument builders constantly trying to out-do one another. So there's an evolution of grandeur. So whatever was built right before the fall, will be the greatest.

But there are examples from history. Angkor Wat was built completed only a couple of decades before it went tits up. And their empire collapsed because of over-exploitation of farmland. It was man made ecological disaster. Large building projects was the last thing they should have embarked on. Yet, they did. Similar for Easter Island. Similar for the Vikings of Greenland. There's a whole bunch of these. For the British empire, it started very tolerant and increasingly became increasingly intolerant and overtly racist, reaching it's peak before the collapse. They spent colossal amounts of money in "civilizing" India. Stuff like that.

Er, the Colosseum, Trajan's Column, the Pantheon - erected centuries before Rome's demise. Trafalgar Square, Albert Memorial, Marble Arch - certainly built when Britain ruled the waves. Britain had to give up its empire because it became far too expensive to maintain after the costly Second World War.

Perhaps your thesis isn't specific to empires, but that any society that overburdens its available resources is doomed to collapse. Which would be right.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I mean the Empire of being the richest region.

Almost all major monuments go up before the fall. That may of course be an effect of monument builders constantly trying to out-do one another. So there's an evolution of grandeur. So whatever was built right before the fall, will be the greatest.

But there are examples from history. Angkor Wat was built completed only a couple of decades before it went tits up. And their empire collapsed because of over-exploitation of farmland. It was man made ecological disaster. Large building projects was the last thing they should have embarked on. Yet, they did. Similar for Easter Island. Similar for the Vikings of Greenland. There's a whole bunch of these. For the British empire, it started very tolerant and increasingly became increasingly intolerant and overtly racist, reaching it's peak before the collapse. They spent colossal amounts of money in "civilizing" India. Stuff like that.

Er, the Colosseum, Trajan's Column, the Pantheon - erected centuries before Rome's demise. Trafalgar Square, Albert Memorial, Marble Arch - certainly built when Britain ruled the waves. Britain had to give up its empire because it became far too expensive to maintain after the costly Second World War.

Perhaps your thesis isn't specific to empires, but that any society that overburdens its available resources is doomed to collapse. Which would be right.

I'm using the term "empire" loosely. It's just any large cohesive group that wields great power over others spanning centuries.

 

[DBT]

If 'western civilization' does collapse it'll probably be due to changing environmental conditions, destabilizing economies, shifting populations, creating friction and conflict.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If 'western civilization' does collapse it'll probably be due to changing environmental conditions, destabilizing economies, shifting populations, creating friction and conflict.

That's a zero sum game perspective. Our "fall" doesn't mean we're actually falling. Nothing has gone wrong over here. It's just that it's going more right in other places. What has fallen is our dominance. In fifty years time most of the world will be pretty much on par. Even most of Africa. When that happens the west won't be able to dominate anyone else. Assumptions of western superiority and the superiority of whites will become silly.

Let me illustrate it with marbles. This is relative wealth.

1200 AD
India 50
Europe 10

1500 AD
India 70
Europe 60

1700 AD
India 70
Europe 70

1800 AD
India 65
Europe 140

1900 AD
India 70
Europe 250

1950 AD
India 100
Europe 400

1970 AD
India 120
Europe 500

1980 AD
India 200
Europe 550

1990 AD

India 300
Europe 600

2000 AD
India 450
Europe 650

2010 AD
India 600
Europe 700

I'm right now listening to a lecture series on the Vikings. It's striking how darker skin was associated with being civilized, cultured and smart. Vikings had no qualms about taking dark skinned wives. They just didn't see themselves as genetically superior in anyway. The reason for this was all the fancy thingamagigs and technologically superior stuff they bought from these southern lands. It was obvious to the Vikings that they weren't in any way superior. Their myths and stories, in no way, put the Norse as any kind of superior position.

To me it has to do with perceived relative wealth. The Vikings were obviously less wealthy than their southern neighbors. Quite a few viking merchants visited Constantinople. Which was the wealthiest and most impressive city in the world. The Vikings were well aware of how comparatively poor they were. So they wasted no time on concocting racist theories.

 

[DBT]

If 'western civilization' does collapse it'll probably be due to changing environmental conditions, destabilizing economies, shifting populations, creating friction and conflict.

That's a zero sum game perspective. Our "fall" doesn't mean we're actually falling.

Yeah, I didn't actually say anything about 'fall' or 'falling' - I was referring to a possible climate shift and its effect on western economies.

On top of that, I doubt that our way of life, ever increasing consumption (economic growth), is sustainable in the long term.

 

[DrZoidberg]

On top of that, I doubt that our way of life, ever increasing consumption (economic growth), is sustainable in the long term.

When "they" say that our way of life isn't sustainable. What they're talking about is waste. If we just stop wasting stuff, then we'll be fine. We're just going to have to stop eating tiger shrimps, and stop eating so much beef.

Also, if we're more efficient then we also get richer. The IT industry is just expanding more and more. Above all IT is increasing efficiency. That's where the added value lies. And when robots start to seriously take over then we'll see even greater efficiency gains.

"We" will only keep getting wealthier and wealthier. The difference is that the world won't be divided into the developed and the developing world. It'll just be world. And we're getting their fast.

"We" (ie the West) had a huge head start, because the industrial revolution started here. But keeping a head start is hard. So we shouldn't be too hard on ourselves. It's always easier to catch up than to maintain a lead. But we fucked it up.

 

[bilby]

On top of that, I doubt that our way of life, ever increasing consumption (economic growth), is sustainable in the long term.

When "they" say that our way of life isn't sustainable. What they're talking about is waste. If we just stop wasting stuff, then we'll be fine. We're just going to have to stop eating tiger shrimps, and stop eating so much beef.

Also, if we're more efficient then we also get richer. The IT industry is just expanding more and more. Above all IT is increasing efficiency. That's where the added value lies. And when robots start to seriously take over then we'll see even greater efficiency gains.

"We" will only keep getting wealthier and wealthier. The difference is that the world won't be divided into the developed and the developing world. It'll just be world. And we're getting their fast.

"We" (ie the West) had a huge head start, because the industrial revolution started here. But keeping a head start is hard. So we shouldn't be too hard on ourselves. It's always easier to catch up than to maintain a lead. But we fucked it up.

It's not much of a "fuck up" when rich nations get rich more slowly, as a result of allowing poor nations to get rich faster. All those Chinese workers who stole 'our' jobs will soon be bitching about their jobs being 'stolen' by cheap African labour. Which will suck, if you are a middle class Chinaman who wanted to get rich; just as Chinese competition for jobs sucked for middle class Americans. But the global net effect will be sharply positive - Africans deserve jobs too.

And once factories are being built in Africa, so there will be both the demand for, and the money to build, infrastructure and machinery. Look at Africa today, and even in the relatively wealthy parts (eg Kenya and Nigeria) machinery is rare and expensive. If you need foundations dug for a building in Lagos, it is cheaper and faster to get lots of men with shovels to dig it than it is to use a back-hoe. That was true in China too, until recently. And in the west, until not that long ago too.

To get rich, we need automation to 'steal' a LOT of jobs. But we also need to ensure that the 1% don't just take the profits from this automation - a large portion of it needs to be passed down as wages so that there is sufficient demand to keep the economy booming while workers transition to jobs that cannot be automated; and once there are so few such jobs as to make working unnecessary, the wealth needs to be shared equitably so that unemployment can be translated into leisure.

 

[DrZoidberg]

When "they" say that our way of life isn't sustainable. What they're talking about is waste. If we just stop wasting stuff, then we'll be fine. We're just going to have to stop eating tiger shrimps, and stop eating so much beef.

Also, if we're more efficient then we also get richer. The IT industry is just expanding more and more. Above all IT is increasing efficiency. That's where the added value lies. And when robots start to seriously take over then we'll see even greater efficiency gains.

"We" will only keep getting wealthier and wealthier. The difference is that the world won't be divided into the developed and the developing world. It'll just be world. And we're getting their fast.

"We" (ie the West) had a huge head start, because the industrial revolution started here. But keeping a head start is hard. So we shouldn't be too hard on ourselves. It's always easier to catch up than to maintain a lead. But we fucked it up.

It's not much of a "fuck up" when rich nations get rich more slowly, as a result of allowing poor nations to get rich faster. All those Chinese workers who stole 'our' jobs will soon be bitching about their jobs being 'stolen' by cheap African labour. Which will suck, if you are a middle class Chinaman who wanted to get rich; just as Chinese competition for jobs sucked for middle class Americans. But the global net effect will be sharply positive - Africans deserve jobs too.

And once factories are being built in Africa, so there will be both the demand for, and the money to build, infrastructure and machinery. Look at Africa today, and even in the relatively wealthy parts (eg Kenya and Nigeria) machinery is rare and expensive. If you need foundations dug for a building in Lagos, it is cheaper and faster to get lots of men with shovels to dig it than it is to use a back-hoe. That was true in China too, until recently. And in the west, until not that long ago too.

To get rich, we need automation to 'steal' a LOT of jobs. But we also need to ensure that the 1% don't just take the profits from this automation - a large portion of it needs to be passed down as wages so that there is sufficient demand to keep the economy booming while workers transition to jobs that cannot be automated; and once there are so few such jobs as to make working unnecessary, the wealth needs to be shared equitably so that unemployment can be translated into leisure.

Ok, so what happens is that China becomes developed and Africans start stealing Chinese people's jobs. Then Africa also becomes developed. Who's going to steal African jobs? With your scenario it's no one and there's no problem.

But I don't think that will happen. The robot revolution will come. How that will effect our societies is anyone's guess.

 

[Bronzeage]

Throughout history whenever an empire or civilization is in decline, this decline tends to spark a fervent activity in erecting huge monuments and generally just wasting what little resources they have on utter crap. It's all spent in order to prove that which everybody now knows is false, that the empire is great.

Is the election of idiot political leaders in the west the same thing happening? All these guys have in common that they talk about how awesome their country is and how much they vow to keep out immigrants. While the developing world is cheerfully chugging along, and it's not far off now when the developing world will have a standard of living on par with the west.

Are we (in the west) diverting our extra resources in some futile effort to prove our superiority? Is stuff like Brexit and Trump nothing but ego stroking of a battered and falling culture?

It's an interesting supposition, but it doesn't hold up against any empire that I have ever studied. A decline in an empire is always shadows a loss of revenue from their subject states. When this happens, there aren't any huge monuments being built. They do their best to keep the infrastructure intact. Long before the time Rome was no longer the capitol of the western world, maintenance on their famous sewers was no longer possible. They lacked the money and soon after that, lost the engineering expertise. This gradually made the city unlivable and it became the swampy cesspool by the Tiber it had been in the beginning.

An empire is inherently expensive and inefficient. It depends upon an exploitation of the resources of the subject states to survive. The law of diminishing returns cannot be repealed. The center of the Empire spends its money maintaining order to keep the supply lines open, and the feeder states pacified. This can be kept up for a long time, but sooner or later, it breaks down. As Europe became Romanized, it became harder for Robber Governors to extract taxes from the population. Consider the problem getting money out of retired Legionnaires who became French and Spanish farmers.

The period of time we find ourselves in, does not have a parallel in history. We have instant communication and trade across all the oceans. No nation can support itself by theft in our day and time, so the empire model is of little use today.

 

[DBT]

I doubt that the living standard of all nations can be raised to western standards in terms of consumption rate. If it does happen, there are estimates that this would equate to a world population figure of around 70 billion in terms of consumption. If so, it's hard to see how this can be sustainable.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I doubt that the living standard of all nations can be raised to western standards in terms of consumption rate.

Not only can't we raise it, but we can't maintain it. But it's the wrong metric to use. The value of a carpet isn't in how many yak eyelashes and child laborer's tears is in it, but if it's pretty and nice to walk on. Consumption is an odd metric to use. I suggest going with added value (to the consumer). If we manage to make a fully virtualised cyber sex system we can help people maintain and deepen relationships while also saving on fuel (for transport). If we get 3D printing techniques that completely out-compete (which probably will happen) factory produced and then transported goods, then we've saved a colossal amount of energy. 3D-printing has zero waste.

If it does happen, there are estimates that this would equate to a world population figure of around 70 billion in terms of consumption. If so, it's hard to see how this can be sustainable.

The world's population isn't really growing any longer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth

 

[DBT]

The world's population isn't really growing any longer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth

That wasn't my point. The estimate of 70 billion was not a literal population figure, but the ever increasing rate of consumption if third world nations raise their living standards to that of developed nations. Population may not increase, but consumption continues to rise.

Plus there are several estimates of population growth that see a continuation of high birth rates certain regions of the third world.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That wasn't my point. The estimate of 70 billion was not a literal population figure, but the ever increasing rate of consumption if third world nations raise their living standards to that of developed nations. Population may not increase, but consumption continues to rise.

I don't think it'll be a problem. What I think will happen is that we'll get an ecological disaster. Which will suck. After that we'll get global regulations of some sort and most importantly some international body with the ability to regulate it. We won't die. It'll just be some annoying 50 years of mainly vegetarian food and less vacations to exotic places. But otherwise much of the same.

A good comparison is Japan. At some point in the 16'th century they cut down every last one of their trees. This led to just that kind of regulation. It took almost a hundred years but they implanted foreign trees and fixed the problem. There was a similar thing that happened on Island.

There is of course plenty of examples of societies who created ecological disasters who didn't mend their ways and proceeded to march off the historical time-line. If that happens I guess we'll know exactly how stupid our species is.

Plus there are several estimates of population growth that see a continuation of high birth rates certain regions of the third world.

Those high birth rates are today confined to a couple of regions in Africa. Also, countries with seemingly perpetual civil war = high mortality rates. So we know that if those last countries manage to get their act together birth rates will drop, and then it won't be a problem.

 

[DBT]

There are several different views, not all agree on stabilization;

''Eyeing the future, conservationists have clung to the notion that population will peak and then start to decline later this century. Renowned evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson has propounded what he terms the bottleneck theory: that maximum pressure on the natural world will occur this century as human population peaks, after which a declining human population will supposedly ease that pressure. The goal of conservation is therefore to help as much of nature as possible squeeze through this population bottleneck. But what if there is no bottleneck, but rather a long tunnel where the human species continues to multiply?

Population projections most often use a pattern of demographic change called the demographic transition. This model is based on the way in which high birth and death rates changed over the centuries in Europe, declining to the low birth and death rates of today. Thus, projections assume that the European experience will be replicated in developing countries. These projections take for granted three key things about fertility in developing countries. First, that it will continue to decline where it has begun to decline, and will begin to decline where it has not. Second, that the decline will be smooth and uninterrupted. And, finally, that it will decline to two children or less per woman.''
These are levels now found in Europe and North America. But will such low levels find favor in the Nigerias, Pakistans, and Zambias of this world?

The desire for more than two children — often many more than two — will remain an obstacle and will challenge assumptions that world population will level off or decline''.

''In quite a few developing countries, birth rates are declining significantly. But in others they are not. In Jordan, for example, the fertility rate still hovers around 4 children per woman. Indonesia was a country that was widely acknowledged for its innovative and steadfastly pursued family planning program in the 1980s, when its total fertility rate fell to 3 children per woman. It has been hovering for some time around 2.5. In a recent survey, about 30 percent of women with 2 living children said that they wanted another child. That figure was 35 percent for their husbands.''

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Paying wage-earners more than their value is never a good solution to anything.

To get rich, we need automation to 'steal' a LOT of jobs. But we also need to ensure that the 1% don't just take the profits from this automation - a large portion of it needs to be passed down as wages so that there is sufficient demand to keep the economy booming . . .

No, it should be put into infrastructure. If it's put into wages, that discourages employers from hiring -- i.e., having to pay the workers more than their value in the market.

Put it into something that benefits EVERYone, not just to wage-earners. Just pay the wage-earners whatever their market value is, based on supply & demand, to gain the maximum production of wealth.

And there's no need to worry about "sufficient demand" to keep the economy booming.

Wages were very high during the 1920's, but this did not "keep the economy booming."