Studying the demise of historic civilisations • Hacker News Board

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#21

Post by supernova87a » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 5:27 AM UTC

You know I lately think that, ok, we're mostly past the age of empires physically conquering one another, we're in the age of economic ebbs and flows of established countries.

And in this kind of age, the thing that sinks a country is not aggression by others, but indifference and lethargy as a country "gets old".

"Getting old" means the political desired and inertia of a rich, settled population get to dominate the goals and priorities of a nation, and it loses its drive to be scrappy, make sacrifices, and do the innovative things when one does when young and poor. You have generations who want to extract the gains put in by past generations. Or it costs too much to change people's behavior.

That's what I think is happening to western Europe and the US. Too many rich, old, soft people who now have settled and moneyed lives, and don't want to make the same sacrifices that the generation previously were forced to, by unfortunate circumstance. Too happy with their 2nd homes and retirement plans.

Unless you have a really conscious and socially adept mechanism to force a people to renew themselves, this sets in. Sometimes, as sad as it is to imagine, I think you need a good war to refresh a country...

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#22

Post by baroffoos » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 5:29 AM UTC

tlhunter wrote: post #12

It looks like the U.S. has another 93 years to look forward to!

Thats assuming all civilizations don't collapse before then due to environmental destruction.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#23

Post by jlawson » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 5:32 AM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #21

You know I lately think that, ok, we're mostly past the age of empires physically conquering one another, we're in the age of economic ebbs and flows of established countries. And in this kind of age, the thing that sinks a country is not aggression by others, but indifference and lethargy as a country "gets old". "Getting old" means the political desired and inertia of a rich, settled population get to dominate the…

I'm pretty sure "getting old" has always been a big part of the collapse of civilizations.

I can think of few that were truly destroyed by unstoppable external forces (maybe the Byzantine Empire being attacked by Muslims?). Most of them seem to have rotted from the inside and were easily knocked over by opportunists (Rome). That said I'm no historian so examples would be interesting.

Also interestingly, America is 243 years old - 93 years to go! Sounds reasonable.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#24

Post by digitaltrees » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 5:35 AM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #21

You know I lately think that, ok, we're mostly past the age of empires physically conquering one another, we're in the age of economic ebbs and flows of established countries. And in this kind of age, the thing that sinks a country is not aggression by others, but indifference and lethargy as a country "gets old". "Getting old" means the political desired and inertia of a rich, settled population get to dominate the…

Get rid of multi generational transfers of wealth. Make each generation start from scratch. I know it's easier said than done as not all assets are fungible or distributable (social networks, geography etc) but it would make a difference. I read recently that the same families that controlled most the wealth in Florence in the 1600 still control most the wealth now, that's probably not good for scrappy innovation.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#25

Post by nitwit005 » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 5:36 AM UTC

dak1 wrote: post #5

xiaodai wrote: post #2

Is it true to say that China is the longest surviving civilization? They seem to think that Shang and Zhou are different civilisations? Instead of a continuity as they like to call it in China. There are good reasons why they should be considered continuations because they shared a similiar script for writing.

The script has changed considerably over time between different dynasties, and different areas have had mutually unintelligible languages, even if sharing similar script. For example: Japan shares many characters with Chinese, and Korean and Vietnamese both used to use Chinese characters, but they are all separate languages. Similarly, numerous "dialects" in China are less mutually intelligible than many different We…

> Did you know that after the Ottoman Empire conquered Constantinople, Sultan Mehmed viewed himself as the successor of the Roman Empire and declared himself "Caesar of Rome"?

I was previously curious how many countries declared themselves to be the heirs of the Roman empire, and I found there is something of a wikipedia list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#26

Post by adrianN » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 5:38 AM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #21

You know I lately think that, ok, we're mostly past the age of empires physically conquering one another, we're in the age of economic ebbs and flows of established countries. And in this kind of age, the thing that sinks a country is not aggression by others, but indifference and lethargy as a country "gets old". "Getting old" means the political desired and inertia of a rich, settled population get to dominate the…

I don't think we're past the age of physical conquering. It's been less than a hundred years since the last World War. That's not particularly long, historically speaking. The pattern seems to be that a new major war starts not long after the eyewitnesses of the last one have all died. If that holds true, the next few decades or so will be interesting.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#27

Post by bsanr » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 5:39 AM UTC

Let me throw a wrench into things with a provocative statement (which I have no intention of citing support for):

The affluence of Western Europe and the US was not built on hard work and ingenuity so much as the exploitation of cheap labor and the sudden access to deep veins of basic resources or economic/industrial efficiencies which were either already extant but inaccessible without a critical mass of capital, or else were inevitable on an imminent timescale given past development.

Have at it.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#28

Post by avinium » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 5:41 AM UTC

digitaltrees wrote: post #24

supernova87a wrote: post #21

You know I lately think that, ok, we're mostly past the age of empires physically conquering one another, we're in the age of economic ebbs and flows of established countries. And in this kind of age, the thing that sinks a country is not aggression by others, but indifference and lethargy as a country "gets old". "Getting old" means the political desired and inertia of a rich, settled population get to dominate the…

Get rid of multi generational transfers of wealth. Make each generation start from scratch. I know it's easier said than done as not all assets are fungible or distributable (social networks, geography etc) but it would make a difference. I read recently that the same families that controlled most the wealth in Florence in the 1600 still control most the wealth now, that's probably not good for scrappy innovation.

A death/inheritance tax seems an absolute no-brainer to me - and I consider myself fairly conservative.

That doesn't mean increasing the overall tax burden, either - it could be introduced to offset income tax reductions. It seems much "fairer" to me.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#29

Post by a2dictator » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 5:41 AM UTC

xiaodai wrote: post #2

Is it true to say that China is the longest surviving civilization? They seem to think that Shang and Zhou are different civilisations? Instead of a continuity as they like to call it in China. There are good reasons why they should be considered continuations because they shared a similiar script for writing.

Not China. Indian (Vedic or Hindu) civilization is the oldest surviving civilization. The Chinese civilization(s) were overran by the Mongols. There was also a stat that 1 in 6 Chinese is a descendent of the Mongol Chengiz Khan.

And before you say "Aryans", please know that that has been debunked too many times now.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#30

Post by glerk » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 5:42 AM UTC

digitaltrees wrote: post #24

supernova87a wrote: post #21

You know I lately think that, ok, we're mostly past the age of empires physically conquering one another, we're in the age of economic ebbs and flows of established countries. And in this kind of age, the thing that sinks a country is not aggression by others, but indifference and lethargy as a country "gets old". "Getting old" means the political desired and inertia of a rich, settled population get to dominate the…

Get rid of multi generational transfers of wealth. Make each generation start from scratch. I know it's easier said than done as not all assets are fungible or distributable (social networks, geography etc) but it would make a difference. I read recently that the same families that controlled most the wealth in Florence in the 1600 still control most the wealth now, that's probably not good for scrappy innovation.

What is the point of accumulating wealth over this short life if I can’t leave anything to my children?