Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Studying the demise of historic civilisations

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 359 posts

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#41

Post by [deleted] »

glerk wrote: post #30
digitaltrees wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#42

Post by remarkEon »

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.

>...it would make a difference.

It sure would.

If I wanted to design a system to throw society into abject chaos, basically permanently, I can’t think of a better way than a rule of “make it impossible to build something for your children”.

That idea is anti-family, it’s anti-civil-society, and it’s anti-civilization.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#43

Post by HankB99 »

glerk wrote: post #30
digitaltrees wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Power.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#44

Post by drallison »

Ignoring the difficult task of actually deciding when a civilization starts and stops, is there some theory that suggests that duration is the right measure? Don't we need a reasonable model of how civilizations work.

It would be interesting to incorporate and merge the data from Joseph Tainter's Collapse of Complex Societies with the data presented here.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#45

Post by muse900 »

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…

More to your point, we have vilified death a bit too much.

In the past they had poems about death, sung death, created legends.

Dying in the battlefield in an honorable way was seen as a good way to leave this place and go to the next one.

The world needs to renew itself, or else there won't be enough resources to feed one another.

We are at peaceful times but one thing history can show us is our future, and in history there have been times of peace, although they only lasted for a few years.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#46

Post by hungryhobo »

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…

honestly this is just not?true.

the Chinese script have evolved, but one can still look at inscriptions from thousands of years ago and understand it.

it might be hard for people to understand different dialects in China but they all use the same writing system, standardized in the Qin dynasty.

Same with the borrowed Chinese characters in Japanese and Korean. A native Chinese speaker would have little problem reading those, although the pronounciations might be a little different

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#48

Post by discodave »

adrianN wrote: post #26
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.

Remember that the bulk of the worlds population doesn't live in the Anglosphere, or Europe. E.g. if you're from the Middle East, or Africa then you might know a thing or two about revolution, if not war itself.

Additionally, the US has now been engaged in Afghanistan longer than they were in Vietnam. There's a whole generation of Americans who know all about war. In the US, the generation who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, then lived through the Great Recession are about to go into politics.

My prediction is that if we ain't seen nuthin' yet.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#49

Post by skookumchuck »

avinium wrote: post #28
digitaltrees wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A fair tax is one that lands on someone else.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#50

Post by ars »

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.

> Make each generation start from scratch

And how do you prevent people from giving gifts? Parents giving their children a gift of money?

And trusts are a thing, so gift tax would not help as much as you would think.

Post reply on HN