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

131–140 of 359 posts

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#131

Post by benj111 »

jacobush wrote: post #99
wallace_f wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is misleading. I think when tossing out the credence of people such as Wadhington or Jefferson with the slavery problem, there is very little context understood about the cultural norms, science and religion those people lived in. The problem was that they did not see other races as people as they saw themselves. They saw their lives and societies and thought of them as savages. They further justified th…

And nothing in your argument, addresses the claim that wealth was amassed through slavery.

Try reading the comment he responded to.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#132

Post by dalbasal »

bilbo0s wrote: post #32

Does it seem to anyone else that they have conflated "civilization" and "political entity" for lack of a better term? Serious question. It just seems that a lot of entries on this list are actually part of the same civilization. In the same way that I would consider the Spanish Empire, the British Empire, and the American Empire to be really all a part of the same Western Civilization. But maybe my thinking is totall…

No matter how you define or name these things, your definitions will still be arbitrary. Polity. Empire. Civilization. It's like defining species, or musicals genres. There's obviously a there there, but it's not discreet.

Civilization or polity don't really have discrete meanings or beginning/end dates. Did Cyrus' civilization really end when Alexander beat the Persian imperial armies? Most of the political structures endured and then evolved under Hellenism. Did Hellenism end when Rome conquered the "world?" Well... Greek language and culture continued to dominate politically for another 1000 years.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#133

Post by kolinko »

mnm1 wrote: post #105
remarkEon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...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.

It might be anti your family while being pro 10, 100, or even 10,000 other families, depending on the wealth amassed. That sounds incredibly pro-civilization and pro-society.

Forbidding people from passing on wealth (or anything else) to their children seems inhumane - and wealthy people are still people with emotions and feelings.

Personally, I would sooner accept 90% tax to the rich&living, than 100% tax upon death.

Both are theoretical of course - there is no way to enforce them really without hurting overall society. There is also no need I think. A better solution is to make sure that wealth doesn't give too much unfair privilege, and that basic living conditions are guaranteed to everyone - we are getting closer to this every decade.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#134

Post by benj111 »

geowwy wrote: post #60
ddxxdd wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think a King George Washington would preside over a young America as affluent as President George Washington did. Tyranny has a way of sequestering innovative spirit.

What makes you think King George Washington would be a tyrant?

He might not be, but what about his son, or his sons son?

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#136

Post by usrusr »

jjoonathan wrote: post #61
dcow wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now, good ol’ western civilization experiences regression to the mean.

Economic and industrial efficiencies don't just inevitably "run out."

They stop exponential growth, and that's a good thing in the end.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#137

Post by _Microft »

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…

Unless you have a really conscious and socially adept mechanism to force a people to renew themselves, this sets in.

This is exactly the problem we need to solve as well if we ever manage to increase the human lifespan. Instead of society advancing one funeral at a time (c.f. Max Planck on science) as in the past, permanent change would have to come from every individual at a much higher rate than now.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#138

Post by sametmax »

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…

> 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.

Not sure.

First, the US did invade a lot of places in the last decades, and while they didn't officially turned the countries into US colonies, they still do have massive political and economical influence there, and benefit from the local resources.

But even if you discard this, it's assuming the future will be the same as today, which is unlikely. In the entire human history we never had a single day without a war somewhere on earth. The possibility that our countries will __never__ be at war again on their on soil is slim: we have many tomorrows to create situations where it can happen.

We massively consume limited resources in a close system. We destroy systems that regerate resources we need, a destabilize the balance our organisms a based on, and we have hugely powerful weapons. Conquerying one another is still a tempting solution to many problems.

E.G: India has more than 1 billion people, almost no water, extremly strong social tensions, hot borders, pollution in mass and the nuclear bomb. Anything triggering here can easily creep on to the entire world.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#139

Post by benj111 »

raverbashing wrote: post #78
ajross wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have an example of a lasting empire that... did not do all of that stuff? I mean, honestly that statement seems kind of laughably wrong.

Compare the evolution of the big empires of the past with the evolution in the last 500 years or even the last 250 years. The Roman Empire had a water system and concrete to make the Coliseum. Relied on slave labour up until the end. Made a plant that was used as contraception extinct. Given the time they stood, I'd say their scientific/mathematical progress was nimble. Egyptian empire: invented geometry, still had s…

"and got behind when the English started using machine labour"

What do you mean by machine labour here?

If you're referring to steam engines I think you're drawing a causal link that isn't justified. The dates at best line up to early steam engines. They were massively inefficient and used for pumping out mines, they weren't exactly transformative to the nation.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#140

Post by xref »

wallace_f wrote: post #74
pjc50 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Washington was a slave owner. Tyranny, but only for some people.

I think this is misleading. I think when tossing out the credence of people such as Wadhington or Jefferson with the slavery problem, there is very little context understood about the cultural norms, science and religion those people lived in. The problem was that they did not see other races as people as they saw themselves. They saw their lives and societies and thought of them as savages. They further justified th…

> The slave owner like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson was in some ways like an extreme version of the modern liberal -- seeing the person of color as needing an authority to rule over them and provide them with things like welfare, access to education, etc.

You’re being downvoted because you chose to regurgitate alt-right theology to lay history’s problems at the doorstep of “liberal guilt”

The largest group of benificaries of public education? Whites.

The largest group of beneficiaries of welfare? Whites.

Post reply on HN