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

171–180 of 359 posts

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#171

Post by zubspace »

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 blame inheritance of wealth and the possibility of unlimited accumulation of richness for this.

In my opinion, property and money, which someone amassed during his lifetime, should automatically be devoted to the common good after that person's gone. In my opinion it's insane, that someone lucky can inherit a fortune by basically doing nothing. There are things which make sense to inherit, like family enterprises, but there should be a limit.

I also believe, that as an individual, there should be an upper bound to how rich you can be. Does it really make sense, that an individual person can have more than a seven-digit pool of money on his bank? Is there a way to limit the crazy strive for individual richness? If there would be a limit, we could basically invest the free money collectively into old and new enterprises which would not simply act as money printers for a few individuals, but actually profit society as a whole... Just a crazy idea...

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#173

Post by skrebbel »

muse900 wrote: post #91
skrebbel wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dying in the battlefield in an honorable way was seen as a good way to leave this place and go to the next one. Do you really not see that this was sick propaganda, propagated by evil dictators in need of cannon (sword?) fodder? There's nothing honorable about war or battlefields. It's the worst of the human condition, distilled to the highest concentration. War is repugnant, evil, and unnecessary. We humans should…

I am not too narrow minded so I see war as a not good thing and a as a not bad thing. I don't like seeing anything in this world as a good or a bad thing. War is something that comes to us by default. Its in our nature, as its in every animals nature for survival. Its not something pushed to us by dictators and what not. Also I don't agree with your sentence of removing poems, legends and whatever from the internet.…

About war being neither good or bad but unavoidable, I don't think we'll come to an agreement. I truly believe that we can make the world free of war through a combination of honesty about the horrors of war (so that well-fed people stop supporting it) and the technological progress which will inevitably give all humans food on their table and a roof over their heads (iff we don't fuck up the climate first).

Your argument is well formulated, however, and while I disagree with it I appreciate the way you bring it. Thanks for that.

> Also I don't agree with your sentence of removing poems, legends and whatever from the internet.

But I didn't suggest anything of the sort. You didn't cite these poems as a matter of historical fact, you referred to them in mild agreement to make a point. There's a major difference. I'm surprised that you interpret an attack on your argument as an attempt to censor history. Not every pacifist is a marxist.

In fact, I suspect that we strongly agree that ideas that people used to support but most Westerners now think of as barbarian (eg "homosexuals are evil", "black people are animals but they can harvest cotton pretty well" and IMO also "dying for your warlord is honorable") should remain accessible in history books, online and offline.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#174

Post by baud147258 »

lm28469 wrote: post #161
_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's quite a bit of change in Britain as well. There was a fascist dictatorship from 1649 until 1660. Nor is 1688 insignificant. (And it's only Great Britain from 1707).

And it went from the largest colonial empire / power in the world to an island voting to get out of the EU in a few decades. Sure they're still Britain but it changed a lot. (it also apply to France, Germany, Belgium, and probably a lot more)

I'd argue that France has changed a lot more during the same time, at least regarding the regime changes (from 1788: monarchy, constitutional monarchy, republic (1st), dictatorship, empire (with Napoleon), monarchy, republic (2nd), empire (2nd Empire with Napoleon III), republic (3rd), fascist dictatorship (Vichy), republic (4th & 5th)).

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#175

Post by lurcio »

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.

Why not cut inequality at the root: prevent children accruing socio-economic advantages from the moment of birth

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#176

Post by retsibsi »

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…

> Sometimes, as sad as it is to imagine, I think you need a good war to refresh a country...

Please think about this in concrete terms. Not just the abstract concept 'war', but the specific instances of brutal violence, intense prolonged suffering, anguish and grief that happen thousands upon thousands of times in any war. What do you hope to gain that would make this worthwhile? Even accepting all of your dubious premises, is national renewal worth that price?

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#177

Post by baud147258 »

KorematsuFred wrote: post #14

Typical western garbage. Applying vague nation state ideas to civilization. Hindus for example have seen thousands of years as their own unbroken history. Many mantras that I chant today are at least 1500 year old.

And the catholic prayers that I chant today are 2000 years old.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#178

Post by levosmetalo »

trentmb wrote: post #75
adrianN wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Crimea

That was not war. No single bullet fired there.

It's the population of one part of one country democratically deciding on a referendum they don't want to live in a country that is violating their basic human rights and threatening their existence, and decided to join a country that can guarantee peace and their well-being.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#179

Post by rvn1045 »

foreigner wrote: post #170

we have the unique advantage of being able to learn from the wreckages of societies past Why do we have that unique advantage? Plenty of civilisations had historians.

the number of recent discoveries in just the last 100 years is astonishing. the Indus valley civilization was not even discovered until 1929. We have a fuller picture of human history than ever before.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#180

Post by coldtea »

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…

>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.

That's the case for now, sure.

But that's also exactly what got ancient Athens and Sparta, Rome, Byzantium, and other empires of the past. Outsiders wouldn't do scratch if those empires weren't already rotting from inside for reasons such as those that you've mentioned.

In Rome and Byzantium, for example, such a decline is more or less the established historical narrative.

Post reply on HN