Studying the demise of historic civilisations • Hacker News Board

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#181

Post by retsibsi » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 10:17 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #111

pjc50 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite hiding it well, this is an extremely fascist post in ideology - the idea that the west is decadent and needs a bit more violence was very prevalent in the 30s.

The fact that Stalin believed 2+2=4 doesn't invalidate math by association with mass murder. Do you have a reason to suspect GP is in fact maliciously trying to push fascist ideology? Because that's what your comment implies, and does not hide it well.

The post is all about the need for a decadent nation to 'refresh' itself. It toys with the idea of 'a really conscious and socially adept mechanism to force a people to renew themselves', before concluding that (sadly) mass death and destruction is the answer.

Maybe that doesn't fill a political scientist's checklist for fascism, but you don't need to look very hard to see some unsettling parallels.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#182

Post by dredmorbius » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 10:18 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #124

raverbashing wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I loved Connections > Like it often is with wealth, we're not special - our current empires just had richer parents and bigger accumulated base of inventions. We can build cooler stuff now than our ancestors Yes, totally agree. But what I'm saying is that those old empires didn't have technological evolution as a goal (maybe the latter ones) hence they didn't really think of it. Sure, evolution and ideas take time…

> Sure, evolution and ideas take time, but it seems it took much less time once the right mindset was in place. Right. But come to think of it, that mindset is, too, a technology. It took a while to develop, and its evolution seems to be intertwined with the inventions humans made over time, and the shape societies took.

mindset is, too, a technology

Hrm... Would you consider that independent of technical or causal (scientific) knowledge? Is it values, or more than just that?

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#183

Post by coldtea » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 10:19 AM UTC

retsibsi wrote: post #176

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 pr…

>Even accepting all of your dubious premises, is national renewal worth that price?

Depends on two things:

1) One's priorities. Some might view the aggregate (the country) as bigger thing than individual people. Under this view, the importance of the lives (or worse, the importance of having comfortable lives) for a present generation can be deemed worth it to the freedom, prosperity, etc. of generations to come (and to the continuance of the country itself and its state and way of life etc., which in some cases might be totally obliterated by decline, e.g. Rome).

2) The question presupposes that avoiding war would avoid "brutal violence, intense prolonged suffering, anguish and grief" later. In many cases, that's not the case. Instead, the decline can bring with it violence, intense prolonged suffering, anguish and grief -- only without anybody doing anything before to resist those things.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#184

Post by dredmorbius » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 10:19 AM UTC

benj111 wrote: post #139

raverbashing wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What were those mines producing?

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#185

Post by coldtea » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 10:21 AM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #42

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.

>...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.

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

As if family is not about loving and preparing your kids for life (and being good citizens etc), but padding their bank accounts so they don't have to work...

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#186

Post by arethuza » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 10:21 AM UTC

_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #128

mamon wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also: Poland, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, pretty much every European nation. Edit: Seems that GP conflates "nation" and "state". If we're counting continuity of government, they probably only Great Britain is a good example, other countries had undergone many changes, from absolutism, to constitutional monarchy, to non-existence, to democracy, to fascist dictatorships.

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).

There has indeed been a lot of change - the UK in its current form only dates from 1922!

However, the lineage of the what is now the UK does stretch back in places over a thousand years to the creation of Scotland and England as separate unified kingdoms in the 9th & 10th centuries.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#187

Post by saiya-jin » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 10:25 AM UTC

levosmetalo wrote: post #178

trentmb wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As a sarcasm that's a good summary. If you actually mean it, that's another story...

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#188

Post by coldtea » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 10:25 AM UTC

pasabagi wrote: post #102

guelo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civilization has been a long struggle to prevent powerful people from passing on their wealth and power to their children. I mean, most of the history of civilization has indeed functioned the way you describe, but many of the achievements of the past few hundred years has been thanks to the monumental effort to strengthen meritocracy, rule of law and democracy in order to limit the transfer of power hereditarily.

Interesting point. One thing that speaks for the relative harmlessness of hereditary wealth is, what happens when it gets passed on to an insane/idiotic/psychopathic heir. In these cases, it normally gets rapidly redistributed, as the heir wastes their fortune. In the case of normal 'power', it doesn't get really redistributed, so everybody has to deal with Emperor Caligula.

>Interesting point. One thing that speaks for the relative harmlessness of hereditary wealth is, what happens when it gets passed on to an insane/idiotic/psychopathic heir. In these cases, it normally gets rapidly redistributed, as the heir wastes their fortune.

We are past that now. Now we have advisors, funds, elite accountants, and all kinds of dead easy ways to invest and keep huge wealth long term, for even the most inane person. Plus those people are not accountable to anyone. It's not like a hated heir of a royal who has to tread lightly anymore, lest the senate or the people take them down...

In fact, inane people can even make a great fortune from scratch in this era, what with the various famous-for-being-famous celebrities...

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#189

Post by dredmorbius » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 10:28 AM UTC

budadre75 wrote: post #13

The US lasted 243 years. Is it the oldest modern nation? I wonder, how will the modern nations different from the ancient ones?

Japan probably claims that crown: 660 BCE.

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

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#190

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 10:32 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #111

pjc50 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite hiding it well, this is an extremely fascist post in ideology - the idea that the west is decadent and needs a bit more violence was very prevalent in the 30s.

The fact that Stalin believed 2+2=4 doesn't invalidate math by association with mass murder. Do you have a reason to suspect GP is in fact maliciously trying to push fascist ideology? Because that's what your comment implies, and does not hide it well.

I should probably have bothered to write more but was on mobile. Anyway, the core of the OP arguments are (a) "Too many rich, old, soft people who now have settled and moneyed lives", (b) "I think you need a good war to refresh a country..." and (c) "sacrifice" (twice)

(a) is not an uncommon sentiment, but usually leads either to to the "fully automated luxury communism" argument that everyone should lead lives of luxury, or that nobody should live in luxury (which is more Pol Pot Maoist). This post leaves it rather ambiguous where the luxury should go. I would accept the argument that the post is Maoist rather than fascist if it came with some elaboration.

(b) is the dead giveaway. The idea of war as stiffener of moral fiber, or renewal of the "people", is the core of Nietsche / Mein Kampf / Triumph of the Will kinds of ideological material. Someone writing that before WW1 could be naive. Someone writing it after WW2, when it became apparent what all this actually meant in practice, is effectively saying that mass murder is better than "indifference and lethargy" or "2nd homes and retirement plans". It's one thing to want to die before you get old, quite another to want to abolish retirement for everyone else through war.

(c) The word "sacrifice" appears twice in the original post, loosely linked to (b). At no point is it clear who is expected to sacrifice what, to whom, and for what purpose. This makes me suspicious that the intended (human?) sacrifice might be ... whom exactly?

(A quick scan of the OP's comment history does not reveal any other comments that look even slightly fascist, so I'm willing to assume this was simply poor taste rather than active malice)