21–30 of 209 posts
Eh, I grew up with the faces on TV constantly blabbering about the "decadent West" and yet my country and most of the ex-USSR has deteriorated worse than any western one. My eyes kind of roll every time someone says decadent society as it reminds me of communist propaganda. Not seeing much of those four horsemen, either.
Well, there's something you don't see very often these days: conservative intellectuals. The old stalwarts of Ross Douthat and the AEI. The problem is though, if you skip ahead to the conclusion: > [T]he only thing more frightening than the possibility of annihilation is the possibility that our society could coast on forever as it is—like a Rome without an Attila to sack its palaces, or a Nineveh without Yahweh to p…
Frankly, the historical record is not encouraging. Usually, when this topic comes up people chime in with easy takeaways like "people have always complained about this, and it rarely amounted to anything", "look at this thing that happened recently that's never happened before. It's proof that we're doing better than any other civilization ever has", or "things have not been going according to my value system, therefore doom is approaching!"
It's possible to cite example-after-example of these phrases coming up when the conversation happens in the historical record. And yet. And yet at times civilizations do die, and there was plenty of warning while it was happening. The problem is that denial and complaceny is tough to fight. When the Emperors took over Rome, it kept the Senate around. They gradually stopped having power, but by keeping them around, it was possible for the illusion of things staying the same to remain. People, with the very smallest prodding, are more than happy to believe that everything is as good as it used to be, plus there's all this new cool stuff we've never seen before!
Hell, ask a few people when the Western Roman Empire ended. Good luck with that. There are folks who will tell you it never did end. If you're that far in denial, how could you ever reason from your current historical position to the long run?
Many times I think conversations like this are much more interesting by the types of responses you get than the actual merits of the case presented.
If our civilization is entering the great 1984/Brave New World Fizzle, I can tell you with certainty that there will be fierce denial that such a thing is occurring. Just like always.
Well, there's something you don't see very often these days: conservative intellectuals. The old stalwarts of Ross Douthat and the AEI. The problem is though, if you skip ahead to the conclusion: > [T]he only thing more frightening than the possibility of annihilation is the possibility that our society could coast on forever as it is—like a Rome without an Attila to sack its palaces, or a Nineveh without Yahweh to p…
I think that the article is not saying anything about ought-to-be matters. Just what-is observational statement.
It's not that it 'must' be, by some moral standard, be destroyed. It's that it would be destroyed by inevitable laws of objective reality, which, like gravity, do not take any moral stance.
Ezra Klein had Ross Douthat (the author) on his podcast to discuss the book and it’s a great conversation. Highly recommend. It’s billed as a debate but it’s not at all contentious, at least I didn’t get that impression. https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/6/17/21293202/ross-douthat...
> . It’s billed as a debate but it’s not at all contentious,
Does Erza ever debate though?( not counting sam harris episode). He seem to invite ppl who already kind of agree with his worldview and amplifies their thoughts.
He was on IQsuared debates but it wasn't a debate, he was just reading excerpts out of his book.
> But there is also the possibility of a worst case that he describes in a chapter titled “Catastrophe.” Suppose that climate change has created an uninhabitable equator. The aging advanced nations cannot sustain their deficit-financed prosperity. The population of Africa continues its rapid growth, resulting in a mass migration into Europe that meets increasing resistance. Reading this reminded me a bit of reading t…
Playing devil's advocate here: perhaps that's because we always think of things that we're doing now as "right"? For instance there are societies in history that were open to some sexual relationships that we are not (mainly the ones involving minors or incest). At times in european history, animals were tried for crimes similarly to people. Are we more or less progressive than they are?
Life is a lot easier these days, thanks in no small part to advances in cars. As an American, cars are a central feature of your life. I feel like a large part of my “character building” years was spent struggling with unreliable, old, leaky, carbureted cars. All the energies I spent keeping that thing running could have better spent working or socializing. And yet I have a deep appreciation for what it takes to make…
Unfortunately true and frankly one of my least favorite features of American life.
> But there is also the possibility of a worst case that he describes in a chapter titled “Catastrophe.” Suppose that climate change has created an uninhabitable equator. The aging advanced nations cannot sustain their deficit-financed prosperity. The population of Africa continues its rapid growth, resulting in a mass migration into Europe that meets increasing resistance. Reading this reminded me a bit of reading t…
It would not be strange. It would be unexpected. It reminds me of this funny little story:
> "Every morning on a turkey farm, the farmer comes to feed the turkeys. A scientist turkey, having observed this pattern to hold without change for almost a year, makes the following discovery: “Every morning at eleven, food arrives.” On the morning of Thanksgiving, the scientist announces this law to the other turkeys. But that morning at eleven, food doesn’t arrive; instead, the farmer comes and kills the entire flock."
Murray, and the AEI he works for, have fought against higher wages for workers and social mobility for decades. I don't take seriously him bemoaning the results of what he has helped do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say quaint. To me it seems remarkably out of touch with the real problems Americans face.
A government in the geopolitical landscape is much like an organism in the environment. Evolution is spurred on not by chance, but by selective pressure that prunes out the weak and unstable. We've entered an era where Mutually Assured Destruction has reduced that selective pressure of superpowers down to nothing. In this environment, power can easily be pulled from citizens and placed into the hands of the autocrats…
for the lines of thought which I believe inspired 1984's Eastasia, Eurasia, and Oceania.
(the latter of which Airstrip One will have joined by the end of this year)
Edit: for GP, I believe BR 'quaint' == US 'out of touch', much like BR 'brave' == US 'will lose you the next election'.