121–130 of 359 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other nations such as China or Russia have comparable or arguably better cheap labor stocks or natural resources. Then Japan has almost zero natural resources and nearly had a shot at taking over the world...
But the first step in Japan's plan to "take over the world" was to take control of China.
These are awfully contested dates. Hun: 100? Vedic: 1000? Etc. These statistics obscure more than they explain, I think.
I can speak to the Vedic dates. Those are contested but only due to their novelty, meaning they are MUCH older than what western media gives them credit for. And the Vedic civilization exists to this day in India as Sanatana Dharma followers or as the ancient Greeks & the modern Western world calls it - Hindus.
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.
More of a metastable meta-civilization. Over thousands of years, they keep collapsing and re-forming the same country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever seen Connections[0]? Do watch it if you haven't[1]. They communicate well what's IMO a crucial point: almost never a single person had invented the "whole solution". The story of civilization is one of individual inventions being made over time, and then coming together to click into place and create something pushing us forward even further. It did happen in the past like it is happening today; both th…
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…
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.
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…
Given that we are supposedly past the age of aggression and conquering, do you think a peaceful society that keeps to itself is capable of surviving on its own, with a level of happiness that is high by their own (if not world) standards?
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.
Greeks don't count, then? They have the oldest recorded living language. Give me a metric of how China is a civilization that doesn't make Greece also a civilization. Really they're just land masses with specific ethnic groups and traditions. Greek traditions have probably changed a lot more than Chinese traditions over 3,000 years, but much change determines a civilization?
Change happens faster in the centers of civilization. So change is as much an indicator of the degree of civilization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A fair tax is one that lands on someone else.
I'll assume you're being glib. One of the most attractive features of a death tax is that it applies to everybody. After all, nobody escapes death. Of course, that doesn't mean it'll be loved universally. Some people just hate taxes. Others don't like the idea of not being able to pass on their life's work to their children. But most reasonable people understand the need for taxation. It's a lot easier to stomach the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it is not, case in point: Great Britain
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People bitch and moan about how unfair everything is and while it is unfair the wealth the poorest individual has in the united states is light years ahead of what kings had in the middle ages. According to all observations the most likely end to modern civilization is over exploitation and over usage of natural resources. The amount of resources available and the amount we use point to a trend that has one conclusio…
People bitch and moan about how unfair everything is and while it is unfair the wealth the poorest individual has in the united states is light years ahead of what kings had in the middle ages. Throughout history poor people were happy because they believed they were born to that life so they didn't have the stress or jealousy of believing life was unfair to them. If you read any old philosophy book it's all lessons…
Such a speculative statement. You cannot predict the behavior of a group of people anymore than you can predict a stock. I would say a more realistic statement to your topic is:
People can be happy with what they have and be unhappy with what they have and throughout history many people have felt either way. It is not a new phenomenon. Whether these feelings lead to revolution in the future is impossible to determine.
You need to look at trendlines, data points and evidence.
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…