Studying the demise of historic civilisations • Hacker News Board

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#251

Post by dredmorbius » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 2:04 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #199

dredmorbius wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think it's just values. Knowledge and technology plays into this too. I don't have a fully fleshed out model in my head just yet, but I imagine it like this: humans seem to have a pretty fixed emotional and cognitive makeup. What changes is the landscape in which we operate - what technologies are available, what customs exist in our times, what are the core "cultural memes". Kind of like water flowing downhi…

Interesting. I've been thinking along similar lines, though not yet incorporating mindset or worldview, instead focusing more on technological mechanisms:

Briefly addressed here: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5rnjg0/state_o...

More:

https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/klsjjjzzl9plqxz-ms8nww

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#252

Post by Cthulhu_ » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 2:06 PM UTC

glerk wrote: post #30

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.

What is the point of accumulating wealth over this short life if I can’t leave anything to my children?

I'll bite; Living comfortably, safe, well-fed and long; enjoying luxuries like vacations, media consumption, knowledge accumulation, etc. Being able to give your children a safe home to grow up in, an education so they can build up their own life instead of depend on you and your own accumulated wealth.

I had all this, thankfully, even without my parents being rich. They grew up in a time and area where they could still buy a decently sized house and have children on a single income. They struggled, but they made it.

Thanks to living in a (more) socialist country, taxpayer money paid for my education, allowing me higher social mobility than my parents. Ten or so years into my career, I've paid what was invested in me by the other tax payers a few times over already.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#253

Post by vixen99 » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 2:08 PM UTC

mnm1 wrote: post #143

stcredzero wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, anyone could build a prosperous society on the back of slaves if they have some natural resources to exploit. But that ceases to be competitive past a certain level of technology and value-add. Even slaves in the American South got paid extra for work requiring exceptional skill and attention to detail. It turns out you can't whip people into producing quality past a very basic level. The legacy of th…

Are you saying that black people aren't suffering today due to slavery and Jim Crow? How do you explain that the median white household wealth is sixteen times that of black households? Or is that a leftist conspiracy also? https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2015/03/26/the-racial...

You should check a general reference on slavery across the world (including slavery of Europeans during the late middle ages). There seems to be not a single country whose citizens have not enslaved someone or other at sometime throughout history. I am not as rich as Jeff Bezos or indeed hundreds of thousands of other folk. Now how can you explain that? Answer to your question: yes, a leftist conspiracy.

If you really want some explanations for the lower relative wealth of black households, try reading Thomas Sowell.

https://tsowell.com/

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#254

Post by billfruit » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

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…

One defenition of Civilizations as per historian Arnold Toynbee (I am quoting from Wikipedia page for his work "The Study of History") is as follows:

"The 19 major civilizations, as Toynbee sees them, are: Egyptian, Andean, Sinic, Minoan, Sumerian, Mayan, Indic, Hittite, Hellenic, Western, Orthodox Christian (Russia), Far Eastern, Orthodox Christian (main body), Persian, Arabic, Hindu, Mexican, Yucatec, and Babylonic. There are four "abortive civilizations" (Abortive Far Western Christian, Abortive Far Eastern Christian, Abortive Scandinavian, Abortive Syriac) and five "arrested civilizations" (Polynesian, Eskimo, Nomadic, Ottoman, Spartan), for a total of 28."

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#255

Post by jessaustin » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 2:11 PM UTC

agent008t wrote: post #247

jessaustin wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of rich people madly spending their wealth would be great for GDP. The luxury industries would prosper, and those who work in those industries would also accumulate wealth to spend madly. Those who truly have a vision for improving the world would still get to do that. Or, maybe... if there were less of an advantage to accumulating wealth, we wouldn't destroy ourselves and the environment quite so madly while do…

1. GDP is not a great measure. If a rich person consumes capital by buying a yacht and then burning it, the world is now poorer - resources (human and material) went into building the yacht, and now they are gone. Wealth has been consumed, yet GDP showed an increase. 2. If the world is poorer, it will be able to afford to protect the environment less, not more. The wealthier a nation, or a neighbourhood is, the more…

If you want to tax anything, it is probably better to tax (frivolous) consumption, i.e. wealth destruction, instead of wealth creation.

Sure, I agree, but we're talking about estate tax ITT.

It's nice to imagine that switching from income taxes to VAT (with appropriate progressive adjustments for the poor) would allow the merely hardworking rather than just the lucky and unscrupulous to accumulate wealth, but it's not clear that would be the case.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#256

Post by billfruit » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #246

dak1 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The script has changed considerably over time between different dynasties, and different areas have had mutually unintelligible languages, even if sharing similar script. For example: Japan shares many characters with Chinese, and Korean and Vietnamese both used to use Chinese characters, but they are all separate languages. Similarly, numerous "dialects" in China are less mutually intelligible than many different We…

Not to forget that the current Chinese government is trying to work hard to erase the diversity of the entirety of China, trying to get everyone to use the same spoken and written language - iirc they already use the same written language, it's just that people will speak the same characters differently depending on region.

The French did something similar in France, changed a rather diversity country into a monoculture, in a period of around 100 years.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#257

Post by gerbilly » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC

viach wrote: post #230

dagaci wrote: post #194

Many of these great "empires" were simply extended looting machines, once they ran out of looting opportunities they collapsed in the same way that a Ponzi collapses when it run out of new "investors". While things were good, it was all golden, glitter and glam, and many tall buildings. Loot of course takes many forms, gold, silvers, the work of serfs, the work of slaves, monopolies on trade routes, monopolies on tra…

>> Loot of course takes many forms, gold, silvers, the work of serfs, the work of slaves Gas, oil, fresh air, ...

Water, lumber (formerly known as trees), open land, furs, fish ...

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#258

Post by gerbilly » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 2:15 PM UTC

dagaci wrote: post #226

dalbasal wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bronze age civilisations of the middle east (Akkad, Hati, Egypt) didn't follow this pattern. Egypt, for example, was a Nile + delta empire for most of the three kingdoms/periods. It's only towards the end of the new Kingdom that they expanded into nearby Canaan, and fought frontier wars against hittites along the Phoenician coast (eg, the famous battle of kadesh). Rome definitely did have an expansion imperative.…

Egyptian Civilization was sustained because of the Nile delta productivity. Literally all the nutrients gathered over 1/4 of the of the African continent are deposited nowhere else along the river route but in Nile delta, this unique phenomenon of nature meant this area is extremely resilient and can withstand any level of exploitation. Egyptian Civilization continued for over 3000 years (what we know about) which is…

It's a good thing they dammed (damned?) the Nile then, to keep that rich alluvial soil away. :-)

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#259

Post by boudin » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 2:15 PM UTC

viach wrote: post #230

dagaci wrote: post #194

Many of these great "empires" were simply extended looting machines, once they ran out of looting opportunities they collapsed in the same way that a Ponzi collapses when it run out of new "investors". While things were good, it was all golden, glitter and glam, and many tall buildings. Loot of course takes many forms, gold, silvers, the work of serfs, the work of slaves, monopolies on trade routes, monopolies on tra…

>> Loot of course takes many forms, gold, silvers, the work of serfs, the work of slaves Gas, oil, fresh air, ...

And cheap labour in countries with lower worker/human right standards

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#260

Post by scottLobster » Tue, Mar 05, 2019, 2:17 PM UTC

retsibsi wrote: post #192

coldtea wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (an…

> 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. Sure; if you can convince me that any given war will avert more harm than it causes, I'l…

You ignore the line: "Sometimes, as sad as it is to imagine, I think you need a good war to refresh a country..."

Emphasis on "as sad as it is to imagine". That doesn't sound all that nationalistic to me in the traditional sense. More like admitting that terrible sacrifices are sometimes necessary to preserve a country's strength. You may see a technically "peaceful" (without open war) transition as preferable, but it's an equally coherent opinion that in such a transition the violence simply takes different forms and in aggregate is no less destructive, and perhaps even more damaging.

Essentially it's the age-old argument of what's worse? Negative/unjust peace or war? Automatically calling arguments for the latter "nationalist" sounds like an attempt at dismissive guilt-by-association, depending on how specifically you define the word.

It's a natural assumption, I think in the aftermath of the excesses of 20th century warfare Western society (assuming you live in the west) at large overcompensated with an "all physical violence is bad, anyone who suggests using it is wrong" message permeating everything, particularly the educational systems, which has produced a broad cultural bias that should be accounted for in discussions like this.