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

351–359 of 359 posts

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#351

Post by bsanr »

zanny wrote: post #83
discodave wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that the bulk of the worlds population doesn't live in the Anglosphere, or Europe. E.g. if you're from the Middle East, or Africa then you might know a thing or two about revolution, if not war itself. Additionally, the US has now been engaged in Afghanistan longer than they were in Vietnam. There's a whole generation of Americans who know all about war. In the US, the generation who served in Afghanistan an…

Thats the thing though, generations didn't serve in Afghanistan or Iraq. Even if you counted the some ~3 million service members engaged in those wars over their duration of the ~70 million Americans between 25 and 45 as all being in that age group thats 4% of those generations participating in the wars.

The power of past major war to avert the inclination towards future major war doesn't lie just in the experiences of veterans, but in that of the people connected to them, and of the people who are informed of their experiences through media, as well as that of people who have to live through the socioeconomic fallout of past wars. There are plenty of us around.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#352

Post by scottLobster »

notfromhere wrote: post #323
scottLobster wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're straw manning a bit there. It's not illogical to say that severe national challenges help rejuvenate society in the long run. You can even see it locally when the power goes out for a few days in a hurricane, and all of a sudden neighbors who barely knew each other for 10 years are pooling resources and talking. War is horrific in the short term, but everyone on this site has benefited from it in some…

military research is not the same as war. Flight was developed by the commercial sector. the people blabbering about war as a means of national rejuvenation are usually the ones not planning on bleeding out in a muddy ditch. 30 million people died in WWI and not much was rejuvenated

Can't speak for everyone, but your second point is an easy one for me. If I were drafted, in any remotely realistic circumstance I would go.

And military research is a result of war or potential war. And if you want to deny the lack of the military's influence in human flight, I'm not even sure what to say to that. Aircraft were adopted by militaries around the world as soon as they were viable. And military observation balloons go back to the 18th century. The military may not have invented human flight, but they funded a crap ton of it.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#353

Post by scottLobster »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #333
scottLobster wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're straw manning a bit there. It's not illogical to say that severe national challenges help rejuvenate society in the long run. You can even see it locally when the power goes out for a few days in a hurricane, and all of a sudden neighbors who barely knew each other for 10 years are pooling resources and talking. War is horrific in the short term, but everyone on this site has benefited from it in some…

> War is horrific in the short term, but everyone on this site has benefited from it in some form. That's because nobody on this site has died from it.

So people who die in war don't benefit from the war... and?

My point was that war is not always entirely negative if you zoom out far enough. It can be entirely negative or partially positive, just like many other things. Would you rather the British to have surrendered to Hitler and the Americans refuse to fight in WWII?

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#354

Post by AnimalMuppet »

scottLobster wrote: post #353
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> War is horrific in the short term, but everyone on this site has benefited from it in some form. That's because nobody on this site has died from it.

So people who die in war don't benefit from the war... and? My point was that war is not always entirely negative if you zoom out far enough. It can be entirely negative or partially positive, just like many other things. Would you rather the British to have surrendered to Hitler and the Americans refuse to fight in WWII?

> So people who die in war don't benefit from the war... and?

And therefore your claim that everyone here has benefited from it suffers from significant survivor bias.

> It can be entirely negative or partially positive, just like many other things.

Sure. But we've seen way too many examples of people selling how wonderful a war would be (and you're flirting dangerously close to that). War's not wonderful. It's horrible. Only fight it when the alternative is even more horrible (which is not never).

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#355

Post by groby_b »

BurningFrog wrote: post #341
groby_b wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They differ by methods, but little by outcome. (And even the method is often similar. See e.g. [1] ) Poverty, to a large extent, is a deliberate construct because a weak labor force is an exploitable one. Sure, you don't whip people any more. (Well, somewhat. Ask the UAE[2]) You just make sure their life is going to be rather short if they don't work for you, at your conditions. [1] https://www.supplychaindive.com/ne…

> They differ by methods, but little by outcome. They differ they same way rape and regular sex does: By consent. Sure, to an outsider watching it can look very similar. But it's not. Our grandparents were probably just as poor as the third world laborers are today. They were allowed to work their way up and build prosperous countries. The third world is well on their way doing the same.

They don't differ by consent. You might want to read up on how workers in the third world are actually treated.

And no, our grandparents weren't close to as poor. And the reason they got to live in prosperous countries is that those prosperous countries exploited the shit out of poorer countries. (For an example: Britain extracted ~$45 trillion from India during colonial rule)

Third world labor exploitation is continuation of colonialism by other means, free market apologists notwithstanding.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#356

Post by scottLobster »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #354
scottLobster wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So people who die in war don't benefit from the war... and? My point was that war is not always entirely negative if you zoom out far enough. It can be entirely negative or partially positive, just like many other things. Would you rather the British to have surrendered to Hitler and the Americans refuse to fight in WWII?

> So people who die in war don't benefit from the war... and? And therefore your claim that everyone here has benefited from it suffers from significant survivor bias. > It can be entirely negative or partially positive, just like many other things. Sure. But we've seen way too many examples of people selling how wonderful a war would be (and you're flirting dangerously close to that). War's not wonderful. It's horri…

Strange, because in this thread the closest thing to calling war "wonderful" I've seen is "Sometimes, as sad as it is to imagine, I think you need a good war to refresh a country..."

Things that are wonderful aren't sad to imagine. Nor am I saying anything resembling calling a war "wonderful". I hear a lot of accusations and assumptions of intent with few real arguments other than "war bad".

From where I sit the conversation appears to go like:

  Person 1: War bad.
  Person 2: War sometimes good in certain contexts...
  Person 1: NO! WAR ALWAYS BAD YOU FASCIST COWARD!!!
Shockingly I remain unmoved.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#357

Post by BurningFrog »

groby_b wrote: post #355
BurningFrog wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They differ by methods, but little by outcome. They differ they same way rape and regular sex does: By consent. Sure, to an outsider watching it can look very similar. But it's not. Our grandparents were probably just as poor as the third world laborers are today. They were allowed to work their way up and build prosperous countries. The third world is well on their way doing the same.

They don't differ by consent. You might want to read up on how workers in the third world are actually treated. And no, our grandparents weren't close to as poor. And the reason they got to live in prosperous countries is that those prosperous countries exploited the shit out of poorer countries. (For an example: Britain extracted ~$45 trillion from India during colonial rule) Third world labor exploitation is contin…

A slave and a poor free man working equally hard look exactly the same, and differ only by consent. The difference is hard to tell for rich people, but poor people are very clear on it.

I strongly disagree with your history telling!

Before industrialism, the whole world was poorer than the third world is today. Britain didn't get rich from plundering India or anywhere else, in part because there wasn't much to take. Every country was dirt poor by current standards.

In the last ~250 years industrialism and capitalism created wealth through inventions, industrialization and hard work. Now more than half the world is rich. China is already a medium income country, after having been desperately poor only 30 years ago. India isn't far behind.

Some pockets of real poverty remain, but the world will run out of poor people a few decades, unless trends take a serious turn for the worst. None of this depends on exploiting poor countries. Quite the opposite. The more advanced countries there are to trade with, the better off everyone is.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#358

Post by groby_b »

BurningFrog wrote: post #357
groby_b wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't differ by consent. You might want to read up on how workers in the third world are actually treated. And no, our grandparents weren't close to as poor. And the reason they got to live in prosperous countries is that those prosperous countries exploited the shit out of poorer countries. (For an example: Britain extracted ~$45 trillion from India during colonial rule) Third world labor exploitation is contin…

A slave and a poor free man working equally hard look exactly the same, and differ only by consent. The difference is hard to tell for rich people, but poor people are very clear on it. I strongly disagree with your history telling! Before industrialism, the whole world was poorer than the third world is today. Britain didn't get rich from plundering India or anywhere else, in part because there wasn't much to take.…

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Starting wage in the US, 1931: $820/year[1]. Even without inflation adjustment, there are currently 21 countries with less than that as gross national income[2] (which is higher than starting wages)

On the $45 trillion, the original research is in book form, but try [3][4]

For the US stealing from South America, try reading up on the "Banana Wars"[5]. Far from the only thing, but it's well documented and somewhat more widely known.

As for running out of poverty, go for climate refugees - there's a good chance there'll be 1 billion of them in a few decades[6]. And, fwiw, this already plays a large part in the mediterranean migrant crisis right now.

Oh, and as for the idea that slavery doesn't exist: 35 million people, roughly[7]. And that's not accounting for wage slavery and debtors prisons that just happen to loan out workers.

Laissez-faire capitalism is far from an unmitigated good. In fact, except for the people holding the capital, it's an unmitigated disaster.

[1] https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112032654953;v... [2] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-lowes... [3] https://www.globalresearch.ca/legacy-of-colonialism-britain-... [4] https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/britain-stole-45-t... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars [6] https://reliefweb.int/report/world/climate-migrants-might-re... [7] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/the-horrors-of-modern...

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#359

Post by hangonhn »

hnnmzh wrote: post #328
hangonhn wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you know Chinese or not but seal script will look rather familiar to anyone who knows Chinese: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_script If you look at the picture on the upper right, you can make out "tian xia" and "wang" -- all under heaven (i.e. the world) and king (the character for emperor isn't invented yet)

> the character for emperor isn't invented yet Hmm it's right there。 The 4th “皇” and 5th “帝”。 And the combined form “皇帝” - a title invented by the First Emperor himself。

Good catch. But that just adds more to my point: modern Chinese can understand seal script to a large extend because seal script is the ancestor of the modern (non-simplified) Chinese. My guess is that neither you nor I are "Indiana Jones".
Post reply on HN