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

61–70 of 359 posts

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#61

Post by jjoonathan »

dcow wrote: post #36
bsanr wrote: post #27

Let me throw a wrench into things with a provocative statement (which I have no intention of citing support for): The affluence of Western Europe and the US was not built on hard work and ingenuity so much as the exploitation of cheap labor and the sudden access to deep veins of basic resources or economic/industrial efficiencies which were either already extant but inaccessible without a critical mass of capital, or…

And now, good ol’ western civilization experiences regression to the mean.

Economic and industrial efficiencies don't just inevitably "run out."

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#62

Post by ajross »

raverbashing wrote: post #59
bsanr wrote: post #27

Let me throw a wrench into things with a provocative statement (which I have no intention of citing support for): The affluence of Western Europe and the US was not built on hard work and ingenuity so much as the exploitation of cheap labor and the sudden access to deep veins of basic resources or economic/industrial efficiencies which were either already extant but inaccessible without a critical mass of capital, or…

Several other empires exploited resources and used "free" labor, but only recently they invented industries/mass production, contributed to scientific progress and improved their quality of life with it. Slavery had a very high human cost and it was also something that prevented the evolution of better options. Edit: see below for a better explanation

Do you have an example of a lasting empire that... did not do all of that stuff? I mean, honestly that statement seems kind of laughably wrong.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#63

Post by lovich »

ars wrote: post #50
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.

> Make each generation start from scratch And how do you prevent people from giving gifts? Parents giving their children a gift of money? And trusts are a thing, so gift tax would not help as much as you would think.

I'd find it much more acceptable if you gave your children your wealth during your lifetime. At least you have to actually give up something rather than passing on all your economic power after you no longer have use for it

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#64

Post by jlktrl »

jcranmer wrote: post #9
xiaodai wrote: post #2

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.

> Is it true to say that China is the longest surviving civilization? Not really. The Chinese tend to emphasize viewing their history through a lens of continuity and a single notional empire whereas the Western history tends to view their history as discontinuous and fractured empires. But when you start comparing the actual effects of these empires and their rises and falls, they are actually much more similar. For…

The comparison of the Roman Empire and the Chinese civilization is very flawed. First of all, Rome did not unite neighboring groups in Italy as a culture, never mind Europe. The lands and tribes they conquered simply used Latin for trade and as a lingua franca. It never became the mother tongue for any of those people. In China, for thousands of years, you have people from every province celebrating many of the same festivals, educated people reading the same script and Mandarin speaking officials reporting to the Emperor. Furthermore, pretty much everyone in Northern and Western China spoke some variation of Mandarin. The other main language group was Yue in the South and Wu to the East. To add to this, the major historical events in China are much more important than any local ones. Yet, if you ask a French or Italian person about their history, they would tell you very different things.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#65

Post by Iv »

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…

"In the graphic below, I have compared the lifespan of various civilisations, which I define as a society with agriculture, multiple cities, military dominance in its geographical region and a continuous political structure. Given this definition, all empires are civilisations, but not all civilisations are empires."

Under this definition, the British Empire and the USA are totally different civilizations.

You are talking about a cultural entity for which we do not really have a word.

There has been such blocks in the past "Christianity", the "Hellenestic world" which share common values but are separated into entities that may even wage war between them.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#66

Post by wallace_f »

pjc50 wrote: post #54
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…

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.

This reasoning does not substantiate your accusation: The idea was prevalent not just in the facist countries.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#67

Post by remarkEon »

guelo wrote: post #57
remarkEon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...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.

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.

The exact opposite of this is true. Great leaps forward in Civilization have come from things like Empire, explicitly run by hereditary ruling classes, and technological advances. In today’s world the latter now eclipses the former. There’s no reason, in my mind, to think that that ratio will (or should) remain.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#68

Post by firethief »

ddxxdd wrote: post #38
bsanr wrote: post #27

Let me throw a wrench into things with a provocative statement (which I have no intention of citing support for): The affluence of Western Europe and the US was not built on hard work and ingenuity so much as the exploitation of cheap labor and the sudden access to deep veins of basic resources or economic/industrial efficiencies which were either already extant but inaccessible without a critical mass of capital, or…

I don't think a King George Washington would preside over a young America as affluent as President George Washington did. Tyranny has a way of sequestering innovative spirit.

It does?

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#69

Post by taurath »

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…

Personal sacrifice has really fallen by the wayside especially with the already wealthy. Altruism is probably not the solution though. The most charitable people are those who can empathize with the poor, and that seems to be in real short supply.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#70

Post by remarkEon »

mullingitover wrote: post #52
remarkEon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...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.

"My family won't receive huge amounts of my net worth. That doesn't mean they'll get nothing. My children have already received some money from me and Susie and will receive more. I still believe in the philosophy ... that a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing." - Warren Buffett I think progressive wealth transfer taxes are a perfectly good middle ground.

I’m sure you’re a reasonable person and could come up with a reasonable tax rate on generational wealth, but I have zero faith that we will elect reasonable people to make these sorts of decisions.
Post reply on HN