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

81–90 of 359 posts

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#81

Post by LoSboccacc »

nitwit005 wrote: post #25
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…

> Did you know that after the Ottoman Empire conquered Constantinople, Sultan Mehmed viewed himself as the successor of the Roman Empire and declared himself "Caesar of Rome"? I was previously curious how many countries declared themselves to be the heirs of the Roman empire, and I found there is something of a wikipedia list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome

putting the EU in that list is fishy and a reminder that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, especially for evaluating contemporary information.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#82

Post by wallace_f »

taurath wrote: post #69
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.

If you've ever been poor or on the receiving end of cult of personality of bullying you really quickly realize in how short supply altruism is in the world.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#83

Post by zanny »

discodave wrote: post #48
adrianN wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we're past the age of physical conquering. It's been less than a hundred years since the last World War. That's not particularly long, historically speaking. The pattern seems to be that a new major war starts not long after the eyewitnesses of the last one have all died. If that holds true, the next few decades or so will be interesting.

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.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#84

Post by omeid2 »

discodave wrote: post #48
adrianN wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we're past the age of physical conquering. It's been less than a hundred years since the last World War. That's not particularly long, historically speaking. The pattern seems to be that a new major war starts not long after the eyewitnesses of the last one have all died. If that holds true, the next few decades or so will be interesting.

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…

> There's a whole generation of Americans who know all about war. In the US, the generation who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, then lived through the Great Recession are about to go into politics.

And a whole nation, in Afghanistan, who grew up and lives in war. Eih, so easy to overlook when it just some news headline.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#85

Post by kbenson »

taurath wrote: post #69
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.

> The most charitable people are those who can empathize with the poor

I wonder. The most charitable, or most people that are charitable? According to this[1] (which references a paywalled report), middle-class Americans account for nearly two-thirds of charitable giving. That doesn't necessarily mean the rest is from upper class giving, but I think it's a fairly safe assumption (especially given some of the other points in the article). And if the rich are giving, it might be less of an empathy, and more of a sympathy (or even guilt).

Then again, perhaps you meant the most charitable as in giving the largest percentage of their income. Or maybe of their disposable income, in which case, maybe the poor would actually be the most charitable in some areas.

In any case, I think charitable giving is actually a fairly complex topic that might not be accurately summed up as easily as your comment implies.

1: https://www.philanthropy.com/article/America-s-Generosity-Di...

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#86

Post by TeMPOraL »

wallace_f wrote: post #80
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…

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...

> Then Japan has almost zero natural resources and nearly had a shot at taking over the world...

Did they? Or was that just something American businessmen liked to scare each other with in a post-war era?

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#87

Post by zanny »

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?

If you don't exist in a society with preposterously gross amounts of wealth inequality in the modern age your children won't need to roll the genetic lottery of luck to be your kids to live a life without suffering and misery.

People only value the capacity to transfer wealth inter-generationally to such a degree so long as its required to guarantee your children don't live a life of endless toil for meager subsistence wages.

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#89

Post by [deleted] »

pjc50 wrote: post #51
ddxxdd wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Washington was a slave owner. Tyranny, but only for some people.

[deleted]

Re: Studying the demise of historic civilisations

#90

Post by pesmhey »

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…

Perhaps civilizations are born, live and die. With luck, they pass on their memes and genes to the next one.
Post reply on HN