Is this the end of civilization?

[Kyle Phoenix]

Looking back several thousand years ago and the first civilizations toward the future, do you feel we today are living closer to the end of civilization than we are to its beginning?

In other words, have we passed the midway point?

Note: There are options if you think we are directly in the middle or if you haven't decided or even considered the issue...

Voted "Strongly Agree". I believe that we are coming to the end of this particular civilisation and will see a major social collapse within the next 100 years. We have to respond to environmental problems such as climate change, the sixth mass extinction and biodiversity loss and the peak and depletion of many natural resources (notably Oil). But our political, economic and social systems are refusing to do so and are ignoring overwhelming evidence of the destructive potential of not addressing these problems. In doing so we risk escalating the problems and compounding them one on the other because we refuse to address them. Our very resistance to change only makes the changes we have to make more radical, and hence we become ever more unwilling to change. It cannot' go on like this forever.

Whilst I cannot say with 100% certainty that such a collapse will take place, I believe the evidence shows our society, economy and way of life is unsustainable. In refusing to accept even modest changes of behaviour such as social distancing, hand washing and wearing face masks, Coronavirus makes abundantly clear that a large section of American society (and probably western society) would rather die than change, even if it helps themselves or others. That is not a positive insight if it affects our future behaviour.

As a civilisation, if you will, we are in serious trouble and our current decision making process and leadership is making it worse. I do not believe this can continue indefinitely when our way of life so obviously defies the necessity of securing basic material requirements for individuals and rendering the planet uninhabitable. You cannot build a world on delusions and lies and expect it the last forever. Whether we like it or not, reality is going to reassert itself and we will suffer if we don't recognise our limitations and change our behaviour accordingly to live within our means.

 

[avatar]

^^^Clearly one and only one definition of civilization.

 

[Welkin]

Looking back several thousand years ago and the first civilizations toward the future, do you feel we today are living closer to the end of civilization than we are to its beginning?

In other words, have we passed the midway point?

Note: There are options if you think we are directly in the middle or if you haven't decided or even considered the issue...

This thread is awefully vague. You could be hinting at something here, or you could just be wistlessly pondering. I'm curious; which is it?

I think that people throughout history have thought they were heading towards the 'end times'. My religious great-grandmother had often asserted as much, despite living through both the Great Depression and the second world war. All I could think of, at those times, was how the turmoil we face now, pales into comparison to other points in history.

I think that it's well within the realm of possibility for our civilization, as we know it, to come to an end. Our nation is only a couple hundred years old, and nothing lasts forever. That said, I think that most things tend to trend for the better, overall. There are a few things here and that politicians have done, that I would like to see undone, but for the most part, I see us moving forward, and continuing to do so.

Throughout the eons of history, society has always improved despite growing pains.

Are you suggesting that black people and women as property was a better situation?

After over a thousand posts, you might be more familiar with this user, and I understand that some people outright lie about their leaning, but from my newbie perspective, it looks like you're jumping the gun. Do you have prior experience with this guy?

 

[ecofarm]

Do you have prior experience with this guy?

Nope. Just evaluating a dumbass original post.

 

[Helix]

Back to the caves, everyone. We'll get it right next time.

 

[Kyle Phoenix]

^^^Clearly one and only one definition of civilization.

I cannot assume that civilisation is going to survive this century when we are so willingly the architects of our own destruction. Maybe humanity will survive in some form in the future, but that will be small consolation to the lives that could well be lost in my lifetime. So I focus on the problem at hand, even as much as I would like to turn away and pretend otherwise.

 

[grip]

I don't think it's an extinction-level event but the current social order is on the precipice of a monumental sea change. Today's capitalist economy ran by mostly white elitists, who use police and military elements to maintain dominance, are under civic pressure to change the leadership's firm hold on income disparity and their unfair leverage on the financial system. Racism, sexism, socialism, growing poverty, financial turmoil, political upheaval, police brutality, privatized correction facilities are all symptoms of this systemic corruption.

 

[CimpleMan]

End? NO
Change? Yes, it's inevitable.
Change for the better? Hopefully

Survival is instinctual to all living things.
We'll solve problems but new ones will arise. The struggle has a purpose in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Welkin]

Looking back several thousand years ago and the first civilizations toward the future, do you feel we today are living closer to the end of civilization than we are to its beginning?

In other words, have we passed the midway point?

Note: There are options if you think we are directly in the middle or if you haven't decided or even considered the issue...

Throughout the eons of history, society has always improved despite growing pains.

Are you suggesting that black people and women as property was a better situation?

Nope. Just evaluating a dumbass original post.

While I'm not impressed with the post's lack of context, and while I tend to roll my eyes at anything resembiling 'the end times are coming!', I'm not so sure that it's a good idea to jump in and imply that the user wants to return to dismantle social progress without knowing that person to be the type tha would appeal to. I see no reason to reinforce the right-wing narrative that those on the social left are simply acting out of self-rightousness, or whatever.

 

[ecofarm]

While I'm not impressed with the post's lack of context, and while I tend to roll my eyes at anything resembiling 'the end times are coming!', I'm not so sure that it's a good idea to jump in and imply that the user wants to return to dismantle social progress without knowing that person to be the type tha would appeal to. I see no reason to reinforce the right-wing narrative that those on the social left are simply acting out of self-rightousness, or whatever.

"It was better before" is stupid bigoted bs. I'm not apologizing for it. I'm confronting it.

 

[swing_voter]

I cannot assume that civilisation is going to survive this century when we are so willingly the architects of our own destruction. Maybe humanity will survive in some form in the future, but that will be small consolation to the lives that could well be lost in my lifetime. So I focus on the problem at hand, even as much as I would like to turn away and pretend otherwise.

How are we "the architects of our own destruction?"

 

[Welkin]

"It was better before" is stupid bigoted bs. I'm not apologizing for it. I'm confronting it.

It can very easily be bigoted bull****, yes. It can also mean a lot of other things. Would 'things were better be Trump' be bigoted BS? Would, 'things were better before covid' be bigoted BS? Would 'things were better before the wided gap of income and wealth inequality' be bigoted BS? There's too many things that the user could be alluding to. I would personally be interested in drawing out their take before jumping the gun and assuming anything.

 

[ecofarm]

It can very easily be bigoted bull****, yes. It can also mean a lot of other things. Would 'things were better be Trump' be bigoted BS? Would, 'things were better before covid' be bigoted BS? Would 'things were better before the wided gap of income and wealth inequality' be bigoted BS? There's too many things that the user could be alluding to. I would personally be interested in drawing out their take before jumping the gun and assuming anything.

It's whiny pissy bs. Things always get better and old people need to stop crying.

 

[jet57]

Looking back several thousand years ago and the first civilizations toward the future, do you feel we today are living closer to the end of civilization than we are to its beginning?

In other words, have we passed the midway point?

Note: There are options if you think we are directly in the middle or if you haven't decided or even considered the issue...

Nope, but we are headed for another real fight. 'Bout time we had one too; gotta get out the bad blood.

 

[avatar]

I cannot assume that civilisation is going to survive this century when we are so willingly the architects of our own destruction. Maybe humanity will survive in some form in the future, but that will be small consolation to the lives that could well be lost in my lifetime. So I focus on the problem at hand, even as much as I would like to turn away and pretend otherwise.

"civilization" will survive. It may not look like what we wish it to nor may it be anything resembling what we think it might become. I think that is the difference between your "civilization" and the possibilities that might in fact be what it becomes.

 

[rickc]

We are always evolving. Nothing stays the same.

I would say we are at a crossroad. One team fighting to maintain the status quo and one fighting to truly bring us into the 21st century.

which road we take will decide the near future of America. Eventually America will have to change. Everything the right is fighting for is wrong. Inevitably sooner or later they are going to have to accept it. What pain we go through between now and then is entirely up to them.

 

[Kyle Phoenix]

How are we "the architects of our own destruction?"

Simply put, we refuse to change, compromise or accept the facts that we are living unsustainable. This benefits people with money and power who benefit from short sighted calculation that refusing to change is good for them, but when things do go wrong it will be someone else's problem. i.e. everyone else.

In the case of Climate Change, it would easily be the fossil fuel lobby who fund think tanks denying climate change and then fund political parties and campaigns that support a pro-business but anti-environment agenda. Even with those who are expressing the need for a "green new deal", the idea itself exists only on paper with no real substance. It's just a slogan, not a political programme to transition the economy.

In America's case, Republicans are openly trying to screw the planet whilst Democrats pretend to care and do less than is required to address the issue. What's really alarming is how many people are on board with this amongst the general population.

 

[swing_voter]

Simply put, we refuse to change, compromise or accept the facts that we are living unsustainable. This benefits people with money and power who benefit from short sighted calculation that refusing to change is good for them, but when things do go wrong it will be someone else's problem. i.e. everyone else.

In the case of Climate Change, it would easily be the fossil fuel lobby who fund think tanks denying climate change and then fund political parties and campaigns that support a pro-business but anti-environment agenda. Even with those who are expressing the need for a "green new deal", the idea itself exists only on paper with no real substance. It's just a slogan, not a political programme to transition the economy.

In America's case, Republicans are openly trying to screw the planet whilst Democrats pretend to care and do less than is required to address the issue. What's really alarming is how many people are on board with this amongst the general population.

Sounds like the same BS that goes on in every country and has for hundreds of years.

Why is now different?

 

[Welkin]

It's whiny pissy bs. Things always get better and old people need to stop crying.

Not all things get better or have gotten better, but all things being relative, I agree with you. I am also fed up with the 'things ain't like it used to be' mentality, and I'll add that I absolutely depise the recurring theme of older generations thinking that they were so much better than younger generations. It's far too consistant and ongoing for it to actually be true. Just got to love people who grew up with their parents dissing their newfangled rock-and-roll, only to turn around and be irrationally critical of their kid's music, among many, many, many, many other things.

It's not even just the conservatives. I remember this left-winger choosing to, of all things, **** on someone's anime avatar, because **** hobbies that he doesn't understand.

 

[ecofarm]

I remember this left-winger choosing to, of all things, **** on someone's anime avatar, because **** hobbies that he doesn't understand.

What?

 

[Kyle Phoenix]

Sounds like the same BS that goes on in every country and has for hundreds of years.

Why is now different?

We're on course for probably 4 degree of warming by 2100 and it will continue to warm after that. Four degrees of warming is going to kill hundreds of millions of people by making large sections of the world uninhabitable. If you take a look at the map in the link, keep in mind China, India and South East Asia make up about 3 billion people. Virtually the entire southern hemisphere, minus the southern tip of latin america, Tasmania and new Zealand will be uninhabitable. All the people living there will either have to move somewhere or die.

Whatever you think of Ancient Rome, Christian Europe in the Middle Ages or dictatorships in the 20th century- that is a historically unprecedented loss of life and it is basically preventable. We've just chosen to kill people instead of changing. It's that simple.

https://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/climate-change-map-HD.jpeg

If the map isn't enough (which ok, it's alot to take in) you can read Six Degree by Mark Lynas where he sets out the climate models. The research is changing, so it will be slightly out of date, but the basic moral problems are the same.

[edit:] you can also read the article here that was the basis of the book "the uninhabitable earth".

p.s. I'm not a scientist- so don't take my word as gospel. I only reached this conclusion reading around the subject, so feel free to do your own research by all means.

 

[Welkin]

What?

Sorry, I guess that I broke into a bit of incoherant rant, there. I think that pining for 'the good old days', often coincides with the negative attitude older generations often express about younger generations, including everything from attitude, work ethic, right down to music and hobbies. How older folks feel about the current state of society and their own inability to be comfortable within it is, is to tied to an overinflated senseof superiority they feel in comparison to younger generations.

In terms of attitude, I'm guilty of doing this to my step-siblings, who are fourteen and seventeen years my junior. I'm exasperated by the boy's frequent lack of respect, but in truth, I've probably mentally cherry-picked

 

[ecofarm]

Sorry, I guess that I broke into a bit of incoherant rant, there. I think that pining for 'the good old days', often coincides with the negative attitude older generations often express about younger generations, including everything from attitude, work ethic, right down to music and hobbies. How older folks feel about the current state of society and their own inability to be comfortable within it is, is to tied to an overinflated senseof superiority they feel in comparison to younger generations.

In terms of attitude, I'm guilty of doing this to my step-siblings, who are fourteen and seventeen years my junior. I'm exasperated by the boy's frequent lack of respect, but in truth, I've probably mentally cherry-picked

You seem okay. I oppose pessimism about the future and its inherent ignoring of past horrors. Old people can get stuck in it.

 

[SmartCat]

The History and Future of Civilization, part I

The History and Future of Civilization, Part I

In what follows I am defining a civilization as a city based society where the government has the effective monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Civilizations originated independently from each other in various parts of the world, and spread from their areas of origin to become gradually aware of each other. For civilization to originate in an area agriculture has to have begun their earlier. Agriculture begins in the Fertile Crescent. This is what is now Iraq, Syria, parts of Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, and Jordan. Agriculture began there because that area had the largest number of wild plants and animals that were useful to humans, and that could be cultivated, or bred to make them more useful. With agriculture populations become more dense because a square mile can support many more humans by agriculture than by hunting and gathering. Population density means tribes develop. These are larger than Paleolithic hunting bands. Agricultural tribes displace hunting bands, so agriculture spreads. Tribes that developed in the Fertile Crescent crossed the Sinai Peninsula, displacing the hunting bands in the Nile Valley, which was highly suited for agriculture.

The civilizations of Sumeria and Egypt each began about five thousand years ago. The fact that there was no similarity in the writing systems of each indicates that they originated without knowledge of each other. Just as Neolithic tribes have a military advantage over Paleolithic hunting bands, civilizations have a military advantage over Neolithic tribes. They have full time armies that can stay in field all year around. Neolithic warriors have to take time out to tend crops and farm animals. Nevertheless, a Neolithic way of live selects for physical aggressiveness among men A civilization selects against physical aggressiveness. In a tribal society all men fight in the wars. The best warriors have more than one wife, and consequently more sons who inherit their violent inclinations and abilities. In a civilization until very recently criminals are usually killed at the scene of the crime, they die in custody, or they are executed. Rebellions were usually crushed. Rebels were often annihilated. In some cultures criminals and rebels were enslaved and worked to death. The few children some of them had rarely lived to adulthood.

The professional armies that made this possible usually had long enlistments. It was virtually impossible for an enlisted man to raise a family. The few children some of they may have had with bar maids, prostitutes, and an occasional rape victim rarely lived to adulthood. On the other hand, civilization selects for intelligence. Intelligent men usually become prosperous. Most of their children live to adulthood. This is not true for unintelligent men. An additional factor that selects for intelligence is living in a cold climate. In a cold climate people need to be able to make warm clothes and houses for the winter months. They need to store food for the winter.

In the Far East civilization began along the Yellow River about a thousand years after it began in the Near East. It began with the Xia Dynasty. From there civilization spread to the rest of China, and then to Korea, Japan, and Vietnam.

 

[SmartCat]

Re: The History and Future of Civilization, part II

The History and Future of Civilization, Part II

The first European nation to adopt civilization was Greece, which learned from earlier examples in Crete and the Mid East. However, the Greeks remained divided by city states, so they were unable to spread their civilization in Europe by conquest. By the time the Romans conquered Greece they had already adopted much of Greek culture. They were united; the Greeks were not, so they were able to conquer Greece. They made advancements to Greek culture, and spread this culture to southern Europe, which they conquered. Empires impose civilization on barbarians. The Romans imposed civilization on Celtic tribes that lived in what is now France and England. They were unable to conquer Germany.

The western part of the Roman Empire collapsed in 476 AD. The Holy Roman Empire was established in 800 with the coronation of Charlemagne as the Emperor of Rome. The Holy Roman Empire imposed civilization on the German tribes. In addition it included France, and Italy to below Rome. Nevertheless, the Holy Roman Empire was unable to stop the Viking raids, that began soon after Charlemagne died.

Western civilization did not really recover until the Italian Renaissance and the age of discovery, which both began in the fifteenth century. From then to now Western civilization has become the most advanced, the richest, and the most humane civilization in history. Unfortunately, we seem to have become too humane for our own good.

The following chart demonstrates that European British Commonwealth, and Far Eastern countries have the highest IQ averages.

Countries by IQ - Average IQ by Country 2020

The following website has a chart compiled by the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC). It demonstrates the correlation between high IQ averages and low crime rates.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Those of European descent and East Asians have the lowest crime rates and the highest average IQ's because we have practiced civilization for at least a few thousand years. Before that our ancestors lived in cold climates.

Far Eastern nations have developed the second most advanced civilization in the world. They seem to be overtaking Western civilization.

I believe that centuries from now historians will attribute the decline and fall of Western civilization to multi racialism. We have allowed the immigration of races and racial hybrids that have evolved less than we have. For a civilization to thrive, three characteristics need to be typical in the population: intelligence, obedience to the law, and monogamy. These take thousands of years to evolve.

As governments in Europe, the British Commonwealth, and the United States lose the ability to govern well there may be a reversion to tribes. Tribes exist when the government is weak, ineffectual, or does not exist. This is why Iraq, where civilization began, has tribes.

Civilization will continue to exist and to make further developments in Eastern Europe and the Far East. Because the Slavs and the Chinese have rejected the lies of Marxist Leninism and Maoism they find it easy to reject the lies that "Race is only a social construct," and "We are all the same under the skin."