The ascendant (or declining?) current state and future of western culture

[ummester]

19 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

No. Culture is no zero-sum game. The richest cultures are often those with the most outside influence. Also, cultures are constantly changing. A constant culture is a dead culture. Countries that tried to conserve their cultural status quo usually ended up far behind in just about every metric one might imagine. Just look at China or Japan during the 16th to 19th centuries. 

The guy in the video is a cultural essentialist. Which... eh, well, doesn't really work with the above. 

And no, gold standards are terrible. If yu want to see the consequences of a gold standard, look no further than Greece, which operates under a de facto gold standard.

Well, these things are, of course, opinion only.

Culture is not bound to have (or not have) outside influence, by definition. Both would still be examples of culture. I'm not subscribing to the idea of one being better than the other - doing that would be closed minded and hinder discussion into deciding exactly what culture and therefore cultural decline is.

Greece isn't in strife because of a gold standard - where are you getting your info from? Greece's economy was up the crapper because it couldn't afford all the pensions promised to it's retirees. Goldman Sachs helped Greece cook its books to get into the Eurozone, then following the US crash, Greece's dodgy accounts were exposed for everyone to see.

It's possible Greece wants to return to the gold standard now, after the fact, as a type of solution to stabilise it's economy - but it is not why Greece turned to shit that's a combination of a country that couldn't manage it's money and a dodgy broker.

[The guy from the Vale]

The Euro is a de facto gold standard for Greece because it's impossible to independently devalue their currency and reduce their effective debt burden or improve their export competitiveness.

Yes, there were other issues with Greece. Greece's problems are far from monocausal, but Greece being part of the Euro zone is one of the bigger ones.

[maarsen]

If abandonment of old cultural habits is the same as cultural decline, then we have been declining at an accelerating rate since Homo Habilis first picked up a stone tool.

The culture I was born into, here in North America in 1956, is completely unrecognizable to any person born since the new millennium,  if they were ever plopped down into it. The respect for authority alone would be unnerving. 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

21 hours ago, maarsen said:

Can someone  define decadence?  To me it seems to consist of your neighbour having more fun than you. How does that cause the collapse of civilization?

"Decadence" might not be the correct term for the sorts of problems regarding cultural decay that are being discussed in this thread. It is too specific. "Degeneration" might be better, as a more general term for decay and the loss of certain traits and behaviors that makes a particular society productive. Examples of this happening throughout history shouldn't be very hard to find. I think southern Europe ought to have a number of pretty good candidates, for one.

Regarding Rome and the debasement of currency this did indeed happen, several times at that, and probably did contribute to the problems of the late empire. Though I do not know if it can be regarded as one of the most critical ones. Either way, Roman coins had nominal values and were not made purely out of the metal they were supposed to consist of. Meaning that it was possible for a ruler to increase the money supply by recalling old coins, melting them down, and then minting them anew but with lower silver and gold proportions, and more cheap metal instead.

Combine this with widespread use of price fixing policies (ie there were certain maximum prices that merchants were allowed to charge for goods like grain, olive oil, fruits etc) and it is not hard to imagine how such monetary practices had the potential for creating a real mess in the economy. Even without the presence of the magical nazi gold mentioned on the previous page.

 

[maarsen]

Archimedes figured out well before the height of the Roman empire that it was possible to quickly ascertain the purity of metals such as gold and silver. Sure you could adulterate the metal in the currency, but people would just as quickly adjust their prices. Weigh the coins, toss them in a graduated jug of water, and there is the silver or gold content.

[Castel]

 

7 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

No. Culture is no zero-sum game. The richest cultures are often those with the most outside influence. Also, cultures are constantly changing. A constant culture is a dead culture. Countries that tried to conserve their cultural status quo usually ended up far behind in just about every metric one might imagine. Just look at China or Japan during the 16th to 19th centuries. 

The guy in the video is a cultural essentialist. Which... eh, well, doesn't really work with the above. 

And no, gold standards are terrible. If you want to see the consequences of a gold standard, look no further than Greece, which operates under a de facto gold standard.

It's funny that Ancient Greek culture is so often considered a central part of Western civilization yet these frameworks would force one to conclude that they debased the cultures that absorbed them and protected and shared them over the centuries. 

I mean, I would expect it from a reactionary person from those times but today?

[ummester]

7 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

The Euro is a de facto gold standard for Greece because it's impossible to independently devalue their currency and reduce their effective debt burden or improve their export competitiveness.

Iceland did pretty much the same thing and it's fine. Employment is rising for them, in an environment that is now low inflation. Accepting bankruptcy, closing their banks and starting again has allowed them to grow in earnest.

Basically - let the old system fail, wipe your hands of it and move on.

Yes, there were other issues with Greece. Greece's problems are far from monocausal, but Greece being part of the Euro zone is one of the bigger ones.

Agree joining the Eurozone was one of the bigger problems - but that occurred because of Greek greed and decadent (lets throw it out there) US based financial management - hence showing another facet of the Imperial West (US) and an outlying colony (Greece) as an Empire in cultural decline.

[ummester]

1 hour ago, Castel said:

It's funny that Ancient Greek culture is so often considered a central part of Western civilization yet these frameworks would force one to conclude that they debased the cultures that absorbed them and protected and shared them over the centuries. 

I mean, I would expect it from a reactionary person from those times but today?

Way I understand it Greece get's confused with being an integral part of Western Civilisation's formation because it is coined with inventing democracy.

Greek is actually the first part of the Greco Roman civilisation. Other than possibly some of the ideological framework, has nothing to do with the growth of Western Civilisation. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

I just dont see the supposed decadence in this culture. Sure I see change over the decades. Change not decadence, and not necessarily change that signals decline, its some bad (reality TV is certainly an abomination, and compare the inflight food service now to the luxurious feasts you would have had in the early 50's or so) but some of the changes are good and can only be viewed as progress. Is not progress the negator of decline?

We've become better at cleaning the skies with anti-pollution devices in our cars and atop our industries emitting less straight into the atmosphere with things like scrubbers and air filtration devices, we've installed catalytic converters, increased fuel efficiency in our transportation, weve removed lead from our fuels and enamels, weve learned better forest conservation, weve made improvements on decreasing pollutants into our fresh water basins, protected marsh lands and endangered species. All of these actions are progress in N.America on a measurable basis in recent decades.

Weve advanced in Agra industry to a state of ever increasing crop yields and better seeds, fertilizers, we still have challenges to improve crop runoff but I see that starting to be addressed as well. Change that is progress not decline.

We are living longer than past generations, we havent defeated cancer, diabetes or MS yet, but we are getting the mentally ill and geriatric better care than at any point in the past. Infant mortality on the decline, illiteracy, on the decline, disease epidemicacy on the decline. We need only to achieve universal healthcare from cradle to grave next and we will do it within our lifetimes, this 30-40 million uninsured is definately the embarassing black mark against American( U.S.) progress, but here again I believe the trend from here will be improvement not decline.

More on cultural areas like athletics, music, drama, the arts....all experiencing change not decline, we have more choices thanks in large part to the internet and things like Hulu, Netflix, Youtube, Spotify, AmazonPrime, HBO, Satelitte Radio, MP3's, mobile devices, Chromecasting, PPV. Are you kidding me? Never in history could previous cultures have access to the sheer volume of choices we can access at our fingertips. I can post Louis Armstrong and Bird Walker or Chuck Berry jamming right next to Lawrence Welk or Joni Mitchell. We can watch Josephine Baker dance, Pink strum, Tori Amos sing or maybe Chinese Opera is your thing or old school Rap or Tech Musica or Salsa music, it doesnt matter, we can now access any and all of it nearly instantaneously Same for movies and shows foreign or domestic. Our viewing and listening options arent in decline, at no point in history have they ever been greater.

These things are merely change not decline. Change that overall I would measure as progress. In fact I would argue that the U.S. is a culture in its infancy, we are barely through the first trimester of our first millenia. We havent been around long enough to experience much more than growing pains, we are expanding, growing and advancing not declining.

And finally I would look at how we treat one another as a measurement of whether we are in decline? Again, its never been better. We are in an age where barriers are coming down, the Jim Crow South largely repealed, marriage equality growing, anti discrimination is the trend, No serious argument can be mounted that dispels the notion that lives have improved, discrimination is lessened from past decades for every minority group, sexual orientation, handicapped. Every area of Social Science is improving not declining. Can we do better, do we still have goals and areas to improve? Absolutely, but the trend is advancement, improvement, discrimination is far, far less than earlier decades of the Twentieth Century. We will continue to obliterate the barriers, experiencing some pain along the way, but we are winning this war overwhelmingly when we consider the kind of prejudices and injustices we've left in the mirror, we are not in decline on this front either.

America is on the Rise on nearly every front. a few grand challenges but we will continue to knock them down, quick as they get put up.  I'm lovin it...

 

[ummester]

2 hours ago, maarsen said:

Archimedes figured out well before the height of the Roman empire that it was possible to quickly ascertain the purity of metals such as gold and silver. Sure you could adulterate the metal in the currency, but people would just as quickly adjust their prices. Weigh the coins, toss them in a graduated jug of water, and there is the silver or gold content.

Roman merchants did adjust prices, hence inflation.

A currency, whether that's Roman coins or US petro dollars, ain't worth shit by itself. All it does is represent the value of something else. In the case of Rome and now the West, it represents the ability to trade, on agreed terms, with all merchants in the Empire.

The Roman denarius went the way of the Zimbabwean dollar:

http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/ROMLAS_files/image008.gif

it wasn't only because the currency was physically debased with less silver that this happened, it was because the Roman economy was always inflating - as the Empire got bigger and bigger merchants wanted more and more denarius for their slaves, wine - whatever. Overall cost goes up, overall standard of living goes down.

[Castel]

1 hour ago, ummester said:

Way I understand it Greece get's confused with being an integral part of Western Civilisation's formation because it is coined with inventing democracy.

 

And its influence on medieval religious thinking through philosophy. 

Quote

 

Greek is actually the first part of the Greco Roman civilisation. Other than possibly some of the ideological framework, has nothing to do with the growth of Western Civilisation. 

 

 

 

The Romans have always been important to the West, both when they were alive and when they were gone.

And it's "Greco-Roman civilization" precisely cause the cultural mixing we're being told is decadent happened. 

[ummester]

29 minutes ago, Castel said:

And it's "Greco-Roman civilization" precisely cause the cultural mixing we're being told is decadent happened. 

Well, if you simplify one POV to the extreme - yes.

This causes me to wonder, however, is it possible for civilisation to form without cultural decline? Is civilisation simply the degradation of cultures into a greater whole that is always destined to get too big and greedy and eventually collapse?

Like Ghandi said, civilisation's an interesting concept.

Personally, I don't think it's as simple as cultural mixing causes cultural decline but it is an element:

As Chaircat Meow said in their insightful post earlier

Arguably culture is more than movies/songs. Although it is true that if we look at the entertainment industry, and in other areas such as food, America might be dominant in virtue of having its products doing very well in foreign markets, this doesn't necessarily mean the culture of the US is in a good way.

Culture is ultimately about the symbols, practices and beliefs that create a community/city or nation, and impart to it a sense, both of purpose and of its place in the world.

You can't have a place in the world if you own the world  You can't have purpose when there is nothing to achieve. Corruption and decadence may be the unavoidable results of economic and intellectual growth along a given trajectory - the only way to grow may be to change trajectory.

All an extremely rich person can want is more, all they can do is try to get more or give what they have away. I would suggest that the stability of a culture isn't primarily based on the amount of different types of people in it - different types of people can grow society in interesting ways - I would suggests it's what those people have to do and what they have to share with their society.

Therefore this:

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country. 

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Is when the US was ascendant, or aspiring to not decline. Now, it is different. Now everyone is asking what they can get from society, not what they give to it and this attitude permeates down from the top, from the elite attitude of taking rather than giving.

[ThinkerX]

From where I am standing, western civilization is facing severe energy/resource challenges that will force a major transformation of society.

 

Presently, civilization - especially western civilization - is utterly dependent on fossil fuels, especially oil, to keep things 'as is.'  Yet fossil fuels, and again, especially oil, are finite resources.  First they become increasingly expensive to extract, not just in terms of money, but in terms of environmental damage; then matters reach a point where the cost of extraction exceeds those benefits.  Currently, this issue is obscured through an entirely illusionary 'oil glut' combined with 'fracking,' which has convinced many people who should know better this is not an immediate issue.

 

Much is made of increased efficiency, combined with various forms of 'green energy' to offset the eventual decline of fossil fuels.  Problem is, even collectively, these methods cannot keep western civilization, at least, performing 'as is.'  Severe energy curtailments and attending changes in society loom as a direct consequence. 

 

Another critical resource in increasingly short supply is potable water - major aquifers are drying up, with catastrophic implications for food supply. Contamination of aquifers is also of growing concern.  Desalting ocean water is an inadequate measure at best.

 

Global climate change, especially rising sea levels is another major issue.  A sea level increase on the order of 1-2 meters within the next 50-100 years is frequently predicted, with sea level increase for at least the next two decades 'baked in' regardless of any countermeasures.  1 - 2 meters.  That kind of increase would mean abandoning Miami, New Orleans, and other low lying coastal US cities without effective counter measures.

 

That said, I do not foresee a 'collapse' - more of a 'long depression' while transformations are made.  The society that emerges at the end of that depression will probably be markedly different from what we currently perceive as 'normal.'  Greater urbanization.  Apartments replacing suburbs. Far fewer private automobiles.  Air travel far less common than at present.  A much more limited selection at the grocery stores. 

[ummester]

On 12/08/2016 at 11:10 PM, James Arryn said:

Responded by way of word document

Well, I think Rome experienced a series of declines and ascents, but towards the end they were coming too quickly on top of each other to allow for sufficient reassertion. The question of culture is interesting in this respect because, at least in the ways we're identifying American culture (largely art/entertainment) most Roman culture wasn't. It was mostly Greek, some Etruscan, some Samnite, etc. which was fed through the Roman hype-conductor and thus became somewhat universal.

Yes, it seems most Roman culture was Greek – the repurposed pantheon, is an obvious example. And yes, it seems the speed of growth/change/decline became too fast at the end for any kind of stability. But, what I do think after that video was that an element of decline ran parallel to the growth over the Empire over the whole period from 400BC to 300AD.

In this respect future historians may view the American cultural impact as piggybacking on the British, but that's another discussion. For me, the Roman culture which most defined it's rise and decline was more closely aligned with a kind of cultural mindset or ethos. Since at least the Samnite Wars, Rome was politically, culturally and militarily built around conquest/acquisition. A smallish city conquered Latium, then absorbed much of Campagna and Etruria, then took on the Samnites, etc. It was one constant and almost uninterrupted series of 'takes'...and it's machine, however disfunction so in retrospect, worked so long as there were still takers. People will point to internal conflicts as bringing them down, but internal conflict was also part of the way Rome worked...Romulus killed his brother, the rise against the Kings, the Gracchi, Marius vs. Sulla, the Triumverates, etc. Any or all of these could be pointed to as fatal had they come just before the final fall, but in fact they all happened during the rise. 

If the video was correct, Rome was built around conquest and acquisition for the frist 400 (odd) years. It was built around free trade for 200-300 years after that.

But that's because the rise fed on itself. Conquest brought in wealth in several forms, added land to occupy and protect, served as political currency for leaders and justified brutal oligarchic or despotic treatment to the people. Internal conflicts, once resolved, almost invariably were followed by the victor adding to the collective (and personal) of Rome, thereby in Roman minds confirming his status as rightful victor, and adding to his personal prestige and eventually god-ness.

Yes, it seems that the growth of civilization, power and corruption are intrinsically related. It is possible that, in the history of our species, we have not managed to grow a civilization without growing corruption.

But once a few smart emperors began to understand the realities of overextension, once Roman borders had either exhausted the olive belt and/or bumped up against lands whose conquest would add relatively little in the way of material gain but cost much to acquire/hold, then they dramatically changed the way Rome operated. They became defenders, and it was the right call from a pragmatic sense. But the problem was that now the engine built to run on acquisition had none. So now the only victories won were against other Romans or to maintain the status quo, often against essentially landless amorphous folk just looking for a place to live...both always important but neither actual lasting additions. 

Again, yes, in the period of 1AD-200A (loosely) it seemed Rome became more interested in protecting its borders than expanding them. The Empire was more financial at this stage – but the denarius did expand beyond the borders Rome set. It can be argued their financial model began to impact the world outside of their military borders.

So instead of feeding on it's own conquests, the Roman system increasingly fed on Rome itself. The omnipresent internal conflicts were now not followed by acquisition, but instead just more internal conflict. Leaders were not defined from other ambitious contenders by lands taken and peoples subjected, but by keeping their heads above water in the constant pursuit of power. And those survivors were not legitimized/deified by success/fortune/conquest, so were much more vulnerable to being taken on/down by others like themselves.

Finally, yes, this seems to be, largely, what happened, in line with that video,

And so the culture of acquisitiveness that defined Rome...and was reflected in their arts (take a look at what Roman art celebrates) their games (gladiators are personifications of the ideal of might makes right/fortune favours the right) and their religion (gods, too, were acquired and absorbed into the mosaic) was fairly quickly abandoned and in it's place a less defined and defining state of limbo. This was practically successful for a time because the well oiled machine still dominated it's neighbour's, but increasingly it canabilized and/or became static, and the cultural symptoms either dried up or shifted to pure orthodoxy or celebration of unproven/unprovable superiority. Christianity, a religion of the unempowered and subjected, replaced the volatile but grandizing polytheistic norms...and then homogeny too became important for it's own sake.

So, because Rome lacked its own distinct cultural traditions, it had no base to fall back on when in decline? The video talked about these effects.

Rome had always been conservative in some respects...though it was always an agonistic dynamic...but now it became much more concerned with orthodoxy by rightness rather than inclusion/laissez-faire so long it didn't interrupt the machine. Now instead of building temples in Rome to the gods of people they'd conquered, Rome became intent on denying all other gods, and therefore all other cultures. And, again, without the trophies to lay upon the altars excepting the heads of other Roman rivals. So you again have a dis functional engine running on without it's natural fuel, and again the culture is vaguely understood except in contrast with unorthodoxy...feeding on itself.

The way the video described it was that the Greeks were creative and the Romans were more bureaucratic and officious, so, when the systems the Romans put in place failed, they had less scope to invent something new.

An interesting point the video made is that there was a time in Rome’s history, when, if they would have freed all slaves and taxed them, rather than sticking to more traditional financial models and upping the taxes for their own citizenry, Rome may have been able to industrialize. Can you imagine how different the world would be now if Rome industrialized around 200 AD?

Eh, I do go on. And this is IMO just one snippet of one (albeit significant) aspect of Rome's 'decline', with all the consequentialism of an autopsy thrown in. Rome managed just slightly differently at any of several key moments probably goes on much longer...and, so too can we say that Rome might easily have fallen many times earlier had X or Y been Z. I'm a romantic historian by nature, so I believe in the moments and individuals that define, so the other paths are IMO legion. But I started all this off to talk about how culture for Romans wasn't as divorced from the political/military spheres as we think (!) ours is, but was in fact another reflection of the devotion to/dependence on acquisition. Whether America is as different in this respect as it thinks is yet another interesting OT.

Yes, there are similarities, that I can see. Of course, there are also differences.

I think we can derive emotional inspiration from defining moments but not an overall understanding. An overall understanding comes from accurately plotting trends.

Things the video made clear, that I think were quite important, is that, over the entirety of the 700-year period, the denarius was being debased physically, inflation was always rising, the value of a traditional Roman was always decreasing and the political/military complex constantly expanding.  Who knows exactly where breaking point are but I think it’s obvious that breaking points will always be reached in such situations

[ummester]

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

From where I am standing, western civilization is facing severe energy/resource challenges that will force a major transformation of society.

 

Presently, civilization - especially western civilization - is utterly dependent on fossil fuels, especially oil, to keep things 'as is.'  Yet fossil fuels, and again, especially oil, are finite resources.  First they become increasingly expensive to extract, not just in terms of money, but in terms of environmental damage; then matters reach a point where the cost of extraction exceeds those benefits.  Currently, this issue is obscured through an entirely illusionary 'oil glut' combined with 'fracking,' which has convinced many people who should know better this is not an immediate issue.

 

Much is made of increased efficiency, combined with various forms of 'green energy' to offset the eventual decline of fossil fuels.  Problem is, even collectively, these methods cannot keep western civilization, at least, performing 'as is.'  Severe energy curtailments and attending changes in society loom as a direct consequence. 

 

Another critical resource in increasingly short supply is potable water - major aquifers are drying up, with catastrophic implications for food supply. Contamination of aquifers is also of growing concern.  Desalting ocean water is an inadequate measure at best.

 

Global climate change, especially rising sea levels is another major issue.  A sea level increase on the order of 1-2 meters within the next 50-100 years is frequently predicted, with sea level increase for at least the next two decades 'baked in' regardless of any countermeasures.  1 - 2 meters.  That kind of increase would mean abandoning Miami, New Orleans, and other low lying coastal US cities without effective counter measures.

 

That said, I do not foresee a 'collapse' - more of a 'long depression' while transformations are made.  The society that emerges at the end of that depression will probably be markedly different from what we currently perceive as 'normal.'  Greater urbanization.  Apartments replacing suburbs. Far fewer private automobiles.  Air travel far less common than at present.  A much more limited selection at the grocery stores. 

So you are down with global decline, not mere cultural decline

But I get the point, environmental pressures will force cultural change and agree it is entirely possible.

Trouble with greater urbanisation is that it makes humans unhappy, we are happier with more space and less contact with other humans. Of course we could develop virtual space to replace physical space (and arguably this is already underway) but it will come with massive sociological change.

There is, of course, a far simpler solution to all of this. Most people don't like to think about it but it actually makes more sense than anything - decrease the amount of humans on Earth. Of course, to be fair, this cannot be done in any controlled fashion because certain cultural groups would take advantage - to be totally effective it needs to be swift and random, which means preferably not initiated, or at least implemented, via human control.

[ThinkerX]

2 minutes ago, ummester said:

Trouble with greater urbanisation is that it makes humans unhappy, we are happier with more space and less contact with other humans. Of course we could develop virtual space to replace physical space (and arguably this is already underway) but it will come with massive sociological change.

Rural America is already experiencing a severe population decline.  Populace tends to be older, whiter, and more conservative.  I run a rural mail route for a living - 400 plus customers, with well over half being past retirement age.  And, alas, many of the younger ones are active criminals.

 

6 minutes ago, ummester said:

There is, of course, a far simpler solution to all of this. Most people don't like to think about it but it actually makes more sense than anything - decrease the amount of humans on Earth. Of course, to be fair, this cannot be done in any controlled fashion because certain cultural groups would take advantage - to be totally effective it needs to be swift and random, which means preferably not initiated, or at least implemented, via human control.

I considered this.  Just two ways to bring it about:

 

1 - increase the death rate (wars, plagues, that sort of thing)

2 - greatly reduce the birthrate.

Prosperous people tend to have fewer offspring, but that still leaves everybody else.  One 'solution' I have seen proposed in fiction and would be utterly unsurprised to see being secretly done in reality is the introduction of a drug or minor artificial disease that essentially kills fertility.

 

Long term - as in the next several decades - we are looking at a major shift in the racial makeup of the first world population.  Those that could be considered 'white' or `Caucasian' will become a minority, and probably not that large of one - lots of older folks in this bracket dropping dead (health, drug abuse) and a birthrate less than half the replacement level.   Those set to attain racial majority often hold views at odds with what is now considered 'normal' or 'as is.' 

 

 

 

[ummester]

15 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Long term - as in the next several decades - we are looking at a major shift in the racial makeup of the first world population.  Those that could be considered 'white' or `Caucasian' will become a minority, and probably not that large of one - lots of older folks in this bracket dropping dead (health, drug abuse) and a birthrate less than half the replacement level.   Those set to attain racial majority often hold views at odds with what is now considered 'normal' or 'as is.' 

Good thing my bloodline is already pretty mixed and my ethnicity is hard to place - my offspring with their more olive skin will fit right in

15 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Rural America is already experiencing a severe population decline.  Populace tends to be older, whiter, and more conservative.  I run a rural mail route for a living - 400 plus customers, with well over half being past retirement age.  And, alas, many of the younger ones are active criminals.

 

I considered this.  Just two ways to bring it about:

 

1 - increase the death rate (wars, plagues, that sort of thing)

2 - greatly reduce the birthrate.

Prosperous people tend to have fewer offspring, but that still leaves everybody else.  One 'solution' I have seen proposed in fiction and would be utterly unsurprised to see being secretly done in reality is the introduction of a drug or minor artificial disease that essentially kills fertility.

Well, catastrophic political and economic failure that leads to massive civil unrest in all of the world's large population centres would have the same effect. Not only that, it would give the populace in rural areas new purpose and hopefully get the youth away from crime.

Somehow, I fear the Apocalypse will end up being much more boring than all of that though

But, interestingly, from the video I watched about Rome, the city of Rome dropped from a peak of over 1 million people to a low of 6000 near the end. Considering how vastly different the global population was back then, that is a massive change - imagine something like that now.

[ummester]

16 hours ago, Stalker said:

So a quick search showed me that the person in the video is indeed a mentally disturbed man from the far right.  I do not think you will find anything relevant in such an source, at least not that could be separated from the rest, and therefor you could not have relevant discussion based on it.

So this interested me because I wanted to work out exactly what Stefan Molyneux's political leanings are - from my own research it seems he is an anarchy capitalist, which sounds strange but basically means that he is anti establishment right. Considering the establishment in the modern West is a kleptocracy, I don't quite understand how one can be right and anti establishment?

Personally, I don't align with his politics at all, I'm a left leaning conservative libertarian - a traditionalist socialist - kind of like Bernie Sanders but without all the progressive warm fuzzy crap.

Point being, both Molyneux and myself and hopefully many others realise they don't have to conform to the political spectrum currently on offer by the establishment. I prefer an anarchy capitalist to someone who claims to be from America's 'progressive left'. for instance as the anarchy capitalist is making up their own mind.

[Jo498]

I think the idea about purity or "essentiality" of cultures is not very plausible. This seems like something the Nazi pseudo-traditionalists would have claimed. But for me the main conservative idea is hardly about purity per se or keeping to some specific traditional culture. Rather it is the ideal of some perennial ideas about human nature and society common to most/all cultures (from a certain stage on) that should be kept. I also think that the quasi-darwinist "struggle of cultures" or relative strengths of cultures driving others into niches etc. is not the main point here. Rather, it is the idea that there are some features a good life will have for everyone and that this is dependent on the community as well because man is a social animal. (This is basically the main presupposition of Aristotle's Ethics and Politics and it was, I think, something of a default or at least dominant position in Western culture for the last 2500 years. Although there has been a strong alternative since Hobbes and other "modern" political philosophers. I tend to think that Aristotle and this tradition got more right, has a more realistic and "well rounded" conception of man than the moderns in this case who reduce humans to caricatures like the homo oeconomicus or unduly stress some aspects, like Hobbes the antisocial tendencies) So "decadence" is usually stated with respect to such an ideal (and implicitly assumed that former stages of the society were closer to it).

In any case, even without entertaining such a conservative stance many would agree that e.g. corruption, waste, neglecting of infrastructure, making money by conning and rent seeking more successful than  "honest work" are all bad and signs of decadence. Because they all presuppose that there was a stage when infrastructure was built and kept in good repair and there also has to be considerable productivity and wealth present for the wastefulness to be possible or con artist business models to be successful in the first place.

[A True Kaniggit]

6 hours ago, ummester said:

Way I understand it Greece get's confused with being an integral part of Western Civilisation's formation because it is coined with inventing democracy.

And isn't the other argument that Greece stopped the "East" (meaning the Persian Empire) from pushing on into Europe?