What Will Destroy Western Civilisation?

[gumboot]

I don't know if this is the right forum to ask this in, so mods if I'm off base please move it. :)

Western Civilisation will not last forever. One day it will cease. Maybe there will be a cataclysmic collapse, or maybe it will gradually evolve into something else and long distant historians will draw a line and say "It ended here".

I know you're (mostly) skeptics who deal in facts, but I thought it might be interesting to discuss something where no one can be right or wrong - idle speculation about possible futures.

So what will it be? A plague? Alien invaders? Or maybe it will last for all eternity? Maybe you think it has already collapsed.

I'd like to propose that the end is relatively near at hand (within a few centuries) and that the collapse will come due to the combined affect of climate change and aggression (either culturally or more traditionally) from either China or Radical Islam.

On the topic (if anyone is interested) I'd recommend the book Collapse by Jared Diamond. He proposes four key factors in why societies do or do not collapse:

Environmental damage
Climate change
Hostile neighbours
Loss of trading partners

All feeding a fifth factor: how the society responds to each of those four factors.

It's a very interesting read.

Anyone else's thoughts?

[Cleon]

Me. I will end it. Next Tuesday.

Armed with nothing but a slide rule and a jelly donut.

[Cainkane1]

I don't know if this is the right forum to ask this in, so mods if I'm off base please move it. :)

Western Civilisation will not last forever. One day it will cease. Maybe there will be a cataclysmic collapse, or maybe it will gradually evolve into something else and long distant historians will draw a line and say "It ended here".

I know you're (mostly) skeptics who deal in facts, but I thought it might be interesting to discuss something where no one can be right or wrong - idle speculation about possible futures.

So what will it be? A plague? Alien invaders? Or maybe it will last for all eternity? Maybe you think it has already collapsed.

I'd like to propose that the end is relatively near at hand (within a few centuries) and that the collapse will come due to the combined affect of climate change and aggression (either culturally or more traditionally) from either China or Radical Islam.

On the topic (if anyone is interested) I'd recommend the book Collapse by Jared Diamond. He proposes four key factors in why societies do or do not collapse:

Environmental damage
Climate change
Hostile neighbours
Loss of trading partners

All feeding a fifth factor: how the society responds to each of those four factors.

It's a very interesting read.

Anyone else's thoughts?

I mean Muslims believe in witchcraft. the wholesale slaughter of jews, Christians the stoning of adulterers etc. How uncivilized can you get?

[latent aaaack]

The more immediate cause of change to traditional western civilization is and historically has been a change in prosperity mixed with a change in technology. From the perspective of someone living in the early 1800s western civilization is already destroyed, perhaps replaced with a better or worse civilization depending on who you'd ask.

So if Jared Diamond is right and future generations of westerners are going to be a lot poorer than us and have more conflict then in a sense it's environment, ie. lack of infinite resources that is the ultimate cause. That'll decrease our standard of living which will change our way of life and values. The destruction of our current western civilization might just change us back to being more similar to a former kind of western civilization.

Edit: But if you live in Montana or Iceland...then you'll have to learn to really, really learn to like hunting, gathering, and fishing because it'll be the lack of trading partners in that case.

[Upchurch]

What Will Destroy Western Civilisation?
Marquis de Carabas and his goats.

[Mobyseven]

China. Not with their military or through immigration, but through sheer economic growth. As the standard of living rises in China, the standard of living for much of Western civilisation will drop dramatically, creating the historical line in the sand: Here Be Wysterne Cyvylysation-Here Be Dragones.

[Loss Leader]

Invasion by our economic superiors. China and the oil-producing nations should slowly transform the West into the New East without anyone actually noticing. We'll go under like Turkey went to the Muslims or the Roman Empire went to the germanic tribes.

Total time from today: One hundred and nine years.

[shemp]

What Will Destroy Western Civilisation?

I will, with my Giant Doomsday Death Ray! And nobody can stop me, not even you, Mr. Bond! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

[Alric]

The biggest threat is the american republican party and its willingness to drag us back to the dark ages.

The best way to compete with oil producing and consuming countries is to get off the oil bandwagon by using other energy sources. For that our government needs to divorce the oil companies and this is unlikely to happen if the republicans are in power.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Ultimately, physics.

[latent aaaack]

China. Not with their military or through immigration, but through sheer economic growth. As the standard of living rises in China, the standard of living for much of Western civilisation will drop dramatically, creating the historical line in the sand: Here Be Wysterne Cyvylysation-Here Be Dragones.

You mean they'll run out of resources and take our's? Why is a rich China necessarily incompatible with a rich west?

Of course if everyone in developing countries gets "rich" in consumption levels then that'll start to affect us in terms of it being the end of the world in environmental problems.

[rissablue]

I like the Soylent Green philosophy...Overpopulation means loss of space and resources required to live.....then we start processing each other. Inevitable...

[seayakin]

But if you live in Montana or Iceland...then you'll have to learn to really, really learn to like hunting, gathering, and fishing because it'll be the lack of trading partners in that case.

I better sharpen my fishing spear and develop my bomb proof roll so I can ply the North Atlantic for my needs.

[Soapy Sam]

Population growth.
Destruction of habitat.
Exhaustion of resources.
Inflexibility.

Same stuff that destroys all civilisations, eventually.

[Beerina]

I like the Soylent Green philosophy...Overpopulation means loss of space and resources required to live.....then we start processing each other. Inevitable...

Overpopulation combined with the types of government overpopulations like to elect (http://juliansimon.org/writings/Ultimate_Resource/).

[skeptical]

I vote apathy.

A disinterested, uneducated, ignorant, hyper-religious, hyper-woo, hyper-consumerist electorate who is supposed to be responsible for running the most powerful nation the world has ever known cannot continue indefinitely. Predicted timeframe = 50 years (+/- 20 years)

[latent aaaack]

uneducated

Say what you will about America, uneducated is not one of our faults since our % of those with a bachelor's degree or higher is at the top of the list actually compared to other developed countries, and by a wide margin along with Canada and Norway.

[Tony]

Define "Western Civilization".

[NoZed Avenger]

Anyone else's thoughts?


Is there a poll? Because I didn't see a "rebecca" option.

[skeptical]

Say what you will about America, uneducated is not one of our faults since our % of those with a bachelor's degree or higher is at the top of the list actually compared to other developed countries, and by a wide margin along with Canada and Norway.

I think the problem is, with rare exceptions, only those with post-primary degrees are educated to even a minimum level.

Our primary educational system is atrocious in science for a country as wealthy as we are, and it teaches ZERO critical thinking, instead preferring to inculcate obedience to authority and mental regurgitation.

For example, a comprehensive evaluation of science literacy across many nations found that the US was 21st out of 30 OECD nations. We also scored lower than 8 non-OECD countries. That is appalling.

http://nces.ed.gov/PUBSEARCH/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008016

[e-sabbath]

You forgot Lotus Eating.

[Lurker]

What Will Destroy Western Civilisation?

I see a plague eliminating all cats and dogs and humans adopting chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas as substitute pets. This will continue until a chimp from the future will arrive and get the apes to rebel, throwing off the shackles of human domination and creating a civilization in their own image.

What will destroy the civilization of the apes will be a human from the past pushing down the button of an alpha/omega bomb.

Just my prediction. I had a vision last night.

[Cleon]

What Will Destroy Western Civilisation?

I see a plague eliminating all cats and dogs and humans adopting chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas as substitute pets. This will continue until a chimp from the future will arrive and get the apes to rebel, throwing off the shackles of human domination and creating a civilization in their own image.

What will destroy the civilization of the apes will be a human from the past pushing down the button of an alpha/omega bomb.

Just my prediction. I had a vision last night.

Hail Caesar! :D

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Gay sex, obviously.

I personally think we will all be killed by a new AI... that I may or may not have created :p .

[UserGoogol]

The Singularity. Technology advances to the point where the idea of civilization and even humanity itself because obsolete, and we're all living in virtual realities or we're all superintelligent cyborgs or whatever.

Second place is some sort of horrible natural disaster that drives us all into some sort of primitive state, but I'm totally leaning towards the singularity.

[Darth Rotor]

Asteroid of considerable size, just like the dinosaurs were theorized to have been waxed.

Alternatively

Failure to breed.

DR

[Corsair 115]

I've noticed several references to China in this thread, but none to India. If China is going to be some future #1 economic power, then surely India would be a close #2, yes?

...Overpopulation means loss of space and resources required to live...Only if you assume humanity remains only on the surface of the Earth permanently. If instead we expand into the solar system, that changes the picture. The solar system as a whole offer more resources and more capacity to support human life than is available only on the Earth alone.

[Blue Mountain]

I think the problem is, with rare exceptions, only those with post-primary degrees are educated to even a minimum level.

Our primary educational system is atrocious in science for a country as wealthy as we are, and it teaches ZERO critical thinking, instead preferring to inculcate obedience to authority and mental regurgitation.

For example, a comprehensive evaluation of science literacy across many nations found that the US was 21st out of 30 OECD nations. We also scored lower than 8 non-OECD countries. That is appalling.

http://nces.ed.gov/PUBSEARCH/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008016

Wow. I took a look at that report so I could see where Canada placed, expecting it to be relatively close to the US (since a lot of things Canadian, for good or ill, track the US). I was very surprised to see Canada at #2 on the overall list!

[Blue Mountain]

I've noticed several references to China in this thread, but none to India. If China is going to be some future #1 economic power, then surely India would be a close #2, yes?

Only if you assume humanity remains only on the surface of the Earth permanently. If instead we expand into the solar system, that changes the picture. The solar system as a whole offer more resources and more capacity to support human life than is available only on the Earth alone.

With the possible exceptions of minor things like breathable air, temperate climates, and shielding from high-energy particles. I think we're going to be stuck on this rock for a long time yet.

[Hokulele]

I would guess it would either be civil unrest brought about by the poverty gap (the widening discrepancy between the haves and have-nots), or some kind of natural disaster (a super-volcano is my current favorite).

I don't think Diamond's last two points apply to the modern world. IIRC (it has been a couple of years since I read the book), he was mostly refering to older civilizations, when travel and trade were restricted by the technology of their time. I think globalization has made civilizations more stable in that strong trade ties would make nations such as China and the US think twice about doing something silly.

Thinking about it further, the have/have-not gap is even more pronounced between nations (N. and S. Korea, for example), and may be more likely to spark international conflict than cultural clashes.

[gumboot]

I don't think Diamond's last two points apply to the modern world. IIRC (it has been a couple of years since I read the book), he was mostly refering to older civilizations, when travel and trade were restricted by the technology of their time. I think globalization has made civilizations more stable in that strong trade ties would make nations such as China and the US think twice about doing something silly.


Do you consider WWI and WWII events that occurred in the modern world, or to "older civilisations"?

Trade always has and always will be preferred with nations of relative equal military strength. Currently a number of important alliances ensure collective security so that essentially everyone is strong.

There's no reason to think that should continue indefinitely, however. Were one "faction" to become significantly weakened militarily, another faction could see more benefit in conquering than in trading.

The "globalisation" of the Roman world, and the strong trade ties that were established, discouraged any one from taking on their military power for a long time. But eventually that military strength weakened and neighbouring states felt that going to war against Rome was more beneficial than trading with Rome.

The same occurred with the British Empire.

[gumboot]

I would guess it would either be civil unrest brought about by the poverty gap (the widening discrepancy between the haves and have-nots), or some kind of natural disaster (a super-volcano is my current favorite).


Although on the flip side a big enough super volcano might counter the effects of Global Warming. :D

Sadly there's a good chance that super volcano would be Taupo exploding again, in which New Zealand would no longer exist to enjoy the change in fortunes.

[shuize]

On the dramatic side: a super-bug or earth-killing meteor impact.

On the more realistic side: falling productivity (which relates to Diamond's point about loss of trading partners), linked with Beerina's point above about the sort of governments such societies elect.

[TragicMonkey]

Gay sex, obviously.


Nah. Gay sex is fine. It's gay marriage that will destroy civilization.

[Hokulele]

Do you consider WWI and WWII events that occurred in the modern world, or to "older civilisations"?


I don't think WWI or WWII could be considered the "Destruction of German/Japanese/Italian Civilization" along the lines of what Diamond was describing in his book. Catacalysmic and transforming, yes. Beginning of a total collapse, no.

Trade always has and always will be preferred with nations of relative equal military strength. Currently a number of important alliances ensure collective security so that essentially everyone is strong.


Minor quibble, Japan does not have much military capacity compared to their trading status with much of the world. Yes, this does open the whole can of worms as to what exactly constitutes Japan's military.

There's no reason to think that should continue indefinitely, however. Were one "faction" to become significantly weakened militarily, another faction could see more benefit in conquering than in trading.

The "globalisation" of the Roman world, and the strong trade ties that were established, discouraged any one from taking on their military power for a long time. But eventually that military strength weakened and neighbouring states felt that going to war against Rome was more beneficial than trading with Rome.

The same occurred with the British Empire.


Hmm, I think there is a bit of the chicken/egg thing going on here. Although I am not as familiar with Roman history as I should be.

Although on the flip side a big enough super volcano might counter the effects of Global Warming. :D

Sadly there's a good chance that super volcano would be Taupo exploding again, in which New Zealand would no longer exist to enjoy the change in fortunes.


Out of the frying pan and into the ice chest! I do hope I get a chance to see the country before you lot sacrifice yourselves to enable the rest of us to consume resources without guilt. :p

[boloboffin]

Oh, cheer up, Gumboot. It could be the one under Yellowstone.

[Hindmost]

Lawyers...should have been mentioned by now...

Too many people chasing too few resources and an economic system that is based on growth alone. When energy gets scarce and expensive, something will give...predicting the future is tough, but I think global warming may be the least of the earth's problematic issues right now.

glenn

[Psiload]

The world will go emo and cut itself.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Well, if you listen to the right-wingers, it will be:

Tolerance for homosexuals.
Abortion.
Environmentalism.
Feminism.
Out-of-wedlock births/Single Mothers.
Legal pornography.
Fornication.
Muslims.
Jews... well, "liberal, secular, jews," not the "Jews" JEEZ-us talked about.
Atheists
The French.

[nzric]

Tolerance for homosexuals.
Abortion.
Environmentalism.
Feminism.
Out-of-wedlock births/Single Mothers.
Legal pornography.
Fornication.
Muslims.
Jews... well, "liberal, secular, jews," not the "Jews" JEEZ-us talked about.
Atheists
The French.

Sounds like the promo for next summer's hit sitcom

[Achán hiNidráne]

Sounds like the promo for next summer's hit sitcom

Next week, on "The Conservatives:"

Mr. Conservative: "Junior! I found this women's pants-suit catalog under your mattress! My Lord, you can see the exposed skin of their hands and face! Are you masturbating?!?!"

[Elind]

Barack Obama

[gumboot]

I don't think WWI or WWII could be considered the "Destruction of German/Japanese/Italian Civilization" along the lines of what Diamond was describing in his book. Catacalysmic and transforming, yes. Beginning of a total collapse, no.

He claims the most important factor, however is how a society responds to these factors. His argument is that these factors always exist. Societies that ignore these factors risk collapse, while societies that attempt to address or mitigate these factors may or may not collapse.

Thus I think loss of trading partners and hostile neighbours are very much factors in the modern world. However I also think that at least in the last couple of centuries, the modern world has developed systems for mitigating the long term impact of these factors. That's not to say those factors no longer exist though, and therefore failure to address these factors in the future could have disastrous consequences.


Minor quibble, Japan does not have much military capacity compared to their trading status with much of the world. Yes, this does open the whole can of worms as to what exactly constitutes Japan's military.

I don't think military capacity can be drawn only along national boundaries. Japan has protective agreements with allied countries, and the armed forces of those countries contribute to its military capacity (notably the US).

A prime example is Taiwan. The People's Republic of China trades with the Republic of China despite the fact that they would like nothing more than to seize control and annex it. However the Republic of China's independence is backed by the United States, and the PRC are not willing to confront the US over the matter.



Hmm, I think there is a bit of the chicken/egg thing going on here. Although I am not as familiar with Roman history as I should be.

I aren't sure what you mean by chicken/egg unless you're suggesting that rather than attacking Rome because it was weakened, Rome was weakened by being attack. If that's the case I can't agree. Rome's decline in power was primarily internal, and was exacerbated by being over extended (thus requiring the recruitment of outsiders into its legions who did not have any loyalty to Rome). Rome was already drastically weakened long before any significant attempts were made by outsiders to challenge its power.


Out of the frying pan and into the ice chest! I do hope I get a chance to see the country before you lot sacrifice yourselves to enable the rest of us to consume resources without guilt. :p

Be quick! We recently determined that Taupo is not just dormant but still active, that the activity is increasing exponentially, and that the lake bed is rising.

Give it a couple of dozen millennia and that thing's going to go bang again.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Our new insect overlords.

[Undesired Walrus]

Hinduism.

















C'mon, It'll be a right laugh if that happens!

[rissablue]

Only if you assume humanity remains only on the surface of the Earth permanently. If instead we expand into the solar system, that changes the picture. The solar system as a whole offer more resources and more capacity to support human life than is available only on the Earth alone.

Well wouldn't that in a way be a kind of end to western civilization as we know it?

Nah. Gay sex is fine. It's gay marriage that will destroy civilization.

Gay sex has destroy our civilization already. There's no hope left, not even prayer. Might as well pack our bags and head out now....Or at least that's according to Phelps.

[LastChild]

It's already happened and I blame American Idol.

[Hokulele]

He claims the most important factor, however is how a society responds to these factors. His argument is that these factors always exist. Societies that ignore these factors risk collapse, while societies that attempt to address or mitigate these factors may or may not collapse.

Thus I think loss of trading partners and hostile neighbours are very much factors in the modern world. However I also think that at least in the last couple of centuries, the modern world has developed systems for mitigating the long term impact of these factors. That's not to say those factors no longer exist though, and therefore failure to address these factors in the future could have disastrous consequences.


I see your point here, and I can agree with that.

I don't think military capacity can be drawn only along national boundaries. Japan has protective agreements with allied countries, and the armed forces of those countries contribute to its military capacity (notably the US).

A prime example is Taiwan. The People's Republic of China trades with the Republic of China despite the fact that they would like nothing more than to seize control and annex it. However the Republic of China's independence is backed by the United States, and the PRC are not willing to confront the US over the matter.


True, which is why I was questioning the tactic of applying Diamond's conclusions to the modern situation. The US can respond very quickly to hostilities in pretty much any part of the globe, which would not have been the case until fairly recently. In the cultures studied by Diamond, each culture was much more reliant upon internal military force.

I aren't sure what you mean by chicken/egg unless you're suggesting that rather than attacking Rome because it was weakened, Rome was weakened by being attack. If that's the case I can't agree. Rome's decline in power was primarily internal, and was exacerbated by being over extended (thus requiring the recruitment of outsiders into its legions who did not have any loyalty to Rome). Rome was already drastically weakened long before any significant attempts were made by outsiders to challenge its power.


Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the weakening trade ties/reduced military capability more than the reactions of the neighbors to the reduced military capability. Did Rome lose potential military allies due to weakening trade and thus become more open to attack, or did their reduced military power lead to a reduction in trade, and trigger the urge to take rather than buy?

Be quick! We recently determined that Taupo is not just dormant but still active, that the activity is increasing exponentially, and that the lake bed is rising.

Give it a couple of dozen millennia and that thing's going to go bang again.


Many geologists feel that the Yellowstone area may be the next to go (as boloboffin noted earlier).

[gumboot]

True, which is why I was questioning the tactic of applying Diamond's conclusions to the modern situation. The US can respond very quickly to hostilities in pretty much any part of the globe, which would not have been the case until fairly recently. In the cultures studied by Diamond, each culture was much more reliant upon internal military force.

Very true. I guess the argument is if you're talking "civilisation" currently there's a global civilisation so that "Japan" or "the United States" alone do not constitute a civilisation, just as "Athens" and "Sparta" did not constitute separate civilisations.


Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the weakening trade ties/reduced military capability more than the reactions of the neighbors to the reduced military capability. Did Rome lose potential military allies due to weakening trade and thus become more open to attack, or did their reduced military power lead to a reduction in trade, and trigger the urge to take rather than buy?

In areas of Gaul (for example) it was the weakening of military power (due initially to it being over stretched and then to it being withdrawn to Rome and Constantinople) that saw the influx of German tribes that initially raided and then settled. The same thing happened in Great Britain with the Picts, Irish, and Saxons. I'm not sure how much trade actually occurred between the Empire and the "barbarians" as most trade at that time was internal. Certainly internal trade across the Empire rapidly declined as a result of the military power of Rome declining.


Many geologists feel that the Yellowstone area may be the next to go (as boloboffin noted earlier).

Yellowstone is welcome to having that honour... :D

[proxywar]

Clash of civilizations, the end of history and the Last Man are two books I tended to read when I have the time.

So far I've sepeculated on...

A brave new world ending.
orwell's 1984 ending.

but this is what i've been thinking about lately...

The mundane struggle...

Any political ideology that is rooted in pity and martyrdom (Christianity and Liberalism, for example) has an endgame theory where political evolution hits a threshold and is no longer reflective of reality. That threshold is expressed by the centuries of violence caused by the ideology, which inevitably causes a universal backlash designed to suppress such violence. In short, if Christianity and Communism are ideological cousins (which they no doubt are based on any core examination of the ideologies), then the corpses they leave behind tell the same tale over and over again: Altruism breeds discontent. The end game solution, then, of any altruistic strategy is always the same. It's simply the method that changes. In Jesus's time, it was turn the other cheek. In Marx's time, it was kill royalty. In our parents time, it was protest. In our time, it is to load ourselves up with drugs and useless spiritual solutions that translate into absolute nothingness.

There isn't a doubt in my mind that those in power have difficult choices to make and are operating as best as they know given the information they have. With nuclear and biological weaponry a reality, the priorities are obvious. They don't want a man-induced Armageddon. So they tell us about female rights, the joys of abortion, homosexual rights, and soon to be added pedophilia and zoophiliac rights (protests are slated for 2011-2013) all of which are designed to tinker with the core of human civilization: our sex drive. Those in power seek, desperately, to replace aggression with the gentler of the genders. But this activity is backfiring in China, as cultural preference for males of females have resulted in a loop-sided figures in favor of males. The homosexual revolution will take place in China without a doubt in my mind. Leftists out here will call them progressives. Those in power require stability above all, so they offer the "right" of sexual sedation by increasing available surrogate mates. (Never bored on a Saturday night!)

What does this all mean? The compass is oriented to planetary streamlining: The act of finding the delicate balance between a federally/globally enforced fluctuating population growth rate and the economic/environmental ability to sustain them without want. It is the next stage in Marxist thought. One day, the Venona Cables will tell us about th high level concerns of Communist officials, and I am confident they will include much bickering over the human sex drive.

Sounds like paradise? It isn't. It is stagnation in the purest definition. A self-induced communal alcoholic blur that keeps us locked as a species indefinitely into one position in the universe. Many people fight for this. Many people have died for this. Many people have a vested interest in making humanity nothing more than a controllable, predictable, self-replicating engine that can be programmed for complex labor to be taxed. Some say as long as the masses are given what they want, there is no error in this mode of thought. Such people are short term fools.

The universe has a wonderful way of throwing the dice and making it all fall apart.

Leftist Posthumanism (as establsihed at Yalta) is evil because it embraces stagnation and planetary isolation. Right-wing Posthumanism supports expansion sustained by unchecked growth. It supports the volition of mankind to choose its destiny amongst the stars.

I support the free will of mankind above all else, not in accordance to some religious dogma, but because humans are the ultimate transducers. We can convert anything into anything over a period of time, giving us an important role in how the rest of the universe is to be carried out.

The future revolutionary battle lines...

Frist people will make a political choice early on by dividing into two revolutionary camps. One: neo luddite, second: technophiles, As technology rapidally advances into the 21st century. Now If the neo ludditism revolution wins we will without question remain stagnant in a political belief system for years and years to come, but there will be a catch this time around because science will be abolished. Which in this case scenario neo-ludditism will collectively govern societies close to the primitive sense of the word. However, if that were to occur i'm fairly optimistic people would start to see the error of their close to primitive ways for abolishing scientific technology. And as the earth begins to become uninhabbitable due to its inevitable life span in our solar system they will change course and revolt. Now, if the technophiles win the revolution political beliefs as you and I know them today will ceases to exist. Instead humanity will be focused on making unison decisions on how to best financially advance nanotechnology, space explorations, terraforming, and genetic engineering. Thus, Altering humanities future from surrogate activities to actual accomplishable goals for humanity. So Instead of having political belief systems humanity well be united and directly focused under a technology and economy surplus umbrella system to better help further the goals of space exploration, genetic engineering, and terraforming planet projects for humanity.

End game...

How is this possible?

In the rocket science community mass equals budget. This means the less mass the less spending. Which financially means the lighter the fuel tank attached to the rocket the quicker they can go to mars. Infact, NASA has the techology and the know-how to reach Mars today. Every year Earth and Mars Orbit comes into opposition of each other as you can clearly see in this photo graph here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...arearthorb.gif this would be our only chance to launch a space exploration to mars, infact, it would only take 6 months to reach mars.

Now I know what your thinking 6 months in zero-gravity BS can't be done.
Wrong, it can be done, infact it's already been accomplished by Sergei Krikalev a russian cosmonaut. Infact, He spent two years in space and returned with only a minior deduction in muscle mass and a minior deduction in brain function. His loss in muscle mass was so minuscule because he worked out religiously everyday while aboard the spacestation. Since then, scentists have figured out a way to fix the problem with deduction in brain function. The problem they cleverly found out was cosmonauts like every other human being is a social animal, in otherwords, the cosmonauts started missing everything they loved on earth and became emotionally crippled making mistakes in their judgement up on the spacestation. Thus, leading to their blunders in endurance, cognition, motivation, and empathy while aboard the spacestation. But as I said before scientists jumped on this problem and brought forth the solution which was to bring a little piece of earth's ecology up to the spacestation next time. Which they did and it solved the deduction in brain function problem for the next time a group of cosmonauts stayed in the spacestation then returned back to earth.

Now, Landing on mars is tricky but they've done it with the mars rover without skiding across mars atomsphere right off into space. They also managed no structural damage upon landing thanks to the ingenius mer air bags design. Which is basically this: http://wanderingspace.net/wp-content...6/12/rover.jpg


And Lastly, we do have the technology and know-how to terraform mars, however, it is based on theoretical computer models. The theory goes like this... mars should become earth-like again if we can produce extravagant amounts of man-made Co2 into its atmosphere. Moreover, Underneath the Land mass of mars there is pockets of frozen ice, and if you look on earth's land mass you'll notice the same dirt lines on mars, now if you dig down enough into those lines of dirt on earth you'll discover liquid water. Thus, how the comparison was made. Here is a snap shot of the Frozen tundra beneath mars surface: http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...ip_228x450.jpg

So they could theorically heat up mars atmosphere by utilizing what is said to be mainly responsible for Global warming here on earth. But furthermore, as the ice starts to melt on mars it will produce even more co2 into the atmosphere. Thus, fixing mars atmosphere back to what it once might have been, earth-like. And extremophiles will be able to thrive again. However, this process could take generations of earth-exodus inwhich astronauts become like cockroachs and mars becomes like a roach motel meaning astronauts check in but they don't check out. However, This idea is awesome and interesting because it's birth-like in a sense that after generations of these astronauts living on mars our human speices will evolve and adapt to the mars atompshere. Which could mean a massive brain increase in size, a muscle increase in size, the ablity to jump higher, not to mention totally alter our physical appearances as to not resemble anything remotely earth-like.

But don't worry because in the first space exploration to mars terraforming will not be the goal. The goal will be for astronauts to make their own fuel on mars within a one year time span before Earth and Mars Orbit comes into opposition again, which will be the only chance they'll have that year to return back to earth. In short, we can set foot on mars right now today no problem.


In conclusion Mars and/or venus will be like a kin to mother earth and as such so will the new human species that evolves on there. And the earth citizens that moved to Mars and/or Venus will be the next step in the human evolutionary process. These trips to mars and/or venus will be made little by little by earthlings until the process of moving from the earth to mars and/or venus is completed. We are moving toward a umbrella-like economy already with programs such as eurasia-america transport link. It's only a matter of time.

[iantresman]

Western Civilisation will not last forever. One day it will cease. Maybe there will be a cataclysmic collapse, or maybe it will gradually evolve into something else and long distant historians will draw a line and say "It ended here".

I know you're (mostly) skeptics who deal in facts, but I thought it might be interesting to discuss something where no one can be right or wrong - idle speculation about possible futures.

So what will it be? A plague? Alien invaders? Or maybe it will last for all eternity? Maybe you think it has already collapsed.

We'll never know until it happens, but I note that my television listing guide suddenly stops next Wednesday.

[INRM]

proxywar,

You make it sound as if constant change, even if it's bad is better than stability that's good. Now some change here and there is fine, but sometimes there's a point where it's too much.

And the thing about Neo-Luddites and Technophiles: Not all science is good, there are many technological devices that are terrible (electric chair for one, nuclear bombs -- not that nuclear power or electricity themselves are bad). Science comes in good, bad, and neutral. You make it seem as if scientific advancement is above all costs the most important thing. I say advancement is okay when needed. When you don't need it, and nothing's broke, don't fix it. When it's broke, fix it. If you have evidence to suggest it will break down badly in the future, take measures to prevent it. But don't fix something that's not broke until it IS broke and you gotta fix it.

INRM

[proxywar]

You make it sound as if constant change, even if it's bad is better than stability that's good. Now some change here and there is fine, but sometimes there's a point where it's too much.

This won't happen all at once. This is generations upon centuries of work.

And the thing about Neo-Luddites and Technophiles: Not all science is good, there are many technological devices that are terrible (electric chair for one, nuclear bombs -- not that nuclear power or electricity themselves are bad).

After the transhumanist technophiles win the revolution, none of this will matter. Earth will be a distant memory, an experiment to learn from, and so will the bad human behaviors.

Science comes in good, bad, and neutral.

Science isn't bad, people make things science produces bad.


You make it seem as if scientific advancement is above all costs the most important thing.

Nothing should be more important than technology besides humans for right now. Not to fear though for humans will become post-humans by histories end. Thus, we can then fully focus on technology without human problems.

I say advancement is okay when needed.

This process will takes genterations. You'll be dead.


When you don't need it, and nothing's broke, don't fix it. When it's broke, fix it.

I'm sorry you enjoy the status quo of living. I'm far past that selfish thinking. I want to keep innovating. I also want to genetically engineer humans for space travel.


If you have evidence to suggest it will break down badly in the future, take measures to prevent it.

You can't stop the sun from dying. You can't stop the milky way from getting caught in another galaxies gravational pull colliding them together to create a supernova that wipes out earth. You can not stop the moon from orbiting further out from the earths gravitational pull each rotation until it shoots off into space due to the moon and earth lacking that gravitational force. Not even Al gore can.

But don't fix something that's not broke until it IS broke and you gotta fix it.

Lets get a head start on that problem starting now. Space exploration is broke. We don't do anything innovative in space because of these space laws and unwarranted ethincal crys of eugenics. We need a global captialist posthumanist society to get around these space laws and fallacious eugenic crys so we can explore the flat expanding universe. Man has been exploring and colonizing since jericho, I don't dare hinder mans progress to explore and colonize new planets in different galaxies with biological life.

[INRM]

Proxywar,

I'd have to say that your beliefs are quite disturbing. You want to advance technology at any cost even if it is not beneficial to human life. Just keep innovating even if it's not necessary or productive.

Regarding your statement about not being able to keep the moon from flying out of orbit, and stuff. That attitude is the same attitude a person who says "Well, we're all going to die anyway, so why bother trying to preserve ourselves?" I say, yeah we're going to inevitably die, but I'd like to delay it as much as I can!

People who enjoy their life the most (and since life is all we have, I figure that would be a good thing so long as they're not practicing irrational beliefs) are those who learn to live in the present. Enjoy what you have, live your life. I'm honestly saying this to you as advice, although I have this odd feeling it will be ignored.

You seem to be the type to never be satisfied with what you have, and just want to see "the next cool thing", probably never content.

Interestingly, I think that due to your lack of belief in religion, have actually turned science into a religion -- something it never was meant to be nor should be. Rather than a resurrection, or transcencdence, humans will evolve into Post-Humans and will go into outer space.

I have nothing against space travel by the way... I just believe that there's no point in advancing technology if it doesn't have a benefit to humans. We do have an inherant right as sentient creatures, or any living creature for that matter, to preserve ourselves.


INRM

[portlandatheist]

Population growth.
Destruction of habitat.
Exhaustion of resources.
Inflexibility.

Same stuff that destroys all civilisations, eventually.

I think the above pretty much sums it up and is right in step with Diamonds book. Collapse was an excellent read, I especially liked the Easter Island and Greenland sections. Inability to adapt to changing conditions was a common theme, usually stifled by religion, superstition, or otherwise rigid ideology.
Exhaustion of resources such as arable land, fossil fuels, and water are going to be major factors in the future IMO. I also liked Diamond's discussion of the tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)

[stilicho]

I don't know if this is the right forum to ask this in, so mods if I'm off base please move it. :)

Western Civilisation will not last forever. One day it will cease. Maybe there will be a cataclysmic collapse, or maybe it will gradually evolve into something else and long distant historians will draw a line and say "It ended here".

I know you're (mostly) skeptics who deal in facts, but I thought it might be interesting to discuss something where no one can be right or wrong - idle speculation about possible futures.

So what will it be? A plague? Alien invaders? Or maybe it will last for all eternity? Maybe you think it has already collapsed.

I'd like to propose that the end is relatively near at hand (within a few centuries) and that the collapse will come due to the combined affect of climate change and aggression (either culturally or more traditionally) from either China or Radical Islam.

On the topic (if anyone is interested) I'd recommend the book Collapse by Jared Diamond. He proposes four key factors in why societies do or do not collapse:

Environmental damage
Climate change
Hostile neighbours
Loss of trading partners

All feeding a fifth factor: how the society responds to each of those four factors.

It's a very interesting read.

Anyone else's thoughts?
Jared Diamond is a bit of an iconoclast--a pop anthropologist at best. For what it's worth, "western civilisation" actually was thoroughly destroyed after the second century and was only revived in the late eighteenth century after over a millenium of partly productive dormancy. The same cannot be said for the thriving Persian civilisation which remains dormant after being destroyed around much the same time.

The elements of "western civilisation" I consider to be its defining parts are:

rationalism
materialism
utilitarianism
constitutional statism

Can't see these things going away any time soon.

[gumboot]

Jared Diamond is a bit of an iconoclast--a pop anthropologist at best.

What cherished beliefs has he destroyed? :confused:

[Hokulele]

Very true. I guess the argument is if you're talking "civilisation" currently there's a global civilisation so that "Japan" or "the United States" alone do not constitute a civilisation, just as "Athens" and "Sparta" did not constitute separate civilisations.


I agree 100%, which is why I originally questioned your OP for stating "Western Civilization". I guess the underlying question would be, what do you mean by Western Civilization? I doubt that Japan would be thrilled to be included in that category in a cultural sense, but ecstatic in an economic sense. ;)

In areas of Gaul (for example) it was the weakening of military power (due initially to it being over stretched and then to it being withdrawn to Rome and Constantinople) that saw the influx of German tribes that initially raided and then settled. The same thing happened in Great Britain with the Picts, Irish, and Saxons. I'm not sure how much trade actually occurred between the Empire and the "barbarians" as most trade at that time was internal. Certainly internal trade across the Empire rapidly declined as a result of the military power of Rome declining.


Thanks, like I said, I am not all that expert in Roman history (Visigoths and Romulus and Remus are about all I remember). So little time, so much to learn.

Yellowstone is welcome to having that honour... :D


The more intelligent people on the planet choose shield volcanoes for residence. :p


As an aside, I am not sure why stilicho is referring to Diamond as an iconoclast either. He has some interesting ideas (geography as an influence on history), but nothing that far outside the mainstream as far as I know.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Yeah, taking 30 years to answer Yali's question by investigating 13,000 years of human history is the very definition of pop anthropology. :rolleyes:

[stilicho]

What cherished beliefs has he destroyed? :confused:
He hasn't successfully "destroyed" any "cherished beliefs".

He does anticipate controversy by starting from the present, where European/Western "civilisation" is predominant and works his way back to attempt to explain why this is (so obviously) so. This is not normally the way anthropology works.

He would do us all a greater service by attempting to explain how a near-dead "civilisation" reappeared after roughly 1,600 years and in such a dominant and virulent form. Puzzles the hell out of me. I'm pretty sure the Chinese are as surprised as I am.

[gumboot]

He hasn't successfully "destroyed" any "cherished beliefs".

But that's what "iconoclast" means... :confused:


He does anticipate controversy by starting from the present, where European/Western "civilisation" is predominant and works his way back to attempt to explain why this is (so obviously) so. This is not normally the way anthropology works.

Um... no? He doesn't do that at all. But okay.


He would do us all a greater service by attempting to explain how a near-dead "civilisation" reappeared after roughly 1,600 years and in such a dominant and virulent form.

According to your definition. I must confess I have never before reading your post ever come across anyone claiming that Western Civilisation vanished and then abruptly reappeared.

Your definition of "western civilisation" is likewise not one I have ever come across before. Aside from being vague to the point of meaningless, I'm not sure I agree that all of those points accurately describe our civilisation anyway.

[stilicho]

Yeah, taking 30 years to answer Yali's question by investigating 13,000 years of human history is the very definition of pop anthropology. :rolleyes:
Fernand Braudel spent more than seven years writing an 1,100 page book covering the Mediterranean world during the reign of a single Spanish Habsburg.

By comparison, Diamond just skims. And it shows.

[stilicho]

But that's what "iconoclast" means... :confused:




Um... no? He doesn't do that at all. But okay.




According to your definition. I must confess I have never before reading your post ever come across anyone claiming that Western Civilisation vanished and then abruptly reappeared.

Your definition of "western civilisation" is likewise not one I have ever come across before. Aside from being vague to the point of meaningless, I'm not sure I agree that all of those points accurately describe our civilisation anyway.
Interesting.

You figure the features I mentioned--rationalism, materialism, constitutionalism statism, and utilitarianism--were prominent in "the west" from 200 AD until roughly 1700? Why was the Enlightenment necessary, then, if these features were already prominent?

[stilicho]

But that's what "iconoclast" means... :confused:
I confess that I employ hyperbole occasionally for effect. Diamond seeks to draw attention to his theories by going against convention. And they aren't really his theories. He's borrowed them from others for convenience.

[gumboot]

Interesting.

You figure the features I mentioned--rationalism, materialism, constitutionalism statism, and utilitarianism--were prominent in "the west" from 200 AD until roughly 1700? Why was the Enlightenment necessary, then, if these features were already prominent?

:confused:

No. I disagree that they're definitive features of the West, and I question whether some of them have ever been prominent in Western Civilisation.

[gumboot]

Fernand Braudel spent more than seven years writing an 1,100 page book covering the Mediterranean world during the reign of a single Spanish Habsburg.

By comparison, Diamond just skims. And it shows.


Wow. Just wow.

So by your assessment unless a book goes into excruciating detail about one minute aspect of history it immediately becomes totally irrelevant. When did you have time to read enough 1,100 page books to collate enough knowledge about anything whatsoever to not be talking out your metaphorical rear orifice?

If you have a problem with Diamond's work, I suggest you actually identify what that is. Although given you've already made a totally inaccurate statement about his work, I have to ask if you've actually even read it.

[stilicho]

:confused:

No. I disagree that they're definitive features of the West, and I question whether some of them have ever been prominent in Western Civilisation.
Interesting. Those four elements certainly vanished from the west for a long time and re-appeared roughly from the turn of the eighteenth century onwards.

[stilicho]

So by your assessment unless a book goes into excruciating detail about one minute aspect of history it immediately becomes totally irrelevant.
Not quite.

I found reading Diamond that I was reading something I'd read before. Didn't you?

Just as an example, I found that he misses the point of the "equestrianisation" of Europe. He sees this as a geographical and cultural "advantage" but it was actually an impediment at the worst and a borrowed stop-gap measure at its best. He doesn't accept that the survival of "western civilisation" was a near-run thing as most historians do.

The "equestrian culture" might have had a tactical advantage over, say, the Aztecs, but it was hopelessly outclassed by Asiatic opponents and had to be supported by an inefficient and (even in its time) obsolete political structure.

Any "advantage" secured by European civilisation was not due to the things that Diamond suggests but by borrowing from others and abandoning a lot of ideas central to "our" philosophy that persisted through much of the Christian era.

Few other "civilisations" have abandoned almost wholesale entire portions of their beliefs and institutions as Europeans did over the past three centuries.

[gumboot]

Interesting. Those four elements certainly vanished from the west for a long time and re-appeared roughly from the turn of the eighteenth century onwards.


That's an interesting idea (although outside the scope of this thread :)). I'm not convinced, but maybe it's something worth discussing further.

[gumboot]

Not quite.

I found reading Diamond that I was reading something I'd read before. Didn't you?

Just as an example, I found that he misses the point of the "equestrianisation" of Europe. He sees this as a geographical and cultural "advantage" but it was actually an impediment at the worst and a borrowed stop-gap measure at its best. He doesn't accept that the survival of "western civilisation" was a near-run thing as most historians do.

The "equestrian culture" might have had a tactical advantage over, say, the Aztecs, but it was hopelessly outclassed by Asiatic opponents and had to be supported by an inefficient and (even in its time) obsolete political structure.

Any "advantage" secured by European civilisation was not due to the things that Diamond suggests but by borrowing from others and abandoning a lot of ideas central to "our" philosophy that persisted through much of the Christian era.

Few other "civilisations" have abandoned almost wholesale entire portions of their beliefs and institutions as Europeans did over the past three centuries.


Are we talking about the same book? I think you might be talking about Guns, Germs and Steel. I'm talking about Collapse.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Fernand Braudel spent more than seven years writing an 1,100 page book covering the Mediterranean world during the reign of a single Spanish Habsburg.

By comparison, Diamond just skims. And it shows.

I'm with gumboot on this. Diamond showed amazing economy in covering a wide range of topics in Guns Germs and Steel. He also includes a lengthy bibliography if one is inclined to research furhter.

Hell, if we want to take how unanalagous your example is, Dawkins covers the entire history of life on the planet in a mere 700 pages - and does an astoundingly thurough job in evidencing his hypothesis... exactly what Diamond did.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Are we talking about the same book? I think you might be talking about Guns, Germs and Steel. I'm talking about Collapse.

He's talking about GGS and I'm partially to blame for keeping him on that tangent with my earlier post. :sorry:

[gumboot]

Just to clarify, Collapse proposes the premise that there are four major factors that contribute to undermine a society - environmental impact, climate change, loss of trading partners and hostile neighbours. Diamond further proposes that how the society does or does not respond to these factors determines whether that society fails or succeeds.

He then provides a case study of the Bitterroot Valley in Montana. This is a particular geographic location that he is personally familiar with, and the purpose of highlighting this example first is not so much as his first example, but to demonstrate the wide variety of personal human factors that determine why a society responds the way it does. He goes through each of the four points and looks at how residents of the valley feel about each of them.

His point, in this case, is to offer something for the reader to consider while looking through the rest of the book - that is, it's important to forget what we know now and to try put yourself in the shoes of the people who were living in the society at that time. What did they know? What did they think? He explains that his reason behind this is that from our perspective some societies appear to have made obviously suicidal decisions that led to their own demise (like Easter Islanders cutting down all of their trees). The logic, then, is that anything that would cause our demise would be obvious as well. The Bitterroot Valley example illustrates that this is not always the case, and that a multitude of factors affect how the society responds.

After this introduction the book gets into the case studies:

-Easter Island (collapse entirely due to environmental damage)
-Pitcairn Islands (environmental damage and loss of trade partners)
-Anasazi (environmental damage and climate change)
-Maya (environmental damage, climate change, hostile neighbours)
-Greenland Norse (environmental damage, loss of trading partners, climate change, hostile neighbours)

Each of the above are examples of societies that collapsed. It is important to note that where available Diamond contrasted the collapsed society with companion societies with varying levels of success (for example Norse settlements in North America, the Orkney Islands, and Iceland were compared with the Greenland settlement in that section).

At the end of this section Diamond looks at three success stories:

-Tikopia
-New Guinea
-Tokugawa Japan

In the third section Diamond looks at some modern examples:

-Rwanda
-Haiti compared with the Dominican Republic
-China
-Australia

Lastly, Diamond looks at some broader issues on the subject, highlighting some key things he feels are important (such as environmentally friendly operations by some oil drilling companies).

The book focuses on the environmental aspects unsurprisingly given his own interests, and the fact that anything to do with climate change is in. I was a bit disappointed that some more substantial societies were not addressed such as classical civilisations. However Diamond's argument was he wanted to look at more isolated societies so he could isolate the factors affecting them, as the introduction of neighbouring societies immediately complicates things.

As a result, of course, the environmental based factors are easier to isolate as they do not involve other societies, and the book does come across as suggesting all societies collapse because of environmental damage and climate change. However I think the few examples of the other two factors do illustrate those factors fairly well.

[proxywar]

I'd have to say that your beliefs are quite disturbing. You want to advance technology at any cost even if it is not beneficial to human life. Just keep innovating even if it's not necessary or productive.

To be fair I was in a rush so I didn't have time to explain.

What i'm talking about is beneficial to human life much more than what you're offering. It's the next step in the evolutionary process. You act as if all this innovation is being done in one day. WRONG! The innovation i'm talking about is designed to take one whole generation before it becomes obsolete and future progression is turned over to the next generation whom will innovate throughout the centuries. so on, so on, etc.. etc.. This innovation will be managed but it will not ever resort to the status quo methods of the archaic. It's no more pointless than spending your whole human life on earth waiting to die. Speaking of death did I mention Singularity technology can't die?

Singularity post-humanists will nolonger need food thus food as a survival material is nolonger necessary therefore nomore famines. Instead the Singularity post-humans will build, collect and survive on Raw Energy. Look up in the sky at night with your telescope, you'll notice Space, it is filled with nothing but raw energy just waiting to be cruded and refined by singularity post-humans. I'm sorry you can't see my vision.




Regarding your statement about not being able to keep the moon from flying out of orbit, and stuff. That attitude is the same attitude a person who says "Well, we're all going to die anyway, so why bother trying to preserve ourselves?" I say, yeah we're going to inevitably die, but I'd like to delay it as much as I can!

What is wrong with saying that? I'm saying it for a good reason because it's true. Thus, why space exploration and genetic eingeering is the futuristic reality. You can keep your earth, wars, famine, culture, violence, and emotions. while I and others evolve in the evolutionary pecking order and continue to branch out. I have no problem leaving liabilities behind that are not with the program. They can fend for themselves.


People who enjoy their life the most (and since life is all we have, I figure that would be a good thing so long as they're not practicing irrational beliefs) are those who learn to live in the present. Enjoy what you have, live your life. I'm honestly saying this to you as advice, although I have this odd feeling it will be ignored.

You realize I'm a futurist, correct?

Orwell did not live in the persent.
Huxley did not live in the persent.
Where would electricity be without innovators like thomas edison?

I'm not going to force or kill anyone, if people don't want the mental enhancements, or physical enhancements, then on earth they shall stay as humans and fend for themselves. It's their lose not the future of man-kinds.

The original concept of singularitarianism is based on morality such as making sure that this technology is guided safely and that it should benefit the whole world not just specific individuals and groups. I very much support transhumanism, posthumanism, singularitarianism, and a technophiles progress to make sure existence is possible for the future of humanity.


There will be a technological revolution only this process will be to slowly shift society towards new technology enhancements increments in time. e.g. nanotechnology, genetic engineering, space exploration, and terraforming. Infact, production on these technologies have already started in the 21st century.

Understand The age of the industrial revolution has run it's course we're now evolving into the technological industrial revolution. You'll really start to notice this multidisciplinary technology by 2015. And By 2020 you'll start to notice it morph into a global-technological-revolution as futurists projected.

However, it's important to remember not all revolutions are violent. The revolution I seek is a international one based on diplomatic relationships though moral persuasion to reach a consensus agreement on uniting a global-technological-economical-humanity based under one umbrella. Thus, Disbanding the U.N.


What technoplies and others alike want is a safe technological way to unite humans under a umbrella of humanity to prolong their future progression. We only want to gentically reengineer man inorder to enhance his genetic abilities so that man has a life in a future world based in other galaxies. Because the earth will not always be here and soon or later man is going to have to take that next leap foward together. I see no reason to stay technologically stagnant or reverse back to primitive times. History shows a time-line of gradual and continual technological progression. I aim to keep progressing it.



You seem to be the type to never be satisfied with what you have, and just want to see "the next cool thing", probably never content.

What i'm talking about will save lives and completely evolve the way we behave. I'm not evil, not in the least. But I do have a realistic agenda I plan to explore and acheive.

Interestingly, I think that due to your lack of belief in religion, have actually turned science into a religion -- something it never was meant to be nor should be. Rather than a resurrection, or transcencdence, humans will evolve into Post-Humans and will go into outer space.

I don't see the problem with this espically when science actually advances situations where as religion keeps people in a state of mindless servitude. Why shouldn't it work if in the proper hands? Science is the only way to create post-humans, because this process will require nanotechnology. Once these post-humans reach say a planet like mars then they will continue to Mutate physically and mentally and evolve naturally into something exterrestrial-like.

I have nothing against space travel by the way... I just believe that there's no point in advancing technology if it doesn't have a benefit to humans. We do have an inherant right as sentient creatures, or any living creature for that matter, to preserve ourselves.

I won't have to force this on humans that is the genius of consumerism. Humans will simply want to make this transformation to transhumanist then
to post-humanist once they've realize it's the only way they'll be able to leave earth. Sorry you love earth and are in denile it will last forever and have no mind for a risky advanture.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Gumboot, you could have saved yourself a lot of typing. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_%28book%29

[gumboot]

Gumboot, you could have saved yourself a lot of typing. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_%28book%29


Doh!

ETA. Although I notice it incorrectly summarises his argument:

Diamond lists eight factors which have historically contributed to the collapse of past societies:

1. Deforestation and habitat destruction
2. Soil problems (erosion, salinization, and soil fertility losses)
3. Water management problems
4. Overhunting
5. Overfishing
6. Effects of introduced species on native species
7. Human population growth
8. Increased per-capita impact of people

He certainly covers these aspects (in particular in the first section) however they are all examples of sub-factors within just one of his four factors - negative human environmental impact.

Oh wait... later in mentions the five factors... never mind.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Doh!

ETA. Although I notice it incorrectly summarises his argument:

He certainly covers these aspects (in particular in the first section) however they are all examples of sub-factors within just one of his four factors - negative human environmental impact.

Oh wait... later in mentions the five factors... never mind.

I've had a few hours to think about this since my inadvertent tangent into GGS, but I started thinking about the U.S. and one aspect he highlighted as dooming the Greenland Norse - conservatism. For lurkers, not social or political conservatism as commonly discussed, but general conservatism - that is the attitude that alternately manifests itself as "whatever we've been doing has worked so far" and "that new idea is good, but not as good as old ideas".

You can see the dangers of conservatism in the response to Global Climate Change in how American Conservatives are responding to it. They either deny that glaciers are melting by citing the fact that it snowed in New York in February or suggest that AGW is a phantasm created by the environmental movement who wants us all to be "tree hugging" agrarians (ironically something Thoma Jefferson visualized America being).

There is some crossover with trading partners in our belief in unlimited and cheap fossil fuels. It's o.k. to live 30 or more miles from your workplace and drive a 10 mpg vehicle with yourself as the only occupant because that's our right as Americans dammit!!! Well, once we reach peak oil or a situation where the lifting costs means permanent $80+/barrell, something is going to have to give. Either you drive a more economical vehicle, live closer to your workplace or plan on spending more per annum on your gasoline costs than on your mortgage.

But wait... all those folks who want to live in the most distant suburbs will need to shop at grocery stores which are close by.. I mean we can't live in the richest nation on Earth and not have a ready source of cola, fresh vegetables and frozen entrees more than a few miles away can we? But if we have a grocery store, we need an auto parts store, a number of fast food joints, and the next thing you know a Bed, Bath and Beyond to furnish that 3,500 sq. ft. McMansion you've built 35 miles from where you work because you like the country life... except that urban sprawl has eradicated the "country life" and only exported it out into where there were cow pastures 20 years ago.

Bah, enough ranting. North Texas isn't Easter Island, Norse Greenland or Mangarava... but were not the Dominican Republic or Tokugawa Japan either....

- eta. I've had too much to drink when I posted this so if any of it seems nonsensical, let me know and I'll try and clarify tonight CST.

[INRM]

What i'm talking about is beneficial to human life much more than what you're offering. It's the next step in the evolutionary process. You act as if all this innovation is being done in one day. WRONG! The innovation i'm talking about is designed to take one whole generation before it becomes obsolete and future progression is turned over to the next generation whom will innovate throughout the centuries. so on, so on, etc.. etc.. This innovation will be managed but it will not ever resort to the status quo methods of the archaic. It's no more pointless than spending your whole human life on earth waiting to die. Speaking of death did I mention Singularity technology can't die?

Everything eventually breaks down. Even singularities as in black-holes break down. Eventually even a race at singularity level would break down just as a matter of fact.


BTW: I got a question. Has anything you've ever believed been wrong?


INRM

[stilicho]

He's talking about GGS and I'm partially to blame for keeping him on that tangent with my earlier post. :sorry:
Sorry, my bad. Yes, I was talking about that. I'll run and order Collapse from the library and be back soon.

[stilicho]

I've had a few hours to think about this since my inadvertent tangent into GGS, but I started thinking about the U.S. and one aspect he highlighted as dooming the Greenland Norse - conservatism. For lurkers, not social or political conservatism as commonly discussed, but general conservatism - that is the attitude that alternately manifests itself as "whatever we've been doing has worked so far" and "that new idea is good, but not as good as old ideas".

You can see the dangers of conservatism in the response to Global Climate Change in how American Conservatives are responding to it. They either deny that glaciers are melting by citing the fact that it snowed in New York in February or suggest that AGW is a phantasm created by the environmental movement who wants us all to be "tree hugging" agrarians (ironically something Thoma Jefferson visualized America being).

There is some crossover with trading partners in our belief in unlimited and cheap fossil fuels. It's o.k. to live 30 or more miles from your workplace and drive a 10 mpg vehicle with yourself as the only occupant because that's our right as Americans dammit!!! Well, once we reach peak oil or a situation where the lifting costs means permanent $80+/barrell, something is going to have to give. Either you drive a more economical vehicle, live closer to your workplace or plan on spending more per annum on your gasoline costs than on your mortgage.

But wait... all those folks who want to live in the most distant suburbs will need to shop at grocery stores which are close by.. I mean we can't live in the richest nation on Earth and not have a ready source of cola, fresh vegetables and frozen entrees more than a few miles away can we? But if we have a grocery store, we need an auto parts store, a number of fast food joints, and the next thing you know a Bed, Bath and Beyond to furnish that 3,500 sq. ft. McMansion you've built 35 miles from where you work because you like the country life... except that urban sprawl has eradicated the "country life" and only exported it out into where there were cow pastures 20 years ago.

Bah, enough ranting. North Texas isn't Easter Island, Norse Greenland or Mangarava... but were not the Dominican Republic or Tokugawa Japan either....

- eta. I've had too much to drink when I posted this so if any of it seems nonsensical, let me know and I'll try and clarify tonight CST.
There is also the real possibility that $500/barrel fossil fuels will result in the development of more economical alternatives. Maybe this too is a tangent.

Unlike a lot of anthropologists and not a mere few historians, I don't buy into the "internal stagnation" theory of civilisation collapse. Pharoahic Egypt, Persia, and the Aztecs were each destroyed through military means, and those are to name but a few. The cases of the Vikings in Greenland and the Easter Island culture are isolated and exceptional.

I disagree with gumboot that Rome was weakened internally before the great assaults in the later fourth and earlier fifth centuries. If this were true then one might expect that the Byzantine Empire would not have flourished for about a millenium after the collapse of the Western Empire. Arthur Ferrill has written a good study of the military blunders that led directly to the fall of the Roman Empire.

Anyhow, I better go find the actual book we're discussing so I can add my critique to the right one. My comprehension wasn't blurred by drink but by Neo-Citron as I am recovering from a particularly nasty flu bug that's going around.

[proxywar]

Everything eventually breaks down. Even singularities as in black-holes break down. Eventually even a race at singularity level would break down just as a matter of fact.

1.) The break down isn't similar. The only thing that would change is society. The old soceity would break down but a new soceity would a merge. A soceity which does not break down ever. But, don't wig out there will still be room in the ecology for humans.

2.) The singularity, will not break down, because singularity as a technology can improve itself in ways their designers never contemplated. The singularity is a self improving intelligence which surpasses human intelligence and then some. And yes, The singularity technology will be able to recursively augment themselves to produce far greater intelligences.

BTW: I got a question. Has anything you've ever believed been wrong?

Any human can be wrong, even you, but I don't worry about being wrong because I have humans like you who will do that worrying for me. I'm more
worried about getting it correct.

[gumboot]

Unlike a lot of anthropologists and not a mere few historians, I don't buy into the "internal stagnation" theory of civilisation collapse.

What "internal stagnation" theory? That's not what it is at all. The theory is that:
1. Combinations of factors put the future of the society in jeopardy
2. The society either failed to perceive the danger, or failed to effectively address the danger.
3. The society collapsed.

That has nothing to do with "stagnation".


Pharoahic Egypt, Persia, and the Aztecs were each destroyed through military means, and those are to name but a few.

I disagree entirely. Egyptian society did not collapse with the conquest of Alexander, it simply changed. It continued to be an advanced and powerful society. Likewise for Persia. Societies very rarely suffer collapse solely as a result of warfare. Carthage would be a rare example.


The cases of the Vikings in Greenland and the Easter Island culture are isolated and exceptional.

I assume the cases of the Pitcairn Islands, the Anasazi, the Maya, Tikopia, New Guinea, Tokugawa Japan, Rwanda, Haiti, Iceland, Vinland, the Orkney Islands, and Dominican Republic are also "isolated" and "exceptional"?


I disagree with gumboot that Rome was weakened internally before the great assaults in the later fourth and earlier fifth centuries.

Those "great assaults" were nothing more than mass migrations. The reason they occurred was because Rome could not defend itself - it was too weak. The western empire contained only 20% of the population by that time, and they had only 500,000 troops to hold the entire frontier. The withdrawal of the Legions from Great Britain to fight in Gaul led to severe starvation problems because Great Britain was at that time the bread basket of the western empire.

Lack of plunder from conquered peoples led to an economic crisis in the western empire. The withdrawal of the Roman navy from the west saw trade plummet. With increasing lawlessness and a desperately stretched army, Rome found itself no longer primarily defended by Romans, but by foreigners, who accounted for increasing percentages of all soldiers.

By the time the waves of goths, sais, angles, franks and so forth streamed across the Rhine and Danube to settle the western empire, the western empire was so weak they could do nothing about it.

(Another important factor to consider is christianisation, as christians could not keep other christians as slaves, and Rome was built on slavery)

Rome was not even remotely defeated via military conquest. It rotted away from within.


If this were true then one might expect that the Byzantine Empire would not have flourished for about a millenium after the collapse of the Western Empire.

One might, but one would be wrong. You'd have to ask yourself, if the Western Empire was so strong, why was in abandoned in favour of the Eastern Empire?


Anyhow, I better go find the actual book we're discussing so I can add my critique to the right one.

To be fair specifically discussing Collapse is not entirely on topic.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Stilicho, we can get back to my comments about North Texas/the U.S. later after you've had a chance to read at least some of collapse because Diamond doesn't only discuss historical societies, he discusses contemporary ones like China, Australia, Rwanda, etc.

I disagree with gumboot that Rome was weakened internally before the great assaults in the later fourth and earlier fifth centuries. If this were true then one might expect that the Byzantine Empire would not have flourished for about a millenium after the collapse of the Western Empire. Arthur Ferrill has written a good study of the military blunders that led directly to the fall of the Roman Empire.

In addition to what gumboot noted, the primary reason the Eastern Empire didn't collapse is because it remained what that area had been since 3-500 B.C (depending on province) - culturally Greek. The Western Empire was a cultural melange outside of the Italian penninsula and the influx of Goths and Germans only served to dilute the culture in the Roman heartland itself.

[UnrepentantSinner]

According to Dallas Morning News columnist Rod Dreher white Christians/secularists not pumping out babies (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-dreher_17edi.ART0.State.Edition1.4536fcb.html) will wind up destroying Western Civilization.

His Op Ed and the sources he derives it from do make for interesting reading so if the DMN link doesn't work, please Google to see if it was reposted elsewhere.

And by interesting I don't mean I agree with it - the problem isn't that white Christians/secularists are having less children than Hispanics and Muslims - the problem is that everyone is having too many children.

[The Painter]

Alexander Fraser Tytler made this interesting observation about democracy in 1776:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

You see, when people understand they can vote themselves money, we're doomed. It's already begun. We have about 50 years left. It's like Tytler could see into the future. TANSTAAFL

[INRM]

1.) The break down isn't similar. The only thing that would change is society. The old soceity would break down but a new soceity would a merge. A soceity which does not break down ever. But, don't wig out there will still be room in the ecology for humans.

No... you're not getting it. Even if you have a rate of advancement that's so fast as to be nearly infinite... eventually something wears out. Sure the mechanisms self-repair themselves. But give it a long enough time, and I'm not saying it would be REALLY REALLY LONG, but everything breaks down. Even protons and even photons break down.


2.) The singularity, will not break down, because singularity as a technology can improve itself in ways their designers never contemplated. The singularity is a self improving intelligence which surpasses human intelligence and then some. And yes, The singularity technology will be able to recursively augment themselves to produce far greater intelligences.

See above. There is no way to avoid death, things break down inevitably even if the ability to improve itself and repair itself were beyond a person's wildest imagination. It's simply part of the laws of physics. Entropy.

Any human can be wrong, even you, but I don't worry about being wrong because I have humans like you who will do that worrying for me. I'm more
worried about getting it correct.

So you're saying you've never been wrong and never made a mistake?

[proxywar]

No... you're not getting it. Even if you have a rate of advancement that's so fast as to be nearly infinite... eventually something wears out. Sure the mechanisms self-repair themselves. But give it a long enough time, and I'm not saying it would be REALLY REALLY LONG, but everything breaks down. Even protons and even photons break down.

See above. There is no way to avoid death, things break down inevitably even if the ability to improve itself and repair itself were beyond a person's wildest imagination. It's simply part of the laws of physics. Entropy.

So you're saying you've never been wrong and never made a mistake?

Of course I make mistakes, But I don't think I'm making a mistake here.


modification metamorphosis will be substituted in place of death since the singularity is nolonger human. The paradigm shift of the singularity through modification metamorphosis revolutionizes the singularities succession to continue on and succeed. So what I'm saying is basically this the singularity will break down BUT it will infact repair itself and improve itself every time it does. Therefore, The mechanisms of the singularity operates on a break-down-repair-self-improve-self-continuum. Moreover, The Signularity is advanced technology which can also create a new generation of ultimate intelligence if they find themselves becoming obsolete. what is your point?

Does that clear it up for you? I'm not defying entropy.

[INRM]

I think you've made science into a religion. Substituting a singularity with an afterlife.

All things die. Everything, even photons, electrons, protons. They eventually break down. Any kind of self-replicating and modification and metamorphosis will eventually reach a point where the break-down rate starts to exceed the rate of repair. It is inevitable.


INRM

[proxywar]

And if that happens...

"The Signularity is advanced technology which can also create a new generation of ultimate intelligence if they find themselves becoming obsolete."

This is not a religion it is the future of technological advancement.

This process though it breaks down from time to time does not end.

[INRM]

How do you define "ultimate intelligence". Do you mean infinite intelligence, or the highest intelligence in the knwon universe?

Either way, the next generation of ultimate intelligence is a product/result of the singularity no? And it breaks down, and another generation replaces it right?


INRM

[Darth Rotor]

How do you define "ultimate intelligence". Do you mean infinite intelligence, or the highest intelligence in the knwon universe?

Either way, the next generation of ultimate intelligence is a product/result of the singularity no? And it breaks down, and another generation replaces it right?


INRM
He's talking about the Protoss. ;)

[proxywar]

How do you define "ultimate intelligence". Do you mean infinite intelligence, or the highest intelligence in the knwon universe?

Either way, the next generation of ultimate intelligence is a product/result of the singularity no? And it breaks down, and another generation replaces it right?


INRM

The latter. And It's a continuum correct. But due to greater improvements the ultimate intelligence could have a much more longer life span than one generation before break down.

This is actually what i'm talking about: http://www.singinst.org/research/books

[NoZed Avenger]

I'm still taking "rebecca" and offering 3 to 5 odds.

[Mobyseven]

I'm still taking "rebecca" and offering 3 to 5 odds.

I'd place the odds of you taking Rebecca much higher than that.

[stilicho]

To be fair specifically discussing Collapse is not entirely on topic.
I went back to the library, gumboot, and realised that I had after all read the book in question.

Very quickly, I find the same problem with Diamond that I find with Barbara Ehrenreich's Blood Rites. That is, very interesting stuff but entirely divorced from history.

One of my favourite case studies was the Avars. They had all the "biological", "cultural", and "racial" advantages. Even the geographical ones, having been astride the much-vaunted "heartland".

They essentially brought the stirrup to Europe and all the advantages that technological marvel provided. But the Avars were crushed by the very people (Franks) to whom they provided the advantage. And they were rich beyond compare before they were crushed.

Diamond and Ehrenreich wouldn't even bother with the Avars because their vantage point is epochal instead of historical. And that's my biggest problem with scientists-cum-historians.

I would be glad to continue this at some point.

[Oliver]

Western Civilisation will not last forever.


My guess is that western Civilisation itself will destroy western Civilisation:

1: Overpopulation
2: Consequences of Global Warming
3: Shortage of energy-related resources leading to conflicts
4: Shortage of other basic Resources like Water and Food
5: Hyperinflation and the economic breakdown as it's consequence
.
13: Nuclear Showdown
.
173: A fast and deadly Virus
.
1204: Asteroid hitting Earth
.
3,524,227: Terrorattack with hundreds of nuclear warheads eleminating the whole western society :rolleyes:

But to bring western civilization to it's knees, it might be just an unexpected annoying combination of those factors.

[stilicho]

My guess is that western Civilisation itself will destroy western Civilisation:

1: Overpopulation
2: Consequences of Global Warming
3: Shortage of energy-related resources leading to conflicts
4: Shortage of other basic Resources like Water and Food
5: Hyperinflation and the economic breakdown as it's consequence
.
13: Nuclear Showdown
.
173: A fast and deadly Virus
.
1204: Asteroid hitting Earth
.
3,524,227: Terrorattack with hundreds of nuclear warheads eleminating the whole western society :rolleyes:

But to bring western civilization to it's knees, it might be just an unexpected annoying combination of those factors.
Overpopulation is #1? Maybe "over consumption" but "western civilisation" is marked by a drastic reduction in both family size and birth rates.

As for #2, Global Warming, now popularly known as "Climate Change" so it covers every possibility, that will not be much of a problem once we replace fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. Most economists agree that will happen within a generation.

It's simply odd to me that a forum dedicated to research and scepticism is so filled with people that don't know what happened to the Abassids, the Avars, the Yin/Shang, the Iroquois Confederation, and so forth.

To gumboot: You claim that the fate of Carthage is exceptional. How so, in comparison to the (controversial) fate of Rapa Nui? The fate of Carthage was actually rather ordinary in its time. One need look no further than post-Epaminondas Thebes to verify this. Polybius devoted an entire lifetime to explaining to his Greek audience what was in store for them if they chose to defy Rome (which they did, of course, to their everlasting detriment).

To oliver: #3,524,227? I don't know about that. What happens if we allowed Syria, Iran, and Libya to arm themselves with nuclear weapons? It's a strong possibility within our lifetime to see this, given the EU's acceptance of terrorist states into the "community of nations". Let's consider Turkey joining the EU under certain conditions and then Syria and Iran demanding the same status? Would the people in Brussels object? And on what grounds?

I am not fear-mongering in saying this. I am simply explaining to you that there are almost no reasonable objections to including Libya, Syria, and Iran in the EU if Turkey is allowed in. It actually sounds like a good idea on the face of it, right?

[stilicho]

In addition to what gumboot noted, the primary reason the Eastern Empire didn't collapse is because it remained what that area had been since 3-500 B.C (depending on province) - culturally Greek. The Western Empire was a cultural melange outside of the Italian penninsula and the influx of Goths and Germans only served to dilute the culture in the Roman heartland itself.
This last sentence is almost straight out of Gibbon. He was a man of his times, the Enlightenment, but virtually no modern (post-E H Carr) historians buy that any longer.

The Goths and Germans were largely "Romanised" just as everyone else that Rome conquered was. It's horribly un-Marxist to suggest that the accident of the frozen Rhine in 406 was pivotal in determining the fate of the (western) Roman empire. And it's likewise horribly un-Marxist to suggest that the Byzantine Empire was hosted by vigorous and militaristic leaders who struck fear and awe in the minds of their potential conquerors. (Read up on the Pechenegs or the Cumans if you disbelieve me--even the Rus Vikings gave up in the face of superior military tacticians and they didn't give up easily).

[gumboot]

This last sentence is almost straight out of Gibbon. He was a man of his times, the Enlightenment, but virtually no modern (post-E H Carr) historians buy that any longer.

The Goths and Germans were largely "Romanised" just as everyone else that Rome conquered was.


Except they were never really conquered by the Romans. The Goths had the unique situation of asking to be allowed into the Empire, and the unique response of the Romans letting them in.

[New Ager]

What Will Destroy Western Civilisation?

I see a plague eliminating all cats and dogs and humans adopting chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas as substitute pets. This will continue until a chimp from the future will arrive and get the apes to rebel, throwing off the shackles of human domination and creating a civilization in their own image.

What will destroy the civilization of the apes will be a human from the past pushing down the button of an alpha/omega bomb.

Just my prediction. I had a vision last night.

Get your hands off my script you damn dirty human!! :)

[New Ager]

You can see the dangers of conservatism in the response to Global Climate Change in how American Conservatives are responding to it. They either deny that glaciers are melting by citing the fact that it snowed in New York in February or suggest that AGW is a phantasm created by the environmental movement who wants us all to be "tree hugging" agrarians.


Global warming has become a religion to liberals. They believe based on faith as the evidence is lacking.

And we don't respond to it because it always has the same components. Higher taxes and curbing capitalism which is the one of main reasons America is the great country it is. Just politics as usual.

[New Ager]

My guess is that western Civilisation itself will destroy western Civilisation:

1: Overpopulation



We aren't close to being overpopulated. There's enough empty land to handle 5-10 times more people comfortably.


2: Consequences of Global Warming


It's like saying the consequences of the Klingons. No evidence that it exists.



3: Shortage of energy-related resources leading to conflicts



Our history suggests that what is needed will be created.

Capitalism at it's best.



4: Shortage of other basic Resources like Water and Food



We have more than enough and no evidence suggests any shortages.



5: Hyperinflation and the economic breakdown as it's consequence



Amazingly, even with liberals and kooks running around trying to screw things up, we overcome and conquer.


13: Nuclear Showdown


That might be a reason for the collapse of the civilization that attempts that against us.



173: A fast and deadly Virus
1204: Asteroid hitting Earth


I saw both of those movies. :)

[Policenaut]

Regarding overpopulation: It's not a land issue. It's the rapid growth of explosive populations with not enough food/medicine/technology to support them. Of course I don't think this applies to or will be the cause of the downfall of western civilization but whatever.

My money is on the Scourge tainting our food supply thus turning us undead and summoning legions of evil upon the world.

[stilicho]

Except they were never really conquered by the Romans. The Goths had the unique situation of asking to be allowed into the Empire, and the unique response of the Romans letting them in.
Just my poor sentence structure. I meant they were Romanised. So were the peoples that the Romans conquered.

[gumboot]

Regarding overpopulation: It's not a land issue. It's the rapid growth of explosive populations with not enough food/medicine/technology to support them. Of course I don't think this applies to or will be the cause of the downfall of western civilization but whatever.


Any downfall of western civilisation due to resources is far more likely to be as a result of increased competition for resources caused by the developing world attempting to achieve first world living standards.

There is simply not enough resources on earth for everyone to live at first world standards. Something is going to give.

[gumboot]

To gumboot: You claim that the fate of Carthage is exceptional. How so, in comparison to the (controversial) fate of Rapa Nui?

Because it's very rare for entire societies to be entirely wiped out by another. What is far more typical is that one society has greater influence, but another society challenges it and weakens it to the point where it no longer has said influence. Often the new rising society will absorb the old society into its own. But when this happens the old society does not vanish. When Alexander conquered Persia, Persian culture endured. When Alexander conquered Egypt, Egyptian culture endured. Typically defeat, conquest, and so forth do not cause social collapse only social change.

Finally, there is nothing in Jared Diamond's model that excludes a Carthage-type collapse. "Hostile neighbours" is one of his four factors. He demonstrates examples of societies that collapsed due to one of the four factors, and societies that collapsed due to more than one of the four factors.

I would say that total collapse due to just one factor (whatever that factor is) would be much rarer than total collapse due to multiple factors.

Another reason why social collapse is less typically caused purely by hostile neighbours is that the deciding factor is how the society deals with it. Societies are generally well aware of hostile neighbours, and usually make efforts to rectify that by either subjugating their society to the superior one, or forming some sort of alliance. It is only when they face a hostile neighbour that is actually intent on wiping them out that they are powerless to prevent it (such as happened with Carthage).

In contrast, until very recently humans had a very poor understanding of either environmental damage or climate change. As a result societies are unlikely to even be aware that these are happening until it is too late.


The fate of Carthage was actually rather ordinary in its time. One need look no further than post-Epaminondas Thebes to verify this. Polybius devoted an entire lifetime to explaining to his Greek audience what was in store for them if they chose to defy Rome (which they did, of course, to their everlasting detriment).

You might be getting mixed up with Macedon. Thebes was thoroughly destroyed in 335BC by Alexander and although it was rebuilt it was described as little more than a village by the time the Romans were ruling it.

Polybius cautioned Perseus of Macedon to maintain a policy of neutrality with Rome which he ignored, resulting in a series of wars and dismantling of the Macedon state.

It's worth noting that while the Macedon political system was dismantled, Macedonian society did not actually collapse, and continued.

[UnrepentantSinner]

This last sentence is almost straight out of Gibbon. He was a man of his times, the Enlightenment, but virtually no modern (post-E H Carr) historians buy that any longer.

The Goths and Germans were largely "Romanised" just as everyone else that Rome conquered was. It's horribly un-Marxist to suggest that the accident of the frozen Rhine in 406 was pivotal in determining the fate of the (western) Roman empire. And it's likewise horribly un-Marxist to suggest that the Byzantine Empire was hosted by vigorous and militaristic leaders who struck fear and awe in the minds of their potential conquerors. (Read up on the Pechenegs or the Cumans if you disbelieve me--even the Rus Vikings gave up in the face of superior military tacticians and they didn't give up easily).

I don't ascribe to any school of historical theory. If anything I'm an "Occamist". And I have a hard time considering the Goths and Germans being Romanized to the point where they were, for all intents and purposes, replacement Romans. As I see it, it was akin to the successive civilizations in Mesopotamia where conquerers would maintain their cultural identity, but adopt those things that worked from the "more advanced" civilization.

[Hindmost]

We aren't close to being overpopulated. There's enough empty land to handle 5-10 times more people comfortably.

But not enough fresh water or energy to produce the food to feed them.



It's like saying the consequences of the Klingons. No evidence that it exists.

Millions of years to sequester hydrocarbons, burn them in 200 years...something has to happen.


Our history suggests that what is needed will be created.

Capitalism at it's best.

Can't defy physics, you can't create energy. The cheap oil is gone. Future energy sources will cost more and will need an entire new infrastructure. It better happen soon. If they were available now, we would already be using them.

We have more than enough and no evidence suggests any shortages.

And you live in Georgia...take a trip to Atlanta. Have you heard about lake mead? Real evidence indicates severe water shortages in many places on the planet by 2020.


Amazingly, even with liberals and kooks running around trying to screw things up, we overcome and conquer.

This really isn't about politics...


....snip... :)

glenn

[stilicho]

Because it's very rare for entire societies to be entirely wiped out by another. What is far more typical is that one society has greater influence, but another society challenges it and weakens it to the point where it no longer has said influence. Often the new rising society will absorb the old society into its own. But when this happens the old society does not vanish. When Alexander conquered Persia, Persian culture endured. When Alexander conquered Egypt, Egyptian culture endured. Typically defeat, conquest, and so forth do not cause social collapse only social change.

Finally, there is nothing in Jared Diamond's model that excludes a Carthage-type collapse. "Hostile neighbours" is one of his four factors. He demonstrates examples of societies that collapsed due to one of the four factors, and societies that collapsed due to more than one of the four factors.

I would say that total collapse due to just one factor (whatever that factor is) would be much rarer than total collapse due to multiple factors.

Another reason why social collapse is less typically caused purely by hostile neighbours is that the deciding factor is how the society deals with it. Societies are generally well aware of hostile neighbours, and usually make efforts to rectify that by either subjugating their society to the superior one, or forming some sort of alliance. It is only when they face a hostile neighbour that is actually intent on wiping them out that they are powerless to prevent it (such as happened with Carthage).

In contrast, until very recently humans had a very poor understanding of either environmental damage or climate change. As a result societies are unlikely to even be aware that these are happening until it is too late.




You might be getting mixed up with Macedon. Thebes was thoroughly destroyed in 335BC by Alexander and although it was rebuilt it was described as little more than a village by the time the Romans were ruling it.

Polybius cautioned Perseus of Macedon to maintain a policy of neutrality with Rome which he ignored, resulting in a series of wars and dismantling of the Macedon state.

It's worth noting that while the Macedon political system was dismantled, Macedonian society did not actually collapse, and continued.
No, I'm not getting mixed up with Macedon. I actually looked back and I do separate my sentences with periods. Thebes and Carthage were not exceptional. And if you think Abbasid Persia continued "culturally" after the 14th Century you're reading different books than I am.

I absolutely understand that Diamond offers up the idea of "hostile neighbours" but his case studies are at variance with that as a primary cause of the destruction of "cultures" or entire peoples.

Now, a gentle reminder that Diamond offers up "hunter-gatherers" as a model for environmental sensitivity. He claims they were successful in the prehistoric era. Why? Well, I am not as certain as he is that they were any more sensitive than early agrarian clerics who "blessed" the seeds before keeping them safe during the off-season. Hunter-gatherers have typically been notorious for devastating whole regions before moving on to another area. Prehistoric peoples had no notions whatsoever of conservation. They probably would have captured and roasted Teddy Roosevelt for even imagining that Yellowstone should be anything but a hunting ground.

Diamond would do his critics a greater service by applying his theories to Carthage and Thebes. You brought up the former; I introduced the latter (along with the Yin/Shang, the Abbasids, the Avars and the Iroquois Confederation). If we find it so easy to discover "exceptions" then why can't he?

PS: I really doubt the rulers of Macedon had in mind "preserving their culture" when unwisely ignoring Polybius and taking on Rome militarily. I think they probably wanted to win the war instead.

[stilicho]

I don't ascribe to any school of historical theory. If anything I'm an "Occamist". And I have a hard time considering the Goths and Germans being Romanized to the point where they were, for all intents and purposes, replacement Romans. As I see it, it was akin to the successive civilizations in Mesopotamia where conquerers would maintain their cultural identity, but adopt those things that worked from the "more advanced" civilization.
As much as I like William of Ockham, my approach is probably closer to Abelard's sic et non.

You are probably remembering contemporary accounts, largely penned by Roman aristocrats, that considered the Goths and Germans to be "barbarians". But note they didn't consider Celtic, Iberian or Parthian contingents in the Roman army the same way. That's because they were creatures of their times. The Goths and Germans were "newbies" and got that treatment. I can't remember if it was Gregory of Tours or someone else, but within a century of their appearance, most contemporary accounts quickly forgot the "barbarian" nature of the latest Romanised troops.

Another historian and, pardon me--I have forgotten his name, indicated that it was always the Roman/Latin aristocrats who were concerned about the "barbarians" and not the generals who led them. In fact, as my namesake suggests, some of the best Roman generals were "barbarians".

[Darth Rotor]

My money is on the Scourge tainting our food supply thus turning us undead and summoning legions of evil upon the world.

Then a policy needs to be undertaken, now, that encourages the breeding of dwarves. :cool:
(Ref is to the Blizzard Entertainment game Warcraft III)

[New Ager]

But not enough fresh water or energy to produce the food to feed them.



Actually, we do. It's just getting it to them. Countries with dictators and oppresive government are notorious for abusing their people. Ever wonder why after decades of sending money to Africa, people are still starving.

And even though so many liberals around complain about our capitalism, it's really what the world needs more of it, not less of it. It's one of the things that has made this country great.



Millions of years to sequester hydrocarbons, burn them in 200 years...something has to happen.



And I thought it was the rampant consumerism of the last couple of decades.

And no evidence that anything will happen.




Can't defy physics, you can't create energy. The cheap oil is gone. Future energy sources will cost more and will need an entire new infrastructure.



There are many different forms of energy that will used in the future. No evidence to suggest that oil prices won't go down. One thing that is silly to do is underestimate the inventiveness of the USA.


It better happen soon. If they were available now, we would already be using them.



Not so. They are plenty of oil reserves for many years, but it's still the best deal. When other forms of energy become cost effective, they will be used. Some are already beginning to be seen on the market.



And you live in Georgia...take a trip to Atlanta. Have you heard about lake mead? Real evidence indicates severe water shortages in many places on the planet by 2020.



Not unless someone can predict the weather. One season of a little less rainfall is hardly an indicator of the fall of humanity. That would be as silly as saying because a number of tornadoes hit one season that we would be doomed from tornadoes in the future.



This really isn't about politics...



It's always about politics.

[shadron]

I like the Soylent Green philosophy...Overpopulation means loss of space and resources required to live.....then we start processing each other. Inevitable...

I've often wondered about this when I've heard it, and it has always made little sense to me. Supposing you could get 150 lbs, more or less, from a dead human, how long will that last a living person? Maybe six months, if it were well enough balanced? So how are the dead going to sustain the living for more then, perhaps, five years? A whole lot less if there are more than an elite few on the taking end. Cheaper to grow almost anything than people. And a lot quieter.

Inevitable, my bleedin' feet.

[gumboot]

No, I'm not getting mixed up with Macedon. I actually looked back and I do separate my sentences with periods.

I'm trying to work out how Thebean society was destroyed by the Romans when it was destroyed by the Macedonians a good couple of centuries before any Romans turned up.


I absolutely understand that Diamond offers up the idea of "hostile neighbours" but his case studies are at variance with that as a primary cause of the destruction of "cultures" or entire peoples.

That's because Collapse focused on climate/environment orientated examples because he felt that had more relevance to modern society.

(I don't entirely agree, as is obvious from my OP).


Now, a gentle reminder that Diamond offers up "hunter-gatherers" as a model for environmental sensitivity. He claims they were successful in the prehistoric era. Why? Well, I am not as certain as he is that they were any more sensitive than early agrarian clerics who "blessed" the seeds before keeping them safe during the off-season. Hunter-gatherers have typically been notorious for devastating whole regions before moving on to another area. Prehistoric peoples had no notions whatsoever of conservation. They probably would have captured and roasted Teddy Roosevelt for even imagining that Yellowstone should be anything but a hunting ground.

I couldn't agree more.


You brought up the former; I introduced the latter

Actually I didn't bring up Carthage, Diamond did, in Collapse.


I really doubt the rulers of Macedon had in mind "preserving their culture" when unwisely ignoring Polybius and taking on Rome militarily. I think they probably wanted to win the war instead.

The inhabitants of Easter Island probably didn't have preserving their culture in mind when they deforested the entire island either. The most important point I got from Collapse was that societies are seldom even aware of the factors that will ultimately bring their downfall, and typically think they're invincible. The other thing I got was that those factors, in hind sight, are typically fairly obvious.

Which incidentally was the entire purpose of this thread. I was curious to see whether the folks around here would completely rubbish the entire notion of a collapse of Western Civilisation or not.

On the matter of hostile enemies, another important point that Diamond raises, and that I touched on earlier, is that even collapse that appears to be solely a result of hostile neighbours seldom is. If we take the example of Carthage, a major factor in their eventual defeat was a loss of trading partners to the Romans (not always through force). Carthage was highly dependent on trade and as their empire shrank they were significantly weakened.

History is pretty good at recording that society X conquered society Y, and giving political reasons. History is poor at mentioning that grain production in society X had been declining for 30 years due to depleted soil. Finally, a vital point Diamond raises is to do with a society's per capita environmental footprint. There's a reason many societies collapse at their zenith - because the society's population reaches a point at which it exceeds the carrying capacity of their environment which leads to extremely rapid environment deterioration which is followed in quick succession by famine, social upheaval, war, and social collapse.

I think that's why Diamond's book is important. Typically we're taught that societies collapse due to conquest or social turmoil. I'd never come across any teaching regarding climate or environmental damage. Collapse shows us that it's something that does occur, is widespread enough that it can't just be dismissed as an anomaly, and that in fact some societies we thought collapsed primarily for other reasons had climate and environment at the root of it (prime examples being the Greenland Norse and the Maya).

In fact one of the reasons the foreign invasion explanation for the Maya collapse is generally rejected is because there is no historical precedent for an entire territory being abandoned solely due to foreign invasion.

[gumboot]

Something else I have been thinking on, we may be arguing at cross purposes here. Collapse is about how societies fail. It is not about how civilisations wane, or how cultures change or how rulers shift.

I think the differences is more than semantics. All of Diamond's examples ended with the human populations in the areas in question practically being wiped out. Social structure completely vanished under anarchy. Cannibalism, mass depopulation, and such things.

These simply don't happen when one society conquers another. Even if we take an extreme example like Carthage, while the Romans destroyed that particular city people didn't stop living there and Carthage's empire didn't vanish - it was just absorbed into Rome. Society remained structured and organised. The city of Carthage itself was rebuilt within a few decades of being destroyed, and people never stopped living in the area (the story of Romans sowing salt into the ground is a myth).

Likewise, while the Baghdad Caliph was overthrown by foreign invaders, it was firstly drastically weakened by many of its territories fracturing into independent states, and when the Mamluks did take over this didn't cause a social collapse. People remained living in the territory of the Caliph, just under new rulers.

I actually think you'd have a hard time finding a genuine example of social collapse caused primarily by foreign invasion.

The simple way of looking at it is to ask how the base farmer's life changed. If the farmers pretty much continued on with their lives, tilling the same soil, I don't think you can qualify it as a social collapse. If, however, the farmers died or fled en masse, I think that is social collapse.

[Bododio]

What will destroy western civilization?

No necessarily in this order:

Thong bathing suits
Indian food
Lack of proper blow jobs

[Polaris]

No necessarily in this order:

Thong bathing suits
Indian food
Lack of proper blow jobs

Atheism, anal sex and gay marriage.

[Praktik]

Atheism, anal sex and gay marriage.

No no this is true, if it wasn't for the Homosexual's attack on the American family, the decline in faith and an upsurge in the celebration of immorality then America would be in tip top shape.

As Patrick Buchanan is fond of pointing out, the fall of rome was presaged by a growing decadence and collapse of the social moral order.

Bring on Alaric the Goth I say!

[Hindmost]

Actually, we do. It's just getting it to them. Countries with dictators and oppresive government are notorious for abusing their people. Ever wonder why after decades of sending money to Africa, people are still starving.

I am talking about the western US and Georgia...unless the politics have changed...

http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/water-shortage-could-transform-markets-51332.aspx

Anyhow, more people will make drought areas more prevalent and difficult to recover from. Transporting water is expensive and very energy intensive.


And even though so many liberals around complain about our capitalism, it's really what the world needs more of it, not less of it. It's one of the things that has made this country great.

Not a political issue for me...

And I thought it was the rampant consumerism of the last couple of decades.

And no evidence that anything will happen.

discuss this in the global warming threads, but burning 30 billion barrels of oil a year might do something...



There are many different forms of energy that will used in the future. No evidence to suggest that oil prices won't go down. One thing that is silly to do is underestimate the inventiveness of the USA.



Not so. They are plenty of oil reserves for many years, but it's still the best deal. When other forms of energy become cost effective, they will be used. Some are already beginning to be seen on the market.

But none of them cheap and none with sufficient infrastructure. There is tons of evidence that oil is going to get more expensive. The world uses twice as much oil as it discovers. Take a look at this thread if you have time.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102623&page=9

Not unless someone can predict the weather. One season of a little less rainfall is hardly an indicator of the fall of humanity. That would be as silly as saying because a number of tornadoes hit one season that we would be doomed from tornadoes in the future.

It's always about politics.

As I said before, the ability to recover from drought gets more difficult with increasing population. And local disasters are problematic...such as Hurricane Katrina.

It's always about science, but polititians get involved:D

glenn

[INRM]

I'm not sure exactly what will destroy our civilization. But I speculate it will probably be our own doing.

Sure there might be some kind of disasterous natural disaster too.

[gumboot]

I've changed my mind. I think civilisation will be destroyed by frogs. Giant frogs.

[Hokulele]

Radioactive giant frogs?

[gumboot]

Radioactive giant frogs?


Ill-tempered mutated radioactive giant frogs. With frikken laser beams attached to their heads.

[Corsair 115]

I've changed my mind. I think civilisation will be destroyed by frogs. Giant frogs.No, no, no, it'll be destroyed by giant ants. Them!

[dudalb]

I guess in New Ager's world there are no enviormental problems. They are all part of a Commie/Liberal conspiracy.

[NoZed Avenger]

I guess in New Ager's world there are no enviormental problems. They are all part of a Commie/Liberal conspiracy.



Fine. Ill-tempered mutated radioactive giant frogs, that litter!!!!

Ridden by rebecca.

[stilicho]

History is pretty good at recording that society X conquered society Y, and giving political reasons. History is poor at mentioning that grain production in society X had been declining for 30 years due to depleted soil. Finally, a vital point Diamond raises is to do with a society's per capita environmental footprint. There's a reason many societies collapse at their zenith - because the society's population reaches a point at which it exceeds the carrying capacity of their environment which leads to extremely rapid environment deterioration which is followed in quick succession by famine, social upheaval, war, and social collapse.
Economic historians such as Braudel do that to a certain extent. When I first read his book on the Mediterranean world, I was quite surprised to see that comparisons of grain prices in Venice and Seville occupied several pages while the Battle of Lepanto was mentioned in one sentence. Several French historians (again, I can't remember their names off the top of my head) have written extensively on how the Black Death and subsequent diseases only took root in a most virulent form in Western Europe because of climate-induced crop failures. Of course, you already know about the problems caused by a volcanic eruption at the time of the Napoleonic Wars.

When you challenged me on Diamond's case studies you listed not 13th Century Mesopotamia or the Little Ice Age (Maunder Minimum etc) but several places that are remote or hostile environments regardless of "global" climate. One could almost similarly ask why, if man was there at one time, there aren't thriving human colonies on the moon.

I think that's why Diamond's book is important. Typically we're taught that societies collapse due to conquest or social turmoil. I'd never come across any teaching regarding climate or environmental damage. Collapse shows us that it's something that does occur, is widespread enough that it can't just be dismissed as an anomaly, and that in fact some societies we thought collapsed primarily for other reasons had climate and environment at the root of it (prime examples being the Greenland Norse and the Maya).
Could it be that the reason it isn't taught as a primary cause of societal collapse is that it isn't supportable? You have explained that you can support it as long as you define collapse as anything that physically removes all vestiges of human existence. So, when the Mongols annihilated the Abassids or when the Avar empire was destroyed by the Franks, you can explain away the collapse of these formerly thriving political entities by merely offering that they "changed". If anyone is left alive then Diamond must get pretty upset.

In fact one of the reasons the foreign invasion explanation for the Maya collapse is generally rejected is because there is no historical precedent for an entire territory being abandoned solely due to foreign invasion.
I think it's on Crooked Timber that they're discussing this issue right now. One of the quotes I remember was that the descendents of the Maya who still occupy the area ask why nobody asks what happened to the English if Stonehenge is there but the people who built it aren't.

[charlie-d]

I don't know if this is the right forum to ask this in, so mods if I'm off base please move it. :)

Western Civilisation will not last forever. One day it will cease. Maybe there will be a cataclysmic collapse, or maybe it will gradually evolve into something else and long distant historians will draw a line and say "It ended here".

I know you're (mostly) skeptics who deal in facts, but I thought it might be interesting to discuss something where no one can be right or wrong - idle speculation about possible futures.

So what will it be? A plague? Alien invaders? Or maybe it will last for all eternity? Maybe you think it has already collapsed.

I'd like to propose that the end is relatively near at hand (within a few centuries) and that the collapse will come due to the combined affect of climate change and aggression (either culturally or more traditionally) from either China or Radical Islam.

On the topic (if anyone is interested) I'd recommend the book Collapse by Jared Diamond. He proposes four key factors in why societies do or do not collapse:

Environmental damage
Climate change
Hostile neighbours
Loss of trading partners

All feeding a fifth factor: how the society responds to each of those four factors.

It's a very interesting read.

Anyone else's thoughts?

There have been many ascendant cultures. They seem to typically arise out of geographic and economic opportunity. To me the key signatures are tolerance, technological superiority, and the rule of law and individual security (more than political participation per se). These are just biological drives translated into the complexity of civilization. Society is a balance between the benefits of good sharing and cooperation and the ordering need for dominance. Ascendant societies tip the balance towards good sharing to take advantage of opportunity, but as the opportunity plays out and economic stress sets in the balance shifts back towards dominance. Like in the US, it's not that we are ignorant that the patriot act is trampling on the rule of law, it's just that it doesn't seem that important when protection of privilege and economic advantage is viscerally understood to be the order of the day. At this point one would have to say that American ascendency is kind of separate from European ascendancy. Are they tied together? Is the "West" one culture.

The Roman Republic lasted for 500 years and then was replaced by a Caesar. It took another 400 years for the sack. But as someone pointed out the world is a different place today, and global warming isn't going to be kind to the water supply in Phoenix.

[Ziggurat]

I've changed my mind. I think civilisation will be destroyed by frogs. Giant frogs.

No, only Australia will be destroyed by giant frogs. The Americas will meet their doom at the hand... I mean appendages... of a badger-octopus hybrid which will escape from a secret laboratory on Alcatraz.

I'm not sure about Eurasia, but rumor has it that it will involve pigeons, and be rather embarassing for all involved. I'm afraid I'm not at liberty to discuss anything more on the topic.

[Polaris]

No, only Australia will be destroyed by giant frogs. The Americas will meet their doom at the hand... I mean appendages... of a badger-octopus hybrid which will escape from a secret laboratory on Alcatraz.

I'm not sure about Eurasia, but rumor has it that it will involve pigeons, and be rather embarassing for all involved. I'm afraid I'm not at liberty to discuss anything more on the topic.

Er...I take it you didn't hear about the, um, setback...

Let's just say that's the last time we hire a Korean night watchman.

[ServiceSoon]

greed

[Ateius]

What Will Destroy Western Civilization?

MTV.

[LostAngeles]

Apparently, teh gheyz and teh mixed.