Western Civilization.

[AntiochusIII]

I haven't researched individual companies such as wal-mart. If they do such things well then they are bad guys, but as long as there are no laws against it they're no worse than any others doing it. However if they prevent politicians with programs of removing such exploitation by passing laws, they're evil. The companies that do lobbyist stuff to affect politics are a problem yes, but that a result of a weakened democracy.

You can call them evil all you want (and quite a few people do, certainly), but in the end they wins out with their cheap goods and large shares of the economic pie. Nobody wants to destabilize the economic pie for moral reasons. The economy is mainly driven by market forces, of which profit is the very heart of it all, and profit can be better gained by outsourcing to countries with less wages and less "annoying" regulatory laws overall.

Heck, even Futurama and Family Guy are outsourced to Korea.

Besides, if the likes of the Rwandan genocide does not interest the average American, how would something like bad conditions in shiny new Chinese factories ever worry them? (They'll worry about those shiny new Chinese factories taking jobs away, though. )

Well the desire for low cost products might be due to low wages and high taxes from the US government. Or if they despite that think they have to exploit other countries people then they can't really expect any third world countries to think they're nice, and can't have any decent chance at all of stopping terrorism, seeing as terrorism is the only way for the third world to fight back. That's sad, because I'm strongly against terrorism and think it should be solved by removing the causes of it.

Or it might be something simpler, say, human desire for the most out of the least. When people buy stuff, they don't think about international social implications and all that, but which one is the cheapest.

I don't really think those that argue that this will cause the downfall of Western Civilization to be on firm grounds, though.

I fail to see what you're upset about in my post. May I ask you whether you're a refugee from war or a luxury-seeking type of immigrant from not so poor regions? The ghettos are a result of these immigrants not being given the right and needed assistance to learn the local language to break their isolation, and a result of many who come from warring countries being apathic and in need of comfort like therapy and life strategy help to learn the bureaucracy of the country they come to. Most employers don't want to hire people who don't know the language. Call them racist or not, it's a fact and no government has been able to prevent that. Giving them knowledge of the language helps them more than anything.

I'm upset? Not at all. May be it's my fault for giving the wrong impression. Never mind that, the assistance you demand for immigration is all and good but they certainly aren't your weekly trip to the family's therapist, which is what you asked for in the first post, no?

Therapists imply that something's wrong with the psyche anyway, which is a pretty rare case, even among refugees from terribly devastated countries. Humans survive in much worse environments before psychology was born.

And I can tell you this: Life Strategy help = waste of time. That's not how people adapt. In terms of what one wants in life, it's always individual, always in the head. Simply walk into a high school "life strategy" (or whatever fancy names the schools come up for classes meant to "encourage students for college planning, bruhaha, lalala) and anyone will easily realize how worthless such an effort is.

Well luxury-seeking immigrants that have a decent life must realize that there are people who have a worse situation and must be given the immigration placs. Immigrants must also realize that the ultimate objective isn't to have the entire world living in Europe and America, but to make the third world inhabitable, stable, and peaceful so people can move back there. Sending foreign aid saves about 1,000 people for the same cost it takes to provide a luxury-seeking immigrant with money. It's a matter of helping those who need it most. And the ultimate objective is that these refugees can go home and rebuild their countries. Immigration for luxury is not desireable. We can help most people by sending aid money and use wise foreign politics that minimizes war and instability in the third world, while having a program where immigrants are to be sent back to help building up their countries. Nobody gains anything from having the few educated people in the third world moving to the western world - those who have education in these countries should stay there and help building up their countries. By accepting luxury-immigration instead of helping refugees, we decrease our abilities of helping the people who have the most difficult situation, and we also help undermining and destroying the third world. Such egoism is unacceptable. Not all people are aware of how this works however and now that we know that it works this way the information must be spread. Those who have already come to the western world must of course stay because they didn't know (and neither did the (ir)responsible western governments), but all future luxury immigration must be stopped as quickly as possible. Trying to stand in the way of such politics is to support the death of the refugees that have the worst situation of all.

That is all moralistic and all, but that's certainly not how's the world's run. Humans are creatures driven to achieve their betterment, not concerning themselves with the fate of the world at every little decision. Civilizations aren't built on socialistic grounds; for all the glorious proclamations of We The People as one, in the end it's the personalities that make up the general will.

Another point: nations look for their own interests, not others'. The United States of America wants its immigrants to be useful, not problematic, which is why it sets quotas which are more open to, say, Taiwan, than India and the Philippines, where more immigrants want to leave.

So you can certainly call my family evil for trying to join America (I'm not upset about that at all, mind you), but in the end it's just the classic American dream -- self-betterment, drive for success, search for opportunities, hope -- with Asians instead of Eastern Europeans this time around. (Actually, it's not really our fault to blame since the USA is the one who sets the quotas on immigrants anyway, and I'm certainly not entering the USA by illegal means). And of course, the natives all angry and demand that these "job-stealers" not be given so much "privileges." The parallel is amazing for students of history.

Which is why I'm one of those few happy-go-lucky people who don't really worry about the "Mexicans" conquering the USA and weighting down "our quality of life." The very frickin' same things used to be said by the great-great-grandsons of the British settlers as more and more Italians, Germans, Poles, etcetera, flooded the factories of Chicago and New York, unable to speak English, unable to properly integrate, trapped in cycles of low poverty, and exploited literally to death by factory owners willing to gouge profit. Social efforts ("Progressive Movement", may be also the New Deal) and time eventually win that out.

I blame it mostly on our governments for thinking that mass-immigration into ghettos and isolating immigrants there would cause integration. Also their failure to stop luxury-immigrants to give room for the refugees that have the most difficult situation.

The first reason is certainly valid, but I don't think the second is, for the problems with immigration in Europe.

It might be a "righteous" ethical issue and all that, valid on its own in other places, but it's not tied in with why Europe is so immigration-scared right now.

Back to the original topic, though, I certainly don't think Western Civilization is failing. The doomsayers are everywhere, at everytime, and things don't really happen that often. Barring nuclear fallout, I'll be enjoying HBO and junk food for quite a long time to come. May be Texan burgers will be less popular and Tacos more, and may be I'll have to scrap my elitism and learn Spanish later (elitism not driven against Mexicans, but against entering classes filled to the brim while I can take French and ogle at all the ladies there ), but it's not something devastating.

[Navaros]

Western Civilization is an oxymoron.

There is nothing the least bit civilized about any society which legally allows the butchering of it's babies.

Or all other manner of debauchery and evil.

how are we doing?

Pathetically. "Western Civilization" is a disgrace.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wow Nav, do you have to bring that into every topic.

I think Western Civilisation lacks a serious competor, without such there is not exsternal unifying force, so the society begins to unravel.

The writing is on the Wall. Rome, Athens, The Hittites.

[AntiochusIII]

Athens

Athens = no serious competitors?

They were fighting teeth-to-teeth with the Spartan right in their heydays. Pericles himself died during the Peloponnesian war. I wouldn't call that city-state down for a lack of enemies.

[Papewaio]

Wow Nav, do you have to bring that into every topic.

I think Western Civilisation lacks a serious competor, without such there is not exsternal unifying force, so the society begins to unravel.

The writing is on the Wall. Rome, Athens, The Hittites.

The assumption is that Western Civilisation is a single coherent mass and that that requires competition to survive.

The first part of the assumption screams out no...think about the UN and how the various Western Democracies do not walk in lock step,

The second part is also probably wrong, even within a single democratice entity their is plenty of competion... research grants, free markets, capitalism, sports events, market share, TV audience etc.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Pathetically. "Western Civilization" is a disgrace.

I agree, people who say "I think we should abuse and exploit the third world because we can, because we have the power and the big guns" aren't part of the western civilization and democracy dream - they're nothing but scum and don't deserve the fighting morale to defend themselves against the threats they've created against themselves. I say let them destroy themselves, but also let the righteous within the western countries find a way of marking themselves so that the hordes will recognize them when they begin their offensives. Let the righteous make sure the hordes only direct their wrath at the guilty, guide the hordes so that they can help the worthy and righteous within the western countries to upbear tolerance, democracy and freedom. Those who were righteous within western civilization and fought for justice and thereby the safety of both westerners and others, shall not be sacrificed along with the guilty, even if they fail to save the western world from it's self-destructive desire. Exploiting others never works, never. But this one time, the righteous shall not be slaughtered along with the unworthy when the oppressed people get the power to strike back in force. This time only those within our countries who wanted to destroy themselves and us, shouldn't be successful in anything but destroying themselves. If they wish to commit suicide, let them not drag innocents with them to their deaths.

[Samurai Waki]

There was a saying I read somewhere and went like this

"Rome wasn't built in a day, and it took more than a lifetime to fall. America was built in a day, and will likely crumble just as fast."

[yesdachi]

There was a saying I read somewhere and went like this

"Rome wasn't built in a day, and it took more than a lifetime to fall. America was built in a day, and will likely crumble just as fast."

In those terms, I don’t think America is finished being built.

[Samurai Waki]

In those terms, I don’t think America is finished being built.

Yeah. I was pretty much thinking the same when I read it. It was more food for thought than anything really.

[Rodion Romanovich]

You can call them evil all you want (and quite a few people do, certainly), but in the end they wins out with their cheap goods and large shares of the economic pie. Nobody wants to destabilize the economic pie for moral reasons. The economy is mainly driven by market forces, of which profit is the very heart of it all, and profit can be better gained by outsourcing to countries with less wages and less "annoying" regulatory laws overall.

Heck, even Futurama and Family Guy are outsourced to Korea.

Besides, if the likes of the Rwandan genocide does not interest the average American, how would something like bad conditions in shiny new Chinese factories ever worry them? (They'll worry about those shiny new Chinese factories taking jobs away, though. )

Well, then I'm afraid nothing can save western civilization. All that can be done is to slow down the inevitable self-destruction, but slowing it down will only make the enemies more angry, more bloodthirsty. It's happened before in history and it's sad that "the only thing you can learn from history is that you can't learn anything from history", whoever said that.

Or it might be something simpler, say, human desire for the most out of the least. When people buy stuff, they don't think about international social implications and all that, but which one is the cheapest.

I'm not talking about those who buy stuff, but the people who vote. As long as it's cheap you can and should buy the cheapest stuff. But you should vote for parties that try to outlaw unethical work. Once those laws have been passed you still search for the cheapest goods whenever you can. However if you DON'T vote for fighting the unethical goods and trade, then you're taking part in slavery and murder. It is sad that people like me who do want a change and do want justice shall be dragged down into the dust with such filthy people who want to exploit others. How will I feel when I must tell my children: the blood will come over your children, but also know that they're innocent, like me. Together with the unethical selfish murderers these innocents will be drawn into the dust, killed, raped, exposed to all sorts of barbary.

I'm upset? Not at all. May be it's my fault for giving the wrong impression. Never mind that, the assistance you demand for immigration is all and good but they certainly aren't your weekly trip to the family's therapist, which is what you asked for in the first post, no?

No, what makes you jump to conclusions like that? I thought I made it quite clear that the traumas of people from war ravaged countries are much more severe than anything an average western citizen can understand.

Therapists imply that something's wrong with the psyche anyway, which is a pretty rare case, even among refugees from terribly devastated countries. Humans survive in much worse environments before psychology was born.

And I can tell you this: Life Strategy help = waste of time. That's not how people adapt. In terms of what one wants in life, it's always individual, always in the head. Simply walk into a high school "life strategy" (or whatever fancy names the schools come up for classes meant to "encourage students for college planning, bruhaha, lalala) and anyone will easily realize how worthless such an effort is.

It's easy for you to say that life strategy and help doesn't help, while you're one of those who don't need help. It's the classical fascistical reasoning - you think everybody "weaker" than yourself (with a deliberately vague definition of weakness) are worthless and don't deserve to live and shouldn't get any help. I sometimes wish all people who reason that way would be struck by a lighting and become handicapped. Then perhaps they would realize the implications of what they're saying. Or throw them to the people they wish to get rid of, and see how cheeky they become then.

That is all moralistic and all, but that's certainly not how's the world's run. Humans are creatures driven to achieve their betterment, not concerning themselves with the fate of the world at every little decision.

That's why civilizations keep falling. If you don't think any further than 5 minutes ahead like an average horney and hungry monkey you can consider youself lucky for being able to build something that lasts for longer than the time between two rainstorms.

Another point: nations look for their own interests, not others'.

Ok let's take the simplest of all examples - did nazi Germany win anything from their policy of oppression? Look through history and count the number of egoists that were severely punished and compare it to the number of egoists that weren't. You forget that the enemy too is human, and will put up a decent fight. He'll learn from you crushing his rebellions, and wait until you overextend. He'll strike you when you're weakest. And the longer it takes him and the more casualties he suffer in his struggle for justice, the angrier and more brutal his revenge will be when he finally succeeds at carrying it out.

The first reason is certainly valid, but I don't think the second is, for the problems with immigration in Europe.

The key to mastering logic and science lies in being able to make more than one conclusion steps in a row rather than just making a single one.

Back to the original topic, though, I certainly don't think Western Civilization is failing. The doomsayers are everywhere, at everytime, and things don't really happen that often. Barring nuclear fallout, I'll be enjoying HBO and junk food for quite a long time to come. May be Texan burgers will be less popular and Tacos more, and may be I'll have to scrap my elitism and learn Spanish later (elitism not driven against Mexicans, but against entering classes filled to the brim while I can take French and ogle at all the ladies there ), but it's not something devastating.

Rome also thought Rome wasn't falling when the barbarians entered their cities raping and burning in the 4th and 5th centuries. The population somewhat confused wondered why the local governors had cancelled their gladiatorial games. They still had their panem (Texas burger of the time) and entertainment until the were end.

[AntiochusIII]

Well, then I'm afraid nothing can save western civilization. All that can be done is to slow down the inevitable self-destruction, but slowing it down will only make the enemies more angry, more bloodthirsty. It's happened before in history and it's sad that "the only thing you can learn from history is that you can't learn anything from history", whoever said that.

Ya, right. I'm not particularly inclined to believe that the city of Las Vegas will shut down the next day due to a very long chain of economic forces that ends up somewhere in those mighty factories in China.

You see, there aren't really any Chinese terrorists seeking to destroy the USA, more like countless Chinese businessmen welcoming the arrival of American capital with open arms. The oppression on the workers is real (How. Bloody. Ironic. For the Farmers' and Workers' Republic to be such...), but Western outsourcing is just one of the factors. If the Democracy of India and the People's Republic of China intends to secure higher quality of life for their citizens they certainly can. They don't really care. India perhaps does put some thoughts into it, if not satisfactory in action. China hopefully will once the economic prosperity (built on un-humanitarian grounds as it is) create enough pressure for political and social reforms, or even revolutions.

The world is moving towards a global economy anyway, and "civilizations" are no longer so clear cut as in the past (not that they ever were that clear, but boundaries were usually somewhere). Tell me, what is Western Civilization and where does it end?

I'm not talking about those who buy stuff, but the people who vote. As long as it's cheap you can and should buy the cheapest stuff. But you should vote for parties that try to outlaw unethical work. Once those laws have been passed you still search for the cheapest goods whenever you can. However if you DON'T vote for fighting the unethical goods and trade, then you're taking part in slavery and murder. It is sad that people like me who do want a change and do want justice shall be dragged down into the dust with such filthy people who want to exploit others. How will I feel when I must tell my children: the blood will come over your children, but also know that they're innocent, like me. Together with the unethical selfish murderers these innocents will be drawn into the dust, killed, raped, exposed to all sorts of barbary.

Which party in the USA opposes any economic ties with China, one of its largest -- if not the largest -- trading partners? Some crazy redneck nativist-protectionist party somewhere?

No, what makes you jump to conclusions like that? I thought I made it quite clear that the traumas of people from war ravaged countries are much more severe than anything an average western citizen can understand.

This is what you said: "c. all immigrants from war regions should be given therapy to deal with their mental problems. This would decrease the violence crimes among immigrants, which are cause of incorrect racism accusations."

How else would I interpret that? Not only that it is a false generalization in terms of the cause of crimes among immigrants, it demands something strange out of them, too. Therapy?

It's easy for you to say that life strategy and help doesn't help, while you're one of those who don't need help. It's the classical fascistical reasoning - you think everybody "weaker" than yourself (with a deliberately vague definition of weakness) are worthless and don't deserve to live and shouldn't get any help. I sometimes wish all people who reason that way would be struck by a lighting and become handicapped. Then perhaps they would realize the implications of what they're saying. Or throw them to the people they wish to get rid of, and see how cheeky they become then.

Is this something of a personal attack?

Nevermind that, I'd like to say that you are dead wrong in your assumption. While you are correct in the part that I indeed hold myself responsible in things much more than I could expect others responsible for, I believe it in an almost Buddhist sense; a relic of the religion I threw away, perhaps. It is as simple as believing that, should everyone always expect themselves to be responsible, but in the same time do not demand that responsibility of others, life will be much less selfish, much less conflicting, and much more pleasant: to always have others exceed your expectation, and yet to have a goal you always expect of yourself. That's why I hold such a deep dislike for "moralists" who demand of others what they cannot achieve. Or why I don't despise, say, welfare beneficiaries as much as some here do.

To assume that I think myself superior to others is pretty offensive.

That's why civilizations keep falling. If you don't think any further than 5 minutes ahead like an average horney and hungry monkey you can consider youself lucky for being able to build something that lasts for longer than the time between two rainstorms.

I don't think that's why civilizations keep failing. Metaphysics and grand generalizations on history does tend to ignore the little bits that drives history forward. What if Julian the Apostate was successful? What if Valentinian III was an active genius? What if Flavius Aetius became Emperor? What if Trajan reached India? What if Alaric, Attila, the many Theodorics, and Odoacer all died in their youths? What if Emperor Commodus was half of his father was? What if Lars Porsena became King of Rome for good? What if an anonymous ancestor of Julius Caesar was never to be?

Why do civilizations fall? A basic Gibbonesque generalization won't do anyone good. The little events that can drive the whole path another way are there for us to speculate, and even if one does not buy to such a game, the forces of history present themselves to be far more complex than such assumptions anyway.

Ok let's take the simplest of all examples - did nazi Germany win anything from their policy of oppression? Look through history and count the number of egoists that were severely punished and compare it to the number of egoists that weren't. You forget that the enemy too is human, and will put up a decent fight. He'll learn from you crushing his rebellions, and wait until you overextend. He'll strike you when you're weakest. And the longer it takes him and the more casualties he suffer in his struggle for justice, the angrier and more brutal his revenge will be when he finally succeeds at carrying it out.

You believe "Western Civilization" (whatever that entity includes) systematically plan for the oppression and de-facto slavery that exists in some other countries they do business with. You also believe that there are powerful enemies of this "Western Civilization" that will not hesitate to take its place with impunity without any concerns for implications of retaliation, or economic disasters, or international chaos. I don't.

The key to mastering logic and science lies in being able to make more than one conclusion steps in a row rather than just making a single one.

Except there isn't even a link, and that is not a counter argument.

Rome also thought Rome wasn't falling when the barbarians entered their cities raping and burning in the 4th and 5th centuries. The population somewhat confused wondered why the local governors had cancelled their gladiatorial games. They still had their panem (Texas burger of the time) and entertainment until the were end.

Who said Rome didn't think they were going to fall? And who said the nobility of the past had anything similar to the current society?

The desperation of the Late Roman Empire ran much deeper than most give credit for. The blind luxuries of the higher classes were almost like escapism, and were exactly like the French nobility of Louis XV: bankrupt, yet luxurious. The "Monsieurs" of Dicken's masterpiece, A Tale of Two Cities, do exist in this world -- I've met a few myself, much to my disgust; filthy rich and filthily empty -- but they remain a great minority, and not the average citizen of any free nation that could generally be considered to be at the heart of this "Western Civilization," though I know not where is the fringe.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Western civilization isn't immune from the cycle that affects all successful civilizations. Basically you go from dirt poor, to fighting to the top, to prosperity, to apathy and decline, and eventually defeat

You see this is what in reality seperates the conservatives from the liberals. We know at what part of the cycle to quit and hold the status quo. If its not broke dont fix it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You see this is what in reality seperates the conservatives from the liberals. We know at what part of the cycle to quit and hold the status quo. If its not broke dont fix it.

Yes, but you've always thought it's time to quit. You thought that back in the 40's and 50's.

It's not like western civilization is doomed to fail anyway. We figured out how to get our economy out of the boom/bust cycle.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's not like western civilization is doomed to fail anyway. We figured out how to get our economy out of the boom/bust cycle.

But it is. And were our own worst enemy.

Yes, but you've always thought it's time to quit. You thought that back in the 40's and 50's.

Oh come on. Do you really think we want to go back to WW2 and a democrat in office for 4 terms? But I grew up in the 50s and Ill take it over today anytime.

[Papewaio]

But I grew up in the 50s and Ill take it over today anytime.

Internet and videos?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Internet and videos?

Im glad I didnt have them. Id be a shut in. When we played sports we actually used our bodies.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But I grew up in the 50s and Ill take it over today anytime.

Haha, but of course, you're a white heterosexual male.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Status quo is defeat; it is an illusion that will leave one to slowly rot into certain oblivion.

What have the attempts to preserve status quo in history brought forth? The Fall of the Roman Empire, the Fall of the French Monarchy, the Fall of the Tokugawa Shogunate: the violent ends to status quo.

I didnt say to keep the status quo in everything. Only on certain matters like keeping marriage between a man and a woman and having smaller government. Im not against progresss but I am against progress merely in the name of progress and this is where liberals go off the track.

Oh, so the reason you want to keep the status quo is because you hate Democrats, and may be liking Ike's years more.

I hate to say it but I used to be a liberal tree hugging pot smoking liberal. Now Im just a pot smoking conservative.

Yeah, that's such a good reason for it, especially when I don't think Mr. King and his "ilk" enjoyed the fifties much. I won't either; my very un-white skin color would probably make me a repressed, depressed, and perhaps even oppressed person.

I didnt say everything was better. But in many ways blacks were still better off then than they are today.

Haha, but of course, you're a white heterosexual male.

Yeah in the 50s that was something to be proud of. Today everything is our fault.

[AntiochusIII]

You see this is what in reality seperates the conservatives from the liberals. We know at what part of the cycle to quit and hold the status quo. If its not broke dont fix it.

Status quo is defeat; it is an illusion that will leave one to slowly rot into certain oblivion.

What have the attempts to preserve status quo in history brought forth? The Fall of the Roman Empire, the Fall of the French Monarchy, the Fall of the Tokugawa Shogunate: the violent ends to status quo.

Oh come on. Do you really think we want to go back to WW2 and a democrat in office for 4 terms? But I grew up in the 50s and Ill take it over today anytime.

Oh, so the reason you want to keep the status quo is because you hate Democrats, and may be liking Ike's years more.

Yeah, that's such a good reason for it, especially when I don't think Mr. King and his "ilk" enjoyed the fifties much. I won't either; my very un-white skin color would probably make me a repressed, depressed, and perhaps even oppressed person.

Im glad I didnt have them. Id be a shut in. When we played sports we actually used our bodies.

Oh, I wouldn't agree with you at all. Everyone's childhood is his or her best times. It's quite that simple.