The fall of western civilization

[Rodion Romanovich]

Do you think we're about to cause our own fall? If yes, what will be the replacement? How long will it take: decades, centuries like Rome, or even millennia? At which point will our countries, though they still haven't fallen as nations, have been so changed on the inside (by becoming totalitarian or something similar) that you can consider the fall complete even though the countries still exist? Decades, centuries, or even millenia?

I see several dangerous tendencies:
1. trying to get as many enemies as possible around in the world, at a time when we're losing economical power to China and India, i.e. a time when we should rather seek to decrease our number of enemies

2. we are allowing immigration of people who already hate us because of no.1. When they come to our countries, we throw them away in ghettoes, where they a. start hating us even more, b. often become criminals, so that we start hating them even more, and in return they hate us even more. The percentage of population in our countries who hate our countries are getting close to 50% or higher.

3. those who still pretend to be patriots are not patriots, but expansionists who wish for more wars in order for their shares in weapons manufacturers to increase in value, or for being able to rape foreigners, or to be able to listen to the news and hear of battle victories for the country, to be able to deny its decline on the strategical level, even though these battle victories make the strategical level decline go faster and makes it impossible to turn around

4. totalitarian tendencies are rising, the anti-terror laws in Britain, the "Patriot act" in USA, and a rise of surveillance all over Europe and America. More and more people get arrested without a crime, and disgusting camps are kept open despite that they are publically known about.

5. education and motivation among younger people increased up to the 80ies or so, but now it's declining. People are immensely unmotivated and uneducated. The society system gives most people a sense of hopelessness. The technological edge of the western countries is being lost to China, India and others

6. an upper class has developed that is neither well educated, morally strong, or patriotic. It is prepared to destroy its own country to make its family richer in the short term. This upper class, as all upper classes, has great influence over the politics of the country. Additionally, politicians of today are increasingly often full-time politicians, than people who have experience of normal life, and thus they know little about the things they make decisions about. They close the political arena to all but themselves. You have to be rich from start to get into this. Until you've risen in position high enough you have no salary, so they can easily keep you out by making sure every political duty takes your full time - so you can't have another work at the same time. Most politicians of today are sons of politicians a generation ago. The feeling of these "clans" that the state is their hands is getting stronger and stronger. The politicians of opposing parties feel more in common with each other, than with the groups in the people their party's ideology is to represent

7. the rise of a middle and lower class where every single citizen thinks he will become the next Bill Gates or top actor, even though this is a fate given to less than 1%. They get disillusioned and truly and honestly surprised when they fail in this. Some are near suicidal and walking zoombies, caring not whether they draw their entire country or people with them down into destruction. They have no desire to turn the falling western civilization back to what it was after ww2 and up till the 80ies. They have only a desire for creative new forms of entertainment, whether it be by voting a mad expansionist politician in place, or by throwing cobbles at policemen. Suicide is the most common cause of death of young people in most European and American countries, and indeed the literature nobel prize of the year goes to a book about the causes of this practise.

8. the conservatives are no longer people who want to conserve the culture, but people who have less knowledge of our culture, than of the models of guns our weapons manufacturers produce. Likewise, the non-conservatives put honor into looking at the own culture with contempt. And those who do like our culture, find that our greatest works of art were made before the era of democracy and freedom from ww2 to the 80ies, and will too steer us away from these good things.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That was a cheery post.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Well, from ww2 to the 80ies we worshipped democracy and freedom as the basis of our culture and politics. I can't honestly say the same thing about post year 2000 Europe and America. And then I see tendencies hinting that this situation may remain for a very long time: where we have the strength to counter it, we do not have the will, and where we have the will, we do not have the strength.

But in summarizing all our problems like above, it is also apparent that the total amount of effort required is small, and with the right attitude it would be very much possible - maybe even easy - to counter the dangers. Realizing this could give the masses strength where they have will, and will where they have strength. But the actions must be taken before we pass the point of no return. Hopefully the summary also succeeds in achieving its most important goal: to make clear to those who think they have something to gain from the problems in our society of today, that they will lose more than they can ever dream of if they try to defend these injustices, and in comparison gain much more if they cooperate in solving the fundamental problems of our society. For instance the politician elite who keeps others out of the political arena - their children will not be thankful.

So while a depressing read, it is an immensly uplifting message, IMHO.

[FactionHeir]

I would say that capitalism and its offshoots (increasing company value, maximizing profits, short term gain) in addition to mass media marketing (fashion, movie, music industries mainly) are what is causing this downfall as you put it.

Of course there is also corruption, but that is included in the short term personal gain. The world of today is money-minded, fad-addicted and all about being rich, famous, beautiful and/or popular. Sad indeed. What happened to all the other values?

[Husar]

What happened to all the other values?

They're still there, somewhere under the surface. At least that's what I hope, maybe I can make a study on that once I'm rich.

[Tribesman]

2. we are allowing immigration of people who already hate us because of no.1. When they come to our countries, we throw them away in ghettoes, where they a. start hating us even more, b. often become criminals, so that we start hating them even more, and in return they hate us even more. The percentage of population in our countries who hate our countries are getting close to 50% or higher.

Just wondering where you get the 50% from ?

[Peasant Phill]

Had a bad day, Legio?

It's exagerated and dramatised.
The western civilization is not in decline. It may be experiencing a bit of a slump but our cultures are not falling apart. Do you believe that the USA is now more totalitarian than when the witch hunt for commies went on?

And another thing, the western civilization isn't equal to the USA an Great Britain. I can understand that your background mostly covers the Anglo-Saxon world but don't generalize it with the entire western civilization. Countries like France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Greece, ... are all part of the same civilization. yet they don't share the same culture, political views, values with the Anglo-Saxon countries.

[CountArach]

Do you think we're about to cause our own fall? If yes, what will be the replacement? How long will it take: decades, centuries like Rome, or even millennia? At which point will our countries, though they still haven't fallen as nations, have been so changed on the inside (by becoming totalitarian or something similar) that you can consider the fall complete even though the countries still exist? Decades, centuries, or even millenia?

If it were to have taken Decades, or even centuries, we should already have fallen. Keep in mind that Western Civilisation has been the dominant one for many centuries already. I believe that the downfall of the countries will be caused by becoming Totalitarian, rather than Totalitarianism being the end result. I mean, look at WWII. That had 2 Totalitarian Governments on one side and basically brought Europe to its knees for 5 years, not to mention the knock-on effect of making Europe no longer the World's main power base.

1. trying to get as many enemies as possible around in the world, at a time when we're losing economical power to China and India, i.e. a time when we should rather seek to decrease our number of enemies

I take it here that you aren't referring to Western Civilisation, but instead to America, as the main purveyor of this culture. I would say that this would create the downfall of Western Civilisation, in fact I would say that it would unite people under their shared Culture (as they saw it). Look at the Average American, who is united in their common hatred (I know I am overgeneralising here, just bear with me) of Terrorists and, in many cases, Muslims. They are so united that they allow these measures like the PATRIOT Act to go through without a word. So in many ways, yes you are right, but I think you are right in a different way to what you intended with this point.

2. we are allowing immigration of people who already hate us because of no.1. When they come to our countries, we throw them away in ghettoes, where they a. start hating us even more, b. often become criminals, so that we start hating them even more, and in return they hate us even more. The percentage of population in our countries who hate our countries are getting close to 50% or higher.

This is also correct, for the same reason as No. 1, however I think that again this would only apply to America and a few other nations (Including, much to my shame, Australia). I would also like a source for that statistic. I'm not sure how it would be measured, outside of a huge sample group. *Imagines the American Sensus - "Do you hate America - Yes/No".*

3. those who still pretend to be patriots are not patriots, but expansionists who wish for more wars in order for their shares in weapons manufacturers to increase in value, or for being able to rape foreigners, or to be able to listen to the news and hear of battle victories for the country, to be able to deny its decline on the strategical level, even though these battle victories make the strategical level decline go faster and makes it impossible to turn around

Patriotism is never necessary for a healthy society to grow. It ends up creating a different society, one that is more tolerant. I do agree that those who claim to be patriots aren't.

4. totalitarian tendencies are rising, the anti-terror laws in Britain, the "Patriot act" in USA, and a rise of surveillance all over Europe and America. More and more people get arrested without a crime, and disgusting camps are kept open despite that they are publically known about.

I completely agree with you here.

5. education and motivation among younger people increased up to the 80ies or so, but now it's declining. People are immensely unmotivated and uneducated. The society system gives most people a sense of hopelessness. The technological edge of the western countries is being lost to China, India and others

As a Highly Educated young person (I am 17 and go to a Public School for gifted students), I would disagree with this point because I have seen a high level of education around me. I would, however, point out that the education is more directed towards the end goal that the person wants to achieve. There is less focus on General Education.

6. an upper class has developed that is neither well educated, morally strong, or patriotic. It is prepared to destroy its own country to make its family richer in the short term. This upper class, as all upper classes, has great influence over the politics of the country. Additionally, politicians of today are increasingly often full-time politicians, than people who have experience of normal life, and thus they know little about the things they make decisions about. They close the political arena to all but themselves. You have to be rich from start to get into this. Until you've risen in position high enough you have no salary, so they can easily keep you out by making sure every political duty takes your full time - so you can't have another work at the same time. Most politicians of today are sons of politicians a generation ago. The feeling of these "clans" that the state is their hands is getting stronger and stronger. The politicians of opposing parties feel more in common with each other, than with the groups in the people their party's ideology is to represent

I agree with you completely on the first point about an under-educated and immoral upperclass. They also fit into the patriotism that you describe in point #3. I also agree that career politicians are horrible and often don't truly believe in what they say, however, this may only apply to America. Here in Australia in our two main parties only one of them is full of Career politicians. The other ones are mainly trade union members and former workers.

7. the rise of a middle and lower class where every single citizen thinks he will become the next Bill Gates or top actor, even though this is a fate given to less than 1%. They get disillusioned and truly and honestly surprised when they fail in this. Some are near suicidal and walking zoombies, caring not whether they draw their entire country or people with them down into destruction.

I think you are blowing this one out of proportion. I agree that these people have unrealistic explanations (An end result of Capitalism), but I don't think they will cause the downfall of Western Civilisation.

8. the conservatives are no longer people who want to conserve the culture, but people who have less knowledge of our culture, than of the models of guns our weapons manufacturers produce. Likewise, the non-conservatives put honor into looking at the own culture with contempt. And those who do like our culture, find that our greatest works of art were made before the era of democracy and freedom from ww2 to the 80ies, and will too steer us away from these good things

I disagree. Conservatives want to conserve the status quo, which is the Culture as they see it. Many Western Countries have a consumerist culture now, and conserving this is the ultimate goal. In addition they try to hold onto 'Christian values' at an increasingly secular time, which means they have to resort to more extreme methods.

So in conclusion, I agree with you on some points, but I believe that Capitalism has created the first steps to the downfall of Western Civilisation. I will great that fall with open arms, because I honestly couldn't care less. It's one step closer to everyone else...

[Innocentius]

If you mean Europe, it's quite possible it has already "fallen".

Rome wasn't built in a day, and it didn't fall in the year 476, the city itself exists today and people in the Roman Empire lived on as if nothing had changed. Of course, over time they got poorer and "civilisation" declined, but over such a long time-span that nobody noticed it. In future history books, some might date the "fall" of Europe to 1939 or possibly even 1914.

If Asia (China, South Korea and Japan) is going to take over the economic world politics, that's no problem with me. It just means less people will notice us and we can do what we want without having to shoulder the role of world-dominating power.

[KafirChobee]

We live in a zero-sum economy, that is, where one side gains and the other does loses. It supports the "trickle down" theory, which is fact is nothing more than a smoke screen to allow those on top to all but steal from the less privileged among society.
For example:
http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm

It is a bit long winded, so to get the gist simply scan it or jump down to the conclusions. Regardless, it does demonstrate the effect of zero-sum economics in the history of civilizations and the popular propagandists that have supported it (from before John Smith to Reagan and the present).

Personally, I find some of it a stretch, but for the most part it seems to explain a great deal of why a government of capitalism without barriers, laws to restrict monopolization, and laws to protect small businesses will fail being a democracy - becoming an corporate imperialist lacky that supports only one faction of a society (the wealthy), while disclaiming any responsability for the less fortunate. After all, the poor are poor because they're lazy and uneducated - there is nothing to be done about it - it is the way god intended. Isn't it?

The disparities between the wealthy and the poor always lead to confrontation, but not necessarily revolution. Still, look only to China's farmers to witness the beginnings of a mini-revolution [even if China has been somewhat successful in limiting news access to the regions and concealing the confrontations between the peasantry and military]. To say nothing of the continuation of slavery there - in America we prefer to call it smart business pratices.

Patriotism?
Read a stat in PB (or NW) where the question "which is more important to you? 1) Religion - God, or 2) America".
American-Muslims answered that America was by 64%
American-Christians answered that God was by 55%
(Maybe we need to start screening Christians better at our airports. J/K)

It is all a matter of perception. The better the propaganda or spin on any issue - and the more often it is repeated, the more likely it will be believed. Also, that even after the spin has been proven wrong, some will continue to believe it because they continue to hear the lie repeared by the liars that created it. [You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.]

Regardless, it is all about economics - everything. And, today it about "zero-sum" being the dominate factor in the expansion of imperialism in America. In the world for that matter. Imperialism rules today, suppose it always has.

[gaelic cowboy]

Samuel P Huntington wrote stuff on this back in early nineties at the time it may have seemed oullandish but it gets more and more real everyday. As for fall of West it doesnt really matter too much as long as the transition from western dominance to whoever is peaceful but a prolonged period of instability would be very bad for the one on the way down and the new pretender on the way up.

[Papewaio]

We live in a zero-sum economy, that is, where one side gains and the other does loses. It supports the "trickle down" theory, which is fact is nothing more than a smoke screen to allow those on top to all but steal from the less privileged among society.
...
Regardless, it is all about economics - everything. And, today it about "zero-sum" being the dominate factor in the expansion of imperialism in America. In the world for that matter. Imperialism rules today, suppose it always has.

So what was the negative part of the equation that was created to counter the postive part created by the computer industry?

Where are the balances to Microsoft, HP, Norton, Apple etc?

Why is there twice as many people in the US since WWII and they have a higher standard of living?

[gaelic cowboy]

So what was the negative part of the equation that was created to counter the postive part created by the computer industry?

Where are the balances to Microsoft, HP, Norton, Apple etc?

Why is there twice as many people in the US since WWII and they have a higher standard of living?

Well I imagine some young kid from India or China is even now in his dads garage tinkering with some piece of technology well on the road to the new microsoft or google.

Also there are more people in england today and the standard of living is higher than in late nineteenth century but well gone are the days of britannia ruling the waves. In fact in less fifty years England went from superpower to redundant.

I feel myself that the west is declining but its not some kind of end of Rome thing its more of a we are no longer fully able to get everyone to do what we want we are being challenged more and more.

[Papewaio]

Britain is actually a good example.

Its not that they have fallen, its that the old standards don't apply.

The political-economic landscape has changed. And just like generals fighting yesteryears war... IMDHO we are using yesteryears groupthink to describe what is happening today and in the future.

Globalisation isn't all gloom and doom... the example about the kid in India isn't far fetched. There already is a trend with IT outsourcing going to Indian Outsources (who have trained around the world and returned to India)... which are creating a bootstrap-like economic effect... in fact if it wasn't for China's massive industrial rise, the service sector rise of India would be the headline news... potentially on the long term it is the service sector that holds the most potential in both profit and knowledge generation (something very good for a democracy).

[KafirChobee]

Outsourcing and globalization are good examples of zero-sum, in fact they are perfect.

By outsourcing a mid-range engineering job of middle-income (say $65K) from America (or Britain, where ever) and sending it to India where the person there is paid considerably less ($10-15K) - who gains? Obviously the corporation that made the swap. There maybe a gain in India, but not an equal gain in America - not even in the lessening of prices because that corporation keeps the difference and does not share that gain - more oft than not the top managers reward themselves with huge bonuses (some times up to a $Billion each) and limit the payments to their stockholders.
There is no win-win, it is always a win-loss-lose.

The men (and women) that returned after service in WWII were the first that reached the levels of middle-class by being workers (in factories). They owned their own homes, bought cars, sent their children to college, and retired in some comfort (through retirement pay, Soc.Sec. payments, and savings). Today the protections placed by our government (legislators) to protect the workingclass wages and their retirements no longer exist - the advantage has again shifted back to corporations, and there are no rules today to limit expansion because greed is good and equality is for losers. The end of compensating workers for their life-time service (30+ years of service) is ending, and so the bell has sounded on the working middle-class - and a return to the "company store" economics has sounded loud and clear.

Zero-sum, what a wonderful thing. If you're a billionaire - soon to be trillionaire in the next decade.

[Odin]

1. trying to get as many enemies as possible around in the world, at a time when we're losing economical power to China and India, i.e. a time when we should rather seek to decrease our number of enemies

thats the result, but wasnt the aim. By starting off with "trying to get as many enemies as possible" you imply thats the goal from the start. You and I might be ideologically opposed to the current offensive nature of the west, but to be rational and fair taking this tact to start a point by no means allows for a fair discussion.

Now you say we are losing economic power to china and india, but you dont state what power they are gaining. Thier economic boons are industrial in nature, those industries are fueld by thier labor costs as opposed to the west. At the end of the day, the construction and the services they are supplanting are feuled by manufactured goods.

Those goods are being purchased by the west. This dynamic dosent appear to be changing signifigantly in the near future and thus the point becomes one of interdependence rather then loss.

2. we are allowing immigration of people who already hate us because of no.1. When they come to our countries, we throw them away in ghettoes, where they a. start hating us even more, b. often become criminals, so that we start hating them even more, and in return they hate us even more. The percentage of population in our countries who hate our countries are getting close to 50% or higher.

By starting off the point stating thay we allow immigration of people who already hate us because of point 1, by no means does this encourage a fair discussion.

Be minimalizing the choice of those who hate, to immigrate to a nation of people they hate misses the fact that the choice is made by the person immigrating, not the person causing the hate. The paradox in your argument is much like watching a dog chase its tail.

3. those who still pretend to be patriots are not patriots, but expansionists who wish for more wars in order for their shares in weapons manufacturers to increase in value, or for being able to rape foreigners, or to be able to listen to the news and hear of battle victories for the country, to be able to deny its decline on the strategical level, even though these battle victories make the strategical level decline go faster and makes it impossible to turn around

thats intresting, can you post evidence?

4. totalitarian tendencies are rising, the anti-terror laws in Britain, the "Patriot act" in USA, and a rise of surveillance all over Europe and America. More and more people get arrested without a crime, and disgusting camps are kept open despite that they are publically known about.

It snowed in hell, we agree. The tendancies of western culture to over compensate for security lends to civil freedoms being compramised. This in itself is a symptom of a pending fall of western culture, as freedom is one of its hallmarks.

5. education and motivation among younger people increased up to the 80ies or so, but now it's declining. People are immensely unmotivated and uneducated. The society system gives most people a sense of hopelessness. The technological edge of the western countries is being lost to China, India and others

This commentary is blanket in nature

People are immensely unmotivated and uneducated.

when making absolute statements of opinion and using broad swaths to paint a picture you negate part of your argument.

The society system gives most people a sense of hopelessness.

odd given that in item 2 you declared that people are immigrating.

Are they simply ignorant to your facts, or soely driven by economic concerns? If the later, why arent they moving to india and china?

The economic class commentary I dont desire to tackle at this time.

[Papewaio]

Outsourcing and globalization are good examples of zero-sum, in fact they are perfect.

By outsourcing a mid-range engineering job of middle-income (say $65K) from America (or Britain, where ever) and sending it to India where the person there is paid considerably less ($10-15K) - who gains? Obviously the corporation that made the swap. There maybe a gain in India, but not an equal gain in America - not even in the lessening of prices because that corporation keeps the difference and does not share that gain - more oft than not the top managers reward themselves with huge bonuses (some times up to a $Billion each) and limit the payments to their stockholders.
There is no win-win, it is always a win-loss-lose.

They are not zero sum at all, nor can you compare wages directly from one country to another country without including the cost of living.

The cost of consumer goods is going down as is outsourced services. More money in India and cheaper goods and services to the rest of the world.

As for managers awarding themselves massive payouts... that happens regardless of it being an outsourcer or not.

[Incongruous]

They are not zero sum at all, nor can you compare wages directly from one country to another country without including the cost of living.

The cost of consumer goods is going down as is outsourced services. More money in India and cheaper goods and services to the rest of the world.

As for managers awarding themselves massive payouts... that happens regardless of it being an outsourcer or not.

But perhaps KC's point can be seen in the massive growth in disparity between rich and poor?

[naut]

I'd say WWIII between Russia and "The West". And if the world isn't completely devastated China will be the dominant power, but will battle it out with India. And the world will then end, by curry or otherwise.

Edit: This post was meant to be ironic/sarcastic, basically it was a jibe at pessimists. However, sarcasm is never translated well on the Internet, unless well emphasised.

[Shaka_Khan]

I think you’re being pessimistic because you're used to having the West as being the lone superpower, which is now losing that status. If China or India becomes a superpower, that doesn't have to mean the West will no longer be one. It could mean that the West is no longer 1st place, but I don't think that's a bad thing.

It’s true that China and India have the potential to become the most powerful countries. But I don’t think the West will be way behind if that happens. The world is more connected economically and with information than it was before. It’s not like when the West surpassed China. China didn’t know what was going on with Europe. So China thought there'd be nothing wrong if she went on an isolationist path and not gain outside ideas in the future. Nowadays, the West would know if China or India becomes dangerously powerful. If that happens, the West will wake up and do something with themselves. Also, countries like the US are heavily connected economically with the world. If that country suffers economically, then much of the world will feel the shockwave.

And Asia has a weakness too. I used to think that the West was in decline and would be surpassed by Asia. But then, Asia suffered from a financial crisis. Later on, many Western countries recovered from a long recession and had a long period of robust economies.

If there is another world war between the Western powers, then that will bring a great decline to the West. But it doesn't look like the West is looking for another WW. The 21st century is different from the past. If the world continues to work together, then the whole world will survive on and on.

1. trying to get as many enemies as possible around in the world, at a time when we're losing economical power to China and India, i.e. a time when we should rather seek to decrease our number of enemies

I think it's too early to consider China and India as our future enemies. There's enough time to avoid a bad relationship.

2. we are allowing immigration of people who already hate us because of no.1. When they come to our countries, we throw them away in ghettoes, where they a. start hating us even more, b. often become criminals, so that we start hating them even more, and in return they hate us even more. The percentage of population in our countries who hate our countries are getting close to 50% or higher.

Immigrants have been entering the US for a long time. From the Africans to the Irish to the Mexicans, a lot of them started their life in America with a difficult life. The US is still doing fine now.

3. those who still pretend to be patriots are not patriots, but expansionists who wish for more wars in order for their shares in weapons manufacturers to increase in value, or for being able to rape foreigners, or to be able to listen to the news and hear of battle victories for the country, to be able to deny its decline on the strategical level, even though these battle victories make the strategical level decline go faster and makes it impossible to turn around

I feel sad for the soldiers who are in the war zone, but overall, it's Iraq and Afghanistan who are suffering. Western countries are being untouched, and terrorism is quite rare in those countries.
In addition, the technological gap of weapons is much greater than when Rome faced her enemies. If the terrorists win, they win because the Western powers no longer have the stomach for war. The Western military won't be beaten in a major battle.

4. totalitarian tendencies are rising, the anti-terror laws in Britain, the "Patriot act" in USA, and a rise of surveillance all over Europe and America. More and more people get arrested without a crime, and disgusting camps are kept open despite that they are publically known about.

China is not a democratic country. But like you said before, China is rising. Democracy is of course the desirable way. But as China and many other countries have proven us, a non-democratic country can grow stronger too.

5. education and motivation among younger people increased up to the 80ies or so, but now it's declining. People are immensely unmotivated and uneducated. The society system gives most people a sense of hopelessness. The technological edge of the western countries is being lost to China, India and others

It’s because countries like the US are wealthy, so kids don’t feel eager for education as much as a Chinese or an Indian student would. If more and more Americans can’t get a decent job, I’m sure the students will wake up and start studying. I heard that in the old days of Western countries, you could get a decent job without college. Meanwhile, people in 3rd World countries needed a good education to avoid a poor life (and in a worst case to avoid starvation). And Chinese and Indian parents tend to push their kids more in education.

6. an upper class has developed that is neither well educated, morally strong, or patriotic. It is prepared to destroy its own country to make its family richer in the short term. This upper class, as all upper classes, has great influence over the politics of the country. Additionally, politicians of today are increasingly often full-time politicians, than people who have experience of normal life, and thus they know little about the things they make decisions about. They close the political arena to all but themselves. You have to be rich from start to get into this. Until you've risen in position high enough you have no salary, so they can easily keep you out by making sure every political duty takes your full time - so you can't have another work at the same time. Most politicians of today are sons of politicians a generation ago. The feeling of these "clans" that the state is their hands is getting stronger and stronger. The politicians of opposing parties feel more in common with each other, than with the groups in the people their party's ideology is to represent

It’s difficult for an entrepreneur to start a new business in an advanced country because of the competition with big businesses that are already there. Anyway, I don’t think this has anything to do with the decline of the West.

8. the conservatives are no longer people who want to conserve the culture, but people who have less knowledge of our culture, than of the models of guns our weapons manufacturers produce. Likewise, the non-conservatives put honor into looking at the own culture with contempt. And those who do like our culture, find that our greatest works of art were made before the era of democracy and freedom from ww2 to the 80ies, and will too steer us away from these good things.

While I think it’s good to conserve the culture, I don’t think losing it will bring a decline to a country. Look at how much culture that the wealthy Asians lost.

[Papewaio]

But perhaps KC's point can be seen in the massive growth in disparity between rich and poor?

That's still not zero-sum. If the poor's standard of living is going up it cannot be a zero-sum game result. Nor does it make it a zero-sum game if some are gaining faster then others... sure it might be a win(little)-win(alot) but that still does not make it zero-sum.

Literacy, child mortality, years of education, length of life etc... all these in general are going up in every capitalistic country unlike the likes of Zimbabwe...

=][=
Russia for all intents and purposes is a Western country in history, ethnic and religious background... compared with the Far-East such as China and India, Russia is very Western... where Russia misses out is that its democratic status is short lived and not very strong, so it doesn't meet the criteria of being a modern Western Democracy.

[Incongruous]

That's still not zero-sum. If the poor's standard of living is going up it cannot be a zero-sum game result. Nor does it make it a zero-sum game if some are gaining faster then others... sure it might be a win(little)-win(alot) but that still does not make it zero-sum.

Literacy, child mortality, years of education, length of life etc... all these in general are going up in every capitalistic country unlike the likes of Zimbabwe...

=][=
Russia for all intents and purposes is a Western country in history, ethnic and religious background... compared with the Far-East such as China and India, Russia is very Western... where Russia misses out is that its democratic status is short lived and not very strong, so it doesn't meet the criteria of being a modern Western Democracy.

Good points.

[Redleg]

One must look at how the civilization is progressing and what direction it is taking to determine if the civilization in total is falling.

Will the United States begin to crack and lose its place as the only superpower on the planet - the study of history demonstrates that all nations have a raise and fall. Very few collaspes of the leading superpower of the time have actually resulted in what could be determine to be an actuall fall of that civilization. In fact at this particular time of night the only one I know of, is the Fall of Rome which preceded the dark ages in Europe - however it seems that there were nations still developing within Europe even during these dark ages.

As for Kafir's post - one must look deep into his post to seperate the rant from the point that he is attempting to make. Papewaio's comments directly show that if both sides of the equation have growth - granted its in a ratio that is unequal - then its not a zero-sum. A zero-sum economy by definition (if I remember correctly) means that no other resources are available - only a redistribution of available resourses can occur.

So I will have to take that Kafir's point is as Bopa has stated that as the disparity between rich and poor continues to grwo - it will eventually reach a point where the poor have no other choice but to revolt. The problem however is that as the standard of living increases for the poor - that disparity is often not noticed. Individuals normally have a tendency to focus solely on what they have and what their status is - if that individual has a postive growth in all factors that influence his income and standard of living - that individual often ignores that others might have a greater increase then they.

The main problem facing the world is that the seperation of the have versus have nots is not Western Civilization - but the developing nations of Africa, Asia, and to some extent South America. Eventually one might be able to track the fall of western civilization to the fact that most western civilization do absolutely nothing to insure that growth is occuring in those nations.

[naut]

Russia for all intents and purposes is a Western country in history, ethnic and religious background

I get the feeling this was directed at my post more than any other, and that's exactly why I used quotation marks for "The West". However, with Putin at the helm Russia is becoming increasingly Fascist. Yet, Putin's recent activities and actions don't appear too threatening, they seem very appropriate for Putin's need to appease his Putin Youth and assert the international power and prestige of a resurgent Russia.

Also, China although "Communist" in ideology is incredibly Capitalistic in pragmatic terms. And the Government works hard to appease the proletariat. So in the long term China may become moderately "Democratic". However, with India already Democratic I can see it as more stable than China and will outlast it in global terms.

[English assassin]

Britain is actually a good example.

Its not that they have fallen, its that the old standards don't apply.

Absolutely right. Britain 2007 occupies the same islands as Britain 1937 but its not the same country. I'm not sure exactly what to make of it. In some respects, the Britain of 2007 is certainly a lot better than the Britain of 1937 (I don't think we want to go back to criminalising homosexuality, to take a for instance) in other respects not (I can't imagine Britain in 2007 pulling together in a crisis in the way that the Britain of 1937 did).

As for when did this happen, I'd say roughly when they put the likes of Ted Wragg in charge of education, and as a result education largely ceased to be a means of transmitting a shared culture and became a free for all. The (small c) conservatives really dropped the ball on education.

Its not all the progressives fault, mind you, treating pre-teens as little tiny consumers isn't helping any either. Capitalists don't want people who think for themselves any more than marxists do.

[Papewaio]

IF the primary driver of wealth in an economy is information and large sectors are education, entertainment and services... is it possible to have a limit on the resources?

Surely we don't have an upper limit on ideas, books or new games?

'Oh my gawd Rocky 3 came out, and that is the maximum of that one.' Doesn't happen (even as much as we wish it wouldn't).

There are obvious issues with having the energy and water to produce these consumer products... however some of the very ideas that are being created could ultimately reduce waste and the amount of energy required (mind you the likes of PS3 are huge power consumers)... think about the amount of energy that would go into producing and distributing media for music (vinyl and CD) vs downloading it...

So maybe we are constrained by the old factors of energy and water... so to keep the people in Pop Tarts and MP3s do we need to create more Nuclear energy plants and desalination plants?

[naut]

<Snip> ...desalination plants...

Just a little revealed fact on them, they are potentially Very harmful to the environment, because in the process of using reverse osmosis and the microscopic membrane filters large amounts of Iron Hydroxide (both Fe(OH)2 and Fe(OH)3) and Iron(III) Oxide-Hydroxide (FeO(OH), which is in-fact used in cosmetics and tattoo ink) will form and then be deposited back on the sea-bed. So in places like Botany Bay this would accumulate and be potentially fatal for the natural ecosystems of the area.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Just a little revealed fact on them, they are potentially Very harmful to the environment, because in the process of using reverse osmosis and the microscopic membrane filters large amounts of Iron Hydroxide (both Fe(OH)2 and Fe(OH)3) and Iron(III) Oxide-Hydroxide (FeO(OH), which is in-fact used in cosmetics and tattoo ink) will form and then be deposited back on the sea-bed. So in places like Botany Bay this would accumulate and be potentially fatal for the natural ecosystems of the area.

Yeah, this is my main concern for our environment - most people don't realize that the methods that can prevent the problems caused by the current environment from putting us out of water and food supply needed for our basic survival, will cause even more long-term damages! When we run out of fresh water as a result of poisonous pollution and greenhouse gas pollution, only way to get drinking water will be to use desalination plants, which will take plenty of energy (=more greenhouse gases), and creates poisonous pollution on the seabed (which will eventually necessitate addition of energy-consuming machinery to clean away these iron hydroxides etc, if at all such machinery exists etc. etc.).

[Ironside]

and creates poisonous pollution on the seabed (which will eventually necessitate addition of energy-consuming machinery to clean away these iron hydroxides etc, if at all such machinery exists etc. etc.).

Removing Iron hydroxides from water isn't much of a problem, it's more commonly known as rust.
It does affect the eco-system in high concentrations but isn't a particular dangerous substance.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Ok! The desalination is however still an extremely costly problem in terms of energy and pollution