Is The West In Decline?

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,847
Trump promised to make America great again.

The average lifespan of an empire is 250 years (10 generations). The life cycle of an empire is broken down into six ages.(referencing Sir John Glubb's Fate of Empires)
1. The Age of Pioneers
2. The Age of Conquest
3. The Age of Commerce
4. The Age of Affluence
5. The Age of Intellectualism
6. The Age of Decadence

"Every new empire begins with the age of the pioneers, courageous individuals with passion and vision who conquer new territories, perhaps taking over the remnants of an earlier collapsed civilization. The new empire then enters an age of commerce. Great wealth is created through enterprise and trade, making use of the best cultural traits and technological achievements of the vanquished empire.

Next comes the age of affluence, a critical juncture in the life cycle of an empire and the time when things begin to go wrong. In the age of affluence, Glubb says, “there does not appear to be any doubt that money is the agent which causes the decline of this strong, brave and self-confident people.” Decline occurs slowly, however, for next comes the age of intellect, when affluence is sufficient to allow some people to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of knowledge. Glubb argues that an excessive focus on intellect indicates an empire already in serious trouble. This may feel counter-intuitive, but evidence suggests that our own age of intellect has done little to prevent a headlong descent into the final age: the age of decadence.

In the age of decadence many people choose to behave in ways that are unsustainable, apparently unaware of the consequences. They indulge in excessive, often conspicuous, consumption. An absurdly wealthy elite emerges, but instead of repelling the masses it is admired and celebrated. Those outside the elite aspire to similar levels of
consumption, and are encouraged by the availability of cheap credit. People become convinced that increased consumption is the key to happiness, but in its pursuit they become measurably less happy. As David Morgan says, “you can never get enough of what you don’t need.” At this point in the life cycle of an empire frivolity, as Glubb calls it, comes to the fore. In order to distract people from what’s really going on, the economy creates diversions. Voyeurism becomes central to culture: the gladiatorial spectacles in decadent Rome are mirrored in today’s ‘reality’ television. People become fixated on celebrity as the genuinely noteworthy become understandably camera shy.
These invented celebrities are ‘famous’ just for being famous. In every era the obsession with celebrity glorifies many of the same professions. During the final decades of their own empires, the Romans, the Ottomans and the Spanish all made celebrities of their chefs. Sound familiar?

[Me: Gordon Ramsay, Nigella Lawson]

And voyeurism takes on a more sinister aspect as people become desensitized to graphic images of extreme violence.

Debauchery is another recurring theme at the end of empire. Society develops a strangely immature obsession with sex. People drink themselves to the point of unconsciousness and shamelessly collapse in the street. In Roman times, binge drinkers were left to their fate. Today’s debauchery is supervised by the police; its ‘victims’ are taken care of by hard-pressed health care professionals, placing further pressure on the public purse. And, all the while, supermarkets and corporations make a killing selling discounted booze to people barely old enough to buy it. This is our modern-day bread and circuses, with obese citizens literally becoming a burden on the state. But the small can never satisfy the large. Cheap pleasures fail to compensate for the absence of meaning in so many people’s lives. A hankering for something greater remains. At the fag end of empire, growing numbers are denied access to work; they can find no meaningful involvement in their community, so their potential goes unfulfilled. When people are prevented from fulfilling their potential, they often self-destruct. As Camila Batmangeilidgh says, “Human beings are fundamentally organized around the need for meaning. Having meaning for why you live your life, and having a sense that your life has a destination or a purpose, is an important organizer of individuals’ lives and also communities’ lives.”
Other symptoms common to empires in decline include massive disparities between rich and poor, an
undisciplined and over-extended military, and a severe financial and economic crisis linked to a debasement of the currency.

Great empire wealth dazzles, but beneath the surface the unbridled desire for money, power and material possessions means that principles of duty and public service are corrupted by leaders and citizens who scramble for the meagre spoils of an economic system which prioritizes the wrong things and all at a time when human industry and ingenuity have been needlessly repressed."

Argue your position; true or false.
 
Last edited:

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
I don't agree that this is a rule of thumb. I think this is based primarily on the historical monarchical system of government that we are still unable to shed completely even in democratic governments founded in recent history.

So we can see that most empires have changed historically because there was a change in a primary leader. This new leader did not carry on in the same pattern of leadership as the former leaders taking the empire in a different direction. In Roman times, we can see that new leaders brought new methods of violence that would clearly not be able to last. We learn from this that violence does not promote a lasting system of government. So the fall of Rome can be attributed to a change in leadership rather than the appropriate, or predictable, end of an empire.

The idea of an empire is fused with a system of leadership and a culture. When these "empires" ended, the culture remained in many cases. This may cause us to consider whether culture is defined in the description given by Sir John Glubb on the fate of empires. Cultures can outlast empires by a significant margin.

In fact, even if we combine the two concept of culture and leadership, we can see that Glubb has a limited list of empires that he has used to draw his conclusion.

It is interesting that many Asian cultures are not included in this list who have maintained culture along with a style of leadership for a lot longer than any of the nations listed.

So the cycle of empires might be more of an western phenomenon overall and it might represent the continual shedding of a monarchical system of government. Therefore, the west may not be in decline. It may be in a birth pang in a final effort to get rid of a somewhat symbolic worldly kingship that still rules over the west.

If this does result in a demise, it is unlikely that the culture will change as a result of this. Culture has the ability to transcend the end of an empire. The western world has been a very strong presence in history. It is unlikely this will change because the culture has contributed to this reality. Therefore, it is probable that the next potential empire will resemble this one more so than a different form of government. It is the best example to derive a system of government for in the future. Maybe next time, we will all be content to live without an executive branch of government to serve as a symbolic king.

Therefore, I would conclude that this subject of changing empires is also a western phenomenon that has brought about beneficial changes many other nations have not experienced, like removing a monarchical system of government. This cycle has had a beneficial effect and created the western world as we know it today, and a future empire will be similar to this one because of it.
 

polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
8,222
i dont see how anyone could say that it is not setting. however, it is setting because of artificial manipulation. without the elites interference, it could have persisted for a bit longer.

ultimately, any civilization with an economy based on money or profit will fail. its a zero sum game.
 

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
i dont see how anyone could say that it is not setting. however, it is setting because of artificial manipulation. without the elites interference, it could have persisted for a bit longer.

ultimately, any civilization with an economy based on money or profit will fail. its a zero sum game.
How do you suppose a civilization can succeed without some kind of reward system. Money being the reward creates motivation that has contributed to the success of the western world.
 

polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
8,222
How do you suppose a civilization can succeed without some kind of reward system. Money being the reward creates motivation that has contributed to the success of the western world.

yes, there needs to be a reward, but i dont think it needs to be money. perhaps consciousness and spiritual enlightenment as goals would suffice as a driving force, but this is far into the future of mankind.
 

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
yes, there needs to be a reward, but i dont think it needs to be money. perhaps consciousness and spiritual enlightenment as goals would suffice as a driving force, but this is far into the future of mankind.
Interesting. I think you would have to get rid of hunger for something like this to be possible. I wouldn't be surprised if physical hunger were the driving force behind material greed.
 

Fl-Fr-Fa

Established
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
309
With the point of having basic needs met - until society decides that these needs are never to be in question, and should always be met, we'll be stuck at the bottom levels [or keep repeating the cycle, saying that certain people are worthy and others aren't of contributing to society with their gifts/talents]. I do hope the sun is setting on this civilization (even if by major manipulation); but also hope that we don't repeat the past. Just because something has been done before, doesn't mean it's correct, wise, beneficial, whatever.

[image from https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html]
 

Awoken2

Superstar
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
6,234
With the point of having basic needs met - until society decides that these needs are never to be in question, and should always be met, we'll be stuck at the bottom levels [or keep repeating the cycle, saying that certain people are worthy and others aren't of contributing to society with their gifts/talents]. I do hope the sun is setting on this civilization (even if by major manipulation); but also hope that we don't repeat the past. Just because something has been done before, doesn't mean it's correct, wise, beneficial, whatever.

[image from https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html]
Maslow's Hierarchy Of Need is systemically being bricked up, so now the structure bears more resemblance to this..

ed7111c597b195712e5cca6b892d050c_drawn-pyramid-dollar-bill-pyramid-pencil-and-in-color-drawn-...jpeg

Pink Floyd I think hit the nail on the head, education today?.....Just another brick in the wall.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Messages
1,377
Yes on a decline morally - West is virtually morally bankrupt in my opinion. Relativisim reigns supreme which amounts to nothing really. Financially the disparity between the haves and have-nots continues to grow...but not to the point of tipping into revolution (which the haves definitely don't want). I imagine they'll find a way to keep the imbalance, balanced, so to speak - by what means? What forms of pacification? There are many to employ, and with technology the way it is - ever easier to employ too...
 

Bacsi

Star
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
1,293
Trump promised to make America great again.

The average lifespan of an
empire is 250 years (10 generations). The life
cycle of an empire is broken down into six ages.(referencing Sir John Glubb's Fate of Empires)
1. The Age of Pioneers
2. The Age of Conquest
3. The Age of Commerce
4. The Age of Affluence
5. The Age of Intellectualism
6. The Age of Decadence

"Every new empire begins
with the age of the pioneers, courageous individuals with passion and vision who conquer new territories, perhaps taking over the remnants of an earlier collapsed civilization. The new empire then enters an age of commerce. Great wealth is created through enterprise and trade, making use of the best cultural traits and technological achievements of the
vanquished empire. Next
comes the age of affluence, a critical juncture in the life cycle of an empire and the time when things begin to go wrong. In the age of affluence, Glubb says, “there does not appear to be any doubt that money is the agent which causes the decline of this strong, brave and self-confident people.” Decline occurs slowly, however, for next comes the age of intellect, when affluence is sufficient to allow some people to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of knowledge. Glubb argues that an excessive focus on intellect indicates an empire already in serious trouble. This may feel counter-intuitive, but evidence suggests that our own age of intellect has done little to prevent a headlong descent into the final age: the age of decadence.
In the age of decadence many people choose to behave in ways that are unsustainable, apparently unaware of the consequences. They indulge in excessive, often conspicuous, consumption. An absurdly wealthy elite emerges, but instead of repelling the masses it is
admired and celebrated. Those outside the elite aspire to similar levels of
consumption, and are
encouraged by the
availability of cheap credit.
People become convinced
that increased consumption is the key to happiness, but in its pursuit they become
measurably less happy. As
David Morgan says, “you can never get enough of what you don’t need.” At this point in the life cycle
of an empire frivolity, as
Glubb calls it, comes to the
fore. In order to distract
people from what’s really
going on, the economy creates diversions. Voyeurism becomes central to culture: the gladiatorial spectacles in
decadent Rome are mirrored in today’s ‘reality’ television. People become fixated on celebrity as the genuinely noteworthty become understandably camera shy.
These invented celebrities are ‘famous’ just for being
famous. In every era the obsession with celebrity
glorifies many of the same
professions. During the final decades of their own
empires, the Romans, the
Ottomans and the Spanish all made celebrities of their chefs. Sound familiar?

[Me: Gordon Ramsay, Nigella Lawson]

And voyeurism takes on a more sinister aspect as people become desensitized to graphic images of extreme violence.

Debauchery is another
recurring theme at the end of empire. Society develops a strangely immature obsession with sex. People drink themselves to the point of unconsciousness and shamelessly collapse in the street. In Roman times, binge drinkers were left to their fate. Today’s debauchery is supervised by the police; its ‘victims’ are taken care of by hard-pressed health care professionals, placing further pressure on the public purse. And, all the while, supermarkets and corporations make a killing selling discounted booze to people barely old enough to buy it. This is our modern-day bread and circuses, with obese citizens literally becoming a burden on the state. But the small can never satisfy the large. Cheap pleasures fail to compensate for the absence of meaning in so many people’s lives. A hankering for something greater remains. At the fag end of empire, growing numbers are denied access to work; they can find no meaningful involvement in their community, so their potential goes unfulfilled. When people are prevented from fulfilling their potential, they often self-destruct. As Camila Batmangeilidgh says, “Human beings are fundamentally organized around the need for meaning. Having meaning for why you live your life, and having a sense that your life has a destination or a purpose, is an important organizer of individuals’ lives and also communities’ lives.”
Other symptoms common to empires in decline include massive disparities between rich and poor, an
undisciplined and over-
extended military, and a severe financial and economic crisis linked to a debasement of the currency.
Great empire
wealth dazzles, but beneath the surface the unbridled desire for money, power and material possessions means that principles of duty and public service are corrupted by leaders and citizens who scramble for the meagre spoils of an economic system which prioritizes the wrong
things and all at a time
when human industry and
ingenuity have been
needlessly repressed."

Argue your position; true or false.
The American global empire will fall because the foundation of its might - the financial pyramid of the dollar has reached its mathematical limit for collapse
 
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
1,269
That depends on your definition of the West.

Personally, I don't really buy into the idea that a "West" even exists; Western Europe is made up of various countries, many of which don't get along all that well with each other, and almost all of them look to America as little brother they are forced to put up with. Chrisitanity is the only thing that coud considered a unifier here, but there's a difference between Catholicism, mainline Protestantism, and the American brand of Fundimentalism.

This concept of the West will never fall, because it doesn't even exist, and just used to promote various idealogies.

Now, if you mean Western superpowers, like America? Yes. All empires eventually fall on their own weight. Most survive in someway and eventually a new one will replace the old. It's not apocolayptic. Worrisome, maybe, and it'll suck for a lot of people, but it's not the end of things.
 

Bacsi

Star
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
1,293
There will be geoclimatic cataclysms that will rush the fall of the West
 

Maes17

Superstar
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
6,521
Trump promised to make America great again.

The average lifespan of an
empire is 250 years (10 generations). The life
cycle of an empire is broken down into six ages.(referencing Sir John Glubb's Fate of Empires)
1. The Age of Pioneers
2. The Age of Conquest
3. The Age of Commerce
4. The Age of Affluence
5. The Age of Intellectualism
6. The Age of Decadence

"Every new empire begins
with the age of the pioneers, courageous individuals with passion and vision who conquer new territories, perhaps taking over the remnants of an earlier collapsed civilization. The new empire then enters an age of commerce. Great wealth is created through enterprise and trade, making use of the best cultural traits and technological achievements of the
vanquished empire. Next
comes the age of affluence, a critical juncture in the life cycle of an empire and the time when things begin to go wrong. In the age of affluence, Glubb says, “there does not appear to be any doubt that money is the agent which causes the decline of this strong, brave and self-confident people.” Decline occurs slowly, however, for next comes the age of intellect, when affluence is sufficient to allow some people to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of knowledge. Glubb argues that an excessive focus on intellect indicates an empire already in serious trouble. This may feel counter-intuitive, but evidence suggests that our own age of intellect has done little to prevent a headlong descent into the final age: the age of decadence.
In the age of decadence many people choose to behave in ways that are unsustainable, apparently unaware of the consequences. They indulge in excessive, often conspicuous, consumption. An absurdly wealthy elite emerges, but instead of repelling the masses it is
admired and celebrated. Those outside the elite aspire to similar levels of
consumption, and are
encouraged by the
availability of cheap credit.
People become convinced
that increased consumption is the key to happiness, but in its pursuit they become
measurably less happy. As
David Morgan says, “you can never get enough of what you don’t need.” At this point in the life cycle
of an empire frivolity, as
Glubb calls it, comes to the
fore. In order to distract
people from what’s really
going on, the economy creates diversions. Voyeurism becomes central to culture: the gladiatorial spectacles in
decadent Rome are mirrored in today’s ‘reality’ television. People become fixated on celebrity as the genuinely noteworthty become understandably camera shy.
These invented celebrities are ‘famous’ just for being
famous. In every era the obsession with celebrity
glorifies many of the same
professions. During the final decades of their own
empires, the Romans, the
Ottomans and the Spanish all made celebrities of their chefs. Sound familiar?

[Me: Gordon Ramsay, Nigella Lawson]

And voyeurism takes on a more sinister aspect as people become desensitized to graphic images of extreme violence.

Debauchery is another
recurring theme at the end of empire. Society develops a strangely immature obsession with sex. People drink themselves to the point of unconsciousness and shamelessly collapse in the street. In Roman times, binge drinkers were left to their fate. Today’s debauchery is supervised by the police; its ‘victims’ are taken care of by hard-pressed health care professionals, placing further pressure on the public purse. And, all the while, supermarkets and corporations make a killing selling discounted booze to people barely old enough to buy it. This is our modern-day bread and circuses, with obese citizens literally becoming a burden on the state. But the small can never satisfy the large. Cheap pleasures fail to compensate for the absence of meaning in so many people’s lives. A hankering for something greater remains. At the fag end of empire, growing numbers are denied access to work; they can find no meaningful involvement in their community, so their potential goes unfulfilled. When people are prevented from fulfilling their potential, they often self-destruct. As Camila Batmangeilidgh says, “Human beings are fundamentally organized around the need for meaning. Having meaning for why you live your life, and having a sense that your life has a destination or a purpose, is an important organizer of individuals’ lives and also communities’ lives.”
Other symptoms common to empires in decline include massive disparities between rich and poor, an
undisciplined and over-
extended military, and a severe financial and economic crisis linked to a debasement of the currency.
Great empire
wealth dazzles, but beneath the surface the unbridled desire for money, power and material possessions means that principles of duty and public service are corrupted by leaders and citizens who scramble for the meagre spoils of an economic system which prioritizes the wrong
things and all at a time
when human industry and
ingenuity have been
needlessly repressed."

Argue your position; true or false.
True.

The western culture even though I’m all for a capitalist system. I’m convinced you get what you put into the system. However that is not the case. Greedy elites take more than they should, some know how to mooch off the system.

Add in cheap credit that’s not often repayed.
Consumption and waste in excess. The possibilities to collapse are there
 

Lyfe

Star
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
3,639
Rome fell, because of the immorality of the people. If a country values self seeking pleasure, mammon, sexual decadence, materialism, drugs, selfishness, and violence over anything else then it will be ruled by corruption and greedy immoral people who value and take pleasure in the same things.
 
Top