Historically speaking have people successfully and consistently been able to identify their societies decline? Have historians or even laymen been able to correctly say "our golden age is passed and we're now heading for collapse" with accuracy or is it all just hindsight of later generations with contemporaries basically shooting in the dark?
Do you think we're in a decline right now?
>le pol meme
Some economics blogs have got me a little worried about another worldwide recession, with only eight years since the last one I was being pessimistic. No need to lump me in with Alex Jones anon.
>Societies don't "decline."
Feel free to expand on this though, I just hope you don't delve into some philosophical rant about the meaning of the word "decline".
>Some economics blogs have got me a little worried about another worldwide recession, with only eight years since the last one I was being pessimistic. No need to lump me in with Alex Jones anon.
It isn't about the content of your politics, IT IS THAT YOU ARE SPEAKING POLITICALLY ON THIS BOARD. FUCK OFF TO THE BOARD FOR POLITICAL SPEAKING.
>Feel free to expand on this though, I just hope you don't delve into some philosophical rant about the meaning of the word "decline".
Societies change over time. To consider this a decline one must have a normative concern and a political standpoint. Consider: from the normative concern of "nomenklatura rule" and the political stand point of a "tankie" the Gorbachev reforms resulted in a "decline" in tankie style nomenklatura power, as the nomenklatura privatised the Soviet Union and converted themselves into capitalists.
What was a tankie's decline was Reagan's success.
Moreover. The standard normative stand points identify The State and The Ruling Class of an era with certain forms of power display. Most people don't experience their society in these terms.
Civilisations don't exist, they're metaphors for observed behaviour, and the metaphor involves a great deal of projection by the person claiming that a civilisation exists.
As far as your fear of a recession, read about this conception from economic history and shit yourself: Kondratiev wave
Stop telling me to leave because you don't like a single sentence and have hangups on it. Srsly these are entirely baseless accusations and you're contributing to derailment. Stop it. I'm trying to find out if naysayers have a point, if they can even have a point and what that might be in a historical context. Chill the fuck out and please don't ever tell anyone to go to another board again, it's annoying and alarmist and honestly one of the shittiest trends on 4chan in the recent years, it used to be funny to tell someone to go toe /b/ or /x/ but now everyone is doing it for the stupidest reasons.
>To consider this a decline one must have a normative concern and a political standpoint
To a certain extent I agree, at least from a certain point of view and really only when discussing contemporary occurences. You can't say the Roman Empire didn't experience a decline for instance or that the Ottoman Empire didn't as well.
>Civilisations don't exist, they're metaphors for observed behaviour, and the metaphor involves a great deal of projection by the person claiming that a civilisation exists.
That seems odd, are you saying the Romans didn't exist?
> with only eight years since the last one I was being pessimistic
How much time was there inbetween the Dotcom Bubble and the Great Recession? Inbetween the Dotcom Bubble and the 90s recession? The 90s recession and the 80s recession? 8 years is a pretty long time and I'm pretty sure it's above average as far as booms go.
>You can't say the Roman Empire didn't experience a decline for instance
>That seems odd, are you saying the Romans didn't exist?
"The Romans" didn't exist. A number of classes, cities, trade networks, families who considered themselves Roman lived lives. They didn't have a separate existence as a corporate body.
Ye, I do think we are in a decline now. We check most of this list.
>Do you think we're in a decline right now?
Hard to say. However it would be foolish to say any nations borders remain solidified over time.
At least in the 21st century it seems a popular idea that countries can't decline or stagnate. It's crazy how technology has changed this recently.
>>Nationalism is bad
Did I say that? No. I said that theories of civilisation are the wank fantasies of nationalists. I also said that political entities don't totalise their constituents.
The person you were originally replying to was asking about the Ottoman and Roman Empires, established political entities. It has nothing to do with the civilization bullshit, but you decided to sperg out about it anyway.
I'm going out on a limb but what if the ages aren't clearly defined by separate eras but are more meshed together until one eventually ends and another initiates. From an American standpoint we can observe that the age of pioneers and conquests we're happening together until say for example president Jackson came to be in charge. By that time the state was set and thus began the age of commerce as industry was starting to take a solid footing while as it was also the age of conquests where the nation was still traveling westward. Now that money and technology are advancing at extraordinary rates perhaps also the ages are coming faster too
No. Most people can only think so far ahead into the future. Maybe couple years at max at a very vague description. US intelligence employ multi-scopic and multiple different contractors for our prediction of future, these are bit more accurate given lots of research going into them. So US intelligence will generally get about 10-20 years of intelligence given the wide scope of the information they collect. But other than that, its not possible. If for some reason a omniscient tried to predict it, he'd be labeled a kook, a conspiracy nut, a retard. That person's knowledge of future would not align with the common sense's limitation so anything that person says would be drowned in the sea of common sense.
If I said, "an alien civilization will invade in 15 years" no would would believe it. Our common sense tells us that in 15 years, we'd probably be still same and would barely make it. Our common sense would tell you that existence of aliens probably wouldn't be proven in our life time. etc.
This is the third time you've strawman'd someone in this thread. I'm done here. I wish people like you would go back to /pol/ or whatever shitty containment board you're coming from...
I get what you're trying to argue for here, but what's the point in discarding established terms that are being used correctly? Ie why do you disagree someone referring to "A number of classes, cities, trade networks, families" as a state?
I could argue against lots of established terms and concepts. For example I could argue that free will does not exist and that every decision you make is actually the result of a deterministic chain reaction, but that would not do any good because the term "free will" can very well be used to convey legitimate information such as "was he acting out of his free will, or was he forced?" I could answer the question or I could go on an irrelevant tangent.
I'm not OP, but I disagree with you. Allow me to put a different spin on the initial question and see if you still agree with your initial statement... "In retrospect, do you think that future historians will look upon the present time as one of decline for western civilization? Or if not 'decline', perhaps a momentous transitional period?
The question is one of foresight within the context of our western timeline and although we may not know the future, we can at least infer what form it might take based on other transitional periods and declines in history.
Besides, do you really think /pol/ is interested in having a reasonable discussion about this?
In short, kindly fuck off you peasant.
>People always think their society is in decline
You mean a small small like 1/10 of 1/10 minority right?
Look at the golden ages in history, people were optimistic out the wazoo.
Rome could never fall
The Athenian Golden age could never end
The "God himself couldn't sink the Titanic" (then God sank the Titanic with an icecube)
>"In retrospect, do you think that future historians will look upon the present time as one of decline for western civilization? Or if not 'decline', perhaps a momentous transitional period?
This is just more bullshit where you're seeking to justify your political claims by reference to invented characters of your own design.
We have the 25 year rule for a purpose.
>/pol/ is shit
it isn't my fault that the board you should be discussing that portion of the OP on is shit. Go improve it.
Disembowel yourself and eat your own entrails.
A recession is just a decline in gdp over several quarters. It doesn't mean the collapse of a nation. We go through recession a little more than once a decade. In fact, the time between recessions is increasing. No we're not in a decline in the sense of the fall of the roman empire.
>relationships cannot decline
Fellow virgin detected.
You're still being the guy who starts arguing over things that do not serve the purposes of the discussion EVEN IF you were right. Whether free will exists or not or whether I or you believe in it or not, none of it has any relevance to whether John murdered Jack out of his own volition or whether he was forced to do so.
Classes can decline, cities can decline, trade routes can decline, families (as a function of providing healthy offspring to the society) can decline, so what exactly is the problem in stating that a state can decline? And even IF you were right and indeed for some reason it turns out that the term "state" cannot be said when referring to it declining, it's still just semantics. Meaning absolutely no productive information was produced by you proving your point. Even IF he uses the term incorrectly, the idea behind his words is still fully sensible and coherent. Even after proving his grammar wrong, his question still remains.
Hilarious, what an incredible response to a perfectly innocuous question. Please have yourself examined by a mental health professional. My question stands, I am interested in having an actual discussion.
For your information, I enjoy /pol/. I never said it was shit. Also, I will not be disembowling/ eating myself thank you very much. Thank you very much.
I don't think the Great Recession is comparable to the dotcom bubble bursting and this next one is said to be bigger than the Great Recession, maybe even be a full blown depression. Two large recessions in a period of eight years doesn't seem to be all that normal.
Ok, again with this bullshit, how about this?
This topic is whatever you say it is but it and me aren't going to any other board and you're just going to have to deal with that like a big boy.
Why does the age of decadence have so many contradictions? Why is there a love of money there as a bad thing yet you have an entire other age dedicated to Affluence presented as a good thing?
Okay you're either trolling or being severely mentally lacking.
Are you legitimately claiming that because a decline is only experienced from the relative standpoint of people involved with whatever social relationship it makes the entire notion of "decline of this social relationship" wrong? How autistic exactly are you?
A trade route is in decline when people relying on and involved with it see it as a decline. A city is in decline when its and its neighboring dwellers see that it's turning to shit compared to what it used to be.
Like you can literally express these things in a graph. They're fully material and fully fucking empirical. Decline is an observable process. Stop being an autistic fuck and just kill yourself if you can't comprehend that.
Since when is "decline" a quality only humans have?
Also tell me how to convey a declining trade route without using the word decline.
You perhaps may want to look up the meaning of decline. I seriously have no idea what the problem is here.
There's always juvenoia.
Of course it doesn't take a genius to see whether the people surrounding him are against a certain idea.
The Orthodox Church understood that people no longer wanted to go to church or be cleansed from their sins. They adapted...you're now allowed to wear pretty much whatever you want in church.
We just have, friend. Notice any scientific advances recently? Right now science is being undermined by marxism, relativism, and other uncsientific concepts; universities are now more concerned with policor than a free debate and not offending anybody. This is a recent development and clearly indicates an end to intellectualism. Even Watson is not safe from this madness.
Not only are you demonstrating a lack of understanding of this simple concept, you did not even have a good look at the image. It clearly mentions a total of seven points that distinctly characterize age of decadence.
There are diferences in the extent to which individuals like money. Furthermore, there are major differences in chronology: Globb asserted a rather rigid pattern of empires that they tend to follow.
To all your questions
But they do? Exactly because of the fact that they are a relationship: a system
And as a system, you can notice some "entropic" principles in it. The effect of growing entropy in the system is its "decline".
>"The Romans" didn't exist. A number of classes, cities, trade networks, families who considered themselves Roman lived lives
In short, a culture. With its own narrative and/or meta-narratives. A clearly defined body.
This is driving me crazy because I can't remember where the webm is from.
General question sort of relating to this, but does anyone else think the only reason old religious people say the end of the world is coming is because they have subconscious troubles on dealing with their own mortality?
My grandma says, any time it's applicable, that the world will probably end before she goes. I tell her that someone has been saying that since the dawn of thought, but she just says "well everything is getting worse!"
>Notice any scientific advances recently?
In the last 10 years we've made computer that behaves like quantum computer. Google says it IS quantum computer, lockheed confirms it as well(nobody else uses it yet). Sceptics claim that it only behaves like one that's why I didn't said "it is quantum computer". I think it is the most notable thing I know about.
At the same time we're closer and close to create practical nuclear fusion power plant, our photovoltanics recently got some breakthrough(but seriously speaking - majority of "green" energy, including solar power is simply unpractical on the macroscale), we're starting developing technological process to replace SiGe crystals in micro/nano-electronics with carbon-based materials(well, SiGe isn't that "old" technology either).
Then we have tests of vertically-landing rockets, self driving cars, "intelligent" energy distribution systems, cloning, we've made a synthetic organism while using self-recreated RNA sequence etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.