>yfw you realized civilization collapses not due to "degeneracy"

I see you've also read your Tainter.

>yfw you realize that societies can't "collapse" in a meaningful sense if they have civilized neighbors preparing to capitalize on state failure to extend control
>yfw you realize that the modern problem of failed states is due to the international norm against colonialism

can you elaborate how our civilization is collapsing?

>>1737365
Every civilization has collapsed. It doesn't matter if it is or is not.

File: Capture.png (41KB, 572x411px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 572x411px

>The stages of the rise and fall of great
nations seem to be: The Age of Pioneers (outburst), The Age of Conquests, The Age of Commerce, The Age of Affluence, The Age of Intellect, The Age of Decadence.
>Decadence is marked by: Defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, the Welfare State, a weakening of religion.
>Decadence is due to: Too long a period of wealth and power, selfishness, love of money, the loss of a sense of duty.

He was right all along

There is no collapse, it's just an inevitable change. We need to adapt and move forward, sorry for the harsh reality /pol/acks

Interesting, OP.

Any books?

>>1737443
200-250 is also the typical length of "unified" Chinese dynasties.

>>1737443
I like how they didnt include Egypt in there

>>1737443
What a retarded list full of arbitrary nonsense dates.

>>1737471
I'm 90% OP is referencing the Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter.

Which is a very good book.

>>1737267
Actually civilisation usually collapse due to Jews

>>1737443
I like how he separates the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, as if they weren't the exact same fucking civilization, just to fit his shitty thesis.

>>1737443
Teotihuacan lasted 450 years.

>>1737443
>Britain's rise starts at 1700
Why?
>Britain's fall starts at 1950
Why?

File: 1471819539582.jpg (112KB, 755x960px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 755x960px

>>1737687

You mean Muslims.

Roman Empire lasted until 1453 desu.

>>1737898
You mean 1920, friend.

>>1737923

Dirty sultan not my emperor!

>>1737894
enlightenment and decolonisation presumably

>>1737443
>the Welfare State
Does he seriously believe that all those civilisations had a comparable welfare state to the ones existing today?

File: La_captura_de_Atahualpa_-_Juan_Lepiani.jpg (200KB, 749x600px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 749x600px

>>1737923
I think you mean 1532.

>>1737898
>>1737923
>>1737934
You all mean 1943, right?

>>1737443
Another 200 years of American hegemony.

>>1737943
Good. American hegemony, unlike the past hegemons is actually beneficial for the planet

>>1737934
So can we add Incas to the claim of successors of Rome?

>>1737943
Given how rapid changes occured during it's growth, I would say the US has accelerated it's time. I think it's aging faster than usual, so I would give it another 100 years. But seeing as it became a big power in the world stage by 1900 you can subtract another 50 years. 50-100 years of burger dominance.

>>1737959
In terms of the environment, no, but I assume you mean in terms of world peace.

>>1737943
We're outta gas, but it's all down hill from here baby. Sit back, relax and enjoy as the American Empire coasts the next 200 years to it's final destination. The ride might get a little bit bumpy, but we'll be playing some classic rock jams from the 70's 80's & 90's to help smooth things out, so you can recline and enjoy the decline

>>1737974

Key issues.

If Rome had the internet it would not have collapsed in a sense. The leaders would have changed, but the civilization would have continued. The problem with early civilizations is that it had a hard time storing knowledge that wasn't easily destroyed, burned, or looted.

The United States may fail as a state and be replaced by another political system, but it will not mean the collapse of civilization.

We will still have internet, toilets, running water, regardless of whether we have libertarian or communist government.

That said... A violent solar burst, nasty epidemic, or nuclear war could end civilization.

But none of those are directly political.

>>1737943
Well the dates show the Nation's rise and fall, not necessarily its hegemony.

>>1737980
We are in for some comfy times. We will be dead anyway by the time the bad times really come.

>>1737277
What about peak oil and all those terrible environmental problems? It's not looking like anybody's going to get out of that one easily

>>1738061
I dunno, the republics have proven thus far to be quite stable.

Britain has gone since 1689 without a change in government.

Like, even with 10% of our current GDP, we'd still be better than any pre-industrial civilization in history, and better than we were when we started out as a country.

File: linear-vs-exponential-41.png (64KB, 1440x713px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1440x713px

>>1738061

Technological progress is exponential.

If we have to prevent a Venus like atmosphere we could pain the Sahara desert white with reflective pain.

Also peak oil isn't a thing anymore.

File: rome200ad.jpg (140KB, 749x573px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 749x573px

>>1737443

I read that book. There's way too little arguments and research presented to prove any of the observations he made, least of all the lifespan of empires which is pure confirmation bias from the author.

Just look at the list. Does Rome turning from a republic into an empire somehow make it a completely different society? Can you change the people's culture and spirit with just the snap of your fingers?

Also those "ages" blend into one another so much that you might as well not call them ages. The writer has some interesting points about behaviour and ideologies in a decaying society (favor for multiculturality because own culture is seen as boring) but that's about it.