Jared Diamond's article in NYTimes...

[Xen]

[I didn't bother reading the article, just the quoted section.]

Isn't Diamond ignoring one important fact? America is a democracy. If you're feeling particularly cynical you might dismiss this as idealistic hogwash, and that America is really some sort of oligarchy ruled by a Microsoft-Halliburton alliance, but still, you can't deny that the common American has much more power than the common Mayan, Easter Islander, or Roman. And we commoners can keep the elites in check.

not true in any sense of it- if anything, as "moderninity" progresses, the common man progressivlly losses individual status, as populations grow, and industrilization takign the importance of any one particuler person not in a place of power away.

moreover, it has been a very long time since anyone in the government listend ot the people, the current governmental elite, civlians whom have made a military coo of sorts, overriding the rational minds of the military itself, sees fit to do what it wants, with little direct regard for the common man, they give off no real crums- yet we see with the greatest republic of old, Rome, we see, very plainlly, that while the fate of the Plebian and patrician were intertwined, great things occured, and when they divulged, even in its republican form of government, which, need I remind you, gave its plebian commanser significantlly more rights then "common" americans have, or at least activlly know of, and can thus excersize, when the patricians removed themselves away from the common fate, seeing Rome as fit to serve them- not they fit to serve rome- you see the greatest backlash, the formation fot he empire, formed by the champions of the commonmans party, and the somewhat brutal repression of the Optomates (a party that directlyl corresponds to out republican party, interestinglly enough) and we see a golden age come about, where the government now pruged of the currupt florished- and when it too became currupted, and its nobles distant from the fate, when not even barbarian invasion actuall effected the staus of them living in thie rprivate villas, for they simply bacame the nobility of a new regieme, the empire falls.

it works for every government, fro every society, and thier is no escaping it- to have a good nation, it must be bound together and firm, and not have petty class struggles- nto to say thier shouldnt be economic classes of course, but that the fortunates of society cannot alienate themselves society at large, and live in a dream world, ro else the society that supports them itself will fail- even in a democracy.

 

[amadeus]

Xen, go back to even the turn of the 20th century. Look at the miserable lives those people had. Life expectancy in the United States in 1900 was 47.3. The three leading causes of death were pneumonia, tuberculosis, and diarrhea.

Is that what you'd like to sacrifice to become "more individual?" Even as I may remind you, the most freedom people have had ever would be during the present. If you want to buy a pair of shoes, there's 20 stores that sell them. 100 years ago, there wouldn't even be one store, there'd be a town cobbler.

 

[IglooDame]

[I didn't bother reading the article, just the quoted section.]

Isn't Diamond ignoring one important fact? America is a democracy. If you're feeling particularly cynical you might dismiss this as idealistic hogwash, and that America is really some sort of oligarchy ruled by a Microsoft-Halliburton alliance, but still, you can't deny that the common American has much more power than the common Mayan, Easter Islander, or Roman. And we commoners can keep the elites in check.

We keep the elites in check by voting for other elites, in most cases. Clinton was arguably the only "outsider" among presidents or VPs since Reagan, if one assumes that state Dem/Rep parties' decisionmakers are not themselves composed of "elites".

 

[Cheetah]

Oh, I thought you wrote the rich "parents" of the world's population. As a metaphor for something. Never mind.

Yeah, I thought you did too. I was certain I saw it there.

I thought he said "parents" too. This is pretty darn weird!

All right. I'll be more carefull next time to make sure I don't write any word that can be misread or misinterpreted that easily.

Mob psychology, looking for blood. Or maybe he has found a way to edit the "edited" line.

Acctually there is a way.
Just put a bunch of money in a convolutte and send it to Thunderfall.


But now that I am not misunderstood anymore, does anyone have some support or critisism for my real arguement? Or for this article? I think it was very interesting, and as far as I know, I think this really is a rule of destruction for civilisations.

 

[Taliesin]

As a relevant perspective on this question, I highly recommend Ronald Wright's A Short History of Progress, the 2004 Massey Lectures. It deals with the different paths to the decline of a civilisation. It also features one of the most amusing chapter headings ever: "Revenge of the Tools", from a Mayan myth about animated tools overcoming their masters and imposing rule over humanity.

 

[bigfatron]

...drive by gated communities, guarded by private security patrols, and filled with people who drink bottled water, depend on private pensions, and send their children to private schools.

The only reason the author doesn't live like this is that you can't afford a gated community on Manhattan Island.

I can very well afford a gated community house in my neighbourhood but have no desire to do so. I choose not to because - firstly - I believe it reduces my security (that gated, high profile community is a mecca for thieves, whereas the very pleasant estate down the road in which my house sits is routinely ignored), and - secondly - because the people who I have met who live there are insufferable snobs; one unbearable consequence of which is that there is no pub within walking distance - an appalling and unacceptable state of affairs IMHO

So don't assume everyone wishes to live as you wish to.

 

[bigfatron]

[I didn't bother reading the article, just the quoted section.]

Isn't Diamond ignoring one important fact? America is a democracy. If you're feeling particularly cynical you might dismiss this as idealistic hogwash, and that America is really some sort of oligarchy ruled by a Microsoft-Halliburton alliance, but still, you can't deny that the common American has much more power than the common Mayan, Easter Islander, or Roman. And we commoners can keep the elites in check.

By doing these things, they lose the motivation to support the police force, the municipal water supply, Social Security and public schools.

But guess what: they do still have to support the police force, water supply, SS, and public schools. The majority forces them to pay taxes.

I thin thoughbthat this is Jared Diamond's point - the elite pays for services which it then never uses. It therefore has every incentive to strive to reduce funding for these services, even if it reduces quality, and every incentive to reflect negatively on public services in general. This is very dangerous, even in a democracy.

In the UK this was played out very clearly by the Tories in the 1980-97 period; Margaret Thatcher, as education secretary during the early 70's, oversaw the most dramatic centralisation of the state education sector ever, however in opposition she had a Damascene conversion to the removal of services from the state. In this she received great support from Rupert Murdoch (someone who has surely never used a bus in his life!).

State services such as education, the NHS and the civil service, which had enjoyed a premier status in terms of public pride and therefore been able to retain qualified staff on relatively low salaries, were systematically rubbished, pride in public service (except for the armed forces) denigrated and services starved of funding in order that deteriorating service would justify selling them off to the private sector.

You are right that democracy eventually caught up with these guys, but it took a while and I suspect might not have happened at all if they had not turned out to be crap economists as well as structural elitists.

My personal feeling is that politicians should be prepared to use the service they are responsible for - if they aren't then they are, prima facie, failing in their job.

 

[Xen]

Xen, go back to even the turn of the 20th century. Look at the miserable lives those people had. Life expectancy in the United States in 1900 was 47.3. The three leading causes of death were pneumonia, tuberculosis, and diarrhea.
Is that what you'd like to sacrifice to become "more individual?" Even as I may remind you, the most freedom people have had ever would be during the present. If you want to buy a pair of shoes, there's 20 stores that sell them. 100 years ago, there wouldn't even be one store, there'd be a town cobbler.

on the disease front, why do you think we have cures- or at least effective medicines- to combat these diseases- because everyone, rich anb dpoor aliek, were effected by them, and so th epeople in th eposition to finane reserch, and afford the latest medicines (and as such, become guini pigs of scientific development really) were the "upper crust"- the developments benifited everyone though.


your shoe point- in both cases, no one is forceing nay to go buy shoes, nor is anyone preventing people from aking thier own- more choice dosent mean more freedom, it just means more choice- and you only have that because you have freedom in the first place- put 21st century economics/tech in the 1st century (BC) Roman world, and youd have 20 different stores offering shoes as well, except the circuit for slave labour isnt a third world country, unfortunetelly, it slieklly to be in the next town over.

 

[WillJ]

not true in any sense of it- if anything, as "moderninity" progresses, the common man progressivlly losses individual status, as populations grow, and industrilization takign the importance of any one particuler person not in a place of power away.

Yep, you're certainly right. As the population increases, my power as a fraction of my nation's power decreases. But this is irrelevant. I was misleading when I mentioned how much power a commoner has; what really matters is how much power the commoners AS A GROUP have.

moreover, it has been a very long time since anyone in the government listend ot the people, the current governmental elite, civlians whom have made a military coo of sorts, overriding the rational minds of the military itself, sees fit to do what it wants, with little direct regard for the common man, they give off no real crums- yet we see with the greatest republic of old, Rome, we see, very plainlly, that while the fate of the Plebian and patrician were intertwined, great things occured, and when they divulged, even in its republican form of government, which, need I remind you, gave its plebian commanser significantlly more rights then "common" americans have, or at least activlly know of, and can thus excersize, when the patricians removed themselves away from the common fate, seeing Rome as fit to serve them- not they fit to serve rome- you see the greatest backlash, the formation fot he empire, formed by the champions of the commonmans party, and the somewhat brutal repression of the Optomates (a party that directlyl corresponds to out republican party, interestinglly enough) and we see a golden age come about, where the government now pruged of the currupt florished- and when it too became currupted, and its nobles distant from the fate, when not even barbarian invasion actuall effected the staus of them living in thie rprivate villas, for they simply bacame the nobility of a new regieme, the empire falls.

Woah, that's one long sentence! I don't see how any criticisms of our situation made in that are exclusively the fault of the elite.

We keep the elites in check by voting for other elites, in most cases. Clinton was arguably the only "outsider" among presidents or VPs since Reagan, if one assumes that state Dem/Rep parties' decisionmakers are not themselves composed of "elites".

If we continuously vote for elites, then the elites must not be doing such a destructive job, right? That or they ARE doing a destructive job but we're just stupid (actually I think this is quite likely), but the point Diamond was trying to make still doesn't apply; it's not just the elites leading us to doom---it's a majority.

I thin thoughbthat this is Jared Diamond's point - the elite pays for services which it then never uses. It therefore has every incentive to strive to reduce funding for these services, even if it reduces quality, and every incentive to reflect negatively on public services in general. This is very dangerous, even in a democracy.

Hmm, you're right. But I still don't think it could easily lead to the complete destruction of our society, as has happened in past societies ruled completely by elites---democracy makes *some* difference, methinks. And what would the solution be? Make privatized versions of public services illegal?

your shoe point- in both cases, no one is forceing nay to go buy shoes, nor is anyone preventing people from aking thier own- more choice dosent mean more freedom, it just means more choice- and you only have that because you have freedom in the first place- put 21st century economics/tech in the 1st century (BC) Roman world, and youd have 20 different stores offering shoes as well, except the circuit for slave labour isnt a third world country, unfortunetelly, it slieklly to be in the next town over.

Er, isn't the fact that no force is involved exactly what makes it free? And don't choices = freedom? And yes, obviously if you implant our current level of progress into the ancient Roman world, they'd be just as successful as us. What do you think sharpe was saying, that we're now genetically superior? (Although I must admit I also don't know exactly what his point was, considering I never got the impression that you actually wanted to travel back in time and live as a Roman.)

 

[Xen]

Yep, you're certainly right. As the population increases, my power as a fraction of my nation's power decreases. But this is irrelevant. I was misleading when I mentioned how much power a commoner has; what really matters is how much power the commoners AS A GROUP have.

that woudl only be of any use if all the plebs acted as a single unfied group- thats isnt nearlly so- the poin tis mute; plebs follow those who can make an impression the best- most of the time, this isnt th epeople who stand up for the pebs actual rights, but rather whomever has the most money to grab thier attention, and turn it toawrds somthign tto distract the plebs from other issues- in societies, including in previosu decades in America, this has not been a problem, because the fate of society as awhole, patraicioan, and pleb alike have been intetwined- spererate the two, and those whom have the power for attention grabbing shal inded continue to grab the attention- and turn towards what ever ends thier particuler goals are, which are incresinglly alienated from those of the plebs.

[/quote]
Woah, that's one long sentence! I don't see how any criticisms of our situation made in that are exclusively the fault of the elite.[/quote]
thats because it not the fault of the elite persay, but the fault of spciety as whole, in this case, one where the elites are alianted from the populace at large.

Er, isn't the fact that no force is involved exactly what makes it free? And don't choices = freedom?

of course not. its the ability to make choices in the first place that is freedom.

And yes, obviously if you implant our current level of progress into the ancient Roman world, they'd be just as successful as us. What do you think sharpe was saying, that we're now genetically superior? (Although I must admit I also don't know exactly what his point was, considering I never got the impression that you actually wanted to travel back in time and live as a Roman.)

th e point was that our society is essentially the same- and is almost universally, in any societies that have class stratifacation- when the elites of society, those -initially- looked to, because of thier own wealth and power, to lead, have common goals with the res tof society- life is good- in societies where the wealthy fence themselves in, slowlly druvung a wedge between thier own lives, and th elives of the people, thier perceptions of what the world is like- and what is needed- is skewed- they no longer act for the public good, but the good of thier own class- because for them, thier class is thier world, it is thier society.

 

[Cheetah]

If we continuously vote for elites, then the elites must not be doing such a destructive job, right? That or they ARE doing a destructive job but we're just stupid (actually I think this is quite likely), but the point Diamond was trying to make still doesn't apply; it's not just the elites leading us to doom---it's a majority.

I'm not gonna argue this on a USA-scale, though I believe this is happening there, cause it would only lead to a discussion that a media controlled by the elite is controlling the general populace and such.

But still, look at the global community, WillJ. You are the elite! I am the elite! We have the most resources and we are doing the biggest destruction of this planet (the enviroment of the global society). Meanwhile, the billions of people not being part of the elite, can not vote in elections, and their nations are to weak to fight our nations in any enviromental or diplomatic way.

We make toll-barriers, we subsidie our export products and we exploit everyone else. We are insulating ourselves from most big natural disasters, wars, diseases and famine, while the poorer world takes the hit... for now.

In short, it seems like the entire global community is heading for a crash.