Can We Avoid The Fate of the Roman Civilization & Collapse?

Originally posted by Rockpuck

After General Sherman ran his army to the Atlantic coast literally destroying, pillaging and mutilating everything in his path, wiping out Southern identity, raping Southern pride and putting the South into the ultimate submission.

I grew up in the south.... spare me the crap about southern pride and identity its just another bull hooey catch phrase for intolerance, bigotry and racism. The south was just as insufferable and arrogant after the civil war as before.... maybe more cause they had the lost cause myth to play upon afterwards.

Typical response.

1.4% of the American population owned slaves. People in the South and the North where, and are, equally intolerable in a variety of ways. Though entirely off topic, as that is not state identity.

I think you missed the part of "I grew up in the south" and I had the myth of the war for states rights shoved down my throat. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now...every single founding document of the confedercy cited slavery (and the fear of eliminating it) as single unifying idea behind session. Yes it was about states rights... states rights to hold slaves and while only a small precentage held slaves, then like now that small precentage held the power and the vast majority didn't have a voice in the matter at all. 98+% of all slavery and had been eliminated up north by the outbreak of hostilities and no matter how you cut it, session was treason.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by grover]

I know both of you have some very strong feelings about what happened here in the US but I'd like to hear more about the collapse/decline of civilizations.

Although I don't own a sandwich board, I do think that the American civilization will eventually collapse. But then, so will every other in existence. I think the bigger issue here is "when will HUMAN civilization collapse?" I forsee a point at which our natural resources are picked clean. People are downright viral! We spread out, take what we need and want as we go, exploit everything to the greatest extent possible and who ultimately pays for it? Just about every species of life on Earth, including us.

Now I'm not one of these wackos who thinks that using just one square of TP is a good idea but in the past week, one of my personal heroes, Steven Hawking made a statement about space exploration. He believes that unless we learn to live in space, our civilization is doomed. Now, I know that the first thing I will hear is, "What? So you want us to go out into space and destroy that too?" Actually no. But I do think that moving forward with colonization (i.e., lunar) will help us preserve the most precious resource we have: Earth.

Obviously, this is not the only answer. Population control, energy conservation and education are crucial as well but none of those things can offer human civilization protection from extinction by threats approaching us from beyond Earth. No, not necessarily ET but meteor/comet impacts we have yet to see coming... Now those are events worth exploring! Governments come and go for a variety of reasons but humanity for now, has only one planet to share. Perhaps not tomorrow, next year, or even a century from now-- but it is coming and no amount of GE products and chemical fillers in our food supply can overcome the population surge and side-effects that will come with it.

Even if an extremely lethal and contagious biological weapon is released or if something like a thermonuclear war breaks out on Earth, human space colonization will save at least a few... enough to weather the storm and return to rebuild later. I just hope it doesn't come to that. Can we avoid the collapse of civilization? I am doubtful if we continue on our current trajectory but there is still time if we start sooner rather than later (don't dust off those sandwich boards just yet! ).

Considering the nature of space, I seriously doubt we could or would destroy anything. In fact the odds are we will never make it out of the solar system if only because of the distances involved and the speed of light barrier, as if we could approach that speed and still maintain atomic union, much less still function.

Be that as it may... 5,000 + years of written history shows quite clearly that civilizations rise and fall on a fairly regular basis, say every 500 to 1,000 years. There are exceptions of course, but when you look at it, what lasts is the culture... for example there have been several Chinese or Indian civilizations but the underlying cultures remain. There have been multiple versions of western civilization since the fall of Rome but the underlying Christian culture remains... and that is the most interesting feature of all...the motivation or inspiration for new cultures and civilizations are almost exclusively religious/spiritual in nature. The Islamic blossoming is the prime example. Can a culture or civilization last based entirely on mercentile and scientific principles? I seriously doubt it. The can inspire individuals. But can they provide the motivation to create and maintain a new world view that can inspire whole societies? Probably not.

As it stands we are living through the final days of both Islam and Christianity. While their fall could take centuries more, they have both totally lost all ability to inspire new cultures, new civilizations, new societies. They will remain of course, as part of the spiritual patrimony of mankind as one of many paths to chose from, but not as the motif source of progress.

Originally posted by grover
Considering the nature of space, I seriously doubt we could or would destroy anything...odds are we will never make it out of the solar system if only because of the distances involved and the speed of light barrier...

Certainly, our current rate of technological progress would seem to suggest that! Sheesh! It's easier for us to destroy ourselves now than it is to save ourselves, which is in complete contradiction to the basic survival instinct! :w:

Originally posted by grover
Be that as it may... 5,000 + years of written history shows quite clearly that civilizations rise and fall on a fairly regular basis, ...several Chinese or Indian civilizations but the underlying cultures remain...multiple versions of western civilization since...Rome but the underlying Christian culture remains...the motivation or inspiration for new cultures and civilizations are almost exclusively religious/spiritual in nature. The Islamic blossoming is the prime example. Can a culture or civilization last based entirely on mercentile and scientific principles? ...doubt it...can they provide the motivation to create and maintain a new world view that can inspire whole societies? Probably not.

I agree that there does seem to be periodic patterns of rising and falling civilizations but I'm not certain Islam is exactly "blossoming" right now. If anything, it seems these poor people are just trying to survive until a solution is found. I do sympathize with the vast majority of them because extremists are giving them a bad rap they do not deserve.

As for mercantile and scientific principles, I would tend to agree on one hand but disagree on the other. Religion is an excellent coping mechanism. As long as people need comfort in a world they cannot possibly understand, they will turn to faith in various forms. This even happens in science on occasion where researchers will have "lucky" talismans/charms, etc. or offer sacrifices to a humorous idol before starting a tedious and difficult experiment. I'm not a big fan of business practices in general because I think it breeds corruption and immorality. It encourages people to step on those less fortunate, just for any opportunity to get ahead in this "dog-eat-dog" world.

My disagreement comes in the realm of scientific inquiry. Science is a double-edged sword. It can just as easily save, inspire and grow civilizations as it erodes them. In the long run though, it seems that science generally contributes more than it costs. If not for science, you would not be able to speak with people all over the world through the Internet, you or your ancestors may not have survived long enough to bring you here without medical advancements and certainly, you would not even have the time to invest in leisure if your days were filled with hunting, gathering and trying to survive nature's wrath.

If we decimated our society through a product of scientific innovation, science would give us the only chance we have to restore it. Prayer would not tell us how to build shelter, provide food or treat a wound. Scientific education does. Without science, there is no civilization.

Originally posted by grover
As it stands we are living through the final days of both Islam and Christianity...both totally lost all ability to inspire new cultures, new civilizations, new societies...remain...part of the spiritual patrimony of mankind as one of many paths to chose from.

I for one, chose neither. I would be quite happy to see organized religion go but too many people still need it for reasons only they understand. I feel like these large groups start more trouble :bash: than they solve in general but that's just me. Inspiration is good but knowledge is paramount and something everyone, regardless of faith, sex, nationality, age or class, can appreciate.

Actually I was referring to the blossoming of Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries, not currently. Science is a tool nothing more and is not despite claims to the contrary antithetical to religion or spirituality.... they deal with two totally different worlds, the material concrete world and the world of the mind, of psychology, of philosophy, of spirit, of the inner workings of the human psyche. Science is a tool and as such can inspire individuals, but I doubt seriously it could ever inspire a civilization or a culture.

This is exactly why we, as a society, need to do a better job generating interest in science. Even many popular science books are hopelessly out of reach for the majority of readers, given such heavy dependence by authors on jargon. Why would anyone want to read this stuff unless they already had established an interest elsewhere? For this reason, I don't have much hope for the survival of humanity.

There are too many grasshoppers having fun and enjoying the comfort faith brings and too few ants working hard to make technological preparations for the coming winter, :shk: so to speak. The fundamental problem here is not that science has no value, it just lacks popular appeal because it looks BORING and HARD and... oh, isn't it just easier if we pray for someone to save us and take care of us? Good grief!

Religion, spirituality, metaphysics, mythology, and folklore are great tools for entertainment, teaching morality and stress relief. Sure, they soothe the spirits of many. But what's the point in feeling good if we don't use that fine vessel of mental health for practical purposes? Faith inspires people and plays a significant role in preventing the masses from losing hope. Without science however, there is no technological progress and no chance for a better quality of life (medicine, tools, machines and general knowledge).

Civilization, by definition, must be build upon a foundation of science if it is ever to originate, evolve and progress. Religion, spirituality, etc. is the equivalent scaffold in culture, which should not be confused with civilization. Culture and Civilization are separate but in many ways equal. Now, if culture was all we had since the stone age... we would still be there.

How so? Cave paintings, burial rituals and many of the oldest artifacts left behind by our ancestors are relics of culture. Once agriculture was established (which by the way required the adaptation of scientific practices) civilization was born. It was not until science interjected in the spiritual and cultural lives of our ancestors did civilization gain a toehold, allowing it to grow into its present form. If we allow the abandonment of science, we might as well go back to hunting, gathering and living in the caves where we would so richly belong. :bnghd:

I beg to disagree. Myth and symbolism, religion and spirituality all work on the level of metaphor because more than anything they deal with matters words cannot express adequately... our approach to the ineffable ... the mysteries of the universe and creation and end ... that which is behind the superficials of material existence... things that science can only approach but never adequately explain. Science deals with the nuts and bolts of things but creation by its very essence is far greater than its component parts... and that essentially is what myth, symbolism, religion and spirituality addresses.

Originally posted by grover
I beg to disagree. Myth and symbolism, religion and spirituality all work on the level of metaphor because more than anything they deal with matters words cannot express adequately... our approach to the ineffable ... the mysteries of the universe and creation and end ... that which is behind the superficials of material existence... things that science can only approach but never adequately explain. Science deals with the nuts and bolts of things but creation by its very essence is far greater than its component parts... and that essentially is what myth, symbolism, religion and spirituality addresses.

Then I am afraid we must agree to disagree because I don't think you understood my posts. :bnghd: Science seeks to take the "mystery" out of the universe by studying it and understanding it. Beneath mystery, we find something far greater: truth.

As much as you seem to love using flowery language I am surprised that you, of all would have such a difficult time find the words to express your observations! Perhaps you might enjoy a nice trip to the library so that you may peruse the plethora of scientific literature and perhaps, gain an appreciation for the challenges researchers face and successfully conquer through their peer-reviewed publications-- full of adequate explanations! That is, unless you forgot to bring your thesaurus!

I am so glad you lumped, "myth" in with "creation". :shk: How appropriate! If you find the need to escape materialism, I know a poor foster child who could really use your PC for school. Hmmm.... you probably have electricity and telecom too... Have you considered giving those up? Afterall, it sounds like you don't think people understand the science behind them, perhaps one should not use what they fail to understand? Afterall, you just never know when some sort of quantum wierdness is going to jolt through your hard drive and toss you back to the Garden of Eden!

I suspect your scientific education didn't progress past learning how to dissect things and that is a shame. There is this really cool area in particular where scientists make stuff! It's called, "engineering". Just what exactly do you mean by "nuts and bolts"? If you mean, the proverbial glue that holds civilization together just as nuts and bolts do, then we surely would fall apart without science! :bash:

Please be more specific in your responses so that we might have an opportunity to find out where the disconnect lies. We'll find it. Don't you worry! Scientists to the rescue!

I just wrote a paper on comparing America to Rome and how to prevent an American collapse.


DARPA...Thats how.


Networked communications connecting cutting edge surveilance equiptment on a photonicly encrypted quantum super-computer system is the key. Rome was to big and could not handle internal as well as external threats.


I say this relying on no asteriods or alien invasions until "The System" is complete. Once it is complete I would think America is well off enough to combat most anything.


Im being vague on details because already available technology is crazy enough to keep tabs on us, i.e. RIFD chips or satellites of various optical capability.


Hell, just check out DARPA's IXO.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by Watchful1]

Actually I don't think you understand what I am saying which is even if science can explain the whole of creation it still cannot explain the underlying mystery of why there is a creation at all. How is it a thin fog of molecules and atoms self organize themselves to form the material world, much less life, much less intelligent life, AND what does that mean; if anything at all?

I am no blind proponent of religion, in fact I dislike organized religion as a rule but I do understand what it is spirituality and mysticism attempt to address, and that is as I said earlier, our approach to the ineffable. For most people science never adequately addresses the subject at all. When I say nuts and bolts I mean the component parts... for example, the organs, structure and chemical make up of my dog, but science can never address what it is beyond differences in physical and genetic make up that makes him who he is.

As for culture and/or civilization... you are flat out wrong. You cannot separate one from the other. Civilizations grow out of cultures and what is culture but accumulative layers of material and psychological (and spiritual) meanings. These accumulative layers can be rearranged over successive generations to inspire new civilizations which is why both India and China for example have had a coherent culture that has lasted thousands of years while their material civilizations have changed. Materialism simply addresses material existence, it does not and cannot inspire. The same is true of science. It can and does inspire individuals and that is good, but that is not the same as inspiring a culture or a civilization... simply put that is not its sphere and so far any attempt to apply science to society has been quite ugly.

I am no scientist but I am well read in science, far more than a lot in this country that is for sure. I have studied history, mythology and symbolism, art and psychology, religion and philosophy... what I call the nut of humanity (as in the essence and the insanity) for years and while I am no expert I do not like being talked down to.


[edit on 29-4-2007 by grover]

(Response by paragraph to grover)

The only thing I don’t understand about you is why thermodynamics is so scary. Biology isn’t the mystery you claim. Molecules organize because of CHEMISTRY, not creation. Energy transformations are like pushing a cart over a hill, steeper inclines make it harder to start reactions. Molecules engage in a predictable ballet of electron sharing, stealing, & donating; pushing the cart to product formation over the crest (transition state). Once the crest is reached, it’s a downhill glide to product formation & electrons settle into shells. Life is a series of chemical peaks & valleys interwoven in a web of regulatory pathways. The biggest obstacle for human comprehension in a modern, multicellular organism is the sheer # of paths; no mystery. Life has been evolving for 4Ga & we have just begun to study it. Volume is not a mystery! Life is inevitable given the presence of crucial starting materials. I realize that it doesn’t give most a warm, fuzzy feeling but this is reality. If you are compelled to seek higher meaning in your life, then I completely understand why science frightens you.

Au contraire. I think we’re doing a splendid job addressing the intricacies of life. In fact, there’re millions working in a field called, “Biology”. Again, “spirituality & mysticism attempt to address” is very appropriate. The sciences ACTUALLY address your questions but you would rather scream, “mystery!” than open a textbook. It saddens me deeply that you are missing out on the most magnificent aspects of the universe . No imagination required!

Actually, I think I did fairly well in distinguishing the difference between them. Would you like another source; other than civilization being (paraphrasing) whatever people want it to be; a series of ambiguous symbols? :shk: How’s Webster’s? Civilization: “A relatively high level of cultural & TECHNOLOGICAL development”! So yes, culture is a prerequisite (we agreed on this earlier) but technology is NOT dispensable in civilization. I looked up “materialism” too: “A preoccupation with material rather than intellectual or spiritual things”. I am not sure how science = materialism since science is “a branch of study concerned with the observation and classification of FACTS and esp. the establishment of VERIFIABLE general LAWS”! Why are you disqualifying science as intellectual? That’s just insulting!

Not a scientist? No kidding! I don’t know what you’ve been reading but I suspect it’s the pseudoscientific/metaphysical variety; just as bad as not having read about science at all! “A nut”? “As in the essence and the insanity?” You said it & I couldn’t agree more! Where we differ: I would never attempt to feign expertise in the humanities since that is not my field. I expect a certain amount of respect for my scientific background & I don’t appreciate having science minimized by an outsider. If you genuinely want to learn about science, there are plenty of resources. If you would rather cling to ignorance, there is little I can do.:bnghd: I didn’t come here to squabble with you. If you recall, I initially agreed with most of your points—with the exception of 1 area: my own. Just as I must defer to others in discussions pertaining to their fields, I expect those, who do not understand mine, to listen, rather than feign superiority.

:shk::shk::shk::shk::shk::shk::shk::shk::shk:

There is no point even discussing the issues with you since you do not know how to without insulting. You have read things into my post that is not there.

I do not find anything about science, thermodynamics or whatnot scary except the notion of some that science can cure all of mankind's ills. And I know the difference between metaphysics, and phony science and I am not a creationist. Your arrogance tells me that must be very young since you think you know all the answers.