11 ms·

The constant theme since the dawn of civilization threaded through all of history is that everything is falling apart. Change is continual. History is more like

• leereeves 5y ago
  > Nations rise. ... Sometimes there's peace. In short: sometimes things aren't falling apart. For a few decades we enjoyed one of the great periods of peace and prosperity. That was surely doomed to end eventually, but I wish it could last a while longer.
  • techdragon 5y ago
    Unless you lived in the parts of the world that didn’t have that peace or that prosperity… it’s important to remember peace and prosperity are regional phenomena that are not shared around the globe equally.
    • leereeves 5y ago
      Certainly there have been some parts of the world that didn’t have that peace or that prosperity, but it was widespread. Former colonies threw off their colonial yokes. Most of the "developing world" developed. Marginalized groups gained new civil rights. China and India rose to become great powers even as their former colonial masters, though declining, still enjoyed peace and prosperity. Recognizing that there is still a lot of injustice and inequality in the world doesn't require denying all the progress that has been made.
      • 4ggr0 5y ago
        > Recognizing that there is still a lot of injustice and inequality in the world doesn't require denying all the progress that has been made And recognizing that we've made process shouldn't make us believe that we've done enough. Recognize what we've (or they've) achieved, be proud about it but never loose focus on making "it" even better. (I'm just adding to your comment, not disagreeing)
      • jl6 5y ago
        > Certainly there have been some parts of the world that didn’t have that peace or that prosperity, but it was widespread. > Former colonies threw off their colonial yokes. While I don’t disagree that decolonization was progress, it ironically came at the cost of the peace that had been imposed on the colonies by their former colonial masters. Many of the world’s most conflict-stricken areas today are ex-colonies still in the process of stabilization. The dirty secret of peace is that it is often imposed by a dominant power. Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana. These were peaceful times because of intense power asymmetry.
        • ansible 5y ago
          > While I don’t disagree that decolonization was progress, it ironically came at the cost of the peace that had been imposed on the colonies by their former colonial masters. What is this "peace" you speak of? I think you want to take a closer look at the oppression that was endemic to colonization and occupation of foreign lands. One of the worse examples is Belgium's colonization of the Congo: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/feb5/belgian-king-establishes-congo-free-state/ https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/feb5/belgian-king... If an African laborer didn't produce rubber (for example), it was common to chop off a hand (his own or a family member's) to encourage him to work harder. Congo may be on the worse end of the spectrum of colonization, but it is hardly a singular example.
          • jl6 5y ago
            Yes, I know this. This is why I view decolonization as progress. I am distinguishing such oppression from war.
        • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
          > dirty secret of peace is that it is often imposed by a dominant power. Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana. If it’s literally in the name it’s not a secret. Competition for monopolies on violence are bloody. When we can sidestep that contest, we get a lasting peace.
  • zozbot234 5y ago
    It's an endless cycle. As the saying goes... Hard times make strong men Strong men make good times Good times make weak men And weak men make hard times.
    • goodpoint 5y ago
      ...and the saying is BS.
      • DaltonCoffee 5y ago
        Care to elaborate?
        • Tomte 5y ago
          https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-i-war-at-the-dawn-of-civilization/ https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...
          • DaltonCoffee 5y ago
            Strange because I've always seen the saurdukhar/fremen as a literary interpretation of a real aspect of human nature - the ability (of some) to perserverve and excel in stressful/difficult situations. Some real life examples I've pointed too are the ghurkas in WW2 or Russian hackers.
        • Izkata 5y ago
          It's the meme version of this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generat... The "Defining a generation" section is fairly short and describes the theory, and the "Timing of generations and turnings" section maps the theory onto the past ~500 years. (Edit: got the indentation wrong, I thought the comment I was replying to was on the quote, not the "it's BS" reply. I don't think this is BS, at least not completely.)
        • goodpoint 5y ago
  • paulpauper 5y ago
    For a few decades we enjoyed one of the great periods of peace and prosperity. That was surely doomed to end eventually, but I wish it could last a while longer. You mean Ukraine? I would hardly say that the current situation threatens the post-ww2 peace. Compare now to ww2 and the differences are huge. ww2 claimed vastly more lives, in addition to Stalin and Hitler.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • pojzon 5y ago
    Issue right now is that our fall might mean complete fall of human civilisation in next 100 years or so. When Rome fell apart -> nothing much happened. When Bizzantium fell -> nothing much happened. When Nazi Germany fell -> millions of ppl died. When Earth stops sustaining human life in quite a few areas -> billions of ppl will die. Previously we had no big impact on Earth, now we do.
• giraffe_lady 5y ago
  Every generation thinks the world is ending but eventually one will be correct.
  • gaoshan 5y ago
    Eventually one will cause it (at least, our world).
  • goatlover 5y ago
    Do you think there can't be any civilizations in the universe which exist indefinitely? For the past millions or even billions of years? If humans get past the next couple of centuries and start spreading out into the solar system and possibly beyond, what would cause us to have a last generation?
    • giraffe_lady 5y ago
      This gets straight into realms of like eschatology and the sources of and constraints on life, areas in which I hold deeply unpopular beliefs compared to the norm here. The most neutral way I can phrase this is that I think life is a planetary expression, more or less fundamentally inseparable from the planet on which it emerges. We may eventually be able to break those bonds but I don't think we're anywhere near as close to that as we think we are, nor do I think we should even try.
      • machinevision 5y ago
        Why do you feel we should not try? (genuinely curious in your PoV)
        • Avicebron 5y ago
          I don't necessarily agree with giraffe_lady, but I can see the argument where leaving the planet fundamentally changes what we currently consider "human" society to a point where it no longer can be a considered a continuation of the general earthly society. Evolution maybe, but less star trek and more belters from the expanse but taken to an absolutely extreme extent. Maybe closer to something like Seven Eves.
• marginalia_nu 5y ago
  Eh, there have been institutions with almost absurd longevity in history. The catholic church has stood largely unchanged for the 1600 odd years between Constantine and Vatican II. Ancient Egypt was already thousands of years old when Socrates harassed aristocrats in Athens. It's very easy to forget that the revolutions of Britain, France, America, Russia; it happened just a few generations ago, and upended most of the political landscape (even in countries that didn't see actual revolutions). I think what is happening is most of our modern institutions are all of roughly the same age, and after initial idealism and momentum have roughly at the same time begun to ossify and show cracks as people have started taking them for granted. This is the first time anyone has attempted democracy on this sort of scale. Looking back we've had republics with longevity, we've had autocratic dynasties with longevity. But democracy? Besides Athens, which had a very different shape of political system, this is really a first. It's a huge political experiment, the long-term viability of which is being determined here and now by our ability to keep our shit together.
  • bombcar 5y ago
    The other thing to remember is that even those long-standing institutions had internal change that was a huge deal at the time but is now hardly remembered at all, or considered minor. You can even see this right now, where countries do not consider themselves to be as old as the current government's age, but much older. For example, most Italians will not consider Italy to be "started" at the Republic in '46, or even the Unification in 1861, but that the country is much, much older.
    • jimz 5y ago
      Italy as a polity, regardless of how real the polity actually existed as a coherent and cohesive governing state, pretty much existed continuously from Rome until entirely left out by the Congress of Vienna in 1805 though. By the time 1848 rolled around most people alive were perfectly aware of the concept of Italy in living memory, and even those who didn't actually live in what was considered Italy - in particular those living in the south from Naples down to Calabria and Sicily, if they were educated and literate, were still aware of the notion of Italy as a distinct political entity. There might not have been much of a centralized government based in Italian territories that represented the polity for long periods of history, but ruling regimes/dynasties come and go but political entities tend to last longer.
• sircastor 5y ago
  > Nations rise. Nations fall. Sometimes there's revolt. I think the concern at hand (at least in the US) is that we’re on the eve of that fall or revolt, and whatever is born out of that, for good or ill, probably means a couple of really hard decades.
• civilized 5y ago
  I understand taking historical perspective, but I'm not a fan of complete equanimity about change. Lots of bad stuff is "happening all the time", like murder and cancer. It'd be nice to acknowledge when the things that are happening seem to be good or bad.