6 ms·

Every generation says the next generation is worse. It's actually true. Western civilization reached it's peak right around 1776, the height of the Enlightenme

by javert 11y ago

Every generation says the next generation is worse. It's actually true. Western civilization reached it's peak right around 1776, the height of the Enlightenment, and it's been going downhill since then. Every generation is worse than the last, and Western civilization will not last much longer unless the trend reverses. You can't turn the United States into a Hugo Chavez-style system and expect a different outcome than the one in Venezuela. Western Europe is more robust to socialism because the culture within each country is so homogenous, but even they won't be able to last forever. Especially with crackdowns on free speech.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
MCRed 11y ago
That's an interesting argument. Certainly to support it one would probably make references to the culture of the time. In the late 1700s there was sufficient level of education to make people think critically and consider alternatives, plus a great deal of philosophical understanding. Probably literacy reached a local maximum, or a higher level than in generations prior. But one of the big challenges of success is that it's easy to take it for granted, especially each successive generation who grows up used to the benefits that their parents worked hard to win for them (or the results of major global conflicts in some cases. But even those result in post war booms.) To take this out of the broad country level perspective, where technological and other advancements and history could be argued to be the cause-- we could look at the second and third generation immigrants to the USA. I suspect, and I hear this anecdotally, but I don't have data-- that the first generation kids are more industrious than the third or fourth-- and that this is probably true in the 1800s, 1900s and now. In fact, I would argue that it was the presumption that prosperity (Which we've had) would result in ever higher levels of literacy (Which we've experienced) and thus higher levels of enlightenment and philosophical perspective due to ever better education and schools -- which we have not had. Schools have slowly declined to the point where I suspect most schools don't even teach classical literature, let alone philosophy. So, I think the lesson to learn from the USA is to never let the government take over the schools.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > In the late 1700s there was sufficient level of education to make people think critically and consider alternatives Among an extremely narrow, elite class perhaps. Jeffersons & Adams & Paine * Adam Smith are disproportionately represented among the people of that time that we remember now, but weren't exactly the norm. > Probably literacy reached a local maximum, or a higher level than in generations prior. Well, the latter but not the former -- just as has been the case since. [0] > To take this out of the broad country level perspective, where technological and other advancements and history could be argued to be the cause-- we could look at the second and third generation immigrants to the USA. I suspect, and I hear this anecdotally, but I don't have data-- that the first generation kids are more industrious than the third or fourth The common thing I've heard from people in fairly-recent-immigrant-descended-communities is that first-generation Americans (children of immigrants) are less industrious than immigrants or later generations. This is not to endorse the idea that any of these generational generalizations are accurate, just that, well, there's lots of different generalized anecdotes out there. > In fact, I would argue that it was the presumption that prosperity (Which we've had) would result in ever higher levels of literacy (Which we've experienced) and thus higher levels of enlightenment and philosophical perspective due to ever better education and schools -- which we have not had. I don't think that's true. I just think that due to selective preservation of history, we tend to only see the top end of the bell curve from 1776, and a lot more of the current distribution. > Schools have slowly declined to the point where I suspect most schools don't even teach classical literature, let alone philosophy. Certainly, the fetishization of the ancients Greece and Rome has waned and there is a lot more literature written since the fall of Rome that is taught in schools. I'mnot sure that this is a problem. And the definition of "philosophy" has narrowed since the 18th Century -- much of what is currently taught in school would have been within the scope of "philosophy" were that term as broad as it was in the 18th Century. And perhaps a smaller percentage of schools teach philosophy than did in the 18th Century, but I suspect at least as great a share of people attend schools in which philosophy is taught; that would have been mainly the elites in the 18th Century, after all, not everyone. [0] http://ourworldindata.org/data/education-knowledge/literacy/ http://ourworldindata.org/data/education-knowledge/literacy/
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Every generation says the next generation is worse. It's actually true. Every generation has said that since, at least (judging from the earliest documented case I'm personally familiar with, which is no doubt many generations from when the trend started), the time of Plato. > Western civilization reached it's peak right around 1776, the height of the Enlightenment [Considers status of the Atlantic slave trade, position of women in society, etc., in 1776] Um, no. Just no. > Every generation is worse than the last Its really not. > and Western civilization will not last much longer unless the trend reverses. Western civilization isn't on any trend to disintegration, even if you may not like its current organization. > You can't turn the United States into a Hugo Chavez-style system and expect a different outcome than the one in Venezuela. In what meaningful sense is the United States a "Hugo Chavez-style system"?
- coldtea 11y ago
  >[Considers status of the Atlantic slave trade, position of women in society, etc., in 1776] Um, no. Just no. There existed societies without slaves, and multi-cultural cities were everybody got along, milenia before the "Atlantic slave trade". So it's not a great example of something that "got better as things progressed". >Western civilization isn't on any trend to disintegration That's like, em, your opinion man. Lots of people think otherwise -- so it's not that clear cut.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > There existed societies without slaves, and multi-cultural cities were everybody got along, milenia before the "Atlantic slave trade". The first part is true, but irrelevant. 1776 is the point that was proposed in the post I was responding to as the peak of Western civilization. (Whether "multicultural cities where everyone got along" can be anything but hyperbole for anything that has ever existed is another question, but also irrelevant.) > So it's not a great example of something that "got better as things progressed". It wasn't offered for that purpose. It was offered -- as the direct quoting of the claim about the 1776 peak that preceded it should have suggested -- to counter the idea that 1776 was the high point of Western civilization.
- 11y ago

by javert 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

MCRed 11y ago

That's an interesting argument. Certainly to support it one would probably make references to the culture of the time. In the late 1700s there was sufficient level of education to make people think critically and consider alternatives, plus a great deal of philosophical understanding. Probably literacy reached a local maximum, or a higher level than in generations prior. But one of the big challenges of success is that it's easy to take it for granted, especially each successive generation who grows up used to the benefits that their parents worked hard to win for them (or the results of major global conflicts in some cases. But even those result in post war booms.) To take this out of the broad country level perspective, where technological and other advancements and history could be argued to be the cause-- we could look at the second and third generation immigrants to the USA. I suspect, and I hear this anecdotally, but I don't have data-- that the first generation kids are more industrious than the third or fourth-- and that this is probably true in the 1800s, 1900s and now. In fact, I would argue that it was the presumption that prosperity (Which we've had) would result in ever higher levels of literacy (Which we've experienced) and thus higher levels of enlightenment and philosophical perspective due to ever better education and schools -- which we have not had. Schools have slowly declined to the point where I suspect most schools don't even teach classical literature, let alone philosophy. So, I think the lesson to learn from the USA is to never let the government take over the schools.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> In the late 1700s there was sufficient level of education to make people think critically and consider alternatives Among an extremely narrow, elite class perhaps. Jeffersons & Adams & Paine * Adam Smith are disproportionately represented among the people of that time that we remember now, but weren't exactly the norm. > Probably literacy reached a local maximum, or a higher level than in generations prior. Well, the latter but not the former -- just as has been the case since. [0] > To take this out of the broad country level perspective, where technological and other advancements and history could be argued to be the cause-- we could look at the second and third generation immigrants to the USA. I suspect, and I hear this anecdotally, but I don't have data-- that the first generation kids are more industrious than the third or fourth The common thing I've heard from people in fairly-recent-immigrant-descended-communities is that first-generation Americans (children of immigrants) are less industrious than immigrants or later generations. This is not to endorse the idea that any of these generational generalizations are accurate, just that, well, there's lots of different generalized anecdotes out there. > In fact, I would argue that it was the presumption that prosperity (Which we've had) would result in ever higher levels of literacy (Which we've experienced) and thus higher levels of enlightenment and philosophical perspective due to ever better education and schools -- which we have not had. I don't think that's true. I just think that due to selective preservation of history, we tend to only see the top end of the bell curve from 1776, and a lot more of the current distribution. > Schools have slowly declined to the point where I suspect most schools don't even teach classical literature, let alone philosophy. Certainly, the fetishization of the ancients Greece and Rome has waned and there is a lot more literature written since the fall of Rome that is taught in schools. I'mnot sure that this is a problem. And the definition of "philosophy" has narrowed since the 18th Century -- much of what is currently taught in school would have been within the scope of "philosophy" were that term as broad as it was in the 18th Century. And perhaps a smaller percentage of schools teach philosophy than did in the 18th Century, but I suspect at least as great a share of people attend schools in which philosophy is taught; that would have been mainly the elites in the 18th Century, after all, not everyone. [0] http://ourworldindata.org/data/education-knowledge/literacy/ http://ourworldindata.org/data/education-knowledge/literacy/

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Every generation says the next generation is worse. It's actually true. Every generation has said that since, at least (judging from the earliest documented case I'm personally familiar with, which is no doubt many generations from when the trend started), the time of Plato. > Western civilization reached it's peak right around 1776, the height of the Enlightenment [Considers status of the Atlantic slave trade, position of women in society, etc., in 1776] Um, no. Just no. > Every generation is worse than the last Its really not. > and Western civilization will not last much longer unless the trend reverses. Western civilization isn't on any trend to disintegration, even if you may not like its current organization. > You can't turn the United States into a Hugo Chavez-style system and expect a different outcome than the one in Venezuela. In what meaningful sense is the United States a "Hugo Chavez-style system"?

coldtea 11y ago
>[Considers status of the Atlantic slave trade, position of women in society, etc., in 1776] Um, no. Just no. There existed societies without slaves, and multi-cultural cities were everybody got along, milenia before the "Atlantic slave trade". So it's not a great example of something that "got better as things progressed". >Western civilization isn't on any trend to disintegration That's like, em, your opinion man. Lots of people think otherwise -- so it's not that clear cut.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > There existed societies without slaves, and multi-cultural cities were everybody got along, milenia before the "Atlantic slave trade". The first part is true, but irrelevant. 1776 is the point that was proposed in the post I was responding to as the peak of Western civilization. (Whether "multicultural cities where everyone got along" can be anything but hyperbole for anything that has ever existed is another question, but also irrelevant.) > So it's not a great example of something that "got better as things progressed". It wasn't offered for that purpose. It was offered -- as the direct quoting of the claim about the 1776 peak that preceded it should have suggested -- to counter the idea that 1776 was the high point of Western civilization.
11y ago