The nature of humanity
 

I've decided that the nature of the human being is not evil, but is still malignant, much like a virus. Look at Rome (it being my favorite example). Many historians see moral deteriation as a major contributor to its downfall. Now, please consider our society today. If you can draw no parallels, you may need to stop smoking crack. There always are, and always will be the optimistic ones who say that this isn't true, that we can go on living the way we want forever. No. Just no. See what our joys bring us? Most of them weren't even meant to exist. Cars destroy the thin barrier protecting us from our sun. TV's dilude our minds. Our plastics and glass lie in a hole in a ground, as if forgetting it will make it go away. That seems to be the way we deal with most of our problems. I think my main point is that there is far too much inaction. It takes everyone to change things. And there are far too many people happy to use up one thing, and move on to the next, just like a virus.

Actually, Rome was at an all time moral low at the height of its power, and lost power after the advent of christianity and morality began to take hold. The real reason for the fall of Rome was bickering over religious idols. The orthodox and unorthodox argued over whether or not using idols of Jesus/Mary/Whatever the hell else was breaking the commandment against idols. One side said it was ok because most people couldn't read, so they needed to teach them SOMEHOW. The other disagreed stating that idols were bad no matter what. Rome divided and lost a great degree of its power. This was, naturally, followed by the people losing faith and the military declining. At this point they were an easy target for the visigoth invaders.

So, disagreeing over morality destroyed Rome. Staying immoral would have been far better for them.

So... are you saying that homosexuality is the new idolatry? Interesting viewpoint. Best saved for a new thread. Then what WAS meant to exist? Only what God/Brahma/The Eternal Tao/Evolution brought to bear? Technology is evil? I DEMAND YOU LEAVE THIS COMPUTER! Go now, hater of all things technological! Live in the wilds! No running water or toilet paper either! Actually, cows do more damage to the Ozone than cars and industrial plants combined. Of course that IS just because humans, in their need to eat red meat, have spread them all over. Still: if you're going to deride something, get it right. Interesting how you make this statement without any kind of backing. Care to explain how TV diludes our mind? Is getting constantly fed new viewpoints and ideas bad for us in some way? Actually, most states have mandated recycling these days. Besides, glass is completely biodegradable. It's molten sand. Not really a big problem. By the by, recycling, thanks to the use of coal plants, hurts the environment more than landfills. So, we have legislation meant to appease green earthers that actually harms the environment. Why? Because the majority of Green Earthers don't stop to think about how the noxious fumes from power plants, which they're always complaining about, is necessary, unless we switch over to nuclear (which is extremely safe AND clean, but again, they are uninformed and hate this more than anything) or find a new--and VIABLE--energy source, in order to power their precious recycling plants. Or that, moreover, the power for those plants is so excessive that the fumes harm the planet more than the plastic they're recycling ever could. I concur. Right now we're working on using up the "Save The Earth Without Actually Figuring Out What's Best For It" thing. Hopefully we'll get over that soon.

You make good points. I'll give you that. But let me begin with recycling: because it is a law, do people do it? Not necesarily. And I have nothing against technology. Far from it: I'm a programmer. No, it is the abuse of technology that breeds destruction. And TV, while it does feed viewpoints, does not help as much as harm. Do you think more people sit down, and watch the history channel, or discover, or that they sit and watch sitcoms. Things that provide no kind of information. And it is widely felt that TV news is often biased. Do you think that these people show both sides to every story? While it is true that many are better than others, news shows are the same as other television shows: their purpose is to make money first, deliver information second. And for power: it is possible to make cleaner energy. Many places do already do it. But not enough. Because it costs more. Because the money is first, functionality is second.

I think inbreading and lead poisoning also had a lot to do with the fall of the roman empire.

I often state that television has to a large extent hurt westren society, but especially the newsmedia - A newsmedia which has lost sight of it's original intent - to inform the electorate. Well making money is fine - and even commendable to a certain extent - they have become infotainment which mocks the viewers intelligence and attention span, and in some cases are factually inaccurate. One of the pillars of a democratic society, most of the west and some of the east in this case - is a free and independant media which forces the other pillars to remain in tact by getting the public to act. When the media fails no one will know of the failure of the other pillars.

New research into the history of Rome shows that you're right.
America, being reletively free of both, will continue to chug along. Or we'll collapse some other way. My brother keeps telling me we'll fall to anarchy in about 150 years, but I think it'll take longer.
Entirely true. It was once said (I can't remember who said it) that "He who controls the media controls the mind". It's always best to get as many reports on the same major event as possible, and compare them. If you see differences in the reports (and you probably will) go with whatever seems most plausible. If they all seem equally stupid, shrug it off as part of life.
--The Jaded Falcon
"A tripod is the least stable structure on which to base a government"
-I don't think I got this exactly right.

That's very relative. The ancient, prechristian romans had different, but still strict, moral values. While, according to this morality (the morality of the Republican period), the Empire might have been an all time low as well, saying that morality came with christianity is at least dubious. Our morality, perhaps.

The Emperors, mystical despots as they were, still had the obligation to behave morally, at some point (to safeguard the Empire). At least in theory. I'll have to check up on that.

I'm pretty sure the massive barbarian migrations had something to do with it, too.

The very concept of decadence (moral failing accompanying the fall of something) is very problematic.

Perhaps we can clarify the subject more by finding one thing that does more damage than any of the others. I, personally, must go with the media. If people never have the information, but believe they do, what will they do? Flaunt ignorence. And (this is an educated guess) most of them will probably believe the newsguy over his next door neighbor.

No, actually Rome was on a decline starting after the reign of Marcus Aurelius (r 161-180), though some might argue Commodus (r 180-192) should be the cut off. They were the end of the last truly great Pagan Roman Emperors. Things only accelerated with the period of Military Crises. Maximinus Thrax (r 235-238), pagan. Philip the Arab (r 244-249), pagan. Decius (r249-251), pagan. Gallus, Valerin, Galienus, Claudius II, Probus, Carus, Numerian, they were all pagans. And, let us not forget that state sanction persecution of Christians started with Decius. Rome was restored to some order under Diocletian, but that didn't last long. It took Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, to set things right enough so that the Empire, in its Byzantine Form, might survive down until the 1400's (if I recall right). If the Christian Roman Empire could survive down till modern times, I highly doubt it caused the downfall of Rome.

And you are referring to the Iconoclastic controversy, which happened well into the Middle Ages, after the pagan Roman empire fell. While the conflict did weaken the empire, it still survived nearly 1000 years after that happened.

The Romans had been easy targets not just for the Visigoths but all Germanic peoples for several hundred years. It was a simple matter of the Government being unable to sustain a large enough army to deal with Germanic invassions to the North and Persian problems in the east. Two front wars nearly never work.

This is a statement devoid of historical evidence or backing. First, even the pagan religions had morality (it was just different from Christian morality). Second, Christians weren't even a notable minority till after the Empire showed signs of collapsing.

He didn't say anything about homosexuality. Really, it is bad form to put words into other people's mouths, especially on such loaded issues. Your statement could not be logically drawn from the provided text. By bringing it up, you are guilty of commiting logical fallacies.

Good advise. And considering how nonsensical your claim is, please site your sources. Why do I ask this? Because cows do not cause nearly that level of damage to the ozone, as far as I could find. My sources http://www.riverdeep.net/current/200...cowpower.jhtml and http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...2551.En.q.html

But, moving away from Rome (since it is just an example), history is the tale of the rise and fall of nations/cultures. Truly, the Catholic Church is the oldest established governing body in the world, and some would even debate that. Nations rise and fall, get used to the ideal because there is no reason to believe the future will provide anything different. We can hope, but history doesn't indicate that this will happen.

However, at the same time, it should be noted that history is full of doomsayers. People have nearly always looked at the past and believed that their greatest moments are behind them. It depends on what you see as being the most important part of society. If you believe that America was based on Christian morals, then our hayday has passed. But if you believe America was based on enlightenment ideas, then we are either in our prime or just past it. Military fans might see a 2nd golden age on the horizon, peace-nicks are assured of our eventual downfall. What standard do we use to judge a cultures place on the cycle of history?

It is very difficult to point out one factor as the major source of a downfall of a society -- Looking for a silver bullet rather than seeing the whole picture is limiting. Especially to as of yet theoretical event of the downfall of society.

I agree that it is probably going to occur - and is occuring forthwith. It would seem that Rome fell for numerous reasons, and I am guessing the same will happen to our society.

It was far more powerful before Christianity and while in a state of debauchery. The decline may have begun before, but it doesn't really matter. The collisseum, the orgies, the wrath, greed, gluttony, sloth, lust, blasphemy, and pride all existed at the hayday of the Roman Empire. To say that the degenerating morals of Rome caused it's fall is ludicrious. It fell AFTER 'our' moralistic effect came into being. A few hundred years after, to be exact. The decline may have started before hand, but religious differences between the pagans and the christians, and the christians and the christians DID do a lot to drive Rome apart. For instance, Constantine, who you hold up as being the first Christian leader of Rome, and who helped straighten things out, had 3000 Christians slaughtered because they didn't interpret the bible like he.

Also, the byzantine empire survived. That would be the one out east. As in the one that was taken over by the Turks.

The reason it couldn't was because of massive civil wars, the people not being able to unite behind a government that liked to switch which religion it was killing you for being this week AND which constantly assassinated its own leaders, money going to churches instead of maintaining the military, a massive plague, so on and so forth.

Christianity wasn't the ONLY reason, but it was A reason.


I used the word morality in order to communicate with Ivellios.

Arch: You're constantly noting that people don't communicate well if they define words differently. Well, to me, morality is a nothing word. It's meaning is completely derived by what the person I'm discussing it with thinks it means. He thinks it means our morality, and that's how he would take it if I used it in a sentence. There's no need for me to say "christian morality" or "US morality". I merely adopt his vocabulary for my own use.



Excellent job detecting sarcasm, there. I was pointing out that we aren't like the Roman Empire during its fall. We aren't being invaded by huns. We aren't poor. We don't have leaders executing people for interpretting the bible wrong. It's called rhetoric.


http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm Half of 1.3 billion is 650 million, the number of pounds of methane the world's cows emit per day. Methane causes 20 times the effect on global warming as CO2. 650 million times 20 is 13 billion. Cows and other livestock emit, the greenhouse equivalent of 13 billion pounds of CO2 a day. Humans add 30 billion pounds of CO2 a year. So in under three days, cows have the same effect on the o-zone as cars and industry CO2 emissions combined.