Originally Posted by Arkham '80

As I've said before, though, my expectations for the human race as a whole are positive. But the West has run its course and is going to die soon. This is natural. No civilization is immortal, just as no human being is immortal.

The analogy is not a good one. A civilization is not like a human being, but like one of Tolkien's Elves: "immortal" in the sense that it has no finite lifespan and will not die of old age, but "mortal" in the sense that it can be killed.

The West cannot "run its course." If it is about to die, it will not be by "running its course" but by running over a cliff, or perhaps into a brick wall. That is very possible. But you have by no means established that it is unavoidable.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

As I've said before, though, my expectations for the human race as a whole are positive. But the West has run its course and is going to die soon. This is natural. No civilization is immortal, just as no human being is immortal.

The analogy is not a good one. A civilization is not like a human being, but like one of Tolkien's Elves: "immortal" in the sense that it has no finite lifespan and will not die of old age, but "mortal" in the sense that it can be killed.

The West cannot "run its course." If it is about to die, it will not be by "running its course" but by running over a cliff, or perhaps into a brick wall. That is very possible. But you have by no means established that it is unavoidable.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

As I've said before, though, my expectations for the human race as a whole are positive. But the West has run its course and is going to die soon. This is natural. No civilization is immortal, just as no human being is immortal.

The analogy is not a good one. A civilization is not like a human being, but like one of Tolkien's Elves: "immortal" in the sense that it has no finite lifespan and will not die of old age, but "mortal" in the sense that it can be killed.

The West cannot "run its course."

One would think so, I grant.

But history does seem to show a tendency for civilizations to follow certain repeating patterns, and many of them seem to pass through what look suspiciously like comparable phases that last similar lengths of time.

For example, the 'Era of Contending States' in pre-Han 'China' shows several features that also seem to be visible in Classical Civilization during the Hellenistic Period. Both periods also seem to have lasted in the approximate neighborhood of three centuries, to be followed by a stabler imperial regime that subsumed the local disputes.

The late phases of the fall of Imperial China and the Roman Empire also appear to display some broadly similar patterns. Interestingly, so does the last stages of the Ottoman Empire.

I don't have a really plausible explanation of why Civilizations would show such similar patterns, though.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

As I've said before, though, my expectations for the human race as a whole are positive. But the West has run its course and is going to die soon. This is natural. No civilization is immortal, just as no human being is immortal.

The analogy is not a good one. A civilization is not like a human being, but like one of Tolkien's Elves: "immortal" in the sense that it has no finite lifespan and will not die of old age, but "mortal" in the sense that it can be killed.

The West cannot "run its course."

One would think so, I grant.

But history does seem to show a tendency for civilizations to follow certain repeating patterns, and many of them seem to pass through what look suspiciously like comparable phases that last similar lengths of time.

For example, the 'Era of Contending States' in pre-Han 'China' shows several features that also seem to be visible in Classical Civilization during the Hellenistic Period. Both periods also seem to have lasted in the approximate neighborhood of three centuries, to be followed by a stabler imperial regime that subsumed the local disputes.

The late phases of the fall of Imperial China and the Roman Empire also appear to display some broadly similar patterns. Interestingly, so does the last stages of the Ottoman Empire.

I don't have a really plausible explanation of why Civilizations would show such similar patterns, though.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Anyway, I doubt you'll be singled out for potshots just on account of your age. You should be a lot safer than most of the new Prophets.

Well, being familiar with the theory, it certainly could be easier to understand the new Prophets. Perhaps I can go into the 2T not being such a "square" or "cube" or whatever the hell they'll call us.

It's not your Generation that their New Idealists will really be rebelling against, but the Boomers for whom (if the pattern holds) you'll be standing as proxy. The ideas that inform whatever High gets built will likely derive from the Boomers in some way, or some faction of them, and it'll partly be those ideas against which they'll rebel.

(Of course, they'll probably also rebel against the notion of social discipline, organization, and collective activity, too.)

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Anyway, I doubt you'll be singled out for potshots just on account of your age. You should be a lot safer than most of the new Prophets.

Well, being familiar with the theory, it certainly could be easier to understand the new Prophets. Perhaps I can go into the 2T not being such a "square" or "cube" or whatever the hell they'll call us.

It's not your Generation that their New Idealists will really be rebelling against, but the Boomers for whom (if the pattern holds) you'll be standing as proxy. The ideas that inform whatever High gets built will likely derive from the Boomers in some way, or some faction of them, and it'll partly be those ideas against which they'll rebel.

(Of course, they'll probably also rebel against the notion of social discipline, organization, and collective activity, too.)

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Hope is a funny thing in that it can drive people to struggle against daunting odds and win, but it can also impell them to ignore the obvious and bring considerable suffering upon themselves for no reason. The longer we try to preserve our moribund civilization, the more people will suffer under its dysfunctional institutions and decrepit worldview. Sometimes the best thing is to let go and allow change to happen, and this is one of those historical moments when the only viable course left is cataclysm. The alternative is prolonged stasis, followed by rapid decline and extinction.

(sigh)

And to know that people think like this makes me depressed.

I have grown too attached to see the West go any time soon. I'm not going to abandon it for the life of me.

So please clarify. Are we speaking of the West being extinguished or become a museum piece like Europe?

You're not giving this Millie anything positive to think about in the future, and that might be bad when my cohort gets to hold the reigns of power.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Hope is a funny thing in that it can drive people to struggle against daunting odds and win, but it can also impell them to ignore the obvious and bring considerable suffering upon themselves for no reason. The longer we try to preserve our moribund civilization, the more people will suffer under its dysfunctional institutions and decrepit worldview. Sometimes the best thing is to let go and allow change to happen, and this is one of those historical moments when the only viable course left is cataclysm. The alternative is prolonged stasis, followed by rapid decline and extinction.

(sigh)

And to know that people think like this makes me depressed.

I have grown too attached to see the West go any time soon. I'm not going to abandon it for the life of me.

So please clarify. Are we speaking of the West being extinguished or become a museum piece like Europe?

You're not giving this Millie anything positive to think about in the future, and that might be bad when my cohort gets to hold the reigns of power.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Unfortunately, zero population growth won't do humanity any good. When population stasizes or declines, wages increase because there is less labor to employ and firms must compete fiercely for workers.

Another factor is that as population declines, the cost per capita for infrastructural investments such as roads, railways, or the higher-tech equivalents, rises, since the costs are often fixed, or nearly so, and fewer and fewer people are using them, making it harder to justify the expenditures for construction and maintenance.

One of the ironies of this effect is that if you magically reduced the American population by, say, 50%, we'd probably see increased crowding, as maintaining the intricate systems that permit suburbia and rural-commuting would become prohibitively expensive. We'd end up with more people packed into the cities.

OTOH, in many ways it's easier to police and provide services to dense populations, so the life in those cities would not have to be Bladerunner redux.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Unfortunately, zero population growth won't do humanity any good. When population stasizes or declines, wages increase because there is less labor to employ and firms must compete fiercely for workers.

Another factor is that as population declines, the cost per capita for infrastructural investments such as roads, railways, or the higher-tech equivalents, rises, since the costs are often fixed, or nearly so, and fewer and fewer people are using them, making it harder to justify the expenditures for construction and maintenance.

One of the ironies of this effect is that if you magically reduced the American population by, say, 50%, we'd probably see increased crowding, as maintaining the intricate systems that permit suburbia and rural-commuting would become prohibitively expensive. We'd end up with more people packed into the cities.

OTOH, in many ways it's easier to police and provide services to dense populations, so the life in those cities would not have to be Bladerunner redux.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

We are in danger, but we aren't dead yet, and as long as we're alive, it's OK to hope. It won't make the end of civilization any worse if it comes as a disappointment, and a lack of hope makes that end more likely. We need to recognize the danger, which too many people haven't for too long, but if we confuse danger with doom, we are just as paralyzed and it does us no good.

I was going to write a long reply to your various arguments, but this one statement gets to the heart of why I post at all on this subject. I know I come across as cynical, despairing, and alarmist. As I've said before, though, my expectations for the human race as a whole are positive. But the West has run its course and is going to die soon. This is natural. No civilization is immortal, just as no human being is immortal. Westerners continue to demonstrate an almost psychotic refusal to acknowledge this fact, however, and so I feel compelled to remind them of it, repeatedly and forcefully if necessary, in order to maintain a balanced perspective. Hope is a funny thing in that it can drive people to struggle against daunting odds and win, but it can also impell them to ignore the obvious and bring considerable suffering upon themselves for no reason. The longer we try to preserve our moribund civilization, the more people will suffer under its dysfunctional institutions and decrepit worldview.

Even the master scholar of the 'declinist' view, Oswald Spengler, argued that the West has 5 to 7 centuries left, if it follows the pattern of Classical Mediterranean and Classical Chinese culture. Even the 'world empire' phase is not totally dead, and it's during this period that the seeds for the future are often laid, even in the declinist view.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

We are in danger, but we aren't dead yet, and as long as we're alive, it's OK to hope. It won't make the end of civilization any worse if it comes as a disappointment, and a lack of hope makes that end more likely. We need to recognize the danger, which too many people haven't for too long, but if we confuse danger with doom, we are just as paralyzed and it does us no good.

I was going to write a long reply to your various arguments, but this one statement gets to the heart of why I post at all on this subject. I know I come across as cynical, despairing, and alarmist. As I've said before, though, my expectations for the human race as a whole are positive. But the West has run its course and is going to die soon. This is natural. No civilization is immortal, just as no human being is immortal. Westerners continue to demonstrate an almost psychotic refusal to acknowledge this fact, however, and so I feel compelled to remind them of it, repeatedly and forcefully if necessary, in order to maintain a balanced perspective. Hope is a funny thing in that it can drive people to struggle against daunting odds and win, but it can also impell them to ignore the obvious and bring considerable suffering upon themselves for no reason. The longer we try to preserve our moribund civilization, the more people will suffer under its dysfunctional institutions and decrepit worldview.

Even the master scholar of the 'declinist' view, Oswald Spengler, argued that the West has 5 to 7 centuries left, if it follows the pattern of Classical Mediterranean and Classical Chinese culture. Even the 'world empire' phase is not totally dead, and it's during this period that the seeds for the future are often laid, even in the declinist view.

Originally Posted by Andy '85

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Hope is a funny thing in that it can drive people to struggle against daunting odds and win, but it can also impell them to ignore the obvious and bring considerable suffering upon themselves for no reason. The longer we try to preserve our moribund civilization, the more people will suffer under its dysfunctional institutions and decrepit worldview. Sometimes the best thing is to let go and allow change to happen, and this is one of those historical moments when the only viable course left is cataclysm. The alternative is prolonged stasis, followed by rapid decline and extinction.

(sigh)

And to know that people think like this makes me depressed.

I have grown too attached to see the West go any time soon. I'm not going to abandon it for the life of me.

So please clarify. Are we speaking of the West being extinguished or become a museum piece like Europe?

The various 'declinist' theorists would debate the two possibilities with some vigor. Spengler (who set the template for the entire school of thought) would lean toward the 'museum piece' view, but that phase would still be at least three centuries away, in his analysis, possibly more.

Other 'declinists' have had different views, and many of them don't rule out the possibility of retreating from the abyss, or laying seeds for future growth (esp. Toynbee).

Originally Posted by Andy '85

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Hope is a funny thing in that it can drive people to struggle against daunting odds and win, but it can also impell them to ignore the obvious and bring considerable suffering upon themselves for no reason. The longer we try to preserve our moribund civilization, the more people will suffer under its dysfunctional institutions and decrepit worldview. Sometimes the best thing is to let go and allow change to happen, and this is one of those historical moments when the only viable course left is cataclysm. The alternative is prolonged stasis, followed by rapid decline and extinction.

(sigh)

And to know that people think like this makes me depressed.

I have grown too attached to see the West go any time soon. I'm not going to abandon it for the life of me.

So please clarify. Are we speaking of the West being extinguished or become a museum piece like Europe?

The various 'declinist' theorists would debate the two possibilities with some vigor. Spengler (who set the template for the entire school of thought) would lean toward the 'museum piece' view, but that phase would still be at least three centuries away, in his analysis, possibly more.

Other 'declinists' have had different views, and many of them don't rule out the possibility of retreating from the abyss, or laying seeds for future growth (esp. Toynbee).

Arkham, let me illustrate what I meant by that last post by considering the durations of a number of civilizations, living and dead.

If we consider Sumer and Akkad to have been separate civilizations, then Sumer lasted from (somewhat arbitrarily) the founding of Uruk in about 3750 BCE until the rise of Sargon's empire in 2334, or about 1400 years. If we consider them to be a single civilzation, then extend that lifespan until invading Semitic peoples founded the Babylonian culture about 2000 BCE, which extends the Sumer-Akkad duration another 300 years or thereabouts.

The Babylonian-Chaldean culture rose and fell a number of times, but fell for the final time when conquered by Cyrus of Persia in 530 BCE, giving it a duration of 1470 years by the most generous estimate.

The Persian civilization should date from the migration of the Persians and Medes into the region around 2000 BCE. It still flourishes. Although Iran today is a Muslim country and therefore could arguably be submerged into the civilization of Islam, it is sufficiently conscious of its own long history, and sufficiently distinct from the Arab-dominated Islamic mainline culture, having its own language and collective identity, that it should be considered separate. So -- this civilization has already lasted some 4000 years and is still going.

The Egyptian civilization was founded about the same time as Sumer or a little later -- say 3000 BCE. It endured until the conquest of Egypt by Rome in 31 BCE, so that means Egypt endured for about 3,000 years, or close enough.

The Greco-Roman civilization began with the Mycenaean period in ancient Greece (roughly 1600 BCE) and ended with the fall of Constantinople in 1453 CE, a period of about 3,000 years.

The Chinese civilization was founded somewhere in the neighborhood of 2000 BCE and endures to this date, so like Persia, it is 4,000 years old and still going.

The West should properly be dated, in my judgment, from one of two events: the fall of the last western Roman emperor, or the coronation of Charlemagne. I'm going to choose the latter, which would date the West from 800 CE. It still exists, and therefore has endured for 1,204 years. That is about as long as Sumer, but not nearly as long as Iran or China.

On what basis, then, do you claim that the West is about to die of old age?

Arkham, let me illustrate what I meant by that last post by considering the durations of a number of civilizations, living and dead.

If we consider Sumer and Akkad to have been separate civilizations, then Sumer lasted from (somewhat arbitrarily) the founding of Uruk in about 3750 BCE until the rise of Sargon's empire in 2334, or about 1400 years. If we consider them to be a single civilzation, then extend that lifespan until invading Semitic peoples founded the Babylonian culture about 2000 BCE, which extends the Sumer-Akkad duration another 300 years or thereabouts.

The Babylonian-Chaldean culture rose and fell a number of times, but fell for the final time when conquered by Cyrus of Persia in 530 BCE, giving it a duration of 1470 years by the most generous estimate.

The Persian civilization should date from the migration of the Persians and Medes into the region around 2000 BCE. It still flourishes. Although Iran today is a Muslim country and therefore could arguably be submerged into the civilization of Islam, it is sufficiently conscious of its own long history, and sufficiently distinct from the Arab-dominated Islamic mainline culture, having its own language and collective identity, that it should be considered separate. So -- this civilization has already lasted some 4000 years and is still going.

The Egyptian civilization was founded about the same time as Sumer or a little later -- say 3000 BCE. It endured until the conquest of Egypt by Rome in 31 BCE, so that means Egypt endured for about 3,000 years, or close enough.

The Greco-Roman civilization began with the Mycenaean period in ancient Greece (roughly 1600 BCE) and ended with the fall of Constantinople in 1453 CE, a period of about 3,000 years.

The Chinese civilization was founded somewhere in the neighborhood of 2000 BCE and endures to this date, so like Persia, it is 4,000 years old and still going.

The West should properly be dated, in my judgment, from one of two events: the fall of the last western Roman emperor, or the coronation of Charlemagne. I'm going to choose the latter, which would date the West from 800 CE. It still exists, and therefore has endured for 1,204 years. That is about as long as Sumer, but not nearly as long as Iran or China.

On what basis, then, do you claim that the West is about to die of old age?

So please clarify. Are we speaking of the West being extinguished or become a museum piece like Europe?

There are a number of possible fates the West could experience. The least optimistic is a complete collapse that drags the entire planet into a prolonged dark age. Slightly less hopeless is the possibility that a Western equivalent to Byzantium (probably based in North America and drawing on more vital Latin cultural influences) will carry the torch of civilization until other regions (Africa, South America, Indonesia?) can develop sufficiently to start a new cycle of expansion. The most "optimistic" possibility is that a serious rival to the West (China perhaps) emerges soon enough to arrest its final collapse, prolonging its existence until it is no longer politically useful and then dismantling it more or less peacefully (much as the European powers did to the Ottoman Empire).

You're not giving this Millie anything positive to think about in the future, and that might be bad when my cohort gets to hold the reigns of power.

Your generation will be the only thing holding the country together when your Idealist children plunge it into its final cataclysm during the 2050s Awakening. That may be little consolation, but at least you'll be prepared for it when it happens, and not blindsided like the GIs were.

So please clarify. Are we speaking of the West being extinguished or become a museum piece like Europe?

There are a number of possible fates the West could experience. The least optimistic is a complete collapse that drags the entire planet into a prolonged dark age. Slightly less hopeless is the possibility that a Western equivalent to Byzantium (probably based in North America and drawing on more vital Latin cultural influences) will carry the torch of civilization until other regions (Africa, South America, Indonesia?) can develop sufficiently to start a new cycle of expansion. The most "optimistic" possibility is that a serious rival to the West (China perhaps) emerges soon enough to arrest its final collapse, prolonging its existence until it is no longer politically useful and then dismantling it more or less peacefully (much as the European powers did to the Ottoman Empire).

You're not giving this Millie anything positive to think about in the future, and that might be bad when my cohort gets to hold the reigns of power.

Your generation will be the only thing holding the country together when your Idealist children plunge it into its final cataclysm during the 2050s Awakening. That may be little consolation, but at least you'll be prepared for it when it happens, and not blindsided like the GIs were.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Unfortunately, zero population growth won't do humanity any good. When population stasizes or declines, wages increase because there is less labor to employ and firms must compete fiercely for workers.

Another factor is that as population declines, the cost per capita for infrastructural investments such as roads, railways, or the higher-tech equivalents, rises, since the costs are often fixed, or nearly so, and fewer and fewer people are using them, making it harder to justify the expenditures for construction and maintenance.

One of the ironies of this effect is that if you magically reduced the American population by, say, 50%, we'd probably see increased crowding, as maintaining the intricate systems that permit suburbia and rural-commuting would become prohibitively expensive. We'd end up with more people packed into the cities.

OTOH, in many ways it's easier to police and provide services to dense populations, so the life in those cities would not have to be Bladerunner redux.

I expect the concept of arcology to gain popularity during the 21st century for just this reason. Small, self-contained communities inside a single building to cut down on energy and material consumption and traffic congestion. Fortify them and you have pockets of civilization with their own agriculture and manufacturing capabilities. Sort of like a medieval burg.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Unfortunately, zero population growth won't do humanity any good. When population stasizes or declines, wages increase because there is less labor to employ and firms must compete fiercely for workers.

Another factor is that as population declines, the cost per capita for infrastructural investments such as roads, railways, or the higher-tech equivalents, rises, since the costs are often fixed, or nearly so, and fewer and fewer people are using them, making it harder to justify the expenditures for construction and maintenance.

One of the ironies of this effect is that if you magically reduced the American population by, say, 50%, we'd probably see increased crowding, as maintaining the intricate systems that permit suburbia and rural-commuting would become prohibitively expensive. We'd end up with more people packed into the cities.

OTOH, in many ways it's easier to police and provide services to dense populations, so the life in those cities would not have to be Bladerunner redux.

I expect the concept of arcology to gain popularity during the 21st century for just this reason. Small, self-contained communities inside a single building to cut down on energy and material consumption and traffic congestion. Fortify them and you have pockets of civilization with their own agriculture and manufacturing capabilities. Sort of like a medieval burg.

Even the master scholar of the 'declinist' view, Oswald Spengler, argued that the West has 5 to 7 centuries left, if it follows the pattern of Classical Mediterranean and Classical Chinese culture. Even the 'world empire' phase is not totally dead, and it's during this period that the seeds for the future are often laid, even in the declinist view.

Spengler was brilliant, but even he could not envisage the information revolution and the accelerating effect it would have on sociopolitical and economic development. I would say that the West has another 50 to 200 years left in it. It would actually be better for the world if the collapse happens sooner than later, since the longer the civilization is allowed to ossify the deeper the crash will have to be to clear all the accumulated deadwood.

Even the master scholar of the 'declinist' view, Oswald Spengler, argued that the West has 5 to 7 centuries left, if it follows the pattern of Classical Mediterranean and Classical Chinese culture. Even the 'world empire' phase is not totally dead, and it's during this period that the seeds for the future are often laid, even in the declinist view.

Spengler was brilliant, but even he could not envisage the information revolution and the accelerating effect it would have on sociopolitical and economic development. I would say that the West has another 50 to 200 years left in it. It would actually be better for the world if the collapse happens sooner than later, since the longer the civilization is allowed to ossify the deeper the crash will have to be to clear all the accumulated deadwood.

On what basis, then, do you claim that the West is about to die of old age?

I would not link Iranian culture today to the Persian civilization that threatened Greece and Rome. There are vestiges of it, yes, particularly in the impact of Zoraostrian clericalism on Shi'a Islam, but the last distinctly Persian culture was that of the Sassanids.

China has been saved repeatedly by its geography. Unlike the Mesopotamian empires, Egypt, Rome, and Persia, which were open to invasion on multiple fronts, China was for most of its history vulnerable only along a fairly small stretch of its northern frontier. Opportunistic barbarians did periodically sweep down upon a crumbling Chinese state, but they did so at a slow enough pace and in small enough numbers for the imperial bureaucracy to assimilate them into the ruling class, thereby preserving Chinese culture through numerous dynastic turnovers. Moreover, the barbarians -- once assimilated -- infused the civilization with new vitality by breaking the status quo that had pushed it into terminal decline.

The West has no such geographic buffer. It is a global civilization with outposts in every hemisphere, with porous borders across which millions of migrants move every year. Moreover, it has no monolithic bureaucracy to preserve its cultural heritage through periods of political and economic breakdown or to assimilate invading barbarians. It is collapsing precisely because it has stopped growing. When Hadrian marked the final borders of the Empire, Roman civilization began immediately to decline because it could no longer draw on the appropriated wealth of newly conquered provinces to finance its armies and infrastructure. Rome assumed a defensive posture that it was forced to maintain thereafter on dwindling government revenues, and it eventually bankrupted itself in a desperate effort to hold the ground it had already taken. The West is in a similar predicament today. The colonial empires are gone; the frontiers, closed. The outside world swarms with barbarians who simultaneously envy and despise the West for its prosperity, and who are slowly but surely encroaching on its core territories. The West has been torn by repeated, costly civil wars (World War I & II, Cold War) and is rapidly bankrupting itself while obliterating its tax base through deficit spending and regulatory bottlenecks. These are the bases on which I claim that the West is in a state of terminal decline.

On what basis, then, do you claim that the West is about to die of old age?

I would not link Iranian culture today to the Persian civilization that threatened Greece and Rome. There are vestiges of it, yes, particularly in the impact of Zoraostrian clericalism on Shi'a Islam, but the last distinctly Persian culture was that of the Sassanids.

China has been saved repeatedly by its geography. Unlike the Mesopotamian empires, Egypt, Rome, and Persia, which were open to invasion on multiple fronts, China was for most of its history vulnerable only along a fairly small stretch of its northern frontier. Opportunistic barbarians did periodically sweep down upon a crumbling Chinese state, but they did so at a slow enough pace and in small enough numbers for the imperial bureaucracy to assimilate them into the ruling class, thereby preserving Chinese culture through numerous dynastic turnovers. Moreover, the barbarians -- once assimilated -- infused the civilization with new vitality by breaking the status quo that had pushed it into terminal decline.

The West has no such geographic buffer. It is a global civilization with outposts in every hemisphere, with porous borders across which millions of migrants move every year. Moreover, it has no monolithic bureaucracy to preserve its cultural heritage through periods of political and economic breakdown or to assimilate invading barbarians. It is collapsing precisely because it has stopped growing. When Hadrian marked the final borders of the Empire, Roman civilization began immediately to decline because it could no longer draw on the appropriated wealth of newly conquered provinces to finance its armies and infrastructure. Rome assumed a defensive posture that it was forced to maintain thereafter on dwindling government revenues, and it eventually bankrupted itself in a desperate effort to hold the ground it had already taken. The West is in a similar predicament today. The colonial empires are gone; the frontiers, closed. The outside world swarms with barbarians who simultaneously envy and despise the West for its prosperity, and who are slowly but surely encroaching on its core territories. The West has been torn by repeated, costly civil wars (World War I & II, Cold War) and is rapidly bankrupting itself while obliterating its tax base through deficit spending and regulatory bottlenecks. These are the bases on which I claim that the West is in a state of terminal decline.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The Persian civilization should date from the migration of the Persians and Medes into the region around 2000 BCE. It still flourishes. Although Iran today is a Muslim country and therefore could arguably be submerged into the civilization of Islam . . .

Also gestorbenes Zarathustra !