Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Is the 911 Attack Triggering A Fourth Turning? - Page 87







Post#2151 at 03-31-2002 04:58 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
03-31-2002, 04:58 PM #2151
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Got some thoughts of my own re Susan's proposed progression of outcomes.


1. All life is destroyed on the planet

I don't think that's possible as a Crisis outcome. Serious damage to the biosphere is inevitable now, but it's survived awesome asteroid impacts at least five or six times already, recuperating in a few million years after losing over 90% of the planet's biomass and speciation. So I don't think we're going to wipe out all life. Life is tougher than that.


2. Life remains, but humanity is wiped out

This could happen as a result of the 4T, or rather of failure to deal adequately with 4T issues, but it would take longer than 20 years to happen barring all-out nuclear war. What might happen by the end of the Crisis is that we become aware of processes that will extinguish our species.


3. Only a few humans remain, probably from polar regions (who are more likely to have remained neutral during a conflict) who are forced to eventually revert to a hunter-gatherer existence, and don't rediscover what we call modernity for many thousands of years

A less extreme version of #2. In fact, #3 would happen on the way to #2 anyway. The question then being whether we have sufficient numbers for genetic viability, and whether some random catastrophe wipes out that remnant settlement before it can grow.


4. Modernity is wiped out, but civilization is not. There are far fewer humans, and little or no technology, and humanity reverts to a new Dark Age or feudal system. Agriculture remains, and people must grow their own food and weave their own clothing.

I see this as very unlikely, less likely than #3 (loss of civilization). For any technology, pose the question of how robust it is, that is, how easy it would be to maintain under adverse circumstances. The high-tech computer industry is not very robust, but movable type is, and consequently so is large-scale literacy. As long as you have that, you have modernity in its beginnings, and rebuilding from that first rung is rapid -- especially when it's already been done once and there's no need to reinvent the wheel.


5. Modernity is not wiped out, but America as we know it is destroyed, and is taken over by another nation who introduces a new form of government.

Impossible IMO. America is the world's greatest nuclear power. As soon as takeover by a foreign government becomes a realistic threat, go to 2 or 3.


6. America is not wiped out but is thrust into a long and deep depression, or has its former power stripped away, much as Britain did following WW2. It becomes a shell of its old self, and no longer is a world power.

This is much more feasible. America today is in quite a precarious position, with a hegemony resented by most of the world and dangerous dependence on foreign resources. The challenge to our dominance has already begun, and I frankly do not see how we can maintain it in its present form.


If America were to reverse course, and pursue a foreign policy genuinely and honestly aimed at world peace and social justice rather than the bottom line of our corporations, then we might retain leadership of the world through moral authority. But how likely is that?


7. America remains more or less the same, but perhaps somewhat altered, as it has following most wars.

Utterly impossible IMO. Our house is built on the sand. Our flaws are fundamental. We can't go on as we are.


8. America enters a financial and technological boom, and everyone is able to live much better than before, with more material comforts. Think American High

Not impossible, but while we're thinking American High, recognize that it was built on radical changes to our economic system that occurred in the previous Crisis. If we're going to replicate that accomplishment, the changes we make now must be at least equally radical, indeed more so in my judgment. The American High could not have been built on the assumptions and political/economic methods of the 1920s. Now as then, if we're going to prosper, we must change.







Post#2152 at 03-31-2002 05:56 PM by Donna Sherman [at Western New York, b. 1964 joined Jul 2001 #posts 228]
---
03-31-2002, 05:56 PM #2152
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Western New York, b. 1964
Posts
228

On 2002-03-29 12:22, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
I'm going to respond out of order here.

I think we're all mostly tired of the 3T, aren't we?
NO!

No, I for one am NOT tired of the 3T. The peace and quiet, the chance to live life with a modest probability of not being killed in a random bomb fall or rolled flat by economic disruption (or worse), having the ideologues in check, no, I'm not tired of it at all.

Fortunately, I now suspect it isn't over yet.


The thing that's going to be cool about the 4T is that the action will have a higher purpose and will be less superficial.

Of all the Turnings, the Fourth is the one, objectively, most devoutly to be dreaded.

This sounds a lot like some of the other posts where people talk about the 'regeneracy'. There's a very natural human tendency to look back to the last 4T for the pattern of the next. I've caught myself doing it, too.

We ask 'when will we get this cycle's depression, this cycle's FDR, this cycle's regeneracy, etc'.

But the 4T is not in any sense assured of a good outcome, or even of leaving the world a better place. At best, whether or not it's better is usually a matter of opinion.

In World War II, it happened that something very close to a real-world battle of good vs. evil came about. This is very much the exception.

In the Civil War, 600,000 people were killed, a large segment of the nation was laid in ruin, resentment and hate were fused into the alloy of American life, and it was all in accordance with ideals of the previous Awakening.

The Revolutionary War was beneficial to Revolution-minded Americans, but to someone of British loyalty, or a Loyalist American, it was a disaster. There is nobody with sufficient knowledge to judge objectively whether it was good or bad for the human race as a whole.

Just because something is driven by idealism doesn't make it good. The 4T periods have tended to be marked by massive bloodshed, by families riven apart by ideological hatreds that seem trivial 20 years later, by economic, social, psychological, and emotional disruptions that sometimes leave scars that last for decades, and they don't always even end in decisive peace.

Yeah, it's really 'cool' to be a civilian on the home front, dreading that phone call/telegram/whatever from Uncle Sam, the one that goes "Dear Mr/Mrs. whatever, we regret to inform you that your son..."

It's really cool when veterans lose arms, legs, eyes, etc to near-misses (in the sense that they survived).

The land mines, poisonous chemicals, and nuclear radiation (a possible new note for the upcoming 4T!) are really 'cool' when they linger to poison, kill, and maim civilians, including children, who never even had anything to do with the 4T to begin with.

Even in World War II, probably the 'best' of the 4T wars, I'm sure it was very 'cool' when Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Berlin, etc were bombed, and infants in their cribs burned to death in each city.

On 2002-03-27 12:21, Donna Sherman wrote:
OK,Unravellings are rather superficial but I will say that I found the beginning of this 3T to be a nice, welcome, and refreshing change from the last 2T. I mean, I was done with all that navel gazing. And BTW, I will find the 4T a nice refreshing change from this 3T.
See above.


Awakenings are all about the out of the box thinking, and ideology, and opinions, and questioning the status quo. But not much gets done during Awakenings.
Awakenings are fun or annoying, depending on your point of view.

Fourth Turnings are waking nightmares.

I don't mean to sound harsh on you or anyone else, but sometimes all this gauzy talk about how great it'll be to get to 4T rubs me the wrong way. If I've given offense, my apologies, it wasn't intentional.

But I mean what I said.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-29 12:26 ]</font>
Whoa, didn't mean to upset your little unravelling applecart.

And I certainly wasn't trying to trivialize 4T's. If you looked carefully you would see that what is being commented on is the weariness I think there is about the current 3T.

4T's are necessary and the next one is coming anyway whatever we say or do today, if the turnings theory holds true. The real question is how ready are we? And how in denial are people about the fact that it's coming?

If the correct choices and decisions are made which will drive the 4T, then these choices and actions will be wholeheartedly supported by the public. I think this is "cool" since no one will get behind anything right now or come together as a group. Where I come from "cool" means "we've finally gotten to "the yes!" Public unity of purpose is something I have never seen in my lifetime.

You imply that I romanticize the 4T. I do not. I merely bring attention to one aspect of it, rather than offering a pedantic and bombastic dissertation on the subject.







Post#2153 at 03-31-2002 07:09 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
03-31-2002, 07:09 PM #2153
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Oh, boy. It's at moments like this that I really feel the difference between Xer and Millennial. This last post of yours looks like the sort of thing I have thought in my more wishful moments.

Robert, the vision you've just outlined is one that appeals to me so much it's scary. I'd love to think it could work out that way. But it's actually a very unlikely set of possibilities, especially in combination.

On 2002-03-31 12:03, madscientist wrote:

Also, I think that we will successfully get past this 4T because we have already found solutions to many of our problems. We can solve the water shortage problem by pumping directly from the oceans, and building large networks of pipes across the continents. Because of the probability of earthquakes, it will be best to build flexible pipes. The energy problem has several solutions. Of course, the Space Solar Power concept is one, and the space elevator will make it's fruition very feasible. Then there are OTECs. The food shortage problem can also be solved with ocean farming, hydroponics (and related technologies) food production, etc. We can solve the problem of environmental destruction that comes from intensive agriculture. We can solve our problems...and then some!!
Don't mistake me, if events prove me wrong, I'll be the first to cheer! But you're assuming that the challanges of the 4T are fundamentally technological, and they're not.
We could do much of all this today, or we could have if we had not lost out momentum during the 2T.



Already, the next technological revolution that will turn the world upside-down has started, and it is the first age of nanotechnology, as carbon nanotubes are going on mass production, and televisions featuring this new technology will go on market as early as 2003. Because of nanotubes, there is bound to be a revolution in every technological industry. Alternative energy will become feasible, the space elevator will become both technologically and financially feasible.
It may be that nanotubes will revolutionize industry, and it may not be. A technology, at the beginning of its application stages, is a risky thing to bet on.

Changing the energy infrastructure is a major task. It's true that there are lots of power sources besides oil. The critical question (and it will remain the critical question in the 4T) is cost. Nanotubes may make certain forms of alternative energy cheaper, but it remains to be seen how expensive mass production of nanotubes will be.


The next set of problems are organizational and political. The organizational problems can be solved, and this is what 4Ts do. The political problems, however, will need much more working out. The problem is not creating "global order", but rather "global balance". This means changing the global economic structure to create equal trade opportunities for each society and each nation. This means creating a global Bill of Rights that EVERYONE (at least on the landmasses of Earth) has to follow. It is likely that nations will lose sovereignty to global organizations. However, this global order will be balanced by local control.
You can't have a meaningful bill of rights until at least a modest consensus exists for what those rights are. No such consensus now exists on a global scale.

The American Bill of Rights has roots within the West going back over 1000 years before the Constitution was penned. It didn't come out of thin air, and it was part of an interconnected support structure of ancient common law, cultural and linguistic traditions, and religious assumptions.

Any plausiable Bill of Rights acceptable to the West is going to feel like imperial arrogance to a lot of the rest of the world.

As for equal trade opportunities, that's not even possible. Some nations and subregions within nations are blessed with diverse and useful natural resources, some have nothing.
Some have geography lending itself to efficient transportation, some are almost inherently isolated.

Some cultures adapt readily to Western-style high-tech economies, some are inherently clumsy with them.

Mother Nature plays favorites.

Any global system based on personal freedoms (freedom to travel, to trade, private property, etc) is going to automatically favor some peoples and regions over others.
This problem doesn't really have a solution.

When you talk about global government and local control, I don't think you fully appreciate how very difficult that's going to be. You keep trying ot analyze the politics of this on a rational basis, and politics is an irrational game by its very nature.

Do you propose a world-wide Western style liberal democracy? If so, how do you even explain what that means to non-Western peoples? (Even the Southeast Asians don't fully 'get' what we mean by civil liberties, even yet.)

How do you overcome the ingrained and ancient hatreds between culture, ethic group, family, race, and language? These hatreds go back centuries, and have shown no sign of moderating.

Then, of course, there's the big one: How do you reconcile the incompatiable religious beliefs of over six billion people into a single functional system?

The West has barely managed to approximate this, and the Western nations, including America, are very homogenous religiously.

The upshot of all this is that any world government emerging from the upcoming 4T will almost certainly be an empire, created and enforced at gunpoint. I doubt if any other world state is even possible in this 4T.


Since we can practically solve all of our world problems, we only need to build new institutions to put these ideas into practice.
But building new institutions is the hard part! The technology base exists or almost certainly will exist to solve most of our material problems (that's an important qualifier, by the way), but that's always been the easier part of the task.

An example: many years ago, Western aid organizations took note of the fact that in a Third World village, the women of the village were doing a great deal of needless, back-breaking labor washing their families' clothing in the local river.

With the best of intentions, the aid personnel installed plumbing systems to the local housing. These were used, saving the effort of carrying in fresh water.

But the women kept on washing their clothes the old way.

Why? Mostly because what the aid personnel didn't grasp, being outsiders, was that the laundry session were social affairs, as well as routine drudgery. That's when friends met and talked, news and gossip were exchanged, etc. Nobody wanted to have the chore broken up.

The other reason is irrational but very real:
people tend to resent change. Even change for the better is often a source of anxiety, nervousness, and fear. Older people don't feel comfortable with the new ways, and younger people sometimes find themselves feeling disconnected from their older kin by changes.

The West, of all the Earth's current major cultures, embraces change the most readily, and even here it's often painful. Elsewhere, it can be far worse.


When we do that, by 2030, the world will have become a Type I Civilization. We will live in the Age of Science Fiction, in which science fiction of the 20th century has become reality by that time. This would mean a standard of living far beyond that of today, while keeping the Earth's ecosystems in order, and protecting life on this planet. Moreover, these need not be temporary fixes. We can solve these once and for all. So there is a lot of room for there to be progression instead of regression.
We might reach Kardeshev Stage 1 by 2100, but even that is doubtful for several reasons. Right now there are peoples on Earth who live lives not more than a generation or two out of the late neolithic.

I could show you similar predictions made about an 'age of science fiction' made in the late 3T of the last Cycle, and they didn't come true either, though many could have and should have. The limiting factor, then and now, was that the science fiction writers knew a lot about science and technology, but had a poor understanding of the way people think and feel.


The Biotech Revolution will likely cure many, many diseases. Cancer is on its way out, and several forms are curable. By analyzing the DNA/RNA structure of virii and bacteria, we will be able to create new defenses.
All that is true, but only partially relevant. New diseases and new disorders will appear.

Within living memory, there were trained medical experts opining that the end of infectious disease was immediately at hand. In this, they failed to understand both human nature and the nature of evolution.

Dealing with disease and parasites is as much a matter of behavior as it is technology (NOT that I am disparaging technology! The misery nullified by the polio vaccine alone is beyond calculation).

For example, we possess neither a vaccine nor a cure for AIDs. Does that mean we can't fight it? No.

AIDS could be stopped practically in its tracks by behavioral changes that people just don't want to make. Sheer human stubbornness and perversity (I am not speaking just sexually) are factors every bit as big in our troubles as technological shortcomings.

I agree that America can't keep growing as a superpower. However, I don't think that it will necessarily mean a regression for America in any way.
Actually, it's quite possible that America will emerge from the next 4T as a megasuperpower. That is, in fact, the most likely form any functional world state that emerges from the 4T will take. Historically, the tendency in systems of related competing states has been for one last major power to knock the others down, and then grow into an empire over the defeated rivals. I don't advocate this, but is has been the usual pattern.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-31 16:12 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-31 16:16 ]</font>







Post#2154 at 03-31-2002 07:14 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
03-31-2002, 07:14 PM #2154
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412



If the correct choices and decisions are made which will drive the 4T, then these choices and actions will be wholeheartedly supported by the public. I think this is "cool" since no one will get behind anything right now or come together as a group. Where I come from "cool" means "we've finally gotten to "the yes!" Public unity of purpose is something I have never seen in my lifetime.
Nor is their any real guarantee you'll see in during the 4T, I'm afraid.


You imply that I romanticize the 4T. I do not. I merely bring attention to one aspect of it, rather than offering a pedantic and bombastic dissertation on the subject.
I didn't intend it to sound that way, and I was responding, in fact, to more than just your post. The word 'cool' I think is what set off a rant that had been cooking for a long time.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-31 16:25 ]</font>







Post#2155 at 03-31-2002 08:23 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
03-31-2002, 08:23 PM #2155
Guest

On 2002-03-31 09:23, jds1958xg wrote:
On 2002-03-30 22:39, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
On 2002-03-30 20:47, Susan Brombacher wrote:


There's no telling how a 4T will turn out, and if it comes early (as this one may have, if it has started), the outcome is more likely to be a bad one, one that could throw us into antiquity or worse.

There is a progression of Crisis outcomes ranging from bad to good:

1. All life is destroyed on the planet

2. Life remains, but humanity is wiped out

3. Only a few humans remain, probably from polar regions (who are more likely to have remained neutral during a conflict) who are forced to eventually revert to a hunter-gatherer existence, and don't rediscover what we call modernity for many thousands of years

4. Modernity is wiped out, but civilization is not. There are far fewer humans, and little or no technology, and humanity reverts to a new Dark Age or feudal system. Agriculture remains, and people must grow their own food and weave their own clothing.

I consider possibilities 1 through 4 to be radically improbable. Indeed, for personal religious reasons I regard possibilities 1 and 2 to be impossible, but that's just my own faith. Even absent that, the odds of it happening in the upcoming 4T are super-super-slim.


5. Modernity is not wiped out, but America as we know it is destroyed, and is taken over by another nation who introduces a new form of government.
Item 5 could conceivably happen in the upcoming 4T, and actually covers a range of possibilities. I wouldn't say it's likely, but it's far from impossible.


6. America is not wiped out but is thrust into a long and deep depression, or has its former power stripped away, much as Britain did following WW2. It becomes a shell of its old self, and no longer is a world power.
Quite possible, though it too actually is a range of possibilities. It's a little difficult to see how America could lose her power totally without a disaster that also upends the entire West, since America has no real successor in sight. In the case of Britain, it was clear for most to see that the succesor, should the Empire fall, would be either America or Germany.


7. America remains more or less the same, but perhaps somewhat altered, as it has following most wars.

8. America enters a financial and technological boom, and everyone is able to live much better than before, with more material comforts. Think American High
I can think of other possibilities 'between' 7 and 8. The 4T could go distinctly badly, leaving America weaker than now, but it could at the same time weaken everyone else even more. That would leave a damaged and limping America still dominant, perhaps even more dominant relatively speaking, but still be a very bad 4T for all concerned. In such a case, we would have a 1T but no true High.

Much depends, of course, on the specific nature of the Crisis, be it successful or failed. Success or failure both cover a range of possibilities.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-03-30 22:59 ]</font>
This is how I would grade Susan Brombacher's and Hopeful Cynic's range of possibilities, FWIW.

Scenario 1: Would take more than us to pull off.

Scenarios 2 thru 4: Variations on a radical environmentalist's dream come true.

Scenarios 5 and 6: I can think of a lot of radical leftists who would like to see 5, especially, but could live with 6.

Scenarios 7 and 7a: Along with 5 or 6, I can see these as the four most likely ones to come about.

Scenarion 8: Sorry, but I have a hard time being that optimistic.

As HC said, we'll just have to stay tuned, to see what does transpire. (Please pardon my use of TV lingo.)

This radical leftist would not like to see 1 - 5 at all (at least 99% of 5 scenarios would be worse); 6 would be tolerable (but not something I'd enjoy); I myself would prefer 7 and 8 (I truly like the democratic ideals of America; as long as we can stay a democracy as opposed to plutocracy)







Post#2156 at 04-01-2002 09:57 AM by jds1958xg [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,002]
---
04-01-2002, 09:57 AM #2156
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
1,002

On 2002-03-31 17:23, mmailliw wrote:
This radical leftist would not like to see 1 - 5 at all (at least 99% of 5 scenarios would be worse); 6 would be tolerable (but not something I'd enjoy); I myself would prefer 7 and 8 (I truly like the democratic ideals of America; as long as we can stay a democracy as opposed to plutocracy)
I may have been thinking of some of the (Boomer) radical leftists I used to know, for whom democracy was nothing more than a sham covering a plutocratic reality, the 'pseudo-democratic' ideals were all wrong anyway, and America was the *true* Evil Empire, that had to be obliterated, root and branch, at all costs.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-04-01 06:59 ]</font>







Post#2157 at 04-01-2002 10:13 AM by Tim Walker '56 [at joined Jun 2001 #posts 24]
---
04-01-2002, 10:13 AM #2157
Join Date
Jun 2001
Posts
24

Scenario #7, with America being changed only somewhat, seems unlikely. This will be a Crisis era over which Boomers will preside. At the very least we may anticipate an institutional upheaval.







Post#2158 at 04-01-2002 10:27 AM by jds1958xg [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,002]
---
04-01-2002, 10:27 AM #2158
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
1,002

On 2002-04-01 07:13, Tim Walker wrote:
Scenario #7, with America being changed only somewhat, seems unlikely. This will be a Crisis era over which Boomers will preside. At the very least we may anticipate an institutional upheaval.
I agree. The scenario I called 7a is, to my mind, much more likely than 7. In fact, I can see 7a including some of the features of #4, specifically a major population crash that slashed global population at least back to World War II levels, if not even more. For that matter, #'s 5 and 6 can easily include the same feature.







Post#2159 at 04-01-2002 01:52 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
04-01-2002, 01:52 PM #2159
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

On 2002-03-31 11:28, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
Mr. Loyd would still be building, Mr. Meece would still draw horoscopes, Mr. Marc Lamb could still preach, I could still raise cattle, Mr. Reed could be an alchemist with an abacus, there would be mead klatches, Ms. Brombacher would have plenty of time to write, etc. etc.
:lol: Perhaps, I could rediscover pythagora's theorem. I would think that Eric and Marc would be feudal/tribal lords in an eternal battle with each other. There won't be much literacy, so Susan would likely be an oracle. Chris? Probably designing a giant grass, mud, and stone hut that will be the symbol of cutting edge science and technology.


___PS: There still would be people doing it.
:grin:
"The urge to dream, and the will to enable it is fundamental to being human and have coincided with what it is to be American." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson
intp '82er







Post#2160 at 04-01-2002 01:53 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
04-01-2002, 01:53 PM #2160
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

On 2002-03-31 13:11, Kiff '61 wrote:
Robert, I love your optimistic vision. I hope that you and your fellow Millies can pull it off. :grin:

I'm trying to be optimistic myself about the upcoming Crisis. It's awfully hard these days with all the chaos going on in Israel. :sad:
Well, I hope we pull it off too. However, it is important that we keep up the hope. :smile:
"The urge to dream, and the will to enable it is fundamental to being human and have coincided with what it is to be American." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson
intp '82er







Post#2161 at 04-01-2002 01:54 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-01-2002, 01:54 PM #2161
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Hopeful Cynic:


Actually, it's quite possible that America will emerge from the next 4T as a megasuperpower. That is, in fact, the most likely form any functional world state that emerges from the 4T will take. Historically, the tendency in systems of related competing states has been for one last major power to knock the others down, and then grow into an empire over the defeated rivals. I don't advocate this, but is has been the usual pattern.

I don't believe that's actually true. Historically, not only have sole superpowers been rare, they've been nonexistent. Even the Roman Empire shared hegemony with the Kingdom of the Parthians, the Empire of China, and a few other powers in the Old World (after defeating Carthage, Pontis, etc.). The British Empire was clearly the greatest power of its day, but not the only one; France, Germany, Russia, the United States, and Japan were rival powers that could not be simply bullied.


If America did create a world empire, it would be the first power in history to do so. But I see considerable obstacles on that path. More later.







Post#2162 at 04-01-2002 02:45 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
04-01-2002, 02:45 PM #2162
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

On 2002-03-31 16:09, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
Oh, boy. It's at moments like this that I really feel the difference between Xer and Millennial. This last post of yours looks like the sort of thing I have thought in my more wishful moments.

Robert, the vision you've just outlined is one that appeals to me so much it's scary. I'd love to think it could work out that way. But it's actually a very unlikely set of possibilities, especially in combination.
I hear you, HC. And when I read Robert's post myself, I was dumbfounded by all the possibilities. I had never heard of some of the stuff he mentioned.

But being an Xer, it's hard for me not to have a "show me the money" kind of attitude. It all sounds great. We were supposed to be on Mars by now if you go by what people were talking about in the late 1960's. But "real life" got in the way. :sad:

Which is not to say that we shouldn't keep on fighting for the future of our kids and grandkids. If Xers can keep the most extreme Boomers in check and get America through the next twenty-five years or so, I think we may see some of the things that Robert is talking about.









Post#2163 at 04-01-2002 03:07 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-01-2002, 03:07 PM #2163
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

What would it mean for America to rule the world?


I'm going to go back to the Roman Empire for a moment and discuss the kind of power that Rome had within its own dominions. It was never a sole superpower, but did hold enormous sway over a large part of Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia.


Rebellions within Roman territory were rare. The Maccabees in Palestine were an exception driven by nationalism combined with religious fervor. Most subject peoples recognized the benefits of Roman rule, which were in fact considerable, and this, combined with the power of Roman arms, sufficed to discourage all but the most fanatical. Either one alone would probably not have sufficed. But together, they meant that a rebellion must face the terrible Roman legions, with small hope of success, and even if it did win, would result in loss of Roman engineering, of lucrative trade with the Roman world, and of the security and peace Rome provided.


This was true under the Empire, which governed the provinces much more fairly and benevolently than the Republic had. Under the Republic, rebellions were much more common, and aid given to foreign powers for the purpose of driving out the hated Romans more common still. Why?


Because under the Republic, the provinces were poorly governed. It was customary for curule magistrates (praetors and consuls) to govern provinces after their terms were over. It was also customary for these governors to regard their provinces as cash cows. They would sell Roman citizenships or tax exemptions. They would engineer small wars with neighboring barbarian tribes and get rich off the booty. Occasionally, they would commit such extravagant plunder that they overstepped a boundary and got themselves in trouble, as did the notorious Gaius Verres in Sicily, whose depredations resulted in a famous prosecution by Cicero and his exile. But he was the exception. An amazing amount of despoliation occurred on a regular basis, with no consequences except for the province -- and for Rome, when rebellions and foreign intrigue resulted.


Not only the governors and other aristocratic personages, but also wealthy Roman businessmen joined in the exploitation. In Asia Province (modern-day western Turkey), the tributes were raised by a curious mechanism. The state would let tax contracts to private companies, on the basis of what the company promised to deliver to the state in revenue. The highest bidder got the prize, which of course tended to drive the bids to unrealistic levels. The tax companies would then collect the tributes in the province, as much as they could squeeze, paying the promised amount to the state and keeping the remainder for themselves. The governor and his army would back them in collecting the tributes. Thus, the province was bled white, and the people driven into open rebellion, all in service to private greed.


One reason why Republican Rome did all this, while Imperial Rome governed more wisely, is that the Roman Republic was a genuine "empire" -- one nation dominating others -- while the Roman Empire, paradoxically, wasn't; it was a monarchical government that ruled a large part of the world for the sake of everyone living in it. The Republic had full respect for the citizenry that elected its officers, but unfortunately most of those it governed didn't hold that citizenship. Under the Empire, Roman citizenship came to mean much less -- to the benefit of the majority of subjects who didn't hold it.


The implications for an American Empire will be discussed in the next post.







Post#2164 at 04-01-2002 03:33 PM by pindiespace [at Pete '56 (indiespace.com) joined Jul 2001 #posts 165]
---
04-01-2002, 03:33 PM #2164
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Pete '56 (indiespace.com)
Posts
165

There's a telling cover story in the March issue of Wired magazine, "Astrocop" (print version only). In it, author Bruce Sterling claims that the emerging US military doctrine using satellites, robot airplanes, and directed energy weapons gives its an advantage directly comparable to the Roman Legions and will allow the creation of an empire.

We've already seen the effectiveness of this emerging method in recent conflicts -- the 'remote control' aspect minimizes deployment of groud troops, while global satellites make every 'hermit kingdom' open to inspection. During the next decade the power of the satellite component will increase, as flying robots of small size (to be a robo-fly on the wall) are developed, and environmental sensors become as small and cheap as thumbtacks. It also ties in with the rising number of cameras monitoring schools, intersections, etc., and software designed to detect faces and/or dangerous objects in visual data.

Sterling's thesis is that "traditional" warfare becomes impossible if all you need to do is walk outside for an orbiting security camera to record your face, check the database for known terrorists, and, minutes later, send death screaming down from an empty sky.

In the article, Sterling considers numerous challenges to Astrocop (e.g., other countries buy the technology from the US and roll their own), but concludes that the challenges will all fail.

Sterling describes the effect of this 'Astrocop' strategy similar to squeezing a toothpaste tube in the middle. Under Pax Astrocop, it is impossible to build up troops, supplies, etc. for a WW II style conflict. Instead conflict is squeezed to the ends -- either a global super-war or isolated acts of terrorism. This is distinct from the Cold War in that there is only one superpower implementing these measures.

The long-term goal of Astrocop fits neatly into a 4T. Astrocop isn't designed to support 'live' occupation of other countries by an imperalist America. Rather, it allows the continued expansion of "McWorld" -- the collection open markets, personal communication, and Hollywood that is relentlessly spreading via the global media network. So it is more than rhetoric when McDonalds claims that their company is an instrument for world peace.

Astrocop defends an empire of ideology. I see echoes of Brian Rush's post comparing the Roman Empire to the Republic. One of Rome's big exports was its system of law and government, intangibles that remind me of the US importing hard goods and exporting Hollywood and Wall Street.

Under Astrocop we might be end with options 4, 5, or 8, with the middle left out. But Sterling says that once Astrocop is installed about 2010, effort will focus on squeezing the ends of the tube ever harder -- so only extremes like 4 and 8 are possible.







Post#2165 at 04-01-2002 03:36 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-01-2002, 03:36 PM #2165
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

America's foreign policy today has a lot more in common with the Roman Republic than with the Roman Empire. That should not surprise us, as America is a republic, not a monarchy, and indeed under present circumstances the parallels with the Roman Republic are extensive.


In America today, meaningful citizenship (that is, influence on government policy) is a combination of legal U.S. citizenship plus sufficient wealth to make large campaign contributions. Thus, it is the property of a relatively small class of American individuals, combined with American corporations. Non-wealthy U.S. citizens hold a kind of second-class citizenship that limits the amount of exploitation they can suffer before a revolt at the polls changes policy. We can think of this as a kind of limited veto power. The remainder of the world holds no citizenship at all.


As a result, American foreign policy is carried out in service to the desires of American corporations and wealthy individuals. In many parts of the world, this leads to great suffering and resentment, and fosters movements hostile to America.


For America truly to become a world empire, with the stability of Rome but much greater scope, American foreign policy would have to become truly a global government. For purposes of foreign relations, American citizens (and especially the first-class citizens, the American rich and American corporations) would have to be denied a vote, so that the government in its foreign dimensions ceases to represent the American people (or a privileged subset thereof) and instead represents the interests of the world.


Are we prepared for that?







Post#2166 at 04-01-2002 03:37 PM by pindiespace [at Pete '56 (indiespace.com) joined Jul 2001 #posts 165]
---
04-01-2002, 03:37 PM #2166
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Pete '56 (indiespace.com)
Posts
165

And here's a counter-example to the tech-centric and ego-centric 'Astrocop' idea...an excerpt from:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/03/landesman.htm


A Modest Proposal From the Brigadier

What one prominent Pakistani thinks his country should do with its atomic weapons

by Peter Landesman


....As we were wrapping up our conversation, I looked at the oil painting. It was a strange picture, a horizontal landscape about four feet across, with overtones of socialist realism. In the foreground a youthful Benazir Bhutto stood in heroic pose on an escarpment overlooking the featureless grid of Islamabad. Beside her stood her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a Prime Minister who in 1977 was ousted in a coup and two years later hanged. On the other side of Bhutto was Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the long-dead founding father of Pakistan. Their postures were exalted, their expressions a combination of pride and awe. Jinnah's arm pointed to the vast plain beyond the city, where a rocket was lifting out of billowing clouds of vapor and fire into the sky.

Aman noticed me looking at the painting and followed my gaze. I asked him if Benazir Bhutto had commissioned it, and Aman said no. He told me that one day when she was still Prime Minister, an unknown man, an ordinary Pakistani citizen, had come to the gate of Zardari House with the picture and told Aman that he'd painted it for the Prime Minister and wanted to present it to her as a gift. Aman said that he was immediately transfixed by the painting. He called to Bhutto inside the house, but she refused to come down to see the man. Aman was persistent, and eventually she came down.

"I insisted Benazir accept it as a gift," Aman told me.

We both looked up at the painting in silence. "A rocket ship heading to the moon?" I asked.

Aman tipped his head to the side. A smirk tugged at the corners of his mouth. "No," he said. "A nuclear warhead heading to India."

I thought he was making a joke. Then I saw he wasn't. I thought of the shrines to Pakistan's nuclear-weapons site, prominently displayed in every city. I told Aman that I was disturbed by the ease with which Pakistanis talk of nuclear war with India.

Aman shook his head. "No," he said matter-of-factly. "This should happen. We should use the bomb."

"For what purpose?" He didn't seem to understand my question. "In retaliation?" I asked.

"Why not?"

"Or first strike?"

"Why not?"

I looked for a sign of irony. None was visible. Rocking his head side to side, his expression becoming more and more withdrawn, Aman launched into a monologue that neither of us, I am sure, knew was coming:

"We should fire at them and take out a few of their cities?Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta," he said. "They should fire back and take Karachi and Lahore. Kill off a hundred or two hundred million people. They should fire at us and it would all be over. They have acted so badly toward us; they have been so mean. We should teach them a lesson. It would teach all of us a lesson. There is no future here, and we need to start over. So many people think this. Have you been to the villages of Pakistan, the interior? There is nothing but dire poverty and pain. The children have no education; there is nothing to look forward to. Go into the villages, see the poverty. There is no drinking water. Small children without shoes walk miles for a drink of water. I go to the villages and I want to cry. My children have no future. None of the children of Pakistan have a future. We are surrounded by nothing but war and suffering. Millions should die away."

"Pakistan should fire pre-emptively?" I asked.

Aman nodded.

"And you are willing to see your children die?"

"Tens of thousands of people are dying in Kashmir, and the only superpower says nothing," Aman said. "America has sided with India because it has interests there." He told me he was willing to see his children be killed. He repeated that they didn't have any future?his children or any other children.

I asked him if he thought he was alone in his thoughts, and Aman made it clear to me that he was not.

"Believe me," he went on, "If I were in charge, I would have already done it."

Aman stopped, as though he'd stunned even himself. Then he added, with quiet forcefulness, "Before I die, I hope I should see it."







Post#2167 at 04-01-2002 03:59 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
04-01-2002, 03:59 PM #2167
Guest

On 2002-04-01 10:52, madscientist wrote:
On 2002-03-31 11:28, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
Mr. Loyd would still be building, Mr. Meece would still draw horoscopes, Mr. Marc Lamb could still preach, I could still raise cattle, Mr. Reed could be an alchemist with an abacus, there would be mead klatches, Ms. Brombacher would have plenty of time to write, etc. etc.
:lol: Perhaps, I could rediscover pythagora's theorem. I would think that Eric and Marc would be feudal/tribal lords in an eternal battle with each other. There won't be much literacy, so Susan would likely be an oracle. Chris? Probably designing a giant grass, mud, and stone hut that will be the symbol of cutting edge science and technology.


___PS: There still would be people doing it.
:grin:
I like the idea of being an Oracle! I suppose the town soothsayer would most likely have to be an INFP or INFJ, so that would fit.

I would live in the woods outside of town in a small cottage with my cats, keeping pretty much to myself (to avoid those who might want me burned at the stake), but I would accept local visitors and not charge those who could not afford to pay for my divining services. On weekends I would join the Koffeeklatchers doing their wash by the river, keeping up to date on the local gossip. Occasionally Justin, Craig, William or JayN would come by and offer to purchase us some mead at the local tavern, when they are not working as apprentices and journeymen. Stonewall would be a Royal who slums in the evenings, drinking mead at the tavern with us peasant women and tradesmen, and genuinely enjoying our unpretentious company. When he's at the palace, he would be advising King William Strauss and Duke Neil Howe on serious matters pertaining to governing the kingdom. Virgil and Marc would be the King's court jesters, providing the entertainment.

Eric would be the Royal Astrologer, and Chris and Robert would be the designers of Bill's kingdom. Eric, Chris, Robert and Stonewall would all be educated and literate. Dave '71 would be the kindly parish priest who is unusually tolerant of all the mead-drinking and soothsaying going on. Edgar would try to have Father Dave excommunicated and burned at the stake but would leave town instead, after having stones thrown at him by the townspeople.

_________________
Labels tell you where the box is coming from and where it is headed and are quite helpful. They do not tell you what's inside though they might indicate "fragile", "handle with care", "this is not a Bill", "magnetic medium", etc.--VIRGIL K. SAARI

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Susan Brombacher on 2002-04-01 13:15 ]</font>







Post#2168 at 04-01-2002 04:36 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
04-01-2002, 04:36 PM #2168
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

On 2002-03-31 13:58, Brian Rush wrote:
Got some thoughts of my own re Susan's proposed progression of outcomes.

I don't think that's possible as a Crisis outcome. Serious damage to the biosphere is inevitable now, but it's survived awesome asteroid impacts at least five or six times already, recuperating in a few million years after losing over 90% of the planet's biomass and speciation. So I don't think we're going to wipe out all life. Life is tougher than that.
Yes, we have survived some awesome asteroid impacts, such as the famous KT one. That one asteroid strike was orders of magnitude more explosive than the combined arsenal of all nuclear explosives ever built, which, if spread out, would affect all of the landmasses of Earth. The KT impact, however, did not include radiation. I still agreethat we are not yet capable of destroying life.

This could happen as a result of the 4T, or rather of failure to deal adequately with 4T issues, but it would take longer than 20 years to happen barring all-out nuclear war. What might happen by the end of the Crisis is that we become aware of processes that will extinguish our species.
What comes after the extinction of humanity? In history, the fish first ruled the planet. Then the amphibians came. Afterwards, the reptiles came, with the dinosaurs ruling the planet, and we are now in the age of mammals. The bugs have not had a chance to rule this planet yet. Perhaps, in 70 million years after the extinction of humanity, spiders, flys, and roaches will grow to the same size as large animals such as whales, elephants, dinosaurs, and megatheriums. What would such a world be like?


3. Only a few humans remain, probably from polar regions (who are more likely to have remained neutral during a conflict) who are forced to eventually revert to a hunter-gatherer existence, and don't rediscover what we call modernity for many thousands of years

A less extreme version of #2. In fact, #3 would happen on the way to #2 anyway. The question then being whether we have sufficient numbers for genetic viability, and whether some random catastrophe wipes out that remnant settlement before it can grow.
I would doubt that people from polar regions would rule the world because they would not be able to survive a nuclear winter nor a sudden shutdown of the North Atlantic Current. However, many tribes in the tropical regions might survive, and build a new civilization 3,000 years from now.


4. Modernity is wiped out, but civilization is not. There are far fewer humans, and little or no technology, and humanity reverts to a new Dark Age or feudal system. Agriculture remains, and people must grow their own food and weave their own clothing.

I see this as very unlikely, less likely than #3 (loss of civilization). For any technology, pose the question of how robust it is, that is, how easy it would be to maintain under adverse circumstances. The high-tech computer industry is not very robust, but movable type is, and consequently so is large-scale literacy. As long as you have that, you have modernity in its beginnings, and rebuilding from that first rung is rapid -- especially when it's already been done once and there's no need to reinvent the wheel.
That is largely true, but remember the fate of Rome and several other civilizations. Sure, we have typewriters, literacy, and other stuff, but paper will eventually disintegrate, and movable type will eventually wear out. The existence of civilization, however, is based upon the production and distribution of goods. In the event of a catastrophic collapse of societal infrastructure, the task is maintaining the division of labor, as even a pencil would be very expensive and nearly impossible to produce without it. Of course, psychology of the masses matters, as people have decided to collectively walk away from civilization (either the Mayan or Incan Civilizations). And if new infrastructure is not put in place in time, you will have massive starvation as our ability to produce massive amounts of food depends on our industrial technological development. In fact, without it, it would be impossible for Earth to sustain morethan 2 billion people, and 1 billion would seem more crowded than 6.1 billion today. In order to survive, people revert to thievery, and crime runs rampant as people are murdered in record numbers trying to get food to survive. Amid this chaos, these people decide to rape, pillage, and plunder those who have food. At this point, order is utterly impossible. After the dieoff ends, there will be less than one billion people on Earth. To feed themselves, people would have to revert to subsistence agriculture, which would mean that literacy would be useless, and more of a burden, contributing to an illiterate society. Only after the civilization achieves a level of stability and production can literacy and technology begin to develop.
[/quote]
"The urge to dream, and the will to enable it is fundamental to being human and have coincided with what it is to be American." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson
intp '82er







Post#2169 at 04-01-2002 04:59 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
04-01-2002, 04:59 PM #2169
Guest

On 2002-04-01 13:36, madscientist wrote:

That is largely true, but remember the fate of Rome and several other civilizations. Sure, we have typewriters, literacy, and other stuff, but paper will eventually disintegrate, and movable type will eventually wear out. The existence of civilization, however, is based upon the production and distribution of goods. In the event of a catastrophic collapse of societal infrastructure, the task is maintaining the division of labor, as even a pencil would be very expensive and nearly impossible to produce without it. Of course, psychology of the masses matters, as people have decided to collectively walk away from civilization (either the Mayan or Incan Civilizations). And if new infrastructure is not put in place in time, you will have massive starvation as our ability to produce massive amounts of food depends on our industrial technological development. In fact, without it, it would be impossible for Earth to sustain morethan 2 billion people, and 1 billion would seem more crowded than 6.1 billion today. In order to survive, people revert to thievery, and crime runs rampant as people are murdered in record numbers trying to get food to survive. Amid this chaos, these people decide to rape, pillage, and plunder those who have food. At this point, order is utterly impossible. After the dieoff ends, there will be less than one billion people on Earth. To feed themselves, people would have to revert to subsistence agriculture, which would mean that literacy would be useless, and more of a burden, contributing to an illiterate society. Only after the civilization achieves a level of stability and production can literacy and technology begin to develop.
I agree. The Roman Empire was surprisingly advanced technologically (they even had indoor plumbing) and was actually in existence far longer than our present advanced civilization has been. It's interesting to speculate what might have happened had Rome not fallen and western society thrust into a dark age. Perhaps electricity would have been discovered around 1000 or earlier, electronics and computers and the equivalent of what we call modern medicine in the 1300s, and nanotechnology in the 1400s or earlier. Today we might now be traversing interstellar space and living lives that would truly seem like something from science fiction.

Robert, what do you think?







Post#2170 at 04-01-2002 05:07 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-01-2002, 05:07 PM #2170
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Robert:


Regarding what would happen after the extinction of humanity, in detail it depends on how many other species we took with us. But in general, the answer is that we would be replaced, probably a lot quicker than we might now suppose.


I'm going to offer you now a speculative thought outside mainstream evolutionary biology. If you look at past global mass extinction events, you find that, after recovering from each one, the biosphere exhibited a higher cutting-edge intelligence in its new culture than it did in the one before. What this suggests to me is that, possibly through exchange of plasmids, possibly through some other medium, the global gene pool is learning how to evolve intelligent animals.


Not only does the current biosphere exhibit the most intelligent and powerful species to date, it also exhibits a large number of what might be called second-tier intelligences. These include the great apes, cetaceans, raccoons, bears, the large parrots, crows, and ravens, among probably others. So the planet has a substantial gene pool from which to breed a new species with our abilities, or more so.


Regarding the possibility of a cutback to agricultural levels, papermaking is a robust technology, too, so although paper does degrade and wear out, more can easily be made using quite primitive techniques. If civilization survives at all, then we will again begin the rapid rise towards advanced civilization, with only a century or so of setback.







Post#2171 at 04-01-2002 05:18 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-01-2002, 05:18 PM #2171
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Susan:


While the Roman Empire was considerably more advanced than the Europe that followed it, still it was what I call a "classical paradigm" civilization. It did not have the key invention which led to our current transitional society, movable type.


Because books and other reading material had to be hand-copied, they were very expensive. As a result, few Romans could afford them. And as a result of that, the majority of Romans were illiterate. Literacy rates were higher than in the Middle Ages, to be sure, but still only a smallish minority of the population.


Widespread literacy led to an increase in scientific efforts. This led to the development of scientific method, which in turn led to the inventions which sparked the industrial revolution. Widespread literacy also led to demands for a voice in governance, and thus to democracy and the overthrow of monarchies. In gen-cycle terms, literacy also led to Awakenings, certainly to the Reformation, which was either the second or first Awakening.


The key invention that moved us from the classical paradigm to our present transitional state was movable type. So long as we retain that, we will not have another Dark Age.







Post#2172 at 04-01-2002 08:52 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
04-01-2002, 08:52 PM #2172
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2002-04-01 11:45, Kiff '61 wrote:
On 2002-03-31 16:09, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
Oh, boy. It's at moments like this that I really feel the difference between Xer and Millennial. This last post of yours looks like the sort of thing I have thought in my more wishful moments.

Robert, the vision you've just outlined is one that appeals to me so much it's scary. I'd love to think it could work out that way. But it's actually a very unlikely set of possibilities, especially in combination.
I hear you, HC. And when I read Robert's post myself, I was dumbfounded by all the possibilities. I had never heard of some of the stuff he mentioned.
That's what makes the Xer/Millennial difference so stark in our case, Kiff. I have heard of all of what he's talking about. In some ways, it's like I was reading my own daydreams in his post. I can remember in my own early and middle teens, thinking how great it would be if we could just get the Boomers/Silent (or certain of them, I didn't distinguish between those two generations much back then, as I've said before) to get out of the way and let things go forward. My 'wish list' was very close to that of Robert now.

But I also know, from Xer experience, all too well how many almost insurmountable arational (as opposed to irrational) obstacles stand in the way.


But being an Xer, it's hard for me not to have a "show me the money" kind of attitude. It all sounds great. We were supposed to be on Mars by now if you go by what people were talking about in the late 1960's. But "real life" got in the way. :sad:
The 'real life' was the Awakening and its associated nonsense. Believe me, I know what you mean, except that my reaction used to be more like:








Post#2173 at 04-01-2002 09:20 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
04-01-2002, 09:20 PM #2173
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2002-04-01 10:54, Brian Rush wrote:

I don't believe that's actually true. Historically, not only have sole superpowers been rare, they've been nonexistent. Even the Roman Empire shared hegemony with the Kingdom of the Parthians, the Empire of China, and a few other powers in the Old World (after defeating Carthage, Pontis, etc.). The British Empire was clearly the greatest power of its day, but not the only one; France, Germany, Russia, the United States, and Japan were rival powers that could not be simply bullied.


If America did create a world empire, it would be the first power in history to do so. But I see considerable obstacles on that path. More later.
[/quote]

There have been several world empires, Brian. They just didn't cover the whole world. :smile:

Seriously, the pattern I mentioned has existed. It wasn't global, because given the technology of the time, it couldn't be. Instead of world-wide systems of states and powers, there were regional systems of states and powers.

Yes, they certainly did trade with each other (i.e. the Silk Road, etc), but they had little or no direct influence on each other. As far as a resident of Classical Europe or then-contemporaneous China were concerned, each might as well have lived in a different world.

Rome was the sole superpower toward the end of the Republican period, the sole superpower of its world, meaning the Mediterranean Basin, northwestern Europe, and the Middle East.

Over the course of the period roughly from Alexander to Julius Caesar, a whole slew of powers (Athens, Pergamum, Carthage, Rome, the other Italian peninsula city-states, etc) fought with each other, allied with each other, and so on, and as they did the number of 'players' steadily decreased. At the end, it was Rome vs. Carthage for control of the Med Basin in a very nasty series of wars, and Rome won.

The 'Classical World' was more than just geographically defined. The Classical World can be defined as that region within which Hellenic/Hellenistic culture had become either predominant, as it had in Greece and Italy, or at least a major force, as it had in parts of the Middle East.

The Roman Empire never did expand much beyond its own 'world'. It expanded into southern Britain, and Gaul, and over into the Middle East and northern Africa, but for the most part the borders set by Octavian were never much expanded afterward.

That was partly the limits of technology, of course, but it was also partly the limits of Roman interests. The doings of the Chinese World didn't much concern the court of the Caesars, or vice versa.

As you note, the Roman Empire was not the Roman Republic per se, but there was certainly continuity. Rome spread to absorb and fuse with the Classical World. Arguably, the Roman Empire was the Roman Republic in its 'megasuperpower' stage. Of course the difference between the metropole and the peripheries blurred rapidly, the equivalent of McWorld, perhaps.

A very similar set of events occured in ancient China, by the way. Our modern word for China derives from the state of Ch'in, which conquered its fellows during the Era of Contending States, becoming the 'sole superpower' of the Chinese World.







Post#2174 at 04-01-2002 09:24 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
04-01-2002, 09:24 PM #2174
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2002-04-01 13:59, Susan Brombacher wrote:
On 2002-04-01 13:36, madscientist wrote:

That is largely true, but remember the fate of Rome and several other civilizations. Sure, we have typewriters, literacy, and other stuff, but paper will eventually disintegrate, and movable type will eventually wear out. The existence of civilization, however, is based upon the production and distribution of goods. In the event of a catastrophic collapse of societal infrastructure, the task is maintaining the division of labor, as even a pencil would be very expensive and nearly impossible to produce without it. Of course, psychology of the masses matters, as people have decided to collectively walk away from civilization (either the Mayan or Incan Civilizations). And if new infrastructure is not put in place in time, you will have massive starvation as our ability to produce massive amounts of food depends on our industrial technological development. In fact, without it, it would be impossible for Earth to sustain morethan 2 billion people, and 1 billion would seem more crowded than 6.1 billion today. In order to survive, people revert to thievery, and crime runs rampant as people are murdered in record numbers trying to get food to survive. Amid this chaos, these people decide to rape, pillage, and plunder those who have food. At this point, order is utterly impossible. After the dieoff ends, there will be less than one billion people on Earth. To feed themselves, people would have to revert to subsistence agriculture, which would mean that literacy would be useless, and more of a burden, contributing to an illiterate society. Only after the civilization achieves a level of stability and production can literacy and technology begin to develop.
I agree. The Roman Empire was surprisingly advanced technologically (they even had indoor plumbing) and was actually in existence far longer than our present advanced civilization has been. It's interesting to speculate what might have happened had Rome not fallen and western society thrust into a dark age. Perhaps electricity would have been discovered around 1000 or earlier, electronics and computers and the equivalent of what we call modern medicine in the 1300s, and nanotechnology in the 1400s or earlier. Today we might now be traversing interstellar space and living lives that would truly seem like something from science fiction.

Robert, what do you think?
I'm not Robert, but I'll take a shot.

I don't think the Roman Empire could not fall, without assuming some very different conditions. The Empire had been in long, slow, painful decline for well over a century, and the circumstances leading to its fall were almost insurmountable.

But if it had lived, I'm not sure how far we'd be. Compared to the Republic, the Empire was very static. Technological advancement was much faster under the Republic than it was under the later Empire, for a variety of reasons.

I'm not sure the Empire could survive any circumstance that got technology advancing at a high rate.







Post#2175 at 04-01-2002 09:27 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
04-01-2002, 09:27 PM #2175
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

It's interesting to speculate what might have happened had Rome not fallen and western society thrust into a dark age.

The Eastern Roman Empire did not fall in the 5th century, civilization continued on there. And in China as well. Movable type and a host of other important advances were invented in due course by the Chinese. I very much doubt that the fall of Rome had any impact at all on the technological progress of humanity.
-----------------------------------------