[marden]

I've heard that major civilizations take their eternal existence for granted and in their complacency lose everything.

If there are three superorganisms in the world, with the west being one of them and the US being it's champion, aren't we, like bacteria in a petri dish, going to fall to the other superorganisms unless we stop assuming we will exist forever?

[lpkmckenna]

I'd offer you my opinion, but I'm distracted by your "three superorganisms" idea. Who are the other two and who are their champions?

BTW, I don't think complacency is the cause of social downfall.

[kmkkid]

3 super orgasms?!?!?!?1!!!

Surely that can't be bad.

[smacintush]

Well, that fact that we will fall eventually is unavoidable. The problem is the denial of this but the struggle to prevent the inevitable.

[marden]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I'd offer you my opinion, but I'm distracted by your "three superorganisms" idea. Who are the other two and who are their champions?

BTW, I don't think complacency is the cause of social downfall.

Let's not go there. It's enough to know there are other superorganisms on Earth besides the Western Civilization and that they are powerful and capable and aggressive.

We aren't or shouldn't be narrowing the discussion to the social aspects of civilization.

Here's the opening premise again.

I've heard that major civilizations take their eternal existence for granted and in their complacency lose everything.

[Chuckit]

If the world is like a clash between three teddy bears with candy-cane weapons, and the U.S. is also has a peppermint shield, don't you think it will be a delicious battle in which the combatants will eventually realize the tastiness of their arsenal and begin eating their potential for violence away?

[::maroma::]

Damn marden, you sure do know how to start threads. 8 threads on the first page of the Lounge alone.

Anyhow, I too would like more clarification and/or explanation on your theory. Expand on the "3 superorganisms" thing.

[marden]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Well, that fact that we will fall eventually is unavoidable. The problem is the denial of this but the struggle to prevent the inevitable.

But should we allow it to fall or fail while we are still in our infancy? There is so much more to be known and grown and developed by our civilization.

And should we let this infant of a civilization which has yet to reach it's full potential die because we are bored like the youths in Texas who gave the babies pot to smoke? Or call it quits because SOME day we will fall???

[smacintush]

What he means is that if we don't do something then the Muslims and the Chinese are gonna take us out.

Or am I wrong to add the Chinese in there?

[marden]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Damn marden, you sure do know how to start threads. 8 threads on the first page of the Lounge alone.

Anyhow, I too would like more clarification and/or explanation on your theory. Expand on the "3 superorganisms" thing.

No, sorry. You see that's not the point of the thread and to go down that road would only serve to derail the discussion.

[Chuckit]

What is the point of this thread? That if we were bacteria in a petri dish — which we're not — the world around us might be a certain way? How is that in any way meaningful or even interesting?

[marden]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

What he means is that if we don't do something then the Muslims and the Chinese are gonna take us out.

Or am I wrong to add the Chinese in there?

Why not insert the Crips and the Bloods. Who they are is a DIFFERENT discussion. Let's allow them to remain nebulous, ok?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by marden 

But should we allow it to fall or fail while we are still in our infancy? There is so much more to be known and grown and developed by our civilization.

And should we let this infant of a civilization which has yet to reach it's full potential die because we are bored like the youths in Texas who gave the babies pot to smoke? Or call it quits because SOME day we will fall???

It's not a matter of quitting, it's a matter of accepting that things change and learning to adapt without destroying ourselves in the process.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What is the point of this thread? That if we were bacteria in a petri dish — which we're not — the world around us might be a certain way? How is that in any way meaningful or even interesting?

If you have three different bacteria in a petri dish they will inevitably attack each other until one wins out.

If we are one of those cultures in the dish what is the point of our assuming we will continue to survive when I've heard that major civilizations which take their eternal existence for granted lose everything due to their complacency?

[::maroma::]

There is no point in assuming that we'll last forever as a "superorganism" (or Empire). In the entire history of civilization, there has never been an Empire that has lasted forever. They all fall, and so will we. And frankly, I welcome it. Not because I hate America, but because I know that America (or the West) is not where humankind will end up. This is merely a path to a greater existence. Our Empire will fall, and it will be replaced, and the cycle will begin again.

If you're asking what we should do to prevent that, I say nothing. Let it happen. Let humankind walk its path.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by marden 

Why not insert the Crips and the Bloods. Who they are is a DIFFERENT discussion. Let's allow them to remain nebulous, ok?

We can if you'd like, but I think that since you are not speaking hypothetically that they are pertinent to the discussion.

In theory, all things being equal, our complacency could mean our demise at the hands of the others, but things aren't equal and the real (not imagined) threat of the other "superorganisms" is very important to the discussion.

What I mean is, if the threat at hand is imagined or exaggerated, what does our complacency really mean?

So, you can't have a serious discussion without discussing if the other "superorganisms" are even that kind of serious threat.

Imagine it's football: An otherwise good team can certainly be complacent and lose as a result, but what if they are playing the Raiders? The other team is pertinent to the discussion.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

There is no point in assuming that we'll last forever as a "superorganism" (or Empire). In the entire history of civilization, there has never been an Empire that has lasted forever. They all fall, and so will we. And frankly, I welcome it. Not because I hate America, but because I know that America (or the West) is not where humankind will end up. This is merely a path to a greater existence. Our Empire will fall, and it will be replaced, and the cycle will begin again.

If you're asking what we should do to prevent that, I say nothing. Let it happen. Let humankind walk its path.

And yet, even peaceful Tibetans do not agree with your philosophy.

Exile Leader Warns of Tibet Violence

DHARMSALA, India (AP) - A Tibetan leader warned Monday that his people's
freedom struggle could turn violent if the issue of Chinese occupation of
Tibet is not resolved before the Dalai Lama dies.

"It is only our devotion to His Holiness and his influence and his teaching
that prevents any Tibetan individual from indulging in violence," said
Samdhong Rinpoche, who is the prime minister of Tibet's government in exile.

Chinese troops occupied Tibet in 1950, taking control of a region Beijing
says has been a part of China for centuries. The Dalai Lama, who is 66,
founded the government-in-exile in the northern Indian town of Dharmsala in
1960, a year after fleeing Tibet following a failed uprising against Chinese
rule.

Humankind ALWAYS walks it's path. It's just a question of whether humans walk into oncoming traffic or whether humans walk towards the light.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

There is no point in assuming that we'll last forever as a "superorganism" (or Empire). In the entire history of civilization, there has never been an Empire that has lasted forever. They all fall, and so will we. And frankly, I welcome it. Not because I hate America, but because I know that America (or the West) is not where humankind will end up. This is merely a path to a greater existence. Our Empire will fall, and it will be replaced, and the cycle will begin again.

If you're asking what we should do to prevent that, I say nothing. Let it happen. Let humankind walk its path.

"The harder we struggle to prevent what can't be prevented the more likely we are to bring about our own early demise. " - Me

[marden]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

We can if you'd like, but I think that since you are not speaking hypothetically that they are pertinent to the discussion.

In theory, all things being equal, our complacency could mean our demise at the hands of the others, but things aren't equal and the real (not imagined) threat of the other "superorganisms" is very important to the discussion.

What I mean is, if the threat at hand is imagined or exaggerated, what does our complacency really mean?

So, you can't have a serious discussion without discussing if the other "superorganisms" are even that kind of serious threat.

Imagine it's football: An otherwise good team can certainly be complacent and lose as a result, but what if they are playing the Raiders? The other team is pertinent to the discussion.

Maybe I worded the thread poorly.

A better question might have been, "CAN a Superorganism Civilization Survive it's Member's Complacency?"

That is the essence of the thread's message/question/quandry.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

And yet, even peaceful Tibetans do not agree with your philosophy.

No, violent Tibetans don't agree with his philosophy. That article is saying that the violent Tibetans are holding back because their leader is a peaceful Tibetan.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by marden 

And yet, even peaceful Tibetans do not agree with your philosophy.



Humankind ALWAYS walks it's path. It's just a question of whether humans walk into oncoming traffic or whether humans walk towards the light.

You are assuming that the West is the true path. How can you know this? If it is meant to be, it will be. What did the Romans think of themselves? Did they think they were the end all be all of civilizations? Did they think that if Rome fell, so would humankind? I bet some of them did. And look how far we've come since then.

Your whole argument assumes that we must stop our inevitable demise or the world will end. I say, let our inevitable (yes it is inevitable) demise happen, and let something better take our place. I am not saying, however, that we allow anyone to take us down and replace us. I'm saying that there will be something better to come along, and we will fall to it/them. And I'm all for it.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by marden 

Maybe I worded the thread poorly.

A better question might have been, "CAN a Superorganism Civilization Survive it's Member's Complacency?"

That is the essence of the thread's message/question/quandry.

Isn't it too much of an oversimplification?

Of course it CAN.

It can FAIL too.

[marden]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

"The harder we struggle to prevent what can't be prevented the more likely we are to bring about our own early demise. " - Me

I'm familiar with the philosophy. That which you struggle AGAINST only brings it closer. You can never rid yourself of that which you hate. When you are driving while tired or in a fatigued trance and try to avoid the bicyclist's flashing lights on their pedals you unconsciously aim for it. And so on.

And yet, the same philosophy says that you should strive and state to the universe that which you desire and all the powers of the universe will conspire to bring them to you.

When we state that we want to live free and happy and in peace and have our civilization continue to thrive, it is a good thing, yes?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by marden 

I'm familiar with the philosophy. That which you struggle AGAINST only brings it closer. You can never rid yourself of that which you hate. When you are driving while tired or in a fatigued trance and try to avoid the bicyclist's flashing lights on their pedals you unconsciously aim for it. And so on.

And yet, the same philosophy says that you should strive and state to the universe that which you desire and all the powers of the universe will conspire to bring them to you.

I really don't know what you are talking about.

When we state that we want to live free and happy and in peace and have our civilization continue to thrive, it is a good thing, yes?

How can you live in peace if you think that we must continue to struggle to be on top or we will not survive? That's not peace.

[besson3c]

Marden,

For some reason, most, if not all your threads seem like thinly veiled attempts to convert us all to Republicans. Have you considered starting a fan club? You can always get people to come out to fan club meetings if you promise cookies, preferably the kind that haven't been poisoned by terrorists.

[SpaceMonkey]

I got my superorganism spayed, so it's all good here

[Atomic Rooster]

I thought this thread was going to improve my sex life.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

And I ask: who says this superorganism is complacent?

And also, the last two posts made me giggle like a schoolgirl.

greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Marden,

For some reason, most, if not all your threads seem like thinly veiled attempts to convert us all to Republicans.

Hell, I'd given up on that a long time ago. Now I'm plumbing the depth of people's identification with and investment in Western Civilization.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

How can you live in peace if you think that we must continue to struggle to be on top or we will not survive? That's not peace.

Nail on the head.

Anyway, no superorganisms have even managed to take over France yet, and, like, I could take over France. So I'm not that worried about our superorganism.

[marden]

Watch Barbarians Week on the History Channel this week.

[design219]

...And don't forget When Bacteria goes Bad on Discovery.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

There is no point in assuming that we'll last forever as a "superorganism" (or Empire). In the entire history of civilization, there has never been an Empire that has lasted forever. They all fall, and so will we. And frankly, I welcome it. Not because I hate America, but because I know that America (or the West) is not where humankind will end up. This is merely a path to a greater existence. Our Empire will fall, and it will be replaced, and the cycle will begin again.

If you're asking what we should do to prevent that, I say nothing. Let it happen. Let humankind walk its path.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

"The harder we struggle to prevent what can't be prevented the more likely we are to bring about our own early demise. " - Me

Excellent summaries/synopsis. Of course, very few people(s) willingly accept their own demise.

I too am optimistic that the next major "cycle" for human life holds promise for great advancement but I am confident too, sadly, that there will be great amounts of violence and destruction before the next cycle can begin.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by marden 

I'm plumbing the depth of people's identification with and investment in Western Civilization.

What is this "Western Civilization" that you speak of? Is this the same "Western Civilization" that is taught in introductory college courses that covers several thousand years of history in a 15-week semester?

Anyway, as far as "identifying with" Western Civilization, what do you mean by that? Do you mean a self-conscious awareness of one's place in their current social/political/cultural context? or an awareness of the current social/political/cultural context in the great sweep of history? Either way, I think this is the usual Abermojarden set-up whereby you ask questions in a specific way to try and shape the discussion to work towards a conclusion you believe (and want others to believe).

If I had to guess, you are working up towards dropping on us your explanation how the current high-point of Western Civilization is the United States and that the big, bad Muslims want to take away from us all that we have accomplished. Am I right? You are being "logical" in your arguments but trying mighty hard to steer the conversation in such a way that you can spring on us your grand ideas about how it "all makes sense" if we just need to get rid of those pesky Muslims--who in your mind can't or won't accept non-Muslims existing anywhere in the world--and if/when we do eliminate the Muslims we will enter a grand, glorious phase where our existence will continue to shine as THE exemplary model for social/cultural/political organization for the foreseeable future.

It's all bollocks, Abe. The "Western Civilization" will go into decline and the next major social/cultural/political groups to become ascendant on the world stage are likely to be China and South Asia (India primarily, but also Pakistan and maybe Afghanistan). The 19th-century belonged to England. The 20th-century belonged to the United States. The 21st-century belongs to someone else. The more we try and fight it, the uglier it is going to be for us when we do fall.

[marden]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What is this "Western Civilization" that you speak of? Is this the same "Western Civilization" that is taught in introductory college courses that covers several thousand years of history in a 15-week semester?

Anyway, as far as "identifying with" Western Civilization, what do you mean by that? Do you mean a self-conscious awareness of one's place in their current social/political/cultural context? or an awareness of the current social/political/cultural context in the great sweep of history? Either way, I think this is the usual Abermojarden set-up whereby you ask questions in a specific way to try and shape the discussion to work towards a conclusion you believe (and want others to believe).

If I had to guess, you are working up towards dropping on us your explanation how the current high-point of Western Civilization is the United States and that the big, bad Muslims want to take away from us all that we have accomplished. Am I right? You are being "logical" in your arguments but trying mighty hard to steer the conversation in such a way that you can spring on us your grand ideas about how it "all makes sense" if we just need to get rid of those pesky Muslims--who in your mind can't or won't accept non-Muslims existing anywhere in the world--and if/when we do eliminate the Muslims we will enter a grand, glorious phase where our existence will continue to shine as THE exemplary model for social/cultural/political organization for the foreseeable future.

It's all bollocks, Abe. The "Western Civilization" will go into decline and the next major social/cultural/political groups to become ascendant on the world stage are likely to be China and South Asia (India primarily, but also Pakistan and maybe Afghanistan). The 19th-century belonged to England. The 20th-century belonged to the United States. The 21st-century belongs to someone else. The more we try and fight it, the uglier it is going to be for us when we do fall.

Thank you all for your responses.

You've made splendid arguments in favor of our doing nothing about global warming.

dcmacdaddy, you, ::maroma:: and smacintush can begin your twisting, squirming and back peddling now.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I don't get it. The other "superorganisms" were CO2 and CH4, and they out-competed us? I guess they just wanted it more.

[::maroma::]

marden you are one weird dude. I don't know what the point of all this was and I never will. I won't "twist, squirm or back peddle" since you lost me long ago. I tried to wrap my head around your extremely vague and wide open topic of discussion, but you seem to have already made up your mind and just wanted to go through some weird exercise.

Anyhow, its a reminder for me not to participate in any of your threads anymore. They're just too weird, and to me always turn into a cluster of nonsensical banter.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

Thank you all for your responses.

You've made splendid arguments in favor of our doing nothing about global warming.

dcmacdaddy, you, ::maroma:: and smacintush can begin your twisting, squirming and back peddling now.

Nothing anyone said had anything to do with global warming…

[marden]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

marden you are one weird dude. I don't know what the point of all this was and I never will. I won't "twist, squirm or back peddle" since you lost me long ago. I tried to wrap my head around your extremely vague and wide open topic of discussion, but you seem to have already made up your mind and just wanted to go through some weird exercise.

Anyhow, its a reminder for me not to participate in any of your threads anymore. They're just too weird, and to me always turn into a cluster of nonsensical banter.

Note to all: The above is one version of the "twist, squirm or back peddle" I knew would be coming when I applied his nonsensical and suicidal philosophy to a different threat to our civilization.

The truth is that he and those others here who agreed with him all want the Western Civilization to succumb. And their lofty hi-falutin philosophies about letting human-kind walk it's path doesn't apply when it comes to environmental causes. Heavens to Betsy NO! That would be terrible!

I'd say you all were busted.

Hypocrites. And more!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Even the most rabid ecofearmongers don't think global warming will end Western Civilization. They just think it will make living very difficult and kill many many people as a result. In other words, they want to avoid killing people. I don't see how that's inconsistent with not wanting to kill people who might be part of a neighboring "superorganism," whatever that is (since you fervently refused to define it).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

Note to all: The above is one version of the "twist, squirm or back peddle" I knew would be coming when I applied his nonsensical and suicidal philosophy to a different threat to our civilization.

The truth is that he and those others here who agreed with him all want the Western Civilization to succumb. And their lofty hi-falutin philosophies about letting human-kind walk it's path doesn't apply when it comes to environmental causes. Heavens to Betsy NO! That would be terrible!

I'd say you all were busted.

Hypocrites. And more!

Nothing anyone said had anything to do with global warming…

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Nothing anyone said had anything to do with global warming…

You've been smacked down and don't even know it yet, Chuckit.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by marden 

Note to all: The above is one version of the "twist, squirm or back peddle" I knew would be coming when I applied his nonsensical and suicidal philosophy to a different threat to our civilization.

The truth is that he and those others here who agreed with him all want the Western Civilization to succumb.

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

. I am not saying, however, that we allow anyone to take us down and replace us. I'm saying that there will be something better to come along, and we will fall to it/them. And I'm all for it.

It doesn't sound like he wants society to fall, rather accepts the fact that the downfall/change is inevitable (at some uncertain point in the future). He assumes (hopefully rightly) that something better takes it's place.

I won't speak for ::maroma::, but since this threat is (now revealed to be) an environmental threat, what if the replacement is a sustainable society? Developing such a society would require lots of investment and technology, which requires effort. I'm not sure why "working towards a better society" is a "suicidal philosophy."

Subsequent civilizations have advanced after the fall of their predecessor, usually with improvements upon the earlier ones at each iteration. Developing sustainable ways is the obvious next major advance for us as humans.

Do you think that would be bad?

And their lofty hi-falutin philosophies about letting human-kind walk it's path doesn't apply when it comes to environmental causes.

Just because you are on a path, doesn't mean you want to be on that path.

So what were the other two superorganisms anyhow? Were they CO2 and methane?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It's not a matter of quitting, it's a matter of accepting that things change and learning to adapt without destroying ourselves in the process.

Adapt without destroying ourselves == "suicidal philosophy?"

(reading the post of the other "smacked down")

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What is this "Western Civilization" that you speak of? Is this the same "Western Civilization" that is taught in introductory college courses that covers several thousand years of history in a 15-week semester?

Anyway, as far as "identifying with" Western Civilization, what do you mean by that? Do you mean a self-conscious awareness of one's place in their current social/political/cultural context? or an awareness of the current social/political/cultural context in the great sweep of history? Either way, I think this is the usual Abermojarden set-up whereby you ask questions in a specific way to try and shape the discussion to work towards a conclusion you believe (and want others to believe).

If I had to guess, you are working up towards dropping on us your explanation how the current high-point of Western Civilization is the United States and that the big, bad Muslims want to take away from us all that we have accomplished. Am I right? You are being "logical" in your arguments but trying mighty hard to steer the conversation in such a way that you can spring on us your grand ideas about how it "all makes sense" if we just need to get rid of those pesky Muslims--who in your mind can't or won't accept non-Muslims existing anywhere in the world--and if/when we do eliminate the Muslims we will enter a grand, glorious phase where our existence will continue to shine as THE exemplary model for social/cultural/political organization for the foreseeable future.

It's all bollocks, Abe. The "Western Civilization" will go into decline and the next major social/cultural/political groups to become ascendant on the world stage are likely to be China and South Asia (India primarily, but also Pakistan and maybe Afghanistan). The 19th-century belonged to England. The 20th-century belonged to the United States. The 21st-century belongs to someone else. The more we try and fight it, the uglier it is going to be for us when we do fall.

Originally Posted by marden 

Thank you all for your responses.

You've made splendid arguments in favor of our doing nothing about global warming.

dcmacdaddy, you, ::maroma:: and smacintush can begin your twisting, squirming and back peddling now.

dcmacdaddy's quote is clearly NOT about global warming. It also is clearly NOT hypothetical. It deals with a specific scenario.

(reading the post of the other "smacked down")

[Warren Pease]

What is the first superorganism? We know the US is it's champion and environmental stewardship(?) is its anathema. Uncontrolled economic growth?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

You've been smacked down and don't even know it yet, Chuckit.

You are at least half right.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

It doesn't sound like he wants society to fall, rather accepts the fact that the downfall/change is inevitable (at some uncertain point in the future). He assumes (hopefully rightly) that something better takes it's place.

I won't speak for ::maroma::, but since this threat is (now revealed to be) an environmental threat, what if the replacement is a sustainable society? Developing such a society would require lots of investment and technology, which requires effort. I'm not sure why "working towards a better society" is a "suicidal philosophy."

Subsequent civilizations have advanced after the fall of their predecessor, usually with improvements upon the earlier ones at each iteration. Developing sustainable ways is the obvious next major advance for us as humans.

Do you think that would be bad?



Just because you are on a path, doesn't mean you want to be on that path.

So what were the other two superorganisms anyhow? Were they CO2 and methane?

We were generally talking about things that might threaten and bring about the fall of Western Civilization as we know it.

I recognized an inconsistency in their arguments and focused on that inconsistency (i.e. their being ok with OTHER threats but being VERY MUCH concerned if the threat is from environmental causes).

The original point was that some people want Americans and westerners to cease any resistance to threats to our way of life. My shifting the focus to an environmental example wasn't what I had in mind at the start but it came to me as I read their responses.

So let's not lose sight of that fact that some people are VERY WORRIED about pollution, but they want the rest of us to just lie down, open wide and let any other threats just have their way with us.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You are at least half right.

Tell us Chuckit, which half was I right about?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

I recognized an inconsistency in their arguments and focused on that inconsistency (i.e. their being ok with OTHER threats but being VERY MUCH concerned if the threat is from environmental causes).

Different responses to different situations is called "being rational."

Originally Posted by marden 

Tell us Chuckit, which half was I right about?

That I have no idea how on earth you can say I was "smacked down."