Maybe outdated and a bit of a cliché… but it’s a classic.
Maybe it’ll give me inspiration about exactly HOW the idea of Yin/Yang can help… :chin:

Compared to the past this period of history is radically materialistic, and it is encouraged to everyone since childhood to be so.
Religion promised man to deliver happiness beyond materialism and not only failed but it exploited the people. So with 17th century enlightenment the west started shifting the balance to worshiping material goods and wealth and completely ignore religion.
What happened was just moving from one extreme to another as a form of reaction.
With this the whole civilization started to shift.
Individualistic virtues took the wheel of everyone's life, about money, relationships, career, health.

Basically the way this civilization views reality and life is completely fragmented, self-centered, one-dimensional and ultimately self-destructive.

P.s Iain McGilchrist makes a good case how we came to this point in his book Master and Emissary.

:up: Yes, well said! Thanks. That reminds me of a quote:

D. T. Suzuki, the eminent scholar of Zen Buddhism, one day made this sarcastic comment on the Christian tradition to his friends, American mythologist Joseph Campbell and psychoanalyst Carl Jung: “Nature against Man, Man against Nature; God against Man, Man against God; God against Nature, Nature against God; very funny religion!” (Daniel Odier)

Even though Suzuki is talking about Christianity in particular, it equally applies to the whole of Western Civilization, which seems to have a credo: “We must beat the obstinate Earth into submission. Once we have mastered and conquered it, we will live like the kings we are! Of course, there are other strange peoples who are not going along with our plan. They are sitting on a gold/silver/coal/whatever mine and refuse to dig it up. Fools. We will take it to use as God and Nature intended.”

Iain McGilchrist makes a good case how we came to this point in his book Master and Emissary. — TheMadMan

Thanks! Haven’t read that one. Looks interesting, about the two halves of the brain. I think our civilization suffers from schizophrenia (split mind).

There is gradual impoverishment of the masses and an an overpopulated elite establishment -- too much money, too much education, too much desire for power, etc. and nowhere near enough slots into which all the low level, mid level, and high level elite can fit. The Upshot? On the one hand, upheaval among the fucked over as they attempt to cope with ever diminishing returns for ever greater effort. On the other hand the elite fuckers resort to vicious tactics to grab power. It's a game of musical chairs in which the number of chairs is fixed and the number of chair seekers is enlarged every round. Competition quickly loses any polite formalities.

Donald Trump Silvio Berlusconi, and Boris Johnson are three disgusting examples of the rash extremes chair contenders are willing to resort to.

See End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration By Peter Turchin. Just published today so haven't had time to steal his ideas.

P.s Iain McGilchrist makes a good case how we came to this point in his book Master and Emissary. — TheMadMan

:100: Just the book I would have mentioned.

Even though Suzuki is talking about Christianity in particular, it equally applies to the whole of Western Civilization, which seems to have a credo: “We must beat the obstinate Earth into submission. Once we have mastered and conquered it, we will live like the kings we are! Of course, there are other strange peoples who are not going along with our plan. They are sitting on a gold/silver/coal/whatever mine and refuse to dig it up. Fools. We will take it to use as God and Nature intended.” — 0 thru 9

You know, there is a mainstream idea that Christianity formed western culture but I think that is looking it upside down.
To my eyes its the other way around. It was the western "conquer the world" attitude inherited by paganism, kings and emperors, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the conquering hero myth that simply used selected christian dogma to their benefit.
In the 1st and 2nd century Christianity had a totally different spirit, it was more like Sufism, until Constantine the Great and the created church used christian beliefs modified to their preferences to control the masses and seize power.
"The people seem to embrace Christianity, we might as well use it to our benefit."
We can see this in how other forms of Christianity like Gnosticism were persecuted.

If you only look at Jesus' words it feels actually more like the eastern spirit than western.
To me the west looked more Judaic than Christian.

I voted other, because I think the idea that civilization should be a certain way is misguided. We invented civilization and keep on re-inventing it as we go along and as circumstances change... there's nothing like it that came before, no ideal model we can compare it to. So imbalanced compared to what? Some kind of imagined ideal balance? Nature perhaps? But nature isn't necessarily balanced either, sometimes it can reach temporary stable states for some duration, but that is by no means a given.

That said you can look at it and evaluate it from certain perspectives. And sustainability is probably not a bad one, because it is of particular importance to us as we rely on the civilization we are a part of. And then looking at your definition of unsustainability, maybe we should add critically to it, because probably no civilization since the dawn of civilization has been really sustainable. Any mineral or fossil fuels resource use is ultimately unsustainable by that definition because it typically takes millennia to replenish those.

And as a last caveat, sustainability is also a function of total population size because if you deplete your environment it helps if you can just move somewhere else. Hunting and gathering with 8 billion people on earth wouldn't be sustainable either.

So what I would say is that our civilization now is critically unsustainable mainly because we use way to much energy :



Most of this energy comes from fossil fuels, so it is finite by definition. Because we can extract them at a relatively low cost, energy is underpriced as long as this one-time endowment from the earth lasts. And because it is underpriced we were able to build our civilization around all kinds of processes that would otherwise be to wasteful and to costly. It also allowed us to artificially inflate world population to numbers that could not be reached otherwise, and can probably not be sustained without this.

All of this has had a number of by now well know adverse side-effects on the bio-sphere, but aside from that the issue for our civilization is that we have come to rely on this energy-surplus and probably cannot easily wean off of it as we run out. That's why I'd say it is critically unsustainable.

‘Civilisation’ has a specific definition historically. It involves divided labour and writing. That is why we know civilisation began in the middle-east.

P.s Iain McGilchrist makes a good case how we came to this point in his book Master and Emissary.
— TheMadMan
:100: Just the book I would have mentioned. — Wayfarer

I’m intrigued! Sounds like a must read. Anyone who’s read it… what grabbed you about the book, in a nutshell?

US civilisation is not the same the world over.

Is our civilization unbalanced? — 0 thru 9

And if so, is it towards yin or Yang? This answer needs to be obvious, and I think it is obvious — that there is and excess of yang in the culture; this is resulting in a climate rebalancing — too much heat, too many fires, too much creative energy leads to more water, sea level rise, and eventually the drowning of coastal cities.

The word “civilization” relates to the Latin word “civitas” or “city.” This is why the most basic definition of the word “civilization” is “a society made up of cities.”

Google.

And the culture has difficulty coping because it responds with male energy to "do something about it" instead of bringing the passivity of doing less to bear.

Too much talking, not enough listening, too much creating, not enough sustaining, too much sun, not enough shade. too much artificial light, not enough darkness. Too much movement, not enough stillness, too much individual, not enough community.

what grabbed you about the book, in a nutshell? — 0 thru 9

Hmm, I would say it clarified and solidified intuitions that I had but were not very clear to me. Basically he shows how these intuitions actually have brain correlates and he used neuroscience to prove intuitions that people had down the ages.

Ok

I voted other, because I think the idea that civilization should be a certain way is misguided. We invented civilization and keep on re-inventing it as we go along and as circumstances change... there's nothing like it that came before, no ideal model we can compare it to. So imbalanced compared to what? Some kind of imagined ideal balance? Nature perhaps? But nature isn't necessarily balanced either, sometimes it can reach temporary stable states for some duration, but that is by no means a given. — ChatteringMonkey

Thanks for your reply.

Wait a minute lol. Who said anything about civilization being compelled to be any certain or particular way? Civilization can be whatever it wants. And it will be so. But if we’d like to continue more than a century, we could consider respecting the laws of physics and biology. Being aware of all of the laws of nature, and following them. (Following all of them, not just those that are fun or make a profit).

The laws of nature do not change quickly, if at all. It is the circumstances of nature that change, often quickly. How could we live at all “against the laws of nature?”, one may ask. How indeed. Just because the consequences of living outside the law are delayed and not immediately felt, doesn’t negate their existence.

And yes, there are many models to guide us! Thank goodness for that. People lived on this planet for over a million year without making it almost uninhabitable. I’m counting any of the species named Homo, not just our current incarnation. Nature was their guide, and is our guide. In we fact we are nature, are entwined with all things and beings around us. We may ignore it, own it, or level it into a golf course vacation resort. But nature was good then as a model, and it still is. It’s becoming clear that our culture, brilliant and knowledgeable in many regards, has something to learn from the cultures that survived millennia.

I think (to be fair) you meant this first paragraph to be a disclaimer perhaps, before you commented about sustainability. (Sorry if I’m preaching to the choir, or even preaching at all. Not trying to write a manifesto lol. This is also a general statement and a reply to everyone in this thread :smile: ). Many feel that our current situation is dire. That seems to have been the consensus for many years. The differences in opinion mostly concern possible solutions. So any potential ideas must be considered. (Though any ideas that are a shameless grab at power masquerading as innovation can be immediately dismissed of course).

As the saying goes, “if you want to get out of the box, first you have to think outside of the box”. We in general have been repeating the same thinking and the same activities for centuries now. And here we are, so lucky to be living in such interesting times!

Let me add my own disclaimers. I totally approve of genuine science. Technology is somewhat different, because each created thing is different and has varied consequences. Questioning everything is part of science, perhaps the main part. We can’t go backwards, of course. Hunting and gathering as practiced by peoples long ago is not generally an option for most now. We must go forward. But in what way?

“Ancient wisdom” is a cliché and a marketing ploy. It’s very popular. It is allowed to exist for sale as long it’s not too questioning. I have a suspicion that this “wisdom” is definitely not taken seriously on the highest levels of power. I imagine that is thought of as quaint at best. (Even if some of the more clever leaders read ‘The Art of War’ and ‘The Tao Te Ching’). But are they honestly missing something? Or just pretending? Are the rulers of today content and happy with the status quo, simply because they are the rulers? (That’s my guess, unfortunately. But if rulers, elected and otherwise, are not leading well, then such people are part of the problem and lose all credibility).

What if there’s really and actually something from ancient / tribal cultures that can help on a large scale, as well as on a personal one? Even if I have great trouble even imagining the particular solution, the remedy appears coming from the past, from the simple people who came before us. I understand that we have a mistrust of anything seemingly tainted by being from primative people or by outdated mythology.

Of course, any partial solutions to be considered must be throughly examined and tested. Science all the way! (Hopefully disengaged from being under control by money). I say ‘partial solutions’ because there isn’t one big monolithic answer, I’m willing to wager. A patchwork solution, borrowing anything that works from anywhere it can be found!

At this point, we might do well to re-examine absolutely everything. :flower:

I think (to be fair) you meant this first paragraph to be a disclaimer perhaps, before you commented about sustainability. (Sorry if I’m preaching to the choir, or even preaching at all. Not trying to write a manifesto lol). Many feel that our current situation is dire. That seems to have been the consensus for many years. The differences in opinion mostly concern possible solutions. So any potential ideas must be considered. (Though any ideas that are a shameless grab at power masquerading as innovation can be immediately dismissed of course). — 0 thru 9

Yes it was meant as a sort of disclaimer or framing of how I think one can sensibly speak about these kind of things.

Our situation is dire, I agree with that. Where I usually disagree is not only concerning the possible solutions, but also with the typical analysis being given for our situation. There are these cultural pessimists today who blame our general culture, or see our problems as a result of a kind of moral failing of our societies/ the human species. While these things play their role no doubt, I think these are mostly downstream of the fact that we happened to unlock fossil fuels when we did. As a social species there is always the temptation to moralize everything and look for culprits to blame.

What if there’s really and actually something from ancient / tribal cultures that can help on a large scale, as well as on a personal one? Even if I have great trouble even imagining the particular solution, the remedy appears coming from the past, from the simple people who came before us. I understand that we have a mistrust of anything seemingly tainted by being from primative people or by outdated mythology.

Of course, any partial solutions to be considered must be throughly examined and tested! Science all the way! (Hopefully disengaged from being under control by money). I say ‘partial solutions’ because there isn’t one big monolithic answer, I’m willing to wager. A patchwork solution, borrowing anything that works from anywhere it can be found!

At this point, we might do well to re-examine absolutely everything. — 0 thru 9

It's not my mistrust for the primitive, or any kind of feeling of superiority that makes me doubt the value of the ideas of these ancient cultures, it's just the acknowledgement that our circumstances are totally different now. I believe that our cultural ideas developed in tandem with the material circumstances we find ourselves in... that is, I don't think they are universal or fixed, but are mostly tailored to a certain time and circumstance. Today's world is globalized and high tech, and also more densely populated and ecologically damaged. This I would presume needs different answers than ideas that worked a couple of millennia ago.

But I'm totally on board with finding inspiration in or borrowing ideas from the past if they make sense now, sure why not.

“Ancient wisdom” is a cliché and a marketing ploy. It’s very popular. It is allowed to exist for sale as long it’s not too questioning. I have a suspicion that this “wisdom” is definitely not taken seriously on the highest levels of power. I imagine that is thought of as quaint at best. (Even if some of the more clever leaders read ‘The Art of War’ and ‘The Tao Te Ching’). But are they honestly missing something? Or just pretending? Are the rulers of today content and happy with the status quo, simply because they are the rulers? (That’s my guess, unfortunately. But if rulers, elected and otherwise, are not leading well, then such people are part of the problem and lose all credibility). — 0 thru 9

Of course there are varying levels of understanding among leaders, as there is among people in general, but I think insofar they realize what's going on, they are rather clueless as to what they can do about it, and scared of the public backlash that is likely coming their way when things do go south. One shouldn't overestimate their individual power, they are always embedded in a party-political context wherein promises are made to their constituencies and stakeholders. Their problem is that, even if they wanted to, they probably couldn't implement the policies that would be a real solution to the problems we have because these typically don't have enough political support.

Our situation is dire, I agree with that. — ChatteringMonkey

But I'm totally on board with finding inspiration in or borrowing ideas from the past if they make sense now, sure why not. — ChatteringMonkey

Of course there are varying levels of understanding among leaders, as there is among people in general, but I think insofar they realize what's going on, they are rather clueless as to what they can do about it, and scared of the public backlash that is likely coming their way when things do go south. — ChatteringMonkey

:smile: :up: Thanks for your reply. I’d agree with those statements.

Do you have a favorite book / author that has tackled this extremely broad subject? (you know, core cultural beliefs, potential global catastrophe, a vision of the future, etc). Non-fiction or fictional… even a movie qualifies as literature (I’ll go out on a limb there lol).

Personally, The Lord of the Rings (books and movies) continues to impress me as a critique of modern culture, and a dramatization of parallel ideas in action. (Or something like that, all in wizard, hobbit, and elf costume, of course). What that amounts to… who knows?

Lord of the Rings is good, I definitely enjoyed the movies, but as a philosophy it is ultimately maybe a bit reactionary.

There's a ton about this. But maybe Charles C Mann, the wizards and the prophets. It's an interesting read if you want to understand two very opposing attitudes vis-a-vis progress and technology, and how they shaped different aspects of our world and the environmental movement.

Or maybe Nate Hagens specifically for this topic, he has a youtube channel and podcast that tries to look at all aspects of our current predicament and it's fairly easy to digest.

There is gradual impoverishment of the masses and an an overpopulated elite establishment -- too much money, too much education, too much desire for power, etc. and nowhere near enough slots into which all the low level, mid level, and high level elite can fit. The Upshot? On the one hand, upheaval among the fucked over as they attempt to cope with ever diminishing returns for ever greater effort. On the other hand the elite fuckers resort to vicious tactics to grab power. It's a game of musical chairs in which the number of chairs is fixed and the number of chair seekers is enlarged every round. Competition quickly loses any polite formalities. — BC

:100: :up: Meanwhile, the general public becomes less and less able to do anything substantial in protest. And we become more and more angry and divided. And that’s just the family dinners!

See End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration By Peter Turchin. Just published today so haven't had time to steal his ideas. — BC

Sounds juicy and dramatic! Thank you for the suggestion. :smile:

D. T. Suzuki, the eminent scholar of Zen Buddhism, one day made this sarcastic comment on the Christian tradition to his friends, American mythologist Joseph Campbell and psychoanalyst Carl Jung: “Nature against Man, Man against Nature; God against Man, Man against God; God against Nature, Nature against God; very funny religion!” (Daniel Odier) — 0 thru 9

Suzuki represents nondualism. 'Long and short define each other' is a typical non-dualist statement. The principle is that opposites only exist in relation to each other - which you also see in the ying-yang icon, although nondualism proper mainly developed in India and was imported into China with Buddhism.

Nondualism a very subtle philosophical attitude, not generally well-represented in Western philosophy, although you can find it if you know what you're looking for (see Nondualism in Western Thought, Greg Goode, free .pdf copy provided.) I've been studying it pretty well all my adult life in one form or another - I first encountered the Teachings of Ramana Maharishi, then Krishnamurti, then read many Buddhist texts, which are basically anchored in the non-dualist tradition. They arise from meditative awareness, samadhi, which is the rare and elusive state of self-transcendence.

As far as McGilchrist is concerned, I noticed his book Master and Emissary a few years ago - must admit I haven't read it, but read reviews and abstracts and listened to a couple of his talks. On the front page of his website, you read ‘Our talent for division, for seeing the parts, is of staggering importance – second only to our capacity to transcend it, in order to see the whole’. It's that 'holistic vision' that is missing in Western culture, although not altogether, there are individuals and schools of thought that see it. And it is becoming more part of mainstream culture - it's one of the legacies of the 60's generation.

I went to the very first Science and Nonduality conference, in 2009, in San Rafael, near San Francisco (you can find their website here https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/). Also attended a few subsequent conferences, it's become a regular fixture. They now have hundreds of recorded lectures on youtube. There's a ton of material out there now - too much, in fact! It's like getting a glass of water from a fire hydrant. Nevertheless, much great material to discover and explore.

Is our civilization critically imbalanced? How could applying Yin-Yang concepts help? — 0 thru 9

Maybe there's some substance in what you say but I'm not convinced our woes are a matter of 'balance' as such. Balance ( a more even distribution) seems too symmetrical, too neat a category to resolve the global issues we face. We live in a culture with distorted values and concomitant behaviours in numerous domains. To ask for balance IMO may not really address the problems. You could equality posit that what we need is a commitment to political transformation or a 'return to nature' crusade.

Any one of us can posit that the real problem is how capitalism operates and the urgent need for people to care more for others. But would balance be a substantive solution, or is it more about changing who we are, what we believe and who is in charge? Is wanting less of some things and more of other things about balance (in the colloquial, conversationalist sense, perhaps)? Not sure if it is at a deeper level.

Remember that 60's protest slogan? 'If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem'? And the related 'Be the change you want to see in the world'? (But then, I also remember the bumper sticker, popular in the 80's, 'Magic Happens', followed a few years later by the plaintive 'Still waiting for the Magic to Happen.')

You know, there is a mainstream idea that Christianity formed western culture but I think that is looking it upside down.
To my eyes its the other way around. It was the western "conquer the world" attitude inherited by paganism, kings and emperors, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the conquering hero myth that simply used selected christian dogma to their benefit.
In the 1st and 2nd century Christianity had a totally different spirit, it was more like Sufism, until Constantine the Great and the created church used christian beliefs modified to their preferences to control the masses and seize power.
"The people seem to embrace Christianity, we might as well use it to our benefit."
We can see this in how other forms of Christianity like Gnosticism were persecuted.

If you only look at Jesus' words it feels actually more like the eastern spirit than western.
To me the west looked more Judaic than Christian. — TheMadMan

:up: Yes, thank you. I think Jesus’s words and teachings were conveying a paradoxical, mystical, and non-dualistic message… in about the simplest way possible so his listeners could understand.

Agape, (the selfless infinite love that humans can potentially realize) is a radical and profound idea. I sometimes wonder what parables he would come up with concerning the world today.

Somehow the message got obscured (if not lost) by the politics, power, and popes. Fortunately, the spirit of love and compassion and wisdom is available for those who seek it.

And if so, is it towards yin or Yang? This answer needs to be obvious, and I think it is obvious — that there is and excess of yang in the culture; this is resulting in a climate rebalancing — too much heat, too many fires, too much creative energy leads to more water, sea level rise, and eventually the drowning of coastal cities.
The word “civilization” relates to the Latin word “civitas” or “city.” This is why the most basic definition of the word “civilization” is “a society made up of cities.”
Google.

And the culture has difficulty coping because it responds with male energy to "do something about it" instead of bringing the passivity of doing less to bear.

Too much talking, not enough listening, too much creating, not enough sustaining, too much sun, not enough shade. too much artificial light, not enough darkness. Too much movement, not enough stillness, too much individual, not enough community. — unenlightened

:100: Oh yes, definitely too much Yang. You are correct. Climate change / global warming fits right into that diagnosis. Such as imbalance affects everything and everyone, even before the chronic global symptoms manifest.

Although too much Yang energy is warlike and overly macho and can lead to a stagnant patriarchy, males are hurt by it too. They are taught to be less than half of the being that they really are and can fully be. This may not be as apparent as the damage done to the more obvious Yin people: women, children, etc. Many men wander the Earth like lonely hollow wraiths.

Suzuki represents nondualism. 'Long and short define each other' is a typical non-dualist statement. The principle is that opposites only exist in relation to each other - which you also see in the ying-yang icon, although nondualism proper mainly developed in India and was imported into China with Buddhism.

Nondualism a very subtle philosophical attitude, not generally well-represented in Western philosophy, although you can find it if you know what you're looking for (see Nondualism in Western Thought, Greg Goode, free .pdf copy provided.) I've been studying it pretty well all my adult life in one form or another - I first encountered the Teachings of Ramana Maharishi, then Krishnamurti, then read many Buddhist texts, which are basically anchored in the non-dualist tradition. They arise from meditative awareness, samadhi, which is the rare and elusive state of self-transcendence. — Wayfarer

:100: :up: Thanks for that! Couldn’t have said it better myself, so I won’t try lol. If nondualism were wine, we could use a drink right about now. Maybe 5 drinks.

A snippet of this insanity… Locked into ourselves completely and always. Hermetically sealed in the most maddening of echo chambers: our own minds. Other people fade into solipsistic fragments of our imagination, since they can’t be real. And where they oppose us, they must be fought and defeated! (one deludedly thinks).

Stop the dueling is a first step beyond dualism. Then one may see there are no hard and absolute boundaries between ourselves and anyone/anything/everything else. The cracks in one’s worldview offer a chance to escape the prison.

Maybe there's some substance in what you say but I'm not convinced our woes are a matter of 'balance' as such. Balance ( a more even distribution) seems too symmetrical, too neat a category to resolve the global issues we face. We live in a culture with distorted values and concomitant behaviours in numerous domains. To ask for balance IMO may not really address the problems. You could equality posit that what we need is a commitment to political transformation or a 'return to nature' crusade.

Any one of us can posit that the real problem is how capitalism operates and the urgent need for people to care more for others. But would balance be a substantive solution, or is it more about changing who we are, what we believe and who is in charge? Is wanting less of some things and more of other things about balance (in the colloquial, conversationalist sense, perhaps)? Not sure if it is at a deeper level. — Tom Storm

Thanks for your reply. Yes, my suggestion is an speculative attempt using imagination to ascertain the ‘foundational ideas’ of our culture. Thoroughly examining the invisible tracks that the (metaphorical) train of our civilization runs, so to speak. And see where the tracks are blocked or damaged. And speculate on repairs, improvements, or alternatives. This is primarily on an idea level, and concerns the flow of energy. Any and all energy in any form. Energy is matter is money is food is energy… on and on.

Another metaphor… Before the construction of a skyscraper begins, it is all ideas. Ideas in minds and on paper and computers. Drawings, numbers, calculations… The paper and computer are material, but the core is mental vision.

You mentioned the problems of how capitalism operates. Capitalism involves goods, services, and money. Money is in circulation, like the blood in a person. If the efficiency of the current circulation of money were evaluated by a doctor, the doctor would say that the circulatory system is extremely unhealthy. And they might say the civilization’s circulatory organs are so blocked that a heart attack is imminent. The doctor goes on with the bad news. The immune, digestive, and neurological systems are also strained to the point of collapse.

My theory is that those who ‘own the world’ are like someone boozing and eating themselves to death. Even when they agree with the doctor’s words, they refuse to change. Absolutely obstinate until moved by force or death.

Dozens of critical symptoms. Is there one cause? Two? Nine? Of course I’m not sure. This is all very vague. Any attempt at a big picture is going to be somewhat sketchy and vague by nature. What I’m mostly sure of is that there are critical imbalances (or illogical elements or unsustainably or unquenchable greed or… ) present, and that there is still a little time left to act.

As long as one is still alive and the world is not entirely a smoking garbage heap, there is still at least a little time.

Turchin is worth reading. Here's a precis of his argument...

Snipped from Atlantic article 2020…

Turchin has been warning for a decade that a few key social and political trends portend an “age of discord,” civil unrest and carnage worse than most Americans have experienced. In 2010, he predicted that the unrest would get serious around 2020.

Problems are a dark triad: a bloated elite class; declining living standards; and a government that can’t cover its financial positions. Of the three factors driving social violence, Turchin stresses most heavily “elite overproduction”.

In Saudi Arabia, princes and princesses are born faster than royal roles can be created for them. In the US, elites over­produce themselves through economic and educational upward mobility. Harvard degrees become like royal titles in Saudi Arabia. If lots of people have them, but only some have real power, the ones who don’t have power eventually turn on the ones who do. Elite jobs do not multiply as fast as elites do. There are still only 100 Senate seats,

Trumpism is a counter-elite movement. His government is packed with credentialed nobodies who were shut out of previous administrations. Bannon is a “paradigmatic example”. He grew up working-class, went to Harvard Business School, and got rich as an investment banker and by owning a small stake in the syndication rights to Seinfeld. None of that translated to political power until he allied himself with the common people.

As pandemic handouts show, the elite are jumpy. The final trigger of impending collapse tends to be state insolvency. At some point the elites have to pacify unhappy citizens with handouts and freebies—and when these run out, they have to police dissent and oppress people.

For medieval France, its noble class became glutted with second and third sons who had no castles or manors to rule over.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/can-history-predict-future/616993/

Lord of the Rings is good, I definitely enjoyed the movies, but as a philosophy it is ultimately maybe a bit reactionary.

There's a ton about this. But maybe Charles C Mann, the wizards and the prophets. It's an interesting read if you want to understand two very opposing attitudes vis-a-vis progress and technology, and how they shaped different aspects of our world and the environmental movement.

Or maybe Nate Hagens specifically for this topic, he has a youtube channel and podcast that tries to look at all aspects of our current predicament and it's fairly easy to digest. — ChatteringMonkey

Thanks for your message. I’ll check out Mann and Hagens. :clap:

Ok, I’ll bite lol… Just for fun… how is the philosophy of LOTR “reactionary”? (I take that term to mean ‘wishing to maintain a status quo or return to a previous condition’). Perhaps Tolkien’s depiction of a devolving world where nothing is what once was? (Ahh… the good old days! :halo: :sparkle: )

Thanks for sharing that! Reminds me of the saying ‘too many chiefs, not enough Indians”.
I guess when the regular folk have a deficiency of money and respect, and a surplus of chores, headaches, and blame, then everyone will wish to be ‘elite’. :wink:

The current western system is not philosophically coherent enough to be understood through Yin and Yang.

It has become a virtueless cult of power. Everything is understood through power. Everything revolves around power. Everything may be sacrificed for the sake of power.

Critically imbalanced, yes. In the sense that chimpanzee society works on the same principles.

The current western system is not philosophically coherent enough to be understood through Yin and Yang. — Tzeentch

Please elaborate! (Assuming you mean ‘the actual game-plan real politic’ of WC? And not the countless philosophies that have sprouted from within… and often opposed to… western civilization?)

It has become a virtueless cult of power. Everything is understood through power. Everything revolves around power. Everything may be sacrificed for the sake of power. — Tzeentch

Power here = ‘hard power’? Lawyers, guns and money? (so to speak. As opposed to the concept of ‘soft power’ which relies on influence. Cooperation and convincing, rather than coercion.)

Critically imbalanced, yes. — Tzeentch

Agreed! :100:

In the sense that chimpanzee society works on the same principles. — Tzeentch

Wait a minute… you wouldn’t bad mouth my ancestors, would you??? :grin: :monkey: