I think the gap between the heights of human knowledge and values and the depths of the mass-mind has never been greater. There is an economic-power and awareness-morality schism that it seems to me will eventually result in some kind of catastrophe.

I wonder about the emergence of the 'mass mind' and how it has developed. It may be due to collective nihilism, especially in relation to so many social problems, especially climate change. Or, it may be generated by the media as the driven by the powerful elite. For some time, I have been questioning whether there are deliberate strategies for population reduction beneath the surface of politics. But, I don't wish to fall into conspiracy theory too easily. It may be so unconscious, with so many in powerful positions floundering to know what to do.

The danger of it all having a catastrophic effect could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the apocalyptic scenario or as a literal 'end of history'. There was the idea of the 'new age', but this fell flat. But, I am sure that so many people wish for peace and a better world...

'violence, hatred, toxic culture and politics, and domestication of the masses due to consumerism and corporate greed have led the world, and especially America, to a tipping point. And yet, for all the world's problems, despite the seemingly hopeless place that we find ourselves in, there is always a chance for a new start'. — Jack Cummins

It seems to me there are many, much more dramatic, cases of all of that in just about any given time in history, some place or land with a person astute and aware enough to make such a musing.

Whether or not information overload gives us a skewed perspective or whether that perspective is in fact accurate and was just never part of the zeitgeist (awareness) of the average person before the advent of the modern information age is also something to consider.

Sometimes, not necessarily in this case, it's better the devil you know. Life on Earth has always been full of hardship since time immemorial, the idea of an entire planet with thousands of different peoples, languages, and cultures in varying states of progress having everyone in it getting along at all times borderlines absurd, unfortunately. Though yes, progress can and is being made. That alone should be enough to inspire hope.

This leads to the question of is it the end of civilisation or is there potential for transformation? Is the idea of transformation mere romanticism or have people become too engulfed by nihilism? I am asking about the nature of values underlying politics. — Jack Cummins

I'd highly suggest a mere regression of human nature or refinement is the furthest thing from an "end of civilization", even writ-large.

It's a curious thing, really. The more time people have not securing their next meal the more time they have to complain about things that never seemed to bother them very much before. Seems to me like a predictable pattern present throughout history. Civilization forms from a traveling group of nomadic peoples when a land suitable for long-term sustenance is found. Permanent settlements are built, goods are produced, innovation begins, man becomes entertained with the arts and sciences (Jersey Shore and Angry Birds being modern albeit lowbrow derivatives). From this point on the pressing concerns of pre-Industrial man begin to fade to distant memory. No more (or significantly less) worrying if an enemy party will raid one's home and pillage ones goods and women and children, less worrying if one would not survive the upcoming winter or harvest due to heated dwellings and storage of food, etc, etc. Instead, something new occupies his daily thought: Excess. Frivolity. "First world problems", as some call it. Before long he forgets how even to survive the hardships he once faced easily, completely vulnerable if they were to suddenly reappear and become ones living reality once more. In short, man becomes comfortable. Too comfortable he begins to make his own discomfort, almost by some cruel trick of fate.

Alleviation of poverty and proliferation of quality education seems to be the golden ticket as far as improving a given society in the long term in the modern age. Poverty leads to stress at best, crime at worst. Poor education leads to poor choices and lack of opportunity to have a function in a rapidly changing world of technology and innovation.

There's always potential. But nothing is incentivized anymore. Before, fitness and having many children was incentivized by nature, if you planned to live to old age. Morality and kindness to one another was incentivized by the omnipresent zeitgeist of belief in a vengeful god who punishes wickedness Now, you don't even have to be able to walk to ride a mobility scooter through Wal-Mart and get a month's worth of groceries. You can be as vitriolic and cruel to an old lady on the street if you'd like, provided no codified laws are broken. Some of these distinct changes in society are not necessarily bad things, but they all have unintended consequences.

Use your head, can't you, use your head, you're on earth, there's no cure for that! — Samuel Beckett, Endgame

My reading of "great histories" informs me that civilization is always on the brink of collapse. Periods of long, gradual decline culminate in sudden unforeseeable crashes (à la chaotic systems (e.g. avalanches, cancers)). Besides increasing entropy (i.e. environmental degradation & destruction, runaway dominance of accumulated disinformation), endemic political and cultural corruption seems the recurring culprit.

Recently in the late great XXth Century: both World Wars brought civilization conspicuously closer to the brink; both global pandemics (1918-20, 2020-21); "The Great Depression" (1929-1940); "The Cold War" nuclear brinksmanship – punctuated by The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) – kept the (settler-colonizer "first") world on the brink (1949-1989); and, last but not least, rapidly accelerating industrialization-caused Global Warming primarily by former Imperial Powers across the Northern Hemisphere (1820s - present) ... to name a few rationally undeniable 'processes' which have been stress-testing modern global civilization (many roots of which are vestiges of premodern revolutions-schisms, imperial wars, "Dark Ages", migrations-diseases, etc).

According to recorded history (ca 5,000 BCE), Jack, all civilizations have been built bricolage-like from and amid the ruins of previous civilizations. We are just "cursed", as the Chinese say, to be "living in interesting times" where the hazards – black swans – of collapse are observable and even measureable.

It may be that so much in life and history was of great dramas, but so much has changed with technology. Nuclear weapons have been present in the last century and this one. For many years after ctitical incidents of Hiroshama, and a few others, they were seen as a deterrent. However, they are being used increasingly and it is not clear how far this will go and how the development of this will be affected alongside AI.

When you speak of how the increasing use of aids such as mobility scooters people don't need to be able to walk much, it shows how far people have begun to expect longetivity. But, this may not continue as life in the first world countries becomes impoverished and tougher. The first world countries may become like the third world gradually. It is likely that the flourishing of the first world was only possible due to the exploitation of the developing nations. The third world countries are also seeing a cost of living crisis. It comes down to the problem of energy resources and sustainability.

It is true that civilisations have always been on the verge of collapse. There has been the collapse of great empires, Egypt and Rome. However, the question is whether this is similar or different with climate change and nuclear weapons. It is impossible to predict what may happen because some aspects are beyond human control. The cosmos is larger than us. Weather may be affected by human life and abuse of nature. But there are wider patterns, such as potential ice ages and dangers like meteorites from out of space.

A lot does depend on whether history is linear or cyclical. The way in which the first and second world wars preceded a time of great change, especially the 1960s, is significant. It may be that there lows and highs in history and that is why it is hard to know if this is the end or part of a process of potential metamorphosis. I wonder if there may be cycles within spirals of evolution but, ultimately the larger picture is beyond our scope of epistemology because it is about the 'black swans' od future unknown variables.

This leads to the question of is it the end of civilisation or is there potential for transformation? — Jack Cummins

It's an interesting question, but to this either or, I have to say 'both'. Economically, we are approaching the end of the game of Monopoly. Once someone owns the whole world, and everyone else is bankrupt, the economic game has to end and be restarted with a new division of the assets.

Environmentally, we are in overshoot, and the human population is going to crash. That's going to be unpleasant.

But those that survive may well preserve something of civilisation and even learn from our mistakes. Certainly, they will learn the value of mutuality, and the cost of individualism.

:up: :up:

If you haven't already, consider this article on the impersonal forces which tend to collapse civilizations (or empires) ...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/30/the-deep-historical-forces-that-explain-trumps-win

My previous post makes a similiar point: the cycles of "rise and fall" are envitable.

The article is an interesting read and even though it is about American politics there is so much interaction globally. Elon Musk has been involved in the petition for another election in England. Of course, so many in this country are deeply unhappy with Keir Starmer's budget because it threatens economic growth. Despite a rhetoric of getting almost everyone back to work, it is likely that the budget will lead to far greater unemployment because more businesses are likely to get rid of workers or close down.

Generally, I agree that history is cyclical, I am just concerned that what is happening now may be the point of no return. If there is a Third World War it may be a major reset in which so many die throughout the world. It may be so extreme that those who are at the lowest economic scale are powerless to rebel. This is because there is such an increase in authoritarianism in so many places and AI is likely to protect the interests of the elite.

It is questionable what will happen next and beyond. If many die, and possibly other life forms it will end up being a time of devastation and rethink, like in the genre of post-apocalyptic fiction. In some places, life may already be in the post-apocalyptic era, although there have been many previous catastrophic scenarios in history, such as in plagues.

What bothers me is there seems to be a lot of indifference, or maybe there is fear of the question. In particular, I notice that very few people have contributed to this thread so far whereas if it was one about qualia or a knotty problem of language it would probably be a long thread by now. This lack of interest in the topic may be because it is speculative, or because there are other threads on news and politics. But, I partly wonder if it is an area that people are trying to avoid thinking about because it is a philosophical blindspot to be feared. That is because such devastation, destruction and suffering may arise.

To some extent, dwelling on the issues of the thread too much can be toxic to one's own wellbeing. Each person has only so much power and influence. However, if there is imminent catastrophe, the survivors may be left thinking how could have gone differently. It is impossible to predict the extent of destruction and how many people and lifeforms will survive if there was a full-scale nuclear war. Any future generations of survivors may look back and have to consider mistakes in order to create a different kind of political and economic order.

It may be that so much in life and history was of great dramas, but so much has changed with technology. — Jack Cummins

So true. Particularly about the nuclear aspect. No longer will the largest scale of war possible be fought by ground troops with potential to decimate only localized, contained areas leaving the majority of humanity unaffected. Now, the pursuit of war has much higher stakes. If a major world power decides to use a nuclear weapon, and they do not successfully disable all non-allied nuclear response, there is a real potential for the end of all human life on Earth, at least, a collapse/reset of all first-world civilization resulting in levels of both severity and widespread proliferation of suffering never seen before. Frightening stuff, really. Truly game-changing, yes.

When you speak of how the increasing use of aids such as mobility scooters people don't need to be able to walk much, it shows how far people have begun to expect longetivity. — Jack Cummins

That it does. As well as the fact that less is required, through relatively now-cheap and easily-produced innovation, to live a dignified life with basic needs met without natural incentive that once decided who survived, who did not, and to what quality of life. My implication being that, absent of struggle and toil, man becomes lazy and unmotivated to do much of anything, including contributing to the overall well-being of his society and that of his neighbor.

But, this may not continue as life in the first world countries becomes impoverished and tougher. The first world countries may become like the third world gradually. It is likely that the flourishing of the first world was only possible due to the exploitation of the developing nations. — Jack Cummins

Anything is possible, sure. However, when it comes to most technologies and innovation, whether for better or worse, "the cat is already out of the bag", so to speak. The first computer took an extraordinary amount of time and resources to construct, taking up an entire wall of a medium-sized room. Now, you can likely pick up a used smartwatch from a Goodwill bin that has triple the computing power built by less than a dollars worth of materials. The overarching theme behind invention is, in many ways, a story of facilitating one's laziness. Sure, more of maximizing one's effort and time in order to greater advance one's life and that of his society, blah blah. Point being, even cheap and relatively outdated technology and innovation all but eliminates the "old world struggle" or "unquenchable human spirit" that one previously needed in order to live any sort of quality existence. Again, all things considered, it makes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" seem all the more, not just rational and tolerable, but wise.

The third world countries are also seeing a cost of living crisis. It comes down to the problem of energy resources and sustainability. — Jack Cummins

Another great point. The restless, determined spirit of man is at times a foolish one. Those who play it safe, finish last, the stubborn man says. Yet such self-assurance begets recklessness, which is seldom without consequence. Asbestos in housing, lead in paint, being notable examples off the top of my head. Who knows how many persons were irreversibly affected by such "progress".

The world is like a garage where everyone has their car running. It's argued that the actual human impact is less than feared in comparison to natural events such as wildfires, volcanic eruptions, even cosmic radiation, etc. I'm not a scientist, but I do air on the side of caution religiously. The less pollution is irrefutably better for all that lives. One would hope for some sort of "miracle energy", similar to cold fusion or something of the sort (I don't keep track of such). Of course, one knows what that would mean. Man's eternal pursuit to weaponize anything and everything that can be made to serve such a function. Hopelessness is easy to find oneself ensnared by, admittedly. But who knows. Maybe it'll all work out just fine. :grin:

There is a lot of confusion at the moment. Part of that is a deliberate attempt to disempower, which stems from the usual power seeking of politics, exaggerated by the urgency of the times. And of course it is always comfortable to find or concoct some 'other' to take the blame as times get harder and our way of life is disrupted.

But there are a great many people working already to adapt and ameliorate the situation; they don't make the news because a forest burning makes a good picture, but a forest planting looks like nothing happening. It is the way of weakness that will triumph over the way of power, but the power will have to exhaust itself and that will not be pretty.

There is a conflict between the global economy, national identity, and the modern radical individuality. What will an individual sacrifice to save the world? One cannot even ask this question, because the global institutions do not exist to ask it, and the Nationalities are dissolving into mere sovereignties owned by individuals. So there is no leadership at all. Compare that with the crisis of Britain at the outbreak of WW2; Churchill could ask that of the population and convince them to stand together. Not now.

I am just concerned that what is happening now may be the point of no return. — Jack Cummins

Nothing new in this sort of "end times" anxiety except for the historical circumstances and particulars.

Nothing new in this sort of "end times" anxiety except for the historical circumstances and particulars. — 180 Proof

Oh, how I'd love to believe that. Surely the nuclear dynamic has some footing? I suppose one could simply say "at any time an asteroid or GRB (gamma-ray burst) could strike Earth, either totally or partially, levying the power of a dozen nuclear weapons; this was true 50,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, and remains just as true this very day". But surely the idea of a human finger being all that stands in the way from what could very well result in planetary nuclear desolation is at least mildly concerning and a new dynamic found only in the past century? :chin:

So what's your point?

Well, just that many would disagree with your initial premise for the reason(s) stated is all. Nothing contentious, just if you don't acknowledge other people's perspectives and why they hold them, regardless of their overall factual nature or relevance, your concerns will likely fall on deaf ears is all. Which will often undermine the efficiency of any related action or goal you're trying to accomplish or establish.

I agree with you in principle, just as far as the end or major decline of life on Earth, I'd much rather trust the universe alone without having the warring nature of man or malfunction of his systems to be added to the mix is all. Wouldn't you?

I don't see the relevance of your post to either the OP topic or my posts.

I would argue that individualism has not yet caught on. No one even knows what it means, because its principles have hardly been expressed or advocated in the historical record. If they have, then it was forever against the dominant collectivist ideologies that imprisoned them, or used as a snarl-word from communists, fascists, and arch-conservatives wherever anyone spoke of freedom. At any rate, not a single individualistic principle has been codified in any modern system.

Even though the 20th century may have proven the collectivist project evil and wrong, the species has been sat upon and inundated for millennia with the teachings and actions of it, and the interventions of its avatars. Because of this long history it is still regnant in the language, hearts, and minds of most, including in Western democracies.

But, like your author implies, there is reason to hope we are progressing in the proper direction.

I don't see the relevance of your post to either the OP topic or my posts. — 180 Proof

Odd.

OP: We are at a historically-unique crisis.
You: We are not.
Me: Oh but in some ways we are.

Seems rather straightforward. :confused:

No matter. We both eagerly await OP's appraisal of our respective opinions on the matter of the uniqueness and severity of modern crises and whether or not a sort of Renaissance could occur. :ok:

Pardon. It was your 'reasoning' that I didn't find relevant.

This leads to the question of is it the end of civilisation or is there potential for transformation? Is the idea of transformation mere romanticism or have people become too engulfed by nihilism? I am asking about the nature of values underlying politics. — Jack Cummins

None of the above. Who can say what happens next? I am not even sure anyone knows precisely what our current situation is.

We do seem to be in the grip of nostalgia projects and a new age of romanticism. Every second pundit seems to want to restore Neoplatonism or God or make America great again. There's a prevailing narrative doing the rounds that we have 'lost something' and need to regain it. I'm not taken with this story.

With the use of technology and computers, the biggest threat is probably cyber-attack and it is being used already. Misuseof data and its destruction can be lethal. Banks and hospitals rely on computers. When these go down so much fails, operations are cancelled and people cannot access money for the basics. The extent of a full-scale cyber-attack, or of many happening, may do as much damage as sophisticated weapons.

As far as an actual nuclear war, so many are fearful of the consequences. But, there is a danger of some 'crazy' leader. So it matters who is in power, especially as people become 'lazy' and 'lazy thinkers'. People in the West may have become too comfortable and complacent in their daily lives to think with clarity about the widest consequences of action and future generations. This is the likely reason why the problem of climate change has not been addressed at an earlier stage.

The problem with the confusion is that so much is not disentangled and the factors you speak of are so important. As far as politics, the issue of 'others' is central. The nature of projection is its core feature, with the idea of the 'enemy'. There is always an enemy to be attacked, with evil being projected onto Sadam Hussein or some other critical figure. It involves the attempt to destroy 'evil', and Hitler himself saw his own mission as being about this, eliminating the 'inferior', which he identified in Jews, homosexuals etc. Projection of 'evil' onto others is the main dynamic factor in war.

The news does focus on the sensations of 'evil' as well, because it sells. This means that those working for peace and just causes often go unnoticed. When I spend too much time reading news it can skew one's perception and be demoralising. Recently, my phone had some problems and not seeing horrific news headlines popping up on it for several days was extremely liberating. Doom and gloom can have such a detrimental mpact on mental wellbeing.

As far as what would one sacrifice to save the world, the secular beliefs may make the situation so different from any previous world wars. That is due to loss of belief in life after death. Soldiers, terrorists and martyrs may be spurred on by thought of a reward in an afterlife.

The problem may be that political leaders lack wisdom or any vision based on philosophy. — Jack Cummins

Lots of politicians use philosophical visions (e.g. socialism, liberalism, conservatism, fascism) as means for their political ends. They may also use wisdom whenever it servers their will to power, but when it doesn't they'll be quick to relativize or revise the meanings of their philosophies. When their main goal is power, anything goes, including war.

As far as politics, the issue of 'others' is central. The nature of projection is its core feature, with the idea of the 'enemy'. There is always an enemy to be attacked, with evil being projected onto Sadam Hussein or some other critical figure. It involves the attempt to destroy 'evil', and Hitler himself saw his own mission as being about this, eliminating the 'inferior', which he identified in Jews, homosexuals etc. Projection of 'evil' onto others is the main dynamic factor in war. — Jack Cummins

You are so right, and this is the psychological analysis of the social system. But it is important to remember that 'projection' is itself something that we project onto the other. And the other is the unemployed, the rich, the foreign, the religious, the heretical, the ethnic-other, the left, the right, gay, trans, female, ... Projection is the inevitable result of identification — only no-one is immune.

The idea of 'end times' and the 'end of the world' has always been a human concern, especially in Christendom. My original anxiety about the end of the world came in the context of Catholicism and reading the 'Book of Revelation' as an adolescent. I can also remember hearing rumours of writings stored in a vault at the Vatican regarding end times. I grew up with a fear of the apocalypse to come and going back to the early Christian's, they expected an imminent end of days.

However, what I found was that the idea of the end of the world existed outside the Christian context or the prophecies of Nostradamus. The threat of nuclear warfare meant that it was possible for human beings to unleash it. My understanding is that Reagan saw himself as preparing for Armageddon in the development of the arms race. The millennium and the one before this came with so many fantasised predictions. Then, there was talk of the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012 and the world continued.

However, in the last few years it does seem that there have been such stark developments, especially since and around the time of the pandemic. I have been wondering about this at the same time as questioning ideas of religion on this forum. Also, reading writings on 'the end of history' by Baudrillard and Fukuyama have made me wonder where history is going. The present news headlines which I have read about imminent Third World War by Putin's use of missiles and threat to the West, as well as the ongoing process of climate change make the idea of the end of the world seem as real in a secular context as in a religious one.

It is hard to know how much is alarmist and whether the media is hyping it up. At the same time, there is some underlying idea of a 'New World Order'. However, what this would entail is not exactly clear. Would it be a more harmonious relationships between nations? Or, would it be a form of totalitarian authoritarianism? All of these ideas form a subtext of human thought and it is likely that the mythical idea of the 'end times' has an influence on the shaping of history and how people live.

In thinking of individualism, it is likely that that its historical development has often been about outer as opposed to inner ones. It has been primarily about materialistism and the concerns of ego. The other side to this would be about the development of human potential of each individual. There is an obvious link between the idea of individual and social transformation. With consumer materialism the idea of transformation may have got lost. One significant developed was transhumanism which is about technological innovation mainly as opposed to transformation of consciousness.

... it is likely that the mythical idea of the 'end times' has an influence on the shaping of history and how people live. — Jack Cummins

:up: :up:

Projection is happening in all spheres of the social system and, to some extent, it is hard to withdraw all projections. The current backlash against trans and so much of the debate about what a 'real woman' is related to projection. The scapegoats for projection change and shift, whether it is gay people, the unemployed or the mentally ill. The roots of prejudice, including racism and sexism stem from projections of otherness. It involves splitting of good and evil in childhood development as argued by Melanie Klein. It is a central factor in social conflict and as a source which generates war, including religious wars.

The will to power can have such an impact, especially in politics. It involves the ego's attempt to assert itself as master. Ego is needed as an aspect of narrative identity. However, it can be brutal and social ethics involves a deeper sense of responsibility.