Navarro
Well-known member
I thought the lower classes were going to be genengineered to be less intelligent?
History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History
- Thread starter FriedCFour
- Start date
I thought the lower classes were going to be genengineered to be less intelligent?
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
That would be an unfortunate imitation of the above. But it would maintain an everlasting social stability.
*That is my idea fixee-what is important to me is the long lasting-ness of a government or society. Ideally one that isn’t Brave New World. But a kingdom which shall have no end.
The nightmare scenario I envision terrifies me because it is a dark mirror of my golden dream.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Then social stability isn't bloody worth it. As much as I hate to quote traitors "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
I want an order that has no chaos or strife or disruption. Where all are happy and contented. Not drugged or brainwashed, but truly deeply joyful, envious of nothing and no one.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Do you see where you went wrong?
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
I’m not wrong.
I want an everlasting righteous hierarchy. Composed of men who are as virtuous as Enoch.
I want a society of men that righteous.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
Yes, and that brings me to tears. That is how deeply, I despise the rotten world we live in.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
You are. Because your perfect world is populated by man as you want him to be instead of what he is. In order to create this world, you'd have to exert totalitarian top down control and extensive social conditioning. If you did that to Gorillas to make an ideal habitat for them, people would rightfully call it animal abuse.
Rotten or imperfect? I for one adore our world's imperfections, as it introduces an element of chance that produces life's little miracles. And even if I agreed with some lunatics that man is inherently sinful, this comes to mind.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
I acknowledge man is who he is. And that is part of the reason for my deep pessimism. What I want is for his nature to be changed.
Children are burned by their parents with cigarettes, criminals walk free and laugh in their mugshots, and the natural world is being destroyed by human expansion.
Read any story about sexual abuse or some utter piece of filth escaping justice and tell me this world is not rotten.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
maybe it is....but it's not your place to decide whether it is fit to stand.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Per the scenario put forth by @Skallagrim up-thread, I think I’ve come up with an interpretation for the tyrant to come, should such a future indeed materialize. While it’s probably futile to pin down his (or maybe her) exact name, maybe for the purposes of discussion, calling them something like ‘Jack Dammer’ sounds appropriate to me, given both his unparalleled depravity and the symbolism of his last name (i.e. its resemblance to the word damn or damned).
Going by what’s been predicted about him so far, I more or less envision him as this terrifying, borderline ridiculous combination of Goge Vandire from Warhammer 40K and the Lesser Mao from AH.com’s Fear, Loathing, and Gumbo on the Campaign Trail ’72. That is, a supremely deranged, incredibly egotistical omnicidal maniac who pretends to be the populist messiah shortly after seizing power…and goes completely bonkers after annihilating his opposition and establishing a proper foothold in his conquests abroad. Endless blood purges, public executions, industrialized death camps modeled after those of Nazi Germany’s, routine “cullings” every two seconds that wipe out millions of people at a time, and war crimes that’d make even Imperial Japan shudder. First-resort nuclear strikes, weaponizing bubonic plague and other cataclysmic diseases, an institutionalized doctrine of appointing the world’s worst psychopaths to “take care of” any remaining survivors, turning on anyone and everyone other than himself on a dime out of an insatiable thirst for blood, and so on and so forth. In short, imagine Dammer’s America as the nightmarish three-way lovechild of a Third Reich that wins WW2 and successfully subjugates European Russia, North Korea writ large, and the more bloodthirsty tendencies of the Khmer Rouge (minus its sheer anti-modernism), and that more or less sums up how I’d personally characterize worst-case neo-Caesar. If @Skallagrim predicts a self-destructive terror regime more horrific than anything we’ve ever seen before, Dammer’s America is probably it.
Going by what’s been predicted about him so far, I more or less envision him as this terrifying, borderline ridiculous combination of Goge Vandire from Warhammer 40K and the Lesser Mao from AH.com’s Fear, Loathing, and Gumbo on the Campaign Trail ’72. That is, a supremely deranged, incredibly egotistical omnicidal maniac who pretends to be the populist messiah shortly after seizing power…and goes completely bonkers after annihilating his opposition and establishing a proper foothold in his conquests abroad. Endless blood purges, public executions, industrialized death camps modeled after those of Nazi Germany’s, routine “cullings” every two seconds that wipe out millions of people at a time, and war crimes that’d make even Imperial Japan shudder. First-resort nuclear strikes, weaponizing bubonic plague and other cataclysmic diseases, an institutionalized doctrine of appointing the world’s worst psychopaths to “take care of” any remaining survivors, turning on anyone and everyone other than himself on a dime out of an insatiable thirst for blood, and so on and so forth. In short, imagine Dammer’s America as the nightmarish three-way lovechild of a Third Reich that wins WW2 and successfully subjugates European Russia, North Korea writ large, and the more bloodthirsty tendencies of the Khmer Rouge (minus its sheer anti-modernism), and that more or less sums up how I’d personally characterize worst-case neo-Caesar. If @Skallagrim predicts a self-destructive terror regime more horrific than anything we’ve ever seen before, Dammer’s America is probably it.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
It would be a fascinating future history story, I think. If you want a look at someone else's (explicitly fanciful!) take on it, I'll heartily recommend John J. Reilly's Spengler's Future.
To add a bit of context: Reilly was the man who got me into macrohistory to begin with. He passed away eight years ago, and is sorely missed. He naturally had his own interpretations of all sorts of things, regularly at odds with my own, but he was always intelligent and insightful.
His personal website has since vanished from the internet, but his writings are being re-posted by another man who knew him, mr. Ben Espen (whom I do not know beyond this, to be clear). Spengler's Future, in particular, is archived here. Note that it was written in the early '90s. Note also that Reilly took his Spenglerianism 'straight', emulating some of Spengler's cultural categorisations that I find highly doubtful (e.g. "Magian Culture" as a concept). As Reilly says himself: the entire work should not be taken very literally. (Nor should my own prognostications, for that matter. As I often say: macrohistorical predictions offer an impressionist painter's view of the future, not a photograph.)
Reilly's book takes the shape of a very simply bit of code, that puts dates and events from different cultures side by side. Reilly then adds interpretative text to the 'results'. What we get is a fabulous "future history". It is, at times, very grim -- and Reilly's motto, you must know, was "Spengler with a smile". So this was a tale he saw as relatively optimistic! And that's saying something, because the section about the "Caesar" figure in a culture's history is literally called At The Court of the Antichrist.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Thanks for the tip-off. I will admit that my interpretation may have taken things to the extreme. But so long as we're discussing cataclysmic, end-of-an-era future scenarios...well, why not? If what you've sketched out features the world going to hell in the final years of this century and the Antichrist rearing his monstrous head, then I'd think that casting him as a bizarre combination of Goge Vandire and the Lesser Mao is one possibility. Perhaps it's remote even by the standards of chaos that'd make the period from 1914 to 1945 look like a minor dress rehearsal, but still. As such, I'm curious as to how you might assess this 'Jack Dammer' character that I've come up with in more specific terms?
That said, I'll certainly take a look at the links you've provided. I am not, to be clear, treating the bread and butter of what people have forecast as Gospel, though I nonetheless foresee hard times ahead of us and am thinking about prepping accordingly. However, I'd also like to stress that nothing in this reply of mine is meant to be hostile or defensive, so I sincerely apologize if it strikes anyone as overtly critical or uncouth.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
What you have outlined is not in any way beyond the limits of what I'd consider plausible. Although it is, yes, very much an 'extreme' example. Since I mentioned Reilly just now; I think I recall him noting, about the civil wars that close modernity, that such conflict are about naked power. Essentially devoid of ideology. Just about who gets to sit on the throne. Spengler notes this as well, but Reilly adds that this means that such wars are purely between the contenders. Weapons that specifically target the populace are less likely to be used because of that. The "bystanders" no longer matter.
On the other hand, WMDs used in a 'punitive' or 'demonstrative' manner by a 'Caesar' or an 'Augustus' are of course quite possible.
Nothing in your comments has ever appeared to me as such. On the contrary.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Given how hatred will also reign supreme on all sides at that point, it'd also be a deadly race to exacting vengeance on one's foes. As well as taking out all that pent-up anger in ways straight out of Oskar Dirlewagner's wet dreams, even aside from the lust for power and sheer, all-consuming animosity at play here.
That's one of the points I was after when characterizing my 'Jack Dammer' interpretation, yes. Granted, he goes further than even the other ruthless players by being an omnicidal maniac who plans to have the entire nuclear arsenal unleashed shortly after he dies, just to spite a world that he deems unworthy to live on without a "living god" like himself at the helm. Not even Hitler was that crazy and self-absorbed as far as I know, especially given his real-life reluctance to deploy chemical/biological weapons against the Allies as a means to an end (let alone as an end unto itself).
Even if nukes and other WMDs are mainly deployed in a punitive capacity and little else, the possibility that even the least terrible players with meaningful clout are still more unhinged than the supreme leader of the Third Reich says a lot about what the demise of modernity that you've sketched out, should it prove broadly correct. As such, I'm still of the opinion that we could very well see World War III finally be fought, given how the fighting can easily spill into other corners of the world and how other, more opportunistic nations will take advantage of the chaos and confusion.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
One thing Spengler doesn't consider is black swan events. The Mesoamerican civilization encountered one and then its days were only a matter of how long it took the Spaniards to hear the word gold.
Any number of things may throw the cycle out of whack, asteroid impacts, alien landings/invasions, a massive plague which cuts down populations by 50% or more.
Not to mention, some sort of transformative end of history event-either an AI/Singularity, or in religion-the last day/end of time, or some shift in human consciousness, or awareness. A fictional example might be First Contact from Star Trek-the cycles of human history could be said to have ended once the Vulcans landed in Montana as man became aware of a universe outside of himself, and other beings, so the notion of a common human family-becomes a much more solid idea, when aliens land outside.
Spengler assumes in fairness that either these things won't happen, or if they do happen further discussion is rather pointless. That said, macrohistory loses any value if some massive event does radically change the trajectory of civilizations.
As it can't account for such shifts.
More than that, at most it can predict general themes, and can tell one very little about the far future. There very well may be a civilization that arises a thousand years from now, that looks and has very different values and conceptions than anything we can imagine so far.
The time scales involved in macrohistory means its analytical value is also somewhat limited-we're in a Caesarian age IIRC or close to one, that's a fair analysis, but its one that can tell us very little about the present. Except maybe, personalist politics will become more the norm and social tensions are high.
Any number of things may throw the cycle out of whack, asteroid impacts, alien landings/invasions, a massive plague which cuts down populations by 50% or more.
Not to mention, some sort of transformative end of history event-either an AI/Singularity, or in religion-the last day/end of time, or some shift in human consciousness, or awareness. A fictional example might be First Contact from Star Trek-the cycles of human history could be said to have ended once the Vulcans landed in Montana as man became aware of a universe outside of himself, and other beings, so the notion of a common human family-becomes a much more solid idea, when aliens land outside.
Spengler assumes in fairness that either these things won't happen, or if they do happen further discussion is rather pointless. That said, macrohistory loses any value if some massive event does radically change the trajectory of civilizations.
As it can't account for such shifts.
More than that, at most it can predict general themes, and can tell one very little about the far future. There very well may be a civilization that arises a thousand years from now, that looks and has very different values and conceptions than anything we can imagine so far.
The time scales involved in macrohistory means its analytical value is also somewhat limited-we're in a Caesarian age IIRC or close to one, that's a fair analysis, but its one that can tell us very little about the present. Except maybe, personalist politics will become more the norm and social tensions are high.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
It's true that macrohistorical analysis can't predict the... well, the inherently unpredictable. Asimov famously wove that issue in the Foundation, with the Mule being that exact problem made manifest.
However, it's not correct to say Spengler didn't consider it. On the contrary: he explictly mentions such issues, and notes that in most cases, cultures are only familiar with their own context, and can't appropriately prepare for an issue from without that context. (European arriving in the New World is the famous example, naturally.) In his latter writings, he even began to consider the notion that increased communication increases awareness of other 'players' (as it were). To the effect that it both increases one's chances of influencing what the neighbour is doing... and decreases the neighbour's chances of being caught by utter suprise (he also has greater awareness of you).
Regarding the examples raised:
-- Note that the Black Death (~40% population decline in the affected regions) did not meaningfully affect things at all. The population bounced back like nobody's business, to the point that a century later, heavily-afflicted Europe evidently had enough people to begin colonising all sorts of places.
-- Stuff like asteroids and aliens are, indeed, completely random external factors. It's true that they can disrupt (or outright terminate) any cycle. As far as ateroids are concerned: yeah, something that ends all civilisation also ends civilisation cycles. go figure. And aliens... well, Asimov noted that, too: his 'psychohistory' is explicitly stated to only work in a human context. If we encounter utterly alien minds, well... they play by different rules.
-- Same goes for AI/singularity/posthuman examples. Anything based on how humans behave will no longer apply if humans fundamtally change into something that is no longer human in our sense of that term.
In general, the idea of the "black swan" has been challenged. I agree that it's appropriate for some examples, but other things are considerably more predictable than Taleb makes them out to be. Simply not in detail. For example: Taleb calls 9/11 a 'black swan'. That's nonsense. It's nonsense to the point that an event like that was not only highly predictable, but its occurrence was near-certain. You just can't predict the exact circumstances. (For comparison: you couldn't predict Franz Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo, either. Is that a 'black swan'? Nope. If he hadn't been shot, something else would've lit the fuse. There had been multiple near-misses already. Same goes for 9/11. The precise event couldn't be predicted, but it's not like it existed outside the scope of history or something.)
Given these considerations, I wouldn't go so far as to relegate the value of macrohistorical analysis to but the very broadest of generalisations. If nothing else, the practical value of a certain familiarity with the "shape" of history is that it gives you a good idea of when to keep your head down, your mouth shut, and to let the lunatics and the ruthlessly ambitous spill each other's blood while you take just care of your own people.
However, it's not correct to say Spengler didn't consider it. On the contrary: he explictly mentions such issues, and notes that in most cases, cultures are only familiar with their own context, and can't appropriately prepare for an issue from without that context. (European arriving in the New World is the famous example, naturally.) In his latter writings, he even began to consider the notion that increased communication increases awareness of other 'players' (as it were). To the effect that it both increases one's chances of influencing what the neighbour is doing... and decreases the neighbour's chances of being caught by utter suprise (he also has greater awareness of you).
Regarding the examples raised:
-- Note that the Black Death (~40% population decline in the affected regions) did not meaningfully affect things at all. The population bounced back like nobody's business, to the point that a century later, heavily-afflicted Europe evidently had enough people to begin colonising all sorts of places.
-- Stuff like asteroids and aliens are, indeed, completely random external factors. It's true that they can disrupt (or outright terminate) any cycle. As far as ateroids are concerned: yeah, something that ends all civilisation also ends civilisation cycles. go figure. And aliens... well, Asimov noted that, too: his 'psychohistory' is explicitly stated to only work in a human context. If we encounter utterly alien minds, well... they play by different rules.
-- Same goes for AI/singularity/posthuman examples. Anything based on how humans behave will no longer apply if humans fundamtally change into something that is no longer human in our sense of that term.
In general, the idea of the "black swan" has been challenged. I agree that it's appropriate for some examples, but other things are considerably more predictable than Taleb makes them out to be. Simply not in detail. For example: Taleb calls 9/11 a 'black swan'. That's nonsense. It's nonsense to the point that an event like that was not only highly predictable, but its occurrence was near-certain. You just can't predict the exact circumstances. (For comparison: you couldn't predict Franz Ferdinand getting shot in Sarajevo, either. Is that a 'black swan'? Nope. If he hadn't been shot, something else would've lit the fuse. There had been multiple near-misses already. Same goes for 9/11. The precise event couldn't be predicted, but it's not like it existed outside the scope of history or something.)
Given these considerations, I wouldn't go so far as to relegate the value of macrohistorical analysis to but the very broadest of generalisations. If nothing else, the practical value of a certain familiarity with the "shape" of history is that it gives you a good idea of when to keep your head down, your mouth shut, and to let the lunatics and the ruthlessly ambitous spill each other's blood while you take just care of your own people.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
...You know, as repetitive as it may sound to @Skallagrim at this point, this would be quite a TL. Perhaps something like Requiem for an Era would be an appropriate title, should it chronicle the collapse of Modernity and the decades that bookend it.
I have my own narratively interesting ideas for how to fill in the blanks left by the various outlines posted here, though actually writing and posting some snippets when it's not even my idea to begin with means that if they object to my doing so, then I respect that decision.
I have my own narratively interesting ideas for how to fill in the blanks left by the various outlines posted here, though actually writing and posting some snippets when it's not even my idea to begin with means that if they object to my doing so, then I respect that decision.
Last edited:
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Whatever ideas I put online can be freely used.