I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

[Greta]

Because it's inflexible and outmoded, and thus fails to take advantage of 50% of their human resources. That is a luxury no nation can afford.

Yet that's not a case of a lack of resources, is it? It's neither their ecology nor their lack of human resources that's got them in trouble. It's their misuse of those, which is a fault of their ideology.

As noted, Islam appears doomed. One giant suicide bomb slowly destroying itself. Then again, all religion may yet be doomed in the future.

But "fairness" isn't manifest anywhere in nature.

You didn't see the viral Capuchin monkey video? No no no, all large mammalian groups have customs based on the notion of what is fair as regards their deemed status in the group.

Well, if you check the population charts from the Middle Ages to today, you'll see some interesting things. The problem was not the numbers in the population during the great plagues of Europe: it was urbanization...too many in a confined area, not too many on a world scale.

Agreed.

I would add that we're likely, in our desperation, to look to bigger and bigger governments to which we give more and more power, until the world is a warring zone of superpower blocks divided along national and ideological fracture lines. The EU is a good example of the sort of bad government toward which people look when they hope that somebody will control the massive dynamics of world economics and national unrest. They sell all their freedoms for the dream that somebody with enough centralized power can control what's happening.

The EU became a union for the same reason that the United States became united - and each united entity is looking to be ever more disunited.

The EU hoped to be more competitive, to take advantage of economies of scale and allow greater freedom of movement and less red tape between member states. However, big societies are hard to organise, like the metaphorical "cats in a sack". I wish I could say differently but it seems that only a command economy can operate sustainably (?) at such large scale.

It would be wonderful for all the large nation states agreed to limit their size, for everyone's sake. However, the benchmark is China. Who can peacefully compete with China? Very large, aggregated blocs. So that is what will come. I expect increasing closeness between some companies and governments to the point where they can be considered a single entity.

Population is a wicked problem. Probably with wicked answers, alas. I figure we may as well make hay while the sun shines .

[Immanuel Can]

You didn't see the viral Capuchin monkey video? No no no, all large mammalian groups have customs based on the notion of what is fair as regards their deemed status in the group.

My sense is that animal behaviourism is not a compelling way to judge human morality, for at least a few reasons. One, it's higher-order primates performing calculations of which most animals are certainly incapable. Two, it's clearly not the general rule in nature, but an exceptional behavior. Three, if "survival of the fittest" is true, then the Capuchin behavior is actually counterproductive: the least likely to perform it are the most likely to thrive and reproduce their DNA. And four, that Capuchins behave in peculiar ways establishes a fact...but not any value. Thus it cannot tell us anything about human moral duty...or even Capuchin moral duty, for that matter. A "custom" or "instinct" does not rise to the level of a moral precept, as Hume so impressively argued.

The EU became a union for the same reason that the United States became united - and each united entity is looking to be ever more disunited.

Somebody put a tea tax on the English? No wonder they Brexited.

The EU hopes to unite people of different languages, histories, geographical locations and cultures by no more than the offer (not the delivery) of economic advantage plus the impressiveness of "bigness." The right metaphor is...

"cats in a sack"

indeed.

It would be wonderful for all the large nation states agreed to limit their size, for everyone's sake. However, the benchmark is China. Who can peacefully compete with China? Very large, aggregated blocs.

But China is basically an authoritarian monoculture. The vast majority are Han Chinese, raised in a strict, Communist environment. They have also had a "Cultural Revolution" to get rid of their difficult cases -- meaning educated people, really.

Replicating that in order to compete is not only likely to result in hideous curtailing of cultural, personal and national identities by authoritarian means, but (as the EU now shows) is never going to work because of things like language barriers and specific regional interests. It's never going to produce a fair and just order, and will be destroyed by internal dissent eventually.

I think that people don't like to live inside monolithic states. They don't thrive as individuals there. They do better when allowed to become what they want to become, within the reasonable bounds of geography, history and culture. It's only authoritarian ideological manipulators (usually Leftists) who think the "bigger is better" axiom works -- or should work -- for everyone. And if it doesn't "work," those same authoritarian Leftists will happily pave the rights and persons of all who get in their way...in "the public interest," of course.

Let's hope we don't get there soon.

[uwot]

I think that people don't like to live inside monolithic states. They don't thrive as individuals there. They do better when allowed to become what they want to become, within the reasonable bounds of geography, history and culture.

Does this extend to religion?

It's only authoritarian ideological manipulators (usually Leftists) who think the "bigger is better" axiom works -- or should work -- for everyone.

So you don't believe that your god works --or should work -- for everyone?

[Arising_uk]

...
The EU hopes to unite people of different languages, histories, geographical locations and cultures by no more than the offer (not the delivery) of economic advantage plus the impressiveness of "bigness." ...

And yet it has exactly delivered economic benefits to those involved and until this year was the worlds largest economy and market, so no "bigness" just big.

[Greta]

You didn't see the viral Capuchin monkey video? No no no, all large mammalian groups have customs based on the notion of what is fair as regards their deemed status in the group.

My sense is that animal behaviourism is not a compelling way to judge human morality, for at least a few reasons. One, it's higher-order primates performing calculations of which most animals are certainly incapable. Two, it's clearly not the general rule in nature, but an exceptional behavior. Three, if "survival of the fittest" is true, then the Capuchin behavior is actually counterproductive: the least likely to perform it are the most likely to thrive and reproduce their DNA. And four, that Capuchins behave in peculiar ways establishes a fact...but not any value. Thus it cannot tell us anything about human moral duty...or even Capuchin moral duty, for that matter. A "custom" or "instinct" does not rise to the level of a moral precept, as Hume so impressively argued.

Yes, they are amongst the smartest. Then again, our dogs (only average intelligence breeds too) at home have not only a sense of fairness, they are obsessed with it in their competition to enjoy the favour of humans. It's very natural in a group environment - you see someone else getting the food you want. Hey! Why them and not me!

Human moral duty is largely the same, with the same problems - how to survive when living in a group. To do so, one must navigate the cultural dynamics of the group. Obviously human cultural dynamics are more complex and have emergent features, but the ground level is the same. So an unintelligent people with a "heart of gold" tends to be roughly as well accepted in groups as those with complex, refined and sophisticated morality.

The EU became a union for the same reason that the United States became united - and each united entity is looking to be ever more disunited.

Somebody put a tea tax on the English? No wonder they Brexited.

So what is the US's problem? "United" States is increasingly looking like a misnomer, almost Orwellian in its contrariness.

It would be wonderful for all the large nation states agreed to limit their size, for everyone's sake. However, the benchmark is China. Who can peacefully compete with China? Very large, aggregated blocs.

But China is basically an authoritarian monoculture. The vast majority are Han Chinese, raised in a strict, Communist environment. They have also had a "Cultural Revolution" to get rid of their difficult cases -- meaning educated people, really.

Replicating that in order to compete is not only likely to result in hideous curtailing of cultural, personal and national identities by authoritarian means, but (as the EU now shows) is never going to work because of things like language barriers and specific regional interests. It's never going to produce a fair and just order, and will be destroyed by internal dissent eventually.

I think that people don't like to live inside monolithic states. They don't thrive as individuals there. They do better when allowed to become what they want to become, within the reasonable bounds of geography, history and culture. It's only authoritarian ideological manipulators (usually Leftists) who think the "bigger is better" axiom works -- or should work -- for everyone. And if it doesn't "work," those same authoritarian Leftists will happily pave the rights and persons of all who get in their way...in "the public interest," of course.

Let's hope we don't get there soon.

I was impressed with your comments until you took pot shots at "leftists". Ideological manipulation is not a "leftist" trait, it's politically ubiquitous in societies with extensive media networks. As fauxlosophers, surely it is our role to step back and consider how things are without prejudice, even if only at times? Once one picks a side one is necessarily wrong in philosophical terms, being partially blind.

I agree that individuals prefer to be free, as long as it's safe. I am just not convinced that the systems that are best for individual humans will prevail. Bigger may not be better, but it seems to be more effective in terms of collective empowerment.

Consider how dominant ants are as compared with other insects. A colony acts with coordination reminiscent of a large, single organism, greatly expanding its collective abilities. Any ant that departs from the script is killed. So they stick to the script. Humans, also being eusocial, do the same. We personally do not build skyscrapers or exploratory spacecraft; it's a collective achievement.

Usually when I say things like this someone will be shocked - "surely you aren't advocating a mindlessly brutal antlike system!". Of course not. The assumption is that we will speak of our preferred options rather than what seems likely. My interest, though, isn't in promoting any system over others so much as observing the functional aspects of societies that may suggest future likelihoods, for better or for worse.

Interesting to watch Russia's fate from here on. They have plenty of oil, and the more carbon they blow into the atmosphere, the more their competitors suffer while the icy wastelands of Russia increasingly become ever more arable and liveable. Theoretically. However, the natural barriers that protect Russia's main centres will shrink and they will increasingly be inundated, especially by desperates in the middle east and eastern Europe.

[Immanuel Can]

...Human moral duty is largely the same, with the same problems - how to survive when living in a group. To do so, one must navigate the cultural dynamics of the group. Obviously human cultural dynamics are more complex and have emergent features, but the ground level is the same. So an unintelligent people with a "heart of gold" tends to be roughly as well accepted in groups as those with complex, refined and sophisticated morality.

Actually, I would agree with Nietzsche about this...the survival advantage goes to the person who can put on an appearance of being moral, and who can convince other people to accept him, but who has no compunction about shafting them when their backs are turned. And I think that practically everyone decides the same, which is why so many of us are only selectively and publicly moral, but allow ourselves liberties in secret we'd never take in public.

After all, morality is hard, opportunism is easy and natural. And a false moral face serves a strategic turn. That is, from a purely survival-interested perspective, with no objective morality to resist it.

So what is the US's problem? "United" States is increasingly looking like a misnomer, almost Orwellian in its contrariness.

I don't know. As an observer, I would say they've got a number of problems that are causing fractures. What would you think?

I was impressed with your comments until you took pot shots at "leftists".

Ideological manipulation is not a "leftist" trait, it's politically ubiquitous in societies with extensive media networks.

Well, it's not an exclusively Leftist trait, I agree...but the media is generally Leftist. That's changing a bit, but it's still true. And Hollyweird...well, that place is practically owned by the Left.

I agree that individuals prefer to be free, as long as it's safe. I am just not convinced that the systems that are best for individual humans will prevail. Bigger may not be better, but it seems to be more effective in terms of collective empowerment.

I'm not sure I want a really "empowered collective." I'm not sure you would either. The "collective" isn't very interested in the individual.

Consider how dominant ants are as compared with other insects. A colony acts with coordination reminiscent of a large, single organism, greatly expanding its collective abilities. Any ant that departs from the script is killed. So they stick to the script. Humans, also being eusocial, do the same. We personally do not build skyscrapers or exploratory spacecraft; it's a collective achievement.

But so are Gulags, pogroms, ethnic cleanses, police states, wars, riots and gas chambers. All very "collective."

[Greta]

So what is the US's problem? "United" States is increasingly looking like a misnomer, almost Orwellian in its contrariness.

I don't know. As an observer, I would say they've got a number of problems that are causing fractures. What would you think?

I'd say we are looking at yet another empire brought down by hubristic self focus. When a culture is dominant enough it becomes more inward looking as they become "a world within a world". Over time people in dominant empires come to compete ever more with each other, treating one another in a way that their ancestors would have treated outsiders.

Ideological manipulation is not a "leftist" trait, it's politically ubiquitous in societies with extensive media networks.

Well, it's not an exclusively Leftist trait, I agree...but the media is generally Leftist. That's changing a bit, but it's still true. And Hollyweird...well, that place is practically owned by the Left.

Actually, the most powerful and influential media organisations are of the right. Fox. Murdoch. He has 3/4 of Australia's newspapers. Thus, Labor only rarely gains power in Australia, and in the last forty years they have been bona fide right wing party, and thus improved their competitiveness. Australia was a one party nation for many years.

The entire polity has shifted so far to the right that most western democracies essentially have two major right wing parties battling for power each election. Due to relativities, convenience and laziness the Democrats, Labour and Labor parties are termed as "left", despite being strongly conservative, right wing parties themselves.

I agree that individuals prefer to be free, as long as it's safe. I am just not convinced that the systems that are best for individual humans will prevail. Bigger may not be better, but it seems to be more effective in terms of collective empowerment.

I'm not sure I want a really "empowered collective." I'm not sure you would either. The "collective" isn't very interested in the individual.

it's all either of us have ever known! We take our institutionalisation for granted. We know the collective doesn't much care about the individual for the same reason most people will pull the lever in the trolley problem. The collectives, meanwhile, cannot cooperate well with each other due to the tragedy of the commons. Thus, they will slug it out and we'll have an "EO Wilson meets Charles Darwin" survival of the fittest situation.

Our ancestors would be horrified at how controlled we are today. Even I find it extraordinary in my lifetime how much less freedom we have in many areas, which a few improvements due to reduced prejudice (despite what the media says).

So, it's not you and me achieving all these things that makes nationalists proud (moon landings, etch, architecture etc) - it's an empowered collective that does it. A pushy, demanding, self-righteous collective. Alas, we little people can basically make rudimentary shelters, hunt and and grow foods. History is littered with defeated cultures who were more free and less cohered than their victorious foes. Think of how free the indigenous people were and just how easily defeated they were by much more regimented colonising invaders.

Consider how dominant ants are as compared with other insects. A colony acts with coordination reminiscent of a large, single organism, greatly expanding its collective abilities. Any ant that departs from the script is killed. So they stick to the script. Humans, also being eusocial, do the same. We personally do not build skyscrapers or exploratory spacecraft; it's a collective achievement.

But so are Gulags, pogroms, ethnic cleanses, police states, wars, riots and gas chambers. All very "collective."

True. As I noted earlier (not that I expect you to remember everything I say in such a long chat) the more people there are, the lower the value of each human life. In a tribe of ten, each person and the efforts they make are absolutely critical. Each death would be a disaster. In a city of ten million, aside from very few extraordinary individuals, each person is thoroughly expendable and the removal of a few million would probably greatly improve life for the remainder. Thus Gulags, pogroms, ethnic cleanses, police states, wars, riots and gas chambers - they are trying to clear space and create opportunities for the remainder.

It's not pretty but the story is not over. I am completely optimistic that eventually humanity, or whatever stems from humanity, will solve at least some of the main problems we face in society today re: sustainability, integrity and conflict resolution. Why this hope? Just 260 million years ago there was no reason, art, humour or morality (or plastic or nuclear bombs, to be fair) - only dinosaurs and other relatively undeveloped organisms.

Look what has happened since! Many grumble about how terrible humans are. Tough judges IMO. Humans didn't come with a manual and they have had to learn as they went, and in today's rather shallow worship of the "precious" present moment they underestimate the power of the past, in this case manifesting as cultural inertia. Then they start calling each other "evil". Once that happens you know that war if brewing, with each protagonist being objectified as a caricature of evil.

[Arising_uk]

Actually, I would agree with Nietzsche about this...the survival advantage goes to the person who can put on an appearance of being moral, and who can convince other people to accept him, but who has no compunction about shafting them when their backs are turned. ...

And yet in Computational Game Theory this is not the case with repeating moral games, a reciprocal co-operator does better than either the maximal co-operator or the maximal defector. That is that the optimal survival advantage goes to those who co-operate with co-operators but shaft the shafters.

And I think that practically everyone decides the same, which is why so many of us are only selectively and publicly moral, but allow ourselves liberties in secret we'd never take in public. ...

Such as? As what ethics and morals aren't public?

After all, morality is hard, opportunism is easy and natural. And a false moral face serves a strategic turn. That is, from a purely survival-interested perspective, with no objective morality to resist it.

And yet IC can show no objective 'God' with which to enforce this morality but still insists it is a brake upon the immoral?

Well, it's not an exclusively Leftist trait, I agree...but the media is generally Leftist. That's changing a bit, but it's still true. And Hollyweird...well, that place is practically owned by the Left. ...

So you admit that Americans get their history and thought from Hollywood and Disney, no surprises there and it explains a lot.

I'm not sure I want a really "empowered collective." I'm not sure you would either. The "collective" isn't very interested in the individual.

And yet IC wish us to be sheep with a shepherd? Ah! I get it, a passive collective that can be led to slaughter. Pre-Tree of Knowledge so to speak.

But so are Gulags, pogroms, ethnic cleanses, police states, wars, riots and gas chambers. All very "collective."

As is religion and yet IC says we cannot blame Christianity for the acts of those who say they are Christians?

[attofishpi]

As is religion and yet IC says we cannot blame Christianity for the acts of those who say they are Christians?

Atheists including yourself need to stop plugging that Christianity caused any misery, since any such thing caused by those calling themselves 'Christian' are not adhering to the words of Christ.

Religion has been used and will continue to be used by all and sundry to unite peoples of like mind to conduct barbaric acts, impelling that they have some higher authority on their side - atheists included.

[Arising_uk]

Atheists including yourself need to stop plugging that Christianity caused any misery, since any such thing caused by those calling themselves 'Christian' are not adhering to the words of Christ. ...

Don't tell me, tell those who call themselves Christians and cause misery.

Who is the arbiter of who and who isn't acting in a Christian manner? Who says which interpretations of Christ's words apply to the OT and which don't? As the OT is full of causing misery to others and the NT ends in a great amount of misery for many.

Religion has been used and will continue to be used by all and sundry to unite peoples of like mind to conduct barbaric acts, impelling that they have some higher authority on their side - atheists included.

Well not sure about the atheists but the theists do have a higher authority upon their side surely? This 'God' of yours. What will you do if your 'sage' ever tells you that your 'God' requires you to do something that you previously thought immoral?

[Immanuel Can]

I'd say we are looking at yet another empire brought down by hubristic self focus.

Perhaps. I don't know, though, that "empire" ever really applied to the US. I guess it does, if all you mean by "empire" is "very influential and powerful place." But I've always found the claims that America is an "empire" rather implausible, given the other referents of that label.

Actually, the most powerful and influential media organisations are of the right. Fox. Murdoch. He has 3/4 of Australia's newspapers.

Oh. In Oz. Well, in Oz, things are perhaps a little different. I thought we were speaking of the US.

We take our institutionalisation for granted.

Yes. Sociologists call that "reification," and it's something worth fighting, I would say. I don't believe it's inevitable or desirable.

I think controlled-size, smaller "institutions," with clear controls placed on their powers, are the way to go.

It's funny...everybody hates the US for being so big and powerful, for having so much economic and social clout, for being so uncontrollable from outside, and from being so domineering...

Then they want to build the EU...?

Think of how free the indigenous people were and just how easily defeated they were by much more regimented colonising invaders.

I don't know how "free" the indigenous people in your area were. Ours warred endlessly on each other, kept slaves, rambled from place to place whenever the local territory was exhausted, had little in learning or technology (not even the wheel), and nothing in medicine, and were basically superstitious animists. Was that "free"? Maybe. But it wasn't "free" to do much.

It's not pretty but the story is not over. I am completely optimistic that eventually humanity, or whatever stems from humanity, will solve at least some of the main problems we face in society today re: sustainability, integrity and conflict resolution. Why this hope? Just 260 million years ago there was no reason, art, humour or morality (or plastic or nuclear bombs, to be fair) - only dinosaurs and other relatively undeveloped organisms.

I wouldn't hold up the last hundred years as an example of civilizational moral progress. We killed more people in the last century than in all previous centuries combined. And much of that was from the ideological Left (and almost all of it from secularists and outright Atheists).

The Islamists are bad -- really bad. But they'd have to do a lot more than they have yet done to catch up. Not that they don't seem to be trying...witness Manchester.

[Arising_uk]

...
I wouldn't hold up the last hundred years as an example of civilizational moral progress. We killed more people in the last century than in all previous centuries combined. And much of that was from the ideological Left (and almost all of it from secularists and outright Atheists). ...

From another place by someone called Goosemaster:
Just using "wars" that killed 3 million or more:

Pre-20th century
Fall of Rome (3rd to 5th century) = 8 million
An Lushan Revolt (8th century) = 36 million
Mongol Conquests (13th century) = 40 million
Thuggee (13th to 19th century) = 9 million
Timur Lenk (14th to 15th century) = 17 million
North American Indian Wars (15th to 19th century) = 20 million
Huegenot War (16th century) = 3 million
Manchu Conquest (17th century) = 25 million
Thirty ears War (17th century) = 7 million
Taiping Rebellion (19th century) = 20 million
British Conquest and Occupation of India (19th century) = 20 million
Napoleonic Wars (19th century) = 4 million
Congo Free State (19th century) = 8 million
Total = 217 million

20th century and later
First World War = 15 million
Stalin's Purges = 20 million
Second World War = 55 million
Russian Civil War = 9 million
Chinese Civil War = 3 million
Total = 102 million

Of course we could include Christian America's 'wars' in Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Korea. That'd bump the figures up.

The Islamists are bad -- really bad. But they'd have to do a lot more than they have yet done to catch up. Not that they don't seem to be trying...witness Manchester.

Yeah! They are terrible, I'm mean how could someone do that to the people of a nation that has destroyed three countries and along the way killed and maimed thousands if not tens of thousands of children. Still, you are correct in a sense as it's only now that the theistic zealots are getting the chance to play with the big technological killing toys. Let's wait and see how their 'God' stops them slaughtering others but I don't hold much hope out as it hasn't stopped Christians so I think it unlikely to stop Muslims.

[Greta]

I'd say we are looking at yet another empire brought down by hubristic self focus.

Perhaps. I don't know, though, that "empire" ever really applied to the US. I guess it does, if all you mean by "empire" is "very influential and powerful place." But I've always found the claims that America is an "empire" rather implausible, given the other referents of that label.

The label is not important, the dynamic of a wasting, flaccid and and inward-looking failing society echoes the problems faced by other empires / dominant cultures.

Actually, the most powerful and influential media organisations are of the right. Fox. Murdoch. He has 3/4 of Australia's newspapers.

Oh. In Oz. Well, in Oz, things are perhaps a little different. I thought we were speaking of the US.

Fox is dominant in the US too. The politics of that nation have also veered strongly to the right and this is largely due to media dominance. Who is in a better position to influence society than billionaires and multinationals? A few rag tag lefties and uni students? Hardly. There is no competition. The right is utterly and completely dominant, so much so that what it calls "the left" these days, aside from a tiny vocal minority, is largely also right wing, just slightly less so.

We take our institutionalisation for granted.

Yes. Sociologists call that "reification," and it's something worth fighting, I would say. I don't believe it's inevitable or desirable.

I think controlled-size, smaller "institutions," with clear controls placed on their powers, are the way to go.

It's funny...everybody hates the US for being so big and powerful, for having so much economic and social clout, for being so uncontrollable from outside, and from being so domineering...

Then they want to build the EU...?

Good luck fighting it. You will be on the losing side. My preference is to slip under the radar as much as possible. It's not power that's the problem, it's its abuse. Meanwhile, if the EU and "the left" are the worst examples of "oppression" you can find, then there is little to fear.

Actually your regular attacks on the "left" and the "EU" are an excellent demonstration of how empires fall - internal hatreds even greater than distrust of outsiders. Your hatred for the left and the EU is obvious and visceral. You see them as evil entities that must be dismantled and destroyed.

These are actually your allies, very much more so than Muslims, Russians, east Asians and, well, almost everyone else. It's exactly those internal hatreds that form in dominant cultures that precipitate their downfall. Will any dominant society ever learn from this?

Think of how free the indigenous people were and just how easily defeated they were by much more regimented colonising invaders.

I don't know how "free" the indigenous people in your area were. Ours warred endlessly on each other, kept slaves, rambled from place to place whenever the local territory was exhausted, had little in learning or technology (not even the wheel), and nothing in medicine, and were basically superstitious animists. Was that "free"? Maybe. But it wasn't "free" to do much.

Their lives were horrible but, yes, they were largely much more free. Do you not see that you are less free than just decades ago? This "tightening of the net" is an ongoing process of rationalism. It's not all negative either, generally making society safer. Just a few centuries ago it was okay to throw throw a bucket of your family's shit out into the street below. One more freedom that's been lost - thankfully.

It's not pretty but the story is not over. I am completely optimistic that eventually humanity, or whatever stems from humanity, will solve at least some of the main problems we face in society today re: sustainability, integrity and conflict resolution. Why this hope? Just 260 million years ago there was no reason, art, humour or morality (or plastic or nuclear bombs, to be fair) - only dinosaurs and other relatively undeveloped organisms.

I wouldn't hold up the last hundred years as an example of civilizational moral progress. We killed more people in the last century than in all previous centuries combined. And much of that was from the ideological Left (and almost all of it from secularists and outright Atheists).

Old, discredited arguments there. I personally consider Christianity and Islam - the Abrahamic monoliths - to be vastly more destructive, dangerous, evil, cruel, unfair, selfish and unkind than secular humanism. The lists of their horrors perpetrated throughout history are long and growing, and all that time they utterly dominated secular thinkers.

The last century has seen an excellent continuation of civilisational moral progress. You take it for granted because you are not tormented by the awfulness of the past; you've never known their privations and problems.

[Immanuel Can]

...the dynamic of a wasting, flaccid and and inward-looking failing society echoes the problems faced by other empires / dominant cultures.

Interestingly, that's what the founders of the US essentially saw when they looked at Europe.

Fox is dominant in the US too.

Actually, it's not. There are three mega-networks that dominate the television: ABC, CBS and NBC...all very leftist. FOX is a rare conservative voice, with considerably less cachet than the big three.

The politics of that nation have also veered strongly to the right and this is largely due to media dominance.

Oh, I think that's pretty clearly incorrect. All the major networks and news sources were crowning Hillary long before she lost. Their blithe assumption was that she was hardly even going to have to run. And in fact, she hardly did. But if the dominant US media had had their way, she'd have been made queen by acclaim.

The swell from the right caught all the major news programs and networks with their pants down. They had no idea it was coming. Watching the coverage afterward was pretty darn funny, actually.

Who is in a better position to influence society than billionaires and multinationals? A few rag tag lefties and uni students? Hardly. There is no competition. The right is utterly and completely dominant, so much so that what it calls "the left" these days, aside from a tiny vocal minority, is largely also right wing, just slightly less so.

Boy, that's certainly not true in the US. The Lefties practically own California and New York. And Obama had no trouble getting two terms.

Good luck fighting it. You will be on the losing side

.
Short term, yes. Long term, definitely no.

It's not power that's the problem, it's its abuse.

It's not the power that's the problem: it's the nature of the people who hold it that is so dangerous.

Actually your regular attacks on the "left" and the "EU" are an excellent demonstration of how empires fall - internal hatreds even greater than distrust of outsiders. Your hatred for the left and the EU is obvious and visceral. You see them as evil entities that must be dismantled and destroyed

.
No, actually. I just see them as exactly what they are: unelected people, petty bureaucrats from Brussels who are being kept in check by no one, but who are building an empire to serve their own ideological and economic dreams, and pulling in as many countries as they can to do it. You'll have to forgive me for recognizing a bad idea when I see it.

So you're against nations and democracy, then? You want unelected governments who rule from abroad?

Their lives were horrible but, yes, they were largely much more free.

Free to live in pre-Medieval ignorance and backwardness? Is that freedom?

Do you not see that you are less free than just decades ago?

Oh yes...but the doing of this is really all on the Left. We don't have a groundswell of big government coming from the Right...the Right supports small government and free markets. The left wants total government control and intervention in every area of life.

Is it different in Oz?

Old, discredited arguments there.

Not old, and certainly not discredited. Confirm them yourself: run the numbers.

Do you not know that there were more human beings killed in the 20th Century than in all previous centuries combined? Well, which of the major conflagrations in the 20th Century was "religious"? WW 1? WW 2? Vietnam? Cambodia? The Cultural Revolution? Korea? Angola? Stop me when I get to the first one that was remotely religious...

I personally consider Christianity and Islam - the Abrahamic monoliths - to be vastly more destructive, dangerous, evil, cruel, unfair, selfish and unkind than secular humanism.

Consider more carefully. Just run the numbers. You'll see. It isn't even close.

By generous reckoning, 7% of history's wars could remotely be called "religious." One religion is responsible for half of that -- Islam, of course. The remaining 3.5% includes all religions of all other kinds in history. But again, do the numbers and you'll see.

The last century has seen an excellent continuation of civilisational moral progress.

There is no such thing as human moral progress. I hate to disillusion you. We're not getting better...we're killing and maiming with ever more sophisticated tactics.

The last century was full of wars, and saw the invention of the nuclear arsenal, environmental devastation, the destruction of the forests, the extinction of a vast number of species, and the mechanisms of genocide. What looks to you like moral progress? Technological advancement, I agree: but moral advancement? What evidence have you for that.

You take it for granted because you are not tormented by the awfulness of the past; you've never known their privations and problems.

You don't know where I've been. I know more about it than you probably imagine. I was not raised in the advanced country in which I now reside.

[thedoc]

I was not raised in the advanced country in which I now reside.

Interesting, I have lived all my life in the US, but for many years I worked with a Muslim who was born and raised in Africa, immigrated to England and then to America. He had some of the most interesting questions about the holidays, and we had some of the most interesting conversations. A typical question was "What does Santa Clause have to do with the Christian celebration of Christmas", and I had to explain that Santa wasn't really a part of the Christian celebration but was added later.