A good summary of the current state of civilization

[Isaac]

Since the 1960s, the West has moved ever-leftwards. 'Equality' and ‘feelings’ are central to the New Religion that rejects all traditional values. Yet beneath the institutionally dominant ‘Left’ stews a growing and restless ‘Right’. How has this fractured situation come about? What will the future hold?

In The Past is a Future Country, the authors trace it back to the Industrial Revolution. Darwinian selection massively weakened, meaning that, for the first time in history, the selfish, sick and stupid could survive and reproduce, undermining our religious, group-oriented culture. Now the West is scourged by an epidemic of narcissists, competing to signal their individuality and moral superiority. But their ‘fight for equality’ is really a fight for self-promotion. Reflecting this runaway individualism, Westerners increasingly don’t have children, save for those who are genetically resistant to this onslaught ― the staunchly conservative and religious: the eventual inheritors of the earth.

But there is a dark storm brewing in the demographic data that the authors have analysed. There is a burgeoning growth in the population of exceptionally unintelligent and antisocial people that social welfare systems cannot sustain for much longer. The developed world will pass away, and the global population that depends on it will crash, in the greatest Malthusian Collapse of all time. Yet all is not lost. The authors show how a resistant class of intelligent, religious conservatives will band together to preserve enclaves of civilization that may survive most of the coming apocalypse, and from its ashes rebuild a new world: A Neo-Byzantium.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I understand your concern. Have you ever read Isaac Asimov's Foundation series? It is directly relevant to your comments and a masterpiece of an epic trilogy - but a huge investment in reading time.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Interesting train of thought. The eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries espoused the theory that "stupid people shouldn't breed". This drove a lot of Hitler's thinking and policies. Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood and established outlets in poor, inner city neighborhoods where the "less desirable" people lived and she had quite a success with this. Maybe it was a backlash to this earlier movement that swung the tide the other way which is now pushing us to do the insane like hire blind pilots and disregard reality and believe that men are actually women.

 

[Steve R.]

It is unfortunate that "eugenics" has become an abhorrent word where anyone merely uttering that word results in a hysterical mob calling for that person's immediate lynching. No discussion allowed. Well we need a discussion.

Darwinian selection massively weakened, meaning that, for the first time in history, the selfish, sick and stupid could survive and reproduce, undermining our religious, group-oriented culture.

The demise of Darwinian natural selection resulting from improved living conditions and health is a justified concern. People who would otherwise die are able to pass down their genes. Some diseases are inherited, so we can -and should- keep those people alive, but we should also insisted that they do not pass their genes down. Diabetes would be one example.

Below is an article that covers diabetes. I'm not going to go into any detail, since my post would end-up being a book. Suffice it to say that diabetes is expensive and is expanding. Eugenics may be the viable solution.
Diabetes 2030: Insights from Yesterday, Today, and Future Trends.

Westerners increasingly don’t have children

The West is committing cultural suicide. It is also an example of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in action. We don't need to have a lot of children to make-up for the ones who die because poop living conditions and poor medical care. The West has also "solved" the basic survival needs, so we are now concerned with higher needs such as self-actualization which results in pursing your own interests which minimizes the desire to have children.

There is a burgeoning growth in the population of exceptionally unintelligent and antisocial people that social welfare systems cannot sustain for much longer.

This is exactly what the Biden administration is implementing through "open borders", "dumbing down" of our educational system, and "equity" (ending meritocracy). Take a look at the Cloward–Piven strategy.

The authors show how a resistant class of intelligent, religious conservatives will band together to preserve enclaves of civilization that may survive most of the coming apocalypse, and from its ashes rebuild a new world: A Neo-Byzantium.

Did the authors, by any chance discuss the environment? For us to have a utopian world, assuming that one would be possible, there would be a need to limit the world's population. That is another claimed "repulsive" concept that is not allowed to be uttered. There is a book, called "Design with Nature". The book is actually about architecture, but the title makes for an exceptional environmental theme. Again, I won't get into another one of my endless tirades other than to say, that low population gives people more freedom and allows humans and the environment to be more symbiotic.

 

[Galaxiom]

The rise and fall of civilisations throughout history has largely been a process of creating extra wealth which allowed the stupid people to breed up until it collapses. This cycle goes back long before the industrial revolution.

However Isaac's notion of the religious being the superior people is nothing more than a a reflection of his bigoted prejudices and lack of perspective due to being immersed in a largely religious society.

In the last Australian census about 38% indicated no religion and the proportion is still growing. It was almost as large as all the Christian denominations combined and many of those indicating they were Christians are only notionally so. I don't see our society collapsing from it.

The biggest problem I see, especially with the US, is the stark separation between the haves and the have nots. People with nothing to lose do tend to become antisocial.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Utopia sounds good on paper but unless people are truly equal and agree completely on how society should be organized and there is no reason for strife, everyone always gets along with everyone else, they have a function in society and they are happy with it. And we have machines to take care of all of our physical needs like food production, shopping, meal preparation, cleaning your toilets. washing our clothes, driving us anywhere we want to go (beam me up Scottie, there's no intelligent life down here), etc and are generally homogeneous and preferably asexual, it isn't viable. We can't even get something like Socialism to work because that relies on the people who have skills using them to the benefit of those who don't have any skills or are just plain lazy. To quote the late, great Margaret Thatcher, "eventually you run out of other people's money".

Nobody seems to remember this but we actually tried Socialism in the Plymouth colony. The Mayflower compact defined how the colony should run and they almost died their first year in the new country. It was only when they switched to Capitalism that the colony started to thrive. In order to survive each member of the colony needed to provide for himself rather than assuming others would provide for them and slacking off. Nothing kills Socialism faster than realizing that you are working your butt off and there's a bunch of lazy bums living off of your hard work.

I consider myself to be one of the Star Trek generation. Their society was pretty close to "utopia". Everyone had a place, they knew their job and they were happy with it and nobody needed money for anything. They just went to the replicator and told it what they wanted. I think people of my generation took that philosophy to heart and have been trying to implement it ever since without success.

The biggest problem I see, especially with the US, is the stark separation between the haves and the have nots.

The "haves" can't have anyone thinking like that, it is way too dangerous, so they have managed to convince the general population that the situation is race hatred. As with any unequal society, eventually, the havenots rebel and so to protect themselves, the haves have done their best to form this as whites against blacks and lately expanded that to any people who are not "white". But this is mostly Oppressor vs Oppressed because people who might otherwise be classified as white, end up being classified as "of color" because they are "oppressed". So, we end up with the Palestinians being classified "of color" because we are supposed to look at them as Oppressed while their cousins the Jews are classified as "white" so we can think of them as the Oppressors.

Regarding religion, I'm trying to think of some country or people from history who did not have some community religion. I'm sure that there are some but it seems like every culture I can recall studying had some "gods" that they worshiped and some religions were complex and observed "holidays" and rituals that guided their lives. Religion was used to provide order out of chaos and guide its follower's lives. Most religions are limited in their scope and only a few have millions of followers today. All but one of the major religions in the list instruct their adherents in positive directions.

Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Sikhism, Judaism, Taoism, Confucianism, Caodaism

The 10 Largest Religions in the World

www.worldatlas.com

Given the number of adherents, it would seem that people need some kind of guidance and a path to help them to belong to a community and to behave with propriety so they can fit in and live in harmony with others. So even though many claim no religious affiliation, they are not immune from the effects of the people around them who are living in their faith and doing the good deeds their religion recommends for salvation.

Two of the major religions, Christianity and Islam have committed serious crimes in the name of their religion but only Islam has a basic belief that they must conquer the world and convert everyone to Islam or kill them. I don't have numbers of the victims of crimes such as the Spanish Inquisition and the Reformation as Protestants split from Catholics or the wars between the Shia and Sunni and the attacks on the the people of the world as the Muslims engaged in their conquests over the ages.

However many more millions were killed for the sake of Communism and Socialism and Fascism which are as godless as it gets. So, don't be so hot to put down all religions.

 

[Isaac]

It is unfortunate that "eugenics" has become an abhorrent word where anyone merely uttering that word results in a hysterical mob calling for that person's immediate lynching. No discussion allowed. Well we need a discussion.

The demise of Darwinian natural selection resulting from improved living conditions and health is a justified concern. People who would otherwise die are able to pass down their genes. Some diseases are inherited, so we can -and should- keep those people alive, but we should also insisted that they do not pass their genes down. Diabetes would be one example.

Below is an article that covers diabetes. I'm not going to go into any detail, since my post would end-up being a book. Suffice it to say that diabetes is expensive and is expanding. Eugenics may be the viable solution.
Diabetes 2030: Insights from Yesterday, Today, and Future Trends.

The West is committing cultural suicide. It is also an example of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in action. We don't need to have a lot of children to make-up for the ones who die because poop living conditions and poor medical care. The West has also "solved" the basic survival needs, so we are now concerned with higher needs such as self-actualization which results in pursing your own interests which minimizes the desire to have children.

This is exactly what the Biden administration is implementing through "open borders", "dumbing down" of our educational system, and "equity" (ending meritocracy). Take a look at the Cloward–Piven strategy.

Did the authors, by any chance discuss the environment? For us to have a utopian world, assuming that one would be possible, there would be a need to limit the world's population. That is another claimed "repulsive" concept that is not allowed to be uttered. There is a book, called "Design with Nature". The book is actually about architecture, but the title makes for an exceptional environmental theme. Again, I won't get into another one of my endless tirades other than to say, that low population gives people more freedom and allows humans and the environment to be more symbiotic.

I just quoted a book summary of a book that I thought may be interesting, we'll see how it turns out if I read it. @The_Doc_Man I think I have a couple Asimov books on my shelf that I haven't read yet - may crack them open and check if they're in Foundation!