History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History
- Thread starter FriedCFour
- Start date
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Conversely, while I'm certainly not the first to mention it, I wonder how much of a role humanity's collective memory "resetting" every few generations plays in why crisis periods keeping popping up so often?
That is, when the last generation to have lived through one crisis dies off, successive generations who are decades removed from it take their lessons much less seriously as the lingering guilt and trauma fades away — thus prompting a new generation of leaders to get reckless and blunder their way into the next crisis. By then, attempts to invoke the old boogeymen of the last crisis ("Hannibal at the Gates!" for the Romans of the Late Republic; "Literally Hitler!" in the latter days of this century) are dismissed and cast aside as a new round of carnage and terror begins.
For one thing, I I doubt it was a coincidence World War I broke out a few decades after the last living Napoleonic Wars veterans passed on. And while it may not have been the only (or even the primary) cause, I'm quite sure the fact the generation of leaders in power in 1914 never lived through the last great conflict — and in fact, perceived it as a dim memory largely irrelevant to their time and place, at most — made them much less hesitant to start one of their own.
Seen in that light, I'm uncomfortably sure that once the last World War II veterans finally die off and the whole conflict becomes just as distant to world leaders in the 2050s and '60s as the Napoleonic Wars were to the 1914 leadership, that's when the next series of worldwide wars and mass-genocides that our descendants will shudder at should start kicking off.
At that point, I actually think the likes of Hitler and Stalin being "Just long-gone boogeymen!" in the eyes of our children and grandchildren is actually more of a best-case scenario than a worst-case one. Because based on how Neo-Caesar has been characterized here, he comes across as the type to actively admire and draw inspiration from their regimes in much the same way as Lenin and the Bolsheviks took cues from Robespierre and the Jacobins when it came to terror tactics and all-out class warfare.
Sure, he and the Populists may not found a pan-Western "Fourth Reich", exactly, but privately musing that "Hitler had a point about the Jews!" or that "Stalin's police state was second to none!" before "adapting" elements of the Final Solution or Great Terror for his own needs instead of observing the Nazi/Stalinist playbook wholesale seems like something Neo-Caesar would try. In many ways, he'd probably be worse than either of them — starting with racking up body count that makes Chairman Mao look like an amateur by the time he's finished.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Conversely, while I'm certainly not the first to mention it, I wonder how much of a role humanity's collective memory "resetting" every few generations plays in why crisis periods keeping popping up so often?
That is, when the last generation to have lived through one crisis dies off, successive generations who are decades removed from it take their lessons much less seriously as the lingering guilt and trauma fades away — thus prompting a new generation of leaders to get reckless and blunder their way into the next crisis. By then, attempts to invoke the old boogeymen of the last crisis ("Hannibal at the Gates!" for the Romans of the Late Republic; "Literally Hitler!" in the latter days of this century) are dismissed and cast aside as a new round of carnage and terror begins.
For one thing, I I doubt it was a coincidence World War I broke out a few decades after the last living Napoleonic Wars veterans passed on. And while it may not have been the only (or even the primary) cause, I'm quite sure the fact the generation of leaders in power in 1914 never lived through the last great conflict — and in fact, perceived it as a dim memory largely irrelevant to their time and place, at most — made them much less hesitant to start one of their own.
Seen in that light, I'm uncomfortably sure that once the last World War II veterans finally die off and the whole conflict becomes just as distant to world leaders in the 2050s and '60s as the Napoleonic Wars were to the 1914 leadership, that's when the next series of worldwide wars and mass-genocides that our descendants will shudder at should start kicking off.
At that point, I actually think the likes of Hitler and Stalin being "Just long-gone boogeymen!" in the eyes of our children and grandchildren is actually more of a best-case scenario than a worst-case one. Because based on how Neo-Caesar has been characterized here, he comes across as the type to actively admire and draw inspiration from their regimes in much the same way as Lenin and the Bolsheviks took cues from Robespierre and the Jacobins when it came to terror tactics and all-out class warfare.
Sure, he and the Populists may not found a pan-Western "Fourth Reich", exactly, but privately musing that "Hitler had a point about the Jews!" or that "Stalin's police state was second to none!" before "adapting" elements of the Final Solution or Great Terror for his own needs instead of observing the Nazi/Stalinist playbook wholesale seems like something Neo-Caesar would try. In many ways, he'd probably be worse than either of them — starting with racking up body count that makes Chairman Mao look like an amateur by the time he's finished.
That's essentially the concept of the Overton Window. Ideas stay the same, but the attitudes of the people shift, so that the unthinkable becomes the inevitable, in the fullness of time.
We discussed generational shifts in some detail, relatively recently, in another conversation. There can be little doubt that the attitude to, say, Hitler is massively changing among the youngest generation already. To them, he's just part of history-- no more emotionally accute than Napoleon or Genghis Khan. The consequences of that are unavoidable, and you can't avoid the process itself, either. Immediacy is lost with distance, and time is simply also a direction... in which we march on and on.
Then there's the fact that all reactions are defined by what they oppose, and the current world is pretty much the Weimar Republic writ large. So the shape of the reaction can be guessed (although only in general terms; it won't be fascist, but it'll have unavoidable similarities with it). At the same time, the greater distance also removes the "piety" that commands people to view the Weimar Republic as somehow good. More and more, we see mainstream historiography admit that the Weimar Republic was... well, a cess-pool. And that Hitler didn't just come out of thin air.
The generation that still feels very "pious" about this, and that still carries this "collective guilt" over the matter is actually the baby boomer generation. As I told you before, they didn't live it, but they grew up in its shadow. With their parents marked by it. So to them, it is actually less "real", but more "scary". This is why (far more than their parents, who lied through it), the baby-boomers have this very strong feeling on the matter. Which is also why boomers are almost always unable to consider the notion of anything other than democracy being acceptable. It's all because of the formative narrative that shaped their generation from the earliest infancy.
But the fact is... they are dying out. Their generation, and its priorities, is going to fade from the world. A younger generation looks upon the world of "liberal democracy" and sees... yes, another cess-pool. The time is not there (yet) for a radical reaction to this, but it'll come. Why? Because the older generation -- clutching to "muh democracy!" -- stops all attempts at moderate reform. They couldn't accept Perot, and they can't accept Trump or DeSantis or anyone like that. They have to "fortify the election" against "the deplorables".
Well. If you do that, don't be surprised if a few decades down the line, the opposition has grown to be a lot more radical. The elite, by its own actions, creates a Caesar. And he brings the sword to Rome itself.
To the boomers (or most of them, in any case) that kind of outcome is unthinkable. And to those who can entertain it as plausible, it is still a nightmare vision. But to people of younger generations, it is not only plausible, but increasingly desirable. (That desire, obviously, has not come close to critical mass yet. But it's only going to grow, throughout the century. Again: precisely because of the terrible choices that the people in power are making right now.)
There we have the great irony. The very people who shriek that MAGA is a threat to democracy and that Trump is a fascist are actually going to cause the death of the system they claim to defend. And the best thing they could do to save that system is collectively resign and let MAGA run the Western world for a few decades. But as we know, that won't happen. The Gracchi are cast into the Tiber, and then, decades hence, we may look upon that same Tiber--
"--foaming with much blood."
Skallagrim
Well-known member
As a sort of addendum to the above: some time back, @Lord Sovereign talked about Sulla and his position towards the establishment. I'll note that when we look at it generationally, the ascent of Marius represents the point where a certain generation just about shuffles off the mortal coil (in our case, the boomers). This means that another generation takes over, or has about taken over, at that stage. Not just on the side of the populist opposition, but also on the side of the establishment. They aren't somehow outside the Overton window, either. As time passes, both sides are going to be increasingly tolerant -- and later on, outright supportive -- of overtly tyrannical measures.
Not that those aren't employed now, but typically in a more covert manner. The worst offenders are on the side of the establishment (the "panopticon society" is their hobby-horse, after all) but they are also the ones who talk louly about how important democracy is. They have to hide their dubious desires beneath a veneer of "serving the people". They use that veneer not only to deceive the populace, but also to delude themselves. ("We're protecting democracy, our actions are justified, really!")
In a few decades, the boomer generation in which that sentiment is strongest will be gone. And in subsequent generations, that tendency will gradually disappear. No more pretty stories to cover up the true motives. Just a fight to the knife. And of course, that's horrible. But at least it's not so damned duplicitous. If it's to be a brutal shit-fight, then we should have the common decency not to pretend that it's anything else.
That's the big reason why the "baby-boomer brigade" tends to suck so much. They're the ones who (as I outlined above) make the brutal clash inevitable, but they're also the ones who sanctimoniously pretend that they're doing it to save democracy. They assign ill motives to all who disagree with them, but they hide their own decidely warped motives deep beneath a layer of hypocricy. Often, they hide the truth even from themselves.
----------------------------
An elaboration upon some notes regarding generational intervals, which I previously discussed with @Zyobot. Some of this re-states (or, actually, pre-states, since the bulk was written earlier) some of my remarks above.
First of all, we must consider that to some extent, generations are just useful short-hand. The borders are very fuzzy. But let's assume (quite reasonably so) that "generational cohorts" that coalesce around a main cultural identity do exist as meaningful forces.
An observation: every generation tries to define itself as different from the last, but is ultimately quite fundamentally shaped by their parents, to a degree that only becomes clear later.
As a rather dramatic example: the generation of my parents was born after the War and the Holocaust. Never lived through it. But because it the trauma of these events shaped the lives of their parents, they have "inherited" very strong feelings on that. Those feelings recede with each generation. In my country -- which has excellent education -- over a third of Gen Z schoolkids believes the Holocaust never happened. A majority simply... doesn't give a fuck. Once the generation of my parents goes extinct, the "Marian revolution" (and attendant fanatical slaughter) becomes possible in part because that's when the collective "Hitler guilt" in the West will have died out. Which means that's when the Overton Window opens on the next round of great bloody carnage.
This is just a fact of history. Neither good nor bad. We don't feel very strongly about Atilla the Hun, after all. I'm pointing out that everything considered "pure evil" will eventually just become "part of history", and therefore "normal".
(The interesting this is that the typical boomer reacts to this development with complete horror, and accuses anyone who observes this trend as being an evil fascist. They are so caught up in their own presentism that they can't view reality with anything resembling an objective stance. And that's precisely how they contribute to the problem. If they could set aside their holy terror, they could act logically; embrace moderate reforms to avoid later escalation. But because of their deeply conditioned knee-jerk response to something like MAGA... Well. Let's just say that Obama and Biden have contributed far more to the ascent of the populist Right than Trump ever has, or ever could.)
Anyway, this is my attempt to explain how generational identity shapes the dominant cultural and political perceptions at a given time, and thereby defines what is "possible" at any given time.
I think each generation (going by current age expectancy), enjoys a large degree of cultural and political supremacy from about 50 years after the start of its "birth bracket" until about 70 years after the end of its "birth bracket". A generation goes functionally extinct about 90 years after the close of its "birth bracket". (Some members survive a bit longer, obviously, but they no longer exert the dominant force over society.)
So, for instance, Baby Boomers are generally assumed to have been born 1946-1964. They gained cultural supremacy in the mid-'90s, which checks out: they were "yuppies" in the '80s, but moved up to serious management positions in the next decade. They'll hold onto power in a lot of places, even after a younger generations starts to supplant them, because the positions of the most power tend to be reserved for those with seniority. But by the mid-2030s, they'll be out of power for good. By the mid-2050s, they'll be functionally extinct. (Note that in the period they are already out of power, but still alive "in retirement", they still hold considerable social power.)
We can do this for all generations. It's not super accurate, but it's close enough for an impression. This also shows you the periods of generational power-transition. There's always multiple generations having a major influence. Usually, one the youngest of three really muscles its way in, the eldest of three generations is already about done.
Keeping in mind that they're 'fuzzy-edged', and that the years are only ever an appoximation, I think the generational succession looks about like this:
Boomers: born 1946-1964, reign 1996-2034, extinct 2054.
Gen X: born 1965-1980, reign 2015-2050, extinct 2070.
Millennials: born 1981-1996, reign 2031-2066, extinct 2086.
Gen Z: born 1997-2012, reign 2047-2082, extinct 2102.
Gen Alpha: born 2013-2028, reign 2063-2098, extinct 2118.
Gen Beta: born 2029-2044, reign 2079-2114, extinct 2134
Gen Gamma: born 2045-2060, reign 2095-2130, extinct 2150.
Gen Delta: born 2061-2076, reign 2111-2146, extinct 2166.
Consider that in light of the expected dating(s): "Neo-Marian revolution" c. 2060, "Neo-Caesarian revolution" c. 2090, and "Neo-Augustan triumph" c. 2110-2115.
This tells us that a Neo-Marius could well be a leading figure from Gen Z, who (by virtue of his radical positions) binds a lot of the ascendant (and by then increasingly dissatisfied) Gen Alpha electorate to his cause. (By reasonable expectation, a Neo-Marius figure should be at least in his 40s around 2060. Actual, historical Marius was 70 at the height of his power, but he was an outlier. You might expect this figure to be a bit younger in most cases.) His leading opponents will be the "top dog" Millennials clinging to the highest seats of power even as their generation is beginning to fade away.
A Neo-Caesar, quite similarly, could be a "late-born" member of Gen Beta (born around 2040?), most of whose generational cohort grew up in a world shaped by the anti-(Neo-)Marian / "Sullan" reaction. Like his Marian predecessor(s), he'd win the loyalty of a new "young guard", namely Gen Gamma, who would by then be looking at their dwindling prospects and scream for a radical turning.
A Neo-Augustus would then most probably be a member of that Gen Gamma, and would lead them into a reconciliation and normalisation after the preceding chaos. Gen Delta would be very young during Neo-Caesar's reign, and would welcome Neo-Augustus as their benefactor when he restores stability just as they're looking to get their lives in good order. They'd be the true "consolidating generation" of the Principate, and they'd be the ones singing Neo-Augustus's praises when he dies (leaving them a better world than the preceding generations inherited).
In conclusion: while we (again) focus much of our attention on the prospective events of this century, I think the real work will be done by "generation Delta" in the next century. They are the ones who will build new greatness on top of the ruins. And it is, ultimately, for them -- for what they represent -- that good men must live through the turbulent ages. No matter what, there is still a world to inherit, and much good in it. Much that has survived the insanities of every chaos period; and much that, even though forgotten, is soon re-discovered when men regain their senses.
Not that those aren't employed now, but typically in a more covert manner. The worst offenders are on the side of the establishment (the "panopticon society" is their hobby-horse, after all) but they are also the ones who talk louly about how important democracy is. They have to hide their dubious desires beneath a veneer of "serving the people". They use that veneer not only to deceive the populace, but also to delude themselves. ("We're protecting democracy, our actions are justified, really!")
In a few decades, the boomer generation in which that sentiment is strongest will be gone. And in subsequent generations, that tendency will gradually disappear. No more pretty stories to cover up the true motives. Just a fight to the knife. And of course, that's horrible. But at least it's not so damned duplicitous. If it's to be a brutal shit-fight, then we should have the common decency not to pretend that it's anything else.
That's the big reason why the "baby-boomer brigade" tends to suck so much. They're the ones who (as I outlined above) make the brutal clash inevitable, but they're also the ones who sanctimoniously pretend that they're doing it to save democracy. They assign ill motives to all who disagree with them, but they hide their own decidely warped motives deep beneath a layer of hypocricy. Often, they hide the truth even from themselves.
----------------------------
An elaboration upon some notes regarding generational intervals, which I previously discussed with @Zyobot. Some of this re-states (or, actually, pre-states, since the bulk was written earlier) some of my remarks above.
First of all, we must consider that to some extent, generations are just useful short-hand. The borders are very fuzzy. But let's assume (quite reasonably so) that "generational cohorts" that coalesce around a main cultural identity do exist as meaningful forces.
An observation: every generation tries to define itself as different from the last, but is ultimately quite fundamentally shaped by their parents, to a degree that only becomes clear later.
As a rather dramatic example: the generation of my parents was born after the War and the Holocaust. Never lived through it. But because it the trauma of these events shaped the lives of their parents, they have "inherited" very strong feelings on that. Those feelings recede with each generation. In my country -- which has excellent education -- over a third of Gen Z schoolkids believes the Holocaust never happened. A majority simply... doesn't give a fuck. Once the generation of my parents goes extinct, the "Marian revolution" (and attendant fanatical slaughter) becomes possible in part because that's when the collective "Hitler guilt" in the West will have died out. Which means that's when the Overton Window opens on the next round of great bloody carnage.
This is just a fact of history. Neither good nor bad. We don't feel very strongly about Atilla the Hun, after all. I'm pointing out that everything considered "pure evil" will eventually just become "part of history", and therefore "normal".
(The interesting this is that the typical boomer reacts to this development with complete horror, and accuses anyone who observes this trend as being an evil fascist. They are so caught up in their own presentism that they can't view reality with anything resembling an objective stance. And that's precisely how they contribute to the problem. If they could set aside their holy terror, they could act logically; embrace moderate reforms to avoid later escalation. But because of their deeply conditioned knee-jerk response to something like MAGA... Well. Let's just say that Obama and Biden have contributed far more to the ascent of the populist Right than Trump ever has, or ever could.)
Anyway, this is my attempt to explain how generational identity shapes the dominant cultural and political perceptions at a given time, and thereby defines what is "possible" at any given time.
I think each generation (going by current age expectancy), enjoys a large degree of cultural and political supremacy from about 50 years after the start of its "birth bracket" until about 70 years after the end of its "birth bracket". A generation goes functionally extinct about 90 years after the close of its "birth bracket". (Some members survive a bit longer, obviously, but they no longer exert the dominant force over society.)
So, for instance, Baby Boomers are generally assumed to have been born 1946-1964. They gained cultural supremacy in the mid-'90s, which checks out: they were "yuppies" in the '80s, but moved up to serious management positions in the next decade. They'll hold onto power in a lot of places, even after a younger generations starts to supplant them, because the positions of the most power tend to be reserved for those with seniority. But by the mid-2030s, they'll be out of power for good. By the mid-2050s, they'll be functionally extinct. (Note that in the period they are already out of power, but still alive "in retirement", they still hold considerable social power.)
We can do this for all generations. It's not super accurate, but it's close enough for an impression. This also shows you the periods of generational power-transition. There's always multiple generations having a major influence. Usually, one the youngest of three really muscles its way in, the eldest of three generations is already about done.
Keeping in mind that they're 'fuzzy-edged', and that the years are only ever an appoximation, I think the generational succession looks about like this:
Boomers: born 1946-1964, reign 1996-2034, extinct 2054.
Gen X: born 1965-1980, reign 2015-2050, extinct 2070.
Millennials: born 1981-1996, reign 2031-2066, extinct 2086.
Gen Z: born 1997-2012, reign 2047-2082, extinct 2102.
Gen Alpha: born 2013-2028, reign 2063-2098, extinct 2118.
Gen Beta: born 2029-2044, reign 2079-2114, extinct 2134
Gen Gamma: born 2045-2060, reign 2095-2130, extinct 2150.
Gen Delta: born 2061-2076, reign 2111-2146, extinct 2166.
Consider that in light of the expected dating(s): "Neo-Marian revolution" c. 2060, "Neo-Caesarian revolution" c. 2090, and "Neo-Augustan triumph" c. 2110-2115.
This tells us that a Neo-Marius could well be a leading figure from Gen Z, who (by virtue of his radical positions) binds a lot of the ascendant (and by then increasingly dissatisfied) Gen Alpha electorate to his cause. (By reasonable expectation, a Neo-Marius figure should be at least in his 40s around 2060. Actual, historical Marius was 70 at the height of his power, but he was an outlier. You might expect this figure to be a bit younger in most cases.) His leading opponents will be the "top dog" Millennials clinging to the highest seats of power even as their generation is beginning to fade away.
A Neo-Caesar, quite similarly, could be a "late-born" member of Gen Beta (born around 2040?), most of whose generational cohort grew up in a world shaped by the anti-(Neo-)Marian / "Sullan" reaction. Like his Marian predecessor(s), he'd win the loyalty of a new "young guard", namely Gen Gamma, who would by then be looking at their dwindling prospects and scream for a radical turning.
A Neo-Augustus would then most probably be a member of that Gen Gamma, and would lead them into a reconciliation and normalisation after the preceding chaos. Gen Delta would be very young during Neo-Caesar's reign, and would welcome Neo-Augustus as their benefactor when he restores stability just as they're looking to get their lives in good order. They'd be the true "consolidating generation" of the Principate, and they'd be the ones singing Neo-Augustus's praises when he dies (leaving them a better world than the preceding generations inherited).
In conclusion: while we (again) focus much of our attention on the prospective events of this century, I think the real work will be done by "generation Delta" in the next century. They are the ones who will build new greatness on top of the ruins. And it is, ultimately, for them -- for what they represent -- that good men must live through the turbulent ages. No matter what, there is still a world to inherit, and much good in it. Much that has survived the insanities of every chaos period; and much that, even though forgotten, is soon re-discovered when men regain their senses.
Last edited:
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
God preserve us from the thousand year Boomer Reich.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
I truly had to re-read the thing three times, even after you pointed it, before seeing it. Dyslexia makes it hard for me to avoid weird mistakes like that. Sometimes I really mangle words and numbers.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Don’t worry yourself! These things happen.I truly had to re-read the thing three times, even after you pointed it, before seeing it. Dyslexia makes it hard for me to avoid weird mistakes like that. Sometimes I really mangle words and numbers.
But, on that note, an interesting point is brought up. A lot of the generational cycles you’ve posited are based off the natural human lifespan. There are medical developments in the works at this very moment that could dramatically change that.
My generation, Millennials/Gen Z (I was born in 1997), could end up living a very long time indeed, whilst avoiding physical and cognitive decline. How would that factor in?
And that’s without Bezos achieving his wish of immortality, which I think would derail the entire cycle.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Well, then you sort of walk into the realm of the post-human, and that's beyond the edge of the map that we know. As I've argued before: most regular changes in technology don't meaningfully impact things (we have the same cycle recurring in many places, from millennia before Christ to, well... now) and that's because they don't change human nature.
If human beings become immortal or at least centuries-old, or if we become a singularity, or if hard AI comes into being, or if intelligent aliens show up, or if we invent the universal replicator and achieve post-scarcity... then things do go off the rails. That changes the paradigm that has informed human action since the neolithic revolution.
It changes the human condition. Not superficially, but fundamentally. And that's when the observed patters stop being valid.
I'm not so sure we're that close to any practical kind of meaningful life extension, though. I don't think that adding a decade or two -- and most likely only to the super-rich, at least for some time -- would make that much of a difference. But if the normal human life-span becomes three hundred years or something, then you've truly gone and steered us off the map. No telling what awaits, then.
(It's actually a weak point in Dune: the spice extends life, but we don't see families with seven living generations, or something, and this massive social change doesn't seem to have affected culture at all. In reality, it would change things pretty fundamentally, in ways that are hard to predict. In fact, a major consequence of the Neolithic revolution was that grandparents typically survived, in good health, for long enough to watch the young children while the parents' generation did the labour-intensive work. This ensured both efficiency, a deep respect for elders, and a far more consequent transmission of both knowledge and tradition. That's the basis of civilisation. On such grounds, universal and significant life extension might potentially enhance such factors to a given degree. But that's speculative, and just off the top of my head.)
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
I’d say it would signifigantly shake things up, but fundamental change? I believe a long lived monkey is still a monkey, and we’d still find plenty of things to fight wars over and forge empires.
I think the political scene would both become more chaotic (as the old guard butts heads with ever more newcomers) and more sensible (now, by dint of living long enough to see it, politicians would have to think through the long term consequences of their actions).
It would be a fascinating society to say the least. Mere families would grow into full blown clans with the passage of time, especially if the older generations can still have children!
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Definitely not @Skallagrim, but because @Lord Sovereign raises an interesting point:
Seconded.
Even as a non-dyslexic, I've had cases of words misspelled or accidentally omitted in my haste to post. Tend to only spot it after the fact, too — and even then, I rarely have the guts to go back and edit it for fear of that ugly "Last edited" mark in the corner.
More or less in agreement with Skallagrim, as far as prospects for unnatural life extension go.
Granted, there's still the remote (or at least, unfalsifiable) possibility they're hiding something big at Area 51 and various top-secret R&D labs the public has no idea about. In which case, get ready for lots of stuff to "trickle out" over the next few decades, or maybe get blown wide open by "Marius" declassifying a host of damning documents or "Caesar" forcibly revealing that weather-weapons, inter-dimensional child molesters, and the other weird shit Alex Jones blabbers about were real this whole time.
(Not something I find plausible, mind you, but we've certainly been blindsided before. And judging by what current trends tell us, we'll have to get used to being blindsided again and again as we find out what really goes on behind closed doors.)
Failing that, I think even life-extensions of a few more decades enabling Millennial and Gen Z'er oligarchs to stay in power might actually reinforce the youths' perception they're ruled by "Greedy old crones and codgers who want it all!" that stubbornly refuse to let in fresh blood that can make real change.
At that point, I think "Okay, Zoomer!" memes (or whatever the 2083 equivalent is) will be the least of our problems, when the youth fifty or sixty years from now are screaming for a radical reckoning and the chance to cast out a bunch of near-centenarian plutocrats who won't budge or retire of their own accord. Lots and lots of eldercide to go around by then, I fear.
Seconded.
Even as a non-dyslexic, I've had cases of words misspelled or accidentally omitted in my haste to post. Tend to only spot it after the fact, too — and even then, I rarely have the guts to go back and edit it for fear of that ugly "Last edited" mark in the corner.
More or less in agreement with Skallagrim, as far as prospects for unnatural life extension go.
Granted, there's still the remote (or at least, unfalsifiable) possibility they're hiding something big at Area 51 and various top-secret R&D labs the public has no idea about. In which case, get ready for lots of stuff to "trickle out" over the next few decades, or maybe get blown wide open by "Marius" declassifying a host of damning documents or "Caesar" forcibly revealing that weather-weapons, inter-dimensional child molesters, and the other weird shit Alex Jones blabbers about were real this whole time.
(Not something I find plausible, mind you, but we've certainly been blindsided before. And judging by what current trends tell us, we'll have to get used to being blindsided again and again as we find out what really goes on behind closed doors.)
Failing that, I think even life-extensions of a few more decades enabling Millennial and Gen Z'er oligarchs to stay in power might actually reinforce the youths' perception they're ruled by "Greedy old crones and codgers who want it all!" that stubbornly refuse to let in fresh blood that can make real change.
At that point, I think "Okay, Zoomer!" memes (or whatever the 2083 equivalent is) will be the least of our problems, when the youth fifty or sixty years from now are screaming for a radical reckoning and the chance to cast out a bunch of near-centenarian plutocrats who won't budge or retire of their own accord. Lots and lots of eldercide to go around by then, I fear.
Bassoe
Well-known member
Depends on two factors. Cost of the hypothetical immortality treatment and declining societal stability. Or in other words, if the treatment is expensive enough only Bezos and friends can afford it, that'll provoke even more class envy to put it mildly. Whereas if it's cheap, nobody will ever retire from a job, there'll be no jobs available for younger generations and therefore no opportunity for them to participate in society to motivate them to buy into said society's continuation. Hypothetical future immortality medical tech presumably would necessitate a massive industrial and scientific basis to maintain, greater than that required by modern medical tech, that's incompatible with violent revolts targeting the oligarchs and supply chain keeping them alive.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Nice derail, troll.
As usual, you're just sharing posts and screenshots you had on-hand ahead of time and framing everything through the lens of your pet issues — malevolent AIs, universal enslavement, global corporatocracy, and so on — instead of engaging with the subject on its own terms.
Probably won't so much as reply to explain yourself, either, given your record of spamming your manic obsessions and refusing to justify it whenever I call you out on your shit. Fine by me if don't, though don't be surprised if the adults in the room don't take you seriously (which I've stopped doing long ago).
Bassoe
Well-known member
You misunderstand, I'm agreeing with you. If medical immortality were invented tomorrow, it'd probably bring down the oligarchy. There's no way they could introduce it which wouldn't break society in some way. Either they use it themselves and motivate a violent revolt of everyone who doesn't get it, or they distribute it and destroy the job market for all future generations. Keeping it secret just makes enemies of everyone, including their fellow billionaires if they ever found out.
It's funny, I'm expressing the same view that I've held consistently, based on the same obervations and the same reasoning--
But whereas it's usually regarded as bleak pessimism, you view my expectation as the optimistic one! I think that's funny.
-----------------------------
A vaguely related point is that, while the expectation for the rest of this century tends to be dim, to those who are inclined towards macrohistorical analysis, the long-term implication is a very serene one. Universal ideas persist, or are reborn. An entire civilisation can die out, but on the soil it leaves behind, successors arise. Even though no good idea can ever last, no stupid idea can last, either.
It's very humbling, and very soothing, in a way. I really think that "taking the long view" is a mental cure for the madness and the petty obsessions of any given time. Your perception shifts from "this is insufferable" to "this, too, shall pass". And then the main question is not one of rage anymore.
We've talked a lot about what the transition from "modernity" to "the world after modernity" might entail, and what aspects might be carried over of discarded-- but I'm personally far more curious about what a future Principare might yet create and (ultimately) leave behind. The Principate is, in retrospect, always a civilisation's golden age. The most definitive art and literature is created in that era; even philosophy and science reach their "maturity". Earlier ages may be more innovative, but here we get the pay-off: a consolidation. A final form.
Imagine what our Aeneid could be like. And that's the sort of thing that out-lasts even the death of a civilisation!
The greatest benefit of stepping beyond the highly self-obsessed, "presentist" mindset of the current age (at least in my opinion) is that we'll be able to create things of lasting beauty again. Things that will be cherishes long afer our bones are dust.
That's the closest thing to immortality on earth that any sane man might desire.
All true.But i remember,that once people are put into gulags,it would not end till somebody outside change that.
Soviets and China changed their systems,becouse of economy - there were still free countries which could not be conqered and outproduced them.
But ,what if THERE WOULD BE NO OUTSIDE WORLD? gulags would last,till technology would fall to cave age level.
All you need to last are brutes with knuts,after all.
It would happen - but till then,90% of population or more would die.
And survivors would be worst ones,becouse best and average would be murdered.
I pity that humanity - starting from cabes,with worst people possible,and without any guidance - becouse entire knowledge of our cyvilization would be long destroyed,too.
But,if you are right - our Principate period would take us to starts,or at least other planets.Even now we could do that,if money were not wasted.
In that case,new Aeneid would happen on Mars,or maybe even in other system !
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Given previous predictions about Turkey as our "Kingdom of Pontus", I'm wondering where other Middle Eastern players will stand once it goes all "Neo-Ottoman" everywhere?
For one, assuming it aims to grab up its original holdings (and possibly go even further than that), I assume they'll attempt to retake Syria, Kurdistan, and much of the Caucuses. Probably genocide Israel and Armenia, too; the former out of rabid anti-Semitism and wanting the Levant back, the latter to finish what their ancestors started. Would also bring them into conflict with Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, I think, per longstanding rivalries that could come to a head after 2050 or so.
Without delving into current politics, maybe something will come of Iran and Saudi Arabia — who hate each other and have had their fair share of spats, as is — sitting down to talk things out somewhat, given Western politicking now and the shared threat posed by an ascendant Turkey later on.
That in mind, I think we could see a "multi-sided" bloodbath between the resurgent Turks, declining Arab states, and hunkered-down Israelis backed by the West. There is, of course, room for temporary truces and alliances throughout the process, such as Turkey and the rest of the Islamic World signing their own "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" in a joint invasion of Israel — at least, before "Hitler" (Neo-Ottoman Turkey) inevitably backstabs "Stalin" (Iran and the Arab World), culminating in the Turks carrying out their own version of Generalplan Ost on the losers.
Either way, I doubt our "Mithridatic Wars" will stop with Israel and the West going to war with the Islamic World, so much as spiral into a chaotic shit-fight where the Western-backed Israelis are also faced with the Turks and their Arab and Iranian rivals jockeying for power and bashing each others' heads in along the way. Could go in all sorts of crazy directions, really.
For one, assuming it aims to grab up its original holdings (and possibly go even further than that), I assume they'll attempt to retake Syria, Kurdistan, and much of the Caucuses. Probably genocide Israel and Armenia, too; the former out of rabid anti-Semitism and wanting the Levant back, the latter to finish what their ancestors started. Would also bring them into conflict with Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, I think, per longstanding rivalries that could come to a head after 2050 or so.
Without delving into current politics, maybe something will come of Iran and Saudi Arabia — who hate each other and have had their fair share of spats, as is — sitting down to talk things out somewhat, given Western politicking now and the shared threat posed by an ascendant Turkey later on.
That in mind, I think we could see a "multi-sided" bloodbath between the resurgent Turks, declining Arab states, and hunkered-down Israelis backed by the West. There is, of course, room for temporary truces and alliances throughout the process, such as Turkey and the rest of the Islamic World signing their own "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" in a joint invasion of Israel — at least, before "Hitler" (Neo-Ottoman Turkey) inevitably backstabs "Stalin" (Iran and the Arab World), culminating in the Turks carrying out their own version of Generalplan Ost on the losers.
Either way, I doubt our "Mithridatic Wars" will stop with Israel and the West going to war with the Islamic World, so much as spiral into a chaotic shit-fight where the Western-backed Israelis are also faced with the Turks and their Arab and Iranian rivals jockeying for power and bashing each others' heads in along the way. Could go in all sorts of crazy directions, really.
Bassoe
Well-known member
He's a ways away from actually doing it. Current nonsense with cryogenics is just an expensive, modernized version of dynastic chinese emperors giving themselves mercury poisoning. I imagine future historians/pop culture understanding of history will combine it with the epstein island shenanigans and talk about how the decadent and corrupt aristocracy of the late American imperial period turned to vampirism and Mad Science in the hopes of living forever. Like all the supposed medieval tortures which were actually invented wholesale by the Victorians for the purpose of dramatic storytelling and feeling morally superior to their ancestors.
I imagine violence. Spice is expensive, keeping an ever-expanding population of immortals will strain any Great House's finances and upset its younger members with the knowledge that they'll never inherit and their potential inheritance is being spent on making this the case. Assassination attempts and warfare are things in Dune, eventually anyone's luck is statistically bound to run out.
To be honest....the future historians wont be completely in the wrong there.
The current leadership is incredibly decadent (That I can forgive) And corrupt (This not so much)
When everything goes tits up and the system collapses people will have a histography about how douchy the last guys were, and it wont be completely wrong.
Last edited:
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Certainly true that this kind of historiography is no doubt going to be a thing. Especially when you consider that the people who typically initiate a Principate want to set themselves apart from the "fallen age" that came before. So evn though they don't really have to invent the degeneracy that they decry (it's real, we can see it this very day), they do (and will again, in our future) have a tendency to stress those aspects. ...And ignore that there was good, too. [*]
Of course, decadence is a human trait, and since human nature is basically static (or has been, for the past ten millennia, and I don't see any evidence of change), the Empire soon has its own excesses. But since it has more of a fixation on moral norms (though not necessarily good morals!) and "the proper forms", there are more "mainstream" voices loudly decrying it. Which defines a lot of the literature from the Principate, doesn't it? Even their histories are thinly-veiled morality plays. The effect is that in retrospect, the ages all look about equally decadent. And maybe they are. (A key difference is that the decadence of a chaos period is allowed to unhinge society, and the decadence of the Principate is very much not allowed to do that.)
The obsession with immortality tends to go away with the advent of the Principate, though. That kind of society tends to seek immortality through renown, rather than some kind of physical deathlessness. This returns later, in the Dominate. It's interesting that Caesarism, meanwhile, is also not exempt from such yearnings. Caesar himself was (as we've noted) a particularly noble iteration of his... archetype, if you will. But note how Qin Shi Huangdi was himself obsessed with immortality. It's possible that a "Neo-Caesar" of our age pours billions into life-extension technology, no doubt including all sorts of pseudo-science. That's not a given, but history shows that it it very much possible for such a figure to share in such an obsession.
We might conclude that the people of sick/dying societies and systems become obsessed with physical immortality, whereas people in healthy/thriving societies don't typically experience that particular ultra-fixation. (This is, I think, an extreme aspect of the broader tendency of unstable societies being obsessed with materialism, and stable societies caring far less about materialism.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[*] -- Because yes, there is good in the current age. It's not as if the thesis of macro-history is "liberal democracy is always bad and only ever has bad results". That's the childish straw-man that dishonest critics of macro-history hold up as its supposed conclusion. The real conclusion is that certain systems are either more or less stable than other systems; and in casu that mass democracy is inherently unstable; and that it is therefore always relatively short-lived and doomed to end in violent chaos.
"Applied macro-history", if there is such a thing (outside of Hari Seldon's Foundation, naturally
), boils down to the question of: "How do we best survive the times? How do we ease the inevitable transition periods in such a way to minimise the suffering?" -- And the answer, history teaches, is: "When systems turn terminal, accept the inevitable. Don't cling to them needlessly, but rather guide the transition with as much wisdom as possible." This is true of all systems, and at times, is true even of the most stable and long-enduring systems. But in our present time, it pertains to the inevitable death of democracy-- which, in order to thrive, we should accept, rather than pointlessly resist. The former allows you to swim smoothly within the flow of history, while the latter will see you engulfed in a violent torrent.(Which again underscores my thesis that the advocates of mass democracy and "modernism" are actually chaining us to a corpse, and dooming us to a needlessly violent transition; which could be avoided if they were less dogmatic, and just accepted that their hobby-horses are already dead.)
Last edited:
Skallagrim
Well-known member
I'll expand upon some earlier remarks here:
As far as Turkey goes, I've previously said that they are a viper within the NATO armour, and it'll bite us in the end. In practice, they're cozying up the China already. They love that Putin is immolating Russia, and that all the world is emptying its armoury into Ukraine. Their ambition is to (re)gain a neo-Ottoman sphere of influence over Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus, Egypt, and if possible the Balkans. But of these, Egypt is most desired, for this would give them control over both the Bosphoros and the Suez Canal.
(Note that I don't think that Turkey is capable of re-creating the Ottoman Empire. But they can and will grab some choice bits, and make the most of it.)
This would involve betraying NATO, but China is more than willing to back them with enormous sums of money and matériel. Because the return favour for that is China gets cheap or free access through these choke points, and Turkey becomes a forward position for Chinese strategic military efforts. (Take keen notice of how avidly Turkey is pushing for "pipe-lines through Turkey" as the "safe" alternative to existing pipe-lines. They cleverly paint this as "making Europe less dependent of Russia". But the actual effect is that they can close those pipe-lines when the time comes for their act of betrayal.)
Turkey is currently in debt and has monetary issues. I expect their betrayal to come when their economy can't hold up any longer. At that point, they'll back-stab NATO, and ally openly with China. In the process, they'll replace their currency with a new Chinese-backed one, and declare all their foreign debt void. (Unilaterally in case of the West; with permission in case of China.)
Turkey is in a strategically significant spot, it has the ambition, it's insulated from overt counter-measures by being inside NATO, it's evidently willing to accept Chinese funding, and it has a major fiscal-economic issue that will provide a compelling reason to accept the Chinese offer. Therefore, my money is on Turkey being the "Pontus" of our age.
(Russia was the only other contender that I could see, and I was saying they'd mostly likely self-destruct instead before the current war broke out. Now, it's evident. Most of Russia will be vassalised by China. Perhaps all of it. If the West is half-way capable, it'll get a chunk of Russia in its own sphere of influence. This means Russia is basically more like ancient Armenia.)
I expect the events I have described to be the root cause of our basic equivalent to the Mithridatic Wars. Europe will at this point scream out for American help, and America will answer. (This is also the point where Europe becomes a definitive American vassal region.)
Anyway, Turkey no doubt gets crushed in the end, although China will prop it up for as long as possible, same as the West is now doing with Ukraine. But China will be less effective, because they won't have so much to pour into backing Turkey. That is because the Turks are just pawns to them, to serve as a useful distraction for the West. (The Turks, possessing an inflated sense of their own importance, don't seem to realise this. Even though it's really obvious.) The main interest of China lies in establishing a firm hold on Taiwan and Asiatic Russia, as well as Korea, Japan, and South-East Asia overall. They'll be getting all of this underway, instead of spending their full effort to back the Turks.
...That about sums up why I think Turkey will play the role of "Pontus", and how it will play out. How the Arab states position themselves in this remains up for grabs. When we consider the prospective "Troubles" in Europe pertaining to unassimilated Muslims, it seems... tricky... to have an alliance that includes both European powers and Arab powers at this point. Not impossible, but certainly precarious. There is also the matter that Turkey and Iran might actually ally, since they're not in direct competition. In case of Arab opposition, this would force said Arabs to fight on two fronts. There are many ways that side of the whole affair can play out.
Last edited: