Is western civilisation in terminal decline?

[kenneal - lagger]

Terminal means permanent decline. It could be the proverbial switch back but the trend would be downward.

Another measure would be energy supply as increasing economic activity has, in the past, required increasing energy supply. Economic activity and energy supply are about the only things that are measured worldwide and readily available.

[johnhemming2]

Energy is a good measurement as it is clear and available, but in my view increased efficiency (and therefore a reduction in energy usage) is a good thing.

[Little John]

The amount people have to work to pay for the essentials of life. for example, a stable roof over one's head etc.

The scope and/or degree of technological development

The amount of primary wealth producing activity taking place

off the top of my head....

[kenneal - lagger]

Energy is a good measurement as it is clear and available, but in my view increased efficiency (and therefore a reduction in energy usage) is a good thing.

Increased growth will always require increased electricity and it is unlikely that we will be able to decrease the amount of energy used, increase the efficiency, fast enough to counter increased growth. Energy use reduction will mean, for a long time in the future, decreased growth.

The amount people have to work to pay for the essentials of life. for example, a stable roof over one's head etc.

That reminds me - Christmas is coming!!

[clv101]

Terminal means permanent decline. It could be the proverbial switch back but the trend would be downward.

Another measure would be energy supply as increasing economic activity has, in the past, required increasing energy supply. Economic activity and energy supply are about the only things that are measured worldwide and readily available.

"Permanent decline" isn't really helpful... as it would imply Rome didn't face terminal decline. I don't think the word 'terminal' is very useful at all in this context.

I certainly wouldn't like to describe declining economic activity and energy use as 'decline'. If we figured out a way for cheap, efficient robots to do most of the work and figured out a way to equitably distribute the fruits of the their labour to the human population allowing them kick back and relax we'd be sorted. This new enlightenment could well have less economic activity and lower energy consumption - but I wouldn't call it 'decline'.

[Catweazle]

Hence we need to look for improvements in the human condition that don't necessarily mean massive economic growth.

I was thinking along the lines of a "Happiness Index".

Is it good that people live longer or have bigger houses if they're miserable ? I don't think so.

[PS_RalphW]

Health and life expectancy would be a good place to start. Also low levels of violent crime, A good standard of general education, very high literacy rates, etc.

[kenneal - lagger]

The lack of hunger in the world?

[vtsnowedin]

You wouldn't measure hunger in the far east or Africa to measure the health of "Western civilization".
A civilization is not terminal if all the people are dead but long before that when social organization and structures fail or are taken over by another culture.
And it may not be a very kind or benevolent civilization so human rights or personnel happiness aren't defining. The Aztecs used to sacrifice babies on top of pyramids and we English used to burn heretics at the stake and draw and quarter our enemies.
A civilization is measured by the infrastructure that provides and transports necessities to the citizens and the government that regulates it and maintains civil order.
If the gangs or ISIL take over in the west so that the store shelves can't be stocked then our civilization will then be terminal.

[kenneal - lagger]

You wouldn't measure hunger in the far east or Africa to measure the health of "Western civilization".

No, but you can measure how much hunger there is is the UK or the US by the number of malnourished people and those who have to resort to food banks.

A civilization is not terminal if all the people are dead but long before that when social organization and structures fail or are taken over by another culture.

No! It's terminated then.

And it may not be a very kind or benevolent civilization so human rights or personnel happiness aren't defining. The Aztecs used to sacrifice babies on top of pyramids and we English used to burn heretics at the stake and draw and quarter our enemies.

How benevolent is a civilisation that allows the regular sacrifice of its school children on the altar of the Freedom to Bear Arms?

A civilization is measured by the infrastructure that provides and transports necessities to the citizens and the government that regulates it and maintains civil order.

But western governments are increasingly abdicating that responsibility to corporations so that those corporations can make money from those assets and functions at the expense of the people who have paid for them from their taxation, taxation that the corporations do not pay, and use the facilities and provisions. Those who cannot pay are left by the wayside for the taxpayer, again not the corporations, to pick up.

If the gangs or ISIL take over in the west so that the store shelves can't be stocked then our civilization will then be terminal.

You should add corporations to that list as they are, at the very least, amoral and in many cases completely immoral. If the Three Ts, TPP, TTIP and TISA, are ratified then we won't have to worry about criminal gangs at large because those gangs, our corporations, will be running two thirds of the "Once Free" world for their profit and our loss. The disgusting imbalance in earnings that we see now will look positively fair compared to that which we will see in their corporate newly feudal paradise

[vtsnowedin]

You wouldn't measure hunger in the far east or Africa to measure the health of "Western civilization".

No, but you can measure how much hunger there is is the UK or the US by the number of malnourished people and those who have to resort to food banks.

A civilization is not terminal if all the people are dead but long before that when social organization and structures fail or are taken over by another culture.

No! It's terminated then.

And it may not be a very kind or benevolent civilization so human rights or personnel happiness aren't defining. The Aztecs used to sacrifice babies on top of pyramids and we English used to burn heretics at the stake and draw and quarter our enemies.

How benevolent is a civilisation that allows the regular sacrifice of its school children on the altar of the Freedom to Bear Arms?

A civilization is measured by the infrastructure that provides and transports necessities to the citizens and the government that regulates it and maintains civil order.

But western governments are increasingly abdicating that responsibility to corporations so that those corporations can make money from those assets and functions at the expense of the people who have paid for them from their taxation, taxation that the corporations do not pay, and use the facilities and provisions. Those who cannot pay are left by the wayside for the taxpayer, again not the corporations, to pick up.

If the gangs or ISIL take over in the west so that the store shelves can't be stocked then our civilization will then be terminal.

You should add corporations to that list as they are, at the very least, amoral and in many cases completely immoral. If the Three Ts, TPP, TTIP and TISA, are ratified then we won't have to worry about criminal gangs at large because those gangs, our corporations, will be running two thirds of the "Once Free" world for their profit and our loss. The disgusting imbalance in earnings that we see now will look positively fair compared to that which we will see in their corporate newly feudal paradise

You really injoy preaching against corporations. Do you honestly believe that the neccesities of life would be available to you cheaper if all the corperations were desolved into small business?
As to the stories about "Hunger in America",? It would be easier to believe if when they interviewed the "Hungry people" they weren't an axe handle and a half across the arse. Right to bear arms vs. school children? Did I not say the Benevelance was not a measure of a civilization?

[johnhemming2]

No, but you can measure how much hunger there is is the UK or the US by the number of malnourished people and those who have to resort to food banks.

You can measure by the amount of malnourished people, but not by the numbers attending food banks which is strongly influenced by the numbers of food banks and availability of food through that route.

[vtsnowedin]

No, but you can measure how much hunger there is is the UK or the US by the number of malnourished people and those who have to resort to food banks.

You can measure by the amount of malnourished people, but not by the numbers attending food banks which is strongly influenced by the numbers of food banks and availability of food through that route.

With 47 million people in the USA (1 out of every 6) receiving food stamps (SNAP) there remains only three ways to be hungry in the USA. 1. Your too stupid to apply for the benefit, 2. You're too stupid to buy good food with the money and blow it on beer and tobacco, OR 3, you are the children of people that fall under 1 or 2.

[Catweazle]

All these things are secondary. If the people are happy then you can consider society a success.

[kenneal - lagger]

I would be willing to pay twice for everything, VT, if the corporations didn't own the politicians. No business should be "too big to fail" or be able to buy what it wants from the ruling party as Monsanto and friends are doing with much legislation on labelling, GMOs and Roundup. And things like TPP, TTIP and TISA are an affront to democracy and the people promoting it should be shot, literally.