Ha! I am quite focused on the present with respect to the entry above. I am aware that historical literature is full of sad stories: Have you tried to find a 'happy story' in the Icelandic Sagas? At least some of these tales exist to keep bad things from happening.

In one saga, a man strikes his newlywed bride the day after they are married. She says, "Someday, you will regret that." Years pass and he is now very in love with her, and she with him. Enemies attack their home; he is an excellent bowman and can keep them all at bay. His bowstring breaks. He turns to his beloved wife and asks her for some strands of her beautiful knee-length hair to use as a bowstring. She says, "No. You struck me. I will not give you my hair." (In this culture, pride is more important than love.) He will not lower himself to take her hair by force, and he fights with a sword until his enemies kill him. Moral: Don't beat your wife.

I study the sagas for the info they contain, but I avoid reading them as stories...because they are almost all mega-downers. I accept, philosophically, that stories about the bad times that other people have can lead to empathy that crosses lines of class and race and religion. I accept that these stories are good things to have for this reason.

I do not accept that our culture should magnify and glorify the negative side of our present civilization in order to make us feel as if we were subject to a modern version of 'Original Sin'. We are not born guilty of inherited blame for slavery and prejudice and genocide just because we now live in a flourishing high tech culture. This is what the negative media is trying to push on us psychologically, and I reject that meme.

Jan

It is a religious view that the secular Left have incorporated into their pantheon of thought. Kantianism expressly packaged in bite sized pieces of "the weathers hot, Bob"...

I would argue that we are caught up in predictions that never seem to wind up accurate. If we need more widgets, rather than predict how many could be made, isnt it better to just get on with producing now what we can and keep on doing that until they are all made?

...and our Rocky Mountain Indians had smoke signals.

(And for the record, I live on the Wind River Reservation and I know of no Indian that prefers "Native American" as a designation)

" information traveled at the "speed of horse," the Pony Express"
France had a network of people with semaphore flags on hilltops that could transfer information faster than horseback. Electricity moves at about 2/3 the speed of light, depending on the velocity factor of the transmission line. Speed of light is 5 us per mile, 85 ps per inch. 150 years after those semaphore flag network was retired, I use those speed of light numbers on a daily basis. "What hath God wrought"

There are two modes of this:
1. Fight the decline - If you say things are pretty good, you're an apologist of all the evil things in the world, e.g. violent crime, intrusive gov't, corruption.
2. Welcome the Flood - We have become decadent, and a great flood is coming that will leave only the righteous.
In the more extreme form of #2, people don't want to bother with problems because they hasten the great flood, which hastens the coming of the righteous world that follows the flood. I strongly disagree with this because I don't think liberty is the default state for humankind. The declinist will say to this that even if we don't get utopia after the flood, there's no way things could be worse than they are today. I don't know what world they're living in. I actually wonder if they have clinical depression or something, since the world appears to be safer, freer, and more prosperous, than in all of human history.

An example of #2 are Naomi Klein saying she used to fear climate change, but not she sees the bright side that its effects will justify socialism. (I think climate change and socialism are two major threats to human prosperity, so I can't stand this view.) Another example is people opposed to fractional reserve banking. They look forward to a collapse of the monetary system, which they don't think will play out as in Germany.

Yes, things have continued to improve the quality of life for billions and at an increasing rate. But consider, until the telegraph made its way across the nation (1860s), information traveled at the "speed of horse," the Pony Express, the same speed as Genghis Khan and Julius Caesar. I've played "mountain man," living pre-1840 for 10 days and always concluded, "Yeah, it's fun, but I would have liked to have had antibiotics and anesthesia available at that time."

What is the principle of self-reliance? Is it to have enough to weather a storm (pun intended) such as a hurricane or even a job loss or is it to prepare for the end of the world? Either way one is speculating about the future. What you are arguing is the prudence of a particular type of preparation, and it too is mere speculation. If a major calamity does not happen, you can point your finger at those who prepared for it and claim that their efforts were in vain. If it does, you will be very sorry you didn't take similar precautions. You're trying to make the issue into one of who is right in their speculative efforts rather than focusing on the more important core principle of being responsible for one's self.

The one thing I can say either way about those who are self-reliant, is that they are taking the approach of making sure their own perceived needs are met through their own means. That's far better than the leftist mindset of government-sponsored theft (a.k.a. welfare) and entitlement. Regardless whether the end of the world comes or not, which mindset is going to support the principles of liberty?

My computer is old but quite serviceable (as am I). As for the argument that if we were in decline (I never said "rapid" decline) we would have a "dwindling" supply of pencils, that also is a weak argument at best.

As for my allusion to Rome being fallacious, I strongly disagree! I suggest that you read Cicero and you will see that Rome's decline was marked by that time frame and yes, Greece fell as did other civilizations however there is a marked difference between then and now! The world is getting hot (not environmentally but rather with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, etc. Technology advances without discernible cultural maturing is a very dangerous combination!

If one were to look with an open mind, the trajectory we are on (not only us) provides ample tinder for the winds of dangerous change and ultimately, decline of civilization. Atlas Shrugged only reinforces the belief that before you can build that "new" society, there must always be the destruction of the old! This goes for our culture as well. When you have more people avoiding paying Federal Income Taxes that do, you are already in a state of decline. It is a decline of the spirit and that leads to the decline of the rest of the organism.

As you mentioned, cultures (like any living entity) rise, flourish, age and perish! Why you would not see that happening here and now escapes me. Rose colored glasses don't alter reality, just the perception of it.

As for "World Beaters" seizing the wealth of others, we are witnessing this event in this country (assuming you are from the US) everyday we see the "mindless" redistribution of wealth which is no different that the distribution of grain to the masses in ancient Rome at the time of Cicero and Caesar. Stealing wealth can be done by individuals or by the masses (something for nothing - buys votes doesn't it?). Wouldn't you agree that Congress (house and senate) produce way too much legislation that gives things away to various constituencies, be it "corporate" welfare (Crony Capitalism - GE, Lockmart, etc.) as well as Obama Phones and incredible wefare benefits and unfunded entitlements to the masses. How long do you think that is going to be sustainable?

Let me throw this out for consideration! Common Core, is it for the betterment of the common man or, is it for the betterment of an oligarchical elite such as Bill Gates (Common Core's biggest supporter)? "Group Think" is just another stab at creating a 2 class hive (just like the Soviet Union experiment). Also, keeping in mind, Bill gates sells software and that in turn sells computers and networking therefore creating another multi billion dollar industry for him to exploit. He built Common Core and soon will be the primary beneficiary of it. Tell me he and his liberal friends in Silicon Valley aren't the prime beneficiaries.

As for Atlas Shrugged, it is prescient in speaking why such decline as envisioned by Ayn Rand can come. Denying that fact or missing the point amounts in essence to being little more than whistling past the graveyard. The masses being the herd type animal we are will, just like lemmings march right off the cliff or perhaps a better way of putting it, "like the proverbial lobster placed in a pot of cold water and having the heat slowly turned up, will only realize its own demise when it is too late!" Either allusion I firmly and without doubt believe, lemming or lobster, take your pick!

And that applies to the right, as well, which is the point of posting the OP here.

Jan, as much as I enjoy your insights, I think that you are too focused on the present. Do you know the German word "Weltschmerz"? Do you know about The Sorrows of Young Werther a tragic tale of youth from the Enlightenment. I think that it is important to consider the cultural context. Presently, we are in a Renaissance, a flourishing of art, literature, and science. I will not view a new Star Trek or a new Star Wars. Not everything new is good, but it is not the end of the world.

What kind of computer do you own? Just asking because if the world were in rapid decline as you claim, you would be writing letter with a dwindling supply of pencils. (See the famous "I, Pencil" by Leonard E. Read.

Like the death of Mark Twain, the end of the world has been greatly exaggerated -- often.

The easy allusion to Rome is fallacious on several grounds. Granted, it is a fact, apparently, that like people and trees, cultures rise, flourish, age, and fall. But I have more of my own teeth than everyone in my family combined who was my age now when I was 10. I just finished 20 push-ups and 33 sit-ups to start my day. Again, impossible to anyone my age now in the world I knew growing up. I have had heart surgery and the removal of a malignancy rather than dying of either of those, which I would have 100 years ago.

I also read your State of Fear by Michael Crichton. I get it. But we have always had world-beaters seizing the wealth of others for their grandiose plans -- and that in glory in republican Roman which looted Greece -- and diminished Rhodes as a center of learning in order to establish Delos as a center of the slave trade, before Julius Caesar. The Caesars, the Medici, the Habsburgs, the Rockefellers, there's never a shortage, but the deeper and more abiding engines of creation are found in the freedom to discover and act on those discoveries. The very fact that State of Fear was published and sold - and more to the point, Atlas Shrugged - speaks to why such dire predictions will not come true.

Actually, that is not true. While we decry he fact that only 25% of readers can understand the science section of the Sunday New York Times, the fact is that 25% can. That is a huge improvement over the previous 100 years. We have a long way to go, caught between the Scylla of "creation science" and the Charybdis of "anthropogenic climate change." But large numbers are better educated now than large numbers were 100 years ago. And Americans are ahead of most other people in that understanding of science.
See for example here: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
(Again, despite the hand-wringing...)

Moreover, libraries are more important than schools. In a recent interview Judge Clarence Thomas spoke of reading Ayn Rand in the public library as a youngster in the South. Racism and oppression were defeated by the truth.

Books by and about Ayn Rand have sold perhaps about 50 million copies. It is one of the factors that continues to hold promise for the future.

That is easily devolves into a range-of-the-moment reaction at best informed by calls to "pragmatism." Our ability to predict and change the future is essential to human survival at root. The mathematical ability to predict the future powered the Renaissance and launched the Age of Reason in an expansion of trade and commerce never even imagined possible before. Sure, the Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa, and Pytheas of Massalia probably traveled to Britain c. 325 BCE, but Age of Commerce would not have been possible without the arithmetic of probability.

I recommend Against the Gods by Peter L. Bernstein. Reviewed here http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...

... but you could be speaking of the right, of course, which is why I posted the article. The idea of a self-sufficient homestead riding out a global apocalypse permeates conservative culture. Ayn Rand correctly pointed out that the libertarians stole her political philosophy without accepting its metaphysical and epistemological foundation. We see the same thing here.

Rises and falls have rises and falls within. The broadest historical trend is upward. We are better off now than we were in 1500 CE or 1500 BCE. I took a survey class in the history of China. They had the same experience over their long and continuous history, good times and bad times. The important thing is to note what causes them.

Freedom is important, but we were politically "free" for a million years and four successive kinds of humans used the same hand-axe for 100,000 years. Once we had ideas and words to express them, then freedom to act on those ideas paid huge rewards. In Sumer it was the idea of "large" numbers such as 5 and words to express them and the ability to record them in writing.

For the Greeks, writing led to introspection and expanded discoveries about the external world. The Renaissance and printing, the Age of Reason and steam, the Enlightenment and electricity...

But all along, even in the so-called "Dark Ages" things tended to improve if only slowly. Just for one case in point, medieval astronomers of about 900 AD had a better grasp of the order of the heavens and the motions of the Earth than did the Romans. In the "Dark Ages" antimony was separated as an elemental metal and soap was invented. you would not want to give up your life now to live back then. And given a time machine, you might choose Ancient Greece for cultural reasons. But the Court of Marie of Champagne in the shadow of Eleanor of Aragon c. 1100 was vibrant in its own right.

Sounds precisely like a religious argument for why one should behave as the (xxx) says so that you will be granted (immortality, nirvana, 12 virgins/raisins, or other excellent outcome).

Liberals have become a religion! Change has become their enemy!

The world's not in decline because the successful winners won't let it with mine and their successes.

The world is in decline because overall education is in decline but most importantly education in the USA is getting close to the point of non-existence. And what happens here is duplicated world wide.

First of all, this article barely touches on the realities of the argument it is trying to present. The same can be said about the counterpoint arguments being made as well. Left and right are both dismally wrong (in my humble opinion!

Are we experiencing the "decline" of modern societies around the world? Absolutely, but not for the reasons mentioned! let's take the Roman empire model first.

Yes, the actual beginning of Rome's decline can be identified definitively as the beginning of the reign of Julius Caesar (albeit the events that took place a number of years before that set the stage). The Republic succumbed to the rule of the masses (democracy left to its own devices will do that). The Senate became so concerned about the citizenry and the rule of the masses that the government opened the grain stores and the games became the hallmark of Rome's focus, that being on a more "universal" form of hedonism.

Cicero recognized that the Republic was in danger whereas he even cast his lot with Pompey in hopes that would save the Republic from Caesar's designs. That was not to be, the Rubicon was crossed and Pompey and his armies defeated. It was at this point that Caesar ascended to becoming tyrant and the Republic died. We are now at a point whereas the Presidency has become a cult figurehead (first Obama and now Trump). We are tacitly supporting the President seizing of power and ruling over an increasingly "unresponsive" Congress and an already corrupt Judiciary! Yes, the Republic is dying if not already dead. Tyranny once our venerable Constitution rendered invalid. This is the next phase. Rome redux!

As for the influx of "foreign" infidels yes, that is happening. The question that is not readily apparent is "why?"...There is a philosophy that in order to fix something you first have to break it. this appears to be the grand strategy! Fear and death will deliver the coup de grâce! The start of this approach (thanks to George HW Bush) was the "partial" invasion of Iraq. Partial? Because there was never a plan on taking out Hussein by Bush (or the international elite). We needed a "boogieman" to fear and to keep us in a constant state of fear and agitation. Hussein filled that need nicely.

This veiled approach also set the stage for the next phase (thanks to Clinton and finally GW Bush). Bin Laden was in Clinton's grasp (if he wanted him) however Bin Laden (like Hussein) was needed by the international elite and the Military Industrial Complex in order to further us along the "desired" path to rule by the UN (and their rulers).

With the toppling of Hussein and the collapse of stability he represented, the next phase was well underway that being the destabilization of Western Europe, the former Soviet Republics, North Africa, and all of Southwestern Asia. Obama was the man for this phase and he did it with gusto! Fomenting such destabilizing effects ratchets up the need for more military involvement and greater participation of the UN and other "Super" national entities. We now have the debate raging about Islamic Terrorists coming into the country without being vetted! How appropriate and what a way to sow more fear. Perhaps with enough fear, Americans will again trade Freedom for supposed (albeit fake) security. Remember the Patriot Act? Throw into the fray, heightened globalization through control by the central banks, the IMF, the World Bank and the Import/Export Bank and via treaties negotiated by the UN et al and there you have the stage nicely set. Total control by a world government and the death of America as we have known it. Any questions?

Fear, never-ending war, creation of national emergencies (NK, Cuba, Syria and Iran) - Interestingly, these four countries are the only one's without a Central Bank - I wonder what that means in the scheme of things?

Yes, the world is in rapid decline however not for the reasons stated above. In my humble opinion!

I think that the rise of the antihero and dystopias, especially in fiction, is dangerous because people do not just magically 'become' socialist or depressed: they are trained to these world-views. This has been very successful in the last 30 years.

Young people are methodically trained in socialist doctrine and in the inevitable immediate collapse of Western Civilization. This is reinforced by movies and books. When these world views are noted by the press, it is as if they had sprung up of their own accord (news article today on Millennials overturning capitalism). Depression is on the rise in Millennials...what a surprise.

Jan

the chinese government is communist (whatever that really IS today), and thinks nothing of rights. THAT scares me given they are gaining wealth from pandering to capitalism, but once they have the wealth, they will turn back to being another hitler type country I fear.

"our company is substantially dependent on china doing well, and china is very substantially dependent on the USA consumer doing well"
I think this is a natural development. The wealth in question comes from trade. The extreme case of everyone making everything for himself is pure poverty. Wealth comes from specialization and trade, which makes people dependent on one another. I agree, though, it's scary given how the Chinese gov't doesn't respect its citizens' rights.

I can give you a real life story. My company makes off road lighting products. In years past, we made pretty much everything we use right in house, or using materials from USA suppliers. This year we will be relying on purchasing from china about 75% of what we use to make the products we sell. We buy from china about what we sell (in dollar terms) to all foreign countries. Collapse of china's economy would essentially put us out of business until we could re-startup our internal production (but at much higher costs and therefore higher customer prices). The most likely result for us would be to close our business as our customers would probably not have the money needed to pay those higher prices after a chinese collapse.

Eventually, things would even out, although I suspect at a much lower level of economic activity. Things like off-road jaunts just wouldn't be one of the choices people would be able to make financially for a long time.

So, our company is substantially dependent on china doing well, and china is very substantially dependent on the USA consumer doing well. It is a scary thought. Makes me want to revert to our internal manufacturing model that we had in the past, BUT our customers are expecting the prices that are possible only with cheap chinese labor, and will stop buying from us at the prices needed to support in house production.

" there was little interdependence. Thats not the case now."
That's a scary thought. You can measure it in how emerging markets have become more correlated to the S&P500. A crisis related to unsustainable gov't could ripple through the world with unpredictable consequences.