"Yeah and what happened to egyptian society? lol"

Ancient Egypt was one of the longest-lasting, most stable civilizations ever. I doubt anybody thinks the current situation will last literally forever, but if it even lasts half as long as the ancient Egyptian one did, I would be surprised. (And I'm one of the people who thinks that the world is doing just fine and not on the brink of total upheaval.)

so does the current "global civilization" count as a civilization per se along the same lines as "egyptian civilization" and if it does, does it operate by the same rules?

i.e. that all civilizations crumble? seems most here are saying yes is the answer

Not China. China's always been China. There have been periods of instability and foreign domination, but while Sumer and Rome and the Aztecs have gone away, China endures.

In the USA, Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon and the societies of Orwell’s 1984 and Zamyatin’s We are taking shape rapidly. The institutions/societies they created/portrayed are the inevitable result of a society based on a violence-in-the-name-of-good model and indispensible to a warring Empire like the USA. They are critical to its success.
Could it be otherwise? Is the American Empire an exception to the historical rule?
Language is emptied of meaning, the national securitization of every aspect of life, and the increase of “action at a distance via technology” whether in inter-personnel relations or the execution of war in distant lands.

Examples abound: “too big to fail” as legitimate rationale, a “surge” is not an increase; “combat has ended” when it has not; the recession “is over” when it is not; “we do not torture” when we actually do; the two party system is competitive when it is not, the Tea Party is a grassroots creation when it is not, and so on.
President Obama has stated that national security and homeland security are now the same. Just so: food security, infrastructure security, neighborhood security, personal security, airport security, education security, and on and on. The Christian Easter Sunday normally sees children at the receiving end of an Easter Basket from parents loaded with candy. Now the Easter Basket has toy soldiers and military airplanes included. A popular mouthwash states on its bottle, “Tooth Defense!”
Face-to-face, interpersonal communication is to be avoided if at all possible. When it is witnessed at press conferences, military briefings, town halls, or the “Sunday morning talkies” on the MSM, the ground rules for the contestants make for a sterile and humorless event in which participants simply make noises at each other.
Americans hide in their I Phones, Black Berry’s and Cell Phones. This scene is commonplace: talking in meat-space with friend, spouse, or fellow worker. In mid-conversation, a cell phone rings with the result that the person on the other end of phone overrides the near-flesh conversation. Even near-flesh experiences during which conversation does take place lacks any degree of substance. How was your weekend? Did you see “American Idol?” How about that football team? What’s the deal with Mel Gibson? Can you believe Lady Gaga?
No existential or ontological discussion here. It’s a nation of sociopaths, mechanical to the core. That’s ok because that what the Empire needs to move forward unencumbered with reality.

Yet another Sicarian plagiarism, and a particularly inane one at that. If you didn't steal this you could just as easily have run through one of those post-modernist essay generators, Biff. That's how much of an exorcise in obfuscation this is.

exercise

You dont see a single grain of truth in the idea that our society is beginning to resemble fictional dystopian ones?

That's not what your stolen post says. That piece of plagiarism says that we are INEVITABLY headed for the exact society as 1984. That's nonsense. A decline in personal and economic freedoms sure looks likes in the offing, but that's still far from the worldwide Stalinist society in 1984.

And then whatever tenuous claim this piece you ripped off has to being serious is entirely flushed away when it says "Tooth Defense!" slogans on mouthwash is an example of "the national securitization of every aspect of life." It almost sounds like a parody of the stupid ideas leftist intellectuals can dream up.

This is exactly the sort of meaningless dribble that college English departments. I can "deconstruct" anything to make it fit into my loony thesis that we are descending into some nightmare realm of total state control, for example that texting leads directly to founding Oceania. This collection of words you stole is stupid, meaningless, and a waste of time. There are real, pressing problems in this country and all over the world, and dinky literary sleights of hand like this are nothing but a vapid distraction. It's shite.

Yes. The sky is falling. The world is coming to an end. People have been saying that for years.

Sicarius, you do realize that the only difference between you, and a drunk on a streetcorner waving a sign saying "The End is Near" is that you have access to a computer?

Civilization collapse is a very rare event, and not nearly as dramatic as people think.

It is an act of supreme self-centerness and ego that you assume that the events of your insignificant little life are any more important or earth shaking than any of the millions/billions who have lived before, or will after.

The world is not ending. Read more history before you go on about the decline of civilization.

"Even near-flesh experiences during which conversation does take place lacks any degree of substance. How was your weekend? Did you see “American Idol?” How about that football team? What’s the deal with Mel Gibson? Can you believe Lady Gaga?"
I don't know why you seem to think this, but uhhh, small talk is not exactly something confined to our society. In Victorian England for example, where every conversation was face to face, it was considered inappropriate to discuss anything more interesting than the weather in mixed gender company. So many people decry the end of civilization because people have cell phones, and there's been a particular uproar over iPhones and Blackberries, as though somehow a phone conversation held over an iPhone is less meaningful than a conversation over a less flashy cellphone, which is in turn less meaningful than a conversation over a land line. If you actually think about it, it's absurd. This whole thread is the result of fear of a future that will never be, born from a nostalgia for a past that never was. Knock it off.

I guess I should make this clear, my point is not about cell phones. I'm just deriding the entire "Technology is destroying our ability to communicate." thing that people always trot out in discussions like this. People said the same thing when phones were first invented. Then when the internet and e-mail came into the mainstream we heard the same thing. Then it was cell phones, now it's Blackberries and iPhones. (Which, by the way, are just phones, with e-mail capabilities built in. If e-mail didn't destroy the world, and phones didn't bring about the Apocalypse either, I don't think a phone that can be used for e-mail will do the trick either.) Every time an innovation is made, every time something changes, the old guard will jump in, decrying these kids with their newfangled whatevers are destroying society. It's kinda tiresome.

I note that Sicarius is using the BBC and Daily Telegraph as his sources this time... two of the far right conspiracies he usually warns us against.

Hey, find your facts wherever you can and then build a theory around them.

If the world was so close to kicking off on a global protest how come you have the time to post in here? You're supposed to be our representative in the front line.

Forgive me for asking a question that a closer read of this thread might answer, but I'm on my phone - ironically, I understand according to some, but my son is busy watching Diego on my laptop. Again. He's under the weather, so I really don't want him running around right now, and the price is repeated cartoons. Oh well, at least it isn't Barney

if the thesis that is being presented is that 'there will be unrest', my question is 'why should I care?'

If we're talking riots in the cities, well, I don't tend to hang out in the cities. If were talking total societal collapse, then I'm dead anyway (being diabetic), so precautions beyond what I normally have for disaster preparedness would be excessive. And of course most of the people who drag society down will be *dead*, having inadequate access to food supplies, so the whole forting up to fend off the rioting masses thing seems silly.

If the thesis is 'government is evil', then, well, DUH! But government has been evil for awhile, and things keep ticking along.

That's not to say there won't be pain in the states when our overspending comes to an eventual end, but I'm not seeing cities burning.

Or if they burn, well, the people who burn things will find themselves literally out in the cold, as the money won't be there to rebuild. Thank you, suburbia!

Not trying to be blase about the many problems in the world, but my reaction to slippery slope arguments is, typically, to tune them out - which isn't necessarily the best idea. Just because A, B, and C won't necessarily lead to X, Y, or Z, that doesn't mean A, B, or C aren't legitimate problems.

But I only have so much 'give a shit' in me, and panic-driven freakouts don't generally qualify.

Because I'm a political activist I'm your 'rep on the front line'?
that seems like a problem to me right there.

I dont know if you should care strategos. I'm not panicing (sp) I'm not trying to panic anyone else. I dont know if social unrest is really something to panic about. I'm not saying the world is ending.
I'm saying I think (and so do ALOT of others) that we have some tough times ahead. period. I'm not trying to draw any conclusions beyond that.

"I'm saying I think (and so do ALOT of others) that we have some tough times ahead. period. "

I absolutely agree with this statement

Thats all I was trying to say.

"What part of the world isnt going to shit right now?"

I haven't finished the thread yet, but wanted to answer to this.

In relative terms, we (Argentina) are doing pretty good right now. And so is Brazil, were Dilma Rousseff (a nobody, truth be told) just won an election with 47% vote just because she was endorsed by (and is supposed to follow the program of) Lula da Silva, who left his office after 8 years with around 80% approval rating.

I'm not saying we're great or perfect (neither Argentina nor Brazil), and if you read some headlines you might think I'm lying, but the truth is that we've been consistantly improving in both growth and wealth distribution for the past 8 years.

Didn't you get the note, Xapi? For people in "The West" (aka Europe & the US), economic activity only counts if it's Europe, Asia, or North America.

In truth, of course, many don't pay attention not because the accomplishments of your nations are not both noteworthy and admirable, but because the public prioritizes a) local stuff or b) disasters, and the media supplies what is demanded. You are not local, and fortunately you're not a disaster, either.

Well, we pay attention to Venezuela, but just for the train wreck factor. Unfortunately (IMO) people are more bemused by the attempt to recreate the wonders of North Korea and don't seem to care about what his economic policy is going to do in the long run to the people of his country.

Of course, then you get into the "what the hell are we supposed to do, invade? Yeah, lets go throw our weight around in South America *that's* a great idea that won't *possibly* bite us in the ass - it never has before, right?" factor.

I have to agree that Chavez is much more fun to listen to than any other President in the region.

On a related note: http://xkcd.com/503/

(There was a similar, better xkcd about a Carter speech wich I can't find right now.)

There, found it: http://xkcd.com/753/

Off topic ends now.

What Scarius clearly doesn't realise is that the Telegraph (aka Torygraph) is noted for being written for and read by the wives of those who rule the country and that current Editorial policy is to justify the severe belt tightening that the Govt is putting into place, especially given the silly season of party conferences.

To try to establish a reasonable thesis on this source is about as balanced as Hugo Chavez on electoral reform.

I'd be much more concerned if the Chinese were portraying an imminent future of gloom and doom given that their party line is always and ever that the great Communist party has the universe, and hence the people's interests, completely under control.

My reasons for thinking we have tough times ahead do not come from telegraph. I thought using a source not from my bias I would lend more creedence to idea. but you dont need to look in the telegraph, just look around.