
The Decadent Society: How We Became the Victims of Our Own Success - zozin
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/comfortably-numb/
======
seibelj
I disagree with criticisms of current art or “pop” art like pop music, popular
fiction books, etc. To become broadly popular you _must_ appeal to as many
people as possible. This is a balancing act between mediocrity and edginess
that pushes just the right amount of boundaries to feel “new” and “fresh”
without turning off a lot of people. So by definition the most popular song in
the world is going to usually be fairly non-offensive.

If you get very into a genre of art, like for me is horror movies and metal
music, you quickly realize there is a super deep well of amazingly high
quality content that pushes the boundaries of the art form. There are
passionate community members and creators that are using all the latest and
greatest technology to produce ever higher quality art at less cost, expanding
the amount of art and the number of people with the funds to create it.

If you look at the top-40 music charts and cringe just find music you actually
like because there is tons of it being made and a community behind it. All the
criticism about “modern art sucks” is such snobbish and flippant bullshit.

~~~
categorybooks
>So by definition the most popular song in the world is going to usually be
fairly non-offensive.

Number one song on Spotify as of this moment:

"If he ate my ass, he's a bottom feeder"

"Beat it up, n-word, catch a charge"

"Never lost a fight, but I'm looking for a beating"

"I wanna gag, I wanna choke"

"Pay my tuition just to kiss me on this wet ass pussy"

~~~
dragonwriter
And your point is? Stodgy conservatives being shocked at the cultural shift in
what is entertaining vs. out-of-bounds reflected by the younger generation
popular art is...not a new phenomenon, nor is popular art deliberately and
flagrantly violating the taboos of the stodgy conservative establishment.

------
pjc50
Well, there's something you don't see very often these days: conservative
intellectuals. The old stalwarts of Ross Douthat and the AEI. The problem is
though, if you skip ahead to the conclusion:

> [T]he only thing more frightening than the possibility of annihilation is
> the possibility that our society could coast on forever as it is—like a Rome
> without an Attila to sack its palaces, or a Nineveh without Yahweh to pass
> judgment on its crimes

\- arguing, effectively, that America is _too comfortable_ and therefore must
be destroyed? In some ways this feels like a quaint thing to worry about as a
pandemic sweeps the US and police and demonstrators fight in the streets, but
perhaps it explains the blase approach that has been taken to those events.

~~~
MereInterest
As a counterpoint to this entire line of thought, I'd recommend reading "The
Fremen Mirage", a series of blog posts linked to below. It does a fantastic
job of going through the history of the idea of "decadence" as what destroys
society, and of the idea of "hard times" as the crucible to form strong
fighters. The long and the short of it is that there is no historical evidence
for this idea, that the "decadent" groups had massive advantages over everyone
else, and that the original idea of "decadence" tended to be created for
internal political reasons, rather than any true comparison with outside
groups.

[https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-
mirage-...](https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-
i-war-at-the-dawn-of-civilization/)

(My description is summarizing to the point of uselessness, and I highly,
highly recommend reading the series.)

~~~
slothtrop
A propos, there was a review on slatestarcodex for "Secular Cycles"
effectively tracking the rise and fall of civilizations if I remember
correctly. The argument is societies start to destabilize and stagnate once
wealth concentrates to a certain point, after which war and strife levels the
playing field once more. Except, we don't much expect that same sort of
upheaval to happen today in Western society.

All of which to say, you could liken periods of high wealth concentration as
lending to decadence, though I'm not sure how useful that would be as the same
argument could be made of golden ages. Decadence itself doesn't seem suspect
but I would expect it to be around before things go awry.

edit: here - [https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/08/12/book-review-secular-
cy...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/08/12/book-review-secular-cycles/)

~~~
AngrySkillzz
That correlation might be reversed, though. The author of The Great Leveler
makes the argument that in peaceful times, inequality almost always rises to
the maximum level that society can bear. It remains that way until a
destabilizing event occurs (plagues, state collapse, destructive revolution,
mass-mobilization warfare) which decreases inequality (mostly through wealth
destruction - the wealthy have the most to lose).

So it's possible that rather than high inequality leading to destabilization,
it's the opposite: destabilization leads to decreased inequality.

~~~
slothtrop
Why "rather"? They don't contradict each other. The aforementioned argument I
linked to suggests it's both.

------
DanielBMarkham
This is a fascinating discussion because it hits directly at a topic that
civilization-after-civilization has faced throughout history: are we able to
reasonably assess whether we are continuing towards growth and progress or
stagnation and extinction?

Frankly, the historical record is not encouraging. Usually, when this topic
comes up people chime in with easy takeaways like "people have always
complained about this, and it rarely amounted to anything", "look at this
thing that happened recently that's never happened before. It's proof that
we're doing better than any other civilization ever has", or "things have not
been going according to my value system, therefore doom is approaching!"

It's possible to cite example-after-example of these phrases coming up when
the conversation happens in the historical record. And yet. And yet at times
civilizations _do_ die, and there was plenty of warning while it was
happening. The problem is that denial and complaceny is tough to fight. When
the Emperors took over Rome, it kept the Senate around. They gradually stopped
having power, but by keeping them around, it was possible for the _illusion_
of things staying the same to remain. People, with the very smallest prodding,
are more than happy to believe that everything is as good as it used to be,
plus there's all this new cool stuff we've never seen before!

Hell, ask a few people when the Western Roman Empire ended. Good luck with
that. There are folks who will tell you it never did end. If you're that far
in denial, how could you ever reason from your current historical position to
the long run?

Many times I think conversations like this are much more interesting by the
types of responses you get than the actual merits of the case presented.

If our civilization is entering the great 1984/Brave New World Fizzle, I _can_
tell you with certainty that there will be fierce denial that such a thing is
occurring. Just like always.

~~~
voldacar
It is interesting to note that if you read Roman generals' letters from the
fourth/fifth centuries AD, they seem like they have no idea that their
civilization is in the late stages of decline, something totally easy for us
to recognize millennia later. It's weird and uncanny, and kind of concerning
given contemporary circumstances

~~~
Ericson2314
Actually, that's reassuring. Virtually everyone agrees we are in a state of
decline right now.

~~~
refurb
Strongly disagree we’re (the US) in decline at all.

If you think we are, you’d have to agree that the EU is post-decline. The UK,
France (the list goes on) are all countries that are past their peak of power,
influence and prestige.

But I would argue those EU countries haven’t declined in a negative sense.
They’ve just evolved into something other than a global superpower.

~~~
NotSammyHagar
Strongly, why? The us is declining in lifespan, people's happiness, education,
govt and this was all before covid. Cv19 failures have revealed the problems
more than ever.

Europe has some issues too but they don't have the same systemic failures we
have. Also, Europe can be independently successful or failing from the us.

------
serjester
While I don't necessarily disagree with his thesis, I think the author cherry
picks points and creates a narrative where there isn't one. He mentions the
last "shared cultural moment" was Buzz Aldrin landing on the moon. Personally
after watching it live, I'd argue Space X launching humans into space is one
of those "moments". This all comes down to your own interpretation of the
events and there's so many other examples in the piece. Narrative fallacy at
best, but mostly pseudoscience in my opinion - world progress can't be binned
into a coherent storyline.

~~~
Bukhmanizer
I don’t disagree with: >world progress can’t be binned into a coherent
storyline

But if you think SpaceX has anywhere close to the cultural impact of the moon
landing, you really need to get out of your bubble.

~~~
readarticle
Yeah, it’s obviously all anecdata here but I don’t run in tech circles outside
of work, and genuinely can’t remember a single post, tweet, or meme about
Space X that didn’t come from my coworkers or few tech friends.

Tiger King though, whew. Even my grandmother tried out her new Netflix
subscription with that.

~~~
Bukhmanizer
Yeah I think it’s pretty heavily a tech thing. Even in the (biomedical)
sciences, I think people are only vaguely aware of what SpaceX is.

------
keiferski
"A state that cannot attain its ultimate goal usually swells to an unnaturally
large size. The world-wide empire of the Romans is nothing sublime compared to
Athens. The strength that really should go into the flower here remains in the
leaves and stem, which flourish."

\- Friedrich Nietzsche

The root issue here seems to be the focus on material prosperity as indicative
of success. That strikes me as a very 20th century idea, one from before the
"Information Overload" age. The cultural-philosophical problem of the future
is figuring out how to prioritize in a land of abundance.

------
watwut
> What’s the difference, really, between the music of the 1990s and the
> 2010s—between the music of Madonna and Lady Gaga, of Mariah Carey and Adele?
> Between the heavy metal or rock or rap of the 1980s and those genres now?
> Nuances distinguish them. You don’t need to resort to nuances to tell the
> difference between the music of the 1970s and 1950s or the 1950s and 1930s.

I find this comparison completely ridiculous. It is not just that I can tell
difference between Madonna and Lady Gaga or 1980 metal against todays one. It
is also that the actual difference between 1970s and 1950s music is that they
changed genre. Metal must be metal, if it was different then metal if would
not be metal. It just so happens that new genres did appeared between 1980 and
now. Contemporary techno progressive music is incomparable to anything in
1980. Also, 1980 music is ridiculously easy to distinguish as 1980 music. And
not just that new genres appeared, the music in 1980 was not consumed the way
it is consumed now - all the time for free huge selection by own personal
choice. Back then, you had either to pay or listen to one of radio stations.
So the people moved more in lockstep.

> Renaissance linear perspective for the visual arts ... By mid-century, with
> a few admirable exceptions, the modern art world seemed determined to make
> itself the butt of jokes, as Tom Wolfe memorably described in The Painted
> Word (1975).

I personally like modern art more then renaissance, but that is personal taste
- what I find fun.

The big reason for abstraction being the thing in art is that realism is
largely figured out. People can do hyper realistic drawings today, the ones
that are hard to distinguish from photography. They are stunning pieces of
craft. But, at this point, it is craft that you can learn if you study enough
and have talent. You are not discovering something new when you do it - but if
they are your thing there are artists focusing on this particular thing. There
are books you can read that teach you how to render, analyze and draw.

------
matthewmcg
To me, the decadence observed seems like the result of a decline in regard for
and contributions to the welfare of others. Conservative activists have
successfully enshrined shareholder primacy in corporate decision making and
hostility to public goods and social programs in our politics.

~~~
seneca
> To me, the decadence observed seems like the result of a decline in regard
> for and contributions to the welfare of others.

When did the peak in regard for, and contribution to the welfare of, others
occur, in your opinion? Looking back through history, I struggle to find a
time where it was greater other than perhaps in hunter-gather societies.

------
camgunz
Ezra Klein had Ross Douthat (the author) on his podcast to discuss the book
and it’s a great conversation. Highly recommend. It’s billed as a debate but
it’s not at all contentious, at least I didn’t get that impression.

[https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/6/17/21293202/ross-
douthat...](https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/6/17/21293202/ross-douthat-
debate-american-decadence-the-ezra-klein-show)

~~~
dominotw
came here to post this.

> . It’s billed as a debate but it’s not at all contentious,

Does Erza ever debate though?( not counting sam harris episode). He seem to
invite ppl who already kind of agree with his worldview and amplifies their
thoughts.

He was on IQsuared debates but it wasn't a debate, he was just reading
excerpts out of his book.

~~~
camgunz
Eh, I haven't run the numbers or anything but, he has a fair number of people
he strongly disagrees w/ on (Grover Norquist, Yuval Levin) mostly just to
talk. He definitely doesn't observe the fairness doctrine, but it's
questionable whether that's even possible these days. But regardless I don't
think he's under any obligation here.

I would agree his podcast... well excepting Sam Harris I've never heard what I
would call a debate on there. But I will say in listening to people on there I
don't agree with, I've learned a lot and gained a lot of insight. I think it's
been good bubble popping, if not like jumping totally into the pool.

For more bubble popping I'd recommend The Flip Side [1]. You get an email
every day or two with Red/Blue takes on issues. They do a good job being
faithful to both sides (at least, IMO), plus it's free.

[1]: [https://www.theflipside.io/](https://www.theflipside.io/)

------
kaycebasques
I've felt the "technological sublime" that the article mentions many times
when contemplating the internet. Perhaps the only difference is that there
wasn't a precise moment to focus attention (e.g. moon landing) and there
aren't big fanfare events when new internet infrastructure is created (e.g. a
politician nailing a golden spike to complete a railroad).

------
moksly
> But there is also the possibility of a worst case that he describes in a
> chapter titled “Catastrophe.” Suppose that climate change has created an
> uninhabitable equator. The aging advanced nations cannot sustain their
> deficit-financed prosperity. The population of Africa continues its rapid
> growth, resulting in a mass migration into Europe that meets increasing
> resistance.

Reading this reminded me a bit of reading the WHO and our own leaders (I’m
Danish, we handled the pandemic decently) not to worry about Covid back in
January.

Heh.

> In the past, each decadent civilization has eventually given way to a
> dynamic competitor. In our case, might it be Islam? China? Russia? An
> America led by a more capable populist president?

This also reads a little weird. The author is obviously well versed in history
and the progression of civilisation, and as such, must be aware that we’ve
always moved in a progressive direction. Sure it sometimes takes a few life
times, but we’ve never moved permanently backwards before, so it would be
rather strange if we started doing that now.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
> Sure it sometimes takes a few life times, but we’ve never moved permanently
> backwards before

Playing devil's advocate here: perhaps that's because we always think of
things that we're doing now as "right"? For instance there are societies in
history that were open to some sexual relationships that we are not (mainly
the ones involving minors or incest). At times in european history, animals
were tried for crimes similarly to people. Are we more or less progressive
than they are?

~~~
moksly
Well, your example kind of proves my point as society has improved by not
thinking incest is great.

------
bserge
Eh, I grew up with the faces on TV constantly blabbering about the "decadent
West" and yet my country and most of the ex-USSR has deteriorated worse than
any western one.

My eyes kind of roll every time someone says decadent society as it reminds me
of communist propaganda.

Not seeing much of those four horsemen, either.

~~~
bluetomcat
It's an ongoing rhetoric in Russia and much of Eastern Europe. Western issues
like gay marriage, feminism, overconsumption, politically-correct language and
identity politics are skillfully used by nationalistically-oriented populists
to paint a decadent image of the West.

~~~
implements
Feminism is a western issue?

Do Russians not believe in things like equal pay, all jobs being open to
women, fair divorce settlements, protection from physical abuse, access to
family planning? (Honest question).

~~~
watwut
Yes and no. Theoretically domestic violence is bad. Practically, it is more
prevalent then in west and often seen as dirty familly issue. Local preacher
and familly will focus on forgiving, make familly together and that kids need
dad.

Likewise, equal pay sure, but dont you dare to point out when it is not.
Naturally woman is the one expected to primart focus on kids and home, guy is
more likely to be promoted of course. It is not seen as "not a woman place" to
be leader - but it is happening less then incapable guy being promoted.
Basically, there is more sexism but less hostility.

Jobs are not closed to women, but people perceive you weird putside of proper
gender bounds and talk about it openly. The different expectations of boys and
girls are in the open too. You wont find male teachers much, super rare.

Divorces seem fair money wise, except really guy will get less access to kids.
But no alimony, she is expected to work. Access to familly planning is good.

------
marcus_holmes
I realise this is a review, not the actual text. But still. This is utter
bollocks.

It's typical of non-technical "intellectuals" to completely ignore the main
areas of modern human progress, simply because they don't understand them.

e.g. the whole discussion on Art completely ignores Video Games, which are
undoubtedly Art, and also an area of rapid innovation and development. Yet
they're usually dismissed out of hand because no-one who takes "Art" seriously
plays them or understands them.

The whole "we went to the moon and never went back" completely ignores the
argument that the moon landing was, right from the start, an uneconomical
publicity stunt. The exciting time is now, when space is starting to become
economically viable and we have organisations making viable plans to colonise
Mars.

The Internet is taken for granted as a method of "chatting", and smartphones
as a method of "taking selfies". Again, because the author doesn't understand
what vast and wide-reaching achievements these are. Watching a Cambodian tuk-
tuk driver watch a YouTube English lesson while parked up waiting for a fare
is a modern marvel. Bringing communication and the spread of knowledge to
anyone who wants it, wherever they are, is the most important thing to happen
to humanity since the invention of agriculture. And yes, it's as disruptive to
human societies as agriculture: we should expect our societies to be disturbed
by it.

The economic malaise is mostly a result of WW2. Europe was economically
destroyed, and the US changed its entire economy to meet the demand (and the
USSR moved its entire manufacturing base a thousand miles east in a year, an
astounding thing to do). Recovering from that meant that growth was easy
because it was coming from such a low base. We've hit the final point of that
recovery, and growth isn't so easy any more.

Not everything is perfect. There are some changes we need to make. But please
let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. And to anyone writing about
modern society: if you don't understand technology, please stop fucking
writing about it.

~~~
voldacar
Video games are indeed a form of media, but I think it is misleading to say
they are art in the same sense as this author intends. Art and mass
entertainment are only superficially similar, and most video games are made to
entertain. Video games are (generally) consumable goods created to provide an
amount of temporary pleasure.

Good art is recognized not just by beauty or the skill required to create it,
but by its ability to engage with some aspect of what it means to be human, in
a way that is coherent, mature, and thought-provoking. There are no video game
equivalents (yet, one would hope) of, say, Bach, Rembrandt, or Bernini.

Maybe someday there will be, but not today.

edit: To the downvoters, I'm saying all this as a pretty avid gamer. video
games are a very young medium and a hopefully in a few centuries I will be
wrong.

~~~
navait
You were downvoted, but I think you're right.

I love video games. I spend a great deal of time playing them and I think they
have a lot of oppurtunities other mediums can't match. But they don't move me
the way even a mediocre novel or movie can.

Video games are terrible at interpersonal relationships, for example. I find
the more "interactive" relationships with NPCs the more shallow the
relationshop, while "railroad" games tend to be better at it.

Maybe it's that AAA titles mostly focus on the adolescent male demographic.
But we've yet to find our Tolstoy.

~~~
HeadsUpHigh
I have given up on getting a good story out of emergent gameplay and sandbox-y
games. Bioshock 1 & 2 is about as good as it's going to get with regards to
producing a good story that can go multiple ways. Those games moved me like
very few songs or books ever did.

~~~
voldacar
Dwarf fortress is a pretty good stochastic story generator, it's head and
shoulders above anything else in that vein. But yeah, those kinds of stories
will never really be quite as focused or meaningful as human-crafted narrative

~~~
marcus_holmes
I've read some terrible narratives written by humans, too ;)

------
C1sc0cat
Isn't this the narrative that MAGA/ Proud boys and the KKK (I wont mention
NAZIS) before them have always used

~~~
iron0013
Well, yes, of course, it’s Charles Murray. He shares many of the beliefs of
those groups.

------
Ericson2314
The problem with this "conversation intellectualism" it's all 30,000 feat drab
cultural analysis of symptoms and no rigor to actually dissect causes. A good
materialist approach might not charm at the moody cocktail party, but actually
has explanatory power and proposes remedies.

If Ross Douthat thinks we've slowed technologically and modern technological
gimmicks are trivial, well hahahaha, I agree, and he's just betrayed every
conservative tenant.

\- Space race was classic post-war consensus big goverment spending, _and
planning_.

\- Modern technologies, whether it's startups focusing on trains not plains,
small powerplants not big ones, phones satellites and not wires in the ground,
is entirely tech hacking around coordination failure. We've lost the ability
to collaborate on the big stuff, and a lot of that is due precisely to
conservationism weaponizing exiting structural failures in our governance
model.

Art stagnation: well actually the popular art has been getting a lot better.
Look at old music videos vs new ones, for example. Also R&B triumphing over
rock as the foundation of pop means we get better rhythm and harmony, the twin
pillars of syncretic music. But if high art is stagnent, well, that's clearly
got to do with a the stagnation of the people on the top of the economic
period with the leisure time. Nothing promotes changing tastes like changing
audiences. Or blame underfunded schools and increasing in working hours for
the non-rich.

Economic stagnation. Obviously wage growth decline is a proximate cause, not
just a symptom (i.e. other factors might cause it or make it hard to fix, but
if we could fix it it would help with the rest).

I could go on, but basically Douthat is just talking about symptoms to get
along with the more literary coastal elites. It's shambolic. I'll take it more
serious if he learns macroeconomics and becomes some sort of libertarian UBI-
er.

------
ChomskyNormal4m
> little or no growth in working-class wages, lower social mobility

Murray, and the AEI he works for, have fought against higher wages for workers
and social mobility for decades. I don't take seriously him bemoaning the
results of what he has helped do.

~~~
BobbyJo
Fighting against a policy is not the same as fighting against it's intended
outcome. Me fighting for 2nd amendment rights is not the same as me fighting
against lowering the murder rate.

------
beamatronic
Life is a lot easier these days, thanks in no small part to advances in cars.
As an American, cars are a central feature of your life. I feel like a large
part of my “character building” years was spent struggling with unreliable,
old, leaky, carbureted cars. All the energies I spent keeping that thing
running could have better spent working or socializing. And yet I have a deep
appreciation for what it takes to make a car go and keep it going.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
> As an American, cars are a central feature of your life.

Unfortunately true and frankly one of my least favorite features of American
life.

~~~
francisofascii
I may take a century to realized it, but I think you are right. Historians
will look back and see America's car-centric culture as its height of extreme
decadence and the pivotal point to its eventual decline. When you think about
the trucks and SUVs that people drive around everywhere, the entire
infrastructure dedicated to it, the health outcomes, etc.

~~~
pdonis
I disagree. Cars are freedom. Freedom has upsides as well as downsides.
Technological advances will continue to reduce the downsides, but the upsides
are genuine and should not be thrown away. There's a reason why electric
_cars_ are a thing, as opposed to Americans just giving up cars and everyone
using public transportation.

~~~
francisofascii
America should not give entirely up on cars, but reduce to a more balanced
level where cars are not a necessity to live. Americans engineered many places
to be car dependent when it didn't have to. Once something changes from a nice
to have to a requirement, it becomes more like a drug, and the freedom is
lost.

~~~
pdonis
_> Americans engineered many places to be car dependent when it didn't have
to._

No, Americans responded to the preference of many of us for more freedom and
less crowded places to live, by producing them. You don't get to decide for
other people what a proper "balance" is or for whom cars are a "necessity".

~~~
francisofascii
That is my point. Civic leaders DID decide how Americans would live for the
next few generations. It is hard to undo even if our children want to go back
to the traditional village which had worked for centuries.

~~~
pdonis
If you think the living arrangements of everyone in America were decided by
"civic leaders", you need to get around more.

------
golergka
There's a lot of talk about how civilisation lifecycles lately, and articles,
books coming out, and yet one of the best works in this space goes completely
unnoticed and unread, it seems, at least in anglosphere: Lev Gumilyov's
Ethnogenesis. May be it's because he worked in Soviet Union, where there were
not much interaction between historians on different sides of the Iron
Curtain, or may be there's still no good translation to English; anyway, if
you're interested in these matters, I highly recommend his books and theories.

I'm absolutely not saying that he's right in everything he says, of course —
there's plenty of backwards or outright bigoted opinions in his works — but
his theory is so unorthodox and interesting that it should at least be an
important part of the conversation.

~~~
082349872349872
Could you please summarise "passionarnost, ethnos, and phases of ethnogenesis"
for those of us who might be willing to read more if we were convinced there
was a there, there?

~~~
golergka
I'll try, although I don't think I'm qualified enough.

First of all, what he's talking about is usually described as different stages
of _civilisations_ in english literature. However, he goes into much length to
explain why he talks about ethnoses instead: in sub sense, it's a different
definition, and a group which is smaller than what you usually call a
"civilisation", so this distinction is important. It's derived from the word
"ethnic", but again, he's very particular that it's not exactly the same as
ethnical group in a genetical sense, although one usually correlates to
another.

In general, it's very hard to summarise his work, because he goes into a lot
of details that are really important to understand his ideas correctly.
Unfortunately, it's very easy to misunderstand them, and sometimes in some
very awful ways, if you just assume that the words he uses have meanings that
you usually ascribe to them.

Then, he describes different stages of lifecycle of ethnos. Once again, there
are stages that you would expect, from birth to death, but he adds a lot of
detail, describing how an ethnos can be both in a dynamic arc going from
beginning to an end, but also in a static, balanced state that can continue,
without outside interference, for an eternity. He's a historian with a deep
knowledge of very wide array of different human eras and places, and draws a
lot of examples to make his point from all over the human history.

After that, he tries to describe the underlying forces that influence this
process. He goes through all possible theories and finally arrives at his
concept of "passionarnost" (derived from passion) to describe the cultural
energy that drives these transformations.

After reading other contemporary books on the matter, such as Guns, Germs and
Steel, and Neil Ferguson's Civilization, as well as dozens of articles and
blog posts discussing these things, I think that his analysis and thoughts are
one of the most interesting and engaging ideas about it.

------
waynenilsen
Unfortunately this site has received the hug of death however anyone that
finds such a headline interesting may also find this interesting:

"Industrial Society and Its Future"

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/national/longterm/unab...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm)

An excerpt from the introduction:

> The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the
> human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us
> who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have
> made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led
> to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical
> suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world.
> The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will
> certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater
> damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social
> disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased
> physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.

~~~
nottorp
Do you think the starving medieval peasant had time to worry about
"psychological suffering"?

~~~
waynenilsen
I think you would be very interested in the rest of the document. That is very
similar to the point that the author makes throughout. He suggests that
spending more time on fulfilling our primitive needs of food water and shelter
would result in a much more satisfying lifestyle and much higher quality of
life.

~~~
nottorp
Oh possibly, but it sounds too much like "keep the plebs busy so they don't
have time to develop independent thinking".

