In the last hundred years or so technological development has intensified two trends. The first is the interdependence of the social infrastructure and the physical infrastructure in the matter of transportation, health, education, power structures, communication, the legal system, etc. and the deep penetration of the two into each of our lives. The deeper that penetration becomes the more fragile the systems become in regard to the disruptive capabilities of antisocial individuals. The second is the development of technical capabilities of weaponry ranging from atomic weapons at one end to the development of explosive materials and automatic hand weapons and easily manufactured chemical and biological poisons at the other. This latter, conjoined with rapid communication networks, empowers antisocial individuals far beyond previous eras to the point that general social systems such as governments and other positive social organizations are becoming vitally threatened to the point that they must become destructively suppressive to remain effective.
All good government systems employ distrust in component sectors to maintain integrity. The classic division of the US government into the executive, the legislative and the judicial is significant in this to provide checks and balances in government operation and the dominance of any one over the others is considered dangerous to fair government, as visualized by the founders.
But, even taking into consideration technological advance, the core of functional civilization rests with the internal assumption of each participant that fellow citizens can rest assured that there is a general acceptance that there is a mutual motivation of each person to provide for the well being of all. The bedrock security of civilization is psychological, not technological.
As witnessed by current violations of social trust by business in corporate corruption and mistreatment of employees, by government in proliferation of manipulative untruth and financial corruption, by faith organizations in pushing basically inhumane and irrational agendas, by health institutions who are responsible for unacceptable fatalities due to remediable inefficiencies, by military and police organizations that indulge in torture and other violence, it seems apparent that the basic fabric of social order is breaking down.
It may be idealistic but there seems to be an urgent need for a basic examination of the minimums for a decent and properly functioning social order which, up to now, has been relegated to uneducated popular concepts and rule of thumb and myriads of pressure groups. Something like the Manhattan project consisting of psychologists, social scientists, anthropologists, and whoever else can provide direction and intelligence. Otherwise, it seems to me, current civilization is in severe danger of total collapse.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree![[SPAM]](http://www.whynot.net/images/flagasspam.png)
Flag as spam
Add your comment
Okay. Are you TRYING to confuse any readers? I think I understand what you're saying, but either way, run on sentances.
"As witnessed by current violations of social trust by business in corporate corruption and mistreatment of employees, by government in proliferation of manipulative untruth and financial corruption, by faith organizations in pushing basically inhumane and irrational agendas, by health institutions who are responsible for unacceptable fatalities due to remediable inefficiencies, by military and police organizations that indulge in torture and other violence, it seems apparent that the basic fabric of social order is breaking down."
That's one sentance that should have been about 5. You know what you're saying, but for the rest of us, that is a LOT of grammar and information to juggle before we can put all the pieces together.
You spend a lot of time justifying your perspective, except that it very abstract. If you're telling me society is breaking down, show me the actual signs, don't just give me little tidbits and then make logical leaps. "..general social systems such as governments and other positive social organizations are becoming vitally threatened to the point that they must become destructively suppressive to remain effective." That's not really anything right there. You're making the statment "Governments and other institutions have to be destructive to stay effective," which is not common sense and is not supported by anything.
On top of that, being concise is a virtue. Keep it simple, silly. Cut down a lot of excess words in the justification for why your idea is good, spend one or two more sentances explaining what your idea actually is, and explain the connection to the manhattan project. Is it just that we had good people working on a nuke, we should have good people working on how to combat the decline of society?
I'm not exactly clear as to what you're suggesting after all that. I'm sure it's obvious to you, but I'm left with "we need to get experts together and they'll decide what we need to do to keep society together." Which is not a solution to anything other than sociologists and anthropologists not having enough to do. They're already expressing their opinions as to what society needs to do to survive, and their opinions are all over the place. Getting them all in a room will just set up an endless conversation with no real suggestions.
PS. I also tend to write run-on sentances and often have diarrhea of the keyboard, so take all this as constructive criticism, or at least the rantings of a hypocrite.
Okay. Are you TRYING to confuse any readers? I think I understand what you're saying, but either way, run on sentances.
"As witnessed by current violations of social trust by business in corporate corruption and mistreatment of employees, by government in proliferation of manipulative untruth and financial corruption, by faith organizations in pushing basically inhumane and irrational agendas, by health institutions who are responsible for unacceptable fatalities due to remediable inefficiencies, by military and police organizations that indulge in torture and other violence, it seems apparent that the basic fabric of social order is breaking down."
That's one sentance that should have been about 5. You know what you're saying, but for the rest of us, that is a LOT of grammar and information to juggle before we can put all the pieces together.
You spend a lot of time justifying your perspective, except that it very abstract. If you're telling me society is breaking down, show me the actual signs, don't just give me little tidbits and then make logical leaps. "..general social systems such as governments and other positive social organizations are becoming vitally threatened to the point that they must become destructively suppressive to remain effective." That's not really anything right there. You're making the statment "Governments and other institutions have to be destructive to stay effective," which is not common sense and is not supported by anything.
On top of that, being concise is a virtue. Keep it simple, silly. Cut down a lot of excess words in the justification for why your idea is good, spend one or two more sentances explaining what your idea actually is, and explain the connection to the manhattan project. Is it just that we had good people working on a nuke, we should have good people working on how to combat the decline of society?
I'm not exactly clear as to what you're suggesting after all that. I'm sure it's obvious to you, but I'm left with "we need to get experts together and they'll decide what we need to do to keep society together." Which is not a solution to anything other than sociologists and anthropologists not having enough to do. They're already expressing their opinions as to what society needs to do to survive, and their opinions are all over the place. Getting them all in a room will just set up an endless conversation with no real suggestions.
PS. I also tend to write run-on sentances and often have diarrhea of the keyboard, so take all this as constructive criticism, or at least the rantings of a hypocrite.
sorry for the double post!
You are not the only person predicting total collapse of society. People like Jan Lundberg are predicting serious trouble directly ahead, because of the combined effects of overpopulation and the decline in affordable energy.
You may have noticed that the predictors of The End Time re the Bible, etc, are having a field day with this. How about La Haye, with the Left Behind series.Remember that these people are organized, where the more rational are too busy thinking.
ummmm....i dont really feel like reading all of that so im gonna vote this one down for not being simple enough...