On the Decline of Empires (Part 2)

This is a follow up to my previous post.  There's a lot more to be said to clarify because, for one thing, it is easy to misunderstand.

Human civilization is a social experiment.

Human civilization is only one type of complex human social structure.

There are many varieties of human civilizations that have been attempted.  Probably all have, to varying degrees, the same feature of hierarchal structure; a dense, sedentary population base that is reliant on the resources of a much larger geographical area; and trade with an even larger geographical area.

The greater the hierarchal differences, typically the greater the exploitation of the people.

Resources such as food, minerals, wood, coal, oil, etc, are drawn from far away.  Pollution and other negative effects are pushed far away.  These "see no evil" or "out of sight, out of mind" effects allow the types of civilizations we have created to undermine themselves.  See Guns, Germs, and Steel, and Collapse, both by Jared Diamond.

The same is true about trade; see overseas outsourcing and sweatshops, etc, exporting pollution, or manufacturing overseas not just because labor is cheaper (which is a legitimate reason), but because environmental laws are more lax (which is not a legitimate reason).

Civilizations do not have to be designed this way.

Notice I said designed.  People are social animals.  More complex than other animals, but animals nonetheless.  Therefore, we will always choose the option that makes the most sense to us, whether that is optimizes pleasure to pain or the investment of time and energy to return, etc.  This is limited, of course, to the information at our disposal and our ability to process that information.  We are not perfect quantum computers, and some clearly have better data than others, and some clearly compute better than others.

The point is that rules that try to change human behavior are only effective to a limited degree and then has diminishing returns.  The War on Drugs is a prime example.  Instead, it is better to completely rewrite the rules of society.  Design a different game.  Code a different program.  Create a different civilization altogether.  See Ishmael and Beyond Civilization, both by Daniel Quinn.

What would a different civilization look like?  Well, we can't possibly know that because it hasn't been invented yet.  No one could imagine what the Industrial Revolution would look like before it happened.  No one could imagine what the Enlightenment would look like before it happened.  Those are smaller changes than what I'm proposing.

What we can do is take some good guesses as to what some of the broad strokes might look like.  I described this New Age Renaissance some here and here.  TLDR; an Age of Aquarius of spiritual, environmental, and social enlightenment, technological advancements, and joining the community of inter-dimensional beings.

Today I want to bring up systems theory. which is "the interdisciplinary study of systems. A system is a cohesive conglomeration of interrelated and interdependent parts which can be natural or human-made. Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning. A system may be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior".  In other words, systems theory considers feedback loops and the time- and spatial-dimension of planning and decisions.

Our civilization and our institutions are like silos that are not well tied to each other.  The feedback loops are long and complicated, buried in complex "red tape".  It is difficult to get things done even when you have the knowledge, integrity, and motivation.  Add onto that ignorance because we burn people out so they leave their jobs, creating a knowledge vacuum that can't be adequately filled by the next person who is stressed out.  Or people who sacrifice integrity to get ahead.  Or people who just give up trying to make things better and just want to get by.

This is no judgment.  I think we can do better.  But it's not on the individuals to do better.  It's on us to rewrite the rules and redesign the system so that it's easier for individuals to do better, so that doing better is the most sensible thing among all of the options.

What I mean is, redesign civilization so that pollution makes no sense and there is no incentive to pollute.  Right now there is incentive to pollute; it's cheaper and companies make more, so shareholders make more, so the board members make more, so they give the executives higher salaries and bonuses.  Change that.

What I mean is, redesign civilization so that corporations are not as powerful as the people.  Right now they can buy politicians (thanks to Citizens United and Super Pacs, etc).  They can break all kinds of environmental laws and travesties against individuals and communities, but rarely are the decision makers and stakeholders of these companies even held fully accountable in the same way that citizens are.

What I mean is, redesign civilization so that corruption makes no sense and there is no incentive to break the spirit of the law.  Big key there, folks.

What I mean is, redesign civilization so that we accept there is usually no "winning" against social problems, but rather some optimal point at which there is diminishing returns, or throwing good money after bad.  Therefore, prevention and harm reduction is often accepted as the preferred option to zero-tolerance.

What I mean is, redesign civilization so that we incarcerate less and provide other forms of restitution like community service; where prisons actually focus more on rehabilitation and not on punishment; where convicts are given an actual fair chance to reintegrate into society rather than incentivizing recidivism; where we end capital punishment for its cost and even possibility of error.

What I mean is, redesign civilization so that ideologies of all types are not held, but rather children are raised think critically and especially challenge their own beliefs and assumptions so that they can continuously improve their thinking and knowledge.

What I mean is, redesign civilization so that we focus on education that matters:  emotional intelligence and social behavior and work skills; for instance, teach meditation along with all of the history and math and English and so forth.  Build more technical colleges that focus on green energy and IT and nursing and other highly-critical jobs of the future, rather than pushing the false narrative that a 4-year degree is desirable.

What I mean is, redesign civilization so that we offer birth control education and services for free and stop incentivizing children through tax rebates.  Let women decide what the laws regarding women bodies are.

What I mean is, redesign civilization so that destruction of natural and wild lands makes no sense and there is no incentive to do so.  Redesign civilization with forest conservation, greenways, car-free areas, mass transit, transit-oriented development, mixed-use development, rain gardens, "food not lawns," CSAs, permaculture, sustainable agriculture, end of intensive animal farming, increased consumption of plant-based diets and plant-based meat products, redeveloping malls, reduced consumption in general, reusing in general, higher quality products that may cost more but last longer (not planned obsolescence), and a million other things.

And so forth.  It will take a million solutions, many of which have not even been thought of yet.  But they need to be implemented.  Redesign those rules of the game and more and you do not need to "make" people do the right thing.  It will be easy for them to do the right thing.  It will make sense to them to do the right thing.  Of course many still err.  You will not achieve perfection.  But good is the goal; better is goal, not perfection.  

That is, in part, what I meant by the United States is an empire in decline.

In reality, civilization is in decline.  The United States is merely the last pyramidion (top of a pyramid).  We are merely the last global superpower.

If we recognize and accept the situation we are in, ecologically and socially and internationally, then we can make the smart decisions now.  Or, conversely, we can throw good money after bad, chasing the ghost of an American Dream.  I say we take what we have and build something new, better.

The old paradigm was that the biggest, strongest nation used their economic, political, and military might to secure additional advantages.  They told other players, "You’re either with us or against us".  They did this until they exhausted all of their economic, political, and military resources, at which time another power rose up in their place.  This has occurred countless times throughout history.  Or see any 4X computer game, such as Age of Empires, or Civilization board game.

Let's not repeat this mistake.

I'm proposing something better.

Instead of burning out on the decline, let's build a parachute.  And then, while we've bought more time, build a glider.  And then...

But continuing to fly our jet over the ocean, shooting down other aircraft, when we don't have enough fuel to make it back to land, is completely senseless.

That's what I'm saying.

Branch out.  Instead of being a declining empire, stretch out so that we are fully integrated with the rest of humanity.  No longer one nation leading the way, which is unsustainable anyway, but rather one nation among a coalition, a partnership, a happy human family of many. 

Since I brought it up, it could make sense to be a little less involved, at least militarily, in international affairs.  Pull back, regroup.  Sometimes being too involved creates the problems you seek to avoid.

• The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in part because of the oil embargo.  (They also knew that we would eventually get involved, so they took the initiative of a preemptive strike, but the embargo was the impetus; the Pearl Harbor strike may have been avoided).
• The nuclear arms race and proliferation maybe could have been avoided had we not dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Was total surrender absolutely necessary?  Could we not have allowed Japan to sue for peace?
• The Cold War could have been avoided by working with USSR rather than against; countless lives could have been saved.
• The terrible relationship with Iran is largely our own fault due our coup and established puppet government there.  Why did we do this?  (These things have a tendency to backfire, creating worse long-term effects than the short-term gains.)
• The 9/11 attacks maybe could have been avoided had we not been so involved in the Middle East
• Operation Enduring Freedom was not necessary; the US intelligence community and special operations forces could have targeted Osama Bin Laden without all the lives lost and ruined, and money wasted.  You cannot make other people be like you; you cannot make other societies be like yours.
• Operation Iraqi Freedom was based on false pretenses and was completely unnecessary.  So many lives were lost and ruined, and money wasted for very little.  I'm not sure if we made the situation in either country better or worse for all the effort.
• And so forth.

We are not a bad country.  We mean well.  And we do well.  But we can do better.

First do no harm.

We have such high ideals, but we have a very hard time seeing perspectives outside of our own.  We often do more harm than good, and often have a hard time seeing it.  But with our high ideals, we should accept humbleness and humility, too.

This calls back to the systems theory I mentioned earlier.  See how our actions now will affect other areas now and in the future.  Long-term advantages should never be sacrificed for short-term gains, unless absolutely necessary.  Intangibles should never be written off for tangibles.

So regarding the military, I am not suggesting becoming an isolationist nation.  I'm suggesting we stop creating problems.  Perhaps have teams of joint military members on coalition bases (not US bases) overseas that serve as advisors, planners, and exercise participants only, but not "occupiers".  Drastically reduce our presence overseas.

Decrease the size of our active duty and increase the size of our Reserve and Guard units.  Within all three, increase the size of special operations and intelligence operations and other force multipliers.

Put the money saved back into other instruments of national power, to include Peace Corps.

Better yet, instead of focusing our national power outward, as expanding empires do, we should be shifting our resources inward, as declining empires do.  In other words, a budgetary, policy, and national attention shift away from the instruments of power above and more on education, infrastructure, jobs, healthcare, and so forth.

Speaking of healthcare, I'll just throw in here there should be a minimum single payer healthcare.  Doesn't have to be fantastic.  Just a security net for all, perhaps just Medicare for All.  And then everyone who can afford better can go ahead and do so.

I'm not a socialist and don’t think we should be providing free college for everyone or anything.  Though I do think programs like AmeriCorps and Teacher Loan Forgiveness should be encouraged and expanded.  We don't need kids signing up to fight wars we don't need to wage just so they can go to college.  We need them signing up to do good things here at home instead, that don’t kill and maim people.

By the way, this is in no way a knock on the military or the Department of Defense.  It's absolutely necessary for the function of a nation and, while I recognize many of our errors, we have done some tremendous good in the world as well.  We should not be blind to either.

I think that's all I have for right now.  Happy Saturday.