Future Shock and the decline of Rome.

Caesar's heir, Augustus, 'Octavian.'

“Future shock is a condition of distress and disorientation brought on by the inability to cope with rapid societal and technological change.”

In the general sense it applies more to groups of people.

Individuals may exhibit symptoms of future shock in varying degrees. The older person, who never owned a computer in their life and has no idea of what a social network is, may be simply overwhelmed by a request for something as simple as an e-mail address. They may not want to bother with online banking, preferring instead to dress, get in the car, drive uptown and stand in a line rather than cope with the relatively simple task of going online and paying a bill.

My father saw no need to own a computer and had no idea of what people do on the internet. And yet everyone who reads this article is reading it online.

He could no longer comprehend the world around him.

Everyone knows that the Roman Empire declined and fell. As for why that happened, the generally accepted version is that Rome could no longer throw back the barbarian hordes from the surrounding areas.

I've never read anything that gave a clear explanation of how the Roman economy worked. But then, I’ve never read anything that gave a clear and undisputed explanation of how our own economy works. The assumption is that the Roman economy must have worked because the Roman state, republic or Empire, existed. Our economy is based on a lot of disputed theories—we have right-wing and left-wing economists, after all, but something must have worked!

Somehow it must have worked, and somehow everything must have been paid for, and perhaps when the state could no longer meet its obligations, a natural decline occurred.

But a study by soil agronomists might argue that the Romans depleted their topsoil and could no longer raise enough tax revenues for that reason. There was no longer a big enough surplus.

Military men might argue that the barbarians who conquered Rome had learned much by experience, and upgraded their own military tactics and strategy.

Moralists would argue that Roman society became morally lax, and I suppose some would argue that when the state ceased to exist for the benefit of the individual, and began to exist for the benefit of a plutocracy, or aristocracy, there was less incentive for non-empowered individuals to support it with their own blood and treasure in the name of collective security among equals.

One of the basic theses of Gibbon’s classic, ‘The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’ is that Christianity was a major cause of the fall of Rome. The Church was a state within a state. It disputed for power and influence within the state. With the rise of monasticism and celibacy, vast numbers of able-bodied men and women were simply unavailable to engage in politics and business. The number of men who could be recruited into the Imperial armies fell drastically. And they didn’t pay taxes, either.

Individually, these are all necessarily theories, and flawed ones at that. Collectively they represent a dialogue on the fall of Rome that continues to this day and it will go on far into the future.

But here’s something to think about.

Julius Caesar knew the Republic was finished. And he saw no hope, no solution for its woes. Whether he overthrew the Republic in order to save it or to establish a hereditary monarchy, I suppose we’ll never know. Caesar had an ego, this much is self-evident. It is also possible that history may have misjudged his motives. None of that is really important. What is important is the questions that we ask.

What was the problem that he perceived?

Political deadlock. Politics was totally corrupt. The triumph of the special interest groups over the common weal, the good of all, (something which will always be under dispute anyway.) There were two groups with political power in the state. The first group was the senatorial class, who owned vast holdings of land. The other group was politically astute, educated, but had no nobility, i.e., no land and no great wealth. In order to obtain the highest honours of the land, in order to wield power and therefore acquire wealth, they had to come up with policies to persuade the voters to vote them into office, give them power, and trust to the outcome.

The lobbyists controlled the purse strings. They even supported upstarts, those of a sort who told them what they wanted to hear. Caesar owed millions to Crassus. There was only one way he could repay Crassus, and that was to support Crassus’ own ambitions. Crassus didn’t give a shit for the common man, while Caesar at least saw their usefulness, however cynically he may have applied that. Caesar might have had more noble aspirations, but Crassus was a completely corrupt individual.

Both groups feared and courted that most ephemeral of things, the Roman populace, who had no political power, had no representation in the traditional system, and yet represented a potent force. Caesar was a genius at propaganda, controlled an army and was popular across class boundaries.

The mob held the Capitol and the Senate hostage by their very unpredictability, but also the fact that they could be manipulated. The mob, the rabble, was feared, to the extent that they were bought off with ‘bread and circuses.’

Because they were feared, they were courted. They were consulted, and their prejudices respected, even inflamed.

Because a riot is an ugly thing to see, however useful if applied in the right time and place, and for the right purposes. The trick was not to let your opponents get control of the mob.

Over the course of time, small landowners inevitably ran into trouble, quickly being bought out by more fortunate neighbours.

Over the course of time, the senatorial class and their political supporters ‘engrossed’ all of the available resources and political power. I think Caesar was aware of this trend and its implications for the future.

Nothing useful would be done unless it was of some direct and fairly short-term profit to the aristocracy. He saw that the continuing aggrandizement and gratification of that class was no longer in the best interest of the state, no matter whether it was a republic or a monarchy.

Rome was founded by a small band of equals, who were also equally poor. Rome’s prosperity was initially based on conquest, but the circle of conquest eventually became unprofitable to the Roman state and therefore its citizens. At that point, the only thing that could keep it going and give it direction was arbitrary power, wielded by one man with no need to consult the wishes of others. And compared to the Greeks, the Romans were morally upright. That moral laxness came with increasing prosperity. If power corrupts, then wealth must also, for the two go hand in hand.

Because the Roman state had evolved both politically and technologically, arguably in terms of its economy as well as socially, over the course of its existence, Caesar had to confront and deal with what was essentially a kind of ‘future shock.’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Shock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West

The Alien Mind and what it might be like.

by the Evil Dr. Schmitt-Rottluff, staff writer.





What would an alien mind be like?

Would it share any commonality with the human mind, our human way of thinking? Of necessity, an alien mind would be social. It would be hierarchical in that it would be built up in layers of more simple building blocks, but also because social environments are hierarchical.

Society is a contract between individuals, none of whom are obviously superior to one or another in a quantifiable fashion across a number of different criteria of physical or mental attributes.

It is difficult to conceive of a solitary creature, roaming a home environment in small numbers, at the top of its food chain, achieving even rudimentary reasoning skills, especially math and physics, well enough to contemplate a flush toilet, let alone something as complex and requiring as much long-term investment of surplus blood and treasure as interstellar flight.

While aliens at an early stone age or ‘early-hominid’ stage of development can’t be ruled out, even aliens only recently uplifted from the animal stage would have recognizable features of thought and behaviour in common with ourselves. While they might be merely analogous, they would easily be ‘anthropomorphosized’ into recognizable pattterns of behaviour. We might see something that resembled politics, and economics, if we looked close enough. A large group of them would have to be organized and they would have to develop systems to feed large numbers.

Looking at life on Earth, fairly intelligent creatures such as whales, dolphins and orcas are probably at the limit of what can be achieved in terms of brain and mental development in a natural environment, because they are perfectly evolved for the environment they live in, unlike humans. We are less perfectly evolved to live in a pristinely wild environment considering our weak teeth and puny muscles. Compared to a cat one-tenth our size, it is not just white men that can’t jump.

A current theory is that when climate change caused our maternal-primordial forest to shrink and die back, man left the trees and went out onto the plain, where we were forced to cooperate in hunting and gathering, forced to communicate and walk upright by the challenges of a new environment and more complex tasks. Whales and dolphins might become extinct, because there is no possibility of a new environment for them. I think a successful alien species with anything like our own level of innate intelligence would be an unspecialized creature. One that is not perfectly evolved for its present or past environments. They must have been forced into adaptation at exactly the right point in the development of certain skills, certain cognitive characteristics.

They would have to be social, and physically they must be capable of communicating and cooperative endeavours. They must have had the right balance of aggression and submission. They may have already been inclined to some sort of species-altruism, where un-mated sisters for example help in raising a brood not their own. This is not uncommon, even ducks and geese do this. But this is in fact where behaviour, and surely behaviour stems from the mind as well as the instincts, resembles our own. We can identify in some anthropomorphic fashion with the mothering instincts of, for want of a better term, ‘lower life-forms.’ How the aliens conceive and rear their young will have a great deal of impact in terms of the ‘recognizability’ of their behaviours and therefore their minds.

If they lay eggs in vast numbers in water and then abandon them, the sort of bonding humans are capable of may be quite alien to them. No matter how social and hierarchical the rest of their lives are, even if they hatch out, crawl up on land and then get put by some benevolent authority into ‘alien-lizard kindergarten,’ the relationship between mother and child is simply non-existent. Our behaviour would no doubt appear irrational in their eyes.

Conceivably such creatures might have a lot less empathy than we would expect to be normal in a properly socialized human individual. “A sentient being may be defined as one which is capable of irrational behaviour.” That’s a pretty loaded statement and not without its pithy humour. But a perfectly adapted animal, has only as much intelligence as it needs and no more—it may be a creature of almost pure emotion, such as a cat or a dog. Maybe a horse can count to ten, crows almost certainly. But it needs no higher reasoning skills and so it doesn’t develop them. In nature, such things are a luxury quickly dispensed with.

Thinking takes calories—energy, and if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Such is Nature’s attitude. A lion or tiger cannot become ‘insane’ unless it is stressed due to some physical injury or changes in the environment. The mass beaching of whales and dolphins can be attributed in most cases to physical causes. I don’t believe that it is mass insanity, no do I believe that a whole group would follow a leader into hazard. Physical causes probably include sonar and other detection and communication gear from submarines, frigates and undersea arrays as well as pollution or even simple silting of the water. The animals may be confused—and confusion of perception may be akin to insanity—but a perfectly evolved creature is extremely unlikely to develop neuroses in its natural environment. Take it out of that natural environment, and it’s another story.

Captive zoo animals exhibit all sorts of ‘irrational’ behaviours, neuroses, which are caused by the constriction and artificiality of the environment. The same is true of humans. We are not perfectly adapted to our surroundings, natural or artificial, and yet neither have we successfully adapted our environment to our needs, not completely.

Not everyone gets what they need from this environment. We have ‘status-deficits,’ with too many qualified to be chiefs; there is just no way everyone can have all the power and status that they feel they deserve. This leads to conflict.

In an alien species, one would assume they can communicate, they have individuality, and they would recognize each other as individuals. They would have to, because of the need for specialization and division of labour in otherwise not-perfectly-adapted creatures, in a complex relationship of a cooperative nature. This specialization and division of labour is a requirement in the building of some higher culture that uses symbols and has arbitrary power structures to serve not the needs so much of the individual, but the culture as a whole; what we call ‘society.’

“Thinking is sometimes described as a ‘higher’ cognitive function and the analysis of thinking processes is a part of cognitive psychology. It is also deeply connected with our capacity to make and use tools, to understand cause and effect, to recognize patterns of significance; to comprehend and disclose unique contexts of experience or activity; and to respond to the world in a meaningful way.” –Wikipedia

Any sentient creature must at least pay homage in some way to this definition.

The Mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

The Brain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain

Photo: Gaetan Lee, Wiki Commons. The chimpanzee's brain is extremely similar to our own, which supports the hypothesis that we had all the prerequisites to adapt to a different environment millions of years ago.