degredation of our (the american) society

[thomas]

wow, our society is really screwed up. Any potential causes? I guess we could blame the media or technology, postman makes some excellent contentions on this. I guess it's the crumbling of the family, no father figures and such. Your thoughts?  ???

[ordos45]

Well the nuclear family's gone downhill since the 1950s really.  I dunno the 60s was rebellion time, the 70s were more about Law and Order, the 80s had drugs and such.  Maybe the World Wars were a catalyst to prompt society to lose its innocence?  I mean after WW1 they had high hopes and Prohibition, but that lead to organized crime like Al Capone.  Then after World War Two you had a lot of broken down people and freer attitudes because they'd faced war and survived, and could've lead to widespread drug trying and such.

[thomas]

right and also look at india where women aren't valued at all.

http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/chinwomn.html

it's the culture's values that instill these problems

[ordos45]

So the cultural values of the more liberal 60s and 70s basically threw off one generation's values, and by extension they did not pass on the proper values to their children?  E.G. Baby Boomers?

[thomas]

yeah, therefore leading to a spike in crime

[ordos45]

Could be.  Although worldwide there's been a similar effect, even though most cultures don't change as fast as ours.  Perhaps it's because we're a melting pot/bowl of salad, whichever model is being used.  We have no set 'culture' because we've always had many.

[GUNWOUNDS]

It has everything to do with religious beliefs.

Back in my grandmother's day a woman didnt dare date a guy until she was gonna marry for fear of her "reputation"........

People will tell you that you can be moral without being religious.... but honestly.. there is no incentive to do the right thing if you believe that this world is all there is.

[ordos45]

I think Grandma told me the same thing.  Rather than rush to get married before the war, she and Grandad married when he got back from World War Two.  As for a return to morality and the nuclear family maybe, time will tell.

[DukeLeto]

However with the election of president bush and the banning of gay marriage in several US states it seems that the USA is sending a message that it wants to return to traditional moral values and the nuclear family.

Oh boy, here's that old conservative spiel about "traditional values" and "preserving the nuclear family." 

Traditional values?  It was under "traditional values" that women were beaten by their husbands for failing to clean the house well enough or cook on time, that other races were kept as slaves and those who became free were lynched by the KKK, that gays were persecuted and often killed for being "heathens," and that the government not only ignored these actions, but actually supported them in many cases.

And your whole argument about "protecting families" actually falls right under that third point: you're denying gays their civil liberties just because they're gay.  Which, for the last friggen time, is not  a "disease" or a "personal choice."

I'm sorry if you feel "progress towards equality" is synonomous with "degredation of morality."

And I'm not even going to start on the whole "Religion/Morals" thing, there are enough threads proving you wrong on that already.

[GUNWOUNDS]

The person who started this thread is saying that our society is screwed up and he isnt the only one to think this.

Did people in the 50's constantly think that their society was screwed up?

[Andrew]

or where homosexuals have their own parades with beastiality in the streets is not progression... its regression.

I've always wanted to see a heterosexual parade.

Heterosexuals don't go around saying "be proud of being hetero" and make up parades and shit.

Nothing against gays, but when they go prancing around annoucing that they are gay and have to hold a parade to announce it, then it is stupid.

Family values has gone to shit. Why couldn't it be like it was way back when a person respected other people and families did stuff together at least once a week. Divorce rates are high, seems like the thing to do is to get married, divorce, married, divorce etc.

[Dude_Doc]

Your idea of progression where highschool kids bring shotguns to school and blow everyone away...

It is this that was part of the screwed up society in which we live in today.

...or where kids run around having sex...

Why is having sex a bad thing?

...or where homosexuals have their own parades with beastiality...

Fascists and nazis have their parades too - you call that progression?

The abolitionists up in the Northern states did not approve of slavery and Abraham Lincoln was one of them.

Yet it went on for more than a century after his time. Progression indeed...

And all the bad stuff you listed is just evil things that exist in human nature and have nothing to do with traditional family values or conservatism.

If they are evil things, existing in human nature, then what is the point of being conservative if you already "know" that this evil will be in this human nature forever? How can you change "human nature"?

I dont remember Beaver lynching any black men or seeing his dad beat his mother to a pulp.

And I am sure every person would have voted for Bush if he actually said that they were going to invade Iraq and Iran specifically and exactly because there are oil wells there - and innocent people just waiting to be shot.

Heterosexuals don't go around saying "be proud of being hetero" and make up parades and shit.

That is because homosexuals have been, and still are, repressed by the society we live in. Though, some countries have some more parades, other have less. It depends on the level of freedom a country has.

Nothing against gays, but when they go prancing around annoucing that they are gay and have to hold a parade to announce it, then it is stupid.

They demonstrate so that they won't have to be discriminated just because they don't have sex as "everybody else".

Divorce rates are high, seems like the thing to do is to get married, divorce, married, divorce etc.

Well, believe it or not, but humans do have a so called "love-chemical" that simulates the body when we see whatever girl or boy we want to see. And after being together for, well, maybe two years, that "kick" isn't a big as it was when you two met first - i.e. the first kiss, first time is the best and so on.

Ask me, I think people saw it as some kind of obligatory family-thing, keeping each other together, helping one another - even if you yourself didn't like your family. Or, it could also be faith - coming to heaven if you had a happy marriage.

[Edric O]

wow, our society is really screwed up.

Define "screwed up"... Certainly the Wild West, for example, or the Southern States back when slavery was legal, were far more screwed up than present-day America.

Any potential causes? I guess we could blame the media or technology, postman makes some excellent contentions on this. I guess it's the crumbling of the family, no father figures and such.

I don't think so. You need to compare America with other Western countries. The nuclear family is far more "crumbled" in the rest of the West (Europe, Canada, Australia) than in the USA, yet those countries have much less violence and, IMO, people are much nicer to each other. Also, the consumption of soft drugs is legal in Holland, but they don't seem to have nearly as many drug problems as the USA.

My guess is that your problems are a psychological/cultural thing. Enforcing tougher rules won't solve anything - you need a different (and better) kind of education on a national level.

yeah, therefore leading to a spike in crime

Actually, the spike in crime was caused by the tremendous rise of social inequality during the past 25 years. It's a well known fact in sociology that inequality and stratification lead to higher crime rates.

Did people in the 50's constantly think that their society was screwed up?  I doubt it.

Many of them obviously did think their society was screwed up - that's why they rebelled against it in the 60's.

It has everything to do with religious beliefs.

If that is so, then how come less religious anglo-saxon countries, like Britain, have much less crime?

Back in my grandmother's day a woman didnt dare date a guy until she was gonna marry for fear of her "reputation"...

Yes, and today a woman doesn't dare not have a date, for fear of losing her reputation. Like I said, it's a cultural thing.

People will tell you that you can be moral without being religious.... but honestly.. there is no incentive to do the right thing if you believe that this world is all there is.  Its alot easier to do the right thing when you fear for your mortal soul.

I'd rather have people do the right thing out of moral conviction than because they're afraid of punishment...

However with the election of president bush and the banning of gay marriage in several US states it seems that the USA is sending a message that it wants to return to traditional moral values and the nuclear family.

Haha, yeah right. Have you noticed that the Republicans spend most of their time trying to cut taxes, privatize Social Security, and push through a variety of other far-right economic policies, rather than taking any serious action to defend moral values? That's because they only use "moral values" for propaganda purposes.

If anything the slave owners were  the "progressive ones" as they found a new medium of labor.  The abolitionists were the "conservatives" as they were the ones who wanted labor to stay traditional.

Uh, no. Slavery had existed in the South since the very first time that land had been colonized by European settlers. The South's economy was traditionally based on slave-driven agriculture. Slavery was very much traditional. Meanwhile, the North was going through the Industrial Revolution - which was a modern thing - and putting more and more emphasis on wage labour - another modern thing.

So you cannot sit there and list every bad thing in history and attribute it to "conservatism".

First you have to define "conservatism"... If by "conservatism" you simply mean a desire to return to traditional ways of life, then the greatest conservative alive today is probably Osama Bin Laden.

Oh, and another thing: What is new today will be old tomorrow. The values that are modern today will be traditional tomorrow. Thus, the term "traditional values" is very imprecise. Different values are "traditional" in different places at different times.

[Caid Ivik]

I believe that Slovakia is less violent than USA just because there are simply less violent people. 250 is much more than 5, you know...

[TMA_1]

Define "screwed up"... Certainly the Wild West, for example, or the Southern States back when slavery was legal, were far more screwed up than present-day America.

I think the issue of family values is what is really being pointed out. Those are indeed times where chaotic and messed up ideas were the standard, but I think those dont necissarily affect how a family would still run. I mean a man might own a dozen slaves to work on a small plantation, but that doesnt mean that he is a horrible family man. It may mean that he is a horrible person,lol but it doesnt mean there were not values. Its just that the values of people like that are in direct conflict with many southerners beliefs. Namely their religious beliefs, which would obviously conflict with their ownership of human beings.

[Caid Ivik]

Someone should know about "wild east" first before condemning USA  ;D

[Acriku]

It has everything to do with religious beliefs.

Back in my grandmother's day a woman didnt dare date a guy until she was gonna marry for fear of her "reputation"........

People will tell you that you can be moral without being religious.... but honestly.. there is no incentive to do the right thing if you believe that this world is all there is.  Its alot easier to do the right thing when you fear for your mortal soul.

However with the election of president bush and the banning of gay marriage in several US states it seems that the USA is sending a message that it wants to return to traditional moral values and the nuclear family.

It's my opinion that the very fact that this world is all there is, is what should motivate us to do what's right. When I find the world as all there is, I appreciate the world itself more and work towards making it livable for my and my children. That involves expecting others to do what's right, and that can only start with myself. Not to say that you would appreciate this world any less.

[lowzeewee]

Blame it on democracy and freedom.

[Wolf]

The problem with the United States' society is very much like the problems faced by the Roman society at its height... and most of Western society right now. There are many causes, alluded to above by several posts, but it all boils down to the perception that there is nothing meaningful left for Americans (Westerners) to do. We (USA, the West) are the most powerful society in the world. Our military is generally acknowledged as being unbeatable. Globalization carries our commercialized brand of culture across the planet. Supposedly, we are the most "civilized" people of any that have walked the Earth thus far. Those are just the most obvious, commonly accepted facets of Western dominance over the world. And then we have people worrying about their cell phone minutes, and their kids' soccer games, and we have angsty teenagers "rebelling" against every institution imaginable -- God, Bush, Government -- on online forums. EDIT: And they do this probably because it gives them the perception that they are "doing" something. People, despite the supposed advacement of their society and nation, do not feel that they have accomplished, or are accomplishing anything whatsoever, because they are only inheriting this vast Western empire. Honestly, any existentialist worth his salt would tell them that even if they were kicking ass, taking names, and forgin' the empire rather than just living in it, they still wouldn't be accomplishing anything satisfactory, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, it's painfully obvious to people that the middle class, the gray collar workers of the world, the consumer culture, is unsatisfactory, superficial, immaterial, and in the end, essentially meaningless with regard to how they want to be remembered, and how they want to live.

All problems hitherto, I assert, descend from there.

[Edric O]

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Wolf. This kind of public attitude - could it be called "collective depression"? - has characterized most societies that found themselves in absolute dominance over the entire (known) world. The human spirit needs new frontiers to conquer, new challenges to overcome. Without them, we grow decadent and our societies eventually collapse. The War on Terror can be seen as an attempt to conjure up a challenge, a new enemy to conquer. But ultimately, it is a war against a hopelessly inferior enemy - like Roman legions bashing a few Germanic tribes. Sure, those tribes raided Roman lands and did some damage, but they weren't a serious enemy until Rome itself started to crumble from within.

If we compare the West (not just the USA) with Rome, then the Soviet Union was Carthage - the great, legendary enemy that inflicted the most humiliating defeats (Vietnam?) and almost conquered Rome. After defeating Carthage, the Roman Republic was at the height of its power and rapidly conquered most of the Mediterranean basin. The Empire - which was the equivalent of a military dictatorship today - didn't come until 100 years later.

[Caid Ivik]

When Mongols were controlling half of the world and suddenly their power in chinese centre started to fade out, they were not decadent... Or if you take Maurijan India. When Ashoka stopped his campaigns (after destruction of his main opponent in Kilgany) and sacrificed all material or scientifical progress just to expand buddhism and lesser his might, opening the way for Scyths and Greeks, was this also a sign of decadence?

[Davidu]

"THE SLEEPER MUST AWAKEN"

The world is bored, so they wage wars for fun and profit.

We need a challange. SPACE. IMO.

Like Ghilgamesh we all have to choose between happiness and knoledge. Knoledge will bring us suffering because we understand we'll never be able to understand everything, and because we see the suffering of others.

We have no goals that matter, no line to follow.

We have no sense of belonging anymore. Who are we? -> globalisation = standardisation = stagnation = DEATH ( spiritualy).

In these cases manipulation of the masses, aiming them for a goal is necessary. They will feel contempt.

[Wolf]

Edric, I think that the Rome-Carthage/USA(West)-USSR(East) analogy fits the mold really well. And it shows that the, towards the end, the society that degrades from within is not united. Well before the end of the Roman empire, the Huns were actually a Roman client state (settling in what is modern-day Hungary) that the Western Roman Empire used to fight the Eastern Roman empire. With the war in Iraq, we've seen the first cracks in what you might call the Western Empire -- the United States and the Europeans. Will we fight each other? Maybe not with actual weapons, but we clearly need to go our separate ways. The Europeans no longer need  the US to protect them military, and the US no longer needs the Europeans as a bulwark against some great external threat.

In short, like the Romans, we won. And the price of winning so completely that there are no outside threats "to conquer" is that you prove that the only people whom competing with is really meaningful are yourselves. Perhaps China will come into its own as a modern-day Hunnic Empire, vascillating between the Western (American) and Eastern (European) Roman halves -- eventually destabilizing both. And its not like the economics of the situation can save the United States from what I am beginning to think is ever more inevitable. The Romans had conquered much of the known world, and had made alliances with or forced into protectorate-status every remaining state on the planet. Roman shipping and roads brought Roman goods, Romain coinage, and Roman traditions everywhere that counted. From London to Jerusalem. It looks much like an ancient-day incarnation of globalization. Only, instead of the whole world acting as the closed system where globalization takes place, it is Eurasia.

But that, I think, totally ignores the mindset the Roman people had adopted. We see a long line of insane Emperors, who were affected more by whim and fancy than they were actual reason or policy. They were not really conservative, nor were they really liberal. I think this sounds familiar enough to us already, if a bit extreme. And again, the Romans are a bit extreme in all things when compared to the Western world. Legalized and taxed prostitution, brutal bloodsports, severe legal penalties and public displays of punishment. Yet, this is still similar to our public obsession with sex, ever-increasing violent displays of entertainment, and ever-decreasing legal and commercial integrity. We Americans living today do not have a great depression, or a great war, or a great revolution or any great struggle with which to define ourselves. So, unable to define ourselves within America, we disown America. We rebel against its governing men and women, whoever is in power. We declare our love for places like... Europe, or China. We declare ourselves teenage communists. We declare ourselves atheists, because God is for kids. We do this because we feel that it will give our lives meaning. Upon closer examination, it really doesn't. This is the classic, being-liberal-because-mainstream-society-isn't, or, because-among-my-generation-liberalism-is-cool syndrome. I don't apply it to you true believers out there, whoever you are, but I imagine that more of you will say that you are (true-believers) than you really are. And, please, go ahead. It's one of the many outlets for your frustration and aggression that has been given to your by your forebears, but whose legitimate target has been removed by those same forebears. I'd rather have some guy tell me about the merits of nihilism and how Lenin-wasn't-such-a-bad-guy than have that same guy go around with a gang and bust up a 7-11.

That's from my American perspective, but I suspect that the European disillusionment with itself is something similar.

[Anathema]

I don't recall Carthage inflicting any great defeats on the Romans. They were at war with them three times, and lost every one of them. At the end of the third Punic war, Carthage ceased to exist as a major power. Also, unlike the Romans, the Americans did not exterminate their opponent afterwards. Other then that it's a fitting analogy.

When you're at the top, you can only go down. The Romans were once a proud and passionate people. When you can lay back and enjoy luxury, not having to fear any rivalry you will grow lax, decadent and become a shadow of your former self. Every empire lives out its time and eventually perishes, either from outside threats or corruption within.

That made me feel all dark and gloomy :-[

Well before the end of the Roman empire, the Huns were actually a Roman client state (settling in what is modern-day Hungary) that the Western Roman Empire used to fight the Eastern Roman empire.

(please forgive offtopicness)

The term for such client states is foederati, the source for the term federation. Are you sure the Romans encouraged them to fight their Byzantine brethren? It sounds crazy in my ears, they were still formally 2 capitols of a single empire, and never were agressive against eachother I think.

[Edric O]

When Mongols were controlling half of the world and suddenly their power in chinese centre started to fade out, they were not decadent...

Well, the Mongols never really had a culture in the first place, so they couldn't grow decadent.

Or if you take Maurijan India. When Ashoka stopped his campaigns (after destruction of his main opponent in Kilgany) and sacrificed all material or scientifical progress just to expand buddhism and lesser his might, opening the way for Scyths and Greeks, was this also a sign of decadence?

Hmmm, I'm not familiar with that historical situation.