
The blog is a view of life, science, politics and education from an engineering perspective. As engineers, we are taught to view the world objectively. We can hope, believe and calculate a particular outcome, but natural laws are inflexible and pay no heed to who we are or what we believe. We must approach the objective dispassionately, while compensating for our own distorted perceptions. Balance is also a key element; balancing between the ideal and the pragmatic, balancing cost and functionality, balancing analysis with action, etc.
Scheduling routine critical self-analysis is the foundation to objectivity. If we do not fully understand and compensate for our own failures, tendencies, habits and skewed thought processes, we will not see the world as it is. Without a regular critical self-analysis we will see the world as we are and then fall prey to self-delusion.
Failure is a great teacher. When failure is coupled with perseverance, it produces the fruit of patience and humility. An engineer, fresh out of engineering school is typically set up for failure early and often. The failure breaks the new engineer of any ideas of self-importance, arrogance and book smarts. Only then can the new engineer be formed and molded into a productive element in the industry.
Thanks,
Bernie
The collapse of a civilization
There are two books that provide startling parallels to the American experiment; “The History of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire” by Edward Gibbon and “The History of the Later Roman Empire”, by John Bury. Gibbon paints are great picture of the prominence and then fall of an empire.
Essentially, the Roman Empire decayed from within and a small push from the outside caused the whole thing to collapse. The elements of decay were:
- Corruption in politics and business
- Corruption in the court system (people routinely bribed judges and the judicial system)
- Moral rot in the citizens
- Dependence on government
- Economic bankruptcy (governmental and private)
- Class system of people (plebeians, slaves and patricians)
- Citizens found that they could vote themselves money from the Treasury
- A significant portion of the work force could no longer work because of drunkenness, lead poisoning or laziness.
- Drought
- Love of violence
- Large portion of foreigners living in Rome, joined forces with the invading armies
- Division between citizens and groups of citizens
- People flaunting their ‘deviant’ behavior in the public square; bestiality, child molestation and other sexual perversions
- Protected classes of people; Praetorian Guard
- Unemployment
- Hyper-inflation
- There were 26 emperors in a 49-year period, a signal of political instability
- Defenseless
- Slavery
- No self-discipline (given to every excess imaginable)
- Disappearance of the middle class
- A consolidation of power by the emperors
- Outsourced everything, including the defense of Rome
- lack of procreation, decline of the traditional family unit
- Christianity
I don’t necessarily agree with all of Gibbon elements of decay; namely Christianity, but I agree with his overall thesis.
Christianity
Regarding Christianity being a factor in the fall of Rome, Gibbon claims that Christians could be put into two camps in their contribution to the fall. He claims that Christians were either very pacifist and refused to defend the empire or they thought the empire was so corrupt that it deserved to fall and did nothing to defend Rome. “The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister: a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion. The sacred indolence of the monks was devoutly embraced by a servile and effeminate age; but if superstition had not afforded a decent retreat, the same vices would have tempted the unworthy Romans to desert, from baser motives, the standard of the republic.”
John Bury disagreed with Gibbon’s contention that Christianity played a role in the Empire’s fall, “there is no reason to suppose that Christian teaching had the practical effect of making men less loyal to the Empire or less ready to defend it.”
Below are areas in which both Gibbon and Bury are in agreement.
Inflation
Rome began buying votes by handing out cheap food and entertainment, what came to be known as “bread and circuses.” But Rome didn’t have the money to do this and so they developed the ingenious plan of reducing the silver content of their silver coins, the denarius.
Although the denarius remained the backbone of the Roman economy from its introduction in 211 BC until it ceased to be normally minted in the middle of the third century, the purity of the coin decreased. The problem of debasement in the Roman economy appears to be pervasive and often paralleled the strength or weakness of the Empire. When introduced, the denarius contained nearly pure silver at a theoretical weight of approximately 4.5 grams. Nero, in 64 AD, reduced the silver content of the denarius to 3 grams. By the time of Claudius II Gothicus (268-270 A.D.) the amount of silver in a silver denarius was only .02% and it was considered to be worthless.
Inflation was rampant and price controls were imposed in an attempt to stabilize the rate of inflation. Diocletian issued an Edict on Maximum Prices in 301, which attempted to establish the legal maximum prices that could be charged for goods and services. The attempt to establish maximum prices was an exercise in futility as maximum prices were impossible to enforce. Vendors either refused to sell items or bartered for other items of equal value.
Decay of Morals
The Roman Empire was known to support pleasures of the body through prostitution and violence. Roman Emperors Caligula and Nero encouraged tens of thousands of prostitutes to occupy Rome by providing them with food and benefits. During PaxRomana there were 32,000 prostitutes in Rome. These emperors were well known for having lavish parties where guests were allowed to eat and drink until they were sick and engage in orgies.
At the Coliseum, gladiators fought for sport and the poor were brought in to fight each other or face lions for no other reason than so the crowds could enjoy watching their deaths.
One contest after another was staged in the course of a single day. Should the ground become so soaked with blood that the coliseum was essentially a pool, it was covered over with a fresh layer of sand and the performances went on.
Failed business model
Rome grew in wealth and prestige utilizing two primary factors; ingenuity and conquest. Their ingenuity allowed them to build road, aqueducts, weapons and metal fabrications that were far superior to those of surrounding countries. Conquest was extremely lucrative in that much gold and treasures were brought back from the conquered regions.
A great deal of gold and treasure were needed to maintain the spending habits in Rome. As the conquest diminished, Rome began taxing the citizens heavily to make up for the lack of looted treasure. Although Rome had ceased conquering new lands by the third century, the military expenditures grew rapidly. Additional troops were needed to defend the empire against the ever increasing raids by barbarians. This forced Rome to again increase the taxation. As a result, many citizens, especially the wealthy, left Rome in search of a lower cost of living. Eventually Rome was vacated with the exception of the military, those who lived on government handouts, politicians and those who served the politicians.
Failed alliances
The Goths had been kept north of the Danube, but were being increasingly attacked and weakened by the Huns, and also were being attacked from the east by the Tartars. The Goths asked the Romans for help and the Emperor Valen negotiated a settlement with them. The Goths agreed to fight for and cooperate with Rome if they could seek refuge within the Empire, south of the Danube. There were 100,000 men, and including women and children, more than 200,000 refugees. They were required to give up their weapons, which distressed them since they were warriors, give some of their adults as slaves and their children were taken from them and placed with families throughout the Empire. After agreeing to all this, they were confined to camps where there was no food. The two Roman generals in charge were greedy and lined their pockets by taking bribes and selling something for nothing in return. The markets sold dogs and diseased meat for food.
Driven to desperation, the Goths rebelled and rode off to Syria. Led by Aleric they gained strength, acquiring foodstuffs and weapons. The Goths attacked the Empire with great fury near Hadrianapolis, destroying about 2/3 of the Roman troops.
Rome was forced then to create alliances with the Gauls and Huns to fight against the Goths. But then broke these alliances as well.
Lead poisoning
Rome used a large amount of lead in their tools, pottery, utensils and water delivery. Roman women were noted for their use of cosmetics, which were laced with lead. Lead was also used as a contraceptive.
Sickness and death caused by lead poisoning was rampant. War and disease caused many regions to experience negative growth rates.
Scarcity of food
The farming was done on large estates that were owned by wealthy men who used slave labor. A small farmer who had to pay workmen could not produce goods as cheaply as the slave owner. Many small farmers could not compete with these low prices and lost or sold their farms. This not only undermined the citizen farmer, but also filled the cities with unemployed people. These people were not only a burden but also had little to do but cause trouble and contribute to an ever increasing crime rate.
Food became scarce because of drought, insects and other environmental calamities. But poor farming techniques also added to the scarcity. The wealthy land owners had no background in farming. And their slaves received no benefit from the harvest or lack of it and were unmotivated to change farming practices.
By the third century most of the farm land was rendered useless.
To cope with the lack of domestic production, the food had to be imported. At one time, the emperor was importing grain to feed more than 100,000 people in Rome alone. The trade imbalance became severe with most of the silver and gold leaving the empire in exchange for food.
The end
The decline of Rome started in 27 BC when Augustus Caesar declared himself Emperor and gave himself vast powers. Thus Rome, which was once ruled by its people, spiraled downward into the rule by power desperate tyrants. These tyrants were synonymous with arrogance, violence, decadence and insanity. The citizens grew to despise their rulers and resisted every mandate by their rulers.
Numerous factors, including the attacks by barbaric hordes, economic instability, environmental disasters, such as drought, corruption and moral decay all brought about an end to an empire that started as a Republic with people who were inventive, ingenious, self-disciplined and moral.
Shakespeare in “The Tragedy of Coriolanus” tackles the Fall of Rome. Rome was destined for ruin; it was attacked from without and decayed from within. Seemingly, even nature itself seemed to turn against Rome. Coriolanus is a principled and virtuous general who leads his army to attack and purge Rome of evil and thereby restore the order of all things. “Your dishonor,” he tells Brutus, “Mangles true judgment, and bereaves the state of that integrity which should become it.” Coriolanus claims that Rome had violated nature, God and it’s fellow man and that God’s masterwork convulses in order to set things right again. However, Coriolanus was killed in an evil scheme by those who had benefited from corruption and as a result Rome couldn’t be saved from itself.
I believe that God blesses a country that promotes moral principles and Biblical ideas for living. As the country degenerated into moral bankruptcy God removed his hand of blessing. All efforts during the third century to prolong the empire failed, not because they weren’t as smart as earlier generations, but because they lacked virtue God no longer blessed it.
"The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the cause of the destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident and removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of the ruin is simple and obvious: and instead of inquiring why the Roman Empire was destroyed we should rather be surprised that it has subsisted for so long." Gibbon
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.





24 Comments
jman99 - Oct 12, 2012 8:02 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus
This part:
"I believe that God blesses a country that promotes moral principles and Biblical ideas for living. As the country degenerated into moral bankruptcy God removed his hand of blessing. All efforts during the third century to prolong the empire failed, not because they weren’t as smart as earlier generations, but because they lacked virtue God no longer blessed it. "
This is hokum, in my opinion. All you have to do is look at the Mayan and Aztec empires. Both were decimated by the morally degenerated Christian Spaniards and the Catholic Church.
ExToDResident - Oct 12, 2012 10:41 PM
definitely a breath of fresh air over Hayett and Hemmer who rarely step away from
posting about "conservative" issues.
Although I don't rank you at St Al's level I do put you well above H-squared. Mainly
because I find you be reasonable and open to listening to a dissenting opinion. You
thoughtful replies to inquiries is appreciated.
MGarber - Oct 13, 2012 9:29 AM
Or look at cultures that have thrived rather well without the christian concept of god. Im thinking China.
Anytime something good happens to our country, there've been people telling us how bleassed we are.
Anytime something bad happens to our country, the same people tell us how the hand of god is being retracted.
I wish the'd make up their mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMkBgA9_oQ4&feature=player_embedded
MGarber - Oct 13, 2012 9:41 AM
He puts his left hand out.
He does the hokey-pokey.
And he turns himself about.
Bernie Ziebart - Oct 13, 2012 10:19 AM
But they are totalitarian regimes that grew through fear and intimidation; not exactly where I would like to live.
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 13, 2012 11:52 AM
Thanks for the post. I have a few projects around the house I have to finish-up before the next "Dark Ages"!
ExToDResident - Oct 13, 2012 7:53 PM
I am curious if you are familiar or have had the opportunity to read a book called;
This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly by Kenneth S. Rogoff and
Carmen M. Reinhart.
From the reviews I have read of the book (I do not own a copy, yet) it is a review of
failed economies over the last eight hundred years.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0691152640/ref=mp_s_a_1?
pi=SL75&qid=1350172820&sr=8-1
Bernie Ziebart - Oct 13, 2012 10:18 PM
Thanks for the kind words.
If you get know both Amy and Jim, you will find that they are both fantastic people who really care about their fellow man.
All of us have different things that trip our trigger. Politics, while important, is not my highest priority.
Bernie Ziebart - Oct 13, 2012 10:41 PM
If the US collapsed, I don't think the world will enter a 'dark ages'. I am sure that other countries or UN would fill the void.
Gibbon is not an easy read. He has a cadence and style that difficult to digest. Many of his terms(locations, tribes, towns) are in Latin, but he tells incredible tales. One story that stood out is that of Emperor Caligula. He kills the previous emperor, Tiberius, and then bribes the court system to gloss over this murder and declare that Tiberius died of natural causes.
For amusement Caligula would stand on top of his palace and throw gold coins to the crowds. The crowds below would kill and wound each other to get the gold. The scene was horrific, but Caligula was sexually arroused by the bloody carnage. During his short reign, Caligula spent his time pitting people against each other and one group against another group. He lived for chaos.
When reading history it becomes clear that people haven't changed in 2000 years. Sure, the US is less bloody than Rome, but the tendencies and thought process is the same; very short term and self-gratifying.
Janetluvshorses - Oct 14, 2012 4:07 AM
Bernie Ziebart - Oct 14, 2012 8:40 AM
Please look beyond the political differences to see the soul of a person. There is far more in life that unites you than divides you.
MGarber and I agree on very little, and yet I think the world of him. When looking past the rhetoric and talking points, I have seen a great deal of substance.
I also really value the feedback of Pierre and Jman. Both of them have helped me develop in tremendous ways. I really appreciate them.
PS. This is not an attempt to pander. Please continue to point out where I am wrong or identify things that I could do differently. My only point is that I don't let disagreement poison my outlook. Conversely, a good, honest, rational disagreement normally improves my outlook of the person on the other side of the debate.
Bernie Ziebart - Oct 14, 2012 8:53 AM
The book, 'This time it is different' by Ken Rogoff appears to be a must read. Interestingly, I was aware of Ken Rogoff through Chess. I had no idea that he was a professor of economics at Harvard or on the IMF and Federal Reserve. I am sure that he is in a great position to develop good perspectives on economic models.
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 14, 2012 1:34 PM
RE: Reinhart & Rogoff's book - It is a good read if you are at all interested in the fairly dry world of economic research. Their main achievement is in the compilation of historic data which provides the context of for our current economic crisis.
With the singular exception of John Kenneth Galbraith, literary style and books on the subject of economics are rarely mentioned in the same sentence.
Anyone familiar with the body of research on economic cycle theory (Juglar, Kitchin, Krondratiev, Schumpeter, etc.) was not surprised in the least when this crisis struck. R&R's biggest contribution is in the empirical data for future generations to sort out and then ultimately ignore - until the next long wave crisis hits.
The reason I doubt these cycles will never change? - Human Emotion. The pendulum swings from fear to greed and back again. Economic and financial cycles are really the history of man's productive endeavors, but that progress is never a straight line. Rather, one marked by fits and starts.
ExToDResident - Oct 15, 2012 12:56 AM
had a hunch you might have heard of them.
I am always looking for good reads...finished 2/3 of "Tragedy and Hope...interesting
stuff.
My reading list is greater than I will ever have time for. But I am always looking for
another good read to add to it, and my library.
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 15, 2012 11:39 AM
Even a limited thermo-nuclear exchange has the potential of setting off a nuclear winter. On a longer-term basis, I believe global warming has a similar potential for ecological disruption. Even simultaneous extended-duration wars could be a cause.
But, those are not endogenous economic reasons for collapse.
Granted, we live in a very complex, interdependent world. Event risk, on the scale you are suggesting, is certainly possible but would be highly dependent on the human adaptive response being insufficient in the face of spiraling chaotic events. That human response mechanism is strongest and most efficient when the impulse to life is being threatened. In investment terms, I would call that the homo sapien put. And personally, would not bet against it.
Bernie Ziebart - Oct 15, 2012 1:30 PM
What is your definition of demonization?
I really doubt that Amy and Jim have demonstrated boorish or mean-spirited behavior. Sure, they have opinions; including the opinion that Obama has been a very poor President. They have also stated why that have that opinion. But having a negative opinion of the president and his political party is not new or uncommon. The opinion should always be issue based, not personal.
I don't have hatred towards those who have a different world view than I have and neither do Amy or Jim. I think that you want to believe the lie that conservatives are hateful people. Conservatives are people who are asking you to change course, because you are headed directly into the iceberg. We want you to avoid disaster; it's not hate speach.
I am familiar with the teachings of Jesus. He taught faith in God and love for God and our fellow man. He also taught that we should turn from destructive behavior and repentance when we make wrong choices.
MGarber - Oct 15, 2012 4:00 PM
Can I refer you to Jims Sep 28, 2012 8:09 PM reply to my 10:37 AM at http://www.livinglakecountry.com/blogs/communityblogs/171524531.html??
Bernie Ziebart - Oct 15, 2012 5:00 PM
I have read the 'Paul Harvey' blog and all of the comments.
Your October 2, 2012 at 6:44 PM is perhaps comparable in tone to comments that Jim had sent to you. But I wouldn't describe them as overly nasty.
I would describe the exchange as a healthy hard nosed debate with a fair amount of barbs sent both ways in the comments.
In 1798, congress passed the "Aliens and Sedition Act", which pitted John Adams against Thomas Jefferson. Both men got their allies in the media to fire shots at the other. For example, Bache (editor of the Aurora) had accused Adams of incompetence and financial irregularities, and “the blind, bald, crippled, toothless, querulous ADAMS” of nepotism and monarchical ambition.
These men were not thin skinned. They were able to trade a few barbs and then go out for dinner.
Liberals accuse conservatives of hate and conservatives accuse liberals of hate. It appears that both groups have their own definition of hate.