I for one welcome our new, debt free Octavian overlords!

@aaronfr

Maybe you're right about me being a tad bit pessimistic. But on the flip side I believe others here are being overly optimistic over how quickly these nations can pick themselves up and all of sudden become a thriving nation.

You argue that transitory period will only temporary, but you have no way of predicting how long or how bad the damage would be. And after the damage has been done, the economy would be in a worse state than it originally had been, hence making it even harder to have a nondiscriminatory democratic state.

So, thinking that it will always end up better, or it'll all be worth it after the deed's been done, sounds a tad bit ridiculous to pessimists such as myself.

And why would you say it's going 'backwards'? Having a little less freedom to keep things in line is considered 'backwards'? (I wanna drink a beer instead of going to my job, because my boss grants me a lot of freedom.). Freedom vs control has always been the key issue all government philosophy, and one is not better than the other. When you focus too much to just one aspect, you always end up screwed (i think everyone can agree with this one). It's the balance of the two that's important. Saying 'democracy is the only progressive way' is a very biased thinking in my opinion. I believe both are equally important, and country needs to exercise both equally to be a successful nation.

You also say that as one demographic moves out of that transition, the result is a much more stable society where people can redress their grievances and not resort to violence. If this is true, then how come liberal/democratic nations such as USA (including the 60-70s), Germany, UK (including IRA), France and Belgium are having riots and domestic uprising, and had to use force to control their own populace?

Liberal nations put extra emphasis on freedom, but they still practice all the order and control other nations practice, just that those others aren't as careful with individual freedom. But apparently there are a lot more people living in peace outside of these liberal nations than just the US and all other 'liberal banner' countries. For example, countries with socialistic views such as Norway, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and maybe Syria, practice lot stricter control than its neighbor Sweden. Yet, people there have high happiness rates, not because the surveys are rigged, but they really are content with what their government is doing (just go talk to your typical Turk).

So all liberal/democratic nations having more happiness is just another 'our way is best' type of narcissistic thinking. You've got just as great a chance of ending up with happy citizens no matter what type of government it is, as long as it exercises freedom and control evenly.


@farhad

Whut! centralized power onto individuals always leads to collapse?!?!?!?! WHUT!!! That's a vastly generalized claim! How could you even say such a thing if you've educated yourself with history books?!?!?!

King SeJong of Joseon Dynasty, Louie the XIV of France, Genghis Khan and all other military conquerer types, Octavian Augustus of Rome, Emperor Han Wudi of Han Dynasty etc etc etc etc....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee


Democratic/republic/parliamentary government these days are just a modified version of ancient kingdoms, where your advisors get to vote who would become the next king for 4 years, 10 years instead of automatically making the latest king's idiot son as their next leader. By the way, Russia is technically a parliamentary government too ya know. United States is also a democratic republic, but that didn't stop a certain guy from dominating the senate with his team. Conclusion: if you have a smart bloke on the throne, things go well. If you got an idiot on the throne, things suck. Doesn't really matter what kind of government you have, as long as they're designed to choose good leaders (Saudi Arabia's absolute monarchy also fits this description by the way. They do dethrone incompetent kings).

And also, military growth is a good way to jump start your economy. It's a good method proven through time and history. Russia has nothing left since the USSR collapsed except millions of weapons factory. Why not use this infrastructure to good use? I think it's a pretty good decision of using what you're dealt with to maximum effect if you ask me.

I think scottishmartialarts does have a point. Politics and just sheer chance of luck in history plays a big part of outcomes of civilization.

USA could've bombed China with atomic blast during Korean war, but Truman thought Macarthur was bit nuts for thinking that. Now they're on the biggest economic rebound modern history has ever seen, armed with the latest western technology.

Same thing with Rome vs Egypt back in the days of Octavian vs Marcus Antonius. Rome produced less food than Egypt at that time, heavily relying on Sicily to feed the gigantic city of Rome. Rome and Alexandria were at the same level both technologically and population wise. But Octavian wins, and Latins dominate the Mediterranean sea.

Perhaps ultimately because they had a better and more effective military tradition (culture factor) than Alexandrians of Egypt or even the Carthaginians long ago, who also produced more food than Romans, enough so that they were able to make rich and buy mercenaries from other areas to fight their battles for them.

But what Diamond speaks of is about the beginning of civilization and why we have ended up with such drastically different lifestyles. I do think he has a point there.

And I especially agree with this three points:

1. A community requires easy means to produce high energy yielding food to sustain large population.

2. High population & density is always a must to achieve technological innovation and germ immunity.

3. Society with high germ immunity and technological advancement gets to dominate other cultures.

BUT

All 1st, 2nd and 3rd points can be overcome with: constant Trading and Politics between communities.