In the Robert Heinlein novel Friday, the protagonist has a conversation concerning the signs of a sick society. These are the nine signs she gave:

"It is a bad sign when the people of a country stop identifying themselves with the country and start identifying with a group. A racial group. Or a religion. Or a language. Anything, as long as it isn't the whole population. A very bad sign. Particularism. It was once considered a Spanish vice but any country can fall sick with it.

"Dominance of males over females seems to be one of the symptoms."

"Before a revolution can take place, the population must loose faith in both the police and the courts."

"... High taxation is important and so is inflation of the currency and the ratio of the productive to those on the public payroll. But that's old hat; everybody knows that a country is on the skids when its income and outgo get out of balance and stay that way - even though there are always endless attempts to wish it way by legislation. But I started looking for little signs and what some call silly-season symptoms."

"I want to mention one of the obvious symptoms: Violence. Muggings. Sniping. Arson. Bombing. Terrorism of any sort. Riots of course - but I suspect that little incidents of violence, pecking way at people day after day, damage a culture even more than riots that flare up and then die down. Oh, conscription and slavery and arbitrary compulsion of all sorts and imprisonment without bail and without speedy trial - but those things are obvious; all the histories list them."

"I think you have missed the most alarming symptom of all. This one I shall tell you. But go back and search for it. Examine it. Sick cultures show a complex of symptoms as you have named . . . But a dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than a riot."

"This symptom is especially serious in that an individual displaying it never thinks of it as a sign of ill health but as proof of his/her strength. Look for it. Study it. It is too late to save this culture - this worldwide culture, not just the freak show here in California. Therefore we must now prepare the monasteries for the coming Dark Age. Electronic records are too fragile; we must again have books, of stable inks and resistant paper."


In short, the Nine Signs of a Sick Society:

• Particularism - Identifying one's self with a particular group, religion, race or language, rather than with the whole population.
• Dominance of males over females.
• Loss of faith in the Courts and Police.
• High taxation.
• Inflation of currency.
• Violence - eg. muggings, sniping, arson, bombing or terrorism of any sort.
• Riots - of course.
• Conscription, slavery, arbitrary compulsion and imprisonment without bail and without speedy trial.
• Bad manners.

The questions I want to ask are:

Are these reliable signs of a sick society? If not, why not, and what are they? If so, do the societies in which we live exhibit these signs?

These signs of a sick society sound a bit like a description of base human nature. Ah sorry, I have little faith in humanity at times.

But I do think that a society that is suffering terribly from these "signs" is an ailing society.

Soungs like Iraq-post war.

Absosultely signs of a sick society. But they don't stop there.

What about infringement of personal liberties and exploitation?

Will these examples stretch to non-modern societies? For example Greece, Rome, the Ottoman Empire, Nazi Germany, etc. I am finding it a little difficult. Perhaps we should generalise slightly more, as these factors are all quite modern in their specific-ness.

-Particularism - I think this and sexism can be simplified into "an imbalanced society", with large minorities being consistently neglected or abused.
-Loss of faith in the Courts and Police - Presumably this would have to be a long-term factor - a lot of these are. Perhaps general civil disorder and lack of respect for the law and society in general.
-High taxation - Economic circumstances are pretty obvious
-Conscription, etc - Ever larger bites into civil liberties would be more concise.

So:
- An imbalanced or unfair/inequitable society
- Loss of faith in the law, and subsequent rise in crime
- Similarly, a loss of faith in social structures, resulting in things like bad manners and progressive social break-down
- A poor economy
- Progressively shrinking civil liberties

These are all long-term factors, and so I think there has to be something else as well - an outside, short-term factor - that finally tips a society over the edge.

Another sign, I would count, is a discontent majority (of the overall population). A democracy, ideally, works in favour of the majority. The only real feasible way of this corruption occuring is having a minority of people govern and rule a majority, then abuse that power. sort of like animal farm.

This isnt so much of a sign as a cause. a cause of rioting and errrrrr sick-ness

The real danger and hence why I am against democracy is the majority ruling for the majority at the expense of the minority. The great B. F. Skinner once called it "the despotism of democracy"

What kind of government would you suggest in democracy's place, if you dont support democratic ideas? Im just interested

Drop out any mention of country and I'd agree with that. Patriotism is completely pointless in todays society when a lot of us are communicating with people from all around the world on a daily basis.

Remember that Heinlein was writing a long time ago. But yes, I agree.

A government that has come into power without the express consent of the country and/or doesn't listen to the will of any large group within the general population. I'd count that as a pretty bad sign.

But is it necessarily a sign of degeneration within the society itself?

it could certainly be a cause

People being corrupted by power is an inevitability, the masses doing bleep all about it is the sign of a sick society.

To steal a quote from somewhere, power does not corrupt - power attracts the corruptible.

Point taken, but... my point still stands.

Social taboos under a matriarch.

Engineer a closely knit society where the woman with most respect rules, and the laws are social taboos given by the created religon I have formed. See "Is the earth a good or bad place" for more info on the religion. I suppose you could compare my idea basically to Locke, giving the people the right of revoltuion, but I see the state of nature as an only temporary thing that eventually turns into civilized tribalism and then eventually civilization.

I do not think women as a whole are any better at ruling than men. I think that people should be looked at as individuals.

I am very wary of the words 'engineer a society'. Social engineering almost always causes misery of some sort.

But yes, women lack one jey male fault: penis envy. Many wars are caused by penis envy. Plus I use generalizations because I'm thinking in the long term, over the centuries.



All societies are engineered, some more on purpose than others. Look at the French classical baroque during the era of louis 14, the art and culture was created to gloorify the monarchy. So misery? Not always.

capitalism in a nutshell

No... capitalism produces a good economy. If you have everyone hsaring goods and they don't run into serious luck with wealth, they are going to have a bad economy.

Capitalism (when applied correctly) strengthens the economy. The rise of capitalism parallels the rise of the standards of living in western europe and america. We owe the computers we are typing on now to capitalism.

Even Japan has shown that a free market does wonders for an economy.

The Dutch in the 17th/18th centuries made use of the free market and consequently had the highest standard of living in the entire world (according to many historians).

My feeling is that if people really hated capitalism so much they would not use computers. Capitalistic innovation produced the modern personal computer.

I tell u what, if i had to give most of my money to the government i sure as heck wouldnt be working my butt off to get through college. If you take away rewards people are not going to be as highly motivated.

I agree with most except the first. Basically Heinlein's saying "woo! nationalism!" Nationalism is more complicated than that. (And yes, I understand he was writing a long time ago).

Besides which, what's wrong with identifying oneself as Jewish, or Christian, or African American, or Asian-Canadian? In Canada, you ask someone "so what are you?" (meaning nationality), they won't generally respond "Canadian," (admitedly, I do, but that's just because the most I celebrate Sweden is by opening Christmas gifts on Christmas Eve, not day, but I'm not ever sure it's Swedish -- I've been told it is, though), but "Irish" or "German and Scottish." We have a multicultural society in Canada, where we try to celebrate all cultures. I'd say the American melting pot is a sign of a sick society.

Besides which, as a Christian, I view myself as primarily *that.* Or sort of. It's not like I'm identifying with all of Christendom (shudders at the thought of right-wing fundies), but it's just the core of my being... Christianity. It shapes me, more than being Canadian does.

Capitalism and the free market rock. But they are not the be-all and end-all of economics. They work up to a point, but there is a tendency is economically-liberal countries (prime example: USA) for the lower echelons of society to slip below the poverty line. The gap between rich and poor can grow to phenomenal levels, and income distribution becomes very inequitable. It's basic economics that vast income inequitability is detrimental for an economy. Government intervention is therefore necessary, and decent government intervention at that. The US has suffered at the hands of self-concerned individuals sheltering under the umbrella of free-market principles. Your society has not been corrupted by capitalism, but by runaway centralisation, too-loose regulation of the economy and general greed and selfishness amongst the ruling classes.

Hence one of my favorite quotes:

In statecraft liberalism is weakness.

Too much greed and selfishness in a society are bad things. However it is worth pointing out that:...

Adam Smith (an economist from the 1700's) said that selfishness could benefit a society:

"Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it...He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. "

Ayn Rand further developed this basic idea in her many books about objectivism (which was her philosophy's name). She even wrote a book called "the virtue of selfishness".

I think that too much greediness is a bad thing. However, i think greed will always exist in societies....whether they be capitalist, socialist, or communist. It is part of human nature and can be beneficial at times but care should be taken to make sure people do not go overboard with it.

Hmm, interesting. But wasn't Heinlein writing fiction ?

Anyway, yeah, we're all screwed, someone will blow up the world, and in 300 hundred years, a race of space fairing lizards shaped like 12 foot Rice Crispies will use the battered shell of the planet as a puck in a game of interstellar curling.

So, in the meantime, best have as much fun as possible, eh?

we must have faith that we are not all screwed........ Its just like in 'the lord of the rings': even in the BLEAKEST of moments and against the greatest odds there is always hope.

That is what i think the entire lord of the rings trilogy is all about....kind of tolkiens way of saying: "ok ppl things suck sometimes but if everyone tries their hardest to do the right thing...sometimes the world will be saved".

You do realise LOTR is fiction, right?

Society is dying and if it were up to me, it would be put out of its misery. I personally have lost faith in the police, courts and government and have never identified myself with the country or any group for that matter. I am Righteous.

I love capitalism. I still and always will have great faith in the blessed Market. And of course there's an uneven distribution of wealth. I don't have a job and have no money while my sister has a job and makes $50,000 a year. You don't hear me complaining about it.

I think if more bad things were to happen, society would be a lot better but unfortunately the government keeps bad things from happening. One of my favorite quotes on this situaton is: "Democrats want the government to be your mommy; Republicans want the government to be your daddy; Libertarians tthink you're an adult and can take care of your own damn self."

Sooo...fiction can't speak true?



Why don't you try to change society rather than end the one thing that keeps humans alive? Anarchy has many paths, a prominent one being fierce individuality that leads to social collapse, and extinction.

sh*t people i was kidding!

Making it entirely impossible that, say, Heinlein has any kind of sociological or political beliefs that he wishes to express through his writing, and entirely invalidating the fact that many of the protagonists in his novels have expressed very similar beliefs.

What? NOOOOO!

Precisely.

....
....
Ummm.


Oh, right.


*blushes*

*shuffles out*

It can. However, most of the time in fiction, there is always a happy ending of sorts, even if there is sacrifice. The real world isn't as predictable, and there are lots of things that don't have happy endings.

Simply out, don't generalize. There is plenty of fiction that doesn't have a good ending. Ever read, ohh, 1984, Animal Farm, Utopia.....

All generalisations are false anyway.

I said "most", and besides, Orwell isn't most authors (no idea about Utopia).

Thomas More

Also read Rabelais's Gargantua and Pantagruel

Righteous, killing society and ignoring tens of thousands of years of social development isn't exactly the most sensible, wise or profitable way to go, as Sir Maxerpopple said. And capitalism isn't a perfect system - just a really good one. A carefully mixed economy is by far the better option. Which means an element of central government, which means laws and law enforcement, which means democracy and a bunch of other legal, political and social necessities. Government is inevitable amongst humans, who seem to have a real problem sticking to the Golden Rule mantra.

Who here have heard of Jean-Jacques Rousseau?

He glorified the state of nature as man in ultimate freedom, but even he beleived in having a governing body.

The same is with me. Anarchists often do not realize exactly what anrachy woud do to man as a whole, it would destroy him. However, a modest social structure, the logical equivalent of anarchial chaos is most preferable. Especially one without advanced mean of tchnology at is desposal.