Economic Inequality and the doom of Mankind

http://www.policymic.com/articles/85541/nasa-study-concludes-when-civilization-will-end-and-it-s-not-looking-good-for-us

Apparently, if we don't create more economic equality, society is doomed to collapse within the next few decades. Thoughts?

Nerd Politico: Economic equality wasn't the only thing discussed in the article. Also Rome collapsed due to excessive immigration unlike whatever that article is suggesting about inequality. How about the people in developed countries learn restraint and stop using as many resources? I am not saying it should be legislated. It should be promoted in a way that less resources are consumed.

Tophatdoc: We should debate about the Rome thing one day...

Nerd Politico: I generally call BS on alarmist research like this. A relatively economically equal society might also be doomed to collapse even if it does not take too much from the local ecology (for an obvious example, being conquered/colonized by another society). Likewise such a society does not necessarily have to fall apart. All this is based on mathematical modelling that has proven to be flawed more times than I can count.

That said, such risk factors do make it a heck of a lot harder to maintain a good society. I'm a huge supporter of reducing inequality in all its forms and preventing the excessive exploitation, particularly, of natural resources. But there's good cause to justify that without resorting to a "there is no hope for mankind unless you do these exact things!" narrative designed mostly to sell books.

admin: Sure but be aware I have read two volumes of Edward Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" in my first year in college. Just a heads up.

Tophatdoc: Hey, me too!

Be aware that I won a New Zealand scholarship prize for Classical Studies

(not that I consider myself an expert any longer though - haven't done any serious academic study on Rome in five years. Actually my biggest claim to fame is that for a long time my introduction to Rome was on the Rome portal main page on Wikipedia, but honestly that's probably mostly because nobody ever goes there.)

This is the classics nerd version of puffing your chests out and circling each other in the carpark! Let's get it on!

Rome's collapse was caused by excessive immigration... Go!

nzlockie: So it shall be done.

http://www.edeb8.com/debate/Rome+did+not+collapse+due+to+excessive+immigration/

admin: Have you read the third volume? I need to take the time to purchase it or pick it up from a library.

I don't consider myself an expert on the Roman Empire or the Kingdom of Rome because neither peak my interest as much. I am very familiar with the Roman Republic especially the late Republic because I needed to rewrite some Latin writings into English(Too much work and rereading!) to practice on Latin.

Could you postpone the debate? I am currently in five debates at DDO which take enough of my time already.

Tophatdoc: I re-checked; I am in 7 debates actually. Only 5 of which are being debated.

Tophatdoc: Can't remember for sure I'm afraid. I found it in 6 books and I remember that I read 2 of them, but I can't remember which 2. Personally I found it boring compared with the primary sources themselves. I never learned latin though! That's cool.

Anyway, sure, just let that one expire. If you want to switch it with a late Roman Republic topic then I wouldn't mind that. Think mass immigration caused the decline of that too?

admin: I only have the first two volumes in my personal library. The edition that I have has only three volumes.

I don't see how immigration caused the decline of the Roman Republic lol. I would argue the Marian Reforms are what ultimately caused the collapse of the Republic. The Marian Reforms allowed individuals in the army to wield more power than previously seen before. I would say the Marian Reforms strengthened the Roman Emipre but ultimately caused the fall of the Republic.

Tophatdoc: I need to read all of them.

Tophatdoc: Reason: immigration forced the reforms of the Gracchi brothers which provided the impetus for the Marian reforms.

admin: Do you think America could be like that?

Pinkie: Not in the same way. Well, unless you brought back slavery and then for no good reason brought every single captured slave to Washington DC.

admin: Gracchi brothers provided the impetus for the Marian Reforms? That is an interesting take.

However, from my understanding the bludgeoning through several military campaigns most notably the Jugurthine War brought about the Marian reforms. Previously, the military was not structured towards having long term wars or a "popular military(previously wars were fought by patricians)." Gaius Marian would not of taken the opportunity to reform the military if the campaign was easy. Even with his military reform, diplomacy was still necessary to tame this great thorn in the Roman Republic's side. His experiences in Numidia ultimately brought about the Marian reforms.

admin: I disagree, slavery functioned differently in the Roman Republic than in the United States.

Pinkie: Interesting, why would you do that?

Nerd Politico: B.S.

The heart of society is trade and law, and neither depend on economic equality unless people think they do.

Even if the so called '1%' built an army of robots right now that fullfilled their every wish and thereby made all investing in the 99% pointless, society would not collapse unless the 99% took it upon themselves to attack the 1% for being so self-sufficient.

It would continue where the 99% have less starting capital but still plenty of production and need and thus impetus to trade and thus impetus to maintain law and order.

Besides which the 1% would try to sell them robots the practical effect making almost everyone absurdly rich by today's standards, but without the 'wealth gap' closing.

I think you'll find the robot example while totally imaginary actually covers all possible effects of a big wealth gap. There is after all only three things the wealthy can do with their money, horde it, spend it buying from other rich people, or spend it buying from poor people.

I reject the notion entirely that the poor are getting poorer and one need only look at any number of reasonable historical proxies to see that's the case.