>>22176
>The only way to spare civilisations effectively from such a cycle is to amend the problem not stand around gawking and pointing it out.

The problem shown has the solution in its very description. Return to being an ethical and moral society and you'll be back on the path of growth and prosperity, but again, once "unprecedented prosperity" hits a civilization/country, all the talks about morality will again start seeming pointless to people because they're "already at the top of the world", but during the decline of a civilization the process can perhaps be reversed. But no one's gonna listen about morality during the time unprecedented prosperity exists, being moral is difficult and requires a lot of effort and time, and comparatively being immoral/evil doesn't require any effort or time, if people are made to realise that the effort and time required by morality is worth it, they can grow collectively and perpetually.

>>22176
>somtin somtin da jews somtin white race
tl;dr

>>22231
Wasn't going to post, but this is mostly wrong. Not being a prick takes suprisingly little effort, and most people when faced with an obvious ethical dilemma will make the obvious choice.
I don't believe that people stop listening to morality/ethics because of prosperity. I think that in current society people ignore them mostly because they aren't talked about. Lacking a framework for thought itself, we succumb to impulse and urges. Thus the collapse.
An overview of philosophy should be a required class in Jr High. imo. And for what it's worth.

>>22232
>I don't believe that people stop listening to morality/ethics because of prosperity.
Let's go to the extremes of the beginning of a particular race's civilization and come to prosperity step by step. In the beginning a race is just looking for ways to "survive together" as a group, and let's take the example of a very small group/tribe that has only 1 doctor and 2 hunters and 1 farmer. In such a case,the hunter has no choice but to give the doctor "the best he can", because if something happens to the doctor and he dies or is not in his right mind due to malnourishment or dies due to lack of food/shelter/etc., the hunter and his family are doomed, so the hunter just has to be the most moral/ethical towards the doctor or else his own survival will be in jeapordy. As the tribe starts getting more and more prosperous, more and more options become open to be immoral because then being moral towards people of their own tribe starts becoming less and less of "an unavoidable necessity", and once "unprecedented prosperity" hits a race, most of the people living in it can be immoral without losing their prosperity (and the prosperity they glean from their surroundings), the prosperity becomes "assured" for them during "their entire lifetime". The more the prosperity the lesser the need/necessity to be moral, and the more will be the people choosing to be immoral.

The jews didn't have a land they could call their "homeland" for the longest time, in fact perhaps at a point in time they were virtually the only race on earth without a homeland of their own. And this "lack of prosperity due to being homeless" forced them to be moral among themselves/their own group/their own race, and made them a more closely knit together group "working together" than others, and now they've ended up becoming the race that will dethrone the white race and will become the topmost race on earth. All those "morals" brewing within them due to the "necessity" imposed on them by their "homelessnessness" made them a greater force working together than others over the centuries. After a while, they will inevitably start becoming immoral among themselves too and some other race will take their place and the cycle will go on.

The position for "the topmost race on earth" is open for everyone, it's just that at different times different races become moral enough among themselves to take it.

>>22235
That's not how morals work. You don't be moral with those but immoral with some other ones. That's not morality.

>>22236
>That's not how morals work. You don't be moral with those but immoral with some other ones. That's not morality.
You're talking about "true morality" here, but such "selective morality" does work in this world even though "selective morality" will damn a person to hell. Even satanists are "selectively moral" among themselves and they do end up fulfilling their agendas, and terrorists who are "selectively moral" towards themselves end up outsmarting armies and intelligence agencies around the world.

If people want to "work together" and "grow together" morals (true or selective) are necessary, though "true morality" that is fully and equally moral towards everyone is the ultimate truth that very few reach (to others true morality just seems like "stupidity").

>>22235
>In the beginning...and once "unprecedented prosperity" hits a race
I'm not an anthropologist, but neither are you. I don't base my ideas of civilizational development on Age of Empires.
>the only race on earth without a homeland
Google the word "Nomad"
Also "White" isn't a race.
>topmost race on earth
Are you fucking twelve? Do you think that you can rank humanity from best to worst? Did you get that idea from a Rick and Morty episode? How fucking one dimensional is your thinking? Are you psychotic? Do you not know the real world?
wtf lol

>>22238
You're talking with an curryfag, my nigga

>>22239
And so I try to read the Vedas, but ancient texts did a redesign and no longer offers .txt downloads. That's ok, I'd rather a pdf anyway, so I go to ia but their algorithm isn't showing me full texts, so I go back to ancient texts and try to curl the html, but it won't let me curl or wget because of """security""", so I go back to the ia and do a more thorough search and finally find a good copy, but the download times out and tls closes unexpectedly.
Starting to feel like the whole damn internet is a psyop.

>>22237
I don't mean to denigrade your religous or philosophical convictions. Just your intelligence. I suspect that you're misinterpreting something cultural, but don't have the knowledge to say for sure. Don't @ me.

>>22238
>I'm not an anthropologist, but neither are you.
This is the worst thing that has happened to the west, and if you're not from the west, please don't pick this behavior pattern up. Can only "the experts" be right about something? Can the janitor not reach a psychological truth that the top psychologists haven't? Can "experts" be not wrong about things, while a layman can be right about that very thing? You "call me out" about ranking races, while you yourself are "ranking" people based on stuff like "degrees" and "education" and "expertise"? If I had a big degree respected across the world, your perspective of what I've said would suddenly change, wouldn't it? Stop "ranking" people yourself first before telling other people to stop ranking people please.

> Do you think that you can rank humanity from best to worst?
The OP is actually a copy of my other thread, with OP chiming in with his 2 cents in the end. In everything I've ever posted, I've clearly stated that there is no such thing as "superior race", but if we were to rank the people and races based on their "general prosperity", ranking them would be easy. In terms of prosperity, the topmost position in the world is "open for all", it's just that a race/civilization has to be ethical and moral enough at least among themselves to be able to take the "most prosperous people on earth" spot. And once a race does take that "most prosperous people" spot, their moral decline inevitably begins until someone else replaces them from that position and the race is back to grinding from the very beginning.

>Google the word "Nomad"
The jews had a homeland of their own in the past and were then conquered and were drawn out from it making them suddenly "homeless", they weren't always "nomads". A nomad is someone who never wants a permanent home, but the jews did make their own homeland country as soon as they had enough power to do so.

>>22241
>I'm not an anthropologist, but neither are you.
Let me rephrase-
"I have not spent more than a passing interest in studing these problems, and there are others who might have a more enlightened answer. I don't believe that you either have devoted significant portions of your life to the study of anthropology."
I admit it's less of a zinger.

>The OP is actually a copy
I wasn't responding to that thread. I was responding to this one. Please stop turning this swamp into a quagmire kthnx
As far as a "Prosperity Metric"- I hope you assign weighted percentage submetrics to crime rates, economic presperity, mental wellness, and the quality of their art. Because that would be hilarious.

>Jewish nomads
IIRC, they did make a homeland, and several times over. It's a recurring theme. Not sure what your point is.

>people being wrong on the internet is like quicksand for millenials
Yuuuuup.

>"I have not spent more than a passing interest in studing these problems, and there are others who might have a more enlightened answer. I don't believe that you either have devoted significant portions of your life to the study of anthropology."
That's the point, someone who has not spent more than a passing interest in studying these problems can still know more than those who have spent significant portions of their life to the study of anthropology. What the modern west has been reduced to is "sheep mentality", you need to see what the "consensus" about a person is before you make your mind about what they say, and this is where the terms like "degrees" and "being seen as an expert" comes in, you'll always first check what the "majority of people" thinks about something or someone before even "considering" and "analyzing" what was said and that is the textbook definition of "sheep/herd mentality". As I said before, the janitor who never went to college might be right about or know more about a topic than the expert who holds the biggest degree on it in the world, but this idea is so far beyond your sheep/herd mentality that you'll just find it ridiculous and a vast majority of the west will just label it all as "stupid".

>>22255
There is genuinely domain expertise. Like chip building or bridge building or even something more abstract like mathematics. However there are Fields like psychology or anthropology or even to some extent for example nutrition science or general understanding of healing and maintaining the body that some tribesmen in the Amazon might understand better or some bloke and a bar in Scotland might understand better than a bunch of phds. But it honestly depends on the field. It would be unwise to assume that certain domain knowledge is not guarded by thousands of hours of engagement.

>>22255
>Relation to the original topic decreases with every single post
^Rule 25
Nothing in your rambling, semi-coherent post addresses the fact that the op disregards the complexities of human interaction especially in small groups, and doesn't even begin to accept concepts of deep time and alternative lifestyles. The implications of the "Hunter Doctor" scenario insist upon a fundimental ECONOMIC motivation that overrides things like compassion, communal tribalism, and morality that complicate human interaction well beyond "If you kill me you won't eat." It's just not true. It doesn't even sound true, and it's contrary to what a passing interest in ancient civilations shows us.

>>22256
*Inhale*
*exhale*
There are different kinds of knowledge. And the operative word for a jani curing cancer is "might". Their knowledge, whether true or not, is useless unless it can be verified. A single instance does not make a pattern.
Although the idea of unverified knowledge is gratifying (especially to me), it does not and should not substitute for systems of shared information (like proper education. (Or language for that matter))

Are we done here, or are yous going to keep trolling?