How and why do civilizations succeed, fail, and evolve? Is the United States succeeding, failing, or evolve?
487970
Civilisations spread, but eventually they become politically stagnant, corrupt and are no longer able to progress (see examples with Rome, and even colonial empires such as the British Empire).\n\nWith America, there is an interesting article by Noam Chomsky about that.
951935
The US is on the decline.  The Romans began to decline when they went to  a mercenary army and so are  we now.  It is a symptom of no longer being willing to make the burdens shared by all, but instead hiring them done.  As we continue to  outsource jobs and pile up trade debt to countries like China, we become more and more dependent and beholding to others.  We continue to have the strongest military, but it won't  be long until China's economy will challenge our own.  And as we erode our moral leadership on the world's stage, we will also lose respect. Further, the quality of education in  this country has fallen so far that our math and science scores are now 38th in the world, and we are in a competitive hi-tech  world economy, we will shortly lose our competitive edge and head in the  direction of  our  scores.  So probably China will become the next superpower on the way up,and unless we do something about our debt and world respectability, we will soon pass them on the way down.
1096462
A is incorrect because this statement is usually attributed to Malthus however, Darwin was aware of this and it is one of the driving forces of natural selection-- that there are more organisms (not just humans) that can be supported by available resources.  \n\nB is incorrect because the adaptations that are favorable are not always biased towards being swift and aggressive.  There are passive, defensive adaptations that are effective.  \n\nC is incorrect because evolution is not directional.  There is no such thing as devolution.  A trait that is advantageous under one set of conditions may be a liability under different environmental conditions.  The most successful organisms on this planet are bacteria.  Also, individuals do not evolve.  Populations evolve.\n\nD is correct.  It is even right there in the title of Darwin's book on natural selection.  Look it up and read it.
518208
Without dissent change/progress does not occur. Evolving is not always a peaceful process, just ask the dinosaurs.
423840
That was a very good answer- But the question is so broad and important nobody would have space to give it the space it deserves.  There is an absolutely fantastic book called "Guns, germs, and steel" that goes into the differential evolution of cultures and societies, and gives this a very good treatment, plus it's written very well and easy to read- My 12 yr old boy read and understood it very well, and even enjoyed it (not as much as "The day my butt exploded" but there ya go"
745337
Is it the fear of failure or success?  Either one is a learning experience more so the failure.  That is how we learn.  Don't be afraid to fail, be afraid to do nothing and not learn.  Be afraid of ignorance, there is no such thing as failure if you learn from it.
1028483
Life is about evolution to higher forms.  Humans destroyed the Neanderthals and we will be eliminated by the robots, after they become smarter than us.
468802
I definitely agree that our society is going downhill.  Unfortunately, it agrees with history.\n\nIf you look back on all of the great societies of the past, Egyptian, Roman, Babylon, etc.  they have all crumbled for one reason or another.\n\nI hate to think that our society is on the same path but looking around it's hard not to think that way.  Our government is trying to conquer the world, politically.  The claim that other countries are wrong if they do not share our same views.\n\nThe U.S. is the lone Super Power in the world today, but China and India are making up ground at an unbelievable pace.\n\nI love America and I want nothing more than our society to flourish, not to be torn apart by our government's incompetence and inability.
461069
Each step in evolution, even cultural evolution, has to be an improvement over the one before, or it won't last.\n\nI think that the evolution of culture shows that when people cooperate, they all do better.\n\nI think it was Desmond Morris who wrote that the huge amount of learning that human children have to do to live in a culture was made possible by their extremely slow rate of growth before sexual maturity (about 12-18 years), compared to other primates.  And often our culture stretches this out even further, causing a lot of tension between the generations.\n\nIn highly complex cultures like ours, children are often 20 years old or older before they have finished their education and are ready to be fully responsible adults.  In less complex societies, you might see that a child of 12 or 13 has learned enough to become a member of adult society.
36074
I asked a question similar to this several weeks ago.  When looking at the similar patterns of history (such as the fall of Rome), it is apparent that the US will fall just as the Romans did.  \n\nAlthough many people in the US are unable to see how close they are to the greed, ego-centricism, denial and arrogance of ancient Roman culture, perhaps it will become more apparent when the society starts to fail and becomes lost.
227284
It mostly has to do with (1) US seclusion from the world political scene until the early/mid 1900s,(2) US Self-Sufficiency that was established as a result of that seclusion and (3) The fact that no one ever imagined something such as globalization a couple centuries back.\n\nSpecifically, the US was able to grow and prosper (although not without occasional difficulty) in a geographic location that was significantly distant (and difficult to reach; crossing an ocean on flimsy sailboats is not at all simple) from continental Europe, where people, nations, rulers, etc. were battling a huge amount of surmounting problems all brought along with things such as the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, Nationalism, Socialism, Liberalism, riots and revolutions, wars, famines, and urbanization. The difficulty of dealing with such new ideas, developments, etc. was heightened by the fact that Europe had had a long established system of doing/seeing things.\n\nThe US, however, was mostly distant to all these developments, and not having a long established system that was being challanged, it was easier for America to go along with what they were used to. Ultimately, this "being distant from trouble" helped the US establish its own system, grow, and of course, prosper. Thus, there came a time when people did not see what the advantage of changing systems would be when their system was clearly good enough to bring about such prosperity.\n\nThe metric system was established to bring unity to science, and thus to make it more "scientific" (for example, the meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second, the denominator of that fraction being the speed of light in a vacuum: 299792458 meters per second.). Countries outside Europe that adopted this system chose it, beacause they had no other choice. They were not significant contributers to science, and thus had to accept the established SI system, which was, not only practical, but also more precise and effective, and allowed scientists to draw conclusions, make hypotheses and establish relations more easily. The US, however, was a growing and potentially powerful country and did not necessarily need to "conform".\n\nAlthough the US scientific institutions do use the metric system today, the SI system is not widely established outside universities, institutions, etc.. Milk is still sold in gallons, and shoes in inches, for example.\n\nAt any rate, although it would theoretically be much easier for the American people to live with a system based on multiles of 10 and direct relations between units (1 liter of water is 1 kilogram, etc.), the US is now at a position where it is a world leader with an established system. It is now too late to change everything from road signs to education systems. The only link the general US has to the metric system is the fact that one yard pretty much equals one meter.\n\nBesides, like I have mentioned before, no one a couple centuries ago had or could have had imagined a phenomenon that we take for granted today: globalization. US businessmen, landowners, government, etc. probably just thought "I'm well enough the way I am, there is no need to rock the boat by forcing a new system, everyone that I do business with uses my system anyway, so what's the point?".\n\nAnyway, hope this answers your question.
849658
It's a gradual process, you'd never notice it.  It generally works like this: attractive people with talents that make money provide the resources for their children to be likewise successful.  These people are less likely to die than most people (better healthcare, less violent neighborhoods, etc.) and as such pass on their traits more readily.  It's an everyday process.\n\nThe modern trend in evolution is a focus away from disease resistance.  Once diseases would often kill people before they would have children, and so those that did have children would be on average 'healthier'.  In the advanced world today (Japan, western Europe, the US, etc.) this is less of an issue, so people with favorable traits in other respects but less 'genetic health' are more likely to pass on their genes.
471947
You're taking evolution, which is a biological theory, and applying it to society. Now, that may or may not be valid, but that's what you're doing.\n\nAnother issue with your question is the answer may be different depending on your perspective. From the viewpoint of the species, the more advanced, smarter society tends to win wars, and tends to take over the land of the defeated peoples and spread successful ways of living and knowledge. So in that case, the argument can definitely be made that war is "good."\n\nBut, if you're coming from the perspective of a person in one of those weaker societies, or from the perspective of someone sympathetic toward those weaker societies or their members, then of course, war is bad.\n\n(To the guy who says there is no evidence for evolution, you need to open your mind and look at everything rather than being so biased as to write off the overwhelming amount of evidence contrary to your opinion.)
713865
no jackass. the gov't has not failed us.  What is your job?? most likely something that is unimportant to people living in the US.  maybe you should stop complaining about the gov't and get your ass over in Iraq and do something for america. dumbass
1099006
Because a failure in Iraq is  failure to America and our standing in the world will go down.  If we leave prematurely the entire world will see America doesn't stick it out to the end.  That is a position we as a country cannot have if we expect our allies to stand by us.\n\nBesides, we lucked up and got the moth to the flame effect there.  The terrorist have gone to Iraq to run us out.  They are now there for us to fight and kill, and it is better to fight them there than fight them here.  They have shown they have no intention of leaving us alone.
1020230
The reason for the success of the US and other western countries is that we have adopted a system of government which allows for free enterprise and equality. A generous welfare system cares for most of the needy. We are allowed to suceed and excel. We also donate generously to the third world.\n\nIn third world countries politics and corruption and dictatorial governments repress freedoms and try to control and restrict free enterprise. NGOs with idealistic delusions of the 'noble savage' attempt to block useful new technologies from entering third world countries in an attempt to maintain them as some kind of museum of the past. Third world countries that have adopted our system of government are the ones which are making the most progress, yet even these countries are still beset by rampant corruption and nepotism which strangles incentive and achievement.
1120830
The "IN" civilization of its day (about 4000 B.C. it is said)! Great dances, written language, innovative societal structure... a people ahead of their time. Possibly the true founders of 'civilization'. They seem to have arrived on the scene fully developed (economically, politically, intellectually) and certainly established themselves in myth and history as the "Ancient Ones", even to those civilizations we consider ancient. Hmmmmm.... where DID they come from?