About Socrates and his attitude to women

 The fact that women have been subjected to repression during almost the entire history of the world is today a recognized fact.

 My favorite philosopher from history, Socrates, was unusual in his Greece of antiquity. He lived and worked in Athens. He expressed himself as a true revolutionary in Plato's dialogue "REPUBLIC", where he pointed out that it is folly not to take advantage of all talents in a society when talented individuals are in short supply everywhere. Therefore talents should be recruited from all groups in society - including women.

 What about this quote from Socrates: Once made equal to man, woman becomes his superior.

 Moreover, Socrates pointed out (in "REPUBLIC") that you can determine the maturity of a society by studying how that society treats its women. That Socrates was sentenced to death by the governing men of his Athens becomes even less surprising when you realize this.

 That we today have modern societies where the rights of women's are protected to a greater extent than ever before in the history of the world, is something we in the modern democratic societies should be proud of and prepared to defend. That very many politically correct people do not realize this is distressing. Have they learned nothing from our history? Or are they unaware (which is worse than deliberatly denying women their rights according to Socrates in Plato's dialogue "Hippias")?

 Is it time for citizens of the Western world to begin to defend themselves, their civilisation and their women against the prejudiced dogma of the old patriarch Athens and their followers from backward patriarch nations of today?

 There is a program on the Web TV where you can learn about the situation:

Women's power in world history

 A British BBC documentary series from 2015 UR Play.

 In the series "Women's power in world history" the BBC's TV host Amanda Foreman focuses on the role of women, from the cradle of civilization to modern times.

 Part 1 of 4. Civilization. Amanda Foreman travels to Turkey, Siberia and Greece and talks about the history of women in early settlements like Mesopotamia and ancient Greece. It is about the origin of patriarchy, women's power, and how and why the status of women decreased while humanity at large became richer. Foreman explores the world's first laws passed in Mesopotamia, where, issues relating to divorce, abortion and the use of the veil are made into written law. We also hear about the extraordinary women in history who like Enheduanna, the world's first among famous writers and Hatshepsut, the pharaoh of ancient Egypt.

See the program at (English spoken with Swedish subtitles):

http://urplay.se/program/193175-kvinnors-makt-i-varldshistorien

 This program confirms our ideas of philosophy about the craziness of the Patriarch of ancient Athens

Please check also:

http://axiom1b.blogspot.se/2015/03/from-socrates-1-curse-of-person-who.html

and

http://axiom1b.blogspot.se/2015/06/socrates-gossip-filter-gossip-slander.html

PS. I intend to also see the other three programs in the series, and perhaps even recommend them

 Also check how a "Modern Socratic Method" (dialectics) can be used to create a greater society at:

https://www.duga.se/ - use Google Translate

Todde

 Our planet's most serious and fundamental problem, which is causing so many other problems, is overpopulation and population explosion.

 The following article may be worth reading:

Shouldn't we try to reduce the number of people on our planet?

 Could we - and should we in this case - control the world's population to reduce poverty, suffering and the pressure on our ecosystems? The question of population control and family planning has been discussed at least since the 1700s but there is still no serious debate on the issue.

 Imagine the following news: "Lengthy negotiations in the UN have been successful in Paris. A binding agreement limiting growth of population has been signed by almost all countries. The agreement means that the growth of the planets population will most likely cease by 2050, reaching a target of 6 billion people. Scientists estimate that this Agreement is equally important for the environment as climate control agreements."

 Unattainable? Unnecessary? Several countries are already reducing their population and the global growth rate is reduced - it is now 1 percent/year. In 1975 for example it was 1.8 percent. True, but the amount of increase in 1975 led to 72 million more people per year; Today it leads to 73 million more per year. But people are better off today! Yes, the proportion who are better off is increasing in a number of countries, but around 1 billion live below the poverty line globally. Increased prosperity increases consumption leading to increasing pressure on the ecosystems that sustain us. The effects on the environment is largely determined by the number of people times their consumption of resources. Future climate change, war, disease, natural disasters and resource shortages hit harder, and means more suffering as we grow in numbers.

 UN population forecast was adjusted upwards in July. But it was barely noticed in the media. Today we are 7.4 billion. By 2050 we are expected to be 9,7 billion, and by 2100 - 11.2 billion. The heavviest population growth will be the in parts of Africa, India, Pakistan and Indonesia. But Central Europe generally has a higher population density than Africa. In several countries close to Europe, the population has increased considerably. In dry, arid countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen from 8 -10 million in 1980 to 23-29 million per country in 2013. The current global fertility is 2.37 children per woman. A calculation shows that if it could be reduced to 2.0 children in 2020, we would feed 777 million fewer people in 2050, compared with an unchanged fertility.

 Media reported last summer that "Six million people are starving in Yemen". If one considers that less vulnerable and hungry people would be a humanitarian progress, it is not only the world's uneven distribution of resources tha is relevant, but also the population issue. The allocation of resources is often the focus, while the global population growth gets very little attention today.

 What suggestions have been forwarded on how to limit the population? The priest and economist Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) became famous through his "A Treatise on Population Act," in which he warned that world population is growing faster than the resources. He advocated education and that women bearing children at a higher age. This trail, family planning, has since been passed on to our moder times. Georg Borgström, Swedish naturalist (from 1956 Professor in the USA) studied famine and food security during the 50s and 60s  He  stressed the need to control population growth on our planet.

 Inventions and industrial revolution led in the 1800s and early 1900s to more efficient food production, something Malthus did not foresee. The global population rose at that time also quite slowly. We were around 2 billion in the early 1900's. From about 1950 the population curve rises steeply upwards, sometimes with an annual increase of over 2 percent as cheap oil lubricated the global economy. Most population increases were in non-industrialized countries, while per capita consumption increased markedly in industrialized countries. This contributes strongly to today's global environmental problems.

 Kenneth Boulding (1910-1993), a liberal professor of economics, presented in his book "The meaning of the Twentieth Century" (1964) the least original proposal which could give a future stable population. He started from birth, using the example of 2.2 children per woman. Every newborn woman should  get rights to "a number of births" (men could also be included) in a market where birthrights can be bought or sold. This means that those who want many children have to purchase additional units from the system, while those who want to have few or no children can earn extra money.

 David de la Croix and Axel Gosseries analyzed Bouldings suggestions in 2009 (including countries with both growing and shrinking population) seeking a global equilibrium. They found support for population control à la Boulding could work on a global scale - and would ,under certain circumstances, also benefit global economic justice and education. When Bouldings book was reprinted in 1988, he in a preface stuck to his ideas, but with a partially dark perspective. The light he saw was mainly the environmental movement, "whose essential message included the love for variety to this strange and beautiful planet."

 During the 60s population increase was debated intensely - different schools saw it as a big problem, a non-issue, or beneficial - by innovation and new technologies the planet would benefit. Most famous for advocating population control were Anne and Paul Ehrlich. In the book "population explosion" (1968). In their book they suggest that the United States, given its large consumption, should act as a model for other countries. Economic support, it was suggested should be reduced the more children a family had. They also proposed a special tax for cots, diapers etc., except for the poor.

 Making it costly to have many children should reduce the size of families. They further proposed abortion rights for women, that adoption would be supported financially, that men who were sterilized after they had two children, could get a reward, that contraception should be used more, education and additional things.

 A controversial issue in the discussion was about rich countries' giving aid to poor countries hit by famine. If the countries received support in the form of food and other resources, it was argued that the population could increase which, with increasing starvation as a result, unless demands were made on Family Planning (assistance with related requirements). By the time food production was increased ("The Green Revolution") and population problems were disregarded. Today the situation is different, with strained food production and climate change.

 During the following decades the status of women was improved in many countries. They had fewer children in rich countries with higher female empowerment. But now attention became increasingly focused on multiculturalism.

 Hardin, a scientist studing human ecology, stressed severely limited migration between countries as an important factor to check the growth of worldpopulation. Countries would be able to compete in setting good examples in population control and the environment, much as they compete in sports, research and more. Tightly controlled borders require international assistance in disasters and war, but Hardin argued that population control should be included in the assistance.

 Today it is often argued that countries with aging population and low birth rate need to get addition of younger folks, and that this could be solved by immigration. Demographers downplay the problems of aging population. They note that the phenomenon already existed a longtime ago and was handled in England.

 In "Population: Introduction to concepts and issues" (2012), John Weeks writes that immigration today does not work as a general solution to the problem of aging population. Sometimes it may instead cause social problems.

 Climate agreements may be based on contributions to emit carbon dioxide. This may strike against poor countries, on their road to progress. Climate change is hitting the poor countries with growing populations the hardest while increasing inequalities. In climate models it is assumed that population will increase, according to UN forecasts. But sociologist Monica Das Gupta reported a positive effect of population control in a model UN forecast for 2005-2055. Food production there would need to increase 64 percent by 2055. But if the population had remained at the 2005 level, production would only have to increase 25 percent (due to the increasing global consumption per capita). With climate degradation included, food production must increase substantially more. Monica Das Gupta reports a series of studies that suggest that family planning can effectively reduce fertility in developing countries.

 Coercive family planning has occurred in dictatorships like China (since 1970) and Iran (for about 15 years, until 2006). In India it was conducted in the 70's by widespread forced sterilization of men - now a criminal offense. What conditions, and what kinds of policy is required to be acceptable in controling population growth in democracies? And could proposed international agreements be possible? Malthus and his followers insisted that measures to limit population would aim at reducing extensive human suffering, while protecting ecosystems. A quote from Bouldings book of 1964 seems to still be valid : "There is a need to devote substantial mental activity for this problem. For some reason we do not do that?"

 This article was written by Frank Götmark, a professor of ecology at the University of Gothenburg. The article was published in Svenska Dagbladet on 16 november 2015.

Also check:

http://axiom1b.blogspot.se/2015/12/circular-economy-needs-to-be-measured.html

To be wrong, be right, discover you are wrong - How does it feel?

 How does to discover you have been wrong all along be something good to be proud of? 

 Check this TED talk and find out:

https://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong

At the same time - check this:

http://axiom1b.blogspot.se/2015/12/decadence-word-decadence-wikipedia.html

   Muslims seems to be included in all major conflicts in our global civilization today. At the end of the 1900's there was still some conflicts without islamic involvment (in the Basque Country, Ireland and Sri Lanka). These non-muslim conflicts have now ceased.

   The question is WHY? What is it that causes Muslims to create conflicts?

   An article in SvD Business conveys the following GOOD NEWS

  The number of war and casualties in war has declined remarkably since WW2:

Trade prevents war

   Since 1950, wars between countries have become ever fewer on Earth. The reason, according to a new study, is the growing trade between countries.

   The researchers behind the study, economists Matthew Jackson and Stephen Nei at Stanford University in California, USA, have examined developments in the world after the Napoleonic Wars, i.e. from 1816 onwards.

   They noticed that a dramatic change took place after the Second World War. Since then, the number of independent countries on have earth tripled, but they go less frequently to war with each other. The number of deadly conflicts 1950-2000 was only a tenth as many as during the period 1816-1949.

   The number of people who have died in wars between countries has also dropped dramatically, from a half million in 1950 during the Korean War, to almost none at all in the 2000s. Since 2003, when the US invaded Iraq, there have been practically no wars between States in the world.

   It does not mean that war has ceased in the world. But today almost all the deadly conflicts are civil wars, or civil wars with more or less pronounced foreign interference. The conflict in Syria is a recent example.

   Many people may think that the intervention of Western powers in Libya in 2011 was an outright act of war against the Libyan state, but by definition it was a matter of ongoing civil war. It does not count as a war between countries.

   The question is why the latter wars, the intergovernmental conflicts, have almost disappeared. The answer is maybe not what you would expect. The most important factor, according to the study, was growing international trade.

   Between 1950 and 2012 the export share of national GDP increased from 7 to 25 percent. In addition, the number of trading partners has grown tremendously. The latter is at least as important as the overall level of trade.

   Before WW1, trade was certainly considerable, but the number of trading countries were very small - Europe, the US and some others.

   Today, trade between countries is considerable, and different forms of trade agreements, trade unions and trade alliances have sprung up like mushrooms.

   According to their analysis, countries with extensive trading are closely linked to peaceful relations with its closest allies. They also have been less likely to go to war at all, including those countries that they used to have ideological conflicts with.

   Since 1945, military alliances have been far more lasting, partly an effect of the world after WW2 changing from being multipolar with several different power blocks to be bipolar, with only two major power blocs, NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

   This was combined with the nuclear weapons deterrent has had a dampening effect on war. But this is not a sufficient explanation. Without comprehensive trading the postwar period would maybe had turned into a period with many more deadly conflict than has been the case.

Roland Johansson

don't forget to check this program about religion with a sense of humour:

http://axiom1b.blogspot.se/2015/12/christianity-religion-holy-scriptures.html 

Circular Economy - Debris should not exist

 All people should be able to understand that we live on a planet with limited resources. The amount of raw materials in the crust of our planet is limited. This means that raw materials will become increasingly expensive to mine and eventually "run out". Our wear-and-toss society is not sustainable in the long run.

The linear system of raw materials becoming garbage does not work in the long run.

 Please check the program "Garbage should not exist," where sensible viewpoints on both the problem and various solutions are presented.

 We live in a world of natural resources. In a better world trash should not exist. That's the message Ellen McArthur delivers. Her goal is to drive the transition to a circular economy. She explains how we all would benefit from a global circular economy. The program is in English with Swedish subtitles

 Duration - 10 minutes - Available until Wednesday, March 30. 2016 at:

http://urplay.se/Produkter/190820-UR-Samtiden-EAT-2015-Skrap-borde-inte-finnas

 An interesting background to this could be "The Lightbulb Conspiracy", available on Youtube (presented in English translated into Norwegian text).

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1325909862417987000#editor/target=post;postID=1080143363607046692

 It may also be interesting to check if the article "Phosphorus - a future shortage" in:

http://axiom1b.blogspot.se/2015/11/debate-on-phosphorus-continues-in.html

 Future shortage of phosphorus means to fertilizers in agriculture will not work, resulting in mass starvation.

Todde

Natural Food

 I have watched quite some programs about the alarming overweight and obesity in the West.

 Some comments on this - based on Dr. Atkins + LCHF + own + others' experiences.

1) First and foremost our bodies need:

a) Protein Acids

b) Fatty acids

c) Vitamins

d) Minerals

2) In addition, the body can absorb the energy from:

     a) Carbohydrates

     b) alcohol

3) a) When the body lacks any of the foods mentioned under 1) it becomes the hungry and wants food.

     b) When the body has burned all alcohol and carbohydrates it starts burning fat. - Once all fat is burned the body starts burning protein.

4) Our culture offers plenty of starchy foods in tempting flavors.

5) We need to avoid/minimize intake of sugar and simple carbs.

6) Our priority should be to first and foremost eat protein.

7) By eating hi-protein you will almost certainly have given the body enough fatty acids.

8) In addition, the body needs exercise.

9) NOTE: Carbohydrates are needed ABSOLUTELY no more than you burn (counting calories).

 Fat people claim in interviews that they have tried all sorts of diets. Then they say the diets did not work. Obviously they have not tried to discipline their eating to proper eating habits.

 Given the wast amount of poor dietary advice given, this is perhaps not surprising. Discipline is the most important key to good results!

 The above is pretty simple to understand. What complicates the matter is that our bodies have different needs and ability to handle improper food intake. Therefore, each individual must teach himself how his/her body works and how best to discipline their foodintake.

 Evidently most diets give good results in the beginning (when the body is taken by surprise). Then the body learns to "manage" the new diet and the bodysystems adapt and strive to return to the state the body was in before the diet. - This is where discipline becomes essential.

 Therefore, the safest method to gain control of body shape (overwheight) is by carefully observing what the body needs for 1) and then using the discipline to take control of the body's food intake.

 NOTE! You know when the body switches from burning carbohydrates to burning fat. You get a little duller and can not be bothered to perform physical work as intensively. NOTE! This is a "good indicator", and it means you are on the right path (to lose weight). NOTE! It is at this point it is very important to restrict eating carbs !!!

 This applies to rectify the cause (too much carbohydrates). Don't try to combat the symptoms! Instead discipline your body to proper eating habits!

 Obese people are at 80% greater risk of dementia. The warning sign is when your ability to think slows down.

 Quote: Epictetus (55-135 e. Kr.): You must treat your human beingness as a deceitful and dangerous enemy.

Todde

Decadence

 The word decadence (wikipedia) means progress toward moral ruin. The Indo-European root words are de- and kad-. The prefix de- has many meanings including towards and from. The root word kad- originally meant sadness or hatred. Therefore, one would be able to say that according to our philosophy of life the word decadence means going to or from lower emotional states. In our Philosophy of Life language we define decadence as "Moving Towards Sloppy Discipline (according to Socrates "towards licentiousness"). 

 Our modern Western civilization, has been on a trend towards a more decadent way of life for quite some time. Materialism is in the forefront. Established science study only those things which can be measured, weighed or registered using physical means. It seems as if money is the key yardstick for success. Duty has been replaced with the demands (of rights), while sexuality gets more and more perverted and degenerates. Spirituality is limited to the activities of "religions with holy sripture" or "new age fuzz". What can not be measured by physical means is regarded as more or less witout value - i.e. such things as friendship, love, liberalism, law, order, rights, responsibilities, freedom, imagination and the upbringing of the next generation. Good education, freedom of expression and freedom of opinion was once essential building blocks of Western democracies. The question is whether these values still get sufficient attention today? Or has political corretness become our new censorship on freedom of expression?

 The advertising industry is flourishing as it teaches how the public can be made to purchase more and more goods and services than is needed to satisfy natural needs. When modern people meet, they often have no time for live communication. Instead they communicate through mobiles or computers.

 As the Roman Empire began to decay and the Emperors offered their subjects "bread and circuses" today's rulers invite the public to varieties of different forms of entertainment, from reality shows to web-browsing and facebook activities. The industries of Pornography outbid each other with porn videos that teach the rising generation brutal raw sex. Online, young people who absolutely have no natural needs to learn about perverted sex, can download whatever catches their attention, without any censorship or age limitation and take advantage of everything offered.

 The vapid, materialistic futility grips the minds of licentious men. Instead of engaging in uplifting, creative activities they become idle spectators or bewildered consumers of software.

 Researcher have discovered that the more our governments takes over responsibility from individuals, the weaker the initiative in our societies.

 The West has never experienced such a long period without war as after WW2. Our material wealth has reached unprecedented heights. Meanwhile, the suicide rate has increased and the use of drugs, happiness pills and medicines are soaring.

 Do check "System failures that threaten the world" (available on youtube at):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amrRxONj3bI  - Time: 1 hr 26 min

 There is a follow-up film to "System" called: "Decadence: The Decline of the Western World". The film describes how lobbyists take over policymaking, banks are printing money that is used for speculation (instead of investment in resources that create useful products). At the same time our students of economics are turned into obedient supporters of free market forces without the knowledge of the historical disasters that were created this way.

 The most important question of our time, might be whether it is possible to reverse the trend. How should we get rid of the lobbyists and exorbitant bonus payments? Philosophy believes that when the idea of fair exchange disappear from trade, ethic goes out. It is easy to note that exorbitant bonuses and high salaries has nothing to do with fair exchange.

 If the greedy bonus directors and finance industry speculators were left alone all by themselves without contact with the rest of humanity and the communities they operate in, they would not enjoy any of the luxury they now can purchase with their greed. If our civilization did not abuse the lifeforms of the planet and the physical resources of mother Earth, it would not be possible for humanity to live in an abundance created by parasitism.

 The modern man lives a life where egoism and selfishness is more important than empathy and consideration. Greed and the statushappiness have corrupted civilization as the contempt for politicians is spreading and admiration for billionaires grows. Politicians often care more about their own interests than the country's. Many ordinary citizens follow their example. By helping to create house- and assetbubbles, they have been able to mortgage properties and use the borrowed money for shopping and consumption. Egoism is spreading and wayward debauchery takes place at the expense of others (in the form of loans that can never be paid back). Instead of seeking meaningful pursuits that benefit the many, rather than the ego they strive more and more to maximize their own income with minimum effort.

 Today's insatiable bonus managers and speculators, who profit from derivatives trading, are establishing a new upper class in our societies. They are above laws and regulations created to make societies function. The gap between the rulers and the ruled has been growing as the monetary system has been relieved from virtually all regulation (this really happened when the last link to gold was broken in 1971 by President Nixon and then when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher freed the banking system from the regulations imposed since the depression of the1930's).

 Today executives in some of Sweden's 50 largest companies earn more than fifty times the salary of a normal industrial workers. Parents who have already paid off the loans on their homes can live lifes in luxury as senior citizens. Most of today's young people can not even dream about such a life (especially not once they turn into senior citizens).

 At the same time the finite resources of our planet are consumed. Even if "peak oil" is pushed a decade into the future by new (environmentally harmful) methods to extract more oil from old oil wells, there are other finite resources that will affect civilization as they peak (such as phosphorus, rare metals, sand that is irregularly shaped, etc.). The explosive population growth exacerbates the problems.

 The "curling method" of upbringing future generations does not bode well for the future. It seems that modern parents have some kind of idea that children are all by themselves going to turn out as well behaved without parents tutoring them. Or that parents can get their children to grow their ablity to take initiatives by organizing their lives through giving them maximum service.

 Studies have shown that the more governments assume responsibility for decisionmaking for their citizens, the poorer the ability of citizens to take initiative. That obviously applies for child-rearing as well. Educating children (or citizen) means that difficult decisions have to be made and responsibility needs to be handed over when the right opportunities arise.

Earning, inheriting and destroying

 Civilizations are undergoing the same processes (Cycle of Action) as anything else. They are born, grow, peak and gradually fade away. The decay progresses at different speeds. A vibrant culture like our modern Western civilization will hardly go under in less than a hundred years.

 The foundation of our modern society was laid when the American colonies revolted against Great Britain in the late 1700s. Unlike the planet's past great civilizations, this current one is global. If that means that the decay will be faster or be more drawn out, we do not know yet. What characterizes a civilization of decadence is greed, corruption, nepotism, sloth, gluttony, pride, etc.

 The foundation of the modern global civilization was created with great effort by industrialization and profitable global trade. Subsequent generations built on the heritage and spread this civilization first to Europe and then to other parts of the world. That is where we find ourselves today. But today it is no longer only the countries in North America or Europe that are doing the arduous work of creating. Instead, countries such as China and India have started to snatch initiative, while the abilty to take initiatives of the youth in the west has been curled away by "well-meaning" parents and authorities.

 Historically, no civilization has succeeded in preventing it's downfall, once it has started in earnest. There is no reason to believe that our modern civilization would be the first exception. But from the ashes of decadent civilizations, new viable civilizations have sometimes been able to rise, when enterprising individuals have been able to organize in time and managed to save parts of the spiritual and material capital of the fading civilization left behind. It may make sense to invest in such a bailout today.

 What more evidence do we have of the spiritual decline of the West?

 We have confused inherited wealth with real (creative) wealth. Inherited wealth has nothing to do with the ablity to know how wealth should be managed.

 We have citizens who in their spiritual distress and their material abundance are not able to create meaningful lives. Citizens engaged in status hunting (as indulgent food and wine connoisseurs, art lovers etc.), gluttony and devour unimportant news from the media.

 In China, people are struggling frantically to build a better future. The Chinese are today in the acquisition face. The Chinese people are rising from the remains of what is left of an ancient civilization. The new China is in the stage of creating a future by growing trade. But China does not share the West's liberal ideas of individual freedom and the rule of law (good and bad). Instead they have a party influenced by ideas of confusianism.

 Perhaps we should learn from Japan. Japan has since 1990 stagnated. Japan has no immigration because the land is already densely populated (in the valleys where you can live). Japanese women give birth to no more than 1.4 children per woman. These two factors have led to a declining population in Japan. With the diminishing populaltion new problems are surfacing.

 In the west women give birth to less than 2.1 children/woman (which is the birth rate necessary for the population not be receed). The West has solved this problem by allowing immigration from countries with birth surpluses (and as a consequent severe overpopulation - especially in future Africa and parts of Asia - read India).

 The loss of initiative and import of labor from countries with a different culture are threats to western ideals of democracy, liberalism and individual rights and freedoms.

 When the Greek people went out in large numbers into the streets or when Occupy Wall Street activists (usually young, unemployed people) gathered to demonstrate in many parts of the world, they admittedly created headlines in the media, but they did not affect the agenda of the new upper class (bonus executives and speculators) in any significant way.

 Our last hope is to the growing global middle class. Can this growing group organize themselves across borders? Can the new middle classes in developing countries somehow learn to cooperate with the dwindling middle classes in the West? If so it could be possible to out of the decadence get a new civilization to rise sometime in the future. But for that to occur, the ability and courage to take the initiative needs to grow.

 (Why not read the book "Foundation Triology" by Isaac Asimov - where you can learn some ideas about the karma of civilisations and empires)

 Quote from history: Socrates (470 - 399 B.C. - from Plato's "Republic"): Today's youth loves luxury, is ill-mannered, despise authority, and shows no respect for their parents. They talk about everything unessential instead of training themselves to become valuable citizens. The children have become little tyrants that require the family to serve them. They do not rise to show respect when older people enter the room. They are insolent toward their parents, prefer to prattle on instead of learning to get along socially. They gobble up goodies, and harass their teachers.

 Hesiod (Greek philosopher around 700 BC): I have no hope for the future of our people, as long as it depends on today's thoughtless youth. Because all our young people are so utterly unconcerned about anything outside of themselves. When I grew up, you had to learn to behave well and show respect for the elderly, while young people today consider themselves to be extremely smart. They just impatiently wait for others to listen to them.

Voltaire (1694-1778): The only thing we learn from history is that mankind never learns from history. However, individuals can learn from history.

Todde 

PS. Question: Could you do anything about this?

Belivers in holy scriptures are really decadent. Check this:

http://axiom1b.blogspot.se/2015/12/christianity-religion-holy-scriptures.html 

 Socrates on youth:

       “The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”

   Check the effort to build a greater civilisation (use google translate) at:

https://www.duga.se/