What do you think?
Rate this book
Immoderate Greatness: Why Civilizations Fail
Immoderate Greatness explains how a civilization’s very magnitude conspires against it to cause downfall. Civilizations are hard-wired for self-destruction. They travel an arc from initial success to terminal decay and ultimate collapse due to intrinsic, inescapable biophysical limits combined with an inexorable trend toward moral decay and practical failure. Because our own civilization is global, its collapse will also be global, as well as uniquely devastating owing to the immensity of its population, complexity, and consumption. To avoid the common fate of all past civilizations will require a radical change in our ethos—to wit, the deliberate renunciation of greatness—lest we precipitate a dark age in which the arts and adornments of civilization are partially or completely lost.
116 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 28, 2012
198 people are currently reading
1264 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
November 16, 2013
Very succinct, and more convincing when talking about the environment, resources and how civilisations overuse them. I found the moral decay much less credible and blinkered. For instance, Ophul claims the 'masses' and the elite split further apart over time, and that this is an indication of decay. But there was never any real unity in the sense he implies. Civilisations are built upon internal friction, slavery and war (amongst other more positive human behaviours), which are not signs of moral strength. And while grouchy old men could point to signs of decadence in our current society and claim everything is going downhill, there is no denying the social progress that has been made. Racism, sexism and homophobia are still present from the 'good old days', but are much less acceptable. And I'll bet I can express a wider range of thoughts and ideas than my great grandfather ever could, without fear of loss to social status or employment. If Ophuls wants to look at the cause of moral decay, perhaps he could focus more on the vested interests that are able to buy influence in politics and the media, thereby distorting rational discussion. Or maybe the ubiquitous nature of marketing that exploits our desires.
May 16, 2013
"Immoderate Greatness" is by far the best book I've read on the dynamics of civilization and its likely fate. It is both enlightening and depressing as it makes a convincing case that complex adaptive social systems like civilizations are typically doomed to destroy themselves. While he only obliquely refers to our present situation, author William Ophuls lays out a description of a civilization's lifecycle, founded in history and science, which makes it easy to identify how near advanced global civilization is to its demise, and why.
I've noted and similarly interpreted examples of the phenomena that Ophuls describes, on multiple scales that include much direct experience. This short book is an easy read that provides a vital context for humanity's history and its future. I highly recommend it to everyone.
I've noted and similarly interpreted examples of the phenomena that Ophuls describes, on multiple scales that include much direct experience. This short book is an easy read that provides a vital context for humanity's history and its future. I highly recommend it to everyone.
February 22, 2020
If the reader is interested in the possible collapse of our global civilization and why this is probable then this is the book for you.
Also, it discusses what kind of civilization might be built from the ruins.
The essential argument is conservationist and a plea for moderation...good luck with that!
Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Zombie apocalypse here we come....
Also, it discusses what kind of civilization might be built from the ruins.
The essential argument is conservationist and a plea for moderation...good luck with that!
Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Zombie apocalypse here we come....
August 14, 2019
Perhaps it started with a place called Manti, located in the countryside outside of my home town of Shenandoah. It had a small pond for fishing and a cemetery. The untended gravestones from the late 19th century lay overwhelmed by the exuberant grasses and weeds. You could walk among those gravestones, looking at the dates of birth and deaths of those long dead residents, and then look around and you see nothing but Nature. A village of the dead.
I’m not alone in holding a fascination with the sense of ruin. Visits to Anasazi ruins in New Mexico; to Mayan ruins in the Yucatan and Guatemala; to those of the Incas in Peru; to the abandoned Moghul city of Fatehpur Sikri in India; to the Coliseum and Forum in Rome—one never finds oneself alone. Crowds swarm through the grand ruins. We behold and contemplate. The list of ruins is like a school’s honor roll of deceased alumni and serves as a haunting memento mori writ large. For us, for our civilization.
For those interested in decay, decline, collapse—the terms vary, but the experience remains—the sources are legion. Plato and Aristotle, St. Augustine, Machiavelli, and just about every serious political thinker in the Western canon addresses this issue. Medieval Islam gives us the insights of Ibn Khaldun, while the Enlightenment provides us with Gibbon. In the 20th century, we have Spengler, Toynbee, and Sorokin among a host of others, many of them writing today, such as Peter Turchin. Francis Fukuyama will publish a new volume at the end of this month entitled Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. The parade of reflection on this phenomenon continues. Some—those with the courage to look at our present situation and consider the real binds that we face—have a grim message for us. Such is the case with William (a/k/a Patrick) Ophuls.
I recently reviewed Plato’s Revenge, which assumes the the decline of our contemporary industrial civilization and that provides a guidebook of sorts about how we should model the successor to our civilization. In Immoderate Greatness: Why Civilizations Fail (2013) Ophuls argues that decline is inevitable—discoveries of new fossil fuel reserves or reductions in climate change magnitude notwithstanding. It’s here. It’s happening. It’s happened before. And there are several reasons why. It’s like going to the doctor feeling young, fit, and trim, and she concludes the exam by telling you that you’re going to die. That’s an inarguably true statement. Sooner or later, you’re going to die. The difference with Dr. Ophuls is that he believes that his patient (industrial civilization) has already reached civilizational senility and that we’d best get our affairs to make life better for our heirs. He’s right.
Dr. Ophuls—and he really is a doctor—of the Ph.D. in political science variety—identifies several disease processes that doom our civilization as they have doomed those before us. Ophuls does not develop any new or unique theories of civilizational decline in his book, but he does an excellent job of identifying and arguing the existing theories. Also, as a sound social scientist or historian, he doesn’t wed himself to a single, grand theory, but he appreciates that multiple causes drive the process of change. He begins his diagnosis, as he began Plato’s Revenge, with the basic science involved.
Entropy, ecology, and complexity all entail natural, physical limits on human capacities. Each level of analysis—physical, biological, and social—faces tangible constraints. At the most basic level, entropy requires any life form to feed upon outside sources of energy. Whether for our bodies or for our machines, we must continuously tap new sources of energy. But the law of entropy establishes that energy degrades when used (chaos replaces order) and that eventually traditional energy sources will not yield a sufficient return on the investment needed to gather and use the energy. As Ophuls notes, Joseph Tainter builds his entire theory of civilizational collapse on the increasing marginal cost of a unit of energy, or conversely, on the declining energy return on investment (EROI). Complexity may delay, but cannot avoid, this conundrum. But complexity, too, has its limits: those implicit in the environment and in the human brain.
As Ophuls notes:
. . . . [O]ur minds and language are linear and sequential , but systems happen all at once and overwhelm us intellectually: Systems surprise us because our minds like to think about single causes neatly producing single effects. We like to think about one or at most a few things at a time…. But we live in a world in which many causes routinely come together to produce many effects.
. . . .
In short, limited, fallible human beings are bound to bungle the job of managing complex systems. What they can neither understand nor predict, they cannot expect to control, so failure is inevitable at some point.
Ophuls, William (2012-12-28). Immoderate Greatness: Why Civilizations Fail (p. 37). CreateSpace. Kindle Edition.
In addition to our limited cognitive ability to encompass the complexity of systems, we also have the problem that we’re incarnate human beings with some—shall we say?—unfortunate traits that are only overcome—if at all—through a great deal of effort. And effort, the struggle for civilization, for civility, invariably decreases as civilizations grow more prosperous. Add to this the common traits of humans, and we can see our problem. Ophuls quotes Edmund Burke:
History consists, for the greater part, of the miseries brought upon the world by pride, ambition, avarice, revenge, lust, sedition, hypocrisy, ungoverned zeal, and all the train of disorderly appetite.
Ophuls, William (2012-12-28). Immoderate Greatness: Why Civilizations Fail (p. 54). CreateSpace. Kindle Edition, quoting Burke (citation in notes)
Add to this the fact the humans are “are not innately wise, especially in crowds” (id. 41)(to put in mildly) and that democracy, at its worst, crowdsources difficult political problems to a less than qualified and informed electorate. With this situation, you have the making of a cascade of troubles on the horizon. Politicians are driven to the lowest denominator of popular prejudices and provide bread and circuses, entitlements and inflation, to stave off discontent. The ability to say “no” and to reason together all but disappears. Sound familiar?
Ophuls concludes his reflections about the Ponzi-scheme of civilization (“as a process, civilization resembles a long-running economic bubble.” Id. 9.) with the observation that our civilization—industrial civilization—is nearly universal. This near universality (well, really speaking just of Earth) means that nowhere in this world of ours will we find an apparent successor of equal power and glory to replace industrial civilization. No Rome to replace Greece, no Byzantium to preserve Rome. We face a new Dark Ages. Can we avoid this?
Ophuls notes that Ian Morris, in his Why the West Rules—For Now (the title belies the scope, magnitude, and sophistication of the work) concludes with the idea that we will either gain “The Singularity” of technological and cognitive control of our environment and our history, or we will descend into the collapse of “Nightfall.” But before plunging into Morris, ThomasHomer-Dixon, or Joseph Tainter (if you haven’t already)—or even if you have—I recommend this brief and incisive primer about how we’re in for a rough ride ahead, just like our ancestors.
I’m not alone in holding a fascination with the sense of ruin. Visits to Anasazi ruins in New Mexico; to Mayan ruins in the Yucatan and Guatemala; to those of the Incas in Peru; to the abandoned Moghul city of Fatehpur Sikri in India; to the Coliseum and Forum in Rome—one never finds oneself alone. Crowds swarm through the grand ruins. We behold and contemplate. The list of ruins is like a school’s honor roll of deceased alumni and serves as a haunting memento mori writ large. For us, for our civilization.
For those interested in decay, decline, collapse—the terms vary, but the experience remains—the sources are legion. Plato and Aristotle, St. Augustine, Machiavelli, and just about every serious political thinker in the Western canon addresses this issue. Medieval Islam gives us the insights of Ibn Khaldun, while the Enlightenment provides us with Gibbon. In the 20th century, we have Spengler, Toynbee, and Sorokin among a host of others, many of them writing today, such as Peter Turchin. Francis Fukuyama will publish a new volume at the end of this month entitled Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. The parade of reflection on this phenomenon continues. Some—those with the courage to look at our present situation and consider the real binds that we face—have a grim message for us. Such is the case with William (a/k/a Patrick) Ophuls.
I recently reviewed Plato’s Revenge, which assumes the the decline of our contemporary industrial civilization and that provides a guidebook of sorts about how we should model the successor to our civilization. In Immoderate Greatness: Why Civilizations Fail (2013) Ophuls argues that decline is inevitable—discoveries of new fossil fuel reserves or reductions in climate change magnitude notwithstanding. It’s here. It’s happening. It’s happened before. And there are several reasons why. It’s like going to the doctor feeling young, fit, and trim, and she concludes the exam by telling you that you’re going to die. That’s an inarguably true statement. Sooner or later, you’re going to die. The difference with Dr. Ophuls is that he believes that his patient (industrial civilization) has already reached civilizational senility and that we’d best get our affairs to make life better for our heirs. He’s right.
Dr. Ophuls—and he really is a doctor—of the Ph.D. in political science variety—identifies several disease processes that doom our civilization as they have doomed those before us. Ophuls does not develop any new or unique theories of civilizational decline in his book, but he does an excellent job of identifying and arguing the existing theories. Also, as a sound social scientist or historian, he doesn’t wed himself to a single, grand theory, but he appreciates that multiple causes drive the process of change. He begins his diagnosis, as he began Plato’s Revenge, with the basic science involved.
Entropy, ecology, and complexity all entail natural, physical limits on human capacities. Each level of analysis—physical, biological, and social—faces tangible constraints. At the most basic level, entropy requires any life form to feed upon outside sources of energy. Whether for our bodies or for our machines, we must continuously tap new sources of energy. But the law of entropy establishes that energy degrades when used (chaos replaces order) and that eventually traditional energy sources will not yield a sufficient return on the investment needed to gather and use the energy. As Ophuls notes, Joseph Tainter builds his entire theory of civilizational collapse on the increasing marginal cost of a unit of energy, or conversely, on the declining energy return on investment (EROI). Complexity may delay, but cannot avoid, this conundrum. But complexity, too, has its limits: those implicit in the environment and in the human brain.
As Ophuls notes:
. . . . [O]ur minds and language are linear and sequential , but systems happen all at once and overwhelm us intellectually: Systems surprise us because our minds like to think about single causes neatly producing single effects. We like to think about one or at most a few things at a time…. But we live in a world in which many causes routinely come together to produce many effects.
. . . .
In short, limited, fallible human beings are bound to bungle the job of managing complex systems. What they can neither understand nor predict, they cannot expect to control, so failure is inevitable at some point.
Ophuls, William (2012-12-28). Immoderate Greatness: Why Civilizations Fail (p. 37). CreateSpace. Kindle Edition.
In addition to our limited cognitive ability to encompass the complexity of systems, we also have the problem that we’re incarnate human beings with some—shall we say?—unfortunate traits that are only overcome—if at all—through a great deal of effort. And effort, the struggle for civilization, for civility, invariably decreases as civilizations grow more prosperous. Add to this the common traits of humans, and we can see our problem. Ophuls quotes Edmund Burke:
History consists, for the greater part, of the miseries brought upon the world by pride, ambition, avarice, revenge, lust, sedition, hypocrisy, ungoverned zeal, and all the train of disorderly appetite.
Ophuls, William (2012-12-28). Immoderate Greatness: Why Civilizations Fail (p. 54). CreateSpace. Kindle Edition, quoting Burke (citation in notes)
Add to this the fact the humans are “are not innately wise, especially in crowds” (id. 41)(to put in mildly) and that democracy, at its worst, crowdsources difficult political problems to a less than qualified and informed electorate. With this situation, you have the making of a cascade of troubles on the horizon. Politicians are driven to the lowest denominator of popular prejudices and provide bread and circuses, entitlements and inflation, to stave off discontent. The ability to say “no” and to reason together all but disappears. Sound familiar?
Ophuls concludes his reflections about the Ponzi-scheme of civilization (“as a process, civilization resembles a long-running economic bubble.” Id. 9.) with the observation that our civilization—industrial civilization—is nearly universal. This near universality (well, really speaking just of Earth) means that nowhere in this world of ours will we find an apparent successor of equal power and glory to replace industrial civilization. No Rome to replace Greece, no Byzantium to preserve Rome. We face a new Dark Ages. Can we avoid this?
Ophuls notes that Ian Morris, in his Why the West Rules—For Now (the title belies the scope, magnitude, and sophistication of the work) concludes with the idea that we will either gain “The Singularity” of technological and cognitive control of our environment and our history, or we will descend into the collapse of “Nightfall.” But before plunging into Morris, ThomasHomer-Dixon, or Joseph Tainter (if you haven’t already)—or even if you have—I recommend this brief and incisive primer about how we’re in for a rough ride ahead, just like our ancestors.
July 29, 2013
This is a short (70 page), highly readable book summarizing why complex civilizations fail. And all civilizations are complex. The Table of Contents summarizes the 6 ways to fail. These include Biophysical Limits (Ecological Exhaustion, Exponential Growth, Expedited Entropy, Excessive Complexity) and Human Error (Moral Decay, Practical Failure).
The chapters on Biophysical Limits will be familiar to many folks with an environment/sustainability leaning. But they don't feel like a rehash, more like a good synthesis from someone with a deep understanding of the subject matter.
The Human Error chapters were less familiar for me. The chapter on Moral Decay was the hardest to read, as it seemed at times like a right wing rant. But that is misleading as it is much deeper than a right wing rant. It relies mostly on the views of Sir John Bagot Glubb, who believed that "the history of civilizations describes an arc that starts with an Age of Pioneers (or Conquests) and then moves successively through the Ages of Commerce, Affluence, and Intellect before terminating in an Age of Decadence. Two implacable forces propel this movement. First, in a process analogous to ecological succession, each age creates socioeconomic conditions favorable to the emergence of the next. Second, each new generation therefore grows up in altered circumstances that foster a changed way of thinking and acting. The outcome is a positive feedback loop in which changed material conditions engender mental changes that foster still more material change, and so on, until the civilization declines into decadence."
It's hard to disagree with the conclusions of this book - that we are headed for failure, on a global scale.
Highly recommended.
The chapters on Biophysical Limits will be familiar to many folks with an environment/sustainability leaning. But they don't feel like a rehash, more like a good synthesis from someone with a deep understanding of the subject matter.
The Human Error chapters were less familiar for me. The chapter on Moral Decay was the hardest to read, as it seemed at times like a right wing rant. But that is misleading as it is much deeper than a right wing rant. It relies mostly on the views of Sir John Bagot Glubb, who believed that "the history of civilizations describes an arc that starts with an Age of Pioneers (or Conquests) and then moves successively through the Ages of Commerce, Affluence, and Intellect before terminating in an Age of Decadence. Two implacable forces propel this movement. First, in a process analogous to ecological succession, each age creates socioeconomic conditions favorable to the emergence of the next. Second, each new generation therefore grows up in altered circumstances that foster a changed way of thinking and acting. The outcome is a positive feedback loop in which changed material conditions engender mental changes that foster still more material change, and so on, until the civilization declines into decadence."
It's hard to disagree with the conclusions of this book - that we are headed for failure, on a global scale.
Highly recommended.
November 26, 2016
In Immoderate Greatness, Ophuls distils a lot of history and thought into a compelling argument that civilizations are hard-wired to fail. From Ophuls' point of view all human civilzations have either failed or are failing. For me, it was difficult not to see strong parallels between the causes of failure (ecological exhaustion, exponential growth, expedited entropy, excessive complexity, moral decay, and practical failure) and conditions of the world today. The book begs the question, "what should we do about it?" and, sadly, I think Ophuls would say our best bets are Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and NASA.
August 22, 2015
In his short but enlightening book, William Ophuls points to the factors that lead to the inevitable failure of a civilisation. Civilisations have very similar stages of rise and decline and the author warns that ours is not different.
The expression 'immoderate greatness' is the key to undestanding the fall of a civilisation: exponential growth of population, ever-increasing demand for more resources (not only due to population increase but also due to the increase in its affluence), shaping the natural landscape to human needs, ever-increasing technological and social complexity and thinking humans are above nature. This has happened before and is happening now. Regarding civilisations, Niccolò Machiavelli is right in saying that history repeats itself. Civilisations are inherently damaging for the environment, and have a continous need to expand. Of course, in a finite world, this can't happen forever. Rome did it until it could expand no longer. Our civilisation has expanded until the last corners of the Earth.
For me the crucial factor is the ever-increasing complexity. The human brain cannot cope with the problems of resource use, population growth (etc.) that are ''the very business of civilisation''. Therefore, there is "persistent pressure for complexity to increase" which can only be solved by "developing more complex technologies, establishing new institutions, adding more specialist or bureaucratic levels to an institution, increasing organisation or regulation or gathering and processing more information". Thus "the increase in complexity have a societal price that increases over time, for as easier solutions are exhausted, problem solving moves inexorably to greater complexity, higher costs and diminishing returns."
"Civilizations are trapped in a vicious circle. They must solving the problems of complexity, for that is the price of civilized existence, but evey solution creates new, ever more difficult problems, which then require new, ever more demanding solutions.Thus complexity breeds more of the same, and each increase in complexity makes it harder to cope, while at the same time escalating the penalty for failure. In effect, civilizations enact a tragedy in which their raison d'être - the use of energy to foster the complexity that raises them above the hunter-gatherer level - becomes the agent of their ultimate downfall." This is for those who think technology will avoid us to fall in the same trap of ancient civilisations.
In my view, our civilisation's 'uniqueness' in technological progress and complexity was only allowed due to the discovery of cheap and abundant fossil fuels. Guess what, they are non-renewable and becoming increasingly difficult to extract (law of diminishing returns, anyone?). The Romans or the Mayans didn't develop technology like ours, not because they were more primitive but because they hadn't access to these abundant sources of energy. They built their civilisations on the back of slaves. Europe had the 'luxury' of abandoning slavery in the 19th century because it had access to much more efficient sources of energy. It's not by chance that the US industrial north was abolitionist while the rural south was pro-slavery. Technology is not a source of energy: it can only make its use more efficient. And this can be counter-productive as gains in efficiency tend to be annulled by increases in demand. We've been increasing our demand for energy until now but this can't go forever. Ophuls points out that the only way to 'manage' a civilisation is by not allowing it to become too complex. That has never happened. But human beings pursue greatness instead of renouncing it. 'Oil reserves are being depleted? Switch to ethanol, hydrogen or other alternative sources as long as I can continue and maybe increase my over-consuming lifestyle.' Moreover, attempts to reform an advanced civilisation may even precipitate its collapse. It's a trap in which we have been falling over and over again for the last 6/7 thousand years.
His chapter on moral decay is less convincing, though. What civilisation had no corruption in its beginning? And what civilisation isn't built on the backs of slaves? Nevertheless, he is right in pointing out that the increase in wealth eventually spoils the population who get used to 'bread and circuses'. They increasingly lose respect for their leaders who can't cope with the increasing amount of problems brought by increasing complexity. Worse, the gap between rich and poor becomes a schism. While the living conditions of those at the bottom get worse, those at the top get richer and richer and become ever more insulated in their little worlds. Moreover, civilisation has a constant need for change and that cannot give stability. This has repeatedly happened over recorded history.
I saw a review that said the author had a rather negative view of humanity. I couldn't disagree more. The author only points out that humans were not made to handle the complexity of a civilisation. Modern homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years but civilisation only in the last 6,000, a few thousand years after adopting agriculture. As, the author points out, the human brain was made to handle the relatively easy demands of life in hunter-gatherer groups. Civilisation is a problem too hard to solve.
These may be hard truths for the believers in the grand narrative of Progress. The idea that progress can be stopped seems ludicrous. "Humans, although clever, are not innately wise, especially in crowds". Technology may give us time but that increases the degree of damage in the end.
In conclusion, this is a valuable book with the ability of opening the eyes of everyone who reads it. I was already aware of some of the factors but Ophuls presents more information and a reflection in the end on what it means for us today. The author admits that he sees no feasible solutions because he doesn't believe that civilisations can escape the dynamic processes that lead to its collapse. I welcome this approach as I have read some books about the problems we face and the solutions seem unrealistic at best and delusional at worst. Moreover, attempts at reform may even precipitate collapse while maintaining the status quo may buy time but worsens the consequences.
"Humanity will undoubtedly survive. Civilization as we know it will not."
The expression 'immoderate greatness' is the key to undestanding the fall of a civilisation: exponential growth of population, ever-increasing demand for more resources (not only due to population increase but also due to the increase in its affluence), shaping the natural landscape to human needs, ever-increasing technological and social complexity and thinking humans are above nature. This has happened before and is happening now. Regarding civilisations, Niccolò Machiavelli is right in saying that history repeats itself. Civilisations are inherently damaging for the environment, and have a continous need to expand. Of course, in a finite world, this can't happen forever. Rome did it until it could expand no longer. Our civilisation has expanded until the last corners of the Earth.
For me the crucial factor is the ever-increasing complexity. The human brain cannot cope with the problems of resource use, population growth (etc.) that are ''the very business of civilisation''. Therefore, there is "persistent pressure for complexity to increase" which can only be solved by "developing more complex technologies, establishing new institutions, adding more specialist or bureaucratic levels to an institution, increasing organisation or regulation or gathering and processing more information". Thus "the increase in complexity have a societal price that increases over time, for as easier solutions are exhausted, problem solving moves inexorably to greater complexity, higher costs and diminishing returns."
"Civilizations are trapped in a vicious circle. They must solving the problems of complexity, for that is the price of civilized existence, but evey solution creates new, ever more difficult problems, which then require new, ever more demanding solutions.Thus complexity breeds more of the same, and each increase in complexity makes it harder to cope, while at the same time escalating the penalty for failure. In effect, civilizations enact a tragedy in which their raison d'être - the use of energy to foster the complexity that raises them above the hunter-gatherer level - becomes the agent of their ultimate downfall." This is for those who think technology will avoid us to fall in the same trap of ancient civilisations.
In my view, our civilisation's 'uniqueness' in technological progress and complexity was only allowed due to the discovery of cheap and abundant fossil fuels. Guess what, they are non-renewable and becoming increasingly difficult to extract (law of diminishing returns, anyone?). The Romans or the Mayans didn't develop technology like ours, not because they were more primitive but because they hadn't access to these abundant sources of energy. They built their civilisations on the back of slaves. Europe had the 'luxury' of abandoning slavery in the 19th century because it had access to much more efficient sources of energy. It's not by chance that the US industrial north was abolitionist while the rural south was pro-slavery. Technology is not a source of energy: it can only make its use more efficient. And this can be counter-productive as gains in efficiency tend to be annulled by increases in demand. We've been increasing our demand for energy until now but this can't go forever. Ophuls points out that the only way to 'manage' a civilisation is by not allowing it to become too complex. That has never happened. But human beings pursue greatness instead of renouncing it. 'Oil reserves are being depleted? Switch to ethanol, hydrogen or other alternative sources as long as I can continue and maybe increase my over-consuming lifestyle.' Moreover, attempts to reform an advanced civilisation may even precipitate its collapse. It's a trap in which we have been falling over and over again for the last 6/7 thousand years.
His chapter on moral decay is less convincing, though. What civilisation had no corruption in its beginning? And what civilisation isn't built on the backs of slaves? Nevertheless, he is right in pointing out that the increase in wealth eventually spoils the population who get used to 'bread and circuses'. They increasingly lose respect for their leaders who can't cope with the increasing amount of problems brought by increasing complexity. Worse, the gap between rich and poor becomes a schism. While the living conditions of those at the bottom get worse, those at the top get richer and richer and become ever more insulated in their little worlds. Moreover, civilisation has a constant need for change and that cannot give stability. This has repeatedly happened over recorded history.
I saw a review that said the author had a rather negative view of humanity. I couldn't disagree more. The author only points out that humans were not made to handle the complexity of a civilisation. Modern homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years but civilisation only in the last 6,000, a few thousand years after adopting agriculture. As, the author points out, the human brain was made to handle the relatively easy demands of life in hunter-gatherer groups. Civilisation is a problem too hard to solve.
These may be hard truths for the believers in the grand narrative of Progress. The idea that progress can be stopped seems ludicrous. "Humans, although clever, are not innately wise, especially in crowds". Technology may give us time but that increases the degree of damage in the end.
In conclusion, this is a valuable book with the ability of opening the eyes of everyone who reads it. I was already aware of some of the factors but Ophuls presents more information and a reflection in the end on what it means for us today. The author admits that he sees no feasible solutions because he doesn't believe that civilisations can escape the dynamic processes that lead to its collapse. I welcome this approach as I have read some books about the problems we face and the solutions seem unrealistic at best and delusional at worst. Moreover, attempts at reform may even precipitate collapse while maintaining the status quo may buy time but worsens the consequences.
"Humanity will undoubtedly survive. Civilization as we know it will not."
June 5, 2013
This is a well-written, thought-provoking book, and definitely worth reading. Although it mostly makes a lot of sense, there are a few conservative assumptions that I have to challenge. Is it fair to call a society decadent just because it has become diverse? Is inflation always a bad thing? To me it seems like a necessary measure against the concentration of wealth.
December 26, 2020
At first the prospect of a short essay concerning the reasons for the fall of civilization is encouraging. Unfortunately, William Ophuls’s Immoderate Greatness fails to add much value precisely because of its lack of detail. Though it is easy to agree with Ophuls’s six biophysical limits and human errors (with the exception of his Malthusian interpretation of population growth) that lead to the fall of civilizations, the lack of specific contributing factors, time frames, or relative comparison of severity make his claims trivially obvious. In perhaps his most compelling chapter on moral decay, Ophuls seems only to be paraphrasing a section of William Playfair. His only insightful example to support his six causes of the decline of civilizations occurs when he labels all currency inflation as a practical failure of government. While the time investment required for Immoderate Greatness is small, it is still probably not worth the investment, though Ophuls’s bibliography may be a good start for someone interested in his chosen subject matter.
June 12, 2015
A typical post-modernist look at history through a modern lense. But like many Post-Modernists his view is highly hypothetical and not very empirical despite what a Post-Modernist attempts to prove. For instance, I believe somewhere in the first or second chapter he claims: "Thus, Civilizations are like leeches to the biosphere. They are destined to bring about their own downfall," and I paraphrase. Nonetheless, he fails to prove this other than through personal analysis, his evidence isn't as straight forward as some other texts on ecological failure relating to the fall of civilization. If you want a more readable adaptation to the theory pick up Ronald Wright's A Short History of Progress.
All my negatives considered, I did find his outlook interesting and it is worth a read. Though, it would be more interesting with empirical thought and not the typical Post Modern jibber jabber. Overall a typical book for the genre.
2.6
All my negatives considered, I did find his outlook interesting and it is worth a read. Though, it would be more interesting with empirical thought and not the typical Post Modern jibber jabber. Overall a typical book for the genre.
2.6
May 5, 2014
Reminded me in spirit of Morris Berman's Twilight of American Culture. Just the idea that there's no way out--I'm not denying any of it, but somehow I can't consciously allow this view to be my everyday, governing idea of myself and the people around me, interacting and doing things, sharing one another's lives.
Yes, all the signs are there. I agree with 90% of his assertions on human behavior, but still, it seems to not account for that possibility of the new, which while is likely a pipe dream, it's still within reason to expect a change in the way we conduct ourselves, seeing as we've only been around for a blink of an eye on the cosmic calendar.
But who can argue against the values that will maintain us: simplicity, frugality, fraternity vs. our governing values now of wealth accumulation, dominance, and competition.
Yes, all the signs are there. I agree with 90% of his assertions on human behavior, but still, it seems to not account for that possibility of the new, which while is likely a pipe dream, it's still within reason to expect a change in the way we conduct ourselves, seeing as we've only been around for a blink of an eye on the cosmic calendar.
But who can argue against the values that will maintain us: simplicity, frugality, fraternity vs. our governing values now of wealth accumulation, dominance, and competition.
December 22, 2021
Short and sweet. Liked the discussion of the moral dimension of collapse (i.e. the inability of humans to backslide rather than just collapse because of lost skills and virtues), but was disappointed there wasn't more discussion of historical collapse. Guess that's what Jared Diamond is for.
October 7, 2022
This is an interesting little book - more in the nature of a pamphlet - about why civilisations fail. The author ascribes this to six factors over two broad themes. The first theme - of exceeding the biophysical limits - is one that resonates with our times. The limits are ecological exhaustion (check), exponential growth (mmm ... only matters with finite resources), expedited entropy (the jury is out on this one) and excessive complexity (check).
I think that part of the problem is that the author tries to analyse the individual components of a complex system. There is merit in this, but the key point is how they all interact with each other. For example, exponential growth is not of itself a problem. The problem arises when exponential growth hits a finite resource limit. If exponential growth is within that limit, then the growth can be accommodated. If not, then exhaustion sets in.
The author focuses on environmental exhaustion, but fails to consider other types of exhaustion, such as the exhaustion of capital, or of viable commercial opportunities, or human capital, or available geographical discoveries, and so on. This narrows the book somewhat and forces us along a route that might better have been avoided. The author describes the end of this process as entropy, but I remain to be convinced. A cascading sequence of systemic failures may not lead to collapse. It could lead to the boiling off of some complexity to a more simple set of solutions. The author does not recognise that possibility. I am also deeply suspicious of concepts from physics being applied to the human experience.
This brings us onto the second theme - that of human error - which consists of two factors - moral decay and practical failure. On the face of it, this is nonsense. However, we can see it all around us and we can feel its impact quite widely. The author is on to something, but not as he has formulated it. I am unconvinced by his presentation of something that I think is a problem. I believe that it weakens his argument.
On the whole, I thought that the book had some merit. It also was a bit sketchy on other points and unconvincing on yet more points. It's not particularly well written and the arguments are a bit clunky at times. This is more a little book for the hard core fans than the mildly curious.
I think that part of the problem is that the author tries to analyse the individual components of a complex system. There is merit in this, but the key point is how they all interact with each other. For example, exponential growth is not of itself a problem. The problem arises when exponential growth hits a finite resource limit. If exponential growth is within that limit, then the growth can be accommodated. If not, then exhaustion sets in.
The author focuses on environmental exhaustion, but fails to consider other types of exhaustion, such as the exhaustion of capital, or of viable commercial opportunities, or human capital, or available geographical discoveries, and so on. This narrows the book somewhat and forces us along a route that might better have been avoided. The author describes the end of this process as entropy, but I remain to be convinced. A cascading sequence of systemic failures may not lead to collapse. It could lead to the boiling off of some complexity to a more simple set of solutions. The author does not recognise that possibility. I am also deeply suspicious of concepts from physics being applied to the human experience.
This brings us onto the second theme - that of human error - which consists of two factors - moral decay and practical failure. On the face of it, this is nonsense. However, we can see it all around us and we can feel its impact quite widely. The author is on to something, but not as he has formulated it. I am unconvinced by his presentation of something that I think is a problem. I believe that it weakens his argument.
On the whole, I thought that the book had some merit. It also was a bit sketchy on other points and unconvincing on yet more points. It's not particularly well written and the arguments are a bit clunky at times. This is more a little book for the hard core fans than the mildly curious.
May 15, 2024
I have never read with such terror and agreement at the same time. Ophulus gives a thorough and succinct analysis of the essential elements for the collapse of complex civilizations.
From the positive feedback loop of humans exploiting environmental resources, allowing for explosive reproduction and creating the need and the ingenuity to exploit more resources; to the biophysical limits instilled by the lack of entropic replenishment of our planet's diminishing energy stores; and the various inabilities of humans' paleolithic minds to deal with the problems arising in an exponentially complicating civilization; Ophulus soberly lays bear the underlying restrictions and processes that are the interrelated reasons for why the great project of civilization is doomed to fail, and he does so in clear language and with insightful examples.
"As noted previously, maintaining a civilization takes a continuous input of matter, energy and morale, and the latter is actually the most important. What sustains civilization is a strong commitment to its values, practices and institutions - or to put it another way, a firm belief in its moral and practical superiority. But commitment and belief are not immutable. On the contrary, they are bound to wither away
[...]
The original vigour and virtue of a civilization is morality in highly concentrated form. As such it has only one way to travel: towards a less concentrated state." (p.51)
--Spoiler alert for the ending--
Is there no hope? Ophulus says he can forsee the possibility of an alternative civilization that he believes cannot be imposed and must emerge organically:
"But it would require a fundamental change in the ethos of civilization - to wit, the deliberate renunciation of greatness in favour of simplicity, frugality and fraternity. For the pursuit of greatness is always a manifestation of hubris, and hubris is always punished by nemesis. Wether human beings are capable of such sagacity and self-restraint is a question only the future can answer" (p.69)
So for us, there appears to be none. Perhaps we can at least begin to lay the groundwork for a humble civilization by practicing simplicity, frugality and fraternity, for our posterity's sake.
From the positive feedback loop of humans exploiting environmental resources, allowing for explosive reproduction and creating the need and the ingenuity to exploit more resources; to the biophysical limits instilled by the lack of entropic replenishment of our planet's diminishing energy stores; and the various inabilities of humans' paleolithic minds to deal with the problems arising in an exponentially complicating civilization; Ophulus soberly lays bear the underlying restrictions and processes that are the interrelated reasons for why the great project of civilization is doomed to fail, and he does so in clear language and with insightful examples.
"As noted previously, maintaining a civilization takes a continuous input of matter, energy and morale, and the latter is actually the most important. What sustains civilization is a strong commitment to its values, practices and institutions - or to put it another way, a firm belief in its moral and practical superiority. But commitment and belief are not immutable. On the contrary, they are bound to wither away
[...]
The original vigour and virtue of a civilization is morality in highly concentrated form. As such it has only one way to travel: towards a less concentrated state." (p.51)
--Spoiler alert for the ending--
Is there no hope? Ophulus says he can forsee the possibility of an alternative civilization that he believes cannot be imposed and must emerge organically:
"But it would require a fundamental change in the ethos of civilization - to wit, the deliberate renunciation of greatness in favour of simplicity, frugality and fraternity. For the pursuit of greatness is always a manifestation of hubris, and hubris is always punished by nemesis. Wether human beings are capable of such sagacity and self-restraint is a question only the future can answer" (p.69)
So for us, there appears to be none. Perhaps we can at least begin to lay the groundwork for a humble civilization by practicing simplicity, frugality and fraternity, for our posterity's sake.
October 11, 2023
The stories of civilizations that rise to complexity from the primitive settlements of people, evolve into a dynamic body of socio economic and cultural richness and reach not only its zenith but the pinnacle of humankind in general, only to fall from that height, collapse on its own magnitude like a star collapsing on its own mass to become a blackhole, does not only intrigues me to study it but also amuses me with its incredible repetitivity of pattern on almost all civilization that has existed all over the world. This book elucidates the various grounds on which a civilization fails and systematically analyses the rationale behind it. It made sense when it explained the magnitude and complexity of civilizations in relation to the extent and brevity of its self destruction. The concepts like ecological exhaustion, exponential growth, expedited entropy, moral decay were put forward in a cogent and well reasoned arguments that were hard to debate against. Although i question the applicability and relatability of it regarding that to modern civilization, i definitely would consider its plausibility on older civilizations.
March 12, 2021
dog. whistle.
November 11, 2022
Well this was not cheerful. It is a philosophical essay about the reasons that all civilisations fail and why the next one will be more catastrophic than others in history due to the global nature of modern civilisation. Ophuls predicts a domino effect that we cannot prepare for. I can't say he is wrong. He certainly predicted a lot of what is happening today. I'm just not sure what to do with this. I'll have to think about it for some time to work out the rhyme and reason and maybe by the time I've pegged how I feel about it, the decline will have come and gone. Heavy reading this Friday night.
May 7, 2023
excellent synopsis of the great collapse we are certain to experience
Even though most people are aware of the many challenges our society faces, few people realize these are the predictable and unavoidable precursors of civilizational collapse. What is new and particularly dire is that this civilization is, for the first time, global and our depletion of natural resources is as well. Unfortunately knowledge of the problem does NOT give us any steps to avoiding it. It’s basically inevitable. Not a read for the faint of heart!
Even though most people are aware of the many challenges our society faces, few people realize these are the predictable and unavoidable precursors of civilizational collapse. What is new and particularly dire is that this civilization is, for the first time, global and our depletion of natural resources is as well. Unfortunately knowledge of the problem does NOT give us any steps to avoiding it. It’s basically inevitable. Not a read for the faint of heart!
January 4, 2015
A detailed and sometimes very deep and analytical read on the patters of the rise and fall of civilizations. Mr. Ophuls uses a LOT of reference material and in particular the thesis present by Sir John Glubb, which he adds more detail to. Worth reading to get and understanding of how mankind, history, nature, society, economics, and ecology are all intertwined and create a scenario that has been repeated over 3,000 years and that will surely ontinue to play itself out in the future.
December 24, 2019
Insightful in spite of being pessimistic. Time will tell if its realistic in its firecasts but the books description of declining civilizations certainly have corollaries to present day. One criticism is that the book forgoes data and case study driven analysis for anecdotes.
February 19, 2025
Painfully compelling. Ophuls breaks down the physical constraints of life and extrapolates the resultant tendencies: furthering entropy, exponential (& unchecked) growth, growing complexity & ecological demand. Coupled with personal and political dilemmas (moral decay and practical failures), it is a bleak assessment and outlook, but one that it is not difficult to find the examples of today. With excerpts from John Bagot Glubb & John Adams, a clear picture is painted of the generational tendency to drift away from the foundational components of a civilisation, both the physical, labour-intensive occupations and more constrained, robust ideologies to more artful and abstract roles and contemplations - the cost for a civilisation, at large, ultimately being ignorance, entitlement & hubris. Kicking out the lower rungs of the ladder as we climb, we seldom appreciate the building blocks our world sits on, and with time and incessant growth, we build precariously further upwards. With founding value systems & behaviours evolved and eroded over time, we find ourselves in an Age of Intellect with "an unceasing cacophony of argument that vitiates the power of action" - at a time where lines and values are blurred and challenged in the pursuit of greater unity, we find ourselves more factionalised. Ironically an additional cost incurred being the time and energy it took to maintain the debate, at a time when we are likely most in need of action.
I find the physical arguments of the book are easy to digest and grounded in simple maths and thermodynamic laws. While discomforting, they are worthwhile to read. On moral dilemma however, it leaves a lot more room for interpretation and food for thought. If our history and trajectory of ideology is incongruent with our physical needs, what are the answers? In the closing, Ophuls lightly touches on a vision of a world vastly reduced in scale, where personal responsibility, modesty and frugality are championed. Though it is down to the reader to contemplate where those lines are in society today, and what that world would look like.
I find the physical arguments of the book are easy to digest and grounded in simple maths and thermodynamic laws. While discomforting, they are worthwhile to read. On moral dilemma however, it leaves a lot more room for interpretation and food for thought. If our history and trajectory of ideology is incongruent with our physical needs, what are the answers? In the closing, Ophuls lightly touches on a vision of a world vastly reduced in scale, where personal responsibility, modesty and frugality are championed. Though it is down to the reader to contemplate where those lines are in society today, and what that world would look like.
September 13, 2025
I was tempted to disregard the book while reading the first part, on the biophysical limitations to civilisations, as it seemed to me mere updated misguided Malthusianism, and more importantly, as I didn’t see much being added beyond the EROI idea.
As I kept reading, I found out that the introduction to the book was a warning, and that the fact that it was concise made it seem too simplistic; but that was an error. My criticism on rebranded Malthusianism went away when I noticed that the arguments I was reading seemed a bit too familiar, after which I went to the sources he cited, among which I found several familiar names, such as Theodore Dalrymple, Friedrich Hayek, Vaclav Smil, Jared Diamond, Nial Ferguson, Gustave Le Bon, Nassim Taleb, and others. Taken as an introduction, or paying attention to the suggestion from the writer, gives the necessary context.
The book would, for the same reason, be better understood as an introduction to the works of others, as a starting point; but as a powerful warning on complex systems, and where we are heading. That societies shouldn’t lose their moral compass, the one not designed by the intellectuals who would rather demolish their civilisation’s project, but that of the pioneers; that seeking greatness for its own sake is a fool’s errand; that inflation is a tool used to address today’s issue at tomorrow’s expense; and several other warnings, are too relevant today.
Several criticisms can be made, namely that everyone calling for the end of times will, eventually, be right; and that a too-moderate existence —which I get from his suggestion to do away with boom cycles altogether— may not necessarily be a worthy goal on its own*.
*Immoderate greatness vs continued misery. While I don’t believe that the author is aiming for the second one, the lack of moderation seems to be a byproduct of greatness as much as the misery that of stagnation.
As I kept reading, I found out that the introduction to the book was a warning, and that the fact that it was concise made it seem too simplistic; but that was an error. My criticism on rebranded Malthusianism went away when I noticed that the arguments I was reading seemed a bit too familiar, after which I went to the sources he cited, among which I found several familiar names, such as Theodore Dalrymple, Friedrich Hayek, Vaclav Smil, Jared Diamond, Nial Ferguson, Gustave Le Bon, Nassim Taleb, and others. Taken as an introduction, or paying attention to the suggestion from the writer, gives the necessary context.
The book would, for the same reason, be better understood as an introduction to the works of others, as a starting point; but as a powerful warning on complex systems, and where we are heading. That societies shouldn’t lose their moral compass, the one not designed by the intellectuals who would rather demolish their civilisation’s project, but that of the pioneers; that seeking greatness for its own sake is a fool’s errand; that inflation is a tool used to address today’s issue at tomorrow’s expense; and several other warnings, are too relevant today.
Several criticisms can be made, namely that everyone calling for the end of times will, eventually, be right; and that a too-moderate existence —which I get from his suggestion to do away with boom cycles altogether— may not necessarily be a worthy goal on its own*.
*Immoderate greatness vs continued misery. While I don’t believe that the author is aiming for the second one, the lack of moderation seems to be a byproduct of greatness as much as the misery that of stagnation.
July 15, 2024
I picked up the book after a recommendation from the 'OG McG', aka Iain McGilchrist. I think the author makes interesting points - e.g. around bureaucratisation that comes with complexity - but the book seems, to me, too indebted to the Malthusian worldview that permeates much environmental thinking - usually summed up as 'infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet'. (Occasionally, this is draped in more scientific-sounding clothes by recourse to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that *in a closed system* entropy must increase. But the Earth is manifestly *not* a closed system, getting every second more energy from the sun than we can use!)
On this view, resources are just a big pile of 'stuff' to be depleted, rather than a function of knowledge - even though it is the latter that actually dictates what is or isn't a resource. With the discovery of oil, whales *stopped* being an energy resource for most of the world. Or take the discovery of nuclear energy - the 'stuff' was there all along, but it was knowledge which unlocked it (clue's in the very word 'resourceful', usually applied to someone who is actually *not* full of resources, and has to resort to ingenuity).
That said, I found myself watching the excellent 'cli-fi' drama The End We Start From the next day after finishing the book. What the movie brought home to me was a sense of fragility. It may not be that collapse comes due to some *law* of history or thermodynamics, but climate change does carry the potential to crack the 'crust' of civilisation. If power and the internet go down, if (food) supply chains break, then all the knowledge we've amassed about how to resist entropy may be relegated to historical curiosities (not unlike in the wonderful Canticle for Leibowitz).
On this view, resources are just a big pile of 'stuff' to be depleted, rather than a function of knowledge - even though it is the latter that actually dictates what is or isn't a resource. With the discovery of oil, whales *stopped* being an energy resource for most of the world. Or take the discovery of nuclear energy - the 'stuff' was there all along, but it was knowledge which unlocked it (clue's in the very word 'resourceful', usually applied to someone who is actually *not* full of resources, and has to resort to ingenuity).
That said, I found myself watching the excellent 'cli-fi' drama The End We Start From the next day after finishing the book. What the movie brought home to me was a sense of fragility. It may not be that collapse comes due to some *law* of history or thermodynamics, but climate change does carry the potential to crack the 'crust' of civilisation. If power and the internet go down, if (food) supply chains break, then all the knowledge we've amassed about how to resist entropy may be relegated to historical curiosities (not unlike in the wonderful Canticle for Leibowitz).
September 16, 2022
Ophuls has a very dark vision of our future as a civilization. Much is based on the ecological concept of limiting factors, which says that if any one of the requirements for life isn't met, it doesn't matter that there might be an abundance of everything else we need, we all die. He grants that we are capable of developing technologies that will buy us time, as we approach that collapse of a particular limiting factor, but the end is still inevitable. The more successful a civilization becomes, the closer it gets to its implosion, by the very nature of the success (overpopulation, pollution, exhaustion of resources). This is apparent in examining many past local civilizations but since our current civilization has become so globalized the collapse will also be global. He is not very specific about whether there is any remedy but recommends an about face to a rejection of "greatness" and a turn toward voluntary simplicity, which seems very unlikely unless the population is first decimated by a global disaster like an epidemic, war, or climate catastrophe, all of which don't seem that improbable. Much food for thought.
January 21, 2022
Ophul's idea of "immoderate greatness" is a useful one, as he relates the striving toward civilizational cultural dominance to the inevitable result of ecological overshoot. However, his analysis of cultural factors is very limited to unquestioned, "classical" ideas of civilization as represented by patriarchy, military conquest and empire, dominion over non-human nature, and other fables of the Western Civilization of Empire that's overtaken the globe. Given that the author doesn't seem aware that there are perspectives beyond this one, the book takes on a note of lamentation, almost as if to say, "yes, we had a great run, but it's got to end." But it hasn't been a great run, except for those at the top. I would've found the work ultimately more insightful if it had questioned the values of the Western Culture of Empire and looked at what it's really wrought, from a more global and objective perspective.
September 23, 2022
Basically a recapitulation of Joseph Tainter's theory that, barring other events like war and climate change, empires inevitably suffer from bureaucratic bloat trying to manage themselves, and each new level of bureaucracy added entropically yields diminishing returns. Eventually the returns sink to near zero and the empire in question topples under its own weight.
To avoid this fate, Ophuls says, a society must keep things simple. People must provide for their own needs, grow their own food, ideally make their own clothes and other goods. The runaway bureaucracy can thus be nipped in the bud. Such simplicity was pretty much the state of affairs for the first few decades of the American republic. But in the 19th and 20th centuries, things got very complex, the government grew by leaps and bounds, and... well, you know the rest.
I found Ophuls's exposition well done but at times dry and lacking in brio.
To avoid this fate, Ophuls says, a society must keep things simple. People must provide for their own needs, grow their own food, ideally make their own clothes and other goods. The runaway bureaucracy can thus be nipped in the bud. Such simplicity was pretty much the state of affairs for the first few decades of the American republic. But in the 19th and 20th centuries, things got very complex, the government grew by leaps and bounds, and... well, you know the rest.
I found Ophuls's exposition well done but at times dry and lacking in brio.
September 7, 2017
Excellent and succinct. Anyone who has a larger "vision" of history & civilization can easily understand the truth in Ophuls words. The bulk of humankind simply can't or won't understand history and human nature. That leaves those of us that do to be cursed to watch history repeat itself. If humankind could move to understanding then we could finally stop repeating this destructive pattern. I cannot recommend this enough.
May 23, 2022
Truly a must read
Clear and crisp. The author lays out the history of the collapse of great nations. The beginning middle and end is always the same.
I will not outline it. Read and learn. We cannot really change what is happening today but we can at least learn the reasons and complexity of it all. Not for the faint of heart. It is succinct and well written. I am glad it fell upon my path.
Clear and crisp. The author lays out the history of the collapse of great nations. The beginning middle and end is always the same.
I will not outline it. Read and learn. We cannot really change what is happening today but we can at least learn the reasons and complexity of it all. Not for the faint of heart. It is succinct and well written. I am glad it fell upon my path.
June 18, 2022
Absolute MUST Read for ALL
This book precisely describes the present travails of post-Modern Western Civilization if anyone is still interested, that is. It is a harsh but necessary reality since Americans have been living too "high off the hog" for too long. At this stage in our decadence I doubt anyone really cares and that is precisely the problem - complacency and it's cousin, APATHY.
This book precisely describes the present travails of post-Modern Western Civilization if anyone is still interested, that is. It is a harsh but necessary reality since Americans have been living too "high off the hog" for too long. At this stage in our decadence I doubt anyone really cares and that is precisely the problem - complacency and it's cousin, APATHY.
May 24, 2022
Excellent in Many Ways
This analysis is very dark, but it has the ring of truth. The quotations used by the author to introduce his ideas are evidence of his widespread reading and experience. His logic is clear and unbiased. The essay is under 100 pages and can change or reinforce one’s view of the world.
This analysis is very dark, but it has the ring of truth. The quotations used by the author to introduce his ideas are evidence of his widespread reading and experience. His logic is clear and unbiased. The essay is under 100 pages and can change or reinforce one’s view of the world.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews