The Conspiracy Wiki
Advertisement

The allegation that the idea of decadence in collapsing civilizations, called "declinism", is a "cognitive bias" is debunked here.

One of the recurring symptoms of late stage civilizations approaching collapse is that chefs get a high status. The highest status chefs in collapsing civilizations are gourmet chefs that make specialized dishes for the purpose of being judged by high status guests, which debunks the claim that "the chefs just get high status because they can afford food" in which case less specialized dishes with equally nutritious ingredients would have had equal status.

Capitalist lobbyism and celebrity chef decadence[]

Since trade houses can be capitalist even in the absence of industrialism, this is explainable as a result of trade houses causing the fall of civilizations by practicing Capitalist hostility to sapience. To miss the point that food has a practical function for survival and assume that not wanting to starve to death is a "rationalization" of the desire to eat good food (as seen in idiots claiming that they would rather starve to death in a postapocalyptic situation than eat "disgusting" food such as dog food) is similar in decadence to claiming that not wanting one's bloodline to die out is a "rationalization" of heterosexual sex, which is also linked to the collapse of civilization.

The difference between consumer profiled food and practical food[]

Capitalist consumer profiling is not the same kind of process for creating new dishes as the practical need to prepare food for preservation that led to the origin of so many traditional dishes. Many traditional dishes associated with times of the year in which it is hard to produce food got their traditional character from being preserved with old preservation techniques. This includes many christmas foods and other winter holiday foods in cold climates, as well as foods eaten during celebrations taking place in the dry season that are traditional in many warmer parts of the world. To claim that "today's new dishes will be seen as traditional hundreds of years from now" misses the point that dishes created on the command of market analysts are not driven in the same direction as practical considerations for preserving food with modern day preservation techniques.

The fallacy committed by those assuming "traditionality" to merely be about the amount of time elapsed is similar to that of claiming that today's buildings will be seen as grand by future "conservatives" 500 years from now. That misses the point that buildings of reinforced concrete cannot stand for 500 years since the reinforcement bars expand and crack the concrete when they rust. Just as those believing that reinforced concrete can last for 500 years cause disasterous structural collapse if they have power over the construction of buildings, those believing that the quality of food is socially constructed cause disasterous collapse of food supply chains if they have power in society.

Decadent polarization between vegans and exclusive meat eaters[]

One example of the pragmatism of traditional food is the fact that traditional dishes usually contain both vegetable, animal and sometimes also fungal (do not forget that fungi are a separate kingdom) ingredients. Being an omnivore has practical survival value. Many traditional foods in Europe actually contain ingredients that the Bible declares "impure", showing that religious fundamentalism should not be confused with tradition.

The examples of animal, vegetable and fungal ingredients shows that both "ethical" vegans and so-called "conservatives" who think humans should only eat meat are equally far from traditional food and the process by which new foods reach the quality of traditional food. Jordan Peterson is not conservative. Jordan Peterson is decadent, just as "ethical" vegans are decadent. This shows a link between the recurrence of celebrity chefs in dying civilizations and another historical pattern, that of polarization between political groups in which both sides value political rivalry over the civilization being linked to societal collapse. Those who created traditional foods in the first place used empirical methods when they noted which techniques successfully preserved the food and which did not. "Conservatives" who claim that empirical methods began with the enlightenment, (which it did not), are a decadent controlled opposition of decadence. This is shown by their espousal of the concepts of "normality" and "deviance" which began with enlightenment philosophy as shown here.

So-called "ethical" vegans and so-called "conservatives" who only eat meat, by both dichotomizing food into "animal" and "vegetable", shares the similarity of both missing the point that fungi are neither plants nor animals. In fact, fungi are somewhat more closely related to animals than to plants. And today's gourmet chefs share the same fallacy. In contrast, viable civilizations view cooking as a practical function similar to cleaning. Celebrity chefs are linked to societal collapse.

Incompetent food infrastructure and societal collapse[]

Historical examples of incompetence in societal collapse[]

The claim that "societal collapse is caused by outer causes, not incompetent management" misses the point that competent management can adapt a civilization to survive stress that incompetent management cannot adapt civilization to. There are historical examples of some civilizations surviving the same climate change that caused other civilizations to collapse, debunking the claim that any climate change capable of breaking some civilizations (that may already have been dying and only hastened in their fall by climate change) would somehow be impossible for any civilization to adapt to. The fallacy of the denial of the role of incompetence in societal collapse is comparable to denying the role of ageing in a 90 year old's death from common cold when a 30 year old survived a common cold infection by the same virus strain.

The allegation that Easter Island civilization was "destroyed by rats eating the tree roots, not incompetence" misses the point that if competent leaders were in charge, they would have been able to investigate what was killing the trees and do something about it. For example, they could have discovered that rats were the problem and then start rat extermination to save the trees. Since even hunter-gatherers use traps, technology would not be an obstacle for competently managed civilizations to invent rat traps. They would not need to invent modern rat traps, just scale down the trap technology they already had to fit rat size and build more of them. This refers to competent leaders having the actual power, not being figureheads under corporatocracy. Of course a system in which the chieftains were as stupid as the modern corporatocrats that conflate the ability to build any rat traps with the ability to build modern rat traps and therefore denying that Easter Island people could build any rat traps at all would not be up to the task, but that is incompetent leadership.

Stupid objections on the lines of "who decides who is competent to manage a civilization?" misses the point that civilization relies on physical infrastructure. If the infrastructure is mismanaged, it fails when its pre-mismanagement buffers have been exhausted by prolonged mismanagement. Most of the buffers are already gone when symptoms start to manifest themselves, so by then there is not much time left for that civilization. The failure of mismanaged infrastructure comes just the same regardless of whether there are individuals more intelligent than those in charge remarking the stupidity of the mismanagers or not. Roads washed away by severe rainfall is a physical consequence of the roads not being suitably modified to withstand climate change, not a magical jinx caused by more intelligent people pointing out that the rulers are stupid. Those that do not understand that will not be able to adapt infrastructure suitably, showing that social constructionists that misframe the question of competence as one of "who decides who is competent?" are incompetent themselves.

Competent leadership without Parkinson's law[]

Competent management that thinks things through is capable of adapting things such as agriculture to climate change, which incompetent mismanagement cannot do. There are more alternatives than capitalism and plan economy, as shown here. It is perfectly possible to order climate-adaptive land management without setting Parkinson's law-inducing deadlined production goals like five year plans. The shogun who banned deforestation in Japan and ordered reforestation of previously deforested areas did not set production goals in specified numbers of years, and his order did not cause swelling bureaucracy like that in the Soviet Union.

The fact that he ordered both a ban on deforestation and replanting of lost forests shows that the shogun was more intelligent than today's environmentalists. The shogun, unlike modern capitalist environmentalists, was above claiming that environmental repair would somehow prevent the decision to stop destruction of still undestroyed environments. The fact that it is more intelligent to order both environmental repair and stops to further destruction than to only order stopping further destruction as if repairs would somehow prevent it is evidenced by the fact that random destructions would always appear, leaving a policy of only protecting what was still undestroyed and never repairing anything in relentless retreat for every butterfly inevitable little destruction until there was nothing left. This shows that modern "environmentalism" is unsustainable in the long run, while the shogun had the brains to create sustainable environmental policies contrary to the claim that people were dumber in the past.

The claim that "bureaucracy cannot be destroyed" misses a number of points. Firstly, its claim that it would take a new bureaucracy to destroy another bureaucracy misses the point that bureaucracy can be sabotaged by exploiting its weak points without having them. For instance, it takes no bureaucratic organization to be driven by cautionary tales about the disasters caused by bureaucracy to sabotage bureaucratic organizations. Cautionary stories about viruses can teach the saboteurs that you do not need to persecute "groups" of physical persons alleged to benefit from bureaucracy to destroy bureaucracy. You can destroy bureaucracy by simply destroying its records of who is authorized to do what in the bureaucratic organization.

Then you do not even have to kill any pro-bureaucratic activists that are brainwashed enough to believe that bureaucracy is "necessary" for "protecting certain groups", since those activists will kill each other when they allege each other to "sadistically rationalize" doing the same activism as they did before but without a permit on paper. You can even save individuals who only worked as bureaucrats out of economical compulsion before bureaucracy was destroyed from the "activists kill activists" zone with suitable sorting. Leave those claiming to oppose bureaucracy by parroting controlled opposition worldviews that pro-bureaucrats could masquerade as by trolling as the straw men they accuse their critics of believing in, but save those who criticize both pro-bureaucratic activism and its controlled oppositions by taking an outside misframed question viewpoint and criticizing assumptions shared by both pro-bureaucrats and controlled opposition. Max Weber was stupid.

Anyone claiming that "you are a bureaucrat too" against those who only had to do it for money should be considered a pro-bureaucratic activist and not saved. Those understanding that it is about eradicating bureaucracy as a system and not about "you did too"-ing about past jobs should be saved. Cautionary storytelling about the stupidity and disasterous consequences of misframing questions as "who is guilty too" instead of how to eliminate the system are worth writing and preserving for the future.

So it is possible to return to pre-bureaucracy through suitable sabotage. The saboteurs can easily avoid becoming a new bureaucracy by remembering what caused Parkinson's law and avoiding it. Good information to write into cautionary stories to preserve for the future (in addition to the virus stories protecting against pro-bureaucratic identity politics) is warnings against setting deadlines and fixed working hours (to avoid work expanding to fill fixed amounts of time) and against promoting people based on their number of sub-employees (to prevent Parkinsonian exponential growth of sinecures by employing administrators to get promoted). As for effects of a new and more efficient infrastructure rebuilt in a post-bureaucratic future, cautionary stories about the dangers of just in time idiots seizing power under capitalism can teach many, many generations of saboteurs and technocrats to sometimes stockpile resources without selling them and sometimes selling some of their stores off extremely cheaply to abort any resurgence of just in time economics. Max Weber was an idiot.

Why declining civilizations hate honesty[]

While capitalist "psychology" claims that it is "in human nature" to dislike "brutal" honesty, history shows that rising civilizations consider "brutal" honesty a virtue. Only declining civilizations commit the appeal to motive fallacy of assuming that pointing out the truth is about "being a besserwisser". Cases in point are the timing of the Catholic Church's mistreatment of Nikolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei during the 1500s and 1600s. That was during to relatively shortly after the reformation, a time at which the Catholic Church was declining in power and, given its former power, effectively constituted a declining empire at the time. In German states that were rising in power in the 1700s, people who thought that it was always wrong to lie were not mistreated no matter that psychiatry's fake whig history claim that such people "had empathy deficits and were considered idiots and thrown off cliffs in all pre-contemporary eras", as examplified by the fact that Immanuel Kant was not thrown off a cliff.

The link between hostility to "brutal" honesty and societal decline and collapse is readily explained by the theory that capitalism causes societal collapse. Societies shaped by capitalist lobbyism over time becomes hostile to economically costly creation of functioning infrastructure for the future, and increasingly highly values flimsy entertainment that provides short term profit at the expense of long term function. Such capitalism brainwashes the idiots to claim to "feel offended" by being told the truth that they are idiots as part of capitalism's general hostility to long-term planning and inability to understand that vital planning that "infringes" on short term entertainment can have any other motive than spite to those temporarily denied entertainment.

So the fallacy that "it is hard to see any other reason than meanness for pointing out that an idiot is an idiot" is linked to the fallacy that "it is hard to see any other reason for promoting a program for securing the road on which food is transported from rising sea levels than spite against those who have to work on the road instead of watching flimsy entertainment". The link is a combination of innate or physically brain damage-induced stupidity and capitalist training of those low resolution idiots to be the enemies of intelligent life. Just because a behavior is exclusively found in those with a particular biological feature (in this case, low resolution in the brain) does not mean that the behavior is "in the nature" of those nor that it "evolved" to benefit them. If a virus causes infected fruit flies to behave like zombies that spread the virus at the expense of the host fly's life, there will be a behavioral difference between fruit flies exposed to but resistent to the virus and fruit flies exposed to the virus without being resistent to it, but that does not mean that the zombie behavior evolved in the non-resistent fruit flies because it served any function to them nor that they behaved that way before they were exposed to the virus.

The late medieval capitalism that followed the Black Death and its breach of the feudal system may have been responsible for the subsequent decline of the Catholic Church and, as a result, its mistreatment of Copernicus and Galileo. An organized bank system emerged in Italy in the aftermath of the Black Death in the 1300s, which then had plenty of time to lobby and undermine the empire of the Catholic Church at its center before the reformation.

Fake intellect collapses civilization, genuine intellect does not[]

The recurring historical pattern that increasing numbers of university students and professors are linked to declining civilizations have sometimes been interpreted as "intellect destroys civilization". However, that interpretation fails to criticize the false assumption that education can turn non-intelligent brains into intelligent brains. If assuming that intellect weakens not only civilized societies but also tribal ones, the interpretation also cannot explain why big-brained Homo species survived instead of being outcompeted by smaller-brained species on the lines of Homo gautengensis to Homo naledi before Homo sapiens had the time to evolve. And yet the empirical fact that universities grow in declining civilizations remain.

One theory that can explain both without contradiction is that genuine intellect based on brain capacity is good for civilization by its ability to plan, while fake intellect created by parroting education destroys civilization through incompetence. A small number of universities with non-quota absolute entry requirements specifically for people who naturally think critically does not harm civilization, and is commonly found in young and expanding civilizations. However, attempting tho teach those that do not naturally think critically to do so will only produce parrot-like fools. Today's nonsense about "it was in the past students were taught to parrot, they are taught to formulate facts in their own words now" misses the point that chatbots trained to associate synonyms by being presented with lists of synonyms can replace words with synonyms without understanding what they mean.

As shown here, the idiots then cite other idiots in the name of "science" as universities turn from sanctuaries for genuine intellect to extensions of corporations where studying becomes a capitalist way of getting paper credentials to apply for work.

Polarized politics and incompetence today[]

Since the crony capitalist system elects stupid politicians, which affects environmental management as much as military leadership because stupidity is general, regardless of whether they got over 50% within the rules or about 40 percent and cheated their way over 50%, since crony capitalism would not even let a sapient get close to the running for victory, neither establishment nor populists has the brain resolution required to pull competent environmental management off. For instance, successful adaptation to climate change requires recognition of hybrids as part of biodiversity and not as a threat to it as a way of preserving genes from species that cannot survive climate change in a pure form. Both sides in Big Pharma's polarization between "one humanity" and "racial realism" lack the ability to criticize the stupid assumption that "everything is normally distributed" required to do so.

Those who allege that the above is "the balance fallacy" lack the brain capacity to understand that rejection of a premise shared by both sides in a debate is not a "center position" within the debate, for the same reason as you do not claim that a primate is a mule when you point out that a primate is taxonomically equally far from both horses and donkeys. Just as horses and donkeys are from a common ancestor distinct from the common ancestor of all primates, so is rejection of the premise that "everything is normally distributed" distinct from the bell curve-centered memetic common ancestor of the idea of "one humanity that have not had time to mutate into new varieties" and racial biology's fear that mixing would "destroy adaptations".

One example of an idea that rejects the idea that "everything must be normally distributed" is the idea that a single mutation can create new adaptations. From that, it follows that hybrids can combine abilities from more than one parent species and adapt to change that neither parent species could adapt to on its own. This debunks the allegation that "if a species cannot adapt to climate change in its pure form, genes from it would deteriorate the hybrid's ability to adapt to climate change" since adaptive introgression in the hybrids can select for the specific genes that improve adaptability while eliminating genes that lower adaptability. But of course, those assuming that food is about cooking celebrity dishes and not understanding the importance of the infrastructure that supports production and distribution of food cannot understand that either.

Maybe digitalized society have to collapse first in order for competent brains to seize power. Yes, competent brains means brains that understand that rejection of both sides in polarized debates by criticism of their shared premise for being misframed would not have "killed half the Jews to compromise with the Nazis" for the same reason as a primate does not have half the derived genes of a donkey that separate donkeys from horses just because it is equally far from both horses and donkeys. And, as follows from such brain capacity, understand that the real function of cooking is not to make gourmet dishes in celebrity competitions.

While the allegation that "everything is distributed normally", or even the very concept of "normal distribution" appears not to predate enlightenment philosophy as far as preserved writings are concerned. But conflation of "financial success" within a corrupt system with civilization-building is a recurring fallacy in collapsing civilizations throughout history, and its recurrence in preserved writings demonstrate that at least some ancient civilizations would have left preserved writings about normal distributions if thinking in such quotas was in "human nature". And yet there are none.

One point that all allegations that "financial success equals creation of civilization" misses is that corpirations that maximize profit act as viruses at the expense of the civilization. That goes for all committers of the fallacy, regardless of what "causes of financial success" they allege. While an "intersectionalist" claiming that "experiences of oppression on average reduces financial success" and a "racial realist" claiming that "a complex interplay of many genes on average increase financial success" may squabble, they are philosophically closely related not only in their assumption that "everything is normally distributed", but also in their ignorance of the difference between creation of the infrastructure that supports civilization and exploiting the infrastructure to death for short term monetary profit.

A competent mentality capable of building civilization understands that the characteristics required to build a functioning infrastructure are not the same as the characteristics that maximize profit when the infrastructure is already there, and is not fooled by "statistics" claiming that "since capitalist countries are the most materially wealthy, capitalism must create material wealth". This is the same principle as the fact that a competent doctor would not be fooled by the claim that "since there are more pneumonia viruses in the lungs than in other organs, pneumonia viruses must be important for creating the lungs as organs". A doctor incompetent enough to be fooled by that would kill the patient, and a ruling elite incompetent enough to be fooled by the civilizational equivalent kills the infrastructure likewise by being fooled by essentially the same kind of questionable cause fallacy.

Since the entire allegation that "there is no third alternative rejecting both intersectionality and racial realism" committs both the fallacy of assuming that "everything is normally distributed" and the fallacy of conflating financial "success" with creation of civilization, anyone making the aforementioned allegation (false dichotomy) is incompetent. So all Americanized "right versus left" discourse is stupid and only committed by those incapable of maintaining civilization. That goes both for those calling themselves "right" and those calling themselves "left". The competent rejects the entire question of "which of the sides do you choose?" as misframed, just as an atheist rejects the question of which "side" he or she "chooses" in a theological squabble over how long God's beard is. Just as "God does not exist" places you outside the question "how long do you think God's beard is?", "psychometrics shoehorned into "normal distributions" are useless and civilization-creation is not the same thing as profit" places you outside the question "where do you stand on the intersectionality-racial realism spectrum"?

Both sides of climate politics are ignorant of Svante Arrhenius[]

One similarity between "listen to the experts" climate politics and "climate scepticism" is that both assume that the notion of global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions depend on contemporary institutions. Differences between them in why they think the institutions say what they say do not change the fact that they share the false assumption that without contrmporary institutions, there would be no notion of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Svante Arrhenius predicted that carbon dioxide emissions would cause global warming based on the spectroscopic evidence that carbon dioxide traps infrared radiation. He made that prediction before there were any institutions for climate research.

The fact that Svante Arrhenius predicted global warming by doing the research for himself shows that you can conclude that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions by doing the research for yourself, if you are sapient. That debunks the claim that "people thinking for themselves would deny anthropogenic global warming" shared by both sides of fool political "debate". Claiming that "people today would rationalize climate scepticism which did not exist in the time of Svante Arrhenius" not only contradicts its own premise of people today being "smarter" than Svante Arrhenius since it would be stupid to "rationalize" things, but its entire assumption of "rationalization" is shown by natural selection against waste of nutrients to be nonsense, see here.

Fallacies of anti-collapsology rhetorics[]

The anti-collapsology claim that "crises only increase misery for the already poor, and people who predict climate apocalypse should tell starving people in Africa that their misery is a road to freedom from consumerism" committs multiple fallacies. For instance, it is an appeal to emotion fallacy similar to those that allow AI scams to pass stupid chatbots off as "strong general AI". Another point that it misses is that when actual societal collapse comes, or at least even closer to it than the stage at which only the already poor suffer, those who were powerful and wealthy in the late stages of the pre-apocalypse disappear as shown here. This is logical since those specialized at relying on supply chains have no use for their vast amounts of money when there are no supply chains to deliver anything for them to buy.

A third point that the anti-collapsological narrative misses is the point that it is international aid falling into the pockets of kleptocrats and kakistocrats that keeps the regimes strong enough to maintain kleptocrat property rights to land that is not actually used. That is what prevents the truly intelligent individuals among the poor farmers from claiming unused land for their own climate change-adapted agricultural methods a la variability selection. Without international aid to give kakistocracies artificial breathing, the intelligent farmers would become a new technocratic elite and create a civilizational turnover from decadence to non-decadence instead of suffering and dying like their less intelligent "colleagues" as they do today.

The above assumptions that the rich would go unscatched through any crisis is especially absurd when it is combined with the "resilience model" that claims that "societal collapse does not exist" and characterizes collapses as "common people adapting while the elite disappears from history". If the elite is defined as the rich, the notion of other people surviving a crisis that snuffs out the elite is in abject contradiction to the claim that the rich always get the mildest off any crisis.

To lump collapsology with religious doomsday prophecies as if they were the same thing completely misses the mark. Collapsology predicts societal and infrastructural collapse that can be survived with the right precautions, as opposed to religious doomsday prophecies according to which the world would be completely destroyed and nobody could survive in a bodily form. That is an important difference in terms of profitability, as a religious cult leader who claims that everyone's bodily life will end no matter what they do can trick the followers into giving all their money for a place in paradise after death. This is in contrast to collapsology, in which the survivalists need to use much of their money for day to day life before the collapse and have many competing alternatives (not only the collapsology authors) to choose from when buying things to prepare for the post-apocalypse.

This distinction correctly predicts the fact that history shows that religious doomsday prophecies have been about evenly distributed across time, while predictions of physically survivable societal collapse have almost exclusively been made in societies that were about to collapse. The "argument" that "American movies mix religious doomsday prophecies and collapsology themes in the same stories, therefore they must be psychologically linked" is a fallacy. It is easy for big corporations to influence the film industry with association fallacies in their fight against collapsology, since predictions of collapse are not good for capitalist profit.

So-called "criticism" of collapsology that alleges that the concept of societal collapse is "colonial" misses the point by systematically leaving out certain collapses. For example, while the idiots claim that the disappearance of Stonehenge "is not considered a loss because it is considered part of European heritage", the bullshit leaves out the well known notions of the collapse of ancient Greek and Roman civilizations as losses which is not nullified by them being European. A much more logical explanation as to why the disappearance of the culture that built Stonehenge is not discussed much in terms of societal collapse is that there is no writing from that time and place and that material evidence of civilization there beyond the Stonehenge building itself is far more limited than in the case of more well-known civilizations. It is logical, not "colonial", to talk more about the collapse of civilizations with more known data to them.

The allegation that collapsology is based on Rousseau's theories of pre-property and pre-hierarchy but distorts them by claiming that the origin of property and hierarchies can be reversed is fallacious. Rousseau's conclusion that the origin of property and hierarchies could not be reversed was based on his belief that specifically the development of consciousness caused the origin of property. He even claimed that it was extremely unlikely that someone who pulled up the fences the first time someone claimed to own land would have been able to put land ownership off for long in the very same passage as he claimed that the change could never be reversed, and for exactly the same reason (his belief that advanced consciousness caused the concept of property). This means that other theories of the origin of the state that posit that it was something other than complex consciousness that caused the origin of states do not logically predict that the origin of politics is irreversible. It is not hypocrisy, it is a logical difference between theories. The stupidity of today's corporate managers and politicians certainly does not support the assumption that political or economical power is an effect of complex consciousness.

Advertisement