The social collapse is near. Ik wrote about it earlier in an article that, upon re-reading, I actually find even more horrifying than the article we're about to talk about. It was not reality on paper, it was real experiments - just not yet tested on humans. Or rather: we are in the middle of it now. The Covid period has undeniably exposed it.
The Trias Politica has become an elite clodder. The question is not whether this system will be put together but when. We look at the death struggle of the highest power systems. The collateral damage is unprecedented.
Final conclusion of a two -year -old article
This is what a total collapse looks like.
In the work of Schippers, Ioannidis and Luijks, I again see the confirmation of how institutionalization works and why you have to demand unconditional transparency from institutions (including the government). This is necessary to strictly check everything that happens. Call it for my part: distrust. Why it is necessary is not very difficult to understand.
Instituten worden ontworpen en georganiseerd in departementen en hiërarchieën zodat ze de burgers efficiënt kunnen dienen. De origine is nobel: een democratisch proces. Een bepaald doel blijkt niet haalbaar met alleen de dynamiek van de bevolking en dan wordt er naar de overheid gekeken: "regel het, we willen bestuurd worden." Zo krijgt een instituut een mandaat dat zich vertaalt in een machtspositie.
Within the institute it is important to make everything work as well as possible. That means: continuity, guaranteeing the impact and if it can expand: it is important! As a result, those who support the Institute through fat and thin and furthermore help the kick in the hierarchy. These are the officials who convincingly articulate what the institute thinks is: the narrative of the domain in question. They are the leaders who need the institute. Everything is tailored to this, including the career opportunities, both inside and outside the institute. Because if you have helped one institute well ahead, you are more likely to come into the picture with a larger or international institute. It is then no longer about knowledge, moral awareness or other considerations that could hinder the institute in achieving goals. After all, such reservations would just get in the way of power.
Ultimately, the original goal, serving the citizen, becomes subordinate and, in the worst case, it is completely lost sight of. This leads to dysfunction at an institutional level. Integrity rules do not work because they are aimed at misbehaving individuals: they are 'anti-institutional elements'.
The clearer the dysfunction becomes, the more grim the defense becomes, for example with threats and support from other fellow institutions, including the court. They all have in common that they thrive on the grace of power centralization in a constellation that they want to maintain and strengthen. Anti-institutionalism is unacceptable. The result: increasing polarization, mutual misunderstanding, rising emotions... Let's just hope it stays that way?
So far my thoughts while reading.
The main author of the article is Michaéla Schippers, who distinguished himself early in the Corona hysteria by her clear, distant look. We've seen her The Renaissance Institute, several times at Café Weltschmerz (here too, don't turn on the NL subtitles), at Name, in short: someone from the academic world that had sprung the hysteria and therefore could only make her voice heard through Wappie channels.
Below the summary and Here the NL translation of the integral article.
Summary
Is society caught in a death spiral? Modeling social ruin and its reversal
Phase 1: Bloom and origin
Everything starts with flowering. A movement, idea or system arises from genuine conviction, often in response to a shortage or problem. These initiatives have a certain freshness, an openness to the outside world and broad support. There is cooperation, innovation and trust. Consider the rise of democracies, social movements, technology platforms or NGOs. In this initial phase, people feel involved: the system still serves the collective interest.
Phase 2: Growth and complexity
Success leads to growth. That is logical and dangerous. What started small, locally or informally, becomes larger, more formal and inevitably more complex. With this complexity, the need for structure, rules and control comes. Because who coordinates? Who decides in conflicts? How do you prevent chaos?
Hierarchy is the result. And with hierarchy, centralization of power comes. Often with the best of intentions: keep the overview, increase efficiency, streamline goals. But at the same time, people become more dependent on "the top" - on structures that once served as an aid, but now determine the course.
Phase 3: Power, interests and inertia
When a system is institutionalized, a layer of power arises that not only carries out, but also controls. Here the center of gravity shifts: the system is no longer assessed on its contribution to the original goal, but to its functioning as itself. Budgets must be on annually, policy must be "further developed", external criticism is experienced as destabilizing.
Bureaucracies anchor themselves. Information is sent. Transparency and self -reflection become risky because they can undermine the authority. The interests within the system are increasing: people build careers, prestige and power. This creates a situation where the system is no longer serving, but serves itself.
Change from within has now become almost impossible. Criticism is no longer seen as a contribution, but as an attack. Doubt as a betrayal. Rulers will protect their positions, often with the help of framing, censorship or anxiety.
Phase 4: The death spiral
At some point the balance is lost. The system has become top heavy, log and distant. It closes to signals from outside. Citizens or participants no longer feel represented, but sent. The trust ebs away.
Here the death spiral comes into the picture: a phase in which a system can no longer handle internal correction. Every feedback is seen as a threat. The reaction is not self -reflection, but reinforcement of control mechanisms. That is what makes it so dangerous: the deeper the system is in trouble, the more it will cling to its own structures.
Follow cramping, repression or institutional arrogance. The system continues to function, but nobody still believes in it. It performs itself mechanically. Until it is broken from outside - via crisis, uprising, or simply disintegration.
What we have about this
The analysis ofThe death spiralDoes not only apply to governments or international institutions. The dynamics applies just as well to NGOs, health organizations, climate agendas, tech platforms or even social movements that once started rebels.
More importantly: it offers a lens with which we can recognize where we are in such a cycle. Are we still in the flowering phase? Or are we already at the stage where systems protect themselves against the people they were once intended for?
Conclusion
The death spiralIs a warning, no prediction. Vigilance is required: against inertia, against power concentration, against excluding criticism.
The only way out of the death spiral is to regain the original intention: human size, transparency, and the realization that power must always be contradicted. Only then can a system reinvent itself - or end voluntarily before it drags everything in its fall.
I think it's a nice list, but I don't know if it is. Is the lack of transparency not a consequence of the fact that (government) authorities have to pretend to be more than what they are? (Rhetorical question ...)
And is it not that in what the flowering period is called, transparency can be shown because there is really progress (and therefore the pretension of progress is not needed)? (Another rhetorical question)
And is it not that if the inventions are on, there is no progress anymore? (Alert a rhetorical question).
Take the gasoline engine: very clever that cars, planes and rockets could be built with it. But it doesn't go beyond that. But what if society expects that, to speak with The Beatles, "It’s getting better all the tihme?" If that is the belief that is hung by society, then you must give Make Believe, as a (government) body. - And so the stories in society come that "we" have been to the moon (unfortunately NASA has all the evidence that we have ever been there destroyed). And so on, and so on, and so on.
Waiting is not more transparency.
We are waiting for new inventions that make things that were not possible before now. With the transparency, it will also be good as an epiphenoma. Because why would you want to hide something that actually gives progress? (Another rhetorical question).
The downfall of the evening country? Civilizations have a limited shelf life. At a certain moment they get an administrative water head, the bureaucracy increases, the population is becoming lazy, scared, decadent, and lets his dirty affairs refurbished by rental soldiers. I have the works of Spengler in the bookcase, but I have to admit that I didn't get through it. However, the theory is clear. Each civilization continues a cycle that corresponds to the description in your article. But what is it like to live in a culture of decay? Or do we wise ourselves? Is that perhaps something that every generation experiences? Just a matter of "used to be everything better, young friend"?
Making a connection with the Muizen experiment from Calhoun is tempting. Also have a look at the testosterone -falling testosterone content in men: https://hrtdoctorsgroup.com/history-testosterone-levels/
I have added a random link. There are many more.
How did that go with those mice? Presumably they also developed physical changes.
We are in the middle of it ourselves, and also have a limited scope. The question is whether we can learn from history. The average intelligence is decreasing (or is that also a fairy tale, how do you measure that?). "Smart" Phones, "Smart" Cars etc. take over the thinking. And then we are not even talking about AI. I wonder if we can compare our time with other periods in history. The current exponential growth of humanity has never been shown before (doubling in 50 years). The way in which food is renovated and produced, the complete dependence on electricity, internet, transport etc. has no precedent.
Can we all take it? Evolutionary we are no different than people who lived a few thousand years ago. Society should solve our problems. Diseases must be banned and preferably prevent. If something is wrong, we will come to a doctor or service provider. They then prescribe pills again. Or we go into therapy.
Bit like the mice of Calhoun? It is tempting to go along with that comparison. It is no more than a hypothesis. Perhaps there was a core of truth in the observation in "A Hitchhikers Guide Through the Galaxy" where it turned out that the mice determined the results of the experiments, and the people had their desired conclusions draw.
Justice has been replaced by rules and control (compliance).
Moral has been replaced by moralism.
The human size has been replaced by
Globalism.
Subsequently, work is replaced by AI and robots; And citizens are reduced to mouth -dead consumers who just have to adapt. The graaiers are getting richer and the population increasingly poorer.
We, the citizens, do not resist. We find it acceptable because it all falls within the rules of the law. Moreover, the system is scientifically legitimized by the neo-liberal economic paradigm: it leads to high prosperity, distributed crooked and with a huge debt mountain, but by so-called "trickle-down processes" everyone benefits from it, at least that the neo-liberal economists claim. And yes, there is enough "scientific consensus".
Ultimately, the neo -liberal democratic system - with its opportunistic grazing culture - will perish with its own system forces. And that can sometimes go faster than we think.
About the moral decline of neo -liberal capitalism and the (economic) system forces that lead to the implosion of this system, I published a book last year (conspiracy or opportunism?). I wrote this in response to the violation of fundamental rights during the coronacrisis and the establishment of NSC by Pieter Omtzigt.
Very unfortunate that Pieter's good intentions have completely failed. Although his perfectionist personality has not done the matter well, the failure of that party is, in my opinion, mainly the result of the disused political system and structural opposition by the opportunistic public-private conflict of interest. There is no listening to each other. Words are deliberately twisted and there is no willingness to cooperate.
Can we turn the tide? The Marxist Revolution was averted at the time by adjusting the system on time. Whether we can prevent the implosion of capitalism again, I wonder. In any case, this requires a change in mentality. And there must be sincerely listened to each other.