Are We on the Road to Civilisation Collapse?

Are you referring to the Holy Roman Empire ruled by Charlemagne? They weren't strictly the same as the Roman Empire. There's a decent explanation on reddit on the differences. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/124kmx/whats...

One of the features of language is that many words or phrases have more than one meaning, and people determine which meaning is meant by context. In particular, the phrase "Roman Empire" can mean either Eastern and Western branches, or just the Western one. In this case it is obvious it is the latter that is intended.

However, it is good to bring up Byzantium since so many people are completely unaware that it was the Eastern Roman Empire.

New Latin is still being invented, in academic circles, for naming new things.

The article equates empire with civilisations, but that's not entirely correct. Sometimes the collapse of an empire coincides with the collapse of a civilisation (like the Western Roman Empire), but sometimes it doesn't (HRE, Austrian, British). In fact most European empires' collapse haven't hurt European civilisation in any way, because these empires didn't dominate the continent and had lots of contact with surrounding countries.

So will modern western civilisation collapse? There's certainly a number of red flags. Not just the rising inequality and oligarchy in the US. More worrying to me is the rise of authoritarianism, decreased trust in democracy, and decreased commitment and understanding of our rights and values.

Authoritarianism is on the rise all over the world. China will inevitably overtake the US as the most powerful economy at some point in the future, and China is deeply committed to remaining unfree: no free expression, press or elections. Russia's democratic revolution after Gorbachev and Yeltsin seems to have failed with Putin. The Arab Spring only really succeeded in Tunis; the other Arab countries just ended up with either their old or a new dictator, or otherwise became violent and unstable. South America seemed to become more democratic, but is getting more authoritarian again in Brazil and Venezuela.

And most importantly, the US and the EU themselves are struggling with authoritarianism from within: Trump and his supporters, Hungary, but EU technocracy doesn't exactly inspire confidence either.

I do think that these are developments we need to turn around. Lately I've started to fear that maybe these past few centuries of enlightenment may have been a fluke.

Has power really become centralized though? I agree that large portions of the institutions that we traditionally consider as being "powerful" have become corrupt, but I have a hard time qualifying any of them as "centralized". Maybe I'm being pedantic, but "centralized" to me would be another way of saying "can respond quickly and decisively when required" (whether the response is appropriate or sufficient or any other measure of "good" is a different discussion).

I just don't see the current state of the West as "centralized" at all, even with the rise of populist governments that at least pretend like they want to centralize this power. Could any governments in the west actually mount a response to climate change? Seems like the answer is a deafening "no". What about other potential global catastrophes, like a massive war? In my judgement western governments seem extremely slow and sclerotic in their response to mounting defense problems (migration, the rise of China, a recalcitrant Russia). The most they seem able to do is sell some arms to other countries, further decentralizing their authority to actually influence any of this directly. So I have little faith that, say, the United States could competently mount a draft (would we even have enough able bodied males to make a difference?) for example.

>INEQUALITY AND OLIGARCHY: Wealth and political inequality can be central drivers of social disintegration, as can oligarchy and centralisation of power among leaders. This not only causes social distress, but handicaps a society’s ability to respond to ecological, social and economic problems.

I guess I don't understand what point is trying to be made here. As western countries have become more diverse, both demographically and politically, of course responding to these problems becomes more difficult as more groups have their own interests at heart - but this seems to be a feature not a bug of liberal governance. Is the point here that in the current state only billionaires would be able to gather enough institutional power to coordinate a response? That sounds awfully "Great Man" of the author - though I doubt that was his intention.

A lot happened since the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. If western civilisation today collapses, of course something will come in its place. But it won't be the same thing, and we'll have lots of social upheaval and possibly war in the mean time.

Also, the UK Pound has lost a lot of value over the past couple of decades. According to this chart[0], it more than halved in comparison to the dollar since 1953.

[0] http://fxtop.com/en/historical-exchange-rates.php?YA=1&C1=GB...

I think you'll find the value of the pound has plummeted in the last century, during the decline of empire, decoupling from the gold standard, inflation of the 70s, printing during QE and the BRexit vote.

Since 1900 the GBP price of gold has risen 250x, from 4.25 to over 1,000 today.

https://www.chards.co.uk/gold-price/price-of-gold