Decivilization May Be Under Way | Hacker News Reader

Decivilization May Be Under Way

theatlantic.com

24 pointsgnabgib26 comments

When one person is brazenly murdered, it is "decivilization".

So what do you call it when scores of people are brazenly denied health care they are entitled to and allowed to suffer and even die simply for the sake of corporate profits?

Business and "civilization" as usual?

Seems like the alarm might be just a little misplaced.

You sound like the Joker. But Heath Ledger sold more movie tickets:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylwMWpbv5Fk

The technical name for when thousands of people are brazenly denied health care they require is "social murder": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_murder

It's every bit as premeditated, but the responsibility is diffused, and it's made to seem natural and inevitable.

Aside from any claims of decivilization, the US should have universal public healthcare. It's basic function of a competent nation state. The US has failed to achieve it.

Get civilized first. Worry about decivilization after that.

> the US should have universal public healthcare. It's basic function of a competent nation state.

Why do you say that? What do you mean by "healthcare"?

Food is much more fundamental than healthcare but isn't really provided by any nation state. Where do you draw the line between what the state provides and what citizens are responsible for? How do you pick that line? Why is your opinion worth any more than another random persons?

"Food is much more fundamental than healthcare but isn't really provided by any nation state."

This is simply false. I get that the US state in which I live is not a "nation state", but it absolutely does provide food directly to folks on a variety of levels.

And jeeze: why is -your- (evidently poorly informed) opnion worth any more than another random persons?

This is such a useless definitional argument. You know exactly what they meant. An unexpected hospital trip should not put you in debt for the rest of your life or outright kill you because you couldn't afford it. This is real basic stuff that plenty of real prospering nations already do.

Continuous obligations to grow over time long ago can't be satisfied forever. When the end comes, institutions tend to derange. The people who are willing to paper over any missed growth targets, etc.. tend to be promoted, and end up running the ship. This is why most of our institutions, including our health "insurance" companies are rapacious viper pits.

The problem isn't with the citizens, it's with the incentives rewarding deranged behavior, and a lack of sufficient justice (including prison terms) for those responsible.

When Macron used the phrase “process of decivilization” it was vague to French observers. I think it’s very clear in an American context:

Can the CEO’s alleged murderer get a fair trial? Will we believe a verdict if it’s unanimous guilty?

Following the shooting, the richest man in the world noticeably carried his child on his shoulders; in front of him like a human shield.

Reading the decades before Elias, we should predict that Jan 6 combatants are not only pardoned but implanted into sensory positions in the next administration.

We shouldn’t confuse sympathy for the killer’s motives with sympathy for his action. Many people dislike the US healthcare system, from numerous angles—medical, capitalist, socialist, insurance theorist. It’s terrible all around. That said no one actually thinks that killing executives will be a sustainable way to effect change. Even if a whole series of killers mowed down 10 healthcare CEOs in a year, all that would happen is that healthcare executives would get hazard pay and big security details. Most people, even the folks, understand this. A US jury will not nullify, especially after shown pictures of the man’s family.

> Even if a whole series of killers mowed down 10 healthcare CEOs in a year, all that would happen is that healthcare executives would get hazard pay and big security details.

Not so sure about that. Anthem Blue Cross already reversed a decision about anesthaesia coverage [1]. And this killing is already likely to inspire a lot of people to ask questions about U.S. healthcare and demand a better system. So I actually think that just this one killing will already effect change.

1. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/anthem-blue-cross...

The suffragettes, also had to use bombs before making progress.

Violence has worked for good in the last. The 40-hour work week was not achieved by simply asking.

> That said no one actually thinks that killing executives will be a sustainable way to effect change.

Oh? I think it would be rather effective—and no one expects it to be sustainable. One killing and the establishment media is already very clearly terrified. History teaches us that the only language understood by those who hold power is the language of force.

Comparing the circumstances of this alleged murderer with Kyle Rittenhouse, I don’t see a lot of confused people. Plenty of Americans seem to want more of one guy, or more of another.

Fox News is covering the change in CEO ambiance as you note. But, Fox News is conspicuously failing to acknowledge the public reaction to this vigilantism compared to their Carlson-era spirited sympathy for Rittenhouse. To counterpoint more specifically, I think Fox News promoted Rittenhouse as a sustainable way to affect change (via ratings).

We’ll see how Fox covers a trial. Shouldn’t Thompson have known better than to walk without security? What did United know about threats to him? Why was the pool of suspects so large, and how did cops go from bewilderment to finding a needle in a haystack?

> The line between a normal, functioning society and catastrophic decivilization can be crossed with a single act of mayhem.

First, society is hardly normal and functioning any more for a lot of people. Millions are basically cogs in a machine with not much hope on the horizon except consumerism, which is frankly, getting tiring.

Second, catastrophic decivilization is highly unlikely at this point. It is unlikely because our addiction to technology and technological advancement means that too many people are too deep into it to let de"civilization" happen. The system has too many defense mechanisms.

Thirdly, decivilization can only happen once technology itself destabilizes. Indeed, a few targeted killings, or even dozens, will only result in a tightening of security with more technology to prevent them. More cameras will be installed, more facial recognition, etc. Individuals cannot destabilize civilization while they are still mostly benefitting in the short term from it unless the mechanisms that bring those benefits (technology) is itsel destroyed.

> The process of decivilization may begin with profound distrust in institutions and government leaders, but that distrust gets far worse in a society where people brutalize one another.

I sincerely doubt people will start brutalizing each other in general. It is much more likely that the brutalization will be restricted to those who hold the power and collect the most resources. Times are different now, and we are going to see a new breed of individualistic violence where the true monsters are targeted, and the mass media and governments want everyone thinking that such acts as Magione's will lead to mass violence because they are deathly afraid of the much more likely eventuality that it is just the power structure that will be targeted.

The third facet is underway and, in the context of firearms, not likely to be settled without a stance by the Supreme Court to revise the Second Amendment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42400224

I myself expect your ordering to go 3-2-1. Many people in America vote as if they live in dire straits but are ignorant that they live the most comfortable life in human history.

> I myself expect your ordering to go 3-2-1. Many people in America vote as if they live in dire straits but are ignorant that they live the most comfortable life in human history.

It is the most comfortable, but the least human. The technological civilization improves immediate life variables such as life expectancy, health, and material goods at the cost of community, meaning, and higher purpose.

Not sure why you're being downvoted--you're not wrong. Well, one might quibble about how much meaning modern life has, but we're definitely atomized and alienated.

I have to guess that someone feels a shift in their life expectancy, but would rather downvote than comment?

https://archive.ph/wiOzz

Looks like doomervision. There's plenty of capital and opportunity to enact a sufficient and necessary amount of socialism and smart, nuanced regulation to make America adequately healthier and saner. What is missing is political will and leadership that doesn't worship greed.

This is just one broad, unsupported assertion after another. Sloppy. It’s not that the author doesn’t prove things—you can’t expect that in an editorial—but that the assertions aren’t even argued for.

I think this is not a sign of decivilization, it’s a sign of a broken democratic process.

If things would become insufferable in Italy or France a we would vote the communists into power and have a red October. France is halfway there already, if not for the failed European immigration politics the left hardliners would govern.

I am not saying that this is the correct approach, but Americans don’t even have the option, and it shows in the political decisions.

Exactly. The whole point of a democracy, IMO, is to streamline non-violent revolutions to avoid bloodshed when things get bad.

This is, in my opinion and without attributing any of my nonsense on you, my definition of conservative. The lesson from history that legitimate grievances left to fester justify radicals who do more damage than good.

You motivate more conservative people into government by making them uneasy about the number of radicals. Currently, in America the Republican Party is changing much faster than the Democratic Party. What’s uneasy in the Republican Party is that they’re no longer conservative; led by billionaires radicalized without accountability. That’s not hyperbole and it doesn’t mean a net negative this time around. It’s a challenge to study revolutions and judge who is following the right lessons today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com