Is the West about to make itself obsolete?

People never learn. The reason why they never learn is because they don't live long enough to be able to learn from the mistakes of youth, which will be repeated over and over again everywhere forever until someone somewhere finds a three-thousand-year-old sage who will become master/mistress of the universe.

So it is of no surprise to note that there are some surprising similarities between the fall of the Roman Empire and the West's impending doom. But this time, at ten times the speed.

Firstly, the Roman Empire fell because of the sheer inability of those in charge to make any kind of decisions. The place had grown too big for its own good. Rome did not really fall - it declined over a period of centuries although the Eastern Roman Empire did not officially end until the invasion of Constantinople in the 15th century. So, one thing we can say is, if you want to survive, don't grow too big. Not necessarily geographically, but certainly in terms of what you can handle.

Secondly, Rome had been feeling good about itself, so good in fact that it chose to party all year long. This caused the place to split into two, with the richer Eastern Empire being more pragmatically run. So, another thing: don't allow your inhabitants to feel everything is going well, just for the whole place to fall apart.


Thirdly, and I think the thing which seals the deal, is the shrinking of the qualities and items that made Rome mighty: its political regionalisation into various administrative capitals (Ravenna, Treveris, Mediolanum, etc.) which marginalised various areas of the Empire and the slow deterioration of the once-mighty fortifications which allowed the invading Visigoths a much easier job of overtaking the Roman heartlands.

There were various related problems for the Romans:

The Barbarians had started to understand and even imitate Roman military manoeuvres, structures and disciplines to the extent that they did them better.


There was a decline in morals and public decency, which gave way to breathtaking decadence and immorality to the extent that little shocked the general public any more. There was alcoholism, public indecency and widespread sexual deviance.

The Plebeians, or the lower classes, had a lot less manual work to do, causing them great hardships and dissatisfaction, even mistrust, of their leaders.

The back-scratching and pocket-lining of politicians and the Praetorian Guard meant that as long as you kept the military happy, they would let you do what you wanted. And whilst politicians kept doing favours for each other, it became easier to "fix" the outcome of certain political questions.


The continual obsession with war (to keep the military occupied and to expand the glory of the Empire) was another prerequisite of the Roman Empire. Swaggering arrogantly over its territory and neighbouring lands, the leaders of the glorious empire tried their best to show the rest what they had and that they were better than the rest. That they may have been, in terms of technological advancement, art, people power and even governmental benevolence, but those things do not necessarily mean others will aspire to them. It means others will find it easier to destroy because there is less need for an iron fist ruler. So the dictatorships and barbarisms outside of the Roman sphere of influence found it so much easier to destroy it, simply because it was so enlightened.

Any bells ringing? Well yes, in fact, but the major difference with then and now is that we in the West are trying hard to accommodate the "Barbarians", buying and selling material from them. The threats facing us today are very similar, but far, far greater than those the Romans faced. Rising indebtedness, an overstretched military, encroaching government and commercial paranoia through the ability to keep every movement made by telephone and online on record and use it against the people, and falling educational standards. You may see Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, MIT and the LSE at the top of the University league tables, but how much of that is a marketing fabrication? The similarities between the fall of Rome and now are startling, but this time the fall will be so much greater. There are several scenarios:


Scenario 1:
The West spends itself out of relevance

This could happen. It is a very probable scenario. Imagine all the banks, blissfully spending our cash on the markets, blowing fortunes they don't have, and spending imaginary money to get more of it. Oh, that already happened, did it? Imagine some countries who believe they are safe from economic meltdown because they hid their debts well and joined a monetary union believing they would be saved from bankruptcy by all the others. Oh that happened too, you say? Imagine a sinister, ruthless and unsentimental dictatorship worse than the Barbarians with a monthly income equivalent to that of the entire debt in the aforementioned fictionally indebted country offering to purchase all its outstanding arrears. In other words, virtually buying the country's emancipation from debt. What would happen to that newly debt-cleared country? Why sack Rome when you can buy the place?

Scenario 2:
The West is invaded

This is less obvious, but there is no reason why it should not happen. Too many Western powers are reducing military strength to save money. The UK, for example, is scrapping everything except essentials. It sees the need for nuclear weaponry, but not for a strong military. If an invader is going to come, it will want to have something to get, and the country being invaded doesn't want to destroy itself, so it is not going to do any good nuking the place. Keeping such a large amount of nuclear weapons is not going to save anyone. It would be so much easier to leave the large nukes to the big boys, and go in for having a huge army, navy and air force. Unfortunately, there are too many people in governments who think possession = prestige. Rubbish. I'd rather live in a modest house and have a burglar-proof property than have everything open but if an intruder comes, it all collapses into dust. For that reason, we leave ourselves open to attack at any time.


Scenario 3:

Governmental weakness, indecision and bad advice

This is almost a fait accompli in the West. Many of today's governmental figures are pretty weak, especially in the EU. I think this is due to the EU as well. National governments are becoming increasingly obsolete as decisions are made at EU level. Of course, these are made by the Council of Ministers, that is all the leaders of the EU together, but it means that if one EU leader loses the election, the EU agenda will be taken up by the next leader, and it no longer really matters who the head of state is.

What does this say about democracy in the 21st century? There really is not too much of it around, really. But meanwhile, most EU governments are just following the crowd. Coupled with national debt and an indecent reputation, politicians are an increasingly unpopular and lonely group, totally out of touch with what ordinary people want and need: stability and assuredness. Nothing else. We would give up a lot of material wealth and commercial activities just to guarantee our social welfare, health, happiness and continued employment.

Quite frankly, shallow materialism and self-indulgence is thankfully coming to an end. If it doesn't, the human character of failing to learn from past mistakes could lead to another Roman Empire falling.