[sinister grinner]

i have a much pondered question.

"is it better to live during the ascendt of a civilization, or during the decline."

now my theory is, since all civilizations crumble and have different lengths of existence, it all depends on how long the civilization will last, and other mentionables. i mean, if it lasted 1000 years, it would vary much differently than a 28 second empire( i had an empire over ants, but they bit me so i destroyed it). soooooooooooooo.........................i think the decline is better given these circumstances. say in the beginning everyone eats grubs and hunts gazelles with rocks. then at the climax (every civilization has a climax.), every one is living in stone houses, eating wild game, hunting with bow and arrows. so if the civilization lasted long enough, then halfway during the decline, we would have discovered how to slow the aging process, or delete the olsen twin's from out memory.(that's an idea, im going to start a topic about mary-kate and ashley.). so hopefully i would live while the robots do out work(like wiping our butts) and die before everything really goes pear-shaped.(then i would be a coward.)

[sinister grinner]

dammit. doesnt anybody care about civilizations.

[Supes]

dammit. doesnt anybody care about civilizations.

I care! It's just that I'm in Australia and thus about a day and a half ahead of you, so I was just giving you time to catch up :-)

I was just wondering what you're personal view was to your own question. I'm not fully sure that your follow up actually provided an answer. That aside here's my take:

It will depend on the sort of person you are. At the start of an empire there is a great deal of change. Innovation and development are paramount. As such, movers and inventors, forward thinkers and actively progressive people will much prefer this time.

In the middle of an Empire things have reached their peak. By this time the tail coat riders will have been able to drop out of the slipstream of the innovators and gain ascendency. As such, someone who likes other people to do the work and then ride in on the back of the success of others would enjoy this part of the empire.

At the end of an empire everything is in decline. This is usually because the truly incompetent have come to power (as is the natural order of things) and make sure that all things go to shit. The static thinkers and "it's always worked this way" people have ensured that progress is halted and destruction of the empire is a natural result. As such, the truly uninspired and run of the mill people will thrive on this (up until the actual destruction - which incidentally will truly surprise them) until they are overrun by the new movement.

But your question was, "is it better to live during the ascendt of a civilization, or during the decline." So to answer from a personal perspective my preference would be at the beginning.

[Reader]

Whether you prefer one or the other, it's all moot anyhow.

[sinister grinner]

just wondering. oh and my answer was , the decline.

[WalrusOfPlastic]

I think I'd like to be there when it all really went to hell. I mean, right at the very end. I don't know why I would. In fact I find it strange that I feel that way. Perhaps I'm just morbid.

[barend]

at any point, the smart suffer and are under recognised, the artistic are punished and little people suffer, A-holes have it easy and cute girls don't pay for shit!

but i guess, during the peak would be where i want to be...
too much work during the building up and too little pay during the decent!

[sinister grinner]

perhaps your a looter.

[NETHEREIDY]

Sawyer, I had no idea whatsoever that you could even come up with coherent thought, much less an interesting and entertaining thesis of that sort. I'm truly impressed. Really.

Anyway, after reading everyone's arguments, I'm going to have to say that I would prefer to live in a civilization's decline.

A thought on the matter: wouldn't every day after a civilization's "founding" technically be a part of its decline?

[sinister grinner]

[QUOTE] sawyer, i had no idea whatsoever that you could even come up with coherent thought, much less an interesting and entertaining thesis of that sort. I'm truly impressed. Really.

shut up. well, fine then. well technically the ascendt of civilization is after it's founded and starts improving in overall.........civilizationism......oh whatever.

[civilian_number_two]

A thought on the matter: wouldn't every day after a civilization's "founding" technically be a part of its decline?

No.

If we take the civilization's ascendency to be a period of growth (and we do), and its decline to be a period of decay (which we also do), then its decline begins when the civilization begins to decay.

What you're saying is that if we, say, throw a ball in the air and track its rise and fall, then every moment from the beginning of the trip is a part of its fall. Though to record it that way, we'd be tracking its rise as "negative fall," which is silly, and in the examples given we'd be considering the conquest of Britain to be a part of Rome's decline. Which is also silly.

On the same note, I think it's equally wrong when people say that from the day a person is born, he begins to die. Even though he's one day closer to death on a timeline, it just doesn't follow that he's "dying."

Mike (ready now to argue about the correct configuration of toilet rolls).

[sinister grinner]

backwards.so it spins clockwise. that's the best way, easy access.

[WalrusOfPlastic]

backwards.so it spins clockwise. that's the best way, easy access.

Does anyone else find this response to be completely ambiguous?

[Supes]

backwards.so it spins clockwise. that's the best way, easy access.

Does anyone else find this response to be completely ambiguous?

Yes, but I got the impression it was supposed to be. I could, however, be wrong.

[sinister grinner]

actually i was answering civilian number two's question on the configuration of toilet paper. i stated my opinion on the matter. it came to me while in deep meditation.