What has destroyed every previous civilization has been the tendency to the unequal distribution of wealth and power.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The reason that a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from the mutual destructiveness.
History has shown that a government's redistribution of shrinking wealth, in preference to a private sector's creation of new sources of it, can prove more destructive than even the most deadly enemy.
People say 'what do you mean' when you talk about 'bringing down civilization.' What I really mean is depriving the rich of the ability to steal from the poor and depriving the powerful of the ability to destroy the planet. That's what I really mean.
One civilization after another has been wrecked upon the attempt to secure sufficient leadership from a single group or class.
By seeing the problem of poverty merely in terms of assistance, we overlook that our enormous economic advantage is deeply tainted by how it accumulated over the course of one historical process that has devastated the societies and cultures of four continents.
History shows us that other highly developed forms of civilization have collapsed. Who knows whether the same fate does not await our own?
When civilizations collide, it usually isn't the more primitive one that prevails.
From the first day to this, sheer greed was the driving spirit of civilization.
If you look at great human civilizations, from the Roman Empire to the Soviet Union, you will see that most do not fail simply due to external threats but because of internal weakness, corruption, or a failure to manifest the values and ideals they espouse.
Civilization and profit go hand in hand.