![Olduvai[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/NXd4TVi.gif "Olduvai[1].gif")
What was the high watermark for Western Civilization?
I would say the early 1960s.
Probably the 1800's in general
![Postcard_for_the_assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_in_Sarajevo[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6sYpbph.jpg "Postcard_for_the_assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_in_Sarajevo[1].jpg")
10 AM, June 28th, 1914.
>>369518
>>369518
Industrial revolution era was the first peak of western civilization.
Then it peaked again in the 1900s, with the second stage of the industrialization.
And then the Roaring Twenties, 1930s, 1940s, were next next peak.
And finally it peaked again, for the last time and at the height of it's power in the 1960s.
Late 12th to early 14th century.
It was the era of Gothic cathedrals, of chivalry and courtesy, of the Peace of God and the beginnings of true political order, and of the start of a scientific revolution. Western civilisation had huge momentum and direction, and still filled with spiritual force. It was at the height of its youthful strength, at the height of what can rightfully be called civilisation.
That was before everything went to shit. The Plague and little ice age hit Europe, France was destroyed by the Hundred Years War, Protestantism split Christendom apart, and Humanists burned medieval science. It took us 300 years to recover, but by then the West was already becoming dark and cynical, its youth was gone.
>>369603
holy shit you're right.
>>369603
>implying the Plague wasn't essential to the rise of the Renaissance and Enlightenment
>>369603
>reverse memeing the 10-15th century dark ages
:^)
>>370094
>Renaissance and Enlightenment
Yeah I know, the Plague was essential to fucking up the West, that's what I said.
>>369518
First half of 1200s. Frederick Hohenstauf's rule to be precise.
>>369518
1990s.
>Soviets kaputski.
>America is a Hyperpower.
>No great external enemies.
>Seinfeld still on TV.
>>372530
'90s kid detected. The 90s were merely a brief plateau decade we experienced on the way down.
what was the low point of western civlzation
>>373345
Whatever the current year is.
>>370262
>so many fucking feudal apologists on this board
>TFW you think the Renaissance & Enlightenment introduced several problems into Western Civlization but you're not stupid enough to be into neo-feudalism or be a monarchist
It sucks, any research into problems with the Enlightenment lead you either to Post Modernism or some "Dark Enlightenment" bullshit.
pre roman europe
>you will never be a celt hanging out with your pals and pillaging other celts
>>373482
Time to read Foucault and Engels.
>>369603
>posts a 15th century manuscript depicting Renaissance palaces
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the highest standard of living the west ever achieved is right fucking now
>>373543
>I measure standard of living based on how many iphones built by slave-labor that I can buy
>>373543
>Highest Standard of Living ever achieved
>Material Comfort is the only measure of civilization
Das right mane, we know our time's the best time 'cause our bank accounts have more zeroes than that of any medieval peasant.
Also becuz we have zeroes, without which there wouldn't be no 420 blaze it brotha'.
>>373596
>muh science
Age of exploration - World War II
>industrialization
>colonization
>enlightenment
>>373596
And how exactly would you quantify something like culture, for example? Or ideals? Way of living? Quality of life as opposed to quantity of assets?
When Wittgenstein said that which is unspeakable should not be spoken he wasn't saying those things are worthless, he was warning about jackasses like you who think they can quantify everything.
To answer your question, I refer to the above: Culture, ideals, way of life. And maybe capacity to retain those things. None of those are easily quantifiable, no I'm not even trying to meet that request.
>>373561
>I measure standard of living from Hollywood idealism and nostalgia
>>373564
>>373561
>educational attainment
>social mobility
>life expectancy
>literacy rate
vs
>hurr i could be a meme pirate if i wanted
>i could be a fancy knight because if i lived in the middle ages i obviously wouldn't be a mud farmer i'd be nobility
>the 60s were so much better than now because their weren't any ess jay dublya libruls!
>>373733
>>374026
There are more people in slavery today than at any other point in human history.
There are more people in poverty today than at any other point in human history.
There are more people starving to death today than at any other point in human history.
There are more people in prison today than at any other point in human history.
This is progress.
>>374099
all of that can be pretty easily explained by there just being way more fucking people than there have ever been in history.
>There are more people not in slavery than at any point in human history
>there more people not in poverty than at any point in human history (especially if defined as absolute and not relative poverty!)
>there are more people comfortably fed than at any point in human history
>there are more people not in prison than at any point in human history
see?
>>374116
Doesn't change the fact that there is objectively more individual human suffering today than at any point in human history.
If there are 100 billion people on earth in 200 years and only 1 billion are enslaved is that somehow justifiable to you?
Your logic is fucking awful and is as anti-liberal as anything else.
>>374144
>we can never truly get rid of slaves so the past was better because there were less people overall so less slaves
that doesn't make any sense. the improving proportions don't matter at all to you?
>>374173
Ratios, how do they work.
>>374177
That's my point. The ratios of slaves, poverty, etc are plummeting. The percentage of people dying violently hasn't been this low in thousands of years, possibly ever. It is an absolutely fantastic time to be alive by any objective measure, but these grass-is-greener fags will never admit it
>>374219
Unless you're born in a region suffering from starvation, famine, or slavery. Which is billions of people.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
There are more people living in poverty today (3+ billion people) than the entire human population on Earth in 1950.
What's funny is that you probably consider yourself a leftist, compassionate, progressive.
>>374219
Only because the population is so high.
Putting a nice happy spin on the way the world is by pointing to "ratios" is ignoring the billions of people on the Earth who are suffering as we speak.
>>373733
>>374026
>>374099
>>374116
>>374144
>>374173
>>374177
>>374219
>>374282
>>374319
FYI, the answer to "how do we remove the quantifiably bad things for people?" is "Anti-Natalism".
Generally that's where I consider maybe the debate is ill-formed, but some people prefer to bite that bullet. Up to you guys I suppose.
>>374432
Overpopulation is the root cause of nearly all the poverty, resource scarcity, wealth inequality, global instability/conflict, climate change, loss of social cohesion, and general suffering the world is experiencing today, so I agree for the most part that we need to start working towards drastically lowering birth rates, hopefully via humane means.
There's a reason why the Reneissance and Enlightenment emerged out of the great die off from the Black Death. Less people = more freedom, more resources per capita, more individual human value, higher standards of living, better quality of life, etc.
>>374458
While I agree, you and the other anon(s?) were arguing about standard of living in terms of the absence of terrible things... to which the answer is anti-natalism.
Reducing the world population can do a great many things (though "how" the reduction happens is probably gonna be pretty awful), but that won't do away with slavery and poverty and starvation and prisons. If those are your goals, then merely reducing the population isn't enough you'd have to exterminate it.
>>374458
>implying the Renaissance and Enlightenment were good
>>374458
So would you be willing to lay down your life for a "second Renaissance"? If not you then why somebody else.
Just food for thought
>>374458
By creating an environment where having children is detrimental?
This is already a case in developed countries, where it is too expensive/time consuming
As for developing countries, perhaps combination of propaganda and assertive action (like the one-child policy in China) on the state's part. Problem is these government are ineffective.
Unfortunately, modern medicine is doing more harm (decreasing child mortality) than good (icontraception) in regard to overpopulation
>>374502
>so I agree for the most part that we need to start working towards drastically lowering birth rates, hopefully via humane means.
This is what I wrote, I didn't imply I wanted a new Black Death, just that historical evidence shows that less people usually results in higher quality of life.
Obviously this isn't universally true (a post-nuclear winter planet with 100 million survivors wouldn't be very pleasant). Your point might make more sense if I said I wanted a massive population die off to occur. Having said that, I have no illusions that I would be among the billions to die if such an event were to take place, but that's just me being realistic.
First man in space and moon landing were the peaks
>>374576
It's too bad your conception of "peak humanity" is based on a pack of lies.
>>369573
I would ravage that ass.
Oh to have a time machine.
>>369518
>What was the high watermark for Western Civilization?
Early 20th century.
No contest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-m9A8mY-U0
(video also contains footage of munich)
>>373513
>France in 1412
>Renaissance
Are you retarded?
Those represent Gothic Era France.
>>375168
>first shot is overhead shot taken from a high altitude airplane with clean streets of just automobiles
I hate when youtube video titles are deceptive like this. Most of this footage is quite clearly not from 1900.
>>369603
>>374494
>While I agree, you and the other anon(s?) were arguing about standard of living in terms of the absence of terrible things... to which the answer is anti-natalism.
Historically it's actually the opposite, generally the shittier things are the more people people feel the need to have kids/can't avoid having them. Even today the poorest and worse off parts of the world register by far the highest birth rates.
>>375097
Do't forget the :^)
1991-2001
>>375417
Are gen y millenials this ignorant already?
>>369603
*cough* post Black Death Europe.
>>375606
Not him but what he said is actually true, a lo HDI correlates with high fertility.
>>369518
>>369603
>>369676
Absolutely this. We could go even further back - the times when European peoples had more freedom and liberty than any other moment in history.
Decentralized Angle, Saxon, Germanic monarchies and aristocracies ensured the liberty and the social mobility of everyone, and Celtic and Irish common law made peaceful life without rulers possible.
>>369518
The space race was just an ICBM development program. They made it into into a big hoopla about humanity exploring the unknown because they didn't want the public realizing that a significant amount of their tax money was going into engineering more efficient ways of ending humanity. I'd wouldn't call that era the peak of civilization.
Also I don't think it should be called "Western civilization". It's global civilization at this point. Calling it western does more harm than good.
We should definitely put more effort into exploring, exploiting, and colonizing space though.
>>369548
>those feels
I'd like to get off Mr.Bones wild ride now.
The Roman Empire under Aurelius
>>378575
Why so butthurt?
>>377336
germans are fucking shit at ruling themselves lmao
For Europe it was 1913
Western civilization doesn't exist anymore. It's become global civilization. There was never a high point. Civilization generally just keeps getting better.
>>374099
There are billions more people alive at this very moment than ever before. Look at the ratios.
>>373697
>culture, ideals, way of life
lmao so you don't have any objective metric, good to know you're just some weirdo who fetishizes an idealized past.
>>378858
>I hate people spreading misinformaton.
What misinformation was being spread?
1880 - 1914 were probably the best if we ignore the massive nationalistic bubble that was about to burst because of backwards empires ignoring their minorities. Economically everything was excellent.
>>379197
This are topics we speak of without any solid objective basis on such. If you're such a genius on the matter, feel free to educate us on the proper approach to such topics, professor.
>>374282
not the anon you were replying to but
>worrying about what the other person's politics are instead of sticking to the argument
you know better
1806
1776
>>372154
>Implying
You can only talk about the apex of civilization in retrospect. I would rather be alive now than any other time in history.
>>369518
Morally and culturally? A while ago.
Technologically? Now.
>>373561
How are the conditions of third world people relevant to judging the apex of Western civilization? We're more tolerant of minorities in our countries than any other culture.
>durrrrrr if I act snarky about trivial things like smart phones and social networking it makes me an intelligent social commentator
Muh sheeple - the mentality that aligns conservatards and socialists in their superiority complexes. Go rewatch Fight Club you little bitch.
>>381094
Don't you know that christendom was the best thing ever and that our society sucks because we don't believe anymore but something else, Muslims suck because their society still beliefs, but this is actually because Islam is a religion founded by a child raping warlord.
Fucking 4chan christians, I swear, they are the worst breed to come out of off /pol/ shit posting.
>>369518
I'll let you know when we get there.
>>383111
>Christianity and Islam are the same
Between the end of the Black Death and the beginning of the French Revolution.
>>383157
>this religion is good/bad because /pol/ told me so
Are you kidding me? I can smell your "argument" even across the Atlantic, guys like you always want something to fit your narrative, as if /pol/ shit posting had any merit.
The day before you were born.
>>369548
This.
WWI was the beginning of the end of the European world order.
>>369518
>I would say the early 1960s.
What the cvck? When marxists were attempting to overthrow western civilization by manipulating the blacks?
>>374282
but the probability of you being born in a region like that is the lowest that ever existed in the history of humanity, ever.
If you want to live in a period of human history were you have the biggest chances to live a long, relatively free life were you dont have to worry about starving to death or dying from a disease is right the fuck now. With the added possibility of actually being able to rise on the social ladder if you work for it.
This is undeniable.
>>377316
but thats because people are:
a)dumb, as they dont have access to education
b)religious as fuck and therefore against the use of contraceptives and other anti-natalist measures. If the Pope or the local Imam says that condoms are the work of the devil, then no one will use them
c)poor, which makes having a child a good investment as another workhand and another source of money for the house
>>385538
I thought /his/ was supposed to be free of this nonsense. Back to the containment board.
>>383157
>>373626
/thread
Anything else is posted by an American
I agree with everyone who says we are at the best we can be. It's not perfect, but we're better off than before. As for the issues we have, much of it can be attributed to the constant meddling during those "golden ages" to secure economic growth at the expense of others or to push forward ideals, no matter the cost.
>implying western "civilization"
>>369573
That's just a black and white picture from recent times. Filter or something. So you can still ravage that ass. Source: Post 1980s pool, I design pools.
>>375998
Don't cough and say black death in the same sentence.
>>385683
>waa someone thinks something i disagree with
>on the internet
>>387575
I really, really like this picture.
>>369603
>Humanists burned medieval science
>medieval science
laughinggirls.jpg
>>374099
You should look at the percentage if people not the number
>>369603
>reverse memeing the Dark Ages
Still a shitty meme
>>377396
At first, sure. But it seems pretty difficult to apply that to the Apollo Program. By then it had basically become a pissing contest where they just poured unprecedented amounts of money and manpower into achieving a goal before the Soviets.
Development of the Saturn V and all the technology necessary for a moon landing doesn't seem to have any direct application to ICBM capability, they basically just did it to show off. It's sort of a shame nobody does stuff like that anymore.
>>369518
The long 19th century
>>392964
Hobsbawm pls go
>>369518
May possible choices.
1860 perhaps. Or 1960.
>>395996
When will this dumb meme die?
2007 was the peak for the average western citizen
>>369518
>I would say the early 1960s.
I would agree.
>>396063
I guess I could buy that.
>>396012
>Not being volkish
Explain a lot of the faggotry here.
>>372166
Evola reader detected.
