Is human civilization inherently unsustainable? Or, more specifically, are nations and states unsustainable?

Are you saying that conservatives getting into office just to make obscene amounts of wealth for themselves and a few well connected "friends" while everyone else can go to hell is actually a good thing?

>"us" as in all people and governments
Which is in no way "us". There's us and them. Always has been, always will be.
>Anti-globalism leads to xenophobia, and arbitrary separation and hatred. It's hard to argue against that.
It's not arbitrary in any way. Humans are tribal creatures with natural xenophobia and distrust of others. No matter how much you attempt to unite people, it will not and cannot work so long as we are humans.
seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/04/16/study-babies-show-racial-bias/
journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00093/full
Racism and preference for your own kind are natural and attempts at getting rid of this will only cause conflict. See image in or
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4029557/

>but there's got to be a happy medium between that and the sorts of ideologies that lead to Brexit and Trump.
Why? What's wrong with Brexit? What's wrong with Trump?

Are you telling me conservatives getting into office just to make obscene amounts of wealth is a core part of conservatism? Are you telling me non-conservatists don't to the exact same? Look at the US presidential election for example. The Democrats are being fully supported by massive companies, bankers and other lobbyists who are in it only for the profit.

>What's wrong with Brexit? What's wrong with Trump?
Brexit and Trump's election, a lot like the rise of anti-globalism and nationalism all over the world, are based on irrational, hateful ideas, which are only validated by the success of these votes.

>based on irrational, hateful ideas
Which are? As I stated in and , these ideas are in no way irrational. They are naturally occuring and logical in the way that they ensure the success and benefit of their own people first and avoid conflict by attempting to form borders between different groups.

>which are only validated by the success of these votes.
They are "validated" by the Coudenhove-Kalergi brand globalists pushing too far and too fast. For example the Brexit vote, people who have experienced life outside of the EU were notably pro-leave, whilst those too young to have lived outside of the Union were more likely to vote remain.
How old are you and how many migrants in your country are there?

>How old are you and how many migrants in your country are there?
I'm a young adult in a country ostensibly built on immigration and openness.

And that thing about the Brexit voter base is fascinating because my closest experience with that vote is a britbong friend of mine who's as young as I am, but he's absolutely vehemently pro-leave just because he has a serious problem with Muslims. He takes it as a point of pride that he's a young person who voted to leave. I know a few other bongs but they barely bring it up, but the moment anything conservative or anti-Muslim happens, this guy is seconding it like mad. He's the example I have in my mind when thinking of the sort of people behind this huge rise in anti-globalism.

>but he's absolutely vehemently pro-leave just because he has a serious problem with Muslims. He takes it as a point of pride that he's a young person who voted to leave. I know a few other bongs but they barely bring it up, but the moment anything conservative or anti-Muslim happens, this guy is seconding it like mad. He's the example I have in my mind when thinking of the sort of people behind this huge rise in anti-globalism.
And why do you have an issue with him being anti-Muslim? The religion at its core is quite distinctly at odds with traditional Western values of freedom, individualism, freedom of speech, religion etc. as well as feminism. What individual Muslims of groups of Muslims practice has no effect on the religion itself.
Immigration, especially from countries with vastly different cultures such as Arab nations, causes conflict, which in turn causes violence and crime.

>The religion at its core is quite distinctly at odds with traditional Western values of freedom, individualism, freedom of speech, religion etc. as well as feminism.
Do you like, know nothing about the Middle East of the mid to late 1900s? For a while there it looked pretty western.

Immigration may cause conflict and crime, but that's only because all differences cause that shit. Culture or religion are just one of the differences that can lead to it.

Honestly, I don't even understand how you can ask why I have a problem with a friend being anti-Muslim. It feels retarded for me to do that towards any religion. And again, he's vocal about it to a concerning degree. Nobody likes when someone in their friend group keeps going on about something to the point that it's discomforting.

>Do you like, know nothing about the Middle East of the mid to late 1900s? For a while there it looked pretty western.
Yes, as I said, what individual groups of Muslims do does not change the core of the religion itself.

>Immigration may cause conflict and crime, but that's only because all differences cause that shit. Culture or religion are just one of the differences that can lead to it.
Any and all differences lead to conflict.
>Honestly, I don't even understand how you can ask why I have a problem with a friend being anti-Muslim. It feels retarded for me to do that towards any religion. And again, he's vocal about it to a concerning degree. Nobody likes when someone in their friend group keeps going on about something to the point that it's discomforting.
And I don't understand how you can't even form a single cohesive argument? Why does it bother you that he's anti-Muslim? Do you have any actual, logical reason beyond muh feels? Are you nothing more than an animal?

>Why does it bother you that he's anti-Muslim? Do you have any actual, logical reason beyond muh feels? Are you nothing more than an animal?
Like I said, he makes a huge deal out of it and most of our group of mutual friends thinks he's an outright madman. His lack of self-awareness is pretty damning.

He is most likely simply feeling smug that he managed for the first time to reach a conclusion on his own outside of the state, media and school indoctrination of multiculturalist globalism. Try to be understanding.

>talking about multiculturalism and globalism like it's an inherent evil

>like it's an inherent evil
Your words, not mine. I never said anything of that sort.

People who talk about "state, media and school indoctrination" are usually talking about something they view as poisonous to put into people's minds. I've just never heard of good indoctrination.

Although obviously multiculturalism causes conflict, violence and crime and because of that it could be seen as inherently evil, if you're spooked enough to think of things as evil. That's also not an argument. Stop accepting everything you receive from the media and your peers as fact and do some thinking and introspection. You are a human being, you should be capable of this.

Well, yes. Multiculturalism is not good. It does not work, it causes unnecessary conflicts between people.
The very fact that you unnaturally think of multiculturalism as a positive is proof of indoctrination.

Multiculturalism isn't inherently positive. It's possible to be retarded about it, just like everything else. But that doesn't mean you should go for the polar opposite of multiculturalism.

>But that doesn't mean you should go for the polar opposite of multiculturalism.
That's a strawman though, but why not? Why can't we have monocultural nations with a united people? Why do the globalists want to stop this and ruin it from ever being a possiblity again?

>Why can't we have monocultural nations with a united people? W
Because in practice that would effectively mean enforcing culture (to some degree at least) which is counter-productive to any society that values individuality.

A country where we all dress the same, speak the same, enjoy the same art and eat the same food is not a country I would enjoy living in.

>Because in practice that would effectively mean enforcing culture (to some degree at least) which is counter-productive to any society that values individuality.
And why should we value individuality over community?

>A country where we all dress the same, speak the same, enjoy the same art and eat the same food is not a country I would enjoy living in.
But that's what having a single culture means, user. We are still individuals despite being a part of a whole.

Because all nations of the world are interconnected and, especially with the Internet, cultural ideas and norms transfer so easily. There's no way to enforce single cultures when culture is going everywhere at all times.

Culture does not have to be "enforced". It is naturally passed on as memes and it evolves on its own. This is not what multiculturalism is about. Multiculturalism is about bringing multiple cultures together under the same group or borders, causing conflict and violence.

>And why should we value individuality over community?
Because a life where you're beholden to other people without any say in the matter is no life at all. It's a kind of living death that's not actually beneficial anyone except ultra-nationalists who insist on everyone behaving as they say.

>We are still individuals despite being a part of a whole.
Indeed, and as individuals we should be entitled to act like it. Including (for example) the freedom to convert to Islam and prefer to speak Urdu.

>Because a life where you're beholden to other people without any say in the matter is no life at all.
Oh, so you're not living a life because you're beholden to your family? What about your friends? Your neighbours? Where do you personally draw the line?
>It's a kind of living death that's not actually beneficial anyone except ultra-nationalists who insist on everyone behaving as they say.
Ayy, more strawmen.

>Indeed, and as individuals we should be entitled to act like it. Including (for example) the freedom to convert to Islam and prefer to speak Urdu.
And as individuals we are free to destroy our nations, societies and stop them from being in any way sustainable, which is what this thread is about. The question of a nation being sustainable is as simple as the question of valuing the community over the individual. Individualistic views that always gravitate towards materialistic hedonism are damaging to a nation's survival in the long term.

>we should be entitled to act like it.
Why?

I think the real issue here is that a monoculture that is all-encompassing doesn't exist. You will always have people who will identify with other cultures along with nationality such as localities or religion or what have you, causing groups of people that live in the same geographic area as the "other". I at least know this to be the case in the U.S. Why should a monoculture exist for an entire nation when cultural divides exist even at a local level? How can it exist if there can be an abundance of cultural differences across so many lines from local to national?

>know this to be the case in the U.S
The US is an amalgation from the very beginning. It will certainly end up fracturing and dividing along cultural lines somewhere in the future. There is no way for the status quo to be sustained for eternity. Even now there are people wanting Commiefornia to secede because of Trump being elected. There's rioting going on for the same reason.
>Why should a monoculture exist for an entire nation when cultural divides exist even at a local level?
Because look at US crime statistics. Look at the materialistic hedonism that brings happiness to nobody but bankers and the rich elite. The US, much like the Roman empire is in steady decline and WILL collapse.

>Where do you personally draw the line?
This is the thing. I have a say in all of those, they're entirely consensual relationship that are mutually beneficial for all parties involved.

I draw the line at how voluntary it is. If family was forced to support each other regardless how much they liked each other it would be a shell of a family. Just as it is also the case that a culture that needs state enforcement to survive is a culture unworthy of survival.

>Ayy, more strawmen.
That's not a strawman. That's what ultra-nationalists explicitly want to do.

For the next point. First off I'd like to begin by saying that nation states are an extremely modern invention, and the fact that they've barely lasted 200 years without degenerating into a hot mess is a strong indication that perhaps nation states themselves are the problem.

>And as individuals we are free to destroy our nations, societies and stop them from being in any way sustainable,
This is the thing. From the outset you prioritize "the nation" over the individuals that it actually consists of. Sacrificing the lives of actual people in the name of a romanticized idea of "nationhood" is fundamentally spooked as fuck.

I see no reason why I should value "the nation", I see lots of reasons why I should value my community. But "the nation" is a completely different matter altogether that seems like it needs a spin doctor to survive.

> Individualistic views that always gravitate towards materialistic hedonism are damaging to a nation's survival in the long term.
In a manner of speaking I agree. But I think it's because people don't appreciate their individuality, or indeed their lives. For a society to fully embrace individuality it needs, for lack of a better word, a level of spirituality that's lost on the majority of people.

Not that I begrudge anyone their freedom to be a materialistic hedonist. But I don't think these people should be empowered to guide the fates of others.

It's theoretically sustainable, but the path that we are on now is not sustainable.

Because conformists make me sad.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun#Mouse_experiments

Greatly simplified, Golden Age > Decline > Golden Age > Decline, repeat ad infinitum.

>Just as it is also the case that a culture that needs state enforcement to survive is a culture unworthy of survival.
So where do you limit this state enforcement? Is education enforcement? What about laws? There is always some sort of enforcement in a society, whether it be by the people in a smaller community, or by the state in a larger one. Without enforcement a human group cannot survive.

>This is the thing. From the outset you prioritize "the nation" over the individuals that it actually consists of. Sacrificing the lives of actual people in the name of a romanticized idea of "nationhood" is fundamentally spooked as fuck.
It's not the nation, but the tribe, the people, the community, the country, the nation. Your own group.

>I see no reason why I should value "the nation", I see lots of reasons why I should value my community. But "the nation" is a completely different matter altogether that seems like it needs a spin doctor to survive.
Call it whatever you want, I'm talking about the community you live in. Being Finnish myself, there's more of an identification as being a Finn in general, but assuming you're a Bong, there may not be so much for you.

>Not that I begrudge anyone their freedom to be a materialistic hedonist. But I don't think these people should be empowered to guide the fates of others.
They should have the freedom, but they should be taught to value their community, to help others, to work together for something greater than the individual. We are just short-lived beings whose lives can be cut short by just about anything, but together we can build cultures and nations that last centuries, are safe and prosperous and create amazing works of art, music and architecture. There is very little value in the rat-race of hedonism.

Hey, what if, hey hey, what if, what if we, what if we like, tried to stay in the golden age and tried to stop the decline?

Everything is unsustainable, silly. In the most literal sense, there's no such thing as sustainable living or a sustainable economic system.

We can't because the golden age gives us cushy living which makes us lazy and selfish which leads to societal decline.

How about social programs like the Spartans had? Keep our people in line since childhood.

The Spartans started that before the period of decline. People wouldn't agree to that during the selfish individualist decline stage.

>I see no reason why I should value "the nation", I see lots of reasons why I should value my community. But "the nation" is a completely different matter altogether that seems like it needs a spin doctor to survive.
I forgot this bit. Living in a multicultural society will make you more invidualistic and far less willing to identify and trust your own people.
>Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study on how diversity affects social trust.[93] He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that when the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities "don't trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don't trust institutions," writes Putnam.[94] In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam maintains that
>[W]e hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don't trust people who do look like us.[93]

Well, fuck. Guess it's back to lifting, prepping and stockpiling guns and ammo just in case I get to take part in something interesting.

>It's not arbitrary in any way. Humans are tribal creatures with natural xenophobia and distrust of others. No matter how much you attempt to unite people, it will not and cannot work so long as we are humans.
And yet people live in countries united with fucking millions of others, far bigger and more diverse than any primitive tribe.

And experience a loss of societal trust, notable amounts of crime, violence and conflict, unsafe streets and no-go zones. All for the sake of multicultist utopian dreams.

>So where do you limit this state enforcement?
I'm not an anarchist. I think that the state should aim to maximize the freedom of each individual and enforce accordingly. E.g murder totally extinguishes the freedom of one person therefore murder is bad on the grounds that the freedom to live the remainder of their life is greater compared to the freedom to murder.

As far as compulsory education goes I do indeed support it. As children (like underdeveloped societies) simply aren't ready to appreciate the life they've been given or even understand the world around them, so it is the duty of the state to cultivate them into healthy adults.

>Your own group.
Those words aren't exactly interchangeable though. "My nation" as I'm led to believe includes people many hundreds of miles away that I will never meet, my community on the other hand is for the most part directly intertwined with my own life.

Unless of course you mean to say those are examples rather than synonyms. In which case I must say, what's the point?

>to work together for something greater
I don't agree. I don't think people should be conditioned to see to it that they act altruistically, rather I think they should be taught the importance of life and be afforded the shameless opportunity to do what they feel with it even if it means squandering it.

>We are just short-lived beings whose lives can be cut short
We're not short lived beings at all. As far as I'm concerned my lifespan is the lifespan of the entire universe, and when I die it may as well be the case that all dies with me for I'll never see or know of it again.

As far as building safe and prosperous communities go as well as great works in broad terms I agree. But I don't think this is a goal people should pursue because they feel obligated to do so for the sake of something greater. But rather because they in their heart want to. They want to see smiles on the faces of others, they want to express themselves creatively.

At least you can do that for yourself. And raise any kids you have in the same way. Know you're better than everyone else.

>All for the sake of multicultist utopian dreams.
I'm referring to literally any large nation state you retard. If you're really so convinced of this inherent "tribalism" then it's time to go full retard anarcho-primitivist.

Yeah, compare Sweden of 30 years ago to the modern Sweden and tell me multiculturalism isn't harmful and at fault.

>reading comprehension

Are you implying there isn't a Swedish identity? A Swedish language, culture, ethnicity?

So pretty much nihilistic hedonism, then?

Not at all. I don't think people should ideally be nihilists or hedonists. Ideally they should be what I understand to be ubermensch.

Are you ever planning on having kids? Would you not prefer for them to live in the best world possible?

>Ideally they should be what I understand to be ubermensch.
Yeah and ideally we'd be living in a flawless utopia where everything and everyone is perfect and nobody minds this and everything's good and happy and fun. Whilst you're dreaming, reality is still waiting outside your head.

I understand. They're not ubermensch. But they can be cultivated into it eventually.

The whole point of what I'm outlining is that it doesn't matter if they aren't ubermensch, what matters is that they're offered the path to excellence through freedom. Of course most people won't take it and will waste the life they've been given, but as I've said this isn't what I want.

I advise you go back and read my posts again.

It's a complete pipedream that will never happen. Good for you.

Not an argument.

>But they can be cultivated into it eventually.
So what is this cultivation, if just a few posts earlier talk was about individualism to the point where the state and society do not enforce their views onto people, but allow them to wallow in their hedonistic misery? Just wait for parents to start raising their kids in that specific way?
> but as I've said this isn't what I want.
Complete freedom with the express hope that some people start transforming themselves into ubermenschen? Why? What is the end goal in this?

>if just a few posts earlier talk was about individualism to the point where the state and society do not enforce their views onto people
Also should note that the state in reality does enforce its views on people and those views at this point in time are very counterproductive to creating these ubermenschen. Schools these days simply teach children what to think, with absolutely no emphasis on how to think. No logic, no rhetoric.

> if just a few posts earlier talk was about individualism to the point where the state and society do not enforce their views onto people
That's not what I said. The state implicitly would be enforcing it's views on people by prioritizing freedom in a way loosely resembling utilitarian morality.

>Just wait for parents to start raising their kids in that specific way?
As I also said earlier I support compulsory education to try and teach children the value of their life.

So what is the cultivation? The cultivation is that this is a society that shouldn't be ruled by the people. It should be ruled by those most closely resembling perfection and expanded as more people come to appreciate their freedom. Strictly speaking the state can't create ubermenschen any more than you can cultivate a plant by pulling on the soil. It can only cultivate itself. But the state at the very least can exist independently of the herd and thus survive even if they were to totally degenerate.

>Complete freedom with the express hope that some people start transforming themselves into ubermenschen?
As said, that's the only way you could become an ubermensch.

>What is the end goal in this?
Creating a society that can last. Creating a society where the people don't take their lives for granted and fill the world with creativity.

Why? Because it would be nice.

>The state implicitly would be enforcing it's views on people by prioritizing freedom
>state enforcing
>freedom
You what now?
>As I also said earlier I support compulsory education to try and teach children the value of their life.
And compulsory education right now is not doing that in any way. The only reason school has any value over educating children at home is the socialising, which in itself will imprint society's views, mistakes and stupidity into your child.

>It should be ruled by those most closely resembling perfection
Define perfection.
> expanded as more people come to appreciate their freedom
And as people appreciate their freedom in the manner of materialistic hedonism, the state declines and collapses eventually.
>But the state at the very least can exist independently of the herd and thus survive even if they were to totally degenerate.
How? How would the state manage to survive if the society declines and falls? The state, government, the leadership is the first one to go when the nation crumbles.
>As said, that's the only way you could become an ubermensch.
And as I said, it's a complete pipedream to imagine that letting things just freely advance would lead to anything except the societal cycle of declines and ascensions, bad times leading to good times leading to bad times. At the very least our current status quo is going to crumble.

>Creating a society that can last. Creating a society where the people don't take their lives for granted and fill the world with creativity.
And as I said, ignoring history and letting things advance as they are is not the solution to that.
I'm more interested in how we could starting working towards something superior from the point where we are, instead of imagining some convenient future where everything falls into place.

>You what now?
To quote myself earlier as you seem to have forgotten
>I'm not an anarchist. I think that the state should aim to maximize the freedom of each individual and enforce accordingly. E.g murder totally extinguishes the freedom of one person therefore murder is bad on the grounds that the freedom to live the remainder of their life is greater compared to the freedom to murder.

>And compulsory education right now is not doing that in any way.
I know. I'm not in any way advocating contemporary states.

>Define perfection.
Being an ubermensch.

>And as people appreciate their freedom in the manner of materialistic hedonism, the state declines and collapses eventually.
That's not appreciating freedom at all though. That's the exact opposite as it's taking that freedom for granted. That's exactly the kind of thing the state should be aiming to transition away from.

>How? How would the state manage to survive if the society declines and falls? The state, government, the leadership is the first one to go when the nation crumbles.
Because it's more like colonialism by one caste upon the rest than contemporary forms of statism. The state in this scenario is an independent entity that has dominion over the herd. Just as for instance France had dominion over Algeria. And as with colonialism (at least as envisaged by John Stuart Mill) the aim is to develop the dominion into an entity ready to take care of itself.

>And as I said, it's a complete pipedream to imagine that letting things just freely advance would lead to anything except the societal cycle of declines and ascensions
Remind me how exactly it would decline.

>And as I said, ignoring history and letting things advance as they are is not the solution to that.
If I was ignoring history I would advocate something that has already been and gone.

>Remind me how exactly it would decline.
Good times lead to soft and weak people, who start making decisions and policies based on what feels good instead of what actually works, this leads to feminism which feeds the cycle even further. Weakness and oddities start being accepted more and more in society, people are given freedom which they immediately start misusing by turning into materialistic hedonism that serves no purpose but to deteroriate society further as people would rather only work for their own gain instead of some greater cause.
Birth rates plummet, economical growth slows down and people stop contributing as the old values that built the society are abandoned because they aren't as nice as individualism. This is happening right now. The family unit and idea of marriage for example have been completely gutted.

A different look on the subject:
youtube.com/watch?v=b4-Od8cq5Gk
youtube.com/watch?v=CFku9NgUIkI
youtube.com/watch?v=k8rsb7qILgE

> who start making decisions and policies based on what feels good instead of what actually works
As I said earlier, this isn't democracy. In a very literal sense of the word it's aristocracy.

I must also add that what you're describing seems to be more applicable to society now than to the hypothetical society I suggest. Which isn't democratic, which is already fully free, and is already individualistic. What would really be the great challenge of this system isn't having a populace that's committed to the ideals it's founded on (the herd after all is irrelevant). The real challenge is having the ruling caste be as incorruptible as possible.

Also
>marriage
To be perfectly honest I don't think marriage should even be legal.

>I must also add that what you're describing seems to be more applicable to society now than to the hypothetical society I suggest
It is. To reach your hypothetical society one must first deal with the existing one.

>To be perfectly honest I don't think marriage should even be legal.
Why not? A strictly monogamous system is a great benefit to the people, or at the least to the "herd" in your terms. It gives each and every man a motivation of one day having a home, wife and children. A clear, distinct, achievable goal to work towards, where in he can have multiple children and raise them in the best way he sees fit, contributing to society.
In our current system, or in fact in any non-monogamous system, the women gravitate towards the very few top men in a harem-like fashion, leaving the rest of the men on their own. The men naturally start gravitating towards hedonism, or later choose to marry a woman who is ready to settle down with a provider. Only, over 50% of marriages end in divorce and due to our feministic societies, women are at large the ones who gain most out of it, whilst men lose the most. This obviously could be seen to benefit the group in a naturalistic sense, but women do not select for features that contribute to societal stability and with our societies built on monogamy, decline will occur, as it currently is happening.

>It is. To reach your hypothetical society one must first deal with the existing one.
Obviously. But the point of this hypothetical society is to avoid the pitfalls of the present one. So reasons as the why the present one will fall aren't exactly relevant, and it's implicit that I'm already fully aware of them.

> A strictly monogamous system is a great benefit to the people,
I (personally) am pro-monogamy. And I don't understand why people enjoy non-monogamous relationships.

It's just that I think the state shouldn't be officially recognizing interpersonal relationships in any official capacity nor should married people be privileged over non-married people.

>It's just that I think the state shouldn't be officially recognizing interpersonal relationships in any official capacity nor should married people be privileged over non-married people.
I think this has some very good benefits when society itself is monogamous like it was in the past. It encourages people to marry, which in turn enables them to have children, which in turn contributes to societal growth, economical growth and so forth. Only in the current situation the prospect of marriage is really not a positive one and many may not even be able to reach it. The very real possibility of divorce for one makes marriage itself not worth the benefits it offers. As marriage falls out of popularity, I wouldn't put it past Western governments to start implementing a bachelor tax, much like they did in Rome.

> It encourages people to marry, which in turn enables them to have children
This is the thing. You don't have to be married to have children.

You have a point though. More children is something a society should would which is part of the reason why I think abortion in most cases should be banned and procreation should otherwise be incentivized.

Life is inherently unsustainable, in the same sense you put there. What about it?

>This is the thing. You don't have to be married to have children.
You don't, but that used to be the norm. Marriage used to be a union between man and woman for the very rest of their life. They would together become the family unit that was the base of society, but as I said, marriage and the family unit are completely gutted now. They have no real value and you might as well just get rid of them for good at this point.

What I take from that second graph is that if I already banged a stranger once, I might as well bang nine more.

Pretty much, yeah, if you're looking for a completely subjective measurement of marriage quality.

If you mean "vulnerable to collapse," then yes.

It depends on how we define a civilization. Individual nations, groups, tribes, etc, are doomed to failure. Human civilization as a whole, if we view each smaller component as just that, is however sustainable.

Probably.