Posts Tagged ‘culture draining population’

America’s Decline: A Partial Explanation

September 23, 2016

America’s Decline: A Partial Explanation

The following is a brief summary of my research into America’s sociocultural decline. My attempt to understand this complex phenomenon has been on-going for over 30 years and it continues to this day.

What follows is a revision of a blog that I published in 2014. It is a small sample of my findings and the concepts that I use to make a “blizzard” of seemingly unrelated sociocultural events comprehensible.

I hope you will take time to understand my perspective on what is happening to America. It is happening to everyone and all our loved ones.


I cannot conduct my particular cultural analysis without the use of a value system. As you will note, my analysis normally cleaves to that of Judeo/Christian precepts. This value and belief system is arguably the most beneficial the world has ever experienced.

The first thing to understand is: CDP/TP x 100 = % SE

Cultural Draining Population Divided by The Total Population x 100 = % Social Entropy!

I define my theoretical concept of social entropy as: The proportion of a population that is not available to do work to sustain a socioculture, and  functions as a drain upon it.

Increasing population proportions of social entropy, beyond some difficult to estimate percentage, will destroy any culture and it is now debilitating America.

I label those who work very hard for delayed rewards, behave responsibly and avoid the many human foibles (immediately rewarding indiscriminate sex, drugs, alcohol, aggression, destructive behavior; or other self-destructive and irresponsible behaviors), that do immediate or delayed damage to individuals and our socioculture as the culture sustaining population. I call them “cultural sustainers” for short. The culture draining population is composed of  the hard-core “cultural drainers”, who are doing he harmful behaviors identified above, who are on the dole and have found ways to gain welfare grants from the government for doing very little or nothing. Among the cultural drainers are active criminals and those who are imprisoned.

It is important to note that children, teens, the elderly and the infirmed, as well as those on entitlements that they have earned, (i.e., social security and medicare, etc.), by paying for them all of their working lives, are a necessary part of this analysis because they justifiably require our support. Technically, they are rightfully a part of the culture draining population. Children and teens are an essential investment any culture’s future. To fail to support this costly investment is not only ethically wrong, it is cultural suicide. Without children and youth, there is no future. I do not want to put them in the cultural draining population, but for important and greatly beneficial reasons, they must temporarily reside there until they reach maturity and join the culture sustaining population.

It is important for a culture to love and appreciate their elderly. The retired elderly still frequently contribute to sustaining their culture. They may do volunteer work in many places, they may serve as aunts, uncles, and grandparents who help to acculturate children and youth.  They may continue to vote and make financial investments and may be politically active. This segment of society is typically unable to contribute as much time, energy and talent to sustaining their culture as they once did, but they can continue to provide important contributions.

When the aged become infirmed and incapacitated they become an esteemed and honored member of a special culture draining population and society is ethically obligated to care for them as humanly as possible until the end of their natural lives.

Please note that unethical cultures will find it very easy to rationalize forms of euthanasia ” in order to humanly assist the death” of what has become a costly population. The unspoken immoral motive for this action is very likely to be the politics of raw cost-savings.

As financial and material rewards allocated to the cultural drainers increase, the numbers of of these people can be predicted to increase as a proportion of the general population. This is so because they are more likely to be under-educated and therefore reside the lower socioeconomic class. Historically individuals with these demographics are more likely to reproduce at higher rates than the higher educated, more wealthy, working, tax-paying culture sustaining-class. This outcome is dramatically increased when the government allocates more material rewards to the culture draining-class for having children that they often cannot afford to care-for decently.

If you now understand the gist of this analysis, it is just this simple:

When the culture sustaining population’s money is given to the culture draining population for not working and having more babies, they will predictably have more babies than the cultural sustaining population does. The culture sustainers are just too busy getting educated, working, inventing, volunteering, making money, investing, paying taxes, raising their few children and behaving responsibly, to ever match the culture drainer’s reproductive rates and increasing financial needs.

Now the plot thickens:

The basic psychological principle of Modeling and Imitation, and many others such principles, insure that a majority of children raised by the culture draining, wealth-consuming, do-little or nothing parents, will identify with their parents. When this happens the are very likely to imitate their ways: How they think, perceive, show their emotions and how they behave.

Within the span only several generations (20 yrs. per generation), this complex and spreading relative rate of growth cycle of bad and useless behaviors (that I call “behavioral contagion”) can shift the socio/political demographics and power structure to the rapidly growing culture draining population. Unfortunately, this under-educated and under-achieving group will believe almost anything they are told by their political curators who promise them more free rewards contingent upon their continuing dependency and political patronage.

Put colloquially, how can any responsible political party compete with an opposing  “Santa Clause” political party?

The cultural draining population is generally under-educated in reading, writing, math, science, history and economics, etc., and they have been taught by their families and their government to remain dependent upon freely given rewards. Unfortunately, they are sub-culturally blinded to the long-term very aversive outcomes of their actions for themselves and for the socioculture at-large.  

Why would any psychologically informed person expect otherwise?

The political outcome for a voting Representative Republic such as America, or any other form of democracy, will be that increasing numbers of culture drainers will vote increasing numbers of their intelligent, but devious (even sociopathic), political curators into office. As a result, these political curators are in a position to take more from the culture sustaining wealth-makers to give to the drainers who, as a result, will certainly vote to keep them in power.

This culture draining/progressive-socialist-communist dance of sociocultural death is ongoing in America and elsewhere. To make matters worse, more responsible opposing political parties are induced to adopt more and more of their culture-draining political opponent’s behaviors in order to ever hope to compete with them.

Over-time the productivity of the culture-sustaining population will be overwhelmed due to their continuing political, social and financial losses.

Additionally, it is the progressive/socialist tendency of states to grow massive and inefficient bureaucracies and to impose regulations upon all aspects of the societies, as they strive for increased control. These inefficiencies further reduce the personal liberties accorded culture sustaining individuals and unavoidably reduce the quality of their lives. Also, the bloating progressive/socialist governments normally blindly impose even more of its controls and regulations upon businesses, further damaging its own economy. All of this stresses the entire population and stokes more bad behavioral contagion and the spread of psychopathology and other maladaptive behaviors within the general population.

The financial and social costs of escalating bad behavioral contagion catalyzes this  self-feeding population/governmental vicious cycle and accelerates the rate of sociocultural decline.

How can you not see this happening in America as you read this blog?

Of course there must be a mathematical end to this form of social, political and economic self-destructive, self-feeding cultural behavior pattern. When the money runs out, there will be hell-to-pay in the form of economic collapse and social upheaval. At that point in a culture’s decline, the government “is justified” in imposing even harsher controls on the population’s behaviors, as well as the various agencies and institutions and the stage is set for a shift to a more totalitarian government.

The following is only the most recent example of what I am trying to illustrate.

Historically, great cultures have shown indications of decline after around 200-250 years of life. Once the chain of events described here are well-under-way, experts note that no culture has been able to recover.

Reversing these trends will be the greatest challenge America has ever faced.

Wake-up America!

V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D.,  2/15/14; Revised 9/23/16


Vision # 5

September 14, 2009

Vision # 5

As this presumed accelerating reproductive cycle among the impaired and at-risk population unfolded, I saw increasing waves of these impaired or at-risk citizens maturing into the adult segment of our population where they accumulated and grew in proportion.

 I saw these population dynamics as being continuous and ,as they unfolded, one final thought emerged. Within our adult population, individuals either contribute to the building and maintenance of our American society, or they do not.

Those individuals who contribute: work, pay taxes, start businesses, invent things, fix things, teach others, or have and rear healthy and normal children, or provide volunteer services, etc., thereby sustain the American socioculture. I define these citizens as the culture sustaining population because their activities strengthen our society.

On the other hand, individuals who were drug, alcohol, or gambling addicted; who were in mental or substance treatment hospitals; who lead lives of crime and violence; who were imprisoned; who gave birth to  more children than they were capable of supporting or raising effectively; who abused or abandoned their children; or those who were on welfare, etc., were not sustaining our society. These citizens, regrettably, were functioning as a drains upon America.

What I define as the culture draining population consumes America’s resources in many ways. These individuals must often be supported (food, clothes, and medical care, etc.), housed, and rehabilitated by the by agencies, services, and funded by the culture sustaining population. An additional drain occurs when  the culture sustaining population provides compensatory funds to educate, acculturate, and rehabilitate the endangered children and adolescents of culture draining parents. Sadly, rehabilitation is a task made nearly impossible by the damaging environments (poverty, drugs, violence, crime, etc) to which these impaired or at-risk children must return at the end of the therapy session or school day. Moreover, the most damaged children who are “wards of the state” are frequently cared for by a well intentioned, but vastly overburdened,  institutional systems that all too often damage these children even more.

To fail to rescue these children and adolescents from their impaired or at-risk living conditions will present catastrophic future culture drains upon America.

Where would you place America’s normal infants, children and adolescents? Would you place them in the culture sustaining or the culture draining population? Recall that I made these assignments based upon whether an individual works, pays taxes, creates, raises children, etc.. Even normal infants and children do not work and pay taxes. The acculturation and conversion of our normally developing children into culture sustaining adults requires that America invests its energies and resources in them with the hopes of a wonderful future return on these investments that will benefit everyone. Our normally developing infants and children can be viewed as an incredibly valuable subclass of the culture sustaining population: They are our future culture sustaining populations—-they are the future itself.

With regard  to raising children to healthy and productive adults, we are much in the role of the farmer or the stock market investor who makes precious expenditures and assumes certain levels of risk in the present in order to realize rich long-term dividends.  In that sense our infants and young people do not represent the “drains” on our resources that I have discussed previously–which are likely to intensify and weaken us further in the future. Rather, they are America’s huge investments of limited time and resources in people-making which (in 18-24 years) will likely bring precious rich dividends that strengthen our future. But the cold fact is that our Children represent an immediate drain upon our resources as we prepare them to take our way of life into the future.

I know that the previous paragraphs sound “too objective”. But it just seems that way. Those of us who loved and raised our children will never forget the joys, pleasures and rewards involved. Nor will we forget the immense effort that was required to do it well.

It is now my responsibility to risk being called an Ageist–that is–someone who doesn’t like old people. Of course, I am not an ageist–how could I be? Everyone I have ever loved is either getting old, they are old, or sadly, they are dead. My wife and I are now on social security as well as medicare. I am retired professor from Indiana University and Sally, my beloved wife,  is a retired  nurse. In the next few years I will quit my part-time private practice. Of course we will still love and support to our children and grandchildren and we will try to be active and involved in life. But none of this will represent the kind of productivity that we provided to our society over the past forty years. From this time on, our combined productivity, by almost any measure, will most likely be minuscule in comparison to what it once was. Furthermore, we do not like to think about the possible years of institutional support and care that we may require should we live long into our dotage.

Any culture that discards, disrespects,  neglects or abuses its aged population squanders its hard earned long-term repository of human skill and wisdom. This would be an ignorant and self-destructive thing for any culture to do. At some point, however, the normal aging process removes each of us from our culture’s sustaining endeavors. It is a fact that those who reach the age of 65 years and older are at increased risk for medical impairments and they will eventually need and deserve even more expensive help from America’s culture sustaining population. It is also a fact that increasingly larger proportions of our adult population are living in the 65 year and older category.

Once I dichotomized America’s population into culture sustaining and culture draining segments, a final geometric image emerged. It was the image of our culture sustaining wedge within the adult population category of America. This proportional bright red wedge began immediately inside the adult section, as a wide angle, and then narrowed as it reached through time to the farthest edge of the surviving adult section. It looked like a hearty wedge of your favorite piece of pie.

5 Decompensation Model Revised

The totality of this last age segment of the model symbolized all of the adults in America, who were either culture sustaining or culture draining in their effect upon the whole. I saw the culture sustaining population as being contained within this vibrant red wedge and the culture draining populations existing outside of the wedge. Those within the wedge added to those outside of the wedge equaled 100 percent of our adult population. I imagined the color of the wedge as red, perhaps because it symbolized the massive, but diminishing, quantum of precious energy generated by this human engine powering the American sociocultural enterprise.

The arrows at the bottom of the model symbolized the passage of time and the aging of our population. I could see that as time passed a diminishing proportion of our citizens fell within the culture sustaining wedge and an increasing proportion of our citizens were moving to the outside of this power wedge, to the culture draining population.

In other words, the culture sustaining population was truncating through time, squeezed by increasing proportions of dysfunctional or at-risk adults (and dysfunctional or at-risk children shown in the adult segment) at the bottom of the culture sustaining wedge and the increasing proportions of our aged population at the top.

If my assumptions about the dynamics of this model are correct, these are images with dire implications for America’s future.

VTM 9/14/09

%d bloggers like this: