To emerge into yet a more powerful civilization--following the natural cycle of death and life, dear Amir!

I presume that history indicates us that each civilization reached a peak level of expression for a couple of centuries, or not (Romans, Mayas, .....)?

The key question is thus why civilizations do not persist in time as already indicated?

Reasons: Over-ambition/overambitious by trying to master populations from large geographic areas?

To emerge into yet a more powerful civilization--following the natural cycle of death and life, dear Amir!

Yes dear Marwan!

This is kind of eternal true that everything that has beginning has its end. The end is a cause for the new beginning , right?

Dear @Amir, Civilizations do self destruction because every thing must end at some point, the dreams, the wishes, the together working and all of strong reasons that are necessary for a civilization to be build; thereafter, the opposite happens and civilizations begin to lose for the building of others.

The curve can not be up all the time,  there must be an inflection point at which the curve changes its direction from up to down.

Elmer Pendell(who is one of the world's foremost population experts and the holder of a Purple Heart and a Distinguished Service Cross) believe civilizations fall because the less capable slice of the population regularly outbreeds the more capable.

In my beginning is my end, philosophically speaking, dear Amir!

History is made by people and, unfortunately, the nature of some people who manage to become leaders of such civilizations - strive for power, greed, not caring of "lower classes"... - does not change.

Dear Tiia I agree. It seems that decadence as an act of falling into an inferior condition (deterioration) is inevitable.

I am reading "The Crash of Western Civilization: The Limits of the Market and Democracy" by Jacques Attali, Foreign Policy, Number 107, Summer 1997, pp. 54-64"

This is very much interesting article related to you nice question.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/attali.html

Civilizations are man-made & they carry with them the imperfections & shortcomings of the humans. Once the civilization becomes stronger or more powerful, then the wisdom (Authority Corrupts) applies with all the negative implications (most disastrous of which is injustice). When injustice prevails by a certain empire, then its downfall becomes closer than what the political calculations may predict.

Why do 'modern' civilizations become disconnected from environments providing the essential primary resources for living?

Much is currently done to simply occupy people with gadgets, or not?

I think that civilizations, in general, are self-distruct, because there is no ideal or optmal civilization. When a civilization disappear, a new civilization emerges.

The trick is to serve and not to be served. When we get to the top our weaknesses are exposed and it becomes just a matter of finding someone more ambitious than us. There is a good exception which is Smyr in Turkey. They have more than 3500 years of contínuos civilization. Their influence to the world has changed, but not for being put down by their enemies.

This is an exert from the following book, which contains essentially all the answers" 

"That's the controversy about past ecological collapses. As for the complications,

of course it's not true that all societies are doomed to collapse because

of environmental damage: in the past some societies did while others didn't;

the real question is why only some societies proved fragile, and what distinguished

those that collapsed from those that didn't. Some societies that I

shall discuss, such as the Icelanders and Tikopians, succeeded in solving extremely

difficult environmental problems, have thereby been able to persist for a long time, and are still going strong today."

For more details, see:

Jared Diamond Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

Dear @Amir, Happy New Year, let it be prosperous one for all! "Civilizations fall because the less capable slice of the population regularly outbreeds the more capable. In pre-civilized times nature weeds out the unfit and eventually produces a superior variety of men whose intelligence and industriousness are channeled into constructing an advanced social order that defeats nature's best-laid plans by protecting instead of eliminating the unfit. The out-come is that in several generations the protected outnumber the protectors.

Dr. Pendell scours the annals of history to prove his point, after beginning his seminal study with a remarkable analysis of the inborn, polarized egotistic and altruistic drives which are the biological basis for both the building and unbuilding of civilizations.

Most importantly, Dr. Pendell offers us ways and means to stop the historic and hitherto unstoppable processes of social entropy. One of his most intriguing-and most controversial-remedies is a genetically oriented marriage law to raise the birthrate of our better human specimens and substantially lower the proliferation rate of the civilization-destroying people who can neither provide for themselves nor their offspring." Very good resource follows!

https://archive.org/details/WhyCivilizationsSelf-destruct

http://www.thechristianidentityforum.net/downloads/Why-Destruct.pdf

Dear Ljubomir,

Happy new year for all of us. We know that if it depends on friends like you, we will all be fine, because you are always helping us finding material to study and giving us a good point of view for the questions given. But this contribution above could not be more darwinist. I can't see It as a matter of natural selection and most of the times not as a result of an internal cause. People on top call negative attention and if they want to use their power to control others, as it always happens, the nations controlled by them start to plan day and night a way to get it of it. Others motives are natural disaster, lack of water, earthquakes, etc.

Dear @Vilemar, I do agree about your opinion on "people on top"! I call them the rulers, tyrants! They are not democratic at all, and I have fought them for almost 30 years, even now! But we do speak about self-destruct civilizations! Reasons for! Yes, natural reasons may cause the civilisation to disappear!

Do you have any example of civilisation that disappeared soon? What is civilisation anyway!? We must look back to history and learn to move forward!

http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/6.3/brown.html

The collapse of a given culture (I´ll use this word rather than civilization, which for Osvald Spengler contains the seeds of its own decadence) lies in the lack or contravention of a project to move it into the future. When Rome gave autonomy to its provinces, it displayed a future-facing project of empire.  When Roman rulers instead became self-indulgent, Rome became too weak to resist the invasion of lesser-organized Germanic "barbarians."  In the U.S., the project of advancing world freedom strengthened the nation well into the 20th century.  A sign of decline appeared when that nation used torture against political prisoners, a policy contrary to its founding principles and project.  Another symptom of decline is the empowerent of police to kill unarmed black citizens with impunity.

True, the U.S. economy seems today invincible. BUT elephants expire on foot. 

I have to make another correction in my answer above. If we are talking about "self destruction" it is not correct to say that one of the cause is by retaliation of enemies. Unless if the civilization to be destroyed were doing something not to rule over others, but to call the enemies to destroy them. Sorry for that. I will also read the text proposed by Ljubomir Jacić and refine my concept of civilization. Be back soon with a new answer. 

I will say civilizations decline and in most cases disappear for the following reasons: 

1. Outside intrusions and constant interference into their domains

2. Extreme self absorption and  luxury living abandoning the very principle upon which the civilization was built and maintained : " let us build a formidable society of ours " of a collective and social vision.

3. Natural disasters - the Maya's case for instance.

4. Over stretch because of lust for global power and loosing controlling power over vast domains and because of contraction follows eventual disappearance.

5. Greed and lack of ethics, empathy and morals  in which the very few on top  become dangerous cancer cells that threaten the existence of the very host they live in - the society.

Above all, it is a principle of mathematical chaos in which society and social behaviors are among chaotic systems but modern and civilized societies try to model this chaotic system by carefully choosing inputs and governing principles so that the system  minimizes its chaotic behavior and becomes more stable and lasting longer. 

The decline of civilization can be due to multiple factors like catastrophes, insufficient response to circumstances, intruders, mismanagement, economic issues, and cult thinking. Environmental changes can also wipe out a civilization. Any injury to the centralized population can potentially contribute to a civilization's collapse.

Civilizations are expensive to keep going and involve increasing quantities of labor and wealth to keep themselves. The increasing effort to maintain them produces diminishing returns and leads to their crash. 

Dear Costas,

I have find a book that you have recommended regarding this issue. It seems very interesting. There is also very nice Jared Diamond talking on TED :

http://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse

Thank you

Dear Ljubomir,

Thank you!

I wish You and all RG colleagues a healthy, prosperous, and peaceful New Year!

Dr. Pendell's book is a classic in this field. The book "Collapse-How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" that Costas recommended give us another point of the view of  this subject.

Dear Cecilia I fully support your post. You have again pointed in excellent way.

A healthy family is basic pillar of successful society.

Dear Nelson,

As Tiia wrote :

"History is made by people and, unfortunately, the nature of some people who manage to become leaders of such civilizations - strive for power, greed, not caring of "lower classes"...

USA actually adopted Roman model of government and it steal works.

Dear Dejenie,

You have successfully stressed how complex is this issue. There is not simple answer.

Dear Amic,

The Roman model of government in the U.S.?  The balance of powers is from the Frenchman Montesquieu.  Separation of powers between the Federal government and the individual States-- do you refer to this model as Roman?  Note that what characterizes U.S. history Is the weakening of the State governments and the commensurate strengthening of the central, Federal government.  Does this signify built-in decadence?  Some States-rights politicians would say so. When the States lose their rights, there is less direct democracy and more representative democracy. On the other hand, other politicians would argue that a strong central government is necessary to survive in our uncertain times.  You can´t have two separate generals planning strategy for the same war.

Dear Nelson,

At  The Constitutional Convention delegates were faced with the decision of how best to adapt the Roman system to a modern Unites States. There were certainly fundamental differences between America and the Roman Republic and these influenced by the span of time and the evolution of western culture over two millennia.

Let us summarize how the model of government described in the Constitution compares to the Roman Republic:

Two houses in the legislature – both.

A senior body of experienced men and a junior body close to the people – both

Senators elected by the people - neither

A senior magistrate as executive – United States one; Rome two.

One male landholders can vote – both

At the time of the Constitution’s ratification of government was as close to the Roman Republic as it would ever be. 

Similarities between the Roman Republic and U.S. government

- both feature executive and legislative branches

- both systems have checks and balances embedded

- the head executives can be removed from power by legislators

- the head executives have military responsibilities

- both lead executives have veto power

- the executives are charged with enforcing the laws

- the legislative bodies make laws and control the budgets

- written law codes exist in both societies

- political divisions exist in both (Rome = patricians vs. plebeians / U.S. = citizens of a more liberal persuasion vs. citizens of a more conservative persuasion)

- wealthy people are more likely to get elected

- both place the authority of the state above that of the individual

Differences between the Roman Republic and U.S. government

Roman system did not have a separate judicial branch

- Roman consuls (2 people) served 1-year terms / U.S. presidents (1 person) serve 4-year terms

- Rome had a provision for a dictator to take over / the U.S. does not

- Roman consuls had religious duties / the U.S. president does not

- Romans continued to own slaves / Americans do not

- Roman senators served for life / American senators have 6-year terms

- Roman women were not allowed to participate in politics / American women are allowed

- Rome had rigid social classes / the U.S. has more flexible social classes

I agree with Dejenie. Also like most sharing answers

We have not so clear data in order to answer this question. Just to remind all of us that Earth is 70% water and every stellar disturb can produce a giant flood and destruction of the most civilized places (those close to sea coast...) Do you remeber?

Deucalion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deucalion

Noah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark 

Gilgamesh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth

Or more compact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth

We are capable of being reborn out of  childhood of parochial and partial self-identifications into the universality of our deeper selves and the unity of human civilization. Recent anthropology also illuminates the dozens of ways sharing a universal, genetically inherited human nature composed of innumerable abilities ranging from language, common patterns of cognition, common responses to social life, common reactions to our environment, common facial and bodily responses to situations, etc. Sharing a universal human nature not hard wired into violence or greed but flexibly wired into creativity, growth, self-awareness and the capacity for universal recognition of one another and our common humanity.

http://www.radford.edu/~gmartin/Triumph.Introduction.htm

Dear All,

We can but guess the reasons in the background, because we do not know even the virtual causes of the downfall. There must have been various raisons of civilisation collapses.

I think many civilisations were not able to change their maintaining paradigm. They were not able to find intelligent and inspiring aims of their existence because of disgust and tiring of their way of life.

Dear Krishnan,

I am sure each of us agrees with your wish:

„Sharing a universal human nature not hard wired into violence or greed but flexibly wired into creativity, growth, self-awareness and the capacity for universal recognition of one another and our common humanity.”

Civilizations are built on human intelligence and seriousness, when people have same ideal for progress and prosperity, they are able to realize it. When people drop out ambition of knowledge, challenge and ethics, they collapse. When people turn to inhuman, killing, torturing and powering by force others for the purpose of the ideal of the power or its label against progress and intelligence, they collapse too ' as Rome, Byzantine, Egypt of Pharaohs, .... and others collapsed by this mean on the name of the emperor not the empire'. In very few cases,  giant cataclysms from nature could able destruction of civilizations which could be understood as God's will. Some civilizations failed down too by stupid antagonisms and wars versus peace and cooperation

Dear Roland, of course civilizations are built with peaceful behavior, otherwise it will collapse. I said that  " When people turn to inhuman, killing, torturing and powering by force others for the purpose of the ideal of the power or its label against progress and intelligence, they will collapse too", it is only matter of time.History learns us that human civilizations during many millenarian were not built on man color, there are worldwide vestiges of many ancient civilizations in Asia, Latin America, Africa, Arabia, Europe,... , some collapsed may be in power  not in knowledge and others may be were destructed naturally or by men. The white colored man has built also many civilizations from Rome,  Byzantine, Carthage, Andalusia, .... and others till nowadays, with some success and some failures. The white man who migrated  to Americas has make same mistakes from power search, destructing in the occasion may be good knowledge from local population, same thing with some African's local civilization who were obliged by certain white man to be powered by force through colonialism. May be colonialism option was a force of power for a period of time, but was obliged to breakdown because it wasn't a civilized option. Politics and civilization are not always twin sisters, when the first is built on the power, its prestige and its people, civilizations are built by the populations' intelligence when those are free. A free population is able to choose who could good manage her behavior. A population under the emperor (or any power scheme of interests) wishes and ego, could loose her civilization

Thank you dear Roland for your kind thoughts.Yes politics is the search of the power, however power should be defined. Is it the power of money and the puissant financial holders, or of the influencing groups of interests from economy, military, industry, luxury, families, geopolitics ...??? or the power of populations or the power of intellectuals or the power of salaries or labor class or power of ideologies or .....etc...

I think each power pattern has its specificity and politics (good or worst ) for the population's ability to maintain and/or develop its part of Humanity civilization. A civilization is long term, it is the product of its population's talent and skills , a power is short term and reflects its exercise pattern; consequences or results on some part of Humanity civilization 'positive or negative'

I agree with the answer made by Sardar.

"Why would a flourishing civilization, advanced for its time, suddenly cease to exist, its inhabitants gone and its architecture abandoned? Conspiracy theorists offer all manner of offbeat explanations including alien abduction, but in the case of these 12 societies, the causes were likely more mundane: natural disasters, climate change, invasions and economic irrelevance."

http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2011/05/02/lost-civilizations-12-societies-that-vanished-in-mystery/

Dear Ljubomir,

Your link contains very interesting information of  " Lost Civilizations :....."

Mayans were the only ancient American civilization with a recorded history of their own; new evidence suggests that earlier cultures such as the Olmeca and perhaps others could have been the precursors to the Mayan system of writing. 

While their culture was structured in a power that controlled civilized functions via sacrifice of some sort to their complex gods, their people prospered in peace. The great city-states exploded via a commerce that many of today's marketers would easily recognize as genius. Disagreements were most likely settled on the ball courts and if that didn't work, there was always bloodletting by the self-sacrificing leader.

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/m/mayan_reinforcement.html

Thank you dear Roland!