@Roman Empire,
I can't find it (I'll keep looking and post it if I find it) but I read an economist's
look at civilizations in history and he found that success for a country leads to
behavior that is the opposite of what led to success.
Economics is the cold, rational study of incentives which produce behavior.
The basic hallmark that leads to decline in almost every instance is when
manufacturing/harvesting is centralized abroad instead of at home. That
puts the culture in question in a very vulnerable position for many reasons.
Also, the incentive for participating in a society is that the positives (protection
and security, cooperation in production and harvesting, etc.) outweigh the
negatives (fending for yourself, protecting yourself). As the participants
become successful that system begins to break down as they acquire the
means to fend for and protect themselves apart from the whole.
If you want a parallel in America it applies to both the right (no taxes, no
federal department of education, no social programs for those who need them,
let everyone make their own way and don't ask me to be a part of providing for them)
and the left (don't dictate my behavior or require me to participate in
defense or anything else).
The question is, at some point is a society needed? If everyone does become
successful and autonomous is the societal model that got them there
a drawback to personal liberty? Our own origins as a nation were the result of that...
the founding fathers specifically wanted no king or anything resembling a
government where the people could be overpowered by those in power.
So, did the Romans as individuals perish or did the Roman Empire as a
political state perish?
Some have suggested it just turned into the Catholic Church, and they're not
that far off, historically.