Replies

Both are cases of extreme lack of morals and intelligence.

It's interesting how often authors miss that point. Where do morals come from? They are certainly not genetic. In essence, this author seems to think that they just 'happen' in cultures that have free flow of information, etc., but I don't agree.

Religions always claim to offer moral guidance. That doesn't mean we would agree with their guidance, but that is their claim. Families usually offer moral guidance, though his tribalism problem is also an indication that the guidance might be flawed. Nonetheless, it has to come from somewhere.

The top failure factor of all is the tolerance of corruption. I think this author is so close to the problem that he can't see that. Without exception, the 'failed' societies he recognizes are characterized by extensive corruption. Without exception, the failed societies in the US (e.g. Detroit, Chicago) are characterized by extensive corruption.

And where the leaders worship themselves - that is, worship mankind as secular humanists, regardless of what they might claim to be their religion - corruption follows.

It has been said that 'ethics is what you do when no one is looking.' The choice is either a totally repressive police state where the individual literally cannot be corrupt (which never happens - Qui custodiat ipso custodes?) or a society where a strong moral underpinning means that the vast majority of the people behave ethically even when there are no police around.

Without that fundamental basis, the rest of his article is flawed, even though every one of his points is valid if one does have that underpinning.