The Collapse of Civilization

Quoting Ezra Taft Benson,

At least twenty great civilizations have disappeared. The pattern is shockingly similar. All, before their collapse, showed a decline in spiritual values, in moral stamina, and in the freedom and responsibility of their citizens. They showed such symptoms as excessive taxation, bloated bureaucracy, government paternalism, and generally a rather elaborate set of supports, controls, and regulations, affecting prices, wages, production, and consumption.

No where in our society is the paternalism and bloated bureaucracy more evident than in our school systems. In our local schools, strapped for cash with a declining enrollment, rather than cut administrative functions, the school board is trying to close two schools. Instead of congratulating the school board on their attempts to balance the budget and the attendance, the protests from the parents and students verge on violence. I can sum up the situation with one work, entitlement. We live in an entitlement society.

Almost everyone from children through to their parents and their parents in turn have an over-riding sense that the government owes them everything and that they own nothing. When faced with foreclosure the entitlement generation look to the government for a bailout. This works all the way up the line, instead of failing because of an inability to compete big businesses continue to pay their officers huge salaries and then look to the government for a bailout.

Even on a personal level, instead of paying off debt, families buy yet another large screen TV and a home theater system and then feel misused when they lose their home to foreclosure. In one recent news article, it was claimed that young smartphone users would rather give up their sense of smell rather than give up texting.

So what is the solution? Look into your own heart and mind. Do you feel that the world owes you a living or anything else? Let me put it short and sweet, the world owes you nothing. As it says in Genesis 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." That doesn't sound like entitlement to me. Looking back at Ezra Taft Benson's quote, it is partially the decline in the responsibility of the citizens that contributed to the collapse of their civilizations and it is entitlement, or lack of personal responsibility that will contribute to our downfall also.

When you go to school do you get an education?

People used to say that they were "going to school to get an education." I fear that what you get today when you go through elementary and high school is the ability to take a multiple choice test but somewhere the education part of the process got lost. I can't claim to have made a formal study of the subject, but it seems to me that more and more young people have lost some of the basics of education. They know how to read, but can't think. They can type on a computer and play games, but they cannot write. Their knowledge of history is abysmal. They learn all about being a conservationist and not polluting but can't explain even the simplest geographical principles.

According to the National Assessment Governing Board, 12th grade student performance declined from 1994 to 2010. Only about 1/3 of the 8th grade students could answer the following question correctly:

Do you know eighth-grade geography?

Which of the following is an accurate statement about the American Southwest?

1. Alternating areas of dense shrubbery and sand dunes often make travel difficult.
2. Arid conditions make access to water an important public issue.
3. Generally fair weather means that most people rely on solar energy in their homes and businesses.
4. Easy access to Mexico has led to a strong manufacturing sector.

Interestingly, apparently even those students living in the Southwest did no better than the national average.

So what does it mean to be educated? The ideal of uniform testing has spread to an unusually high degree across our land, but as the report in the National Report Card from the National Assessment Governing Board shows, the implementation of uniform or standardized testing has had little or no effect in the overall learning of our high school graduates. Does it mean you are "educated" if you can pass the Ames test? Doesn't standardized testing just test standardized information? Didn't the whole school system just get dumbed down because teachers have no time left to teach?

As I said, my observations are just that, observations, but I haven't met too many teenagers who could carry on a coherent conversation about any subject other than TV or computer games and in some cases sporting events. It amazes me also, that their parents, who are losing their jobs have still not gotten the message that education is the key. Very, very few of the people I know who are struggling economically see a connection between their lack of education and their ability to get work in an ever increasingly technical world. It is generally a given today that a student graduating with an average high school education is unemployable except in the most basic of minimum wage jobs.

I have to be careful not to base my opinions on those few students I know who are way above average. But after teaching college for five years, I hadn't seen more than a small handful of such students.

But do you have to rely on the schools to get an education? Fortunately no. One of the advantages of the technological age is the availability of education to anyone willing to spend the time to learn. Two of the most successful computer professionals I know personally, never got degrees in computer science. It is true that a school experience, a highly focused and technical school, rather than a public high school, is still necessary. It is still necessary to go to medical school to become a doctor, but many employment opportunities rely more on what you know rather than where you learned it.

Access to the Internet and other Electronics as a Social Force

A true classless society has likely never existed. However, historically, social divisions have been based on external accumulations of wealth. In the past there has been another division, often overlooked or linked with wealth, that is the availability of education as a social divider. I believe that the social divisions of the near term will still be based, superficially, on wealth but that the real social divisions will start to evolve along the lines of electronic usage.

When people lived in small socially closed groups, isolated by the time it took to travel to the next town, almost all social contacts were obviously concentrated in the immediate family and neighbors. There has been a lot of analysis of the impact transportation had and continues to have on the nuclear family, but now the Internet has become a predominate force in establishing societal relationships.

This is a recognizable trend going back to before the Internet became as prevalent as it is today. Here are some of the books and articles about the subject.

• Loader, Brian. Cyberspace Divide Equality, Agency, and Policy in the Information Society. London: Routledge, 1998. 
• Wyatt, Sally. Technology and in/Equality Questioning the Information Society. New York: Routledge, 2000. 
• Wresch, William. Disconnected: Haves and Have-Nots in the Information Age. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1996. 
• Bargh, John A. and Katelyn Y. A. McKenna, The Internet and Social Life, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 55: 573-590 (Volume publication date February 2004) 

You might notice that most of these articles are now outdated. The issue of the impact of technology in the form of electronic communication has become so complicated that there are not so many universal assessments. 

Many people either ignore the Internet or use it only for very limited purposes. But the real use of the Internet is to acquire and use information. In a social context, the Internet (and by extension, all use of electronic communications) has become the dominant force in creating social division. Associations are no longer limited either by physical distance or even time.

A significant segment of our society has become addicted to online activities such as real-time online gaming, gambling, pornography, and alter-egos such as Second Life. Any one of these has ability to create a dysfunctional or marginalized member of our society as completely as drugs or alcohol did in the past. They also have the potential of creating a subgroups of violent secret societies that are undermining the fabric of our entire society.

What is apparent is that society in general will no longer be structured along any kind of traditional lines but along lines described in hyperspace, a true network society. The real losers in the future will not be those who do not have access to technology but those who don't choose to participate. Skills such as keyboarding will be come more and more important. Even a professional who lacks adequate computer skills will eventually lose all ability to function.

Education, in the traditional sense, is losing out to online activities. I can learn more about any subject online than I would ever have the time or resources to acquire through traditional, attend the classroom, education.

Current economic losses have been concentrated in the non-information areas of our society. For example, during the present economic downturn real estate values have collapsed while at the same time technology has continued to evolve at an every increasing rate. New types of electronic devices such as smartphones and tablet computers have sold millions upon millions of units while the rest of the economies have languished.

I will continue to explore the impact technology has on individuals and families in the near future.

Should you pay your debt or invest for retirement?

The answer to this question in today's market is extremely simple, pay your debt. No matter what the current rate of interest you are paying on your debt, it would be extraordinary if you were getting even a small percentage of that rate on any of your investments. There are always those who will try to lure you into further debt by promising high rates of return in a market where banks are paying, at most, 1% or so in interest, if that. Here is a quote from the BYU's Human Resource Services that is very sound advice:

People often ask the question, "Should I pay off all of my debt before I start saving for retirement?" At first glance, this may seem like a very difficult question. However, by considering a few simple concepts, you can make the right decision for your situation.
As a general rule, whether debt is a mortgage, car loan, student loan, credit card or medical bills, all debt should be retired as soon as possible! The feeling of living debt free for life is certainly worth the sacrifice required to reach that goal. Everyone should be debt free before retirement. However, the question remains, should a person commit all available funds towards paying off debt at the expense of saving for retirement? Understanding the two types of debt will make your decision easier.

On one end of the debt spectrum is high-interest, nonproductive debt such as credit card debt that originates from credit cards and department store charge accounts.

Nonproductive debt is financially destructive and should be avoided. If this type of debt is necessary for short periods of time, the debt should be paid off as quickly as possible. The other type of debt is productive debt such as a mortgage and reasonable debt for education, transportation or the cost of doing business. Productive debt is an investment and the interest paid is often tax-deductible. Productive debt can be paid off over time as long as the interest rate is reasonable and the debt is paid off before retirement. (emphasis in the original)

The only thing I would change in the above is that paying of your mortgage should be a priority from the day you purchase a house. In today's falling real estate market, moving is not usually a good option, whether you have a mortgage or not. In an unstable economy, if you own your home without a mortgage you will at least have a place to live. 

As Brigham Young said, “Pay your debts, … do not run into debt any more. … Be prompt in everything, and especially to pay your debts.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, comp. John A. Widtsoe, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1954, p. 303.)

Is Bankruptcy Immoral?

In our legal system in the U.S. we have provided for way for debtors who cannot pay their debts to go to court and obtain a discharge from certain types of debts. That means essentially that the bankrupt person does not ever have to pay those debts and the creditors can do nothing to collect the discharged debts. Historically, people who could not pay their debts were sent to prison. Our system is somewhat more humane but is it moral?

I am using the term moral to refer to decisions made by people that are counter to the teachings of the Bible and are concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. Ben Franklin, wrote: Think what you do when you run into debt; you give to another power over your liberty.

In more recent times, bankruptcy was considered both a financial and moral failure whatever the cause of the bankruptcy. In a talk given in 1957, Ezra Taft Benson, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, outlined the dramatic increase in the influence of the U.S. Federal Government. More than fifty years later his words appear even more prophetic than they did at the time especially in light of the huge federal deficit (debt). At the time the debt owed by the government was a mere $277 billion.

About the increased influence of the Federal Government, he said, "Many forces work together toward the concentration of power at the federal level. Our people have come to look to the federal government as the provider, at no cost to them, of whatever is needful. If this trend continues, the states may be left hollow shells, operating primarily as the field districts of federal departments and depending upon the federal treasury for their support."

Ezra Taft Benson went on to say, "History teaches that when individuals have given up looking after their own economic needs and transferred a large share of that responsibility to the government, both they and the government have failed."

 Here in this talk by Ezra Taft Benson is the key to understanding the morality of bankruptcy, "Another reason for the increase in debt, I believe, is deeper-and causes greater concern. This is the rise of materialism as contrasted with spiritual values. Many a family, in order to make a “proper showing,” will commit itself for a larger and more expensive house than is needed, in an expensive neighborhood. Again almost everyone would, it seems, like to keep up with the Joneses. With the increasing standard of living, that temptation increases with each new gadget that comes on the market. The subtle and carefully planned techniques of modern advertising are aimed at the weakest points of consumer resistance. And there is a growing feeling, unfortunately, that material things should be had now, without waiting, without saving, without self-denial."

It is not that bankruptcy itself, necessary in some situations, is immoral, it is the behavior of those who use bankruptcy to excuse their immoral behavior. Continuing on with quotes from Ezra Taft Benson, "All of us as individuals-and above all, as members of families-have an obligation in conscience not to mismanage our resources...Truly, man does not live by bread alone. A good name is still to be preferred to great riches. Especially is it to be preferred to the appearance of riches, acquired with nothing down and nothing to pay for two months... Stewardship, not conspicuous consumption, is the proper relationship of man to material wealth."

The morality of losing your home

A very high percentage of all homeowners owe more to the finance company than their homes are worth on the market and have what are called upside down mortgages. Homes in my own neighborhood have lost over half their value recorded at the height of the housing bubble. Let me give you several different scenarios concerning the situation facing homeowners. Unfortunately, very little of the news coverage of this situation talks about the moral issues involved.

Scenario #1: Home purchased 10 or more years ago for $250,000. As the value of the home increased, on paper, the homeowners borrowed more against the "equity" of their home until they had borrowed over $300,000 dollars. They used the money for living expenses and to take several vacation trips. They were going to sell the home, but before they realized what was happening the market dropped. Their home is now likely worth less than $250,000. Are they now justified in taking a strategic foreclosure?

Analysis: Who took the risk that the market would fall? When the homeowners purchased the home did they expect home prices to fall? Was that a realistic assessment? If I buy a new car and finance the entire purchase price can I realistically expect to sell the car for what I paid? But you say, real estate is not like a car. Wrong. Real estate is exactly like a car. For too many years real estate agents have been saying the same inaccurate statement, "They aren't making any more real estate, values can only go up." The answer is they may not be making more real estate but they are making more houses. The housing market is just like any other market, it can get over built and over sold. But didn't the finance company take the risk that the value of the house might fall? Yes, but if you borrow money are you saying you have no moral obligation to repay the loan? Isn't that the moral equivalent of stealing? Couldn't both the homeowner and the finance company come to an agreement? Is the motive for moving a consideration of the morality of walking away from the obligation? Is there a moral obligation to repay a loan? Do I have to ask that question?

Scenario #2: Homeowners were living in a home that escalated in price during the boom. They sold their existing home at a considerable profit and used the money to make a down payment on a much more expensive home. Their mortgage was much higher than they could afford but they counted on the market to continue to rise and were expecting to flip the new home at a profit. Now, they have a home worth much less than the high equity to value mortgage they obtained. Are they now justified in dumping the home?

Analysis: How is this example different than the first one? Does the morality of allowing the home to be foreclosed change because these homeowners "can't afford"  the encumbrance? Does the morality of the situation change because the homeowners were involved in speculation? Who took the risk that the home would go down in value? Is the financing company morally wrong for loaning so much money against the property?

Scenario #3: Homeowner has lived in the home for several years and was employed at a well-paying job. The home was subject to an 80% mortgage and the homeowner had never missed a payment. Homeowner lost his job and is now finds it difficult to make a mortgage payment. The house has dipped in value and is likely worth somewhat less than the mortgage. He has had the home on the market for over a year. Is he now justified in walking away from the home?

Analysis: There is no moral issue with losing your property due to sickness, loss of work or other external cause. If you made payments on the home in good faith, both you and the finance company took the risk that the mortgage might not get paid. The finance company extended the loan based on its perceived value of the home. Should the homeowner continue to pay on the mortgage if he is able to do so when he could buy the same house for less money?  Is he justified in allowing the finance company to take the home?

All of these examples point out the moral dilemma of the housing downturn. At what point is a homeowner morally justified in walking away from an obligation to purchase a home? Is there a moral obligation to pay one's debts even if the original purpose for the debt no longer applies? Is this an issue that even raises to the level of morality? Is it immoral to steal? Is it immoral to cheat your neighbor? What about "Thou shalt not steal?" Exodus 20:15. 


In a Church News Editorial dated September 20, 2003, the commentator said, "When a widow lamented that a creditor would take her sons as bondsmen because she could not pay a debt, Elisha asked what she had in her house. The inquiry, it appears, was to determine what resources she had at hand to pay the debt. When she replied that she had nothing but a pot of oil, Elisha gave specific instructions; as she followed them, the oil was multiplied. Elisha then told her, "Go, sell the oil and pay thy debt, and live thou and thy children of the rest." (See 2 Kings 4:1-7.)

The Editorial goes on to say, "Elisha gave simple, practical counsel to the widow. There is no all-encompassing answer to the question regarding what people might do to pay off their debts today since circumstances vary. The moral of the biblical account, however, is universal: individuals are responsible for and should pay their debts. Elisha did not take upon himself the widow's debt, nor did he transfer to another the obligation to pay it. The debt was hers to pay."

Doesn't Elisha's council apply today to the homeowner?

Is poverty a lack of income?

I was on a major university campus recently and saw an "occupy" site with hand lettered sign proclaim a protest against the inequality of the economic system in the U.S. I thought, Hmmm too bad we didn't think of this back in the 60s. Protesting the economic system is very convenient, you can choose the time and place you want to protest with no fear that your cause will evaporate like protesting a war. What do you do when the war is over? Move on to the economic system and then you can have a readily available protest any time.

This got me thinking about poverty again. When I lived in Panama City, Panama, there was a section of the city called the Marañón. The average occupancy of the dwellings averaged 50 people per room. Yes, you read that right, per room. People would take turns sleeping and using the other facilities. One of my friends lived with his family in a small two room apartment with the parents, one grandparent, seven children and a few cousins. Even a small increase in income by any member of the family immediately became an advantage to the entire family. There wasn't an expectation that the family members would contribute to the welfare of the entire family, there was a social, cultural and strongly emotional reason why every member of the family contributed to the overall economic well being of the family. 


Ok, now let's contrast this with a recent report I read of a family. The husband was a professional. The wife was an accountant. They had two children. They lived in suburban house with the usual accouterments. The husband lost his job and then the wife lost her job. Voila. Instant poverty. They were immediately looking to the soup kitchens and food banks for support. They became a statistic in the U.S. Department of Health and Welfare's definition of poverty. Yes, they were poor. Very poor. In fact, they were poorer than my friend in Panama. Why? Because they lacked the support of a loving, extended family. Poverty is not where or how you live, it is the inability to maintain your family connections to the point that you can rely on your family in the case of a family crisis. Maybe the professionals had no family? What is more likely, they had a family but by cultural, social or other circumstances had let their family relationships lapse to the point where they did not have the support of an extended family. 


Poverty is not so much a matter of income. It is a matter of family. One of the largest parts of the national income in some developing nations is the money sent to family members from those working abroad. The crisis in welfare in the U.S. is not so much a crisis in income as it is a crisis in families. Attacks against the family in our society are destructive of the social fabric as well as the economic well being of the nation.