Submission Statement:

Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies: In the 1990s two scholars proposed that the broad strokes of Western history can be understood as a series of cycles switching between states of stability and turmoil and spanning roughly 80 years each.

According to their theory, we may be heading towards the end of one cycle and the beginning of a new one – meaning that we will enter a period of crisis and global re-ordering.

The ‘Fourth Turning’ theory of history rests on a series of shaky assumptions, but is there some truth to it?

This article was first published in FARSIGHT - Futures Reviewed. The quarterly publication from Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies.

History does indeed repeat itself. However, we have never seen such rapid change in the history of humanity therefore history is less relevant than it has been previously. Not to say it is completely irrelevant.

somewhat. solar cycles matter, but for example, technology has changed crops and human lifespans.. still, great depressions happen every four generations

The following submission statement was provided by /u/CPHfuturesstudies:

Submission Statement:

Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies: In the 1990s two scholars proposed that the broad strokes of Western history can be understood as a series of cycles switching between states of stability and turmoil and spanning roughly 80 years each.

According to their theory, we may be heading towards the end of one cycle and the beginning of a new one – meaning that we will enter a period of crisis and global re-ordering.

The ‘Fourth Turning’ theory of history rests on a series of shaky assumptions, but is there some truth to it?

This article was first published in FARSIGHT - Futures Reviewed. The quarterly publication from Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yqfn6i/does_history_repeat_itself_cyclical_theories_of/ivo31st/

History doesn't necessarily repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

That’s incorrect. We have seem similar advancement in time frame. I think you’re thinking material sciences that have advanced to a high degree like never before. Societal advancement is not much different.

The Technological Determinism Theory:

The technological determinism theory states that the technology of a society is what determines the development of its social structures and cultural values.

I see your point however, the 'cycle' here is that fact that technology changes/influences society. This will repeat iteself as new ways of communicating are introduced.

Ok? Thats a theory…. From one perspective. That doesn’t mean it is the definition of societal development. That would mean that ancient Greeks were a highly advanced modern society with their analog computers that they had for computations for the sky and sailing purposes or there use of steam engines in Alexandria that were used in temples. Doesn’t work. From Industrial Revolution to today it is our material sciences that have advanced. I would argue that culture has a larger impact on the tech side as well.

Society is advancing faster as a result of scientific/technological advancements. Education, political awareness, freedom of information. These things affect the rate of change in a society. In the past 10 years social opinions on racism, lgbtq+, mysogony etc have changed massively. To deny the rate of change has been impacted is simply incorrect.

Also, the question is not referring to societal development specifically. It was asked in a much broader sense. Is the future 100 years from now harder to predict than from 1250 to 1350? Yes. The length of the cycles are changing and/or the patterns observed in these cycles are changing.

Heard a podcast with an historian who was saying that in school we teach our children that History is a record of past mistakes that help us avoid their repetition. However, he continued, if there's one thing that History shows us is that we keep making the same mistakes.

[removed]

That’s a pretty warped view of history. It’s also a record of our triumphs and successes, and the good news is that we move beyond our mistakes.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

> We have seem similar advancement in time frame.

No, no we have not.

> the good news is that we move beyond our mistakes.

LOL

Thanks for the laugh today. I needed that

Well, no, regretfully.

History doesn’t literally repeat itself, but it’s important to learn from the past, so we don’t make the same mistakes as others.

Lol okay so we’re starting with the basics today…

This is the correct take.

"Those who do not study History are doomed to repeat it"

And they often didn't do well in Math or Language either.

To an extent, yes, and I wish I had known that (or someone had taught me that) in school.

Now I love reading history, even revisiting my old history textbooks from high school. Reading history has helps me make sense of the world today, and helps me conduct myself accordingly.

Edit: grammar...should probably revisit my English text books while I'm at it.

I think we are going through a cycle. We're in the down part of it, which is being stressed out of our minds at the prospect of not being allowed to live without paying a long, massive fee. But I believe something good will come out of it. We will survive.

History can appear cyclical because memes/ narratives repeat themselves: barbarians at the gate, exploitative elites, golden ages, wonder technologies. However, nothing in the actual data shows cyclicality: not innovation (Kuhn disproven), not political instability, not militarism, not nationalism nor expansionism. Some drivers have tended to produce common outcomes: urbanisation rapid increases in wealth disparities, famines and plagues. But those are just social symptomology, not cycles.

It echoes. The best explanation for this phenomena seems to be that evolution is slow. It takes about 15K years for a mutation to spread through the population. So people, the 'cogs' of history are essentially the same now as at the dawn of civilization.

The biggest change we managed was the invention of writing and libraries. Before that we had civilizations being created and destroyed in a seemingly endless cycle of birth and death, starting from scratch every single time. These days the bits can crash and burn but the rest of the world carries on. Hungary is not much to write about these days but not so long ago it was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a power in the old world. All that's left is a few tourist hot spots, salami, and goulash.

A couple of years ago I was fascinated by a reconstruction of the Antikythera Mechanism* which was made in 200 BC or so. It was depressing to think that the ancients actually built a device with enough precision to build Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine. 2,000 years later that competence was not to be had.

On the bright side, the ancients wouldn't have had the tech to analyze the Antikythera Mechanism and now we do.

The world now works on many, many cylinders and hopefully they can't all shut down at once.

Once nice thing I see today is that the US is trying to shut China out of its tech stack, so China is developing its own. De novo tech stacks are superior to what they replace, the old stack caters to legacy tech and new stacks just ignore the legacy issue so they tend to be more efficient.

People who aren't in China or the US can pick and choose, mixing and matching (and interfacing) to their hearts' content.

I think we may have finally made civilization resilient enough to survive.

Interesting stuff.

*an advanced analog computer designed to assist in navigation.