Countries that experience stagnation eventually turn into a shit.

For example, it's hard to properly invest in business in the middle east because shit goes bad all the time

It's a law of Nature.

You're not offering an argument for why stability causes stagnation

Im gonna have to agree with etbrood on this one

Because a stable society eventually turns into a stagnant one if you allow a particular group of people to dominate the politics.

this is how all the empires died-they let some sect o dynasty or something stamp all innovation and eventually weren't able to comply with their own rules that make them great.

Point is-stability is self-propelling, but when a system becomes too stable, it is no longer able to progress any more.

And there we get into ideas like the end of history and the death spiral for civilizations.

I've never heard of a country that was so ridiculously stable that it experienced stagnation

Can you name an example?

Thou, it's not actually a death spiral but rather the ideas of "eternal laws" or rules or constitution.

@ETBrooD Funny, almost all societies with long history are.

Especially the ancient ones.

Take ANY culture with millennia of history and you would see the pattern right there.

They had a period of boom.

What a great argument

Name a country and a period

They established a culture that was stable through tiem and then they got into a stagnation.

If there were so many you should be able to come up with one example

Classical example-Rome.

Rome wasn't stable lol

They had their boom-they managed to develop advanced social norms and technology for the time.

It paid out very well into the conquest of others and infrastructure no one could have matched at the time.

What time period during Ancient Rome are you talking about?

The period when they experienced stagnation?

Due to stability

But then, they got into their peaks, they stopped innovating, their social norms degraded, there was a time of diminishing returns in economy and technology and eventually the empire collapsed.

@ETBrooD Have you ever heard of Pax Romana?

Of course I have

I particularly would like to refer to the period of the late 1st century A.D. till the late 3rd century A.D..

They peaked but stopped innovating.

Why should they had to?

Maybe they stopped innovating because they reached their peak, that's kind of implied

They had everything already-big empire, plenty of land and slaves and developed trade network.

Stagnation.

That's not stagnation rofl

And as the result of the stagnation eventually they had to scale down which they couldn't and then, they faced collapse.

If we use this reasoning, then computer science is currently "stagnating", too

@ETBrooD It's kind of stagnation-an ideological one.

That's nonsense