Alas, this seeming pendatic matter cuts right at the practicality, or however you want to call it, of the matter.
It's pure religious dogma to maintain a doctrine that considers it is inevitable for society to destroy itself. Firstly, most do not understand what society is nor why society exists. Claiming society destroys itself illuminates that misunderstanding. That statement inlcudes the falsity that there is a conscious soul-possessing acting thing called society, which there is not, and even worse includes something which is the antithesis of society as a characteristic of its essence, which is a horrible falsity, with extremely dangerous consequences.
Society only exists by acts of voluntary cooperation (consensual sex and trade). Barbarism only exists by acts of violent involuntary coercion (rape, theft, and murder).
Mob action does not absolve individual responsibility. Of course the pilots of the Enola Gay are not the only ones responsible; there were other Americans and other Japanese responsible. Every person within the boundaries of the U.S. was not responsible for that act. It is likewise irresponsible and incorrect to label the entirety of the residents of those Japanese cities bombed as innocents. Most likely certainly were to a great extent.
But seriously, do not spout such nonsense as "every society has destroyed itself one way or another". First if, that was true, you wouldn't exist, and if you did exist, you would be the sole person existing, which is not the case. Society(ies) has never been completely destroyed. Was the fall of the Berlin Wall and Soviet Russia the fall of a society or was it the fall of the suppression of society? Society and freedom was relatively liberated.
Every action has an actor or actors, specific circumscribable individuals. This removes all veils of hoped for guilt clouding of murderous pillaging thieves who hope to hide and find justification or absolvement in mob defintions of nation, village, team, or society.
"The actions by society (a collection of humans) are what is being discussed, not wether it's possible for a society to have action" is just as foolish statement as its clear that if society can't have action then society can't act. This is precisely a big part of the reason I originally commented. Now instead of arguing whether some undefined uncircumscrible thing is inevitable, you must now focus on the free will of actually existing actually acting individuals. Only actually existing actually acting individuals who rape, murder, and pillage destroy society. That is it, in it's entirety. Whether the a-social destruction involves sticks and stones or nuclear warheads changes nothing of the classification of society versus the classification of barbary. Why consider the individual a life-form rather than consider the parts that make up a human life-forms? Because those parts which make up a human life-form do not have free will, do not make decisions, do not have consciousness, etc.
Is Iran a free society? Is Iran free? Is Iran a society? Or is what is referred to as Iran more like a mafioso dictatorship which rules by violent force, supresses the free will of women, the free choice to exercise any religion of ones own choosing? Think you can go to Iran and set up a business selling lemonade, or selling christian bibles without being bothered by individuals residing there? The rulers of Iran are barbarian enemies. These barbarian enemies seem intent upon aquiring nuclear weapons with which to threaten freedom and society.
Just like the leftist apologists and advocates of the idea of socialism, communism, or the practicality of the U.S.S.R. were either conscious barbarians themselves or misguides advocates of violence (how else do you *take* from each in order to give to each?), and in the end wrong. The voluntary members of society win out in the end. Voluntary cooperation of individuals survives as it absolutely necessary to increasing one's own welfare, members of society adapt and meet those dictators and ruthless barbarians who do not seek voluntary mutual exchange of goods, services, and ideas on voluntarily accepted terms. Society exists for pure economic reasons, increased material welfare and propagation of the species. Death and destruction have been overcome and will continue to be overcome with as much certainty as future procreation will occur. And yes, the United States of America has and will continue to face down the barbarian hordes. In a mere few centuries and at no time in previous history have individuals come together in so strong a committment to ensuring the existence of society, by allowing free trade and abhoring theft, rape, and murder, and showing no tolerance for those wielding the power being absolved of guilt for their actions.
Though it is true, a big portion of the barbarian enemy lies now within the borders of the U.S. It's advocates are the forces of violence who seek power to redstribute through government (that would be both major political parties). But the answer to the OP is simple: only individuals who are opposed to the very existence of society, of peaceful voluntary trade and cooperation, can threaten society. Hopefully, my rampling has sharpened the lines delineating the enemies of society.
Only those who care not about their own existence and the existence of others need be met and faced. When the apoligists for the old U.S.S.R. and current Iraq/Iran situation voluntarily move and subject themselves to the treatment they would recieve in those so-called "societies", perhaps they will wisen up. They are poor, they are violent, they are poor because they are violent, and they are bloodthristy to rape and pillage the treasure and freedom of the West to feed off their own demise from their vampiric blooletting of individuals residing in their so-called Nations.
There's a reason why the West is rich and technologically advanced. It's because barbaric violence cannot compete on an evolutionary scale with freedom and voluntarily association. This could very well be one of the last stands of backwater barbarians who seek not only to resist freedom but seek to further subjugate by threatening or conducting violence toward others in the name of nation or any other ideology. It's obious who is weak and who will lose. Does the West fear the Mosque in it's own suburbs? Hell no. Does the Middle East fear if not the Church the Synagogue in it's neighborhoods? Hell yes.
In less than 300 years of many millenium we are on the cusp of significant prolonged world-wide peace. It seems the greatest impediment to the final leg of this great state of relatively free world-wide society is coming from within the West; from ideological casualties of the cold war against violent socialism, the very thing which seems to pop up in the third world and ridden by violent bloodthirsty drug lorgs and mafioso nation bosses (see Africa and South America). Is it inevitable that these leftists will continue to fail to become conscious of the violence they preach and seek?
No, nothing is inevitable, and if the last 300 years are looked at separately from the times preceeded them there is much to be optimistic and hopefully for. Being faced with a nuclear weapon is not all that different than being faced with the king's guilotine or the wooly man-eating mammoth or the sun suddenly ceasing to burn. The almost familial band of freedom and society coalesces to an unavoidable extent like opposite polarities of a magnet atrract. Even the forces of tyranny need their semi-voluntary minions in order to carry out there plans. Society will exist and flourish. It's as much an economic law as Newton's laws of physics. The veil of ignorance will not resist the shining light of liberty for much longer.
--Damn that was long ^^. Hope I didn't mix RL with ToAU too much. :P
