"so what exactly is your solution to the "social illness" problem? Lets hear your definition of who and what is the problem and your solutions."

...to be honest, I have no idea if there is a final solution to the problem of the inevitable decline/failure of civilizations, or if there is even supposed to be one. In fact, it may be the design of nature to keep variety going by having certain civilizations have their time in the sun for awhile, to die out, and for a new successor to take over.

Nevertheless, to take a stab at your question, I think that certain civilizations in the past have clearly lasted longer due to certain systems and behaviors that clearly worked. Thus, if we were to try to find a solution, or at least a way to delay the decline/failure the longest, the best that we could do would be to go back through history, see what worked, apply it, and utilize what worked as a foundation to develop innovations beyond past traditions (in contrast to the general "it's old, let's toss it out!" mentality of most liberals.)

To start with, there definitely needs to be consensus, homogeny, and control via local community based culture. In the West in particular, there is definitely too much of a "I'm gonna get a job, a house, a family, and we're just going to work, buy stuff, and shut ourselves in." Local society would work a lot better if people were connected to and engaged with each other and the "village raising a child" mentality would take hold in large cosmopolitan areas.

However, local culture is not enough. There must be some centralized power strong enough to keep local regions in check. Iceland tried the "bunch of tribes with a weak central government" model, and ended up descending into petty bickering and constant in-fighting until they submitted to the king of Norway. Early European history also demonstrates an inevitable propensity to unite groups of local regions under some central power, so we might as well account for this.

Furthermore, the central government and local regional governments should probably have aristocratic/theocratic values that push the merchant class to the bottom of the social class ladder in terms of responsibility. We both seem to be on the same page in this regard:

"Whatever is deemed the social illness cannot be cured because it is a result of system that encourages the destructive behavior (corporatist capitalism, advertising, etc)."

I agree. I think the merchant class, in the West, is clearly in a position of power they should not be in. You can see it in the kind of advertisements and media (tv shows, movies, etc.) that are widely available. In it's zeal for "separation of church and state", the American central government (as well as state and city level governments) basically allows media companies to show just about anything within reason (a reason that is getting thinner and thinner through the years.) that will enable them to churn a profit. While I acknowledge that corporations and companies can be good and offer good products and that I do not completely have a mentality of "the..the...the corporations, are CORPORATIONY! And... and... and they MAKE MONEY!" I think enough of them are willing to bend traditional morals for the sake of profit, that they need to be regulated by governments (central, local) with higher abstract values.

Governments and local cultures based on abstract values (instead of trying too hard to be neutral and please everyone) would probably solve a lot of problems: Obesity epidemic? Local governments regulating the amount of fast food restaurants that can be in an area along with a shame culture towards unhealthiness and excessive fast food eating (the phenomenon of, for example, FIVE McDonald's in ONE city especially PISSES ME OFF! Which also touches on the need for local government level city planning) Adolescence epidemic? Local government/culture based regulation of products and media that encourage and glorify this behavior as well as shaming of those who indulge in such behavior. Local community centric culture should also have anomie snuffed out, due to most people being connected to each other.

School shootings are a more complex issue. I think one possible solution is what the author of this article suggests:

http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

"Around the age of eleven, though, kids seem to start treating their family as a day job. They create a new world among themselves, and standing in this world is what matters, not standing in their family. Indeed, being in trouble in their family can win them points in the world they care about."

"Public school teachers are in much the same position as prison wardens. Wardens' main concern is to keep the prisoners on the premises. They also need to keep them fed, and as far as possible prevent them from killing one another. Beyond that, they want to have as little to do with the prisoners as possible, so they leave them to create whatever social organization they want. From what I've read, the society that the prisoners create is warped, savage, and pervasive, and it is no fun to be at the bottom of it."

"In outline, it was the same at the schools I went to. The most important thing was to stay on the premises. While there, the authorities fed you, prevented overt violence, and made some effort to teach you something. But beyond that they didn't want to have too much to do with the kids. Like prison wardens, the teachers mostly left us to ourselves. And, like prisoners, the culture we created was barbaric."

"And as for the schools, they were just holding pens within this fake world. Officially the purpose of schools is to teach kids. In fact their primary purpose is to keep kids locked up in one place for a big chunk of the day so adults can get things done. And I have no problem with this: in a specialized industrial society, it would be a disaster to have kids running around loose."

"Teenage apprentices in the Renaissance seem to have been cheerful and eager. They got in fights and played tricks on one another of course (Michelangelo had his nose broken by a bully), but they weren't crazy.

"As far as I can tell, the concept of the hormone-crazed teenager is coeval with suburbia. I don't think this is a coincidence. I think teenagers are driven crazy by the life they're made to lead. Teenage apprentices in the Renaissance were working dogs. Teenagers now are neurotic lapdogs. Their craziness is the craziness of the idle everywhere."

"Teenage kids used to have a more active role in society. In pre-industrial times, they were all apprentices of one sort or another, whether in shops or on farms or even on warships. They weren't left to create their own societies. They were junior members of adult societies.

Teenagers seem to have respected adults more then, because the adults were the visible experts in the skills they were trying to learn. Now most kids have little idea what their parents do in their distant offices, and see no connection (indeed, there is precious little) between schoolwork and the work they'll do as adults."

There's more to read, but to keep this from getting too long, perhaps apprenticeships instead of public education are an interesting option to investigate.

To wrap this up, I also realize that what I've just typed are idealized situations, and do not expect these ideas to work out without some sort of miracle or in the aftermath of societal collapse, but, in general, this is my answer to your inquiry.

I'm sorry, all! I realize in hindsight this post was very obtuse. I'll try to make more focused points in the future. :c

/sob.