34
TOPICS
4626
VOTES
1166
COMMENTS
621
PARTICIPANTS
National Forum
In the National forum we cover a range of public issues of importance to all Australians. Is multiculturalism failing? Is our democracy damaged by corporate donations? Should the Melbourne Cup be a national holiday?
Western civilisation is in terminal decline.
In Brief
Is the sun setting on the dominance of Western civilisation? (Image: KathyS, Flickr)
Explainer by Dr Paul Monk
There is a widespread tendency to see the 21st century as “the Asian century”, and to view Europe and the United States as receding. Indeed, some believe that the West is in “terminal” decline: it’s not just becoming less powerful, it’s coming to an end – perhaps even a quick and inglorious collapse.
Of course relative decline, absolute decline and terminal decline are quite different things. And given that the West has been in eclipse or crisis at various times in the past, what exactly do we mean by “Western civilisation”? Do we mean the civilisation that dates back to Greece and Rome; or the Christian civilisation that gave us the culture we are all familiar with; or the optimistic and materialistic culture of the Enlightenment; or industrial civilisation; or simply Western dominance of world politics?
This complexity means that it’s easy for people arguing about terminal decline to talk past or around one another. The following summary aims to cover a wide range of important issues in the debate without blurring the lines between different concepts.
For |
Against |
|
The West has steadily been losing power and influenceWestern civilisation expanded to dominate the world between 1492 and 1914. Since then its prestige and power have been falling. That decline is now terminal because even the United States is losing ground in political, economic and military terms, while Europe’s power in world affairs is gone beyond recall. The West is in a demographic crisisThe populations of all the European states are aging and shrinking. Were it not for Hispanic immigration, the United States would be experiencing the same. The West has lost touch with its core spiritual valuesThe heart of Western civilisation was the Christian religion. It is now thriving in Africa and Latin America, but it is fading in much of Europe and has decayed in the United States, where dubious fundamentalist splinters and new-fangled, rootless religions hold sway. The West is turning its back on the progress it has madeThe modern West was based on two planks: the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment vision of progress. Both have lost prestige as more and more people reject the ideals of the Enlightenment, embrace cultural relativism, and see technological progress as the cause of ecological disaster. |
The West is serving as a model for the world like never beforeFar from being in terminal decline, Western civilisation is in a powerful position: all over the world now, the physical sciences, industrial technologies, political institutions, moral values, modes of dress and popular entertainment pioneered in the West are taking root. The West has the ability to renew itself as the world changesWestern civilisation sets itself apart from others by its insistence on critical reflection and institutional renewal, much as the Greeks set them themselves apart from Persians, Egyptians, Indians and Chinese. We are now in a stage of enormous critical reflection and institutional change and these things will shape the 21st century. It is too early to write off Western civilisationAs early as the fifth century CE, St Augustine and other Christian figures thought that they were living in the old age of the world. As it turned out, the greatest accomplishments of Western civilisation lay well over a thousand years ahead. Western civilisation is incomparably richer and more dynamic now than it was in the fifth century, so it’s far too early to speak of terminal decline. The rise of the “rest” is not as overwhelming as sometimes portrayedThe states seen as challenging the West, most notably China and India, have only made progress by embracing what the West has had to offer. In any case, they have serious problems of their own and it is by no means clear that they will do better than the West in the next few decades. Western civilisation is already taking steps to reform itselfThe most insistent and best-informed calls for scientific integrity, political reform and ecological responsibility are coming from the great centres of learning in the West. If they are heeded, the 21st century will see a renovation and renewal of Western civilisation. We should bet on them prevailing. |
See also:
- Civilisation: The West and the Rest (book) by Niall Ferguson – argues that the West is facing the prospect of “outright collapse”
- America’s ‘Oh Sh*t Moment’ by Niall Ferguson – summarises his argument and suggests that the West can avoid total collapse… if it “reboots the whole system”
- Think Again: American Decline by Gideon Rachman – Financial Times commentator argues that this time, the decline is “for real”
- Not Fade Away: Against the Myth of American Decline by Robert Kagan – argues that decline is only inevitable if people convince themselves it is inevitable
- The Post-American World (book) by Fareed Zakaria – argues that the major trend isn’t the fall of the West, but the rise of the rest
- The Rise of the Rest by Fareed Zakaria – edited extract from The Post-American World
Vote
Views (24)
Support YourView
YourView's mission is to enhance democracy in Australia by identifying the collective wisdom on major public issues.
It relies entirely on volunteer efforts and donated funds, and is independent of any government, corporate or political organisation.
Please consider helping YourView to build momentum.
FOR (8)
I don't have too many compatriots on this side of the debate, but I'm going to stake out the "for" position. A couple of prelim notes: (1) I don't think the decline of Western civilization is necessarily going to be a bad thing per se and (2) I don't agree with Ferguson's position mentioned in the links that this civilization will "collapse" just like the Romans or whatever: the world of today works differently from the world of antiquity, as others on the "against" side have said, and I can't actually envision what form "collapse" would actually take.
However, I think Western civilization in any meaningful sense is going to disappear. It will be slow and maybe not even immediately perceptible to people going through the process.
On the one hand, Western civilization has had global influence and parts of it have made its way into countries all over the planet. I defer to the against side on that point. However, as time goes on and countries with different cultures and traditions rise (China and India in the medium run, who knows who else in the long run), I see the process going the other way - whereas we're used to seeing West penetrate East (or more generally Non-West), I think the direction of those cultural flows is going to be changing in the not-too-distant future, and it's going to be a decisive change of direction. Countries with non-Western roots - in Africa, Asia, south America and so on - vastly outweigh those with Western roots purely on raw population numbers. As those countries start to develop political and social influence proportional to their raw size, their ability to influence human society and culture will necessarily increase as well.
Some of the things that we conceive of being "of the West" - its historical memory, its intellectual contributions to the world, its culture - will stay in one form or another, but as a civilization, I see the West as slowly and inevitably declining. I don't see this as a bad thing, but I think this decline is happening and it will continue to happen.
I'm surprised by the weight of opinion falling so heavily on the against side. This could be in part because the word "terminal" seems too definitive and also too gloomy. But if by "terminal decline" we mean a falling away from a state that will never be attained again, it seems to me a good case can be made that Western civilization is, indeed, in terminal decline.
Consider the key arguments:
(1)Western geopolitical dominance has been declining for many decades. Begun by the Europeans, it passed to America in 1945, but now America is transparently in all sorts of trouble and it is by no means evident that it can turn its decline around.
(2) Demographically, the West is on a slippery slope and is being massively out-bred by Africans, Arabs, Indians and Chinese. This isn't a racist observation. It's an arithmetical one. The populations of the West are literally in terminal decline, in the sense that they are dying off.
(3) Western civilization is best understood as the classical and Christian traditions, but these are in serious and arguably terminal decline pretty much throughout the West. The reasons are complex and the fact that this decline is occurring is not necessarily an altogether bad thing, but it does seem to be both real and terminal.
(4) If you respond that Western civilization is "really" the scientific and industrial culture that sprang from the Enlightenment, you may or may not be correct (there is room for debate about this), but that culture is arguably in serious trouble; not because technology has failed to produce wonders but because those very wonders look as though they have failed produce better human beings. Instead they have produced far too many human beings who are collectively despoiling the planet and who continue to build ever more horrendous means for killing one another and ingenious schemes for looting and defrauding one another. Science itself is under siege and is less embedded in the moral and intellectual culture even of the West than we might like to think. It is most certainly not embedded elsewhere in the world.
I have not seen anyone on the "FOR" side address these arguments. All the talk of it being too early to make a call, or the West being the last best hope of mankind or a model for the rest of the world is all very well by way of staking out a preferred position; but what substantive realities support that position?
I feel that Western civilization is in significant decline, possibly terminal, but it may be possible to arrest this trend. I am not optimistic though.
Our current growth and consumption based model seems unsustainable – we rely on growth when we may be hitting the limits of growth, barring an unexpected technological fix (these do occur though, so shouldn’t be discounted). The impacts of this seem to be declining standards of living, increasingly unfair distribution of wealth, and great (and increasing) environmental damage. This model, combined with the fact we are hitting limits seems to be the core issue I think.
Related to the above is a more immediate issue – namely that we have artificially manipulated our financial systems to give the illusion of growth where it has not necessarily occurred. This has been done by the manipulation of debt and money supply. This has essentially led to the gaming of the system and has badly distorted real wealth and the systems of economic production. Our governments and people have lost touch with the fact that money is in fact a symbol of wealth and not wealth itself, and that to achieve true growth we must actually research new knowledge, produce things (including food and useful software) that are useful or truly in demand (and not in a way that features planned obsolescence), provide services that directly support producing these things or maintaining quality of life (e.g. health, and arts and entertainment to a point). Any service or activity that is not doing this in a fairly direct fashion is quite probably parasitic activity on our systems (e.g. Much of the world’s current financial activity, hollow celebrities etc). Note – I am not saying financial activity is not useful – I think financiers etc once did a fine job of funnelling wealth where it needed to be to support productive activity, but nowadays they don’t seem to be doing this very well. In essence, Western finance has gone rogue.
Western pursuit of purely financial efficiency over true systemic robustness and production has also led to a dangerous hollowing out of the entire Western economic system. Essentially this is a kind of ‘Dutch disease’ that vastly reduces our self-reliance as nations, and means we are becoming one-trick financial/management ponies. True productivity and thus wealth generation, as well as the ability to physically control that wealth, is increasingly heading off to the ‘rest’ of the world. This is clearly dangerous if we wish to remain independent – or even wish to continue to function.
We are also horribly exposed to normalcy bias, thinking things cannot go wrong, when they really can. In fact, if Nassim Taleb (of Black Swan fame) is correct the modern world’s complexity has become so great that random events can now do utterly terrible things to us. This issue applies to all, not just to the West, but in the West we are perhaps more vulnerable to a true paradigm shifting catastrophe because we are so insulated from lesser ones, and because our systems are centralised, inflexible, and lacking in diversity and are therefore not robust . The economic issues we are seeing right now could be a slow motion version of such a catastrophe – and climate change is another and even greater such threat. While this also applies to other cultures to some degree, it is most evident in the highly developed, specialised, globalised Western economies. I fear the West is becoming increasingly unable to adapt to great change.
Indeed, our populations have become too comfortable, and divorced from our real needs. We are too protected from real life and events. We feel too entitled where no entitlement exists and pursue these to destructive ends (does the natural world provide an entitlements? No. These are purely a human constructs, and while social safety net is valuable to a point, a sense of entitlement is not!). Too many unproductive distractions abound for our citizens. This means the average Western citizen is both very unprepared for change and also not paying attention to the very dangerous developments that are going on around us. We also lack respect for our environment (which ultimately supports everything we do), and have a weak understanding of what is a real necessity in life, where and how these necessities are produced, and how these necessities and the environment are linked together. Not that I am saying we have to be living in some sort of hippy commune, in touch with nature, but if we allow lives to move too far away from the natural world, we will tend to take more than can be renewed, and to use what we have taken for foolish ends. In the end this shall undo us.
We have become flabby, spoilt, and complacent. We place too much value on our own lives and security – so much so that we both give away our freedoms and also over-react militarily to minor threats such as terrorism. This costs us our wealth as well. Honestly – terrorism is such a tiny threat we would be better to take a few intelligent steps (like locking/armour-plating airline pilots cabin doors – already done) and getting on with our live (for more on this, check out Bruce Shneier). We do not even let our children take chances while they grow – and how are they ever to learn if they cannot make mistakes, even harmful ones?
Much of our apathetic population do not think for themselves and swallow easy answers put about by a corrupted media who chase only dollars, and who are themselves addicted to the 24 hour news cycle. Feeling has replaced thought. Impulse has replaced contemplation. Dependency has replaced pragmatism and responsibility.
Our governments are short-sighted and fixated on popularity at the expense of governing. We allow moneyed interests to essentially bribe our politicians via lobbying. In the rare cases where a major government party shows any kind of conviction, it is usually a result of ideology, not considered thought.
We do not listen to our scientists and academics – the very people that probably hold the answers to our problems – instead we listen to shock jocks, religious leaders, and monumentally overpaid (and largely unproductive relative to their remuneration) CEOs and financiers. Note – I do except those true entrepreneurs in our community (and no, that does not include mining magnates and their ilk who inherited a great deal of cash, and then claim to be entrepreneurs).
All of this is sowing the seeds of disaster for the West. We can no longer generate wealth because we do not understand how. Instead we print money (in effect) and generate debt. These are false symbols of wealth, not wealth itself. We are too asleep, too lazy, too greedy, and too fearful to turn aside from bad decisions. We are no longer hungry for anything except security and comfort. We do not listen to those who think and question, but instead to those who offer simple answers and speak with the fervent conviction of faith or monetary power.
Yet when I see something like the recent Kickstarter to support the (re-starting) of LiftPort, a business ultimately aiming to build a space elevator, I see that the West still has ambitions and vision. When I look at the wonder that is the Internet I see we have a tool that (while free of government control) can truly support the best of human thought and allow lightning fast communication, education, and cohesiveness – perhaps even some sort of new democracy. When I read works like Nassim Taleb’s ‘The Black Swan’ or speak to my scientist friends, I see that those who see and think do still exist.
This all gives me hope.
What else could be done to grow this hope? I have a few (crazy?) ideas – training in logic, critical thinking, and research should become mandatory in schools, children should be taught the basics of blue collar trades (to build self sufficiency and to show the distinction between doing and knowing, between the physical world and the abstract world of thought), and (really crazy idea) children should also be taught basic survival skills and made to live in nature for a time, perhaps through mandatory education by groups like the scouts (let me elaborate before you swear and turn away - when I was visiting Vanuatu a few years back I had the privilege of visiting a school there which, along with normal education, required its students to live in the wild and provide for themselves for several weekends every quarter. I also talked to a graduate of this school – and he was an impressively wise and able individual. Partly because of this I myself have done some reasonably intensive wilderness training, and while not gaining much wisdom, I have gained increased respect for the natural world and our place in it, and have also gained an increased understanding of the privileged life which I lead as Western citizen). I think these will provide the foundations for more capable adults – people who do question, who are inquisitive, who respect what they have because they know what it is like to not have, and who are more self-reliant
We also need to ban direct donations to political parties, and figure out some way to have a free press that is not solely focussed on profits. We need to increase the voice and influence of science. We need to encourage tolerance of all but intolerance.
We need to let people and organisations fail when they should (compassionately where that is possible, but not taken to the point of undermining the failure or unreasonably socialising the pain). And to learn from those failures if they can. We need to let people take risks and explore, to think and adventure.
We need to try to prevent our populations becoming split between the very rich and the very poor. Somehow we need to protect the middle classes (but not through cash handouts as a core policy). I think implementing some of the above ideas may help in this.
We need to reduce or eliminate the rewards for parasitic or useless activities and scale back the rewards for those somewhat useful activities which become rewarded beyond all reason (e.g. I again cite celebrities, particularly those born of nothing but sensation. It makes no sense for a movie star to earn millions, let alone a contestant from Big Brother!). This last I acknowledge to be particularly difficult (after all, who defines what is useless?), but it is worth examination.
Perhaps then the West will arrest its decline. But given these are big asks, and given the entrenched interest and apathy standing against them, I am not confident.
But I hope I am wrong.
I believe that individualism is causing the breakdown in Western civilisation and may be the cause for its demise. The breakdown of belief structures such as Christianity without an alternative to group and unite people has caused us to challenge our laws, morals, beliefs etc. I am not saying that some of these should not be challenged at times but subliminal social control works best on a divide and rule model and the breakdown of anything that unites people plays int he hand of the power brokers.
Hmmm. From my long-ago Sociological studies I recollect that most religions are considered to be a form of social glue that helps keep a society cohesive (which supports your idea) but that religion also props up the existing social order - including the lords and masters of the time (eg. Kings with a divine mandate to rule, and various doctrinal and promised spiritual rewards for those that act in a way that society approves of, with punishments for those that don't). This last aspect undermines part of your idea because the powers that be would not need 'subliminal social control' if they were supported by an appropriate religious structure, so individualism does not necessarily favour social control.
But I think you are close to the mark as to one of the causes of Western decline - I think it is less individualism as the root of the problem than it is a Balkanized (in this sense I mean fractious and non-unified) ideological and religious base in the West causing analysis/decision paralysis in Western decision making systems. This is particularly obvious in the West’s recent tendency for the so called ‘left’ and ‘right’ to fight tooth and nail over everything. It prevents us arriving at sensible middle-ground solutions (let alone conceding that the other side actually has the right pathway from time to time) and just generally leads to an inability to make choices in an efficient way.
This tendency to indecision and poor decisions gets even nastier when wedded to oligarchic manipulation and individual apathy!
Note – I mention ideologies because (at least at a social level) in many ways ideology is a close cousin to religion and can even be a substitute and rival for it, as the Soviets and other communists knew when they went on their anti-religion purges.
The way that western civilsation is going and the politics of the day don't give me any optimism for our future. It could change but it will take a lot of change from the masses and the rich & powerful, the later being harder to change.
I would first like to note that I think this issue is somewhat vague- what exactly is meant by the West is ill-defined, for instance. But for the most part... Global capitalism is in retreat- or at least in the way the West has traditionally understood it- state capitalism is on the rise. Further, the 'rest' really are catching up- so Western dominance on which the West has built a fairly exploitative economy is coming to an end.
All races could live together if in this our 21st century and stopped worshiping idols or of gods that don't exist! I was bought up with this saying ' Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me' How can anybody who believes in his god go about burning temples and killing others that do believe in their type of religion? It amazes me how some races still live ,and want to, in the dark ages. We are in the space age with visits to the moon vehicles on Mars and we still have ignorant people who would kill for their beliefs...what a god they must have that condones it. Multiculturalism will never work as long as religion rules. Its a curse that starts all wars!
If we continue on our current path, according to the climate scientists, the earth will become uninhabitable in 100-200 years. Western civilisation as we know it will be effectively terminated, along with any other human civilisation (humans may survive but it will not be very civilised).
no,Western civilisation'll come2an end if we keep letting illegal boat people in our countries&allow them to take over our way of life with their violent ways.
Woah there, want to reign in the bigotry a little there. Subjects like the supposed Islamisation of westernt countries like Australia are things it might be a good idea for us to discuss, but let's actually have a reasonable discussion about it hey?
AGAINST (16)
First of all, let me say that predicting the future is a mugs game. So let's talk about the trends we actually see at the moment. Yes, China and India are rising economic forces. Yes, the USA at the very least is in serious economic decline (not just relative economic decline) and is also in decline in terms of international politics. Increasingly, Middle-Eastern countries are seriously resisting western political influence to the extent that the Arab League is emerging as at least a somewhat effective force in the region. Russia, which we had all hoped would join the west after the fall of the Soviet Union, is telling the west to get stuffed, and is generally siding with China against the US. Politically and economically, the west is perhaps being eclipsed, but it seems unlikely that, at least in the short term this is going to be 'terminal' (ah, it seems I can't avoid making predictions after all) As some have noted, western 'values' are however increasingly pervading non-western cultures. Unfortunately the most successful of these 'values' appears to be consumerism (I use the word consumerism rather than materialism because materialsim more properly refers to a metaphysical theory which claims that there are no 'supernatural' entities in the universe) More encouraging is that values like democracy are making some headway in India (I know it technically is a democracy already but a horribly corrupt one) the Middle-East, and even in China in a small way. Values like equality for women are even making some headway in many countries (we should remind ourselves that this is only a recent value in the west itself). It all depends on what you think a civilisation consists in. To my mind, if you want to talk generally about 'western civilisation', it is the culture and values that matter, and although the west comes out of a christian heritage, it is secular humanism that really defines what I think is worth keeping about western culture. Hopefully that is what will continue to endure and spread. So no, the decline is not terminal.
Dr Monk correctly points out that it's important to make clear what we mean by "decline": and in that respect, it is simply not tenable in my view to make the case that Western civilisation is heading off a cliff.
It is true that the balance of world politics and indeed world society is shifting: the traditional dominance of "Western" powers is being challenged, and states like China and India will - simply by sheer weight of numbers - play an increasingly prominent role in the world in the coming decades. This does not, however, mean that Western civilisation must necessarily fall or "collapse". This is a story of relative changes in the balance of power and influence, not an inexorable collapse of Western civilisation as we know it.
The other point I'd make is that we're in the midst of globalisation in many spheres. As noted in the first "against" point in the "explainer", Western civilisation has permeated so many aspects across the world. What I'd suggest is that "civilisational" differences are not as meaningful in a globalised world as they might have been in the past: "civilisations" are coming into contact with each other, interacting with each other, and changing each other. If Western civilisation is declining, it's only declining to the extent that civilisation itself is becoming a more outmoded concept.
Naturally, this is depressing and intimidating to some who pine for the "good old days" of empire and dominion. Niall Ferguson's extreme nostalgia for what he seems to view as a golden age of human history is the case in point. As somebody who is doesn't spend my time wistfully looking back at the colonial era as though it were the pinnacle of human achievement, I do not share his concern.
Sorry Wilko D. I've been publishing crossword magazines for the past 35 years, so I'm immersed in the world of nitpicking. I'm doing a knee-jerk reaction to the imprecision here and you are quite right. The topic is worthy of debate. Welcome to YourView. It really is great fun.
JamesL
PS: When you see the wonderful new world of comment on news articles, do you ever wonder how it would be if people felt confident enough to put their real names to their opinions? You could still have anonymous views, but they'd get the same credibility as a person refusing to give evidence after pleading not-guilty.
I agree with you wholeheartedly (to a certain extent, if that is not an oxymoron) about anonimity on news forums. Unless your situation is such that you have reasonable fears of reprisal for expressing even quite reasonable views, if you wouldn't want people to assosciate you with the views you are expressing, maybe you shouldn't be expressing them. Honestly, if your views are reasonable you should own up to them proudly.
In today's globalised world there's nothing tying down a civilisation to countries anymore (as was the case throughout most of human history). Even as economies and other measures decline in the physical west, it's culture and capitalism are being adopted by the rest of the world. As some examples:
There are now more English speakers in Asia than in the west.
India continues to be the world's largest democracy.
Brazil, India and China all have space programs and rapidly expanding science and technology achievements.
China and India have the fastest growing rate of millionaires in the world (the number of millionaires in the US is falling) and the burgeoning middle class in these countries are increasingly living western lifestyles (which is coming with all sorts of western problems like diabetes).
As these countries grow the middle and upper classes are adopting western cultures, although mixing it with their own. This however is something that western civilisation has been doing since it began, adopting and assimilating other cultures.
When the traditional centre of Rome fell the empire and it's culture continued in Byzantium for another millennia. Will we see a parallel with the fall of the Roman Empire? I don't think so, the era of global civilisation is upon us and it is increasingly looking like a western one.
The endurance of the Roman Empire in the east is an interesting story; but Western civilization as we know it arose out of the decline and fall of the Latin empire in the West and the reconstruction on its ruins of Germanic kingdoms. They, in turn, preserved a good deal of the Roman heritage, adopted the Roman religion (Catholicism), made various technological innovations and eventually rediscovered Greek learning and science, which triggered what we call the renaissance (rebirth) and reformation - then the Enlightenment.
During the years in which the Germanic kingdoms were fighting it out, Islam was ascendant in the Mediterranean basin (having conquered first most and eventually all of the Byzantine empire) and China flourished under the Tang and Song dynasties. But the decline of Rome indirectly created the conditions for the revitalization of the West. Why does this matter? Because our current challenges could (I emphasize the word could) be the harbinger of a scientific and cultural renewal.
That renewal could itself be what we are seeing in global civilization (China, India and so on) or it could be germinating in ways as yet scarcely visible. And this is important, because if we want a vital future for Western civilization, it is neither the trajectory stemming from the past nor the influence of that past on others that should be our central focus, but what we ourselves are doing to replenish and enrich the civilization we have inherited. We need to make ourselves today's "Germans".
It seems clear that the west is reaching a crisis, but its not just the west. The whole world is reaching a crisis in terms of the supply of water, food and energy. This is a population vs resource problem. Western style civilization is largely responsible for this, and the adoption of Western values such as excessive materialism and individualism by the developing world is not helping. The growing disparity in wealth and income between the rich and poor is a danger sign. The transition of the middle class from aspirational spenders to barely surviving working poor is another. It is easy to get apocalyptic and predict disaster - and I think there is a good chance of collapse. But reform and recovery is possible, if there is concerted global action and a reorientation of values in the next 5-10 years. Even then there will be a massive crunch as the baby boomers die age, and a relative recovery as they die off. So I don't think it is definitely terminal. Its how we respond now that will determine our odds. The one thing that is clear. If the globe does not address population and resource usage, nature will do the job for us with disease, war or famine.
It should be recognized that Western civilisation is a composite of diverse and contrasting human values and behavioural disciplines spread through different societies and countries. Indeed many elements of these human manifestations and moral and social practices are in decline and are terminally ill. Consumerism in market economies is failing and in the longer run into the future cannot be sustained as failing financial systems and political forces appear not to be able to uphold them. However, there is hope as through quality, accessible education and the evolvement of more intensively participating democratic practices, there is hope for renewed Western influenced civilised societies.
Sorry, YourView. I know any credibility I may have built up here is about to nosedive, but I cannot see any value in such a subjective debate. Only two words, "is" and "in" from the chosen topic do not require defining.
Take the word "Western" for example. Is the Ukraine Western or Eastern? Or Japan? Or do we mean the English speaking nations plus the bits of Europe west of Germany?
And how about the word "civilisation"? Exactly what constitutes civilisation? I'm sure there are as many definitions of that word as opinions on what constitutes a true democracy. Is it civilised for a society to spend $50 on a bottle of wine yet walk past a crippled beggar on the streets of India? Is it the nation that is civilised or the bulk of its population?
As for "terminal", I can only imagine that means until the mountains crumble into the sea. "Decline" is another word which would need much more defining. Is it a decline to see the advance of mankind's technology result in increasing personal isolation.
Unlike your previous topics, this one lacks any real purpose. The real answer to the question is "How can anyone know and anyway, does it really matter."
Agreed to an extent, but then again, I think you're also nitpicking. For example, does it really make a difference to this debate whether Ukraine is considered part of the West or East? Without wanting to disparage said country, I don't see how it does.
This is my first debate on this site - looking at the list on the home page I can see that past topics were based more on concrete policies rather than philosophical or cultural questions. So this one does seem a bit different. But I don't think these questions are necessarily pointless (even if I do think that some of those driving the debate are motivated by a pining for empire). When you have people going crazy about Western cultures and traditions being supposedly diluted by the arrival of migrant groups, or Americans starting to doubt their own deep-seated "exceptionalism", then it seems to me that questions like this do have relevance.
If you read the comments, the fors and againsts are saying the same things for the very definitional reasons you have illustrated. But I do disagree about the worth of the debate. It is essential. Just need to use the feedback to frame the debate differently.
... and so I'm not voting. Moreover, does it really matter anyway? Any final terminal moment (whatever that may possibly look like!) is likely to be well after my demise and beyond the lifetime of my children too.
As an aside. I'd be interested to read exactly why wilkod and kendavis think this is a worthwhile debate (in this forum). Niether offer any concrete reasons which is a pity really because I'm genuinely interested and I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
Because the rest of the world is catching up, that doesn't mean the west is declining. Deflation is the natural order of economics (every economic entity is seeking to find cheaper, more efficient ways of buying/producing) yet macro-economics sees any fall in economic growth as a decline. This represents the decline of macro-economic theory, not the decline of civilizations working under the current inadequate economic theories
There are no extant ideologies in the non-west which can support the broad range of ideas and ideals which are available in Western Civilisation. While Asia may come to dominate economically, there is already a strong component of the west in most, if not all, Asian cultures. The more likely scenario is that there will be more homogenisation of ideas and ideals from the East into Western Civilisation and vice versa.
This argument both appears contradictory (i.e. homogenisation occurring both ways is impossible- sure both could absorb parts of each other- do you mean that you think there are two spheres that are increasingly converging?). There is also no evidence you provide for your claim. Further, the West could easily decline if other economies eclipses the West and so countries which paid lip-service to Western civilisation overtook us that way.
Both China and India are experiencing a period of unprecedented growth and wealth. However in China new apartment blocks dotting the landscape remain empty. The rural classes and the urban working poor subsist on such low income that they can never aspire to owning their own home or raise themselves from the squalor of homelessness and poverty. Likewise in India there are approximately one billion Indians living in poverty. In both countries the wealth is in the hands of an oligarchy whose very existence is dependent on maintaining the status quo. Change will not occur rapidly or readily.
When these two nations start to overcome such structural disadvantage they may certainly represent a threat to Western cultural and economic dominance. Until this does occur both China and India remain susceptible to internal insecurity and civil disruption. Such instability does not augur well for nations aspiring to a world cultural dominance; a new Eastern civilisation capable of offering a model that equals or surpasses the Western civilization model we have now lived with for some centuries. Do not confuse American decline with general Western civilisation decline. They are separate entities, America being a cog in the wheel; a relatively recent cog at that.
I don't think the decline of the Western world has been decided and there are a number of things that can be done to change the future of all civilizations. I think our focus and energy should be on what we can do to be better citizens of this world and hence a better civilization, regardless of where we are geographically located.
Western Civ isn't declining -- it's taking over the globe, as increasing numbers of people come to Western universities to study, then return to become the intellectual elites of their homelands --- and as Western ideals (esp. liberty & justice for all) spread.
It - like 'civilisation' - could mean many things, so I am unsure what I am voting for, and indeed why I am voting.
Sure. As explained in the preamble, the question of how these terms are defined is important. But the topic was worded this way in order to overlap precisely with the IQ2 debate in Melbourne last Tuesday evening. Unsurprisingly, much of that debate pivoted on uncertainties and disagreements about defining these terms. This is common to many debates. What was striking about the Town Hall debate was that the debaters covered only a small part of the ground laid out in the Case for and the Case against above.
I agree that it is too early to write off the west. It seems possible that if anything, greater competition could help to develop the west even further.
The culture of the West is being absorbed, copied and envied by most of the rest of the world. Even Muslin countries dominated by their religious leaders want the materialistic benefits of western societies, and I believe in the long run will move away from a religious to a more secular society. As the west has done since the Enlightenment. Hence Western civilisation will become the Global civilisation.
The idea that Western secularism would triumph globally and that this is broadly what we mean by "progress" seems a little complacent right now. It is simply not the case demographically that religion is giving way to secularism globally. In many ways it is the great religions that remain most vigorous and secularism that is looking rather worn out, tired and demoralized. I don't say this as a religious believer, simply as an historian and observer of global trends. The flabbiness of Western society and its apparent refusal to physically reproduce itself or to fight (literally and metaphorically) for its values seems more evident now than its universal acceptance. We should at least entertain the possibility that what seems logical and desirable (to secular intellectuals) just is not going to happen. What, in that case, would we want to do about it? That is another question, of course.
Western civilisation is constantly evolving. The underlying glue is the many forms of democratic government. We are in an age of more freedoms than prevailed 100 years ago, some good, some bad. Yes, our society has it's problems but the will of the people generally wins through. There are dangers out there like political short-term thinking aimed at the next election, multi-nationals with too much power, the worrying infiltration of drugs particularily to our youth, religious fanaticism and foreign policy blunders by the major players to name a few. Dictatorships, feudal kingdoms and the likes of communism are bound to fail. Freedom is something we have the others don't have. It is worth fighting for and history has shown that for all the ups and downs over the centuries our society is bound to survive.
Your claim that feudal kingships are bound to fail is only true in light of the fact that it is a historical truth that all political arrangements eventually change or are replaced by new ones. From a historical perspective feudal kingship has always been one of the most enduring forms of political arrangements. Compared to it, democracy is a mere blip, an historical abberation really. (although I sincerely hope that this does not turn out to be the case in the long run)
The fact that Western civilization has endured for several millennia (depending on when you date it from) is not a particularly good reason to assume that it will go on indefinitely. Toynbee and others argued in the first half of the 20th century that all civilizations have a natural life cycle and that the West was in decline - verging on old age. Given the ageing of Western populations, it would be tempting to see our time as a fulfilment of his prediction.
You refer to dictatorships and such be bound to fail, while freedom endures, which suggests that your heart is in the right place. But many an empire has lasted far longer than any democracy and democracies have a tendency to decay and fail. We could be seeing that right now. In short, there are genuine uncertainties about the very things you (understandably) want to stick up for.
The giant global brain that is the internet plus the need to manage conflict in a nuclear capable world with some finite resources (At least on this planet) means that we need to transend our cultural baggage and reach out to each other in a positive way to solve our common problems. Old approaches could potentailly mean mutual destruction. I think it will be fun.
You seem to have concluded your comment a little hastily. I take it you mean that the fusion of older traditions into a cosmopolitan global civilization will be fun and that this is necessary, because the alternative (which would NOT be fun) is mutual destruction. Yes? But wasn't that true when Rome and Persia fought? Or Islam attacked the Greek and Persian empires and for that matter China? Does the internet change the proclivity of human beings to fight quite as much as to cooperate? Perhaps.
More fundamentally, are you saying that Western civilization is not in terminal decline, but rather in a transition - as it has been several times before - between an older, narrower form and a newer, more universal form?