I’ve been thinking about why civilizations quit trying. After the Renaissance, Western Europe went on to dominate the world, especially if we consider the U.S. as an offshoot of Europe. One reason for this is that the two major potential competitor civilizations, China and the Islamic world, seemed to leave the field at about the same time. Having both been ahead of Europe in science, arts, engineering, and business for the previous millennium they both more or less just stopped in their tracks.
Gavin Menzies’ popular books 1421 and 1424 tell of the huge Chinese fleets that traveled the world until the Emperor ordered them destroyed. In The Man Who Loved China, Simon Winchester talks about the “Needham Question” which is, “Why, after centuries of innovation and discovery, didn’t modern science continue to develop in China along with the West?”
In What Went Wrong? Bernard Lewis describes the glory of the Islamic empires and their decline. Again, they were far ahead of Christiandom in practically every field, but around the 1600s they became insular, stopped innovating, and fell behind.
In Dark Age Ahead Jane Jacobs worried that we might be headed down the same path with the devaluation of science and education. So looking at the current economic disaster, environmental catastrophe, etc., is this the beginning of the end? Have we gotten ourselves into a corner where we give up? And, if so, is it just America or world civilization that’s at risk?
February 6th, 2009 at 2:10 am
Interesting question. I do think that looking back at the past can be enlightening, especially in terms of how the attitudes of a culture can actually handicap it.
But I am optimistic that we won’t see Western civilsation collapse per se. It is just that the growth spurt we have been on since the Industrial Revolution and cheap resources had to slow down at some stage – and that time has come.
Also, while it has had some benefits, I think the combination of Anglo-Saxon capitalism and the American ideals of “the pursuit of happiness” have led us to an extreme. We have come close to this before in the 1930’s but the difference is that now the world is faster and more closely connected.
The UK, Canada, Ireland, Australia and NZ are all suffering similar economic and social problems to the USA – it is just a matter of scale of balance that differs. For example, here in Australia, our national government has very little debt – but our housing market is way out of line with fundamentals, even if we don’t have much by way of sub-prime.
The USA is blessed with resources and very optimistic talented people who are open to new ideas. But they need to be open to the concept of their version of capitalism and democracy not being the only version for all places at all times. I agree it has worked spectacularly well until now overall, but it is easy to stand out when the rest of the world is floundering.
China, India, Brazil and other countries/cultures now have their acts together and are hungry to emulate that success. For the first time in history, the USA faces other players who match it for size,speed and strength – and it is here that some of its weaknesses show up.
In a world where education is critical, an educational and economic system which leaves so many from humble backgrounds to fend for themselves is a handicap. Australia is learning this the hard way too, but I can at least say that our welfare system and HECS system of university loans allows most of the population to raise their educational standards over time.
The Scandinavian countries are the ones to watch – while not without their problems, they have high standards of living, highly skilled and flexible workforces, along high environmental standards, and a responsive welfare system that gets people into training or work fairly quickly.
It is high tax, which is true, but the people are generally well-off, and the governments pragmatic: what are our national goals, and how do we get there? Quite a contrast to the “let the markets sort it out” mantra.
I think somewhere in between works best – set the guidelines for the economy to work towards, let the market do the allocating, and use government to fill in the gaps.
So no, the Anglosphere simply needs to be open to new ideas which challenge the historical way things have been done, and the way in which it sees itself.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:42 am
Fareed Zakaria examines some aspects of this question in his book ‘The Post-American World’. About the Chinese expeditions and the building of the Forbidden City (begun in 1406), he writes: “If all of a large society’s energies and resources are directed at a few projects, those projects often become successes – but isolated successes.” (p. 58).
He compares the Chinese approach to what happened in Europe – “The naval expeditions also illustrate the difference in the Eastern and Western approaches. The European missions were less grand but more productive. They were often entirely private or public-private partnerships and used new methods to pay for trips.” (p. 59)
In sum, he says, “In China, by contrast, the voyages depended on the interests and power of one monarch. When he was gone, they stopped.” (p. 60)
February 6th, 2009 at 3:33 am
Quote: “depended on the interests and power of one monarch.”
Could this also explain the stagnation of the Islamic and Roman Empires?
This suggests that the continuing accumulation of power in Washington D.C. (our oligarchic “monarch”) will ultimately stifle innovation in the USA.
Similarly for the EU in Brussels.
February 6th, 2009 at 8:53 am
At the times that I’m not optimistic about America, it is because so many people just don’t have their head in the game. For better or worse, this is not Europe, certainly not Scandanavia. We’re a big, diverse country, and socialism isn’t going to work here. Never has, never will.
And the deadweight loss of socialism is rising. Education in this country is socialist. Health care is largely socialist, and becoming moreso. The public sector does way more than it should, to the detriment of all. Look at any area that has rising costs, and you’ll find the dead hand of government.
In the past, there were enough people pulling to overcome this deadweight loss. Is that the case now?
Hard to say.
Maybe Kurzweil is right, and Moore’s Law bails us out of these problems. There are reasons to be optimistical.
Whether I’m optimistical or not depends on the day of the week…
February 6th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I believe a similar version of the same phenomena may be exactly what is taking place.
I actually contend that the loss of hope is the underlying principle.
The dominant view held amongst many around the world, however much of a myth this, about ‘The American Dream’ and the “good” of modern capitalism and materialism perhaps began to stream into the larger consciousness with Vietnam, Nixon/Watergate, then the rise of globalization with the OAPEC Oil Crisis, the stagnation of wages for males since the 1970s, the rise of deregulation, demise of unions, undermining of dissenting voices since the Regan era, and the dependency on fundamentalist consumerism, and assimilationist ideology that even so-called “liberal” Democrats like Clinton and perhaps even Obama are a part of, which essentially seeks to maintain this system in spite of indications of its failings.
This paradigm has perhaps led to the “intrinsic” value of education become that became powerful again since the Enlightenment less, and led to a status-quo supported Hobbseian/Darwinian perspective, by elites and anyone else seeking to reach the top of the heap.
The TV program ‘The Wire’ and some recent films like ‘The Edge of Heaven’ are arguably some of the best artistic works exposing this problem, and the desperate need for humans to find something new. The problem is that it does not seem to be offered at this point, so naturally dissenting voices and real agents of change will feel more dispondent.
This is then about the loss of hope, and possibly the eventual decline of society. Maybe this is a natural cycle. Sad, but perhaps true.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
My apologies for the run on and poor sentence structure.
The first sentence should read:
The dominant view held amongst many around the world, however much of a myth, with regards to ‘The American Dream’…
Not careful proofreading on my part. See even I’m an example of the failure of education…haha.
February 6th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
The American experiment has peaked and is in decline. The ideal situation for the United States was when there was a balance between federal and state/local governments. Now, primarily for reasons driven by fear of terrorism, and financial troubles, the federal government is exerting more control. Centralization is the opposite of what the US needs to thrive. The American experiment has been most successful when there is less government interference. I predict that individual states will declare independance, but that will not be enough. It is ironic that well-intentioned efforts to save it may be what ultimately destroys this spectacularly successful experiment…. The EU is also a process that is erasing cultures, it has created an environment that works well for large multi-national corporations, but limits diversity, which, in the long run in a net negative situation.
February 7th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I think it is a very very big mistake to assume something went “wrong”. This inherently means if they were to have continued in that path they would be where the West is now which itself assumes the same end point.
I would suggest considering more humble and profound reasons as part of the discussion. We can certainly consider shifts in the collective thought process around about the context of, advancement, prosperity, spiritual develoment. It is possible that, by having gone through so many social economical and political ups and downs, they simply got tired of their own format of the “rat race” etc. This offcourse would be relavent i.e. Having to wait 1 hour vs 2 hours to get your share of the wheat yield or something where this was not the case 5 years ago…something to affect!
I strongly believe it is a very very big mistake to assume something went “wrong”. That in it self would be a limiting concept. The assumption includes in part the idea that if they were to have continued in their paths they would then be as the West is right now or even potentially gotten here earlier. In either case this further assumes these cultures, including the West, have or had the same end point perspectives. As we try to understand our present global predicament it think it’s crucial to consider the “why” from many different perspective and consider answers not considered before.
One example is that we can consider shifts in the collective thought process around core life questions. We tend to trivialize the past with respect to profound social understanding. It is possible that, by having gone through so many social economical and political ups and downs, they simply got tired of their own “rat race” and/or stopped the active pursuit of dominance in exchange for being content with what they had. In the past 100 years the West has definitely had its share of realizations impacting our lives through ever changing fades, most of which are borrowed from Chinese, Indian and Islamic spirituality. At that time especially humanity was blessed with some of the most profound philosophers, saints and poets of our time and the impact that they had on the families of past can not be underestimated. A lot of the insightful notions that many of us try to incorporate in our lives today are the ones that were introduced long ago using the latest jargon to personalize and own the message. So this suggests
February 7th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Ali,
Lewis’s title is supposed to be from a Muslim political perspective and the questions is why, after dominating their world for centuries, they found themselves behind the West. It’s about military power but also about why their science and arts, once the world’s most advanced, stopped progressing.
But you raise good points. One of the things I wonder is why Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad all came in roughly the same thousand years (500bc to 500ad). Then nothing much in terms of great spiritual teachers since. The other major religions (Judiasm, Hindu) are much older.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Interesting strand! This is the first I’ve been on and I am interested in someone giving a view on this:
I always read this tie-up with The American Dream, US Federal Govt and education – as a European living in Australia can someone give a quick answer to this? What had the US Govt had to do with the creation of a great education system; am I right in thinking that a lot of the Universities are private?
Also, how much do you think that America (and before it Britain and Europe) was built on the back of cheap labour – if this was the case, it could easily have priced itself out of the market.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Alan,
Interesting questions. The US has prospered partly because we were among the first countries to have widespread high school education, then widespread college education — both of which we’re presently falling behind on, by the way.
Widespread high school education began in the 1940’s and was a popular movement. I don’t think the federal government had a direct role but someone who knows more might correct me. Attendance grew from 6% in 1900 to 88% in 2000.
I believe widespread college education started with the GI Bill after WWII. I think most colleges and universities are public, although the most prestigious ones are mostly private. Public universities are state rather than federal. A few public universities are highly ranked,at least at the graduate level (Berkeley, Michigan, UCLA). I went to Berkeley as a freshman and thought it was pretty poor, but they made no secret that they were trying to drive us out so as to have manageable class sizes in the last 2 years.
Your last question requires a history of the industrial revolution — I recommend a book called “The Birth of Plenty” by William Bernstein. But I think the answer to pricing out is no, if you buy Richard’s theories. But our declining education could drag us down.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:06 am
Thanks for the info Michael, I’ll check out the book manana.
Interesting reference to the GI bill – I think most of the world thinks the U.S. had a solid chance of greatness after WW2 but it seems that the fireworks are now fizzling out and it isn’t at all clear why. I’m sure that U.S. citizens feel this much more sharply than we do. In your original post, you hint that both China and the Islamic world somehow turned inwards – do you think this has been a factor? From outside, it has seemed that there was an increasingly isolationist trend through the post-Reagan years, which your theory would indicate is a massive mistake and one that the new administration will struggle to overcome.
I currently live in Melbourne, Australia and we seem to have a problem not of declining education but of declining links between education and surrounding industries, so the start-ups and small-scale companies that ideas need to get through infancy are few and far between. Not sure if this has been a factor in the U.S and I guess that China bypasses this issue by the Govt injecting huge capital into new projects.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Much as I’d like to blame everything on Reagan I think the strong isolationist trend began with the Gingrich Republicans coming to power in the ’90’s (not Newt himself, who was pretty open) with the anti-immigrant movement and congressmen bragging they didn’t have passports. Then after 9/11 Bush folded on his outreach to Mexico and the feds began effectively sealing the borders and taking in the welcome mat. With the Iraq war and much of the world hating America, many people stopped wanting to come here. As Richard said in “Flight of the Creative Class”, US high tech, cultural centers and universities increasingly all have competition around the world.
All of that said, America has followed massive immigration with anti-immigrant isolationism in the past and gotten over it. If Obama and crew can open our borders and fight the protectionists, I think we’ll recover.
February 14th, 2009 at 10:11 am
I see the possibility of the kind of decline you describe. But I also see the possibility of a great new era for the US and the rest of the world. We are just beginning to see in the US that addressing global warming and energy consumption is not just a moral challenge, it is a business opportunity. If we can change the national conversation to the possibilities of the post-industrial society, we can thrive for many more years. By the way, this kind of economic success will not rely on military or economic dominance but, rather, self-reliance. What could be more American?