6 ms·

There's a fundamental flaw hiding under arguments like yours: the "civilization" you're circumscribing is an imaginary and arbitrary boundary. An ahistorical re

by ef4 9y ago

There's a fundamental flaw hiding under arguments like yours: the "civilization" you're circumscribing is an imaginary and arbitrary boundary. An ahistorical retcon. It's as unsupported as discredited racial theories that all humans fit into three tidy buckets ("caucasoid", "mongoloid", "negroid"). For example, maybe you're talking about "Christendom". But then it's not actually in decline -- hispanics are part of Christendom, and Christianity is growing in Africa, so on net it's growing, not shrinking. Maybe you mean the population within the actual geographic boundaries of Europe and the former British colonies (including America). But if that's your definition, then you would accept immigration as a solution, and you would admit that America is already doing fine. Maybe you're talking about people who live in societies with constitutions that ultimately derive from the ideas of the enlightenment. But again, not shrinking. Maybe you're talking about a specific local cultural tradition -- but then it's not really "the West" that's in decline. "Western civilization" necessarily spans a huge range of cultures, otherwise you can't successfully take credit for everything from Socrates to Charlemagne to Descarte to Luther to Newton to Einstein. Consider the magnitude of the cultural turnover across that span! Is South America part of "Western civilization"? It's literally in the western hemisphere and colonized by Spain and Portugal. If you're really talking about having a connection to European cultural history, it clearly fits. But if we include it, then again the decline disappears. Guatemalan immigrations to the US can't be a non-western invasion. What it boils down to is, people use "western civilization" as a cover for "white people just like me". But there's no non-racist way to equate that with "civilization". Our civilization -- the actual web of relationships and institutions that keep the lights on -- is clearly doing fine. That web is fundamentally global, as much as that annoys chauvinists. And globally, the world is getting richer and more equal at a rapid pace. Mortality is falling. The population is not in decline, although it has a good shot at plateauing in the coming decades, which will be a good thing.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
remarkEon 9y ago
>Our civilization -- the actual web of relationships and institutions that keep the lights on -- is clearly doing fine. Given even a passing look at just the last 2 decades, and the serious prospects for massive social unrest going forward both in the States and in Europe, which often get discussed here, how in the world can you say that. "The World" (since you apparently are one of those who think the term "Western Civilization" is racist), in my judgement, is looking at the most global security risk since the lead up to WWI. There's well documented demographic shifts in Europe that could lead to a fundamental cultural re-imaging of the continent. We might be careening into another financial crisis. No, it is not "clearly doing fine."
- ef4 9y ago
  > Given even a passing look at just the last 2 decades In the last two decades, the share of humans living in extreme poverty fell from 30% to 10%. And child deaths under age five were cut in half. So where's your data? I will add that I don't think "western civilization" is racist, even though the term gets coopted often by racists. I happen to be proud to be part of a scientific civilization and want to see it flourish. But I recognize that has nothing to do with which people are allowed to live and work on which side of imaginary lines.
  - remarkEon 9y ago
    The wars that stretch from Afghanistan (though I could argue the actual starting point is Pakistan or maybe even Indonesia) in the East to the Atlantic Coast of Africa, to start, not to mention terror in Europe. You're going to run into problems if you start using one-dimensional measures like extreme poverty (which has a shifting definition) as a proxy for systemic risk in our system.
    - ef4 9y ago
      Those wars are bad, but badness needs to be measured relative to something. For example, the Afghanistan war from 2001 to the present has killed somewhere between 25,000 and 40,000 people. This makes it very small by the standards of 20th century wars. In the 1990s alone, there were at least eight wars an order of magnitude bigger than that (Congo, Sierra Leone, Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Algeria, Burundi, Rawanda). And yes, we can add up Syria and Iraq too, and that is a much bigger number, but I can likewise keep adding up 1990s wars. It turns out that was a more violent decade in terms of actual battle deaths. > though I could argue the actual starting point is Pakistan or maybe even Indonesia You could argue that, but you would be hampered by the fact that casualty numbers in those countries are minuscule by the standards of actual wars. > not to mention terror in Europe. Terror is Europe is up a bit but still far from the highs it was hitting in the 1970s. http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-western-europe-1970-2015 http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-pe... The panicky "things are worse than ever and deteriorating" position is just not supported by hard evidence. It's stoked by an eager media ecosystem that profits from fear, and an aging generation that wants to externalize it's own perceptions of decline. Many of the people saying "the west is declining" are in fact just baby boomers who are declining who can't accept that they are not equal to "the west".
defen 9y ago
> What it boils down to is, people use "western civilization" as a cover for "white people just like me". But there's no non-racist way to equate that with "civilization". Do you recognize that your argument can be applied to literally any culture that wants to ethnically preserve itself (just replace "white" with "Japanese" or "Chinese" or "Nigerian" or whatever)? You are arguing that any civilization that wants to preserve its ethnic character is fundamentally illegitimate, which is ironic because that view is at root a direct outgrowth of the European universalist enlightenment tradition. You think you are better than other cultures, and you are using that to self-righteously argue for their destruction. My argument is contingent on the idea that behavior/personality is somewhat heritable, and that culture and ethnicity co-evolve to a certain extent - statistically, people are more likely to be better suited to their own culture. Finns are better at being Finns than they are at being Italians, and vice versa.
- mercutio2 9y ago
  I don’t see a lot of irony here. Yes, cultures which want to preserve their ethnic makeup are racist. I think they’re wrong and won’t support that aspect of a culture spreading around me if I can help it. That I support certain enlightenment era egalitarian values doesn’t in any way diminish my ability to speak up for cultural diversity that doesn’t rely on ethnic identity. You seem to be implying that all cultures must be accepted as complete packages, without negotiation on any facet. That seems facile.
  - defen 9y ago
    I'm not asking you to accept any aspects of any culture spreading around you - I'm asking whether you believe every culture must eventually subscribe to Anglo-American universalism? In concrete terms, do you think Japan would become a better place if it had fewer Japanese people and more non-Japanese? This isn't a question about Japan's so-called population problem - keep the population the same but make it have fewer Japanese-descent people.
    - mercutio2 9y ago
      Yes, I think Japan would be a better place if they let more non-ethnically Japanese people live there.

by ef4 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

remarkEon 9y ago

>Our civilization -- the actual web of relationships and institutions that keep the lights on -- is clearly doing fine. Given even a passing look at just the last 2 decades, and the serious prospects for massive social unrest going forward both in the States and in Europe, which often get discussed here, how in the world can you say that. "The World" (since you apparently are one of those who think the term "Western Civilization" is racist), in my judgement, is looking at the most global security risk since the lead up to WWI. There's well documented demographic shifts in Europe that could lead to a fundamental cultural re-imaging of the continent. We might be careening into another financial crisis. No, it is not "clearly doing fine."

ef4 9y ago
> Given even a passing look at just the last 2 decades In the last two decades, the share of humans living in extreme poverty fell from 30% to 10%. And child deaths under age five were cut in half. So where's your data? I will add that I don't think "western civilization" is racist, even though the term gets coopted often by racists. I happen to be proud to be part of a scientific civilization and want to see it flourish. But I recognize that has nothing to do with which people are allowed to live and work on which side of imaginary lines.
- remarkEon 9y ago
  The wars that stretch from Afghanistan (though I could argue the actual starting point is Pakistan or maybe even Indonesia) in the East to the Atlantic Coast of Africa, to start, not to mention terror in Europe. You're going to run into problems if you start using one-dimensional measures like extreme poverty (which has a shifting definition) as a proxy for systemic risk in our system.
  - ef4 9y ago
    Those wars are bad, but badness needs to be measured relative to something. For example, the Afghanistan war from 2001 to the present has killed somewhere between 25,000 and 40,000 people. This makes it very small by the standards of 20th century wars. In the 1990s alone, there were at least eight wars an order of magnitude bigger than that (Congo, Sierra Leone, Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Algeria, Burundi, Rawanda). And yes, we can add up Syria and Iraq too, and that is a much bigger number, but I can likewise keep adding up 1990s wars. It turns out that was a more violent decade in terms of actual battle deaths. > though I could argue the actual starting point is Pakistan or maybe even Indonesia You could argue that, but you would be hampered by the fact that casualty numbers in those countries are minuscule by the standards of actual wars. > not to mention terror in Europe. Terror is Europe is up a bit but still far from the highs it was hitting in the 1970s. http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-western-europe-1970-2015 http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-pe... The panicky "things are worse than ever and deteriorating" position is just not supported by hard evidence. It's stoked by an eager media ecosystem that profits from fear, and an aging generation that wants to externalize it's own perceptions of decline. Many of the people saying "the west is declining" are in fact just baby boomers who are declining who can't accept that they are not equal to "the west".

defen 9y ago

> What it boils down to is, people use "western civilization" as a cover for "white people just like me". But there's no non-racist way to equate that with "civilization". Do you recognize that your argument can be applied to literally any culture that wants to ethnically preserve itself (just replace "white" with "Japanese" or "Chinese" or "Nigerian" or whatever)? You are arguing that any civilization that wants to preserve its ethnic character is fundamentally illegitimate, which is ironic because that view is at root a direct outgrowth of the European universalist enlightenment tradition. You think you are better than other cultures, and you are using that to self-righteously argue for their destruction. My argument is contingent on the idea that behavior/personality is somewhat heritable, and that culture and ethnicity co-evolve to a certain extent - statistically, people are more likely to be better suited to their own culture. Finns are better at being Finns than they are at being Italians, and vice versa.

mercutio2 9y ago
I don’t see a lot of irony here. Yes, cultures which want to preserve their ethnic makeup are racist. I think they’re wrong and won’t support that aspect of a culture spreading around me if I can help it. That I support certain enlightenment era egalitarian values doesn’t in any way diminish my ability to speak up for cultural diversity that doesn’t rely on ethnic identity. You seem to be implying that all cultures must be accepted as complete packages, without negotiation on any facet. That seems facile.
- defen 9y ago
  I'm not asking you to accept any aspects of any culture spreading around you - I'm asking whether you believe every culture must eventually subscribe to Anglo-American universalism? In concrete terms, do you think Japan would become a better place if it had fewer Japanese people and more non-Japanese? This isn't a question about Japan's so-called population problem - keep the population the same but make it have fewer Japanese-descent people.
  - mercutio2 9y ago
    Yes, I think Japan would be a better place if they let more non-ethnically Japanese people live there.