Decline of Western Civilization? (1 Viewer)

[alphamale]

All things considered, is western civilization declining?

 

[nkgupta80]

i think that as the world globalizes and the information age heightens, the idea of one civilization declining over another would cease to exist...particularly because cultures are becoming more and more intertwined. So to answer your question, I think that western civilization is just losing the supremacy it enjoyed over the last 600 years. It just seems to be leveling off.

 

[Kandahar]

Declining in what sense? I suppose that it's in RELATIVE decline, compared to the entire world. That doesn't mean that things will be getting any worse for us or that the standard of living will drop. On the contrary, I voted for "rapidly heading up" because the world civilization AS A WHOLE is rapidly heading upwards as a result of better technology and the decline of war.

 

[Quid Pro Quo]

Declining in what sense? I suppose that it's in RELATIVE decline, compared to the entire world. That doesn't mean that things will be getting any worse for us or that the standard of living will drop. On the contrary, I voted for "rapidly heading up" because the world civilization AS A WHOLE is rapidly heading upwards as a result of better technology and the decline of war.

The decline of war, eh? Interesting notion, considering there is far more war during present day (and I include domestic battle such as what is taking place in South America) than there ever has been in the last....oh, we'll say 100 years. It's a good round number.

No, I do not feel Western Civilization is on the decline...nor do I feel it is on the upswing. Leveling off, as one of my predecessors put it...I think that fits it best.

 

[Kandahar]

The decline of war, eh? Interesting notion, considering there is far more war during present day (and I include domestic battle such as what is taking place in South America) than there ever has been in the last....oh, we'll say 100 years. It's a good round number.

I don't know where you heard this, but you're wrong. The incidents of war and other political violence (and casualties from such) are at the LOWEST levels in well over 100 years. There has been a lot less bloodshed in the last ten years than at any point in modern history.

http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=70&num=18202&printer=1

 

[Quid Pro Quo]

I don't know where you heard this, but you're wrong. The incidents of war and other political violence (and casualties from such) are at the LOWEST levels in well over 100 years. There has been a lot less bloodshed in the last ten years than at any point in modern history.

http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=70&num=18202&printer=1

I'm never one to not admit when I am wrong, but in this instance...I think I will keep going a bit further. For your viewing pleasure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongoing_wars

And here is an excerpt:

1998- Second Congo War: the bloodiest ongoing war, with an estimated 3.8 million dead

Now, mind you...these are ONGOING wars being waged during the present time...which is what I have stated in my previous post. Now, to be fair...I don't particularly think you want to say "political violence"...because THAT has gone way out of hand across the globe. I think it hard to name one country that present day hasn't been victim to political violence, which do include terrorist attacks/activities.

I do like your response though, and I will admit I've got alot of respect for you. You didn't respond rudely, did sling names and call me an idiot before you posted what you had...and for that, I applaud you. More people need to take this route. :2wave:

 

[Kandahar]

I'm never one to not admit when I am wrong, but in this instance...I think I will keep going a bit further. For your viewing pleasure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongoing_wars

And here is an excerpt:



Now, mind you...these are ONGOING wars being waged during the present time...which is what I have stated in my previous post. Now, to be fair...I don't particularly think you want to say "political violence"...because THAT has gone way out of hand across the globe. I think it hard to name one country that present day hasn't been victim to political violence, which do include terrorist attacks/activities.

I do like your response though, and I will admit I've got alot of respect for you. You didn't respond rudely, did sling names and call me an idiot before you posted what you had...and for that, I applaud you. More people need to take this route. :2wave:

There are indeed some very bloody ongoing wars, such as the Congo. But they are becoming more and more rare. The fact that there are only 13 ongoing wars in the entire world (many of which are relatively small) says a lot about what we have come to expect. 3.8 million casualties in the Congo conflict is a lot...but it pales in comparison to the 55+ million casualties of WWII and the 40+ million casualties of Mao Zedong's regime.

Since the end of the Cold War, there has been much less American and Russian support for proxy armies that fight each other. The standard of living worldwide is dramatically increasing, which will likely reduce the instance of war even more.

 

[nkgupta80]

There are indeed some very bloody ongoing wars, such as the Congo. But they are becoming more and more rare. The fact that there are only 13 ongoing wars in the entire world (many of which are relatively small) says a lot about what we have come to expect. 3.8 million casualties in the Congo conflict is a lot...but it pales in comparison to the 55+ million casualties of WWII and the 40+ million casualties of Mao Zedong's regime.

Since the end of the Cold War, there has been much less American and Russian support for proxy armies that fight each other. The standard of living worldwide is dramatically increasing, which will likely reduce the instance of war even more.

until the next major political shifts occur and there is more war.... 10 yeras is nothing.

 

[Quid Pro Quo]

There are indeed some very bloody ongoing wars, such as the Congo. But they are becoming more and more rare. The fact that there are only 13 ongoing wars in the entire world (many of which are relatively small) says a lot about what we have come to expect. 3.8 million casualties in the Congo conflict is a lot...but it pales in comparison to the 55+ million casualties of WWII and the 40+ million casualties of Mao Zedong's regime.

Since the end of the Cold War, there has been much less American and Russian support for proxy armies that fight each other. The standard of living worldwide is dramatically increasing, which will likely reduce the instance of war even more.

I cannot agree that even this is a decline, though...due to the fact that these are ongoing wars, some for several decades. And even still, my also mentioned argument on political violence...that HAS indeed increased, and I wish I could find one damn piece of evidence to back it up. :rofl But hell, I guess our eyes and ears can be our evidence.

I think that war, whether increasing or decreasing, will always be until the world ends. Perhaps the severity and the means in which to wage it have made war such a prominent figure in our lives, and not only American lives. Some of these people never know a life without war. Scary thought.

 

[Kandahar]

until the next major political shifts occur and there is more war.... 10 yeras is nothing.

Perhaps. But I tend to agree with the analysis that Tom Friedman makes in "The World Is Flat." He states that as the standard of living increases dramatically worldwide and nations' economies are more closely interconnected, war will become obsolete.

In the past, the value of a human life in economic terms was not that high, because most workers had very little education and could easily be replaced. Today (and moreso in the future), human lives are worth more in economic terms and it's rarely worth severing economic ties to go to war with another nation. The more globalized and educated two nations are, the less likely they are to fight one another. Friedman makes the observation that no two nations with McDonald's have ever gone to war with each other.

That's not to say that there couldn't be another devastating world war, but I think it's unlikely that the world will ever again experience the bloodshed on the scale of the 20th century.

 

[nkgupta80]

Perhaps. But I tend to agree with the analysis that Tom Friedman makes in "The World Is Flat." He states that as the standard of living increases dramatically worldwide and nations' economies are more closely interconnected, war will become obsolete.

In the past, the value of a human life in economic terms was not that high, because most workers had very little education and could easily be replaced. Today (and moreso in the future), human lives are worth more in economic terms and it's rarely worth severing economic ties to go to war with another nation. The more globalized and educated two nations are, the less likely they are to fight one another. Friedman makes the observation that no two nations with McDonald's have ever gone to war with each other.

That's not to say that there couldn't be another devastating world war, but I think it's unlikely that the world will ever again experience the bloodshed on the scale of the 20th century.

true...but I think that until nationalism is completely overcome by globalism, there will be a few more outbreaks of major wars . BTW world is flat is a great book... ceratinly makes on think of the ramifications of the information age.