Why is the 'west' so far ahead of the rest?

[emotional leper]

Don't forget Christianity's need to convert people.

[Cheval]

To go back the the original question Gil asked,
I tend to think that it is because
America (past & present) is such a melting-pot of different cultures
and ideas from different countries.
(How many times have you heard: "I'd like to live in ______ (insert country name)
because it's the land of opportunity and/or freedom?)
But that's just in my opinion.

Sure, people migrate from America to other countries, but not in the volumes that arrived here.

I could go into it more, but I'd have to think about it more too.

[Kil Tyme]

Well, the West was dominate even before America's arrival on the scene. It's just that the latest "torch" of the West is carried by the US, despite the heartburn that it gives to her critics. But I agree that the influence that US "culture" since WWII, mostly via movies, media and commercialism, has had a greater impact on the world than all the previous European wars put togeather.

That is most probably due to increasing technology and the drive to make money, I think, mixed with the US sense of "obligation" (?) to drive it's own value system of "human freedom" to as many parts of the world as possible.

Still, it begs the question: since that technology is available to other powers in the world, why is it that Asian or Arabian, per se, values aren't the driving force of the world these days? Why is the West's value system still the pervasive force in the world? And Can, or Should, it last?

[Lord Mhoram]

I think by far the most convincing argument, whether it's from Professor Diamond or whomever, is that societal advantages are random and dictated by geography, natural conditions, and pure chance. There is no natural selection in societies, and the whole idea of "cultural superiority" - whether you believe in that fiction or not, it has no bearing on the evolution of cultures.

[Zarathustra]

I think by far the most convincing argument, whether it's from Professor Diamond or whomever, is that societal advantages are random and dictated by geography, natural conditions, and pure chance. There is no natural selection in societies, and the whole idea of "cultural superiority" - whether you believe in that fiction or not, it has no bearing on the evolution of cultures.

Cultural superiority is relative, but cultural complexity is not. A group of loosely related hunter-gatherer families is definitively, absolutely less complex than a global society of interconnected countries.

There is certainly natural selection in societies, just like there is in species. Notice how some societies die off or are defeated? Natural selection . . . just like the kind which makes species go extinct.

There are definite trends in the evolution of societies: greater freedom, greater access to resources, greater communication, acceleration of innovation, expanded lifespans, greater control over one's physical being, more leisure time, etc.

If you think that having a high infant mortality rate, low levels of literacy, barely surviving beyond subsistence-level existence is just as good as modern societies . . . why are you living in a modern society? No superiority? That's a fiction.

[Zarathustra]

[double post]

[Kil Tyme]

I think by far the most convincing argument, whether it's from Professor Diamond or whomever, is that societal advantages are random and dictated by geography, natural conditions, and pure chance. There is no natural selection in societies, and the whole idea of "cultural superiority" - whether you believe in that fiction or not, it has no bearing on the evolution of cultures.

So, the evolution of the West over the rest was due to mountains, rivers and the luck of the draw? Well, not "luck" since you're calling the West's dominance aka cultural superiority "fiction"; but it's due to what then? Happenstance? A fluke? A flash in the history of man? That religion, philosophy and the "Golden Rule" has had as much meaning to our human spiritual evolution as it does to where some chap grew up around the Alps vs the Himalayas, the Mississippi vs the Nile or the Steppes vs Rhine Valley? I give man and the human spirit for freedom much more credit than you appear to give, if I understand you correctly.

[Tjol]

Well, I've read a couple books that make a few suggestions.

One called Zerosum I think, says that the west cross pollinated ideas during the renaissance, while other cultures shut themselves in and deliberately fought off such cross pollination to their long term disadvantage.

Another I'm just starting suggests that other cultures did not explore and imagine the possible applications of gun powder in the way that the west did, and as a result, fireworks were all that one culture used gunpowder for, while the other redefined entirely the way warfare was practiced.

Freedom of ideas in general, as well as exponential learning have brought the west to where it is quicker than others as well I think. However, as the west forgets the foundations it built upon, it's possible that they might fall back in with the rest of the pack in a century or two. You need to know Athens and Sparta and Macedonia and Rome and France and England and Spain and Germany and the USA and the USSR and see the lessons from each, otherwise the whole house of cards falls down I think.

Are you talking about Nonzero, by Robert Wright? This is one of my favorite books (Bill Clinton was a big fan, too, so it's not conservative propaganda).

He makes the case that China was poised to do what the West did, but for quirks of their culture, didn't. He looks at three key technologies which transformed the world and elevated the West to dominance: the printing press, gunpowder, and oceanic ships. China invented all these first. But their alphabet was too large to take advantage of movable type. Gunpowder was looked upon as a toy for fireworks. And there was one particular Chinese leader who (because of his philosophy or religion, I forget) decided that China wasn't going to be a seafaring empire.

Yes, that's the book. Pretty good read, and interesting proposals, I think though, that in some part the theory suggested is harder to apply from about the 18th century on. I think it is a good guideline though.

A more interesting question is why the Old World developed faster than the New World. We have here two separate petri dishes of cultural evolution, so there was no (or extremely little) possibility of mutual influence (including everything from sharing ideas to war). The "American Indians" did indeed invent many of the social structures which Old World societies invented, too. Yet, they still moved slower.

Wright concludes that the most important factor was population density.

Yes, I started to think density (within it's psychological social boundaries of course) is as important, or possibly more important than some semblance of free speech/ expression.

For the "Invisible Hand" to work (in Adam Smith's terms), there must be a means of exchanging information between members of society. The rate of invention of new ideas is directly tied to how quickly and easily people within a population can communicate (which is why things like the printing press and the Internet are so important). In dense populations, ideas spread and evolve faster than in sparse populations. So all other things being equal--cultural differences, geography differences, means of production difference--population density is the largest factor in facilitating the cultural evolution of a society (especially in an era without telecommunications).

After reading 'A Distant Mirror', the inverse might also be true. The Black Death and roaving bands of unemployed knights trimmed the population substantially in the 14th and 15th centuries, and for the most part things did decline as a consequence.

It is also the counterthesis that rattled in my head with regard to the thesis in 'Nonzero', because at the point in time that population gets large enough, it isn't simply a matter of more sophisticated teamwork to produce better results anymore. Everyone is similarly sophisticated in the first world but going in different directions based on very different perceptions of what the best result for teamwork could be... but only since about the point in time where the western world was pretty well poplated.

[exnihilo]

The thing which I have trouble fitting in is why in the west the conditions arose for power competition. The only reason which I can think of is that the climate and geography in Europe and later, America is more suited with supporting and high population density with lower technology. There are lots of places in the african continent where this could have happened though, but it didn't. There must be some social conditions historically which prevented competitive development from starting in Africa, or capped its grwoth. And by historically I mean 2000 years ago +.

I agree with others above that Guns, Germs, and Steel is a good book, and I think Kil Tyme is onto something as well. I would add only two elements in relation to your query. The first is an argument advanced in Race And Culture (by Thomas Sowell, anathema no doubt to many here -- but hear me out). In that book Sowell contrasts the geographical situations of Africa and Europe as an example of the geopolitical importance of cultural exchange. Basically most of the European "innovations" are merely transmitted and assimilated innovations of other cultures, put into a single package and used in a competitive environment. Contiguous rolling plains and an abundance of navigable rivers placed Europe in an ideal setting for cross-cultural pollination. On the other side of it Sowell discusses how sometimes hundreds of different languages are found in relatively small areas of Africa, which is only one aspect of the much more difficult transportation problem on that continent -- which becomes a problem that is self-reinforcing (limited transportation causes cultural isolation, which creates a language problem that is an additional barrier to cultural exchange).

The other argument I have seen that accounts for the situation is elucidated by Paul Kennedy in his seminal work The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, in which he deals with the stimulating aspect of European warfare -- the fact that the continent is just broken up enough to prevent a single military hegemony, yet open enough to sustain the hope that hegemony is possible in addition to allowing the intervention of other outside elements so as to create a highly competitive military environment; as has always been the case, much of our economic technology can be traced to military necessity (steel and gunpowder being but the first examples). Kennedy also discusses the atrophy and stasis which comes once hegemony is achieved (examples being China and the Ottoman Empire), thus explaining the relative decline of other 'civilized' areas.

[exnihilo]

I think by far the most convincing argument, whether it's from Professor Diamond or whomever, is that societal advantages are random and dictated by geography, natural conditions, and pure chance. There is no natural selection in societies, and the whole idea of "cultural superiority" - whether you believe in that fiction or not, it has no bearing on the evolution of cultures.

The fact remains that Europeans, for geographical and historical reasons, have had access to a much larger toolbox of cultural elements than did, say, the pygmies. (Indeed, "Western culture" is in many ways world culture in a fundamental rather than simply modern sense.) Not sure that makes European culture "superior," but it does confer numerous advantages towards achieving your ends.

[Lord Mhoram]

Malik,

But I think "superiority" is a loaded phrase, and I'll tell you why in a moment. I don't think natural selection is an appropriate way to describe the evolution (not Darwinian evolution, but "evolution" as "transformation") of cultures because unlike species, cultures "regress," or return to an earlier state and can thrive nevertheless. Western liberal democracy will not survive forever. Authoritarianism will probably set in again. I'm a firm believer in the Schlesingerian cyclical view of history. Hence I don't think Darwinism is an appropriate lens through which to view the transformations of societies. Describing history in Darwinian terms also places a kind of value judgment on random events. The steady overwhelming of the western Roman empire by the "barbarians" utterly transformed Europe. If we thought of history in terms of Darwinian evolution, we'd be forced to conclude that barbarian culture was inherently superior - in that it was more advantageous to the welfare of European culture - to Roman culture. Now I sure don't believe that, but someone else might; but we can't empirically prove it either way.

Kil Tyme,

So, the evolution of the West over the rest was due to mountains, rivers and the luck of the draw?

Yes, actually. Consider this: how different do you think the history of the United States would be if we weren't protected on both shores by the world's two largest oceans. Or consider how Britain would have turned out if it had not been an island nation which developed the strongest navy in the world (the "Mahan thesis" comes into play). Or consider how China would have turned out if it hadn't been a geographically and therefore culturally insular society. I could go on and on.

ex,

The fact remains that Europeans, for geographical and historical reasons, have had access to a much larger toolbox of cultural elements than did, say, the pygmies.

Absolutely. I'm just emphasizing why we've had access to that "toolbox," and just because we have access to it, does not make us, in my view, inherently superior. By the way, I haven't read The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers yet but I am currently Kennedy's The Parliament of Man. Good book.

[Zarathustra]

Malik,

But I think "superiority" is a loaded phrase. I don't think natural selection is an appropriate way to describe the evolution (not Darwinian evolution, but "evolution" as "transformation") of cultures because unlike species, cultures "regress," or return to an earlier state and can thrive nevertheless.

Sure it's a loaded phrase, which is why I was stressing "complexity" rather than superiority. However, I think in pragmatic terms (not absolute), humans are better off in modern societies than in hunter-gatherer societies. And I define better off as: increased lifespans, lower infant mortality rates, greater access to healthcare, greater leisure time, more comfortable and safe housing, more entertainment opportunities, greater access to education, art, literature, etc., and less authoritarian leadership.

Western liberal democracy will not survive forever. Authoritarianism will probably set in again. I'm a firm believer in the Schlesingerian cyclical view of history.

Setbacks do occur. But in terms of competing in a world stage, authoritarian governments are less productive than democratic ones. Freedom is inherently more productive than top-down regulation. Therefore, I believe that democratic trend will only increase (and we've seen this happening in places like China, where people were grudgingly given more access to things like information via the Internet).

Hence I don't think Darwinism is an appropriate lens through which to view the transformations of societies. Describing history in Darwinian terms also places a kind of value judgment on random events. The steady overwhelming of the western Roman empire by the "barbarians" utterly transformed Europe. If we thought of history in terms of Darwinian evolution, we'd be forced to conclude that barbarian culture was inherently superior - in that it was more advantageous to the welfare of European culture - to Roman culture. Now I sure don't believe that, but someone else might; but we can't empirically prove it either way.

But the barbarians didn't succeed in the long run. What you're describing is the zero-sum component of this cycle. There is always zero-sum competition within non-zero-sum games. For instance, buying a car is a non-zero-sum game because both seller and buyer benefit from the exchange. However, within the negotiable range where they both benefit, there is wiggle room in which either direction of price benefits one party more than the other. That's the zero-sum component of this transaction. We'll never get rid of it. People will always seek their own benefit. But the net balance tends towards blending their personal interests with the interest of others, because they tend to maximize their personal benefit in doing so. I whole-heartedly encourage you to read this book, and anything about game theory which you can get your hands on. I sincerely believe it will appeal to your scholarly interests.

Yes, actually. Consider this: how different do you think the history of the United States would be if we weren't protected on both shores by the world's two largest oceans.

It didn't help the Indians. Once that divide was crossed, the more competitive technology and social structures of Europeans was the primary deciding factor in which group of people thrived. If the Indians had kept pace with the Old World, crossing the oceans wouldn't have mattered; they would have repulsed the European invasion.

Absolutely. I'm just emphasizing why we've had access to that "toolbox," and just because we have access to it, does not make us, in my view, inherently superior.

That's my point exactly: no single race of people is any better or more superior than any other. If the Indians had achieved a population density of the Old World, they would have developed just as quickly. Applying game theory to cultural evolution actually reinforces that humans everywhere are the same. It's not that Europeans had better brains . . . it's that as a society, they constituted a better "brain" because the "neurons" of individual people could communicate better, faster, and with more feedback than the more loosely connected "neurons" of the New World "brain."

[exnihilo]

In considering the idea of Western "superiority", it is interesting to note that one does not have to travel very far back into the past to find a time when this was quite clearly not so. And it is interesting to consider the conditions of that time, that of spiritual and intellectual hegemony by the church. It is only since heterogenous points of view became tolerated that much of the intellectual ferment of the past 500 years became possible; and it is also interesting to reflect on the individual acts of courage and momentus historical events which enabled that. The bottom line seems to be that intellectual and economic freedom is the key element in whatever advancement has been possible in the West, and in that respect the ascendancy of the West seems to be an historical mission. Of course, the possibility of self-destruction walks hand in hand with that mission.

[Lord Mhoram]

Malik,

I agree (who could disagree?) that people today are better off than they were in previous epochs. A great deal of that has to do with our political system: but not all. For example, the living conditions of slaves in America in 1860 were much better than they were in, say, 1680. Is that an argument in favor of slave societies? I certainly don't think so.

Therefore, I believe that democratic trend will only increase (and we've seen this happening in places like China, where people were grudgingly given more access to things like information via the Internet).

Again, I agree, but we don't know for sure. Some catastrophic event could occur that could increase state power and therefore increase authoritarianism. Even 9-11 increased authoritarianism everywhere from the halls of the US Congress (the USA PATRIOT Act), to the Gaza Strip, to Chechnya. What if there was some sort of nuclear attack? The aftermath in non-affected areas (assuming the affected areas don't for our purposes exist) would not be social democratic initiatives, I'll tell you that much.

But the barbarians didn't succeed in the long run.

Like hell they didn't! The fragmentation of Europe even to this day is entirely their legacy, and their monarchical, localized style of governance transformed Western Europe and influences us, again, to this day. Their influence is a testament to their successes.

As for the "zero-sum" paradigm, I don't know enough to comment on it, but it seems to me that, while it probably has its own merits, it does not discount the cyclical, more naturalistic view of history prevalent among serious historiographers.

It didn't help the Indians. Once that divide was crossed, the more competitive technology and social structures of Europeans was the primary deciding factor in which group of people thrived. If the Indians had kept pace with the Old World, crossing the oceans wouldn't have mattered; they would have repulsed the European invasion.

None of which addresses my point: that geography influences history, profoundly. This is a virtual truism. The very existence of Indian civilizations alongside oversea European civilizations - so very dramatically different cultures - is a testament to that. And again, China, Britain, and the US are all examples of cultures affected by their relative geographic isolation.

[Zarathustra]

It didn't help the Indians. Once that divide was crossed, the more competitive technology and social structures of Europeans was the primary deciding factor in which group of people thrived. If the Indians had kept pace with the Old World, crossing the oceans wouldn't have mattered; they would have repulsed the European invasion.

None of which addresses my point: that geography influences history, profoundly. This is a virtual truism. The very existence of Indian civilizations alongside oversea European civilizations - so very dramatically different cultures - is a testament to that. And again, China, Britain, and the US are all examples of cultures affected by their relative geographic isolation.

But why is geography important? For the example I gave, the geography was a factor in how it affected population density. Europe filled up faster. Therefore, it had more people per square mile, which allowed inventions to spread and mutate faster.

There are other quirks that can affect cultural development. Wright gives the example of the Shoshone Indians of North America vs a tribe in Africa (I forgot the name). The Shoshone were at the lowest level of social development: loose connections of individual family units. (He's not saying they were inferior, just existing in the least complex structure humans can exist in; families are the smallest social unit). However, during times when the rabbit population increases to the point where individuals will benefit more from working together than on their own, these families will come together under the leadership of a "rabbit boss," and with the help of a crucial piece of technology (a big net), catch more rabbits than they could have on their own. When rabbits are scarce, it does a family little good to hunt with 50 of their neighbors. But when rabbits are plentiful, they all fare better because they can catch more than they could individually. So something as simple as which kind of prey a human feeds upon can become the single most important factor in the complexity of their social structure (well, for hunter-gatherer societies).

The tribe in Africa hunted giraffe. This is an undertaking which is easier when people work together. And it makes sense to share in the rewards, because one giraffe is more than a single family can eat before it rots. Thus, their social structures have evolved to a more complex level than the Shoshone, involving inter-family cooperation.

So it's tempting to say this is all a quirk of geography and local animal life. But that ignores what is the same for both examples: people increasing their chances of survival by working together in a way that benefits all members. Such a system rewards mutual help, and quickly punishes those who are lazy and take advantage of meat without helping with the kill. Wright found that in all societies, humans are very good at keeping track of who contributes, and who doesn't. We are very good at keeping track of who gives favors and who owes favors. One historian noted shrewdly that the best place an eskimo could store his surplus whale was in the belly of his neighbor. The sense of obligation, when spread throughout the village, helped everyone survive better as they traded favors and meat.

As for your points about catastrophe, Wright does not discount that these setbacks occur. He isn't saying that "upward" human develop is inevitable. He compares it to the "destiny" of a poppy seed. If given the right conditions, it will turn into a poppy. But sometimes it ends up on a muffin, or simply not getting enough water. However, there is a sense in which its natural tendency is to develop along certain lines. Wright thinks that our societies naturally develop along certain lines, too, given that we all share a common DNA and we all evolved to take advantage of non-zero-sum games. The tendency to keep track of perceived injustices is one of these genetic psychological tendencies, which puts pressure on people to (for instance) help out with the giraffe hunt or not eat.

Another universal human trait is vying for social status. This zero-sum tendency (to put you own interest ahead of others) often finds its greatest expression in non-zero-sum relationships. For instance, the guy who invented the rabbit net was surely popular among the Shoshone. Oftentimes the best way to increase your own standing is to help others, and we still see this as politicians compete for who can give away the most to the voters. People trade favors in their quest for personal advancement, so that self-interest becomes inextricably tied to society.

From such simple psychological needs, societies are built. And the logic of such interaction is captured with game theory.

[Lord Mhoram]

Malik,

Geography is important because since we are self-interested as you note, the tools which we are given are extremely important in determining our fate. If the point of this theory by this writer that you like is that humans act in such a way as to maximize their own success, I don't see what's particularly interesting or original about such a theory. It's exceedingly obvious. What's more interesting to me is how humans act with the tools they are given, and comparing cultures and their tools.

He compares it to the "destiny" of a poppy seed. If given the right conditions, it will turn into a poppy.

But that's a total idealization. To use his metaphor, these poppy seeds are almost never given the time and proper circumstances to grow "naturally." Events always intercede. What's the point of some universalist historical theory if it doesn't take into account real situations? That's the danger in these trendy explanations.

[I'm Murrin]

You know, Doriendor Corishev could really use good topics like this, before it stagnates entirely. What's it doing in the Tank?

(I understand people are really talking up the Tank as "the debate forum" lately, but I don't think that should entirely overwrite the topic-based forum structure we have: this topic is perfect for the history forum.)

[The Laughing Man]

i never knew it even existed. maybe the moderators can migrate some related topics there and perhaps lay down some guidelines about what is appropriate for either forum?

[Zarathustra]

Malik,

Geography is important because since we are self-interested as you note, the tools which we are given are extremely important in determining our fate. If the point of this theory by this writer that you like is that humans act in such a way as to maximize their own success, I don't see what's particularly interesting or original about such a theory. It's exceedingly obvious. What's more interesting to me is how humans act with the tools they are given, and comparing cultures and their tools.

He compares it to the "destiny" of a poppy seed. If given the right conditions, it will turn into a poppy.

But that's a total idealization. To use his metaphor, these poppy seeds are almost never given the time and proper circumstances to grow "naturally." Events always intercede. What's the point of some universalist historical theory if it doesn't take into account real situations? That's the danger in these trendy explanations.

Game theory is "exceedingly obvious?" Have you ever heard of Jon von Neumann? If you haven't read about him, maybe you saw the movie A Beautiful Mind? We're talking about the theory of the one of the greatest mathematical minds of the 20th century. This is a branch of mathematics which came into being 1944. It's no mere "trendy explanation," like you said.

You don't have to read the book. I thought you might like it. But, really, don't bother. What do I care? Stay entrenched with what you already believe, if that makes you comfortable.

[Zarathustra]

You know, Doriendor Corishev could really use good topics like this, before it stagnates entirely. What's it doing in the Tank?

(I understand people are really talking up the Tank as "the debate forum" lately, but I don't think that should entirely overwrite the topic-based forum structure we have: this topic is perfect for the history forum.)

I agree. It should be in the history forum.