The ascendant (or declining?) current state and future of western culture

[Chaircat Meow]

I'm in total awe of Channel4's Jon Snow now. This dude just used the existence of internet social justice warriors to argue against the possibility of moral decline. He also thinks sexual mores aren't anything to do with morals if you're rich enough and says religion is irrelevant in modern society. Good stuff, keep it coming.

[ummester]

7 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

good post. I agree with that. I think my problem  with this discussion is that it comes from a starting point that one set of values is good and one is bad, even if not explicitly mentioned. All we are really talking about is change. 

It's not a matter of good and bad - it's a matter of change away from what originally defined a culture or civilisation. Was Rome falling a good or bad thing? Doesn't matter, what matters is that it fell.

Oh, re the earlier question about why does rampant consumerism lead to decadence or social decline - because it overvalues the material and devalues the social. And re the only point that we agree Western civilisation/culture (however you define it) is largely progressive with - technological advancement - this is now driven primarily by profit and consumption. To look at it simply - flying to the moon vs Ipads - one of these technological advancements is truly progressive and one is not really and I think your choice of which is could determine whether you see civilisation as being in decline or not.

SJWs arguing naive, pie in the sky idealism on the internet is largely irrelevant (much as I know my online viewpoint is) - the internet is still entirely virtual and we are still entirely organic. And I would say most SJWs are self absorbed and self righteous, not socially moral.

[ummester]

2 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I'm in total awe of Channel4's Jon Snow now. This dude just used the existence of internet social justice warriors to argue against the possibility of moral decline. He also thinks sexual mores aren't anything to do with morals if you're rich enough and says religion is irrelevant in modern society. Good stuff, keep it coming.

It's exactly this kind of 'faith' or 'hope' that society is ascending that blinds people to it's decline.

The idea of being rich enough to make sexual morals irrelevant is anti social.

I'm not religious but I don't think it's decline is irrelevant - I think unless the more practical and less contemplative masses have a moral base to replace it with, it's dangerous.

And no, the extremist rights for every single potential minority we can possibly imagine SJW movement is not a moral solution to the passing of region. In effect most of these movements are elitist and trifle free speech, stopping all reasonable discussion in the name of 'offence' or 'emotional distress'.

A society is meant to police behaviour, not thought. Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hut me. The West is moving towards an inversion of this concept, immoral behaviour in the name of consumption is accepted but hurting someone's feelings turns you into the biggest wrong doer this side of Hitler. It's insane, a culture that has lost it's way entirely.

[Jo498]

What I tried to get across with the Brave New World scenario is that we can imagine a (apparently) stable, affluent society with no external threat and still consider it decadent in most traditional senses of this world. They apparently can afford to be decadent, they are not going to be taken over by an enemy (as in the traditional fear that a decadent society would not be able to defend itself) but there seems (to most readers) still something seriously wrong in BNW.

And of course this is about values. There is simply no escaping that. And I don't think they can be dismissed as subjective. Almost everyone reflecting on society and human life from biblical times or classical Greece or old China until a fairly short time ago (one might find some dissidents, e.g. some 18th century French philosophers) would have deemed most of the "values" of BNW society as bad, decadent, not conducive to a good human life. And even most hedonist dissidents would probably have said that BNW is missing even hedonic pleasures because they banned the portentially disturbing Shakespeare and Bach in favor of shallow "feelies" and the like.

That's why I said that it might be more difficult to appreciate what's wrong with Brave New World because the shallow hedonism this society is focussed on is broadly accepted. As are, not broadly, but in some quarters deeming themselves smart and progressive, designer babies and euthanasia.

[Jo498]

21 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

That doesn't mean it won't become faster, we are almost the point of commercial space travel and things will only get faster.

Of course, it does not mean that travel will not become faster some time in the future.

But extrapolation from the past simply does not back your claim: Travel speed has stagnated since about 40 years and actually declined "at the top" (Concorde was retired in 2003, the fast trains have not changed much in the last 20 years, most monorail projects were abandoned ) and so has space travel (the last person stepped on the moon in 1972).

I think we can travel fast enough as it is but while infrastructure in most Western countries is still quite good there is also quite a bit of infrastructure that is rotten and e.g. train service has been better in former times, especially between smaller cities.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

I think if we start with why morals exist, as I stated before, all they are is a set of values and laws that are agreed upon by most people because those are the best way to keep communities safe, together and relatively stable. Those morals change over time depending on external factors and technology. They are not set down by a higher power or something that is written inside of us.

(btw Religion IS a total irrelevance in a modern society, its just a throwback to when we all believed in superstition. Might be different in the US, but in the UK, being religious makes you the oddity)

Take murder. Murder is seen by almost all societies as wrong, as immoral. Except in the case of war. 100 years ago wars threatened our entire existence and so going off and killing other humans was seen as the most moral thing you could do. Now we are under no threat to our existence so there is a great increase in the sentiment that all war is wrong, that all killing is wrong. That would change if someone started invading America. 

Same with sex. Our relationship with sex changed the minute women got access to the pill and became equal in the workplace and we got a welfare state. Now sex doesn't mean you have to have children. So everyone having sex all the time has no really downside for society. We are of course still transitioning from a traditional mindset so people can't get their head around it yet.

And if we talk about decadence, in a BNW sense, decadence is only bad if it is adversely affecting society. That is debatable. In fact our decadence, our consumption in many ways fuels consumerism, keeps us all in jobs, keeps taxes coming in, pays for our public services. If we all became Amish tomorrow we'd be screwed. One of the reasons we have more free time is that our working lives are changing, becoming less challenging or labour intensive. We also now have far more options when it comes to our free time. 
I mean who is more decadent, me or my Grandparents? I get home and I cook dinner, watch a tv show, look at the internet, play a game. My grandparents finished work, they went down the pub and got drunk out of their minds till the next day, drinking smoking and dancing. Which is better, which is more decadent?

 

22 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

I think we can travel fast enough as it is but there is also quite a bit of infrastructure that is rotten in Western countries and e.g. train service has been better in former times, especially between smaller cities.

Well exactly. Its based on needs. Right now there is very little need to travel much faster, or its certainly not a pressing need. Especially now we can talk to people around the globe in an instant. If train services are worse its probably more to do with a preference for car travel, cheap fuel etc, rather than any proof of a decline. 

 

 

9 hours ago, ummester said:

To look at it simply - flying to the moon vs Ipads - one of these technological advancements is truly progressive and one is not really and I think your choice of which is could determine whether you see civilisation as being in decline or not.

 

I think that is far too simple, and not a fair analogy. For one, we are now flying to Mars, we are making numerous space trips all the time putting satelites in the sky. Plus flying to the moon was nothing more than part of a Cold War propaganda war, that cost huge amounts of money that didn't actually help anyone (sure some scientific advances came out of it, but essentially it was a waste of time) 

Ipads and iphones have literally changed everyones lives. 

 

[Castel]

On 8/25/2016 at 4:35 AM, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Take murder. Murder is seen by almost all societies as wrong, as immoral.
 

Well...yeah, given that murder just means "unlawful killing". It seems to follow quite smoothly doesn't it?

[Jo498]

So all is fine and dandy in Brave New World? Apparently most people in the last 80 years disagreed because the book was usually not understood as describing a fantastic dreamland we all should hope to live long enough to experience. So I guess your view of what "morals" are is fairly naive or at least not shared by many people, just ordinary readers of e.g. BNW, not moral philosophers.

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

23 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

So all is fine and dandy in Brave New World? Apparently most people in the last 80 years disagreed because the book was usually not understood as describing a fantastic dreamland we all should hope to live long enough to experience. So I guess your view of what "morals" are is fairly naive or at least not shared by many people, just ordinary readers of e.g. BNW, not moral philosophers.

 

Well thats a patronising response.

[DireWolfSpirit]

 

Thought this was interesting, on comparing "1984" with "A Brave New World" -

Ed

Social critic Neil Postman contrasted the worlds of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death. He writes:

"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us."

[Jo498]

Sorry if it sounded patronising. But you seem to steadfastly miss the point and claim very dubious things about "what morals are" and why one could not talk about decadence. I am simply pointing out that such claims are highly dubious and apparently not shared by most readers of e.g. BNW (that is an unsophisticated reader will usually have moral issues with the BNW society, not only Jesuit seminarists).

And I still wonder if you think there is something wrong with the BNW society or if it would be great (at least for alphas and betas, although the lower castes apparently seem to be happy with their lot as well).

It is also wrong that religion (something I hardly said anything about) was not important anymore. It is not as important as it used to be, but still the majority of the world population is religious (even in the secularized West) so it seems simply wrong to claim that it would not matter. France wants to forbid certain garments for women because they are associated with suppression. Muslim women might claim freedom of religion or more generally that they can wear what the want. How is religion irrelevant if such stuff makes the headlines?

I think another point is that we simply do not know how a thoroughly secularized, individualist, libertine society wille react under pressure and how it will evolve in the future. Traditional morality has been imprinted on societies for such a long time that some features remain even if they are not officially endorsed. E.g. there are some societies or strata of society where it hardly matters that couples live together without being married because these are stable quasi-matrimonial relationships. (And unlike BNW we still endorse stable monogamous relations.) But elsewhere the stability provided by traditional marriage/family structures seems to be sorely missing.

But it is far from obvious that in the real world we will be able to keep everyone happy with bread and circuses or soma forever. That is, as soon as there is less wealth or other pressures things could get fairly ugly.

[DireWolfSpirit]

What difference would his opinion about BNW make anyways? The thread question concerns whether the West or America was in decline, the others a work of fiction.

I agree with Ch4JS that reason crowding out superstition is a net positive as well.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

What difference would his opinion about BNW make anyways? The thread question concerns whether the West or America was in decline, the others a work of fiction.

I agree with Ch4JS that reason crowding out superstition is a net positive as well.

Thank you, I'm really not even that much of a fan of BNW anyway (much prefer 1984) so I have no wish to get into any sort of deep discussion on that matter. Not sure of its relevance. 

@Jo498My point was that Morality is subjective. Its not given to us from a higher power and we aren't born with it. Its a set of values set up by the community. If you have a different opinion on that, then ok, but many people would argue that was the case. 

 

Quote

And I still wonder if you think there is something wrong with the BNW society or if it would be great (at least for alphas and betas, although the lower castes apparently seem to be happy with their lot as well).

I have no real interest in discussing BNW, but if a highly decadent society in which humans sought pleasure and had plenty of recreational time was of no harm to society at large then I don't have a problem with it. If in the future for instance Robots did most of the labour, then humans probably would have more free time. This might cause problems but it might not, but the concept of everyone spending time on their own pleasure is not necessarily a bad one.

 

Quote

It is also wrong that religion (something I hardly said anything about) was not important anymore. It is not as important as it used to be, but still the majority of the world population is religious (even in the secularized West) so it seems simply wrong to claim that it would not matter. France wants to forbid certain garments for women because they are associated with suppression. Muslim women might claim freedom of religion or more generally that they can wear what the want. How is religion irrelevant if such stuff makes the headlines?

What I was getting at was that Religion is an outdated concept that has no real place in a modern society. That many people still believe in a religion is a sad reflection of the lack of education in some parts of the world. Morality can exist without religion. 

 

Quote

I think another point is that we simply do not know how a thoroughly secularized, individualist, libertine society wille react under pressure and how it will evolve in the future.

I agree that we don't know. But the question raised by the OP seemed to suggest that we are in the decline, and I have yet to see any evidence of this. A rise in decadent behaviour, if true and Im yet to see any proof of this, doesn't automatically mean a decline in a culture. Looking back at the Roman Empire can lead you to a number of false conclusions, especially as the Roman Empire was a different beast to anything we have today with entirely different pressures and problems. 

 

Quote

But it is far from obvious that in the real world we will be able to keep everyone happy with bread and circuses or soma forever. That is, as soon as there is less wealth or other pressures things could get fairly ugly.

Well I'm not one of those people that believes that we are given toys and entertainment to 'keep the peasants quiet' and stop them rebelling against their masters. That seems to be something that people say on the internet and its crazy. I do think that modern capitalism is going to change. The average workers wages have stagnated, we can't compete with lower wages abroad, automation is becoming bigger, we are in a low interest debt bubble. Something will change, but essentially things will remain the same. 

[karaddin]

On 11/08/2016 at 7:29 PM, ummester said:

Art is metropolitan and stagnant. When was the last time a genuinely original film or video game came out of the West and actually said anything of meaning about the West? How many remakes are we subjected to?

Cherry picking this out, because it's much of the modern world in a nutshell. There are plenty of works of media and art that are deep and valuable, with interesting things to say about elements of society or society as a whole. They may not be the massive blockbusters, but they exist if you want to consume them, and claiming otherwise simply says you either aren't looking at all or are failing to find them.

On 11/08/2016 at 10:23 PM, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

But why does it spend more on pleasure? Because its basic needs have been met, and it has left over money to spend on it. 

.. I mean you could argue that that excess money is unearned, that many peoples wealth is due to borrowing, inflated property prices, exploitation of foreign labour etc.. but thats another discussion.

 

On 11/08/2016 at 10:27 PM, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Then the argument is that the only way to keep a hardworking non-decadent society is to make sure they are always struggling to meet their basic needs.

This is a view of decadence that goes back to Machiavelli at least, who had what I'd term a rather Darwinian view of societies (long before that was a term) - that societies grow and improve via having to fight for their survival, and a society that sunk into comfort and safety would cease to grow, become decadent and ultimately fall.  Machiavelli was of course subject to the same human biases that shape us all, and as a resident of an Italian city state his view was very much standing in the shadow of Rome, so this whole discussion around decadence and fall of Rome is very much on topic for where he was coming from. Two of his ideal Princes were August and Julius Caesar after all.  On the whole I actually think the view of him by history is rather unfair, he didn't have any affection for ruthless measures he simply was trying to argue for what he saw as the most effective mechanism for achieving the desired outcome of a strong and stable state.  At least that's true of The Prince, I haven't read anything else of his, and I'd say it is worth reading if you never have.

I don't actually agree with him mostly btw, just relaying that I think Machiavelli is the underpinning for so much of the sentiment expressed in this thread.

On 24/08/2016 at 7:07 PM, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

This is basically where I see the world headed over the next few centuries. 'Western Culture' will essentially become a melting pot of all world cultures, very similar to what we have today. Take music for instance, go visit any country today and their popular music in a lot of cases will be very similar to western pop music, but with a specific domestic twist. I can go to spain, turkey, bulgaria, thailand and everything is slowly becoming homogenous.

It seems to have slowed a little again in the last couple of years, but an example of this that was really glaring to me a few years ago was the increasing influence and consumption of Jpop and Kpop in Australia especially, but the explosion of Gagnam Style globally was an example of this everywhere.  Personally I view it as a good thing.

Sidenote: I'm in awe at the term SJW, how something that was virtually meaningless when it first started being used has so completely lost what little meaning it had in such a short time.  Anyone that thinks its a reasonable term to just throw around is clearly used to conversing in a similar bubble of like minded individuals that they'd accuse me of living in as they deride me as a SJW, who is apparently self absorbed and self righteous but not at all socially moral.

[DunderMifflin]

SJW is pretty much a way to attempt to undermine someone's argument these days. A charge typically with the implication that -this person is just going around actively searching for something to be offended about simply for their own recreation- therefore whatever their position is can clearly be tossed aside.

 

Much in the same way you will see people negate ones argument by charging them with the very specific label of "straight white male" - with the implication that this person, due to their gender, sexuality, and whiteness clearly has no ability to have an opinion on the subject.

There are a lot of of other labels that are used as a signal to others that -this person's words are simply to be scoffed at, but these two are among the most common that I see, and of course these two labels are typically thrown back and forth in linear fashion.

Ones that are labeled as SJW often are ones that use the "straight white male" against others and vice versa, the ones that have their identity reduced to "straight white male" are often the ones that attack with the SJW label. Generally speaking.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

On 9/1/2016 at 9:06 AM, karaddin said:

Cherry picking this out, because it's much of the modern world in a nutshell. There are plenty of works of media and art that are deep and valuable, with interesting things to say about elements of society or society as a whole. They may not be the massive blockbusters, but they exist if you want to consume them, and claiming otherwise simply says you either aren't looking at all or are failing to find them.

Agree, I think you cannot compare mainstream entertainment to more thoughtful artistic works. Mainstream entertainment has ALWAYS been derivative and low brow, thats why its so popular. We can all sit and be snobbish about it, but most people like things that don't make them think hugely and simply entertain. 
 

On 9/1/2016 at 9:06 AM, karaddin said:

 

I don't actually agree with him mostly btw, just relaying that I think Machiavelli is the underpinning for so much of the sentiment expressed in this thread.

I think there is a widespread view of the life cycle of empires that is seemingly held by a lot of people that decadence is a major contributor to why empires decline. Maybe it came from Machiavelli, or it was a mix of historians. I personally don't hold to the idea and find it fairly ludicrous, because when you look at the actual reasons almost any empire has declined throughout history its usually due to far more important reasons than how decadent the populations are, such as wars, over expansion, lack of money etc. 

Funnily enough I was just listening to the excellent Dan Carlin's history podcasts the other day and he was saying a very similar thing. He was talking about the Persian empire and how there was  view that decadence led to the decline there, but that it was just a propagandist Greek idea used to stigmatise their enemy. There were plenty of reasons for Persian decline, many to do with infighting, but decadence wasn't really a contributory factor. Carlin himself said decadence was an incredibly minor factor when it comes to empires, almost not worth thinking about. 

The reason I felt the need to contribute is that it seems to be a very easy way of pointing a finger at Western Culture, saying its decadent and that we aren't going to survive unless we man up. It ties into a general left wing train of thought that all things western are evil and we should be sorry for them and everything is going down the toilet. I used to think in the same way, being a bit of a Chomsky fan when i was younger, but now I think mostly its a bit bollocks, and the truth is always in the middle of two extremes. 

 

 

1 hour ago, DunderMifflin said:

SJW is pretty much a way to attempt to undermine someone's argument these days. A charge typically with the implication that -this person is just going around actively searching for something to be offended about simply for their own recreation- therefore whatever their position is can clearly be tossed aside.

I know SJW is a bit of an insulting term, but it mainly seems to refer to the outrage culture that infests our media these days, portraying a very heavy handed view of left wing politics that borders on censorship and conformism. I think its one of the reasons you are seeing huge reactions around the world, from Trump, to Brexit, to the alt right. These things swing back and forth.

[DunderMifflin]

13 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I know SJW is a bit of an insulting term, but it mainly seems to refer to the outrage culture that infests our media these days, portraying a very heavy handed view of left wing politics that borders on censorship and conformism. I think its one of the reasons you are seeing huge reactions around the world, from Trump, to Brexit, to the alt right. These things swing back and forth.

Yeh, I'm not saying the blowback against what is refered to as SJWs is unwarranted.

Social media mobs have accomplished great things but also horrific things in the name of justice.

There probably should be allowed to be at least some small way to fight against this great power of social media activism that's often used very irresponsibly.

 I'm not sure "SJW" should be retired and banned from use if it's the only way to even slightly curb the power of such mobs.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said:

Yeh, I'm not saying the blowback against what is refered to as SJWs is unwarranted.

Social media mobs have accomplished great things but also horrific things.

There probably should be allowed to be at least some small way to fight against this great power of social media activism that's often used very irresponsibly.

 I'm not sure "SJW" should be retired and banned from use if it's the only way to even slightly curb the power of such mobs.

Yeah I think the internet is basically a place where people pick a side and then battle back and forth with those who disagree with them.. occasionally seen on this forum!

Being open minded on a subject is not a very entertaining way to spend your day so very few people do it, hence why you have so many extreme groups slinging mud at each other. 

[DunderMifflin]

I hope people are at least starting to consider the possibility that encouraging mob behavior under the guise of justice maybe shouldn't be treated as something that is completely and totally above criticism or a silly label intended to criticize.

With this social media monster turning on people that once fueled it's flames, such as what we are seeing with the Lena Dunham situation it might be.

This is from a recent article in TIME.

"Western culture as a whole has become an increasingly reactionary mob of self-centered narcissists who all have their own personal lines drawn in the sand. A person is fine unless it crosses their particular line, which, of course, in the mind of a self-centered narcissist, is the only line that matters."

 

^^^ I don't think we would have seen such sentiments be allowed to be published during The Great Social Media Justice Purge of the early 2010s. It's seems the pendulum is starating to swing back the other direction.

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

SJW is pretty much a way to attempt to undermine someone's argument these days. A charge typically with the implication that -this person is just going around actively searching for something to be offended about- therefore whatever their position is can clearly be tossed aside.

 

Much in the same way you will see people negate ones argument by charging them with the very specific label of "straight white male" - with the implication that this person, due to their gender, sexuality, and whiteness clearly has no ability to have an opinion on the subject.

There are a lot of of other labels that are used as a signal to others that -this person's words are simply to be scoffed at, but these two are among the most common that I see.

 

Damn this thread for making me change my title back to something SJ.  

 

5 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Agree, I think you cannot compare mainstream entertainment to more thoughtful artistic works. Mainstream entertainment has ALWAYS been derivative and low brow, thats why its so popular. We can all sit and be snobbish about it, but most people like things that don't make them think hugely and simply entertain.

I know SJW is a bit of an insulting term, but it mainly seems to refer to the outrage culture that infests our media these days, portraying a very heavy handed view of left wing politics that borders on censorship and conformism. I think its one of the reasons you are seeing huge reactions around the world, from Trump, to Brexit, to the alt right. These things swing back and forth.

Bolding mine.  I'm going to disagree with regarded to the bolded, see Bill Shakespeare, Seinfeld, Lost, the Beatles, ASOIAF, etc.  Popular art/entertainment can operate on many levels and have big and low brow appeal.  It certainly doesn't have to appeal to the lowest common denominator.