What is a “postmodern” world? What is modern today will not be tomorrow. Many historians call the world we are in “postmodern,” implying the modern world was yesterday. By definition that is unsound and confusing. Modern is now. The Random HouseDictionary defines modern as “of or relating to the present . . . characterized by or using the most up-to-date techniques . . . from the Latin modo meaning just now.” Thus, we should reject the term “postmodern” because it implies we have gone beyond now . . . which is impossible. However, the term “postmodern” has been widely applied to our time as describing a world of relativity. In the so-called postmodern world all is relative and nothing has a permanent foundation because there is no clear central hierarchy ororganizing mega-narratives; thus, it embodies extreme complexity, contradiction, ambiguity, and diversity. This definition sets the world adrift with no moral, spiritual, or even realistic underpinnings. To understand even a smidgen of this we must consider modern philosophy and its impact on the world—the postmodern world. This we will handle below after a few words on other pertinent subjects.[386]
More than one author analyzing history has determined humankind is uncivilized. They opine that our civilization is a thin veneer hiding the barbarian right under the surface. Pointing to history they call out: The French Reign of Terror in the French Revolution, the Final Solution of Adolf Hitler, the murderers Stalin and Mao who massacred millions as proof modern people are not so modern, rather, we are similar to Mongols who slaughtered millions as they swept across central Asia and Eastern Europe. Hitler, Stalin, and other modern dictatorships have shown ordinary people will willingly participate in such massacres. If these naysayers are correct, then our modern world is a façade that will quickly break down into vicious tribalism and ad hoc murder if unwatched for even one moment. This may tie into the postmodern world view of chaos and uncertainty.
The Long View of History
From a historical perspective, it is difficult to go beyond 1990 and call it history, since we are only in 2010 as I write. Eighteen years into the past is not really history. I remember Elvis Presley, and that was in the 1950s. When we get too close to the present wesacrifice the “long view” thattells us what is important and what is not. Moreover, the emotions of the recent past are still there. Vietnam still stirs up a lot of hate and discontent no matter what political side a person is on; thus, the long view is lost. The long view tells us that Impressionism was a very important art movement, but at the time most art critics and art buyers thought the paintings were junk. Nietzsche’s philosophy books did not sell during his time, and most thought he was nuts (in fact he did go insane), but today we see Nietzsche as an accurate foreteller of the future. Without the long view we cannot know where history is really going or where it is now. If history had taken another course, Nietzsche could have been an unknown nut job and Impressionism relegated to the trash bin. From here on in, we must be very careful to note that we are dealing with events that are too close in time to judge effectively.
What About the West is Unique?
When we study the history of Western civilization we need to stop and ask ourselves what is unique about Western history and its inheritors: America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. In this we are mainly comparing the West (Western Europe, America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) to China, Siberia, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Indochina, the Near East, Egypt, Turkey, the Middle East, India, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. Here is a list:
• The individual is greater than the state is the most important political idea in history, and the West acquired it from ancient Greece. The rest of the world rejects this notion.
• The fall of the Western Roman Empire, the subsequent colonization of Rome by barbarian tribes, and the loss of the Roman civilization is an event that is unique to Western Europe. The shattering of Rome was so complete it allowed a new civilization to grow up in its place; however, Roman law and literature survived to influence the new Western World that arose from Rome’s ashes.
• The Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Christianity grew first from the ashes of the Roman Empire and much later the Protestant Reformation. These religions once dominated Europe because of the Renaissance, the Age of Discovery, and Imperialism. These ideals survive into the modern world as both a unifying and divisive force.
• The Renaissance was unique to Europe, and without this flowering of knowledge everything would be different. The Renaissance brought the scientific method, empiricism, modern philosophy, the concept of progress, and many other concepts to the West and the world. This event alone makes the Western World very different from the remaining world’s cultures.
• The scientific method grew from the Renaissance and allowed Europe to advance far beyond the rest of the world in empirical knowledge, technology, medicine, and exploration.
• The idea of progress grew from the Renaissance, spreading to all of Europe and its offshoots in America and elsewhere.
• World Wars I and II, the most destructive in history, threw the Western World into chaos and made the dream of progress questionable.
• WWI & WWII smashed Western Europe and Russia, and this changed the outlook of Western Europe. America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and others maintained a more positive outlook; however, as time progressed, the gloom of the two World Wars, plus unsolvable new problems, overwhelmed even these areas. Victory in the Cold War did not eliminate the depressive effects of the 20th Century.
• Capitalism, and economic freedom, including private property rights are hallmarks of the Western world. They are major reasons behind the prosperity of the West because they open the door for vast rewards to the person who can innovate. Capitalism requires individual freedom and the protection of private property. Without political freedom capitalism cannot work. Whatever the problems, the economic and political freedoms granted by capitalism far outweigh any downside. Beyond the West, such economic and political freedoms are only dreams.
All these events make the Western world and anyone growing up in it unique. From this alone, we can see how history may determine mind-sets and thus decisions made by differing cultures. The West is unique, as each individual is unique, and the decisions by Western governments and individuals raised in the West show this difference.
Modern Philosophy—of the west
Please understand that all the philosophies examined here are grossly oversimplified and do not in any way explain the true complexity of the ideas involved.—AD2
As stated in our chapters on ancient history, Greek philosophy covered all the basic ideas found in Western philosophy. As time marched on, Western philosophy began to get bogged down in definitional problems and finally came to rest on the jagged rocks ofepistemology.[387] David Humeeffectively argued that what we call knowledge is only a set of experiences which cannot be depended upon to be true. For example, just because one has been adequately sustained by eating bread does not mean that one will always be so sustained. He even went so far as to prove that just because we have watched the sun come up every morning for fifty years does not mean it will come up tomorrow; thus, there is no knowledge of any kind. Finally, Hume proposed that he did not exist and went on to prove it to his own satisfaction. Most philosophers wished Hume had not existed. His form of philosophy is termed skepticism, and in Hume’s case extreme skepticism.
British empiricism argued all knowledge came from experience alone. Empiricism was opposed to the philosophical position of rationalism, which stressed innate ideas—ideas that come from the brain alone without sensory input—were all that was true. Since Hume destroyed the idea of knowledge coming from experience he put a hammerlock on innate ideas as well as sensory ideas. Oh well . . . since Hume proved he did not exist we can safely move on. By the way, empiricism and rationalism both survived Hume.
Compare empiricism to Descartes (I think therefore I am) who thought he was, and therefore he really was, and this means the brain can think without sensory input. Descartes’ reasoning might be hard to follow, but at least he thought he existed, or because he thought he thought, thus he existed . . . or some such thing. Descartes declared, “I think, therefore I am.” This was the classic statement allowing Descartes to prove his existence, and from that he built up his understanding of the world and all he experienced in it. The German idealist agreed with Descartes that the mind, its thoughts and ideas, was most important rather than the unreliable world of sensory perception. As the reader can ascertain, these arguments hearken back to the Greek philosophers Plato (forms or universals—the mind was most important) and Aristotle (the concrete world of sensory perception is most important).
Modern philosophy has tried to remove itself from this logical conundrum foisted upon it by skepticism, empiricism, and rationalism by avoiding definitional arguments. Many philosophies, such as Ayn Rand’s objectivism, simply state as a given fact that the world does exist outside of our senses, and since we can measure this world we can depend upon its existence. Rand argued there was a “mind independent” reality, and individuals are in contact with that reality through their senses. By starting from this point, Rand avoided the problems of epistemology and its focus on how a person can know the world exists and whether their perceptions are accurately interpreting reality. Contrast objectivism with the ideas of Descartes who thought that sensory perceptions came to him involuntarily—that is without his having willed them to occur. From this, he concludes there is evidence of an external world which was something outside his mind; however, Descartes also thought that what existed in the mind was more important and more reliable than that which one “knew” through the senses. As one can see, both Descartes and Rand are arguing against skepticism because Hume had destroyed the ability of the human mind to prove anything existed. Rand puts the emphasis on the outside world of measurement, and Descartes puts the emphasis on the internal world of the mind (thought), but both agreed the world outside the mind did exist.
Kant, the great German idealist, tried a new way to break the deadlock by reasoning that rationalism (innate ideas in the mind) and empiricism (all knowledge is gained through sensory experience) could be reconciled. Kant decided there were two kinds of judgments: analytic where the truth is determined within itself, and synthetic where truth has to be determined by an investigation such as looking at a person to observe if they are present at a certain location. There was also transcendental knowledge (a priori or before observation or study—that which you know is true), andempirical knowledge (a posteriori or after) which one must study or experiment to find out if it is true. Kant thought a synthetic a priori concept could be a universal truth proven through experimentation. Thus, transcendental or prior knowledge which could be proven by experimentation could be the foundation for discovering universal truths that all could agree on, thereby putting philosophy on a firm footing and avoiding endless arguments about whether truth could ever be discovered or known. Using these methods, Kant decided the universe was chaotic, and man’s mind imposed order onto what was actually chaos, and this perceived order becomes our reality. Nice try, but not everyone agreed. What else would one expect from men with sharp minds and strong opinions? Therefore, the arguments continue . . . Here are a few more variations on the theme:
Utilitarianism is a moral doctrine that states an action must be measured by its contribution to the good or “the greatest good for the greatest number.” As we can see, this argument avoids the problem of epistemology by simply ignoring the discussion. It at least attempts to form a moral underpinning for a person’s actions. Rather than engage in circular arguments about thoughts or senses, utilitarianism wants to discuss how to make moral decisions. The problem arises when people disagree what course of action will result in the greatest good for the greatest number, but even without philosophical agreement individuals will at least have an agreed upon common goal of attempting to reach “the good” (“The good” is me being rich and healthy . . .).
Positivism is another attempt to solve the problem of knowledge. This philosophy holds that the only authentic knowledge is scientific, that is, the only true “knowledge” is that obtained by using the scientific method. Of course, the skeptics simply said even this kind of knowledge comes from experience and is therefore no different from other knowledge gained from experience—unreliable. Positivism at least gives some basis for agreement on facts, in that the scientific method demanded repeatable experiments; thus, even though based on a belief in the reliability of sensory perceptions, at least it demands agreement on those perceptions. Simply saying one cannot depend on sensory perceptions is getting nowhere, so why not agree that if the same results can be obtained from experiments then the perception is valid enough to build on. Idealists and skeptics still want to argue the point, but the positivists ignore them (compare to objectivism). (Having performed numerous experiments, I am certain that happiness arrives when I have money, lots of money . . .).
Rationalism emphasizes the role of human reason in discovering reality.[388] The philosopher John Locke argued the mind is a blank slate and experience alone can leave a mark. This rejects the role of reason in discovering reality or truth. Realism is a philosophy that holds abstract objects corresponding to universal terms (chair for example) have a real existence (Plato argued this) much like rationalism. Idealism holds that nothing can be known outside of the human mind, and thus (in some idealist concepts) nothing exists apart from the mind (compare to Zen Buddhism).
Kant, who thought we could know more than just what is in our minds, developed transcendental idealism. Kant argued we could directly know the possibility of “things in themselves.” This world of “things in themselves” might exist (a possibility), but actually knowing this world is impossible. Thus, when we experience something, a ball for example, we experience the object as it appears to us and not as the ball is “in and of itself.” (This kind of stuff drives me nuts). As we have pointed out above, Kant’s efforts are exacting in that he was trying to establish a basis for agreements on universals, but this philosophy is hard to apply in the everyday world. For somewhat dull types such as me, Kant’s arguments are mostly linguistic intrigues in which I quickly lose my way.
Existentialism argues life is meaningless, and people can decide for themselves their own meaning and essence of life and that determination is valid. An existentialist will focus on finding meaning in life through existence alone. Existentialism rejects any definition of humans as rational. Existence comes before, and is primary to, any human definition of reality. This avoids the problems of how we know the world exists, assumes it does, and argues one must find a meaning in life. Unfortunately, Existentialism says life is actually meaningless, but an individual must find meaning just from one’s very existence. Worse, the individual must do this alone. When accomplished, the determination is valid for that individual.
Nietzsche made the famous statement “God is dead,” meaning the secular, scientific world destroyed the concept of God. He thought the destruction of God must lead to the loss of an agreed upon universal perspective, and this would lead to the loss of the idea of truth as an objective concept (compare to post-modern). The result would be the death of morals and morality. All that remained to guide life was one’s own internal perspective (compare to existentialism). Nietzsche was predicting a future world without morals in the traditional sense, which would also mean all the philosophers’ arguments failed to produce anything except confusion and more arguments. Nietzsche’s arguments were simple. The strong will rule and morality will not survive.
All this is contradictory and confusing. The ancient history section points out that as one philosopher came up with an idea another philosopher trashed it. There is a kind of time line to this, because the older the philosophy the more it is attacked. This is an endless progression of nothingness as no progress is ever made; however, another philosopher, Hegel, tried to overcome this problem with his philosophy (see, it never ends . . . never).
Hegel, who is nearly impossible to understand, wrote that progress is constant in nearly all fields of human endeavor (including philosophy). He believed that when any idea became generally accepted a contradictory idea must soon challenge it. These two opposing ideas would then battle it out, and eventually a change must occur that takes the best of both concepts and incorporates them into a third concept. The third combined concept then becomes the generally accepted idea, and we are back where we started. Following all this, the new generally accepted idea is challenged by a contrary idea hence starting the formula all over again. This process is termed the dialectic. Through this progression constant improvement results in all fields of human endeavor. Hegel seems to be an optimistic fellow. This is summed up, incorrectly according to experts in Hegel’s ideas, in this chain: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Another way to put it might be old idea (thesis), contrary idea (antithesis), new idea that combines the old and the contrary ideas (synthesis, which transforms into the thesis) and then repeat the process again. The key here is the concept that the old and new ideas both contain truth that the synthesis will preserve. Hegel studied history and thought this is how history advanced.
I do not accept Hegel’s concept as valid. For example, Christianity and Islam have been competing ideas for over one thousand years; however, there has been no synthesis between the two competing concepts. Two other competing concepts are democracy and dictatorship, and no synthesis has occurred between these two extremes. Where does one find a half of an election? Individualism and collectivism are also two conflicting ideas that have not found a synthesis because either the group (state) is more important or the individual is more important. These two ideas do not meld. Philosophy, modern or ancient, has not advanced because it cannot advance. People do not agree on ideas at a foundational level and never will as long as they think for themselves. Nevertheless, we do not want to underrate the impact of philosophy. It is of vital importance. For example, when the ancient Israelites invaded Canaan, God told them to annihilate the cities and people they found there. Seems strange, as people are a valuable asset; however, if a person thinks about the invasion from Hegel’s philosophical point of view all of the people had to be killed because, if allowed to live, there would be a joining (synthesis) between the Israelite’s ideas and the ideas of the conquered. Maintaining the purity of Israelite ideas required the death of all the opposing ideas. As ideas resided in the people’s heads they had to be detached.
Philosophy deeply affects the actions of governments. For example, the Constitution of the United States embodies the concept of the individual being more important than the state as critical to governance. As a result, the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution set forth a series of individual rights, such as freedom of speech, that the government cannot violate (“Congress shall make no law . . .”). At one point, the US Supreme Court ruled nude dancing was freedom of speech (which I disagree with, but no one cares about my opinion), and as such, it took on the status of an individual right. Even though 99 percent of the nation might disagree with nude dancing, the individual can keep that right against the entire state because the individual is greater than the state. This is an expression of the ultimate power of the individual and is an open display of the power of the individual in the US Constitutional system. In other systems, the fact that 99 percent of the country would be against this “speech” would automatically end its existence. In a dictatorship, if the state (the dictator) decides nude dancing is wrong it remains wrong even if 99 percent of the people are for it, because the state is greater than the individual.
Be aware that these philosophic differences make a huge variation in the way people approach the world. If life has no meaning (philosophical naturalism) then why protect life? Abortion assumes that certain lives have no meaning. The Nazis applied the same concept when deciding to murder the Jews. They simply determined certain lives were without meaning or were outright evil. Once we determine that we can take certain lives, for whatever reason, the concept can expand to other lives branded as worthless by the state. The Nazis quickly expanded the “no purpose” rule to include the mentally ill, Gypsies, Slavs, and many others. We have already expanded the abortion rule (some lives have no value) to include those who are terminally ill and requesting death (euthanasia). Concepts of utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number, can easily justify abortion or euthanasia. A terminally ill person lingering on is a huge cost to our economy, society, and the family. The greatest good would be to kill the person and use the medical and economic resources elsewhere. Existentialism allows suicide or assisted suicide because the individual determines his own existence; thus, he can choose to end his existence. Compare this to the Jewish and Christian philosophies holding human life as sacred, and each life has specific purposes as determined by God. Christian and Jewish philosophy prohibits abortion, suicide, and euthanasia because God decides when a person’s life must end. Why not prohibit capital punishment? Because God told people that certain acts are punished by death. There is another philosophical problem . . . .
This very long discussion points out the importance of philosophy in history and its failure to advance the human condition. Three thousand years of arguments concerning what is real, is there a god (or gods), the nature of humanity, the nature of god, and the rest have failed to produce a genuine agreement as to “truth” or anything else at a foundational level, thereby leaving the human condition where it was before the arguments began. Nonetheless, our philosophical beliefs guide our decisions, and decisions make history.
Propaganda
Propaganda has played a large role in human society from the inception of social interaction. The myth of the ruler being a god on earth is one kind of propaganda found in the ancient world. During the American Revolution the pamphlet Common Sense was a masterful piece of American propaganda, and probably saved the cause. The modern world, with the Internet, cell phones, television, radio, newspapers, and other information outlets is replete with propaganda; however, few recognize it as such. Modern Sophists, people interested in forwarding their agenda without regard for the truth, literally rule the media on political and social issues. During political campaigns their presence is especially noticeable, but most people are not used to discerning the difference between propaganda and the truth. As a result, “spin” (propaganda) is increasingly effective.
Another form of modern propaganda, originally honed by Adolf Hitler and his genius associate Dr. J. Gobbles, was the big lie technique. In this method, a very great lie is presented so it is easy to recall. Then the big lie is repeated endlessly and in scores of different ways. The goal is not for the entire lie to be accepted, but it aims for the acceptance of at least part of the lie. For example, during the Iraqi War protestors raised the chant (and also signage) that, “Bush lied, men died.” Note the phrase was presented in an easy to recall fashion. President Bush did not lie about the war and men die every day for a variety of reasons; however, if the general public accepted that President Bush failed to say everything he could have, then the propaganda had achieved its purpose.
Modern propaganda turns to emotional responses to achieve its goals often without the recipient of the propaganda ever knowing what is happening to them. During the 1964 US Presidential election, President Johnson’s team ran an ad showing a young girl picking flowers suddenly engulfed in an atomic explosion. This was followed by “Vote for Johnson” silently placed on the screen. The real impact was not logical, it was visceral. It implied his opponent was a war monger. This kind of emotional appeal is still present, but it is done in ways that are far more subtle. Today, propaganda artists make earlier work look amateurish, and this is a crucial problem for modern democratic societies.
Propaganda in all its subtle forms including sophistry, visceral methods, psychological methods, big lies and the rest is coupled with mass marketing through television, radio, the print media, and the Internet and now poses a real problem for the Western Democracies. If public opinion can be manipulated using the modern media, then elections and law making will warp to the side of those with the best, and maybe the most expensive, sophist and propaganda artists. This will make democracy something less than the will of the people and more of the will of the manipulators. If history is any guide, the ability to manipulate the masses will grow exponentially.
Beyond the Cold War
After the Cold War, the United States was the only “superpower” on the planet. Today, China is one of the foremost nations in the world, and its technological, economic, and military rise has been swift. China is a superpower by any standard, and many Asian nations are falling under the broadening Chinese sphere of influence. China became communist in 1949, and until the death of Mao it was fraught with political and economic repression. Mao’s death on September 9, 1976 allowed Deng Xiaoping to take over. President Nixon’s visit to China in 1972 started the process of opening the nation up to economic reform, and Deng Xiaoping acted to expand the economy through doses of capitalism. It worked. China is growing to be the most economically powerful nation on earth. Nonetheless, the political repression remains. The rise of China also threatens the survival of Taiwan. As China is communist and seeking more power and influence in the world, this will result in yet another challenge to the democracies. In the East, Japan remains the only indigenous power that can match the Chinese economically; however, it cannot match the Chinese militarily. The testing of medium-range missiles by North Korea in 2007, another communist power, threatens Japan as well.
The fall of the USSR led to a bad economic time in Russia. Criminal elements literally stole the Russian economy and destroyed it for their own gain. After the fall of the communists dictators, Russia turned to democracy as their plan for the future; however, as time has moved forward the forces of democracy began to lose out to the forces of totalitarianism in Russia, and the elections put men into power who were not going to leave when their terms of office expired. As former strong men in the old USSR began to move to the top of Russian politics, they promised a return to past glories by confronting America and building up the Russian military to match the West. It seems old ways die hard, and Russia is turning back to its past of individual oppression and state supremacy. It appears that the dictators are returning as men such as Putin find ways to stay in office, newspaper reporters are murdered, the Russian legislature has less and less power, and foreigners who report on the activities of the Kremlin die mysterious deaths by radiation poisoning—or they just disappear into the snows of Moscow. As Russia melts into its past and transforms itself back to its old monstrous self, the impact on the world will be profound; however, it is too early to say where this will go. All the observer can do is compare where Russia seems to be going with where they were in the past and report that the ground looks familiar.
Europe is also growing into an economic powerhouse through its uniting in any economic, and now political, union. After the EEC showed its promise in the 1960s, other European nations began to join. They formed into a single market and a free trade zone named the European Union in 1995. Then they moved to a single currency about 2002, the Euro. Since 1995 the number of nations in the EU has swollen dramatically. As economic freedom and prosperity has advanced, so has democracy. Several former semi-dictatorial states in the EU have moved to a democratic way of government. Overall, the EU has been a dramatic success.
As World War II ended, a new international organization was set up to help prevent new wars, the United Nations. The organization started with hope, but as the years went on it became a debating society much like the League of Nations. Without total support from the Security Council the United Nations cannot act. There is a clear division in the world between political philosophies, and each of those philosophies sit on the Security Council; thus, when one party wants to act at least one other does not resulting in constant deadlock. Even when outright slaughters are ongoing the United Nations does not move. In Rwanda, a devastating slaughter has been going on for years, and the United Nations either cannot or does not wish to stop the murder. Even though UN forces went to Rwanda they were inadequate in size, training, and motivation; thus, the mission failed and the slaughter continued. In other areas of Africa, such as the Sudan, Muslims massacre Christians and the United Nations does not act. Famines take place all over the globe, but unless nations such as the United States do something, the United Nations seldom moves. In the United Nations no criticism can be made of such goings-on because the body will not stand for such criticism. Religiously antagonistic and ‘have not” states, whose agendas for the world are illiberal in the extreme, greatly outnumber the Western Democracies and consistently vote against the agendas of the West. Under these conditions the United Nations has devolved into stagnation.
Where the post-modern world will take humanity is difficult to say. Europe has shattered into a hive of small competing ethic regions. The same fracturing appears to be happening in Asia, Africa, and perhaps Latin America. Everyone wants to rule themselves. The shattering into small politically independent, but economically dependent, nations can hurt trade. Can these tiny areas really survive? The unifying force of religion is failing, as radical Islam stupidly adopts violence to unite people. Violence is the last method that works to unite people.
There are several trends influencing the modern world. Let’s take a quick look:
Technology
Technology is alive and well in our modern world. It is intrusive, complex, and allows technocrats tremendous power over those who do not understand the machines that technocrats have mastered. Computers are now tied to every aspect of life in the modern Western world. Mobile telephones are everywhere, and the World Wide Web (the INTERNET) has proliferated beyond comprehension.
The start of much of this technological wizardry was the Space Race between the USSR and America. In 1961 when President Kennedy announced that America would reach the moon before the decade was out, computers were machines that filled entire rooms. The number of vacuum tubes in computing machines like Univac numbered in the thousands (and they burned out a lot). One of the major accomplishments of the space program was to shrink computing technology to diminutive scales so they could fit onto spacecraft and help navigate and otherwise assist the astronauts in the complex flying needed to reach and return from space.
When the United States landed on the surface of the moon on July 20, 1969, it was the result of fantastic progress in marrying machines with computers. Neil Armstrong (the first man on the moon’s surface) and Buzz Aldrin (the second) were able to transmit from the moon to the Earth with radios that were minuscule compared to those available in 1960. When IBM launched its first personal computer it could address a maximum of 640 kilobytes of information at once. Now (2010) computers can address gigabytes of information with no problem. The growth of the power of the computer is one of the phenomena of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries that will reach far into the future. There is little doubt technology will continue to power the machines of the future, but the future itself may be dark or bright. The machines and computers will not decide that issue;people will decide.
In 1974, a group of computer geniuses invented the protocol that would lead to the Internet. In 1992, the number of Internet users was extremely small, but by 2006, the number had grown to 350 million with millions more being added each year. The worldwide acceptance of the Internet and computers displays the acceptance of change in the Western world. The Internet has had a dramatic impact on societies in the West, and its impact will only grow as computers and transmission techniques become better and faster.
Bureaucracy and technology nowadays unite in both wonderful and dangerous ways. We cover this topic in the section on Bureaucracy in the Modern World (below).
War
First the good news; since 1945 there have been no general wars between any of the great powers. The bad news is war is changing rather dramatically in the twenty-first century. The super weapons owned by the United States and other technologically advanced nation states are virtually useless against insurgents who are able to hide among the population and strike indiscriminately and without warning. This type of warfare is the most difficult for the Western Democracies to face because it is very different from previous conflicts, and it forces the West to get involved in cultures they do not understand. Winning the support of the populace is not an easy matter for political entities viewed as former imperial powers or, going even further back, crusaders.
The insurgents strike soft points for the purpose of inflicting casualties and gaining worldwide headlines. These tactics will be successful if the insurgents can carry them out consistently and wear down the forces of the West. The new form of warfare favors the enemies of the West because as long as they can keep or obtain the allegiance of the locals the Western powers cannot successfully prevail against them. The native factions making this kind of war often use terror tactics to gain and keep control of local populations. Thus, to “win” such a conflict the West must learn the ways of the locals and then attempt to convince them that democracy and moderation is the path to a better future. If for any reason the West fails in this endeavor, then the opposing combatants will continue to avoid capture and continue to inflict losses. The West should note that for hundreds of years the eastern cultures have been living next door and have not adopted Western ideas. Will they now choose to do so just because Western military units reside in or near their land? (See: The Accidental Guerilla, by D. Kilcullen, Oxford University Press, 2009)[389]
Good intelligence is the key to victory in these new wars. What must happen for the West to succeed is that the locals must give away the positions of the insurgents and warn the Western Democracies fighting in the area of planned raids or the placement of bombs and other traps. A clear indication of nearing victory is an increase in accurate intelligence from locals wanting the insurgents out of their area. A clear indication of nearing defeat is zero intelligence tips, for whatever reasons. Thus far, the Western Democracies have not adapted well to this new form of warfare. Corruption in foreign governments presents a significant problem—if not the most significant. Budgets for the Western Democracies show the spending levels for massive new weapons systems to fight World War II type contests are either stable or rising. To win the new wars the West must spend funds on additional intensive training and new specialized equipment for their foot soldiers and avoid spending excessive sums on super weapons capable of destroying entire regions in one blow.
Even as insurgent warfare is thrust on the West the old form of all-out war is still a threat. Red China still possesses a massive army, navy, and air force that threaten neighboring nations. The survival of Taiwan depends on US military protection. Russia is rebuilding its old nuclear arsenal and improving its military to enable it to challenge the West. These facts force the United States to maintain both a reasonably sized, technologically proficient conventional force, and, additional, highly trained and mobile forces to thwart insurgents that may gain control of vital raw materials or nuclear weapons. Maintaining these dual forces is expensive, and deploying to long wars without obvious endings will drain the financial resources and damage the political will of the United States and other Western Democracies.
In the war on terror, the atomic bomb changes everything. Now a small and otherwise inconsequential nation can literally destroy millions at one blow. If Iran or North Korea were unable to gain atomic weapons how much of a threat would they comprise? Without atomic weapons, the terrorist’s threat is much less viable. With atomic weapons a terrorist state can shake the world to its foundations. All this puts the entire world on a razor’s edge because there are so many nations controlled by leaders who would use atomic weapons without compunction.
Lack of political will to fight the long wars of insurgency is the most significant threat to the survival of the Western Democracies. As monolithic religious sects take over nation after nation in the Middle East, and elsewhere, the challenge to the West becomes ever greater. Meanwhile, the Western Democracies will debate the morality, cost, effectiveness, and sacrifice necessary to win these wars and will most often decide to pull out after a few years or high casualties—if history is any guide. The citizen of the Western Democracies hold their military to the highest standards of warfare, while their enemies of are held to no standard whatsoever. From a “political will” point of view the West is in trouble. Contrary to many views on the subject, the United States and the West canlose the war against terrorism, and the consequences would be devastating for the world.
US Civil Rights Movement
1955 to present day (2010)
The civil rights movement that began before the US Civil War, and ended with the nadir of Reconstruction, would return in the late 1950s and continue through the 1960s and beyond as the Reverend Martin Luther King and others began nonviolent opposition to laws in southern US states relegating blacks to inferior citizenship. A series of laws enacted by Congress, with substantial backing from people of all races in areas outside and inside the South, reinforced the political rights of blacks throughout the United States of America. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting RightsAct of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 were just a few of the laws passed to insure civil rights for minorities. In addition, the blacks demanded social equality and equality in employment. Backed by the US Congress and the federal courts, the blacks managed to achieve substantial progress by the end of the 1970s. The civil rights movement continues in 2010, expanding to nonblack minorities, women, and homosexuals who now claim the US is an evil and unfair society.
For reasons difficult to comprehend, after the blacks had gained numerous laws protecting the civil rights of all minorities and numerous laws, regulations, and court decisions giving opportunities that even went so far as to discriminate against whites, the blacks still argued for more. Worse, the leaders of blacks and other minorities began contending that the United States was a fascist nation unworthy of their support. This contention of an evil United States spread and became a commonly held belief in many minority groups throughout the country. For example, black churches openly teach that the Federal Government invented the AIDS virus to kill black people, and under so called “Liberation Theology” black and minority churches openly call for violence against the white race and the overthrow of the US government.
What has been forgotten by a substantial number of blacks and other minorities (who by 2010 were majorities in many cities) is how the white race in America made sure minorities were protected and gained an equal place in society. In 1865, after suffering almost a million casualties in the Civil War, white northern soldiers and the US Congress freed the black slaves and passed Constitutional Amendments to protect their civil rights. In the 1960s, few blacks were in Congress when the civil rights acts were passed, and the judges from 1960 to 2010 making favorable decisions for minorities were white. Poor as this may sound, white America freed the blacks who now seemingly hate them. Somehow, freedoms won via the white majority caused blacks to believe they still suffer from oppression.
This mind-set is irrational. In one black rally in the 1990s, a sign held by a black protester read, “It takes a nation of millions to hold us back.” The expression of this sentiment takes place after the Civil War and a million Union casualties, the passage of numerous civil rights laws by a white congress, plentiful federal and state court decisions favoring minorities by white judges, affirmative action (which is actually discrimination against whites), lowered entrance requirements for minorities in prestigious schools, and many other social and economic advantages bestowed in the name of race relations. On top of all this, blacks and other minorities received trillions of dollars over the years in financial aid from the federal and state governments, nearly all of which came from white America. How strange, that the groups most helped by America are the ones hating America so ferociously?
Blacks argue the white majority had to give them freedom; otherwise, the black race would rise up and destroy America. Obviously, the blacks and their leaders forget what Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and many other tyrants did to their populations without incurring any real problems. Do blacks believe their efforts could succeed under Adolf Hitler? Is there any doubt Stalin would take glee in murdering every single black he could reach? If the northern whites and southern liberals had withheld their support in the 1960s, blacks could not have gained government protection in the South. It takes only a few highly placed members of government with a few troops to oppress the population as shown by the Nazis in France after 1940. The Nazis kept control of France with very few troops because any transgression was punished with barbaric severity which discouraged most people from being brave. It would have been the same in the South of 1960 had the white race throughout the US decided to ignore the plight of the blacks. Only in the Western Democracies would such a small group have so much impact on the laws and culture of a nation. And yet, the very system allowing this adjustment to take place by increasing their freedoms generates hate from blacks and other minorities beyond all reason.
I know of no one who has studied this phenomenon and how it came about. This odd sequence of events needs study because it defies reason. Of course, as I have pointed out previously, irrationality is a hallmark of human existence.
Bureaucracy in the Modern World
A bureaucracy is a group of officials who help leaders make and then carry out decisions. Such groups are extremely important in the modern world and have been around since ancient times. The Egyptian and Mesopotamian empires had bureaucracies. Rome had outstanding administrators (another word for bureaucrat) running its empire. In China, their bureaucracy leapt ahead of others with the invention of civil service, wherein a person had to test and qualify to become part of the administration and remained in place even if the government changed (well, not always). At least they came up with the idea of a professional group of people to assist the leaders in making and carrying out decisions.
In the Dark Ages there was a widespread administrative breakdown. The notable exception was the Catholic Church which developed a very good set of administrators within a framework of hierarchical positions that still exists and functions well today. By the 1800s, with empires spanning the globe, good administrators were needed everywhere to keep faraway governments and government agencies running smoothly. England sent out its administrators with broad powers to deal with events in the colonies because these men could not wait for a reply from London before making a decision. One reason the English empire lasted so long was that its field administrators did a good job.
As the world moved into the twentieth century administrators everywhere gained power. Modern governments needed more control over people. Governments had to control who obtained drivers licenses, medical licenses, mail carriers needed to know where to deliver the mail, cars needed registration for tax purposes and to help prevent theft, censuses were required to find out how many people lived in the nation, the military wanted civilians registered so the government could know who to draft in case of war, and on and on. By 1914, governments intruded on the lives of individuals as never before, accomplishing the imposition with bureaucracies tracking and ordering numerous aspects of life for their political masters.
By the 1940s, these bureaucracies had developed to the point that dictators such as Hitler and Stalin could use them to control the population. The modern state with modern technology turned the bureaucracy deadly. The administrators of the Third Reich and the USSR were unthinking, machine like people willing to grind citizens into rubble for the sake of the state, if so ordered by their murdering masters. Without this newer and more thorough bureaucracy, the dictators would have had a much harder time ruling, but with modern bureaucracy the modern state could control individuals very closely. We must remember that governments are things in and of themselves. Government will act in its own self interest as it is not a benign entity. As such, a government will use whatever powers can be acquired to control or suppress people that can harm it or dilute its power. Every government, democratic or autocratic, will do this just because it is the government. Modern machines will increase the power of the government dramatically and thus reduce the power of the individual dramatically.
The ability to categorize and track citizens has increased markedly with the expanding capability of the computer. This ever-multiplying capability to track every aspect of people’s lives amplifies the power of these unseen and unknown administrators who eagerly carry out any command, no matter how evil, of their political rulers. Bureaucracies now hold tremendous power because of technology and its ability to identify and investigate individuals in the populace. As powerful computers begin to correlate the substantial number of individual records such as birth, medical, employment, military, tax, and many more such items, they will also electronically combine this data, thereby multiplying the authority of bureaucrats—and the government. Computers combined with satellites make tracking vehicles and people much easier, and this too will add to the capability of the bureaucracy to control individual lives. Dictators and quasi-authoritarians could make full use of this kind of capability, and the bureaucracy will fully cooperate because it is their job to obey the orders of the government.
This is a growing trend in the modern world. Without some supervision, the administrators can become dictators themselves. More administrative regulations are adopted in the United States than there are laws coming out of Congress. These regulations have large impacts on everyday people, their employment, and many facets of their daily life, but few recognize the administrative intrusion. In 2010, President Obama appointed over 100 Czars to oversee various aspects of his administration. To date, no one has reported the responsibilities of the Czars, what powers were conferred, and it is unknown to whom they report. The growth of a bureaucracy beyond legislative control is dangerous. Watching and controlling the bureaucracies is every bit as important as watching and controlling legislators, presidents, or the military because they can be freedom’s greatest threat.
This growth of bureaucracy is an important part of world history. Without an improvement of the ability to carry out the demands of faraway governments empires could not have existed as they did in 1800. This same growth in administrative ability allowed modern states to evolve. We should note that if a needed bureaucracy does not operate well the public pays a high price. Bureaucrats handle emergency response, and deadly results are common where bureaucracies are nonexistent or poorly organized. The 2004 tsunamis hitting the South Pacific islands near Borneo devastated the area. Local bureaucracies failed to respond effectively; consequently, the number of deaths substantially increased.
In the United States, governmental educational institutions are failing as shown by falling scores on standardized tests and the graduation of students who cannot read their own diploma. Children graduate from high school unable to read or comprehend simple mathematical equations. This is a fundamental failure of the bureaucracy. Because education in the United States is a government bureaucracy it cannot be easily changed; thus, the children and the public continue to be the victims of this bureaucratic malfeasance.
Not all bureaucracies are controlled by the government. The East India Company, run by its private corporate board in England, had a great impact on world trade and government policy. Other large corporations with well functioning bureaucracies have also dominated the world scene from time to time. IBM certainly had a massive impact on the world with its computers, and automobile companies have made a monumental difference in the world as did railroad companies in the 1800s. Without able and well functioning bureaucracies none of these business enterprises could have accomplished much, but with such bureaucracies they had a worldwide influence. Thus, the contradiction of modern societies needing well-functioning bureaucracies, but these same instruments of the state can be turned against the people with stunning negative consequences.
The Future and our Ability to Discern the Future
Art can tell us about the future, or so it seems. Painting, music, and literature foretold a dark era of chaos before World War I descended upon the world. In the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci, the world is an orderly, unified, and beautiful place. In modern art, the world becomes unrecognizable, ugly, and chaotic. Classical music is a world of wonderful harmony, where everything fits together perfectly, and each note enjoys its exacting place. By the time of World War I music started showing the world as chaotic, disjointed, and ugly.
Examining the world of art and music as of 2010, we enter a dark and chaotic place where humanity is without meaning, and normality is nonexistent. In modern paintings, artists smear feces onto a canvas and win art competitions. The public coffers paid for a painting of Jesus upside down in a bucket of urine. In a painting entitled A Bigger Splash, no person is present, and only the aftermath of the action of diving into a pool is seen. People portrayed in film are often dirty, evil, tattoo covered, smoking, drinking, drug using, violent, and immoral scum without purpose or direction in life. In films, sex is no more than an animalistic act with no purpose beyond personal gratification. The big city environment is portrayed as a filthy, graffiti covered, trash filled, dangerous wasteland where anything resembling classical normalcy is a joke. Propaganda films are easily sold as fact (Sicko, Bowling for Columbine, An Inconvenient Truth). TV programs in the post-modern era often reflect the meaninglessness of human existence (Sex in the City,Seinfeld).
Music reflects the new worldview of nothingness and meaninglessness. In the classical era of symphonies, brilliant men were creating exceptionally complex musical compositions where every note was vital. Each note fit into its place with such precision that even the smallest nuance had meaning. If even one note was lost or out of place the overall harmony and perfection of the music was lost. In the 1940s, the music was also complex with many instruments playing together in a unified whole, and the accompaniment of the vocal artists joined with exactness into the whole (the Andrews Sisters, Benny Goodman, Glen Miller). These songs and musical numbers were a team effort where each person played an important part; accordingly, if someone were out of step or off-key, the entire piece suffered. In popular music of the 1950s through 1980s one could normally discern each note played and each word sung in a musical piece. In this era the music was simplistic with few people needed to perform the song or instrumental. Nonetheless, each note of the song was important, and leaving out a note or a word was noticeable, if not destructive, of the whole.
By 2010, music had devolved into stochastic sounds where volume is often more important than any other aspect of the music. So-called rap music had the simplest of beats, no musical accompaniment at all, and is reminiscent of the Gregorian chant of the Dark Ages. It is only lacking in the harmony found in the chant. In other modern music, individual instrumental notes are unrecognizable and the words of the performers blur into a haze of sound, usually covered by the almost-incomprehensible hammering of the instruments where individual notes do not exist. In modern music, individual notes or words have no importance. If a note or an entire range of notes disappeared few would notice. When words are noticeable, they are often vile in nature and espouse the worst of actions. Both the words and the music paint a dark and sinister world composed of little good and constant evil. Good is unrecognized in most post 1990s music as suicide, drug use, violence, and crime are extolled as desirable.
Since the individual notes have no meaning or importance, the message is that the individual has no meaning or importance. Life has no meaning, just as the music, the notes, the vocals, and the performers have no meaning. Finding unity, order, beauty, or harmony in this music is impossible; therefore, finding unity, order, beauty, or harmony in the world is impossible.
Post-modern music and painting depict a world without reason or meaning where the individual is without importance or value; in consequence, the arts say our world is dark, sinister, and filled with chaos. Note the painting “Vine” by Brice Marden (Figure 83). In this painting the world is without form or meaning, as the shadows and the substance merge into meaningless lines going nowhere and resulting in chaos. Note that a vine is a living growing entity, normally reaching for the sun and sprouting leaves, but in this painting even the vine cannot discern where the sun is and does not have leaves. The sun is out (note the shadows), but the vine is not reaching for the sun. It is lost and alone. Without leaves the vine is dead and without purpose like modern “life”. (Fortunately, anyone looking at a real vine would see extreme order, beauty, and purposefulness.)
Figure 83 B. Marden, Vine, 1992-1993
This worldview of meaninglessness does have challengers. Classic music survives as the scores to popular films (Star Wars, Superman, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Chronicles of Narnia), some of the best attended movies of all time set forth themes of good versus evil where evil is conquered (The 300, National Treasure, The War of the Worlds, the Star Wars Trilogy, the Passion of the Christ), and religion has many followers. Still, one must admit the overwhelming popularity of modern music and art tell us that we are under the malevolent influence of World War I, the Depression, World War II, the cold war, and the ever-present danger of atomic annihilation. Cynicism, irrationality, and meaninglessness are the tattoos of modern life, but we also notice the marvels of technology are pointing to a brighter future if our world chooses to embrace it. If one thinks about it, the mere fact that our universe is highly ordered, from the galaxy to the atom, should confirm that life is not just chaos.
Can history tell us to what future the present is heading? Not specifically, but we can make some predictions based on the assumption that the major trends of the past will continue. By major trends, I do not mean events that have occurred in the past one hundred years, but events with the commonality of repetition that have been recurring for thousands of years.
If we can depend on anything, it will be that people will keep killing one another. There will be unremitting wars and slaughters of blameless people. Philosophers of hate will continue to attract adherents who will slaughter others who have the audacity to be different. This really is not a prediction; it is only holding up a mirror to the past, seeing what was, and extrapolating it into what will be.
If technological trends continue as they have since the Paleolithic, computers and technology will have more and more control over our lives, and every aspect of our existence may soon be in the hands of machines. Medicine is on the verge of defeating death. Is there any doubt that people start aging because something throws the DNA switches in our genes to command our cells to stop producing the stem cells needed to heal and correct deterioration in our bodies? According to Science News, scientists have discovered how to throw certain DNA switches. Once they discover which switches in the DNA code control aging they will be able to throw those switches and stop the aging process. In many ways the future looks bright, but there is always the cloud of human character hanging over humankind. Humans now have the power to destroy the entire planet overnight, and there is no doubt that some people are willing to destroy everything with a smile. Humanity may defeat death, disease, and other human problems with advancing technology, but human nature will remain the same. When it comes to inventing tools humans are unsurpassed. Avoiding our human characteristics for killing, conquest, and control is the problem.
The Hebrew prophets who wrote some three thousand years ago foretold of a future world governed by numbers and occupied by people who lived well past one hundred years of age.[390] These prophets predicted that everyone would have to have a number to buy or sell, and they predicted a one world government that would operate this system. Strangely, in the year 2010, we can see the outlines of this world forming. Prior to the advent of computers it was impossible to understand how everyone could be assigned a number and forced to use it to participate in the economy. With computer technology we can understand how easily the near future could contain such an economic system.
Today, it looks like the Hebrew prophets were right about the future world economy and the possibility of defeating death. These same prophets said the world would end in chaos, war, famine, pestilence, and plague. If this proves to be correct, then the world will end as it existed with the only difference being a much-increased degree of chaos, war, famine, pestilence, and plague. This prediction sounds reasonable given our increase in war-making capability. The world must also take note that our planet is a dynamic place where asteroid strikes, volcanic explosions, and changing weather all place humankind in constant jeopardy. There have been mass extinctions in the past, and we would be foolish to assume there will not be others. The Bible seems[391] to foretell of a combination of man-made and natural destructive events that will annihilate the world. As far as predictions about the future goes, this is about as good as it gets because it nicely covers what has happened in the past and simply brings the events of the past forward—with a twist thrown in of God’s return to earth. It is interesting to note that many ancient cultures agree that the world will end in terrible violence.
The only way out of this evil termination of the world is to change human nature, and history says this will not happen. The one commonality in all history is the unchanging qualities of human nature. No matter where we study the past, we can count on one never changing thread: human nature stays the same. We can read the writings of Marcus Aurelius (121-80 BC) and discover his thoughts were not so different from ours today, in spite of the gulf of two thousand years between his thoughts and ours. Cain killed Abel for no good reason according to the Bible, and everywhere we look people are still killing one another for no good reason. It seems people have been cheating, lying, seducing, raping, murdering, stealing, and conquering—among a host of other ills—since the human race started. If this does not change then the ancient Hebrew prophets will be correct, and we will end up the same way we started out, murdering one another.
Human nature is dogged by irrationality. People murder with increasing gusto, massive amounts of money are spent buying propaganda, pornography, illegal drugs, other fundamentally irrational things, more nations are acquiring nuclear weapons, and people ignore the plight of others. Meanwhile, science, empirical knowledge, new inventions, and new discoveries continue to accelerate and better the human condition. The dual nature of human beings is clear in this divergence. On the one hand, we enjoy magnificent rationality and progress while on the other hand we suffer irrationality striving to undo every advance. No human society has ever overcome the dual nature of humankind. The future may depend on our ability to meet this heretofore-impossible challenge.
A Final Thought
Look back over the history that we have covered. From the very start of history to the year 2010, at least one political division has been clear. Governments by dictators, kings, and tyrants who believed the state was everything and the individual was nothing, have been faced down by men who thought the individual was greater than the state, and only by respecting the individual did the government have any right to exist. From Marathon to Inchon and beyond, this has been true. It is still true today, and America is currently the only nation able to face down the tyrants and dictators of the world. America alone holds the future of freedom. If the United States of America fails, that dream of individual liberty fails. If radicals manage to change America by degrading its culture and its government America will fail, and with it individual liberty based on individual rights.
Observe closely what is happening around you. Read history and compare the events of the past to the events of today. Evaluate what the results of failure have been throughout time. Then look around and discern how today’s decisions bring tomorrow’s blessings or curses. It is decisions thatmake history. Make your decisions in favor of the bright line of liberty for the individual. Uphold the memory of Thermopylae and Trenton. A million ghosts of liberty are looking to you. Learn about the past and then, as you go into the future, demand that the ancient dream of the individualbeing greater than the state remains alive and well.
Your friend,
