Mark6
25th October 2009, 07:10 PM
I just skimmed The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century (http://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century/dp/038551705X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256518534&sr=1-1). Overall, my impression is that George Friedman is full of it, but one passage intrigues me. He divides all nations into Barbaric, Civilized, and Decadent. Quoting from memory:
"Barbaric society is convinced of its own moral superiority, and frequently believes that God is on its side. A Barbarian either fears, despises, or pities anyone who holds different views. [Friedman consider US a Barbaric society by that definition, although goes out of his way to point out it is a purely descriptive term, and not a pejorative one.]
Decadent society does not believe in anything. To a Decadent, all morals are relative, and no worldview is particularly better or worse than another. If there is anyone a Decadent despises, it is someone who believes in some kind of absolute.
Civilized society is the most rare. A Civilized man believes that there are moral absolutes, and that his own society more or less approximates them, but is willing to accept that he might be wrong, and to re-examine his own beliefs. Such condition is inherently unstable. A slight rise in self-righteousness would feed back on itself and cause a slide to Barbarism, while a slight rise in self-doubt would also feed back on itself and cause a slide to Decadence. Thus, Civilization is always a fleeting thing.
Barbaric societies are all too willing to pick fights, often ones they cannot possibly win. Decadent societies are unwilling to fight, even to defend themselves from a clear danger. Civilized societies fight selectively and efficiently."
Oddly enough, George Friedman gives no example of society "civilized" by his own definition. At least not in the parts of the book I read. I guess they are so fleeting, that you blink and miss them :) Seriously, can anyone suggest an example of society as a whole which has moral ideals yet is willing to allow its ideals may be wrong?
"Barbaric society is convinced of its own moral superiority, and frequently believes that God is on its side. A Barbarian either fears, despises, or pities anyone who holds different views. [Friedman consider US a Barbaric society by that definition, although goes out of his way to point out it is a purely descriptive term, and not a pejorative one.]
Decadent society does not believe in anything. To a Decadent, all morals are relative, and no worldview is particularly better or worse than another. If there is anyone a Decadent despises, it is someone who believes in some kind of absolute.
Civilized society is the most rare. A Civilized man believes that there are moral absolutes, and that his own society more or less approximates them, but is willing to accept that he might be wrong, and to re-examine his own beliefs. Such condition is inherently unstable. A slight rise in self-righteousness would feed back on itself and cause a slide to Barbarism, while a slight rise in self-doubt would also feed back on itself and cause a slide to Decadence. Thus, Civilization is always a fleeting thing.
Barbaric societies are all too willing to pick fights, often ones they cannot possibly win. Decadent societies are unwilling to fight, even to defend themselves from a clear danger. Civilized societies fight selectively and efficiently."
Oddly enough, George Friedman gives no example of society "civilized" by his own definition. At least not in the parts of the book I read. I guess they are so fleeting, that you blink and miss them :) Seriously, can anyone suggest an example of society as a whole which has moral ideals yet is willing to allow its ideals may be wrong?