Politics

عودة إلى انحطاط الغرب

Nov 16, 2015 Robert Skidelsky

لندن ــ أعادت المذبحة الإرهابية التي شهدتها باريس مؤخراً إبراز معالم الغيوم العاصفة التي تتجمع في سماء القرن الحادي والعشرين، والتي أعتمت الوعد المشرق الذي استمدته أوروبا والغرب من سقوط الشيوعية. ونظراً للمخاطر التي تتنامى يوماً تلو الآخر، فإن الأمر يستحق التأمل في ما قد يكون تجنبه غير وارد.

ورغم أن النبوءة ربما تكون مضللة وخادعة، فلابد أن تكون التوقعات المخفقة هي نقطة الانطلاق المتفق عليها. فوفقاً لتقرير صادر عن معهد البحوث الاجتماعية التابع لمنظمة إبسوس موري: "لم يعد للافتراض بأن المستقبل سيكون بشكل تلقائي أفضل للجيل التالي أثر في قسم كبير من الغرب".

في عام 1918، نشر أوزوالد شبنجلر كتابه "انحطاط الغرب". واليوم، أصبحت كلمة "انحطاط" من المحرمات. إذ يتجنب ساستنا ذِكرها لصالح كلمة "تحديات"، في حين يتحدث أهل الاقتصاد لدينا عن "الركود المزمن". وتتغير اللغة، ولكن يظل الاعتقاد بأن الحضارة الغربية تعيش على وقت مستعار (ومال مقترض) ثابتا.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

Robert Skidelsky

Writing for PS since 2003
210 Commentaries

Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords and Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University, was a non-executive director of the private Russian oil company PJSC Russneft from 2016 to 2021. The author of a three-volume biography of John Maynard Keynes, he began his political career in the Labour party, became the Conservative Party’s spokesman for Treasury affairs in the House of Lords, and was eventually forced out of the Conservative Party for his opposition to NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999. He is the author of The Machine Age: An Idea, a History, a Warning (Allen Lane, 2023).

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 31 Comments on this article

John Jones Dec 2, 2015

"TO SAVE SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS FROM THE SCOURGE OF WAR"

That was the declared aim of the United Nations Charter as stated in its preamble in 1945. Until now this aim has always been frustrated by the power of veto granted to the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, which effectively prevented the UN from taking strong concerted action whenever needed. In view of the Syrian crisis, the bombing of a Russian airliner, the slaughter of the innocents in Paris, the flood of migrants seeking shelter in Europe, we now at last have a resolution passed unanimously by the UN security council - no vetoes and no abstentions.

This gives us an opportunity we have not had since 1945 to take concerted action to resolve a critically bad situation which can serve as a template for future action wherever there is conflict.

But what sort of action? Yet more bombing? In my view, the case against that is obvious and unanswerable.

So what action? Boots on the ground? Unquestionably YES - but not the boots of soldiers from one nation going to do battle against another nation but the boots of heavily armed multi-national soldiers, flying the UN flag and under UN Command, pledged not to use those arms except to disarm those who refuse to surrender their own arms. They would not be UN Peacekeepers because, in Syria, there is no peace to be kept. They would be something new - a UN PeaceMAKING force.

Such action should be prefaced by a call for a ceasefire on all sides and an end to all air-strikes from whatever source.

When that action has been completed there can be multilateral negotiations to work out a secure, conflict-free future for Syria which safeguards the human rights of all concerned. While these negotiations are being hammered out it will be possible for those who have had to flee to return to their country to rebuild their lives with full UN support.
Whether our base is in the East or in the West is beside the point; we only have one planet.

r.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
lakshma reddy Nov 23, 2015

Robert skidelskey has touched the many aspects of historical events as thread connecting the present economic and political turbulence and the challenges posed in different forms to the western previleges in international and global order.

True looked from a dynamic angle of economic and political consequences of knowledge of technology in history and some uncertain events happening, the natural law of levelling to equality for stability either by free competitive spirit or previleged or say unfree/imperfect competition is the tendency.some times the equalising factors may take long time or in some cases it may happen in quick succession.

present is in the same direction.it is not bound to happen in a peaceful evolution if the one (a group/trade block/nation state)with previleges does not give up the previleges and stand for fight as happened in history but globalisation of economies as a part of new horizons of knowledge of laws of nature and human technology with its demands for a corresponding political global institutional architectures perhaps to forthwith with a suitable world government in UN to breakdown all barriers of existing previleged and politically defective nation states to the new demands of new global order for greater human freedoms and equality and pursuit of one's a vocations and preservation of earth as the life source to be happened.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nikolas Papavlassopulos Nov 20, 2015

Nice narrative but, It seems that Robert Skildesky;s diagnosis has “fouled up the end game” too. It is not the “decay of will” that makes American power ineffective but rather the ineffective (inadequate) American power which makes for a “decay of will”.
Moreover, it seems that Robert Skildesky is confusing – I do not think on purpose- Globalization with Internationalization. Globalization tends to diminish the benefits of comparative advantage and hence the benefits of trade. If trade has not “recovered” as fast as it should, perhaps the reason is “globalization” itself!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Osman Attia Nov 19, 2015

Thank for the post, I think that the problem is about the declining of the new international order and it has of course a multidimensional impact upon (e.g. the international system, national state, individuals and th decline of the "West) in other words could we consider that the decline of the west as a result or part of this declining! ? I believe that It's time to unleash systems and to establish or renewal a new international order.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Avraam Dectis Nov 19, 2015

.
Countries, like people, have a psychological profile that informs much of what they do.

Americans are easy to understand once you realize that throughout their schooling they are inculcated with the belief that their country was founded on liberty and freedom in throwing out the terrible depredations of an oppressive monarch. The Declaration of Independence, a beautiful well written document, lists some of these.

From this origin story, it is a simple progression to the belief that all you have to do is disrupt an oppressive government and the people will rise up and form a harmonious democracy.

I am not a historian, so perhaps there were depredations, but it is also quite true that the British Empire banned slavery decades before the USA and had its Navy actively disrupting slaving ships and freeing the abducted Africans. The Empire, unlike the USA, did this peacefully; did not need a murderous civil war to ban slavery - a war in the USA that killed 2% of the population. This data is not mentioned in American schools. Imagine how many people would not have been abducted, tortured, slaved, murdered or killed in war if the USA had stayed in the Empire. You could even argue the World Wars one and two might not have happened because an undiminished British Empire would have been too obviously formidable.

Please excuse the inadvertent digression ....

The key point here is the psychology of nations is what forms their actions, successes and errors.
- Avraam Dectis Nov 23, 2015
  
  Hi Ellie,
  Let me additionally add that it is important to understand your biases when forming an opinion.
  In my case, I may be biased because I just spent the last 18+ years being poisoned by a stalker gang with the full knowledge of the government and police, none of whom I have been able to successfully engage on the issue. Racketeers get rich without fear of arrest or RICO in the USA. This tends to generate skepticism when the official narrative is not supported by experience.
  
  As always I am very happy to admit I am mistaken when presented with conflicting information.
  
  Thanks again.
  
  Jack
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Avraam Dectis Nov 23, 2015
  
  Hello Ellie,
  
  Thank you for replying and please accept my apologies if I gave offense.
  
  I know what is taught in American schools because I attended them, K-12 and college.
  
  How many Americans know that the allegedly insufferable British Empire abolished the slave trade in 1807 and abolished slavery in 1833?
  
  By definition, if no American Revolution there would have been no Civil War. Imagine if slaves stopped being abducted in 1808! Imagine how many lives would have been saved.
  
  Of course every country has a psychological makeup through which it perceives the world. How could you argue against that? How many countries has the USA destabilized thinking that a democracy would automatically replace the existing government and instead reaped a whirlwind?
  
  Sometimes it is possible for a large group of people to know something without recognizing it explicitly, and in this case I think it is clear that unconsciously people recognize the American Revolution was a fraud. It is well known the conflict was about rich people who did not want to pay their taxes - this is explicitly taught in American schools. The American people unconsciously recognize this to such an extent that when they decided to build Washington a monument, they built the largest phallic symbol on the planet, but squared it off so as not to be too obvious.
  
  Might it not have been better to petition the Paliament for redress of grievance?
  
  I say this not denigrate anyone, their intentions were probably good. I have an open mind on all subjects and am happy to learn of countervailing information.
  
  Interestingly, you seem to have implicitly agreed with most of what I said so thank you for that.
  
  Also, I did not imply that most of the lives lost were slaves, but, if you were to calculate how many died during the abductions, slave shipping and so forth, it would be a huge number. I also do not imply the USA was the cause of the World Wars but do clearly say that they may have been a domino effect of seemingly unconnected events.
  
  Thanks again.
  
  Jack
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Ellie Kesselman Nov 22, 2015
  
  Avraam, countries do NOT have a psychological profile that informs much of what they do. That is an outmoded and provincial way of thinking that is quite insulting. Maybe you are a closet imperialist, so that is why you say that.
  
  As an American, I can tell you that we are not "inculcated" with naive beliefs. How do YOU know what we are taught in American schools? Of course we are taught that the U.S. Civil War was the most lethal war in U.S. history, in terms of number of American lives lost! Despite what you seem to think, the lives that were lost were NOT all or even mostly the lives of former slaves. You continue on to blame the USA for both World War Two and World War One, and say that we should never have rebelled against England in the late 1700's. I suppose that I should be grateful that you don't conclude by blaming it all on George Bush.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Larry Stevens Nov 19, 2015

Modernity faces many challenges. Assigning them each their proper weight is...wow.
- Automation/rise of AI
- Decline of men
- Regulation
- Decline of "Western" culture
- Globalization
- Economic shift from "stuff" to free/digital
- Explosion of health care and education costs way out of proportion to their QALY value
-Many others
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alex Leo Nov 19, 2015

This is a very shallow piece; no wonder he can write volumes.

Yes, philosophers have been discussing for centuries the decline of Europe. And whatever has happened after has proved them wrong. Europe is now better than it was 100 years ago.

Then he cites the 1989 book by Fukuyama. Has he read something more recent, Fukuyama is very clear and articulate on the threat from radical islam in his recent books.
Then he should know his country's legacy in partitioning the Ottoman empire and messing up, really fucking up, the Middle East. But he mentions this in passing to discuss. . .a movie and the role of the US.
And then the Vietnam war. Here the author really shows how intellectually weak he is. The US military messed up and roughed up Vietnam a lot worse than it did Iraq or Afganistan. Have you heard of Vietnamese terrorists in the US or elsewhere? This is the question to ask.
Then he jumps to China as exemplifying the European decline by way of contrast. Apparently while watching US movies he missed the theory of extractive institutions in Why Nations fail and a lot more. And finally he concludes that we are far from having developed a reliable set of policies to guide us. . .No wonder, looking at your analytical skills and your jumping around topics, this will not be you. But you and people like you get in the way, with your status and shallow ideas that we are supposed to applaud out of courtesy for past achievement in writing a biography of a prominent Englishman.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Nov 19, 2015

Robert Skidelsky seems genuinely concerned about the future of the West. He fears the recent terror attacks in Paris bringing "storm clouds" that dim the "bright promise for Europe and the West." He says the start of the twenty-first century has been a rotten one and may soon usher in the "decline of the West."
Indeed, when Francis Fukuyama declared the "end of story" after the "fall of communism" and the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a sense of optimism that liberal democracy had won out. Nobody then envisioned the "peripheral" challenges that al Qaeda, ISIS et al would pose and the decline the West is grappling with. America’s uninterrupted good fortune and unchallenged power in the century before September 2001 appears to come China's way. The author says, "fitting a rising power into a decaying international system has rarely occurred peacefully."
Already in 1918 the German historian and philosopher, Oswald Spngler probed thoroughly the origin and "fate" of Western civilisation. He was a pessimist and described how we humans entered into a centuries-long "world-historical" phase comparable to late antiquity. Guided by the philosophies of Goethe and Nietzsche, he rejected linear progression, and instead presented a world view based on the cyclical rise and decline of civilisations. He argued that a culture blossomed from the soil of a definable landscape and died when it exhausted all of its possibilities.
Skidelsky still believes in the advantages that prosperity and economic growth bring and worries about "the increasing fragility of the international political order" that diminish the prospects of our global economy. He still sees the benefits of globalization and complains about the fading away of a world political order "hospitable to globalization."
He therefore does not approve of trade and monetary agreements, that "take the form of regional and bilateral deals, rather than multilateral arrangements," which serve "broader geopolitical goals." He points out the damages that China and US would inflict on each other with their projects - the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership and China's New Silk Road Initiative - that aim to marginalise one another. So, "a world divided into political blocs will become a world of trade blocs, sustained by protectionism and currency manipulation." While grappling with the "challenges of globalization" low skilled workers face competition from automation, which is slowly replacing human labour. With the erosion of the middle class, which traditionally constitutes a strong pillar in the Western civil society, it is comprehensible that its "populations look ahead with foreboding."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Demi Papas Nov 18, 2015

Very insightful article. I learned something.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Francesco D'Allessandro Nov 18, 2015

In 1949 when George Orwell wrote his book "1984" he portrayed an acutely disheartening vision of the future. Currently, our liberal world order, presided by the “political correct” clique is navigating towards the same murky scenario that Orwell depicted. This overt cabal of elected officials never served in the military or possessed a strong foreign affairs background in their curriculum vitae. They got appointed to the echelons of power due to massive funding by special interests organizations and a relentless biased media blitz that obscured their weaknesses and aggrandized their worthiness during their presidential campaigns. Presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are clear examples: at no time these men wore a military uniform (Bush did join the Texas Air National Guard but his record was dubious) or managed intricate foreign policy issues before assuming control of the White House: across the Atlantic a similar milieu. As a consequence of their lack of experience what developed afterwards is an unmistakable litany of miscalculations that haunt our civilization today.

There are many pundits that will argue that these political CEO's as in President Obama's case are surrounded by advisers with strong political-military histories but in today's contemporary world these cadres (the majority are of the yes-men variety who are concerned more about their political careers, social status and pensions than the welfare of the State) follow the path of less resistance and those who do veer off from the official line are ostracized like General Stanley McChrystal, a fearless warrior who expressed "politically incorrect" thoughts to the fourth estate and thus had to “resign”.

As Robert Skidelsky correctly points out there are powerful storm clouds encircling our destiny. Our constant and repeatedly inherent deficiencies are perceived and analyzed by our avowed enemies. If we are to prevail it is imperative that these democratically elected administrators who currently reside in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Élysée Palace or the other seats of authority in the democratic West, heed their constituencies and the voices of reason, and desist from their naïve policies in dealing with pariah countries as Iran or terrorist inclined groups like Hamas.

To build upon and expand the Westphalian system there has to be a healthy equilibrium of liberal and conservative ideas. Polarization only benefits our rabid adversaries. If the West continues to follow the same path without modifying their policies it will eventually lead to a clash of civilizations and an erosion of civil liberties for in both sides of the spectrum there are extremists who are itching for chaos and anarchy to descend upon the established order. It is not too late to alter the decline of the West but certainly time is not on our side.
- Ellie Kesselman Nov 22, 2015
  
  Francesco D'Allessandro, you win the prize for best assessment of Skidelsky's meandering post, and as a bonus, best recommendation for arresting and reversing the decline of the West! We need to get you or your ilk writing posts and making policy, not the effete pseud0-crats we have now.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Doyle Nov 18, 2015

I think this current bout of trouble is a sideshow, an important one, but the bigger picture is the decline of industrial civilization is now well under way.
We overtopped our planets sustainable resources at about the same time as our civilization reached its zenith with the moon shot in 1969. It's been downhill ever since and gaining momentum year on year. The taboo is to say out loud that we cannot stop this happening that we are doomed. Unfortunately, we are doomed. The exponential equation shows us why. The economies are fixated on growth with at least 2 doublings each Century. We are unlikely to find all we need from our environment sustainably already, so with ever increasing population the foods we need will get ever more scarce and expensive.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Nov 17, 2015

There is no denial, it is a good article, however yet again one should be very careful when making comparisons. Around the time of the fall of the Ottoman Empire the demographics and potential of the ME region were totally different from today and this notwithstanding the atrocities (ethnic cleansing) committed during that period against many ethnic nationalities by the Ottomans in order to keep those populations under check and one should not forget to mention the creation of a new State called Israel! So yes a vacuum has been created after WW1, and after WW2. A vacuum is always created after every war. The issue is the (continuous) meddling in the internal affairs of others in order to exploit their resources / their population beyond their limits or tolerance level.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mr Econotarian Nov 17, 2015

I think that measuring "decline" by terrorist attacks is a bit silly.

On November 24, 1917 a bomb thought to have been planted by anarchists killed nine police officers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. On June 2, 1919, anarchists were suspected of setting off a series of bombs in eight cities, including Washington, D.C., where a bomb partially destroyed the home of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. On September 16, 1920, an explosive-laden wagon exploded on Wall Street, across from the headquarters of J.P. Morgan & Company, killing 40 and wounding 300.

Yet we would not say that 1920 marked "the decline of the west".

If anything, we are seeing a decline of Middle East. And it is true that part of the decline was because the US supported the topping of governments who held their warring factions in place with dictatorial security states. But frankly a sane people do not need a dictatorial security state to live in peace with their neighbors, if all respect private property and the free market instead of socialism and control of the economy by the government (and thus, the ethnic group of the ruler).

Also it is unclear why you blame the US and Europe for not using force, while China has been involved in zero wars since 1980, and frankly only sabre-rattles over some of the islands it claims (like Taiwan).

Anyway, when Americans start fleeing the US for refuge in Syria, let me know!
- Diego Orlandi Nov 17, 2015
  
  I smell supremacism all over this comment. The West invented the modern concept of universal humanism, and when that starts to diminish, we're in trouble.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Procyon Mukherjee Nov 17, 2015

The admission of our vulnerabilities and the limits of our wisdom would go a long way; several decades of efforts made no difference to the growing divide and there must be some soul-searching to find what went amiss. Our assumed superiority, mostly from worldly prosperity, could be short in the long; the human conscience must rise to sieve the right from the wrong, which has hardly progressed.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Nov 17, 2015

The assessment presupposes that Empires built since Britain's are rooted in a chemistry of success without multiple roots - I suppose public memory is short and always fashionable to find that the chemistry originated in One Geography, One Religion, One Race. Asymmetrical viewpoints indeed have always caused CREDIT to be ascribed to multiple roots, alliances that acquire a winning recipe. Yesterday's enemies often tomorrow's partners - every 100 years alliances change over. It is perhaps not in the best interest of any winning alliance to exclude any Geography Religion Race permanently - and any attempts must be eschewed, for HOPE must remain for redemption on the winning side of history. Hence the belief that the highest efforts must be towards emergence of World equilibrium - each billion believers respected for capacity for peace and growth for all mankind. The confrontation which Billions seek must be neutered by the other Billions - United Nations perhaps needing a supplement in the form of United Religions Organization, so conflict between Religions are resolved not by Nations but Clubs. Until they realise that each one needs to traverse their paths to God in their own way - there is no right or wrong way or perhaps all the apparently different ways in the end the same.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Nov 16, 2015

Decline? Who knows, I don't really think so, but why take the chance? Life is good in the west. Worth a little effort to not let it slip away.

Recognizing that the slowly but steadily rising mound in the middle of the rug is made up of things swept under there in years past is a huge step in the right direction.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Adrian Lucas Nov 16, 2015

Superb assessment. It is fitting that a biographer of Keynes should discern, and then bring together, bigger 'macropictures', for who was better at this than Keynes himself?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Nov 16, 2015

I don't think it's decline of the West that (really) matters in age of globalization. What matters is WTO & globalization was unleashed by Clinton/Rubinomics under the guise of providing a global charter to City Bank (Rubin's previous job)...

The rest is now history with the rise of mainland China.

WASP's will always revisit the dialectics of historical false pretense, as if they had a right to rule the world, until they finally reach their cul-de-sac.

Terrorism in its current - non-state - form can ultimately be controlled or disabled only if West learns to strategically cooperate with Russia, China and India...on basis of mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Max Isert Nov 16, 2015

'' I sympathize, therefore, with those who would minimize, rather than with those who would maximize, economic entanglement among nations. Ideas, knowledge, science, hospitality, travel--these are the things which should of their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible, and, above all, let finance be primarily national. Yet, at the same time, those who seek to disembarrass a country of its entanglements should be very slow and wary. It should not be a matter of tearing up roots but of slowly training a plant to grow in a different direction.

For these strong reasons, therefore, I am inclined to the belief that, after the transition is accomplished, a greater measure of national self-sufficiency and economic isolation among countries than existed in 1914 may tend to serve the cause of peace, rather than otherwise. At any rate, the age of economic internationalism was not particularly successful in avoiding war; and if its friends retort, that the imperfection of its success never gave it a fair chance, it is reasonable to point out that a greater success is scarcely probable in the coming years.'' - https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/keynes.htm
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
slightly optimistic Nov 16, 2015

Political leaders of some nations think it best to ignore the huge challenges that confront us globally? Such complacency obliged the United Nations in September to approve sustainable development goals. All member governments are now required to promote and enforce laws and policies for sustainable development. However enforcement is surely unlikely.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Nov 16, 2015

I think we should also look at all of this in terms of ideologies. There is a western ideology that all that matters is the material (the mighty greenback). Then there is the Muslim ideology that all that matter is the non-material (Allah's will). It seems inevitable that such ideologies will be locked in eternal conflict. But there is also at third way, and the author approaches but does not quite reach it when he concluded that we should rather compete for quality of living.
- Alamanach . Nov 22, 2015
  
  "But a more compelling reason, which has seeped into the public’s understanding, is the West’s failure, following the fall of the Soviet Union, to establish a secure international environment for the perpetuation of its values and way of life." Which values would those be? For as the author goes on to say, "(Europe) is the weak nerve center of a flabby semi-state, with almost defenseless frontiers, where humanitarian rhetoric masks spinelessness." The West's values today are flimsy and flaccid.
  
  This absolutely is a fight over ideology. ISIS doesn't care about economic growth or globalization or Doha trade negotiations. ISIS believes that religion is a life-and-death matter, and they are willing to sacrifice their lives to force the point. Terrorism itself is not an existential threat, but religion is, if what you put up against it is secularism. Secular values can't stand up against religious fervor; secularism doesn't have anything in it worth dying for. If the West wants to survive ISIS and the other groups like it, then I think it's going to have to re-embrace Christianity.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Nov 16, 2015

Great article. Author has taken the effort to come up with original thoughts on the issue.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ariel Tejera Nov 16, 2015

Your article reflects clearly what others are missing, in my opinion, Mr. Skidelsky: we are fully in the age of global chaos. World-chaos, if you like. We have no cogent recipes to describe what´s going on.

Most economists and know-it-all people won´t admit it, the same as a physician won't readily admit he's neve before seen certain malaise.

Perhaps this new Age-of-Chaos has to do with the violence of the impact of human economic and demographic development on the planet. That certainly is new, and all-encompassing.

Maybe an apocalypse is here indeed, as announced by Tea-Party groups, by religious fanatics, and other doom-sayers.

I am inclined to belive (as Michael Crichton and Spielberg announced in their "Jurassic Park" adventure), that *life will find a way*, but different from what we traditionally conceive.

And perhaps, this will be a different ecosystem: an all new polarity, where a huge mass of organically deprived beings interact ing with a sort of symbiotic "internet of things", evolving much faster than organic life.
- Mr Econotarian Nov 17, 2015
  
  The rate of worldwide battle deaths per 100,000 people is historically very low, around 1, which is lower than any point in 1945-2002. We are in a state of high order, not one of chaos (although chaos is clearly rising locally in a few countries like Syria and Libya).
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.