But Hope Still Exists For Founding A New Civilization
(Continued)
It seems obvious from any fair
reading of the previous sections of this book that Western Civilization
is still on its prescribed road to oblivion. In fact, as pointed out in
earlier Sections, it is now fashionable to proclaim the decline of our
Civilization. But if our Civilization is declining towards death, what
can possibly replace it?
By the title of this section, I mean to convey the thought that perhaps mankind has now matured to the point that "civilization qua
civilization" is no longer necessary to the existence of mankind. To
understand what I really mean by this, it is necessary to put what we
know of the history of mankind into perspective, and then to postulate
that the recurrence of civilizations is just a "phase" which mankind
has now gone through.
Over the last decade, genetic
scientists have traced the origins of Homo Sapiens back to two
individuals who probably lived some 150,000 to 250,000 years ago. That
is 150 to 250 millennia. All of what we call "recorded history"1
covers no more than about 8 millennia. Agriculture and
domestication of animals is believed to have begun about 10 to 15
millennia ago. So, for at least ninety percent of the lifetime of Homo
Sapiens as a species, mankind existed in the hunter-gatherer stage of
development, with no fixed place of residence from which we can recover
any remains extensive enough to make any guesses about cultural events.
Very little is known of the culture which existed for the
hunter-gatherers, except from inferences which we might be able to draw
from various primitive peoples which Western Civilization has
encountered as it conquered the world.
The great change occurred with
the advent of agriculture and the domestication of animals. When men
became farmers, they put down "roots" and stayed in one place long
enough to accumulate significant amounts of "property." It is doubtful
that the older hunter-gatherers had any need at all for the concept of
"property" because virtually all a man needed was his weapon; as Will
Durant points out, game was killed and eaten on the spot, much as
animals still do it today.2 Then came the first of two great transitions which have marked the "progress" of mankind.
The first great transition,
from hunter-gatherers to farmers, profoundly altered the definition of
what it meant to be human. The hunter-gatherers were merely intelligent
animals, with little to distinguish them from various forms of monkeys
and apes. The dominant social rule was the law of the jungle. There was
virtually nothing which we would today call "civilization," and this
state of affairs persisted for over ninety percent of the existence of
our own species! But when we became farmers, the seeds of the first
civilizations were planted at the same time. Farming requires the
discipline of working a whole growing season to raise the food for an
entire year. The technologies of storage and preservation are required.
Even if the technique for storing food is to raise domestic animals for
killing on a regular basis, you still must arrange to have stockpiles
of fodder for those same animals available for as long as any live.
Again as Will Durant points out, this change in the way mankind made
its living effected a profound change in our view of the universe.
Morals were defined and redefined to suit a culture rooted on a common
ground. Also, a tendency to stay in one place for significant lengths
of time created an archeological record which we have yet to fully
explore. The solutions to many mysteries await our discovery of the
contents of many yet hidden ancient graves.
Of all the civilizations
identified by Spengler, Toynbee, and the Durants in their histories of
mankind, each has its roots in an agricultural people. Cities begin as
what amounts to a "farmers' market," with merchants gradually
developing other goods for the farmers to buy with their crops. As
wealth increases, the incentive for theft increases, and this leads not
only to concepts of property, but to the need for protection.
Eventually, the concept of a "state" is born, usually as a result of a
military conquest by someone who would like to become the ruler.
Civilization begins to take root, and the rest (as they say) is
history. As Spengler noted, and as his followers have basically proved,
the overall pattern remains the same, no matter the peoples or the
specifics of the culture involved.
The second great transition is
still in progress in our own here-and-now. It has been called the
Industrial Revolution, but it clearly involves much more than merely
industry. We are now in what many believe to be the third stage of that
revolution, which actually involves relegating actual industry to a
lesser role, as mankind moves into a service economy based upon
information science and other knowledge based occupations as the
majority of jobs occupied by our people. As Will Durant pointed out yet
again,3
this again profoundly impacted our value system, and we are still
trying to digest and absorb the cultural shock which results from this
radical kind of change. This thesis was expounded upon in the famous
book by Alvin Toffler called Future Shock.
In the absence of a "great
fall," due to nuclear war or some equivalent near-total disaster, it is
highly unlikely that mankind will ever again form a rural-agricultural
type of civilization. Accordingly, we have probably witnessed the final
"traditional" civilization, in the person of Western Civilization
itself. Thus, Toynbee's catalog of civilizations is unlikely to grow in
the event any future historian pick up the gauntlet in a few centuries.
If another civilization does
form, it will not have a birth which bears any relation at all to how
civilizations were born in the past; and this should lead us to the
conclusion that it will probably not develop along the same lines,
either. Perhaps the hunter-gatherer phase of mankind is its true
"childhood," while the ten millennia of developing one great
civilization after another is more truly seen as mankind's adolescence.
If this proves true, then I can hold out the hope that the next
"civilization" will be mankind's true adulthood, and that such a
civilization should at least approach the values which we have come to
associate with Utopia. If so, then we truly stand upon the threshold of
greatness. Children of the next few generations will make that choice,
and mankind will either rise to the next level of greatness, or else
fail to achieve greatness, based upon their choices. It is for us to
give our children the nudge in the right direction which they truly
need.
If mankind is not destined to
create a new form of civilization, then we have to really wonder where
mankind is headed. Clearly, Western Civilization is dying, just as
Spengler predicted. What will take its place? Surely not the unending
ennui of no great change at all. That would leave mankind in a sort of
a cultural vacuum, and "nature abhors a vacuum."4
The reason that it will not
work should be obvious if you have been paying any attention at all.
The value system of Western Civilization is organized and established
for a rural-agricultural population, NOT for an
industrial, or post-industrial, population. For example, children were
a great asset to farmers, so our cultural mores exhort women to bear as
many children as possible, abhorring abortion and birth control because
they would inhibit this necessary child-bearing function. In a
rural-agricultural population, a woman had no need to go more than a
few feet from the home. With all those mouths to feed, and no labor
saving devices to speak of, she was kept pretty busy right there.5
In our modern society, about
the only thing which has not yet changed is the fact that women are
still required to bear children in their womb.6
When this is no longer true, mankind will no longer have any anchor at
all to its past. There will then be not a single social value from
Western Civilization which will still be "necessary" to survival. If
any "family values" from Western Civilization are going to be useful at
all to those of our descendants who are alive a few centuries from now,
the useful values are much more likely to have been invented since 1700
than at any time in the ten previous millennia.
This is what makes trying to
write on Philosophy such a daunting task. Clearly, our old values are
breaking down, and losing their usefulness in our daily lives, just as
you would predict from a cyclical theory of civilization. But the
values from the next stage of the cycle which should naturally replace
them are clearly inappropriate to an industrial (or post-industrial)
society. This means that we have no model to follow.
Accordingly, any intelligent
modern philosopher must strike out in truly new directions, no longer
relying upon that great guiding hand of Aristotle. Mind you, we should
never forget him; but his rural-agricultural roots are oh so obvious,
and are now oh so inapplicable. The conditions under which modern man
survives would have been totally unthinkable to Aristotle. Is there a
great philosopher to guide us in our quest?
We had better ask: is there
any philosopher, great or otherwise, who is not a product of a
rural-agricultural value system? Even Karl Marx, who was reacting
against the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, preached a return
to rural-agricultural values in the form of his "collectives." Thus,
Karl Marx dusted off primitive communal values as his antidote for what
mankind did to itself with the Industrial Revolution.
Perhaps that is why there is
so little written philosophy in the second half of the twentieth
century. The great fires have gone out; those that write, re-hash; and
those who feel the need for new ideas are speechless, unable to speak
because the cultural "rugs" which cover their cultural "floors" have
all been pulled out from under them.7
I would definitely assert that
it is clearly time for mankind to "grow up" and become what he has been
designing himself to be for all these many millennia. It has been, and
continues to be, mankind who provides guidance to man. When the Gods
spoke, there was always a priest hiding behind the curtain, or in some
equivalent disguise.
We should be honest with
ourselves. We need a new value system; and that value system must be
the first one designed for an Industrial (or post-industrial) society.
We ought not to feel shame that we must invent it for ourselves rather
than relying on our old and outmoded religions. Instead, we should take
pride in our own capacity to do so.8 Let us now move on to consider some proposals for a replacement value system.
1 In other words, that portion of history for which artifacts exist with intelligible writing.
2 See "The Mansions of Philosophy," 1929, pages 114-115.
3 See "The Mansions of Philosophy," 1929, pages 114-117.
4 This statement is attributed to Benedict [Baruch] de Spinoza (1632-1677), "Ethics," 1677, Part I, proposition, 15: note.
5 I speak here of the masses, and not the ruling classes. When Rome was at its height, the majority of its citizens (not to mention its slaves) still lived in a rural-agricultural environment. We absolutely cannot say this today. Our modern experience is that only a small fraction of the people live in a "traditional" sort of rural-agricultural environment, while the rest of us (the vast majority) have moved to urban and suburban areas.
6 And it is highly likely that a few more decades of research will remedy this "deficiency."
7 Of course, there is another reason. The last thing which our emerging despots wish is an educated population who can see them for what they truly are: imperialists in search of Imperium. So, they find ways to discourage Philosophy. One way is to encourage a return to the "Great Enemy" of Philosophy, Religion. Do you wonder at the re-birth of the "dead" Christian religion?
8 Compare with my favorite Durant quotation: "The historian will not mourn because he can see no meaning to human existence except that which man puts into it; let it be our pride that we ourselves may put meaning into our lives, and sometimes a significance that transcends death." ("The Lessons of History" (1968), by Will and Ariel Durant, page 102.)