MUSTERING THE POWER OF OUR SUSTAINABILITY

Who will dig up Liberty, and when?


Almost every civilization thus far in human history crumbled. It either went down into total oblivion or it disintegrated into a state of barbarism out of which new advancement arose. But humanity does not perish. The genes of the ancient are still among us. It is an interesting topic aside: where did the genes of the Sumerians or of the senators of Rome migrate? Most of us can barely trace our forbears beyond some hundred or two hundred years, let alone thousands of years. Nonetheless, the legacy of antiquity is all around us. The rise and fall of civilizations do not preclude the transfer and continuity of their achievements. Each new civilization or cultural tradition sooner or later absorbed traditions and inventions of a previous one. The ascent of Western Europe is a strong case in point. This is not merely because Rome retained its position as a center of authority and spiritual development but also because of the Renaissance, when the remains, in letters and thought, of antiquity were again dug up to inspire the birth of new culture, science and political thinking. It was a re-birth with profound consequences for the further advancement of our civilization, reaching well beyond the confines of our continent. If a Roman senator of antiquity would visit Washington D.C. today he would recognize many of its elements, its architecture, the tradition of its monuments and probably the atmosphere and proceedings on Capitol Hill too. In other words: he would start to wonder whether in fact Rome had fallen at all (see my previous posting: Much will change, much remains the same).


If ancient Egypt survived, we might have seen the same thing over and over

The Rome that we know of antiquity perished by manifold forces both from the inside and the outside; the weight of its bureaucracy, the decadence of its elite, exhaustion of its innovative power, the devolution of its authority and the massive demographic pressure forcing its way through the eastern borders. In our present-day ears these factors ring a familiar bell. All of them have their contemporary parallel. We may already feel severely disturbed by the pressures coming out of the Arabic world and its impact on our civilization, but if we seriously ponder such concerns then we should be concerned in at least similar measure by many other - inside - factors too, similar to those which plagued Rome in its final stage, such as our consumerism and the decadence it projects, our hedonist popular culture, the mounting disparity between the wealthy and the poor, our stagnating technology – that is: where today it matters most; the exhaustion of our key resources, the diminishing power of persuasion of our leaders and so on. One could paint a very bleak picture of our current state of civilization and of the prospects of its survival and predict that nothing less than that the fate of Rome awaits us.

Still, all of the factors mentioned played a role one way or the other at previous stages of our history too, and they didn’t bring us the irreversible apocalypse of preceding civilizations. More than any other our western civilization has demonstrated the capability of renewal and re-birth from within, and like no other it has come to cultivate this capacity as is manifest in its present-day popular culture, which by and large celebrates the power of youth. We can make a long list of weaknesses but we would do great injustice to ourselves if we didn’t count our blessings too. Similarly, we wouldn’t have arrived at our current (st-)age of global information and communication without our innate commercial and intellectual acumen (and freedom), elements severely lacking in any civilization that has preceded us. However much we may feel stagnation today, our innovative potential is everything but exhausted. Our modern western world is a mere hundred years old. Why would it perish any day soon, sooner – by comparison – than all other previous civilizations?


Is the nuclear age over, or is it just beginning?

The answer is: there is no need for any imminent oblivion, if only we seriously face the challenges. They are unprecedented too. That is the key. We know that in fifty to hundred years time no drop of oil will be left, but as yet no substantive alternative (i.e. an alternative that is safe and without severe negative side-effects) is in sight that will allow the undisturbed continuation of our present way of life. What power will drive us, what material will replace our plastic and all other vital derivates of fossil carbohydrates? Unless we find a way to re-cycle every atom that goes through our hands, a principle which has kept nature going for many hundreds of millions of years, the prospect of our continuity is very gloomy indeed, almost inconceivable. The newly rising resistance against nuclear energy and the actual uncertainties that surround this potentially infinite power source are indicative of the long road still ahead either to solve these uncertainties or to find a viable alternative. In my own mind energy is the outstanding factor affecting the outlook of our western world, but there are quite a few other, in part associated, factors which need to be addressed at the same time, demography most certainly heading the list.

Until the Middle Ages much of what happened in the story of human civilization could be seen as ongoing variations of just a few unchanging themes. Progress in almost every dimension – human well being, the organization of social and political institutions, the evolution of public governance, technology – was very slow indeed. Today we live at the pinnacle of exponential progress; it has changed the globe beyond recognition. Our future progress will be measured first of all in terms of the sustainability of where we are today. Every inventiveness, every youthful vigor, and every bit of true civilization will be needed to achieve this.



But then, I am reminded of one the main messages of the much acclaimed television series of the late nineteen sixties, the monumental BBC documentary of Sir Kenneth Clark “Civilisation”: the one decisive element, he told us, of a lasting civilization is its confidence. Ability isn’t good enough. We have to shed any doubt that we can get there.

THINKING OF EUROPE – WHAT EUROPE? – PART II

Europe in a world of shifting powers


This is the second part of an essay on the present and future outlook of Europe. For the first part, see:
Thinking of Europe - Part 1


Institution building and the sentiments of history

Throughout modern history the process of nation building and of establishing the fundamental principles and rituals of a people’s governance has been a profoundly historic one. Constitutions were wrought from the claws of one or the other agonizing struggle – from the suppression by tyranny, a foreign usurper or severe civil conflict.- and invariably the transition is recorded as a moment of renewal: the promise of a better future, often coinciding with new liberties and (increased) democracy. Without exception these momentous transitions in a people’s history continue to be celebrated; their remembrance is transferred to the next generations, mementos are erected.

In more recent history similar milestones have been reached at the international level, such as the conclusion of wide reaching treaties and the fall of the Berlin Wall, a defining moment with world wide implications. The establishment of the European Community and its subsequent enhancement both in scope and membership can be seen as similar major accomplishments after nearly two centuries of continental strife and destructive competition between its - then – major powers.


Europe in the present public’s mind

Today, this European pre-history seems all but forgotten. In the eyes of many Europe has become synonymous with a distant and burdensome reality. Public sentiments are firmly fixed at the national level, regardless the gradual erosion of the member states’ autonomy. This prevailing sentiment, even in countries which have been ardent supporters of a strong Europe, stands in sharp contrast with the ongoing unification process. New rules of European governance and member state compliance are being drawn up with major implications at the heart of national budgetary prerogatives. It happens not so much in the wake of one or the other great historic drama or long term European inspiration but rather more as an expediency for the short term fiscal and monetary survival of the members of the Euro zone. It may steer those member states towards greater unity, but it may equally stir new disparity between the European nations.

I believe the project of Europe is on a dangerous path if the governments of the member states merely treat this transition as a technical issue. They should pro-actively mobilize broad public support for the likely further enhancement of Europe’s political clout in national fiscal and budgetary policies. Failing this, it will only add new frustrations to what is already a widespread skepticism of the union’s faceless intrusion in domestic interests.





Yet, all of this can still be seen as concerns to overcome immediate challenges only, leaving the greater question of Europe’s future unaffected – or at least undecided. It remains a question with many faces. The issue of Turkey’s potential EU membership, on which Member States have in principle agreed, epitomizes the manifold dilemma’s – some would call it crises – that linger in the union’s undercurrents. As a country on the brink between the Christian and the Islamic – Arab – world the sentiments against Turkey’s membership have become more articulate, such as those of Germany and France. They most of all reflect the growing uneasiness in European countries with their internal demographic reality of a sizeable Islamic population. Thus, more than ever before, the question of extended EU membership hits the union – and the individual Member States – in the heart of their own sense of European identity.


Our history is moving towards new paths

It is a foregone conclusion, I would think, that the EU will not become the super power that once was considered its destiny, at least not in the foreseeable future. No single, shared interest nor any major issue would rally the current EU members to speak and act in one voice and with sufficiently credible muscle. In fact the whole idea of Europe as a super power rather stems from an era in which it served as a logic – to assert itself against two major super powers, the Soviet Union and the USA. Today these powers have not only lost their pre-eminent position in the emerging multi-polar world, the countervailing pressure towards devolution and regionalization seems stronger than ever at the same time.



Lastly, the history of nation states and their alliances may not yet be at an end but it faces increased competition with the rise of the modern day commercial super powers and the history of their impact in our modern world. It is just as easy, and perhaps more pertinent, to describe the past few decades in terms of Microsoft’s ascent in the lives of almost everyone on our globe (or that of Apple, Samsung, Google and the like) as it is to write about the cumbersome efforts of the various nations to maintain a reasonable level of peace and security. In this respect too, the future of our political conglomerates has many faces, more particularly so as and when we move away from the current oil-driven power equilibrium.




Conclusion

In summary, no single future path for Europe can at present be defined as credible or likely. It may as well become a matter of merely historic interest as it may still emerge as a priority on our agenda. Shifting powers in our world, between major regions as well as between public and private (commercial) interests make a plausible prediction about the position of Europe in the next forthcoming decades a hazardous undertaking. At the same time, EU Member States have arrived at a perilous cross road if they persist in strengthening the political role of the EU whilst simultaneously ignoring to mobilize broad public support in doing so.