Quite lengthy, I am afraid. But it is a fact, that if there is only one government and one regime, there will be no escape, if it goes wrong. And centralisation sure does have its bad side-effects.

New World Order? Nonsense. A freemason-conspiracy crap.

“The environmentalists and the islamic fundamentalists share the same vision - for them the Dark Ages (as Petrarca labelled it) were a golden age. Which is really spooky.” First of all, it is interesting that you highlight that the Dark Ages is a) a christian phenomenon, b) the renaissance valuation of a period they didn’t understand well.

The Islamic middle ages were no dark age - while literacy became rare even among christian nobles, the arab world hosted universities and conducted research in the antic scriptures. Did you ever use the number 0 when counting? That is an arabic innovation from this time. Try counting without it.

So if this is what islamists long for, it is mayb unrealistic and nostalgic, but not so abhorring.

What medieval world are we environmentalists looking to reinstate? The arabic, christian, far-eastern? I don’t know…

The punctuated equilibrium theory makes sense, and seems quite similar to the “tipping point” thinking, am I right? It seems however that you want to somehow keep innovation constant, which is exactly how the theory says that the world does not work. In stead long periods of stagnation are followed by short explosions of innovation.

I can not see any environmentalist movement that is unified in the way you describe it. There is hardly no communication by alternative hippies, eco-tech nerds, politicians like Obama and Gordon Brown and the Club of Rome. To think that actors like hese could agree on a “New World Order” is not likely… Do you think Obama could live without his Blackberry? Do you think the people who believe in Gaia see such an invention as necessary.

I find your vision of history very partisan, and it seems you link together various things that you don’t like just to make your point.

How can you for example explain that exactly the politicians who have forbidden the edison lamp have liberalized European markets to a degree hardly ever seen before? Just look at the explosion of private companies within education and health care, areas that used to be monopolized by society.

Well, Vitezslav, you are in veeeery deep waters here 
Let’s start with punctuated equilibria. Paleontologists Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge came up with the idea in order to explain the gaps in the fossil record. So they introduced the idea of allopatric speciation – new species can arise only when a small local population becomes isolated at the margin of the geographic range of its parent species (http://www.nileseldredge.com/pdf_files/Punctuated_Equilibria_Eldredge_Gould_1972.pdf  ). So the gaps were actually short periods of species proliferation. In 1980 the leading geneticists G. L. Stebbins and F. J. Ayla explained to Gould that there is a divergence of criteria between paleontology and genetics on what a species means (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/213/4511/967 ). For paleontologists, two species are different if they LOOK different, while for genetics two species are different if they FAIL to interbreed, regardless of appearance. So Gould’s theory was trying to solve a paleontological problem through evolutionary biology without understanding its tenets.

From there you jump to a conclusion that somehow “evolution” and “progress” are quite the same thing. You could not be more wrong. While in social sciences the IMPLICATIONS of evolutionary theory are not always well understood, no one is able to scientifically claim that evolution and social development work with the same rules – they don’t. Culture can hardly prove to be as diverse in its outcomes as organic evolution (http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31934143&site=ehost-live ). Organic evolution can INFORM social sciences but CANNOT REPLACE them.

It is true that formal institutions evolved due to two main factors: the concentration of a growing population into urban centers and concentration of economic surplus into the hands of an elite (http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=32534711&site=ehost-live ). It is also true that elites seek to maintain social equilibrium.

But you attempt to imply that technology can somehow deliver an ultimate democratic regime where we reach liberation from dependence on or duties toward other members of society. You may not know it, but this is communism as described by Marx and democracy as described by Socrates in The Republic. You seem to agree that technological progress is supposed to be the cause of a world where human beings will enjoy an abundance of leisure. Freed from necessity, they will be freed to pursue any choiceworthy activity they please. Keep this in mind: technology cannot free us from the boredom and anxiety that are the result of the uncultivated leisure that technology can actually give us (more on this perspective is available here: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=18583046&site=ehost-live ).

Up to now the two theoretical supports – on the applicability of punctuated equilibria to social development and on the value of technological progress, seem somewhat shaken.

Then you proceed to inform us that the Club of Rome has designed a world government as a will to move from competition towards worldwide cooperation. You say that environmentalism is an anti-capitalistic ideology such as communism or fascism.

For me this is a manipulative statement. First of all bear in mind that capitalism and democracy are NOT the same thing. Free market economy is NOT ALWAYS the best support for democracy, because all too often economically strong individuals influence disproportionately the political process. In your theoretical framework you CANNOT EXPLAIN current political systems in China and Russia, for example. Second, democracy in the best sense of the word depends much more on the organization of the civil society (see the landmark research of Leonardi, Nanetti, and Putnam: http://www.cooperationcommons.com/node/369 ).

You shoot at the idea of reducing birthrates which to you is an idea to “get rid of people”. This is also bewildering to me. Obviously you believe that it is really cool to have, say, 2 billion starving instead of just one billion (as is the case in the moment). You obviously believe that it is an excellent idea to double populations in countries such as Niger, Uganda, Congo and zambia (more is available here: http://www.prb.org/pdf09/64.3highlights.pdf ). Maybe you are right: what could be better than the smell of ethnic genocide early in the morning???

In the end you say: “the environmentalists and the islamic fundamentalists share the same vision - for them the Dark Ages (as Petrarca labelled it) were a golden age”. Vitezslav, I can understand where this statement comes from. But it is really disappointing for an intelligent European to simply repeat random attacks at anything “green” coming from the American religious right. Oh, and one more thing – please explain this: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07398441_c.pdf

1) Along with Richard Dawkins I believe, that memes (culture) and genes evolve according to the same laws. Physical laws apply to everyone. Evolution of species and progress in culture ARE the same thing.

2) Modern islam and environmentalism really both are movements, which are looking back.

3) Democracy always in history was the product of the “rule of merchants”. Sumer, Greece, 19th century England. Merchants are the only social class, that can compete with church and hereditary nobility… Once you give voting rights to uneducated poor people, it leads to destruction of democracy. To the rule of demagogues, to tyrany (fascism, communism). Read Ortega y Gasset.

4) According to puncutated equilibria theory it is really likely, that the present era of fast progess will end. The flood of anti-freedom movements in the last 100 years is an indicator of this. So I am on the defeated side. But sooner or later another great leap forward will come, anyway.

5) Creating one world government is a logical next step in evolution of political power. But the results will be as I described above.

Vitezslav,

You fail to argue with me. You simply repeat your thesis. That is discouraging.

On Ortega y Gasset - he is a challenging philosopher, but not a prominent researcher on democracy. Read Putnam, read Schumpeter, read de Tocqueville, read Posner, read Habermas, read Dahl, etc.

Vihar, I do not know, how I could argue with you. you just write, you do not agree with me. But you do not quite explain why.

1) You wrote: “But you attempt to imply that technology can somehow deliver an ultimate democratic regime”. No. This is not what I wrote. It works vice versa. Merchants get rich, then they grab power, dismantle regulations and this brings freedom. This freedom gives us space to use our talents. The result is a technologial revolution.

2) Please expain to me, why you disagree with Dawkins Why do you think that memes (culture, language,technology) is governed by different laws than genes? Explain please.

Vitezslav,

In the first point of your reply you say that the result of democratization result is “a technologial revolution”. That is an oversimplification. In fact technological progress is the result of a variety of factors, including the role of the state, the impact of science, as well as religion, politics, and even nutrition (see “The lever of riches: technological creativity and economic progress” by Joel Mokyr: http://books.google.com/books?id=zo_8L4lT1z0C&hl=en ).

By saying “merchants” you probably refer to the “third estate” which is a broader and more precise term. But it is not so important. In fact Castells in his most important work “Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World”(http://www.amazon.com/Social-Origins-Dictatorship-Democracy-Peasant/dp/0807050733) has proven that it is the relative strength and reaction of the upper class (the landlords) that has determined the outcome of the industrial revolution (democracy, reactionary capitalism or communism). Bear in mind that technology has nothing to with the democratic development – Germany for example had highly sophisticated technology TOGETHER WITH a reactionary regime.

On Dawkins and Gould – you are obviously not aware of the fact that they have quite divergent views on the dynamics of the evolutionary process (in your original contribution you are citing Gould). Let’s accept for the sake of argument that you wanted to benefit from Dawkins’ input on the cultural memes. The main problem with the memes is that they are unreliable. Dawkins himself says “memes, if they exist at all, are transmitted with too low fidelity to perform a gene-like role in any realistically Darwinian selection process” (see the Foreword to Susan Blackmore’s “The Meme Machine”: http://www.amazon.com/Meme-Machine-Susan-Blackmore/dp/019286212X ).

There is one additional problem with memes – the hypothesis leads to the consequential conclusion that ideas (“memes”) guide and influence behavior, and that behavior is only transient. This ideational position derives from Plato. But it is more complex than that. Ideas and behavior are parts of a feedback mechanism. In the short run ideas guide behavior; but in the long run behavior guides and shapes the ideas (see Theories of culture in postmodern times by Marvin Harris: http://www.google.com/books?id=t_Iy78J0r-8C&dq=Theories+of+culture+in+postmodern+times&lr;=&hl=en&source=gbs_navlinks_s ).

Vitezslav, we do not employ clowns to run nuclear plants, and we do not rely on geneticists to decipher social phenomena. I am sympathetic to your attempts to link your beliefs to some scientific foundations; but the overall result is chaotic and unconvincing.

@Vitzslav, in general I agree with Vihar.

“1) Along with Richard Dawkins I believe, that memes (culture) and genes evolve according to the same laws. Physical laws apply to everyone. Evolution of species and progress in culture ARE the same thing.”

Are you serious? Would you say that a species is evil? I hope not. Woud you say that nazism and communism is evil? I hope yes. Memes obviously has an element of roght/wrong, morality and free will that is completely abscent from evolution. We have democracy because we want it. But I don’t have two arms because I want it -  evolution gave it to me.

2) Modern islam and environmentalism really both are movements, which are looking back.

First of all the movement you describe as “environmentalism” doesn’t exist. And what do you mean with modern islam?

Second, in which sense do these movements look back, in a way that you don’t do? You seem to miss the time of bourgeoisie revolutions. I don’t blame you for that.

And which past is the “environmentalism” that doesn’t exist looking back to? The middle ages?

3) Democracy always in history was the product of the “rule of merchants”. Sumer, Greece, 19th century England. Merchants are the only social class, that can compete with church and hereditary nobility… Once you give voting rights to uneducated poor people, it leads to destruction of democracy. To the rule of demagogues, to tyrany (fascism, communism). Read Ortega y Gasset.

I think Vihar highlights that you take something similar to marxist concepts of class, and use them out of their context. I don’t think a word as “merchant” can describe any social group that has existed in reality. And if you think about the last 200 years of European history, who was it that argued for “uneducated poor people”. Yes, it was the liberals. Who was against it? The conervative forces representing the old feudal upper class. My god… I can’t believe I am actually arguing with someone who think that some people are more equal than others… Shame on you.

4) According to puncutated equilibria theory it is really likely, that the present era of fast progess will end. The flood of anti-freedom movements in the last 100 years is an indicator of this. So I am on the defeated side. But sooner or later another great leap forward will come, anyway.

Yes… what is the problem? If political ideas are just evolutionary steps, it doesn’t make sense to think that some of them are beter than others. Totalitarian forces obviously can not do anything, they just emerge as a part of evolution, as the puberty in a human life?

Vihar and Daniel, I am sympathetic for your attepts to bring an alternative view, but “your overall result is chaotic and unconvincing”.

1) Both human culture(memes) and genes are governed by the same laws of physics. I cannot imagine any reasons, why they should be different.

2) Attempts to silence certain scientific statemeents, because they are “offending” or “politically incorrect” can lead only to lies and un-truth. The fact is, that the eras of progress are started by merchants, the greedy middle class, who do not give voting rights to poor people. This is a fact. If you find it offending, maybe you would like to censor textbooks of history?

3) Daniel, you do not even know, what liberalism means. In the traditonal 19th century sense, liberals were the capitalists (anti-king, pro-constitution). Conservatives were the pro-church royalists and nobility… Only in the 20the century in the US the socialists started to label themselves (god knows why) as liberals.

2) Good and evil. Yes, we fight agains things we do not like. This is our sense of preservation. But from the physical point of view, we are all just manifestation of impersonal physical laws. Things do not happen because want them. Things happen, because it is inevitable due to laws of physics. Yes, I will protest against fascism, but I do not think that fascism is caused by human decisions. It is an illusion.

3) It seems to me that you are playing with words (definition of islam or environmentalism). You are unwilling or incapable of independent thinking. You frown, when someone fails to use the established notions and uses old ideas to show new inter-connections.

4)  Vihar said “Bear in mind that technology has nothing to with the democratic development”. I hardly can believe, that you can write something like that?... Haven’t you noticed, that the speed of innovation is singificantly in democratic periods than in totalitarian (industrial revolution, ancient Greece vx christian feudalism). Oh my!

correction ad 4) speed of innovation is significantly higher in dem. than in totalit.

Vitezslav,

The very fact that I am still writing on this topic while I have quite a lot of other things to do should convince you that I am taking your views seriously. But this is the whole idea of argument – we need to exchange views, to communicate our ideas, and to (possibly) seek common ground. In this particular case it is a bit frustrating, because you are trying to deduct a worldview from a chaotic patchwork of scientific, half-scientific and conspiracy theories altogether.

You did not address the quote from Dawkins that I provided to you; neither did you address the critique of the purely ideational essence of memes. In fact, you did not address many of my points and the supportive material. If I were in your place, I would first read the material and THEN try to argue. You obviously didn’t do that (it would take you a few days at least).

If you were more open minded you would recognize that I am well aware of Dawkins’ theories and that I am quite respectful of him. If you were more open minded you would notice that I have not used the words “offending” or “politically incorrect” in ANY of my remarks. You would understand that I value science too much to do that.

One last point – it is precisely technology and modern institutions that made the Holocaust possible - if you are able to read this book, you will do a great service to yourself: http://www.amazon.com/Modernity-Holocaust-Zygmunt-Bauman/dp/0801487196 In fact, I may as well buy it and send it to you as a Christmas gift (I am serious; I just need your postal address). This is of course if you are not convinced that the Holocaust is a fraud.

I will not use any more of my time on this subject.

Vitezslav, don’t you just feel stupid when Vihar and Daniel speak with so much insight?
Daniel, great debate.
Vihar, your comments are amazingly insightful.

Vihar, it is funny. You reject my new concepts, because they are new and differ from the traditional majority opinion. And yet you tell me that I am not “open minded” enough. How ironic.

I cannot respond to your objections, because they attack a strawman and do not negate my ideas.

- for instance I never said, that technology cannot kill people (such as holocaust). So I will not defend something I did not say. But if you sum holocaust and industrial revolution, the net result is positive - more good done than harm.

Or you mistake the cause and effect:

“The role of state, the impact of science, as well as religion, politics, and even nutrition”... But all these things are not the cause. They are just a consequence. You do not understand it and move in circles. For instance nutrition remains low throughout history, but after democratisation a technological revolution comes and boosts food production. Nutrition also depends from geographic determinism. And so on.

And the meme vs behaviour discussion? Pointless. It does not change the fact, that ideas are born, they spread, they compete, they change, they die.

Open your mind, please.

Why don’t use your own brain? Instead your mind is sinking in the mud of traditonal mainsteam superstitions and urban myths.
—Especially the myth, that humans are something unique, which is not governed by darwinistic laws.
—Or the marxist myth, that capitalism and democracy are not identical. In fact a democracy is a by-product of the trade-based society.
—or the urban myth, that space weather does not govern our temperatures

Every era has its urban myths and supersitions. And it is frustrating to face them. I just hope that at least some readers of this article learnt a new insight, new interpretation.

what a load of rubbish, democracy has never lead to inventions!! This article has totally ignored the GREATEST period of inventions, THE ISLAMIC period, the so called ‘west’ derived
EVERYTHING from the Islamic world not the greek world which essentiually stagnated, Eurpoeans absorbed the Islamic knowledge from their babbaric crusades THATS WHY EUROPE ONLY become advance AFTER it encountered the Islamic empire and not before.

The greatest and most revolutionary invention by man was from the Muslims and that is the invention of SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTATION and methodology, Greeks were great at phylosophy and thats about it, The Muslims excelled like no other in Science , Mathematics (thats right buddy you use the decimal system right? well that was not invented by a greek democray or any other ‘democracy’ but by Muslims , Muslims invented the university, Hospitals, algebra, Algorithms (do you like computer programs aye?) , alchemy, it goen on and on and on, IN FACT eurpoe was in the dark ages until they ‘encountered’ the mulsims…....dont be a player hater, give credit where credit is due.

@ Mazi. The muslims did not bring us a new stage in the development in metallurgy (copper-bronze-iron-plastic). So sorry. You are unimportant.

You did not create a new form of religion (islam is just another monotheist sect) unlike the Achsenzeit and unlike the Englightenment period (secularism, science). So sorry.

The role of Islam is, that it helped to preserve the Antique culture. And it took over some inventions from other nations (Indian numerals). They invented something, but nothing revolutionary. Sorry.

I completely disagree with this “eco-taliban” boogieman you all are describing.  Trying to be ecologicaly friendly and technolgically advanced are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!!  I swear you eco-haters have it completely backwards. 

Photovoltaics Cells, lithium batteries, electric cars fuel cells….none of these things are “low-tech”.  All will create jobs and move our technological progress forward.

Our current path is unsustainable.  Do you understand what “unsustainable” means???

Do you understand what “sustainable” means? 
Only a complete idiot would advocate “unsustainable” over “sustainable”