What caused the success of "Western Civilization"?

[Underverse]

Appropriation of external resources. Many times by force. Must be all those neanderthal genes.

[Wells]

Sure. Wasn't trying to address why the US has been successful in that post, just saying that I really doubt it was because of people voting.

With regards to the topic the form of government isn't really important, but stability is. Democracies just tend to be very stable. I agree that the number of people voting doesn't really matter though, again, within the context of the topic.

[Shadowmelded]

Enlightenment thought.

[Deleted]

The West benefited from better seafaring and better guns, plus biological warfare in the Americas.

Oh please... biological warfare implies that colonists intentionally infected the natives with foreign pathogens which wasn't the case. Heck, I don't even know if most of them were even aware that they spread germs by sneezing or coughing.

Stop spreading the lie at the end of your sentence.

The real answer is that people stopped taking religion so seriously and the rapid advance of science and technology caused the success of Western Civilization.

Ironically you're spreading your own lies. There is no direct correlation between religion and scientific advancement. You're one of those people who thinks being religious or living in a religious society automatically means scientific advancement is halted.

[mickybrighteyes]

I'd say that a main figure of setting up western civilization being able to sit all fat and happy away from much of the bullshit other groups had to deal with is a pretty good start.

never underestimate the island base when everyone starts stuck without boats.

[angelsdeath]

This seems pretty ahistorical. The decline of religion is a very modern innovation. The majority of the West's scientists until somewhere around 1900 have been deeply religious people.

I didn't say anything about the decline of religion. I said it was the decline of people taking it so seriously.

[Wells]

I didn't say anything about the decline of religion. I said it was the decline of people taking it so seriously.

Except there isn't even really a correlation. Look at US society in the 1950s. We were a massive super power at the time. Super religious.

[Mihalik]

"carried the torch" really serves to diminish the massive amount of discovery that was done in the Middle East.

Absolutely not.

I'm fully aware of the Middle Eastern contributions made to mathematics, biology and navigation. I was just pointing out that the "roots" as he put it, weren't that.

That's why at the beginning I mentioned that for the sake of the thread I equated Western Civilization with European. Because frankly I consider the Islamlic and Middle Eastern civilizations fundamentally part of Western Civilization. The Middle East and North Africa have always been intertwined with Europe. From pre-Greek times through the Roman Empire onward to Byzantium and later the Ottoman Empire.

[Mercos]

A lot of good answers in this thread. Another factor I've seen mentioned is the invention of the printing press. The ability to mass print books led to a greater flow of knowledge. Due to their complicated writing system, the printing press wasn't as big a success in the East.

[angelsdeath]

Except there isn't even really a correlation. Look at US society in the 1950s. We were a massive super power at the time. Super religious.

You are just not getting what I'm talking about. People can still be and claim to be "super religious" while not taking what their holy text says literally or as seriously as they once did.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Lies, Murder, Genocide, Corruption, Manipulation, Brutality,Greed foreign and domestic, along with terrorism.

[Wells]

You are just not getting what I'm talking about. People can still be and claim to be "super religious" while not taking what their holy text says literally or as seriously as they once did.

And people took the bible pretty damn seriously at the time. There simply isn't much correlation between a nation's success and its religiosity.

[PC2]

Appropriation of external resources. Many times by force. Must be all those neanderthal genes.

Except you can't take things by force if you do not first have superior strategy and technology.

[belfpala]

And people took the bible pretty damn seriously at the time. There simply isn't much correlation between a nation's success and its religiosity.

I'd add that religion is what brought together Europe. And broke it. But hey, everyone got over it and they're friends now. Maybe.

[Mihalik]

I'd say that a main figure of setting up western civilization being able to sit all fat and happy away from much of the bullshit other groups had to deal with is a pretty good start.

never underestimate the island base when everyone starts stuck without boats.

Uhm...Europe was invaded by migrant groups about a hundred times from Asia through its history. Persians, Huns, Mongols, Bulgars, Alans, Avars, Turks.

Europe was largely depopulated by plagues, especially Black Death in the 14th Century which killed about half of Europe's population.

Europe is not some isolated island. It had its fair share of pounding, especially before the 15th century.

[Wells]

Like don't get me wrong, I think societies that are less religious offer a better quality of life on the whole, but it certainly doesn't have a ton of bearing on economic function.

[belfpala]

Except you can't take things by force if you do not first have superior strategy and technology.

Go to the link I posted, I think it's on the first page. A book called Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. He goes to great lengths to explain how Europe ended up where it is today.

[Mercybytwilight]

if by civilization you mean industrialization thatd be the fact that the UK at the time had a very high supply of minerals they could use for factory work which led UK to be prosperous in the navy forces of the time

[Mihalik]

And people took the bible pretty damn seriously at the time. There simply isn't much correlation between a nation's success and its religiosity.

I think, it depends a lot on the brand of religiosity.

Is it one tempered by humanism and empiricism?

Or is it one dominated by theocratic dogmatism?

[Wells]

I think, it depends a lot on the brand of religiosity.

Is it one tempered by humanism and empiricism?

Or is it one dominated by theocratic dogmatism?

Maybe, but religious practice in the mid20th century US was a fairly aggressive sort.