The great scientists Thomas S. Kuhn (1922-1996) and Karl Popper (1902-1994), the venerable Scottish essayist Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881), and the great historian Joseph Needham (1900-1995) all concluded that the evolution of science is non-relativistic, which tells us that the deduction-based West was more or less predestined to pick up the scientific way.
No matter what those few smart Eastern individuals invented – be it the compass in the second millennium before the birth of Jesus Christ; the so-called ‘South-pointing carriage’ of the Duke of Zhou of the Zhou Dynasty, also in the second millennium before our Lord, and a forerunner of the ‘magnetic compass’ which was finally invented in China about a decade before the Three Wise Men visited Jesus after his birth, obviously without a compass (they used the stars); the so-called ‘South-pointing ladles;’ the magnet; the kite; the astronomical clock; the pizza; the noodle; or even gunpowder – it all does not lead to greatness in the sciences if one’s society is a victim of its own inward-looking traditions.
Once these Asian inventions ‘popped up’ in the West, the European nations took their chances, developed the sciences, increased industrial output, perfected weaponry, boiled the noodle, and set out to conquer and divide the globe among themselves. Only afterwards did the West invent patents, copyrights, laws, and ideas about intellectual property to ensure it would forever stay in power, could forever keep what it took, cunningly assuming that – as I explained before – evolution, even the evolution of sciences and culture, is but a gradual, developmental progress, like, say, climbing a ladder, and whoever takes the first step owns it to the last.
For obvious reasons, the Western ‘scientific accomplishments’ of the past still confuse many Asians, who, as I said elsewhere, excel in so many arts, crafts, and the humanities, but – more importantly – outnumber the Europeans today by roughly six to one. In a ‘democratic’ world order, Asian opinions would clearly outweigh European ones. With her sheer numbers, China in particular would win any poll against angry Germany, France, and Great Britain: “Hey, you Europeans, you want a ‘world democracy’ and ‘global equality’? Well, here you are! Where do we vote?”
Would it be wrong, in a democratic world order, to drastically reduce the global influence of Europe’s ‘Great Three’ in terms of political, economic, and voting power to 1.28, 0.84, and 0.81 respectively, according to their share of the world’s population? I think so, because I grew up in a democratic system. Yet, this is not going to happen. Not in the United Nations, not in Europe. The European mind got itself absolutely accustomed to the idea that it constitutes the world’s ‘bourgeoisie’ or ‘global elite,’ the gem among stones, while the developing world is human soup. It has no Tact, thus no respect for the rest, and it will never know its proper place. Western, seemingly universal ideas of ‘democracy’ and ‘equality’ stop at their own garden’s fences. Beyond that lies a vast and loveless Darwinian desert.
As someone once wisely observed (Lao Zi, if you must know), “Small countries have few people.” Germany, with her 82 million people, is not a small country in any European sense. On the world scale, however, Germany ranks only fourteenth after the Philippines (93 million) and Vietnam (86 million). Over 30 percent of Germany’s citizens have a migration background. The German language, despite being the majority language with regard to native speakers in Europe, will not be able to achieve clear supremacy in Europe, let alone in any Asian belief structure, nor does the German culture it promotes. The German-Jewish connection before World War II was a winning formula for Nobel Prizes, but that, too, has slipped away forever.
Today, China and India want German cars, technology, and knowledge, but they certainly do not want German culture. When the Social Democratic Party of Germany under Chancellor Gerhard Schröder in the year 2000 over-confidently announced it would tap the vast market of two million Indian software programmers (“We want to hire 20,000 by the end of the year!”), only a tiny fraction of that, exactly 1,200 Indian experts, applied to Berlin. In the end, only 88 of them came. The idea that at any given moment, there are “millions” of colored people at the white man’s beck and call is a textbook case of European hubris.
To sum up, it is highly unlikely, for the time being, that Germany, or ever smaller European states like France, Britain, or Italy could ever be a role model for India, Japan, Korea, or China. In fact, it would be foolish to adopt the German way, or the French, or the British. To force Asia and say that any single European country should be a role model for its nations is a racist stance that we must never ever take again.
A Loveless Darwinian Desert
Pattberg, Thorsten (2013), The East-West Dichotomy, Foreign Language Press, Beijing