I argue that there is a decline. The "cultural decline" people perceive is not a decline per se. Declines require a standard to reference against and, by our Islamic standards, they have never really been wholly correct. The cadaan countries have sloughed off the remnants of their Christianity now that they have no attachment to it and are refining their liberalism to its purest state. The upper classes of, let's say the UK for example, abandoned Christianity as the only guide to their actions in the late 18th century and abandoned Christianity in all but pretence in the late 19th century. The lower classes were a bit slower to follow in their footsteps but follow they did.
@
RasCanjero, you are right that a fixation on the
courte durée is very misleading when it comes to these things. Social media only aids in distorting people's outlooks on this and amplifying the angst instilled by the pandemic and the consequent lockdown and economic implosion.
Yet, if you examine the
longue durée , you can perceive a decline, yes. If you examine demographic trends, debt holdings, the prevalence of certain social morbidities (drug abuse, children born to fragmented families, obesity), derangement of local ecologies, a decline can be perceived.
@Yonis, I would say that there has been a considerable decline in the rate of technological advancement overall.
Let’s set the stage with a thought experiment about three equally-separated times, centered around 1950. Obviously we will consider recent years —2015. The symmetric start would then be 1885, resulting in 65-year interval comparisons: roughly a human lifetime.
So imagine magically transporting a person, born to a wealthy family and living in London (a major city back in 1885 and still important now with a high quality of life throughout the time period of this thought experiment) through time from 1885 into 1950—as if by a long sleep—and also popping a 1950 inhabitant into today’s world. Which one has a more difficult time making sense of the updated world around them? Which one sees more “magic,” and which one has more familiar points of reference?
Our 19th Century person would fail to recognize cars/trucks, airplanes, helicopters, and rockets; radio, and television (the telephone was invented in 1875, so they would know about it); toasters, blenders, and electric ranges. Also unknown to the world of 1885 are inventions like radar, nuclear fission, and atomic bombs. The list could go on. Daily life would have undergone so many changes as well.
Now consider what’s unfamiliar to the 1950 sleeper. Look around your environment and imagine your life as seen through the eyes of a mid-century dweller. What’s new? Most things our eyes land on will be pretty well understood. The big differences are mobile phones (which they will understand to be a sort of telephone, albeit with no cord and capable of sending telegram-like communications, but still figuring that it works via radio waves rather than magic), computers (which they will see as interactive televisions), and GPS navigation. They will no doubt be impressed with miniaturization as an evolutionary spectacle, but will tend to have a context for the functional capabilities of our tech.
Telling ourselves that the pace of technological transformation is ever-increasing is just a fun story we like to believe is true. This is repeated by virtually everyone. That doesn't make it true.
