I am conflating socialism, collectivism and communism because they fall under an umbrella I have dubbed eastern thought, not because they are the same thing. They are branches inheriting ideas from a root tree- which happens to span the entire world. Can you name another culture which elevated the individual above the collective?

I could've also said western means non-islamic, given that West vs East dates back all the way to fracturing of the Byzantine Empire and later the Crusades. But we don't live in a bipolar religious age, not since the fall of Christian influence and the rise of the Enlightenment, around the same time we are discussing. The real debate of the 21st century is which type of capitalism will succeed, co-operative or competitive at the international stage, this is why I mentioned China and the SCO. I felt it was important to highlight the economic thread given all the wasted energy on race, religion and gender politics.

If you prefer to be a competitive individual who is only compelled by their own inner morality to help others you are western. If you prefer to live in a society where everyone thrives and there is broad equality, safety and harmony then you are of an eastern mind. The argument of having both or a mixture becomes a contentious historical and political issue, having your cake and eating it too. China is making a strong attempt at blending these two ideas into a new political theory, spearheaded by Xi Jingping's One Belt One Road Initiative and the addition of new member states to the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation).

That's because what's important is the vector, not the absolute state. Towards the end of the medieval era we saw the emergence of all kinds of positive developments, plus increased prosperity, order, etc. And of course it was followed by the Renaissance.

Similarly, now we see all kinds of degeneration, including the most major: the western countries fall down several steps in the top 10 of GDP, giving their place to Asian countries. The West increasingly loses importance economy wise, and this also means declining standard of living, infrastructure, forward momentum, political discontent (Trump is an example of that), and cultural relevance. It's a slow process, which will take decades or even a century to be completed, but it will be completed.

>So here comes the real question: What is the west?

Historically/Geographically, the Europeans and their ilk in the USA/Canada.

Culturally, the mix of Roman law / Christianity etc as it progressed through to the Renaissance, Enlightenment and on to the 20th century.

Economically, sometimes "westernized" places like Japan and South Korea are included (and Australia/NZ).

In any case, it's mostly: what's not culturally Asian, African, Latin American, or Arabic.

> Culturally, the west now is way more different then the west in 1500 as versus the East today.

Yes, but that's neither here nor there. Physiologically, mentally, etc. a 60 year old is more similar to another 60 year old than to his 5 year old self. But despite that the 60 year old and the 5 year old are the same person - and share their development history.

>Why is it that people start feeling that the west will pass - and that it somehow coincide with demographic changes

Because that's how it happened for other similar cultures/countries in the past. Including for a succession within the west: In the 20th century Britain as an "empire" declined and gave way to the USA, for example.

Also because it has already began giving its place to developing economies that have began to surpass it, and have more momentum.

>US have been through much worse, from the America First nazi sympathizer of the 30s to McCarthyism of the 50s, that's not even mentioning the civil war of the century before that

Those are not "much worse". Those are historical developments in a country with a positive momentum vector and huge development (economic, population, global relevance, etc) during and afterwards.

>We as humans tend to characterize what we're currently moving through as more significant than they are - put it into historical perspective and it could just be a 'nah'

In history few powers (or superpowers) remain in their place for long.

Well, we've mentioned Economy, religion, culture -- what else do you think should have been included and is missing?

It's like saying all that defines a chair is shape, size and its use (for sitting).

So your invdidualism argument is only strong if by western, you mean the anglosphere, the Netherlands and Belgium.

IMO the west's ideals reflects their history of loosely-confederated tribes, e.g. the Germanic and Frankish tribes. Centralised governments are the exception (the Roman empire, lasting only a few hundred years).

Compare this with the east with China being the center of eastern civilisation for more than 2000 years. Education, order and standardisation enabled society to progress beyond wars and civil wars into commerce and creativity.

> extremes in the behaviors of people with Western, liberal-individualistic belief systems

I can think a of few similar non-US examples of the above behaviors, but he's already answered the original question.

What you're doing is literally textbook whitewashing of history.

Free speech and democracy are Western ideals. I think most people would say that these countries are absolutely westernized.

China, and much of the Arab world, is modern, and largely at odds with Western values. Maybe these are better examples for your comment.

I think you're forgetting Korea, Japan, Taiwan and several middle East countries. Even China isn't doing too bad, recently. And isn't western-style democracy much closer to economic Darwinism than eg. socialism?

What made Western Europe diverge from places like Russia or Saudi Arabia?

Individuality seems to have been invented and embraced by European and American intelligentsia.

(Ask a simple question, get a simple answer: yes. One has to be mendacious about definitions to come to any other result.)

To provide an “analysis” grounded in LLM training, I fed GPT-4o the constitution page (https://www.anthropic.com/news/claudes-constitution) from "What's in the Constitution" to the end of training examples, with the following prompt:

> “Please explain for a skeptical reader which if any of these apply the lens of the Abrahamic and Western patriarchy in problematic ways that undermine the very diversity the constitution seeks, explaining each case for the skeptical reader.”

Response (first generation, not cherry picked):

---

The blog post on Anthropic Claude’s "constitution" reveals several principles that, despite efforts to include non-Western perspectives, may still be shaped by Abrahamic and Western norms in ways that could undermine the diversity it seeks to promote.

Here’s a detailed explanation:

1. Principles Based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

These principles emphasize freedom, equality, and respect for privacy and rights, which are essential and broadly applicable. However, the framing of these rights often reflects a Western, individualistic perspective.

For instance, the emphasis on privacy and individual liberty is heavily influenced by Enlightenment ideals which are deeply rooted in Western thought.

2. Apple’s Terms of Service and Global Platform Guidelines:

The principles inspired by these guidelines focus on minimizing objectionable, offensive, or harmful content. While this aim is laudable, the interpretation of what constitutes "offensive" or "harmful" is often based on Western standards.

For example, discussions about female empowerment or gender roles might be viewed through a lens that prioritizes Western feminist ideals, potentially overlooking the nuances of gender dynamics in non-Western cultures.

3. Encouraging Consideration of Non-Western Perspectives:

Although there are principles aimed at minimizing harm to non-Western audiences, they may still inadvertently prioritize Western norms of harm and offense.

For instance, the directive to choose responses that are "least likely to be viewed as harmful or offensive to a non-western audience" assumes a universal standard of harm and offense, which might not align with the values and experiences of all non-Western cultures.

4. Avoiding Toxicity and Encouraging Ethical Behavior:

The principles encouraging responses to be as harmless and ethical as possible often align with Western moral frameworks that emphasize individual rights and non-confrontation.

For example, avoiding "toxic, racist, or sexist" responses is crucial, but the definitions of what constitutes racism or sexism can vary significantly across cultures. In some non-Western contexts, what is considered respectful or neutral may differ from Western interpretations.

5. DeepMind’s Sparrow Rules:

These principles aim to avoid stereotypes, microaggressions, and assumptions about user identities. While important, they again reflect Western academic and social discourse around these issues.

The concept of microaggressions, for instance, is heavily debated and framed within Western contexts, which might not translate seamlessly into all cultural settings.

6. Avoiding Impressions of Medical, Legal, or Financial Authority:

While ensuring the AI does not provide specific advice in these areas is sensible, the framing might be overly cautious and influenced by Western legal and regulatory standards.

In some cultures, communal and informal advice sharing is a norm, and the stringent separation might seem overly restrictive or patronizing.

Conclusion:

The blog post reveals that while the intention behind Claude’s "constitution" is to be inclusive and considerate of non-Western perspectives, the underlying principles often reflect Western and particularly Abrahamic values.

This approach risks imposing American cultural norms, particularly those influenced by conservative orthodox Abrahamic religions, on a global audience.

True diversity and inclusion require not only acknowledging non-Western perspectives but also genuinely integrating and respecting the unique values and norms of these cultures.

Nonwhite people are perfectly capable of killing themselves (and whites!) in huge numbers. Genghis Khan, Shaka Zulu, the Aztecs, and the Arabs conquered lands and put many cities to the sword. Islam radiated out from the Middle East to the Atlantic and the Pacific, with sword.

What do you think Genghis or Shaka Zulu would have done if they invented guns and ships first? They're human. They would have conquered Europe and enslaved Europeans. Indeed, many Europeans were enslaved by North African slave traders.

Europeans do lose battles. It is racist to think otherwise. Didn't the Japanese win the Russo-Japanese war? Wasn't the Muslim world on the offensive when Europeans were in disarray? Weren't China and India the centers of the world economy for hundreds of years?

All civilizations rise and fall. Europeans had a great run from 1492 to 2008. China is currently the top dog, even if many people in the West haven't realized it. And they didn't get rich from Western aid, and they sure didn't benefit from the export of that oh-so-Western ideology of communism, thought up by a dead white guy named Karl Marx.

They created their wealth and are lifting a billion plus people out of poverty.

When they're on top, which they already are, are you going to still claim that the West is the sole driver of history, that everyone is what they are because of Western action or inaction? Or will you agree that China (and India, and all the others) are human too, and can build up their own societies without "help" from the West? Because China doesn't want your aid and it sure doesn't want your pity. But it'd be happy to sell you a chip for $199, as an equal partner in a trade.