Culture and civilization. Global problems of the mankind. Social forecasting.

Content:
1. The Philosophy of Culture
1.1. The concept of culture.
1.1.1. Definition of culture.
1.1.2. “Material ” and “non-material” culture
1.1.3. Dimensions of culture.
1.2. Characteristics of culture
1.3. Layers of culture
1.3.1. Body of cultural tradition.
1.3.2. Subculture.
1.3.3. Cultural universal
1.4. Manifestations of culture
1.5. Functions of Culture
1.6. Cultural diversity
1.7. The world of values.
1.8. Culture and nature.
1.9. Culture and consciousness.
1.10. The problem of the typology of cultures.
1.10.1. The question of the correlation between Western and Eastern cultures
1.10.2. The problem of national cultures
1.10.3. The concept of mass culture
2. Civilization
2.1. Concept of civilization.
2.2. Characteristics of Civilization
2.3. Culture and civilization
2.4. History of civilization
2.4.1. Civilization and ingredients
2.4.2. Mesopotamia and Egypt: 3100 BC
2.4.3. The Indus: 2500BC
2.4.4. The Aegean: 2000BC
2.4.5. China: 1600 BC
2.4.6. America: 1200 BC
2.4.7. The Mediterranean: form 1000 BC
2.4.8. Regional civilizations: AD 400-1500
2.4.9. Global civilizations: 16th – 20th Century AD
3. Global problems of the world – structure, urgency
3.1. Essence and origination of global problems.
3.2. Global problems classification
3.2.1. Inter-social global problems
3.2.2. Natural-social global problems
3.2.3. Anthropo-social global problems
3.3. Nature and character of global problems.
3.4. Global problems hierarchy
3.5. Conclusion
4. Social forecasting
4.1. Forecasting traditions
4.2. Why social forecasting has developed slowly
4.3. Judgmental and qualitative forecasting methods
4.4. Social demography
4.5. Pragmatic statistical analysis of time series
4.6. Future trends

1
 Bibliography:
1. Appiah, Kwame Anthony, 2009, “Whose Culture Is It, Anyway?”, in Cultural
Heritage Issues: The Legacy of Conquest, Colonization and Commerce, edited by James A. R.
Nafziger and Ann Nicgorski, Leiden: Brill, 207–21.
2. Bakht, Natasha, 2007, “Religious Arbitration in Canada: Protecting Women by
Protecting Them from Religion”, Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 19(1): 119–144.
3. Barry, Brian, 2001, Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Benhabib, Seyla, 2002, The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global
Era, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.–––, 2004, The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents,
and Citizens, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511790799
5. Borchers, Dagmar and Annamari Vitikainen (eds.), 2012, On Exit: Interdisciplinary
Perspectives on the Right of Exit in Liberal Multicultural Societies, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.
doi:10.1515/9783110270860
6. Fernandez-Armesto, F. 2001. Civilizations, London: Free Press. ISBN 0743202481
7. Huntington, S. 1993. "The Clash of Civilizations?" Foreign Affairs. 72 (3) (Summer
1993): 22-28.
8. Wilkinson, D. 1987. “Central Civilization.” Comparative Civilizations Review 4: 31-
59.
9. Wilkinson, D. 1999. “Unipolarity without Hegemony.” International Studies Review 1
(2): 141-172.
10. Winks, R.W., C. Brinton, J.B. Christopher, & R.L. Wolfe. 1995. A History of
Civilization Volume II: 1648 to the Present. 9th edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN
0132283212
11. Block A. (2004): Murphy’s Law. SAN, New York.
12. Our global partnership (1995). UN, New York.
13. Jeníček V. (2004): Global Problems and World Economy. H. C. Beck, Prague.
14. Pearce D., Warford I. (1993): World without End. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
15. Robertson R. (1992): Globalisation: Social Theory and Global Culture. Sage, London.
16. Levine, David M., Mark L. Berenson, and David Stephan 1999 Statistics for Managers
Using Microsoft Excel. Upper Saddle River N.J.: Prentice-Hall
17. Makridakis, Spyros 1988 "Metaforecasting: Ways of Improving Accuracy and
Usefulness." InternationalJournal of Forecasting 4(3):467–91.
18. McCleary, Richard, and Richard A. Hay, Jr. 1980 AppliedTime Series Analysis for the
Social Sciences. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
19. Colquhoun, Robert 1996 "The Art of Social Conjecture: Remembering Bertrand de
Jouvenel." History of theHuman Sciences 9(1): 27–42
20. Dublin, Max 1992 FutureHype: The Tyranny of Prophecy. New York: Plume.
21. Allen, T. Harrell 1978 New Methods in Social ScienceResearch: Policy Sciences and
Futures Research. New York: Praeger.
22. Armstrong, J. Scott 1978 Long-Range Forecasting: FromCrystal Ball To Computer.
New York: Wiley.

1. The Philosophy of Culture

1.1. The concept of culture.
Culture has great influence on individual and collective value framework. It is a set of traditional
belief and values that are transmitted and shared in a given society. Culture is also the total way of life and
thinking patterns, speech action and artifacts that are passed from generation to generation. However, this is
dependent on the man’s capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generation. In
nutshell, culture is a total sum of customs, rituals, artifacts, beliefs and values.

2
 “According to UNESCO, culture is usually “Interpreted as art, we speak of culture in connection with
behavior of people in the moral values and human relations. We denote if by action, behavior and attitudes
considered useful for the interests of society or of a certain social group. We mean standard of living, of
habitation and clothing, of physical culture. We appraise by it the culture of language, of thought, of work...”
1.1.1. Definition of culture.
There is no universal definition of culture. Various functional descriptions of the cultural sphere,
formulated to suit the goals of research, are possible but there is no integral definition of culture that
would express its essence and be generally recognized, although the semantic extent of this concept is
believed to be intuitively clear. The concept of culture (fr. L. Cultura “tilling”) is basically connected with
something that is done well—not only what is done but also how and what for. Doing is a mode of
mastering the world. Culture is a kind of magic crystal that focuses on all being. It is the creative principle
of the life of the individual and of society as a whole; it is not just an ability taken to the point of art but a
morally sanctioned goal. The starting point and the source of the development of culture are human labor,
the forms of its realization, and its results.
Definitions:
“Culture is symbolic, cumulative and progressive process” (White);
“Culture is an organized body of conventional understanding manifested in art and art craft, which
persisting through tradition characterize a human group”. (Redfield)
An ensemble of material and non-material values and of methods of creating them, and the ability
to use them for the advancement of mankind and to transmit them from generation to generation,
constitute culture.
1.1.2. “Material ” and “non-material” culture
Social anthropologists distinguish between “material” and “non-material” culture.
Material culture is an indication of man’s practical mastery over nature. Material culture
includes, above all, the means of production and the objects of labor drawn into the circle of social beings:
technology; art forms; architecture; material goods and equipments used in daily life; house hold;
agriculture; trade and commerce and other social activities.
Non-material culture incorporates science and the extent to which science is applied in production
and everyday life; the state of education, enlightenment, health services, and art; the moral norms of the
behavior of the members of society; the level of people’s needs and interests.
Culture is the embodiment of mankind’s reason, which functions as a semantic augmentation of the
natural world. The non-material phenomena incorporated in it are not confined to some definite historical
period but have an eternal nature: Plato’s thought today is just as real as it was more than two thousand years
ago. Even if they originate as individually subjective and historically concrete, over time these phenomena
assume the status of socially objective and even, as it were, supra-temporal spiritual factors, forming an
uninterrupted universal cultural tradition outside the individual’s control.
What is the essence of present-day philosophical reflection on the fate of culture? Our discussion of
these problems will be limited to those aspects which will permit us, first, to correlate culture with other
phenomena of life, second, to outline the controversy concerning the prospects of mankind’s cultural
evolution, its direction, drawbacks, and crossroads, its hopes and fulfillment.
1.1.3. Dimensions of culture.
Culture has three dimensions:
 it a normative system, by which there is a social control in the form of sanctions,
which make people follow generally accepted moral/ ethical norms.
 there is an expressive system; music, art, literature and so on are cultural expressions
of people.
 it is a system of ideas which enables members of a society to interpret the world
meaningfully and process through which culture influences a social system is called
institutionalization.
1.2. Characteristics of culture
Culture is learned: - culture is not inherited generally but it must be learned and acquired. A child is
instilled with cultural values at an early age. Cultural learning can occur by informal learning and by formal
learning. Enculturation is the process of learning values of one’s own culture from childhood. If a person
learns the culture of a society other than the one in which he is raised, the process of acculturation occurs.
3
 Culture is dynamic: - Culture is not static it is dynamic. It evolves according to changing social,
political, economical and technical environment.
Culture is shared: - culture is socially shared, based on social interaction and creation. It cannot
exist by itself. It must be shared by the members of a society. Cultural values are widely held. Each culture
has certain widely held and commonly accepted values that differentiate it from other cultures. The sharing
of values is facilitated by language.
1.3. Layers of culture
a) Body of cultural tradition.
The body of cultural traditions distinguishes one society from the other. When people speak of
Chinese or Italian Culture, they are referring to the shared language, traditions, and beliefs that set each of
these peoples apart from others.
b) Subculture.
The Second layer is the subculture. In a complex diverse society, people have come from many
different parts of the world. They often retain their original cultural traditions. As a result they are likely to
be part of an identifiable subculture in their new society. The shared cultural traits of subcultures set them
apart from the rest of their society.
c) Cultural universal
The third layer consists of cultural universals. These are the learned behaviour patterns that are
shared by all of humanity collectively. No matter where people live in the world, they share these universal
traits.
Another point of view of culture has six levels: National level: - Associated with nation as a whole;
the regional level: - Associated with ethnic, linguistic or religious differences that exist within a nation; the
gender level: - Associated with gender differences; the generation level: - Associated with the difference
between grandparents and parents, parents and children; the Social class level:- Associated with educational
opportunities and difference in occupation; the corporate level:- Associated with particular culture of an
organization.
1.4. Manifestations of culture
 Symbols: - Are words, gestures, pictures or objects that carry a particular meaning
which is not recognized by those who share a particular culture. New symbols easily develop, old
ones disappear. Symbols from one particular group are regularly copied by others.
 Heroes: - Are person, past or Present, real or fictitious, who posses characteristics that
are highly prized in culture.
 Rituals:- Are collective activities, sometime superfluous in reaching desired
objectives, but are considered as socially essential
 Values: - Are board tendencies for preferences of certain state of affairs to others.
Many values remain one unconscious to those who hold them. Therefore they often cannot be
discussed, nor can they directly observed by others. Values can only be inferred from the way people
act under different circumstances.
1.5. Functions of Culture
 Culture provides us with design for living. It is always learned and acquired;
 Culture provides a series of pattern by which biological and socio-cultural demands of
group members are met e.g. food, shelter, and reproduction and relationship with group and
individuals;
 Culture provides a set of rules to ensure co-operation of the individuals of a group in
adjusting environmental situation;
 Culture provides individual a set of ready-made definition of situation;
 Culture helps in understanding and predicting the human behavior and also it provides
channels of interaction for individuals within the group;
 Culture provides us a guidepost or kind of map for all our life activities. It defines the
pattern of behavior for individuals so that he acts according to the behavior pattern prescribed and
defined by culture.
 Culture acts as a means of social control through norms, folkway, and moves laws.

4
 Thus culture functions to deeply influence control and direct behavior and life of the individual and
of group. All these functions are controlled through norms or rules made in society. These norms may be
governed by sanctions or punishment, so the study of norms, mores, folkways, laws etc. is necessary for
knowing the culture of society.
1.6. Cultural diversity
Cultural differences that exist between people, such as language, dress and traditions, there are also
significant variations in the way societies organize themselves, in their shared conception of morality, and in
the ways they interact with their environment. Cultural diversity is the variety of human cultures in a specific
region or in the world as a whole. Cultural diversity is a necessity for human kind as biodiversity is for
nature.
Dimensions or cultural diversity: Cultural beliefs; Norms; Age; Gender; Language;
Communication style; Ethnicity; Religious beliefs; Education; Life experience; Geography; Opinions; Socio
economic status
1.7. The world of values.
Man is faced with a whole ocean of cultural values created by world history, as well as with the
incalculable riches of nature which he constantly makes use of and enjoys as far as his talents, education,
and upbringing permit him to do so. The functional distribution of the concepts of culture and value
coincides: where a value relation arises, a cultural process, positive or negative, inevitably emerges,
too.
How can the concept of value be philosophically defined? Value is a fact of culture, and it is social
in its very essence. Further, it is a functional and necessarily objective-subjective phenomenon. Things
and events as such, outside their relation to man and the life of society, do not exist in terms of value
categories. This applies not only to humanized nature, i.e. to the entire area of civilization but even to
celestial bodies.
The concept of value is correlative with such concepts as significance, usefulness, and harmfulness.
 Significance characterizes the degree of intensity or tenseness of a given axiological
relation: some things move us more than others, and some leave us completely indifferent.
 Usefulness may be purely utilitarian. Material and non-material values—clothes,
dwellings, tools, skills, abilities, etc.—can all have usefulness.
 Harmfulness is a negative axiological relation. We speak of truth as a cognitive value
that is highly useful to human beings yet can also do them harm. Truth is not always rewarded—
people have been burnt at the stake or sentenced to hard labor for speaking the truth.
The all-pervasive system of symbols constitutes a vast stratum of cultural values and, generally, an
essential form of their expression. Symbols are absolute value phenomena coded in a given culture.
Aesthetic values occupy a special place in this system.
The concept which unifies all cultural values is the humanistic idea of morality, without which all
kinds of values would lose all meaning except for a crudely consumerist one. The moral imperative lends
axiological sensations a stimulus for active expression and supplies them with spiritual energy without
which culture itself would not exist.
1.8. Culture and nature.
The problem in the relationship between the natural and the cultural is that no clear-cut
boundary can be drawn between them: culture is man’s essential property, and man has not only a
cultural but also a natural dimension. The cultural and the natural merge in a single whole in man, and the
relations between them are so complex that they are not fully understood even now. What is stronger in
man, the cultural or the natural element? Are cultural influences positive or negative? At different periods
in history, different answers to these questions were offered.
This dilemma did not exist in mythological thinking, in which natural and cultural elements were
not yet opposed to each other. In antiquity, which inherited the harmony between the corporeal and the
cultural established in the mythological world perception, the cultural element in man, despite the growing
realization of its importance, continued to be secondary in relation to the natural element. The material
cosmos confronting man was perceived as absolute perfection, as distinct from the frequently imperfect
human physical nature that did not always meet ideal requirements. For this reason, culture for the Greek
was a means of bringing his own physical state (which included intellectual potential as well) to a level of
perfection which the world of nature had from its very origin.
5
 In the Middle Ages, on the contrary, the cultural element began to be seen not as a means of
ennobling the corporeal but as a goal in itself; the natural and corporeal were placed here so far below the
cultural that it actually became a symbol of evil impeding the cultural evolution of the human spirit (the
doctrine of original sin). The rehabilitation of the natural element in the human individual began in the
epoch of the Renaissance, but, because of the nearly one thousand-year-long domination of the idea of
spirituality residing outside nature, nature, restored to its rights, was actively opposed to a culture that
was seen as the source of all the social and psychological ailments of society’s life. This apology of
naturalism in its turn provoked a reaction from the proponents of the idea of purely cultural progress. The
conflict between the two trends led to a situation in which the cultural and the natural were thought of as
completely divorced from each other; one of them was regarded as artificial and false and the other as
man's only natural state and therefore as true.
This conflict was most clearly expressed in the polemics between the French philosophers of the
18 century and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
th

In the view of the former, all the evil of the world and all human vices flowed from man’s natural
essence which had to be cultivated through education and upbringing; without these, man’s nature was
nothing but pure and simple egoism. It was therefore quite natural that these philosophers’ thought was
directed above all towards the socio-political improvement of society which would automatically lead to the
triumph of cultural elements in man over the basically vicious natural ones.
In the Rousseau tradition, on the contrary, man’s nature possessed great and perfect potential, and it
was only false culture with its poorly thought-out educational programs based on the formulas of the
Enlightenment, and all kinds of social conventions and false ideals supported by the state that could and did,
distort this potential. Rousseau called for a return back to nature, to natural, harmonious human existence.
This issue is so complex and essential that it still provokes heated debate. Contemporary adherents
of the Enlightenment ideas are often disappointed by abstract political formulas for improving social
life, suspecting human nature, which stands in the way of the realization of political reformers’ plans, of
basic inclination towards evil, and rejection of all cultural remedies. This disappointment, known as cultural
pessimism, struck the souls of liberal intellectuals, who were amazed to find that various reforms did not
lead to the expected purity of morals and manners.
No wonder an alternative idea immediately emerged here. Couldn’t we blame, it was asked, the
cultural program itself, and the political reforms which were not worked out and thought out thoroughly
enough? In any case, if in the late 18th century the potential of reason and of the cultural activity of the
Enlightenment were seen as a panacea against all ills, ever since the late 19th and throughout the 20th
century, the cultural formulas of the Enlightenment have been treated with doubt and even apprehension.
The pessimistic attitude toward human nature could not dominate social consciousness for long,
for the power of light had to triumph sooner or later in it. No viable society cultivates the idea of the
ineradicable defectiveness of human nature for long. The pessimists’ critical stance is no longer directed
against man but against culture, which is seen as the source of the tragic failures of history, such as the
phenomenon of fascism, which literally overwhelmed everybody. Philosophers now scrutinize culture,
wondering if it is not here that the causes of the gloomy metamorphoses of the 20th century are hidden.
Extremely different variants of critical attitudes toward cultural innovations have evolved.
Thus some philosophers reject only the last two centuries in the development of European culture
which has brought a complete triumph of soulless rationalism and a “marriage between science and
revolution” which, in their view, leads to destruction. The crisis of culture, they believe, can only be
overcome by a return to the true culture of Christianity.
Other philosophers go even further, blaming the present cultural crisis on the last twenty
centuries; in other words, they believe that it is Christianity that is to blame for the gradual cultural
degradation. From their point of view, a return is needed to the Indo-European roots of European
culture, muddied up by power-seeking philosophers— beginning with Socrates.
However, Rousseauism, just as the Enlightenment attitudes, has undergone substantive changes in
our times. If the followers of the bourgeois Enlightenment have been nonplussed by the dark political
events of this century, the followers of orthodox Rousseauism have, on the contrary, been confounded by
various optimistic facts of history, such as rapid development, under the impact of various ideologies, of
countries that even a hundred years ago were at the lowest stage of socioeconomic progress. Under pressure
from indubitable facts, the Rousseauists’ complete lack of faith in the possibilities of cultural enlightenment
6
work and political innovations gave way to acceptance of this possibility in principle, with the essential
reservation that the socio-political program of man’s cultural transfiguration proposed by society must not
contradict certain fundamental qualities of his nature.
The culture-man-nature triad is constantly present in philosophical works. It would be frivolous and
naive to expect an unambiguous solution to the question, but the history of the development of this problem
range permits the identification of certain obviously erroneous tendencies. When culture and human nature
are absolutely opposed to each other, complacent, utopian, and essentially dangerous political tendencies
often emerge; when culture and human nature are identified with each other, culture loses all independence
and becomes a mere attribute of nature. Man is here simplistically perceived either as a purely cultural or
purely natural phenomenon; he now controls the cultural process consciously and rationally, now becomes
its unconscious and passive object, the plaything of anonymous symbolic structures of a given type of
culture.
1.9. Culture and consciousness.
Can all cultural phenomena be reduced to the rational level of human consciousness? With all due
respect for the achievements of reason, the answer to this question can only be negative: culture is a
manifestation of man’s properties in all their fullness. Can our emotional experiences in connection with
some work of art, or our moral reaction to some event, be fully conveyed in the rational form of a scientific
statement? Is the culture of emotions subject to the dictates of reason? The reverse is true: where reason
usurps autocratic rights, culture degenerates into an ornamental pattern on the groundwork of life, instead of
being its hidden essence.
This does not mean, of course, that the area of culture must be forbidden ground for rational research;
this merely means that this area, as a real object, is not the content of the mind’s conscious activity only.
One must go deep into the hidden mechanisms of culture in order to realize, even to a very small degree,
one’s dependence on its objective force. Culture has often been subjectively perceived as a tool of progress
entirely in our power, whereas objectively we have been hostage to its laws. It is no accident that the 20th
century is characterized by a powerful development of culturology, the science of the forms and types of
culture, of those mechanisms which underlie the interaction of culture, society, and personality. This
century has seen the beginning of fundamental studies in the structure of the unconscious, of the layer in
man’s psyche which is concealed from direct reflection but incorporates archetypal components of
culture. Culturology studies different historically variable mythological systems, which function in each
given society, and reveals their underlying symbols and values, which also do not always have a clearly
expressed form.
The culture of a society is its aggregate collective property. There is a fund of cultural values which
not only all the members of a given society may have in common but also other societies outwardly entirely
different in their structure, if they had parallels in their historical-cultural development.
There is yet another aspect of the relation between culture and consciousness that has to be discussed
here. If culture cannot be equated with consciousness, can we then equate the structure of culture and the
structure of the human spirit as a whole, which includes, along with others, irrational, unconscious, and
intuitive phenomena? Many researchers are inclined to think that the structures of culture and of the human
spirit coincide in principle. Of course, there must be a correspondence between the two, and of course, the
structure of the spirit reproduces in one way or another structure of the material being that gave rise to it. But
if we go in this direction, each subsequent step will take us further away from the specificity of culture
as an independent trace of the body of evolution. The greatest value of cultural phenomena lays not so
much in the community of their inner structure as in the unique content of these structures in each variety of
culture. Here we have come to the central problem of the philosophy of culture—cultural typology.
1.10. The problem of the typology of cultures.
It should be pointed out at once that science today does not have a complete classification of
cultures, let alone their exhaustive typology. There are several different approaches to this problem, each of
which has its own goals. Let us first of all note those classifications which reckon mostly with differences
between major cultural entities, such as Western and Eastern cultures taken as a whole. Naturally, no
attention is paid here to the specific features which are characteristic of the lesser cultural traditions within
an integral cultural-historical type. However, the particular value of these generalized classifications consists
precisely in the fact that they indicate at least some of the fundamental features of each such entity, and
identify components of culture as a common human phenomenon.
7
 1.10.1. The question of the correlation between Western and Eastern cultures
How is the question of the correlation between Western and Eastern cultures solved now? If 19th
century culturology considered their systems of terms and symbols as basically closed, in the 20th century
emphasis was laid on the culturological affinity of these traditions earlier perceived as disjoint. An indication
of the tendency toward a synthesis between Western and Eastern cultures is the crossing of the two
branches and the resultant new cultural varieties (of this nature is, e.g., the culture of Japan today or the
cultural pluralism of numerous Buddhist communities in Europe and America).
The differences between European and Oriental cultures go back to remote antiquity. Of all the
antithetic features distinguishing them that have been pointed out by culturologists, let us stress such basic
elements as the attitude:
 to the human personality,
 to the possibilities of reason,
 to socio-political activity.
Even this brief outline indicates not only the basic differences between the two cultural traditions but
also the bridges or points at which they have been brought closer together in the 20th century. Thus on the
issue of the attitude towards man, some trends in European philosophy critical of bourgeois individualism
are inclined towards anti-personalism uncharacteristic of Christian culture, subordinating the idea of self-
valuable personality to the idea of depersonalized society, on the Confucian model. On the other hand,
interest in individual-personal forms of being is gradually growing in the countries of Oriental culture. On
the issue of the potential of rational knowledge, Europe today takes into account the achievements of
Oriental meditative psychology, while the East, in its turn, ceases to ignore the natural sciences, without
falling into the extremes of scientism, of course. On the issue of social activity, one cannot fail to notice the
role played in the East by the idea of active involvement in life, as indicated by the scope of political
struggle in these countries. It should also be noted, though, that the Oriental doctrine of refraining from
action has partly penetrated European culture as well, especially those strata of the liberal intellectuals who
have been disappointed by the failure of partial political reforms and have become engrossed in inner
existential experiences of the individual human soul. Apart from this classification of cultures, there are
smaller subdivisions, including the concept of subculture, which reflects the specifics of a certain stratum in
a single society (e.g., the youth subculture).
1.10.2. The problem of national cultures
Of special interest here is the problem of national cultures. Their specificity is largely connected
with the territorial, climatic, and ethnic situation of a given people, with its system of values that has been
historically evolved and handed down from generation to generation. The preservation of the national
originality of cultures is one of the most painful problems of the 20th century. The first decades of this
century were dominated by the ideas of rapid consolidation of nations into a single cultural group, whereas
the recent years are characterized by rehabilitation of national self-consciousness confronting the tendency
towards unification. However important the formation of global planetary thinking maybe for the solution of
such universal problems as the strengthening of peace and restoration of the ecological balance, this
universal consciousness must not be built at the expense of cultural diversity. The greater and richer the
range of cultural traditions, the richer the spiritual life of mankind as a whole.
Of great significance for the classification of various cultural communities is the question of the
value of these cultures in relation to one another and the determination of the stage of their historical
development. Various unitary models of cultural development play an entirely negative role here. Thus the
adherents of the “modernization theory” (developed by Walt Rostow and others) reduce cultural-national
and ideological differences to differences in the stages of growth, which ultimately leads to the idea that the
West plays a pilot role while the Second and Third Worlds always lag behind. The Anglo-Saxon model is
presented as the universal model of cultural development to be accepted by all the other countries. If the
national-cultural specifics of some society are incompatible with this model, this society is regarded as
marking time at one of the earlier stages of the common path rather than following its own.
All types of unitary cultural development are fraught with negative consequences for, despite
the growing process of internationalization, the desire for national and cultural separateness, far from
weakening, is increasing. In view of this, political thought cannot avoid being modified by the cultural
specificity of the soil on which it is planted. This must not be seen as its defectiveness but, on the contrary,

8
as a sign of its universality since, despite differences in cultural contexts, each specifically national version
of its implementation retains its fundamental propositions.
1.10.3. The concept of mass culture
There is yet another concept in present-day culturology that reflects the specificity of the cultural
processes in this century—the concept of mass culture, highly popular these days. It is usually used in a
derogatory sense—meaning something like "a weak solution of culture for the masses". But the concept of
mass culture can also be given a positive interpretation: democracy brought culture to millions of people
who had previously led miserable lives in ignorance and illiteracy. The negative meaning of the expression
“mass culture” comes from the fact that it is not the masses that are often given a chance to rise to the
level of real culture but, on the contrary, culture itself caters to the primitive tastes of the backward
strata of the population and thus, becoming simplistic and distorted, descends to the level of primitivism
which is shocking to the truly educated: something stupid is offered to the intelligent masses under the guise
of culture. This is highly insulting to the greatness of the historical mission of culture.
Summing up
It should be noted in conclusion that in reality culture exists as a historically established system that
has its material forms, its symbols, traditions, ideals, orientations, axiological reference points, and,
finally, a mode of thought and life—the central force and the living soul of a culture. In this sense, the
being of culture becomes supra-individual, although it exists at the same time as the individual’s deeply
personal experience. The subject of culture is mankind, nation, social group, and the individual. The
material forms of the being of culture are the fruits of the people’s creative activity, the masterpieces of men
of genius and talent. Taken by them, though, the material and sign-symbolic forms of the being of culture are
only relatively independent; outside man and his creative activity, they are dead.
There was a time when cultures were closed. In the course of their multidimensional development,
they become more and more open to all kinds of influences: they interact, and life works out flexible
mechanisms of this interaction, which facilitates the general growth of the culture. Right before our eyes,
the process unfolds of the formation of civilization of the whole mankind retaining at the same time the
individuality of each culture. Despite the uniqueness of the finest fabric of each given culture, whose threads
always go back to remote antiquity, different types of culture are in principle comparable, and a dialogue
between them leading to a mutual understanding is not only possible but actually realized both in the
remote past and nowadays. I believe that further progress of mankind will be achieved through growing
rational mutual enrichment of cultures. This beneficent synthesis, aspiring towards humanistic ideals, the
principles of social justice, the individual’s harmonious development, new thinking, and a consistent
scientific worldview, is apparently necessary. World culture will only reap benefits from it as it accelerates
its ascendance along the path of progress, without depriving local cultures of the unique intensity of their
own colors.
2. Civilization
2.1. Concept of civilization.
The word civilization came from the Latin adjective civil, a reference to citizen. Citizen willingly
being themselves together Political, Social, economic and religious organizations- they merge together that
is in the interests of larger Community. Over the time the word civilization has come to imply something
beyond Organization-it refers to particular shared way of thinking about the world as well as a reflection on
that world in art literature drama and a host of other cultural happenings. Its original meaning is the manner
or condition in which men live together as citizens.
A Civilization is a complex society or culture group characterized by dependence on agriculture, long
distance trade, state form of Government, occupational specialization urbanism and class stratification.
Along with this core elements, civilization is often marked by combination of a number of secondary
elements , including a developed transportation system, writing, standards of measurement, formal legal
system, great art style, monumental architecture, the mathematics sophisticated metallurgy, and astronomy.
Definitions:
An advanced state of intellectual, cultural and material development in human society marked by
progress in the arts and sciences, that extensive use of record keeping, including writing and the appearance
complex political and social institutions.

9
 According to Albert Schweitzer “It is the sum total of all progress made by man every sphere of
action and from every point of view in so far as the progress helps towards the spiritual perfecting of
individuals as the of all Progress”
According to Oxford English Dictionary civilization is “the action or process of civilizing or of being
civilized, developed or advanced state of human society.”
Elements of civilizations:
Urban society; Religion; Literature; Gove; Specialization; Social classes; Tool making; Once pt of
time; Leisure Education / Criticism.
Benefits of Civilization:
Administrative system; Various law; Protection from chaos; Protection from hunger, shelter etc.;
Sewage system; Technological invention; Innovation, learning etc.; People working towards a common goal
to survive; People are not independent, so that everyone works, forming an economy, making the group self
department; People can work together to solve problems and create new things.
2.2. Characteristics of Civilization
Civilization distinguished by traits. Civilization have been distinguished by their means of
subsistence, types of livelihood, settlement Patterns, forms of government, social stratification, economic
systems, literacy and other cultural traits.
All human Civilizations have depended on agriculture for subsistence. Growing food in farms
results in a surplus of food, particularly when people use intensive agricultural technique such as irrigation
and crop rotation. A surplus of food permits the people to do things besides produce food for a living and
also results in a division of labor and a more diverse range of human activity.
Different Settlement Patterns. Civilizations have distinctly different settlement patterns from other
societies.
Complex Political Structure. Compared with other societies civilizations have moved to complex
political structure namely the State. There is a greater difference among the social classes. The ruling class
normally concentrated in the cities, has control over much of the surplus and exercises through the actions of
a government or bureaucracy.
Display more complex patterns of ownership. Living in one place allows people to accumulate
more personal possessions than nomadic people. Some people also acquire landed property or private
ownership of the land.
Development of Writing. Writing, developed first by people in summer, is considered a hallmark of
civilization. Trader’s bureaucrats relied on writing to keep accurate records. Like money, writing was
necessitated by the size of the population of a city and complexity of its commerce among people who not
personally acquired with early other.
2.3. Culture and civilization
Civilization can be distinguished from other cultures by their high level of complexity and
organization, and by their diverse economic and cultural activities. According to Oxford Advanced Learners
Dictionary culture is “the custom and believes, art, way of life and social organization of a particular county
or particular group.” On other hand civilization is “a state of human society that is very developed and
organized” and “all people in the world and the societies they live in, considered as a whole.
The relationship with our daily life differentiates between culture and civilization. Culture is what
people pass down from generation to generation and what people do in their daily life. In addition culture
and social structure influence each other. On the other hand civilization is what people create by
advancement of human’s wisdom. Moreover culture is a generic form of life style, religion the way of
thinking and so on and civilization is general term of development of technology and economy in order to
make more convenient life. Therefore culture maintains forever or for a long time unless cultures are not
forced to change or people who have unique culture die out. However civilization may vanish stop
developing and new civilization occur.
Culture Vs civilization:
 Civilization is a bigger unit than culture because it is a complex of the society that
dwells within a certain areas along with its form of government norms and even culture.
 Culture is perennial and has impact on humanity as a whole. Civilization is
synchronous and keeps pace with the present.

10
  A culture ordinarily exists within a civilization in this regard each civilization can
contain not only one but several cultures.
 Culture can exist in itself where as civilization cannot be called a civilization if it does
not possess a certain culture. Hence a civilization will become empty if it does not have its culture,
no matter how little it is.
 Culture can be something that is tangible and it can be something that isn’t. But
civilization is something that can be seen as a whole and it is more or less tangible though its basic
component, like culture can be immaterial.
 Culture can be transmitted trough symbols in the form of language where as an entire
transmitted by mere language alone.
2.4. History of civilization
2.4.1. Civilization and ingredients
Many different elements must come together before a human community develops to the level of
sophistication commonly referred to as civilization. The first is the existence of settlements classifiable as
towns or cities. This requires food production to be efficient enough for a large minority of the community to
be engaged in more specialized activities such as the creation of imposing buildings or works of art, the
practice of skilled warfare, and above all the administration of a centralized bureaucracy capable of running
the machinery of state.
Civilization requires at least a rudimentary civil service. In the organization of a civil service, a
system of writing is an almost indispensable aid. But the development of writing greatly enhances
civilization and with a script comes history. Our knowledge of prehistory derives from surviving objects- the
evidence of archaeology. History, by contrast, is based on documents. These various interconnections mean
that history, civilization and writing all begin at that time. That time is about 3100 BC
2.4.2. Mesopotamia and Egypt: 3100 BC
In about 3200 BC the two earliest civilizations developed in the region where southwest Asia joins
northeast Africa. Great rivers are a crucial part of story. The Sumerians settle in what is now southern
Iraq, between the mouths of the Euphrates and the Tigris. Egypt develops in the long narrow strip of the
Nile valley. Rivers offer two main advantages to a developing civilization. They provide water to irrigate the
fields, and they offer the easiest method of transport for a society without paved roads. Rivers will play an
equally important role in two other early civilizations - those of the Indus and northern China.
2.4.3. The Indus: 2500BC
It is not known whether contact with Mesopotamia inspires the first civilization of India or whether
it is a spontaneous Local development, but by about 2500 BC the Neolithic villages along the banks if the
Indus are on the verge of combining into a unified and sophisticated culture. The Indus civilization, with its
two large cities of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro expands over a larger region than Egypt and Mesopotamia
combined. It will survive, in a remarkably consistent form, for about 1000 years.
2.4.4. The Aegean: 2000BC
The next region to develop a distinctive civilization centers on the Aegean Sea. The bays and inlets
of the rugged coastal regions of Greece, and the many small islands strung like pearls across this relatively
sheltered sea, combine to make this an ideal area for trade among people whose levels of nautical skill make
short hops a necessary precaution. The Aegean civilization stands at the start of the very lively tradition of
Mediterranean culture. It begins in the large island which is perfectly placed to guard the entrance to the
Aegean-Create.
2.4.5. China: 1600 BC
The longest consistent civilization in the human story so far is that of China. This vast eastern
empire seems set apart from the rest of the world, fiercely proud of its own traditions, resisting foreign
influences. Its history begins in a characteristically independent manner. There are no identifiable precedents
for the civilization of the Shang dynasty, which emerges in china in about 1600 BC. Its superb bronze
vessels seem to achieve an instant technological perfection. Its written texts introduce characters
recognizably related to Chinese writing today. This is a civilization which begins as it will continue-with
confidence.
2.4.6. America: 1200 BC
Around this time the earliest American civilizations have their beginnings, with the Olmecs in
Central America and the Chavin in the Andes. Both these cultures developed large town, centered on
11
temples. Both are now famous for their sculpture and each, in its own region, is at the start of a succession of
civilization leading directly to the two which are discovered and destroyed in the 16th century by Spanish-
the Aztecs in central America and the Incas the Andes.
2.4.7. The Mediterranean: form 1000 BC
The first distinctively Mediterranean civilization that of the Aegean’s who came to a sudden and
still unexplained end in around 1200 BC. Some 200 years later an energetic seafaring people, the
Phoenicians, become extensive traders from their base in Lebanon the established colonies along the coast
of Africa and even to the Atlantic. Their example, as Mediterranean imperialists, will be followed by
Greek and then by the Roman. Mediterranean becomes the world’s most creative arena for the clash and
synthesis of civilizations-a status which it has never entirely lost.
2.4.8. Regional civilizations: AD 400-1500
With the dominance of Greece and Rome in the west (both successfully managing a transition from
pagan to Christian empires), of china in the east, and strongly individual cultures in central and south
America, each successive civilization in any region tends at same time to be a variation on local traditions.
But sometimes there are upheavals which introduce a new culture within already long civilized parts of the
world. One such is Islam. The establishment of the caliphate in Damascus and Bagdad leads to distinctively
Muslim civilizations in an unbroken belt from North Africa to North India.
2.4.9. Global civilizations: 16th – 20th Century AD
The first sustained contact between Europe and America, in the 16th century, opens the door to
new concept-world-wide civilizations, evolving through colonies and empires. Spanish civilization is
exported to Latin America; English culture spreads even further, in an empire which includes India,
Australia, New Zealand, Canada and eventually many parts of Africa. From the 16th to the 19th century
it is the imperial impulse which carries European civilization round the world, often as thin veneer over
older and very robust local cultures. But by the 20th century different forces at work for much of 20th
century ideology has been driving force in the export of two very different concepts of civilization,
American capitalism and Russian communalism. At the same time mass communication has made it
possible to export a region’s popular culture to the rest of the world notably that of America through radio,
cinema and television.
Other influences, whether multinational companies or the internet, have similar effects. The danger is
worldwide sameness. But there is corresponding benefit. Within economic limits, human communities are
now free as never before to adopt the aspects of civilization which appeal to them- regardless of where they
happen to be on the planet.
5. Global problems of the world – structure, urgency
5.1. Essence and origination of global problems.
It is not by chance that global problems have emerged only when the world economy has
constituted, i.e. on a certain level of the internationalization and interdependence processes, resp. of the
complex production capacity development. It does not regard only what is well known from the classical
definition of global problems, i.e. that these are the problems which can be solved only through worldwide
effort and which regard the whole human civilization. It regards also the fact that their origin itself is
determined by the existence of the global interdependence, be it the interdependence in the economic or non-
economic sense – while the economic sense is dominant.
As well to the processes of internationalization and interdependence, driven by the enormous
scientific and technological progress that is accelerated enormously, also global problems are multiplied and
dramatized. Their quantitative growth is clear proof of the fact that humankind is lagging behind in
seeking and finding the forms, methods, and tools how to face the accelerating interdependence. Hence
also obviously issues the still more frequented term “global threats” or “global challenges”, which are used
instead of the rather usual term of “global problems”. We think, however, that there is hitherto no reason to
change the original term since it is obvious that every problem sets automatically the question of its solution
and is therefore a threat as well as a challenge “sui genesis”.
Internationalization and interdependence themselves are objective processes and cannot, therefore, be
avoided. However, it is necessary to distinguish between their symmetrical and asymmetrical form. It is just
the disparity between the two forms and the deepening asymmetry, which contributes most to the
worsening and multiplication of global problems. Neither the asymmetry of interdependence is, however,
a negative phenomenon in itself, since highly complicated diverse forms of social life will always be of
12
the tendency to develop non-proportionately. However, global problems originate because the ability of
human civilization to realize activities and to use properly the mechanisms which would dampen this non-
equilibrium and eliminate the consequences of the asymmetrical forms of mutual interdependence is lagging
behind. Hence issues for example the criticism on the part of developing countries, but also some
Western left-oriented intellectuals. These arguments are based on the statement that it is only a verbal
smokescreen which should cover the fact that the asymmetrical forms of interdependence will always favor
the stronger and handicap the weaker.
Global problems in the modern sense of the world began to be mentioned only after WW2, even if
already the WW1 and the world economic crisis of the 30s hinted that the most important problems of
humankind's development were globalizing. Today, it is already obvious that the world as a whole is
developing in such a dynamic and sometimes even chaotic way that even a simple categorization and
rough numbering of these problems becomes a still more difficult matter. With the deepening
internalization and interdependence, the range of the problems which should be perceived worldwide is
still widening. Furthermore, none of these problems can be quite clearly defined and it is impossible to
delimitate not only its borders but even its shape because of the multiple interconnections of these
problems not only mutually but also with regard to the different sides of human social life. It is therefore not
surprising that different authors mention different numbers of these problems, ranging from 6–8 up to 30
and more.
Each of the global problems has its economic as well as non-economic dimensions. It is natural that
the economic dimension prevails in the majority of them. However, it would be obviously wrong to be
limited only to the economic dimension in the explanation of their development, position, hierarchy, or
classification, because in some of these problems the non-economic dimension even prevails, and
through the phenomena of ideology, military, administration, environmental and other aspects.
Regarding global problems, neither the moral (ethical) side of the problem should be forgotten,
which is a very important component even regarding the prevalently economic problems. The endeavor to
transfer everything to the economic level or the level of economic calculations is not correct and it led in part
to considerable theoretical and methodological biases and conflicts, the most persistent of which is the
endeavor:
 to define global problems through the analytical instruments
 and the notions of scientific and technological progress,
 or the categories of the international division of labor.
It is then stated that the interdependency relationships are, as the development of the functional
interconnection of the processes and relations of the social, natural, and technological system into a single
ecological and anthropological complex, the result of the international division of labor development, which
grows over from national subjects into the global frame. Thus, we can explain the origin and development of
most global problems inside human society and its relationship to nature, but hardly, however, the
anthrop-social problems, the most significant of which is the problem of the position of man in the
changing world itself.
Social, cultural, humanitarian, and ethical questions of human civilization development are then the
spheres that would be understood only with difficulties in the globalization and internalization context. The
world is not developing only and singly under the determining common denominator of globalization (which
also has a series of negative aspects just in this area), but in a polycentric way, when the above-mentioned
questions will be still for a long time – even for centuries- defined in a different way in different cultural and
religious spheres and also understood by them in a different way, not to speak of solving them. Therefore,
there is still more often expressed the opinion during the last years, that also this polycentric trend has to be
considered adequate according to the globalization trend, which can push forward still more as the primary
one, but not the only one. There begins to emerge an opinion, that just this was omitted in the last decades
and that the stress on the globalization, interdependence, and internalization aspects was too prevalent. It is
then not necessary that the globalization and poly-centric tendencies were understood as totally
contradictory, but rather as simultaneously functioning tendencies, while in many aspects can be realized not
to the detriment, but as complementary to the others.
5.2. Global problems classification
Controversies persist also regarding the systemization of problems, which occur globally (accelerated
urbanization, problems of the educational, health, and other systems), but which are, however, solved on the
13
national levels, and often successfully. For these problems, there is used the term “sub-global”. Further,
there is also discussed the systemization of the problems for which the science has not hitherto found the
origin or an efficient therapy, but which occur as pandemic (AIDS, tumor diseases). For those, there is being
used, besides the term “global”, also the term “universal”. Notwithstanding the above-mentioned difficulties,
there is a commonly accepted division of global problems into three big groups, as follows: – Inter-social
global problems – Natural-social global problems – Anthropo-social global problems
5.2.1. Inter-social global problems
Inter-social global problems are usually ranked as the highest in the hierarchy, in the first group.
They are connected with the mutual impact of the different social and economic systems and the global co-
existence of humankind in the conditions of different value criteria and ideologies, as well as different
reactions to the global social situations with the principal clash of interests. Here, there are usually
included the problems like:
 the problem of diverting world wars, nuclear, and eventually other conflicts connected
to the problem of armament (the problem of war and peace). At present, there gains in importance
also the fight against terrorism;
 the problem of the social and economic backwardness of developing countries,
eventually the whole North-South relationship;
 the problem of solving global debts, the relationship of the indebted and creditors;
 The problem of the international relationships (namely economic) changes under the
new conditions formed namely by the scientific and technological progress.
Sometimes the question of the scientific and technological process is, with regard to its importance
and the relationship to internalization and interdependence, ranked as a special global problem of the optimal
utilization of scientific and technological progress in different social and economic conditions. This
problem used to be most often connected with the need to reconstruct the system of international
economic relationships. It is then obvious, that it regards problems that originate inside human society as
the result of mutual antagonisms and contradictory interests of its pasts. However, people live also in
complicated relationships with the biosphere, ecosphere, and nature in general. Therefore, the second big
group of problems regards the harmonization of these relationships.
5.2.2. Natural-social global problems
These so-called natural-social global problems issue form the interrupted relationships between
nature and human society when the population grows but natural resources remain rather constant.
Moreover, economic growth, consumer lifestyle, and the general growth of human needs evoke a number
of these problems or worsen them by pollution. Also, the phenomenon of man entering cosmic space
brings about complications. In this group, the heterogeneity of understanding the problems by the individual
authors is the highest, i.e. either individual understanding of the problem of food, raw materials, energy, and
other natural resources scarcity or their connection to the complex problems of these natural resources'
efficient utilization. The increased difficulties in each of these areas contribute to their individual
understanding, while, on the other hand, the fact that they are of a common base and are interconnected by
their reasons, as well as consequences, contribute to their connecting together. In this text, we observe rather
the first way, and that not only because of the growing difficulties in each independent area, but also for the
reason of lucid presentation and, last but not least, also with regard to the world trend of specialization in the
global problems research sphere.
The second group of natural-social global problems, there are most often included the following
problems:
 environmental problem;
 raw material and energy problem – population problem;
 food, respectively nutrition problem.
5.2.3. Anthropo-social global problems
Lastly, the third group of anthropo-social problems includes the general human problems of the
social, cultural, and humanitarian-ethical nature. Sometimes, they are ranked as one great complex
problem (so-called problem of the future of man), sometimes this group is divided into a number (10–15)
of partial “sub-global” problems the common denominator of which are the shortcomings of the
development of man in the relationship to the life and social conditions created by himself. Here belong
different kinds of the unequal approach to education, health care, housing, culture, human rights,
14
eventually also serious defects in their securing or a disharmonic and uncontrolled development (e.g.
accelerated urbanization) etc.
The complex problem of the future of man is set by most authors as an independent problem since
the existence of the global problem of the future of man is the issue of all the questions, problems, and
relationships determining the life of man and human society. However, this complex problem cannot be
solved as such, but only through the solution of other global problems as well as of the problems of a
different order. The problem of the future of man basically falls into two partial problems.
 First, the problem of the future of man in the biological sense of the word is the future
of the “homo sapiens” genus.
 Secondly, also as the problem of the future of the individual, non-repeatable, creative,
and active human being in all its relationships, relations, and life manifestations.
5.3. Nature and character of global problems.
Interdependence and all global problems, whether we can sort them into any group in whichever
shape, are mutually interconnected. It has been already said that they have common reasons (lagging behind
in solutions and correction mechanisms of the asymmetrical forms of interdependence and mastering the
accelerated manifestations of economic life and the common activities in general internationalization), but
they can also have common and mutually conditioned consequences. These consequences can reach
enormous and really catastrophic forms. Already at present many authors state that any single one of the
global problems can, if self-developing without control, endanger the whole human civilization
(formerly, this was generally accepted only regarding the problems of the global nuclear conflict). It
becomes still more obvious that also other global problems, connected both with the mutual interactions of
people and their relationships to nature, an issue, in a relatively short time, into disastrous consequences,
which would, together with the necessary deterioration of the problems connected and consequent, lead to
really cataclysmic consequences. Therefore, world economics is relatively the nearest to the so-called
globalists, as the science on the development and possibilities of the solution of the global problems is called
during the last few years.
It is, of course, obvious that not only the world economy, but the whole sphere of international
relationships (including namely the political ones) is the place where global problems are born, functioning,
and developing and which is also in return the sphere most impacted by them. Therefore, it is necessary
for prognostic thoughts in this field to consider the emerging theory of globalistics and eventually also the
analytic research results. Even if it might not eventually regard the purely economic issue, it is always in an
important way related to the sphere of international relationships in general and of world economy in
particular. Therefore, it is not by chance that we can find namely economists and political scientists among
its main protagonists.
The importance of global problems cannot, however, be understood in the negative sense only.
Their positive importance lays,
 on the other hand, in the fact that they are warning, signaling the main spheres of the
human civilization development failure,
 but also they endeavor to point out the way into the better future.
It is necessary to take interest in both the negative as well as positive side of global problems also
because a successful solution of any of them improves not only the situation in the area which is
immediately endangered, but, as a consequence of the interconnecting of the whole system of global
problems, in several of them. Globalistics can be in this sense understood as a tool of the fight against the
humankind dying quickly on its own crimes.
The stress put on the negative but also positive aspects of the analysis of the global problems has led
during the last time to the discussion which approached in a very critical way the hitherto prevailing
tendencies of globalists rather identify and register these problems, eventually to describe the main
symptoms of the failure of the social mechanisms caused by their growing and deepening. Today there
is rather commonly accepted the opinion that such a “passive” approach is not acceptable anymore and that
globalists have to be “active”, which is oriented also at seeking the ways and tools of the global problems
consequences mitigation. Even if this opinion seems to be quite logical at the first sight, pushing through
with this “active” methodological approach was not easy. Many authors and public actors argued that this
has to be secured by the traditional scientific disciplines of the social, technical, and natural sciences. It
lasted almost 25 years before it become clear that globalists cannot naturally fulfill the research tasks of the
15
traditional scientific disciplines, but that it regards the positive and active seeking of the ways and tools
facing the consequences of the global problems from the viewpoint of their system and mutual relationships.
The development of globalists was also up to the end of the 80s hindered considerably by the Marxist
opinion that the world is divided politically and according to social classes and that the global co-existence
of the systems is possible only on the level of peaceful coexistence. The blame for the origin and
development of many global problems was unanimously ascribed only to one of the two social systems – the
capitalism and market economy in general. The analysis and research of global problems were established
only with difficulties in the former Eastern block countries even in the 60s and 70s, the situation started to
improve only in the 80s and was named after the beginning of the Gorbatschov era (1985), and its new
ideological approach, among which pushing through of the global world approach formed one of the
cornerstones.
However, there still exist arguments about whether it is ever possible to form the so-called
globalists into an independent scientific branch. Therefore, we have rather used the term “teaching”. The
nature of global problems then demands categorically such an approach to their research which presupposes
the cooperation of practically all scientific branches. The last time, there is prevailing the opinion that, due to
the supreme complexity and interdisciplinary of global problems, globalists will never be an
independent scientific branch but rather a method or a direction of outlook, which would draw a
certain “energy” of interconnection from the existing scientific branches. Some authors even stand
against the individual problems research and point out their mutual interconnection. That represents,
however, a rather extreme approach. Global problems can be researched and explained separately if we do
not forget their complexity and complicated character. The solution of each of them influences to a certain
extent also the solution of other difficult problem spheres.
Thus, another methodologically complicated question is the relationship between global problems
and their national (eventually regional or sub-regional) manifestations. Global or all-planet problems
emerge as phenomena in their concrete state, national, regional, or sub-regional appearances since the world
is (hitherto) thus divided by the state and other borders. However, these substance forms represent always a
mutually influencing unity of the given kind. It is not decisive, therefore, whether e.g. the problem of food
and nutrition does not exist in certain, and very numerous, national units. Notwithstanding that, it is a global
problem the often very different and contradictory dimensions of which on the level of the states and regions
are only its manifestations and they can be solved only by the endeavor of all humankind. Regarding the
food and population problem, there are not many difficulties with this understanding of it but the situation is
more complicated e.g. regarding the drug abuse problem, AIDS etc.
With regard to the outlined global interdependence and interrelation of the global problems, also
these problems are now, however, still more understood as the full global problems, even if we can still
meet with labeling them as “sub-global” etc.
It regards the consequence of the fact that the world is, notwithstanding all the globalizing and
interdependency tendencies, still developing also in a polycentric way, which is, alas, often forgotten.
E.g. world economy is still more globalizing but at the same time, it is developing according to the centers
and sub-centers. The West European, North American and Australian-Asian centers form a certain Western
“Triad” of this world economy, which is, however, supplemented by the other segments (developing
economies, transition economies). But neither the centers themselves are homogeneous, so the fact that the
otherwise worldwide spread problem does not exist in some at all or only marginally contributes to it.
5.4. Global problems hierarchy
The question of the global problems hierarchy is really rather disputable in the outlined
consequences. To state unambiguously that some problems are of absolute priority or more pressing than
others is impossible. All of them are of vital importance for mankind; a possibility of a certain hierarchy can
be at the utmost presupposed in a certain time horizon. It is clear that in the sphere of international
pressure escalation, the peace problem is of higher priority. Nevertheless, the former opinion that this
problem is in it always supreme over the others is now made relative by the growing realization that not only
the global war but also all the other global problems would – even if perhaps in a longer time horizon –
lead to the global catastrophe of the humankind. A more useful seems to be the division of global
problems into the so-called a) ultimate, b) basic, and c) elementary. Ultimate problems are that solution that
conditions the existence and the way of life of the mankind in the most basic sense of the word. Basic
problems then are essentially conditioning the solution of the ultimate global problems, are relatively narrow
16
regarding their impact scope and their determination is the most concrete. Basically, all global problems are
mutually interconnected, even if in some cases only indirectly. Among the individual problems, there exist
e.g. the following basic relationships (we will mention only some of them):
 The future of man and human society is ultimately determined by the solution of the
problem of war and peace, eventually of terrorism;
 The liquidation of the developing countries’ backwardness is a substantial factor
determining the further development of mankind;
 This backwardness, eventually the whole relationship between the “North” and
“South” is substantially connected to the problem of the international relationships change,
respectively the problem of the developing countries' global debts;
 Solving the global environmental problem is the condition of the further
development of mankind in the sphere of its relationships to nature and the social, cultural, and
ethical problems of the whole human civilization;
 Solving the food problem directly conditions solving the problem of developing
countries backwardness;
 Solving the problem of natural resources is the condition for solving the problem of
environment and sustainable development.
Naturally there exist many of these relationships; the above-mentioned ones are only the main
illustration. However, to document this existence as clearly as possible, we will develop the relationships
between one of the problems in a more concrete way. It can be well done regarding the environmental
problem.
Quite obvious is its relationship to the problem of raw materials and energy.
Mining of the non-renewable stocks of raw materials is oriented at still less easily accessible
resources, while their consumption is still increasing.
The fuel and energy complex is one of the biggest polluters of the environment. Expressly
negative is also the impact of refuse in all forms and other problems connected with the production.
Solving the problem of energy and raw materials there would to a higher extent help also the solution
to the environmental problem. Also the food problem is closely connected to the environment. In the
interest of securing the sufficient food supply for mankind, there are often used the means which are not
ecological but even are often unhealthy for man. The negative impact of intensive fertilizing by artificial
fertilizers on the quality of agricultural production and on water resources is well known. Similarly
problematic is also the excessive use of pesticides and other chemicals in agriculture, including the
devaluation of the food chain.
The environmental problem is serious everywhere in the world, but perhaps still more serious in
developing countries. That is so named because developing countries usually have so little means that they
invest only in the relatively more pressing problems, therefore solving the environmental problems is usually
not paid much attention to. Basically, it can be said that in developed countries, there are relatively few
means for ecology, while in developing countries there are few means absolutely.
Concerning the problem of war and peace and the fight against terrorism, it has a common alarming
consequence with the environmental problem – if not solved, they threaten a catastrophe for humankind.
Solving the problem of war and peace would also help to an enormous extent to solve the environmental
crisis. By lessening the international tension and therefore easier cooperation in the political and economic
sphere, there would occur also freeing of an enormous amount of financial means which could be, among
others, invested into ecology. There is also a clear direct relationship between the global problem of the
future of man and the environmental problem because it is obvious that securing of a healthy environment is
a sine qua non for the further development of mankind. The global problems of the 2nd and 3rd levels of
importance are concentrated in the sphere of man-nature and in the crosscut of both systems. On the
contrary, the problems of the 1st and 2nd levels of importance are concentrated in the system of man-man
relationships and the crosscut of both systems.
5.5. Conclusion
The development of human society is inseparable from the development of nature; however, at the
same time, human society and nature as such have their own specific laws and rules. Human society is much
more active in its interaction with nature than nature itself. Therefore, society is the active element
determining the changes, both in the world as well as the national frame, which do not exclude each other.
17
All global problems than exist on the world scale and, at the same time, also as a manifestation of the global
problems on the national scale. Both ways of their existence influence and determine each other. Every
state's economic form endeavors, in the frame of its conditions and possibilities, for solving the global,
respectively national problems which are actual for it. Generally, the isolated endeavors for a solution cannot
be, however, a consequential solution to global problems since it is impossible to solve global problems
consequently through a relatively isolated endeavor. From this, there is a need for broad international
cooperation in the economic, technological, political, and other spheres. The practice testifies that the
opinions on the global problems classification as well as the methodology of their research are still further
developing, so that it is possible to expect a whole series of changes regarding even these quite basic
questions of globalists, and that even in the nearest future.
1. Social forecasting
Forecasting has been important in sociological thought. Early European sociologists argued that
societies progress through inevitable historical stages; those theories helped sociologists predict all societies’
futures. Early American sociologists adopted the pragmatists’ rule that science proves it “works” by
predicting future events. Sociologists, however, have only recently adopted methods appropriate for those
early goals. The review of the delayed development of social forecasting includes three sociologists’
conceptual uses of forecasting and some reasons their suggestions were not followed, qualitative and
quantitative methods of forecasting, and recent indications of increased interest in forecasting.
1.1. Forecasting traditions
Sociologists have contributed several social forecasting concepts that were historically significant
enough to become traditional orientations in the analysis of the future. William F. Ogburn “held that in the
modern world technological inventions commonly come first and social effects later. By reason of this
lag, it is possible, he argued, to anticipate the future and plan for its eventualities”. For example, new
possibilities came into conflict with family values when the invention of effective birth control gave women
new choices. Ogburn’s contribution was to suggest that cultural lags are inevitable but that the period of
disruption they cause can be shortened.
Merton challenged Ogburn’s idea that the effects of inventions can be easily anticipated. Each
invention has an apparent goal, or manifest function, that it is hoped it will perform in society. Each
change, however, also contains the possibility of performing several latent functions. These are
unanticipated side effects that often are not desired and sometimes are dangerous. The institutions of
society are closely intertwined, and an invention in one area can cause shocks throughout the system. The
automobile is an example. Its manifest function of changing transportation has been fulfilled, but at the cost
of serious ecological and sociological changes.
Merton’s second warning was that social forecasting is unique because it tries to predict the behavior
of humans, who change their minds. The self-fulfilling prophecy is a forecast that makes people aware of
real or imagined new opportunities or dangers to be avoided. Merton demonstrated that false forecasts can
have powerful effects if they gain public acceptance. For example, a sound bank can be destroyed by a run
on its funds caused by a prediction of failure. Henshel’s more inclusive concept—the self-altering
prediction—shows that forecasts can be self-defeating as well as self-fulfilling. W. I. Thomas’s theorem,
“If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences,” applies particularly to the definitions
societies make of the future.
Moore challenged sociologists to go beyond safe prophecy based on orderly trends and attack the
difficult problem of “how to handle sharp changes in the magnitude of change, and sharp (or at least
clear) changes in direction”.
There are four types of discontinuous societal change:
 Some societies are changed drastically by an exogenous variable, an idea or value from
another society. Modern Japan is an example.
 A society’s rate of development can increase spontaneously, creating an abundance of new
ideas. This is an exponential acceleration, a change in the rate of change.
 Moore attributes changes in the direction of change to the existence of dialectic of values in
each society’s apparent trend. For example, a society may appear to be profit-oriented and
ecologically exploitative, but there also exists a counter set of values that stress harmony with
each other and with nature. If a shift in such basic value emphases could be predicted, many
other associated forecasts could be made.
18
  Finally, Moore recognizes that there are pure emergent, inventions such as money and
writing that cannot be thought of as parts of trends.
Moore drew a methodological moral from these complexities: “One must somehow move from
discrete necessary conditions to cumulative and sufficient ones”. That is, the search for the one trend or
causal variable that drives societal change should be abandoned. The summation and particularly the
interaction of many component developments create events.
Moore asked sociologists to put aside value-free scientific rules and attempt to construct preferable
futures that might help “mankind survive for the next twenty years”. Moore was confronting what he felt to
be the main reason why forecasting was done so infrequently. It is professionally permissible for sociologists
to examine social change both currently and retrospectively, but making a forecast leaves one liable to being
labeled a utopian. Utopian thinking is in disrepute because past advocates allowed their values to cloud their
constructions. However, images of the future provide goals and determine how people plan and therefore
how they behave in the present. Moore sought utopias that would perform a necessary social planning
function by constructing alternative directions for human purposes.
1.2. Why social forecasting has developed slowly
Sociologists’ basic methodological orientations preclude an interest in forecasting. Sociologists
analyze society’s static interconnections and concentrate on the social structures that persist. They have
not developed skills in isolating the sequences of dynamic social behavior. They are better at categorizing
and typing people than at predicting how individuals might change from one type to another.
Many sociologists feel that not enough is known to predict future events. They point to economists
and demographers and ask, if they are failing with their more quantifiable data, how can complex social
changes be anticipated? One school of thought sees sociology as a qualitative art form that will never be a
statistically modeled science. Critical sociologists object to moral grounds. They feel that society requires
essential restructuring before positive change can be effected. Since most forecasting is based on models of
the current structure, they feel that it sanctions unjust social arrangements.
1.3. Judgmental and qualitative forecasting methods
The futurists see “the challenge being not just to forecast what the future will be, but to make it
what it ought to be”. The actual future is too complex to be predefined, but possible futures can be
constructed that can be instructive. In addition, secondary forecasts can be made that estimate the
effects of policy actions on the original course of development. The pace of change is considered too rapid
to be captured by traditional methods relying on a careful quantitative reconstruction of the past. This
justifies the use of experts’ opinions, and futurists’ methods are ways of systematizing those judgments.
A discontinuous social change usually is preceded by a “substantial restructuring of basic tenets
and beliefs”. Such paradigm shifts are revolutionary, such as the rejection of the earth as the center of the
universe. They appear in fields of knowledge in which one system of thought seems to be in control but is
unable to solve important problems. Holroyd, for example, predicts a paradigm shift in economics
because its current theories are unable to deal with essential problems such as scarcity of natural resources.
Futurists anticipate shifts by compiling lists of crucial issues in the institutions of society. When the gap
between current and desired conditions is large, that area is monitored closely for discontinuous change.
Cross-impact matrices are constructed by listing all possible future events in the problem area under
study. Each event is recorded as a row and a column in a square matrix. This allows the explicit examination
of every intersection of events when one asks: What is the probability that the first will occur if it has been
preceded by the other? The probabilities of occurrence can be derived from available data but are often
judgments. The cross-impact analysis is a systematic way of heeding Merton’s warning about not
overlooking possibly damaging latent consequences. It is a tool for spotting crucial turning points or
originating novel viewpoints by examining the intersections of change at which experts’ judgments
conflict.
Delphi surveys constitute an ingenious method for allowing the interaction of expert judgments
while avoiding the contamination of social status or damage to reputations because of radical or mistaken
pronouncements. In a series of survey rounds, everyone sees the distribution of others’ responses without
knowing the proponents’ identities. A composite forecast emerges as anonymous modifications are made at
each round.
After a review of forecasting methods, Ascher chose scenarios as one of only two methods he could
recommend. A scenario is “a hypothetical sequence of events constructed for the purpose of focusing
19
attention on causal processes and decision points”. It is a story, but a complex one based on all available data
and usually constructed after a cross-impact analysis has isolated possible turning points. Usually, two or
three related scenarios are constructed to illustrate alternative futures that could be determined by particular
decisions.
It is not surprising that an expert's decision process can be made explicit. What is surprising is that in
many studies the systematic model of an expert often forecasts better than the person does. In bootstrapping,
the forecaster’s individualized decision procedures become the “bootstraps” by which a systematized
procedure is “lifted” into an orderly routine. Such a model can be made deductively through interviews that
isolate and formalize the decision rules or inductively by starting with a series of past forecasts and
attempting to infer the rules that accounted for the differences between them.
Met forecasting represents an essential summary of these considerations and a bridge to more
quantitative methods. It combines judgmental and statistical estimates. It attempts to include historical and
social information to overcome the tendency to ignore or overreact to changes in established patterns or
relationships.
1.4. Social demography
Demography is the most established form of social forecasting. We will discuss only two elements
from its continuing development:
 a method that has had wide influence and
 what can be learned from its frequent failures to predict future population sizes.
A cohort is an aggregate of individuals of similar age who therefore experience events during the
same time period. Cohort analysis was first used by Norman Ryder to study the changing fertility behaviors
of women born during the same five-year periods. Since that time, cohorts have been used in the study of
many areas of social change to differentiate the changes that result from individuals maturing through the
stages of life from those caused by powerful societal events or value shifts.
Demographers failed to anticipate the postwar baby boom and the onset of its decline. These errors
were due to assumption drag, “the continued use of assumptions long after their validity has been
contradicted by the data”. Henshel says that demographers probably ignored these turning points because
they simply talked to each other too much. They reassured each other that their assumptions and their
extrapolations from past trends would soon reassert themselves in the data. Recognition of this error of
developing an isolated club of forecasters has helped economists and will help sociologists avoid a similar
regimentation of estimates.
The mix of assumptions and actual data varies widely in simulation models. The most useful models
test a set of explicit assumptions so that no interactions between variables are overlooked. Models have
contributed to the idea of the feedback loop as an important caution against unidirectional thinking. This
common system characteristic occurs when an effect reaches a sensitive level and begins a reaction that
modifies its own cause. Often, however, the mix of assumptions and facts in simulations leans too heavily
toward judgments. So-called black-box modeling, in which equations are hidden, can produce output
that is plausible and provocative but also unrealistic.
The creator of the Limits to Growth study admitted that “in World Dynamics . . . there is no attempt
to incorporate formal data. . . . All relationships are intuitive”. That study extrapolated what has come to be
seen as extreme assumptions of geometric growth unchecked by social adaptation. Its dramatic predictions
of imminent shortages had a wide but unwarranted impact. Comment on those failed predictions and their
popularity at the time of their publication sets the context in which all “modeled” forecasts should be
received: “The apparent detached neutrality of a computer model is as illusory as it is persuasive. Any model
of a social system necessarily involves assumptions about the workings of that system, and these
assumptions are necessarily colored by the attitudes and values of the individuals or groups concerned. . . .
Computer models should be regarded as an integral part of political debate. . . . The model is the message”.
1.5. Pragmatic statistical analysis of time series
Attention has shifted to techniques that are less concerned with demonstrating the effects of
assumed patterns. Time series are records of observations through time. Traditional time series analysis
projects “future values of a variable based entirely on the past and present observations of that variable”. It
involves isolating the trend inside the many “noisy” or seasonal factors that may obscure it. The techniques
have been well developed, are taught in undergraduate management statistics courses, and have been
adapted for spreadsheet software available on most computers. The problem, however, is how much faith
20
one can put in the idea that “people do what they usually do.” Time series projections are essential first steps
in discovering patterns of behavior of aggregates of people over time. Such patterns often persist, but some
shock (invention, immigration, social redefinition such as “the sixties,” or adjustment of tradition such as
decreasing sexism) may cause disruption. In recognition of these sociological disruptions, time series are
being explored from the viewpoint that any variable may be uniquely complex and subject to sudden change.
Time series regressions uncover structural relationships involved in the history of two or more
variables. Before the relationship can be assessed, sources of error must be isolated and controlled. The most
important of these errors are
 the overall trend of change that would obscure any specific interrelationship and
 the autocorrelation effect of internal dependence of observation on previous observations. If a
relationship seems to explain the data series’ movements, it is tested with ex-post forecasts
that can be verified within the range of available data. If these succeed, “ex-ante-forecasts can
be used to provide educated guesses about the path of the variables into the blind future”.
Autoregressive moving average (ARIMA) models predict a variable’s current status by using a
combination of its previous observations and mathematically approximated random shocks. The goal is to
find a pattern that fits the immediate data, not to understand relationships. ARIMA models are useful in
interrupted time series analysis, in which the impact of a policy or another intervention can be examined by
seeing how different the variable’s patterns are before and after the intervention. Autoregressive models
have a limitation important for social forecasting, in which historical data are relatively scarce. “Because
ARIMA models must be identified from the data to be modeled, relatively long time series are required”.
Fifty observations are recommended.
Exponential smoothing is widely used and is as reliable as more complicated methods. In its
simplest form, the next period's forecast is based on the current forecast plus a portion of the error it made.
That is, the difference between the current time periods’ forecast and the actual value is weighted and used
to adjust the next period's expected value. The higher the value of the weight used, the more the error
adjustment contributes and the more quickly the model will respond to changes. Exponential smoothing is
used in the early detection of curvilinear changes when the rate of change speeds or slows.
1.6. Future trends
Forecasting is being done. It is central in business and government planning. Even though many of
these forecasts’ essential variables are social or are found in social contexts (such as family decisions to
move, build, and purchase or the development of social problems), economists have become society’s
designated forecasters. Sociologists will not change this imbalance easily, but there are some indications that
forecasting may finally become part of everyday sociological work.
Assumptions that a particular cycle or curve is the natural or underlying process of all change have
been abandoned, and pragmatic methods are now widespread. It is also accepted that a forecast is developed
only to be monitored for possible discontinuities. Trend extrapolations rarely are done without
accompanying methods for describing the expected deviations.
Two forecasting methods are particularly promising because they allow sociologists to build on
traditional skills. Componential or segmentation forecasting recognizes that an aggregate forecast can be
improved by combining forecasts made on the population’s component social groups. Sociologists are best
able to distinguish the groups that should be treated separately. Pooled time series analysis combines cross-
sectional descriptions such as one-time surveys. Sociologists are experts at describing interconnections in the
structures of organizations or societies, and now they have the opportunity to study these social
arrangements over time.
Society has recognized the wisdom of the early concern about anticipating the latent effects of social
and technological inventions. Progress no longer seems inevitable. The popular question now is, Can
someone assure us that a new element will not be as destructive as past changes?
Sociologists seem to be uniquely suited to help forecasting become more plausible because their
working assumptions counter the weaknesses of current methods. The idea that technological innovation or
economic cycles drive social change has produced today’s mechanistic, ultra-rational, anti-individualistic
models that assume that the population is homogeneous. All these weaknesses are naturally contradicted
when sociologists expand their vision of a population to include the cultural diversity of the social contexts
that produce, accept or reject, and always modify the effects of technological and economic circumstances.

21
 The future acceptance of forecasting also depends on sociologists’ ability to improve the preparation
and presentation of forecasts by using their traditional strengths. Forecasts will be accepted by policymakers
and the public only when the quasi-theories they hold about the future are specifically addressed and proved
false. Sociologists know this better than other social scientists do; they often are called on to dispel labels
and popular theories that are so entrenched that they make any new attempt at explanation seem a “fool’s
experiment” to the forecaster’s audience They also are used to the idea of various and multiple causes acting
in a situation and therefore are skilled at isolating “unanticipated consequences.”
Forecasts will improve and become more plausible when they place less importance on traditional
scientific formulations. A forecast is not a hypothesis. Hypotheses must be made in advance of the behavior
they are meant to predict to assure a full and objective test of the theories that produced them. Forecasts
demand to monitor of predictions and adaptation of forecasts to circumstances. A forecast is as good as its
ability to anticipate and allow the inclusion of changing social forces. That is, its main function is not to
make an accurate prediction of future events but to isolate and interrelate the many factors in the current
situation that may be causally powerful. Understanding the current social situation's complexity is the most
important factor.

22