Over the last decade, the Western political system has lost its claim to global preeminence; it is no longer certain whether democracy will eventually prevail everywhere. In fact, it is not even certain that it will last forever in Western countries.
I've only read some of the article. But of what I did read 100% was bullshit of similar provenance. I don't trust it.
We're exiting postmodernism in favor of a world less nihilistic and relativistic, which makes heroism attractive, even when the hero is morally questionable (e.g. Jack Bauer, Dr. House).
On the other hand, casual sex is as common as ever, so nihilism and self-loathing haven't gone away entirely.
I felt sad because the article implied that the decline of democracy might imply the rise of totalitarian rule.
Sigh. Given that our calendar started with year one and not year zero, the first decade of the 21st century started in 2001 and will end at the close of 2010.
/datenerd
In other words, the precise starting point of the calendar doesn't mean much to normal people who use the term "decade".
The internationally most successful film of the decade was "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King." Harry Potter was the most successful literary character. Both are children's stories that are also enjoyed by adults. We are withdrawing into an infantile world, in which attractive heroes conquer evil. The modern fairy tale is our response to a harsh world.
Harry Potter, yes. But he thinks that The Lord of the Rings is a children's tale?? Sorry, but no. Fairy tales started as stories for grownups, and were made into children's stories when grownups stopped believing in them. However Tolkien was aware that the structure of the fairy tale lends itself to darker themes that aren't for children, and the LotR is a deliberate exploration of that dynamic.
Judging by my quick skim of the rest, he recited a lot of things I already knew without any real attempt at analysis, then called it perspective.
This decade was no more "lost" than was the generation that followed the "war to end all wars." Both labels arise from those who placed unbounded hopes in human potential only to discover that the drivers in this world can often be as malevolent as they can be good.
Will the information age change any of this, as the authors imply? There is much good that indeed comes from having the interconnectedness of instant worldwide communication and of social networks and the like. But, if someone is going to argue that this will alter centuries of human experience that has been bedeviled by the bad as well as the good, he will have to come up with something far more convincing than the headline-level analysis and naive hope in new political structures that the authors seem to espouse as the basis for our future hope.
Similarly, I doubt it would be easy to find many eastern Europeans, Indians, or Asians that felt the 2000s were worse than the 1990s.
