one nation might establish a universal state exercising planet-wide
authority along the lines of the Universal State established by the
Romans at the zenith of their power. In practice the program has not
worked out. On the contrary, opposition to the United States as _the_
world power or even as _the_ power in Asia has grown steadily and
quickly into a widespread "Anti-Americanism" or "anti-Yankeeism."

Conceivably a universal anti-American movement might develop a hot war
similar to the anti-Hitler coalition of the 1930's. If that precedent is
followed, however, the defeat of the United States would be followed by
a period of fragmentation similar to or even more intense than the
fragmentation of the 1950's and 1960's.

Present efforts to shore up the insolvent U.S.A. economy and the
resulting opposition of America's leading European trading partners is
not reassuring. If western civilization has passed the zenith of its
development and entered a period of decline and fragmentation even a
figure of Napoleonic capacities would be sorely pressed to breathe new
life into its disintegrating social structure. At the moment, to the
best of our knowledge, no such genius is in sight.

Western civilization is in some ways unique. In the main, however, the
development of its life cycle has been typical. May we take it for
granted that western civilization has turned its corner or may we assume
that it is still replete with the possibilities of further maneuver,
development and expansion? Perhaps the best way to approach the problem
would be to ask three questions: What contribution has western
civilization made to human nature, to human society and to mother
nature, and what further contribution can it make in the foreseeable
future?