But if an individual American really thinks Europeans are as smug as described in this article, or if Europeans really think the way this article describes, there is a more concerning, deeper issue with the worldview of these historically well-aligned peoples.
> I feel it’s impossible to convince Europeans to act in their self interest. You can’t even convince them to adopt air conditioning in the summer.
doing in an article that seems to strive for serious reflection on different societies?
I think it is a bit of a trade-off, his writings are engaging, but to discuss Europe in a serious way a blog wouldn't cut it, and it would make it possibly quite dry nonetheless. One has to not only understand the EU, their limited budget and mandate, but also the various parties in each country. This is just incredibly difficult to form an accurate picture of, even if there wouldn't be things like centuries old cultures and various languages.
To take away from the doom and gloom, iff the EU is really able to integrate in the next decade(s), form a shared market, my money would be on them. Both the current US government and Russia fear an integrated Europe, as they would be too big as a prey. Meanwhile, many countries want to join the EU, despite it being a "hell hole", at least if one believes the adversarial content promoted on the big tech platforms. At this moment the current US government supports "nationalistic" parties and corrupt kleptocrats like Orban, trying to break it apart from inside.
20k people died from heat exposure last summer in Europe! That seems crazy to me, though what do I know? What am I missing?
Would installing more airco's help? Perhaps, especially some of the poorer regions in the south, hardest hit by climate change, may still have some nursery homes without proper cooling.
But installing airco's isn't even listed in the 4 points of advice provided by the WHO. It's about adapting lifestyles and work practices (think: construction workers) to the changing climate.
The US is not exempt from this. The NY times is reporting a doubling of heath related deaths in recent years, though I can only find numbers based on official causes of death, which cannot be compared to the European numbers.
So no, I don't think this is a great example of all of Europe being too stupid to do even simple things in its own interests.
But it seems like you’re making Dan’s point for him. “We need to adapt our lifestyles to climate change” is not an acceptable answer to someone dying of heat stroke who would very much prefer (out of self-interest) air conditioning and a higher standard of living…
I presume his eyes are mostly fixed on the "old EU".
Europe as a whole has a lot of good things going for it but I do agree that it's less ambitious on average than these 2 power blocks.
However the same dynamic that was described in the article where nobody wants to lack behind is also true for Europe.
Also, yes Novo Nordisk plundered their GTM in the US and lost market valuation but you can still get the same medical outcome in Europe as a patient based on a European invention. Another one: The first Covid vaccine came out of Germany.
More interestingly is the question on degrowth. I personally believe that growth is the more tempting path in general, but we do live on a finite planet and no system is on a path or has a good framework on how to grow sustainably or responsibly. Maybe AI is going to figure it out for us, but maybe it involves some hard tradeoffs that intelligence alone can't solve.
On industrial infrastructure
On technology innovation
On internet regulation
On central planning
Otherwise, your comment becomes an anecdote supporting the common stereotypes (assuming you’re from Europe).
So I am betting that the US and China are more compelling forces for change. Stalin was fond of telling a story from his experience in Leipzig in 1907, when, to his astonishment, 200 German workers failed to turn up to a socialist meeting because no ticket controller was on the platform to punch their train tickets, citing this experience as proof of the hopelessness of Germanic obedience. Could anyone imagine Chinese or Americans being so obedient?
This isn’t a serious analysis of German culture. It’s perfectly fine to argue that certain countries are economically or industrially problematic, but when you throw in comments like this, it really doesn’t help your argument.
And I’m not from Europe, but I have lived here for years. The constant clueless comments by my fellow North Americans about the somehow monolithic entity of “Europe” are irritating.
Who said it’s meant to be a serious analysis? This is an essay that shares anecdotes and personal opinions, not a PhD dissertation.
None of this points to the story being out of place, and since the author specializes in serious analysis of china's relation with america, and the author brings up europe, its fair to assume that they included this story as a relevant criticism of europe.
In that regard, its indeed not of the same quality as the analyses of china or american culture.
"I have a hard time squaring the poor prospects of Europe over the next decade with the smugness that Europeans have for themselves. I spent most of the summer in Copenhagen. There’s no doubt that quality of life in most European cities is superb, especially for what I care about: food, opera, walkable streets, access to nature. But a decade of low economic growth is biting. European prices and taxes can be so high while salaries can be so low."
This particular kind of American perspective on Europe always falls into the same trap: Not understanding a world where economic performance is _not_ the be-all-and-end-all, not understanding the connection between the benefits of such a world (things that consider externalities - not individuals - in order to exist) with the costs of such a world (taxes).
Your comment is again another anecdote confirming European stereotypes. It’s not a “trap”, it’s a different world view.
A lack of self-awareness is a trap - the most insidious one because you don't know when you're in it :)
And you'll need a citation on "for the most part the rest of the world". Economic performance as the one true measure of prosperity and progress is very new, even in America itself: Most Americans have no sense of how very different their country is now from say, the country that launched the Apollo missions.
You cannot be kidding right? Those that remember the Apollo missions will undoubtedly agree their country is different, first but not least they are most likely using a smartphone assembled and designed with technology unimaginable by NASA planning the Apollo missions; not only that, the smartphone is assembled half way around the world by a country previously in such dire poverty and famine that over 30M died due to Marxist central planning.
Whether someone remembers the Apollo missions or not is irrelevant to my point. Quite the opposite: It matters more what people who don’t remember think of it, and how distant their assumptions are from the reality of that time.
It’s also funny how you keep bailing on your previous assertions that we’ve dismantled, and cherry pick different parts of every argument in the hope you might finally get a “win”.
Hahahaha, this is like saying, the world wars didn’t impact Europe, because it also impacted the whole world! Europeans, the war didn’t happen!! Anyways… this entire thread is more evidence that European stereotypes are valid for the most part
Economic performance is a number. You can optimise it. Or you can choose any other number, and optimise it too. Is money the best number? Why not median lifespan? Why not reported happiness? Why not median wealth? US has much more money than EU, but the cost is the streets are covered with homeless. Is US really more prosperous if it can't provide a decent life for the equal percentage of people compared to EU countries?
There's nothing wrong with either perspective, rather its the case that the European perspective is different. That's not to say that Europeans are right, or that criticism flowing from Europe to America is justified, but it should at least be acknowledged that pitching two players in a competition that one of the players has less interest in competing on, is misguided.
Prosperity of the nation? Or average people of the nation?
Imagine economy grows. But created value is distributed in hands of few. How then we think about prosperity? It is a prosperity of those few not a nation's?