[naeemtee]

There are several things wrong with this line of thinking (as others have pointed out), but I'd like to draw attention to a less salient point you made:

> This led to an unusually open society, which had many benefits... with generally higher levels of trust among strangers.

It's interesting that you're portraying the openness of European society in a strongly positive light, given the high levels of abject loneliness prevalent primarily in the west.

Communal living has been a staple for much of human existence, the level of isolation most people in western Europe and North America (and now, much of east Asia) face is a direct result of European "openness" (which spread through east Asia via the British originally, and destabilization + American media later).

The biggest risk to the future of the West is the lack of strong families. That's where India, above all others, shines.

[iguy]

Well this is fun, see other answers.

I agree that the extreme individualist end of the spectrum has downsides, for sure. Suicide rates make horrifying reading. But I think you can argue it's part of what made the west successful -- in HN terms, being forced to learn to deal with strangers, a lot, set you up to scale well.

Isn't the flip side of being on the other end of this scale -- tight happy families, or clans, maybe even castes -- something close to nepotism? Stagnation because once you've employed all your nephews then you can't grow, who would you trust?

Of course there are a million other factors etc too... anyway.

[geodel]

This is true. Since the article talks about Patels. Back in India after holding powerful position in politics, administration etc for long time in Gujarat, Patels are lately agitating violently to be declared "backward caste". So that they can be entitled for more government support in jobs, education etc.