What is Barbarism?

The best dividing line is not technological, but moral

Imagine two societies.

The first has advanced robotics, routine commercial space travel, and nanobots that keep you alive for thousands of years. It uses these technologies as Genghis Khan would have, traveling vast distances to enslave weaker groups and painfully murder all who resist. It uses public torture to keep its slaves in line.

The second society is stuck at the hunter-gatherer stage. They have no electricity, no irrigation, and no domesticated animals. When they encounter strangers, they offer warm hospitality. They share their fire and food, and inquire about possibilities for trade and intermarriage. They respect strangers’ lives and property even if those strangers are ungrateful or otherwise rude.

If you focus solely on technological prowess, the first society is definitely “more civilized” than the second. If you’re feeling blunt, you may even dismiss the second society as “barbaric.”

Once you know how the two societies actually treat other intelligent beings, however, your verdict is almost sure to change. Despite their amazing technology, it is the members of the first society who are utter barbarians, soaked in the blood of their victims. And despite their lamentable backwardness, members of the second society are eminently “civilized.” You can enter their villages with a cartload of valuables, confident that if you don’t like their terms, you can safely walk away with all your wares.

I’m not the language police, so you’re free to use words differently. But I believe most English speakers would agree with my exegesis so far. Which brings us to a bigger question: What is the distinction between “civilization” and “barbarism” all about?

My proposed answer: The distinction fundamentally comes down to: How well do you treat not only insiders, but outsiders? Maximally civilized societies don’t just scrupulously respect members’ rights to life and property; they afford exactly the same rights to all intelligent beings. Maximally barbaric societies, in contrast, see nothing wrong with murdering and robbing outsiders, even if they treat their own members well.

If I’m right, why do so many people casually equate “degree of civilization” with “degree of technological advancement”? Probably because the two are usually correlated. Societies that respect the rights of members and outsiders alike encourage work, investment, and trade, all of which foster technological progress. Societies that disrespect the rights of members and outsiders, in contrast, discourage work, investment, and trade, all of which foster technological stagnation.

This correlation between technology and morality has been especially clear in the post-colonial era. During the World Wars, most of the world’s most advanced countries on both sides acted barbarically. During the era of decolonization, this often continued. Faced with the choice between mass murder and defeat, European empires repeatedly (though hardly consistently) opted for mass murder.

Since the collapse of these empires in the 1960s, however, civil wars in the Third World have accounted for the vast majority of mass violence. Technologically advanced countries virtually never fight each other. When First World countries fight Third World countries, to be sure, they occasionally inflict mass casualties. But they could easily have done vastly more.

The United States had the technology to beat Vietnam. Israel has the technology to beat Gaza. Why don’t they? Because, like First World countries generally, they have a long list of self-limiting scruples about mass murder of the innocent. Third World brutality is mostly limited by technology; First World brutality is mostly limited by morality. Weak, hypocritical morality, but morality nonetheless.

Critics of immigration have a long list of arguments for exclusion. But the biggest of the “Big Picture” arguments appeals to the ideas of civilization and barbarism. From this perspective, the world is split into civilized and barbarous societies. For civilized societies to welcome barbarian immigrants amounts to idiotic “suicidal altruism.”

Once you accept that civilization versus barbarism is fundamentally a moral distinction, however, you see a tension so glaring that you’ll never unsee it. How so? Any deeply civilized society will look at even the most barbarous societies and reflect: “Most of their inhabitants are innocent. They’re victims of their country’s evil minorities. If we welcome the innocents’ immigration, the vast majority will come here to work and live in peace with us. How can we say no?” Barbarians will scoff at this rhetorical question, but a civilized society will take it to heart.

True, there are standard responses to such cosmopolitan reflection. But the leading responses are deeply uncivilized. Collective guilt is uncivilized: If high rates of native-born black crime don’t justify the punishment of all native-born blacks, why would high rates of Syrian immigrant crime justify the punishment of all Syrian immigrants? (And yes, denying the right to accept a job from willing employers is not only a punishment, but a harsh punishment). Collective ownership is also uncivilized: If the American government can’t justifiably silence dissidents or ban weird religions simply because “We can do whatever we want in our own country,” neither can it justifiably exclude immigrants with views or religions that offend the native population.

What would genuinely civilized objections to immigration look like? They could be utilitarian: “The long-run effects of welcoming immigrants from barbarous societies are so awful that they outweigh the massive short-run gains.” They could appeal to the Forced Organ Donation hypothetical: “The long-run effects of welcoming immigrants from barbarous societies are so awful that they outweigh the massive short-run gains by more than a factor of five.” In short, they would be the exact opposite of a jingoistic announcement that the only people who morally matter are the members of our own tribe.

Which is, ironically, the typical approach of thinkers who defend immigration restrictions in the name of civilization. I earnestly want to win them over. I know that name-calling is a terrible way to change anyone’s mind. But the sad truth is that a large share of the vocal defenders of “civilization” are utter barbarians. They don’t merely fail to understand how hardy and magnetic Western civilization actually is. They fail to understand that what makes a society civilized is the principle of treating humans, not just fellow citizens, well. If you know any way to help me civilize them, I’m all ears.

Coruscant fell from civilization to barbarism under Emperor Palpatine.