Did the West make the World, or if it has been otherwise?

Did the so-called West create today's World? And what is the West??

Or, just the opposite, did the World create the West?

And is the answer to these questions a purely academic discussion or does it have practical relevance in today's world?

In his acclaimed book from a few years ago, 'Civilisation', historian Niall Ferguson presents his theory of why the West has taken over the world.

Ferguson's work examines the rise of Western civilization through six key "killer apps”:

Competition, science, property rights, medicine, the consumer society, and the work ethic.?

He argues that these elements have propelled Western dominance globally.?

Ferguson's narrative often highlights the advantages of Western practices over those of other cultures, presenting a more traditional view of civilization as a linear progression towards modernity.

In another of his books, ?Empire’, Ferguson highlights the importance of the British Empire to the expansion of civilisation globally.

Niall Ferguson's Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World is a compelling exploration of the British Empire's complex legacy. Ferguson argues that, despite its controversies and atrocities, the Empire played a pivotal role in shaping the modern world (Armitsar).?

By spreading industrial advancements, global trade networks, and democratic ideals, Ferguson suggests that British imperialism laid the foundation for modern globalization. Yet he does not shy away from darker chapters, such as exploitation, racial hierarchies, and violent suppression of colonies (Armitsar massacre), which he acknowledges as integral aspects of the imperial system.

I’m reading (or rather studying) a fascinating book right now, which is quite opposite to Ferguson’s views (though I value Ferguson very much). It is How the World made the The West by Josephine Quinn, one of the greatest classitists of our time. And like Ferguson, also British.

Quinn’s approach is like stepping back from the narrow focus we often have on key figures or isolated moments in history—much like how we need to zoom out and see the broader trends in business, leadership, or technology today.?

She covers 4,000 years of history, beginning around 2000 BCE, pulling in stories from thirty different societies that played a role in shaping what we now consider "the West." Her narrative is rich with detail, yet she cuts through the noise to show how cultural exchange, rather than exceptionalism, defined the West.

This reminds me of the kind of work I aim to do in my content—whether I’m talking about data-driven leadership or the evolving role of technology in shaping business. Like Quinn, I believe that true progress is not the product of isolated genius but of collaboration, constant interaction, and learning from others.

This book is arguing against the traditional Eurocentric view that reduces Western civilization to its Greek and Roman roots. Instead, Quinn emphasizes the interconnectedness of various cultures, including those from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, in shaping what we now consider "the West." She critiques "civilizational thinking," asserting that historical progress results from cultural exchanges rather than isolated developments.

One of Quinn’s most compelling points is that the progress of the ancient world wasn’t driven by isolated cultural powerhouses like Greece and Rome. Instead, it was the exchange of ideas, trade, and migration between diverse societies that moved civilization forward.?

Her example of the Phoenicians—those early global traders who linked the Mediterranean with Africa, the Middle East, and beyond—hits home. Their innovations in shipbuilding and the spread of their alphabet were foundational to what would become Western culture.

For me, this idea resonates deeply. Whether you’re navigating the complexities of data science or rethinking how leadership functions in a tech-driven world, it’s not about siloed breakthroughs. It’s about the flow of ideas across boundaries, disciplines, and experiences. True innovation happens at the intersections, where different perspectives meet.

Examples?

The Greeks and Romans borrowed law and literature from Mespotamia, the art of stonemasonry from Egypt, the art of irrigation from Assyri and the alphabet from the cities of the Levant.

One of the most interesting examples in the book that I did not know. Joint-stock companies were already invented by the Assyrians and not, as most sources claim, by the Romans.

The myth of Noah, the man who was the only one in alliance with God to survive the great novel, originated in Babylon. Noah is called Atrahasis here, but the story is almost identical as the one of Noah’s.

Many of humanity's early innovations originated in Crete. Cretan culture was not Greek culture. We still know little about the reasons for its decline.

What does all this mean for us today in the age of AI?

It seems very interesting, is that we live in an increasingly unified, on the one hand, and on the other, an increasingly divided world.

The grand models of LLM impose a narrative on us from the point of view of the English language and Anglo-Saxon culture.

This imposes a unified narrative on us, but limits individual thinking and individual criticism.

China, on the other hand, behind its firewall, is producing AI models that are increasingly unknown to the rest of the world.

The US strategically do not want to sell technology to China.

A relatively small company from the Netherlands, ASML is a decisive player in the chips market, as it provides 90% of the global market with cryptolithography.

Are we going to live in the currently dominant Ferguson-‘the West will set the tone’ model. Knowing the technological superiority of the West today, probably yes.

Because the eastern regimes (China, Iran, Russia), show a social project absolutely contrary to western thinking.

On the other hand, a ‘single sail’ thinking, as Josephine Quinn calls it, would be useful for human development.

On the picture: Phoenician trade boar.