You hit the nail fair and square on the head for me, Scott, with your question and your comment!!!! At all our Albert Schweitzer Days, our discussions and any lectures we give, I quote from that "Epilogue".
But more recently I have discovered, that he already started writing these things as early as 1914, when he was put under house-arrest in Africa for being regarded as a German in a French colony.
The manuscript he was working on then has now been published in German under the title " Wir Wpigonen" and I have started reading it with the intention of writing a synopsis in English, when I can get round to it.
In the first chapter he examines the reasons for the decline ( which he thinks started in the mid C19 ) and eventual demise of European Culture/Civilisation, of which he is convinced already then.
I quote just a few sentences in my own of-the-cuff translation:
"We lost our idealism because we could not manage the level of thought necessary for it."
"This is how the incredibly superficial conception of Culture/Civilisation could establish itself in just a few decades and in all circles and amongst all peoples. This was only possible, because no thinking that was sufficiently alive, was available, to force a concentration on a new and essencial conception of Culture."
Then he talks about how people have lost their freedom and independance due to the ever growing power of "public opinion" shaped by a minotirty and imposed on the majority - already then! And he continues:
"To the loss of freedom is added the over excersion.........Not everything which in theory can be said about the moral value of work, holds good for those who cause so many individuals to live only as workers and no longer as people." - already then - ......."The immediate consequence of the excessive demands on energy and time is, that so many people are no longer there for their next of kin.......... Further: the physical reason for the inordinate need of modern man for extenal distraction/amusement lies in his general exhaustion....." - even then!

So I do wonder with you about what Schweitzer would think about the world today. And I can't help being amazed that he could identify these trends already then and that they have, - and could have been allowed to - become so much worse, - and that we still don't seem to be able to stop them getting even worse.
I suppose that is really the core question we on the committee of Friends of Albert Schweiter (UK) - or Reverence for Life (UK) as we are going to call ourselves, - are trying to address: How to curb, arrest and reverse these trends? - and we can do with all the help we can get!!!!!!!!!!!!
Percy

Hi:

There is always many things to do about  helping others to release from the  "sleeping sickness".
Dr. Schweitzer wrote " I therefore want to work in this world to help people to think more deeply and more independently."


In some writings from N. Chomsky you can read::

"Most people go to work and don't ask a lot of questions about what they're doing," Chomsky says. "They don't look very far beyond their desk or tomorrow's job prospects." He believes that there is a great effort made by this country's elites to keep people complacent and out of touch: The rabble has to be kept in line. "That's the ideal of the business world, the public relations industry, the advertising industry and so on," he says, "to separate people from one another, because they're dangerous when they're together. They get ideas. They start to do things. Much better for them to be working very hard -- the U.S. has the longest work week in the industrial world -- and when they come home, exhausted, to turn on the tube and get brainwashed."

The sad result of this institutional structure, says Chomsky, is that people who might challenge the nastier outcomes of U.S. policies at home and abroad are turned into consuming automatons of "invented wants" who don't have the time or energy to contribute to the shaping of our society. "The apologists like to talk about how there's no alternative. You know, it's just kind of like cosmic forces pushing us, but it's not true. There are specific decisions made by particular institutions. It could be different decisions made by different institutions. It's all a matter of choice."

Is the struggle lost?  Dr. Schweitzer wrote:

"Because I have confidence in the power of truth and of the spirit, I believe in the future of mankind. Ethical aceptance of the world contains within itself an optimistic willing and hoping that can never be lost. It is, therefore, never afraid to face the somber reality as it really is."

Best regards.

Alaok.

I share your concerns about the consumerism and stress that surrounds us and how people are generally not interested in thinking, this is a trend that seems to be strengthening in western society as Albert Schweitzer foresaw. I have been reading non-fiction books only for about 3 years now and people often tell me that reading and thinking too much is bad for me. This I have never understood and after reading about Schweitzer’s life and philosophy it is now very clear to me why it is important to think and read about the state of the world. However, there are a few things that I think would concern Albert Schweitzer much more about the world today. I think consumerism has affected “Western” culture (and a very small westernized minority of other cultures) much more than other cultures and it is important to remember that the population of Europe and America only makes up about 10% of the world’s population. On the other hand there are also some people and developments which give a lot of hope for a brighter future that were non existent when Albert Schweitzer was alive.

I think you can summarize the main problems into two very serious issues that are going to confront us all during the next few decades: Global warming and pollution on one hand which are very clear and self explanatory and on the other, the power transfer from western countries to other emerging countries (civilizations) like China, India, Rusia or a possible Islamic collective that could form.

At present there are at least 27 armed conflicts in the world, of the 27 conflicts listed on Wikipedia (1) 16 of them are related to cultural differences or territorial or resource disputes between cultures.  If strong nationalist governments exist in any of these larger countries it is possible that very serious international conflicts or wars could result. Albert Schweitzer highlighted the danger of nationalism as a cause of war in his lecture on peace (2). It is very important that the American international policy is changed to allow other countries and cultures to control their own resources and hopefully live in a more peaceful world shared by many different types of people. I personally believe that without a strong international government (something like the UN) we will not be able to avoid more serious wars in the future. Albert Schweitzer said that a legal institution is not enough to reach peace because it would have to be an ethical organization as well. The UN is just a legal institution but at least it has humanitarian goals as its founding principals.

I think the most important steps that need to be made regarding the future is a way for different religions and cultures to meet and share a common humanitarian based legal system and philosophy. Reverence for Life could be a central concept in achieving such an agreement. However, it is important to remember that for people of non European origin Albert Schweitzer would be thought of as having philosophical and religious beliefs developed out of his Protestant upbringing; this could make it difficult to convince them that it is also compatible with their religion and culture. It would be of great interest to get people of different religious backgrounds to study his work and also look for ways to find similarities or proofs of its validity within the other great religious groups. These important groups are namely: Islam (21% of world population), Hindu (15%), Buddhism, (7%) and a large number of tradition belief systems from Asia and Africa (10%) and of course all the people who are non religious (12%).

On a positive note I think there are a number of amazing people doing very important work around the world for peace and environmental issues, which gives me hope for a positive future. One such person is Shirin Ebadi a devote Muslim and humanitarian who received the Nobel Peace prize in 2003, or Dr. Wangari Muta Maathai for her work in Africa with tree planting and sustainable development. Apart from obvious people like these two women I would also mention people like Ray Anderson of Interface a business man with a conscience, or Paul Hawken author of Natural Capitalism among other titles who promotes a viable way forward to economic growth without environmental damage.

The present state of the world I think has become more extreme and diverse, there exists very serious problems maybe more so than those which existed in Albert Schweitzer’s life. But there also exists a large number of people who are promoting a way forward to a positive future for all, and these people are becoming more powerful because of the internet and other communication technologies.

I would be very interested in hearing about any writing about Reference for Life and how it could be accepted into other religious groups or cultures.

(1)      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongoing_conflicts
(2)      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Peace_lecture_by_Albert_Schweitzer

What a thought-provoking contribution! MJBT.
May I ask: from the %ages you give, do I calculate correctly, that 35% of the world's population are deemed to be Christian?
I agree with you, that many in other than"western" cultures may regard Schweitzer as too much of a product of Christian Protestantism. They would be doing him an injustice, because he was at loggerheads with all the Christian denominations and churches and quite outspoken in his critisism of the Church as a whole as a performer on the world stage.
Another problem is that of translation: Whilst the story of his life is easily told convincingly in any language, his philosophical writings are not so easy to translate into a form that is readable and accessible now. They have really to be "re-told" rather than translated to become accesible to a wider public.
James Brabazon has made and is still making a valliant attempt at that.

Of course, Schweitzer's ethic of Reverence for Life is only "new" for the Christian mindset, in that it expands Jesus' second commandment - 'love thy neighbour as thyself' from referring not only to human neighbours, but to all living creatures. For the Indian religions that has been an integral part for hundreds if not thousands of years.

So: - how could Reverence for Life create a unifying space, a neutral ground, a safe area in which the various religious organisations could meet and celebrate their individualities in a non-confrontational way? It is difficult to imagine as long as the Judeo-christian-islamic world clings onto its "chosen people" claim.

In the meantime, it may be easier to make headway of this kind in secular/political organisations like the UN.
The wonderful "Earth Charter" has taken Reverence for Life right to its heart and is making steady progress right across the world. It was the result of the widest ever global consultation process.

I think the basic concept of Reverence for Life is easily accessible to most individuals at grass roots level, but I can't see it surviving any kind of media attention.
Schweitzer continually struggled with the terms " in this world but not of this world" and "being other than the world" meaning the 'big wide commercial/political/religions world out there' on the one hand, but not an etherial/spiritualistic/afterlife world on the other hand either.
And as he predicted, this dilemma has been increased by far for us by the oh so frivolous, superficial, subversive, all-sex-singing-and-dancing-killing western media machine, in whose grip very nearly the whole world now languishes.

Perhaps the internet will offer us a means of communication at grass-roots level, that by-passes the clutches of this machine. I am a relative novice and newcomer here; - Is this a real possibility? How would it work? What would we have to do? Is it already happening? Let's go for it!

I am most grateful to you, MJBT, for drawing our attention to Wikipedia and for your helpful comments. I have had a bit of a look around in Wikipedia and am quite fascinated.
Thank you also for your offer of a quick explanation of how to get involved in editing articles; that would be most helpful. I will certainly have a go at the section on the "Schweitzer Institute" and also get others to help, since there is quite a lot to straighten out there; and I have suggested to James Brabazon, the author of the most applauded Biography on Schweitzer, to consider an article on his philosophy, which he could do very well.
This is indeed all very exciting!

Wikipedia seems a fantastic project indeed and it is taking me quite a while to become comfortable with it.
Your helpful pointers, MJBT, are invaluable guiding my way into it. Since I read German fluently, I have had a good look at the Schweitzer entry there. It contains much academic philosophical material, also on 'Reverence for Life', but also does not seem to have a full article on the subject, - as you say.
The English entry is as yet very thin and I have started discussions with the Archive in Guensbach to see what can be done about that. I shall certainly try to make a contribution in time.
Unfortunately, James Brabazon is very pre-occupied with salvaging his 'Film' on Schweitzer at present, but I am sure he will also help in time.
So all we can say at present is:'watch this space'.