Lombi asked this question on the artcone forums: Business people often tell me that they are philistines. They say this in order to explain why they, or their company, will not support the arts. I normally ignore the comment and continue to attempt to persuade them how the arts can boost their profits, but I sometimes muse on what they think “philistine” means.

Clearly they are not thinking biblically. But what is the opposite of philistine? The words “arty” and “cultured” come to mind, but rarely the word “civilised”. People may not care to be seen as arty, but do they want to be seen as uncivilised?

The arts-for-arts-sake lobby is loud and articulate when arguing the importance of the arts, particularly now, during a Comprehensive Spending Review. They have even been brought into the debate on gun crime. Has Will Alsop’s iconic Peckham Library failed because 15-year-olds are murdered?

In an increasingly troubled world, short-termism haunts our parliaments and boardrooms, the quick fix and tomorrow’s headlines occupy our agendas; people talk about legacy, but only if it can be achieved in three years.

Civilisations cannot be built in three years, but they can be destroyed in a shorter time. The arts may not stop teenage gangs killing each other, but they can build a civilisation that will last the test of time.

Let us hold onto that word “civilisation” – after all, “civil” and “civility” come from it, and that means far more than standing in an orderly line at the checkouts.

Global warming and dispossessed youth could destroy our world. If our civilisation is worth saving, caring for our arts is the first step – not the last.