Magic
New Member
HOPE!
Posts: 47
|
Post by Magic on Feb 26, 2010 10:57:34 GMT -5
Do you think our civilization is really making progress on a Human scale? I sometimes wonder.
The 1980's victory of neoliberal values killed the hope of a class-less, solidarity-based society. The current form of capitalism has exacerbated competition between individuals and is resulting in record-high inequalities in developped countries. The International Community repeatedly failed to put an end to multiplaying ethnic conflicts in Africa or Asia (Rwanda, Darfour, Bhutan etc).
Our population is nearing 7 billions, we are facing environmental challenges with global warming, diminishing energy, food or water resources and numerous recent health catastrophes such as mad cow disease, bird flu are putting our specie in peril. Ordinary-day crime and a lack of civism are both thriving. Let's not even talk about the bad taste of generation Y mainstream entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by FreckleFoot on Feb 26, 2010 14:34:43 GMT -5
Just as humans cannot learn without making mistakes, I think humanity cannot progress without making wrong turns.
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Feb 28, 2010 11:00:27 GMT -5
I think your vision needs to be nuanced a little but you kind of nailed the fact that contrary to popular belief as time goes by mankind is self-destructing because of poor ideological choices more than because of its lack of intellectual/technological potential.
|
|
palavore
Full Member
I put my pants on just like the rest of you -- one leg at a time. Except, once my pants are on, I make gold posts.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Posts: 298
|
Post by palavore on Feb 28, 2010 14:15:35 GMT -5
Human beings are progressing. By economic measures they are progressing.
It is the Earth that is moving in the opposite direction. But they are both tied by the same chord. They can only move so far apart. One of them will collapse if they strain too hard either direction.
|
|
Magic
New Member
HOPE!
Posts: 47
|
Post by Magic on Feb 28, 2010 15:06:59 GMT -5
Does the billion of people living with less than a dollar a day think they deserve so little? Sure, purchasing power-wise we are cumulatively progressing but what about income disparities, social conflicts, environmental hazard or cultural destruction due to globalization and unbridled capitalism... I do not mean to sound alarmist but it sounds urgent to wake citizens up from their apolitical consumerist slumber !
|
|
palavore
Full Member
I put my pants on just like the rest of you -- one leg at a time. Except, once my pants are on, I make gold posts.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Posts: 298
|
Post by palavore on Feb 28, 2010 16:25:56 GMT -5
It's not that people are living on less than a dollar a day. It's the fact that people need that (and more in the future) to survive. It is the result of the concentration of power in the global food system and financial system. Economics does not measure quality of life. Cheap stuff has a price, externalities that other people and other generations must suffer. Eventually we'll move from cowboy economies (exploring and exploiting people and resources) to spaceship economies (making sure the Earth and it's lifeforms live out the next 5 billion year trek through space).
|
|
|
Post by purpletrapezoid on Mar 1, 2010 21:27:47 GMT -5
I think biology-wise, we are going backwards. Now, it's not about how strong you are or how good you are at resisting diseases, it's about the money you have. Also, medicine goes against nature (I'm not saying it's bad). I read somewhere that the royal family in Russia has hemophilia. The only reason they're alive is because of all of the medical treatment they're getting. That means ordinary people have stronger genes than the royal family, just not as much money. And I think crime is also a big problem, although increasing your chances of survival by hurting others is just "survival of the fittest".
|
|
|
Post by japonesa on Mar 2, 2010 8:59:59 GMT -5
''medicine goes against nature'' .. hmm does it? but medicine comes from natural sources
''ordinary people have stronger genes than the royal family'' lol im not supprised there's too much incest in the royal families
|
|
|
Post by purpletrapezoid on Mar 3, 2010 1:38:35 GMT -5
What I meant by ''medicine goes against nature'' was that it cheats the rule of "survival of the fittest." It stunts evolution.
If you treat someone who's bound to get cancer, then you're letting them pass on their genes, which, in the long run, will kill more people. I still think they should be treated, though.
|
|
|
Post by japonesa on Mar 3, 2010 10:30:03 GMT -5
hmm i guess thats true... but.... everyone has weaknesses in their genes though....
|
|
|
Post by FreckleFoot on Mar 3, 2010 14:48:32 GMT -5
Animals have been known to chew on certain leaves for medicinal purposes or to use them as insect repellents, but I suppose that's not quite on the same scale as mass inoculation. LOL
Then again, not every human who survives due to modern medicine is going to find a mate or even choose to have children.
|
|
|
Post by japonesa on Mar 3, 2010 15:38:08 GMT -5
haha really? i duno this is stupid kinda because even babies have injections every1 has to have medicine like if every baby didnt ud just die as a kid probably soooooo ..
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Mar 3, 2010 16:41:32 GMT -5
I believe a paradigm shift will occur at some point, through war or civil revolution but the question is: will it be too late?
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Mar 4, 2010 8:35:58 GMT -5
I am unsure if a Grand Narrative will guide us to put an end to this postmodern debacle but what I know is that Fukuyama and the supporters of the "End of History" were wrong.
The best of all possible worlds associated with capitalism did not occur, our future is threatened by multiform violences like OP stated, it's up to us to shapen a socioeconomic alternative when generation Y finally takes the rein of institutional power.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Mar 5, 2010 15:45:10 GMT -5
By a lot of measures things are getting better, including most health measures (with the exception of some African countries hit hard by AIDS, but some of them are stabilizing or beginning to turn thigns around). That's because in spite of the lack of political progress technology continues to improve. Whether that is sustainable is another thing. It's also not obvious that inequality is bad in of itself compared to absolute poverty - if you were given a choice between earth 1500 and earth today, I think you'd take the inequality along with much higher living standards for a majority of humans. The other tricky thing with these vast welfare comparisons is that there are many more people - shouldn't a sensible comparison take account of the number of relatively wealthy people too? Isn't a world with 20 rich people and one poor person on net a better world than a world with just one rich person? These are all difficult questions. And we're not even talking about the elusive "happinness" or welfare - just health and easy to measure living standards.
I don't think we should be complacent, but I guess I'm enough of a techno-optimist (if not a believer in political utopias) to not get too down about it. Of course, it's easy to say this when you're sitting when I'm sitting (unless you're Jared Diamond or a true environmentalist), but it's not obvious to me that any place on earth is really worse than it was a long time ago. I guess the short term trends go up and down - the 1980s was a lost decade for much of the world, though not for some countries in Asia! - but we shouldn't get too caught up in these annual changes in political or economic outcomes, anymore than we should interpret short term trends in weather as evidence for or against global warming.
|
|