Why does it always go wrong?

StormWarrior

Lately, I have been reading alot about Camelot, and it got me thinking. Now, I know these legends aren't historically accurate and the dream-like utopia of Camelot was but a dream. But even in this story, chaos and destruction won in the end.

Why can't we achieve this perfect ideal? People can strive and work towards a better world, but their good attempts are always brought down in the end. Why do some people want to ruin it? Why does it always go wrong? It seems all our efforts are for nothing, and the world is becoming a worse and worse place all the time. Beautiful open land being destroyed to build ever more high rise tower blocks on, worsening crime rates, noise pollution, the death of chivalry.

Why does everyone want something different? One person wants the beautiful countryside and wildlife, another wants to over run it with cities and 24-hour partying. The urban sprawl is ever spreading, encroaching on everything that once was. People are piled high one on top of the other, less room to breathe all the time. Where will it end?

I'm not clinically depressed or anything, I just long for a simpler, halcyon time. But it seems the world is being destroyed all around us. I hope to god re incarnation does not exist, because I do not want to come back to this!

Sorry, this may not be very philosophical, I just can't help feeling like evil is taking over and the beauty is being destroyed. I just wonder if there's even any point fighting for something to hold on to.

Zombrex

StormWarrior wrote:

It seems all our efforts are for nothing, and the world is becoming a worse and worse place all the time.

No, actually in general the world is becoming a better and better place over time.

Unless you would like to be living in the 3rd century BC with the Romans or around the Black Death maybe?

Tar.Aldarion

When was the human race closer to it's own destruction though.

Zombrex

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

When was the human race closer to it's own destruction though.

I suppose the black death was close, since it struck in Europe and Asia. Though it probably would not have spread to the Americas

Kell

Wicknight wrote:

No, actually in general the world is becoming a better and better place over time.

Depends on your perspective. If you base your view on more wealth for the very few, the increased availability of accomodation where people stare at red brick from their 10th story window and have little natural light, the destruction of vast swathes of rain-forest so you can have your happy burgers, little cod, dwindling tuna stocks, most people who would rather step over you than help you, oh and decision makers who think the planet is an infinite resource, then yes we are getting better.

OP- the world is going títs up as you say, because no-one thinks about the we. Its all me, me, me. A large majority are focussed solely on money and self gain than on things that matter to spirit like community, environment, space to live and good things to eat.

I am as disappointed as you are.

Wickkie- I'll always dispute your grandiose view that we have evolved, because I think as a race we are extraordinarily stupid beings. Your belief in progress is extraordinary and to be lauded, however I cant understand your blind faith in the face of a planet who's resources are being exhausted and destroyed by people who havent learnt from history and are entirely corrupt and or plain stupid.

Example- while there have not been that many nuclear disasters, the effect has been very far reaching and takes years n years to dissipate, if you can say they ever dissipate at all.
Solution- ban nuclear programmes.
What do governments do? Ah sure the cost of the fallout is less expensive than shutting down the nuclear power stations. Lets keep going and hope it doesnt literally blow up in our face.
Possible alternative solution? Hmmn- hasnt there been alternative forms of energy around for years that havent been promoted because companies and bent elected representatives have a strangle hold on the oil business forcing people to buy petrol rather than alternatives? They'll tell you its too expensive to develop the technology. Water? Expensive? And if someone, rather than the oil company who buys every alternative technology patent, was working on the technology for the last 20 years, it wouldnt be expensive anymore.

See, the alternatives to the state we are in these days are intelligent and clever and think of everything in a harmonious and holistic way. That would be evolution- beautiful, considerate, giving. What we are lumped with, thousands of years since we popped a toe onto dry land, are complete fúcking muppet decision makers and countries full of sheep. Evolved?

K-

Zombrex

Kell wrote:

Depends on your perspective.

True. If one considers having more green space rather than cities better than say, penicillin, one can say things are getting worse than they were 150 years ago. The billions who are alive today because of penicillin might disagree.

Kell wrote:

Wickkie- I'll always dispute your grandiose view that we have evolved, because I think as a race we are extraordinarily stupid beings.

Developed rather than evolved. The population chart of the last 500 years shows that.

Its all very well to say that you would prefer that people are nicer to you, or that you have less pollution in the inner city. But if you were dying of small pox you might prefer rude people and smog to dying in childhood.

The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people alive to day would be dead or dying if we lived 200 years ago. The quality of life has improve simply for the fact that a lot less people die, since death is probably zero on the quality of life scale

Kell wrote:

Your belief in progress is extraordinary and to be lauded, however I cant understand your blind faith in the face of a planet who's resources are being exhausted and destroyed by people who havent learnt from history and are entirely corrupt and or plain stupid.

Faith in the future has little to do with it. I am simply looking back in history without the rose tinted glasses that the rest of you seem to be wearing.

I understand that it is appealing to view a time before people lived as some how better than the time they live now, but that is simply because you didn't live then and the view we form of history is always tinted by the elements that we identify with and wish happened here.

For example the OP mentions chivalry. I don't know if the OP is a woman or not,but if she is and is longing for the codes of how to treat others of say the turn of the century then it is possible to pick out good elements. But if she actually lived in that time she would find that as a woman she would have hardly any of the options open to her today. She would probably hate it, particularly knowing what a woman can do today.

That is assuming of course she didn't die in childhood.

Kell wrote:

See, the alternatives to the state we are in these days are intelligent and clever and think of everything in a harmonious and holistic way.

Is thinking about alternatives to the "state we are in" not exactly what development is?

Have you considered why we aren't still living in the middle ages?

Kell

Wicknight wrote:

The billions who are alive today because of penicillin might disagree.

I have an entirely different perspective than you on this. I view medicine as a crutch and not a saviour. Given time, a species affected by a disease will become immune to it. I have had many discussions with medical professionals who agree that to som degree, medicines inhibit the development of the immune system because the immune system has got drugs that do the work for it.

Perhaps the planet would not be as overcrowded had the billions not been introduced to penicillin. Perhaps there would be less dumb people to contend with. There would DEFINITELY be less mouths to feed which would have meant that less land would need to be cleared for intensive agriculture, less shít would have wound up in the water supplies and the problems created by the overcrowding could have been avoided.

Wicknight wrote:

I am simply looking back in history without the rose tinted glasses that the rest of you seem to be wearing.

I have no rose tinted glasses. I am merely disputing the fact that we have evolved or developed at all on the basis that we have not learned from the mistakes of the even recent past. We are stil entirely self focussed rather than global focussed. We accept that multiple world leaders ignore the masses rather than do anything about the will of the people.

Wicknight wrote:

Its all very well to say that you would prefer that people are nicer to you, or that you have less pollution in the inner city.

I didnt say that.

Wicknight wrote:

I understand that it is appealing to view a time before people lived as some how better than the time they live now, but that is simply because you didn't live then and the view we form of history is always tinted by the elements that we identify with and wish happened here.

I am not viewing the past as a rose tinted camelot as the OP does, free of the shít that people walked around barefoot in suffering from cholera and the plague etc. The point I am trying to make is, that as a developed/evolved species we should be able to take the things that are important from the past and marry them with the things that are important in the present and not make a bollíx of the whole lot. We cant do that yet so no, I still contend that we havent come very far at all.

Wicknight wrote:

Is thinking about alternatives to the "state we are in" not exactly what development is?

Yes- but its not being done on a large enough scale to really make a damn bit of difference. The view of most environmentalists during the 70's and early part of the 80's was that they were madcap raving lunies talking about changing weather patterns etc. SOME of us have eventually grasped that the planets fúcked and largely thanks to our involvement. Thats us- in a little far away place called boards where most of us are half intelligent. The MAJORITY still has its head stuffed in the sand.

Wicknight wrote:

Have you considered why we aren't still living in the middle ages?

No- but I am sure you are going to tell me. At length.

K-

Zombrex

Kell wrote:

I have an entirely different perspective than you on this. I view medicine as a crutch and not a saviour. Given time, a species affected by a disease will become immune to it.

Ok. Rather ironic that you were giving out about me having too much faith in our evolution yet you think medicine is simply getting in the way of us becoming immune to disease?

I would point out that it often takes hundreds of thousands of years for complex species such as ourselves to develop immunity to diseases. And there is always one round the corner.

Kell wrote:

I have had many discussions with medical professionals who agree that to som degree, medicines inhibit the development of the immune system because the immune system has got drugs that do the work for it.

True, but I doubt any of those doctors thought the better solution was to simply let the disease kill off 99% of the population so that the 1% with immunity can repopulate, as what happens with drug resistant bacteria.

Kell wrote:

Perhaps the planet would not be as overcrowded had the billions not been introduced to penicillin.

It wouldn't be (well medical science in general). But that would be because they would all be dead.

So if you are one of the lucky ones you might be happy enough with that outcome (until of course you have children and have to watch 4/5 of them die).

But of course if you are one of the dead ones you might wonder if it was worth it. You might prefer a more crowded town/city/country/planet and being a live

Kell wrote:

Perhaps there would be less dumb people to contend with. There would DEFINITELY be less mouths to feed which would have meant that less land would need to be cleared for intensive agriculture, less shít would have wound up in the water supplies and the problems created by the overcrowding could have been avoided.

To be honest this type of thinking always reminds me of the slogan

"Save the world, kill yourself"

You are working on the premises that the world would be nicer for you if a lot of other people were dead. Does that premise extend to thinking that the world would be nice for others if you were dead?

Kell wrote:

I am merely disputing the fact that we have evolved or developed at all on the basis that we have not learned from the mistakes of the even recent past.

Who is "we" and how recent are we talking. Do you mean the last Gulf War or do you mean World War I or the Crusades?

Kell wrote:

I didnt say that.

No, sorry that was in reference to the OP's comments. The "you" was what ever that grand one is, the royal "you"

Kell wrote:

The point I am trying to make is, that as a developed/evolved species we should be able to take the things that are important from the past and marry them with the things that are important in the present and not make a bollíx of the whole lot.

Well in general we do.

But if you are talking about individual level you are into a wide area of generalization.

Kell wrote:

Yes- but its not being done on a large enough scale to really make a damn bit of difference.

Damn bit of difference to whom Kell? You?

Because I think it makes a damn big bit of difference to a child born today that will almost certainly survive yet 150 years ago would have almost certainly have died.

It makes a damn big bit of difference to a citizen of Bagdad who survives a bombing due to Smart bomb technology but who if this was WW2 would have been dead along with most of the city.

Saying that things should be better is good, it is what drives things forward

But it is rather ridiculous to claim that things haven't change or improved. Or that they haven't improved enough to satisfy your standards of what is an improvement.

That simply shows ignorance of what things were actually like in the past.

Kell wrote:

The MAJORITY still has its head stuffed in the sand.

True, but they aren't all dying of small pox. That is an improvement.

Kell wrote:

No- but I am sure you are going to tell me. At length.

Clearly you haven't considered it.

Kell

Wicknight wrote:

I would point out that it often takes hundreds of thousands of years for complex species such as ourselves to develop immunity to diseases. And there is always one round the corner.

Of course there is always another disease around the corner. I would argue that a constant barrage of new dieases is what should keep our immune systems developing.

Wicknight wrote:

But of course if you are one of the dead ones you might wonder if it was worth it.

I wouldnt. Dead people cant think.

Wicknight wrote:

You are working on the premises that the world would be nicer for you if a lot of other people were dead.

You're putting words into my mouth. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that I do not think that we have developed very far.

Wicknight wrote:

Does that premise extend to thinking that the world would be nice for others if you were dead?

I'd take a bullet in the back of the head for the greater good yes.

Who is "we" and how recent are we talking. Do you mean the last Gulf War or do you mean World War I or the Crusades?

Well how has the species learned from any of them if the species still considers war an acceptable solution to a problem? We havent learned at all if the species still groups in behind one leader and uses economy, religion or whatever to justify a war on others.

Wicknight wrote:

Well in general we do.

Please explain and I do mean that as a genuine question.

Wicknight wrote:

Because I think it makes a damn big bit of difference to a child born today that will almost certainly survive yet 150 years ago would have almost certainly have died.

No- it makes a damn bit of difference to the childs family. If a child does not make it through child birth or pregnancy, it knows not of its existence. Its survivors do.

Wicknight wrote:

It makes a damn big bit of difference to a citizen of Bagdad who survives a bombing due to Smart bomb technology but who if this was WW2 would have been dead along with most of the city.

How can you say that something matters to a dead person (and you have done it twice). A dead person cannot rationalise think or wish they are alive because they are DEAD. It matters to their family, not to the individual whether they survive or not.

Wicknight wrote:

Or that they haven't improved enough to satisfy your standards of what is an improvement.

I'll settle for that. Advancements do NOT satisfy my standards of where we are at.

Wicknight wrote:

That simply shows ignorance of what things were actually like in the past.

So your whole justification for arguing with me is that I didnt know how bad it was in the past, therefore I am ignorant. I already made reference to people wandering around barefoot, up to their knees in shíte and cholera, and that was London.

You cannot say that because things were very bad then and arent quite as bad now, that we should not be very much better off now than we are.

Wicknight wrote:

True, but they aren't all dying of small pox. That is an improvement.

God when are you going to stop referring to the broken record of "it was really bad then but it isnt now" as a basis to argue?

As a species, our thinking has not evolved to the level where we can see beyond cost. It doesnt matter that advancements can be made that will have a huge impact on everything that is wrong with the world if, for a minute, we come up to a level and surpass ourselves just enough to forget cost.

K-

Zombrex

Kell your basic argument seems to be that we haven't developed as far as you think we should have developed by now (what you are comparing us to I've no idea)

There is really very little point in arguing with you over that point since that is simply your opinion.

We have developed in huge amounts, which is clear by such things as the rapid increase in population. But you can simply always say that that isn't enough development for you and that you are disappointed with humanity. So this all becomes rather pointless, what ever I say you will simply claim it isn't enough.

Kell

Wicknight wrote:

We have developed in huge amounts, which is clear by such things as the rapid increase in population.

Which I wont dispute. While moving on from this, would you deny me that as a species we are capable of being oh so much more than we are, but choose not to.

K-

Zombrex

Kell wrote:

Which I wont dispute. While moving on from this, would you deny me that as a species we are capable of being oh so much more than we are, but choose not to.

K-

I don't think we choose anything, either way, as a species.

Humanity does not act in a single unified decision making block. The term "herding cats" springs to mind

Individual humans are certainly capable of more than what most of us to. And the few that do rise above develop idea that can be considered massive improvements if they could actually be all acted on. But they aren't because again we are talking about a collection of individuals

I think what does happen is that ideas and developments dissolve (for want of a better word) though out the soup that is mankind.

The idea or development may have lost some of its initial weight, but eventually it, or parts of it, spread to enough people to effect some kind of change. This is a long and slow process, but it is development, and I don't really see any other way of it happening. There is no other way for development as a species

StormWarrior

Wicknight wrote:

Because I think it makes a damn big bit of difference to a child born today that will almost certainly survive yet 150 years ago would have almost certainly have died.

It makes a damn big bit of difference to a citizen of Bagdad who survives a bombing due to Smart bomb technology but who if this was WW2 would have been dead along with most of the city.

But it is rather ridiculous to claim that things haven't change or improved. Or that they haven't improved enough to satisfy your standards of what is an improvement.

We may not be dying of smallpox nowadays, but plenty of people are instead dying of AIDS and MRSA, so I don't think you have a good argument there. Plus, the overcrowding itself will soon be a life threatening issue, the world needs to get rid of the excess people somehow.

As for the Bagdad argument, in the middle ages there wouldn't have been any bomb attacks.

Of course, some things have improved. But the point is, other things have worsened, so overall I don't think we're any better off now.

Zombrex

StormWarrior wrote:

We may not be dying of smallpox nowadays, but plenty of people are instead dying of AIDS and MRSA, so I don't think you have a good argument there.

Smallpox alone is estimated to have killed between 200-500 million people in the 20th Century. Since the WMO declared it eradicated 1977 it has killed a small handful.

I would call that development.

The simple fact of that 9 out of 10 people alive to day would be dead if this was 200 years ago. That is why the population has sky rocketed in the last 100 years.

StormWarrior wrote:

Plus, the overcrowding itself will soon be a life threatening issue, the world needs to get rid of the excess people somehow.

That isn't an argument for saying that things are worse now, or that they haven't developed. And as I said to Kell are you prepared to kill yourself to slow down over crowding?

StormWarrior wrote:

As for the Bagdad argument, in the middle ages there wouldn't have been any bomb attacks.

You are right, the soldiers would have just gone in and hacked everyone to death.

StormWarrior wrote:

Of course, some things have improved. But the point is, other things have worsened, so overall I don't think we're any better off now.

Where are you living? In a social democracy with access to modern medicine, electricity, food water and shelter, a stable government, public services, information rich environment and latest technology.

You face few diseases that will kill you before old age, and one of the longest life expectancies in history. It is very unlikely that you will be killed in a war in your lifetime, and equally unlikely that you will be murdered by one of your fellow citizens.

Contrast that with a person living 300 years ago. You had a 1 in 5 chance of surviving past 5 years old. If you did you faced a huge number of infections and diseases that would kill you in your teenage or middle adult years.

If you were lucky enough to be born into a rich family the most you would probably have to worry about was military service. On the other hand if you were poor you would be working in any number of ridiculously unsafe environments and 1 in 10 change of dying in a work related accident or illness.

For every 5 children you had 4 would die before reaching an age where they could look after you in your old age which would be your 40s.

Kell

Wicknight wrote:

I don't think we choose anything, either way, as a species.

Thats dodging the question. Humanity is capable of doing much, much more than it is right now, but we are not doing it. Thats why I feel that we are not particularly advanced.

K-

Zombrex

Kell wrote:

Thats dodging the question.

Not really.

Your question assumes that humanity as a single group can decide to do things, and therefore you are faulting this single entity for not choosing to do "so much more"

In reality it doesn't work like that. Humanity is a collection of individuals.

Kell wrote:

Humanity is capable of doing much, much more than it is right now, but we are not doing it. Thats why I feel that we are not particularly advanced.

Compared to what exactly? The other, more advanced, human species?

StormWarrior

Wicknight wrote:

You face few diseases that will kill you before old age, and one of the longest life expectancies in history. It is very unlikely that you will be killed in a war in your lifetime, and equally unlikely that you will be murdered by one of your fellow citizens.

Contrast that with a person living 300 years ago. You had a 1 in 5 chance of surviving past 5 years old. If you did you faced a huge number of infections and diseases that would kill you in your teenage or middle adult years.

.

You are overly concerned with the health aspects of modern life. There's far more to quality of life than that. I personally am on lifelong anti-cancer medication and never feel 100% well, so the health argument doesn't cut it for me. Yes if this was the middle ages I would be dead by now. But so what? If I was dead, I wouldn't be around to care about it. More life doesn't make for a better quality of life. I am far more concerned with the loss of nature and increased state surveillance, which simply weren't issues in the middle ages.

GuanYin

Kell wrote:

I have an entirely different perspective than you on this. I view medicine as a crutch and not a saviour. Given time, a species affected by a disease will become immune to it. I have had many discussions with medical professionals who agree that to som degree, medicines inhibit the development of the immune system because the immune system has got drugs that do the work for it.

Could you elaborate on this please?

How exactly would the species become immune to a fatal disease , such as plague over time without medical intervention?

How do we become immune to influenza?

Did your friends discuss the mechanism for this or mention timeframe or fallout?

I'm seriously interested in this notion.

Zombrex

StormWarrior wrote:

You are overly concerned with the health aspects of modern life. There's far more to quality of life than that.

I think you far too unconcerned by how actually good humanity has it with relation to health standards in the 20th century.

It is hard to have a "quality of life" if you are dying in the Black Death.

Its very easy to complain about smog or urban sprawl when you don't have to worry about dying from someone sneezing on you.

I'm not saying don't complain about smog or urban sprawl. That is how things move forward, by people recognizing problems and attempting to fix them.

But the idea that things aren't as good as they were is simply put ridiculous.

StormWarrior wrote:

I personally am on lifelong anti-cancer medication and never feel 100% well, so the health argument doesn't cut it for me.

What are you talking about? 100 years ago you would be dead.

StormWarrior wrote:

Yes if this was the middle ages I would be dead by now. But so what? If I was dead, I wouldn't be around to care about it.

Then stop taking your medication. Is anyone making you take it?

Plenty of people facing cancer would be very thankful for any medical assistance they can get, and be very thankful that such medical assistance exists. And I doubt many of them are thinking "God, I wish I lived in the Middle Ages" :rolleyes:

StormWarrior wrote:

I am far more concerned with the loss of nature and increased state surveillance, which simply weren't issues in the middle ages.

Again, what are you talking about? In the middle ages you would be living under a king who can do pretty much what he liked to the population, democracy was something the ancient Greeks did, and you could be murdered for no particular reason any any of your neighbours. You would be living day to day and just hoping you didn't die from any of the hundreds of different diseases going around.

And you think that is better than having security cameras up

I'm beginning to think this is a nonsense thread.

TerrorFirmer

Wicknight wrote:

I'm beginning to think this is a nonsense thread.

I concur. The absurdity of this thread is astounding because most of the 'points' are total speculation that are clearly based upon total lack of knowledge in the specified areas. Evolution and accquired immunity to fatal diseases rather then medical cures? No thanks, given that in the timeframe it takes to develop such an immunity, most, if not all, of the world would have been wiped out by several diseases that are considered either non existant or trivially inconveninent by todays standards thanks to modern medicine. Not to mention, that new strains appear all the time.

How can you argue that the 'quality of life is decreasing' when the vary basis for those degenerations - disease, war, etc - are being eradicated generally speaking in at least, our societies.

I am far more concerned with the loss of nature and increased state surveillance, which simply weren't issues in the middle ages.

This sums up the thread for the farce that it is. I think you have this image of previous generations as carefree, happy individuals who roamed about the fields free of 'urban sprawl.' The reality - short life expectancy, lifetime of hard labour, disease, malnutrition, amongst others.

GuanYin

I think you're a bit unfair.

It is a point to debate that our current lifestyle does not help our overall health and lifestyle.

For instance, we're at a stage where obesity in the western world is far beyond the weak issues taken in tackling it.

But to say that our immune systems are in check because of medicines is so laughably wrong that I can't believe that anyone who has ever watched an episode of ER would suggest it, never mind someone who works in the medical field.

For a start it is true to say that populations can in some cases overcome disease naturally. However, usually this can only be achieved with a staggeringly high mortality rate. What you're effectively looking for, in order for this to happen, is (say for ebola) for <70% of a population to be wiped out by the disease. The remaining 30% would have some natural immunity to a disease which would be passed down to their offspring.
But hold on! You want to wipe out 70% of the worlds population for this one disease?

And what about influenza? An ever-mutating disease? Our immune systems will not manage to overcome influenza, mainly because the disease changes faster than our immune systems.

The issue with this notion is that the human population would need to be reduced drastically every time a major disease emergence occured. Is this really a better style of life than we have today?

On the other hand, we do live in a society that is too pampered. I've already mentioned the obesity, add to that the large boody of evidence to suggest that overactive immune systems are the cause of conditions such as asthma and crohns. And then our delayed breeding cycles (our biology is optimised to start having children in our late teens, the average age for a first child is now approaching the 30's in Europe) leading to an increase in congenital birth defects (this is speculation at this stage, no conclusive study has been completed).

I've only tackled a tip of the medical slant, there are many other aspects I have my own idea on as to why society has alot of issues that need addressing.

StormWarrior

Wicknight wrote:

I'm beginning to think this is a nonsense thread.

I did not start this thread to debate whether we are better off with or without medicine. You are the one who keeps talking about medicine. In fact, it is not even relevant to my original post. Perhaps talking about the stuff I was refering to in my original post would be more pertinent.

TerrorFirmer

The fact is that you have stated an opinion. The world does not develop by itself, humanity develops it. Things develop, in the broad sense, because they are needed in other to advance to attain greater things. Medicine, cities, etc.

The simple fact is that if everyone was so opposed to the way the world has turned out or perceived its current sitting as 'wrong', then it would change. As it is, yes there are aspects that need changing, like you've suggested. But modern day society, in an overview, is developing nicely in my opinion and constantly adapting to favour us, the day to day citizen. Bad things too, but you have to weight them against each other. Medicine IS making a difference in the day to day world for many people for example, the often used argument of humanity degenerating - the threat of nuclear weapons - is a senario, not a given. How many people have been saved by modern medicine as opposed to those killed by the 'threat' of Nuclear war?

Bottle_of_Smoke

StormWarrior wrote:

Lately, I have been reading alot about Camelot, and it got me thinking. Now, I know these legends aren't historically accurate and the dream-like utopia of Camelot was but a dream. But even in this story, chaos and destruction won in the end.

Why can't we achieve this perfect ideal? People can strive and work towards a better world, but their good attempts are always brought down in the end. Why do some people want to ruin it? Why does it always go wrong?

People don't strive toward a better world - they strive toward a better future for themselves. It's a common theme in every living thing on this planet. Even those striving for a better world are probably subconsciously striving for the recognition they'll recieve.

It seems all our efforts are for nothing, and the world is becoming a worse and worse place all the time.

There's more bad stuff happening but there's also a lot more people. Once again I don't see these altruistic efforts you speak of.

Beautiful open land being destroyed to build ever more high rise tower blocks on, worsening crime rates, noise pollution, the death of chivalry.

Individual builders can make money from those tower blocks. When you've got a big fat cheque in front of you you stop caring about fields. Also there's a lot more people who need somewhere to live. Worsening crime rates - Not entirely sure that's correct but if it is it's perhaps to do with more drug use/denser populations. Noise pollution explains itself. Chivalry is considered borderline sexism these days.

Why does everyone want something different? One person wants the beautiful countryside and wildlife, another wants to over run it with cities and 24-hour partying. The urban sprawl is ever spreading, encroaching on everything that once was. People are piled high one on top of the other, less room to breathe all the time. Where will it end?

I'm beginning to think you're taking the piss. Not going to even dignify the first question. It will never end unless the planet becomes uninhabitable.

Sorry, this may not be very philosophical, I just can't help feeling like evil is taking over and the beauty is being destroyed. I just wonder if there's even any point fighting for something to hold on to.

Evil doesn't exist in that sense. It's just a concept.

Give "human instinct" by Robert Winston a read.

Zombrex

StormWarrior wrote:

I did not start this thread to debate whether we are better off with or without medicine. You are the one who keeps talking about medicine. In fact, it is not even relevant to my original post. Perhaps talking about the stuff I was refering to in my original post would be more pertinent.

Your central point seems to have been summed up with this

"It seems all our efforts are for nothing, and the world is becoming a worse and worse place all the time."

As I explained that is nonsense. The world is not becoming worse and worse, the world is actually becoming better and better. Possibly not a quickly as yourself or Kell would like, but that isn't really the point.

That doesn't mean the future does not hold problems. You can pick anything from AIDS, to smog, to over weight children and say we still all face problems in the future. Of course we do. We probably always will. But in general these problems are not any worse than what we have already over come in the past.

Again using the Smart bomb as an example. Ideally we shouldn't go to war and no one should be killed by a Smart bomb. It is a problem to over come, something that humanity should develop towards.

But a smart bomb killing 10 people to knock out a weapons factor in 2007 is not worse than a B17 bomber plane killing 10,000 people in 1944 to knock out a similar factory.

Zombrex

HavoK wrote:

How many people have been saved by modern medicine as opposed to those killed by the 'threat' of Nuclear war?

Ironically the threat of nuclear war lead to one of the most peaceful times in world history, since neither side dared go to war.

Not saying that nuclear war is a good thing to consider of course, but as you point out how many people actually died in the Cold War, and compare that with World War 1 and World War 2

StormWarrior

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Give "human instinct" by Robert Winston a read.

Thanks, I will read it.

It's a proven fact that we now have the highest rates of depression and suicide ever. Surely this signifies that this world is worse now than it has ever been.

DublinWriter

StormWarrior wrote:

It's a proven fact that we now have the highest rates of depression and suicide ever. Surely this signifies that this world is worse now than it has ever been.

Meh, only because suicides are now recorded as such and depression wasn't medically recognised until only recently.

Doctors used to hand out uber-strong tranquilisers to housewifes like Smarties in the 60's/70's.

The 'Golden Age', as you romantically put it, is now. There's never been a better time to be a Western European.

I believe with the predicted advent of peak-oil around 2012 that society and civilisation will grind to a halt over a period of five years and we'll all be back living an argarian existance.

Kell

HavoK wrote:

But modern day society, in an overview, is developing nicely in my opinion and constantly adapting to favour us, the day to day citizen.

That is because it suits YOU.

The continent of Africa suffers a v high infant mortality rate by things such as measles, TB and of course AIDS. But look at the first two examples. TB & measles are two diseases virtually wiped out in the 1st world.

Can yourself and Wicknight hand on heart stand there and pontificate about how great humanity is when, on a per capita basis, there are more people on this planet living in poverty, without food and who still die of the same diseases they would have died from in the middle ages?

Wicknight suggested I am blind to the real past. Are you people blind to the real present?

YOU dont stand much of a risk of watching a few of your kids die. YOU dont stand much of a chance of being murdered because your belief is different to mine. YOU will have a lifespan of about 85 years. YOU dont stand a very real risk of civil war.

YOU ARE VERY MUCH THE MINORITY.

The majority of the population of the planet do not have access to medical aid, clean water and all the things we take for granted.

Wicknight- you pointed out that the OP would be discriminated against and wouldnt have very many opportunities open to her if she was born in the middle ages. Isnt Trocaires current campaign about improving the lot of women in third world countries? Dont women in 3rd world countries have the same poor deal as they did in the middle ages?

These arent just problems, children, that we would have to cope with along the way. The central point to my argument is that as a species we could, working together and without thought for cost and profit, eliminate all these problems. My current point is, in the majority of the world i.e. the bits you currently choose to ignore, nothing much has changed since the dark ages relative to disease treatment, poverty and access to food water and shelter.

How the fúck can you stand on your soap boxes, safe in a cotton wool world with the tinternet and a whole host of comfort gadgets extending from your fingertips and tell me that an "evolved, developed" species that we are could allow this level of bollíx to go on?

And you tell me I have rose tinted glasses on?

K-

Tar.Aldarion

Spot on from Kell in this thread, imo.

TerrorFirmer

Your major problem kell is that you seem to think that we've advocating that the entire world is a merry place. We know it isn't. But the world has always had a significant chunk of the population living in the conditions you have described, this is not a new phenomenon to our modern world.

If you had 1,000 people given in a random sample destined to die, and say medicine could save 1 of them. The fact that 999 people die, whilst a tragedy, does not overrule the fact that progress has been made. This sort of logic seems oblivious to you, just because bad things still happen in the world you seem to feel that it negates all the good. Africa's economy is improving, therefore the continent as a whole is slowly moving in the right directions needed to tackle the issues you've raised. Is this not progress? Or, because famine still exists, and infant mortality is high, are these the only issues worth raising in relation to the condition of our planet in comparison with years past?

You have changed this thread from 'Is the world getting worse' to 'Yes, bad ****ing things do happen in the world'. Nowhere did we say 'Humanity is fantastic' as you have pointed out falsely. All we're trying to argue is that the world is a better place, generally speaking, in comparison to the past. And also, it's worth pointing out, that the OP's argument was actually based on the merits of western society, not the world in general. His opinion was that life in the comfortable environments we live in is worse in comparison to the past, including the middle ages. Surely even you can agree, that that is a fairly far fetched notion and was the basis of most of the discussion in this thread.

Sand

The continent of Africa suffers a v high infant mortality rate by things such as measles, TB and of course AIDS. But look at the first two examples. TB & measles are two diseases virtually wiped out in the 1st world.

I think the point made was development - not done and dusted. Those two diseases and others have been virtually wiped out in the first world, not in Africa. That doesnt imply that things havent improved from the 14th century when the Black Death swept Europe wiping out millions of people in a time when the continents population could be measued in tens of millions. The western world is a relatively small realm of sheer banal nonsense where people give a **** about who Cameron Diaz is dating as opposed to worrying about where theyre going to sleep tonight, what theyre going to eat, will they be abducted and murdered, if the mine shaft collapses will their boss even call the emergency services? Thats progress. A small bubble of progress, but progress all the same.

There seems to be some odd fascination with agrarian/subsistence living in some people and some dodgy political idealogies that reject modern living as corrupt or oppressive. Back to nature, tribalism and stoning the foreigners to death or something. Dont think the Cambodians found it was all it was cracked up to be.

Zombrex

Kell wrote:

The continent of Africa suffers a v high infant mortality rate by things such as measles, TB and of course AIDS.

The infant mortality rate in Africa has been dropping in the last 50 years.

http://www.uneca.org/eca_programmes/food_security_and_sustainability/programme_overview/population/Mortality/mortality_central.htm
http://www.uneca.org/eca_programmes/food_security_and_sustainability/programme_overview/population/Mortality/mortality_southern.htm

You can argue that the rate should be much lower, and I would agree with you of course. But that doesn't change the fact that it has fallen. Being a new born in African now you have a better chance of surviving infancy than 50 years ago. I call that development.

Kell wrote:

YOU dont stand much of a risk of watching a few of your kids die. YOU dont stand much of a chance of being murdered because your belief is different to mine. YOU will have a lifespan of about 85 years. YOU dont stand a very real risk of civil war.

That is kinda the original point. The OP was complaining about the first world, not the third world. He is complaining about his life, not the life of a poor African.

Kell wrote:

The majority of the population of the planet do not have access to medical aid, clean water and all the things we take for granted.

The majority of the population of the planet never had access to medical aid. More do now than ever did (see above for infant mortality rates). Again I call that development

Kell wrote:

Dont women in 3rd world countries have the same poor deal as they did in the middle ages?

Some of them do. But less of them do.

Kell wrote:

The central point to my argument is that as a species we could, working together and without thought for cost and profit, eliminate all these problems.

As I said we don't operated "as a species", so arguing about what we could do if we did is rather pointless.

You have to deal with how humanity is, not how you wish it was.

Kell wrote:

How the fúck can you stand on your soap boxes, safe in a cotton wool world with the tinternet and a whole host of comfort gadgets extending from your fingertips and tell me that an "evolved, developed" species that we are could allow this level of bollíx to go on?

Again we as a species don't allow or disallow anything to go on since we do not operate as a species in any form of unified decision making block.