Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Have we as a civilisation actually made any progress ?

  • #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,414 Awkward Badger


    When you see the likes of the Israel/Palestine conflict and ISIS sweeping across the middle east. The US the supposedly bastion of freedom kidnapping and torturing people and waging wars backed by the other leaders of the so called free world killing millions of people to control territory and resources. Russia with their anti gay stuff, occupying Crimea. The stuff we hear about regularly about sweat shops in India and human rights abuses in China. The UN being effectively useless in holding anyone to account for anything.

    Is it really any different than it ever was in human history ? The wealthy and powerful living in comfort, people just getting by and millions of people doomed to misery and suffering by being unlucky to be born in the wrong region ?

    We like to think we humans as a whole are more advanced now and better educated, better medicine etc. But it doesn't seem to make any difference at all to how the world and human civilisation works. People want land and resources, people fight over land and resources, people kill over land and resources. With pockets of people like us happy enough for the time being until something happens where someone wants our land or resources and sets about taking them.

    Are we just in another cycle of world powers holding sway and abusing others to suit their own interests to be replaced whether for better or worse by some other world power in the future to do the same thing ?


Comments



  • Define 'progress'.




  • Define 'progress'.

    I suppose I mean progress towards a unified, peaceful and ordered human civilisation which must be the goal for the future of mankind, particularly in the west. There's a sense that in the past people were more primitive and societies less sophisticated so wars and exploitation and savagery more common. And that now given technological advancement and all that has come with that we are something else. The standard of living is higher, education better, people have a say in how things are run. There's international trade and unions and the UN to keep order and hold people to account when they stray outside the standards of what are deemed necessary for a lawful and ordered society.

    Yet when you look at it is it really any different than any other time given the things that are happening and the ability for those in power to do as they wish without being held accountable ?




  • Ultimately progress I would imagine is tied in with our survival as a species.
    So I would say we have made very little progress, if not lost progress.
    We are destroying ourselves and the ground we stand on.
    I think humans have lost their way when the ego got involved.
    It allowed for belief in a group sense. This leaves the whole group open to being mislead, which is what happens when any country goes to war.
    You will notice there are still reasonble individuals left behind. These should be the leaders. Actually I think each individual should be their own leader, but thats for later when a majority can learn to become adults again.
    Most adults are children of the state, and so cannot be trusted even to vote.

    Possibly our next step in evolving as a group, is listening to those who do not want anything and hanging from a tree those who lead the group astray for their own wants and needs.
    Currently the people leading us astray, have laws imposed on our minds, to stop us from cutting the dead weight from our world.
    When we evolve another step I presume we will have circumvented the hold that laws/words written on paper have over us and proceed to cut down those fools currently called leaders.
    If we can get evolution back on track by literally cutting down those holding us back, we mayfind some peace on this planet....maybe.
    The curent system is designed tocreate these types I feel, I think it is'nt going to happen in my life time.
    More likely a slow series of mistakes and culling of individuals before the majority have had enough and have lost enough.
    Right now, we have not lost nearly enough to shake people out of their reverie for an authority figure.


    Edit: To expand on the adult, child of the state situation.
    Consider a child and their perception of their parents. They look up to the parent for information on the world around them. They imagine they wil never themselves be that parent and that much of an authority.
    Yet twhen theyleave home for the first time and live by themselves, they eventually discover theycan do allthe things that previous authority figure could do and even more! They realise they are just as capable as anyone else.
    This is what the children that is the average person today must experience with government.
    And that is why I am more like an anarchist than anything else.
    The whole government needs to be taken away, so people can realize they don't actually need it anymore. We need to evolve continually in all things.
    It's not people causing and leading these wars. Its certain groups of people. Governments and politicians. Those types that want to lead so badly they will kill every last person under them if it satisfied their urges and ego.




  • On the one hand, one key aspect of progress can be measured as a simple metrics. For instance the fall of child mortality rates can be clearly shown and is universally considered progress.
    On the other, there is the false and misleading picture of the past that exist so as to create a yardstick to which progress is measure. Blanket declarations of that in certain periods were superstitious and back-wards thinking were common, is usually both agenda driven to provide a hagiographic picture of current society and a poor understanding of the actualities of how people lived.
    Thus technological progress is important, having the virtue of measurably, but the historical societal structures that made up key aspects of community lives were in cases both stronger and provided better communal support than would be achieved the current progressive paradigms.




  • I suppose I mean progress towards a unified, peaceful and ordered human civilisation which must be the goal for the future of mankind, particularly in the west.
    Be careful what you wish for.

    Interpretations of how that progress is best achieved aside, one could well argue also that the criteria for progress you've given are subjective. For a species, might reproduction be a better measure of achievement, for example? If so, the West has been taking steps backwards, not forwards, in this regard.
    Yet when you look at it is it really any different than any other time given the things that are happening and the ability for those in power to do as they wish without being held accountable ?
    What exactly are you expecting?

    Look at it this way; our species is about 150k years old. Up until about 10k years ago, we were hunter gatherers at which time we discovered agriculture and everything that followed - cities, mathematics, writing, art, politics, science, philosophy, medicine - has happened in that last 10k years.

    In the grand scheme of things, we've not done badly.


  • Advertisement


  • Be careful what you wish for.

    Interpretations of how that progress is best achieved aside, one could well argue also that the criteria for progress you've given are subjective. For a species, might reproduction be a better measure of achievement, for example? If so, the West has been taking steps backwards, not forwards, in this regard.

    We don't operate as a species though, we operate as a civilisation or society. Fundamental to that is the rights of the members of that society and paramount to that is an interest to afford them the best standard of life possible. In that sense high population, low standard of life is not progress.
    What exactly are you expecting?

    Look at it this way; our species is about 150k years old. Up until about 10k years ago, we were hunter gatherers at which time we discovered agriculture and everything that followed - cities, mathematics, writing, art, politics, science, philosophy, medicine - has happened in that last 10k years.

    In the grand scheme of things, we've not done badly.

    I guess based on some naivety I once had I was expecting the values and the standards of the western world to be intrinsic to its progress and survival. What I think is the case is that they are only possible because of the west's ability to afford its citizens a higher standard of life at the expense of the lives of those elsewhere in the world. Control over resources, industries powered by war and conflict, exploitation of slave like workforces in deprived areas to mass produce for the markets. The privacy, safety, standard of living and basic human rights ignored to fuel and maintain the standard of living in the western world.

    The timeline is pretty interesting. But I can't help wondering if agriculture was the start of progress or the start of decline. The hunter gatherer life was pretty basic and their lives short. But in terms of our mentality, physicality and biological make up that's what we were and still are. Hunter gatherers. The start of agriculture was the start of surplus which was the start of trade then towns, then cities, then governments, armies, wars etc etc. As hunter gatherers the traits that were once useful became something else when faced with more than you needed, the promise of profit, the power of controlling an army.

    And in the time since that first started it doesn't seem to me that much has changed. I think the goal of mankind being peaceful, good standard of life, people with rights and respect may have been met with the hunter gather life and that was changed with the dawn of civilisation. Now the future is either those same things to satisfy that hunter gatherer but in the terms of modern civilisation. Peace, freedom, respect, rights etc or a change from that hunter gatherer to match our new way of life which will be a long time in the coming I think.

    So in the grand scheme of things in the context of the species while we haven't done too bad in the short time since the dawn of civilisation in making progress in some areas. I'm not so sure in the grand scheme of things if we have done too good either in terms of regaining the same balance we as beings and species had between our environment, ourself and our societal structure. If that makes sense.




  • I have a feeling there is both progress and regression and it's too difficult to have a fixed definition of either to have a stable perspective on this. It seems that booth evolution and devolution can co-exist, depending on how you look at things.

    "I suppose I mean progress towards a unified, peaceful and ordered human civilisation which must be the goal for the future of mankind, particularly in the west.'

    This idea of unity and ordered is not particularly appealing to me. Why do I start getting reminded of certain regimes. If I wanted to unity and order I'd join the military. A lot of very creative things come out of mess and chaos, like art, new food recipes, new ideas, new technologies, sex.

    Let's make a mess.




  • diveout wrote: »
    I have a feeling there is both progress and regression and it's too difficult to have a fixed definition of either to have a stable perspective on this. It seems that booth evolution and devolution can co-exist, depending on how you look at things.

    "I suppose I mean progress towards a unified, peaceful and ordered human civilisation which must be the goal for the future of mankind, particularly in the west.'

    This idea of unity and ordered is not particularly appealing to me. Why do I start getting reminded of certain regimes. If I wanted to unity and order I'd join the military. A lot of very creative things come out of mess and chaos, like art, new food recipes, new ideas, new technologies, sex.

    Let's make a mess.

    I mean unity and order in terms of peace and safety and a guaranteed good standard of life for people though. Not a regime where everyone does what they are told. Surely the ultimate goal is that nobody suffers, everyone is afforded the same rights and everyone gets to life a good standard of life ?

    While good things come from chaos there's a limit to the benefit of that chaos though. I wouldn't deem the suffering someone went through to write a masterpiece more necessary or valuable than the good standard of life the next guy lived who contributed nothing to the arts.




  • We don't operate as a species though, we operate as a civilisation or society. Fundamental to that is the rights of the members of that society and paramount to that is an interest to afford them the best standard of life possible. In that sense high population, low standard of life is not progress.
    We don't really operate as a civilization or society either though - at least in so far that civilization or society is in constant flux and thus how we operate today is not how we will operate tomorrow. Remember, about 500 years ago, 'the best standard of life possible' wasn't a priority. Getting into Heaven was.
    The hunter gatherer life was pretty basic and their lives short.
    Actually their lifespans were much higher than they were after the Neolithic revolution. We've only caught up again with the Upper Paleolithic since the latter half of the twentieth century.
    So in the grand scheme of things in the context of the species while we haven't done too bad in the short time since the dawn of civilisation in making progress in some areas. I'm not so sure in the grand scheme of things if we have done too good either in terms of regaining the same balance we as beings and species had between our environment, ourself and our societal structure. If that makes sense.
    That's probably down to scarcity. You can't have it all, as the saying goes.




  • I mean unity and order in terms of peace and safety and a guaranteed good standard of life for people though. Not a regime where everyone does what they are told. Surely the ultimate goal is that nobody suffers, everyone is afforded the same rights and everyone gets to life a good standard of life ?

    .

    You cannot fully live and also fully protect yourself. You know when you learn to ride a bike chances are you are going to get some scrapes and bruising and get hurt. If you don't want to get hurt, don't learn to ride a bike. Or you could anesthise yourself but then you're body won't get the message it is injured and you can just carry on. This is real cake and eat it territory imo.

    Everyone afforded the same rights? I honestly don't know what that means. If that means we all agree to be robots, then no I don't really want that. Rights are not absolute for anyone and even if they were they can only come down to human enforcement, and that will mean imperfect applications, unless we all agree to be robots.


  • Advertisement


  • We don't really operate as a civilization or society either though - at least in so far that civilization or society is in constant flux and thus how we operate today is not how we will operate tomorrow. Remember, about 500 years ago, 'the best standard of life possible' wasn't a priority. Getting into Heaven was.

    Not as one overall society no but each sub society operates pretty much along those lines. Or certainly the ones we would consider to be the standard now and what others should emulate in order to achieve the greatest benefit for its citizens. Its by that that I would measure the "progress" in terms of achieving that the world over. But as I said it seems to be its been achieved in one part of the world somewhat at the expense of the rest of the world.
    Actually their lifespans were much higher than they were after the Neolithic revolution. We've only caught up again with the Upper Paleolithic since the latter half of the twentieth century.

    Interesting.
    That's probably down to scarcity. You can't have it all, as the saying goes.

    Therein lies the problem with modern civilisation I think. Everyone is constantly trying to have it all and all that will ever happen is a shift in most of the power and resources to different areas through time.




  • This post has been deleted.




  • Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Technological advancement has been startling over the last 150 years. But do you think that will continue and impact civilisation as a whole and move it towards a future beyond the primitive warring over territory and resources which is the way it is now and the way its been for a very long time ? Things are very different here in the west than elsewhere in the world.

    While things have advanced over the last 150 years its still pretty much the same world in relation to international affairs. Just with a shift in world power and influence towards the west. As with all other points in history there are certain areas with power where most people live a good standard of life, there are other areas where people get by and there as masses of people suffering as wars rage with people seeking to take power, territory, resources and others attempt to maintain that power, territory and resources.
    No, "we" operate many different civilizations and societies, organized along different political, economic, religious, and cultural lines. It's hardly surprising that some of these perform better than others.

    Like I said in the above post. I never said I was surprised that any perform better than others but I'm also not surprised that they also benefit from the power and influence they have over other societies and that this sometimes affects others to their detriment.
    All in all, the lives of 1.8 million people in Gaza tell us little about whether the other 7 billion people on the planet are progressing or not.

    Its not about Gaza its about armed conflicts and territorial control across the world. Whether as a civilisation its any different than any other point in time where groups and nations and people struggled and fought and killed to maintain control of territory and resources. And whether or not the progress you mentioned was indeed progress in terms of the civilisation moving towards a time when this wouldn't be the case or whether it was progress within the limits of that while not really changing it.




  • diveout wrote: »
    You cannot fully live and also fully protect yourself. You know when you learn to ride a bike chances are you are going to get some scrapes and bruising and get hurt. If you don't want to get hurt, don't learn to ride a bike. Or you could anesthise yourself but then you're body won't get the message it is injured and you can just carry on. This is real cake and eat it territory imo.

    Everyone afforded the same rights? I honestly don't know what that means. If that means we all agree to be robots, then no I don't really want that. Rights are not absolute for anyone and even if they were they can only come down to human enforcement, and that will mean imperfect applications, unless we all agree to be robots.

    Sorry I somehow missed this post earlier.

    Everyone afforded the same rights just means equality. Isn't what I described what western societies are becoming and the standard by which we judge others ? Where each individual has rights which are protected under law and each individual is treated with equality under the law ?

    Imperfect application and human error are to be expected to some degree. I'm not talking about a perfect society where everything is 100% perfect and error free with chance and risk removed and freedom restricted to ensure suffering is limited as much as possible even to the point of enforcing a robotic life on people.

    I'm simply talking about a world of peace and freedom. Where each country/state/society afford their citizens those same rights we think are essential. And where states and countries transcend this struggle for territory, control and resources. I'd see that as the end goal when I talk about the progress of civilisation. That's what I'm saying.




  • "Those who are nearer to reality can deal with it light-heartedly, because they know it to be inexhaustible" Golo Mann

    That may be a fancy way of saying "shít happens" but knowing what Mann lived through, there might be something to be said for it.




  • catallus wrote: »
    "Those who are nearer to reality can deal with it light-heartedly, because they know it to be inexhaustible" Golo Mann

    That may be a fancy way of saying "shít happens" but knowing what Mann lived through, there might be something to be said for it.

    Could you expand on that a tad in the context of the progress of civilisation ?




  • Could you expand on that a tad in the context of the progress of civilisation ?

    OP saying that progress depends on people not fighting.

    As long as there's two people breathing on the earth there will be disagreement.




  • catallus wrote: »
    OP saying that progress depends on people not fighting.

    As long as there's two people breathing on the earth there will be disagreement.

    Not really. I'm talking about nations and societies themselves, not the primitive act of two men fighting over some disagreement. That primitive act is dealt with in society. You cannot go out and fight and kill, its against the law.

    Yet in terms of war its justified to as I said control territory, resources etc. The UN and such are there to hold nations to account for breaches of international law which includes unlawful fighting and killing. Its limited and not completely effective but the concept is correct I believe.

    Possibly in the future we'll see this concept of international law, and a union of states encompassing the entire world with all states agreeing to a common shared international law and it being adhered to with each state having rights and equality under that law just as citizens in any society. And it being effective in stabilising the world and reducing and dealing with conflict along with effort to reduce violence and conflict within each of those states.

    It may not happen for a very long time or even at all but while its true that while there is two sides there will be disagreement that disagreement does not have to develop into conflict nor does it have to be accepted if it does.




  • You can of course go out and fight and kill: it is one of the most basic rights there is. To fight a tyrant is the noblest calling there is.

    The concept of the UN is one of being an arbiter.

    To think human institutions can eradicate human disputes is pipe-dreaming.




  • catallus wrote: »
    You can of course go out and fight and kill: it is one of the most basic rights there is. To fight a tyrant is the noblest calling there is.

    You're claiming fighting and killing another human being is not against the law and is in fact a basic human right ? I don't think you believe that, yet that's what you're saying.
    The concept of the UN is one of being an arbiter.

    To think human institutions can eradicate human disputes is pipe-dreaming.

    Nobody has said anything about eradicating human disputes.

    This is the problem with trying to discuss these things with one line responses. Its a slight bit more complicated than can be expressing in sound bites without quoting any particular piece of a detailed post. So there's going to be a lot of stuff lost and confused if you try to do that.


  • Advertisement


  • I took the most salient part of your post to respond to. Apologies if you think I'm diminishing the debate, but I don't think I am.

    I think your OP was mostly pointing out that human disputes should be eradicated if "civilisation" is to "progress", maybe I'm mis-reading.

    It's only as complicated as we make it.




  • Ah but we have the right to do anything we want, good or bad. And someone else has the right to exact a punishment, just or unjust.
    The right is usually given or taken in society, through force, but we all inherently have these rights. Some of us just don't realise they exist, like many other rights.
    But this is semantics...

    Regarding the UN, I kind of agree with catallus.
    It's a lovely ideal world to imagine, where nations band together with a fair set of rules to keep every nation in "order".
    But the day all nations band together like that, is the day you lose all hopes of freedom from government oppression.
    With such a system, a world army might be one thing I would be wary of.
    The UN is just as corrupt as any other organisation with power.
    It is that way inherently I think. I have for a while been considering the saying "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and I can't yet see how that is not true.
    There is a good reason that the word anarchy and the philosophy of anarchism is frowned upon and viewed as chaotic, dangerous, communist connotations even. It's the chosen education for the masses, through movies, education etc.

    It's a big threat to power of any kind held over others.
    It's embracing the individual and making individuals responsible for themselves.
    This can be scary for those who want to be lead or are afraid to grow up. But if we don't start to grow up, we all become powerless and let others run our lives, which is what is happening when we allow a select group of people who con their way into power through business, contacts, brown envelopes and advertising etc, to decide on our actions and quality of life.

    The reason all these wars happen now and in the past, is the power the masses give up freely or through intimidation or lack of education.
    A brilliant example is the first vote on the Lisbon Treaty. I actually read it... I didn't vote(I will never register either).
    I could clearly see at the time many glaring holes to leave room for all sorts of antics. Yet I am pretty damn sure a massive portion of voters did not read it. I would be surprised if 10% of voters actually read the first one. And that got a no vote!
    So, round two comes along, due to our country having made the wrong choice(LOL?).
    The amendment was just as bad and not even legally binding to the original treaty. And they vote again, this time passing it.
    What this tells me, is that voters shouldn't have the right to vote in this kind of setup for a functioning society. It's completely ridiculous, a joke if it were not a reality...

    Anyway, thanks to the uneducated voters, we have all sorts of issues coming our way, not just the ones we are feeling now. Wait till a real war kicks off... We will see how that treaty serves us then.
    We are also no longer a neutral country thanks to this, if my memory serves me right.
    In my view this whole system is completely flawed and results in the issues mentioned through these posts.

    Even going back to tribal wars in africa, I bet there were some leaders behind that, pushing peoples religious views and steering the majority towards action. Power corrupts...
    Take it away I say! Lets all learn to be leaders. It needs to start somewhere.
    Creating a world power will just make things worse again from the results of nations, if you take them as a smaller test sample.
    Look at our nation as it functions, or malfunctions :)
    Then look at county councils and how they "function", then look at families.
    Where does the root of the issues in each area come from? Whatis the common factor?
    Is it power? possibly. I am not sure on that last part, I just thought of it now lol




  • The war and violence in both the twentieth and twenty-first century make me think of George Carlin's take on humanity:

    'We're still operating out of the lower brain. The reptilian brain. Fight or flight. Kill or be killed. We like to think we've evolved and advanced because we can build a computer, fly an airplane, travel underwater, we can write a sonnet, paint a painting, compose an opera. But you know something? We're barely out of the jungle on this planet. Barely out of the ****ing jungle. What we are, is semi-civilized beasts, with baseball caps and automatic weapons.'




  • This post has been deleted.




  • Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    I would say it depends on how one looks at power and influence PB. Yes political and military empire building power has ebbed from the west, but it's ebbed as a trend anyway. As a way of growing economies it's gone the way of the dodo(for now anyway). You don't require army garrisons around the world to trade/move money and resources anymore.

    On that score the west has declined much less. The West overall is still the largest consumer market. Yes it has farmed out the production side to cheaper areas, but the west is largely in control of that too. China has grown massively in two odd decades because of a demographic spike of cheap labour. Western companies took advantage of that. If tomorrow Chinese production costs jumped(and that tomorrow will come IMH), the same western companies could and would go elsewhere. While local Chinese industry is moving forward with their own design and innovation, most of what they produce is western in design and innovation and much of the cash goes west too.

    Cultural influences worldwide are almost entirely western in nature, with some local flavour thrown in. Fashion, music, film and other cultural media is western(even political systems). A Chinese businessman drives to work in a car that's either western or aping same, wearing a three piece suit, listening to western type music on the radio, working in a western style business environment and going home to watch western type TV or films. If a martian landed tomorrow I'd bet they'd report back that most of the world is Western in nature and practice.

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • Wibbs wrote: »
    The West overall is still the largest consumer market.
    Oh, that's ebbing away too.




  • This post has been deleted.




  • I think China is just using a more long range tactic overall. The east is generally more "right brain" dominant. Which means future thinking and less instant progress.
    The story of my life :D Wide strong foundations, but not speedy progress.
    The west is the counterpart. The question is, what happens when they marry? :D




  • Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Oh certainly PB the west, particularly Europe faces some serious challenges. For me anyway the demographic shift is the biggest threat. The young drive the economy. More young people means more workers who are cheaper and more entrepreneurship. I would say that is even above political systems. I mean China was hardly a political system that encouraged individual entrepreneurs, yet China has boomed. Their demographics drove it and their demographics will slow it too. Never mind the Chinese government cooking the economic books, their demographics and the vacuum following that will tell way more. Check out the stats for primary schools. Half have shut down because the kids aren't there like they were. The move from the countryside won't address this as the demographic shift down is pretty much countrywide.
    Again, that has been true -- but it is also changing. Note the growing influence of China on the Hollywood film industry, for example.
    And in the 1980's when Japan was the economic miracle Hollywood rushed to add in Japanese angles too. Hollywood as ever plugs into trends. It's good business. Russians were baddies, then they were goodies, then it was the AAArabs etc, but IMHO that doesn't say much for the longterm.
    Torakx wrote: »
    I think China is just using a more long range tactic overall. The east is generally more "right brain" dominant. Which means future thinking and less instant progress.
    That's somewhat of a fallacy though. Historically China has innovated incredibly at times, but that innovation nearly always stagnated. China at its heart is an empire not a country and that colours things. It means centralisation, tradition and dissent from the provinces. Through the ups and downs in its economic history this has always been the case. Consider a peasant in China in 1000 AD. His lot would show very little difference to a Chinese peasant in 1900 AD. When Western powers started making inroads into China in the 18th and 19th century they found a culture that was pretty much medieval in nature. Now consider a peasant in Europe across that time period. Monumental changes by comparison. China has been here before. They were a powerhouse of trade in the 18th century, but within a generation that reduced massively.

    The west, why did it keep "winning"? Complex factors indeed, but much of it IMHO was down to internal competition alongside some nebulous feeling of belonging to a wider "west". We see this in Europe in a big way. Rome, the empire(like China, cool, but pretty stagnant after a while) falls. To be replaced by individual kingdoms ready and willing to compete with each other. However, they also had a binding factor in Christianity, an empire of the soul by any other name. It's not called the Roman church for nothing. You had that separation of church and state and that separation came early. "My kingdom is not of this earth" etc. Now the separation ebbed and flowed but it allowed for continuity and diversity all at once. Even when the reformation came it just meant two continuities at play* and competition and innovation went batshít at that point.

    And that's before we get to social mobility. Europe - particularly after the various plagues that decimated populations - had more social mobility. The actual American dream, but awake and in practice and wide practice with it. A man could through his innovation and graft go from peasant stock to the doge of Venice within a generation(that happened. Thrice). Hell in Rome that happened. IIRC it was Cicero(maybe Seneca) who sniffily bitched like a toga'd up Gore Vidal that the Roman senate was full of descendants of slaves. One of the big hitters in Pompeii was the son of a slave. That happened far less in the rest of the world, especially in China.

    So I would say - if we're going the right/left brain route(which I don't quite buy into) - The West/Europe worked both and that's the best route, so long as you have the demographics to back it up.

    OK I'm rambling. I've been awake for 18 hours, so I beg your indulgence. :o If I get more rest and read this back I'll likely agree with ye that I was talking without recourse to my mouth...


    *again IMHO that's why the EU is a bit of a failed concept and will contnue to be in its present form, it tries to marry the two. To become the state and "religion" of Europe and does neither the local, nor wider Europe that much good. We may feel European, but in a weird way we don't always want to act European.

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.



  • Advertisement


  • Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Except that Hollywood's influence is waning because there are what...three studios left due to buy outs. Now all the interesting things are on TV and Netflix because independent film directors have moved to television and netflix. I bet more people watched Breaking Bad then all the Oscar nominated films combined.

    So I really wouldn't be sweating over them catering to the Chinese...the Chinese maybe the only ones willing to watch Hollywood films anymore.


Advertisement