Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Godlimations. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Is the world getting better or worse?
Topic Started: 8 May 2010, 11:53 AM (1,695 Views)
Luemas
Member Avatar
DELICIOUS!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Wait wait wait.
I'm going to say this, just for once.

We're having philosophical debates, over philosophy?

One man's controversy is another's religion ay?
Posted Image
I think I'm Crazzzy. I think your crazy. I think your crazzzy... probably.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Afalstein
Member Avatar
Mountain Gnome
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
conradw
26 May 2010, 07:45 PM
Afalstein
26 May 2010, 04:07 PM
OThe atheist Aldous Huxley Jr. wrote a VERY scathing portrayal of humanity and society in "Brave New World."
You clearly have no understanding of Huxley's work. Brave New World is to serve as a warning. Island is to serve as an aspiration. He in no way suggests that mankind is damned to the world of Brave New World.

Jefferson's idea of a government has served as an extremely successful model for nations all around the world, especially in adopting secular morals and ideals, fair and tolerant societies, and governments ruling only at the behest of the people. Marx similarly showed that the wealthy have no intrinsic right to rule, and that all people regardless of their birth are to be afforded dignity, education, care, and support: again he, like Jefferson, argues rulers (this time economic rather than political) are to rule at the behest of the workers.

And as for being ultimately wrong, I'm sure Concolor will be able to tell you what happens to a nation, such as Norway, which has both a strong socialist and libertarian tradition - some of the highest living standards in the world.
Dude, I did a REPORT on Huxley's work. Granted, that doesn't mean I understand it, but I did research it very carefully, including Huxley's own ideas. Yeah, it's a warning... a warning about where human tendencies lead. What happens when you try to make a world where everyone is happy. Actually, I argued in my paper that he presented it as the logical result of democracy, as it was the absolute equalization of all people, and the desire to please everyone. "Everybody belongs to everybody else." But that's a whole another debate.

And "warning" is virtually inextricable from "prediction." Huxley's warning IS his prediction of human tendencies and desires run amok. Actually, considering some things about the world today, one wonders how far off his prediction was.

I note, also, that you have failed to address any of my other examples: Conrad, Bakhtin, Hobbes, Wells, etc. I suppose, though, that to answer all of them would be excessively long and tedious, so I can understand that.

I'm inclined to consider what you're terming as "Jefferson's" ideal more as the "American" ideal, which was shaped not only by Jefferson's thought, but also Hamilton's and Adams'. Jefferson's ideal logically applied leads to something like the French Revolution, which, granted, Jefferson was wise enough to learn from.

As for Marx, he 'showed' nothing, showing implies he proved something, which arguably he did not. He theorized that the world was driven utterly by material motives--a theory one might consider more depressing than elevating--and argued that money ought to be redistributed among the poor, if not willingly, than forcibly.

To be fair, this is an (ironically) Christian ideal, apart from the forcible part. You can't legislate morality, and compelling people to be generous kinda ruins the point. But again, another argument. The point is, Marx's ideals, once put into practice, DID NOT WORK, because humans don't work that way. As I believe you noted, humans take their own interests into account, not those of the collective good. Or, to paraphrase, humans are innately selfish. Hence, human behavior is an innately downward cycle.

Norway is one of the few successful examples, I will concede. I have my own opinions of why that is. Suffice to say, they're not really following Marx's example, and I don't really think their system has actually been tested yet. But that's theoretical, and thus can't be argued.
"Evil Triumphs when Good men do nothing."
-Edmund Burke
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'd like to point out that my nation, as well as the kingdom of Sweden, the kingdom of Denmark and the republic of Finland, are not theoretical but actually quite real.

Marx constructed a political ideology. As an adogmatist I'm equally skeptical to both political and religious ideologies. Wherever there is dogma, I will be uncomfortable.

Afalstein:
 
As I believe you noted, humans take their own interests into account, not those of the collective good. Or, to paraphrase, humans are innately selfish.
This is quite demonstrably wrong. Humans are not innately selfish, they are comprised of both selfish and selfless elements. Humans of all cultures and creeds can be observed to act both in the interest of themselves and the collective good. I can see no evidence that humans can be considered either innately good or innately bad.
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luemas
Member Avatar
DELICIOUS!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Here's a question. Did you ever have a cookie jar, or a snack you really loved when you were young Concolor?
Posted Image
I think I'm Crazzzy. I think your crazy. I think your crazzzy... probably.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yes, there were many a treat I enjoyed and still enjoy today.
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luemas
Member Avatar
DELICIOUS!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Did you ever, say, eat too many treats, even after your parents told you not to?
Posted Image
I think I'm Crazzzy. I think your crazy. I think your crazzzy... probably.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I can't ever remember my parents telling me not to eat so many treats, but I once ate so much chocolate that I felt really sick and after that I've been a lot more moderate in my snacking habits.
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
conradw
Goliath
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I detect a trap...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Sure, but that should not really matter should it?
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Concolor
28 May 2010, 05:01 PM
I'd like to point out that my nation, as well as the kingdom of Sweden, the kingdom of Denmark and the republic of Finland, are not theoretical but actually quite real.

Marx constructed a political ideology. As an adogmatist I'm equally skeptical to both political and religious ideologies. Wherever there is dogma, I will be uncomfortable.

Afalstein:
 
As I believe you noted, humans take their own interests into account, not those of the collective good. Or, to paraphrase, humans are innately selfish.
This is quite demonstrably wrong. Humans are not innately selfish, they are comprised of both selfish and selfless elements. Humans of all cultures and creeds can be observed to act both in the interest of themselves and the collective good. I can see no evidence that humans can be considered either innately good or innately bad.
whats the go with having 48% of your earnings taxed ? please explain :unsure: and with all the cash stash from the petrolium :'( what if ...oh nevermind....

anyway i agree with Concolor *i know bloody miracle :o * in that i also beleive we people are inately selfish and selfless and sometimes both at the same time...which is a bit of a worry.

hey whats Norways imigratation policies like-i know the coutry gives 1 percent of the Gross Product profit whatever u call it -to developing countries but ur not big on multiculturalism atr ya? (im asking) you all sort of do alright cause everyones the same - thinking... :whistle: :ermm:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concolor
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@ARAREC: Living standards are fairly similar in all the Nordic countries despite the fact that Norway is the only one with petroleum resources. One might argue that this shows we're not putting the money to good use, and in some ways I could agree to that.

I'm a bit worried by the fact that we both agree on humans being both selfish and selfless at the same time, but I'm sure we'll disagree soon enough. :)

Our immigration politics are similar to other European countries, we all have set UN quotas we take in. Norway has a system of family reunion-policies which means we usually take in the rest of the family of people who take residence, allowing more people entrance than what would otherwise be the case. Norway is a bit cold and rural in many people's opinion so immigrants from Africa or Asia tend to stick to the bigger cities. Or most prominent non-European import-countries are Pakistan, Somalia and Vietnam. Next to pizza, kebab is probably the nations most consumed dish.

I'm not sure why you would think that the ethnicity of the population would have a larger impact on a nations economy that the choice of economic system. I'm also not sure why anything would be better by people being more similar. In my experience problem-solving depends on as many different viewpoints as possible.
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through.

Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy! Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
I'm not sure why you would think that the ethnicity of the population would have a larger impact on a nations economy that the choice of economic system. I'm also not sure why anything would be better by people being more similar. In my experience problem-solving depends on as many different viewpoints as possible.



yes ideas for solutions are expanded by different viewpoints but solving of problems usually comes when viewpoints become united,merged or you could say somewhat similar.

anyway i didnt say ethnicity has a larger impact on a nations economy than choice of econoomic system- its just that most Norweigians think alike about it i guess or at least the majority do.
hey whats this about "blue eyed freedom?" in your national anthem.........? :blink:

i :love: kebabs & Pizza ^_^
Quote Post Goto Top
 
chocolatepope
Crab King
[ *  *  *  * ]
Good question. I think we have reached a plateau, or maybe it's a result of getting older.
I want to thank you for being a part of my
Forget-me-nots and marigolds
And all the things that don't get old
Is it legal to do this? I surely don't know.
It's the only way I have learned to express myself
through other peoples' descriptions of life
I'm afraid I'm alone and entirely useless

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Midst Of Vampy
Member Avatar
Barabbas
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
conradw
8 May 2010, 11:53 AM
So guys, After Vampira made a very good point about us going off topic, I decided to make a new topic.

What do you think. Is the world getting better or worse? Please qualify your answer
hm, I did that? I don't remember doing that. :blink:
TIMEY-WHIMEY SKITTLES!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RobTaylor
Member Avatar
New Member
[ * ]
I said worse only because if you've heard the statement "The richer get richer and the poorer get poorer," that's basically our world. Even middle class in the first world are having trouble getting by despite we have so much. In terms of whatever first, second or third world situations, at the rate things are going, especially economically, the richest are going to have to make a decision to help the world before we hit the wall and either go into total chaos or get rid of the whole money deal.

In terms of work ethic, with all our new devices, which does make things more efficient, a younger generation in the first world will look to hav things done automatically when not everything is exactly a push-button thing.
- RobTaylor

Never forget that you oughta know that you oughta know that you should never forget.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic »
Add Reply