Soldato
We should be aspiring to colonise other planets - that funding for space exploration has barely changed from the 1980s to today is a massive betrayal of every human on the planet. Our future isn't here on Earth.
What is the aspiration of modern civilisation?
- Thread starter NVP
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,168
Well what about Bill Jobs?
Thats what Donald Duck REALLY enjoys...
Soldato
You're getting caught up in the noise. Is the world better now than it was 500 years ago? 1000 years ago? 5000 years ago?
The world is incredible brutal, its difficult to survive, go live in the mountains and try and have the easy life you have now. It's pretty much impossible. We learnt early on to coexist and create tribes to distributed the work.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
The only noise I'm getting is someone else's assertion that the modern world is awesome because some people make useless **** and empty promises to sell us, and they get rich while we don't....
In some ways, yes. In other ways, no.
Depends what you consider to be better.... Yes, we're living much longer, but we're also heavily overpopulated and life is a rat race to get as much as you can for as little as possible.
The planet is pretty darn ****** up from what we've done to it and we've hunted many species to complete extinction.
Obesity is a way of life and it's nigh-on a crime to even mention that it's unhealthy.
Sex and gender can be changed merely on an individual's say-so and anyone who disagrees is villified.
Paedophiles are similarly villified, yet the practice has still become so widespread and organised that even the most technologically advanced law enforcement organisations cannot cope.
We have solved many issues of the past, but in doing so created many more of our time, and these are not so easily or readily solved.
Is that what you consider to be better?
I'm guessing the increasing number of people who commit suicide around the world feel differently.
So many people have done this "impossible" thing, that there are numerous TV programmes and YouTube channels all about them. It's clearly not that difficult and, if you can monetise it, clearly profitable too!
Once upon a time, no-one could climb Mount Everest. Nowadays you only struggle against hypothermia, because you're standing in the queue to reach the summit!! Seriously, it's a wonder Disney hasn't put a leisure park in, with TV screens to watch in the queue and signs telling you the average waiting time at each point.
And the age-old fights over that distribution, as well as the distribution of the resulting wealth, are still raging on.... I guess the world hasn't improved a jot in 5,000 years, then, eh!!
Soldato
generally we all want more money, more this more that and walk over everyone to get it
i try very hard not to be materialistic but it's hard in this society
(try not getting envious when you see a beautiful large detached houses overlooking the sea)
i'm really not sure of the answer, more money more stuff seems to be the order of the day
i'll keep trying to find the inner peace just
Are they really fighting over a store brand TV?
The aspiration of modern civilisation should be to continue where it left off in the 90's, being individuals but also part of a collective that pushes an overall goal. That we didn't see people of other opinions as an enemy, but as a friend who we could convince.
But since the promotion of individualism people become selfish and insecure. Now the aspiration seems who can cause the most trouble for other people. Who we can make a total enemy of today. Who's side we can jump on to mob other groups or people, even though in life its an extremely petty argument.
I have hope that we will drift back to natural nature and we'll again feel part of a collective. We just have to get past the current madness which as been allowed to fester and promoted in our society.
But since the promotion of individualism people become selfish and insecure. Now the aspiration seems who can cause the most trouble for other people. Who we can make a total enemy of today. Who's side we can jump on to mob other groups or people, even though in life its an extremely petty argument.
I have hope that we will drift back to natural nature and we'll again feel part of a collective. We just have to get past the current madness which as been allowed to fester and promoted in our society.
Soldato
Yes, it is awesome, you can be living on the breadline and walk into a supermarket and buy 5kg of rice for £10. 500 years ago, you starved to death. That is undeniable better
Again, its just more noise. There is less people in poverty, less people ruled by tyranny and people are more free than ever in our history. I call that progress.
Do you think society in 500 years time will be worse or better?
You're missing the point, walking into a supermarket and buying a weeks worth of food to refrigerate is extremely easy compared to living off the land.. Living off the land requires pretty much all of your physical energy, in the modern world, that weight is taken off our shoulders. You are free to go to the cinema, to do hobbies, to invent stuff, to create a business which employs people that puts food on peoples table. I never said it was impossible, it's just far harder than our current format, that's why you don't see people in the millions giving up going to the supermarket to go live in the woods.
Wealth is distributed more equitably than it was 5000 years ago actually.
I recommend this book to read..
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B005HHSYMW/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i1
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
500 years ago those living on the breadline worked the land in return for food and housing from the land lord, who had a strong interest in keeping his workers alive and well.
These days, you have to go begging the government for handouts, which are funded by taxation of other people.
Poverty reduction has really only dropped in the last decade or so. Previously about 35% of the world was living in poverty. However, as a result of Covid and oil prices, poverty is forecast to sharply increase again. World Bank predicts that, in addition to those in 'poverty', about 60 million people will be classified as living in 'extreme poverty'.
People more free than ever... except those making all our useless tat that gets sold for pittance on Amazon and Banggood... In fact, it's so bad, they actually had to introduce laws, like the Modern Slavery Act.
As for tyrrany - Who do you think the tyrants of the modern world are, exactly? Some bad guy in an action film? Some foreign dictator? Or the consumerist First World nations that perpetuate the evil working conditions of the Third World by buying all that useless tat?
At the rate we're going, 'society' will be the few ruling elite, who govern an identity-less massed population of genderless zombies permanently connected to online social media, perpetually consuming content to generate resources that keep those few elite in power.
No, that is the point - Walking in is easy... but working however many hours it takes to generate however much money you spend in there, not to mention all the stresses of whatever job you do, and however much time you had to study to qualify for it is all part and parcel of what it takes, before you can even get to the front door... You cannot ignore all the difficulties people go through in this area, but then compare that to the complete process of someone living off the land. You either look at everything each side has to go through, or just realise that owning and picking whichever foods you want from your fields and forests is far simpler and cheaper than having to buy the substandard ***** from Morrisons.
Convenient does not mean it's easy, or any good... and you not realising the price that had to be paid for it, or having to pay it yourself, does not mean it didn't cost someone else a lot!
Also, for some in this 'easy-peasy' modern world, they still struggle to put bread on their table, despite working three or four jobs.
Again, might be off your shoulders, but someone else's shoulders have still had to bear it. You cannot be ignorant of this pretty obvious fact.
Living off the spreadsheet takes a lot more in terms of mental energy, though, and in many cases far more. That workplaces actually have qualified Mental Health First Aiders now is testament to that and strongly suggests that it's nothing like as easy as you seem to think. The increase in mental health problems further substantiates this, and the suicide rates among domestic farmers isn't very promising either. Bad enough that we pressure our own, but we then push that stress onto foreign farmers and expect them to deliver what ours can't, and for a fraction of the price - Talk about hideous medieval practices!!
How is that better than 500 years ago, eh?
Free?
No-one has time for that:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...longest-hours-in-eu-study-finds-a8872971.html
People think it's harder. It's not, it's just different. In truth, sustainable living and all that stuff is quite in fashion, these days.
So?
People are still arguing over it, right? That was the actual point I raised, right?
If you're going to talk about missing the point, make sure you're not the one missing it.
However: https://voxeu.org/article/europe-s-rich-1300
That suggests that, for the most part, the top 10% of rich elites who own the wealth has remained constant for a good 700-odd years. There are also studies that suggest American inequality has gotten worse over time.
But 5,000 years ago? Things were not as unequal as you might think... https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/aracheology-wealth-inequality-180968072/
In general farmers with more advanced technology, such as it was, did have a bit more wealth but things were still pretty even, overall.
That trend looks to have continued today, so while we might have amazingly advanced technology like iPhones and Dyson Turbo Vacuum cleaners and Tesla electric cars, there's a **** tonne of people who cannot afford that useless **** and
"Flawed reasoning and broadly sweepeing assertions based on cherry-picked examples, and telling people what they think they want to hear"?
No thanks. He's one of those that likes to write "FACT." at the end of a sentence and assumes that merely doing so makes it so.
Moreover, if you have to sell me someone else's book (see assertions above regarding selling useless junk) to support your argument, you've already lost.
Soldato
Surely you are not suggesting serfdom is better than the current state of affairs?
Just read this...
https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts
This sums up poverty/freedom over a longer timeframe
It's irrelevant whether its fashionable, it takes up a lot of the day, whether that would be catching meat or growing vegetables, time and physical exertion are far higher, you can get a weeks worth of food within 60 mins when you go to the supermarket, it is a far more efficient use of time.
Nothing wrong with debating the topic, but your post insinuated that life now was no better than 5000 years ago, the Pereto Principle is very difficult to overcome but what we do know is that the people at the bottom are much better off than people 5000 years ago.
As has been proven by this article..
https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts
Is the world perfect, of course not, but it sounds like you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Do what you want, but the facts don't support your idea that the world is getting worse when looking over a long timeframe.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
A serf is indentured directly to the lord on whose land he lives. He has certain rights and entitlements, and his lord must fulfil his obligations to his people, lest he be taken to court by his serfs, stripped of his lordship and then punished for failing to supply his own liege with the various yields (men, crops, livestock, products) required of him by his title.
A slave, meanwhile, is ruled by corporate law, shackled by the meagre salary with which he must then line the pockets of some other master for the use of a house, before lining the pockets of yet more greedy corporate slave drivers and perpetuating the enslavement of food producers foreign and domestic, and then yet more slave masters for pretty much everything else he buys. He is one slave, in a long chain of slaves.
But don't take my word for it. Ask people what it's like to live in, say, China or North Korea. How free do they feel, do you think? How about any of the other GSI's estimated 45 million people living in outright slavery this very day?
Substantiates a lot of what World Bank has asserted. Large percentage of the world still in extreme poverty up to the last 10 or 15 years, even citing higher percentages than World Bank sources, in fact.
Does not disagree with my assertions at all.
Did you have a point with this?
And how do you think any of that food comes into being at the supermarket, eh?
Who do you think grows it? Magic robots?
Somebody somewhere is still slaving away making all that food for your convenience. Nothing has changed in that respect, since the dawn of proper agriculture around 10,5000 BC.
All that's happening with these people living off the land today is they're cutting out you and all your corporate convenience middlemen.
Just because you can't be arsed to actually work for your food, doesn't make their choice of lifestyle in any way less than yours, and the fashion element suggests an increase in such lifestyles.
Not a new idea, either - Are you old enough to have seen The Good Life?
So when I said, "In some ways, yes. In other ways, no. Depends what you consider to be better....", which is pretty clear and insinuates nothing of the sort.
I am more focussed on those aspects where modern life is not as 'better' as you seem to think, as well as those aspects of history that were not as bad as people generally assume or have erroneously made out to be.
You require a balanced view, but are only presenting one side of that see-saw.
In some ways.... but not in others. And you clearly don't know, for I have already corrected several of your historical inaccuracies.
Pareto is actually very easy to imply in many cases, especially to those where is does not actually apply and really should not ever be applied... A lot of people managing engineering projects, but without any solid understanding of engineering itself, often try to apply it while citing that golden "20% Savings Challenge"... not realising that the 20% is still necessary to achieve 100%.
As has not actually been proven, as the article does not go back far enough. It really only covers 200 years, whereas you talk of looking as far back as 500 and even 5000 years. During that time entire empires rose and dominated their respective parts of the world, and from which came much of the culture we still regard as of the highest. In many cases those people were even more prosperous and less impoverished than we are today.
Indeed, in many ways, the slaves and indentured servants of yesterday also had a higher standard of living and legal protection than the lowest of today's society. It wasn't always how they depict it in movies, you know...
There's a lot about this modern world that need throwing out.
To quote a well-known article on the matter, "That it is possible to make progress against poverty is important to know because even after two centuries of progress poverty remains one of the very largest problems in the world".
That guy's don't, perhaps.
But if you do look at the actual facts, rather than paying money (oh, the irony) for some opinion piece by a pretty unqualified author, especially when the historical facts are very widely available, you'll find quite a different perspective. I presume you didn't read the peer reviews of his work...?
Last edited:
Soldato
It was clear as day i have been talking about how society over the long term has been getting better, you are the one who brought up the issue with that fact. Example, this post about poverty..
That's not true though, poverty has gone from 80% of the worlds population to less than 10% over the course of 200 years.
I asked you simple question about whether you would prefer to live under serfdom, would you?. I'm fully aware of China, i was born in Hong Kong and lived in Beijing for many years, i understand kind of well how it works over there.
Yes, that society over the course of a longer timeframe is getting better, i assumed you understood my position
"Somebody somewhere is still slaving away making all that food for your convenience. Nothing has changed in that respect, since the dawn of proper agriculture around 10,5000 BC"
Yes, its easier now though, isn't it? Green revolution? machinery? Again, the world is getting better.
I have no issue if people want to live off the land, why would i. We're talking about the state of society and making generalised statements, people don't want to live off the land, its harder, i don't see how that is a contentious point. We have consensus across the whole globe that living off the land is not easy and less preferable by the very fact hardly anyone does it.
What historical accuracies have you corrected? I'm not following.
If you wanna talk about society on smaller timeframes, thats fine. But i don't understand why you took issue with my initial post making a broad statement that society is getting better over the long term.
That graph goes from 80% poverty to less than 10% over the course of 200 years, from 1800. Before 1800, poverty was hardly 30% or something, was it? It would have been higher, all the way up to 100%, we all lived in poverty by todays standards if we go back far enough, no?
i don't disagree, there is a lot to be done still. Why would i disagree with that.
My original point still remains, we've come a long way, society is demonstrably better in terms of freedom and poverty than at any point in history (generally speaking)
I don't like this current narrative that the whole system needs to be torn down though, there does seem to be a lot of people out there that believe that.
That's not true though, poverty has gone from 80% of the worlds population to less than 10% over the course of 200 years.
I asked you simple question about whether you would prefer to live under serfdom, would you?. I'm fully aware of China, i was born in Hong Kong and lived in Beijing for many years, i understand kind of well how it works over there.
Yes, that society over the course of a longer timeframe is getting better, i assumed you understood my position
"Somebody somewhere is still slaving away making all that food for your convenience. Nothing has changed in that respect, since the dawn of proper agriculture around 10,5000 BC"
Yes, its easier now though, isn't it? Green revolution? machinery? Again, the world is getting better.
I have no issue if people want to live off the land, why would i. We're talking about the state of society and making generalised statements, people don't want to live off the land, its harder, i don't see how that is a contentious point. We have consensus across the whole globe that living off the land is not easy and less preferable by the very fact hardly anyone does it.
What historical accuracies have you corrected? I'm not following.
If you wanna talk about society on smaller timeframes, thats fine. But i don't understand why you took issue with my initial post making a broad statement that society is getting better over the long term.
That graph goes from 80% poverty to less than 10% over the course of 200 years, from 1800. Before 1800, poverty was hardly 30% or something, was it? It would have been higher, all the way up to 100%, we all lived in poverty by todays standards if we go back far enough, no?
i don't disagree, there is a lot to be done still. Why would i disagree with that.
My original point still remains, we've come a long way, society is demonstrably better in terms of freedom and poverty than at any point in history (generally speaking)
I don't like this current narrative that the whole system needs to be torn down though, there does seem to be a lot of people out there that believe that.
Last edited:
Mine is to have very little to do with Mainstream Stupid. That's been easy as I ignore Stupid. Which sadly means ignoring mainstream.
Then also living with as little as possible. The less I can get used to, the less I need, the less i have to work, the sooner I'll have my freedom from having to trudge to the salt mines every day.
It's my mission in life to completely retire from HAVING to work before I'm 45. In a way I could do it now, but the sacrifices will be intense and objectively not worth it. Another 5 years (just turned 40) and we'll be in business with this early retirement/part time work thing.
Then also living with as little as possible. The less I can get used to, the less I need, the less i have to work, the sooner I'll have my freedom from having to trudge to the salt mines every day.
It's my mission in life to completely retire from HAVING to work before I'm 45. In a way I could do it now, but the sacrifices will be intense and objectively not worth it. Another 5 years (just turned 40) and we'll be in business with this early retirement/part time work thing.
Associate
Wow that’s really interesting. I’d be keen to hear more about how you live and what you earn/save/spend etc to achieve this. What things do you live without compared to the average Joe to keep expenditure low?
If you're yet to see his epic thread, @regulus honorably admitted to encountering severe gambling debt and now is living in provided accommodation whilst paying it all off via an amazing channel on pr0ncams.com
What NVP said below. I do webcamming for money!
But in all seriousness. We spend very little money. Although the money is pretty much a side note at this point. It was/is a wholesale restructuring of our entire lives to figure out what's important and what was not. We went down to minutiae. An example would be ... mushrooms. Was eating mushrooms important enough to us to spend the money to buy it every week? Did we taste it in the food we mixed it in with? We tried food without mushrooms and it tasted no different. Which means we saved on average $10 a week, or $520 a year. So onto the scrapheap it went. Things like that. Same with onions. Same with the slightly more expensive washing powder. We schedule our clothes washing and power use time around off peak power use to get cheaper usage rates. We buy pretty much 99% of our stuff 2nd hand. And I mean, pretty much 99%. We realized we don't care for eating out so we stopped doing that. I mean, we do it enough through our jobs (where the company pays) that we don't waste our own money doing it.
I can write heaps more but people that's not used to this lifestyle would see it as cheap and miserly and invariably start crying about it. It's intentional and figuring out what's important to us, what adds to our lives and what's completely redundant and can be cut to save costs. For example, last year we did a European holiday and we paid for Business Class upgrades without batting an eyelid. Me being 6'2 and my partner early stage pregnancy, you bet we wanted to be comfortable. That was intentional. When my newborn daughter is a bit older, we'll head to Australia on holiday and you bet we'll stay in luxury and probably fly business too.
I was speaking to a South African guy last week that just moved over here (well, sometime before Covid). They had some sort of water crisis over there a while back. He was telling me that he got so good saving water that their water bill was essentially zero. For example, he'd get into the shower, wet himself, then turn off the water, wash himself, his hair, turn on the water and rinse. Water was on for a total of 30 seconds in a 5min shower. He learned to do some amazing things to conserve water. It became 2nd nature. It's kinda the same thing.
So yes, the idea is to try and save and invest wisely to buy back a bit of Life for ourselves whilst we're relatively young. I'd like my daughter to experience living in different countries and cultures without having to worry about funding the expedition or being chained to a job my entire life.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
I have no issues. However, I do have challenges to several elements of your assertion:
1/. You still have not defined what you consider to be better and by what standards or measures you judge society on this.
2/. Even generalising, I have given numerous examples of how society is not only not better, but has actually gotten worse.
3/. You have assumed that your subjective opinion is irrefutable fact, and that your readership not only understands this but also concurs and accepts it as such, which is why I am able to highlight so many issues with it.
4/. You seem to also gloss over how the definitions of poverty and slavery have changed. One factor used in most sources, including those you've cited, is the availability of electricity and the Internet - 140 years ago almost nobody had the former and certainly no-one had even imagined the latter.
Actually poverty went up from only 40% 500 years ago, to almost 80% 200-ish years ago, to 35% for most of thereafter, and only dropped nearer to 10% post-millennium.
As mentioned earlier, increases in technology are generally accompanied by an increase in wealth disparity and an increase in impoverished populations... and we're so very, very advanced nowadays, which is one of the factors contributing to World Bank's forecast increases of both poverty and extreme poverty in the next few years.
Most of us already do, which is why the question is irrelevant.
The formats have changed, but we are still slaves of the system. As much as 75% of the population now works in a service or service-based role, and only 15%-odd of working people are self-employed. The remainder are serfs to whichever company lords they serve.
How then is society is 'better' today with **** like that still going on?
You might buy your slaves using Apple Pay or something wonderfully advanced, but it's still slavery...
I don't understand your position though, because as the evidence presented to you shows, society is not getting better.
Society is certainly changing and, as I have already pointed out twice, some things have improved.... but others have gotten worse, and we've introduced numerous other problems along the way, so for many reasons, it is NOT getting better.
How is it easier?
More machinery and more people to feed increases the demand for more work and more produce, which requires more workers working much harder and for lower wages, while supermarket slave-masters command even lower purchase prices, resulting in rapidly farmed crops and poorly raised livestock (battery hens, for example) - The end result is an increase in farmer's bankruptcy and suicides and some seriously poor quality food. The very people we depend upon to provide food for us to conveniently buy from the supermarket in a time-efficient manner are the ones we're destroying with our convenient lifestyle. They are our slaves and we're beating them into the ground.
Tell me how this is in any way 'better'?
But they DO want to live off the land, as evidenced by the large number of private gardens and allotments across the country, by all the garden centres that sell seeds, herbs and crop plants, by all the trends toward more self-sufficient living. Many people take it up because it's less stressful than being an office worker and because they get to escape to the country, get some exercise and be free from all the city ****. One I know gave up her very highly paid job as an actuary in London, to go be a groundskeeper somewhere on a remote farming estate up in Yorkshire.
It's becoming so popular that there's a load of articles like this: https://grocycle.com/small-scale-farming-ideas/
Even on my own work sites (water utilities), the company is leasing out its spare land to people who want to farm stuff, now and we're encouraging this by supplying them with free sludge fertiliser from the sewage treatment processes. People clearly DO want it, and enough of them want it that corporate moneygrabbers like my lot are jumping on that profitable bandwagon!
For many people, keeping livestock and growing their own veg is more of a hobby than a full-time living, but mainly because of land ownership constraints. Many of those who own larger parcels of land can (and do) self-farm enough to be completely sufficient. Even my own landlady rents out the fields behind our house to a local farmer. Land availability is the biggest issue here, not a lack of people willing to live off it.
If hardly anyone does it, how come so many of the supermarkets are still even in business, let alone able to keep their shelves as full as they do?
Clearly someone is farming all that food and supplying the world's convenience stores!!
"500 years ago, you starved to death".
"There is less people in poverty, less people ruled by tyranny and people are more free than ever in our history".
"Wealth is distributed more equitably than it was 5000 years ago actually".
"what we do know is that the people at the bottom are much better off than people 5000 years ago".
All assertions with no basis in history, and refuted even using some of your own sources.
Take your pick - You've mentioned 200 years, 50 years and 5000 years ago. I quite readily took these markers that you gave me and sucessfully challenged your assertions regarding them.
My point stands - Across the expanses of time society has changed in a great many ways, but that does not mean it's got better...
Because you don't define what 'better' is, and you are deliberately ignoring all the ways in which it has not, regardless of whichever way you want to look at it, done anything except worsened.
Actually, the sources within that very article and linked directly from it show poverty in the 1600s at around 40%.
This is precisely why I said earlier that it actually increased to 80% before slowly dropping to 35% around the turn of the millennium and then sharply dropping to 10% in the last decade or so.
But again, you don't even define poverty, let alone factor in how that definition has changed with the development of society.
Poverty was virtually unknown within the Roman Republic and early Empire. Some men were poorer than others, but so many still had access to the resources for basic standards of life that it did not present an actual problem for society.
I won't even go into the different types of poverty, as defined by the causes (conjunctural, social, structural, economic, political), but you do have to pin down what poverty actually is and by what means you measure it.
The problem remains. It hasn't gotten better, it has just changed.
You have yet to demonstrate how it is better.
So far you've only shown that there are age-old problems which you don't have to directly deal with because of your life choices and conveniences, and that you're able to ignore them (perhaps even pretend they don't exist) because they've been foisted onto someone else far away and out of your sight.
Not something I've brought up, so I don't know why you're mentioning it here....
Soldato
We need to cut down on all these individual quotes, there are several times when the same points are being made.
1/ I'm judging society on freedom, ability to survive (food/water/health/general danger) and science.
2/ No, you haven't, as a percentage of worlds population, all of those markers i have mentioned above have got better over the long run. Just because you have an issue with a man saying he wants to be women, does not mean society is in the pits.
3/ No, i'm basing it just on the books i read. You've highlighted society has changed, you haven't really made a case for society getting worse for the collective though. They seem to be individual grievances.
4/ These are simple terms to understand, only people trying to be difficult would link 5th century slavery to the modern day rat race, the 2 are not comparable in any stretch of the imagination.
Where are you getting these stats from?
I take your point about the percentages can go up or down over a smaller time frame depending on macro events, like after WW2, there would have been an increase in poverty.
I've read several books on the Roman Empire though, and at the height of it, GDP per capita was something like $600 (£450) in todays money. That puts the majority of people in the bracket of struggling to feed yourself during the week, you might only have 2 to 4 meals per week, and that doesn't include slaves.
..the modern day rat race is in no way comparable to slavery of the past.
Society going by the general markers of ability to feed yourself, freedom, health and danger is getting better. More people are free, more people can feed themselves, less diseases kills us, its less dangerous.
Because people worked harder and for less money than they do now.
Whatever you think about today and how bad it is, it was worse. The amount of people that have been saved due to the green revolution and modern day farming machinery is unparalleled.
Norman Borlaug alone probably saved a billion lives with science.
Why do you think people in 3rd world countries want to move away from subsistence farming?
Just because you have a few people that enjoy growing crops as a hobby, doesn't mean the whole population want to suddenly start doing it, the majority of people prefer to go to the supermarket.
1/ I'm judging society on freedom, ability to survive (food/water/health/general danger) and science.
2/ No, you haven't, as a percentage of worlds population, all of those markers i have mentioned above have got better over the long run. Just because you have an issue with a man saying he wants to be women, does not mean society is in the pits.
3/ No, i'm basing it just on the books i read. You've highlighted society has changed, you haven't really made a case for society getting worse for the collective though. They seem to be individual grievances.
4/ These are simple terms to understand, only people trying to be difficult would link 5th century slavery to the modern day rat race, the 2 are not comparable in any stretch of the imagination.
Where are you getting these stats from?
I take your point about the percentages can go up or down over a smaller time frame depending on macro events, like after WW2, there would have been an increase in poverty.
I've read several books on the Roman Empire though, and at the height of it, GDP per capita was something like $600 (£450) in todays money. That puts the majority of people in the bracket of struggling to feed yourself during the week, you might only have 2 to 4 meals per week, and that doesn't include slaves.
..the modern day rat race is in no way comparable to slavery of the past.
Society going by the general markers of ability to feed yourself, freedom, health and danger is getting better. More people are free, more people can feed themselves, less diseases kills us, its less dangerous.
Because people worked harder and for less money than they do now.
Whatever you think about today and how bad it is, it was worse. The amount of people that have been saved due to the green revolution and modern day farming machinery is unparalleled.
Norman Borlaug alone probably saved a billion lives with science.
Why do you think people in 3rd world countries want to move away from subsistence farming?
Just because you have a few people that enjoy growing crops as a hobby, doesn't mean the whole population want to suddenly start doing it, the majority of people prefer to go to the supermarket.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
Yes, because you seem to have ignored or disregarded them the first, second and even third time.
Then you need to define what that freedom looks like and use a measure that applies to both the old world and the modern one, bearing in mind how much has actually changed in that regard, as previously explained - We have escaped one prison, by shackling ourselves to another. That is not freedom.
Same for ability to survive - In the old days it meant being schooled in weaponry and having a successful trade, whereas today it might mean having lot of Twitter followers and being knowledgable about investment portfolios. We still have many people without access to clean, safe water, even in developed First World nations. Our food quality is hampered by processing, chemical additive longevity, low price demands, excesses of luxury, industry, and many other factors - Arguably, a peasant in Ye Olde Dayes ate meals that we would consider high end nowadays.
Science is a questionable one - There have been a plethora of studies on all sorts of things, yet we have far fewer definitive answers and even less measurable progress as we still squabble over the same points, and there's a lot of ******** research going on. Half of it is merely biassed to support the big corporations who are funding this in order to sell their products, while another load is just... well... stuff like this: https://time.com/4026473/ridiculous-science-studies/
Were you not listening, or something?
Mass deforestation, holes in the ozone layer, species extinction, diseases and illnesses caused by industry, the embracement of mass obesity, blanket whitewashing of history, human trafficking and child abuse beyond effective control, warfare and NBC weaponry on an unprecedented scale, entire nations bankrupted overnight... you think these things are in any way good?
You think these things prove that we are 'better' than before? Or are you somehow ignoreing all that and only focussing on a very narrow definition of it, which allows you to cherry pick evidence like the guy whose book you recommended?
Our lifestyles are ripping society and the planet apart, and you tell me that's 'better', that's 'progress'?
Not by even general standards, and particularly since you seem to be assuming much about the historic world when so much evidence is to the contrary.
I have no such issue. That man can 'say' whatever he wants...
I do take issue with society suddenly agreeing that such an individual is correct and thus is a woman purely on his say-so, with that assertion being supported by law, in complete ignorance of thousands of years of history and science that all say otherwise, though.....
Yes, well, based on the sort of book you recommend, I don't think that really does your opinion any favours. That's probably why I can still find so many issues with your assertions and, let's be honest, if *I* can pick apart your argument, it's probably really flawed!!
As such, I've made quite a few cases, but you have not even addressed them, let alone refuted them.
Oh?
Must be an awful lot of difficult people out there, then, all those advanced society artists and all... Why do you think they call it 'slave to the wage', then?
Mental and physical slavery are still both forms of slavery, and just because we have transitioned from one to the other does not mean it has ended.
Nice glossing over the primary issue of poverty in that point, though.
You supplied a link that covers it, including further links to it's other articles, and World Bank have a whole section on poverty trends, global and localised, throughout history, though theirs is primarily focussed on identifying trends which provide accurate financial forecasting.
I take your point about the percentages can go up or down over a smaller time frame depending on macro events, like after WW2, there would have been an increase in poverty.
It does, but only if you completely ignore the lifestyles and standards of the day, how life was far cheaper, how people impacted the economy differently, how many of them were subsistence workers, and instead try to apply modern standards to historic situations.... which would be monumantally retarded and exactly what your Mister Pinker was called out for doing.
The fact that the Empire (and Republic) survived and thrived for so long completely destroys your assertion that the majority were struggling just to eat. If that were so, then they'd never have had the manpower to enslave and conquer anything, as they'd all be dying of starvation.
I strongly suspect you simply Googled this and have plagiarised an article or two, since you have made the very same errors as they did, including using the value for 1990 Dollars, and ignoring that inflation would today put quite a few countries below even the Empire in terms of GDP P/C, although even they would still be considered propserous.
Well I and plenty of other people can and do quite readily make that comparison, so unless you've actually had a bash at it, or are prepared to offer more than a mere blanket assertion to refute it, the point stands.
The face of it may have changed, but it is still slavery.
See above points about different not always being better, together with the reminders about your misunderstandings of historical life compared to today.
Upon what do you base your assessment of 'harder', exactly?
Hours worked? Stresses endured? Mental health issues suffered?
Have you seen the conditions that so many Amazon workers are complaining about?
Less money... Only because things cost less and people needed less 'stuff' in their life. See above comments regarding all that, which funnily enough seems to be what triggered you in the first place.
So you keep saying, but never demonstrating, contrary to all the evidence regarding it. Saying so does not make it so.
There's just as much criticism levvied against the Green Revolution for increased ecological demands, negative environmental impacts, overpopulation, excess calories, decreased food security, and the ignorance of political and economic impacts and influences.
The benefits of the Revolution are merely temporary and also limited.
This coupled with failures to reduce famines, in ignorance of the above, merely substantiates my assertion that while we have improved some things, we made other things worse and created new problems in the process.
You'll have to explain how you think modern day machinery saves lives, though.
Machinery has certainly become more necessary in order to meet the increased demands for supply of crops, but at the same time they present problems in terms of maintenance, cost and increased fatalities.
Indeed, HSE asserts that "Agriculture has the worst rate of worker fatal injury (per 100,000) of the main industrial sectors. It is eighteen times as high as the average rate across all industries".
So once again - With solutions come new problems. Different does not mean better.
At the expense of others, with all the other issues that resulted, yes, but let's not dweel on the drawbacks, eh?
They can make more money from cash crops, with which to buy the iPhones that we sell them along with the American Dream.
They also have a much bigger advantage with larger agricultural sectors, far bigger multiplier effects and, most importantly - Very few alternatives growth strategies anyway. They pretty much have no other option.
A few?
In recent times, that 'few' would be millions - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8160095/Millions-Good-Life-turning-growing-food.html
But it's nothing new in Covid-times, either: https://www.sundaypost.com/in10/home-and-garden/garden-people-growing-produce/
"45% of Brits seek out a horticultural equivalent of a babysitter for their beloved fruit and veg when away on holiday"
That's not 45% of Brits grow something. That's just the percentage of Brits who ask their neighbour to water the veg!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18094945
https://www.which.co.uk/news/2011/0...row-your-own-trend-is-still-on-the-up-259281/
You also have companies leaping to make a profit from leasing parcels of land to these people, even if it's just small allotments. That's more than just a few hobbyist gardeners. Even councils have profited from this practice through the leasing of lands to County Farms, although that is in decline as they are now selling off the smallholdings that they previously let out.
So, as I said, the availability of land is the key issue here. If more land was available, more people would see it as a viable option. For now, small scale subsistence farming is about the best they can get and/or afford.
Soldato
We can't keep going back and forth like this. I understand your points, you obviously understand mine, we'll agree to disagree, we won't be changing each others minds any time soon, we'll just continue going back and forth like this getting pretty much nowhere.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,310
I don't disagree with the general idea of your assertions, so there's nothing about my mind that needs changing in that regard.
I just find your assertions and assumptions as presented completely contrary to the evidence, past and present, and I disagree with the assertions (by you and others) that one or two isolated incidents of highly debatable success are sufficient evidence for blanket statements concerning the entirety of human society.