Where is western society headed?

[Rick]

I'm thinking apart from the elections and politics. Where do you think we are headed as a society? When I ask this, I'm thinking of the EU, Canada, and the western hemisphere.

What is your "picture" of the future in 5 years? 10 years? Is it manageable or will there be chaos? In asking this, I'm thinking of immigration, terrorism, technology, patriotism (or lack thereof), assimilation, wars, and economics.

Any thoughts regarding Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, and similarities to Pax Americana?

The "peace" of each of these eras have been predicated on "accepted rules". What's going to change?

[The Rose]

I think we're headed down the tubes.
I dread the thought of having grandchildren.

[Oversphere]

I think the west is in the beginnings of a long, slow, relatively painless decline, not unlike the decline of the Roman Empire. In true INTJ fashion, I have a somewhat off-the-wall theory. We have our own situation that is oddly similar to the Roman Empire's widespread lead poisoning. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I think that our material success and technological innovation has already led to, and will continue to lead to significant and arguably detrimental genetic changes in the overall population.

From the beginnings of human evolution, up until sometime during the 20th century, the vast majority of humans lived in primitive conditions. If you were not strong/healthy enough to survive childhood in primitive conditions, you never got the chance to reproduce. For the vast majority of westerners, this is no longer an issue. There are now lots of westerners making babies who would not have made babies had they been born 100 years ago.

Then there's the issue of hereditary intelligence (or perhaps hereditary potential for intelligence). Now I know that we can all think of dozens of exceptions, but because of the way our society and economy are set up, more intelligent people tend to make fewer babies and make them later in life. Making as many babies as possible as quickly as possible is an evolutionary advantage in the west, with its extremely low infant mortality rate, but it is a huge social and economic disadvantage for most westerners. Most intelligent people choose to avoid social and economic disadvantages to some extent. I realize that this is based on the assumption that intelligence is directly inherited, but I think it's a reasonable assumption.

Last but not least, we've got abortion. I've read opinions that the drop in the overall crime rate starting in the early 90's was a direct result of Roe v. Wade in 1973. The idea is that because abortions are a lot more common among poor people, lots of poor (and presumably criminal) babies were never born. It seems a bit of a stretch, but if you had a control group, statistics might bear it out. Anyway, that idea made me consider the affect of abortion on religious vs. nonreligious folks. This, of course, presumes that a tendency to be religious is hereditary. I think that it's unimportant whether there's a genetic component to it, because religious people usually make it a point to pass their lunacy on to their kids. I suspect that the rise of the neocon movement is a direct result of roe v. wade. The assumption is that abortion affected the reproductive rate of nonreligious folks to a greater extent than it affected religious folks. This has been going on for about 24 years now, and the effects should increase exponentially as a smaller and smaller population of nonreligious folks becomes less able to restrain our growing theocratical tendencies. It'll be good times.


I think that China and India will slowly become the dominant economies, and thus the dominant countries. I read someplace that India has a huge surplus of technically educated folks. They're well schooled in theory, but in a lot of cases they have little or no equipment to work with. We have a contrasting problem in the west. Plenty of resources, but not enough smart people. That's why we import so many doctors and engineers from india. Most people in India are still living in primitive conditions and making lots of babies, and plenty of them are smart babies. I think that this is a huge advantage in the long term.

China's situation is a bit different from India's, and I'm not sure if they have as large a long term advantage. They have that one-child policy, which has led to a lot more males than females. They do have a lot of people living in primitive conditions, so that's gotta help. They also have long term planning, which is something the west has never had.

[logan235711]

ooooh I'm positive on the outlook of our future. We can do it! :thumbsup:

[rocksteady]

I think the west is in the beginnings of a long, slow, relatively painless decline, not unlike the decline of the Roman Empire. In true INTJ fashion, I have a somewhat off-the-wall theory.

most of your reasoning in this sounds good to me. bleak outlook overall, but still plenty of room of individual success :)

[OneBadMother]

I agree. The role of the United States as world superpower is more or less over. We've become a marketplace for entertainment and services, rather than real material goods. The rest of your reasoning sounds equally viable, though I do dread the idea of fanaticism taking over the country. I'm sure that there'll be lots of finger-pointing as the U.S. finally comes to terms with no longer being a superpower, and a movement to "return to our puritan roots". Maybe I'll move before it gets too bad. :P

[justmeiguess]

I believe that things are circular, that history repeats itself. Put another way, we humans have a tendency to not learn from one another's mistakes.

The religious battles being fought now have been fought many times before. Christians and Muslims fought over religion and land way back in the Crusades of the 11th-13th centuries, just as they are doing today. And before them, people of the other prevaling religions of the day fought in just the same way.

The so called 'dumbing down' of Western culture, the 'intellectual decline' is something that has been seen before too. The time of the Ancient Greeks and Romans is considered one of great intellectual and technological progress. After the fall of the Roman Empire, many books were destroyed and their technology fell into ruin. This became known as "The Dark Ages". Incidentally, this was only "The Dark Ages" in the West; in the east things were going swimmingly. Then came the Renaissance, a surge of European intellectual growth. Suddenly, everything was hunky-dory again.

As for the so called "moral decline" some people talk of happening to the West (:thinking:)...

"The world is passing through troubling times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress."
Attributed to Peter the Hermit, AD 1274


... it would appear that this has been going on for centuries!

What I'm trying to say is that human history is just a series of peaks and troughs. Whilst I'm not suggesting that we should just sit back and let things happen because "it will all be OK in the end", I do think that (to paraphrase Mark Twain) reports of the death of the West have been greatly exaggerated.

[OneBadMother]

I completely agree, it just seems more relevant to us now because we can only see such a small timeframe in our lifetimes. We never do learn from the cycle, but I do think we've made an overall trend of ever-so-slight progress even with the ups and downs.

[Meyer]

I hope we are headed for more truth in reporting and the media. Right now at least in America we seem very closed off from what our government is actually doing and what we are told. We are pitched some bullshit about spreading democracy and freedom around the world when I think the motives are of a much more capitalistic nature. Even if this were not the case who are we to decide that all countries should be a democracy? So it works for us, assuming the dollar does not collapse, everyone should follow it. Thats like telling your neighbor "because my children are in bed by 8 and are so well adjusted you must also have your children in bed at that time" Simplistic analogy I know but our arrogance is really quite ignorant at times. Lets face it our government is relatively young in a global sense, and may need to do a little "evolving" itself.

[Mechanical Messiah]

I think the west is in the beginnings of a long, slow, relatively painless decline, not unlike the decline of the Roman Empire. In true INTJ fashion, I have a somewhat off-the-wall theory. We have our own situation that is oddly similar to the Roman Empire's widespread lead poisoning. I think that our material success and technological innovation has already led to, and will continue to lead to significant and arguably detrimental genetic changes in the overall population.


I'd like to introduce myself as OverSphere's relatively optimistic Clone. As one might expect of Clones, we look pretty much alike, we're both diesel mechanics, both hillbillies, and are both non-traditional (i.e. old) engineering students. I am, however, somewhat less introverted and judging than my recalcitrant Clone... and my worldview has definitely been modified by my 7 year marriage to a damn fine INFJ female.

But back to the topic at hand: I don't directly disagree with any of Oversphere's points, but I have significant doubts about some assumptions... and larger doubts about the importance of some of these trends.

From the beginnings of human evolution, up until sometime during the 20th century, the vast majority of humans lived in primitive conditions. If you were not strong/healthy enough to survive childhood in primitive conditions, you never got the chance to reproduce. For the vast majority of westerners, this is no longer an issue. There are now lots of westerners making babies who would not have made babies had they been born 100 years ago.

The implication here, I assume, is that the massive decrease in infant death rate ( and survival in general) will yield a less "fit" population over time... leading to social decline. I have my doubts, though. First of all, similar increases in survivability of the 'less fit' are occurring all over the world- currently to a lesser extent outside of the west, but the gap is steadily closing. Second, significant genetic changes to a population take A LOT of time- I seriously doubt that any measurable change could happen in less than a few hundred years. Third, being married to a psychologist, I've become aware of the massive detrimental effects that poverty, death, and nasty conditions can have on members of society- and society as a whole. People dealing with constant sickness, death, violence, corruption, and any other trappings of certain third-world countries will rarely have the resources or time to study, learn, and contribute fully to society. It's a destructive feedback loop that we in the west are managing (for whatever debatable reasons) to avoid to a point. We in the west have major advantages over developing countries... and I expect that we'll maintain them.

And as a purely anecdotal point, neither OS nor I would likely have survived infancy without the benefits of 20th century technology.


Then there's the issue of hereditary intelligence (or perhaps hereditary potential for intelligence). Now I know that we can all think of dozens of exceptions, but because of the way our society and economy are set up, more intelligent people tend to make fewer babies and make them later in life. Making as many babies as possible as quickly as possible is an evolutionary advantage in the west, with its extremely low infant mortality rate, but it is a huge social and economic disadvantage for most westerners. Most intelligent people choose to avoid social and economic disadvantages to some extent. I realize that this is based on the assumption that intelligence is directly inherited, but I think it's a reasonable assumption.

Again, true enough. But I have two reasons to be less concerned with this trend than you are. First, as previously mentioned, significant genetic changes in a population can take quite a long time to occur. IMO, there are plentiful reserves of inherent intelligence among the unwashed masses... just waiting to be released when certain genes are randomly combined.

As direct descendents of Poor White Trash, OS and I are good examples of this.

Also, as has been evident during my time at three colleges, China and India are sending their best and brightest here to the U.S. and many of them are staying. I think that bodes well for us.


Last but not least, we've got abortion. I've read opinions that the drop in the overall crime rate starting in the early 90's was a direct result of Roe v. Wade in 1973. The idea is that because abortions are a lot more common among poor people, lots of poor (and presumably criminal) babies were never born. It seems a bit of a stretch, but if you had a control group, statistics might bear it out. Anyway, that idea made me consider the affect of abortion on religious vs. nonreligious folks. This, of course, presumes that a tendency to be religious is hereditary. I think that it's unimportant whether there's a genetic component to it, because religious people usually make it a point to pass their lunacy on to their kids. I suspect that the rise of the neocon movement is a direct result of roe v. wade. The assumption is that abortion affected the reproductive rate of nonreligious folks to a greater extent than it affected religious folks. This has been going on for about 24 years now, and the effects should increase exponentially as a smaller and smaller population of nonreligious folks becomes less able to restrain our growing theocratical tendencies. It'll be good times.

#1: 24 years is less than insignificant from an evolutionary perspective.
#2: Considering the inherent cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy required to identify with major anti-abortion religious denominations in the U.S., I see little reason to believe that religious people are any less likely to have an abortion than nonreligious people. This would assume that people "practice what they preach", which is the exception in my experience. Also, there are several studies showing that nonbelievers are the fastest growing religious orientation- and have been for some time... which contradicts your suspected trend.
#3: If there is a genetic component to religion, I see no reason to believe that there would be a significant corrrelation between said genetic component and anti-abortion religious affiliations. One can see plenty of parallels between religion and other institutions/ideologies such as environmentalism, military service, mainstream politics, vegetarianism, animal rights, etc. I see no reason why a genetic predisposition to religion (or 'tribal behavior'?) would distinguish between these institutions and -isms vs. what we conventionally call "religion".

[Mechanical Messiah]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently posts are limited to 8500 words. I had a couple hundred extra. Here's the rest:


I think that China and India will slowly become the dominant economies, and thus the dominant countries. I read someplace that India has a huge surplus of technically educated folks. They're well schooled in theory, but in a lot of cases they have little or no equipment to work with. We have a contrasting problem in the west. Plenty of resources, but not enough smart people. That's why we import so many doctors and engineers from india. Most people in India are still living in primitive conditions and making lots of babies, and plenty of them are smart babies. I think that this is a huge advantage in the long term.

China's situation is a bit different from India's, and I'm not sure if they have as large a long term advantage. They have that one-child policy, which has led to a lot more males than females. They do have a lot of people living in primitive conditions, so that's gotta help. They also have long term planning, which is something the west has never had.

I'll agree with your first sentence here based on sheer numbers and current trends. I strongly disagree with your view of primitive conditions as an advantage... unless perhaps your "long term" is on the order of a few millenia.

Considering the government planning that I'm aware of here in the U.S. and some of the disasterous results of "central planning" in the USSR, I wouldn't consider "long term planning" an advantage. In my anarchist/libertarian view... it's a massive handicap.

Also, China's population control laws have created a population of millions of males who have no hope of every marrying and/or having a family. Not sure what the outcome of this will be, but I doubt it'll be a good thing. Historically, it means war.

_________________________________________

Now that I've wasted a fair amount of time explaining why my Clone is wrong... I have physics homework to attend to. I'll get to my own predictions of western society later.

[drek996]

Our Government will be bought and sold, by corporations with way too much money and power. Eventually another huge war among the world will break out and the winners will divide up the spoils of their conquest. The everyday people will work to buy the almost meaningless crap that seems to occupy so many people, the earth will be bleed dry so someone can make a dollar and this cycle will just continue, until humans cease to exist (by are own hands or some cosmic power or just giant rock flying through space).

Or on a brighter side democracy could actually work and make the best society ever, well if we could only educate the masses (with the truth not the propaganda that the idiots never seem to see through) but it is hard to teach so many dumb people the truth...and I am not about to start trying I'd just start shaking the shit out of them saying things like get your head out of your ass. (so yeah I will not be a teacher as yo can tell)

[Oversphere]

The implication here, I assume, is that the massive decrease in infant death rate ( and survival in general) will yield a less "fit" population over time... leading to social decline. I have my doubts, though. First of all, similar increases in survivability of the 'less fit' are occurring all over the world- currently to a lesser extent outside of the west, but the gap is steadily closing. Second, significant genetic changes to a population take A LOT of time- I seriously doubt that any measurable change could happen in less than a few hundred years.

Well, I described my theory as a long, slow decline. I suppose I could have made it more clear that I meant it would be on a similar time scale to the decline of the Roman Empire (a few hundred years), but I thought that was obvious enough. Neither of us are particularly educated in genetics, but I have reason to SUSPECT that a few hundred years is A sufficient LOT of time. First of all, significant genetic changes can occur in a very short time under artificial circumstances. I just described a bunch of (unintentional) artificial circumstances in the west. Second, consider the town where we grew up, and the "towns" where our maternal grandparents grew up. Those towns are all probably less than two hundred years old. If those places aren't hellholes of genetic decline, I'll eat my hat.


Third, being married to a psychologist, I've become aware of the massive detrimental effects that poverty, death, and nasty conditions can have on members of society- and society as a whole. People dealing with constant sickness, death, violence, corruption, and any other trappings of certain third-world countries will rarely have the resources or time to study, learn, and contribute fully to society. It's a destructive feedback loop that we in the west are managing (for whatever debatable reasons) to avoid to a point. We in the west have major advantages over developing countries... and I expect that we'll maintain them.

As you said, conditions in some third world countries are slowly improving. The idea is that our genetic decline(we have a head start), combined with their economic growth(they have a head start, in regards to technological advancement vs. genetic decline), will give then a big advantage sometime in the future.



Again, true enough. But I have two reasons to be less concerned with this trend than you are. First, as previously mentioned, significant genetic changes in a population can take quite a long time to occur. IMO, there are plentiful reserves of inherent intelligence among the unwashed masses... just waiting to be released when certain genes are randomly combined.

Who said I'm concerned? We're talking about hundreds of years in the future. My interest is purely for entertainment value.



Also, as has been evident during my time at three colleges, China and India are sending their best and brightest here to the U.S. and many of them are staying. I think that bodes well for us.

This idea occurred to me today while I was changing a trailer tire. It was a glaring omission in my theory, and it's definitely something to consider. I have no idea how many highly skilled immigrants have emigrated to western countries, and so I have no idea if the number is significant relative to the population. I think it's safe to assume, though, that the number is insignificant relative to the populations of India and China.



#2: Considering the inherent cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy required to identify with major anti-abortion religious denominations in the U.S., I see little reason to believe that religious people are any less likely to have an abortion than nonreligious people. This would assume that people "practice what they preach", which is the exception in my experience. Also, there are several studies showing that nonbelievers are the fastest growing religious orientation- and have been for some time... which contradicts your suspected trend.

I'm not talking exclusively about the U. S. I've seen it mentioned in a lot of articles that the muslim immigrants in European countries are reproducing at a much faster rate than the native Europeans. Just pretend I bothered to look up the numbers, and I'll pretend you looked up the numbers concerning religious orientation. Also, I never contended that MOST religious folks practice what they preach. I only contended that there was a net difference between the affect of abortion on religious vs nonreligious populations. That only requires that SOME religious folks practice what they preach.



#3: If there is a genetic component to religion, I see no reason to believe that there would be a significant corrrelation between said genetic component and anti-abortion religious affiliations. One can see plenty of parallels between religion and other institutions/ideologies such as environmentalism, military service, mainstream politics, vegetarianism, animal rights, etc. I see no reason why a genetic predisposition to religion (or 'tribal behavior'?) would distinguish between these institutions and -isms vs. what we conventionally call "religion".

Like I said, for the purposes of my theory, a genetic component to religion is unimportant. Religion itself is the concern, regardless of its infection vector.

[Mechanical Messiah]

If those places aren't hellholes of genetic decline, I'll eat my hat.

While I don't disagree with your asessment of your hometown... that entire region is suffering the consequences of a classic brain-drain population shift. This has little or nothing to do with birth/death rates. All the smart and/or ambitious people simply move away.

I wasn't aware that you were talking about a timescale of hundreds of years, as I don't see trends on such a scale being even remotely predictable by the likes of us.

It's getting late. I'll save my prophesies for tomorrow.

[Oversphere]

While I don't disagree with your asessment of your hometown... that entire region is suffering the consequences of a classic brain-drain population shift. This has little or nothing to do with birth/death rates. All the smart and/or ambitious people simply move away.


The funny thing about brain drains is that they have exactly the same effect, on a shorter time scale, as smart people and/or ambitious people choosing to delay, curtail, or forgo reproduction. The net result is the same.

[prometheus]

I think the west is in the beginnings of a long, slow, relatively painless decline, not unlike the decline of the Roman Empire. In true INTJ fashion, I have a somewhat off-the-wall theory.

Here To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. is your whole evolution argument in a snazzy video format. The whole movie is good too.

[Umbrex]

It would seem like we are moving towards some kind of new world order.

I mean; look at what's going on around u.

The african union has been implemented. The EU just signed their constitution (or whatever u would call it), the US is purposely being ruined by the fed and the powers that be, while the american union (mexica, canada and the US) is in the works. The comming crash of the economy will be used as incentive to sell this to the american public. The asian union is underway as well. All of these unions hvae had the preliminary and promoting workd done by foundations, mainly funded by rockefeller. The essence of these unions is giving up sovereignty and centralizing of power, far far away from the general population.
These are the front steps of combining them into larger areas which are to become subject to central control.

If you look around with the right set of lenses, this is pretty obvious.

All we need to set it of is some sort of event which could trigger a global catastrophy, to sell it to the public.. Orchestrated by the powers that be. Problem-Reaction-Solution. They make the problem, which develops a reaction and ofc they have the solution ready. Look at what happened 9/11, where only days after the patriot act was signed in put into works a day or two after. It would be impossible to think up, draft and send it through congress in that little time, unless the paper would have been worked out beforehand.

My 5 cents.

[Splittet]

Then there's the issue of hereditary intelligence (or perhaps hereditary potential for intelligence). Now I know that we can all think of dozens of exceptions, but because of the way our society and economy are set up, more intelligent people tend to make fewer babies and make them later in life. Making as many babies as possible as quickly as possible is an evolutionary advantage in the west, with its extremely low infant mortality rate, but it is a huge social and economic disadvantage for most westerners. Most intelligent people choose to avoid social and economic disadvantages to some extent. I realize that this is based on the assumption that intelligence is directly inherited, but I think it's a reasonable assumption.

Have you heard about the Flynn effect?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think it kind of disproves your theory.

[gzeus]

We are not going anywhere, we are already there. It's just the continuation of totalitarian workings that we have to look forward to. And the population is dumbing down more every generation, yes we have more information, but what kind of information - filtered through, spinned and sensored. Even the internet is not as free as it used to be, with people visiting only a few major sites and getting news from only them. And those major sites being bought out by established media houses.

Idiocracy is kreeping in I am afraid. But hey as long as I have my BMW I am the man right? Oh wait, time to make that payment...

[Umbrex]

But hey as long as I have my BMW I am the man right? Oh wait, time to make that payment...


u nailed it there ..debt is todays chains of slavery!

the only difference between then and now is, that people are happy being imprisoned.

[iamnotspock]

The U.S. retains major advantages over Europe and Asia. They deal with far greater population density and much greater religious and ethnic strife. For this reason the next world war will be fought on their territory, again, not ours. Which means that we will again come out ahead.

Much is made of the China threat. But China has some problems. They are poisoning their population with pollution. They are suffering massive class conflicts. Their soil is eroding rapidly. And they have no outlet for political tensions. That will lead to a revolution sooner or later. And that will be a big setback.

Meantime, in India, they've got Pakistan -- nukes and unstable dictators mix like Hindus and Muslims on pilgrimmage. Good luck to them.

It's true that our money is rapidly becoming worthless. But American brands, American management techniques, and American technology are still globally dominant and in demand. When our currency craters -- due to our credit bubble and over-consumption and massive gov. debt -- this will simply be the chance for the world to devour our products once more. And our economy will rebound.

Overall, I am skeptical of all the doom and gloom. The Pax Romana was a long and productive period which even in decline held much sway. And there is no power today to match the American military empire. Our bases sit in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. There are no foreign bases anywhere in America. None of significance anywhere on our continent. And no real threats to our national defense anywhere in the hemisphere.

Much is made of terrorism. But you could knock down a pair of twin towers every couple of years without slowing the country down. From a military standpoint, the trheat is trivial. Basically, the past five years have shown that terrorists could not seriously threaten America, even catching us with our pants down. A suitcase nuke would change the equation. But not as much as you'd think.

In the end, America continues to dominate. We walked first on the moon. We drove first across Mars. We built the first bomb. We ended the last two world wars. There will be interrum setbacks. But there is no real rival on the scene for many years to come.

[karen]

well um, we have our left legs in the handbasket and there is this overwhelming feeling that if we just got in and sat down everything would be juuuuuust fine.

[Umbrex]

The U.S. retains major advantages over Europe and Asia. They deal with far greater population density and much greater religious and ethnic strife. For this reason the next world war will be fought on their territory, again, not ours. Which means that we will again come out ahead.

Much is made of the China threat. But China has some problems. They are poisoning their population with pollution. They are suffering massive class conflicts. Their soil is eroding rapidly. And they have no outlet for political tensions. That will lead to a revolution sooner or later. And that will be a big setback.

Meantime, in India, they've got Pakistan -- nukes and unstable dictators mix like Hindus and Muslims on pilgrimmage. Good luck to them.

It's true that our money is rapidly becoming worthless. But American brands, American management techniques, and American technology are still globally dominant and in demand. When our currency craters -- due to our credit bubble and over-consumption and massive gov. debt -- this will simply be the chance for the world to devour our products once more. And our economy will rebound.

Overall, I am skeptical of all the doom and gloom. The Pax Romana was a long and productive period which even in decline held much sway. And there is no power today to match the American military empire. Our bases sit in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. There are no foreign bases anywhere in America. None of significance anywhere on our continent. And no real threats to our national defense anywhere in the hemisphere.

Much is made of terrorism. But you could knock down a pair of twin towers every couple of years without slowing the country down. From a military standpoint, the trheat is trivial. Basically, the past five years have shown that terrorists could not seriously threaten America, even catching us with our pants down. A suitcase nuke would change the equation. But not as much as you'd think.

In the end, America continues to dominate. We walked first on the moon. We drove first across Mars. We built the first bomb. We ended the last two world wars. There will be interrum setbacks. But there is no real rival on the scene for many years to come.

excuse me, where the f... have u been the last 7 years ?

the US is going down - fast. the american union is being implemented. ur country is becoming more and more fascist, you're a joke to the rest of the world and you're about to go into a recession without equal. 800.000 foreclosures in 2007, what does that tell u ?

right now your politicians (tptb rather) are struggling to keep your economy alive untill after the elections where they can safely plummet whats left of your constitution/economy so they can justify the american union n ..open your eyes man!

[iamnotspock]

excuse me, where the f... have u been the last 7 years ?

the US is going down - fast. the american union is being implemented. ur country is becoming more and more fascist, you're a joke to the rest of the world and you're about to go into a recession without equal. 800.000 foreclosures in 2007, what does that tell u ?

right now your politicians (tptb rather) are struggling to keep your economy alive untill after the elections where they can safely plummet whats left of your constitution/economy so they can justify the american union n ..open your eyes man!

I've been right here in America. I take it you were somewhere else? So let me fill you in ...

First, my eyes are open. Every time George Bush said, "I have a strong dollar policy" I bought more gold. Or Euros. Or whatever. I get the economics of it. And when the recession comes I'll cash out my gold and by real estate cheap. But currency declines are GOOD for American business. We export more, import less. Some people will lose their granite counter-tops. What a pity. They couldn't afford them anyway.

Now, as for fascism, Europe would really be the expert on that one. Or South America. Or Asia. Or Africa. Or the Middle East. But as I recall, there have been no holocausts in America lately. No attempted genocides like Yugoslavia. No ex-KGB guys or military generals being president for life (Russia, Pakistan). Our presidents leave office at the end of their term. We Americans walk around our country with all the guns we desires. (Try that in Europe.) We don't even have to be legal to stay here. Hence the illegal immigration debate. You can't have 50 million illegals in a fascist state, now can you?

Perhaps you object to our military adventures, though. No doubt Iraq is a costly project. But it's not quite the invasion of Poland. Saddam wasn't running a love-in over there. It was a tyrannical state. A **fascist** state. It was a tyrannical fascist state which served American interests, which is why the invasion was ill conceived, but it was not quite a democracy.

Anyway, toppling dictators is what America has always been about. Europeans would be wise not to forget it. And so, for that matter, would the Chinese, who lost 35 MILLION people to Japanese invaders before America fixed that problem for them. The communists could never have gained power otherwise. It would have been an outpost of feudal Japan.

As for America being a joke in the world... I will just have to take your word for it. Frankly, I never got the European sense of humor. What is so funny about Jerry Lewis and Benny Hill anyway?

[errrzarrr]

I believe that things are circular, that history repeats itself. Put another way, we humans have a tendency to not learn from one another's mistakes.

The religious battles being fought now have been fought many times before. Christians and Muslims fought over religion and land way back in the Crusades of the 11th-13th centuries, just as they are doing today. And before them, people of the other prevaling religions of the day fought in just the same way.

The so called 'dumbing down' of Western culture, the 'intellectual decline' is something that has been seen before too. The time of the Ancient Greeks and Romans is considered one of great intellectual and technological progress. After the fall of the Roman Empire, many books were destroyed and their technology fell into ruin. This became known as "The Dark Ages". Incidentally, this was only "The Dark Ages" in the West; in the east things were going swimmingly. Then came the Renaissance, a surge of European intellectual growth. Suddenly, everything was hunky-dory again.

As for the so called "moral decline" some people talk of happening to the West (:thinking:)...

"The world is passing through troubling times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress."
Attributed to Peter the Hermit, AD 1274


... it would appear that this has been going on for centuries!

What I'm trying to say is that human history is just a series of peaks and troughs. Whilst I'm not suggesting that we should just sit back and let things happen because "it will all be OK in the end", I do think that (to paraphrase Mark Twain) reports of the death of the West have been greatly exaggerated.

History is repetitive, is like a sinousoidal. Some Latin American politician said history is a wheel in movement.





errrzarrr added to this post, 39 minutes and 50 seconds later...

u nailed it there ..debt is todays chains of slavery!

the only difference between then and now is, that people are happy being imprisoned.

I agree, I think there's a kind of slavery still on society, of course it is more subtle than the traditional one, but consumism and endless debt is that.

[Blacklustre King]

I see it in my toilet after I stand up; my hand is on the handle.

[prometheus]

I think this might be a hint, of a problem:

David Walker, Comptroller General of The United States, shooting straight.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Do you have $400,000 in your basement, that's what the government says every household owes.

I've come to believe it's not a When The S#!t Hits The Fan scenario, but how long have have we got, months, or a few years?

[iamnotspock]

Here's a tip: buy gold.

[prometheus]

Here's a tip: buy gold.

Hell, this late in the game you better buy canned goods and ammo.

[iamnotspock]

Hell, this late in the game you better buy canned goods and ammo.

Well, I just bought myself a good combat knife, which reinforced to me how much I need a real weapon. Now I am deciding between a .45 and a 12-guage. I am leaning toward the latter. I like how it works on vampires and Terminators ;-)

[errrzarrr]

hey, why americans loves so much weapons/guns/fire/violence ?

[thod]

No ex-KGB guys or military generals being president for life (Russia, Pakistan). Our presidents leave office at the end of their term

It could never happen that you would have one man as president and then his son takes over as president. Nothing at all like the US.

Anyway, toppling dictators is what America has always been about.

Such as the Saudi royal family or how about General Musharraf in Pakistan, not very democratic. But someone like Hugo Chavez is who is elected is not so popular with the US.

The US is not moral on this issue. If there is no US interest then then the US couldnt care less. They didnt stop the Taliban until they wanted Osama, they do nothing about Darfur. The only interest the US has in democracy is it tends to produce stable regimes which is good for business. The US's relations with other countries is about greed and self interest. Otherwise they dont want to know.

From an economics viewpoint gold is probably not the best thing to invest in. There are mountains of gold and more can be mined. Real estate is fine since they cant make any more. But oil is where its at. Peak oil production has passed and there is no more. Its a resource that will go up in value. Unlike gold its essential to make those fertilisers and power the tractors. Invest in companies with large oil reserves.

[Capt57]

But oil is where its at. Peak oil production has passed and there is no more. Its a resource that will go up in value. Unlike gold its essential to make those fertilisers and power the tractors. Invest in companies with large oil reserves.

What companies do you recommend? Oil is the uber crack of the future!

[prometheus]

hey, why americans loves so much weapons/guns/fire/violence ?


They are the great equalizers. They make a 96 year old, 80# granny equal to a 25 year old, 250# ex-con. They also are the last check against a failed government system headed toward tyranny.

[errrzarrr]

I dont agree.

[prometheus]

I dont agree.


What kind of reply is that? Why don't you agree?

[iamnotspock]

the answer is: both. I call it "goild" ;-)

As for the U.S. toppling dictators, of course we should only do that when it serves our purpose. one country alone cannot police the world. this is the problem in Iraq, imo

[jdc127]

All you all should check out Children of Men and the accompanying DVD extra movie short called, I believe, "The Possibility of Hope"

Powerful.

In truth, I am a pragmatic optimist. I believe that we are seeing the beginnings of a flowering of consciousness. I do believe we are going to see a period (probably several hundred years) before things get really good though. That is suppossing we haven't f-ed our ecosystems to the point of death and doom.

[Ian Ricketts]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes we like our stuff now don't we.

[Capt57]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes we like our stuff now don't we.

Good video...about 20min long. Maybe it's just a population issue; six billion eating, breeding, pooping people.

[FLBareBear]

Western Civilization is headed Down Hill like a Pig on Rollerscates. The U.S. is leading the parade. :thumbsdown:

[AgentofGaming]

Good video...about 20min long. Maybe it's just a population issue; six billion eating, breeding, pooping people.

What about the huge guy with the $ sign on his chest? lol
He has everything to gain from all this world destroying.

[futureperfect5]

East

[Theodoric]

This thread has enough doomsday predictors to fill a cheap supermarket tabloid.

I especially enjoy the 'American Union' proposal. That's something that will really go over well in the states. Unlike the European Union, there is no advantage (at least for the US) to implement it.

And like iamnotspock has pointed out so well, the decline of US currency is a good thing. In the short term it will make things difficult for a few people due to inflation, however it will encourage the return of manufacturing, foreign investors putting money into the US economy, and increased export of US goods to the rest of the world.

The current subprime mortgage 'crisis' that a few have pointed to as signaling the decline of Western Society is nothing more than the market correcting itself. The majority of the people that were effected by it should never been given these mortgages in the first place. Making on $30,000 USD per year you should never be able to get a mortgage for $400,000 USD. It would be completely impossible for someone to afford to pay the mortgage over its lifetime. Possibly the interest, but the principal would be barely touched. What this has done is finally readjusting housing prices to where they should be, making housing eventually more affordable. The best thing for people to do is walk away from their houses that were purchased on junk mortgages, sticking the financial industry with their own mistake. If this happened the financials would have to learn from their mistakes and adjust their business practices. The current bailout that is proposed will only do one thing. Reward those that got us in this mess to begin with.

And really, 800,000 foreclosures? Maybe in some little European country with only a handful of a million people this might be a problem, but in the US that has over 300 million people and over 100 million households this is practically nothing.

The brain drain and dumbing down of the west is yet another gross exaggeration. More people in the US are college educated than ever before. Many that are in colleges and universities are studying science and engineering. The fad of studying business and liberal arts in the past is gone. In the 70s and 80s that was where the bulk of jobs were, so it was out of necessity that people studied these fields. Now that engineering and science have resurged these have become a major focus of education. It is only the poverty stricken inner cities where the schools are failing. However, the middle and upper class school systems are doing quite well, graduating students and sending them to college in record numbers.

If the West is going to decline, we will see it happen in Western Europe and Canada where current socialist programs are bankrupting their countries, populations are aging considerably which are contributing to the huge loss in production and economic downturn, and racial and ethnic strife are starting to cause renewed tensions.

[Jgib5328]

America still is and for our lifetime will still be the main superpower in the world. We are still far ahead of the other countries in overall power and influence. We are on the decline, but still we outpace every other country and we still have our powerful influence. In the future it will be the US, EU, & China as the superpowers. You may be able to aggregate China and just include all of Asia. But that's how the world will be divided in the future.

Just because we are in a recession right now doesn't mean much, we will still have the economic dominance once we rebound.

[eternaltriangle]

The US and EU are on the decline - there is no way they can keep up with the rapid growth of demographic powerhouses like India and China. However, they will be able to retain their technological lead - fending off the prospect of foreign invasion. With higher incomes, and a stranglehold on the world's research universities, we still have a few good decades left. We can milk off the smart immigrants from elsewhere for a time (unless xenophobia wins out, which would be very bad).

Moreover, while computers seem to be slowing in their development, I suspect new innovations are on the horizon in biotechnology in particular. In brooding over the present moment of decline, we forget how much has changed for the better since the mid-90's. In the United States, crime is at its lowest level since the 60's, and technology has somewhat improved the way we live.

My world war three scenario involves the west as an intervener rather than as the central actor. My reasoning is as follows - both India and China have rapidly growing economies. However, unlike China, India has much more potential to go beyond a simple industrial economy (the notion, oft-repeated that industrial economies are "stronger" because the goods they produce are tangible is simply ridiculous - because industrial goods can be produced by a larger number of states, the value added in their production is lower). The already have the beginnings of a computer industry, and have freer institutions, which should aid in innovation.

However, China, which has fought border clashes with India before, will not like the prospect of being surpassed by India - a direct threat to Chinese interests. As such they will attack preemptively. I suspect India will lose initially, but that other states will rally to try to prevent Chinese hegemony in Asia. Who will prevail? I am not sure.

At home, I see some problem in the people of the west. They are stupid, whiny, over-stimulated, and I think, will become reliant on drugs and other forms of chemical stimulation as time goes on.

[futureperfect5]

So, where is society headed ... first, :book: let's get into some definitions ... I hope you remember that I am writing definitions for myself as a bilingual and not because I think that you guys don't know ...]

civilization: an advanced stage or system of social development
civilized: :huh: enlightened, refined, educated

society: 1 the sum of human conditions and activity regarded as a whole functioning interdependently
3b the customs and organization of an ordered community

culture: 1a the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively
2b the way of life of a particular society or group

economy: the wealth and resources of a community, esp. in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services

technological singularity: The technological singularity is a hypothesized point in the future variously characterized by the technological creation of self-improving intelligence, unprecedentedly rapid technological progress, or some combination of the two. [from Wikipedia, sorry] a trend of exponential growth, almost vertical by some furutists

Megatrends 2000 Naisbitt introduces, is about our standing "at the dawn of a new era. That we enter this new decade, our candidates for the most important, overarching trends influencing our lives are:
New Civilization (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Booming Global Economy of the 90s :undecided:
A Renaissance in the Arts
The Emergence of Free-Market Socialism
Global Lifestyles and Cultural Nationalism
The Privatization of the Welfare State
The Rise of the Pacific Rim
The Decade of Women in Leadership
The Age of Biology
The Religious Revival of the New Millennium, and
The Triumph of the Individual."Naisbitt's website (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Stoicism (which preceded Christianity, by the way ...): Seneca was a contemporary of Jesus and the Hellenism of the day is thought by scholars to have influenced society and early western religion. [See Wikipedia for full treatment ...]

cosmopolitan: free from national attachments or prejudices

________________________
Now, these are my thoughts with the concepts defined.

If you have studied ancient civilization, just as now, technology has advanced and had major impacts on the way people live and think.

So, yes society has changed. However, I cannot go to "decay" as a description of it. In my view, the impact is one of the perception -- by the individual now (more than the institutions which use to interpret life for us, especially state and church), and whether the individual perceives scarcity (wherein s/he must scrounge and compete for resources) or abundance (whereby everyone could have the necessities of life IF the proper distribution were available and applied to required resources).

In my view, individuals are socialized to recognize signs of scarcity or abundance and from that develop customs of acquiring what they feel are their needs as others in their spheres of influence have done before them -- learned behaviour, not inherent to the psyche or innate for the species.

Therefore, with technological advances approaching the Singularity -- in some ways, I think that the near vertical technology impact has begun with people having difficulty keeping up which causes frustration and a peculiar kind of alienation and this need for unfocused "anger management."

Old ways of providing for self, and family, are not producing the returns that they used to support the expected lifestyle -- this includes education, marriage, social standing ... So, these institutions are -- effectively, less attractive than they once were because in real terms they are meaningless and not providing the comfort and security that they once did.

It took some doing to get into this ... I would enjoy feedback.
__________________________________________________ ___

I'm thinking apart from the elections and politics. Where do you think we are headed as a society? When I ask this, I'm thinking of the EU, Canada, and the western hemisphere.

What is your "picture" of the future in 5 years? 10 years? Is it manageable or will there be chaos? In asking this, I'm thinking of immigration, terrorism, technology, patriotism (or lack thereof), assimilation, wars, and economics.

Any thoughts regarding Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, and similarities to Pax Americana?

The "peace" of each of these eras have been predicated on "accepted rules". What's going to change?

[futureperfect5]

on Where is Western Society Headed?

I was up all night and had decided not to write what I started out to write.
I left out the "Therefore, ..." part of my lengthy post with definitions.

[Please keep and open mind and read this for what is is rather than what it might appear to be on the surface.]

So, scarcity / abundance perception drives behaviors and causes unrest (internally for the individual) as well as manifests acts of aggression and or violence. The need for possessions and property, territorial conflict, civil unrest, etc.

The state responds with imposed "pax" of whatever national flavour -- most successful in the highest disregard for civil liberties. The problem is that "pax whatever" responds to the surface just as extremists respond to holy war on the surface.

Neither would be completely successful because they do not address the root cause or the true meaning or intent.

The individual is restless internally (whether known only as a human sense of self aka "spirit" or taken as a religious "soul" the concern truly and deeply lies within). Hence, The Stoics sought, as did the followers of the Abrahamic tradition and the "book" after them, to wrestle to control their emotions, to stay on the path of reason which was to them in balance with the natural universe, as they perceived it.

This path of reason and balance is the same "path" or "tao" and the "zen" and the principle of moderation from Buddha.

The war within or "holy" war is the same from all of these thoughts or teachings, the internal challenge to balance and check the ego between its opposing inclinations. There is nothing particularly "religious about it.

The external fight is over what it should be called, not whether it would be beneficial.

So, these comments that you will see and hear in the media about bad "Holy War" in reference to Islam or conversely to "Jewish mysticism" in reference to the Kabbalah are ridiculous. Honestly, it seems the press is just as poorly informed and under-educated as those that they ridicule who have been intentionally kept from knowing their common roots in ancient thought -- again, preceding jewish/christian or muslim concepts about it.

Additionally, (this is not meant to upset anyone either), there is no text entitled the Kabbalah specifically ... any book bearing that title is an interpretation of those ... ancient understandings from either the Torah or other sacred texts. Lastly, anyone who attempts to follow the paths or guidances toward finding that "place of quiet" within, by that person's effort comes to be "a jew" in it's purest meaning something close to "settled" (which is related to something that holds a deeper meaning, too.

So, whenever you hear this us versus them stuff, just know that whether you are us or them, neither of you is doing anything that the Stoics and some before them haven't already thought out.

Bottom line then ... it seems that the West is headed toward a time when people will come to know that the outward wars (the surface perceptions) and grievances with others and not the real cause of their hostility or discontent ... it will be a long time coming and will take more than meditation to achieve -- for most people.

No matter how many bodies lay on the ground, in the end, the land owns itself and the people are still dissatisfied.

[Theodoric]

Therefore, with technological advances approaching the Singularity -- in some ways, I think that the near vertical technology impact has begun with people having difficulty keeping up which causes frustration and a peculiar kind of alienation and this need for unfocused "anger management."

I agree with this assessment. We are already seeing this alienation and frustration in some societies, particularly the Middle East. For a long time the Middle East was one of the most technologically advanced civilizations on the planet. Many advances in science, medicine, and military technology occurred there after the fall of the Roman empire and the decay of European civilization. Now however economics and science have shifted to the West, effectively making the Middle East a 14th century culture struggling in the modern world. This has caused frustration and anger there which has led to the increased conflict. This inability to adapt along the the frustrations associated with it is mirrored in the aging and rural populations that technology has either bypassed or where it has not been adopted.


Old ways of providing for self, and family, are not producing the returns that they used to support the expected lifestyle -- this includes education, marriage, social standing ... So, these institutions are -- effectively, less attractive than they once were because in real terms they are meaningless and not providing the comfort and security that they once did.



I agree with you that the old ways just do not working anymore and are stifling human development. Most of them only contribute to sickness, strife, and poverty. The only rational explanation I can come up with is that people cling to their old beliefs because it is what they understand.

Since you posit that the old ways are disappearing due to them being unattractive what explanation do you have for regressive trends in society? Specifically intolerance, increased religious fanaticism, refusal to adopt new technology, etc etc etc?

Since these trends run contrary to your ideas I would like to hear why these trends are starting to gain a resurgence. Is humanity devolving? :huh:

[eternaltriangle]

Very unlikely. As seen by the Sino-Indian war of 1962 the Himalayas provide the harshest war conditions on the planet. War between China & India is very unlikely especially with India's very strong alliance with Japan.

1. Why does Japan matter, given that Japan's military is constitutionally mandated to be incredibly small, and has no capacity to take part in a land-war.

2. You are assuming that China will attack through the Himalayas. The war could be characterized largely by air attacks, or by an attack through an alternate route. Chinese troops could, for instance (if China were allied with Pakistan - something not unlikely, given that we are talking about invading India) attack through Pakistan.

3. Since when was a war driven by national security dictates called off because it might be harsh on the soldiers?

As for the talk about pax Americana, pax Britannica, etc. I would propose that there have in fact been two processes taking place since at least 1500 - and that there are two kinds of super-powers. Recognizing this gives us a longer span of history, and more variation from which to base our predictions of the future.

European/western history since 1500 (I am influenced the theories of Mahan, and to some degree George Modelski and William Thompson) has tended to produce two distinct kinds of powers - one oriented towards the seas, commerce and industry, and another oriented towards territorial control. The first has the world's strongest navy, while the second tends to have the strongest land army.

In the 1500's, history-books (especially in the US) have sold the Portuguese short. Since finding the earlier route to east asia and monopolizing on trade routes there through a network of trading posts, Portugal became the richest country in Europe. Despite its small population, keep in mind that everybody else was engaged largely in subsistence agriculture - and it is very hard to wring much revenue out of that. The Portuguese were weak on land, however, being small, and eventually sort of joined with the much stronger Spanish for a time.

This Spanish-Portuguese compact (the Spanish took over the Portuguese trade routes) then came into conflict with the rebellious Dutch provinces which, in time, managed to dominate Indian ocean trade. In doing so the Dutch were able to win the 30 year's war. The Dutch were the driving force in the League of Augsburg which formed against Louis XIV in the late 1600's, and essentially conquered England in a bloodless coup (the Glorious Revolution of 1688).

One tendency of globally oriented powers is that they have tended to organize countervailing coalitions against land powers that make a drive for hegemony. So, when France invaded Italy in the early 1500's, the Spanish and others stood against them. When Spain attempted to salvage its dominance in the 30 year's war, the Dutch were able to get the French and English onside. When Louis XIV made a bid to dominate western Europe by conquering Holland (the Dutch wars), and by gaining the Spanish crown (the War of Spanish Succession), it was the Dutch that cobbled together an impressive alliance against him. When Napoleon followed in Louis XIV's footsteps, he was opposed most doggedly by the British. When Germany and Austria went to war in 1914, again it was the British that led the coalition against them. In 1939, it was the British and Americans.

So what does history look like?
You have a succession of global powers that gain dominance over the seas, and stimulate international trade (not always free trade - particularly under the Portuguese and British under the Corn laws). Over time, however, their sources of dominance wane - either through conquest (the Portuguese), through overstretch (the Dutch essentially went broke with all the wars they fought), or through technological diffusion (while the industrial revolution catapulted the British to the top of the heap, eventually others figured out how to make the same goods). The United States presently seems to be headed on the down-slope of this trend. Another factor that can play a role is the emergence of new technologies that do not favor the global power - for instance, British-style laissez-faire worked well for cotton and iron, but less well for the advent of the chemical industry (which was dominated by the Germans) and railroads.

Rising powers and declining powers are likely to engage in wars because 1. strong powers want to remain secure against attack, in case they are surpassed in the future (this is Dale Copeland's argument). On the other hand, other folks argue that war is most likely when the number one and number two power are even in strength, because the challenger would like some of the authority (the international system is constructed to benefit the incumbent power - eg. just look at the slant of the American-centric IMF, World Bank, etc.) of the declining incumbent. The institutional arrangements that might have facilitated peace and trade before will weaken, as the power of the strongest power weakens as well. An increase in a zero-sum mentality of states fearful of being surpassed by other states will encourage more protectionism and less trade (removing trade, which would have at least formed an obstacle to war between countries).

So the executive summary is...
1. US relative economic decline
causes
2. US decline in general
causes
3. Weaker international institutions
4. protectionism
5. a worsening economic situation

New technologies
1. Give rise to new powers, while causing others to decline
Eventually,
2. Those technologies diffuse to other countries which catch up to the initial leader
3. Such that power is less concentrated in the international system
and
4. great power war is more likely
because
5. each fears being surpassed either by a primary regional actor (eg. China fears being surpassed by India and vice versa)
6. there is a growing disconnect in who has authority over international institutions, and who has power within the system.

When war happens
1. Global powers, because they dominate force projection (eg. naval power) and strategic bombing are better at garnering coalitions against territorial powers driving for dominance.
2. It is almost always territorial powers that attack, because, as they are less reliant on trade, and more reliant on extraction, it pays for them to do so.

Some speculations about the war...
-China will shoot American satellites out of the sky
-Chinese missiles may be able to take out American aircraft carriers, largely nullifying America's naval advantage
-I don't think cities will be nuked... but battlefield nuclear weapons may be employed to eliminate the numerical advantage of the Chinese (or the skill advantage of the Americans - granted with superior air power, I think this one favors the USA).
-It is hard to say where Europe (may depend on how far the EU gets) and Russia will go.

[futureperfect5]

In think, whether they truly understand or even believe/agree with (especially religion), it is familiar they long for something that fits and keeps they in a sense of comfort ... they way things used to be. A "cocoon" or "womb" where they don't have to mature and face the harsh realities of life.

They want continuity, as few challenges as possible, everything safe and easy -- easy to grasp: We are the good people; and they are the bad people. This is right and that is wrong -- completely ignore the possibility of grey.

You're right is regressive ... emotionally. Yet, for those who chose to be awake and "in the mix" there is rapid advancement happening that will not be stifled or ignored.

If I remember the Maslow pyramid about the individual and the need for group affiliation. It would seem in the age of the individual that people would need less attachment to group: witness the Internet and the freedom that it should bring. Yet, there are people who want to control and monitor it -- not for fraud so much: to see what others are doing.

You're comments about the Middle East are a perfect example. Sure progress there was slowed. Now, they are going after things at an incredible speed. [If I can find a link I will include it.] I have a friend in Dubai (living in a $10,000 per month apartment). He tells be about the development boom. See links:

Internet City (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Burj Tower (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Palm Island (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (man-made)

New Properties Overview (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Techno Park HQ (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

All we here about in the news is the conflict areas ... there are buckets of opportunity in the Middle East. Additionally, several countries (like Aruba in this hemisphere) have taken on de-salination projects to solve the ware shortages on their countries.

Metito Desalination Overview (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Water Factory (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (Israel) from BBC

BBC - Politics of Water (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Hopefully, the charities will get involved and solve the water source problem instead of feeding people in the sub-Sahara one morsel at a time.

So, the U.S. media keeps us focused on the negativity and getting back to wherever we could be "safe" ... world is moving, we'd best get involved.

You're right about something else, too. The chasm that has been created between the tech laggards and extremists/fanatics on the one side and the progressives and early adopters on the over -- people moving forward, is going to stay with us. The separation isn't even about money anymore -- it is about "point-of-reference" are you a person looking forward or looking backward?

I agree with this assessment. We are already seeing this alienation and frustration in some societies, particularly the Middle East. For a long time the Middle East was one of the most technologically advanced civilizations on the planet. Many advances in science, medicine, and military technology occurred there after the fall of the Roman empire and the decay of European civilization. Now however economics and science have shifted to the West, effectively making the Middle East a 14th century culture struggling in the modern world. This has caused frustration and anger there which has led to the increased conflict. This inability to adapt along the the frustrations associated with it is mirrored in the aging and rural populations that technology has either bypassed or where it has not been adopted.

I agree with you that the old ways just do not working anymore and are stifling human development. Most of them only contribute to sickness, strife, and poverty. The only rational explanation I can come up with is that people cling to their old beliefs because it is what they understand.

Since you posit that the old ways are disappearing due to them being unattractive what explanation do you have for regressive trends in society? Specifically intolerance, increased religious fanaticism, refusal to adopt new technology, etc etc etc?

Since these trends run contrary to your ideas I would like to hear why these trends are starting to gain a resurgence. Is humanity devolving? :huh:

[Theodoric]

In think, whether they truly understand or even believe/agree with (especially religion), it is familiar they long for something that fits and keeps they in a sense of comfort ... they way things used to be. A "cocoon" or "womb" where they don't have to mature and face the harsh realities of life.

They want continuity, as few challenges as possible, everything safe and easy -- easy to grasp: We are the good people; and they are the bad people. This is right and that is wrong -- completely ignore the possibility of grey.


Your assessment makes sense. It is by human nature to seek out stability, continuity, and safety. The unknown is a terrifying prospect for many people and they enjoy the comforts of what is easy -- or as you said what is easy to understand. Simplistic ideas seem safe and comforting, where mentally one is not challenged and personal thought and responsibility are eschewed in favor of conformity.

However, these ideas seem very contradictory to human development.

Historically in places where progressive ideas such as free will, equality, and reason were adopted did we see the most developed societies technologically and economically. Europe during the Renaissance and Industrial Revolution, the US during much of the 20th century, and now the resurgence of China as a world power. Yes, all of these societies at the time did have a lot of downfalls and issues. However, in all of these societies we have seen rapid advancements.