We are better off in some ways and worse off in others. And diversity had nothing to do with the improvements.
How do you manage to compute B
B) “We have been sold the lie of constant growth for so long, changing to sustainability looks like a failure.”
and then arrive at A,
A) “I think things will get worse but never as bad as they were.”
is mystifying.
I know you say that, but it doesn’t hold water.
People and living is always more dynamic and complicated than the political melodramas of mass persuasion would have us believe.
You live within a self imposed bubble of information -
Here’s a challenge, don’t take my word for it, actually think about it for yourself, but open yourself to evidence your unfamiliar with.
Let me suggest 3 books, none perfect, all utterly interesting and truly “thought provoking” (as opposed to provocative fluff.).
The authors are skilled accomplished researchers, thinkers and writers, who have gathered a lot of evidence to feed their own curiosity - and by and by, write down the fascinating story and sell books and lectures for public edification and profit. Our human story, one of intermixing, interconnecting, interdependence.
It would be cool if you could read (or listen) to them with a bit of honest curiosity and willingness to challenge your own assumptions -
each has their flaws, yet, the thing is, that each introduces important little known real facts, real slices of history to mind. Guaranteed to enrich one’s understanding of our human story.
For each to interpret according to their own mindscapes.
- Horizons: The Global Origins of Modern Science
- By: James Poskett
- The history of science as it has never been told before: a tale of outsiders and unsung heroes from far beyond the Western canon that most of us are taught…
- The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity
- By: David Graeber, David Wengrow
- A trailblazing account of human history, challenging our most fundamental assumptions about social evolution—from the development of agriculture and cities to the emergence of “the state”, political violence, and social inequality—revealing new possibilities for human emancipation…
- The House of Wisdom: How Arabic Science Saved Ancient Knowledge and Gave Us the Renaissance
- By Al Khalili, Jim
- A myth-shattering view of the Islamic world’s myriad scientific innovations and the role they played in sparking the European Renaissance. …
And the story is even more complex than this outline:
1 Like
I still can’t tell if you agree with this, or if you understand that I mean our economy is based on growth and transition to reducing consumption is a challenge.
And you’ve made no case for why things will get worse than the past. We have the books now, we have the stories of triumph of the human will, of women contributing in ways that surpass men, of every color and creed working together, we disproved Malthus and Machiavelli. Ideas like that survive collapses of buildings and businesses.
When I say “as they were”, I mean the Middle Ages, when empires were led by families. Or when we fought wars in trenches. Or when all news was lies and everyone accepted it, you could only choose between their lies or your side’s distortions.
“Disproved”, that’s a pretty big claim.
Oh yeah, I know google it, you’ll find a big parade of articles vehemently arguing why Malthus was wrong and “always will be wrong” and why he should be banished from our thoughts.
Reminds me of a line from Shakespeare along the lines of: Thou protesteth too much .”
But scratch the surface, or dare to look at the other side of our Faith in Progress conundrum.
In fact, in terms of real income the average Englishman of 2015 would probably be the envy of many a duke or baron of 1798. So yes, in retrospect Thomas Malthus was spectacularly wrong[1].
But what about the future of our children and grand-children? Could Malthus still be proven right in the end? The fact that Malthus’ fears have proven unwarranted so far does not prove that they will remain so for ever. We need to consider the reasons for his mistake and ask if these will continue to apply.
Essentially, Malthus was wrong on both counts: population growth and technical change. …
…
In conclusion, although Malthusian prophecies have been proven wrong in the past, his concerns should not be dismissed too lightly. It is irresponsible to predicate the future on a repetition of the past – or on the hope that “something will turn up”. …
This next one is a cute one, turns out Malthus was a horrible person, so he’s to be rejected and buried, here’s the proof:
I couldn’t help notice neither article actually got around to addressing our dependence on Earth’s healthy biosphere, including temperature ranges, that are conducive to fairly predictable weather patterns, that are conducive to our healthy global economy. And that first article, the author knew enough to include an optimist upbeat last sentence (He did need to sell the article, so had to play along - no negativism!!!) - it reminded me of that eternal promise, mother’s make during times of crisis: sleep dear child, everything will be alright.
So long as we refuse to face up to the back side of our progress coin - we’re simply kidding ourselves. Not matter how many shrill denials are penned.
There were still frontiers to escape to and a healthy cornucopias of biosphere space available to nurture those who ran away from our manmade troubles.
Look around where is there left to run to, today, and so, so, many need to ignore that. {Oh yeah, we’re going to populate the Solar System to escape the horrors we’re creating down here. Won’t that be wonderful! What could go wrong?}
Why I wonder?
The only thing I can come up with is that their Gods can’t provide the spiritual strength required to soberly face the growing nightmare we’ve creating for humanity, other creatures and this planet’s life giving biosphere.
Oh, and talk about Middle Ages horrors?
Were they really that much worse than what the peoples of Haiti, or the Gaza Strip, or Bangladesh, or the condition forcing Africans to flee across seas on inner tube rafts, etc., are experiencing today?
At least Middle Ages peoples still had hope in tomorrow and the promise of better across the distant horizon.
I’m not an idiot and find your constant nit picking and random googling for contradictions completely childish and lacking in any value for actually considering the problems you list. I’ve concluded that you love pointing out what can’t be done. You revel in the destruction of civilization like the rich people at the end of Atlas Shrugged.
Until every problem in the world is solved you will keep ranting about philosophers and clerics, as if you just discovered those problems and no one is listening. I’ve seen “voice in the wilderness” syndrome before.
You forget my posts about Norman Borlaug who told us his solution to famine was a short term fix and that we needed to keep working on food equity. He didn’t have the term “sustainable” but he was old. He saved millions of lives, and the children got addicted to Doritos and we didn’t teach them how to deal with Nazis. I know all that. I’m not stupid.
Random googling for contradictions - So you are telling us the hell holes of the world are incidentals to be ignored.
I find your apologia unconvincing.
Oh so not being blind to it is reveling?
BS! I mean most of society we can’t even admit (flaccid lip service and kicking the can down the road - don’t count) to ourselves that Global Warming is for real and needed to be faced. Instead, our society is busy finding excuses to fight more wars and developing even deadlier weapons. With space tourism the big thing to take our mind off of it.
When have I called you stupid.
Do I make you feel stupid?
Maybe you should be more careful with your apologia.
Nothing is going to change, the momentum is too great. Right now, I’m thinking of the future, and the few with the grit to survive when the poopie really starts hitting the fan. They will need a new outlook on themselves and dealing with the hell scape that’s developed because of human disregard.
Lordie knows the old masters whose Reality was built within their egotistical minds, won’t have a dang thing to offer them. Those people will need an entire different inclusive attitude toward the physical world, then today’s disconnected self-serving mindset.
What goes around comes around.
One of your other ways to avoid real problem solving. Any attempt at discussion of the difficult choices we face and you accuse me of ignoring something. I ignore nothing. I care about every starving kid everywhere and I know the causes of hunger and want. I also know there are limits to what I can do in one lifetime so I depend on the rest of the world to find a way. We all need each other.
I know all that stuff and it’s a straw man argument. Yes, Babylonians invented math in 3000 BC or what ever, and Arabs rediscovered Plato. That’s not the reason our way of life exists. The reason is liberalism and the industrial revolution developed in Britain in the 1600-1700s and it was adopted by genetically similar ethnicities. All those involved were Northwestern Europeans, so the only diversity needed was English, Scots and Dutch.
Can you describe some of the values of that revolution? Why it was successful? I think it’s an area where our ideas overlap.
That demonstrated you don’t know everything that’s in those books - not by a long shot.
All you are actually familiar with is your own sense of superiority.
Not to obfuscate, but science goes hand in hand with industry.
I think at this point, it’s safe to say the industrial revolution was primarily about making money. Maybe it caused capitalism to become a value in itself.
As for why it was successful, the right ingredients were all there for the recipe. It is worth remembering that even though nearly all of Western Europe joined the industrial age, it was Britain and later America who always dominated. No one else came close. That indicates something unique was going on in those cultures.
We can use some intelligent input around here, but that input has to be delivered intelligently. I have a thread on Peter Singer’s comments on how simply being part of modern society makes you culpable in the destruction of the environment.
I can’t find the thread, but here’s an introduction to his ideas, if you haven’t heard it before
Bing Videos
Here’s the longer version
1 Like
Hard work got you somewhere. A stake in the game.
That is a big part of it for sure. But there was some difference in how they operated since other groups worked hard, yet still remained undeveloped.
Getting so close. This is the history that needs to be understood. Simple explanations of “cultural differences”, or worse “genetic”, just don’t cut it.
For one, not all areas on the earth are suitable for modernization, yet offer a permanent habitat rich with natural resources.
Take a tropical rainforest environment. You cannot build an artificial settlement in such an environment. Wood rots, metal rusts, paints are eaten by microbes.
But the forest provides nature’s supermarket and if your needs are few and no more than what nature allows, you become a part of the environment, not the destroyer.
Keep in mind that a few of the oldest tribes still live the way they have lived for tens of thousands of years. They have adapted their “needs” to their particular habitat.
And that even “primitive” people can dream is evident of their "discovery of natural psychoactive drugs.
And then there is the fact that about 75% of all “modern” medicinal drugs are based on natural biochemicals and have been harvested and used by natives for thousands of years.
In order for all living things to survive the test of natural selection, it has to adapt to nature, not the other way around.
“We cannot control the environment, but we can influence it”, (usually negatively)
Brian Klaas
Cultural differences are genetic and provide all the explanation necessary. The problem is leftists can’t face this fact.
Yes and no. Modernization does work better in some environments, but there are big differences between groups that live in the same environments. For example, Singapore is tropical and extremely developed whereas the nearby country of Cambodia is not.