History The greatest tragedy in human history

[Ivan Seeking]

This idea came up in another thread and I thought it might make for an interesting discussion. So, what are your thoughts? I have always believed that the loss of the library at Alexandria may be one of the greatest tragedies of all time. Of course we can't know what we are missing, but there is reason to believe that this was a monumental loss to humanity.

Of course loss of life is hard to compare to loss of information, but who knows how much we had to re-discover; say for example medical information that could have saved the lives of millions through the ages.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I always have a hard time with these sorts of questions. I think it really depends on the way in which you look at the event's. I agree that the library was a great tragedy but not every one values books and information so highly.

 

[Moonbear]

Of course loss of life is hard to compare to loss of information, but who knows how much we had to re-discover; say for example medical information that could have saved the lives of millions through the ages.

Well, it depends on whether you mean the short-term or long-term. Lives cut short seems tragic, but in the larger time scale, people have a pretty short shelf-life; everyone who died in a tragedy was destined to die eventually anyway. Information, on the other hand, can last a long time and possibly benefit many generations. So, I'd have to agree that on the assumption we really did lose valuable information, loss of the information is a greater tragedy to humanity on the larger time scale.

 

[Danger]

trying very hard not to mention your last couple of elections...

 

[Pengwuino]

trying very hard not to mention your last couple of elections...

lol got to love em. *pets the Canadaian*, good boy

 

[Danger]

lol got to love em. *pets the Canadaian*, good boy

I'd prefer that Evo do that, if you don't mind.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Of course we can't know what we are missing..."

There's the rub. Had the library not been destroyed physics may have advanced to the nuclear age in 1345 and some castle-dwelling tyrant may have precipitously blown all his competitors to ashes. We can't know if we missed something even worse than what did happen.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There's the rub. Had the library not been destroyed physics may have advanced to the nuclear age in 1345 and some castle-dwelling tyrant may have precipitously blown all his competitors to ashes. We can't know if we missed something even worse than what did happen.

good point. Vlad the Impaler, or Genghis Khan with a nuke; now there's a thought.

 

[Kakarot]

sounds like a good scifi movie. bill and ted go back in time and save the library and then ghengis khan nukes the world

 

[kaos]

good point. Vlad the Impaler, or Genghis Khan with a nuke; now there's a thought.

Or the catholic church. Convert or die!

 

[kaos]

And maybe the muslims as well...

 

[matthyaouw]

How about fall of the Roman Empire? It took hundereds of years to regain some of the skills lost with the Romans.

 

[arildno]

The emergence of Judaism/Christianity&Islam.

 

[dextercioby]

I fully agree with Arildno.

Daniel.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Judaism arose amid a culture of human sacrifice and temple prostution. I doubt the world would be better off without the Jewish reform.

 

[Astronuc]

The emergence of Judaism/Christianity&Islam.

Or one could say, the emergence of religion, or is that the emergence of organized or institutionalized irrational thought - that being the concept of 'faith' or 'belief' in the absence of evidence or fact.

I would have to say the greatest tragedy is the Holocaust and World War II, and following closely the purges and pogroms of Stalin, the Cultural Revolution, and period of Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia (Kamupchea). The level of inhumanity and evil is profoundly sad. Then one could add the Crusades and the Inquisition.

 

[arildno]

There are some massacres of natives in California&Texas during the 19th century which ought to be mentioned..

 

[Monique]

I would have to say the greatest tragedy is the Holocaust and World War II

I was going to say the same.

 

[Astronuc]

There are some massacres of natives in California&Texas during the 19th century which ought to be mentioned..

The whole European invasion and conquest of the America's, and the genocide and ethnic cleasening of the native peoples.

And I could add the same for the native peoples in Australia.

There are aboriginal and indian tribes that no longer exist, not even one person.

 

[marlon]

I would have to say the greatest tragidy is the upcoming North Korean Global Nuclear Attack

Do you all sleep well at night ? MuHAHAHAHA

regards
marlon

 

[arildno]

A nuclear fart??
What's so tragic about that?

 

[SpaceTiger]

The greatest tragedy in human history

Star Wars: Episode I

 

[arildno]

The whole European invasion and conquest of the America's, and the genocide and ethnic cleasening of the native peoples.

And I could add the same for the native peoples in Australia.

There are aboriginal and indian tribes that no longer exist, not even one person.

The only reason why I limited myself to the California&Texas case, is that these massacres cannot be denied or explained away as something else than they were,
since these horrors, in particular in California, was amply covered by shocked Bostonians and other east-coasters whose ancestors had finished their work 150 years before.

I could have generalized it a bit like you did, though..

 

[marlon]

Star Wars: Episode I

yeah, i'd add episode two also...pitty Natalie Portman is so well hidden under her make up

marlon

 

[arildno]

Star Wars: Episode I

,
About as tragic as the murderous Aztec religion, I'd say..

 

[marlon]

A nuclear fart??
What's so tragic about that?

it's bad for your health

marlon

 

[arildno]

it's bad for your health

marlon

I already smoke.

 

[marlon]

I already smoke.

so do I...at least two people that will survive...But who will be using our FAQ ?

marlon

 

[arildno]

so do I...at least two people that will survive...But who will be using our FAQ ?

marlon

All our work in vain..

Perhaps I should stop smoking in time after all..

 

[Smurf]

I would have to say the greatest tragidy is the upcoming North Korean Global Nuclear Attack

Do you all sleep well at night ? MuHAHAHAHA

regards
marlon

People always say they're worried about the situation in North Korea, it never made any sense to me man, I'm worried about right ****ing here! The states man, those guys have so many ****ing nukes it's not funny. And they're taking more nukes from other people too so they have any more, and they're elections arn't even stable! they're almost at the point of civil war that's what's scary, not some pissy north korean arsenal of a scud missile and a couple ww2-era warheads.

 

[Astronuc]

The only reason why I limited myself to the California&Texas case, is that these massacres cannot be denied or explained away as something else than they were,
since these horrors, in particular in California, was amply covered by shocked Bostonians and other east-coasters whose ancestors had finished their work 150 years before.

An excellent reference on the subject - "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West" by Dee Alexander Brown.

This book brought me to tears.

Marlon and arildno - quit smoking guys - I would hate to outlive you both.

 

[Joel]

I don't know about the greatest, but I'd say colonialism and and its aftermath especially in Africa deserves a mentioning (count the numerous civil-wars, epidemics, etc. in the last century). And of course the holocaust and the numerous deeds done with religious justification.

Oh, and to continue on Marlon's thought, the upcoming energy shortage, clean air shortage, overpopulation and biosphere collapse, to name a few more.

Finally, industry driven science funding.

 

[russ_watters]

People always say they're worried about the situation in North Korea, it never made any sense to me man, I'm worried about right ****ing here! The states man, those guys have so many ****ing nukes it's not funny. And they're taking more nukes from other people too so they have any more, and they're elections arn't even stable! they're almost at the point of civil war that's what's scary, not some pissy north korean arsenal of a scud missile and a couple ww2-era warheads.

Couple of things I want to clarify here: you're talking about the US, right? Near civil war? Where do you get that idea? American politics is no more contentous than any other western democracy: heck, Canada is talking about splitting, not the US. And getting more nukes from other people? Huh? We don't take other people's nukes. And you know we're cutting our arsenal by a significant fraction, right (can't remember if it's 1/2 or 1/3...)?

Lotta weird things in that post...

But greatest tragedy in human history? Easy: Marxism. Marx's work is at least partially responsible for the largest of the problems in the 20th century. It played only a small part in Hitler's rise (Hitler did use some of Marx's ideas), but played a large part in Stalin's work (he killed millions in an effort to promote Marxism), Vietnam, China, North Korea. Hundreds of millions of deaths have resulted from that ill-conceived idea this century (both directly and indirectly).

 

[ShawnD]

And you know we're cutting our arsenal by a significant fraction, right (can't remember if it's 1/2 or 1/3...)?

I don't really understand this. If the US gets rid of all nuclear arms, that's basically just giving up a huge amount of leverage. Giving up some of them doesn't make sense either because just a few, maybe 10, are still enough to take on the rest of the world. The logical thing would be to keep all existing arms.

I would agree that Marx was the worst thing to happen to humanity recently. We had quite a few wars in the world because of his brain-dead ideas.

Worst one overall in probably organized religion. Christianity vs Islam vs everybody else caused a lot of wars. Then of course there's the whole saddistic clergy syndrome; example: burning "witches" because their food tastes better than yours or their clothes are cleaner.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Giving up some of them doesn't make sense either because just a few, maybe 10, are still enough to take on the rest of the world.

I thought that was the idea...they're not needed for leverage, so just get rid of them.

 

[BicycleTree]

And you know we're cutting our arsenal by a significant fraction, right (can't remember if it's 1/2 or 1/3...)?

That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. So now we can only scourge the Earth's surface a hundred and fifty times over instead of three hundred times, huh?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't really understand this. If the US gets rid of all nuclear arms, that's basically just giving up a huge amount of leverage. Giving up some of them doesn't make sense either because just a few, maybe 10, are still enough to take on the rest of the world. The logical thing would be to keep all existing arms.

Well, politics isn't logical. By giving up a significant fraction, we lose little deterrence value, but it does give the rest of the world a nice warm, fuzzy feeling. All the hippies get to pretend we're making progress toward a nuclear free world, and it doesn't hurt us any, so we may as well do it.

One thing that is logical about it though - nuclear weapons cost money to maintain.

 

[alexandra]

But greatest tragedy in human history? Easy: Marxism. Marx's work is at least partially responsible for the largest of the problems in the 20th century).

Too right, Russ - Marxism effectively and absolutely is the most dangerous invention of the human mind because it completely and utterly exposes the inhumanity and absolute callousness of capitalism, which you are an ardent supporter of. It reveals that which all capitalists and their supporters want to remain hidden - so it IS responsible for what you call 'the largest of the problems in the 20th century'. I would strongly encourage everyone to delve into this dangerous method of analysis and see what it reveals about the sorts of societies we are living in. Ask it to explain anything: social problems, economic problems, environmental problems, problems with the education system, with the health system, anything - it can do so. No other system of analysis can.

It played only a small part in Hitler's rise (Hitler did use some of Marx's ideas), but played a large part in Stalin's work (he killed millions in an effort to promote Marxism), Vietnam, China, North Korea. Hundreds of millions of deaths have resulted from that ill-conceived idea this century (both directly and indirectly).

You cannot link Marx and Hitler and expect to get away with it. It is unfair and totally not true. People who read such things and believe you without checking for themselves are being very naive. And Russ, I do believe you know that you are making a very false statement here, and that you are doing this knowingly and deliberately. Neither Hitler Nor Stalin were Marxists. Hitler killed all the socialist leaders of the strong Trade Union movement in Germany (and, by the way, that was WHY the western powers allowed Hitler to get as far as he did - they needed him to clear up the real threat to their imperialist-based wealth: the socialists). Read history.

 

[Astronuc]

. . . heck, Canada is talking about splitting, not the US.

I thought the Blue States were going to split from the Red and join Canada.

 

[Bladibla]

I would say the emergence of superpowers.

 

[ShawnD]

I thought that was the idea...they're not needed for leverage, so just get rid of them.

That's not what I said. We (NATO, not just US) do need them for leverage. Russia didn't attack us because we had nukes. We didn't attack them because they had nukes. China too has immunity from the world because they have nukes as well. The only thing keeping countries like North Korea in check is the fact that we have the ability to destroy everyone and everything in those countries at the push of a button.
If we give up our nukes, we lose every bit of leverage we ever had. Disarmament is absolutely never the answer.

 

[BicycleTree]

The greatest tragedy has been the invention of nuclear weapons. Probably it was unavoidable but you must admit that nuclear weapons have absolutely no positive value and carry great danger. Mutual assured destruction is a joke. When North Korea has ICBMs and we can't invade them because of MAD, well well. When every little country has ICBMs and we can't invade any of them because of MAD, invasions will still go on. There are crazy people who do not care about MAD. And then you will have nuclear warfare.

Nuclear weapons are becoming increasingly widespread.

A similar great tragedy was the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Civilians murdered needlessly on a mass scale.

 

[ShawnD]

Russ - Marxism effectively and absolutely is the most dangerous invention of the human mind because it completely and utterly exposes the inhumanity and absolute callousness of capitalism

Oh I'm sorry I must have missed the part where extreme socialist countries had higher living standards than capitalist countries. Please remind me which part of North Korea is better than South Korea, and why an overwhelming number of people left Hong Kong just before it was handed back to China, or why people always try to defect to capitalist countries and not the other way around.

 

[alexandra]

Oh I'm sorry I must have missed the part where extreme socialist countries had higher living standards than capitalist countries. Please remind me which part of North Korea is better than South Korea, and why an overwhelming number of people left Hong Kong just before it was handed back to China, or why people always try to defect to capitalist countries and not the other way around.

Hi Shawn

russ_watters and I have been having a discussion about these issues in the ‘Politics and World Affairs’ section of this forum. Rather than talk serious politics here (which I see as a more ‘fun’ part of PF where people come for time out and joking), if you're interested in reading our argument so far perhaps you could go read up the “A question about objectivity in politics” thread. I’ll be happy to respond to further questions on this topic there

 

[Joel]

Imagine the tragedy of confusion, if Russ and Alex had a child. "Teacher told me about capitalism and socialism, what are those really?"

I'll get my coat now...

 

[ShawnD]

The greatest tragedy has been the invention of nuclear weapons. Probably it was unavoidable but you must admit that nuclear weapons have absolutely no positive value and carry great danger. Mutual assured destruction is a joke. When North Korea has ICBMs and we can't invade them because of MAD, well well. When every little country has ICBMs and we can't invade any of them because of MAD, invasions will still go on. There are crazy people who do not care about MAD. And then you will have nuclear warfare.

Nuclear weapons are becoming increasingly widespread.

A similar great tragedy was the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Civilians murdered needlessly on a mass scale.

One could also argue that nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterant. It's more than coincidence that no country with nukes has ever been attacked after publicly announcing that they have nukes. Major nations of Europe used to fight all the time, but they haven't fought in 60 years since the creation of nuclear weapons.

It's also arguable that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives by ending the war quickly. To give you a sense of how brutal the war between Japan and the US was, think about this: the invasion of Iwo Jima cost 21,000 Japanese lives and 5,000 American lives. That's 26,000 people dying to capture 1 island. Japan has many many islands; how long would it take to capture the entire country? More importantly, how many lives would it take to do so? How many more Iwo Jimas would it take to end that war? Killing 103,000 civilians seems like a small price to pay to end an unbelievably bloody war.

It's also worth mentioning that the 2 nuclear bombs combined did less damage than the conventional weapons used on Tokyo. The fire raid of Tokyo killed roughly 200,000 Japanese civilians; that's in 1 day. Surprisingly, this was before the nuclear bombs were dropped. They sure didn't feel like surrendering did they?

 

[alexandra]

Imagine the tragedy of confusion, if Russ and Alex had a child. "Teacher told me about capitalism and socialism, what are those really?"

I'll get my coat now...

JOEL! Now YOU have a truly evil mind

 

[dextercioby]

Well,immediate effects on both Hiroshima+Nagasaki and Tokyo couldn't be compared to those long-term ones...After all,nuclear weapons are known to IRRADIATE...

Daniel.

 

[ShawnD]

Well,immediate effects on both Hiroshima+Nagasaki and Tokyo couldn't be compared to those long-term ones...After all,nuclear weapons are known to IRRADIATE...

Good point. 103,000 is the number of people that died up to 4 months after the bombs were dropped. That includes most cases of extreme radiation poisoning and what not. After that you're left with increased rates of cancer that you can't exactly keep statistics for.

 

[fourier jr]

It's also arguable that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives by ending the war quickly. To give you a sense of how brutal the war between Japan and the US was, think about this: the invasion of Iwo Jima cost 21,000 Japanese lives and 5,000 American lives. That's 26,000 people dying to capture 1 island. Japan has many many islands; how long would it take to capture the entire country? More importantly, how many lives would it take to do so? How many more Iwo Jimas would it take to end that war? Killing 103,000 civilians seems like a small price to pay to end an unbelievably bloody war.

"Defenders of the U.S. action counter that the bomb actually saved lives: It ended the war sooner and obviated the need for a land invasion. Estimates of the hypothetical saved-body count, however, which range from 20,000 to 1.2 million, owe more to political agendas than to objective projections.

But in any event, defining the issue as a choice between the A-bomb and a land invasion is an irrelevant and wholly false dichotomy. By 1945, Japan's entire military and industrial machine was grinding to a halt as the resources needed to wage war were all but eradicated. The navy and air force had been destroyed ship by ship, plane by plane, with no possibility of replacement. When, in the spring of 1945, the island nation's lifeline to oil was severed, the war was over except for the fighting. By June, Gen. Curtis LeMay, in charge of the air attacks, was complaining that after months of terrible firebombing, there was nothing left of Japanese cities for his bombers but "garbage can targets". By July, U.S. planes could fly over Japan without resistance and bomb as much and as long as they pleased. Japan could no longer defend itself..."
that's from bill blum's excellent essay "hiroshima: needless slaughter, useful terror"
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/abomb.htm

i would have to agree that the burning of the library of alexandria by a christian mob, the inquisitions, the holocausts (both the one in WWII & the one in the 12/13th centuries) & the treatment of women in the western world (in the last 2000yrs anyway) would rate as the greatest tragedies in human history

check this out:
"Such is their wickedness that no one should be surprised to see a Jew as the personification of the Devil among our people, representing everything that is evil."

"The Jews sacrifice their children to Satan... They are worse than wild beasts... lower than the vilest animals... Their religion is a sickness... God always hated the Jews. It is incumbent on all Christians to hate the Jews."

"The Jews are our misfortune."

Martin Luther, Joseph Goebbels & St John Chrysostom (a Bishop of Constantinople) each said one of those things. whoever matches tham up correctly gets an internet dollar