History The greatest tragedy in human history

[SOS2008]

My thoughts too, SOS2008 Couldn't help myself responding , but it's better when this section doesn't get too serious so there's somewhere to 'hang out' and relax and joke. I'm being good again now, though

Don't get me wrong. I'm finding myself in the same position. I don't believe GD is meant to provide soap boxes, so if there is a serious post, I feel it should be scrutinized just as it would in the serious sections.

I was referring to the extra ones (ones that add little or no bargaining leverage), not the entire arsenal. This reduction is already being made, and it seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing to do. There comes a point at which more nuclear weapons provide you with little more than a means to decrease the long-term livability of the post-war Earth. In other words, 2000 weapons are no more of a deterrent than 1000, but their combined impact on the environment is different.

Gottcha, and I agree with you.

 

[Danger]

No matter how good things get, they'll get equally as bad at the same time.

Everything is good and bad, depending upon how it's wielded. Take gunpowder, for example: a perfectly good fun way to blow things up and shoot bullets at people, and there are irresponsible monsters out there who use it for fireworks displays.

 

[icvotria]

Everything is good and bad, depending upon how it's wielded. Take gunpowder, for example: a perfectly good fun way to blow things up and shoot bullets at people, and there are irresponsible monsters out there who use it for fireworks displays.

 

[Huckleberry]

This will probably sound strange, but I've never considered technology to improve the quality of life so I don't see much of a tragedy from its loss. (sacrilage ) It can lengthen our lives and increase our potential, but I see those things as quantity. I consider quality of life to be an individual's satisfaction with their life. A family living in a rustic village in Chile can be just as happy as one that lives in NYC.

I think the greatest tragedy in human history is the development of the ego. Without that none of these other tragedies would have happened. (I notice nobody has mentioned a natural disaster yet.)
edit- oops, except this one.

I believe that the black plague in europe sharply stopped all technological advancements for hundreds of years. I think that was a true tragedy.

 

[Danger]

I consider quality of life to be an individual's satisfaction with their life. A family living in a rustic village in Chile can be just as happy as one that lives in NYC.

Gotta disagree with you again, bud, but I think it's a matter of definition. The rustic family certainly can be (and probably are) happier than one in NYC, as long as they're healthy. Such things as pure water and indoor plumbing contribute to keeping them that way. You've traveled enough to know what real poverty is, and how miserable it can make people. In other areas, other technologies are important as well, even if it's something so simple as a firearm to keep the family fed and the bears out of your tent.

I think the greatest tragedy in human history is the development of the ego. Without that none of these other tragedies would have happened.

Can't argue with that one. Unfortunately, most human progress has been driven by the ego.

 

[Huckleberry]

Gotta disagree with you again, bud, but I think it's a matter of definition. The rustic family certainly can be (and probably are) happier than one in NYC, as long as they're healthy. Such things as pure water and indoor plumbing contribute to keeping them that way. You've traveled enough to know what real poverty is, and how miserable it can make people. In other areas, other technologies are important as well, even if it's something so simple as a firearm to keep the family fed and the bears out of your tent.

I have been to places where poverty is widespread, but I haven't been to the poorest of nations. From what I've experienced most of the problems of the poor are due to politics. Poor people are amazingly resilient. Reduced to the basics of life they can find the quality in it even with sickness from bad water and disease. The miserable poor that I've encountered are the ones that are poor in a wealthy nation. A poor person in NYC is very different than a poor person in a village full of poor people in Chile. Poverty is just a way of life in many places of the world. The ones I've met are some of the most gracious people I will ever have the good fortune to meet.

Those inventions that you mentioned certainly are some of the best. I would also add vaccinations. Health does goes a long way to keeping people happy.

Can't argue with that one. Unfortunately, most human progress has been driven by the ego.

Very true, for both constructive and destructive purposes. War especially, is a great technological impetus.

 

[Joel]

wrong again

1. "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." - Joseph Goebbels

2. "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." - St. John Chrysostom

3. "The Jews are our misfortune." - Martin Luther

Noouuu! That's what I said! Let's see, I said luther was number 3 both times and that was correct. So, when I said "switch 1 and 2" I must have been right either before or after the switch, right?

 

[russ_watters]

Capitalism is not fine. Capitalism places people against each other and uses propoganda to perpetuate the will of a small minority. Capitalism may be better than other economic systems that have been tried, but it is far from fine, and it shouldn't be accepted as an ideal economic system.

Thats a pretty twisted view of capitalism, but in any case the important part, to me, is the first phrase of the second sentence. Capitalism is the best system we have.

Karl Marx was a brilliant idealist. He shouldn't be viewed as horrible since, after all, he was acting, from his perspective, in the best interests of humanity. Marx was too moral for this cruel world. The flaw lies in humanity, not Marx.

I always enjoy the ironies of Marxism, but this is just classic. Translation: 'Marxism has no basis in reality, therefore reality is flawed.'

Here's a better idea: how about we try a system that works? How about we try a system that turns the flaw in humanity (greed) into a positive thing?

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.

I encourage you to stop evading what Marxism "reveals" about poverty in the other thread (ie - Marx "reveals" that povery should increase with capitalism, but the fact is that poverty decreases with capitalism).

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.

alexandra, I did say a small part with Hitler, but it still played a part. Both Hitler and Stalin killed anyone who stood in their way, so their killing of socialists cannot be construed to mean they didn't buy into any of the ideas.

-Hitler rebuilt Germany through nationalization and socialist economic policies and, more importantly, used socialism as an ideology to rally support (that's why the party was the national socialist party)

-Stalin killed tens of millions of farmers for the direct purpose of socialist economic reform, specifically nationalization of that sector of the economy. And again, party loyalty through socialist philosophy was a means of control for the USSR as well as Nazi Germany.

One thing that is becomming more apparent to me in this thread and the other is the importance of ignoring reality to Marxism. While it is true that only by ignoring realities such as Marx's failed predictions on poverty can you believe that Marx's theory holds water, the ignoring of reality itself, not the ignored individual facts is what is important. The USSR survived as long as it did primarily through government mandated ignorance. The biggest direct cause of the fall of the USSR was that the Soviets finally started to see what it was that they were missing. That they were lied to about their condition versus how the west lived. China is fighting this issue today with their censorship of the internet.

I'm seeing the same willfull ignorance here. Closing your eyes and ears and saying over and over 'Marxism is better, Marxism is better, Marxism is better' doesn't change the fact that Marxism has failed and capitalism has succeeded.

 

[russ_watters]

This will probably sound strange, but I've never considered technology to improve the quality of life so I don't see much of a tragedy from its loss. (sacrilage ) It can lengthen our lives and increase our potential, but I see those things as quantity. I consider quality of life to be an individual's satisfaction with their life.

That's a myth and a luxury of living in a society with modern technology. The luxury of ignorance of how much better things really are.

A family living in a rustic village in Chile can be just as happy as one that lives in NYC.

Ask them (oh wait, you can't - they just died of the plague! )

 

[alexandra]

I'm flattered.

I have perveted ways to express my admiration. Both of your comments 'on the dark side' are very interesting.

"the dark side" - yes, it certainly feels like that sometimes in the Politics section of PF. And yet, I can't stay away...

 

[alexandra]

I think in most wars, most of the population of most of the countries involved are extremely unhappy that a war is in progress.

I'd go with this, zoobyshoe

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's a myth and a luxury of living in a society with modern technology. The luxury of ignorance of how much better things really are.

Modern technology has provided many people with the free time to sit down and ruminate on how miserable they feel, yes. It's very ironic. I like technology, but there are some kinds of problems it doesn't touch.

 

[Monique]

I believe that the black plague in europe sharply stopped all technological advancements for hundreds of years. I think that was a true tragedy.

Wide spread hysteria and death, one third of the population of Europe dying. Definately a great tragedy.

 

[fourier jr]

Noouuu! That's what I said! Let's see, I said luther was number 3 both times and that was correct. So, when I said "switch 1 and 2" I must have been right either before or after the switch, right?

really? (flips back a couple pages...) well you said "M.L. number 3. J.G number 2. J.C number 1."... & then switch 1 & 2. sorry i didn't read everything very carefully

 

[stoned]

Marx went to London lived and died there, and he wrote his most important works there. he was in schock when he saw in what conditions people were working in England, not even in France or Germany people workers have been treated this way, England beats them all. Most of workers rights were won in Germany and France and even far sighted and wise governments of those two (specifically German government) nations did enacted some revolutionary ideas like unemployment insurance, universal health care,children care etc.
You can still see after hundred years of development that continental Europe is FAR ahead in everything literally everything! Socialism can work and works very well, but we have to stop being paranoid and not buy into anti-socialist American/British propaganda.

 

[russ_watters]

Wide spread hysteria and death, one third of the population of Europe dying. Definately a great tragedy.

Yeah, I'd forgotten about the plagues - not much can top 1/3 of the population of Europe being wiped out.

 

[russ_watters]

Marx went to London lived and died there, and he wrote his most important works there. he was in schock when he saw in what conditions people were working in England, not even in France or Germany people workers have been treated this way, England beats them all. Most of workers rights were won in Germany and France and even far sighted and wise governments of those two (specifically German government) nations did enacted some revolutionary ideas like unemployment insurance, universal health care,children care etc.

Yeah, I think that historical context is important to understanding Marx's errors. Marx did his work in the mid-1800s, right smack in the middle of the industrial revolution. He witnessed things like sweatshops and child labor and guessed incorrectly that capitalism would be unable to deal with them. Marx witnessed a revolution and didn't realize that it was a revolution - that it wasn't finished.

Also, I wouldn't get too down on England - since England led the revolution, its understandable that they had the most difficulty with it (followed closely by the US). That's just the way things work - what takes enormous effort and pain for one person (country) to figure out seems self-evident to the next one. England didn't have the benefit of learning from the mistakes of another country.

 

[alexandra]

Thats a pretty twisted view of capitalism, but in any case the important part, to me, is the first phrase of the second sentence. Capitalism is the best system we have. I always enjoy the ironies of Marxism, but this is just classic. Translation: 'Marxism has no basis in reality, therefore reality is flawed.'

Hi all

As you can see, this is quite an argument. Russ and I have agreed to continue it where it started off, so I won't be posting my responses to his points here. To all those interested in this debate, please refer to the ‘Politics and World Affairs’ section (aka ‘the dark side’) of the General Discussion forum where over the rest of my lifetime I intend to address russ_watter’s arguments point by point with supporting evidence. It’s too complex a discussion to pursue here, and much has already been written there on the topic that it would be a waste of resources to repeat here...

 

[alexandra]

Yeah, I think that historical context is important to understanding Marx's errors. Marx did his work in the mid-1800s, right smack in the middle of the industrial revolution. He witnessed things like sweatshops and child labor and guessed incorrectly that capitalism would be unable to deal with them. Marx witnessed a revolution and didn't realize that it was a revolution - that it wasn't finished.

Hmm, ok - it seems we haven't quite shifted the debate to the dark side yet, so I'll do a quick response to this one here:
russ_watters, Marx was correct that capitalism would be unable to deal with sweatshops and child labor. They still exist, not only in 'third world' or 'underdeveloped' countries, but in the US. Here is the link to information about this: http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/index.php?s=50&r=5

And here is a taste of the information you can get on that website:

With ten of thousands of garment factories employing tens of millions of workers in nearly 200 countries, large corporations search the world for the lowest labor costs and ignore human rights. Unfortunately, sweatshops exists in every corner of the world, from China to Mexico and Kenya to Turkey. These workplaces generally papoverty wages, force workers to labor long hours, employ child labor, deny workers the right to form a union, fire women who become pregnant or subject workers to dangerous conditions. Even in the U.S., sweatshops exists. In fact, the U.S. Department of Labor found that 67% of Los Angeles garment factories don’t pay workers minimum wage or overtime.
U.S. Department of Labor 2000 Southern California Garment Compliance Survey Fact Sheet, August 2000.

So, you see, Marx was correct.
PS: Marx was not *guessing*. His analysis of capitalism was based on empirical observations and on the application of sophisticated economic theoretical tools of analysis.

 

[ShawnD]

Wide spread hysteria and death, one third of the population of Europe dying. Definately a great tragedy.

Deciding that cats were the problem, then killing all the cats was an even funnier tragedy.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So, you see, Marx wascorrect.

What is it you're up to, exactly? Are you suggesting with all this talk of Marx that it would ever be feasible for any country to make a transition to Marxism?

I say, let's keep things the way they are, and stay vigilant about the excesses like the LA sweatshops.

 

[loseyourname]

If we look outside of human history to the history of the entire planet, aside from the mass extinction at the end of the Cambrian period, the evolution of humans was probably the greatest tragedy.

 

[Bladibla]

If we look outside of human history to the history of the entire planet, aside from the mass extinction at the end of the Cambrian period, the evolution of humans was probably the greatest tragedy.

But it can't be really called a tragedy.. can it? I mean, we couldn't exactly stop some x-organism evolving over millions of years to become us.

A tragedy would be a event which it *could* have been prevented, but could't due to human failures.

Correct me if i am wrong.

 

[dextercioby]

Bladibla,I guess your acception of "tragedy" would consider the earthquakes and other natural catastrophies resulting in massive death toll to be something else than a "tragedy"...Hmm,interesting.Are u thinking ancient Greek theater ?

Daniel.

 

[Bladibla]

Bladibla,I guess your acception of "tragedy" would consider the earthquakes and other natural catastrophies resulting in massive death toll to be something else than a "tragedy"...Hmm,interesting.Are u thinking ancient Greek theater ?

Daniel.

You have a extremely good point. They could be called 'natural disasters' but then again, it is a 'tragedy' after all.

Greek theatre?

 

[kaos]

If we look outside of human history to the history of the entire planet, aside from the mass extinction at the end of the Cambrian period, the evolution of humans was probably the greatest tragedy.

Hmm i would agree with you man.Its the worst thing that happened to the planet.

 

[Huckleberry]

That's a myth and a luxury of living in a society with modern technology. The luxury of ignorance of how much better things really are. Ask them (oh wait, you can't - they just died of the plague! )

I'll have to mention that to them the next time I see them. They'll get a kick out of it.

As it is over 1 billion people in the world have bad water quality. About 1/3 of the world's population have substandard sanitation. These numbers will increase in the next few decades. Most of the people that suffer from this are the poor. They already live without running water and good sanitation systems and without vaccinations. Because a person lives in a poor, out of the way place does not make them ignorant to the world. You are making an assumption that they are ignorant of modern technology. That is untrue. These people know exactly what they are missing but live according to their means as best they can, and I might add far better than many in richer nations would in the same circumstances.
edit-

If we look outside of human history to the history of the entire planet, aside from the mass extinction at the end of the Cambrian period, the evolution of humans was probably the greatest tragedy.

I had thought of this and decided against it. Perhaps just removing the part of humanity that causes us to be selfish would remedy the problem. That is why I voted for the destruction of the ego. Then again, I guess we wouldn't be human without it.

 

[loseyourname]

But it can't be really called a tragedy.. can it? I mean, we couldn't exactly stop some x-organism evolving over millions of years to become us.

A tragedy would be a event which it *could* have been prevented, but could't due to human failures.

Correct me if i am wrong.

The classical tragedies (which is where the word came from) generally involved circumstances that were beyond the protagonist's control. What made them tragedies was that a trait that is usually a virtuous trait became disadvantagous and leads to the tragic fall. This trait is referred to as the protagonist's 'tragic flaw.'

In the particular case of human evolution, what might very well be considered the great 'tragic flaw' of our race is our propensity toward violence and warfare, a trait that evolved in chimpanzees as a method for controlling access to reproductive resources. The great tragedy is that the same mechanism of natural selection, which relies on differential reproductive success, that produced the wonderful biodiversity we see everywhere around us, also produced a species that threatens to destroy most of it. This is what is known in the literary world as 'tragic irony.'

 

[kaos]

Anyway do u guys remember the part in the first matrix movie ,when agent smith said something like "there are only 2 species in the planet that does not achieve equilibrium with its environment ,viruses and humans".
I honestly think that that is how external observers such as aliens would see us.

 

[russ_watters]

As it is over 1 billion people in the world have bad water quality. About 1/3 of the world's population have substandard sanitation. These numbers will increase in the next few decades.

On what do you base that? Ove the past 20 years, the poverty rate in the world has decreased by half. Why do you think that trend will reverse itself?

Because a person lives in a poor, out of the way place does not make them ignorant to the world. You are making an assumption that they are ignorant of modern technology. That is untrue. These people know exactly what they are missing but live according to their means as best they can, and I might add far better than many in richer nations would in the same circumstances.

Au contraire. You cannot really understand something until you have experienced it. I can describe skydiving to you till I'm blue in the face, but it won't help you understand how it feels except in the most basic, academic, detached sense.

Besides - my statement has a much more basic implication: Arguing over quality of life is a moot point. To have a quality of life, you need to be alive. Lifespan has doubled this century too.