History The greatest tragedy in human history

[zoobyshoe]

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.

In general I agree with your argument that everyone with nukes is detering the others from using them, except in the case of North Korea. Don't you get the queasy feeling that that nut job who is letting the country collapse around him is incapable of putting the strategic picture together in such a way in his mind that the rest of the world can count on him not to do anything precipitous?

 

[ShawnD]

Very nicely played.

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

This is exactly why religion has such a bad name.

In general I agree with your argument that everyone with nukes is detering the others from using them, except in the case of North Korea. Don't you get the queasy feeling that that nut job who is letting the country collapse around him is incapable of putting the strategic picture together in such a way in his mind that the rest of the world can count on him not to do anything precipitous?

Never really thought of it like that. I guess we're all pretty screwed right now then.

 

[arildno]

M.L number 2, J.G. number 3, J.C number 1.

 

[Francis M]

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.

Not only do I consider it a tragedy to loose that type of information but I also consider it a great human tragedy if this same information is supressed or subverted. Let's not forget that that can also happen.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"...the war was over except for the fighting."

Kind of an important "except for" ennit? I just saw a History Channel program last week on the taking of Berlin by the Soviets. They lost 800 tanks in the streets of Berlin to civilians and remnants of the German military armed with bazookas. The Germans had no chance of stopping the Soviets, but they acted as if they did, which caused the Soviets many casualties. The "terror" of the bomb was parhaps more of a strategic success than the unnecessary waste your essayist contends: the US did not have to take Japan street by street.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Never really thought of it like that. I guess we're all pretty screwed right now then.

Well, let's hope he has one of those undiagnosed heart conditions that flare up suddenly and take people out within a day.

 

[Joel]

JOEL! Now YOU have a truly evil mind

I'm flattered.

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

 

[SOS2008]

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

Once the cat is out of the bag, is this realistic? Maybe the best way to solve the problem is for every country to have them. Then the weapons would have no use.

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.

Looks like you can run but you can't hide. I have noticed a lot more members participating in this thread, which is nice. But maybe people would rather let "rhetoric fly around" and just debate with opinion so are avoiding the serious sections on these topics?

 

[fourier jr]

M.L number 2, J.G. number 3, J.C number 1.

nope. guess again

 

[Joel]

nope. guess again

M.L. number 3. J.G number 2. J.C number 1. ?

Based on some odd guesses and the principle of exclusion.

 

[stoned]

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.

I would say one of the greatest tragedy is the Holocaust of Palestinians right now in this 21th century in occupied terrotories, then Holocaust of Armenians, of course Holocaust of German civilians in Dresden and Hamburg, Holocaust of millions of Ukrainians, whole of WW2 tragedy including Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. I would also add indiscriminate killing of Vietnamese civilians by USA army. (not necessarily in this order )

 

[fourier jr]

Kind of an important "except for" ennit? I just saw a History Channel program last week on the taking of Berlin by the Soviets. They lost 800 tanks in the streets of Berlin to civilians and remnants of the German military armed with bazookas. The Germans had no chance of stopping the Soviets, but they acted as if they did, which caused the Soviets many casualties. The "terror" of the bomb was parhaps more of a strategic success than the unnecessary waste your essayist contends: the US did not have to take Japan street by street.

the next paragraph goes like this:
"After the war, the world learned what U.S. leaders had known by early 1945: Japan was militarily defeated long before Hiroshima. It had been trying for months, if not for years, to surrender; and the U.S. had consistently rebuffed these overtures. A May 5 cable, intercepted and decoded by the U.S., dispelled any possible doubt that the Japanese were eager to sue for peace. Sent to Berlin by the German ambassador in Tokyo, after he talked to a ranking Japanese naval officer, it read:

"Since the situation is clearly recognized to be hopeless, large sections of the Japanese armed forces would not regard with disfavor an American request for capitulation even if the terms were hard.""

(not sure what "sue for peace" means)

& later he writes:
"Having broken the Japanese code years earlier, Washington did not have to wait to be informed by the Soviets of these peace overtures; it knew immediately, and did nothing. Indeed, the National Archives in Washington contains U.S. government documents reporting similarly ill-fated Japanese peace overtures as far back as 1943."

 

[alexandra]

But maybe people would rather let "rhetoric fly around" and just debate with opinion so are avoiding the serious sections on these topics?

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

 

[fourier jr]

M.L. number 3. J.G number 2. J.C number 1. ?

Based on some odd guesses and the principle of exclusion.

one of those is correct just switch the other 2

 

[klusener]

Rwanda, all imperialistic conquests, Holocaust...

 

[Joel]

one of those is correct just switch the other 2

Ahh, of course, switch 1 and 2. I first thought that 1 had a more ancient language and associated that with JC, but then I realized that Hittler probably didn't want to share his power with God, so the God reference goes to the Bishop. Yes?

 

[zoobyshoe]

It had been trying for months, if not for years, to surrender; and the U.S. had consistently rebuffed these overtures.

I have never heard this before. (History is constantly being reexamined and rewritten.) If this is true, then the case for the two bombs on Japan being "unnecessary terror" becomes very strong.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Um, no. The problem was Marxism itself, not Marxism's exposure of capitalism. Capitalism was then and is today doing just fine.

I'll have more later, but the Japanese surrender myth is just that, a myth. Japan was not near surrender prior to the nuclear bomb attacks - and yes, we've discussed that before.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

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.

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.

Humanity's origin, creation, evolution, whatever one wishes to call it, is the greatest tragedy in history.

 

[BicycleTree]

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.

Shawn, these are civilians. These are not military personnel. Indiscriminate mass slaughter of civilians is not acceptable in any warfare situation. Carpetbombing, if as you say, is on the same level. Bringing up another atrocity does not mean that the first atrocity isn't an atrocity. 100,000 civilians murdered with a couple bombs... compared to 3,000 killed in the WTC.

One could also argue that nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterant.

Nukes as a deterrent to warfare are called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) as I mentioned. The flaw in it is that not everyone can be counted on to be perfectly sane and perfectly unwilling to risk the lives of their civilians. The other flaw in it is that the more nations have nukes, the easier it is for a lone lunatic or lone lunatic organization to get his/its hands on one. The third flaw in it is that once one madman fires off an ICBM, how will the nations that it might hit respond? They might fire back. Global thermonuclear holocaust.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Humanity's origin, creation, evolution, whatever one wishes to call it, is the greatest tragedy in history.

Perhaps if we knew more about them it could be argued things were better before Homo Sapiens Sapiens displaced the Neanderthals. They had a very long run. Must have been doing something right.

 

[ShawnD]

Well, let's hope he has one of those undiagnosed heart conditions that flare up suddenly and take people out within a day.

And with a twist of irony the successor will be completely insane

 

[SpaceTiger]

Once the cat is out of the bag, is this realistic? Maybe the best way to solve the problem is for every country to have them. Then the weapons would have no use.

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.

 

[ShawnD]

Shawn, these are civilians. These are not military personnel. Indiscriminate mass slaughter of civilians is not acceptable in any warfare situation. Carpetbombing, if as you say, is on the same level. Bringing up another atrocity does not mean that the first atrocity isn't an atrocity. 100,000 civilians murdered with a couple bombs... compared to 3,000 killed in the WTC.

Are you actually suggesting that civilian lives are worth more than military lives? That's repugnant.

 

[2CentsWorth]

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.

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.

Humanity's origin, creation, evolution, whatever one wishes to call it, is the greatest tragedy in history.

Agreed, Capitalism is a double-edge sword. And it seems people focus on morals and "values" in making a "kinder, gentler nation," yet at the same time don't seem too concerned about corporate ruthlessness, corruption, and greed. Add to that a government that takes the side of big business, due to campaign contributions, lobbying, etc. Too bad unions became just as bad, because the labor force here in America has no voice and has lost any power it ever had in the past.

 

[BicycleTree]

Are you actually suggesting that civilian lives are worth more than military lives? That's repugnant.

Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. In wartime soldiers are committed to risking their lives to kill other people. Civilians have made no such contract. The lives of soldiers are therefore worth far less than the lives of civilians in a time of war. The death of civilians is much worse than the death of soldiers. 100,000 INNOCENT DEAD. Even if we would have lost that many soldiers before Japan would have surrendered anyway (not likely, given the state it and its allies were in) it would not have been nearly as bad as 100,000 civilians murdered.

 

[moose]

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

 

[ShawnD]

Capitalism is not fine. Capitalism places people against each other and uses propoganda to perpetuate the will of a small minority.

Capitalism puts one man against another. The odds may be stacked towards one person, but each person still has a chance of winning.
Socialism puts people against the government. The people have absolutely no chance of winning. No matter how hard you work or how smart you are, the government is always there to take it all from you, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The beauty of capitalism is that everybody gets a chance. It may be incredibly small in some cases, but it's always there.

 

[BicycleTree]

Is there some kind of mystic significance to having a very very tiny chance of success over having no chance of success? Let's say, for example, that you don't, in the end, succeed.

Have you read Flatworld? Do you remember the method that the aristocratic figures used to keep down the lower classes?

 

[BicycleTree]

Capitalism is at its heart a psychological tool. It acts on the human psychology to make people work harder. That is its only functional use, and while it is somewhat effective in that respect, it should not be elevated onto a pedestal. Ultimately it is just a trick to make people work harder.

 

[ShawnD]

Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. In wartime soldiers are committed to risking their lives to kill other people. Civilians have made no such contract. The lives of soldiers are therefore worth far less than the lives of civilians in a time of war.

Three people are involved in a killing. One man crafts a knife knowing that it will be to kill someone, one man gives the order to kill, and one man does the killing. Who is most guilty? I would say they're all equally guilty.
Air bases launch bombers; take them out. Factories create bombers; take them out. Commerce and industry pay for those bombers; take them out. If you remember back to WW2, people were supporting the war by conserving metal and grease. Wouldn't that then make every single citizen involved in the war? There's no such thing as an innocent civilian.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The lives of soldiers are therefore worth far less than the lives of civilians in a time of war. The death of civilians is much worse than the death of soldiers.

I can't agree with this. Most soldiers in most armies are not volunteers.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There's no such thing as an innocent civilian.

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

 

[BicycleTree]

The rules of murder--namely, you kill someone, it's murder--are suspended when soldiers fight soldiers. It's longstanding custom. Massacre of unarmed civilians is a cowardly act. They do not represent a direct threat to anyone. If they keep the cogs turning, well, they aren't firing the guns. No one's life is forfeit merely because they are not absolutely separate from war; they have to be directly involved in it for their lives to be forfeit.

If a gun manufacturer makes ten thousand handguns, knowing that (and here I am making this up out of thin air) twenty of those ten thousand handguns on average will be used to kill someone, are you saying that the gun manufacturer should be charged with serial kiling? Obviously not. Therefore, mass murder of civilians, even in wartime, is just that: murder.

Bombing of an arms factory would be legitimate in war. But in Hirhoshima and Nagasaki, the great majority of the civilians were not directly involved with the wartime machinery.

Additionally, they were killed because they represented a way to test our weapons and make the Japanese command surrender faster, not because they themselves were a clear threat to the United States. So even the indirect contributions to warfare that the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were guilty of were not the reason that they were murdered. They were murdered for diplomatic reasons unrelated to how much of a danger they actually were themselves.

 

[BicycleTree]

I can't agree with this. Most soldiers in most armies are not volunteers.

You're right, many soldiers have not deliberately forfeited their lives. But if soldier A is holding a gun and trying to kill soldier B, then A's life is forfeit even if both soldiers are unwilling combatants. Remember that every soldier has the right to refuse to fight. He may be imprisoned or killed for it, but he can do so if he so chooses.

 

[fourier jr]

Ahh, of course, switch 1 and 2. I first thought that 1 had a more ancient language and associated that with JC, but then I realized that Hittler probably didn't want to share his power with God, so the God reference goes to the Bishop. Yes?

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

 

[fourier jr]

I have never heard this before. (History is constantly being reexamined and rewritten.) If this is true, then the case for the two bombs on Japan being "unnecessary terror" becomes very strong.

as you can see in the link, his source is
Tim Weiner, "U.S. Spied on its World War II Allies," New York Times, Aug. 11, 1993, p.9

 

[zoobyshoe]

No one's life is forfeit merely because they are not absolutely separate from war; they have to be directly involved in it for their lives to be forfeit.

If everyone were disciplined enough to follow the rules of war you assert, there would probably be no wars.

 

[zoobyshoe]

as you can see in the link, his source is
Tim Weiner, "U.S. Spied on its World War II Allies," New York Times, Aug. 11, 1993, p.9

I am open minded to this information, which I haven't heard before. However, I can tell that it is an argument with two sides, and needs a great deal of study and thought.

 

[icvotria]

There are a million horrible tragic historical events, the greatest tragedy is that all these horrible things come from the same source as all these wonderful things like art and music and scientific advancements and all the lovely small things that people do for each other without even thinking about it. That irony is to me incredibly tragic. No matter how good things get, they'll get equally as bad at the same time.

 

[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...