The Land of Plenty

[speed]

Today the western world is a land of plenty. Each individual has access to material wealth unheard of in the past. Hunger, war ( major war), and want have largerly disappeared. Even the poorest American likely owns a car and DVD player. We live longer, and have access to processing and communication systems thought impossible just fifty years ago. Yet few Americans are sated with their material and tech goods. Violence, psychological problems, drug use, the collapse of the family and other such perils plague American society. Art, literature, and religion have degraded into mere mimicry of the past. Science continues its endless pursuit towards a better future, but all the while destroying not only the environment, but leading the world to an eventual collapse of the economy that brought about this golden material age.

What is the problem? Does the current state of America suggest that Human beings really are psychologically fragile? Are most of us not equipped to handle this abundance? Are we not equipped for such extreme individualism as found in America? Has the disintegration of community and family in favor of "me me" suburbia permantely damaged the mental and social health of our country? An individualism in which no one has a duty towards anyone else, including it seems even immediate family members?

What is the matter? I talk to friends and acquaintances and I am constantly shocked at the psychological health of more than half of them. The rest of society seems crazier every day. Am I the only one who sees this? In my many travels I have never encountered as many crazy people as I do in just one day in America.

Im just curious as to what everyone thinks about all of this. I do not have, nor will ever suggest any solutions to "solve" the problem. I certaintly dont think a imperfect political ideology, or modern psychology can solve the problem. And I am equally curious whether or not this will lead to a substantial civilized discussion for the reasons presented above.

 

[Øjeblikket]

You're making way too many generalizations to prove anything more than an occassional aphorism. Science is hardly represented by the commons you attribute it, for instance.


"Science continues its endless pursuit towards a better future, but all the while destroying not only the environment,..."

Although, that is hardly factual.



Regarding the psychological patheticism, I think the best thing to do is be the best you can at getting exactly what you want. That is not simply a suggestion advocating materialism.

 

[speed]

You're making way too many generalizations to prove anything more than an occassional aphorism. Science is hardly represented by the commons you attribute it, for instance.


"Science continues its endless pursuit towards a better future, but all the while destroying not only the environment,..."

Although, that is hardly factual.



Regarding the psychological patheticism, I think the best thing to do is be the best you can at getting exactly what you want. That is not simply a suggestion advocating materialism.

Of course I am making generalizations. Surely you have such conversations with others?

And you just made a huge generalization about psychology and science. If you are going to criticize me for not being factual, the least you could do is be factual yourself.

 

[Øjeblikket]

Surely you have such conversations with others?

well, since my wife happens to be a wetlands biologist, no I don't go about making generalizations about science and the loss of art like what is seen here.

And you just made a huge generalization about psychology and science.

No, no I didn't. I refered to what you were describing, and moreover, your angst over the subject of your post, as psychological patheticism. I wasn't referring to any actual studies that endorse scientific methodology, since none were addressed prior to my contention. Therefore, I did not make a generalization about science or psychology.


"Does the current state of America suggest that Human beings really are psychologically fragile? "

no.

 

[Kenneth R.]

speed: i strongly agree with your first post, and my hypothesis for the cause of this degeneration is the american media and government. they set a terrible example that the public has fallen into following, wishing they were as they see in hollywood, network television, and believing the lies of the government. we have become a nation of "new and improved", instead of content with our family, lives, and experiences. the average modern american is more concerned with what programming will be on tv at 8:00, what the best cell phone cover is, or what the latest fashions are, than pondering the framework of their beliefs and traditions, or seeking to improve the world around them. they subconsciously expect the world to improve itself at the dawn of a "new" day, while they drive their new cars and believe in the new religion, wearing their new clothes- never questioning if "new" is necessary, or even as functional as what they are replacing.

 

[the alumnus]

honestly i don't agree with your analysis of the situation. you say "Violence, psychological problems, drug use, the collapse of the family and other such perils plague American society. Art, literature, and religion have degraded into mere mimicry of the past", yet i think that these problems are hardly unique to our age, or even at their worst point. for example, i think that our society has grown less violent, not moreso.

 

[speed]

well, since my wife happens to be a wetlands biologist, no I don't go about making generalizations about science and the loss of art like what is seen here.



No, no I didn't. I refered to what you were describing, and moreover, your angst over the subject of your post, as psychological patheticism. I wasn't referring to any actual studies that endorse scientific methodology, since none were addressed prior to my contention. Therefore, I did not make a generalization about science or psychology.


"Does the current state of America suggest that Human beings really are psychologically fragile? "

no.

Frankly I dont know why I bother anymore. Surely you understand that all science is essentially observation and hypothesis. I am making a hypothesis based on my observations. You can disagree with them all you want, but why bother arguing pointless semantics especially when you have offerred no data, studies, observations, anything to rebut me. All I know is your wife is a wetlands biologist and you dislike aphorisms of anykind. Wow! I have a masters degree in Economics, a field considered a science--although I have my reservations.

Alumnus, I agree dont see violent crime statistics changing at all. They have been pretty stagnant. And although violence seems to pervade our lives and society, it does seem like things such as action movies and violent T.V shows have been on the decline. So maybe you are right, violence has not increased. Yet still, America is undoubtably the most violent industrialized country.

Still, what about culture and mental health? I know almost every age talks about the decline of its culture, but seriously, in the last 10 years I dont know of anything worthwhile produced by our culture. And when I turn on the TV, go to a bookstore, listen to a radio, it seems to be getting worse, not better. And even worse, most people dont have slightest clue about literature, history, art, even basic civics. I substituted for English and History classes last year at the local high school and middle school, and the kids were clueless. If I talk to most people I know, or even went to Grad school with, they have no fucking idea about even basic things.

 

[Øjeblikket]

Frankly I dont know why I bother anymore. Surely you understand that all science is essentially observation and hypothesis. I am making a hypothesis based on my observations. You can disagree with them all you want, but why bother arguing pointless semantics especially when you have offerred no data, studies, observations, anything to rebut me. All I know is your wife is a wetlands biologist and you dislike aphorisms of anykind. Wow! I have a masters degree in Economics, a field considered a science--although I have my reservations.

I grow increasingly weary of your complaining.

all science is not observation and hypothesis, if it were then what is your basis for claiming that "Science continues its endless pursuit towards a better future, but all the while destroying not only the environment, but leading the world to an eventual collapse of the economy that brought about this golden material age." Do you even remember what you had originally posted? Can a methodology that functions through observation and hypothesis be responsible for the things you originally blamed it for? Unlikely. My point for raising a questioning hand against your claims was to show that you were making statements which were untrue, and to further this point look at how your supposed understanding of science disagrees with what you claim the intentions of science are.

I am studying you, speed.

My hypothesis is that your definition of science is romantic and ideal rather than actual and real. Thus, your "observations" and subsequent theories about science and the conditions of modern Western society are more like 'ejaculations' eerily shadowing a replacement for the idea of an almighty oppressor. You don't know what you're talking about because you're making too many generalizations. Now is where you whine again about the unrequited love you experience on this board, yes?

My point for introducing my wife's occupation into this discussion was to contradict your notion that all science destroys the environment (what the frick are you talking about?). I can hardly agree that delineating a wetland so that it doesn't get built on is contributing to the destruction of the environment, for instance. That should have been study enough for you, speed, but I guess not.

Semantics? Don't tempt me.

in the last 10 years I dont know of anything worthwhile produced by our culture.

once again, you're thinking with your eyes closed. Can you not think of any music that you've enjoyed in the last ten years? I can think of plenty.

What is our culture anyway? Let's see if a nihilist endorsing internet psuedo-philosophizing generalizer can truly and accurately esteem OUR culture.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe just because you think the people you come into contact with are mad with emptiness (I paraphrase), it doesn't mean they necessarily are? Maybe the problem is in how you observe and regulate your personal environment, since obviously that seems to be a problem for you already.

 

[speed]

So much hot air. So little substance. Such a lack of humor. Such hate. Apparently I cannot make one post, or I have Captain I am smarter than you up my ass. I dont know why you feel the need to show off, but rarely have anything meaningful to say, and when you do, you state opinions as baseless as mine.

Jesus you take everything so seriously man. A sane person would have said like alumnus, no Speed, I think you are wrong on the science thing, and state why. And I would probably ending up agreeing with you on alot of issues. You have made this into a pop psychology study of me--who have never met nor know anything more than I want to tell you about-- and why your view of science and culture is right. Im merely putting this stuff out there to start conversation, to ruffle a few feathers.

And I still havent heard one good reason or example of why culture or science
is not declining (Hell, I could name some if you want) Nor have you explained the magic of science to all of us who are not as intelligent as you. I know why I am supposedly wrong, because I have an erroneous Romantic view.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Yeah, that is what I have been trying to say for a while, lots of personal attacks, but no substance to the argument.

Even if you think speed is wrong, you are wrong with the way you are conducting your argument/useless babbling. What speed says is not about his self but about what he thinks. Or can you not separate that?

 

[Øjeblikket]

Even if you think speed is wrong, you are wrong with the way you are conducting your argument/useless babbling. What speed says is not about his self but about what he thinks. Or can you not separate that?

so what exactly in my posts do you find to be babble?

here, I'll make it easy for you, your last question is evidence that you haven't read my posts.

 

[Øjeblikket]

You have made this into a pop psychology study of me--who have never met nor know anything more than I want to tell you about.

exhibit A: in which you offer up an "evaluation" of me based on some halfwit author. (note the date to understand who started what they cannot accept)

http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3968194&postcount=12

From your comments this is the quote that I think describes your personality: [...]

You see, he is calling you and your over-analysis out as pointless and ridiculous.

I am merely returning the gesture in kind, with an emphasis on your lacking analysis

 

[Heimdallr]

I am almost pitying speed as he is arguing with a wall...

First, the method is all about observation and hypotheses, however, this does NOT mean that this is all that the concept "science" includes. Let's take an example to illustrate this. A man is kicking a balll. This idea includes more than the fact that the man kicked the ball, it also necessarily follows that the ball will end up somewhere else, it is *necessarily* linked to the concept of kicking a ball.

In the same way, science is more than its method. If science *necessarily* creates certain conditions, then these are an integral part of the concept of science that can NOT be seperated from it, hence we can blame science. Personally I would rather atribute these conditions to capitalism/individualism/materialism instead, as I am perhaps not that skeptic about science itself. Technology might be another thing though.

You are also not aiding yourself with using the example of your wife. Science is a broad concept, and by definition, differences exist between the different things that fit the definition of the concept. Saying that scientific progress, as a whole, until our times has contributed to enviromental degradaion is obviously true. Bringing up an example against this truth changes nothing. You are essentialy arguing that chinese people are not short as you saw a tall chinese yesterday. Of course we can turn this around and apply your reasoning on your own post:

There exists a wetland biologist somewhere that is doing work that harms the enviroment of different reasons (the exact example is irrelevant). Due to this, wetland biology can not be considered as benificial for nature, as we are then making a generalisation (which we in fact already do by using language).

 

[Øjeblikket]

You are also not aiding yourself with using the example of your wife. Science is a broad concept, and by definition, differences exist between the different things that fit the definition of the concept. Saying that scientific progress, as a whole, until our times has contributed to enviromental degradaion is obviously true. Bringing up an example against this truth changes nothing. You are essentialy arguing that chinese people are not short as you saw a tall chinese yesterday. Of course we can turn this around and apply your reasoning on your own post:

There exists a wetland biologist somewhere that is doing work that harms the enviroment of different reasons (the exact example is irrelevant). Due to this, wetland biology can not be considered as benificial for nature, as we are then making a generalisation (which we in fact already do by using language).

what a bunch of nonsense. I brought up my wife and her occupation because we do not carry on conversations which generalize the scientific method of inquiry to the extent that speed has vulgarized it here. Point.

There does not exist a wetlands biologist somewhere that is doing work that harms the environment, an example stating the contrary is indeed necessary.

 

[Iridium]

Uh, what the hell is going on here?

Science is the utilization of the process of induction to understand and model our environment, from the molecular to the cosmic level. Scientific research is hardly harmful to the environment (unless you think a couple of dozen dead rats are a serious blow to our ecology, but I digress), even if technology - the application of learned scientific knowledge, mixed with a capitalist economy and a consumer base - damages the environment through oversaturation. Science is a process of obtaining knowledge. Any harm to the environment would result from a selfish and apathetic utilization of the knowledge. This certainly does not mean that all scientific knowledge causes (indirectly) damage to the environment, but I'm sure a good amount of it does or has.

Coincidentally, a recent trend in the scientific community has been to absolutely minimize and often reverse damage done to the environment that may result from a utilization of the obtained knowledge.

A good example is the use of chemical pesticides such as DDT in the 1960s, and the recent attempts to make all pesticides biotechnological (and thus harmless to the environment). At this point in the evolution of scientific thought, environmental damage is considered a great detriment,

 

[Silver Incubus]

Science created the process of nuclear power plants, and they do more harm to the environment, and will continue to do harm to the environment for years to come.

 

[Silver Incubus]

so what exactly in my posts do you find to be babble?

here, I'll make it easy for you, your last question is evidence that you haven't read my posts.

Thus, your "observations" and subsequent theories about science and the conditions of modern Western society are more like 'ejaculations' eerily shadowing a replacement for the idea of an almighty oppressor. You don't know what you're talking about because you're making too many generalizations. Now is where you whine again about the unrequited love you experience on this board, yes?

This and,

once again, you're thinking with your eyes closed. Can you not think of any music that you've enjoyed in the last ten years? I can think of plenty.

What is our culture anyway? Let's see if a nihilist endorsing internet psuedo-philosophizing generalizer can truly and accurately esteem OUR culture.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe just because you think the people you come into contact with are mad with emptiness (I paraphrase), it doesn't mean they necessarily are? Maybe the problem is in how you observe and regulate your personal environment, since obviously that seems to be a problem for you already.

Although I do think you are more correct in saying that not ALL science creates destruction, there is both sides to the coin, and the result in what science creates can be both beneficial and harmful.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

You're making way too many generalizations to prove anything more than an occassional aphorism. Science is hardly represented by the commons you attribute it, for instance.


"Science continues its endless pursuit towards a better future, but all the while destroying not only the environment,..."

Although, that is hardly factual.



Regarding the psychological patheticism, I think the best thing to do is be the best you can at getting exactly what you want. That is not simply a suggestion advocating materialism.

The reason this post sucks, is because it is obvious that it was made just to start a pointless "I'm smarter then you" argument. It screwed up the thread two posts in as well...

 

[Iridium]

Science created the process of nuclear power plants, and they do more harm to the environment, and will continue to do harm to the environment for years to come.

Oh man, I saw this one coming. Did you know that nuclear power (fission) is far safer for the environment than is fossil fuel combustion? It is entirely more efficient, doesn't require billions of gallons of oil or millions of tons or trees (and, given that, does not give off huge amounts of CO or CO2 waste product) and, if contained properly (something we in the United States have no significant problem with), causes pretty close to 0 damage to the environment. Sure, there was a huge meltdown in Chernobyl (claim to fame: it happened a month after I was born, less than 100km away from where I was at the time!), saturating the area with 1000 times the amount of radiation than was present in Hiroshima blast. But idiocy where it counts is just one of many symptoms of communism. Three Mile Island, you say? Easily contained. Those are the only two reactors which have ever gone critical in the history of mankind, and while the former certainly did plenty of damage (in fact, I'm sure every one of us carry at least a few strontium 90 and iridium atoms from the aforementioned meltdown), the latter did not. Now, let's take the outlier out of the picture: assuming Chernobyl was a fluke, how safe is nuclear power? I'd say, pretty damn safe. No oil spills, no global warming, no pollution.

Science is the process of obtaining knowledge; knowledge is power; whether the utilization of that power is 'good' or 'bad,' is subjective.

I'd like to reiterate my point that in the scientific community, any method that harms the environment is looked down upon.

I think Øjeblikket has some good points, but since his opinion differs from yours, it seems like you're falsely charging him with ad hominem fallacies...

 

[Silver Incubus]

yes i did know that, but the fact still remains that the nuclear waste is still bad for the environment as well. I didn't bring up fossil fuels because that is very obvious how much pollution is cause by coal and oil burning.