What went wrong in the West?

[Hubster]

It's very difficult to remain optimistic sometimes, in relation to the above.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I like to think there is hope, but humanity as we know it today has no future.
That is clear.

 

[derek]

Cycles people, cycles.

I still love this place

 

[G-Master]

Really - should I complain of having such beautiful things around me, despite the Gucci clad amoeba around my area? No. I already have more than most people could ever ask for. Simplicity and the sea breeze.

I completely agree. Who said there was anything wrong with living a simple life?

 

[Neith]

Who else feels like we are on the Titanic and about to hit the iceberg? The captain is an evil lunatic and the passengers are all drugged and tied up. All civilisations selfdestruct and I give it 50 years at maximum until the next dark age. But this will be a worse dark age than ever, and much more widespread. It could even easily be the end of all life on Earth.
I will give a summary of the threats a bit later on, when I've had time to think more clearly.

Maybe you should start believing in God, then there will never be an end to the Earth (depending on the religion).

But really, what's the point thinking about that kind of stuff? There's not much the little people can do about it, if it's going to happen then it's going to happen. If it's the end of the world then so much the better - nobody will know any wiser anyway. And isn't posting on internet forums a waste of your last 50 years of enjoying a ok (ish) world?

 

[Norsemaiden]

But it is still not too late for it to stop. It is a man made disaster and the solution is also man made. The more people are aware of this, the better the prognosis. Final Product is right about cycles. In this cycle I am hoping for a phoenix to rise from the ashes, so to speak, but hardship is ahead and there is no doubt about that.

 

[Lord SteveO]

My life is good. I have a family, a lovely girlfriend a job (though it is low paid), a place to live and i can go out ot enjoy the world i live in by going to the beach or into the mountains.
I know the world is going up shit creek both without a paddle and also with big holes in the bottom of the cannoe and aligators following it, but, my life is good so i'll enjoy it.

I wish i could do more to save this place from the doom we're going to bring to it through human stupidity (that's why i studied zoology at uni....help nature, not the stupid humans!) but on my own i can do little.

May as well do what we can, but enjoy how lucky some of us are!

And yes the earth does cycle, but it takes 1000's of years so we will never see the end of a cycle. We should really think about the future of earth more than our own selfish lives for once.

 

[infoterror]

I know the world is going up shit creek both without a paddle and also with big holes in the bottom of the cannoe and aligators following it, but, my life is good so i'll enjoy it.

Drugs are also really good for this.

 

[infoterror]

It is a man made disaster and the solution is also man made. The more people are aware of this, the better the prognosis.

I agree with the first sentence, not the second.

Most people are politically and philosophically incompetent. They need to be motivated by something other than awareness.

Whether it's a dollar sign, the barrel of a gun, or strong words from respected leaders is immaterial to me.

 

[petehis kahn]

To suggest that something has gone wrong in the west is to suggest that it was ever at a perfect state to begin with.

The facts are there has always been stupid people who aren't aware of things politically or philosophy.

I would really enjoy infoterror to point out a time period in the history of the west when that hasn't been the case.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I don't think there was ever a perfect society, but there is a clear deterioration from a previous situation which could have got better rather than worse. So things have gone wrong and now we all face catastrophe.

 

[petehis kahn]

You really think that people are less aware of things now than they were in say the so called dark ages.

With the internet we have at our fingertips access to huge amounts of data and infomation. I would prefer it if people had more of an interest in things such as politics but to suggest that this is a down period in western society shows a pretty large ignorance in western history.

 

[infoterror]

You really think that people are less aware of things now than they were in say the so called dark ages.

With the internet we have at our fingertips access to huge amounts of data and infomation. I would prefer it if people had more of an interest in things such as politics but to suggest that this is a down period in western society shows a pretty large ignorance in western history.

Access to data... when I was less experienced, I believed that meant a damn thing.

Most data is repetitive. You can find what you need in far less than we have. Yet no one is finding it. Why? Most aren't looking, and few are capable.

The great taboo in the west: only about 2% of our population are competent to make political decisions. The rest think they can, however.

That's a big problem.

In the "dark ages" people were more spiritually and philosophically informed, but had less technology. Then again, well-bred people don't need much... it's the biological fuckups who are really dependent on it.

 

[petehis kahn]

No they weren't

Most people in the dark age thought the earth was what they dug into. The average person has always cared more where their next meal is coming from and what to do about the roof that is leaking than about political decision making or philosophy. I wonder good sir how they could have been so philosophically informed when they couldn't even read.

Perhaps you mean the elite of their society, but I do believe your essay was about the average person.

I'd also like some kind of data to backup what you just posted about only 2 percent being fit to lead. I'd also like to hear the criteria for this two percent. Alexander the great was a brilliant ancient leader, but would he be a great leader in the modern age ? I would have my doubts.

 

[Norsemaiden]

A very small minority in the world has access to information about the ecology or understands it. The burgeoning third world population is a big cause of deforestation and the developing nations are using environmentally damaging materials and fuel in their attempt to become richer. These are things that have resulted from policies by the west since the end of WWII. A very different direction was an option at the time, but instead this disasterous situation has occured. The third world population has grown so quickly because of the West's financial input. The developing nations have relied upon getting technology sold to them by the west, when there was once the option of denying it to them. The west makes some feeble attempts to reduce its emissions but it is useless compared to the increasing pollution and deforestation from the developing nations. Whether the west had leaders who brought this about or whether they instead had leaders who would have made much better decisions was all a matter of which world view would prevail around this critical time.

The third world is like a cuckoo being fed by the west. It is consuming the planet. If the west stopped feeding India, China, South America, etc and giving them technology to prop up food production, medecines, training them and educating them, they would all just die. We should let them "wither on the vine" if we want to save this planet. A cruel decision, to prevent an even crueler fate.

Another analogy: the lifeboats on the Titanic. Everyone can't be saved so you must use triage, discriminating about who lives or dies. If this isn't done now, while it is manageable, ecological destruction will lead to starvation, which leads to dictators, which leads to wars of extermination. Nature will then restore its own balance. This time it could be the Americans being exterminated by the Chinese. Historically racially mixed nations lack the cohesion and altruism to withstand pure races.

 

[infoterror]

The average person has always cared more where their next meal is coming from and what to do about the roof that is leaking than about political decision making or philosophy. I wonder good sir how they could have been so philosophically informed when they couldn't even read.

They had a healthier all-around philosophy. Did you just make an error in the above and attempt to conflate political decision making with philosophy? Surely you wouldn't make such an amateurish blunder!

Because most people don't care about politics, democracy is and always will be a failure. In the middle ages, a better system of a government and a complete philosophy prevailed. People were in tune with that and thus more in touch than us moderns are.

 

[Neith]

In the middle ages, a better system of a government and a complete philosophy prevailed. People were in tune with that and thus more in touch than us moderns are.

That's our opinion though, I doubt that many people in the Middle Ages would have agreed with the system of government. If they were given the option between our system anf their own, they would probably opt for ours, as it apears better. Given the same choice, I do not think that we would choose thier system either, although a minority of perhaps more intelligient people may.

It's all perception.

 

[derek]

That's our opinion though, I doubt that many people in the Middle Ages would have agreed with the system of government. If they were given the option between our system and their own, they would probably opt for ours, as it apears better. Given the same choice, I do not think that we would choose thier system either, although a minority of perhaps more intelligient people may.

It's all perception.

The grass is always greener, I suppose.

I do agree with infoterror on the sentiment that the support for democracy is misguided and its continued use as a means to running a society is both dangerous and ineffective.

 

[infoterror]

That's our opinion though, I doubt that many people in the Middle Ages would have agreed with the system of government.

Why does that matter? Most people don't have the brains to make this decision, so their opinion is unimportant. -- you do realize you're arguing for an explicitly utilitarian, modern view?

---

Black 'artists' are heavily featured in media; White artists are not.

Populism is a one-way street; it does not favor that which is difficult to understand, because that is less popular than something idiotic which everyone in the crowd can understand.

That's why more people listen to 50 cent than Bruckner. It's not race, it's capital + popularity = consumerism/egalitarianism/individualism.

As soon as white people understand that, they're on the course to recovery. Until they accept it their destruction is inevitable. It's not race; race is a means to an end, and that end is populism.

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=60331

 

[derek]

Why does that matter? Most people don't have the brains to make this decision, so their opinion is unimportant. -- you do realize you're arguing for an explicitly utilitarian, modern view?

Who makes the decisions then?