Progress For The Sake Of Progress

[E.A Rumfield]

I am reading a lecture by Albert Einstein titled Ether and Relativity. I also just watched a very interesting documentary titled Surviving Progress. So the point of the documentary is in part how humanity believes, in a very faith based way, that science will fix the problems it has already created. There is always a 2.0. Everything is working towards a 2.0. We're constantly fixing our mistakes just to learn the solution created a bigger problem. It's like we're stuck in a washing machine in the spin cycle, going round and round and round. It's all about machines now. Bigger better smarter machines, but we don't think, why. Why do we need this? Does this make our lives better? The answer is clearly no. The Earth already has a population that it cannot support so what now? When will people start to take our economic problems as a sign of something much more severe? Like The Bank Of Earth is going to crash and no one can bail us out. Now back to Einstein. Einstein made the greatest strides in physics since Issac Newton. First of all, given enough time it will be proven that Albert Einstein and Steven Hawkins and anyone else for that matter were wrong about everything. Then that person will be proven wrong and so on and so forth each one being proved antique by 2.0. So Albert Einstein the greatest genius in the 20th century (and no doubt that he was a genius) most practical application was the nuclear bomb. Shouldn't that prove to us that perhaps we are on the wrong path. All progress to this point has lead to, unfortunately but it is likely, the point of no return for us as a people. We are now, at this moment, nothing more than a parasite. A parasite by any definition of the word. Spinoza wrote in A Portrait Of The Philosopher As A Young Man; "Everyone will now be able to see that I wish to direct all sciences toward and one goal, namely, that we should achieve, as we have said, the highest human perfection." And what a noble dream. However I think in a few short years, everyone will be able to see that our greatest leaders and thinkers have directed us right down the ****ing drain. At this point we are unable to deal with even the slightest disruption. I can go on and on, instead I would like to ask one question. Do you not think it is time we reevaluated absolutely everything we have put our value into up to this point? We have gone marching unquestioningly toward the horizon for a long time now and I think only naivety and a will to ignore the unpleasant keeps us from handling the very real problem we are encompassed by. You can pretend it is not there but the wolf will still eat you. We are consuming our resources at such a rate that if you want the world to be even a decent place for your children the time to act is now. Think about this, it took 500,000 years to add 200 million individuals to the population. Now it takes THREE years and we are growing exponentially. As our population grows so does the complexity of completing any task. We will soon if we haven't already gotten to the point where it will be easier to continue down the path to inevitable destruction than it will be to stop break everything down and rebuild it the right way.The Earth is finite, remember that.

[Phocion]

I don't know what your point is? The Earth is no less capable of sustaining its population than 200-odd years ago when Malthus wrote his fallacy riddled essay on population. 'Progress', as you put it, limits the growth of population rather than enabling it - hence why population growth is not a problem in the Western world; so you're placing two problems together as exacerbating factors, when they do not act in this way.

What is your proof that Einstein will be proven wrong about everything given enough time? the elapse of time can often prove people right, rather than wrong. Some of the ideas of Democritus and Parmenides are certainly still valid in the present day.

Your post reads as if you have just read the ramblings of the madman Rousseau, and taken them on authority. The idea that science isn't always put to the best of use is an obvious and fair one, but it is a point you argue rather illogically and dogmatically. I can assure you, the average life in the world before the advent of science, is a life of utter misery and despair.

[ladderandbucket]

I think you would like the work of the British philosopher John Gray. His central idea is that faith in progress has replaced religious ideas of salvation. I think this is correct to an extent. I don't see progress as inherently bad - I would certainly not choose to live in any era prior to my own - but it is a mistake to believe technology can solve our fundamental problems, or to think our political and ethical achievements cannot be reversed.

[PeterL]

I didn't read every word of the OP, but I question whether Einstein was the greatest genius of the 20th century. There were several who did better and more important. While his work helped the invention of the nuclear bomb, I think that it could have been made without him at all. You might also have earned that there is no fundamental difference between Aether theory and Relarivity. Einstein set, as an axiom, that there could be no background that could be used as an inertial fframe of reference, and that was taken to mean that Aether was out, but there is no difference between time-space and aether except the term.

It remains to be seen whether science is a force for good or bad. I recently met a gentleman who uses the word "science" as a synonym for evil. I think that he is mistaken, but I also think that those who consider science and progress to be completely good to be deluded. I think that the real split is between people who think that there are black and white divisions in the world of ideas and those of us who believe that everything is gray.

[E.A Rumfield]

I don't know what your point is? The Earth is no less capable of sustaining its population than 200-odd years ago when Malthus wrote his fallacy riddled essay on population. 'Progress', as you put it, limits the growth of population rather than enabling it - hence why population growth is not a problem in the Western world; so you're placing two problems together as exacerbating factors, when they do not act in this way.

What is your proof that Einstein will be proven wrong about everything given enough time? the elapse of time can often prove people right, rather than wrong. Some of the ideas of Democritus and Parmenides are certainly still valid in the present day.

Your post reads as if you have just read the ramblings of the madman Rousseau, and taken them on authority. The idea that science isn't always put to the best of use is an obvious and fair one, but it is a point you argue rather illogically and dogmatically. I can assure you, the average life in the world before the advent of science, is a life of utter misery and despair.

Einsteins theory's were never completely satisfactory, not even in his time. That is why now we have string theorists

[stlukesguild]

"Ramblings" indeed quite well describes this post... or to be specific, the cliched ramblings rooted in Freudian self-loathing and the Romanticism if the adolescent that cannot help but imagine himself and his experiences as "exceptional" and wholly without precedent.

You throw up what you purport to be "facts" which are nothing of the sort. The planet cannot sustain the current populations? Really? It seems to me that if you had any concept of history you would know that we are sustaining human life of the planet now far better than in the past... or do you imagine that famine and pestilence and constant wars over fertile land were not an everyday fact in the past? The scientifically/technologically advanced nations seem to be doing far better than any with regard to sustaining their populations with anything approaching a fair and comfortable life.

Yes, science has resulted in certain negative, unforeseen consequences, but what is the alternative? Living in some ideal fantasy of the peaceful, agrarian society that never existed?

And what are the economic problems you speak of? Do you have any grasp whatsoever of economics. Have you ever even had a real job? Economies are cyclical. Anyone who imagines they will never have downturns is delusional. The economies of the world are international and interrelated. Following World War II the United States was the unrivaled economic giant. With most of the industry of Europe and Asia in ruins, and Africa, India, and South America crawling out from the agrarian age, the US had no competition whatsoever. We were able to build an unparalleled lifestyle on the strength of our industry and technology... and on cheap foreign labor. With time... as only logical... those in Japan, China, Eastern Europe, etc... have grown unsatisfied with being nothing more than cheap foreign labor. They have become competitors for the wealth and resources of the world. The world is changing. The promise of American exceptionality... of being handed the whole of the world's wealth and resources on a plate without having to work hard for them is coming to an end... and thus you imagine the whole world in collapse? :rofl:

[Volya]

"Ramblings" indeed quite well describes this post... or to be specific, the cliched ramblings rooted in Freudian self-loathing and the Romanticism if the adolescent that cannot help but imagine himself and his experiences as "exceptional" and wholly without precedent.

You throw up what you purport to be "facts" which are nothing of the sort. The planet cannot sustain the current populations? Really? It seems to me that if you had any concept of history you would know that we are sustaining human life of the planet now far better than in the past... or do you imagine that famine and pestilence and constant wars over fertile land were not an everyday fact in the past? The scientifically/technologically advanced nations seem to be doing far better than any with regard to sustaining their populations with anything approaching a fair and comfortable life.

Yes, science has resulted in certain negative, unforeseen consequences, but what is the alternative? Living in some ideal fantasy of the peaceful, agrarian society that never existed?

And what are the economic problems you speak of? Do you have any grasp whatsoever of economics. Have you ever even had a real job? Economies are cyclical. Anyone who imagines they will never have downturns is delusional. The economies of the world are international and interrelated. Following World War II the United States was the unrivaled economic giant. With most of the industry of Europe and Asia in ruins, and Africa, India, and South America crawling out from the agrarian age, the US had no competition whatsoever. We were able to build an unparalleled lifestyle on the strength of our industry and technology... and on cheap foreign labor. With time... as only logical... those in Japan, China, Eastern Europe, etc... have grown unsatisfied with being nothing more than cheap foreign labor. They have become competitors for the wealth and resources of the world. The world is changing. The promise of American exceptionality... of being handed the whole of the world's wealth and resources on a plate without having to work hard for them is coming to an end... and thus you imagine the whole world in collapse? :rofl:

I'm not disputing the rest of your argument, but can you honestly say that the planet will be able to sustain human life if the current rate of growth continues? Our population is increasing faster than it ever has in the past, and sooner or later we're either going to have to stop making babies, find a new planet, or cull the herd.

[E.A Rumfield]

"Ramblings" indeed quite well describes this post... or to be specific, the cliched ramblings rooted in Freudian self-loathing and the Romanticism if the adolescent that cannot help but imagine himself and his experiences as "exceptional" and wholly without precedent.

You throw up what you purport to be "facts" which are nothing of the sort. The planet cannot sustain the current populations? Really? It seems to me that if you had any concept of history you would know that we are sustaining human life of the planet now far better than in the past... or do you imagine that famine and pestilence and constant wars over fertile land were not an everyday fact in the past? The scientifically/technologically advanced nations seem to be doing far better than any with regard to sustaining their populations with anything approaching a fair and comfortable life.

Yes, science has resulted in certain negative, unforeseen consequences, but what is the alternative? Living in some ideal fantasy of the peaceful, agrarian society that never existed?

And what are the economic problems you speak of? Do you have any grasp whatsoever of economics. Have you ever even had a real job? Economies are cyclical. Anyone who imagines they will never have downturns is delusional. The economies of the world are international and interrelated. Following World War II the United States was the unrivaled economic giant. With most of the industry of Europe and Asia in ruins, and Africa, India, and South America crawling out from the agrarian age, the US had no competition whatsoever. We were able to build an unparalleled lifestyle on the strength of our industry and technology... and on cheap foreign labor. With time... as only logical... those in Japan, China, Eastern Europe, etc... have grown unsatisfied with being nothing more than cheap foreign labor. They have become competitors for the wealth and resources of the world. The world is changing. The promise of American exceptionality... of being handed the whole of the world's wealth and resources on a plate without having to work hard for them is coming to an end... and thus you imagine the whole world in collapse? :rofl:

Yea 3/4 of the world starves to feed a bunch of fat pasty white *****es. That sounds real fair. Did you know that the Brazilian and Argentinean governments are selling off the Amazonian resources to foreign banks to pay their debt. These people are destroying the ecosystem that has allowed to live for thousands of years. And that is where the world stands right now. I don't give a **** about America. The question is not what happens when America starts to slip. No the question is what happens when a one billion Chinese and one billion Indians want as many Nike sneakers and Big Macs as us piece of **** American and Europeans. I've had a real job. Economics is not a science. You really believe what these Wall St pieces of **** tell you? These parasites trade in human life and we happily support that. Progress is the rich saying you'll never regain what we take from you. Like I said before with the Amazons, countries are forced into debts that they can never possibly ever pay back. Do you know how totally criminal the banking organizations truly are? They take a country and say "How much debt can this country withstand." the answer is how much revenue do they make? That is how much they can afford. That is why the world is the way that it is. Debt is incurred on the part of people that have nothing to do with it.

[Phocion]

Einsteins theory's were never completely satisfactory, not even in his time. That is why now we have string theoristsI only queried your inane assumption that everyone will be eventually proven wrong about everything, why are you talking about string theory? Why, when i merely showed your vague ideas to be erroneous, do you decide to reply with the answer to a question i did not ask?

This is the pointless equivocation of someone that does not have an argument, but merely wishes to rant and moan.


Yea 3/4 of the world starves to feed a bunch of fat pasty white *****es. That sounds real fair. Did you know that the Brazilian and Argentinean governments are selling off the Amazonian resources to foreign banks to pay their debt. These people are destroying the ecosystem that has allowed to live for thousands of years. And that is where the world stands right now. I don't give a **** about America. The question is not what happens when America starts to slip. No the question is what happens when a one billion Chinese and one billion Indians want as many Nike sneakers and Big Macs as us piece of **** American and Europeans. I've had a real job. Economics is not a science. You really believe what these Wall St pieces of **** tell you? These parasites trade in human life and we happily support that. Progress is the rich saying you'll never regain what we take from you. Like I said before with the Amazons, countries are forced into debts that they can never possibly ever pay back. Do you know how totally criminal the banking organizations truly are? They take a country and say "How much debt can this country withstand." the answer is how much revenue do they make? That is how much they can afford. That is why the world is the way that it is. Debt is incurred on the part of people that have nothing to do with it.I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with progress? Are you trying to argue that people were not exploited before science? Or maybe before private property (as if there has ever been a time), like Rousseau thought? What is your point? Have you got one, or do you just want to rant mindlessly about Wall St.?

[Alexander III]

Yea 3/4 of the world starves to feed a bunch of fat pasty white *****es.

http://d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net/image_cache/1346682921788041.jpg

[stlukesguild]

I'm not disputing the rest of your argument, but can you honestly say that the planet will be able to sustain human life if the current rate of growth continues? Our population is increasing faster than it ever has in the past, and sooner or later we're either going to have to stop making babies, find a new planet, or cull the herd.

I doubt we can say for certain... or even begin to guess where the limitations are as to what is sustainable. Of course we might do well to note that an unsustainable population and the population explosion are not the problems of the Modernized, Post-Industrialized world. In other words... it doesn't seem like science and technology are to blame for problems like malnutrition.

Yea 3/4 of the world starves to feed a bunch of fat pasty white *****es. That sounds real fair.

Grow up. In case you haven't yet been told, life isn't fair.

Did you know that the Brazilian and Argentinean governments are selling off the Amazonian resources to foreign banks to pay their debt. These people are destroying the ecosystem that has allowed to live for thousands of years.

And so your solution is that we insist (how? through the use of military force?) that Latin-American nations stop chopping down trees (like America and Europe did centuries ago) and instead carry on living in some fantasy ideal of ignorant natives living off the land? In return we'll just eat their debt... right after China writes off our debt, right?

And that is where the world stands right now. I don't give a **** about America.

Of course you don't... because you don't really live in America... you live in fantasy-land.

The question is not what happens when America starts to slip. No the question is what happens when a one billion Chinese and one billion Indians want as many Nike sneakers and Big Macs as us piece of **** American and Europeans.

Yes... that's a real problem, isn't it? Other nations shouldn't strive for the same standard of living you enjoy. No... they should be above those petty American "pieces of ****"... like yourself, no doubt.:rolleyes:

I've had a real job.

Flipping burgers and smoking weed doesn't count. I wonder how much thought you've given to the impact of your desire for a cheap high on Latin-American economies and ecosystems, to say nothing of the impact on the neighborhoods of Urban America. How many acres of rainforest have been plowed under in order to grow pot and coca plants. How many resources are spent by these cash-strapped Latin-American nations attempting to enforce drug laws... battling with powerful, wealthy, violent drug lords?

Economics is not a science. You really believe what these Wall St pieces of **** tell you? These parasites trade in human life and we happily support that. Progress is the rich saying you'll never regain what we take from you. Like I said before with the Amazons, countries are forced into debts that they can never possibly ever pay back. Do you know how totally criminal the banking organizations truly are? They take a country and say "How much debt can this country withstand." the answer is how much revenue do they make? That is how much they can afford. That is why the world is the way that it is. Debt is incurred on the part of people that have nothing to do with it.

And you, of course have a solution to the evils of supply and demand.

[E.A Rumfield]

Yea 3/4 of the world starves to feed a bunch of fat pasty white *****es. That sounds real fair.

Grow up. In case you haven't yet been told, life isn't fair.

Did you know that the Brazilian and Argentinean governments are selling off the Amazonian resources to foreign banks to pay their debt. These people are destroying the ecosystem that has allowed to live for thousands of years.

Listen faggot I don't flip burgers and I'm not a coddled little *****. The Latin American countries are responsible as much for the destruction of the rain forest as families were for losing their homes during the mortgage collapse. The fault lies in the people that wager life and resources for an abstract idea of money through power. You miss the point completely, nobody should have the standard of living we do. For us to live the way we do others have to suffer.

And so your solution is that we insist (how? through the use of military force?) that Latin-American nations stop chopping down trees (like America and Europe did centuries ago) and instead carry on living in some fantasy ideal of ignorant natives living off the land? In return we'll just eat their debt... right after China writes off our debt, right?

And that is where the world stands right now. I don't give a **** about America.

Of course you don't... because you don't really live in America... you live in fantasy-land.

The question is not what happens when America starts to slip. No the question is what happens when a one billion Chinese and one billion Indians want as many Nike sneakers and Big Macs as us piece of **** American and Europeans.

Yes... that's a real problem, isn't it? Other nations shouldn't strive for the same standard of living you enjoy. No... they should be above those petty American "pieces of ****"... like yourself, no doubt.:rolleyes:

I've had a real job.

Flipping burgers and smoking weed doesn't count. I wonder how much thought you've given to the impact of your desire for a cheap high on Latin-American economies and ecosystems, to say nothing of the impact on the neighborhoods of Urban America. How many acres of rainforest have been plowed under in order to grow pot and coca plants. How many resources are spent by these cash-strapped Latin-American nations attempting to enforce drug laws... battling with powerful, wealthy, violent drug lords?

Economics is not a science. You really believe what these Wall St pieces of **** tell you? These parasites trade in human life and we happily support that. Progress is the rich saying you'll never regain what we take from you. Like I said before with the Amazons, countries are forced into debts that they can never possibly ever pay back. Do you know how totally criminal the banking organizations truly are? They take a country and say "How much debt can this country withstand." the answer is how much revenue do they make? That is how much they can afford. That is why the world is the way that it is. Debt is incurred on the part of people that have nothing to do with it.

And you, of course have a solution to the evils of supply and demand.

Listen faggot I don't flip burgers and I'm not a coddled little *****. The Latin American countries are responsible as much for the destruction of the rain forest as families were for losing their homes during the mortgage collapse. The fault lies in the people that wager life and resources for an abstract idea of money through power. You miss the point completely, nobody should have the standard of living we do. For us to live the way we do others have to suffer. You call it idealism, its people like you that write everything off. ****, why even try. Why put your life forward for this world. It's all a sham, pretend it's not all you want. Pretend that this is the right way to live. Reality television, morons inflated to Gods, plastic tits and everything we eat is made of corn. How is the entertainment in America any different than in Rome at the end? Only this time the stakes are raised. This is a global game. This time, when **** hits the fan it's really going hit the fan. By all accounts we should not be here doing what we are right now. But ignore it the time will come when everything crashes down on us. When our puppeted government finally is recognized for what it is, America will have its revolution. America will have its chance at revolution like the rest of the world. And when the time comes we will choose revolution because we're too goddamned dumb to learn from our mistakes. Until then people will continue to buy new cars and flat screen televisions and other **** they don't need.

[MorpheusSandman]

Thread lock in 3...2...1... GO ADMIN!

[mal4mac]

You throw up what you purport to be "facts" which are nothing of the sort. The planet cannot sustain the current populations? Really?

It cannot support current populations in the "American way" to which most seem to be aspiring. Here's a fact: "It takes ... 2.1 hectares of land and water to provide for one average human... The American footprint is about 10 hectares. So if all humans lived at US standards, we'd need another four Earths."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/nov/11/thisweekssciencequestions1

[JBI]

Meh, you both are wrong. Rich people have rules to other rich people, poor people don't count. Regardless of what popular movement you belong to. It isn't that the world cannot feed itself, it is that it does not care to. What does a Saudi buyer of North-East African land care about the starving native in the country? You invest far too much in good will.

The only thing that can "save the world" if you will from destruction is the threat of destruction. Super-powers with nukes will be reluctant to kill each other if it means mutual destruction, so they simply won't. As long as this stands in place, there is hope of "progress".


That being said, progress has been made and things are better in most places in the world than they were 100 years ago, or even 50. This fallacy of decaying world is mere nonsense.

The environmentalists have a point, but it isn't the end of civilization, it is merely a wakeup call to awareness of a new trend.

[Scheherazade]

Thread lock in 3...2...1... GO ADMIN!Hate to disappoint.