Well, they can lick their own testicles…
Hey, any species that can migrate across 250,000 miles of empty space and plant a few flags (the polite equivalent or urine-marking) must be doing something right.
I get tired of whiners who claim humanity is inherently evil/destructive etc. It’s a needlessly depressing outlook and usually ends up with humans kowtowing before some diety or demagogue, i.e. the last panel of every Jack Chick tract.
Yeah, based on that alone, we need to give dogs kudos. Cats, as well. But then again, dogs completely miss the fine subtleties of a good video game, so it’s a wash.
As to the OP, the success or failure of the human race of course depends on the standards for success that you define, but I would offer that by just about any measure I can think of, mankind is doing pretty well. In addition to our proliferation and unconditional dominance of our little water-covered sphere, we continue to, on average, improve our quality of life. Yes, there are people starving. There are people who have dirt floors. But, overall, I would wager that the standard of living is gradually increasing pretty much everywhere. Certainly, it’s rising at a brisk pace in the developed countries, but even the undeveloped countries are seeing progress. And gradually, they are entering the fold of developed-dom.
I suppose you could argue that the standard of living is not rising fast enough on average, or that certain places are not rising as fast as they should, but I would ask you to provide me with the yardstick by which you would make such a claim. And further, I would ask you to provide me with evidence that this is the rule, rather than the exception.
And sure, we have some problems to contend with. Someday, we may run out of oil. But this in conditional upon us not finding enough of these ever-appearing reserves (every time someone says we’re about to run out, we seem to find more) to tide us over until we find something better, cheaper, and more efficient. Solar, wind, and hydro aren’t it. Fusion may be, or - better yet - fission, or maybe fuel cells, or maybe something yet unconceived. But there’s an answer out there - we just need to find it.
We also need to do something about our militaristic nature, but I think continued development will help immensely. Wealthy democracies tend to not produce evil, power-hungry dictators bent on world domination.
Overall, I’m pretty happy with the state of mankind today. Maybe we could be doing better, but we could certainly be doing far worse. I give us an 8/10.
Jeff
Whoa! You’re running a risk of being called rude, saying that. However, I concur completely, especially the “whiners” part. They don’t think it is whining, they just want to appear more caring and politically correct.
Also Sua’s question was not answered, so I lay claim to the first rude post. 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kniz *
Whoa! You’re running a risk of being called rude, saying that. However, I concur completely, especially the “whiners” part. They don’t think it is whining, they just want to appear more caring and politically correct.
Oh, goodness! “Rude”? Heavens to Betsy!
faints
Of course!!! Population has grown exponentially!!! It will always be like never before. So what? And about the deseases, some of them are there just because of our way of life. Stress shouldn’t be around, should it? What about cancer? Who knows what would have been the odds of getting that if society lived a different life? I don’t see a point in your arguement. Maybe I am being now shortsighted, but I can’t understand what you’re really saying.
Cheers!
IMF
Do you, really?
Maybe the whiners are also wrong. So, don’t whine about getting tired of that. I don’t think we are heading to the view that we are ‘inherently evil/destructive’ (whatever that means). We would have been vanished a long time ago if we hadn’t other feelings, but instinct and intelligence. That would be inherently destructive. I think the point being discussed here (i.e. what was the question asking) is how mankind is treating itself. Are all resources being divided equally? Or perhaps in a more benevolent way? If you prefer, forget the benevolent behavior: but are the countries or people being fair when it comes to dividing or trading resources?
If I may, let me ask you something (also bearing in mind your location): do you think that’s fair to block some trades from a country that is more productive in certain industries, in order to ‘protect’ internal interests and, still, hold a speech of globalization and free trade to the international community and be stupid enough to believe they will buy it? By holding this dualistic opposing behavior, they are not doing any good to the mankind, since by their theory, they wouldn’t even be protecting internal interests, but certain interests from the few people who sponsored their way to the power. Population would buy less-productive expensive goods and the other countries investing in productivity would have to lay off people, increasing the poverty around.
And this is not whining. Try to make a point for instance instead of making fun of some sentences distracting the whole point of doing this. You have two choices, basically: go ahead and make fun of something deviating the attention for something completely off topic, or create a point, since you haven’t yet.
Cheers.
IMF
I’ll take the former for $200, Alex.
I could write up an essay on the application of self-interested economic policies, but what good would it do? I’d rather just address the thread question of man’s “failure”, which strikes me as a bunch of defeatest bellyaching.
As for what’s “fair”, you’re assuming the existence of some absolute moral standard by which all human actions can be judged. I prefer measures like “efficiency”, “productivity” and “cost/benefit analysis” with a mess of “technological progress” thrown in.
Fair, shmair.
Typical.
I am amazed by how you could undermine your own point. I was, indeed, in my question, talking about productivity, and still, you’d rather make a joke about Jeopardy than try to come up with an original idea.
Absolute moral standard? Well, if you have some beliefs, you have some moral standards as well. Of course they are not absolute. That’s what the discussing process is all about. But if you believe no absolute moral standard is legitimate, then you should have no problem if someone shoot somebody you love in the face… the guy probably haven’t bought that absolute moral standard crap either. (I know I am bringing the issue to its limit, but this sometimes is a useful tool to test a hypothesis).
So, if you prefer those measures you cited above, I’ll be honored to read you answer to my question, which should probably be filled with those criteria.
Cheers.
IMF
So…youre not a whiner, right. Good to you! Probably you have food on your table everyday, youve got a home with clean water and proper sewer pipeline. You also must have education (since you right so much essays) and must have a job to bring your family some money and dignity to yourself. I wouldnt be whining in these conditions, too. Nobody would, or nobody should. Now let's imagine how would you feel in the middle of falling bombs in Afeghanistan or in the middle of a iminent war in Iraq. Lets imagine how this comfortable canadian would be by seeing his daughter urinating next to his own feces. Huh… not a whiner! You better stay at home, Bryan. The world is too rough for you.
You amaze easily, young Grasshopper. You should get out more and not just stay at home riveted to the shiny computer box.
Your question was only partly about productivity; it was mainly about selfishness and whether or not it can be justified. I’d have to say that for the most part, self-preservation is a more compelling motive than striving toward some ideal state of fairness. A person (or nation) is more likely to make deals that benefit himself instead of others and that there is nothing morally wrong in doing so. As an example:
I need to buy a widget. Salesman A, a rich a successful guy, offers me a widget for $10. Salesman B, a poor guy with six starving children, offers me the same widget for $15. I would greatly resist anyone who told me I had a moral duty to buy from B, simply because of his social standing relative to A. I might look at the situation and decide to buy from B because if I don’t, his children could turn to lives of crime and end up costing me more in tax dollars for police, courts and prisons, but it is ultimately my decision and should be free from moralizing interference.
A nation’s government (if is it not a dictatorship) is compelled to protect the interests of its citizens, not to improve the lot of non-citizens. It may decide to do so, through foreign aid or peacekeeping missions, but deciding not to does not make it an immoral nation. Immorality only enters into it if I make an active attempt to destroy Salesman B to get a better deal, or if my country invades another country with the intent of exploiting it.
Nah, it’s a strawman argument, which is only useful for deflating the logic of your position. You’re confusing relativism with indifference. I have a strong personal interest in Revenge (destroying the person who hurt me or a loved one) and Justice (preventing similar crimes as they undermine the comfort of my society). All I care to add on this issue is that if someone decided to shoot you in the face, I can’t say I’d lose any sleep over it.
I don’t know how much honour you can derive from having your arguments dismissed as vaguely sanctimonious claptrap, but feel free to try.
Incidentally, I haven’t bothered to concoct a wholly “original” reply to your statements. I cheerfully admit that much of my rebuttal is straight out the Ayn Rand playbook.
Yeah, that pretty much covers it.::rolleyes:
None of the horrors you describe prove that man is inherently evil or that his presence on Earth has been a failure or his existence is a paradox. I need only list a number of engineering and artistic accomplishments to counter the “failure” idea, plus point to the fact that although war and disease continue, the overall human population is steadily rising. If anything, I’d describe the human species as a wild success.
Certainly, no action by another person is going to make me conclude my life is a failure, nor cause me to beg forgiveness from anyone or anything.
Yeah, right, thanks. As you knew me. Sure… whatever you say to make you feel better and obfuscate your lack of knowledge to the subject being asked.
No, it was not. Read it again. Let me help you out here and if it gets to difficult for you, well, then quit it and go watch Jeopardy. I was asking you what you thought about that inconsistent position of those countries that have non-competitive industries (lack of productivity, as the steel industry in US) of blocking or over-taxing the same products from productive countries. Why is that inconsistent, you have probably already asked yourself? Because they hold the speech that emerging economies should open their markets to the free trade concept. Sure, why not? - you think. I don’t see any problem either. But if you looked closer, you might just find out that those countries defending the free-trade (which THEY SAY will improve mankind conditions, our main topic) have strict and special conditions (read overt-taxation) to the very products they CAN’T compete with. Great, huh? That was what my question was all about. Not selfishness. But inconsistency of speech, which says they want to improve world conditions and action that works in the opposite way. Did you follow me?
There you go again. Where did you learn to self-destroy your arguments and logics? ** You just ilustrated my argument, not yours.** Salesman A is more productive, since if you imagine the same economic conditions and profit, he can sell for less. So, imagine salesman A as a country being prohibited in selling in Mr. B’s market, just because he can drive B to bankruptcy. This is my point. And then Mr.B tell government to say it is protecting the internal interests and standard of living. Bullshit! People would have had access to a cheaper product if it wasn’t for the block. And this would make Mr.B get off his ass and invest in productivity instead of whining about those evils As
Haha! Yeah, right. Whatever… look what you’ve being doing to yourself so far…
Still, I am led to believe you don’t have a clue about how to answer that question and still sustain your point (instead of undermining it).
Cheers.
IMF
Politicians lie? I gues humanity IS a failure after all!
Somehow the rolleyes icon doesn’t seem sufficient.
If Salesman B can use various legal or political means (including lobbying officials) to ensure that his sale goes through, he’s only protecting his own interest. Naturally enough, I (the buyer) will use various legal or political means (including lobbying officials) to ensure I can buy from Salesman A.
What I think of this apparant “inconsistancy” is that it’s business as usual, with competing interests chasing limited goods and services. I fail to see how it has anything to do with the OP’s point.
You really believe that? Wow! You’re being naive. I’m not saying humanity is a complete failure, but it hadn’t succeed in many aspects so far. So, from one’s valid standpoint, perhaps that is the beginning of a failure if it is not straightened out in time.
My whole point (read my threads again - of course you won’t) is that power is what makes all the difference. And those in power are doing little (look at some nation’s presidents: there is one who barely know the difference from depreciation and deflation) to humanity as a whole.
I know you do. I didn’t expect anything different. But the correlation is that this whole discussion was an example of how man distort some situations in order to hide evidences that perhaps some countries in power are turning their back to a majority that suffers from things they shouldn’t be. And this may (if it haven’t already) prove one day that humanity failed in living together. Again, I go back to my initial point. Perhaps (we are trying to build a view here) we are still ‘not failing’. As one already highlighted, we get a D+, which it’s not an F. But if mankind continue in the same trend, it might be heading to a turning point, where a major War may resolve it in the hard way (as in one of my threads) or those abandoned by the system will die and nature will adjust itself.
Well, enough for me.
Thank you very much and I believe discussions are there for us to learn.
Cheers.
IMF
I give humanity at least a B+, myself.
And I don’t recognize that you repeating over and over that I do not or cannot understand you doesn’t make your point valid or correct. I understand your point. I just can’t see the point in bothering to make such a pointless point.
Hmm, got tripped up by my own rhetoric. Too many negatives.
I don’t recognize that you repeating over and over that I do not or cannot understand you makes your point valid or correct.
I got that in the first place. If you think I was repeating myself, that’s nothing I can do. I just think that if you believe my point is not correct, you’ve also failed to prove me wrong when I have questioned you.
I don’t fit in the group of people that complaint about the empty half of the glass of water and either am I in the group very delighted that at least we have a ‘full’ half-glass of the precious liquid. I’m just saying that it could be filled all the way up. But this can be impossible if some of the ‘countries’ external relationship continues the way it is. After all, no matter how many countries we have, we are still citizens of the world.
Cheers.
IMF
Ah, herein lies the confusion. I haven’t attempted to prove your point wrong because your point strikes me as meaningless. Correctness and incorrectness are only marginally relevant when the claim itself is pointless.
Funny, I must have missed the World Citizenship class when we learned about empty slogans.
Alright. Let me get some things straight:
-
You failed to ANSWER a question, proving you had no clue about it. Jut go back and see for yourself. You kept making fun of the little details and remarks instead of giving your opinion (when asked) about inconsistency of external relation of coutries, which is one driver (in my opinion) to a deterioration of human conditions.
-
The ‘point striking you as meaningless’ is the way you defend yourself of saying: well, I don’t have an opinion about it because I’m too busy trimming the bushes in the backyard of my house in the backyard of USA.
-
The last remark was a way of saying that no matter where you are born, you should have the same rights and opportunities. If you don’t, than something is wrong. If something is wrong, we can pretend that on average, everything is ok, or we can debate where that lack of equal conditions is coming from. But if it is an empty slogan to you, it proves you just don’t care. So why bother discussing it?
IMF
Wow, you sure are making a lot of assumptions about my motives, if not my intelligence.
It proves no such thing. What it demonstrates is that I find it more amusing to ridicule your statements rather than analyze them. Since my own amusement is my primary goal in posting to this message board, I feel strangely uncompelled to waste time responding to every little pissant point.
Since it amuses me, though, I’ll be responding to all your pissant points in this post.
My opinion is that the official statements of a county’s government, including all diplomatic and trade communications, are a tool to protecting the interests of that nation, much as bombs and bullets are. So these statements are often misleading and deceptive? Wow, big insight, there.
I also have to disagree with the use of “deterioration”. If anything, technology and literacy are gradually improving the lot of humanity, regardless of economic finagling.
Sure, I have an opinion about it. My opinion was that it was pointless. Was that not sufficiently clear?
By the way, I like to think of the Americans as in my backyard.
Ideally, everyone everywhere would have access to literacy, food and shelter. I’ll be happy to solve everyone’s problems if you’ll just give me a moment to pull a magic wand out of my ass.
I’m not pretending to anything. Humans exploit each other. That’s what humans do. They can find means of interaction that minimize exploitation (and I think humans are getting better at this, not worse) but in all struggles, someone typically wins and someone typically loses. You can spend your life attempting to minimize the extremes so losses are not as bad, but I don’t recognize any claim that I am immoral because I don’t wish to join you.
Because it amuses me. Duh.