As we continue to evolve the difference between the highly functional humans and the non-functional humans gets larger and larger, or in simpler terms, the cream rises to the top and the chaff is disposed of. Though we as humans tend to think that we can halt the tide of evolution, truth is, we can't. Like every other species, the herd needs to be culled. I place no value judgements on this, for judging nature is a fool's errand. We as a species will either evolve past our current limitations and selfishness, or perish.
Yes. Basically for all the same reasons that the Roman Empire fell, except replace lead plumbing with terrible, unhealthy food, and replace barbarian invasions with banks and corporations destroying economies. Edit: Add in cellphones. I hate those things.
What are you referring to as "selfishness"? When I hear that I think of the majority's call for public services on the backs of others, but you could be talking about the wealthy people not sharing their money. Or maybe you're talking about irrational self-destructiveness... I'm not sure what this means. You don't think people that are coddled cradle to grave over several generations will be at a disadvantage to people who are not? For example, a society where the individual is forced to rely on the collective. If you remove the collective will those formerly dependent individuals be able to survive? Technology is one cause of this, the other is government. I was thinking American society, but if you can think of why your country's society is improving/devolving and why I'd like to hear that. Or the entire world... I'm not exactly sure how you would even grade a society... just wanted people's thoughts.
i dont have enough information in my brain to elaborate on whether a given society is on the decline but i believe i can talk further if your original inquiry was reformed to state: is the human race in a decline?
The human race is the global society, I said that's applicable. I think as a whole humans are getting better. Hundreds of millions are rising from poverty and learning to fight for their rights and to respect the rights of others. At the same time, hundreds of millions are digging themselves into poverty and disrespecting the rights of others. Tough to call it. Maybe since the developed countries are "aiding" the undeveloped countries we are disrupting their evolution into self-sustaining societies. Kind of like if you feed a wild bear...
perhaps numbers are important in this particular case because taking into account the approximately 7 billion global population, I think more people are "digging themselves into poverty and disrespecting the rights of others" compared to the amount of people "rising from poverty and learning to fight for their rights and to respect the rights of others". this phenomena is actually reflected in the ever-widening gap in the distribution of incomes, gloval democracy scales, and other sociological measurement methods. of course; this ties in with the foreign policy of the us being NOT having wekaer nations/peoples do as they will with their resuorces, but what the US wants them to do with their resources. can you elaborate on the wild bear?
What sparked Human "evolution", what separated us from the primates we evolved from was not self-awareness, it was the awareness of others beyond ourselves. Animals are self aware and act in preservation of only themselves. Society is about working in preservation of others. Aaronman thinks it is selfish for a person who is dying to expect others to pay his way. I think it's selfish to know that others are dying and refuse to help. Aaronman would like to absolve people like himself from their responsibility to pay for those who cannot help themselves. Society compels us to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, lest we become one of the "worthless" ourselves. That's what the animals do. They take care of themselves and if there is surplus, they let the next most able have what's left. Social Darwinism is applying the laws that govern the animal kingdom to society. But society started as a rejection of the laws of the animal kingdom. We were stronger and healthier as a species when we worked together for a common good. We are weaker and sicker as a species when we think of life as a competition. Yes, competition has brought us great things. Like Iphones and Lexuses. It has also brought us horrible things. Like warfare and poverty. Mass production has cost the worker his value. Someone can work on an assembly line for decades, then be replaced by someone with an afternoon's training. The experienced, aged worker has no value. Can't load a stamp press as fast as you used to, we'll get rid of you, call you lazy and worthless, and leave you to die. Before mass production, someone that could put a simple wheeled cart or an axe together had worth to society. Even the most disabled could find a niche that would sustain their existence, even if it was only watching the children while the able gathered food. Today that same person is nothing but a drain on society because a business cannot find exploitable worth in their meager abilities. A simple robot can do their job. And a person is only "worth" what a robot would cost to replace them. Which is cheaper and cheaper every year. I prefer to think that nobody is valueless, even the seemingly worthless "welfare queen". Their value is just lost to the competition that is inherent in today's Darwinist society. A robot can do it cheaper, so why should I pay you more to do it? Because we live in society. And if society doesn't protect the worst-off among us, then what value does it really have? It allows the strong to exploit the weak? We'd be better off living hand-to-mouth in caves.
Is it? Income gap just shows that the rich are getting richer at a faster rate than the poor, it doesn't necessarily mean that the poor are getting poorer. Think of how fewer people rely on sustenance farming, that is a luxury that previous generations did not have. I'd like to see the studies for what you see as a decline if you know of any. PAWS - The Effects of Feeding Wildlife They don't develop the skills to care for themselves, they lose their fear of taking from others, the food we feed them is usually not what's good for them, we're enticing more freeloaders, reproduction rates will match the artificially high level of food, and your neighbors will complain... I think it's a good analogy.
A society that is based upon inequality and scarcity of goods will always be on the decline, at least for the poor.
Aaronman do you believe that by and large the poor of the world are poor because of their genetic shortcomings e.g they were born too stupid to figure out how to find "success" in the world?
There are other social animals that work together, but they don't carry out self-destructive welfare policies because they know the loss of one life is preferrable to the loss of many. Cooperation is one reason we succeeded, but that is not our evolutionary leg-up. Our intelligence and ability to communicate and pass down techniques, "culture", are more important. That is the definition of selfish. So do I. Seems like you don't understand the definition of selfish. That's not true, I think we all have a responsibility to help people near and far. Famine, Affluence, and Morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is why I volunteer for society and give to charities. I just don't think we should be forced to do these things. Maybe you've become worthless when you think the only way people can give to another is through force. You're little more than a slave. When did we work together? War is the result of society granting a monopoly on power to the state, that is not competition. Poverty is a result of corporations bribing politicians, again thanks to collectivists. Thanks for taking a break from straw manning me and talking about the OP. I agree that industrialization has had a profound impact on "the worker". What can they do now, besides break the machines? So those people are forced to make something else of their lives. Is this a bad thing? Do you want to reconsider that question before I answer what values society has besides taking care of one another?
it is, for when you figure the continually increasing cost of living indices, the poor are continually getting poorer. theorizing on this ceteris paribus does not ring correct, for everything other economic factor does not stay the same. so yes, the poor are getting poorer indeed. also, the income gap is not a ratio, but a divide. i have no studies to offer, only my logic which i just explained. yes, i now understand your point with regards to this notion.
If everybody has equal opportunity, but not everybody performs equally, is that a society based on inequality? Scarcity makes us more productive, through capitalism we have made more resources available to more people than ever. Would you rather be a poor person in the 16th century or a poor person today? Uhhh, no. I'm kind of offended that you would ask that. I think poor people are poor because of the government holding them down, and because of their cultures. The government keeps them down through providing for them and making them weak, like the wild animals, and because the government props up the wealthy and eliminates any threats to their supremacy.
Kylesa posted an article the other day that said similar stuff to this: They make less relative to rich people, but they still have greater disposable income and enjoy a higher quality of life than they used to. All thanks to the evil mass production companies! Do you disagree?
society is on the decline, why? i'll break my opinion down for you. we're in an economic shortage, where society places little faith in the dollar, while we're also experiencing high unemployment. basically, the gap between rich and poor becomes larger. the middle class is either working longer hours and extra jobs to avoid foreclosure or simply put you are being foreclosed on. this is where i believe Charles Darwin would come into effect. Those who remain will either work "harder" to secure their mortgages or they will not find work or succeed in the process. i don't place higher value on either lives, but, society places a higher value on the elite to fund their entitlement programs which undermines their independence. if you expect a monthly check, society places no value on your life. because you live in a society where you are able to live off the redistribution of wealth. if you have no wealth to redistribute, and you can't provide for yourself, what use are you to that society?
Society is declining because everyone is forced to be grouped together. The social progressives, and by that I mean the ones living tomorrows culture today, not liberals, in America are bound by the idiots. It doesn't matter what they do, everyone is judged by the idiots who don't know how to feed themselves. I would like America a whole lot more if I wasn't a part of it, or forced to be a part of it. I'd at least be able to laugh at a lot more things.
I had said at the early stages of this thread that i will talk from the collective human race angle, not the american society angle, thus the "similar things" from another member referring to US-based information does not apply here. at the end of the day, the us population and us economic phenomena are but a sliver on the global scale (not in the ratio sense of course, but in the amount sense). since i have just understood what you were trying to say with the wild animal analogy, i cannot comment whether i agree or disagree before being able to put it thru my mental faculties.