NationStates Jolt Archive

I argue: No, it has not. Because happiness is brought about not through liberty, but through apparent liberty. A person is free because they see themselves as free, not because they necessarily are. Because although our reality may be something physical and material, from our own perspectives, our reality is simply the sum of our perceptions. Therefore, a wealthy man who sees himself as a slave is a slave and a poor man who sees himself as free is free. A poor immigrant who comes to America and takes a job at Wal-Mart sees himself as liberated, and therefore, lives blissfully. But if a millionaire in America went bankrupt and had to work at Wal-Mart, they would see themselves as a slave, and therefore, live unhappily. And so, while we have created more objective liberty, our subjective liberty has not changed at all, and may have even become worse because we have become so aware of what liberty is. And so, the increase in actual freedom in the world has not improved our quality of life.

Furthermore, it is human interactions which creates happiness. Wealth is meaningless without family and friends. It is preferable to have a meager income and many people to care about, than a great deal of money and almost no one to care about you at all. This strikes at the heart of our existence, because companionship was the first pleasure that ever existed.

And as a society progresses, it does not increase human interaction, but rather, it replaces it or filters it with machines. Originally, to communicate, people had to speak to one another. This created a noble tradition of storytelling, where great fables would be passed from generation to generation. Then, the book was invented and people didn't need to interact as much, but rather, they could interact with wax tablets and shreds of paper. As we progressed further technologically, more people interacted with these shreds of paper instead of talking to eachother.

Then, the industrial revolution came: People began to talk to eachother through phones. And then, we decided to not speak to eachother at all, but have listening-boxes (radios) and viewing-boxes (televisions), that would take the place of friends and would raise our children for us. Finally, we created yet another box to replace human beings: the computer. Now, no one needs to go outside to have friends, to speak to a clerk to buy things, to go to church to be religious, and to go to the library to read. Progress has alienated mankind. While it has increased our amount of communication, it has drastically reduced the quality. Once, there were the countless nuances of communication, in the form of facial expression, body language, tone, emotion, and sarcasm, which has now been replaced by mere characters, sent as ones and zeroes. Scientific and technological progress does not improve our quality of life, but simply further creates a more fake and artificial society.

Our lives are lengthened, but have our lives improved? No. Even something as simple as the amount of time spent during leisure is cut short. A hunting and gathering society spends merely a few hours a week working. In our modern age, we spend 40 or 50 hours a week or more working. Is it better to live in a communal society, with a strong family unit, and having a short life, with much leisure? Or is it better to have a long life with bits and pieces of artificial pleasure in between an almost constant rat race, with so many others who could care less if you sink or swim? The answer should be obvious.

And while I agree with the Conservative ideal of a golden age, and how scientific progress often seeks to dissolve our humanity, I recognize that progress is, indeed, inevitable. And progress should pass a test of skepticism, but not always be outright hindered or opposed, especially in terms of violating liberty. Thus, homosexual marriage is nothing to be feared. But something such as the internet should have been looked at far more closely before blindly supporting it, in the name of progress. Because while the internet has in many ways helped America, it has hurt America. It gave child molesters an effective medium, it gave the Columbine teens the means to build bombs, several MMORPG-players have committed suicide, bigots and propagandists have found it to be a useful tool, and finally, in the opinion of Peter Bergen (producer of the first Bin Ladin interview and the foremost researcher on Al-Qaeda), Al-Qaeda would have never existed internationally, if it were not for the internet. Therefore, while I recognize that far right-wing reactories, such as Jerry Falwell and Ann Coulter, are idiots, and I recognize that the Christian right's opposition to certain types of progress is irrational, I still also recognize that all progress must be looked at with a strongly discerning eye, with a realistic view of mankind is being inherently selfish, and not simply based upon measuring the value of liberty. Because as we'd seen from Columbine and 9-11, the consequences can be extremely dire.

Well, considering that without scientific advances in medicine and food production most of us would not exist or would exist in a crippled, malnourished state, I'd have to answer this question with a resounding yes. Though it is true that we have less leisure time per day than hunter-gatherers, the total amount of leisure time in our lifetimes due to longer lifespans is greater. I believe life expectancy pre-industrial age was barely over 40.

Also, as artistic expression has been shown to improve the alacrity of the mind, science probably would not have advanced as much without art, I'd have to say that that part of the quiestion needs to be answered affirmatively as well.

Ah yes, you would have leisure. But nothing else. I'm sure disease and starvation are fun. Go to the starving people in Africa and tell them they are much better off without technology.

*snipped for length*
Arts? Debateable. Sciences? No question, YES. If you want to be really freaking blunt, science is directly responsible for moving the average life expectancy from 25 to 75. If that's not an improvement, I don't know what is.

Alienation, man even the Marxists don't use that word anymore, it's good to see it again.
This I view as being an underlying cause to so many problems. Have you read Marx? His attack on how capitalization alienates man from eachother and himself is respectable. And Heidegger (sp?) as well is angered by the way our technology effects us, inframed us.
However, I do not know of a reasonalbe way to fix the problem. Bloody worldwide revolution or returning to the life of the humble peasant (Marx and Heideggar respectively) I don't see as decent solutions.

Ah yes, you would have leisure. But nothing else. I'm sure disease and starvation are fun. Go to the starving people in Africa and tell them they are much better off without technology.

There are plenty of indeginous tribes who are not "diseased and starving" in Africa. Most of these problems came when those nations tried to acheive the power that us 1st world nations have.

Ah yes, you would have leisure. But nothing else. I'm sure disease and starvation are fun.
But the chances of you getting disease and starving to death are low, provided that the conditions are right, just like now. And even before that happens, you've already lived a much longer, fuller life.

Go to the starving people in Africa and tell them they are much better off without technology.
And they would be:

No guns or bombs to fuel the continued tribal warfare that's tearing the country apart.
Slower transportation and communication, therefore, less border disputes, because countries wouldn't even be aware when others are using their land.
No European colonialism to suck Africa dry.
No modern globalism to continue to suck Africa dry, funding slavery and corrupt dictators.
Lack of transportation between countries means no AIDS and less disease.

Arts? Debateable. Sciences? No question, YES. If you want to be really freaking blunt, science is directly responsible for moving the average life expectancy from 25 to 75. If that's not an improvement, I don't know what is.

Medicinal studies were a great benefit to expanding our lifespan, but life for the sake of life is meaningless. If science is merely a tool to quell our base fear of death, meaninglessness, and nothingness, I know of better ways to deal with those fears than try to destroy them.

Arts? Debateable. Sciences? No question, YES. If you want to be really freaking blunt, science is directly responsible for moving the average life expectancy from 25 to 75. If that's not an improvement, I don't know what is.
Although our lives are longer, they're less enjoyable and we have less free time.

However, I do not know of a reasonalbe way to fix the problem. Bloody worldwide revolution or returning to the life of the humble peasant (Marx and Heideggar respectively) I don't see as decent solutions.
Worldwide democratic revolution.

There are plenty of indeginous tribes who are not "diseased and starving" in Africa. Most of these problems came when those nations tried to acheive the power that us 1st world nations have.
Exactly.

Medicinal studies were a great benefit to expanding our lifespan, but life for the sake of life is meaningless.

I agree that life for the sake of life is meaningless. However, extending life expectancy does not mean that life is for the sake of life. On the contrary, in fact. If you don't mind my asking, are you older than 25 years?

If science is merely a tool to quell our base fear of death, meaninglessness, and nothingness, I know of better ways to deal with those fears than try to destroy them.
If that were the case, I would agree with you. However, it's not the case, so I don't agree with you.

Although our lives are longer, they're less enjoyable and we have less free time.

Um, speak for yourself. And, while you're at it, feel free to stop using science's evil invention (the computer) to participate in this discussion :). (j/k)

I agree that life for the sake of life is meaningless. However, extending life expectancy does not mean that life is for the sake of life. On the contrary, in fact. If you don't mind my asking, are you older than 25 years?

If that were the case, I would agree with you. However, it's not the case, so I don't agree with you.

If science was a goal rather than a tool, I think it would be making life meaningless since it is cultivating life as to acheive itself... :confused:

If that makes sense.

But I don't think that's what the goal of science is, but some are attempting to make it so; be scientific in order to make more science.

I am 25, and rest assured I do want to live beyond this.

I make many hypothetical statements. I do not believe many of them, but will attempt to defend them for fun.

I agree that life for the sake of life is meaningless. However, extending life expectancy does not mean that life is for the sake of life. On the contrary, in fact. If you don't mind my asking, are you older than 25 years?

If that were the case, I would agree with you. However, it's not the case, so I don't agree with you.
No, but bragging about an extended life expectancy, when we've established that our quality-of-life has not improved and you haven't attacked that, then that is "life for the sake of life."

Um, speak for yourself. And, while you're at it, feel free to stop using science's evil invention (the computer) to participate in this discussion :). (j/k)
I said that progress is inevitable.

And I believe that there should be a balance, not being outright Amish, but not being a transhumanist, either. This is also a recent discovery of mine and if you'd notice, we do become rather addicted to our toys. Leaving them behind is somewhat difficult.

Worldwide democratic revolution.


*sigh* I wish I could trust the masses, but seeing as how they got us into this mess in the first place, I'm not sure democracy will get us out of it. Seeing as how most quasi-"free" people in the western world have choosen to make themselves slaves to machines, I don't think they would want revolution.
But that is for a different thread.

No, but bragging about an extended life expectancy, when we've established that our quality-of-life has not improved and you haven't attacked that, then that is "life for the sake of life."

You have not at all established that quality of life has not improved. You have stated your opinion as a fact...that's very different than "establishing" that fact.

If you want me to challenge your claim, it won't take long. You assert that quality of life has not improved, so all I have to do is show a single case in which you are wrong. No sweat...I am that case. I can cite at least 3 times where modern medicine has improved the quality of my own life. So I guess we're done now...?


I said that progress is inevitable.

And I believe that there should be a balance, not being outright Amish, but not being a transhumanist, either. This is also a recent discovery of mine and if you'd notice, we do become rather addicted to our toys. Leaving them behind is somewhat difficult.
Yes, we do become addicted to our toys. And yes, that may be a problem. But I don't see you advocating any real balance...if you claim that you've shown how science has not improved quality of life, then balance isn't even on your radar screen.

*sigh* I wish I could trust the masses, but seeing as how they got us into this mess in the first place, I'm not sure democracy will get us out of it. Seeing as how most quasi-"free" people in the western world have choosen to make themselves slaves to machines, I don't think they would want revolution.
But that is for a different thread.
Society takes actions when there is incentive. Eventually, governments will become far too oppressive, because their power grows, but their morality does not. And then, there will be the World War 3, that everyone has foreseen (Marx saw it as the Communist Revolution).

And we will either perish, lose to a corrupt and oppressive state driven by greed, or succeed and establish worldwide democracy. I believe the third will happen inevitably, because throughout history, no government has been able to permanently overthrow the will of the people.

You have not at all established that quality of life has not improved. You have stated your opinion as a fact...that's very different than "establishing" that fact.
No, I did not. I put forth a long, logical argument based upon facts and the most damning evidence of all is what I said about leisure, which is common knowledge among anthropologists. The unabomber, who was admittedly insane, was also a genius and he quoted the same fact about leisure in his manifesto. And his argument was sound (scholars have actually even critiqued his manifesto). But he also advocated destroying all technology outright, and overcoming the government through violence. That's where the "insane" part comes in.

If you want me to challenge your claim, it won't take long. You assert that quality of life has not improved, so all I have to do is show a single case in which you are wrong. No sweat...I am that case. I can cite at least 3 times where modern medicine has improved the quality of my own life. So I guess we're done now...?
Hahahahaha. You are a silly person. That is a logical fallacy and being that you would make such a basic logical fallacy as that shows that you are not worth arguing with. Please, leave.

To give you an analogy: I disagree that black people exist. To prove that claim, all I have to do is show you a single case. No sweat...I am not black. Therefore, all people are not black.

Hah! See the silly reasoning?!

You cannot use a SINGLE CASE to generalize to the entire world. That's called anecdotal evidence aka "fallacy of hasty generalization." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization)

If you take a class in statistics (assuming you've ever gone to college), you'd know what I mean.

But I don't see you advocating any real balance...if you claim that you've shown how science has not improved quality of life, then balance isn't even on your radar screen.
No, because trying to overturn progress is just as painful as progress itself. That's why I advocate balance and moderation.

Arts. No.

Science? HELL YEAH!

That's why the living standards are so great in the U.S. of A today!

"SNIP'D"
Have you read Anthem by Ayn Rand?

And I don't see what that really has to do with the arts...

I have no clue as to why you included 'arts' in the title of the thread, as storytelling is a form of art, and all forms of art help to communicate personal expression, unless it's purely for financial gain. And thenm there']s the whole debate about pornography being art, etc, etc, but honestly, art kicks ass!

I have no clue as to why you included 'arts' in the title of the thread, as storytelling is a form of art, and all forms of art help to communicate personal expression, unless it's purely for financial gain. And thenm there']s the whole debate about pornography being art, etc, etc, but honestly, art kicks ass!
*high five* Thats what I just said! :D

Have you read Anthem by Ayn Rand?

And I don't see what that really has to do with the arts...
It's "progress."

Art encourages new ways of thinking and non-conformity, thereby, also encouraging cultural change. Cultural change affects art and art affects cultural change.

It's "progress."

Art encourages new ways of thinking and non-conformity, thereby, also encouraging cultural change. Cultural change affects art and art affects cultural change.

Art expands the mind to help further human ingenuity. The arts kick ass!

Art expands the mind to help further human ingenuity. The arts kick ass!
And so do some narcotics.

And so do some narcotics.

Narcotics may expand the mind, but in my experience they've never furthered ingenuity

To me the question is rather simple:

Would I rather live now or live 100,000 years ago (and even then we had some form of technology and arts...)?
Answer: I'd rather live today.

Narcotics may expand the mind, but in my experience they've never furthered ingenuity
I agree, but even though drugs don't necessarily further ingenuity, the point is still proven: Expanding the mind to increase human ingenuity is not always a good thing. That is what I'm questioning here. Answering the question by merely stating your opinion without any justification is silly.

To me the question is rather simple:

Would I rather live now or live 100,000 years ago (and even then we had some form of technology and arts...)?
Answer: I'd rather live today.
And your statement proves my point even further: Our cultures have the tendency to adore the status-quo. Especially Americans. You did not provide any logical argument for why you would prefer to live now, and obviously, you have no experiences from 100,000 years ago.

But rather, whenever you're asked the question, "Do you prefer the past or the present?" you and many others immediately answer, "The present," without a shred of reasoning or evidence to support it.

You did not provide any logical argument for why you would prefer to live now, and obviously, you have no experiences from 100,000 years ago.
Okay, here it is:
a) People live longer now than they did 100,000 years ago.
b) During one's life, one does things that one enjoys, thus one gains happiness.
c) Having more than double (often three times) the amount of time to "gather" happiness, I conclude that in all likeliness I would have a higher total amount of happiness after 90 years today than 30 years in ancient times.

Of course, just in theory it is possible that without any form of entertainment, with the harsh reality of survival dictating one's actions, happiness gained at any one point could be 2-3 times as much then as it would be now, but unless you have a particularly romantic view of such life, I don't see a valid reason to assume so.

As for your point about "liberty" - it is certainly not a measure of happiness, this is a very anglo-centric view.

As for your point about leisure time - I'm not convinced that 4 or 5 hours work a week would provide a tribe with enough resources to survive (especially if you consider that "technology" includes such things as sharpened stones and sticks, and certainly domesticated plants and animals)

And about "artificial" pleasure - What? How can you possibly decide whether I am genuinely enjoying myself watching television or whethe I just pretend to enjoy myself?

I agree, but even though drugs don't necessarily further ingenuity, the point is still proven: Expanding the mind to increase human ingenuity is not always a good thing. That is what I'm questioning here. Answering the question by merely stating your opinion without any justification is silly.


But the problem lies in that we don't consider the ramifications of ingenuity and assume all of it is well placed. I agree that forms of communication such as the internet are not justifiably 'good', but it's a bridge between humanity, allowing us to contact and share our ideals, as well as learn and appreciate the ideals, of/with other cultures.

I argue: No, it has not. Because happiness is brought about not through liberty, but through apparent liberty. A person is free because they see themselves as free, not because they necessarily are. Because although our reality may be something physical and material, from our own perspectives, our reality is simply the sum of our perceptions. Therefore, a wealthy man who sees himself as a slave is a slave and a poor man who sees himself as free is free. A poor immigrant who comes to America and takes a job at Wal-Mart sees himself as liberated, and therefore, lives blissfully. But if a millionaire in America went bankrupt and had to work at Wal-Mart, they would see themselves as a slave, and therefore, live unhappily. And so, while we have created more objective liberty, our subjective liberty has not changed at all, and may have even become worse because we have become so aware of what liberty is. And so, the increase in actual freedom in the world has not improved our quality of life.

Always an interesting point. It would indeed seem that we have painted ourselves into a perceptual corner. However, what this seems to fail to take into account is human desire and potential. Someone may come to the US and work at Wal-Mart. I would argue that it's doubtful they are "happy", though, or that they see themselves as liberated. What they do have is a new perspective. They see the rich man with all his wealth and understand that, theoretically, they can aquire what he has through hard work. True or not, they have something they may not have had before: a goal and a hope of actually getting there. It is through the actualization of this work, this desire for a better thing, that the immigrant would find happiness. So too the rich man. Happiness come not from success, but from process. And unless that process can occur, happiness can not happen. Provision for "freedom", be it subjective or objective, is an intrinsic requirement for process to occur and, thus, while it may not guarantee "happiness" it is impossible to acheive without it.


Furthermore, it is human interactions which creates happiness. Wealth is meaningless without family and friends. It is preferable to have a meager income and many people to care about, than a great deal of money and almost no one to care about you at all.

True, but it is still better to have a large income and many people to care about and who care about you. Again, if you only consider goals and not process, then you are correct, but "happiness" rarely is a destination.


This strikes at the heart of our existence, because companionship was the first pleasure that ever existed.

And along with that companionship comes the basic desire to ensure the needs of one's companions are met. In this day and age, that tends to require a certain amount of money. Working for that money as an end in and of itself will lead into the exact trap you described in the first paragraph. However, understanding that one's work allows one to provide for one's companions increases the satisfaction one can obtain from the job itself, rather than reaching some abstract financial threashold.


And as a society progresses, it does not increase human interaction, but rather, it replaces it or filters it with machines. Originally, to communicate, people had to speak to one another. This created a noble tradition of storytelling, where great fables would be passed from generation to generation. Then, the book was invented and people didn't need to interact as much, but rather, they could interact with wax tablets and shreds of paper. As we progressed further technologically, more people interacted with these shreds of paper instead of talking to eachother.

Then, the industrial revolution came: People began to talk to eachother through phones. And then, we decided to not speak to eachother at all, but have listening-boxes (radios) and viewing-boxes (televisions), that would take the place of friends and would raise our children for us. Finally, we created yet another box to replace human beings: the computer. Now, no one needs to go outside to have friends, to speak to a clerk to buy things, to go to church to be religious, and to go to the library to read. Progress has alienated mankind. While it has increased our amount of communication, it has drastically reduced the quality. Once, there were the countless nuances of communication, in the form of facial expression, body language, tone, emotion, and sarcasm, which has now been replaced by mere characters, sent as ones and zeroes. Scientific and technological progress does not improve our quality of life, but simply further creates a more fake and artificial society.


I think you're confusing paradigmn change with a falling off. The fact is that, even with the multitude of communication options available to us today, people still seek human interaction and it is the rare individual who solely limits their experience to a computer terminal, a phone or a T.V.

True, new communication options have changed how we relate to one another and you might be able to make a case that with the plethora of easy communication options available to us nowadays it has never been easier to say absolutely nothing. Just the other day I was in a department store and a woman next to me was on her cell phone, tell the other person, "Oh, I'm in the men's department, looking around." As I walked a couple of rows over, there was another woman on her cell phone, saying, "I'm in the men's department, too." I realized these two women, separated by no more than five feet, were talking to each other. I marched right over to the second woman and yelled at her, "SHE'S RIGHT FREAKING OVER THERE!" So, yes, perhaps there has been a watering down of the importance of our communication, but I don't think there has been a lessening of our interaction or our drive for such.

The question is, if people of, say, the 12th century had access to portable communication such as cell phones, would they have also had innane conversations about not much. Would knights have been forced to stop the siege to answer Ye Olde Mobile with, "Pray, where dost thou linger?" I think you are attributing a fault to technology that is really just a fault in humanity, our desperate desire to prattle on about not much in particular.

For every Beowulfe there's a Chalubia. Ever heard of it? Nope, of course not, because it's one of the millions of stories that weren't good enough or important enough or vital enough to be remembered. It existed and now it's gone, unless you subscribe to Jung's archetype notions which are fascinating if somewhat hard to swallow. To assume that oral storytelling was "noble" while modern movie making is less "noble" is an unfair comparisson to a golden age that never existed. Again, though, if you like Joseph Campbell, then it hardly matters if it's gone because there are only so many stories and we're just telling them over and over again. The point is it is unfair to assume that the rush and thrill a modern movie goer gets is any less authentic or human than the rush and thrill Ye Olde Story Listener may have got. Humanity still seeks out stories and prefers to hear them with others. This hasn't been lessened by movies or T.V. or even the Internet, just the medium has changed. And the production values are higher.


Our lives are lengthened, but have our lives improved? No. Even something as simple as the amount of time spent during leisure is cut short. A hunting and gathering society spends merely a few hours a week working. In our modern age, we spend 40 or 50 hours a week or more working. Is it better to live in a communal society, with a strong family unit, and having a short life, with much leisure? Or is it better to have a long life with bits and pieces of artificial pleasure in between an almost constant rat race, with so many others who could care less if you sink or swim? The answer should be obvious.

Well, unless you can produce hard numbers, isn't it possible that the bits of pleasure experienced over a longer life equate to the larger chunks of leisure that happen in a shorter time? I also think you are adding an unfair qualifier in calling modern pleasure "artificial" while assuming older societies enjoyed a more real version. I mean, what's your basis for comparison? It's like the old men sitting around the checker board at the corner store, complaining that things aren't like they used to be. Well, of course they aren't. They never were.


And while I agree with the Conservative ideal of a golden age, and how scientific progress often seeks to dissolve our humanity, I recognize that progress is, indeed, inevitable. And progress should pass a test of skepticism, but not always be outright hindered or opposed, especially in terms of violating liberty. Thus, homosexual marriage is nothing to be feared. But something such as the internet should have been looked at far more closely before blindly supporting it, in the name of progress. Because while the internet has in many ways helped America, it has hurt America. It gave child molesters an effective medium, it gave the Columbine teens the means to build bombs, several MMORPG-players have committed suicide, bigots and propagandists have found it to be a useful tool, and finally, in the opinion of Peter Bergen (producer of the first Bin Ladin interview and the foremost researcher on Al-Qaeda), Al-Qaeda would have never existed internationally, if it were not for the internet.

Well, the fact remains that all those things happened prior to the Internet as well, just in different forms. Again, this is blaming a tool when the problem is the tool user. Child molestation existed before chat rooms, people could always buy a copy of the Anarchists Cookbook if they wanted to make a bomb, and teens where killing themselves for their Dungeons and Dragons characters prior to EverQuest (which never made me want to kill myself, but frequently made me want to beat seven kinds of hell out of the developers). True, you might successfully argue that the Internet made these things easier to accomplish (and this is spectacularly true in the case of Al-Qaeda). It is a mistake, however, so say they would not have happened without the Internet and, frankly, unknowable. Like any tool, the Internet can be misused. That is not the tool's fault. For every bad thing, there is a good. Vital information can be found online, information that one might not have had access to before. Medical knowledge, political analysis, different cultural views can be heard and experienced.


Therefore, while I recognize that far right-wing reactories, such as Jerry Falwell and Ann Coulter, are idiots, and I recognize that the Christian right's opposition to certain types of progress is irrational, I still also recognize that all progress must be looked at with a strongly discerning eye, with a realistic view of mankind is being inherently selfish, and not simply based upon measuring the value of liberty. Because as we'd seen from Columbine and 9-11, the consequences can be extremely dire.

You are correct and progress for the sake of progress is not wise. However, neither is the assumption that were we still sitting around campfires, wondering if it was time to move to the winter hunting grounds, we would somehow automatically be happier or more "in touch" with one another. To shun technology or look at it as the source of our troubles is to give up personal responsibility. If people pull away from one another, it is not because of cell phones or books or the Internet, it is because the people themselves are fundamentally changing and are creating methods of interaction to accomidate that change.

Any advance in science is both constructive and deconstructive, and the basis of either is that of responsibility.

But the problem lies in that we don't consider the ramifications of ingenuity and assume all of it is well placed. I agree that forms of communication such as the internet are not justifiably 'good', but it's a bridge between humanity, allowing us to contact and share our ideals, as well as learn and appreciate the ideals, of/with other cultures.
But is that a good thing? A bridge between humanity is merely ingenuity. And, in offering a bridge between humanity, you offer a bridge between the pedophile and the child, the terrorist and the Muslim recruit, and a powerful (and inherently amoral) means to spread fanaticism.

Always an interesting point. It would indeed seem that we have painted ourselves into a perceptual corner. However, what this seems to fail to take into account is human desire and potential. Someone may come to the US and work at Wal-Mart. I would argue that it's doubtful they are "happy", though, or that they see themselves as liberated. What they do have is a new perspective. They see the rich man with all his wealth and understand that, theoretically, they can aquire what he has through hard work.
That's hedonism and the majority of immigrants are not materialistic, and do not value success with dollar signs. I know this because I once worked at Wal-Mart and I know that they saw themselves as liberated, but considered the idea that they could become millionaires as ridiculous. Their children, perhaps, if they went to school, but not adults. I also would not equate the hedonistic treadmill with happiness, but rather, that such a treadmill is driven because of unhappiness.

True or not, they have something they may not have had before: a goal and a hope of actually getting there. It is through the actualization of this work, this desire for a better thing, that the immigrant would find happiness.
Happiness is a feeling of satisfaction and contentment with the world. The more satisfaction and contentment a person has, the less desire that they have. And the less desire that they have, the less necessary it is to work. According to what you've said, all of those who don't work--the wealthy, the disabled, and the retired--aren't happy. And that certainly isn't true. Furthermore, I would say that people only work because they are happy; "employee morale." And certainly, there are many individual means of gaining happiness (such as being consistent with one's own inner-self, loving one's self, discovering one's self religiously and morally), but these are all ruled by the will. A person may take away your liberty, but they cannot force you to have no goals or force you to have no hope. Therefore, when we're having a discussion over things which may increase or decrease liberty over time, we must only discuss that which can be changed by an outside force and certainly not equate happiness with the hedonistic treadmill.

And along with that companionship comes the basic desire to ensure the needs of one's companions are met. In this day and age, that tends to require a certain amount of money. Working for that money as an end in and of itself will lead into the exact trap you described in the first paragraph. However, understanding that one's work allows one to provide for one's companions increases the satisfaction one can obtain from the job itself, rather than reaching some abstract financial threashold.
And you miss one major fact: In this day and age, taking care of ourselves and our companions does not simply require us to work. But rather, as we've become more dependent upon technology and our population continues to grow, we have to continuously work harder and longer to sustain that technology and population.

I think you're confusing paradigmn change with a falling off. The fact is that, even with the multitude of communication options available to us today, people still seek human interaction and it is the rare individual who solely limits their experience to a computer terminal, a phone or a T.V.

True, new communication options have changed how we relate to one another and you might be able to make a case that with the plethora of easy communication options available to us nowadays it has never been easier to say absolutely nothing. Just the other day I was in a department store and a woman next to me was on her cell phone, tell the other person, "Oh, I'm in the men's department, looking around." As I walked a couple of rows over, there was another woman on her cell phone, saying, "I'm in the men's department, too." I realized these two women, separated by no more than five feet, were talking to each other. I marched right over to the second woman and yelled at her, "SHE'S RIGHT FREAKING OVER THERE!" So, yes, perhaps there has been a watering down of the importance of our communication, but I don't think there has been a lessening of our interaction or our drive for such.
I did not state it lessened our communication in amount or that our drive for such declined. But rather, I said that the quality declined. Less can be expressed on a phone or a book than can be expressed by a human. And less can be expressed on text on the internet than can be expressed phones, books, or humans. And even if technology could transmit a person's voice and entire body through phone lines, it would be the difference be photography and digital photography: both equally aesthetically-pleasing, but one is fake and of infinitely lower-quality.

Well, unless you can produce hard numbers, isn't it possible that the bits of pleasure experienced over a longer life equate to the larger chunks of leisure that happen in a shorter time?
It's certainly possible, yes. And that's my point: We are more miserable, or just as miserable.

I also think you are adding an unfair qualifier in calling modern pleasure "artificial" while assuming older societies enjoyed a more real version. I mean, what's your basis for comparison? It's like the old men sitting around the checker board at the corner store, complaining that things aren't like they used to be. Well, of course they aren't. They never were.
Which is more romantic and real: A flower or an E-card?


Well, the fact remains that all those things happened prior to the Internet as well, just in different forms. Again, this is blaming a tool when the problem is the tool user. Child molestation existed before chat rooms, people could always buy a copy of the Anarchists Cookbook if they wanted to make a bomb, and teens where killing themselves for their Dungeons and Dragons characters prior to EverQuest (which never made me want to kill myself, but frequently made me want to beat seven kinds of hell out of the developers). True, you might successfully argue that the Internet made these things easier to accomplish (and this is spectacularly true in the case of Al-Qaeda). It is a mistake, however, so say they would not have happened without the Internet and, frankly, unknowable. Like any tool, the Internet can be misused. That is not the tool's fault. For every bad thing, there is a good. Vital information can be found online, information that one might not have had access to before. Medical knowledge, political analysis, different cultural views can be heard and experienced.
Our power is increased, yet our selfish nature is not. Many people's selfish desires are called "evil," such as pedophilia and terrorism. Therefore, as technology increases, the strength of our selfishness acted out will increase immorality, by any definition (with the exception of objectivist ethics, which I reject as irrational).

You are correct and progress for the sake of progress is not wise. However, neither is the assumption that were we still sitting around campfires, wondering if it was time to move to the winter hunting grounds, we would somehow automatically be happier or more "in touch" with one another. To shun technology or look at it as the source of our troubles is to give up personal responsibility. If people pull away from one another, it is not because of cell phones or books or the Internet, it is because the people themselves are fundamentally changing and are creating methods of interaction to accomidate that change.
People themselves have not "fundamentally changed." Our cultures, our beliefs, and our ways of life may have changed, but human nature may never change. Even with transhumanism and using machines to manipulate the brain, human nature may only be overcome through human nature. Therefore, the only way human nature may overthrow itself, is if it is human nature to do so. So far, we have not changed our nature even once, so I would argue that we will never fundamentally change, and if we do, it will not necessarily be for altruistic reasons.

Any advance in science is both constructive and deconstructive, and the basis of either is that of responsibility.
Can you elaborate on that?

Medical science has increased the average lifespan, I would say this has improved the quality of my life dramatically. Were it not for sanitation and the medical sciences, for instance, I would not have met my grandparents, my life has been greatly improved through getting to know them. My parents would be dead by now, and the fact that they're still around improves the quality of my life.

Let's see, I had strep throat some time ago, got antibiotics, took care of it. I didnt' have to suffer with a bacterial infection for some obscene amount of time, instead it was taken care of in less than a week.

I live in Canada, and due to electricity and the developments in heating homes, I don't have to freeze half the year away, I don't have to overheat during the rest of the year either, due to air conditioning. Again, my quality of life is improved.

In my leisure time, I read books, which would not be availablt for wide distribution without our technology. I play the guitar, which hunter-gatherer societies didn't have. I go to the bar with friends, hunter gatherers didn't have alcohol.

And also, it is very rare that I go to bed hungry. I would consider this a great improvement in the quality of my life.

I could go on...

Science and Art have improved our lives, and my argument for it is two-fold:
One, I am personally and example of the benefits of technology, you see, nature fucked up a bit when it got to my family. Poor eyesight runs in the family, but due to human advancement we have patched over that bump to the point that it doesn't matter. Further examples of technologies benefits have already been enumerated. To which I'd like to addd that:
No, Africa wouldn't be better off if we'd all stuck to getting eaten by bears and dying like rats. The evils of slavery and theft and murder were a part of Africa long before technology arrived. They were a part of everything before technology arrived, and the only possible way to say that technology has caused evil is to go the Amish route of calling it the devil and building barns

Oh, yes, and the second part of my argument: If, as you seem to claim, technology has made no difference, then it is better to have it. Better the Hell that we made for ourselves then the equal Hell that random chance chose for us.

hell yeah the development of arts and sciences has improved our quality of life

air conditioning

polio vaccine

electric guitar

the drum machine!

how did we ever live without them???

disease is very bad for quality of life. all the vaccines of modern medicine have greatly reduced human misery. its hard to be happy when your child dies of whooping cough eh?

air conditioning speaks for itself. especially in hot climates.

all those bands that could never keep a beat.....no more problem. the drum machine keeps it for them. and of course how could you have rock and roll without the electric guitar? thats progress.

I argue: No, it has not. Because happiness is brought about not through liberty, but through apparent liberty. A person is free because they see themselves as free, not because they necessarily are. Because although our reality may be something physical and material, from our own perspectives, our reality is simply the sum of our perceptions. Therefore, a wealthy man who sees himself as a slave is a slave and a poor man who sees himself as free is free. A poor immigrant who comes to America and takes a job at Wal-Mart sees himself as liberated, and therefore, lives blissfully. But if a millionaire in America went bankrupt and had to work at Wal-Mart, they would see themselves as a slave, and therefore, live unhappily. And so, while we have created more objective liberty, our subjective liberty has not changed at all, and may have even become worse because we have become so aware of what liberty is. And so, the increase in actual freedom in the world has not improved our quality of life.

Furthermore, it is human interactions which creates happiness. Wealth is meaningless without family and friends. It is preferable to have a meager income and many people to care about, than a great deal of money and almost no one to care about you at all. This strikes at the heart of our existence, because companionship was the first pleasure that ever existed.

And as a society progresses, it does not increase human interaction, but rather, it replaces it or filters it with machines. Originally, to communicate, people had to speak to one another. This created a noble tradition of storytelling, where great fables would be passed from generation to generation. Then, the book was invented and people didn't need to interact as much, but rather, they could interact with wax tablets and shreds of paper. As we progressed further technologically, more people interacted with these shreds of paper instead of talking to eachother.

Then, the industrial revolution came: People began to talk to eachother through phones. And then, we decided to not speak to eachother at all, but have listening-boxes (radios) and viewing-boxes (televisions), that would take the place of friends and would raise our children for us. Finally, we created yet another box to replace human beings: the computer. Now, no one needs to go outside to have friends, to speak to a clerk to buy things, to go to church to be religious, and to go to the library to read. Progress has alienated mankind. While it has increased our amount of communication, it has drastically reduced the quality. Once, there were the countless nuances of communication, in the form of facial expression, body language, tone, emotion, and sarcasm, which has now been replaced by mere characters, sent as ones and zeroes. Scientific and technological progress does not improve our quality of life, but simply further creates a more fake and artificial society.

Our lives are lengthened, but have our lives improved? No. Even something as simple as the amount of time spent during leisure is cut short. A hunting and gathering society spends merely a few hours a week working. In our modern age, we spend 40 or 50 hours a week or more working. Is it better to live in a communal society, with a strong family unit, and having a short life, with much leisure? Or is it better to have a long life with bits and pieces of artificial pleasure in between an almost constant rat race, with so many others who could care less if you sink or swim? The answer should be obvious.

And while I agree with the Conservative ideal of a golden age, and how scientific progress often seeks to dissolve our humanity, I recognize that progress is, indeed, inevitable. And progress should pass a test of skepticism, but not always be outright hindered or opposed, especially in terms of violating liberty. Thus, homosexual marriage is nothing to be feared. But something such as the internet should have been looked at far more closely before blindly supporting it, in the name of progress. Because while the internet has in many ways helped America, it has hurt America. It gave child molesters an effective medium, it gave the Columbine teens the means to build bombs, several MMORPG-players have committed suicide, bigots and propagandists have found it to be a useful tool, and finally, in the opinion of Peter Bergen (producer of the first Bin Ladin interview and the foremost researcher on Al-Qaeda), Al-Qaeda would have never existed internationally, if it were not for the internet. Therefore, while I recognize that far right-wing reactories, such as Jerry Falwell and Ann Coulter, are idiots, and I recognize that the Christian right's opposition to certain types of progress is irrational, I still also recognize that all progress must be looked at with a strongly discerning eye, with a realistic view of mankind is being inherently selfish, and not simply based upon measuring the value of liberty. Because as we'd seen from Columbine and 9-11, the consequences can be extremely dire.
With the best will in the world, you're talking complete and utter crap here: speaking as a diabetic, I wouldn't have any kind of life without the advances made by medical technology over the last 150 years or so. I'm also inclined to believe that the development of anesthesia and dentistry (to pick a couple of examples) have contributed greatly to the human condition. I doubt you'd be a lot happier living in the Elizabethan period, covered with lice and worrying about getting burnt at the stake if you spoke out of turn than you are now, however sorry for yourself you're feeling. To get onto something specific, though:
People did not have more leisure time in hunter gatherer societies. Quite the opposite in fact: they spent all the daylight hours hunting and gathering, and the night asleep or wishing they'd managed to hunt and/or gather a bit more that day.

disease is very bad for quality of life. all the vaccines of modern medicine have greatly reduced human misery. its hard to be happy when your child dies of whooping cough eh?
But then you went out, spent four hours hunting and gathering, sang Kumbayah with your clan and reflected on how wonderful everything was for awhile and you felt better. Anyway, you probably had a dozen other children, so what does one matter?
air conditioning speaks for itself. especially in hot climates.
Heat is purely an invention of the capatalist overlords and their technology! That is why evil Amerika caused Global warming, because otherwise no one would by air conditioners.
all those bands that could never keep a beat.....no more problem. the drum machine keeps it for them. and of course how could you have rock and roll without the electric guitar? thats progress.
No, because if there is one thing that ultra-accurate Disney documentaries like Pocahontas has taught me, it is that primitive peoples were incredible singers, and that they were followed around by magical fairies who provided everyone with a soundtrack while keeping just out of sight at all times.

With the best will in the world, you're talking complete and utter crap here: speaking as a diabetic, I wouldn't have any kind of life without the advances made by medical technology over the last 150 years or so. I'm also inclined to believe that the development of anesthesia and dentistry (to pick a couple of examples) have contributed greatly to the human condition.
Diabetes wass invented by time travelling Republicans! Diseases didn't start existing until drug companies existed to treat disease!
I doubt you'd be a lot happier living in the Elizabethan period, covered with lice and worrying about getting burnt at the stake
Exactly what me and good friend Chomskywhatsits are talking about! No technology = no fire, so no problems there. Anyway capatalists invented lice! And murder! The Soviets told me so!
People did not have more leisure time in hunter gatherer societies. Quite the opposite in fact: they spent all the daylight hours hunting and gathering, and the night asleep or wishing they'd managed to hunt and/or gather a bit more that day.
No, people in Hunter-gatherer societies only had to work 7 hours, and got 1 hour of a lunch break each day! Not only that, but negotiations with the Bear God Ogg and the Moose God Zug-Zug resulted in 6 week paid vacations for everbody!

Diabetes wass invented by time travelling Republicans! Diseases didn't start existing until drug companies existed to treat disease!

Exactly what me and good friend Chomskywhatsits are talking about! No technology = no fire, so no problems there. Anyway capatalists invented lice! And murder! The Soviets told me so!

No, people in Hunter-gatherer societies only had to work 7 hours, and got 1 hour of a lunch break each day! Not only that, but negotiations with the Bear God Ogg and the Moose God Zug-Zug resulted in 6 week paid vacations for everbody!
I rather hope that was meant to be sarcasm. (It obviously wasn't, because sarcasm is supposed to be funny, but at least you made an attempt.)

But then you went out, spent four hours hunting and gathering, sang Kumbayah with your clan and reflected on how wonderful everything was for awhile and you felt better. Anyway, you probably had a dozen other children, so what does one matter?

Heat is purely an invention of the capatalist overlords and their technology! That is why evil Amerika caused Global warming, because otherwise no one would by air conditioners.

No, because if there is one thing that ultra-accurate Disney documentaries like Pocahontas has taught me, it is that primitive peoples were incredible singers, and that they were followed around by magical fairies who provided everyone with a soundtrack while keeping just out of sight at all times.
i stand corrected and bow to your unassailable logic

Okay, I've read this entire thread, and I just have to say to the original poster, I'm sorry, but your argument is total nonsense for reasons including, but not limited to, the following:

A. It's a safe bet that people who rant against science/technology have never contracted smallpox, or had to hunt or gather all their own food, or had to drag their own ass and all their possessions across a continent under their own power, or even had to crap without a toilet of some kind to take the stink away. Lots of people in the world have had that kind of lifestyle, and they trade it in -- or at least add conveniences to it -- every chance they get. Hell, even the Amish use plows, though technically, they could farm with digging sticks.

B. I disagree about your argument being logical and well-thought-out. I found no facts in any of your arguments, not even specific historical examples to back you up. Your arguments contain only only subjective interpretations of some current conditions in some countries and broad, uninformed assumptions about what other cultures do. Frankly, your supposition that people aren't really enjoying their lives no matter what they say strikes me as condescending -- a "these peasants don't know any better" argument.

C. This idea that, once upon a time, people's lives were simple and easy is little more than fantasy. Yes, when the population is very small, life may be somewhat simpler, if only because there are fewer people with two cents to stick in, but all you have to do is interview people who live in other cultures to find out that "simple" and "easy" are entirely subjective terms. You're just indulging in the-grass-is-always-greener-on-the-other-side-ism.

D. I challenge you to point out a single period of history or a single culture in which the arts and sciences/technology did/do not play a role. Medecine, engineering, astronomy, agriculture and its related sciences, etc., etc., have been going on all over the world for at least 10,000 years. More like 20,000 years if you include simple technology such as weapons, hunting tools, clothing, fire use, food preservation, and so on. As for the arts, they've been around at least 20,000 years, too. So I suppose all those herbal healers and figurine carvers were just out to enslave society? Well, they're obviously not very good at it, since, 20,000 years later, we're just starting to complain now.

Your proposition that the arts and sciences are what's wrong with the world just doesn't fly. Try again.

Okay, I've read this entire thread, and I just have to say to the original poster, I'm sorry, but your argument is total nonsense for reasons including, but not limited to, the following:

A. It's a safe bet that people who rant against science/technology have never contracted smallpox, or had to hunt or gather all their own food, or had to drag their own ass and all their possessions across a continent under their own power, or even had to crap without a toilet of some kind to take the stink away. Lots of people in the world have had that kind of lifestyle, and they trade it in -- or at least add conveniences to it -- every chance they get. Hell, even the Amish use plows, though technically, they could farm with digging sticks.
Not all Native American tribes immediately embraced technology with such zeal. And today, the Amish, certain tribes in Africa, and some aboriginals in Australia reject technology, and claim to live happier lives. It is better to be faced with death at any moment, because that makes life worth even more. And it makes death more acceptable... Rather than wandering through life without motivation, because our survival is never at stake and we evolved to even have ambition to maintain our survival, and then, when near death, to to be afraid of and reject something as natural as death, to fear death simply for sake of fearing death and maintain life simply for maintaining life, just as progress for sake of progress.

B. I disagree about your argument being logical and well-thought-out. I found no facts in any of your arguments, not even specific historical examples to back you up. Your arguments contain only only subjective interpretations of some current conditions in some countries and broad, uninformed assumptions about what other cultures do. Frankly, your supposition that people aren't really enjoying their lives no matter what they say strikes me as condescending -- a "these peasants don't know any better" argument.
I've been reading Rousseau. You ought to read his essay on the moral effects science and art has had on society. He gives historical examples to support my argument.

In it, he writes that all of the great societies collapsed because of scientific advancement, not barbarism. For example, in Greece, Socrates praised ignorance and the 'civilized' establishment had him killed. In Rome, there was a saying that there were so many learned men that honest men were being ecclipsed.

C. This idea that, once upon a time, people's lives were simple and easy is little more than fantasy. Yes, when the population is very small, life may be somewhat simpler, if only because there are fewer people with two cents to stick in, but all you have to do is interview people who live in other cultures to find out that "simple" and "easy" are entirely subjective terms. You're just indulging in the-grass-is-always-greener-on-the-other-side-ism.
I value our original state of nature as greater for many reasons, not merely its simplicity.

D. I challenge you to point out a single period of history or a single culture in which the arts and sciences/technology did/do not play a role. Medecine, engineering, astronomy, agriculture and its related sciences, etc., etc., have been going on all over the world for at least 10,000 years. More like 20,000 years if you include simple technology such as weapons, hunting tools, clothing, fire use, food preservation, and so on. As for the arts, they've been around at least 20,000 years, too. So I suppose all those herbal healers and figurine carvers were just out to enslave society? Well, they're obviously not very good at it, since, 20,000 years later, we're just starting to complain now.

Your proposition that the arts and sciences are what's wrong with the world just doesn't fly. Try again.
I am supporting an idea, not a course of action. You interpret, "Our state of nature was superior," to immediately mean that I would support returning to our state of nature, even after I've already established that progress is inevitable. A lamborghini is a far nicer than what I have. And, in all likelihood, I cannot get a lamborghini by moral means. But if I say, "A lamborghini is superior to my car," that doesn't immediately mean that I would steal a lamborghini.

But I will restate my argument, with more ideas, and in an attempt to be more clear and concise.

In order to argue that we were less happy, or equally happy, we must define what happiness is and where it comes from. We could define happiness in a general sense or a more specific sense. Because what makes one person happy does not make another person happy. Human beings are not merely robots to which we can apply a universal standard, such as if we were judging the qualities of a certain device manufactured in a factory. Being manufactured by nature itself, we are as unique as snowflakes, therefore, can never fit any generalization at all, perfectly. But general trends do work and are useful. So, this definition of happiness will be a general definition, being only as specific as necessary.

First of all, it must be clarified that I believe happiness is a goal and a destination, rather than a process. I base my claim on the fact that happiness, joy, contentment, peace, comfort, and every synonym for the positive feelings of "good" are nouns. A person does not "happiness"-ing or "joy-ing" or "peace"-ing. Though words are not actually reality in itself, our words usually reflect reality. "Walking," is an action, therefore a verb. "Happiness," is an object, rather than a process, therefore a noun. And though happiness comes through action, calling happiness a process is the equivalent of calling "up" a process simply because you have to jump to get there.

It is not an actual destination in the sense of a time and place, but a desirable feeling. And "feelings," are objects which are manipulated, though we use mental processes to attain them. So we "feel" sadness, "feel" fear, and so on. Though our feelings are always about certain objects, feelings are like thoughts. Thinking may certainly be an action, but that does not make thoughts strictly a process or both an object and a process. You must differentiate between thought and thinking, between emotions and feeling those emotions, and between happiness and the process of acting out and perceiving happiness. Hence, happiness is a goal and a destination, rather than a process.

Happiness is never permanently attainable, but that does not necessarily make it a process, but merely a goal that must be almost continuously sought after and maintained. For example, a muscular body is a goal for some people. A certain amount of muscle mass, a certain body fat percentage, or the ability to lift a certain amount of weight may even be a specific destination. So, it is a goal, with a destination. But once you are there, you cannot merely stop working and end the exercise regimen, because then your body would go back to what it was before, making you not maintain your goal. Not all maintainable goals are processes, such as this case. Therefore, happiness is never a final destination (nothing in life is, except death), but it is still a goal and a destination.

Now it's clarified that happiness is a goal with a destination, and founded upon liberty, we can judge the basis for happiness strictly upon liberty. Being that all uses of liberty are going to come from human nature, it is unnecessary to be specific, because human nature does not change. For example, human beings have not become more moral since their beginnings, by any definition. Because society's morals, though based upon individual choice and affected by culture, it cannot escape the inherent deterministic biology of the brain. Certain individuals may have done immoral things in the past, such as murder and torture, but do these things not exist today? And we cannot even conclusively define morality and what evidence is there that they have truly decreased? Does not every society consider itself greater than others?

As stated before, Native Americans considered themselves more civilized than European colonists, and vice-versa. The same is true today when talking about almost any two cultures. People have the tendency to be ethnocentric. Simply because what we have is what makes us happy and our society is what we perceive as moral is certainly not what necessarily what makes all people happy and what is moral.

There is one aspect of morality that can be conclusively recognized, however, and it is the same foundation as for happiness: liberty. Regardless of one's definition of morality or what one sees as moral acts, every moral act, by any definition, must be voluntary. Some cultures may advocate strongly coercing others to take voluntary moral action, to the point of even beating them, but the point is that such action must still ultimately be voluntary to be moral. Holding a gun to someone's head and telling them to do a good deed is blackmail, which can never be virtue, even if the good are accomplished with the same goals, processes, and destinations. Therefore, not only happiness, but morality is also a function of liberty. So, as liberty increases, the potential for morality and happiness increase. And as liberty decreases, the potential for morality and happiness decrease.

Do we have more liberty today? No. We certainly have developed more liberty than during the Middle Ages, but not more liberty than the state of nature. In the state of nature, a person had the greatest amount of liberty possible as there was no medium of authority between themselves and nature. They were as strong or as weak as they chose to be. Now, we may say that we have increased liberty today since the state of nature, but I would be inclined to disagree: Certainly, we have increased liberty for the weak, but we have likewise compensated for that by decreasing liberty for the strong. So, we have not increased liberty, but have merely taken it from the hands of one group and given to another.

With conventional society, we have also taken liberty from the weak as well as the strong. We claim to be more moral and happy as a race, yet Africa has another black plague, spread all because of modern transportation, yet that same modern technology refuses to treat it equally as it does in richer countries. A westerner may leave AIDS in Africa, buy diamonds from Africa, or vacation in Africa, treating it equally in terms of a garbage dump for diseases, a store, and a tourist spot, treating it equally as a commodity, but not equally as having a people which deserve equal quality of life and dignity. Are we more moral and happy, as a race, for transmitting such virulent and untreatable diseases all over the world, such as AIDS? Are we more moral and happy for increasing the pain of death, by becoming obese smokers and drug addicts? Are we more moral and happy, because we have taken liberty from the strong and given it to the weak in some circumstances, while in other circumstances, taken liberty from both the strong and the weak, and giving it to the affluent elite?

We have created complicated means of dividing liberty and with far more people to divide liberty among. Furthermore, in order to argue that our quality of life has improved, you must argue, not simply that our technology has improved, but that our morality has improved. The human race's quality of life is not a function of merely technology, but of kindness. Quality of life improves for our people when neighbors begin to care about one another. When people do not care about eachother, quality of life declines. When we care about eachother substantially, quality of life improves because we do acts out of altruism and kindness, rather than simply for selfish gain. Machines do not do good things on their own, but require good people to use them to do good things. Therefore, if you say that science has improved our quality of life, you must therefore prove that our morality has improved as well.

But it is most of all undeniable that our morality has not improved, if it has not declined. Hence, you cannot say that our quality of life has improved. Our power increases, yet our morality does not, therefore, the strength of immoral acts increases. So, rather than a few localized stonings, you have inquisitions. And rather than merely inquisitions, you have holocausts and genocide. And hence, it is as Rousseau says: Our society, in its properness and civility, has the appearance of virtue, yet is without virtue. It is adorned with many shining ornaments (such as modern medicine), while the essence that makes it valuable rots away.

I haven't read through everything in great detail, but just by skiming through I have seen a major problem.

Chomskyrion, you start the thread asking about the quality of life and then you spend most of the time talking about happiness.

Quality of life can be, though it doesn't have to be, measured objectively by looking at things like: life span, health and sanitation, wealth, education, etc.

Happiness, on the other hand, is purely subjective.

Basically, while perhaps related, these terms are not the same. You can be quite happy with a low quality of life, and very miserable with a high quality of life.

No one, I would hope, is entering this debate and arguing that X people without technology were not as happy as they thought. However, I can certainly see people entering the debate saying X people had a much harder life than necessary.

I haven't read through everything in great detail, but just by skiming through I have seen a major problem.

Chomskyrion, you start the thread asking about the quality of life and then you spend most of the time talking about happiness.

Quality of life can be, though it doesn't have to be, measured objectively by looking at things like: life span, health and sanitation, wealth, education, etc.
Quality of life is happiness, because life span, health and sanitation, wealth, education, etc, are things intended to increase happiness. In modern terms, they judge quality-of-life strictly upon longevity and disability, which certainly isn't the case... "Quality-of-life" is merely how good one's life is. And one's life is good because one is happy. Happiness is an emotion within a single moment. Quality-of-life is how happy one is over a lifetime.

Happiness, on the other hand, is purely subjective.
"Quality of life" could be considered just as much subjective as happiness, because it is still based upon the foundation that one type of life is "good" and better than another. In both cases, it is an assessment of value.

Basically, while perhaps related, these terms are not the same. You can be quite happy with a low quality of life, and very miserable with a high quality of life.
Based upon flawed modern terms, yes. I should've used different terminology, though.

No one, I would hope, is entering this debate and arguing that X people without technology were not as happy as they thought. However, I can certainly see people entering the debate saying X people had a much harder life than necessary.
And that is the debate.

Quality of life is happiness, because life span, health and sanitation, wealth, education, etc, are things intended to increase happiness.

If, for the purpose of this discussion, you want to make quality of life equal to happiness then that's fine. But generally speaking, no quality of life is not merely happiness, but as you later said the value of life.

"Quality of life" could be considered just as much subjective as happiness...

Yes it could be, and if you read closely I wrote that quality of life could be considered both subjectively and objectively. But when you start talking about quality of life you should expect a few responces speaking to its objective measures. And when that happens, you can't simply disqualify them because you are only interested in the subjective aspect.

because it is still based upon the foundation that one type of life is "good" and better than another. In both cases, it is an assessment of value.

Yes, and value can be both subjective and objective. Objectively speaking, life today is far more valuable than life hundreds of years ago simply because of the vast resources expended in creating and perserving life today.

Does that mean though that we are 'better' people than those that came before us. Of course not, that is a subjective measure and I think few here would be so arrogant and callous as to make such a statement.

But that's the problem, if you are talking about the objective quality of life then clearly science and the arts have improved it. If you are talking about the subjective quality of life then there can be no rational discussion.

I worked for seven years, invested most of the money I made and then retired. Now I have unlimited recreation time.

A hunter gatherer lifestyle was a lot more "natural" than that of we who use NS, but natural does not mean more fun. Personally I would not want to be someone who spends their entire life being afraid of the dark. Cause thats what happens when you're a hunter gather in a world with lions, cliffs, rival tribes, superstitious witchdoctors, etc.

<snipped for length (and pity's sake) I've been reading Rousseau.
Ah. That explains it.

I shall attempt to answer you, vague concept for vague concept, but no claim of conciseness. (I’ll bet you think you’re the long-winded one, but I’m about to beat you. :p )

I'm not going to pick apart every sentence of your Whole Earth Catalogue of Bad News Items. Yes, it's undeniable that many bad things have happened and will continue to happen in the world. But your nostalgia and your pessimism are blinding you. I will try to explain my view with two major points:

I. You rant against progress, but there is no such thing as progress.

You keep insisting that the past was better because our nastiness is bigger. But just because the volume of blood was less in any given atrocity of the past, it does not follow that the past cultures that committed said atrocities were nicer than us. Go read up on the Romans' idea of family entertainment and be grateful they didn't have our weapons. Or perhaps the Romans aren't far back enough. How about the Copper Age? Didn't I see a documentary in which Otsi, the ancient "Ice Man" found in the Alps, appeared to have died from an arrow shot into his back, i.e., murdered by another human being? Gosh, I wonder about the simple, happy, natural life that ended that way? If he had such access to happiness, how did he manage to piss someone off enough to kill him but not rob him? (No bullets back then, but Otsi ended up just as dead.)


Progress is a myth because people don't change. We are as we have always been, good, bad, and indifferent. There has always been and always will be the same proportions of happiness and unhappiness, vice and virtue, the same percentages of saints and bastards in any population. Some people figure out how to stay happy and enjoy life. Some people don't. Some people can share. Some people think they can only win if the other guy loses. Some people try to fix problems they see around them. Some just wallow and complain.

But one thing you can't do is turn off the human brain (even television hasn't been able to do that). Yes, "curiosity killed the cat" but curiosity is what makes us human, and no matter what is around us, we will tinker with it to see what else we can make it do. Our tinkering gets us into all kinds of trouble, but it also gets us out of trouble again. Don't damn the tools just because someone else didn't use them right. Use them yourself to undo the other guy's screw-up. Thus, alternative fuels *will* slowly replace fossil fuels, bringing about a significant reduction in pollution and, eventually, the slow self-repair of the ozone layer. Tomorrow's solution to yesterday's problem, followed by next week's solution to tomorrow's problem. That's the way life goes. One damned thing after another, as someone once said.

II. There are other possible causes and solutions for the problems you're complaining about.

To be honest, I'm just as pessimistic as you about the current state of civilization, and about the near future, but I am far more optimistic about the more distant future -- say 50-100 years. I don't believe we have to undo society or strip it down to save it. This is because I have a different idea about what is causing the current negativity. You, on one hand, see a steady decline caused somehow by the arts and sciences (you still have not supported this connection -- and what the hell have the arts got to do with it, anyway??!!). I, on the other hand, see a cultural anxiety attack brought on by changes being launched by the self-same sciences, as well as economics and human movement/migration.

The symptoms you describe are, in my opinion, signs of severe, self-destructive stress, akin to stressed monkeys pulling all their own hair out. The malaise and depression, the xenophobia and nationalism, the rise of violent extremism and fundamentalism -- all of these are reactions against changes in the way people live -- a groundswell trend away from nations as a valid organizational entity; away from "traditional", 19th-century definitions of community, family, individual, social roles; away even from established definitions of human, animal, god, life, death, etc. These changes have been going on since WW2 and will need many more decades to work themselves out. When they do, things will plateau out into the stability of new cultural norms, and this will last for several generations. I base these suppositions on the patterns of history. In the meantime, things are going to get scarier as people struggle, first, to try and stop the changes, and then, to redefine their lives to fit into them. We need to brace ourselves, but we are not just passive victims of change.

Let me tell you my favorite story of cultural adaptation for survival -- the Trobriand Cricketers of Papua-New Guinea.

Weak links, but the best I could do at 2am with a huge google result:
http://www.roninfilms.com.au/video/1886857/0/1832343.html
http://www.canberra.edu.au/uc/lectures/scides/sem962/Unit1354/CULTURAL_VARIATIONS_OF_SPORT.txt

These people were facing almost certain extinction -- cultural and possibly physical -- under British rule. Although they lived very simple, non-technological lives, under the socio-psychological stress of colonialism, they were suffering many of the symptoms you describe for modern Western (US) society -- depression, addiction, violence, break down of the family, lack of contact/communication, loss of a sense of the individual and the community. They suffered illnesses and were having fewer children.

The Trobrianders, like most of the people in that region, were headhunters who traditionally conducted inter-village wars in which human heads were collected. These wars were connected to their creation myths and to veneration of their ancestors. However, they made the place very dangerous, so the British outlawed headhunting. The headhunting wars, however, were an integral symbol of Trobriand culture. Most of their arts and social bonding events were tied up with it. It was the vehicle of their cultural identity. Without it, the culture was dying, and so were the people.

Apparently, one day, some very smart elders were watching young men playing cricket down at the Methodist mission. This was about the only pastime that was approved by the British, and the young folks were getting kind of hooked on it. It seems that it occurred to these elders that cricket had a ritualistic structure very similar to the way they used to conduct war.

The end result was that these people asked themselves a very important question: What does it really mean to be a Trobriander?

Is it all about the wars and the heads? Or is it about all the stuff that went with the wars -- the dances, the rituals, the communities, the roles played by every member of society? They wondered, what if it’s the latter?

The Trobrianders took up cricket, rewrote the rules to suit their tastes, and adorned the game with all the rituals and pagentry of warfare. And it worked. The Trobriand culture survived. They beat their oppressors at their own game (literally), and today, it still means something to be a Trobriander.

I suggest we should try to follow their example. Rather than mope and pine for a golden age when we suppose people were happier than we are now, we should instead be asking ourselves tough questions.

Who are we, and whatever the answer is, what does it mean -- really? Not all that traditional mythological bullshit. What really is the core essence of us -- as individuals, as societies? And when we’ve figured that out, then we should look about us for ways to live and express it.

Don’t try to reshape the world to be what you want it to be (the world shapes itself, with no regard for us). Instead, figure out how to be what you want to be in this world.

There. Now you have a project. Do it, experiment, see what happens. :D

(PS: Do yourself a favor, C, don't read Rousseau unless you also read Macchiavelli at the same time. It'll keep you balanced.)