NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a quick question that was on my mind. Do you, people of NSG, believe that society in the west, in general, is moving forward, regressing, or at a neutral pace?

Please say why.

Society must go forwards, not backwards. Upwards, not forwards. And always twirling, twirling towards victory!

Society must go forwards, not backwards. Upwards, not forwards. And always twirling, twirling towards victory!

You say it goes forward, and while in a chronological sense it is going forward, do you see it as actually being better tomorrow, than today or yesterday?

bloody hell you ask difficult questions.
It depends which countries you take into account, and whether you measure moving forwardness by economic, social, civil rights success, environmentally and the list goes on.

Now i'm assuming you mean socially, as in how happy people are living in the West, so my gut answer would be it isn't going anywhere fast and possibly backward. seeing as richer countries have got richer, poorer countries have got poorer (on the whole, however i'm sure there's a few exceptions to this).

So backward, then again it's probably easier to say it's going backward as most people are programmed to see the negatives in life. (well i am anyway)

Society is clearly regressing. Some may argue that is progressing, which is true, but what toward? A negative position, I say. For that reason, I feel that the West is only falling deeper into the way of self-destruction.

Forward, but not at a consistent pace. Something like a three steps forward, two steps back kind of thing.

Society is to vague a term for me to even contemplate your question.

Society is clearly regressing. Some may argue that is progressing, which is true, but what toward? A negative position, I say. For that reason, I feel that the West is only falling deeper into the way of self-destruction.

Based on Oak's answer I'm going to have to go with society is moving forward...

Society is to vague a term for me to even contemplate your question.

Western Culture.

Society is to vague a term for me to even contemplate your question.

smartass.

Impossible to say-for every step forward, it seems we take three back, but overall, I'd say Western Culture is nowhere near it's pinnacle, and seems to be evolving-the progression of other cultures towards it's ideal is proof enough for me.

I would say that the West is regressing, despite whatever technological advances it is making. It is my belief that the East will eventually surpass us and relegate the West to a moral, intellectual, and economic backwater.

Society is not linear. You have asked an incorrect question.

This is the self preservation society,
this is the self preservation society.

It's moving forward in that's bringing into more clarity class relations, and class relations are the basis for society. The State itself exists because of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms between the bourgeois and the working class.

Clearly regressing, IMO.

prudes are becoming more prudish, puritans more puritanical, etc.

I would say that the West is regressing, despite whatever technological advances it is making. It is my belief that the East will eventually surpass us and relegate the West to a moral, intellectual, and economic backwater.

lulwut? How's the west going to be a back water to be a backwater?

Anyways, I have no idea how to answer this question.

I don't think it is phrased right. Society is what it is. There is no goal for society. As such, there is no way for it to progress or regress. Society is.

To define progression (or regression for that matter), you need to establish a criteria for measurement. And since that criteria can only ever be subjectively determined its only a reflection of the prejudices of the observer, not the "direction" society is moving in.

We're in flux, as we always have been. "Forward" and "backward" are meaningless concepts when it comes to culture.

Long term, it is actually getting better. You can tell that because the very poorest* in the 'west' live far better than the upper classes 200 yrs ago.

But it's definitely on a downward slope in teh short term. Thing of it is though, most people are actually happy about that. So really nothing can be done.

*There actually has been reports of malnutrition bellies in the northern united states this year, so it's a qualified better.

Western Culture.

That's still a pretty vague people group. There is too much going on for me to say one way or another. I'd also like to know how you expect one to measure "progressing".

I would say that society is regressing because capitalism and the State are causing death and destruction, yet we are addicted to the State. Furthermore, cognitive dissonance will prevent people from coming to understand that the State exists primarily to defend illegitimate wealth and privilege and that this wealth and privilege is concentrated by the use of massive violence. Because we are addicted to it, we will not voluntarily change. And because we will not voluntarily change, society will continue to regress until it destroys itself.

I'd say of Western Culture...
In the western hemi
Canada is going forward slowly, cautiously like a big old fuzzy bear
USA is imploding, functionally illiterate and almost 100% innumerate
Mexico is advancing briskly
Everything south of Mexico is stagnating except for Brazil
Brazil is commiting suicide
In the eastern hemi
Ireland would be advancing if they could just dump the English
Wales is superb and getting better, too bad most of them who speak Welsh do so with an English accent. In the south anyways
The rest of the UK is locked in a no win situation socially but the irony is great
The Francophones got more culture than they know what to do with
The Scandias are tops for sanity
The Germanics are ok but they need a little more personal freedom
The northern Slavics are alright, especially the Czechs
The southern Slavics are too tense and stubborn and some of them are going to have to give up on the "Berserker Good Life" thing and get over it
Spain and Portugal might want to think about moving up to the 1800s
Italy and Greece are up there with the Francophones for culture
Rumania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania Finns Estonians and the Lapps have rich inner cultures that there is no need to change
And all the rest Switzerland, Lutzebourge and Andorra included are just kind of hanging on for the ride.
And off there somewhere in xxxx land
Australia would be doing ok if they'd just stop genociding the Abos
Tasmania has got to stop being such woolly jumpers
and finally
As soon as the Maori take over New Zealand entirely the better it will be for all of them

lulwut? How's the west going to be a back water to be a backwater?

I am assuming that you accidentally repeated that last part, since I don't think it would make sense otherwise. Basically, I think what will happen is that the West will become so burdened with the expenses of its governmental programs, both in terms of actual costs and opportunity costs, and the population will settle into such a state of alienation and entitlement that it will become moribund while the East continues its reforms and modernization while maintaining its own subsidiary institutions.

Sorry for the generality of things. Let me go into a bit further detail.

By progression, I mean, do you believe that morally, scientifically, socially, economically and equally, we are moving forward from where we have been in the last 10 years or so.

OR

Do you see there being less morals, less advancements in science, less social structures, less economic growth and/or equality, and overall, less personal liberties and freedoms? That would be regression.


Or perhaps you believe that things are about the same as they have been for the last decade or two.

Is that easier to answer?

Society is progressively regressing and regressively progressing simultaneously.

Society, being an abstract concept, cannot progress or regress.

Linearly speaking, as long as a nation moves towards wherever it is heading (whether that be a positive ideology or negative)...it is progressing. I suppose that would imply that if a nation is moving to where it has been, that might be considered regression.

In a more dynamic sense, it is impossible to define progression or regression without some metric or destination to gauge society against.

While there may be a slew of factors which might be considered as a suitable social metric, I believe that all are mere eye-candy but one...that being morality.

Against the metric of morality, I believe society as a whole is regressing, and as long as morality becomes ever more relative, so too will society regress.

Well, that's how I'd measure it anyway. *tips hat*

10 years is too short a time. If there's anything I've learned while studying history, it's that it [history] can turn on a dime.

Considering all of known history, then, of course, science and economics show a definite trend of improvement, with morals, social relationships, and equality (assuming you mean equal rights) basically being subsets of economics.


Sorry for the generality of things. Let me go into a bit further detail.

By progression, I mean, do you believe that morally, scientifically, socially, economically and equally, we are moving forward from where we have been in the last 10 years or so.

OR

Do you see there being less morals, less advancements in science, less social structures, less economic growth and/or equality, and overall, less personal liberties and freedoms? That would be regression.


Or perhaps you believe that things are about the same as they have been for the last decade or two.

Is that easier to answer?

Most people who have some kind of power are trying their hardest to make society regress. The rich try to exploit the rest of society to get richer at any cost. Media tries to convince the masses to mindlessly worship mass produced low quality low intelligence content. Politicians try to make the state more powerful even at the expense of liberty. Religious authorities try to lock as many as possible into a narrow minded version of their religions. Even the rebels, they try to throw out the immigrants, shut down nuclear power in favor of coal power or exterminate all domestic animals. But despite all their attempts society is still progressing thanks to technological progress, they can't defeat the progress inventions like for example the internet brings.

Really interesting question and responses posted here--well, except for that "willingness to pay" crud. The fact that we are even having the conversation seems to indicate that at least on the vector of political freedom we are improving. Those who say one can't define progress make sense in theory, but it does seem a bit, well, academic, of a response. After considering all the vectors and subjective possibilities, doesn't each one of us have to make a choice about what is "progress" to us since we actually live in the world and don't just think about it? I think the East/West dichotomy is a bit antiquated, but what the heck.

As a woman, I'll say that I'd rather live now in the U.S., England, or Canada than at any other time or place in history. I have more choices regarding my career, personal life, and everything else than I would have in any other time or place. I think that's probably true for class and race too, though I think we have much, much "further" (yes, that's a value judgment) to go. Obviously, we have a lot to do on the environmental front if we are to survive at all (unless we find another planet soon to rape and pillage).

. . .

While there may be a slew of factors which might be considered as a suitable social metric, I believe that all are mere eye-candy but one...that being morality.

Against the metric of morality, I believe society as a whole is regressing, and as long as morality becomes ever more relative, so too will society regress.

Well, that's how I'd measure it anyway. *tips hat*

Yes, metric, that's what I meant, not vector--it's 5 a.m. where I am, please 'scuse.

Respectfully, I have to disagree. I think society is mostly morally progressing, not regressing.

what is society? is it the defacto statistical sum of the incentives collectively created by the (mostly subconscious) values each of us actually lives by?

if that's what we're talking about here, it is nothing but self congradulatory collective ego, to imagine were any smarter or better then we have been at any other time in human history, even when we first became human and before.

on the other hand, cultural values do evolve, but not automatically.

in many ways the rise of nations and super nations has been, if anything, a step backwards.

and yet and yet, always there are some people waking up more even as others continue turning away to imagined self intrests.

i don't feel compellingly i can say with entire certainty either way. but i do know, that conditions, natural conditions, humanity has created for itself as a species, will eventually force it to either 'wake up' or find its self to have by its own hand, fassioned its own extinction.

so i really do believe a time of the most great peace is coming, one way or the other.

yes, we will continue to evolve more sophisticated tecnologies as long as we exist, though even in that there may be setbacks from time to time. there will be population implosions as well as explosions. there may be a finite capacity for human numbers and we may be quite close to it.

i think the problem is that the proccess isn't linear. isn't linear at all. that there is a very shallow ramp up, and a very large cyclic component to the proccess. so large as to almost totally obscure any and all progress up the ramp.

at least that's the geometry of human progress as i visualize it in my mind.

each turning of the cycle we gain a little, but the cycle itself is so large as to almost completely obscure any real gains.

and we are headed for some very narrow and difficult times that no one is going to escape entirely unscathed, unless we make some very signifigant chainges in over all policy. chainges of a nature many, and i think the are in error about this, but chainges many seem to believe we are simply incapable of collectively making.

but i do believe we can and will. i just don't think we yet, have all that much to break our arms patting ourselves on the back about.

=^^=
.../\...

what is society? is it the defacto statistical sum of the incentives collectively created by the (mostly subconscious) values each of us actually lives by?

It is a sum of incentives? By "society" I thought Zilam meant a group of people working with each other to achieve individual goals.

there is no progress, no regress. there is only change.

progress implies that we are heading toward a goal.

we arent.

The general trend, although there may be peaks and troughs, is that it is progressing forwards.

there is no progress, no regress. there is only change.

progress implies that we are heading toward a goal.

we arent.

Not necessarily, you can be measurably be progressing higher or lower in terms of how happy the people are or how much their rights are respected etc.... regardless of whether there is a specific limit or goal to reach.

i feel society i the uk is becoming fractionalized... and i dont like the way its heading...

ergo i voted regressing.

too much political correctness, not enough vision.

Hmm...I'm not going to vote.

I simply don't know enough to judge.

Just a quick question that was on my mind. Do you, people of NSG, believe that society in the west, in general, is moving forward, regressing, or at a neutral pace?

Please say why.

Life only gets worse and worse. Does that answer your question?

You say it goes forward, and while in a chronological sense it is going forward, do you see it as actually being better tomorrow, than today or yesterday?

I think what he means is, "Look at me, I was able to work a Simpsons quote in my answer." :)

Some parts of Western society are on the up. Some aren't. Not like there's one homogenous cultural mass, after all.

To define progression (or regression for that matter), you need to establish a criteria for measurement. And since that criteria can only ever be subjectively determined its only a reflection of the prejudices of the observer, not the "direction" society is moving in.

We're in flux, as we always have been. "Forward" and "backward" are meaningless concepts when it comes to culture.

I was just thinking about this question earlier today, and my answer was pretty similar to this one. People tend to base what the "ideal" goals of a society are on what their society can actually achieve. With fewer plagues, greater freedoms, and more material prosperity, most people would agree that we have progressed since the Middle Ages. But the people of the Middle Ages wouldn't see it that way, because they just weren't as concerned with freedom, the abundance of plagues, or material prosperity.

Not necessarily, you can be measurably be progressing higher or lower in terms of how happy the people are or how much their rights are respected etc.... regardless of whether there is a specific limit or goal to reach.

But happiness and human rights are still goals.

But happiness and human rights are still goals.
Is the latter as important as the former? Really?

Is the latter as important as the former? Really?

I don't know, I was just talking about what Hydesland mentioned.

Not necessarily, you can be measurably be progressing higher or lower in terms of how happy the people are or how much their rights are respected etc.... regardless of whether there is a specific limit or goal to reach.

you can define progress any way you like. are we progressing in our use of fossil fuels? yup!

but as far as "are we progressing?" is concerned, its too general a question to even make sense.