Thayos wrote:
Good answer, Pawkeshup.
I'd say from a relationship standpoint, we're probably worse off than we've been in a long time. Young people don't really know how to relate to each other (or older people), because most of what they know is through a phone or a computer. Yes, I firmly believe this is the result of negligent parenting, but that doesn't change what's happening. It is what it is.
You know, I'd go into that more,
but I already did. We agree, by the way.
Oooh Domice...
domice wrote:
A lot for you points kind of tell half truths. You say it's bad that we are living longer? Medical speaking we have never been better and it's not even close whether you look at infant mortality, death from infectious diseases, lifespan and quality of life at older ages.
Yes, because that's the line society likes to use to avoid the real question: Why do we die? Why is it wrong to push life expectancy with no plan? Why is a cure for every disease a bad thing? The answer is simple. We have finite room and finite resources. We cannot create from nothingness yet. When we can, then who cares how long we live or how many of us there are. The reality is that soon enough, we will reach an impasse. Right now we make enough food to feed more than who lives on the planet, but misuse it.
(source) But now, even if we can produce enough food when the population rises to extreme levels in 2050, what happens then? Eventually, we need to change the paradigm. Money needs to go away. So do jobs. Our society needs to shift, because right now, if the game keeps getting bigger, there will just be more hungry, starving mouths to feed, and no pieces of paper to give them to trade for food. something needs to give.
And to go to the other side of things, and this portion of the debate is hitting close to home, is the concept that we are forcing nature to our will in reproduction. We use hormones to impregnate women incapable of normal pregnancy, and even go so far as to forcibly fertilize an egg when unable to conceive. Has anyone really stopped to ask why we shouldn't? Why is it that the natural biology of two people dictates that they are not to have children? Why is it that we so cavalierly toss that aside and move forward anyway? What harm are we doing to our species by this?
domice wrote:
Cultural we have never been better, no slavery, Jim crow, trail of tears lynching and imprisonment over interracial relationships. And the fact that homosexuality is becoming more accepted and having more of their rights protected by law, and last I checked black people aren't considered 3/4 a person. Is their still racism sexism classicism and homophobia, yes. But it's not nearly as bad as it use to be.
Well, there may not be lynchings, but police routinely target people of colour. There are still race crimes, they just don't make front page news like they used to, and are actual crimes rather than just being a part of life. But, since I am dating a woman who is both of colour and part native, I can tell you that things aren't quite as progressive as you think in some areas. It is leaps and bounds better, but that doesn't mean it's perfect and that there still isn't insanely bad people out there. The Westboro Baptist Church is still a thing, last I checked.
Also, there is slavery, even if it is illegal, it still is there.
(source) So is it better? Yes, but only legally, and not in every nation. Society still has its issues. You know, like Russia, where it is actually illegal to be gay, for instance. There are other nations, but then, you seem focused on the US. I'm more a globally minded person, myself.
domice wrote:
Economically that's a bit of muddy waters to tread due to how radically different the economy is and changes throughout history but one can say that more people then ever are experiencing prosperity and wealth specially among groups that have a history on being disenfranchised.
The global economy is a house of cards. Do you understand why we have paper currency? It's because it was originally a certificate of ownership of a portion of wealth. It was a voucher, stating that you owned X amount of an item, typically a precious metal or other commodity, that could not easily be transported. Now, what is it actually tied to? Well, not a hell of a lot. That's the problem. We are trading air right now. When you had someone a 20 dollar bill, you are handing them a portion of investments in the Stock Market, and some bit of the precious metals and natural resources of your nation. But those resources are not infinite, and some of them aren't really worth anything. Like gold, as a for instance. Sure, it can be used, and it can be reclaimed, but does it hold the same value as during the gold rush? No. It's value has changed. So has oil, which at one time was a luxury, then became common, and now is becoming a luxury once more.
Eventually, the economy is going to reach a breaking point. It's coming, and very soon. People are not seeing the same value in something like a brick of gold as they are a tank of gas, or a full cart of groceries. If we can't resolve how currency will be used in the future, the economy will implode shearly because there are too many people and not enough real work to go around.
NOt 1 arguement about gear or anything was awesome 