Total Posts:101|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are we better off in modernity?

Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 5:05:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Are we better off than the Ancient Greeks? Than the Medieval English? Than the Colonial Americans? Most people would instinctively give an emphatic 'yes.' But why?

I was just reading The Republic, and Socrates is engaged in one of his typical dialogues... The line I read goes like this:

"Of course, you know that ambition and avarice are held to be, as indeed they are, a disgrace"
Very true.
And for this reason..."

I am shocked. People 2500 years ago were so far ahead of where we are now that they don't even bother discussing whether greed and ambition are good or not; it's taken for granted. It is so obvious to them that even in a text that gets at defining such terms like The Republic does, they skim right over it without another thought. Here I am on DDO fighting to the teeth to convince people that greed and ambition are negative and I, despite my best efforts, gain very little ground. Indeed, I challenge any of you to ask any of your friends, co-workers, etc. whether ambition is a positive or negative trait. If I was at work and casually used ambition in a negative context, I might be fired for interpretation that I am not going to work hard enough for the company. If you remark to your boss that you are not ambitious, you might as well be signing your termination papers (provided you hold a competitive position that requires professionalism and leadership).

I'm sure some will make the attempt to argue that the meaning has changed, but I would resist this argument. The word has not morphed definitionally, only our culture has changed.

So I ask, is this change a good thing? Is our technology making us happier? Are we in a better spot now (in whatever terms you wish to define 'better' as) than the ancient Greeks 2500 years ago?

It seems to me that we are getting stupider, lazier, and more dependant. Someone in Socrates' time, and by someone I mean any commoner, could easily recite all the Homeric poems in their entirety. Can you imagine anyone being able to do this nowadays? I can't even remember a phone number! I think we are losing our edge in so many ways.
kfc
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 5:17:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 5:05:26 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Are we better off than the Ancient Greeks? Than the Medieval English? Than the Colonial Americans? Most people would instinctively give an emphatic 'yes.' But why?

Seriously? Does one even need to list the benefits of modern society? Benefits largely brought about, I might add, by individuals with various ambitions.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 5:25:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 5:05:26 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Are we better off than the Ancient Greeks? Than the Medieval English? Than the Colonial Americans? Most people would instinctively give an emphatic 'yes.' But why?
Plumbing--we have running water, toilets, washing machines; medicine--we can cure diseases, ease people's pain, allow far more children and mothers to live because of improvements in delivering children alone; sanitation--plumbing, soap, the germ theory of disease; indoor heating and cooling; electricity; computers and the internet; cars (people used to get around cities in horses--there were literally rivers of horse sh­it running through the streets when it rained) and planes; and many other things.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 5:26:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You could live like colonial Americans right now if you wanted to. Sell your home and possessions, buy some farmland, work 18 hours a day subsistence farming, and die young.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 5:28:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 5:25:53 PM, badger wrote:
ambition needn't be capitalistic...

i'm sure quite a lot of hugely beneficial discoveries were made prior to the birth of intellectual property laws...
signature
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 5:29:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 5:26:28 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
You could live like colonial Americans right now if you wanted to. Sell your home and possessions, buy some farmland, work 18 hours a day subsistence farming, and die young.

Are you the one with the pregnant wife, or am I thinking of someone else? Try having your kid the old-fashioned way, without all the evils of capitalist modern medicine.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 5:34:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 5:05:26 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Are we better off than the Ancient Greeks? Than the Medieval English? Than the Colonial Americans? Most people would instinctively give an emphatic 'yes.' But why?

I was just reading The Republic, and Socrates is engaged in one of his typical dialogues... The line I read goes like this:

"Of course, you know that ambition and avarice are held to be, as indeed they are, a disgrace"
Very true.
And for this reason..."

I am shocked. People 2500 years ago were so far ahead of where we are now that they don't even bother discussing whether greed and ambition are good or not; it's taken for granted. It is so obvious to them that even in a text that gets at defining such terms like The Republic does, they skim right over it without another thought. Here I am on DDO fighting to the teeth to convince people that greed and ambition are negative and I, despite my best efforts, gain very little ground. Indeed, I challenge any of you to ask any of your friends, co-workers, etc. whether ambition is a positive or negative trait. If I was at work and casually used ambition in a negative context, I might be fired for interpretation that I am not going to work hard enough for the company. If you remark to your boss that you are not ambitious, you might as well be signing your termination papers (provided you hold a competitive position that requires professionalism and leadership).

I'm sure some will make the attempt to argue that the meaning has changed, but I would resist this argument. The word has not morphed definitionally, only our culture has changed.

So I ask, is this change a good thing? Is our technology making us happier? Are we in a better spot now (in whatever terms you wish to define 'better' as) than the ancient Greeks 2500 years ago?

It seems to me that we are getting stupider, lazier, and more dependant. Someone in Socrates' time, and by someone I mean any commoner, could easily recite all the Homeric poems in their entirety. Can you imagine anyone being able to do this nowadays? I can't even remember a phone number! I think we are losing our edge in so many ways.

Lol, the words of Plato in The Republic =/= the everyday mindset of ancient Greece.

I can point to at least 1 person now-a-days that believes that greed is bad, mmmkay?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 5:35:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 5:28:14 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:25:53 PM, badger wrote:
ambition needn't be capitalistic...

in the interest of making money that is :)

i'm sure quite a lot of hugely beneficial discoveries were made prior to the birth of intellectual property laws...
signature
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 6:15:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 5:25:14 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:05:26 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Are we better off than the Ancient Greeks? Than the Medieval English? Than the Colonial Americans? Most people would instinctively give an emphatic 'yes.' But why?
Plumbing--we have running water, toilets, washing machines; medicine--we can cure diseases, ease people's pain, allow far more children and mothers to live because of improvements in delivering children alone; sanitation--plumbing, soap, the germ theory of disease; indoor heating and cooling; electricity; computers and the internet; cars (people used to get around cities in horses--there were literally rivers of horse sh­it running through the streets when it rained) and planes; and many other things.

But does all this make us happier? If you could get a quantitative value from someone during those times, and weigh it against yours and mine, would we have a greater measure of happiness? A greater appreciation for life?
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 6:16:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 5:25:53 PM, badger wrote:
ambition needn't be capitalistic...

HAHA it's not me who brings it up this time...

How dare you get off topic and bring up capitalism
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 6:18:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 5:26:28 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
You could live like colonial Americans right now if you wanted to. Sell your home and possessions, buy some farmland, work 18 hours a day subsistence farming, and die young.

Well, I won't say that I would do it simply because I am too soft. I could be forced to, and perhaps even be glad I did afterwards... no? Is it better to sleep in, spend the day internet-surfing, shopping, watching TV... I don't know, I feel pretty stupid and I feel pretty soft. As far as dying young is concerned, is it merely poetic to say "only the good die young?" Do we feel bad for the dead when they die or do we feel bad for ourselves? How can we possibly feel bad for someone who has no feelings?
kfc
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 6:21:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 6:16:08 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:25:53 PM, badger wrote:
ambition needn't be capitalistic...

HAHA it's not me who brings it up this time...

How dare you get off topic and bring up capitalism

it seems to me you're talking about capitalistic ambition... there're other kinds of ambition which one could hardly see as negative.. like that of all those people out there hunting in pretty much poverty for cures to diseases and things like that
signature
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 6:22:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 5:34:50 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:05:26 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Are we better off than the Ancient Greeks? Than the Medieval English? Than the Colonial Americans? Most people would instinctively give an emphatic 'yes.' But why?

I was just reading The Republic, and Socrates is engaged in one of his typical dialogues... The line I read goes like this:

"Of course, you know that ambition and avarice are held to be, as indeed they are, a disgrace"
Very true.
And for this reason..."

I am shocked. People 2500 years ago were so far ahead of where we are now that they don't even bother discussing whether greed and ambition are good or not; it's taken for granted. It is so obvious to them that even in a text that gets at defining such terms like The Republic does, they skim right over it without another thought. Here I am on DDO fighting to the teeth to convince people that greed and ambition are negative and I, despite my best efforts, gain very little ground. Indeed, I challenge any of you to ask any of your friends, co-workers, etc. whether ambition is a positive or negative trait. If I was at work and casually used ambition in a negative context, I might be fired for interpretation that I am not going to work hard enough for the company. If you remark to your boss that you are not ambitious, you might as well be signing your termination papers (provided you hold a competitive position that requires professionalism and leadership).

I'm sure some will make the attempt to argue that the meaning has changed, but I would resist this argument. The word has not morphed definitionally, only our culture has changed.

So I ask, is this change a good thing? Is our technology making us happier? Are we in a better spot now (in whatever terms you wish to define 'better' as) than the ancient Greeks 2500 years ago?

It seems to me that we are getting stupider, lazier, and more dependant. Someone in Socrates' time, and by someone I mean any commoner, could easily recite all the Homeric poems in their entirety. Can you imagine anyone being able to do this nowadays? I can't even remember a phone number! I think we are losing our edge in so many ways.

Lol, the words of Plato in The Republic =/= the everyday mindset of ancient Greece.

I didn't say anything to distinguish Plato or Socrates from the average Greek during those times. It was in the introduction to the book that it was stated that any commoner could recite all the Homeric poems, and understanding that greed and ambition were negative was obviously a given or else they would have bothered to discuss it.

I can point to at least 1 person now-a-days that believes that greed is bad, mmmkay?

Precisely my point, my good man. Precisely my point. Isn't it pathetic? Perhaps in another 2500 years, there will be a man telling others that rape is a negative thing, and others will be unable to understand that person... if that is the direction we are truly headed, then why stop with ambition and greed? Is there any limit to how far we can degrade our culture?
kfc
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 6:22:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 6:15:13 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:25:14 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:05:26 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Are we better off than the Ancient Greeks? Than the Medieval English? Than the Colonial Americans? Most people would instinctively give an emphatic 'yes.' But why?
Plumbing--we have running water, toilets, washing machines; medicine--we can cure diseases, ease people's pain, allow far more children and mothers to live because of improvements in delivering children alone; sanitation--plumbing, soap, the germ theory of disease; indoor heating and cooling; electricity; computers and the internet; cars (people used to get around cities in horses--there were literally rivers of horse sh­it running through the streets when it rained) and planes; and many other things.

But does all this make us happier? If you could get a quantitative value from someone during those times, and weigh it against yours and mine, would we have a greater measure of happiness? A greater appreciation for life?

Probably. Depending on what time frame you are looking at, I'm sure I can find a vast number of things that will lower the happiness of most people. Slavery, inequality for women and non-whites, average life-span for the poor being in the 30's (pending the time frame). There's a lot. When you look through filtered glasses that only show the good side of things, it may look better, but it isn't.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 6:24:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 6:21:58 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:16:08 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:25:53 PM, badger wrote:
ambition needn't be capitalistic...

HAHA it's not me who brings it up this time...

How dare you get off topic and bring up capitalism

it seems to me you're talking about capitalistic ambition... there're other kinds of ambition which one could hardly see as negative.. like that of all those people out there hunting in pretty much poverty for cures to diseases and things like that

one could i suppose. i don't.
signature
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 6:27:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 6:21:58 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:16:08 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:25:53 PM, badger wrote:
ambition needn't be capitalistic...

HAHA it's not me who brings it up this time...

How dare you get off topic and bring up capitalism

it seems to me you're talking about capitalistic ambition...

Then you know me far too well. But let us leave capitalism out of this discussion for now, until I get on a roll.

there're other kinds of ambition which one could hardly see as negative.. like that of all those people out there hunting in pretty much poverty for cures to diseases and things like that

And you call that "ambition?" I do not. Diligence is what you describe. Ambition is a drive for power. We commonly misuse the term because we are as intellectually lazy as we are physically soft.
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 6:37:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 6:22:35 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:15:13 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:25:14 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:05:26 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Are we better off than the Ancient Greeks? Than the Medieval English? Than the Colonial Americans? Most people would instinctively give an emphatic 'yes.' But why?
Plumbing--we have running water, toilets, washing machines; medicine--we can cure diseases, ease people's pain, allow far more children and mothers to live because of improvements in delivering children alone; sanitation--plumbing, soap, the germ theory of disease; indoor heating and cooling; electricity; computers and the internet; cars (people used to get around cities in horses--there were literally rivers of horse sh­it running through the streets when it rained) and planes; and many other things.

But does all this make us happier? If you could get a quantitative value from someone during those times, and weigh it against yours and mine, would we have a greater measure of happiness? A greater appreciation for life?

Probably. Depending on what time frame you are looking at, I'm sure I can find a vast number of things that will lower the happiness of most people. Slavery, inequality for women and non-whites, average life-span for the poor being in the 30's (pending the time frame). There's a lot. When you look through filtered glasses that only show the good side of things, it may look better, but it isn't.

Oh really. So, if we include people in the Gaza strip who currently work all day to procure a couple barrels of potable water, would that average it out better? Perhaps we could include mothers in Haiti who feed their children mud patties so, while they will not be getting sustainance, at least they can get a night's sleep without the pangs of hunger interrupting. Perhaps we can include blacks in American ghettos who are arrested at 13 times the rate of whites for crack-cocaine possession, when in fact whites actually account for more crack usage than whites. Maybe we could include a photo of myself, with a shotgun in my face because some kid said he bought drugs from the house I was at and the pigs decided to conduct a raid and 'catch' us with a few smoking utensils and a nearly completed roach. Perhaps we could average in the destruction to our environment, or the degradation of the Earth's ecosystems and species. Nay; I think if we consider the misdeeds of modernity, they will far outweigh anything you can bring up from the past. WW2 was the bloodiest conflict in the history of the world, and that was a fairly recent event using modern weapons. Is there any measure of evil or tragedy that is not amplified as time progresses? It's interesting that people will talk about such things as if they are poetry, but there is never an effort to seriously address the horrors we see. It's always concluded that we are simply going to turn things around soon.
kfc
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 6:43:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 6:37:23 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:22:35 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:15:13 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:25:14 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:05:26 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Are we better off than the Ancient Greeks? Than the Medieval English? Than the Colonial Americans? Most people would instinctively give an emphatic 'yes.' But why?
Plumbing--we have running water, toilets, washing machines; medicine--we can cure diseases, ease people's pain, allow far more children and mothers to live because of improvements in delivering children alone; sanitation--plumbing, soap, the germ theory of disease; indoor heating and cooling; electricity; computers and the internet; cars (people used to get around cities in horses--there were literally rivers of horse sh­it running through the streets when it rained) and planes; and many other things.

But does all this make us happier? If you could get a quantitative value from someone during those times, and weigh it against yours and mine, would we have a greater measure of happiness? A greater appreciation for life?

Probably. Depending on what time frame you are looking at, I'm sure I can find a vast number of things that will lower the happiness of most people. Slavery, inequality for women and non-whites, average life-span for the poor being in the 30's (pending the time frame). There's a lot. When you look through filtered glasses that only show the good side of things, it may look better, but it isn't.

Oh really. So, if we include people in the Gaza strip who currently work all day to procure a couple barrels of potable water, would that average it out better? Perhaps we could include mothers in Haiti who feed their children mud patties so, while they will not be getting sustainance, at least they can get a night's sleep without the pangs of hunger interrupting. Perhaps we can include blacks in American ghettos who are arrested at 13 times the rate of whites for crack-cocaine possession, when in fact whites actually account for more crack usage than whites. Maybe we could include a photo of myself, with a shotgun in my face because some kid said he bought drugs from the house I was at and the pigs decided to conduct a raid and 'catch' us with a few smoking utensils and a nearly completed roach. Perhaps we could average in the destruction to our environment, or the degradation of the Earth's ecosystems and species. Nay; I think if we consider the misdeeds of modernity, they will far outweigh anything you can bring up from the past. WW2 was the bloodiest conflict in the history of the world, and that was a fairly recent event using modern weapons. Is there any measure of evil or tragedy that is not amplified as time progresses? It's interesting that people will talk about such things as if they are poetry, but there is never an effort to seriously address the horrors we see. It's always concluded that we are simply going to turn things around soon.

Yes, it would average out better. Right now, we have a much greater % of the population that is living in a moderate wage, than at any time (assuming you're not arguing against anything in the last few decases) before.

The entire population of the Gaza strip of 1.6 million people. 100 years ago, we had to have over 2/3 of the population of even the most developed nations working on farms to generate food for everyone else. And under developed nations suffered even worse.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 7:04:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 6:15:13 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:25:14 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:05:26 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Are we better off than the Ancient Greeks? Than the Medieval English? Than the Colonial Americans? Most people would instinctively give an emphatic 'yes.' But why?
Plumbing--we have running water, toilets, washing machines; medicine--we can cure diseases, ease people's pain, allow far more children and mothers to live because of improvements in delivering children alone; sanitation--plumbing, soap, the germ theory of disease; indoor heating and cooling; electricity; computers and the internet; cars (people used to get around cities in horses--there were literally rivers of horse sh­it running through the streets when it rained) and planes; and many other things.

But does all this make us happier? If you could get a quantitative value from someone during those times, and weigh it against yours and mine, would we have a greater measure of happiness? A greater appreciation for life?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it does. I'm sure people back then disliked living in a city with horse crap running through the streets just as much as we would now. I'm sure the pain of losing loved ones because of medical problems we can easily cure now was as horrible then as it would be now. Even something as simple as a washing machine greatly improved people's lives by giving them more time to do other things: http://www.ted.com... And the internet we're talking on right now greatly advanced human knowledge, allowing people to access more knowledge than anyone in previous history from anywhere in the world, as well as enhancing communication, which is useful for everything from this conversation now to people working together to overthrow their dictators in the Middle East.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 7:13:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 7:04:36 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:15:13 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:25:14 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:05:26 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Are we better off than the Ancient Greeks? Than the Medieval English? Than the Colonial Americans? Most people would instinctively give an emphatic 'yes.' But why?
Plumbing--we have running water, toilets, washing machines; medicine--we can cure diseases, ease people's pain, allow far more children and mothers to live because of improvements in delivering children alone; sanitation--plumbing, soap, the germ theory of disease; indoor heating and cooling; electricity; computers and the internet; cars (people used to get around cities in horses--there were literally rivers of horse sh­it running through the streets when it rained) and planes; and many other things.

But does all this make us happier? If you could get a quantitative value from someone during those times, and weigh it against yours and mine, would we have a greater measure of happiness? A greater appreciation for life?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it does. I'm sure people back then disliked living in a city with horse crap running through the streets just as much as we would now. I'm sure the pain of losing loved ones because of medical problems we can easily cure now was as horrible then as it would be now. Even something as simple as a washing machine greatly improved people's lives by giving them more time to do other things: http://www.ted.com... And the internet we're talking on right now greatly advanced human knowledge, allowing people to access more knowledge than anyone in previous history from anywhere in the world, as well as enhancing communication, which is useful for everything from this conversation now to people working together to overthrow their dictators in the Middle East.

Yeah, but over-throwing dictators is over-rated. It won't make you happy.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 7:14:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 7:13:12 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/20/2011 7:04:36 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:15:13 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:25:14 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:05:26 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Are we better off than the Ancient Greeks? Than the Medieval English? Than the Colonial Americans? Most people would instinctively give an emphatic 'yes.' But why?
Plumbing--we have running water, toilets, washing machines; medicine--we can cure diseases, ease people's pain, allow far more children and mothers to live because of improvements in delivering children alone; sanitation--plumbing, soap, the germ theory of disease; indoor heating and cooling; electricity; computers and the internet; cars (people used to get around cities in horses--there were literally rivers of horse sh­it running through the streets when it rained) and planes; and many other things.

But does all this make us happier? If you could get a quantitative value from someone during those times, and weigh it against yours and mine, would we have a greater measure of happiness? A greater appreciation for life?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it does. I'm sure people back then disliked living in a city with horse crap running through the streets just as much as we would now. I'm sure the pain of losing loved ones because of medical problems we can easily cure now was as horrible then as it would be now. Even something as simple as a washing machine greatly improved people's lives by giving them more time to do other things: http://www.ted.com... And the internet we're talking on right now greatly advanced human knowledge, allowing people to access more knowledge than anyone in previous history from anywhere in the world, as well as enhancing communication, which is useful for everything from this conversation now to people working together to overthrow their dictators in the Middle East.

Yeah, but over-throwing dictators is over-rated. It won't make you happy.

Maybe it won't, I don't know. But all of those other things clearly improve our lives.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 7:16:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 6:21:58 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:16:08 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:25:53 PM, badger wrote:
ambition needn't be capitalistic...

HAHA it's not me who brings it up this time...

How dare you get off topic and bring up capitalism

it seems to me you're talking about capitalistic ambition... there're other kinds of ambition which one could hardly see as negative.. like that of all those people out there hunting in pretty much poverty for cures to diseases and things like that

that wasn't to say i see all capitalistic ambition as bad either.. just a lot of it.
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 7:18:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 7:16:31 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:21:58 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:16:08 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:25:53 PM, badger wrote:
ambition needn't be capitalistic...

HAHA it's not me who brings it up this time...

How dare you get off topic and bring up capitalism

it seems to me you're talking about capitalistic ambition... there're other kinds of ambition which one could hardly see as negative.. like that of all those people out there hunting in pretty much poverty for cures to diseases and things like that

that wasn't to say i see all capitalistic ambition as bad either.. just a lot of it.

can you be a socialistic capitalist? why not?
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 7:20:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 7:18:36 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 7:16:31 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:21:58 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:16:08 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:25:53 PM, badger wrote:
ambition needn't be capitalistic...

HAHA it's not me who brings it up this time...

How dare you get off topic and bring up capitalism

it seems to me you're talking about capitalistic ambition... there're other kinds of ambition which one could hardly see as negative.. like that of all those people out there hunting in pretty much poverty for cures to diseases and things like that

that wasn't to say i see all capitalistic ambition as bad either.. just a lot of it.

can you be a socialistic capitalist? why not?

you can't really i suppose...
signature
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 7:22:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 7:20:46 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 7:18:36 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 7:16:31 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:21:58 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:16:08 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:25:53 PM, badger wrote:
ambition needn't be capitalistic...

HAHA it's not me who brings it up this time...

How dare you get off topic and bring up capitalism

it seems to me you're talking about capitalistic ambition... there're other kinds of ambition which one could hardly see as negative.. like that of all those people out there hunting in pretty much poverty for cures to diseases and things like that

that wasn't to say i see all capitalistic ambition as bad either.. just a lot of it.

can you be a socialistic capitalist? why not?

you can't really i suppose...

Can you be a short tall person?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 7:33:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 7:22:49 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/20/2011 7:20:46 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 7:18:36 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 7:16:31 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:21:58 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:16:08 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:25:53 PM, badger wrote:
ambition needn't be capitalistic...

HAHA it's not me who brings it up this time...

How dare you get off topic and bring up capitalism

it seems to me you're talking about capitalistic ambition... there're other kinds of ambition which one could hardly see as negative.. like that of all those people out there hunting in pretty much poverty for cures to diseases and things like that

that wasn't to say i see all capitalistic ambition as bad either.. just a lot of it.

can you be a socialistic capitalist? why not?

you can't really i suppose...

Can you be a short tall person?

i suppose. i was thinking along the lines of just abolishing inheritance and seeing what happened from there though.. i just hit a few kinks :P
signature
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2011 7:42:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/20/2011 7:18:36 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 7:16:31 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:21:58 PM, badger wrote:
At 5/20/2011 6:16:08 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/20/2011 5:25:53 PM, badger wrote:
ambition needn't be capitalistic...

HAHA it's not me who brings it up this time...

How dare you get off topic and bring up capitalism

it seems to me you're talking about capitalistic ambition... there're other kinds of ambition which one could hardly see as negative.. like that of all those people out there hunting in pretty much poverty for cures to diseases and things like that

that wasn't to say i see all capitalistic ambition as bad either.. just a lot of it.

can you be a socialistic capitalist? why not?

Yes you can. Every American, outside of peculiar libertarian communities like this one, is a socialistic capitalist.
kfc