On 8 December 2014 at 01:30, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 06 Dec 2014, at 10:37, LizR wrote: > > That's a curious question. The ruins and record indicate that there was no > ancient civilisation that had anything like the knowledge or resources of > modern day technology. For example, no ancient civilisation discovered the > use of fossil fuels or nuclear power. One could argue that these things > aren't in fact good for modern civilisation, but since we don't know how > things will work out that would be presumptuous. > > For the nuclear resources, I follow you. For the use of petrol (dead > plants), arguments (in favor of Hemp, 'course) already mentioned that it > was not sustainable, and that it would disrupt life equilibrium in the > middle run (a point made already by Henry Ford). > My point is that using fossil fuels MAY have bridged the gap from preindustrial society to a sustainable postindustrial one - we don't know yet. > > The fact is, all but the poorest people in the Western world has things > that would have been unimaginable to the richest people of the ancient > world. I would say that this does make our civilisation superior in > important ways; > > It makes us more competent, but plausibly less intelligent. > Yes, I agree that is at least possible. > > > > I would certain prefer to be alive now than even 100 years ago. > > May be. May be not. It is very hard to evaluate. There are no absolute > point of comparison. People from that period might get very depressed if > living in our urban cities for a while. > Yes, I have to admit I was thinking *I* would prefer it - but *I* know about life now. As someone said in a TV show once (I forget which) in which someone from the past visited the present - "So what did they bring back from the Moon? Some rocks? That doesn't sound very interesting...:" > > > > Indeed 100 years ago the routine gall bladder surgery I had a couple of > years ago would have probably killed me (always assuming I'd survived > childhood illnesses, childbirth and so on). > > > We are better for the survival, but we might be astonished for the quality > of life, even of the poors. It is very hard to judge. We have much more > depression and suicides, we have much more elderly people abandoned by > their family. We have much more fake conviviality and superficial > happiness. We have new fears and new subject of despair (like atomic bombs, > pollution, prohibition, ...). I just mean that I am not completely > persuaded that the technological progresses made us more happy. The 20th > century has also been a peak of inhumanity, notably through genocide, very > cruel wars, including the cold one, rise of unemployment, etc. So I am not > sure, I dunno, may be we can't really answer this. > > I find myself agreeing with you. I was trying to counteract the idea of a "golden age" - that the past was much better than the present. (Certainly I might well have died horribly in various ways in the past before reaching my present age, but even so... to automatically extrapolate from what I said to "we are therefore happier now" would be wrong. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
