On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 6:22 AM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hey Chuck, > > Yes I can agree that the world is a hell of a lot better than it was a > thousand years ago, although this of course must remain a guess or at > least a belife yes? > I think a clear answer here would depend on what the exact definition of 'better' is. Does 'better' mean more socially aware? Environmentally aware? Better able to feed and clothe ourselves? More tolerant of other societies or maybe more unified on our views of the world? The question though was one about humanities movements. We still > suffer anger and jelousy, As long as we are human I think we will suffer anger and jealousy. It's how we deal with it as individuals and as a society that determine the measure of growth. I believe that we have grown both as individuals and as a society. If you think about it 1000 years ago could beat or rape his wife pretty much with impunity. That still happens today but I'd hazard a guess and say that it was far more rare than it was back then. And that's not just because of social constraints. I think it's because we as individuals are more empathetic and more aware of how our behavior impacts those around us. > you I gather are a citizen of the USA? Where > gun ownership is active, and why is that so if as you say 'The US > population is greater than the entire world population in 1 AD and > yet we live peacefully under a single set of laws' > > If this was true then each American citersen would simply give up > their guns, as there would be no need for them and no fear to keep > them. The fear is still there. > Owning a gun isn't the same thing as living in fear. It's true that punks and criminals have easier access to weapons but this isn't the wild west. Most people have guns simply for recreation or so that they can put food on the table. > Have we even taken some steps backward? > > When older people say tings like 'ohhh yeah we used to be able to keep our > front doors unlocked' are they lying to us, or did they really > feel safe enough with their naigbours to do exaclty that? > I think this can be attributed to population density. In rural areas where there are maybe 20 people per square mile the chances are far less that you'll encounter the criminal element than if the population is 200 per square mile. > Nope we may have made siome forwards movement, but naaa not really, we > as a species have not changed that much at all. Ohh yeah we have > become more inteleghent, or is that even true? > I don't think we are more intelligent, just more socially integrated. > On Apr 9, 4:06 am, Chuck <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 30, 4:00 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I would guess we are staying roughtly in the same place. > > > > > We still have war, we still have despots clinging to power we still > > > have shady democracy and the haves and have nots. We have patriotism, > > > we have religious strife, we have those that are oppresed and those > > > that oppress. No we have not moved far at all in the millenia that > > > our species ceased to crawl on four legs. > > > > I disagree. The human population in 1 AD was estimated at between 200 > > and 300 million people. The current world population is 20 to 30 times > > that and yet there are far fewer turf wars between nations and tribes. > > > > There is a loose international consensus and cooperation between > > developed nations on global issues. > > > > The US population is greater than the entire world population in 1 AD > > and yet we live peacefully under a single set of laws. The same goes > > for Europe, China, most of Asia and the continents in the southern > > hemisphere. > > > > It's true that there is still conflict in the world but it's mostly > > from third world countries where resources are strained and when it > > gets too bloody either the US or the UN will step in to mediate. > > > > The world isn't perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than it was a > > thousand years ago. >
