Hey Chuck, I think we can probaly say that better just means better in many aspects, so yes it may mean more socialy aware, and yes it may also mean envirmentlay aware and the rest of your list here.
My point is more holistic, taking the whole. Are we more socialy aware than say 100 years ago? Well perhaps, but maybe not, we'll have to look long and hard at our histories to answer that. However this may be a step forwards but in other areas have we taken steps backward? Taking the whole into account I can see little evidance of forward movement. The human animal is more or less the same as we have always been. I disagree. It is perfectly capable of humans to let go of both anger and jelousy. The thing about 1000 years ago and rape is you just don't know if that is true, or if you do I would love to see any source material that has brought you to this conclusion. Perhaps I spoke disingenuisly if so forgive me. I have had many a debate with our American brethren on gun ownership, and what I get most is protection from those who may brake into your house, mug you, attempt to take your loved ones, etc.. If it looks like fear, and smells like fear and sounds like fear, there is a very good chance that is it fear. As to hunting as you alude to here, rifles my good man or shot guns for that, so you would agree that there is no need to own a hand gun or an automatic weapon? Yes I think you have hit the nail on the head, much can be attributed to population growth. Not more intelegent but more socialy intergrated? Nope I think that perhaps the opposite is true. Look at world wide politics at this moment in time. France have just made laws banning Muslim woman dressing in any kind of face covering. Social intergration? Today our Prime Minister was on the TV telling how he is planning on cutting down imergration into the UK from 100,000s to 10,000's. Social intergration? Nope it seems to me that we are entering into an age of misrust of those not of our own culture or heritage. On the other hand, gene therapies, real movment in nuculare fusion via laser or plasma, stem cell tecnolgy, phones that are computers. More intelegent? On Apr 14, 1:35 am, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
