On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 14:33, Jeffrey Hergan <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think of history as > always at least trying to move toward what is better. For example, > we want to be more civilized, more athletic, more virtuous, more > ethical, more prosperous and so on. And the advances we look at > throughout human history are always things that we say have made a > contribution to the good, in some way or another. But when I push > the issue, it strikes me that "the good" or "what is better" turns > out to be "what is more human". And _that_ turns out to be, for > example, more altruistic, more intelligent, more creative, more > loving, more understanding, more just, more wise.
You've already picked a subject, but you could also go in the other direction and pick someone who has been negatively influential. Someone who has delayed those advances or even turned them back. And then you get into a really interesting investigation of why someone might make such a "negative" impact and how their goals were formed. -- -- -- arno s hautala /-\ [email protected] -- -- _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
