How to make a John Kerry speech interesting:

[warri0r45]

(1) I am actually writing a 25 page paper on Urban history, which is a narrow vision of this subject for one of my grad classes. I will be happy to post it in December for you to read. I might post some snippets over the next two months via pm if you are interested as I do the research.

 

 

 

(2) Anyways, to first paragraph. Ok, I will conceed that some of the items on that list have been reduced. However, several items still occur at relative frequencies, if not even unchanged in some areas of the world. There's my compromise.

 

 

 

I realise asking about whether morality has gotten better is prone to bias so let me pose some general morals which I think most can agree on: killing is bad, altruism is good, the golden rule is good and a sense of fairness is good. There we go.

 

 

 

(3) Those are all good morals, and they've been around for thousands of years. However, none of them really hold true when it comes down to it. The latter three I believe just about everyone is guilty of on some level. The first not so much, but it still happens with alarming frequency.

 

 

 

(1) Sounds good.

 

 

 

(2) Ok, some reduced, some unchanged (and we still have our probems, of course). You can see why I would argue it's not as if the world has gone to hell yet nor is it particularly headed in that direction.

 

 

 

(3) So the latter 3 rarely hold true. Have they ever held true moreso than they do today? If so, then the case that morality is going down hill has some credit to it. If not, then it dosen't.

 

 

 

Aside from all that, it's not to say we can't all do better in terms of being better to our fellow man. There's always room for improvement in a world like this.

[Barihawk]

In response to 3, they held the most true during the last 1000 years during the early Renaissance. Bigotry was almost nonexistant, the idea of human bondage was absurd, altruism and intellectual though (AND religion) were at their peaks.

 

 

 

Today, bigotry is commonplace. Jim Crow and the like were repealed, but now we have "reverse racism" laws which piss on Dr. King's dreams of equality. People usually treat each other like garbage. There were very few wars during this time. Scientific, technological, medicinal, and artistic advances were commonplace and beneficial to man (unlike today when most "innovations" are useless.).

 

 

 

So yeah, there was at least a time that held to those morals better than we do now.

[warri0r45]

In response to 3, they held the most true during the last 1000 years during the early Renaissance. Bigotry was almost nonexistant, the idea of human bondage was absurd, altruism and intellectual though (AND religion) were at their peaks.

 

 

 

Today, bigotry is commonplace. Jim Crow and the like were repealed, but now we have "reverse racism" laws which piss on Dr. King's dreams of equality. People usually treat each other like garbage. There were very few wars during this time. Scientific, technological, medicinal, and artistic advances were commonplace and beneficial to man (unlike today when most "innovations" are useless.).

 

 

 

So yeah, there was at least a time that held to those morals better than we do now.

 

 

 

Ok, I can concede that. Too much selfishness in people these days. As for todays scientific, technological and medicinal advances, they are hardly useless. Relative to the times you describe, perhaps, I don't know, but you'd be amazed at how much we've discovered in modern times. Arguably, technology and medicine are chugging along just fine these days and producing decent results. Science is too. I can tell you of late we are discovering new organic compounds, for example, at a rate of 10,000 per week. Mapping the genome, space travel, discovering the intricacies of the cell cycle allowing us to understand and better treat cancer, genetically manipulated crops to prevent disease and increase yeilds, the discovery of carbon nanotubes, nuclear power, solar, wind and geothermal power, the discovery of the DNA double helix by Watson and Crick, the discovery of hundreds of thousands of new species, understanding the fundamentals of matter through atom smashers, among countless other things.

 

 

 

Perhaps a better way of putting your point was that scientific revolutions in earlier times gave us the basic way of correctly looking at things to bring results and results thereafter flourished. This dosen't make the modern discoveries useless.

[Barihawk]

Oh, forgive me for not elaborating, that does sound a little silly.

 

 

 

I was referring to "innovation in technology" during the Ren. as being things like the telescope and microscope and how they revolutionized science as opposed to things like the beer cap.

 

 

 

As far as advances in science relating to technology, they are about the same as the Ren. (keyword, this is a ratio).

 

 

 

I wouldn't consider space travel to be a leap forward though. Virtually no progress has been made in travel in almost 40 years now.

 

 

 

Your last comment is a more appropriate way of looking at it. However, the drive to innovate is not as great as 500 years ago. Newton, Gallileo, Da Vinci all did it for virtually no profit and at great risk to themselves. Nowadays, any advances are happening because people want money, or a Nobel Prize.

[warri0r45]

Oh, forgive me for not elaborating, that does sound a little silly.

 

 

 

I was referring to "innovation in technology" during the Ren. as being things like the telescope and microscope and how they revolutionized science as opposed to things like the beer cap.

 

 

 

As far as advances in science relating to technology, they are about the same as the Ren. (keyword, this is a ratio).

 

 

 

I wouldn't consider space travel to be a leap forward though. Virtually no progress has been made in travel in almost 40 years now.

 

 

 

Your last comment is a more appropriate way of looking at it. However, the drive to innovate is not as great as 500 years ago. Newton, Gallileo, Da Vinci all did it for virtually no profit and at great risk to themselves. Nowadays, any advances are happening because people want money, or a Nobel Prize.

 

 

 

I'm not going to disagree with any of that except for that last point. It's true that many companies will fund research which is relevant to them, but as a scientist (student) I'd much rather discover something useful for mankind in general. I'd say this attitude is shared by many, many scientists. For the vast majority, it's a thankless job just like any other, really.

[Barihawk]

Well, let me clarify. Individuals might do it for their own satisfaction, but most innovations happening today are corporate jobs. Where the corporation gets the patent as opposed to the scientist. Things like medical firms, manufacturing companies, etc.

[warri0r45]

Well, let me clarify. Individuals might do it for their own satisfaction, but most innovations happening today are corporate jobs. Where the corporation gets the patent as opposed to the scientist. Things like medical firms, manufacturing companies, etc.

 

 

 

Yep. I argue it has it's upsides as well as it's downsides. It injects huge money into the companies intesests, which is usually better products to outcompete the others. This is getting deep into the corporate side of things though. Many scientific research institutes set thier own agenda of research and are given funding by governments. Example.

 

 

 

Anyway this is deviating significantly from what we were originally chatting about, that being whether the state of the world is getting better or worse. The thing about science, technology and medicine is you can't unlearn what you've learnt nor can you always expect to have golden eras unless you have massive paradigm shifts, therefore scientific advancement or lack thereof is not the best basis to go by how much the world is going down the john unless it's a significant difference. The thing is science is still booming. Research is huge, scientific journals for every field and subfield you could imagine are many, publications weekly and monetary investments huge.

 

 

 

Overall I think it's safe to say we're not going backwards yet (in terms of science and some of the things I listed at least). I'll give you the morality point. On the face of it we are getting more selfish.

 

 

 

On a side note, I found an interesting article relating to some of these issues: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

[BlueTear]

And to Bluetear: The majority of the population boom is occuring in developed nations.

Incorrect. The largest population growth occurs in developing countries, not developed nations. Nigeria; 40 births per 1000 population. The USA; 14 births per 1000 population.

 

 

 

Which neatly allows me to slip in another useful statistic that encompasses the 5 500 000 000 reasons; Infant Mortality Rate, Nigeria; 40 per 1000 births. Infant mortality rate, the USA; 6 per 1000 births. Anyone care to guess how these figures would've looked 250 years ago in either place? Or do you or Defender care to argue that saving babies is not a cause worthwhile?

There are many many areas of the world with negative population increase, and no emigration.

Yah. We call those places "Europe" and "North America". Developing nations have the highest population increases, developed nations hover at the replacement levels for births.

 

 

 

 

 

The simple fact is that neither you nor Defender is thinking about what has actually changed in the lat 250 years. You give speeches on morality, you talk about how the "human heart is still corrupt", and it's all nice and great rethorics about how we're not getting anywhere.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, discoveries made in the past centuries that has scant little to do with these fine intellectual developments, continue to save the lives of those of us quite fond of just plain being alive rather than to ponder the horrible things that we could be facing. Penicillin. Great invention. The realization that maybe drawing blood from sick patients is not a clever way to cure them, but in fact, a pretty darn stupid thing to do - of course, note how the spreading of this secret to any country outside the first world costs us money. No... Waitaminute! - agricultural developements, and as exhibit A I'd like to use a potato. Not only does the potato completely own roses when it comes to gifts, it's edible!

 

 

 

And it originially grew only in Peru. How many millions of people worldwide have been saved by the the spread of the potato? But the potato is fairly ancient history by now. Where was I, ah, agricultural development. Okay, post-middle ages, pre-mechanized agriculture. Did the yield per unit of land increase? Yes. Are you praising any of the inventions that caused this - and who are most likely a deciding factor in the survival of your ancestors and thus your very existance? No, no. You give us rethorics. You realize the spreading of the knowledge of crop rotatation is directly responsible for millions of people *not* starving since the middle ages?

 

 

 

And that's not even touching mechanized agriculture.

 

 

 

 

 

5 500 000 000 reasons. And that's just using the last centuries worth of population growth, not going back to the middle ages.

[Defender2516]

And to Bluetear: The majority of the population boom is occuring in developed nations.

Incorrect. The largest population growth occurs in developing countries, not developed nations. Nigeria; 40 births per 1000 population. The USA; 14 births per 1000 population.

 

 

 

Which neatly allows me to slip in another useful statistic that encompasses the 5 500 000 000 reasons; Infant Mortality Rate, Nigeria; 40 per 1000 births. Infant mortality rate, the USA; 6 per 1000 births. Anyone care to guess how these figures would've looked 250 years ago in either place? Or do you or Defender care to argue that saving babies is not a cause worthwhile?

There are many many areas of the world with negative population increase, and no emigration.

Yah. We call those places "Europe" and "North America". Developing nations have the highest population increases, developed nations hover at the replacement levels for births.

 

 

 

 

 

The simple fact is that neither you nor Defender is thinking about what has actually changed in the lat 250 years. You give speeches on morality, you talk about how the "human heart is still corrupt", and it's all nice and great rethorics about how we're not getting anywhere.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, discoveries made in the past centuries that has scant little to do with these fine intellectual developments, continue to save the lives of those of us quite fond of just plain being alive rather than to ponder the horrible things that we could be facing. Penicillin. Great invention. The realization that maybe drawing blood from sick patients is not a clever way to cure them, but in fact, a pretty darn stupid thing to do - of course, note how the spreading of this secret to any country outside the first world costs us money. No... Waitaminute! - agricultural developements, and as exhibit A I'd like to use a potato. Not only does the potato completely own roses when it comes to gifts, it's edible!

 

 

 

And it originially grew only in Peru. How many millions of people worldwide have been saved by the the spread of the potato? But the potato is fairly ancient history by now. Where was I, ah, agricultural development. Okay, post-middle ages, pre-mechanized agriculture. Did the yield per unit of land increase? Yes. Are you praising any of the inventions that caused this - and who are most likely a deciding factor in the survival of your ancestors and thus your very existance? No, no. You give us rethorics. You realize the spreading of the knowledge of crop rotatation is directly responsible for millions of people *not* starving since the middle ages?

 

 

 

And that's not even touching mechanized agriculture.

 

 

 

 

 

5 500 000 000 reasons. And that's just using the last centuries worth of population growth, not going back to the middle ages.

 

 

 

You realize the knowledge of the tank killed millions?

 

The knowledge of the nuke killed hundreds of thousands?

 

 

 

Its not knowledge that makes a better place inless its in the hands of someone willing to do a good deed.

 

 

 

Thats what your failing to see. I do not doubt that knowledge CAN help us, but it can also hurt us. It all depends on who has the knowledge and what their intentions are.

 

 

 

Everyone knows giving a nuke to a terrorist isn't a good idea, or showing him how to build one.

 

 

 

You can argue all you want how advances in technology saved many lifes, but it can also indefinatly destroy many more.

 

 

 

As I said before, only people can make the world a better place. As Bari said before, its the human element that corrupts it.

[warri0r45]

And to Bluetear: The majority of the population boom is occuring in developed nations.

Incorrect. The largest population growth occurs in developing countries, not developed nations. Nigeria; 40 births per 1000 population. The USA; 14 births per 1000 population.

 

 

 

Which neatly allows me to slip in another useful statistic that encompasses the 5 500 000 000 reasons; Infant Mortality Rate, Nigeria; 40 per 1000 births. Infant mortality rate, the USA; 6 per 1000 births. Anyone care to guess how these figures would've looked 250 years ago in either place? Or do you or Defender care to argue that saving babies is not a cause worthwhile?

There are many many areas of the world with negative population increase, and no emigration.

Yah. We call those places "Europe" and "North America". Developing nations have the highest population increases, developed nations hover at the replacement levels for births.

 

 

 

 

 

The simple fact is that neither you nor Defender is thinking about what has actually changed in the lat 250 years. You give speeches on morality, you talk about how the "human heart is still corrupt", and it's all nice and great rethorics about how we're not getting anywhere.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, discoveries made in the past centuries that has scant little to do with these fine intellectual developments, continue to save the lives of those of us quite fond of just plain being alive rather than to ponder the horrible things that we could be facing. Penicillin. Great invention. The realization that maybe drawing blood from sick patients is not a clever way to cure them, but in fact, a pretty darn stupid thing to do - of course, note how the spreading of this secret to any country outside the first world costs us money. No... Waitaminute! - agricultural developements, and as exhibit A I'd like to use a potato. Not only does the potato completely own roses when it comes to gifts, it's edible!

 

 

 

And it originially grew only in Peru. How many millions of people worldwide have been saved by the the spread of the potato? But the potato is fairly ancient history by now. Where was I, ah, agricultural development. Okay, post-middle ages, pre-mechanized agriculture. Did the yield per unit of land increase? Yes. Are you praising any of the inventions that caused this - and who are most likely a deciding factor in the survival of your ancestors and thus your very existance? No, no. You give us rethorics. You realize the spreading of the knowledge of crop rotatation is directly responsible for millions of people *not* starving since the middle ages?

 

 

 

And that's not even touching mechanized agriculture.

 

 

 

 

 

5 500 000 000 reasons. And that's just using the last centuries worth of population growth, not going back to the middle ages.

 

 

 

You realize the knowledge of the tank killed millions?

 

The knowledge of the nuke killed hundreds of thousands?

 

 

 

Its not knowledge that makes a better place inless its in the hands of someone willing to do a good deed.

 

 

 

Thats what your failing to see. I do not doubt that knowledge CAN help us, but it can also hurt us. It all depends on who has the knowledge and what their intentions are.

 

 

 

Everyone knows giving a nuke to a terrorist isn't a good idea, or showing him how to build one.

 

 

 

You can argue all you want how advances in technology saved many lifes, but it can also indefinatly destroy many more.

 

 

 

As I said before, only people can make the world a better place. As Bari said before, its the human element that corrupts it.

 

 

 

You're right. Lucky most of us are still willing to put our knowlege to good use and do good deeds. There will likely always be some degree of corruption, as there has always been.

[Defender2516]

And to Bluetear: The majority of the population boom is occuring in developed nations.

Incorrect. The largest population growth occurs in developing countries, not developed nations. Nigeria; 40 births per 1000 population. The USA; 14 births per 1000 population.

 

 

 

Which neatly allows me to slip in another useful statistic that encompasses the 5 500 000 000 reasons; Infant Mortality Rate, Nigeria; 40 per 1000 births. Infant mortality rate, the USA; 6 per 1000 births. Anyone care to guess how these figures would've looked 250 years ago in either place? Or do you or Defender care to argue that saving babies is not a cause worthwhile?

There are many many areas of the world with negative population increase, and no emigration.

Yah. We call those places "Europe" and "North America". Developing nations have the highest population increases, developed nations hover at the replacement levels for births.

 

 

 

 

 

The simple fact is that neither you nor Defender is thinking about what has actually changed in the lat 250 years. You give speeches on morality, you talk about how the "human heart is still corrupt", and it's all nice and great rethorics about how we're not getting anywhere.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, discoveries made in the past centuries that has scant little to do with these fine intellectual developments, continue to save the lives of those of us quite fond of just plain being alive rather than to ponder the horrible things that we could be facing. Penicillin. Great invention. The realization that maybe drawing blood from sick patients is not a clever way to cure them, but in fact, a pretty darn stupid thing to do - of course, note how the spreading of this secret to any country outside the first world costs us money. No... Waitaminute! - agricultural developements, and as exhibit A I'd like to use a potato. Not only does the potato completely own roses when it comes to gifts, it's edible!

 

 

 

And it originially grew only in Peru. How many millions of people worldwide have been saved by the the spread of the potato? But the potato is fairly ancient history by now. Where was I, ah, agricultural development. Okay, post-middle ages, pre-mechanized agriculture. Did the yield per unit of land increase? Yes. Are you praising any of the inventions that caused this - and who are most likely a deciding factor in the survival of your ancestors and thus your very existance? No, no. You give us rethorics. You realize the spreading of the knowledge of crop rotatation is directly responsible for millions of people *not* starving since the middle ages?

 

 

 

And that's not even touching mechanized agriculture.

 

 

 

 

 

5 500 000 000 reasons. And that's just using the last centuries worth of population growth, not going back to the middle ages.

 

 

 

You realize the knowledge of the tank killed millions?

 

The knowledge of the nuke killed hundreds of thousands?

 

 

 

Its not knowledge that makes a better place inless its in the hands of someone willing to do a good deed.

 

 

 

Thats what your failing to see. I do not doubt that knowledge CAN help us, but it can also hurt us. It all depends on who has the knowledge and what their intentions are.

 

 

 

Everyone knows giving a nuke to a terrorist isn't a good idea, or showing him how to build one.

 

 

 

You can argue all you want how advances in technology saved many lifes, but it can also indefinatly destroy many more.

 

 

 

As I said before, only people can make the world a better place. As Bari said before, its the human element that corrupts it.

 

 

 

You're right. Lucky most of us are still willing to put our knowlege to good use and do good deeds. There will likely always be some degree of corruption, as there has always been.

 

 

 

OMG THE WORLD IS COMMING TO A END!!! :XD:

 

 

 

Sorry just had to do that.

 

 

 

~Defender~

[warri0r45]

Really, I actually thought what you posted there was very smart.

[BlueTear]

Defender, again, rethorics rather than looking at the actual facts.

 

 

 

You realize the knowledge of the tank killed millions?

 

The knowledge of the nuke killed hundreds of thousands?

You don't need to be a math wiz to figure out that if any of our weaponized inventions had killed more people than our benign inventions had saved, we'd net a population loss. Instead, we're netting a population increase of over 300% in the last century alone. Go figure.

 

Thats what your failing to see. I do not doubt that knowledge CAN help us, but it can also hurt us. It all depends on who has the knowledge and what their intentions are.

Can? What I'm arguing here is that it has helped us. The small list of examples I provided were actual. That our population has increased by 5 500 000 000+ over the last century is a cold, hard, fact. It is not a theoretical "it is possible to". It's what has actually transpired.

You can argue all you want how advances in technology saved many lifes, but it can also indefinatly destroy many more.

But it has not, which is what you stated who knows how many pages back. You live in world (and by world, I continue to encompass the entire planet) in which knowledge has saved more lives than it has taken.

 

 

 

The world is a better place today, than it ever was. It is not perfect, but then again, no one said that.

[assassin_696]

Just a few points i'd like to pick up Bari

 

 

 

1. I disagree that the population boom is happening only in developed countries, based largely on my experience with the demographic transition model. Like any model, it has it's limitations, but I think it's pretty accurate when it comes to describing the trends for LEDCs to see large population growth as soon as even basic healthcare becomes more widespread. And MEDCs, particularly in Europe are seeing a definite declining population as people have less children and wait longer before they do.

 

 

 

2. I disagree that scientists are only in it for the prestige or the money. Even the world's top physicists are still only earning a fraction of what that kind of skill level could earn them working in the financial sector. I'm considering a career in science even though I could go work in London for some investment bank, not because I want to win a Nobel Prize, but because I find science absolutely fascinating, and that's what I want to do with my life, that's what I want to achieve.

 

 

 

3. I also disagree that morality hasn't changed, only the laws have. Naturally, there is still a lot of bad in the world, there's no denying that, but I think as a species we're much more altruistic towards people who we've never even met.

 

 

 

Edit: There was a large gap between me clicking "new post" and "post" here, hence why some of my arguments are a little behind.

[warri0r45]

Defender, again, rethorics rather than looking at the actual facts.

 

 

 

You realize the knowledge of the tank killed millions?

 

The knowledge of the nuke killed hundreds of thousands?

You don't need to be a math wiz to figure out that if any of our weaponized inventions had killed more people than our benign inventions had saved, we'd net a population loss. Instead, we're netting a population increase of over 300% in the last century alone. Go figure.

 

Thats what your failing to see. I do not doubt that knowledge CAN help us, but it can also hurt us. It all depends on who has the knowledge and what their intentions are.

Can? What I'm arguing here is that it has helped us. The small list of examples I provided were actual. That our population has increased by 5 500 000 000+ over the last century is a cold, hard, fact. It is not a theoretical "it is possible to". It's what has actually transpired.

You can argue all you want how advances in technology saved many lifes, but it can also indefinatly destroy many more.

But it has not, which is what you stated who knows how many pages back. You live in world (and by world, I continue to encompass the entire planet) in which knowledge has saved more lives than it has taken.

 

 

 

The world is a better place today, than it ever was. It is not perfect, but then again, no one said that.

 

 

 

3. I also disagree that morality hasn't changed, only the laws have. Naturally, there is still a lot of bad in the world, there's no denying that, but I think as a species we're much more altruistic towards people who we've never even met.

 

 

 

I'm seeing some good arguments here.