Boomers: The Evil Generation!

[Timsup2nothin]

The analysis works for the level of a single society. I am defining global civilization as it exists today as a single society, whereas each hunter-gatherer band is a society unto itself.

You could claim that this larger concept of society represents moral progress, but it's more a consequence of capital accumulation than moral development imo.

I don't know that I'd call it "moral progress," I just pointed it out to counter your claim of "moral degradation." It's just a whole lot easier to say "I would risk my own life in defense of anyone I've ever met" when you've spent your entire life in a tribe of twenty, and a whole lot more manageable to say "if we go hungry we all go hungry together" when you aren't talking about an "all" that numbers in the billions.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The analysis works for the level of a single society. I am defining global civilization as it exists today as a single society, whereas each hunter-gatherer band is a society unto itself.

You could claim that this larger concept of society represents moral progress, but it's more a consequence of capital accumulation than moral development imo.

We don't tend to impale people as frequently now as in the past. Isn't that moral progress? How we treat each other on a one to one basis has nothing to do with capital accumulation. Capital accumulation does allow our actions to have broader reach, but you seem to be saying that it makes people do bad things. I attribute bad deeds to the people involved and not their wealth.

 

[Lexicus]

When trying to measure things over time, make sense of trends and decide how to act, I do think that a longer perspective is more valuable. To use an analogy you probably won't like, you can look at daily stock market data and decide things or you can look at 60 day moving averages, 200 day moving overages or even 3, 5 and 10 year data. In the same way you can look at employment data for the past month, year, 5 years and 10 years and decide whether or not the government is doing a good job at keeping people employed. If you are using information to make decisions it is important to understand how the data you choose will influence your choices. If you compare Austin to Detroit you will get very different perspectives. Which is correct if you are deciding about how to fix city problems?

Okay, so how is this relevant to the fact that inthesomeday noted that humans are currently driving extinction much higher than the background rate and you respond that life has gone on for two billion years with plenty of extinction during all that time? To me that sounds like you are just deciding not to act and rationalizing it with what sounds a lot like nihilism.

The facts of the past are there for all to see and interpret as they see fit. I see little point in being critical of what people did 200 years ago. They did what they did for their reasons. And most of those reasons are tied to very human desires that acted within the cultural structure of the day. You do the same. We all do the same. We act for personal reasons to satisfy personal desires within the cultural framework of now. Some of us act narrowly and others more broadly. The fact that racism was part of colonialism and empire building is a "so what" issue for me. Why does it matter what the motivations of those long dead were? One can study such things and use them to understand why things happened in the past, but that is just an intellectual exercise. I think it is a misuse of the past to bring forward the now bad behavior of those long dead and use it to condemn people today. If you want to condemn people/systems who/which are active today, look at what they are doing and why. Of course, if your goal is just to find ways to condemn capitalism for all its evil ways, have at it. But you should make it clear that that is your goal.

You are really missing the point here. Racism still structures people's life outcomes today in ways that are morally unacceptable. To locate the historical roots of present injustices is not about "using the actions of people in the past to criticize people in the present." The problem is that capitalism, racism, and so on still define the structures that condition people's lives.

We choose not to end poverty because powerful people don't want to and they don't want to because doing so will interfere with their acquisition of more money, fame, power, status, etc. It is a people problem and not a structure problem.

This is just frankly stupid. It is absolutely a structure problem. The people are interchangeable.

And, BTW, the way you end poverty is getting people jobs that pay more than what they get for free. In the US that means a job $35k a year. that is a tall order and difficult to do given the skill levels of the poor.

Yes, I sure do agree that the way you end poverty is getting people jobs. Of course, the idea that unemployed people lack jobs because they have "insufficient skills" or whatever is complete victim-blaming nonsense, and of course dovetails with racism and social Darwinism in that it's essentially writing people off as worthless.

H-G rarely scaled to the point where poverty was an issue. Prior to 1492 Native Americans were always kind to their horses. Yeah, they didn't have any. and a H-G lifestyle is a terrible one. Nobody who has the option to give it up says no. Native Americans who fought hard to keep their hunting grounds readily accepted, horses, guns, metal pots, matches, clothes and blankets. They did so because those things made life easier. had they been left alone, they would have gladly accepted the new toys and kept to their primitive way for some years, but over time they would have assimilated. The US tried to speed up that process through annihilation and forced integration, so it went badly. The Mongols swept across Asia on their horses and decided that city living was a whole lot better.

Yeah, see, this is almost exactly the literal opposite of the truth. I would say that it is a shocking claim for an educated person to make, but it's easy to see why it's necessary for the adherents of the Cult of Progress to convince themselves of this kind of crap. The fact is that in every case where hunter-gatherers have been converted into "civilized" people (or agriculturalists converted into an industrial proletariat), it required the massive application of state violence because people really do not just choose to give up their traditional lifestyles. This violence was sufficient to kill most of the survivors of the disease epidemics in the New World and included the genocide of a number of different groups in Africa, notably the Herero and the inhabitants of the Belgian Congo.

How we treat each other on a one to one basis has nothing to do with capital accumulation. Capital accumulation does allow our actions to have broader reach, but you seem to be saying that it makes people do bad things. I attribute bad deeds to the people involved and not their wealth.

Yeah, you misunderstood what I meant entirely. I suggest looking up the Marxist sense of the term "capital accumulation" because it has absolutely nothing to do with blaming the bad deeds of individuals on their wealth. That you choose to ignore structures and focus on individuals does not mean others make the same choice.

 

[inthesomeday]

Alright man, “primitive ways” lost me. I was gonna do a long effort post about the sixth extinction but... I don’t think you’re taking this seriously.

 

[Lexicus]

The attitudes of the "Progress" people to the atrocities inherent in that "Progress" is fascinating because it differs so little from the attitude of committed Nazis toward the Holocaust. It varies from the outright celebration of those atrocities (which you can see quite plainly on the right), to minimizing their importance, to something like "well it's very sad but does it really matter in the end now that we have iPhones?"

 

[Synobun]

J.K. Rowling reveals that it was you, the reader, who was the Nazi all along.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Okay, so how is this relevant to the fact that inthesomeday noted that humans are currently driving extinction much higher than the background rate and you respond that life has gone on for two billion years with plenty of extinction during all that time? To me that sounds like you are just deciding not to act and rationalizing it with what sounds a lot like nihilism.

It may not be; I was responding to your reference to my use of a "long arc" and how I was just trying to justify neo capitalism. You apparently want to put everyone into your Marxist/Capitalist framework. I do not agree that. I personally think it is a poor framework and have no interest in it as a useful tool. Sorry.

I was not responding to intheday.

You are really missing the point here. Racism still structures people's life outcomes today in ways that are morally unacceptable. To locate the historical roots of present injustices is not about "using the actions of people in the past to criticize people in the present." The problem is that capitalism, racism, and so on still define the structures that condition people's lives.

I agree that racism is still with us today and it is a bad. thing. You go right ahead and study its past. I'd rather look for ways to reduce its influence today. Capitalism is still with us today. What's your point? Other than your beloved H-Gs, what active economic system isn't just as unfair and detrimental to people? It's fine you want to do away with capitalism; what is your replacement?

This is just frankly stupid. It is absolutely a structure problem. The people are interchangeable.

Sure, blame the system and not the people who run it. I'd rather place the responsibility for what we do on the people who do them. Capitalism caused the great recession! Not the bankers who did the deals to make a buck. Bad people bend systems for their personal gain. All systems. i disagree with your unwillingness to blame perpetrators.

Yes, I sure do agree that the way you end poverty is getting people jobs. Of course, the idea that unemployed people lack jobs because they have "insufficient skills" or whatever is complete victim-blaming nonsense, and of course dovetails with racism and social Darwinism in that it's essentially writing people off as worthless.

Blame the victim? You are clueless. It is a fact that many of those in poverty do not have the skills to do living wage jobs. Many do not have the skills to do minimum wage jobs. You seem very keen on spinning those facts into something that supports your very narrow world view. I said it was difficult to get people out of poverty and into good jobs. I did not say we shouldn't, couldn't, or that I thought they were all worthless people. I just clearly understand the challenge. In addition, btw, as someone who is actively involved in economic development, our group has been developing ways to integrate ED into poverty reduction programs. The task is complex and the key players often resistant to change.

Yeah, see, this is almost exactly the literal opposite of the truth. I would say that it is a shocking claim for an educated person to make, but it's easy to see why it's necessary for the adherents of the Cult of Progress to convince themselves of this kind of crap. The fact is that in every case where hunter-gatherers have been converted into "civilized" people (or agriculturalists converted into an industrial proletariat), it required the massive application of state violence because people really do not just choose to give up their traditional lifestyles. This violence was sufficient to kill most of the survivors of the disease epidemics in the New World and included the genocide of a number of different groups in Africa, notably the Herero and the inhabitants of the Belgian Congo.

I do believe that your view of history distorts your conclusions. History is far more nuanced than you allow. As far as disease vs violence in the New World, disease killed many many more than the violence. In fact, as you say, the death by disease often preceded the arrival of the foreigners, so most of the deaths were not state sponsored violence.

Yeah, you misunderstood what I meant entirely. I suggest looking up the Marxist sense of the term "capital accumulation" because it has absolutely nothing to do with blaming the bad deeds of individuals on their wealth. That you choose to ignore structures and focus on individuals does not mean others make the same choice.

yes, I am not well versed in the nuances of Marxist doctrine. I think it is an old, out-dated approach to looking at the world. If I am going to waste my time, I'd rather do it in Wraeclast.

Overall, I think we are very far apart on the fundamentals of how to view the world. I see little overlap where beneficial discourse can happen. I do understand that you need to paint me as some old school reactionary because I do not agree with you and to acknowledge any substance to my point of view would somehow diminish yours. You seem to be playing a zero sum game as it were.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The attitudes of the "Progress" people to the atrocities inherent in that "Progress" is fascinating because it differs so little from the attitude of committed Nazis toward the Holocaust. It varies from the outright celebration of those atrocities (which you can see quite plainly on the right), to minimizing their importance, to something like "well it's very sad but does it really matter in the end now that we have iPhones?"

Cool, now I'm a Nazi!

 

[Broken_Erika]

Cool, now I'm a Nazi!

*cue music from The Village Peoples Macho Man.
Nazi Nazi Man. He's gonna be; A Nazi man.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I recommend you all read the novel "The Dream of Scipio" by Iain Pears. Theres a point towards the end where one of the main characters, someone who has devoted his life from his pov to defending civilisation from the barbarians, concludes that it is modern civilisation that is responsible for and has made possible the Holocaust. I wouldn't entirely agree with that but modern civilisation has certainly made us able to commit bigger and more efficient atrocities than earlier ages could ever dream of.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I recommend you all read the novel "The Dream of Scipio" by Iain Pears. Theres a point towards the end where one of the main characters, someone who has devoted his life from his pov to defending civilisation from the barbarians, concludes that it is modern civilisation that is responsible for and has made possible the Holocaust. I wouldn't entirely agree with that but modern civilisation has certainly made us able to commit bigger and more efficient atrocities than earlier ages could ever dream of.

And along with the greater capacity for doing bad things, we also have made life better for the least well off. They go together. But now that I know I'm just a Nazi in liberal clothes, I guess I'll support Trump and give money to build his wall.

 

[Lexicus]

I agree that racism is still with us today and it is a bad. thing. You go right ahead and study its past. I'd rather look for ways to reduce its influence today. Capitalism is still with us today. What's your point? Other than your beloved H-Gs, what active economic system isn't just as unfair and detrimental to people? It's fine you want to do away with capitalism; what is your replacement?

The replacement for capitalism is democracy, also called socialism. Democracy works a lot better if your goal is a world where people have dignity and rights and stuff. Not so well if you want a lot of iPhones I guess.

Sure, blame the system and not the people who run it. I'd rather place the responsibility for what we do on the people who do them. Capitalism caused the great recession! Not the bankers who did the deals to make a buck. Bad people bend systems for their personal gain. All systems. i disagree with your unwillingness to blame perpetrators.

You're creating a false dichotomy. Bad systems make it easier for bad actors to act badly. The worst systems create a filter effect where success is proportionate to the willingness to do bad things. Capitalism, or at least the version of it that exists today, is one of those.

System change is not incompatible with holding people accountable for specific abuses. Unfortunately the response to the financial crisis did not involve system change or holding people accountable.

You are clueless. It is a fact that many of those in poverty do not have the skills to do living wage jobs.

No, you are clueless. You are deceived by neoclassical economic dogma that says the primary determinant of a person's wage is their actual contribution to production. This is nonsense. People are unemployed involuntarily not because they have no useful or valuable skills but because capitalists cannot derive a profit from employing them.

I do believe that your view of history distorts your conclusions. History is far more nuanced than you allow. As far as disease vs violence in the New World, disease killed many many more than the violence. In fact, as you say, the death by disease often preceded the arrival of the foreigners, so most of the deaths were not state sponsored violence.

Well, imagine that: I think your view of history distorts your conclusions! I would suggest reading Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation (not a Marxist work at all, in case you're wondering!) for a good overview of what I'm talking about. Certainly in the context of European imperialism of the modern and early modern period, there were essentially no people (none of which I'm aware) encountered who willingly adopted the ways of the Europeans.

Overall, I think we are very far apart on the fundamentals of how to view the world. I see little overlap where beneficial discourse can happen. I do understand that you need to paint me as some old school reactionary because I do not agree with you and to acknowledge any substance to my point of view would somehow diminish yours. You seem to be playing a zero sum game as it were.

Actually I think our base assumptions regarding human dignity and so on are probably pretty compatible. You have tried to paint me as a dogmatic Marxist but that is not true at all. While many aspects of Marxism were never useful and others are outdated, capital accumulation is one concept that definitely has validity.

As for my "need" to paint you in any particular way, I framed what I said about you defending capitalism and so on as impressions for a reason. Consider the possibility that I simply find some of what you've said appalling and/or factually incorrect. I also find that it disturbingly echoes 18th- and 19th-century ideas that I believe contributed to some of the atrocities we've been discussing.

Cool, now I'm a Nazi!

Meh. The idea doesn't hold up that well the more I've thought about it. And anyway it applies (or would apply, if it applied to anything) to people far more gung-ho about Progress than anyone in this thread has been.

 

[AmazonQueen]

And along with the greater capacity for doing bad things, we also have made life better for the least well off. They go together. But now that I know I'm just a Nazi in liberal clothes, I guess I'll support Trump and give money to build his wall.

They do go together. Even in the worst societies in the world they try and hide slavery. Genocide/ethnic cleansing is no longer ignored although attempts to prevent it are often ineffectual. In more liberal societies wifebeating and FGM aren't acceptable any more. We are improving but we started from a low base.

 

[inthesomeday]

Wifebeating requires marriage and FGM is a symptom of civilization too. I suppose it cleans up after itself sometimes?

I’m not anti-civ persay but you lot are really providing the worst possible case for “progress”.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I’m not anti-civ persay but you lot are really providing the worst possible case for “progress”.

Please present your case for non progress and include your time frame and measures.

 

[inthesomeday]

Don’t have to. “Progress is good” is the claim. Prove it.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Wifebeating requires marriage and FGM is a symptom of civilization too. I suppose it cleans up after itself sometimes?

I’m not anti-civ persay but you lot are really providing the worst possible case for “progress”.

I'm not sure FGM is a symptom of civilisation. Do you have any evidence as to when it originated?

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'm not sure FGM is a symptom of civilisation. Do you have any evidence as to when it originated

It existed in Ancient Eygpt but no proof it originated then.

 

[Estebonrober]

Please present your case for non progress and include your time frame and measures.

Honestly you don't have to debate this, its such a minority view as to not be worth the time and its contrarian to the extreme hence his response to your request. In a sense the universe is always progressing (at least from our vantage point) so maybe you could make a metaphysical basis on that, but why bother going through all of this if you aren't going to write a paper on it. lol

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Don’t have to. “Progress is good” is the claim. Prove it.

Well, early on he did present evidence, which you dismissed as "silly numbers." I think he made a very good case, and in the absence of any counter I'd have to find for his side, were I on the jury.