Societal Decline

[Tunco]

Is the world getting better or worse? Are the people who say society is decaying about as reliable as those homeless people you see every once in a while who hold signs that say the world is coming to an end? If you think it's meaningless to talk about this issue in terms of the entire world (I would tend to disagree with you, but...), then you can focus any points you make on a particular dimension of culture.

"Is the world getting better or worse?"
http://www.worldometers.info/
My point is, if you are at the top of the world, if you're very rich, or got no problems with your life, life, world would seem a better place than before.
If a member of your family is dead a few days ago, if you're having trouble with your budget and stuff, you would start to think that you were born to feel pain.

But that's not how it should be, though, it's not even the way it is.

For me, world is getting worse.
5,946,948 forest lost this year. (hectares)
And do you know Carbon dioxide emissions this year? 11,790,715,416. (tons)

That means millions of animals died, can't find food, we are destroying our world, a.k.a, place we live.

Yeah, listen, listen and listen again between 0:00 and 0:53.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOA8QT-sk4M

If it we don't stop it, I'm afraid that our end will be like between 3:26 and 3:29.

I'm sorry.
Nevermind.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

[SlappyMcGee]

Yeah, I think "worse" can only be defined on the terms of subjective opinion, here. Sure, you might think the world was better when we pranced around on horses and wrote EVERYTHING in Olde English, but the majority of folk prefer living like this, and that's why we do.

[yungerkid]

The world is getting worse, by my standards. Postmodernism and consumerism are the two worst predominant movements of our day. They promote weakness, and a vague approach to societal values and truth itself. We need more solid values, and more unity. Compensating for weakness should not be our priority. The decay of society is so fundamental and so massive that it really is difficult for me to address it in very much practical detail at all, but suffice it to say that relativism and individualism are destroying America at least by promoting weakness. Our technology has led most of us into easy comfort for much of our lives, but we have forgotten what conflict means and what it does. Technology is ahead of ethics. The development of technology has improved much faster than our ideological systems have. And by ideological systems, I mean the way we approach fulfilling our goals and values. Excessive comfort, which is what we are striving towards currently, will cause humanity to become extremely weak, if not eventually destroyed. But assuming that we have ideals that lead at the very least to life and strength in the long run, we must maintain an efficient way of keeping with these ideals. We must advance our ideological system of promoting our ideals just as fast as we advance our technological system of dealing with the world around us. It is only logical. And we currently have neither an acceptable belief system nor a workable rate of ideological advancement. We are decaying.

[otters~1]

Idiocracy was a great movie.

[a happy song]

The world is getting worse, by my standards. Postmodernism and consumerism are the two worst predominant movements of our day. They promote weakness, and a vague approach to societal values and truth itself.

Can you explain this a little more?

We need more solid values, and more unity.

Like a religion? Again, what do you mean exactly?

Compensating for weakness should not be our priority.

Do you mean medical progress? Prolonging the lives of those who without the aid of medical progress wouldn't survive? Because it's this kind of medical progress that will eventually strengthen us. Or are you not being so literal?

The decay of society is so fundamental and so massive that it really is difficult for me to address it in very much practical detail at all,

You mean you haven't thought about this enough before you started typing, couldn't hold back, and need a way to justify your superficial ranting?

but suffice it to say that relativism and individualism are destroying America at least by promoting weakness.

Again, a statement with nothing to back it up. What do you even mean?

Our technology has led most of us into easy comfort for much of our lives, but we have forgotten what conflict means and what it does.

Conflict is still a massive part of the human struggle. We see conflict on a global scale increase daily, and it's only going to continue as fossil fuel reserves decline and so on. On a more individual level, people suffer huge personal conflict with the simple costs of living.

Conflict strengthens, teaches, helps us evolve. Yes we're more comfortable than we've ever been, yes the weak have more chance to survive now than they ever did, yes we're overpopulating and overeating and so on, but there is still enough conflict to produce the strength we need to progress as a species.

There is always the idiot mass that blunders around with their blinders on. There will always be the life time consumer. But to counter this there are plenty of people pushing the boundaries of the arts and sciences to compensate for any potential damage to our species as a whole.

Technology is ahead of ethics. The development of technology has improved much faster than our ideological systems have. And by ideological systems, I mean the way we approach fulfilling our goals and values.

Explain.

Excessive comfort, which is what we are striving towards currently, will cause humanity to become extremely weak, if not eventually destroyed.

I'm pretty sure we're striving for more than that. You're focusing on the commercial and cosmetic aspects of progress only. What about the efforts put into understanding the universe that might one day lead to man colonising space? Work with genetics that will lead to strenghtening and improving our make up? Bio-Engineering that will, hopefully, one day lead to terraforming hostile landscapes so they might one day be suitable to grow food?

There is much more happening than your negative world view is encompassing.

But assuming that we have ideals that lead at the very least to life and strength in the long run, we must maintain an efficient way of keeping with these ideals. We must advance our ideological system of promoting our ideals just as fast as we advance our technological system of dealing with the world around us. It is only logical. And we currently have neither an acceptable belief system nor a workable rate of ideological advancement. We are decaying.

Humanity is always on the brink of some disaster. It's in our nature. We're sloppy, and volatile, and our progress is generally aggressive or explosive or inefficient. But we've got this far, and, aside form some global disaster or mutual destruction, I'm pretty sure we have the resources and resolve to struggle on.

We don't need some crazy united ideological system, we just need determination and luck.

We're certainly not as morally or idealogically lacking as you're making us out to be. This seems more like a personal crossroad of yours that you're projecting outward than anything else.

[SlappyMcGee]

yungerkid, you accuse stuff that is being considered quite communist, like health care (holding back for the weak, or whatever) AND individualism as the ruin of the world. Awesome work.

[yungerkid]

Like a religion? Again, what do you mean exactly?

We have too many opinions on the table. I think we need to unite as a society (I am talking solely about America, as I see it) under one culture with one set of values and one goal in clear focus. In other words, I am opposed to the "melting pot" idea, mainly as it functions politically and culturally.

Do you mean medical progress? Prolonging the lives of those who without the aid of medical progress wouldn't survive? Because it's this kind of medical progress that will eventually strengthen us. Or are you not being so literal?

No, I was referring to weakness of character, weakness of will, and weakness of ideology. Compensating for people who cannot support themselves in any way should not be the responsibility of society.

Again, a statement with nothing to back it up. What do you even mean?

I partially take that statement back. Our society needs average people and people to rise above the average people, economically and intellectually. The idea is promoted to the average people that they are unique, and can "make a difference", and all of the other individualist things that we are told nowadays. This idea keeps them in the mindset that they can keep working as small gears within a large machine, and make an essential difference. We, of course, need these gears, and thus a better purpose is served by keeping them in that state. In the meanwhile those who will will break out of that mould and establish themselves as keepers of the machine and orderers of its construction. What I was condemning was the fact that when those messages are presented to everyone, those who would ordinarily become contributors become complacent where they are, and do not realize their potential. But I acknowledge that this tradeoff is necessary.

Conflict is still a massive part of the human struggle.

It is. But conflict is being reduced by leaps and bounds. We have people pushing the boundaries of the arts and sciences, but we do not have enough of them. Comfort needs to remain in a certain ratio to conflict, and as our technology gives us more and more comfort and convenience, the gap between ordinary people and highly productive people is increasing. That is a negative thing, because the gap should be remaining the same as all people benefit at once.

What about the efforts put into understanding the universe that might one day lead to man colonising space?...

Those are good things. Perhaps I am reflecting too much on the other side of society. But what I was saying was that the other side is getting too large and too disproportionate to the side that is doing the advancement.

The world is getting too large and too diverse. If we have one ideological system, we will be able to pursue that system much more efficiently. Our current main ideological system involves placing ourselves into more comfort than conflict (as I can see it). Maybe I am just too sheltered from society at large, though.

[smartalco]

I'm can't say if this is a decline over previous generations, as I wasn't alive then; but I find my generation to be a complete wad of disrespectful douchebags. I have seen a total of like 4 people my age even hold a door for someone (1 of them being myself). Where the fuck has chivalry gone? I'm not going to bother arguing whether the population is getting dumber or not (which, maybe not in intellectual potential, but I think it definitely has in utilization), and I think you'd be crazy to not believe that the collective work ethic has gone down some, but where the fuck has common courtesy gone?
That is all I want to know.

[Atilla]

...is it just me, or does yungerkid's post read disturbingly like Ingsoc? I mean, he's saying we need one ideology which everyone follows (that of the Party), a bunch of average people grinding mindlessly away, governed by an elite (the prole and the Party), less comfort, and more conflict (artificial shortages of goods, eternal war with Eurasia/Eastasia).

[yungerkid]

By conflict, I am not referring at all to physical conflict of any kind. By elites, I don't mean those with political or social power, I mean those who contribute the most and are in charge of orchestrating growth along the goal. And you know that we will always, or for a long time at least, have average joes grinding away at their common lives. We need someone to cook our food.

[origami_alligator]

Every once in a while, you hear people talking about the decline of society.
...
If you think it's meaningless to talk about this issue in terms of the entire world (I would tend to disagree with you, but...), then you can focus any points you make on a particular dimension of culture.
...
Yeah. Debate and stuff.

Are you a Globalist or what? D:<

[SkyPanda]

We have too many opinions on the table. I think we need to unite as a society (I am talking solely about America, as I see it) under one culture with one set of values and one goal in clear focus. In other words, I am opposed to the "melting pot" idea, mainly as it functions politically and culturally.

This is too vague and unexplained to argue against, so I have some questions for you.
1. Why? Why is this situation desirable? What aim will this achieve, or help to achieve? Or what problem will this attempt to fix, and how?
2. How would you orchestrate a monocultural society? How would you select which culture to impose? Or do you believe this will occur without any specific action?
3. What is the 'one goal' that you think we should have? Why do we need a single goal?
4. What set of values do you think we should have? How would you impose these values?
5. You mention politics with reference to the 'melting pot' concept. Are you proposing a political system in which there is no variety of values? Would you therefore remove elections and opposition? How would you determine who gets to be the dictator? (unless you've already decided that you get to be dictator)

[Atilla]

By conflict, I am not referring at all to physical conflict of any kind.

Which is exactly why you claim that we've always been at war with Eurasia, while actually using the "war" to promote rabid nationalism and loyalty, and as an excuse to punish dissenters.

Seriously, though, what kind of conflict are you talking about? Because you've already said you want to create an ideologically uniform state with no conflicting opinions. If you're removing different political views and sets of values as a source of conflict, it is difficult to see how you can foster additional conflict - especially non-violent conflict - without declaring some external group The Enemy. Unless your preferred ideology is anarchism or social Darwinism or something.

By elites, I don't mean those with political or social power, I mean those who contribute the most and are in charge of orchestrating growth along the goal.

Doesn't "being in charge" implicitly grant them political and social power?

[yungerkid]

1. - This will achieve a more streamlined growth process. If we are all working towards one goal we will all achieve it more quickly. Currently we are moving towards...strength in general. But if we decide on a goal, we'll become much more motivated to do our part in achieving that goal.

2. - I am saying that all societies, when isolated on their own, should be made up of one culture as closely as possible. They should interact, however, and I do believe a global government would be good for such nations. But I think countries like America, where there are many different cultures in equal proportion right next to one another, are inefficient because their values are not solidified by the presence of a single cultural unit. A single cultural unit would keep its values isolated and in front of it. A global government would not restrict those cultures; it would be a good thing for them to interact. What I am proposing is that the best system for economic and intellectual growth is making each culture a nation. Most all of the countries of the world are currently in roughly that format, but America is a total waste.

3. - The goal does not matter. We do not need to have just one goal, but we do need to have one ultimate goal. We need to have one ultimate goal because with only one ultimate goal for everyone, everyone would work faster and with more unity and coordination.

4. - The specific values do not matter so long as they do not lead to our own destruction. Preferably, a good set of values would comprise at least a continual and maximally efficient striving for intellectual strength, artistic flourish as it originates from cultural values, peaceful coexistence with other nations, and preserving physical comfort in a safe ratio to intellectual conflict. Note that I mentioned cultural values. Not everyone subscribes to the exact same set of values. They should not be expected to. The global government would comprise all nations working towards the set of general goals, whereas the individual cultures would add idiosyncracy to the pursuit of those goals.

5. - Not really. I do assume that preserving cultural values for each culture is a good thing. But ultimately they should all converge to one ultimate goal. I would not remove elections or political opposition.

Seriously, though, what kind of conflict are you talking about? Because you've already said you want to create an ideologically uniform state with no conflicting opinions.

I was talking about intellectual conflict. The advancement of science in general. I want no-one to have a conflicting opinion on how humanity is eventually going to end up. Conflict over how we are going to do what we will do is acceptable for a while, but there must be a victor. The way to decide who is the victor is by deciding which solution best fits the ultimate goal. This allows for cultural values, and each culture to decide their own way of life. I am proposing a sort of technical oligarchy. Each culture gets a nation, and each nation has a representative. The representatives convene, and with a majority can force other nations to do things. As a whole they make decisions and follow after their common ultimate goal. When I was talking about conflict, I was saying that for each individual, life should be a healthy mix of finding and solving mental challenges, and having comfort. This is the balance between advancing science, and receiving convenience from that advancement. It is also the balance between the intellectual elites, and the regular workers. In all instances, the gap between the two options should remain reasonable, so that we do not begin to slide backwards into enjoying our technology without furthering it. But, as atob pointed out, that is not currently the case. And I was not talking about conflict between nations.

Doesn't "being in charge" implicitly grant them political and social power?

It grants them social power insofar as they need it to be able to administrate their sectors. But my point was that the administration comes conceptually first. And that because ideally government positions would be merit-based and not popularity-based, the democratic process is not necessarily the ideal way to determine who gets what role in the government.

[otters~1]

I'm can't say if this is a decline over previous generations, as I wasn't alive then; but I find my generation to be a complete wad of disrespectful douchebags. I have seen a total of like 4 people my age even hold a door for someone (1 of them being myself). Where the fuck has chivalry gone? I'm not going to bother arguing whether the population is getting dumber or not (which, maybe not in intellectual potential, but I think it definitely has in utilization), and I think you'd be crazy to not believe that the collective work ethic has gone down some, but where the fuck has common courtesy gone?
That is all I want to know.

smartalco nailed it. I often wonder why no one is polite anymore. Whenever my friends do something particularly rude, I try and point it out to them, and they usually laugh at me. And when I do something polite, everyone overreacts like it's the end of the world. I think overall the quality of the human race has degenerated. I can't prove anything, or pull out facts, but look around you if you don't agree with me. atob, Slappy, all of you who are arguing with yungerkid, are you arguing for the sake of it, or because you actually think society today is better?

Also, Demonz, it's your thread, do you have an opinion?

[yungerkid]

PLEASE DIRECT ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS TO MY ASSOCIATE, TUNCO123

[a happy song]

Slappy, all of you who are arguing with yungerkid, are you arguing for the sake of it, or because you actually think society today is better?

Just because people don't hold doors open as often you think society is on some irreversible decline? I don't see it. I wasn't aware twenty years ago, fifty years ago, a hundred years ago, I can't tell you if things really were better then. All we have a books, movies, and our parents telling us about the good old days. I'm sorry if I don't rely on those as solid proof that they used to be wonderfully golden days in comparison.

[origami_alligator]

I'm sure society has its peaks and its valleys in terms of how the current state of things agrees with our idea of how things should be. Lack of chivalry does not mean society is declining. Increased individualism does not mean society is declining. Swaying toward communism does not mean society is declining. It just means that it's changing.

On a cultural level, cultures are becoming so mixed and integrated with one another that blends of cultures are coming together to create new cultures and subcultures. Whether this is for the benefit of society and mankind or not depends on how you want to look at it. Personally I think it is nice to have people who preserve their culture and don't submit to being influenced by the many other cultures out there along with those who have integrated their culture into others is beneficial. It allows people to understand another culture by speaking with those who have integrated, so that if they were to encounter the culture of those who haven't they may become more accepting, or at least more understanding. But again, it depends on how you want to look at it.

[otters~1]

Slappy, all of you who are arguing with yungerkid, are you arguing for the sake of it, or because you actually think society today is better?

Just because people don't hold doors open as often you think society is on some irreversible decline? I don't see it. I wasn't aware twenty years ago, fifty years ago, a hundred years ago, I can't tell you if things really were better then. All we have a books, movies, and our parents telling us about the good old days. I'm sorry if I don't rely on those as solid proof that they used to be wonderfully golden days in comparison.

smartalco's specific example and my generalization were not meant to be the same paragraph, really.

As for your main point, if we go along with that, this topic is a bit unarguable; we have no perspective. So, I'll get back to you when I'm eighty.

[SlappyMcGee]

Well, I think the topic is already inarguable, because there are things, such as art, which are entirely subjective, and there are other things, such as science, that have inarguably gotten better.

[otters~1]

The fact is, 150 years ago, Americans would line up on New York City docks in order to recieve the next installment of a brilliant Dickens novel. Now, they do the same thing (figuratively) with regard to a series about vampires having inter-species relationships with young human girls.

Help.

[SlappyMcGee]

The fact is, 150 years ago, Americans would line up on New York City docks in order to recieve the next installment of a brilliant Dickens novel. Now, they do the same thing (figuratively) with regard to a series about vampires having inter-species relationships with young human girls.

Help.

Right, no, listen to yourself. You (quite subjectively) believe Dickens to be more entertaining and superior to Twilight, and that's fine. I'd be inclined to agree with you, but the majority of people would not. The fact of the matter is, the only way to gain a consensus on something subjective is to ask a large sample and see what percentage of them likes or dislikes the object. Like rottentomatoes, or Metacritic. And while it's fine that you find books that some would consider "overwritten" to be of greater quality, the majority of people want them some vampire novels. You can be elite, and say, "The majority of people are going downhill. I can tell, because I have not." But that's subjective as well. Look at our advancements, and look at the average quality of life improvement. Just because you don't like today's art doesn't mean it is worse.

[origami_alligator]

The fact is, 150 years ago, Americans would line up on New York City docks in order to recieve the next installment of a brilliant Dickens novel. Now, they do the same thing (figuratively) with regard to a series about vampires having inter-species relationships with young human girls.

Help.

Can I ask how many of the 7 Harry Potter books you read and went to midnight releases for?

Right, no, listen to yourself. You (quite subjectively) believe Dickens to be more entertaining and superior to Twilight, and that's fine. I'd be inclined to agree with you, but the majority of people would not. The fact of the matter is, the only way to gain a consensus on something subjective is to ask a large sample and see what percentage of them likes or dislikes the object. Like rottentomatoes, or Metacritic. And while it's fine that you find books that some would consider "overwritten" to be of greater quality, the majority of people want them some vampire novels. You can be elite, and say, "The majority of people are going downhill. I can tell, because I have not." But that's subjective as well. Look at our advancements, and look at the average quality of life improvement. Just because you don't like today's art doesn't mean it is worse.

I completely agree with everything you've said here.

[otters~1]

The fact is, 150 years ago, Americans would line up on New York City docks in order to recieve the next installment of a brilliant Dickens novel. Now, they do the same thing (figuratively) with regard to a series about vampires having inter-species relationships with young human girls.

Help.

Right, no, listen to yourself. You (quite subjectively) believe Dickens to be more entertaining and superior to Twilight, and that's fine. I'd be inclined to agree with you, but the majority of people would not. The fact of the matter is, the only way to gain a consensus on something subjective is to ask a large sample and see what percentage of them likes or dislikes the object. Like rottentomatoes, or Metacritic. And while it's fine that you find books that some would consider "overwritten" to be of greater quality, the majority of people want them some vampire novels. You can be elite, and say, "The majority of people are going downhill. I can tell, because I have not." But that's subjective as well. Look at our advancements, and look at the average quality of life improvement. Just because you don't like today's art doesn't mean it is worse.

Do you honestly believe that most people would take Twilight over David Copperfield? And by most people, I don't just mean, most people under the age of twenty-five. I would think that since Dickens is held to be the greatest English writer since Shakespeare (opinion, yes, but I think a reasonable one), means that he is admired more than a brand-new pre-teen novel writer. Using the term "novel" loosely. I don't think any kind of survey is necessary.

But really, my comment was tongue-in-cheek. Even if I was arrogant enough to think that my literary tastes were perfect or should determine everyone else's, I would never use fictional novels as the sole interpreter of "societal decline." The only real way to determine that is statistics, as I think I mentioned earlier. We should be arguing about which statistics.

EDIT: Pawz, I love the Harry Potter books. But I doubt that I love them for the same reason that most people my age do. We can argue their worth against Stephanie Meyer's book's worth in some other thread. And it's ironic you should say that, because I'm going to the midnight premier of the sixth movie... tonight. :)