The Idea of Progress

[Theodarzna]

What's with you and wanting others to quantify intangibles. I don't have a problem trying to place a value of human lives, but I'd rather not incite mobs.

Unless the new super gonnahoria becomes the most prevalent variation of gonnahoria, you have no argument.

Mama mia

The new super strain need only time, and it is only an example, there already now exists bacteria of varying strains immune to even the strongest medicine we have to throw at it. Thanks to horizontal gene transfers the spread of these diseases will only escalate.

I think quantifying intangibles is important because humans are not merely objects in the world. This is somewhat of a philosophical point by I am not just a fleshy organic object sitting in a chair, you could in theory quantify the value of in strictly tangible terms but you would be engaging in the in a view of humans that only the severely autistic could hold.

The intangible is in this case absolutely everything because humans also interpret meaning into the world.

- - - Updated - - -

Haha, friend first there is no such thing as an "enlightened" discussion about Communism because the state of being enlightened is in direct conflict with the state of thinking Communism is a good idea much less one that should be deployed internationally.

The closest you could ever come to finding that would be in a self-reinforcing delusional state such as found in the smug flatulence inhaling UC Berkeley type environment.

A bunch of brain dead SJWs sitting around a drum circle keeping tallies of each others microaggerssions as they erroneously and hypocritically postulate how they could manage to implement Communism without the 100+ million deaths if only they could just get rid of everybody who disagreed with them.

Haha, good times.

..... go back 100 years and it was the height of intellectual thought, to some degree it still is considered intellectually valid.

- - - Updated - - -

Theocracy is one big example. People are losing their shit over religion. I'm taking no ones side but casualties in the name of religion are getting higher.

One could wax and wane about religion this or religion that or even its material role in warfare.

One point to note is that between the year 500 CE and 1900 CE, the major wars of religion in Europe all happened AFTER the 1400's, so after the last possible end of the "Dark Ages." The 30 years war, the French wars of Religion, the English Civil War, all are products of the Enlightenment and the Renaissance.

[THE Bigzoman]

The new super strain need only time, and it is only an example, there already now exists bacteria of varying strains immune to even the strongest medicine we have to throw at it. Thanks to horizontal gene transfers the spread of these diseases will only escalate.

I think quantifying intangibles is important because humans are not merely objects in the world. This is somewhat of a philosophical point by I am not just a fleshy organic object sitting in a chair, you could in theory quantify the value of in strictly tangible terms but you would be engaging in the in a view of humans that only the severely autistic could hold.

The intangible is in this case absolutely everything because humans also interpret meaning into the world.

- - - Updated - - -



..... go back 100 years and it was the height of intellectual thought, to some degree it still is considered intellectually valid.

How else could we quantify intangibles if not by using tangible means? I mean, I guess we could just say something like life has a a value of infinity so no ones feelings gets hurt, but that's just touchy feelzy and lazy.

On the other hand we can't just not try to place a value on life because that would imply that life has no value.

[Theodarzna]

How else could we quantify intangibles if not by using tangible means? I mean, I guess we could just say something like life has a a value of infinity so no ones feelings gets hurt, but that's just touchy feelzy and lazy.

On the other hand we can't just not try to place a value on life because that would imply that life has no value.

The value one places on another life is usually less than that which is placed on their own. The problem is precisely a question of who has the right to assign value to a human life?

As an example, say I must chose between killing Skroe (An educated STEM-lord) and my Sister (A mother of two..... and errrrr a part time editor). You might argue that Skroe's life could be really valuable (Assuming he is this super powerhouse Tech guy), but I would obviously leave him to a cruel horrible death and not because I do not like him, but more aptly because I value my sister far more than I value him. The same may go for Connal, who is a bit more amicable towards me, or even Yvaelle, I would gladly let both die gruesome deaths to save my sister.

They of course would probably chose their loved ones over me, or more aptly chose themselves over my sister, and would likely make strong cases for why I should pick them.

The value of human life is something somewhat arbitrary and subjective.

[aposynthesis]

One could wax and wane about religion this or religion that or even its material role in warfare.

One point to note is that between the year 500 CE and 1900 CE, the major wars of religion in Europe all happened AFTER the 1400's, so after the last possible end of the "Dark Ages." The 30 years war, the French wars of Religion, the English Civil War, all are products of the Enlightenment and the Renaissance.

I am no way educated in history as you are (as you've seen by my posts) but humans always wage war no matter what. For resources, peace of land or mere jealously no matter the politic system they employ, being theocratic, monarchic,tyrannic or democratic (at least the last part i know of it well, since i am Greek and our history is bloodied in the name of democracy).
The ending of the dark ages seemed to me like a bubble pop of all the things that happened in-between 5th to 18th century. But i might be wrong, I am a tech guy so most of my knowledge is on that field so i apologize if i say anything strange to your eyes

[Sunseeker]

Humanity has made substantial progress. We have made it through times when we are actively seeking progress. We have made progress in times where many are resistant to progress. We have made it in times when it was totally unintended. We will continue to do so, and we will never stop. We will eventually reach a perfect society. It may take a thousand years. It make take a million years. We'll get there.

[Theodarzna]

Humanity has made substantial progress. We have made it through times when we are actively seeking progress. We have made progress in times where many are resistant to progress. We have made it in times when it was totally unintended. We will continue to do so, and we will never stop. We will eventually reach a perfect society. It may take a thousand years. It make take a million years. We'll get there.

So the New Jerusalem awaits? XD

[Sunseeker]

So the New Jerusalem awaits? XD

Or the Collective. I'm sure whatever it looks like, we'll call it perfect.

[THE Bigzoman]

our actions impact the environment and people we leave behind. Past behavior is a great predictor for future behavior. It would be up to society rather than an individual to value lives based on that critieria.

You can use this criteria for past and present lives.

The "but my sister" argument would purely be an emotional one on your end.

[TrumpIsPresident]

..... go back 100 years and it was the height of intellectual thought, to some degree it still is considered intellectually valid.

And then each and every single time it was taken from concept to practice the result was death, destruction, war, injustice, death, strife, death, more war, more death, and of course death.

Its a failed concept and will always be a failed concept.

Its was a failure right from the start because the underlying economic principle behind Marx's labor equation was that everything should be valued based upon its pure production cost alone and nothing else.

But that's not the world we live in, and it never was.

People have always and will always be inclined to pay more for the things, and specific characteristics of things, that they want thus creating supply & demand which is a complete killshot of Marx's theory.

And that's just one tiny sliver of reason as to why Communism is terrible important mainly because of the fact that it occurred on page 1.

[Theodarzna]

I am no way educated in history as you are (as you've seen by my posts) but humans always wage war no matter what. For resources, peace of land or mere jealously no matter the politic system they employ, being theocratic, monarchic,tyrannic or democratic (at least the last part i know of it well, since i am Greek and our history is bloodied in the name of democracy).
The ending of the dark ages seemed to me like a bubble pop of all the things that happened in-between 5th to 18th century. But i might be wrong, I am a tech guy so most of my knowledge is on that field so i apologize if i say anything strange to your eyes

Not really,

The Plague IMHO had a greater impact on changing Europe than some philosopher, but also more aptly for Europe was the discovery and subsequent conquest of North and South America which then flooded Europe with a glut of resources that no other civilization prior had ever been able to claim. Never before had a single Kingdom or Empire been able to pull resources from land largely made empty by disease and simply possess it all.

To a great extent the things that ended was the rural, tribal and smaller Europe of the "Dark Ages," and a new age of powerful States, bigger armies, bigger wars and ideas did emerge that were different but not all of the ideas were good. Europe for sure become more sexist and misogynistic in the Renaissance/Enlightenment. Women actually enjoyed a much better standing before hand because in spite of Christianity, much of Europe was largely governed by ancient and largely pagan laws of the Germanic or Celtic tribes. The Renaissance also gave us Religious fundamentalism, Puritanism, the Absolute and Divine right of Kings, many gruesome wars of religions and Witch Burnings and Witch trials.

Most people think of the Renaissance as if it ended some age of Darkness and Ignorance, when really it was not like that at all.

- - - Updated - - -

our actions impact the environment and people we leave behind. Past behavior is a great predictor for future behavior. It would be up to society rather than an individual to value lives based on that critieria.

You can use this criteria for past and present lives.

The "but my sister" argument would purely be an emotional one on your end.

The argument is one that points out that humans will resist, often passionately, based on their emotions, the sort of cold Utilitarian logic you are espousing.

Sacrifice is easy in abstraction, <X, Y, or Z has to go for progress!>, It is a different matter when it is say Yourself that must go for the sake of progress.

[THE Bigzoman]

Not really,

The Plague IMHO had a greater impact on changing Europe than some philosopher, but also more aptly for Europe was the discovery and subsequent conquest of North and South America which then flooded Europe with a glut of resources that no other civilization prior had ever been able to claim. Never before had a single Kingdom or Empire been able to pull resources from land largely made empty by disease and simply possess it all.

To a great extent the things that ended was the rural, tribal and smaller Europe of the "Dark Ages," and a new age of powerful States, bigger armies, bigger wars and ideas did emerge that were different but not all of the ideas were good. Europe for sure become more sexist and misogynistic in the Renaissance/Enlightenment. Women actually enjoyed a much better standing before hand because in spite of Christianity, much of Europe was largely governed by ancient and largely pagan laws of the Germanic or Celtic tribes. The Renaissance also gave us Religious fundamentalism, Puritanism, the Absolute and Divine right of Kings, many gruesome wars of religions and Witch Burnings and Witch trials.

Most people think of the Renaissance as if it ended some age of Darkness and Ignorance, when really it was not like that at all.

- - - Updated - - -



The argument is one that points out that humans will resist, often passionately, based on their emotions, the sort of cold Utilitarian logic you are espousing.

Sacrifice is easy in abstraction, <X, Y, or Z has to go for progress!>, It is a different matter when it is say Yourself that must go for the sake of progress.

Ever see the SAW movies?

There's a really fucked scene where a guy has to choose who lives and who dies in a short and hectic period of time in a game involving a carousel and a primed shotgun.

For the record, I wouldn't want to be in the spot making that decision or a candidate on the chopping block. I just realize that there are moments where we have to TRY to be as objective as possible about some touchy topics.

[aposynthesis]

Not really,

The Plague IMHO had a greater impact on changing Europe than some philosopher, but also more aptly for Europe was the discovery and subsequent conquest of North and South America which then flooded Europe with a glut of resources that no other civilization prior had ever been able to claim. Never before had a single Kingdom or Empire been able to pull resources from land largely made empty by disease and simply possess it all.

To a great extent the things that ended was the rural, tribal and smaller Europe of the "Dark Ages," and a new age of powerful States, bigger armies, bigger wars and ideas did emerge that were different but not all of the ideas were good. Europe for sure become more sexist and misogynistic in the Renaissance/Enlightenment. Women actually enjoyed a much better standing before hand because in spite of Christianity, much of Europe was largely governed by ancient and largely pagan laws of the Germanic or Celtic tribes. The Renaissance also gave us Religious fundamentalism, Puritanism, the Absolute and Divine right of Kings, many gruesome wars of religions and Witch Burnings and Witch trials.

Most people think of the Renaissance as if it ended some age of Darkness and Ignorance, when really it was not like that at all.

- - - Updated - - -



The argument is one that points out that humans will resist, often passionately, based on their emotions, the sort of cold Utilitarian logic you are espousing.

Sacrifice is easy in abstraction, <X, Y, or Z has to go for progress!>, It is a different matter when it is say Yourself that must go for the sake of progress.

You are right on that. When i talked about dark ages i am mostly leaning towards the stall in science. People weren't persecuted if they studied or applied science back then?

The example of someone close to you was a good example. If i recall the self-sacrifices made in the name of progress are too few and some of them were accidents that later on glorified to not disappoint the people that believed in their work. People will not chose themselves cause of the self-surviving instinct that exists in every single organism.

[Powerogue]

Well that was a whole lot of nothing dressed up in flowery language. You could've probably summarized all that as "do you think progress can be relatively permanently attained, or is it inevitably going to wither and die as we go back to beating each other with sticks?" At least that's how I interpreted the rambling.

I say at the stage we're at now technological progress is going to remain fairly steady. At the least it probably won't go backwards. It'd certainly be a hell of a lot harder to do good old fashioned book burnings when the books are digital with backups upon backups. What I'm really worried about is societal regression that'll happen if we praise ignorance and condemn science as a society. It may seem crazy, but it's absolutely rampant here in the US, and I hope it doesn't get any worse.

[Theodarzna]

You are right on that. When i talked about dark ages i am mostly leaning towards the stall in science. People weren't persecuted if they studied or applied science back then?

The example of someone close to you was a good example. If i recall the self-sacrifices made in the name of progress are too few and some of them were accidents that later on glorified to not disappoint the people that believed in their work. People will not chose themselves cause of the self-surviving instinct that exists in every single organism.

Science really didn't "Stall," anymore than it had in previous areas. For the most part science had the slow problem, as in without a printing press to publish and release results for others, most science was done by monks and their discoveries tended to die with them. This was indeed the problem of the sciences for most of history, the attrition of loss. Because all information had to be transcribed by hand, and documents were fragile and making documents was expensive, it just wasn't done too much.

The major other problem for science was merely a different attitude towards the world.



The above gives somewhat of a popular version of what I would say. But in general science in the Middle Ages was not exactly darker than the classical world, it was just merely different. We live in an era that tries very hard to distinguish itself from the Medieval period, so the Medieval period is written off as an age of Darkness that we Emerged from, ignoring the many crazy shit that happened after the medieval period.

- - - Updated - - -

Ever see the SAW movies?

There's a really fucked scene where a guy has to choose who lives and who dies in a short and hectic period of time in a game involving a carousel and a primed shotgun.

For the record, I wouldn't want to be in the spot making that decision or a candidate on the chopping block. I just realize that there are moments where we have to TRY to be as objective as possible about some touchy topics.

Getting much more in-depth, I think the chasm between us is a question of what sort of sacrifices are acceptable. I argue that the only really moral sacrifice is a self-sacrifice. I.E. I am sacrificing for X, Y, or Z. Not, I am sacrificing YOU for X, Y, or Z.

For me, the payoff, the benefit, or even how many people benefit is purely irrelevant. The only factors that matter is who is sacrificing and who gains the greatest benefit and if those individuals are the same person.

I've never seen the SAW movies, while I do like Horror, I tend to like supernatural type horror, not just gore fests.

- - - Updated - - -

Well that was a whole lot of nothing dressed up in flowery language. You could've probably summarized all that as "do you think progress can be relatively permanently attained, or is it inevitably going to wither and die as we go back to beating each other with sticks?" At least that's how I interpreted the rambling.

I say at the stage we're at now technological progress is going to remain fairly steady. At the least it probably won't go backwards. It'd certainly be a hell of a lot harder to do good old fashioned book burnings when the books are digital with backups upon backups. What I'm really worried about is societal regression that'll happen if we praise ignorance and condemn science as a society. It may seem crazy, but it's absolutely rampant here in the US, and I hope it doesn't get any worse.

Science hasn't universally been a friend to Humanity. As the case of Eugenics clearly illustrates, science is a mixed bag.

[Damajin]

To quote the vastly under the radar yet titanically epic The Moon Lay Hidden Beneath A Cloud:

We are the chosen,
The mighty,
The pure,
We will build the new Jerusalem!

— Rest On Your Arms Reversed :: Untitled XII

Progress is a crusade and it's always going to be ugly and it's always going to trample people, despite whatever gains are made. In the modern day it encompasses no gains except technological ones. Society hasn't progressed in a long time and to my mind isn't worth the effort to push, it's doing just fine without the tug of war.

[Pterodactylus]

Science really didn't "Stall," anymore than it had in previous areas. For the most part science had the slow problem, as in without a printing press to publish and release results for others, most science was done by monks and their discoveries tended to die with them. This was indeed the problem of the sciences for most of history, the attrition of loss. Because all information had to be transcribed by hand, and documents were fragile and making documents was expensive, it just wasn't done too much.

Science was (and still is) expensive too, typically only done by wealthy folks, or folks sponsored by wealthy folks back then.

Science hasn't universally been a friend to Humanity. As the case of Eugenics clearly illustrates, science is a mixed bag.

Science is just a process and the body of knowledge gained from the process. Not friend of foe.

[Theodarzna]

Science was (and still is) expensive too, typically only done by wealthy folks, or folks sponsored by wealthy folks back then.

Science is just a process and the body of knowledge gained from the process. Not friend of foe.

I argue there is a considerable uptick in the cost of science now. Mainly that science today requires institutions, vast sums of money and usually interdisciplinary research teams. In the Middle Ages the problem of science was the survival and transmission of a discovery, discoveries were hard to transmit and did not travel far and often died with the discoverer.

Whereas in the 19th century many great discoveries were done basically by the lone wolf scholar or naturalist.

Basically the issue now is one of increased complexity and cost and increasingly niche usefulness.

I agree that science is not a friend or foe.

[Daelak]

And then each and every single time it was taken from concept to practice the result was death, destruction, war, injustice, death, strife, death, more war, more death, and of course death.

Its a failed concept and will always be a failed concept.

Its was a failure right from the start because the underlying economic principle behind Marx's labor equation was that everything should be valued based upon its pure production cost alone and nothing else.

But that's not the world we live in, and it never was.

People have always and will always be inclined to pay more for the things, and specific characteristics of things, that they want thus creating supply & demand which is a complete killshot of Marx's theory.

And that's just one tiny sliver of reason as to why Communism is terrible important mainly because of the fact that it occurred on page 1.

The hilarious irony in your posts regarding communism, not only because they literally sound like shit from the 50's, is that through all your huffing and puffing, the realization and dissolution of nation-states is becoming more apparent. Cultures, values are mixing, our global economy is now more dependent on each other than it has ever have before. Communist theory was based upon a voluntary agreement to remove all sovereignty lines and private property. The 21st century is definitely the century that will usher in a new form of economic system that actually accounts for the true environmental and human cost of goods and services with or without your elementary protestations because you are wholly indoctrinated to the manufactured bullshit of ideologues.

[PC2]

The hilarious irony in your posts regarding communism, not only because they literally sound like shit from the 50's, is that through all your huffing and puffing, the realization and dissolution of nation-states is becoming more apparent. Cultures, values are mixing, our global economy is now more dependent on each other than it has ever have before. Communist theory was based upon a voluntary agreement to remove all sovereignty lines and private property. The 21st century is definitely the century that will usher in a new form of economic system that actually accounts for the true environmental and human cost of goods and services with or without your elementary protestations because you are wholly indoctrinated to the manufactured bullshit of ideologues.

Both nation states and capitalistic organizations are doing better than ever. The idea that they are going away isn't backed by any real metrics.

[Saphyron]

I came here expecting a discussion on raiding. I was disappointed.