TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- are we nearing a standstill?

are we nearing a standstill?

Ever since the middle ages the civilization, and especially the western one, has shown continuous and ever-increasing growth, both in science and technology as well as in industry. The benefits of such growth are immeasurable, since things we have now would seem magical and unbelievable only a hundred yars ago.

Such growth was never seen before in history, not even in the most advanced and organized societies of the past. The difference between the Roman empire, the ancient Greece, the Phoenicians, etc. was only marginal from the technological-industrial point of view, that difference was measurable only in military and economic might. Even worse were the middle ages, where the difference between 500AD and 1000AD was only visible on calendar and political maps of Europe. But since then, the civilization began its expansion at almost exponential rate. Population of the world increased thousands of times, science advanced in fields of medicine, physics, engeneering and many other areas to the levels previously unimaginable, technologies like steam engine, railroads, etc became available, thousands of factories were constructed, and such growth eventually brought us to where we are now.

What were the reasons for such growth? I think the answer to that is competition. Europe had and still has many countries, and the best ways those countries could have achieved supremacy over their neighbours was to pursue technological advance. That sort of competition brought with it a new way of thinking, mainly scientific thinking which attempted to pursue knowledge, to perform experiments and to research the environment in order to both make the nation stronger and to improve life for it's people. Unlike the western countries, the eastern ones never developed such way of thinking until recently, while some didn't develop it at all and the results are obvious. Baghdad was once the center of the world, the chinese had technologies like printing press and gunpowder even prior to 1400AD of which the mostly rural and undeveloped europe could only dream about. But while the muslim world fell into the religious fundamentalism trap, the far east fell into overpraising their elders and their achievments. Both of those philosophies led to a standstill which enabled primitive and uneducated europeans to gain world dominance.

That competition which enabled european countries to de facto become rulers of the world was soon either adopted by other countries like Japan and more recently China, or was resisted and led their civilizations either to a total decline or to the ultimate loss of sovereignity which lasted only until the most recent days. Even after Europe screwed itself up with the first and second world war, that spirit of competition was still active between the USA and the CCCP. The cold war, while having many negative side effects, was one of the best things that could happen to humanity, imo, because it pursued the two sides to continuously attempt to improve themselves in any way possible without declaring a war on each other which could have erased many of the new inventions achieved. The nuclear weapons were, ironically, the safeguards of that peace, because neither of the two sides wanted to engage in an open war which would surely mean the demise of both sides. Such a war would very likely have broken out earlier in history, but now the only way to achieve supremacy was through technology. Such a situation led to grand projects, culminating with the Apollo mission and the human landing on the Moon. Back in the sixties, landing on Mars or establishing permanent bases on the moon seemed like near future. Much nearer than it is now, as the soonest possible date for a human Mars landing is somwhere around 2029.

After the 1990 and the demise of the Soviet Union (my praises to Gorbachov who managed to screw up the world's second power and is now forgotten by everybody and is making a living by recording commercials for Pizza Hut and McDonalds) the situation changed dramatically. The US was the only superpower left and as such had no more need to compete as no other country was nowhere near it's might, economical, technological, scientific, whichever you want. In such a situation, a country is no longer forced to push new technologies and development, as a threat which could be combatted by such a persuasion doesn't exist. The population of the world is no longer interested in such achievments either, because the only short-term effects of those projects are draining money from their pockets through increased tax spending. Scientific development is therefore no longer directed to the persuasion of the goals that are a benefit for the whole of mankind, but is rather directed to improve lives of individuals, as that is the only thing that pays off. Many great government projects are abandoned at the benefit of small industry. The amount of engineers dedicated to the study of telecomunications and consumer electronics is increased at the cost of those studying power generation, engines and physics. Actually the number of engeneers and scientists as a whole is decreased as a trade-off for the increase of population dedicated to economy, arts and similar subjects. Most colleges and universities, as well as schools are becomming less and less demanding, as the need for knowledge is not nearly as great as it was 15 years ago. That leads to the lower quality of the technical engeneers and scientists specialized in fundamental sciences, as an addition to the fact those are already in smaller numbers than they used to be. Considering such a situation, an unfortunate accidents like the disaster of the Space shuttle or the fall of the Concorde couldn't have come at a worse time.

Many world trends are showing that progress outside of consumer industries is not only slowing down, but is actually regressing. Here are a few examples:

1. The backing away from nuclear power, closing down old nuclear power plants without opening new ones, and resorting back to fossil fuels for power output

2. The evergoing decrease of funds for NASA and RSA, which makes another Apollo-like mission a dream for distant future

3. The final cancellation of all the flights by Concorde, the only supersonic passanger airplane

4. The ever-decreasing amount of knowledge being transferred to students, regardless of the increased amount of government spending for education

5. The population decrease in many industrial countries, where an average family currently has between 1.5 and 2 children, and that number keeps getting smaller and smaller.

6. The fact that the fundamental and religious elements in the society are lately becoming stronger and stronger, while faith in rational and scientific way of thinking is gradually becomming less and less popular.

7. The moratory on all Space Shuttle flights.

I hope that such a slowdown will not lead to the long term halt, because although many countries are following the current trends, there is one country that is not, and that country is China. So far China is progressing at an amazing pace and is constructing large projects like the Three Gorges dam and sending a man to space with the ultimate goal of having permanent bases on Moon and Mars, projects most other countries either abandoned or have never even considered. Maybe when China achieves a level of technological sophistication close to that of the US, will the US and other countries be pushed to renew great projects that have marked the past century.

Anyway, if you bothered with reading all this, feel free to comment on my opinions

Right now I'm in a weird state of semi-drunkeness and Aspirin overdose, but this stuff looks interesting. Remind me to get back to it

as some others said before

"history stopped"

the solution is.....balance

Nice, I love it. This is why it is scary to think of what the world would be like if it was just one big, free-trading capitalist society. Now, I love capitalism, don't get me wrong, but everyone has to realize that it is not perfect. The system is fueled by one drive: money. Anything that doesn't make money or create new "investment opportunities" is ignored, then. Who would invest in anything only to lose their money?? The problem is, many activities that are beneficial to human nature are not profitable. While capitalists fuel the economy, the government assumes the roll of looking after the general wellfare of the people, and supporting non-profitable programs.

As the capitalists get more and more powerful, and the government gets weaker and weaker, there will be no balance between making money and looking out for other beneficial, but not profitable endeavours. Look at America, the richest country in the world. But look at our inner cities and public schools. The inner cities of America are some of the most dangerous peacetime places on earth. And our public education system is well below par.

When the government gets too powerful, there will be little focus on economic growth, and the quality of life will suffer as well. Just look at the state of Iraq. No economic growth, but an immense government(well, not anymore).

The solution is to have a balance of powers between business and government, and not to have them in bed together. I fear for the future of America in this respect.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek as some others said before "history stopped"

quote:

History is written by those who have hanged heroes.

Hmmm yes I guess Himmler, Heinrich, Goebbels, and whoever else were heroes.

you are hysterical.

I know

i think countries and humanity as a whole can only progress as far as the next generation of men and women are able to take it. unfortunately, in many countries, the education systems are becoming more and more screwed each year. class's are too crowded, there arent enough specialised teachers going around. if the next generation of people who will rule and inherit the earth lack a quality education, then it can only mean regression. if they are not taught how to utilise their imagination, if they are not taught the proper technical skills to breathe life to their ideas, and if they are not properly supported by the governments in research and development, then this world is going nowhere fast.

the problem exists because a politician wants to be re-elected and supporting an idea that possibly wont see results in a timeframe 5-10-20 years, doesnt win them brownie points with the voters for re-election in the next year.

Don't worry, we'll all be wearing clothes made from a pseudo nylon foam and recieving all of our days nutrition through a single red pill soon enough.

Seriously dude, what the fuck kind of shit is that?
Lay the fuck off the qualudes next time.
Shit.

From a macrohistorical perspective, I've long argued that long-term trends of increasing regressivism (typically, but not always, associated with populism) and progressivism (typically associated with libertarianism) ultimately exhibit a cyclical nature - that is to say, while over a period of one or two hundred years one might observe a seemingly unidirectional movement in the direction of one extreme, that inevitably it will eventually swing so far in that direction that it will evoke a change in typical attitudes, reversing the direction and bringing about another long-term cycle.

These long-term cycles can be as short as 30-50 years, but can also be as long as several hundred years. They can also be strictly regional phenomena or in other cases be very widespread - though I suspect the modern trend of globalization will tend to increase the tendency of such cycles to manifest themselves globally.

I personally have always tried to define the forces behind these movements in term of two basic and opposed human instincts - the "coward" instinct (self-preservation) and the "explorer" instinct (curiosity). Competition, you are right, plays an important role in furthering the explorer instinct, because it makes discovery and innovation more crucial to our own self-preservation, thereby allowing both instincts to work together (to a degree).

So, while I would agree that we are presently exhibiting a high degree of regressivism, I don't think we ought to be excessively concerned that this is a permanent or irreversible phenomenon. In fact, I suspect its eventual reversal is an inevitability. Unfortunately, in the meantime, there is likely to be a significant slowdown in the advancement of science and quite possibly a regression in areas of civil liberties as well (this appears to already be manifesting itself in the United States, and I wouldn't be surprised if it spread to other western nations over the next twenty years or so).

In any case, great topic.

Cheers,

Arbiter

I too agree that the progression/regression exhibits a sort of irregular cyclical nature, as everything else in this world. For one positive extreme there must be a counterbalancing negative extreme, otherwise that positive extreme is undefined in relation to everything else.

But the problem is not so much whether progress is being replaced by regression, as such a matter is inevitable, the problem is how long that regression will last. And the only force that can alter the longevity of that period is the government. Now, you stated the coward vs. explorer struggle. While such a struggle is the driving force behind discoveries, a lone explorer in a society of cowards can do nothing. The times when a single explorer is able to achieve something of importance are slowly becomming history. Every major scientific or industrial project involves hundreds if not more highly qualified workers, or explorers as you might say. But for such projects good will of the explorers is not enough. A good group of scientists can think of a way to send a man to Mars, but without billions of dollars from the general population directed into actual materialization of their ideas, those ideas are just blueprints on the paper, waiting for better times to come when they can reveal and present themselves.

A government that has the rulership period of 5 years, a government which is concerened only by matters that take place during that time, as only that short period is relevant to their long-term succes, is not a good long-term solution unless outside forces push it to think ahead. Currently no outside forces exist, and until such a force appears, we are bound to limited progress or even regression.

Yet another problem is the influence of society on the individual. In a society of cowards, explorers are a very rare occurance, as they are being taught from their childhood not to question the established hierarchy of things. Also, we must realize that, regardless of the society, being a coward is much easier than being an explorer. A coward can always bend over while a person who stands for something he/she belives is either on the top or the bottom of the society. It's easier to be a coward from intelectual point of view as well, since utilizing one's brain to the greatest extent possible is a process which can often be exhausting. Children are especially vulnerable to such a trap, because they don't see their intelligence is as important as it is, as well as they can't fully comprehend long term consequences of their actions. That combined with an educational system which allows a person very early in its development to choose the subjects it wants to listen to makes a large amount of them decide to go with the flow. Easier and generally less demanding social sciences therefore attract more and more followers, while harder and lately mainly unsupported engeneering sciences are becomming depleted of their students. This new popularity of already easier courses makes it even more attractive for children to follow those paths.

Basically, you could say that a society that is not pushed by a threat from the outside can very easily become self-centered and decadent. It happened to Rome, it happened to China, but I hope it won't happen again anytime soon, although some indications exist that such a process has already begun.

Indeed a great topic!

oh and a great response from Arbiter there. I totally agree with that

Re: are we nearing a standstill?

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 ... Many world trends are showing that progress outside of consumer industries is not only slowing down, but is actually regressing. Here are a few examples: 1. The backing away from nuclear power, closing down old nuclear power plants without opening new ones, and resorting back to fossil fuels for power output

Nuclear power was a byproduct of the Cold War. It does seem that it is being disregarded (some would argue for very good reason) but that does not mean that there is no research into other methods that may be more ecologically sound, whilst being not cost effective as of yet. It comes down to money, and while fossil fuels are polluting and limited, they are still cheap. Capitalist won(?) remember?

quote:

2. The evergoing decrease of funds for NASA and RSA, which makes another Apollo-like mission a dream for distant future

Yes, this is disturbing and it is somewhat of a problem. But then again, along with the moratory on Shuttle flights, it is because all advances in space technology were made quickly during the Cold War without much regard for long term practicality. That is why the shuttle has seen disaster, and focus on more economical and safer craft is underway - but as you said somewhat hindered by less and less funding.

quote:

3. The final cancellation of all the flights by Concorde, the only supersonic passanger airplane

Well, for your arguement that science should help everyone and not the individual - this is the exact opposite. The concorde *was* only for the rich few. It was expensive, wasteful and highly polluting. Supersonic travel may be a goal for the future, but the Concorde was not the ideal.

quote:

4. The ever-decreasing amount of knowledge being transferred to students, regardless of the increased amount of government spending for education

I dont know if this means fewer people are getting upper level education, or that governments are hoarding info. I think both could be argued, but I believe that more people than ever are getting quality eduacations - look at China.

quote:

5. The population decrease in many industrial countries, where an average family currently has between 1.5 and 2 children, and that number keeps getting smaller and smaller.

Yes, a big problem within Old Europe especially. I feel this is cyclical like Arbiter argued. From a nationalist or cultural standpoint this could be *bad* but at the same time it is creating new pathways of migration from other areas. Which could prove more valuable in the long run.

quote:

6. The fact that the fundamental and religious elements in the society are lately becoming stronger and stronger, while faith in rational and scientific way of thinking is gradually becomming less and less popular.

Hmm. Well after the 30yrs War in the 1640s, the split of religion from politics was what ushered in the success of Western industry, government and thinking. With the increasingly globalized economy we see more of a clash of cultures. Fundamentalism may be apparently increasing, but that is only because people of various ethnicities have chosen to see themselves this way due to outside, pressures. This is most noticeable in the Mid East and some cultures in the Caucasus Mtns as they have organized their societies much differently from Western ones.

quote:

7. The moratory on all Space Shuttle flights. ...

7- see above.


arguing that government is the problem with our current state of affairs is somewhat strange. after all we wouldnt be here right now if it wasnt for govt, we would be here today|

Re: Re: are we nearing a standstill?

quote:

Originally posted by biznology Nuclear power was a byproduct of the Cold War. It does seem that it is being disregarded (some would argue for very good reason) but that does not mean that there is no research into other methods that may be more ecologically sound, whilst being not cost effective as of yet. It comes down to money, and while fossil fuels are polluting and limited, they are still cheap. Capitalist won(?) remember?

Nuclear power is cheapest regular sorce of power. And as far as security goes, nuclear power plants are generally safer than regular ones. Here's some info on major power plant disasters:
Hydroelectric:
1963, Italy, 1900 dead
1967, Italy, 180 dead
1972, USA, 240 dead
1979, India, more than 2500 dead
1980, India, 1000 dead

Coal mines accidents: 62 in total, 200 victims on average

Oil extraction accidents: 6 platforms, 30 victims per each, 15 pipes breaking and catching on fire, 25 victims per each, 42 transportation accidents, 50 victims per each.

Gas power plants accidents: 24 explosions, 80 victims per each.

Nuclear power plant accidents: Chernobil, 30 dead (1 from the hydrogen explosion, 1 from heart attack, 1 from the fire, 27 dead firemen who didn't know how to put out that sort of fire in a right way)

Other power sources than the ones mentioned above are either insufficient (wind power, solar power) or yet undeveloped (fusion power)

quote:

Yes, this is disturbing and it is somewhat of a problem. But then again, along with the moratory on Shuttle flights, it is because all advances in space technology were made quickly during the Cold War without much regard for long term practicality. That is why the shuttle has seen disaster, and focus on more economical and safer craft is underway - but as you said somewhat hindered by less and less funding.

If something is not profitable in the short run, it doesn't mean it won't bring long term benefits.

quote:

Well, for your arguement that science should help everyone and not the individual - this is the exact opposite. The concorde *was* only for the rich few. It was expensive, wasteful and highly polluting. Supersonic travel may be a goal for the future, but the Concorde was not the ideal.

Yes, concorde had its flaws. But instead of completely shutting down the project, those flaws should have been corrected in order to bring a new, cheaper and better version of the supersonic airliner.

quote:

I dont know if this means fewer people are getting upper level education, or that governments are hoarding info. I think both could be argued, but I believe that more people than ever are getting quality eduacations - look at China.

More people are getting upper level education, but the amount of information they gain through that education is decreased.

quote:

Yes, a big problem within Old Europe especially. I feel this is cyclical like Arbiter argued. From a nationalist or cultural standpoint this could be *bad* but at the same time it is creating new pathways of migration from other areas. Which could prove more valuable in the long run.

It's the problem for old europe now. But in the very near future it could be a problem for the whole world. Population growth in every single country is decreasing. In the next 50 or so years, the developing countries will still have positive population growth, but after that time, they too will have the same problem old Europe has.

quote:

Hmm. Well after the 30yrs War in the 1640s, the split of religion from politics was what ushered in the success of Western industry, government and thinking. With the increasingly globalized economy we see more of a clash of cultures. Fundamentalism may be apparently increasing, but that is only because people of various ethnicities have chosen to see themselves this way due to outside, pressures. This is most noticeable in the Mid East and some cultures in the Caucasus Mtns as they have organized their societies much differently from Western ones.

Let's hope it is just a temporary increase.

quote:

arguing that government is the problem with our current state of affairs is somewhat strange. after all we wouldnt be here right now if it wasnt for govt, we would be here today|

I am not against the government, as such an organization is needed in order to organize any nation. But if such an organization is weak or inefficient, the whole nation suffers greatly.

quote:

I too agree that the progression/regression exhibits a sort of irregular cyclical nature, as everything else in this world. For one positive extreme there must be a counterbalancing negative extreme, otherwise that positive extreme is undefined in relation to everything else.

I know I keep on bringing it up, but honestly, everything comes back to Hegel!

Take any coherent ideology in the world today, and it originally began as an antithetical movement to the dominant ideologies of the day. American laissez-faire libertarianism began as an antithesis to English oppression. European socialism began as an antithesis to the inequitable, Pre-WW1 class system that existed there. Liberalism began as an antithesis to strict religious and social ettiquette, particularly of the Victorian variety. Neo-liberal capitalism began as an antithesis to Marxist communism and Marxism itself began as an antithesis to the days of pre-regulated Industrial capitalism. Seriously, give me any cause and enough time to do some research and I'll tell you how it began as a highly polarised antithesis to a popular ideology of the day. And this isn't a static process either - it doesn't just swing suddenly back from one ideology to another in the blink of an eye, it's a constant "synthesis" (the result of the dialectical process) of ideas and polarisation of said ideals. I think that's why it's possible to see things as constantly swinging between "progression" and "regression" and why it has forever been impossible for one single ideology to regin supreme without the need to change. In politics, you can't step into the same river twice.

Hegel aside though, I'm struggling to think of anyone else who has come up with a law of "history", which is quite suprising when you consider how cyclical history is, as some of you have already mentioned. Surely someone has been able to identify a general pattern of history over the years that I just haven't come across?

Does anyone agree with me the statement that, if the whole history of politics and civilization can be summarised in a general direction, it is towards the simultaneous recognition of the sanctity of the individual and the equality of all individuals?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.