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|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

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.

___________________
1+1=10

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?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/