[Demut]

Let’s not forget that the awareness which demonstrations raise is quite important. How are you going to solve problems in a democratic system if the sovereign, that is, the people, doesn’t know about them? Just compare the average person’s view on capitalism and banks in particular tens years ago with the one now. The difference between the two exists in no small part to activism, I believe. Sure, it’s not enough to call it an awakening of the sheeple or anything but it’s a start.

[Veleda]

Demut said:

Let’s not forget that the awareness which demonstrations raise is quite important. How are you going to solve problems in a democratic system if the sovereign, that is, the people, doesn’t know about them? Just compare the average person’s view on capitalism and banks in particular tens years ago with the one now. The difference between the two exists in no small part to activism, I believe. Sure, it’s not enough to call it an awakening of the sheeple or anything but it’s a start. ›››

I think you're over-estimating the degree that people notice or care, outside tumblr and college campuses.

[Veleda]

KnightofPhoenix said:

It's an organized citizenry that is informed and active that powers respond to. Not someone who doesn't do anything except determining what's important for their own lives all by themselves....as if they gave a fuck. ›››

Go on believing that if it makes you feel better. FWIW I appreciated the statement in your blog post to do what you do "with joy."

[KnightofPhoenix]

Veleda said:

Go on believing that if it makes you feel better. ›››

Yea I expected that kind of comment.
I won't only believe, I will act

[Demut]

Veleda said:

I think you're over-estimating the degree that people notice or care, outside tumblr and college campuses.

No, I don’t think I do considering I was thinking of people outside of my age group when I wrote this post (like my parents, their friends or my coworkers at the job where I had a one-year-internship). You know, middle-aged people with secure jobs who are usually politically apathetic.

[Costin Moroianu]

KnightofPhoenix said:

Yea I expected that kind of comment.
I won't only believe, I will act /> ›››

"And the world shall tremble with his footsteps."

[gregski]

[KnightofPhoenix]

Already linked it Gregski.

I am not interested in the planet being saved. I'm interested in humanity not destroying itself.

[Pangaea]

Veleda said:

It's not vastly different. The rich still control the political system. Democracy is an illusion, propped up by the relative wealth that technology has allowed a few countries to accumulate. If the wealth goes, by natural means or simply by collapsing in on itself, the system will crumble like a house of cards.

Not to be too cheerful or anything. ›››

This was on page 2 and I've not read the rest yet. However...

On this point I agree with you, sort of. The world IS very different now than during the feudal era for example, but the central core in how the world works isn't very different, as you say. Rich people still largely do as they want over the (often silent) objections of the majority, and certainly over their interests. But we have gone miles in the right direction, which was my point.

Regarding what Vinterberg said too, what often happen is that in "rich" countries people have it relatively well, for the most part. So they won't go out on the street in hordes to overthrow the government or fight this or that cause. But if you live in a society that is truly repressive you have much more reason to do so. It's one thing to not having privacy any more due to the highly dodgy practices of corporations like Google or Facebook, or government surveillance. It's quite something different if the government is storming into your house because you said something bad about somebody in the government that one time when drunk. Just an example.

There are a lot of things that can be drastically improved in so-called rich societies too, but "we" DO have it better than the large majority of the world, at least in material terms, and we have much better tools to use when fighting injustice. The latter doesn't happen as often as I would prefer, but the tools are mostly there and it's relatively safe. To put it mildly, it's a lot more risky to fight injustice (especially if you happen to be in the minority) if you live in Congo, India, Sri Lanka, North Korea, Indonesia, Palestine/Israel, Western Sahara, Juarez (Mexico), Colombia - and so forth and so forth. We shouldn't forget that although the government at times are utter cunts in places like the US, UK, Norway, Germany, whatever, it's on a rather different scale than governments, corporations and "rebels" (for lack of a better word) in the other countries mentioned.

So yes, although the central core in how the world works is much the same as during the Middle Ages for example, it has changed a lot as well. Crucially, much of this change is down to various forms of public struggles.

[Vinterberg]

Pangaea said:

We shouldn't forget that although the government at times are utter cunts in places like the US, UK, Norway, Germany, whatever, it's on a rather different scale than governments, corporations and "rebels" (for lack of a better word) in the other countries mentioned. ›››

One side enslaves people through orchestrated lies, the other forces it upon their population.
I often get the feeling that the things we see in the media is a well thought-out movie: USA puppetmasters supporting the very same terrorists they end up later on going on a crusade to eliminate in the name of the "Greater Good", all the things EU control (more and more) in every country who's a part of it (first step: unite Europe, then Canada+USA+Mexico - one day we're all citizens of the same country, and where do we turn for help by then??).

People often says to me: "Yeah sometimes you have hard times, but remember the poor people in Africa - now SMILE!" - it's like saying that only the poorest people on this planet has any right to complain about anything, and that the rest should just smile and be thankful for the demonic system we got pulled down over our heads.

[Pangaea]

We certainly shouldn't be happy about the parts of the world or our nation that still suck, but it is more understandable why people tend to protest more heavily in poorer parts of the world than in the USA or Western Europe: they have it worse, often a lot worse.

That's not to say people don't have it bad in those countries, of course they do, people are getting kicked out on the street because the financial industry made colossal mistakes due to greed and de-regulation for example. We should always strive to improve our societies, and that's kind of what I'm getting at here. Things *have* improved a lot over the last decades and centuries, and that isn't something we should ignore. There are many other things that aren't so good, and those we should try to make better. We do live in a markedly different world than 500 years ago, however, and a lot of that is because of protests, activism and sometimes outright violence (rebellion etc) from generally speaking "the masses". Usually it's the "leaders" of such change we remember, the Rosa Parks, the Martin Luther Kings, the Nelson Mandela, the Gandhis. But none of these people could have gotten anywhere if there wasn't a huge mass of people who wanted exactly the same, who believed in the same cause, and who fought for the same cause, sometimes even with violence. Resourceful people can get a lot of stuff done on a relatively individual basis, off the top of my head Ralph Nader for example. but usually you need some type of mass support to get the kind of change we have seen in South Africa, USA, India, etc. Or more lately the Middle East, though that is still a train very much in motion.

[Veleda]

Pangaea said:

This was on page 2 and I've not read the rest yet. However...

On this point I agree with you, sort of. The world IS very different now than during the feudal era for example, but the central core in how the world works isn't very different, as you say. Rich people still largely do as they want over the (often silent) objections of the majority, and certainly over their interests. But we have gone miles in the right direction, which was my point.

I disagree. Enlightenment philosophy reinforces a view of history as being linear, with steady progress toward some golden age, but I reject that model. Don't see it myself, and I consider it vanity (the usual "we're better than everyone else" bias). At best, we have different issues than our ancestors faced, but modernity has brought with it some pretty harrowing developments as well.

[grregg]

Veleda said:

I disagree. Enlightenment philosophy reinforces a view of history as being linear, with steady progress toward some golden age, but I reject that model. Don't see it myself, and I consider it vanity (the usual "we're better than everyone else" bias). At best, we have different issues than our ancestors faced, but modernity has brought with it some pretty harrowing developments as well. ›››

Not to say that modernity isn't faced with its own set of problems, but the ones we face seem pretty minor compared to what people had to deal with in the past.

To name just a few, starvation is not really an insolvable issue, a lot of diseases are under control, the levels of violence have plummeted. Somehow I think that if you asked someone couple of hundred years ago whether he prefers starvation or a risk of diabetes on account of bad diet, he'll go for diabetes. Sure, there are a couple of failed states where things are as they used to be, but for the most of humanity these are the safest times ever.

[Pangaea]

Thanks grregg, that's the type of development that I'm getting at here. Other types of problems have popped up, but as bad as they are, the society we live in is, let's say, less lethal than the ones people have endured in the past, especially if we go *way* back.

This discussion reminds me of the "forests and trees" saying.

[Veleda]

grregg said:

Not to say that modernity isn't faced with its own set of problems, but the ones we face seem pretty minor compared to what people had to deal with in the past.

To name just a few, starvation is not really an insolvable issue, a lot of diseases are under control, the levels of violence have plummeted. Somehow I think that if you asked someone couple of hundred years ago whether he prefers starvation or a risk of diabetes on account of bad diet, he'll go for diabetes. Sure, there are a couple of failed states where things are as they used to be, but for the most of humanity these are the safest times ever. ›››

Actually IMO modern society is more violent, and the scale on which violence can be perpetrated would be unimaginable to our ancestors. We have stabilized food supply, but there is tremendous vulnerability in having so many people dependent on food produced commercially far from where they live. Modern medicine has extended lifespans and does ease suffering, but technology is creating new diseases. You mention diabetes but that is hardly the only chronic illness that seems to be rising with time.

This is off topic, but maybe it relates in that people seem to take for granted that change is always a good thing. Giving credit where it's due, though, some of the "green" movement does strike me as recovering practices of the past which modern people discarded. Burning waste for fuel is hardly a new idea, after all. I wouldn't be against it if it comes about through entrepreneurs actually making it work better than dirtier alternatives.

[grregg]

Veleda said:

Actually IMO modern society is more violent, and the scale on which violence can be perpetrated would be unimaginable to our ancestors. We have stabilized food supply, but there is tremendous vulnerability in having so many people dependent on food produced commercially far from where they live. Modern medicine has extended lifespans and does ease suffering, but technology is creating new diseases. You mention diabetes but that is hardly the only chronic illness that seems to be rising with time.

This is off topic, but maybe it relates in that people seem to take for granted that change is always a good thing. Giving credit where it's due, though, some of the "green" movement does strike me as recovering practices of the past which modern people discarded. Burning waste for fuel is hardly a new idea, after all. I wouldn't be against it if it comes about through entrepreneurs actually making it work better than dirtier alternatives. ›››

Well, instead of opinions I'd rather look at numbers. And the numbers tell quite a different story.

Yes, if you take the absolute number of, say, deaths, it's increasing, but you have to keep in mind that the populations have skyrocketed. When you take a look at violence rates adjusted per population, we are living in pretty safe times. Western Europe in particular is most likely the safest place humanity has ever known. And yes, this includes some primitive tribes hacking their living out in Amazon forests and such. It might be hard to believe but they do tend to commit more murders (per capita) then New Yorkers do. It's the same with historical data, when the historians started compiling murder statistics from ages past, everyone was surprised at what they found. Not only the rates of violence didn't increase, they plummeted. Just one example, there were 110 homicides per 100000 people in 14th century Oxford. For comparison, recently London has been hovering around 2 homicides per 100000. That's not a decline, that's 50 times decrease.

As a side note, it is a hard question what is better, 50 people dying out of a population of 100 or 500 dying out of 10 million. Still, the population-adjusted rate tells you one important thing namely how likely you are to be murdered. To use the above example, if you lived in Oxford in 1509, you were 50 times more likely to end up with your throat slit as if you lived in London in 2009.

So if I can turn your pet peeve around, people always complain how things used to be better, but that's mostly nostalgia (or as it has been described "historical myopia"). Actually humanity has a pretty decent track record on solving its problems and on the whole "progress" thing.

[Vinterberg]

grregg said:

Actually humanity has a pretty decent track record on solving its problems and on the whole "progress" thing. ›››

- and replace them with other problems, which is more accepted because of the shady business practices of governments!

Just because we don't die in droves anymore doesn't mean we got a better way of living.

Before people knew they were opressed and subdued, today we're living on the illusion that we are free - what's best: knowing how your live is restrained, or going through life blindfolded?
The majority of the world population doesn't realize how it all works, because it's a intertwined network of lies and coverups, and too complex for most people to look seriously into.
So should they just be happy to be able to buy all sort of "progress"-stuff, because we are safer today than ever before?
I don't think that human suffering can only be measured through how long we live, and how many of us is spared because of crimes, war etc. It should also be measured on our personal freedom - which hasn't improved one bit!

What choice do we have when we're born into this world?
1) Educate yourself in masses, no individualism here.
2) Use that education to get a job.
3) Retire, and hope that your government will look after you when you can't yourself any longer.
4) Die.
It's voluntary slavery, and I say this because: what choice do we have? If a person wants out of this madness, where could (s)he go? Which land could (s)he live in without limiting him/herself because of laws, regulations, owned property, wildlife preservation etc.?
No where!
So for most people it's: "deal with it, you got no choice if you want food and shelter!"

Is that freedom?
Is it fair that because the majority is fine with living like blind slaves, everybody else must also bend over for the greater good?
Where's the alternative for those people???

We try so very hard these days to respect things like people's religions and beliefs, often to the point that we change our countries ways of living so they can feel welcome too. How much has changed to support the people who don't want this kind of life, people who don't want to participate in a restricted society?
Do we have a country set aside for people who "wants out"? - Nope. "Go to work, you lazy-ass people, like the rest of us!!"

That's not progress.

[Veleda]

Those medieval murder statistics are very suspect. Other historians who have used more realistic population numbers say that the murder rates in medieval London were the same as a small American city.

I'm not saying things were better in the past. Just that the "glorious modern age" isn't that glorious.

[grregg]

@Veleda

That's interesting, the results that I quoted are not from just a single study. Gurr started the research in the 80s, but afterwards Cockburn, Eisner, Johnson, Monkkonen and Spierenburg pretty much confirmed it. And pretty much the same decline seems to hold for most Europe (and possibly other places as well, but the data are sketchy).

So can you point me to the study you mention? I would really like to compare the results.

@Vinterburg

That's all very dramatic, but are those serious questions? It seems to me that you are bemoaning the fact that not everybody is like you. Yes, it's very likely that the majority of people would rather have an average "standard" life than engage in deep soul searching about the meaning of life and such. And if I may ask who are you to tell them they are wrong? They have made their choice, why not respect it?

As for the other things, not sure if I understand. We're more free today than pretty much any other time in history. People were incredibly restrained by their societies. They didn't have a choice of what they want to do for a living, where they want to live, who they want to marry, what god to worship, etc. All these freedoms that we take for granted. Unless of course you compare yourself to the likes of Genghis Khan or Augustus, but they were pretty unique.

Just an example of unfree people were, Rummel (Death by Government, 1994) cites cases of people being executed for things like criticizing the royal garden or talking back to one's parents. In England in 1822 (which is not exactly an ancient history) there were 222 capital offenses on the books, you could get a death penalty for cutting down a tree. Forgive me, but it seems that nowadays we have less severe penalties for not obeying rules.

And that's progress.

[Vinterberg]

grregg said:

@Vinterburg

That's all very dramatic, but are those serious questions? It seems to me that you are bemoaning the fact that not everybody is like you. Yes, it's very likely that the majority of people would rather have an average "standard" life than engage in deep soul searching about the meaning of life and such. And if I may ask who are you to tell them they are wrong? They have made their choice, why not respect it? ›››

Very serious questions.
Let me ask you this then: does the majority respect people like me (respect as in "here's a place for you to live the way you want without being pulled into our way of living", not in "you're allowed to have your opinion")? No. Do they tell people like me that I'm wrong in my wishes for my life? Yes. I've heard all the arguments in favor of this society, been called lazy and what not - not one person has said "you're right, there should be an alternative!".

And I can't respect people for that choice, when it's not a choice at all, but the only viable way of living in this world.
Who are they to tell me that I'm wrong? But I guess that's okay, because they're the majority and thus defines what's sane and what's insane, what's accepted and what's not, what's right and what's wrong.