The evils of the past

[Cyborg Girl]

Here's a conspiracy theory that was once wildly popular in Europe. It has antisemitism, Islamophobia, and a weird kind of violent ableism topping it off:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1321_leper_scare

Next time someone starts talking about going back to Nature and how Ted Kaczinsky was right all along, please do humanity a favor and link them to that article.

Seriously though, as bad as the modern world is, it often alarms me how much worse the bulk of human history has been.

[SciFi Chick]

Seriously though, as bad as the modern world is, it often alarms me how much worse the bulk of human history has been.

Why does that alarm you? It's proof that things are actually getting better over time.

[Cyborg Girl]

Mostly because a large number of people these days seem fixated on how evil technology is, and how much better things were of old. At one point I fell into that pattern, too. It's an attractive meme, and extremely dangerous IMO.

[Rommie]

Mostly because a large number of people these days seem fixated on how evil technology is, and how much better things were of old. At one point I fell into that pattern, too. It's an attractive meme, and extremely dangerous IMO.

I honestly think that is also just something that's been going on since time immemorial. No really, I read somewhere that psychologically people think things were the most "right" with society during their teenage years, ie when they first really start paying attention to the world around them as adults, which makes sense. So when people harp back to the good ol' days in the 50s when a family had stability because only one person had to work to support the household, or people were happy with "just" getting a new fridge, they're probably not thinking of the systematic racism and sexism endemic during the time. Similarly, I'm certain in our older years people will wax nostalgic about our Internet-free childhoods, never stopping to think how great it is you no longer get pissed off because the article in the encyclopedia doesn't have enough information on the topic you like (or, egad, skips it altogether).

[SciFi Chick]

Similarly, I'm certain in our older years people will wax nostalgic about our Internet-free childhoods, never stopping to think how great it is you no longer get pissed off because the article in the encyclopedia doesn't have enough information on the topic you like (or, egad, skips it altogether).

Clearly, you don't have many older friends. I get posts like that, all the time on Facebook. There's also this big movement against smart phones and the idea that people aren't really living - they're just watching. I'm also seeing lots of people against social media in general, putting forth the idea that we aren't really living. Naturally, I'm very against that since the Internet is why I met my husband. Like anything we develop, it can be used wisely or unwisely, but the technology itself is not to blame.

[SciFiFisher]

There is always a tendency to blame technology for the woes that society faces. Look at the Luddite movement for example.

[Ikyoto]

Let `em kill themselves off!

[Cyborg Girl]

There is always a tendency to blame technology for the woes that society faces. Look at the Luddite movement for example.

Bingo. IMO this is often denialism. It's more comforting to think that we can solve the problem by throwing out the technology that enables it, and going on our merry way without any big changes; than to think that it's a problem with how we think and behave. If it's the latter, then it will just rear its head again and again until we accept that there's a problem and change our thinking, which is much easier said than done.

(But that is my opinion. Personally I find it comforting to think that technological society will keep going in some form, because I and many of my friends and family are completely dependent on medical technology for survival. I like to think that lives are worth more than concepts, but YMMV.)

Mind, though, I think one can make a good case for throwing out some technologies. Biological weapons anyone? Some things just score way too high on the cost/benefit ratio.

[Ikyoto]

We could easily live without those stupid condiment packs.

[Rommie]

Had a weird evils of the past moment yesterday (and hey this thread seems a good place as any to share it) where I had a few hours to kill in Budapest before my flight home so went to the House of Terror, basically a museum at the old headquarters of the secret police in the center of town. Never been, and interestingly enough, in the part detailing how hundreds of thousands of Hungarians were sent to gulags after WW2 (200k died in a mass atrocity no one's heard about- wiki link) they have the grandma of my cousins sharing her memories as a living witness. Which I knew as I'd heard she was there when the museum opened, but I'll be damned if it's not insane to hear someone you know like that detailing her memories of forced kidnapping and being forced to sit in the snow for hours so everyone got frostbite because the guards forgot about them and such.

Especially because I'm pleased to report she fucking won- one of a few dozen to survive out of thousands, she is now 88 years old and was sitting next to me beaming with pride watching her granddaughter get married this weekend (and has 4 great grandchildren and counting). Hell she even got up to dance a bit, cane and all!

But then there were some skinhead self-appointed "magyar garda" (ie "Hungarian guard") a few blocks away when I went into the museum, basically the paramilitary racist fucks. More cops in the area then members, and I never saw so many fat people concentrated together in Hungary before as they were (read, not exactly the cream of the crop of society) but still, WTF.

I've also now decided I am not exactly about to tolerate people who complain "Obamacare is socialism" and the US is going to be "like Europe" and we are one step away from many kinds of disaster, on both ends. Rhetoric like that is just an insult to my grandparents' generation.

[Ikyoto]

My great aunt died a little bit ago - i grew up hearing her talk about the day the black shirts came for her family- her sister ( my my paternal grandma) had given birth. Nana G got the baby from a guard who kept saying in broken Polish "i'm sorry. this is all i could save."

the new nazi morons can all go to hell.

[SciFiFisher]

Just remember this very disturbing thought. Fascists tend to keep their promises. The last time the fascists really came into power these were the promises they made and mostly kept:

1. We will give you someone to blame
2. We will give you jobs
3. We will give you pride in yourselves again
4. We will make our currency worth something
5. We will create an empire that will last for one thousand years.

They managed to keep the first 4.

When you look at the current state of affairs in Europe and the US there are some similarities to the era(s) that created the Nazi and other fascist movements. Long term unemployment among the young and other sectors of the people. The rising belief that things are just going to keep getting worse. Rapidly changing economic and technological landscapes that are economically, geographically, and culturally uprooting people. Yes, technology is creating new jobs but all too often the person whose job is eliminated never sees the rewards of that part of the process. This was also part of the landscape of the 1920's and 1930's. Many people don't realize how close the US and Great Britain came to having their own home grown fascists take power in the 20's and 30's.

Look at the message that the Mad Hatter Tea Party, UKIP, and the other extreme parties are sending. 1. We will give you someone to blame. 2. We will make you proud to be an... whatever you are again. 3. We will create jobs 4. We will make our money worth something

The reason you should worry is because there are a lot of people that this message resonates with. But, don't worry, this time it's different.

[Cyborg Girl]

Grr. Had a lengthy post but my browser crashed and ate it.

Anyway I do see similarities. (Guess who backed Hitler then? Guess who backs the Tea Party now?) But I'm just not seeing the Tea Partiers cohere into an Ayn Rand tinged Fascist dictatorship right now. Mostly because they're really stupid, have a knack for putting their feet in their mouths, and seem incapable of finding a nutcase smart enough to be their figurehead. Also they suck at keeping promises.

Also, no offense, but I tend to get a bit weary of Dire Warnings of Doom from the last generation. I hear quite a lot - quite a creepily gleeful sounding lot, actually - about how fucked I and my generation are because of the (bad economy || global warming || abuse of technology || overpopulation || <insert insurmountable bogeyman here>). And while I recognize that the future is not predictable, what came before won't indicate what lies ahead, etc. I don't see why this time will be any different from the last few. It will probably get worse before it gets better, but I'm pretty sure humanity will survive this bout too; and I'm pretty sure we'll do so without reverting to medieval feudalism with women as currency or whatever.

Like I said, no offense (because let me tell you, Fisher, you are being awfully friendly about this stuff, and not sounding like a Cassandra at all). But when you hear about the Olduvai Theory on erstwhile science forums, and your own relatives are complaining that Ted Kaczynski has been proven right, it gets bloody annoying. (c.f. again the Evils Of The Past and why we don't want to go back there ever again.)

That being said, I'm going to put in a warning of my own: we probably have not seen all of society's possible failure modes yet. The Tea Party may not represent a successful Fascist dictatorship in the making, but that does not in any way mean that they don't represent a failure mode.

[SciFiFisher]

Agreed. Today's fascists certainly won't be quite like those of yesteryear. We probably won't see the mass genocides like the Nazi and the Communists committed. But, the slow gradual slide to entropy is somewhat worrying. And it isn't helped by the fact that more and more of the worlds wealth is being concentrated into a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. That plus some of the other trends does seem to be the ingredients for a recipe called Disaster.
Part of the reason I am slowly beating the drum of doom is that power is almost never transferred peacefully. the 1% are not going to willingly change the course of events.

Mind you, I also tend to agree with you GJ that even if we go into an era of more restrictive and narrow minded governments it won't spell the end of the human race as we know it. Political systems and societies go through evolution and change all the time. And it is NOT a linear progression. It's more like a stone blind drunk staggering down the road at midnight in the pitch black. Yet, somehow we do manage to make progress.

[Rommie]

Ok, if I may, one of the other things that annoyed me since I moved here has been Americans who say "omg right wing parties are getting traction in Europe, fascism is one step from returning there!" Mainly because one thing I've noticed is every country has a right wing party and it's just a question of how much sway/attention/votes they get- you're always gonna have old people who are scared of change and skinheads and whatever. Funny thing is they often don't actually want power but are just a good means for these frustrations to bubble.

The thing is though honestly for the most part these parties have far less influence than the Tea Party/ Republican party does in the USA, and are viewed as a joke by everyone else in the country (whereas in the USA they get a fair bit of credence). The Dutch version for example is seriously anti-immigration... but two years ago when they were involved in the budget the talks collapsed because they were going to raise the equivalent of Social Security to age 67, and Wilders (party leader) rejected it cause he knows who votes for him. That would never happen in the USA with the Republicans.

Third, people tend to forget but things were vastly different then when it came to tough economic times- most of the USSR propaganda in Hungary for example focused on agriculture and showing how much food the workers got for little money, because just a few years prior starving to death was a reality for millions of people (even when things weren't grossly mismanaged). Things can be bad in places like Greece and Hungary these days when you're unemployed, but you don't have to worry about your children starving to death. Hell in the Netherlands (and much of Western Europe, hence my second issue where people refer to "Europe" as one country when we are still far from anything but a loose coalition) the first order of business for my friends when they become unemployed is to go on an extended holiday. This is because the law dictates you get 75% of your previous pay for six months, so why the hell not before starting the job search? (Also even when you are unemployed you're still never going to be homeless unless you're a serious druggie who can't navigate the system etc- same in Germany and UK and many other countries.)

Once again, I'm not dissing the plight of many these days on the continent, but I think the similarities are far too overblown to that era of history. IMO there are just as many back to the start of WW1 these days (huge alliances that are supposed to make war between nations impossible, especially between major economic trading partners, but then it happens anyway over one small thing), but WW1 is not as sexy in historian terms.

[Cyborg Girl]

@Fisher:

Part of the reason I am slowly beating the drum of doom is that power is almost never transferred peacefully. the 1% are not going to willingly change the course of events.

Up until we figured out representative democracy, which has a much much better record of power transfer as long as people bother to maintain it.

As for killing people to get the changes we want: No. Just no.

[Woof]

And it isn't helped by the fact that more and more of the worlds wealth is being concentrated into a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.

More and more of the world's wealth is not being concentrated into a smaller and smaller percentage of the population; it is being spread out over a larger and larger percentage. Nearly all of this effect is due to the rapid industrialization of China in the last few decades. Previously, much wealth was concentrated in a few countries which contain only a small percentage of the world's population; as China, and some other Asian countries, industrialize, it is spread out more and more.

Within some countries, like the one which includes the location listed in your profile, wealth is more concentrated than it used to be, although the figure I found in a post by one of the board members is a quite a bit more extreme than what comes from any source I can find; that member did not mention where he got his numbers (although I think I can guess).

The intra-country concentration is obviously something that bothers some of your members quite a bit; two of them in particular make very shrill shrieking noises about the greed which results in the concentration of wealth in the hands of people who are in the top 1% or so of the world's economic distribution, at the expense of ordinary people like themselves, who are only in the top 10% or 20%. It doesn't seem to be concentration of wealth which per se bothers them, as I don't see them railing against the privileged positions on the international stage which they themselves occupy. In fact, these ferocious critics of other people's privileges are equally ferocious defenders of their own privileges - witness the blistering attacks on the movement of jobs from industrialized countries to industrializing countries. In one instance, I can find this simultaneous love of and revulsion by wealth concentration, depending on the identify of the beneficiary, in the same post.

I'm sure this flexibility is completely ideologically motivated, and the near perfect alignment with the self-interest of those bearing this message must be a source of much embarrassment for them; they are probably appalled at the possibility that others might view them as shameless mercenaries, instead of the big noble fellows that they are.

But, being new here, I will try to fit in, at least for a little bit. As such, I propose a new rallying cry for a commonly found ethic at this board. It is to be found in my signature.

[FZR1KG]

And it isn't helped by the fact that more and more of the worlds wealth is being concentrated into a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.

More and more of the world's wealth is not being concentrated into a smaller and smaller percentage of the population; it is being spread out over a larger and larger percentage. Nearly all of this effect is due to the rapid industrialization of China in the last few decades. Previously, much wealth was concentrated in a few countries which contain only a small percentage of the world's population; as China, and some other Asian countries, industrialize, it is spread out more and more.

If individual wealth is a grain of sand and a pile sits in one corner, does spreading the sand spread the wealth?
If we halve the number of grains but double the size, then spread them out, is that being distributing or concentrating?

Within some countries, like the one which includes the location listed in your profile, wealth is more concentrated than it used to be, although the figure I found in a post by one of the board members is a quite a bit more extreme than what comes from any source I can find; that member did not mention where he got his numbers (although I think I can guess).

Tip: You need links here if you want to defend a position.
Our members usually provide them to support their position and if they forget mis-post they can be asked for them.

The intra-country concentration is obviously something that bothers some of your members quite a bit; two of them in particular make very shrill shrieking noises about the greed which results in the concentration of wealth in the hands of people who are in the top 1% or so of the world's economic distribution, at the expense of ordinary people like themselves, who are only in the top 10% or 20%. It doesn't seem to be concentration of wealth which per se bothers them, as I don't see them railing against the privileged positions on the international stage which they themselves occupy. In fact, these ferocious critics of other people's privileges are equally ferocious defenders of their own privileges - witness the blistering attacks on the movement of jobs from industrialized countries to industrializing countries. In one instance, I can find this simultaneous love of and revulsion by wealth concentration, depending on the identify of the beneficiary, in the same post.

Lots of assumptions here.
What makes you think that the two are in the 10-20% for a start?
Defenders of their own privilege?
Firstly no one here really has an issue with job migration from various countries, they have issues with how it's happening.
As an example, I've spent years helping others in developing countries with their projects.
India and China are the two main ones. All my time was donated free.
You may want to read more about the people on this site before forming conclusions.
We rant, we get drunk, we say dumb shit sometimes.
One thing we are not is racist or isolationist.
But neither are we blind to being screwed over by our government or corporations.

I'm sure this flexibility is completely ideologically motivated, and the near perfect alignment with the self-interest of those bearing this message must be a source of much embarrassment for them; they are probably appalled at the possibility that others might view them as shameless mercenaries, instead of the big noble fellows that they are.

Or you have not fully investigated the people you are condemning.

But, being new here, I will try to fit in, at least for a little bit. As such, I propose a new rallying cry for a commonly found ethic at this board. It is to be found in my signature.

Oh fuck no.
You are who you are.
Don't tone it down for us, that's basically lying.
We may not agree with everything you say, then again, we may surprise the hell out of you.
But, you have to spit it out straight.
if we're wrong, we'll admit it.
We expect the same in return.
Mind you, getting even this rabble of misfits to agree isn't easy at the best of times.
You may just fit in here yet and, we are very selective of the company we keep.
You will have to have a pretty thick skin though.
We tend to throw PC out the window but, never mistake that for prejudice or racism as this site does not tolerate either.

[Cyborg Girl]

@Woof: in other words, the only real socialists are bourgeois?

BTW I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think I've seen you before, on this board's last incarnation. Right?

[Rommie]

And it isn't helped by the fact that more and more of the worlds wealth is being concentrated into a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.

More and more of the world's wealth is not being concentrated into a smaller and smaller percentage of the population; it is being spread out over a larger and larger percentage. Nearly all of this effect is due to the rapid industrialization of China in the last few decades. Previously, much wealth was concentrated in a few countries which contain only a small percentage of the world's population; as China, and some other Asian countries, industrialize, it is spread out more and more.

If individual wealth is a grain of sand and a pile sits in one corner, does spreading the sand spread the wealth?
If we halve the number of grains but double the size, then spread them out, is that being distributing or concentrating?

Nitpick: your argument doesn't really work IMO because it implies there is only a finite amount of wealth in the world (I would argue the same for Woof's comment- hi!- as well as FZ's). If it were true it would make no sense that, say, Japan and Singapore became economic powerhouses out of very poor nations with minimal national resources- wealth is created all the time, and there is undoubtedly a lot more of it now than there was, say, 100 years ago.

When people discuss wealth and income inequality I notice the majority of time it's more that people are worried about things being stagnant in some classes but economic growth is only going towards certain people over others. So you're not halving grains here, you're more just tossing the new ones the new grains most of the time towards some people.

Sorry, just an economic pet peeve of mine.

[FZR1KG]

Nitpick: your argument doesn't really work IMO because it implies there is only a finite amount of wealth in the world (I would argue the same for Woof's comment- hi!- as well as FZ's).

Sorry, just an economic pet peeve of mine.

There are finite resources and as such, finite wealth.
We haven't exhausted all the resources so a lot of people presume there is infinite wealth to be had.
IMHO that's where many economic policies go wrong.
e.g. Stockholders wanting increasing profits each year. Not regular large profits, but, increasing profits. That's not sustainable.
To maintain balance inflation starts to go up.
With wealth however, the value of the wealth goes up with inflation but the value of money goes down.
Wages are almost always behind inflation.
Net result, those with wealth keep getting richer while those whose portfolio is basically income get poorer.
That's on inflation alone.
We get other effects after that where companies as they get bigger absorb the other big companies.
Nokia going to Microsoft etc.
If we look at who owns what companies, you'll find that the majority of large companies are owned by a very small group.
The money/wealth is with the large companies.

The world did not start out that way.
So no matter what counter arguments anyone throws to confuse or if they genuinely think otherwise, unless they can address that basic fact, they are wrong.
If their model doesn't fit the world it's the model that's wrong.

[FZR1KG]

Some links to show what I mean:

The media:
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6- ... ica-2012-6

That's consolidated from 50 companies back in 1983.

Food we eat:
http://mic.com/articles/71255/10-corpor ... -shows-how
10 companies control almost everything

Car companies:
http://thedinfographics.com/wp-content/ ... phics.jpeg

The list goes on.
The grains are getting bigger and the numbers are getting smaller.

[SciFiFisher]

There is a school of thought that beleives that for each resource that is used up or becomes obsolete others will be created. Or ways will be created to make our existing resources last even longer.

Coal has been almost replaced by oil.
oil is being gradually replaced for a variety of renewable resources
cars now get 4 x the gas mileage they did 40 years ago
any day now we are likely to discover a way to harness fusion power

economics has evolved to the point where we can create on almost unlimited supply of energy exchange in the form of money and leveraging that energy.

The challenge is that the distribution of all these resources is not exactly a smooth and completely fair process. Society is evolving and trying to figure it all out. I just recently read a book that essentially says the free market system is not the boogey man nor is it completely designed to solve all of the problems that society is dealing with. That it will most likely have to change with some form of distribution that is more equitable and/or is more humane.

Our curse is that we seem to have landed in a time when some of those societal, ecological, and economic pressures are colliding at a rapid rate.

If someone were to create a practical economical form of energy that could power the grid, cars, etc it would either create a world wide golden era or cause the collapse of modern civilization.

[FZR1KG]

If someone were to create a practical economical form of energy that could power the grid, cars, etc it would either create a world wide golden era or cause the collapse of modern civilization.

If aliens landed on Earth and gave us a device that uses no power because it derives it from the expansion of the Universe, creates no pollution and makes anything we want as well as self replicates totally so every person can have one.
The following will happen:
They will want to negotiate with the aliens that only those in power can own the devices.
When the aliens say it's everyone or no one they will tell them to take their technology away and never raise it again.
When they realise that other alien races will interact with Earth and it will eventually get out to the public, they will try and control the devices by selling them and licensing them.
They will try and negotiate a slow release program to people telling the aliens that if it comes too quick, they will hurt themselves.
The aliens will agree and stipulate if they don't have the entire human race given these devices in four generations they will destroy the Earth as it's too corrupt.
Then they will regulate it to the point where only the select few can have them.
They will push and push delaying until the day comes where they needed to have everyone be able to have free access to the devices.
They will refuse to do so because they love the looks the poor give them when they fly around in their cars made of gold.
Shortly afterwards the aliens under the agreement the made with Earths leaders, will destroy humanity because they broke their contract to share the technology freely to all mankind.

It's not about giving equality to everyone, not about morals, not about improving humanity or helping your fellow man.
It's always about having something that hardly anyone else has because then they are special.
Usually it's power or things that represent power, such as money.
It's about pushing others down so you appear higher.
That's what our "leaders" do. Take care of themselves, fuck the rest.

[Rommie]

FZ, yes, eventually the sun is going to run out too I hear.

There are finite resources on our planet for sure, but I think it's a stretch to say we have reached a point to say they are definitely finite. Just look at the tar sands in Alberta- we knew they were there for decades, just had no good way to refine the oil. Look at Japan, which basically started an expansionist policy a century ago because of the lack of resources in their own country- not growing as much as in the early 90s (when I remember "teach your kids Japanese!" was the "teach your kids Chinese!" battle cry you hear today), but still plenty going on in the knowledge economy.

Speaking of Asia, it's a very neat place to visit lately that reminds me of visiting Hungary after communism ended- everywhere building, everywhere things are "new" and people excited to join the middle class. Just because a family in China can now afford a motor scooter doesn't mean there is a finite number of them in the world and you took that scooter away from another family, right? That would be a bizarre school of economics.