4 ms·

I recommend getting over it. You are almost certainly the descendants murderers and conquerors. http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7819&IBLOCK_

by _h4xr 17y ago

I recommend getting over it. You are almost certainly the descendants murderers and conquerors. http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7819&IBLOCK_ID=35 http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7819&... That's just how humans roll. Western Europe had lots of problems, but countries that operate in the European tradition are better places to live. (At least, when you look at the immigration patterns between third-world and first-world countries, it's clear that first world countries export idealism, which is then processed into jaded realism and returned. Meanwhile, poor countries send their top .1% to join the Western world's top 10%; a good deal for both sides).

aaronblohowiak 17y ago
"Meanwhile, poor countries send their top .1% to join the Western world's top 10%; a good deal for both sides" -- not for the rest of the population of poor countries.
- jacoblyles 17y ago
  What if the top .1% (however defined) of poor countries wouldn't have had the opportunity to exercise their talents at home? How many famous scientists would be subsistence farmers if the GDP of their country was lower? I would guess that India gains by having rich Indians living abroad. They increase the wealth of their families still living in India, they sometimes move back to India or start businesses there. If they didn't have the opportunity to move abroad and get rich, India probably wouldn't be as wealthy.
  - ippisl 17y ago
    What about doctors and nurses going to rich countries ?
senthil_rajasek 17y ago
"That's just how humans roll." Thats not how I look at it. We have made progress from a society of primitive tribes to a more reasonable society rapidly in the last couple of centuries. Universal women's suffrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage#United_States) did not even exist in the United States until the beginning of the 20th century. There is an endless number of social issues that Humans have made advancements, including Civil Rights, Gay Rights etc., Our understanding of the world has increased [changed] and so has our ability to make decisions based on such new knowledge.
- jswinghammer 17y ago
  Your bias is defining all those things you listed as progress. For some those items are signs of a degenerate society that has lost its way. Your thinking is more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history#Social_evolutionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history#Social_ev... Than this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory
- benmathes 17y ago
  You're definitely correct that we are progressing as societies. We observe new rights and freedoms along with rates of death and murder lower than ever in history. However, it's almost guaranteed that you do descend from conquerors, warlords, or murders. This probability says nothing about what you should do or whether you should learn from the past. It only states that in the past few thousand years shit has been pretty bad, and humans adapted to it.
wendroid 17y ago
The third-world isn't some laggard full of overbreeding simpletons. It was created in the 18th & 19th century by well armed invaders helped at the end of the 19th C by drought & flood that killed 50m people in India & China and 50m in S. America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Victorian_Holocausts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Victorian_Holocausts Indian & Chinese civilisation was crushed by armies & opium.
- _h4xr 17y ago
  The third-world isn't some laggard full of overbreeding simpletons. Any concrete reason for that belief? It looks like the "overbreeding" is objectively true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate . As far as simpletons go, you tell me: is there any intelligence test you know of that routinely ranks people in Djibouti over people in Japan? If not, it sounds like your statement is unfounded. The rest of your interpretation is also suspect. The places Victorians conquered weren't more advanced than the places the Victorians came from. Regardless of the reason, Europe was more technologically advanced than the rest of the world, and they used that advantage to conquer as much of the world as they could. When you complain about how the Victorians ran things, you have to compare it to something. If you compare, e.g., the Congo in 1955 (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,866343,00.html http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,866343,00.html ) to the Congo in 2008 (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.html http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.htm... ) you get the idea. You might not like how imperialists run things--but they run things well because they run them for profit. You can also consider Singapore (which is basically Victorian, and basically paradise on earth for law-abiding people).
  - pyre 17y ago
    > You can also consider Singapore (which is basically Victorian, and basically paradise on earth for law-abiding people). It's interesting that you need to preface that with 'law-abiding people.' What happens when you are accidentally on the other side of the law? Update: Maybe I should be more specific in what I mean. In Thailand you aren't a 'law-abiding citizen' if you criticize the king. What similar laws does Singapore have? What happens is someone doesn't like me and decides to set me up for a crime I am no guilty of (e.g. deface some property and then claim that I did it)? The only problem that I have with harsh justice systems: What happens if you're an innocent person, but that system believes you to be guilty?
cynicalkane 17y ago
I'd like to think modern man is a better class of humans than their murderously genocidal ancestors. With so many of the comments seemingly endorsing manifest destiny on the part of "civilized" people, I'm beginning to reconsider this opinion.
- protomyth 17y ago
  read some articles on the "modern, civilized" Indian Health Service and find an reason to reconsider.
- mmt 17y ago
  If I may quote another movie: "I'd like that.. but that shit ain't the truth." Other than merely agreeing with the commentor on this aspect of human nature, I do have a point. I believe to deny the brutality in our nature is extremely dangerous. I suggest the whole point of civilization is to recognize the destructive potential in us all and to regulate it. Granted, you may be right. However, the consequence of putting in unnecessary protections against destruction are much more mild than the converse case.
dschobel 17y ago
That's just how humans roll. Precisely. History is littered with examples of the imperialistic tendencies of man (if you want to see some grade-A imperialism, look into how the Aztecs built their empire, hint: it wasn't by having lots of babies).
- maxwell 17y ago
  Appeal to history. Just because a lot of source code is littered with GOTOs doesn't mean that approach is "how hackers roll." Imperialism's just a phase; it's already generally considered harmful.
  - dschobel 17y ago
    The discussion at hand is about history of imperialism so 'appealing to history' shouldn't be that surprising. Also, I'm curious, how are things in your post-imperialist future? Is everything lovely?
    - maxwell 17y ago
      It's not surprising, but it's still a fallacy. And civilization without imperialism will probably be about as "lovely" as code without GOTOs.
maxwell 17y ago
> Western Europe had lots of problems, but countries that operate in the European tradition are better places to live. But what suggests "places that operate in the European tradition" will remain better (i.e. what traits of Euro civilization are optimal given any group of humans)? What makes this expression any more meaningful than something like, "C had lots of problems, but languages in the C-family are better to work with"?
- _h4xr 17y ago
  If the smartest non-C programmers all started programming in C, and the C programmers never switched to something else, you could make that judgment. What's interesting is that I almost never find out, halfway through an argument like this, that I'm talking to someone who moved to a place unspoiled by Western imperialism. Mongolia, for example.

by _h4xr 17y ago

aaronblohowiak 17y ago

"Meanwhile, poor countries send their top .1% to join the Western world's top 10%; a good deal for both sides" -- not for the rest of the population of poor countries.

jacoblyles 17y ago
What if the top .1% (however defined) of poor countries wouldn't have had the opportunity to exercise their talents at home? How many famous scientists would be subsistence farmers if the GDP of their country was lower? I would guess that India gains by having rich Indians living abroad. They increase the wealth of their families still living in India, they sometimes move back to India or start businesses there. If they didn't have the opportunity to move abroad and get rich, India probably wouldn't be as wealthy.
- ippisl 17y ago
  What about doctors and nurses going to rich countries ?

senthil_rajasek 17y ago

"That's just how humans roll." Thats not how I look at it. We have made progress from a society of primitive tribes to a more reasonable society rapidly in the last couple of centuries. Universal women's suffrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage#United_States) did not even exist in the United States until the beginning of the 20th century. There is an endless number of social issues that Humans have made advancements, including Civil Rights, Gay Rights etc., Our understanding of the world has increased [changed] and so has our ability to make decisions based on such new knowledge.

jswinghammer 17y ago
Your bias is defining all those things you listed as progress. For some those items are signs of a degenerate society that has lost its way. Your thinking is more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history#Social_evolutionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history#Social_ev... Than this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory
benmathes 17y ago
You're definitely correct that we are progressing as societies. We observe new rights and freedoms along with rates of death and murder lower than ever in history. However, it's almost guaranteed that you do descend from conquerors, warlords, or murders. This probability says nothing about what you should do or whether you should learn from the past. It only states that in the past few thousand years shit has been pretty bad, and humans adapted to it.

wendroid 17y ago

The third-world isn't some laggard full of overbreeding simpletons. It was created in the 18th & 19th century by well armed invaders helped at the end of the 19th C by drought & flood that killed 50m people in India & China and 50m in S. America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Victorian_Holocausts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Victorian_Holocausts Indian & Chinese civilisation was crushed by armies & opium.

_h4xr 17y ago
The third-world isn't some laggard full of overbreeding simpletons. Any concrete reason for that belief? It looks like the "overbreeding" is objectively true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate . As far as simpletons go, you tell me: is there any intelligence test you know of that routinely ranks people in Djibouti over people in Japan? If not, it sounds like your statement is unfounded. The rest of your interpretation is also suspect. The places Victorians conquered weren't more advanced than the places the Victorians came from. Regardless of the reason, Europe was more technologically advanced than the rest of the world, and they used that advantage to conquer as much of the world as they could. When you complain about how the Victorians ran things, you have to compare it to something. If you compare, e.g., the Congo in 1955 (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,866343,00.html http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,866343,00.html ) to the Congo in 2008 (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.html http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.htm... ) you get the idea. You might not like how imperialists run things--but they run things well because they run them for profit. You can also consider Singapore (which is basically Victorian, and basically paradise on earth for law-abiding people).
- pyre 17y ago
  > You can also consider Singapore (which is basically Victorian, and basically paradise on earth for law-abiding people). It's interesting that you need to preface that with 'law-abiding people.' What happens when you are accidentally on the other side of the law? Update: Maybe I should be more specific in what I mean. In Thailand you aren't a 'law-abiding citizen' if you criticize the king. What similar laws does Singapore have? What happens is someone doesn't like me and decides to set me up for a crime I am no guilty of (e.g. deface some property and then claim that I did it)? The only problem that I have with harsh justice systems: What happens if you're an innocent person, but that system believes you to be guilty?

cynicalkane 17y ago

I'd like to think modern man is a better class of humans than their murderously genocidal ancestors. With so many of the comments seemingly endorsing manifest destiny on the part of "civilized" people, I'm beginning to reconsider this opinion.

protomyth 17y ago
read some articles on the "modern, civilized" Indian Health Service and find an reason to reconsider.
mmt 17y ago
If I may quote another movie: "I'd like that.. but that shit ain't the truth." Other than merely agreeing with the commentor on this aspect of human nature, I do have a point. I believe to deny the brutality in our nature is extremely dangerous. I suggest the whole point of civilization is to recognize the destructive potential in us all and to regulate it. Granted, you may be right. However, the consequence of putting in unnecessary protections against destruction are much more mild than the converse case.

dschobel 17y ago

That's just how humans roll. Precisely. History is littered with examples of the imperialistic tendencies of man (if you want to see some grade-A imperialism, look into how the Aztecs built their empire, hint: it wasn't by having lots of babies).

maxwell 17y ago
Appeal to history. Just because a lot of source code is littered with GOTOs doesn't mean that approach is "how hackers roll." Imperialism's just a phase; it's already generally considered harmful.
- dschobel 17y ago
  The discussion at hand is about history of imperialism so 'appealing to history' shouldn't be that surprising. Also, I'm curious, how are things in your post-imperialist future? Is everything lovely?
  - maxwell 17y ago
    It's not surprising, but it's still a fallacy. And civilization without imperialism will probably be about as "lovely" as code without GOTOs.

maxwell 17y ago

> Western Europe had lots of problems, but countries that operate in the European tradition are better places to live. But what suggests "places that operate in the European tradition" will remain better (i.e. what traits of Euro civilization are optimal given any group of humans)? What makes this expression any more meaningful than something like, "C had lots of problems, but languages in the C-family are better to work with"?

_h4xr 17y ago
If the smartest non-C programmers all started programming in C, and the C programmers never switched to something else, you could make that judgment. What's interesting is that I almost never find out, halfway through an argument like this, that I'm talking to someone who moved to a place unspoiled by Western imperialism. Mongolia, for example.