3 ms·

Right, so you're a modernist, and that's ok. You have an implicit assumption that the larger culture is better, and that being more economically productive is d

Right, so you're a modernist, and that's ok. You have an implicit assumption that the larger culture is better, and that being more economically productive is desirable. Many hunter-gatherer societies offered more leisure time than modern cultures. If that's your point of reference, Western culture is an abject failure.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
I think there's a view that both admits the merits of hunter-gatherer societies and still prefers the modern one. The way I see it, we've made a huge step back in order to be able to move forwards. Hunter-gatherers may have had more leisure time, but they could never have developed airplanes, vaccines, modern medicine, plumbing, Internet or space travel. To achieve those things, we had to specialize and build large-scale economies. Hunting/gathering was a dead end, whereas our culture still has open possibilities for tremendous improvement.
- labster 8y ago
  I wasn't actually taking the side against civilization, just saying that reasonable arguments exist. But you get that. One thing I spend a lot of time thinking about is the amount of things that I'm wrong about. Some of them minor, but also likely something that a future man would find abhorrent, equivalent to slavery or cockfighting or something. Extrapolate from how often people are wrong on the Internet (!!11), and I'm probably wrong a lot. Extrapolate from HN, less so. Civilization as a whole must also have these systemic errors which are unnoticed by almost everyone; modernism definitely had such errors. The single most modernist institution remaining today is the Olympics, which attempts to use athletic competition to maintain international peace. We all know that the IOC and related bodies have serious problems, but the mission itself is still valuable. Even if it does implicitly promote nationalism.
thaumasiotes 8y ago
No, I have no assumption that a larger culture is better than a smaller one. I do assume that being more economically productive is better then being less economically productive, but that is not relevant here. Languages die when people judge that those languages are worthless, because those people, who might have spoken the languages, would like to be economically productive instead. I'm saying that when a person or group of people choose to abandon their language, in order to achieve their own personal goals, and the language dies as a result, that is an example of people being empowered. It's not an example of people not being empowered. You seem to have confused "empowered" with "good".

TeMPOraL 8y ago

I think there's a view that both admits the merits of hunter-gatherer societies and still prefers the modern one. The way I see it, we've made a huge step back in order to be able to move forwards. Hunter-gatherers may have had more leisure time, but they could never have developed airplanes, vaccines, modern medicine, plumbing, Internet or space travel. To achieve those things, we had to specialize and build large-scale economies. Hunting/gathering was a dead end, whereas our culture still has open possibilities for tremendous improvement.

labster 8y ago
I wasn't actually taking the side against civilization, just saying that reasonable arguments exist. But you get that. One thing I spend a lot of time thinking about is the amount of things that I'm wrong about. Some of them minor, but also likely something that a future man would find abhorrent, equivalent to slavery or cockfighting or something. Extrapolate from how often people are wrong on the Internet (!!11), and I'm probably wrong a lot. Extrapolate from HN, less so. Civilization as a whole must also have these systemic errors which are unnoticed by almost everyone; modernism definitely had such errors. The single most modernist institution remaining today is the Olympics, which attempts to use athletic competition to maintain international peace. We all know that the IOC and related bodies have serious problems, but the mission itself is still valuable. Even if it does implicitly promote nationalism.

thaumasiotes 8y ago

No, I have no assumption that a larger culture is better than a smaller one. I do assume that being more economically productive is better then being less economically productive, but that is not relevant here. Languages die when people judge that those languages are worthless, because those people, who might have spoken the languages, would like to be economically productive instead. I'm saying that when a person or group of people choose to abandon their language, in order to achieve their own personal goals, and the language dies as a result, that is an example of people being empowered. It's not an example of people not being empowered. You seem to have confused "empowered" with "good".