5 ms·

>We live in the golden age of human history up to now and I would be willing to place a long bet that in 100 years, we will look back on the last 30 years as th

>We live in the golden age of human history up to now and I would be willing to place a long bet that in 100 years, we will look back on the last 30 years as the dawn of the modern age. Well, we live in the golden age of human _technology_. But, I'd argue, far from the golden age of human history. And maybe closer than ever to the extinction of mankind, if that "let's fix the climate issue with even more technology and continue on the same 'development for development's sake' path continues. Not to mention crazy politicians with nuclear, biological and what have you weapons on their hands and a battle for global resources like oil and water...

JanezStupar 14y ago
Enlighten me then, when was golden age of human history then in your opinion? I have a problem with you new age romantics, bitching about issues of current civilization without providing alternatives or even realizing what "reversing" current state of affairs would really mean.
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  >Enlighten me then, when was golden age of human history then in your opinion? Ever occurred to you that it might be in the future? Or that human history was perpetually in the same state of mess? Good for a few, a nightmare for others? Or that "good for humanity" and technological advancements are not necessarily the same thing, and that e.g living an agrarian life in some 18th century farm could be better for someone than living as an industrial worker in a highly modern Foxconn factory, despite increased odds of dying from a decease preventable today or having to get your water from the well? Damn, I'd take living in the sixties to living in the '00s any day of the week, despite having to let go of my iPad. >I have a problem with you new age romantics, bitching about issues of current civilization without providing alternatives or even realizing what "reversing" current state of affairs would really mean. When there's a problem, like a cancer, you need to remove the cancer. You don't need an "alternative" to it. Also, I'm not sure how to read the part about not realising what "reversing the current state of affairs would really mean". Who said anything about "reversing"? There's a lot we can do without reversing anything. Stoping the market craze is not the same as "reversing" progress or anything. Not to mention that progress != building more advanced things cheaper.
  - JanezStupar 14y ago
    I believe you don't understand that the term "Golden Age" by definition refers to the past. What you are talking about is denoted by the term "Utopia". > Or that "good for humanity" and technological advancements are not necessarily the same thing, and that e.g living an agrarian life in some 18th century farm could be better for someone than living as an industrial worker in a highly modern Foxconn factory, despite increased odds of dying from a decease preventable today or having to get your water from the well? Excuse my ad hominem, however your attitude would lead me to believe that you are at least a middle class kid with romantic perspective. What you are proposing is an actuality for a class of people who are called, gasp... Foxconn workers. There is nearly two million of them saying that you are wrong and that they prefer working for Foxconn over 18th century farm somewhere in north/central China. And as a guy who grew up on a modern farm I decided that farming is not my cup of tea (and from family heritage that 18th century farming where you would be sentenced to hard manual labor from the age of 4 even less so). Don't get me wrong, I love nature and I like that one of my hobby's is gardening. However I absolutely adore that I have a choice. > Damn, I'd take living in the sixties to living in the '00s any day of the week, despite having to let go of my iPad. I believe you have no idea what 60's were like. And I believe that you should go and see more of the world.
  - pyre 14y ago
    > Damn, I'd take living in the sixties to living in the > '00s any day of the week, despite having to let go of > my iPad. Let me guess, you're a white male?
  - Klinky 14y ago
    I would be wary of romanticizing the past. The 60s were not necessarily a picnic if you were black, a woman, or a poor male.
- ippisl 14y ago
  Generally moving from monarchies to democracies could be considered a "golden" age of human history. Or maybe the rise of rationality and decline of religion. I don't see any recent big social change that big that happened recently, except the social impact of the web. But i'm not sure i'd considered it as a big positive social change. What would you say are the big societal changes that happened in the last decade or two ?
  - JanezStupar 14y ago
    In terms of history, recently is last 200 years. True effects of todays developments shall not be seen for the foreseeable future.
cwp 14y ago
"development for development's sake"? Development doesn't happen for its own sake. It's about improving the quality of human life and alleviating suffering. If you had to carry water a few miles each day, or gather firewood to keep you warm in the winter or were infected by tuberculosis, you might welcome a little development. And sure, with great power comes great responsibility. But we've managed to avoid catastrophe so far, and with a global population of 7 billion, we're further from extinction than ever. This is truly a golden age.
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  >"development for development's sake"? Development doesn't happen for its own sake. It's about improving the quality of human life and alleviating suffering. No, it's not. It's mostly about making money. No business cares about "improving the quality of human life and alleviating suffering" (they might pay lip service to that on their brochures though). Shareholders don't care about "alleviating suffering", only about return of investment. >If you had to carry water a few miles each day, or gather firewood to keep you warm in the winter or were infected by tuberculosis, you might welcome a little development. And yet, _billions_ of people continue to do that, and _billions_ of people die from deceases that technology has eradicated for us half a century or more ago, and development goes on to other stuff, like --to name but a few-- faster smartphones, game consoles, pet food and bling jewellery. (I don't mean "development" as in the "scientific development" either. I mean it as business development, the idea that production, sales, whatever must continuously expand. I'd be OK with scientific development put directly in the help of humanity, like, say, AIDS drugs sold at cost in Africa instead of pricing them for profit).
  - JanezStupar 14y ago
    > No, it's not. It's mostly about making money. No business cares about "improving the quality of human life and alleviating suffering" (they might pay lip service to that on their brochures though). Shareholders don't care about "alleviating suffering", only about return of investment. Umm, not all businesses are in the business of providing happiness to people. Some are in fact in the business of providing misery to people. Anyways, businesses are not the ones deciding what services to provide to the people, customers are. So if you want to blame anybody, blame customers (or as Tool put it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoWMmZEoT84 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoWMmZEoT84). > And yet, _billions_ of people continue to do that, and _billions_ of people die from deceases that technology has eradicated for us half a century or more ago, and development goes on to other stuff, like --to name but a few-- faster smartphones, game consoles, pet food and bling jewellery. While I can easily sympathize with your position, rich western corporations don't owe jack shit to third world people. I agree that it would be nice of us to help them out. However if we are not interested in helping them out for whatever reason, they still have the option of helping themselves out - the way we helped out ourselves. I sincerely believe that we are not doing it because we want them bad, but we are too preoccupied with solving our own problems to help those guys out. Yes looking at the difference between them and us, does show our preoccupation with self interest. But the reason we solved so many of our issues in precisely our preoccupation with self interest. > (I don't mean "development" as in the "scientific development" either. I mean it as business development, the idea that production, sales, whatever must continuously expand. I'd be OK with scientific development put directly in the help of humanity, like, say, AIDS drugs sold at cost in Africa instead of pricing them for profit). I believe that you and other people with the same attitude as you should put your money where your mouth is and lead the way for the rest of us.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Fargren 14y ago
Ok, how about the fact that we've halved extreme poverty since the 1990? Or the worldwide increase of life expectancy (Africa's average almost reached 55 this year)? AIDS and malaria are both in decline. And apparently we accomplished the decade with least deaths in war in the last century. I don't know if i would call this a golden age, but we are seeing improvements in more than technology.
- atr123 14y ago
  >> AIDS and malaria are both in decline. Not only AIDS is on decline, but also, two people has been "cure" of AIDS since the "german patient" in 2007. The average life expectancy of HIV+ people has triple since the 80s. Still a long way to go, but I hope to see AIDS at least as a just another chronic disease.
mayneack 14y ago
Every moment is the closest moment to date to the extinction of mankind.
- laughingstan 14y ago
  Unfortunately...Humanity is furthering its technology for both it's survival, and its ultimate destruction. We are but a few years from seeing the truth behind the potential of autonomous robotics, machine-learning, and artificial intelligence. At that point, humanity will play very little role in the evolution of technology. :-\
  - Klinky 14y ago
    A hundred years ago people were predicting we'd have robot butlers and flying cars. Those predicting autonomous killing robots enslaving the human race once we hit the "singularity" I think are going to be disappointed.
mikeash 14y ago
The world today is more peaceful, more prosperous, and more healthy than at any other time known. Sounds like a "golden age" to me.
ramanujan 14y ago
When, in your opinion, was the golden age of human history? The reason I ask is that something like 80% of the world today has mobile phones. Or, as another example, this source says about one in seven people don't have clean water: http://water.org/water-crisis/one-billion-affected http://water.org/water-crisis/one-billion-affected So that means ~85.7% of people do have access to clean water. Do you think that fraction has ever been higher in human history?

JanezStupar 14y ago

Enlighten me then, when was golden age of human history then in your opinion? I have a problem with you new age romantics, bitching about issues of current civilization without providing alternatives or even realizing what "reversing" current state of affairs would really mean.

pretoriusB 14y ago
>Enlighten me then, when was golden age of human history then in your opinion? Ever occurred to you that it might be in the future? Or that human history was perpetually in the same state of mess? Good for a few, a nightmare for others? Or that "good for humanity" and technological advancements are not necessarily the same thing, and that e.g living an agrarian life in some 18th century farm could be better for someone than living as an industrial worker in a highly modern Foxconn factory, despite increased odds of dying from a decease preventable today or having to get your water from the well? Damn, I'd take living in the sixties to living in the '00s any day of the week, despite having to let go of my iPad. >I have a problem with you new age romantics, bitching about issues of current civilization without providing alternatives or even realizing what "reversing" current state of affairs would really mean. When there's a problem, like a cancer, you need to remove the cancer. You don't need an "alternative" to it. Also, I'm not sure how to read the part about not realising what "reversing the current state of affairs would really mean". Who said anything about "reversing"? There's a lot we can do without reversing anything. Stoping the market craze is not the same as "reversing" progress or anything. Not to mention that progress != building more advanced things cheaper.
- JanezStupar 14y ago
  I believe you don't understand that the term "Golden Age" by definition refers to the past. What you are talking about is denoted by the term "Utopia". > Or that "good for humanity" and technological advancements are not necessarily the same thing, and that e.g living an agrarian life in some 18th century farm could be better for someone than living as an industrial worker in a highly modern Foxconn factory, despite increased odds of dying from a decease preventable today or having to get your water from the well? Excuse my ad hominem, however your attitude would lead me to believe that you are at least a middle class kid with romantic perspective. What you are proposing is an actuality for a class of people who are called, gasp... Foxconn workers. There is nearly two million of them saying that you are wrong and that they prefer working for Foxconn over 18th century farm somewhere in north/central China. And as a guy who grew up on a modern farm I decided that farming is not my cup of tea (and from family heritage that 18th century farming where you would be sentenced to hard manual labor from the age of 4 even less so). Don't get me wrong, I love nature and I like that one of my hobby's is gardening. However I absolutely adore that I have a choice. > Damn, I'd take living in the sixties to living in the '00s any day of the week, despite having to let go of my iPad. I believe you have no idea what 60's were like. And I believe that you should go and see more of the world.
- pyre 14y ago
  > Damn, I'd take living in the sixties to living in the > '00s any day of the week, despite having to let go of > my iPad. Let me guess, you're a white male?
- Klinky 14y ago
  I would be wary of romanticizing the past. The 60s were not necessarily a picnic if you were black, a woman, or a poor male.
ippisl 14y ago
Generally moving from monarchies to democracies could be considered a "golden" age of human history. Or maybe the rise of rationality and decline of religion. I don't see any recent big social change that big that happened recently, except the social impact of the web. But i'm not sure i'd considered it as a big positive social change. What would you say are the big societal changes that happened in the last decade or two ?
- JanezStupar 14y ago
  In terms of history, recently is last 200 years. True effects of todays developments shall not be seen for the foreseeable future.

cwp 14y ago

"development for development's sake"? Development doesn't happen for its own sake. It's about improving the quality of human life and alleviating suffering. If you had to carry water a few miles each day, or gather firewood to keep you warm in the winter or were infected by tuberculosis, you might welcome a little development. And sure, with great power comes great responsibility. But we've managed to avoid catastrophe so far, and with a global population of 7 billion, we're further from extinction than ever. This is truly a golden age.

pretoriusB 14y ago
>"development for development's sake"? Development doesn't happen for its own sake. It's about improving the quality of human life and alleviating suffering. No, it's not. It's mostly about making money. No business cares about "improving the quality of human life and alleviating suffering" (they might pay lip service to that on their brochures though). Shareholders don't care about "alleviating suffering", only about return of investment. >If you had to carry water a few miles each day, or gather firewood to keep you warm in the winter or were infected by tuberculosis, you might welcome a little development. And yet, _billions_ of people continue to do that, and _billions_ of people die from deceases that technology has eradicated for us half a century or more ago, and development goes on to other stuff, like --to name but a few-- faster smartphones, game consoles, pet food and bling jewellery. (I don't mean "development" as in the "scientific development" either. I mean it as business development, the idea that production, sales, whatever must continuously expand. I'd be OK with scientific development put directly in the help of humanity, like, say, AIDS drugs sold at cost in Africa instead of pricing them for profit).
- JanezStupar 14y ago
  > No, it's not. It's mostly about making money. No business cares about "improving the quality of human life and alleviating suffering" (they might pay lip service to that on their brochures though). Shareholders don't care about "alleviating suffering", only about return of investment. Umm, not all businesses are in the business of providing happiness to people. Some are in fact in the business of providing misery to people. Anyways, businesses are not the ones deciding what services to provide to the people, customers are. So if you want to blame anybody, blame customers (or as Tool put it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoWMmZEoT84 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoWMmZEoT84). > And yet, _billions_ of people continue to do that, and _billions_ of people die from deceases that technology has eradicated for us half a century or more ago, and development goes on to other stuff, like --to name but a few-- faster smartphones, game consoles, pet food and bling jewellery. While I can easily sympathize with your position, rich western corporations don't owe jack shit to third world people. I agree that it would be nice of us to help them out. However if we are not interested in helping them out for whatever reason, they still have the option of helping themselves out - the way we helped out ourselves. I sincerely believe that we are not doing it because we want them bad, but we are too preoccupied with solving our own problems to help those guys out. Yes looking at the difference between them and us, does show our preoccupation with self interest. But the reason we solved so many of our issues in precisely our preoccupation with self interest. > (I don't mean "development" as in the "scientific development" either. I mean it as business development, the idea that production, sales, whatever must continuously expand. I'd be OK with scientific development put directly in the help of humanity, like, say, AIDS drugs sold at cost in Africa instead of pricing them for profit). I believe that you and other people with the same attitude as you should put your money where your mouth is and lead the way for the rest of us.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Fargren 14y ago

Ok, how about the fact that we've halved extreme poverty since the 1990? Or the worldwide increase of life expectancy (Africa's average almost reached 55 this year)? AIDS and malaria are both in decline. And apparently we accomplished the decade with least deaths in war in the last century. I don't know if i would call this a golden age, but we are seeing improvements in more than technology.

atr123 14y ago
>> AIDS and malaria are both in decline. Not only AIDS is on decline, but also, two people has been "cure" of AIDS since the "german patient" in 2007. The average life expectancy of HIV+ people has triple since the 80s. Still a long way to go, but I hope to see AIDS at least as a just another chronic disease.

mayneack 14y ago

Every moment is the closest moment to date to the extinction of mankind.

laughingstan 14y ago
Unfortunately...Humanity is furthering its technology for both it's survival, and its ultimate destruction. We are but a few years from seeing the truth behind the potential of autonomous robotics, machine-learning, and artificial intelligence. At that point, humanity will play very little role in the evolution of technology. :-\
- Klinky 14y ago
  A hundred years ago people were predicting we'd have robot butlers and flying cars. Those predicting autonomous killing robots enslaving the human race once we hit the "singularity" I think are going to be disappointed.

mikeash 14y ago

The world today is more peaceful, more prosperous, and more healthy than at any other time known. Sounds like a "golden age" to me.

ramanujan 14y ago

When, in your opinion, was the golden age of human history? The reason I ask is that something like 80% of the world today has mobile phones. Or, as another example, this source says about one in seven people don't have clean water: http://water.org/water-crisis/one-billion-affected http://water.org/water-crisis/one-billion-affected So that means ~85.7% of people do have access to clean water. Do you think that fraction has ever been higher in human history?