Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss and talk about any general topic.
11 posts • Page 1 of 1
Sorry Winston, I couldn't think of a better title. I didn't know where to put this either since there's no philosophy section and it doesn't quite fit history or psychology.
Anyway, I have these two ideas I'm struggling to make sense of.
The average life expectancy of man only changes give or take a few years. Lower numbers in earlier times reflected a higher infant mortality rate. Those who lived past twenty were likely to see age 70 or so. Adults aren't living significantly longer than they were 500 or even 5000 years ago, but a lot less kids are dying.
While ancient cultures were able to make incredible achievements in areas like architecture, mathematics and philosophy, the development of modern medicine is extremely recent. I consider Vesalius to be the first significant modern physician. I'm not well educated about the history of medicine, but I just looked some stuff up. Vesalius apparently proved that the bones in legs are larger than the bones in arms. He also disproved the idea that men had a rib fewer than women (as per the Bible).
So was Galen all that great? Apparently in the 16th century it was still necessary to prove that men and women have the same rib count. Why was medicine so late in developing?
These two ideas are like puzzle pieces to me, but I can't see the entire image. It's like I'm skirting some profound idea, but can't quite get a hold of it. Any thoughts?
Was medicine just never a concern for societies in history? If nature already culled the weak then perhaps it wasn't necessary. Then fast forward 200 years and there's Thomas Malthus warning of overpopulation. Correct or not, it seems like the weak stopped being culled. Man overcame nature.
What does this say for philosophy, politics, sociology, etc.? Assuming you could make it to adulthood, was life really so bad?
Of course there were things like the black plague, caused by a mini ice age. But are we really in a position to overcome another great plague, should one develop? I'm not convinced.
Mind, I'm usually the guy laughing whenever someone's getting bird flu shots.
There may be some justification going on to say that things have never been better and the current world governments should not be questioned because life was utterly miserable for most people anytime before the last 100 years. History by the victors.
Another thing to note is working hours. This could be part III. Yes, people in the Middle Ages worked from dawn until dusk, but they took breaks all the time. It wasn't consecutive working hours. They'd have the three daily meals, couple snack breaks, afternoon nap, etc. They worked about eight hours a day. Plus there were all the church holidays. Some would be spent in solemn prayer, but others were week long festivals where they got plastered on ale. All in all they worked one to three months less than we do.
Then the industrial revolution came and with it the 80 hour work week. Again, the historical trickery holds that the80 hour work week was the norm and the current regime lowered it as a "benevolent" gift. Far from it to call me a luddite however. The tractor caused mass unemployment among farmhands, but I'd never argue it was a bad thing. Same with automobiles and lightbulbs. How do these things balance?
These are just recent thoughts I've been having, so if you have anything to contribute or dispute feel free to.
In 1992, the year I was born, this bigwig political theorist Francis Fukuyama published a book called The End of History. He argued that liberal democracy was the final, most advanced form of government. I don't think anyone believes that anymore.
Also, everyone's minds seems to be on robots. I'm much less interested in the possibilities, which we already know, than I am the economics and sociological/political concerns.
Also,slavery. This must be the most taboo. You know The Old Testament's read as this great story of freedom from bondage, but slavery itself isn't criticised as an institution. The Israelites had slaves, but they were only on contract for six years. In fact, the Bible has a ton of passages about slavery that sound downright reasonable. I mean, okay, there can be regulations. I don't think workplace regulations are bad either. My dad does worker's comp and while shit like people bringing lawsuits when they trip over their own feet on the sidewalk makes people hate lawyers, laws so workers don't lose fingers in machinery are pretty reasonable. So it is with slavery. I don't see the problem with indentured servitude for example. So I don't see slavery in and of itself as bad, so long as there are regulations.
Slavery, in the sense of having to obey some jerk's orders rather than doing your own thing with people of your choosing, is pretty much a defining feature of agricultural civilization. The reason some societies favor chattel slavery while others favor wage slavery or similar arrangements has to do with the related issues of population density and control of land.
In societies with low population density and plenty of uncontrolled wilderness, people have the option of going off in groups and starting their own independent farming communities. In order for the rich to get them not to take this option and instead accept the inherently degrading role of an employee, the rich will likely have to pay them quite a lot. Therefore it may well be cheaper for the rich to instead hire goons to capture and force them to work instead, so there you get chattel slavery.
In societies with high population density or where the land is in any case closely controlled by authorities, the country is essentially full and so it is not necessary to forcibly keep people in one place as there is nowhere for them to go, so they have no option but to work for slave masters or starve. This is where wage slavery becomes advantageous to the rich as it allows them to externalize much of the normal cost slavery on to the slaves or society in general. For example, they don't need to hire as many goons, the slaves often have to train themselves, if there is no work for the slaves they can be told to get lost and then summoned back when needed etc. The average person is generally worse off under such an arrangement because rather than being valuable chattel they are fungible and disposable.
As to the reason chattel slavery is vilified today, this is simply a propaganda tool to make the current wage slaves happier with their lot in life by convincing them they are lucky compared to people in the past, when in fact those people were vastly better off in most respects. Just think of how much better off most blacks would be if they had a masser to look after them and keep them in line.
Medicine is/was as much a concern as anything else.
Unlike things that can be tested by trial-and-error, if your first medical "cure" failed, you couldn't test your next "cure" on a dead patient.
Society coped by concentrating on avoiding illness in the first place (biblical dietary law, as one example).
Now, they've gotten so greedy & lazy, they just release any drug that doesn't immediately kill you.
What it improves is called a benefit, what it makes worse is called a side effect.
The "little blue pill" marketed to treat E.D. was originally developed to raise blood pressure.
The other aspect was a SIDE EFFECT. The rest is marketing opportunity history.
не поглеждай назад.
"Even an American judge is unlikely to award child support for imputed children." - FredOnEverything
It's something that nobody's allowed to say, but more than anything America will be destroyed demographically. The Founders may have rebelled against Britain, but they were still products of Western culture. It's already close that we have a black president, but there are still significant pockets of resistance. All is not lost, though it soon will be. Soon voting rights will be in the hands of those with a non-Western heritage. A culture that did not belong to the founders of the country. That's merely an observation; if I were to say it is a bad thing I would be racist. Frankly I blame the whites most of all though. They should know better, but they're too stuck up their own asses. They can only blame themselves for self immolation. You can't blame a fool for being a fool, but you can blame someone of reasonable intelligence for acting like one.
Well, the Jews were fairly clever about how they destroyed white society and they took a long time to do it. But yes, it amazes me that a relatively small group of dysgenic freaks have managed to bring the entire Germanic race to its knees. It is as if they have some sort of magical assistance.
How odd of God
To choose the Jews
DIG DING DING!
Medicinal development was always a prime concern. But here's the thing: prevention is always the best cure. Not only that, you have the direct cause of disease and info like that being suppressed. There are many remedies for even the most dangerous of diseases around the world(for example, cancer).