Was Technical Revolution a Fluke of History?

[Bobunf]

“How advanced can we be if 7 out 10 people on this rock can't read. Close to the same number do not have decent places to live, decent diets, clean water to drink, any type of medical care.”

Where do these numbers come from? I don’t think literacy figures will bear out the 7 out of 10 number. Of course, one can always define literacy such that any given number is illiterate—say 99%. The same definition issues, of course, apply to a “decent place to live?” But where does that number come from?

As for “decent diet,” with worldwide obesity exceeding 20%, I can see where this could have some merit. But isn’t obesity only a symptom of our genetic heritage—coming from a time when food scarcity was a real issue? It’s easy to show that the world is starving by adjusting average required caloric intake to an inaccurate high level, which many “hunger” organizations regularly do.

Close to 7 out of 10 do not have clean water to drink? Another arbitary standard?

“any type of medical care” Any? No, I think one is dealing with an arbitrary standard--or numbers just pulled out of thin air.

“disparity can only go on so long”

We’ve had economic disparity for about 1500 centuries. But for centuries humans have experienced rising life expectancies, increasing caloric consumption per capita, and an increasing level of civil liberties. In other words, people are healthier, wealthier and wiser today than 100,000 years ago, or 10,000, or a thousand, or a hundred, or ten.

And in the last sixty years, in addition to these benefits, we’ve seen caloric consumption increase faster in developing countries than in developed countries, suggesting a relative decline in economic disparity, which, I think, is supported by other measures.

It is so monotonous, this mantra that “Everything is so terrible because humans are so short-sighted, unenlightened, and morally deficient.” Except, of course, for the noble elite. Besides being boring, the mantra is not based on facts.

[GOURDHEAD]

It is so monotonous, this mantra that “Everything is so terrible because humans are so short-sighted, unenlightened, and morally deficient.” Except, of course, for the noble elite. Besides being boring, the mantra is not based on facts.

Amen! and Amen! However, the Great God Truth insists that we not forget that we have much to learn and will continue to make a mistake now and then (perhaps every few microseconds). Evolution will continue to drive us to ever more competent levels of tecnology development, but like snowballs that roll downhill, we can't be sure of the exact path. Be ye not caught off guard (especially not in the backfield).

[aries_4_5_48]

....Mr Bo: I'm not certain what planet or dimension you live in but everyone of those figures are verifiable. When you cross the southern border of the US, potable water is not to be found from there to the Tierra del Fuego. That is a FACT.
How about India, !,000,000,000 +, China 1,5000,000. In all your wordly wisdom do you have the slightest idea what the per/centage of people are who can read at 6th grade level. The answer is, you most definitely do not!

Regarding the automobile: my mantra was that fossil fuel was not the ONLY way to provide transportation. That was the most Profitable. Technology could have taken many paths, arbitrary is what you call the direction and consequences of the world we live in today, or the one I live in at any rate..... :blink:

Nothing is so enertaining as the discussion of a book no one has read..... :huh: :unsure:

[Bobunf]

Aries, you said, “In all your wordly (sic) wisdom do you have the slightest idea what the per/centage (sic) of people are who can read at 6th grade level. (sic) The answer is, you most definitely do not!”

I wonder what your source is for that assertion since you know absolutely nothing at all about me. Lets try some beastly facts instead; starting with the ten most populous countries in the world. From the United States Bureau of the Census, International Data Base, Table 060:

Population Rank, Country, Percent Literate, Listed in order of population rank:
1 China, 84% of those over 15 years of age. 1995 most recent data
2 India, 52% of those over 10 years of age. 1990 most recent data.
3 United States, 97%. 1980 most recent data.
4 Indonesia, 84% of those over 10 years of age. 1990 most recent data.
5 Brazil, 81% of those over 15 years of age. 1990 most recent data.
6 Russia, 98% of those over 10 years of age. 1989 most recent data.
7 Pakistan, 35% of those over 15 years of age. 1990 most recent data.
8 Bangladesh, 36% of those over 10 years of age. 1991 most recent data.
9 Japan, 99%. 1970 most recent data.
10 Nigeria, 51% of those over 15 years of age. 1990 most recent data.

These countries constitute 61% of the world’s population and have an average literacy rate of 72%. This does not comport with your assertion that “7 out 10 people on this rock can't read.” Not even one country has an illiteracy rate of 70%. If one added in the other 180 countries and political entities, the average literacy rate would rise.

I might observe that it appears that you most definitely do not have sources for the statistics of your assertions, which seem to be plucked out of thin air.

Bob

[Bobunf]

Aries, you said, “When you cross the southern border of the US, potable water is not to be found from there to the Tierra del Fuego. That is a FACT.”

I guess I’m from a different planet than you. I’ve spent a whole lot of time in Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador over the last 30 years, and I’ve had lots of water to drink in those countries. You can buy bottled water on practically every street corner, and all reasonable hotels and restaurants, and most private homes have safe drinking water.

The standards are not as rigidly adhered to as in the United States, and Gringos need to be more cautious about water in Mexico and Central America, but potable water is very definitely and easily found.

I can't speak for the rest of Central America, nor for South America; having spent very little time there. But I've never heard reports that would suggest serious water problems from the hundreds of people I've known from these locales.

Bob

[aries_4_5_48]

....I myself have spent considerable time south of the border, (3yrs) in Mexico, Belize, Guatamala, Honduras, and a short stay in Cuba. The very fact that you have to buy drinking water means it is not potable. Not Clean. There are no water treatment plants. Now that I think about it, you are right. Just buy your water, no problem, except if you don't have the money.

Those literacy figures are not representative of the whole country. It pertains to a given age bracket, not total pop. It has been a most enlightening experience, I appreciate all the info, and I know that you all know much :blink:

[Bobunf]

Aries, you said, “Those literacy figures are not representative of the whole country. It pertains to a given age bracket”

Well, yes. Children ages 0 through 9 are not counted in determining literacy. I’m really not at all disturbed that hardly any three year olds read. This doesn’t seem to me an objection that makes any sense.

These figures can, and should be challenged, on many other grounds. Japan’s claim of 99% literacy, for instance, is clearly absurd; obviously not taking into account mentally incompetent people, such as those suffering from Alzheimer’s or other forms of senile dementia, severe mental illness, and other handicaps.

They probably use a definition of literacy as a reading ability in someone capable of achieving that reading ability; and this could be a very slippery slope indeed. Age is so much more definite.

On the other hand, I’m not too concerned that someone with severe autism is unsuccessful on reading tests.

These types of problems with data are very common, but demography is a science, and not an easy one. So tremendously much effort is put into developing the mechanisms for gathering data, in actually using those mechanisms to collect data, in verifying and analyzing data. And the product is an imperfect set of numbers about literacy, for instance.

I think such great efforts on the part of so many very talented people require that the data be re-spected; that it be given time, attention and close study. One needs to work at trying to tease out the meanings behind the data. It’s so very hard to figure out how things work, what’s going on, what’s real and what’s not; it’s almost blasphemous to ignore all that work in favor of a prejudice arrived at without struggle.

The data, the work, the talent only achieve the full respect they deserve when it enlightens some-one, changes their mind, gives them a deeper insight. That requires the involvement of the inter-locutor as well.

[aries_4_5_48]

...Nationmaster.com

India-average years of schooling, 5.1
Literacy female, 48.3
Literacy male 70.2
Literacy Pop-59.5%

China-average years of schooling, 6.4
Literacy rate pop-86%(86% of 1.5 billion people have a 6th grade education.) Please forgive me for such a blatent skewing of the figures. If they were one half of that it, is excessive to me. In my philosophy if humankind doesn't make it as a whole he won't make it at all.(personal opinion) Evolution is a theory, it is not the only viable one. Complexity is far more likely to me, and that necessitates that we move in the direction implied. Technology is not my god, it is not a given that every new toy is worth the price or an indication of an advancement of civilization. I personally can think of no meaningful accomplishment, that generations from now, people will look back and say: Logic-Greeks, Social refinement and organization-Romans. Perhaps touching the moon if it weren't for leaving a junk car and a sack of crap. I don't expect you to agree, I would be disappointed if you did. At the same time you bear in mind that we are creatures with a brain capable of infinite concepts within an infinite Universe, logic prevailing, anything is possible... Peace unto you

"I would never die for what I believe in, I might be wrong." B. Russell :huh:

[Bobunf]

Aries, you said, “I personally can think of no meaningful accomplishment, that generations from now, people will look back…”

I don't think you're working at this very hard.

How about the Germ Theory of Disease? The Theory of Evolution? The worldwide abolition of slavery? The on-going emancipation of women? The widespread adoption of representative democracy? The emerging effort to save Earth and life from the inevitable impact of a global extinction asteroid?

What won’t they say about Pasteur? Who would want to volunteer to live life before antibiotics?

There are literally thousands of accomplishments of modern civilizations that have so improved human survival, understanding and pleaseure. One word isn't enough.

Bob

[StarLab]

Well, yeah, one word is enough: appreciation.

[Bobunf]

If Aries view prevails, I think the one word will be "Ungrateful."

[aries_4_5_48]

.....poorly stated granted, I was referring to technology. How much importance do you place on the telegraph, steam engine, light bulb, newspaper, transcontinental railroad, suspension bridges, sky-scrapers, subways, escalators, trollies, wrist watches, etc? At the time the world had never seen anything like it. There is nothing to make me think present day "Wonders" will be viewed any differently. Sorry, that's the way I see it. No offense intended. (actually just a little, a 'wake-up call' so to speak. What if 100 years from now, history had recorded that through the concerted effort of those on the planet, hunger ceased to exist? Aggressive actions of one nation against another had been resolved thru alternatives, the global basic education level tripled, no child went blind from vitamin deficiencies? Technological advancements, in my opinion, are NOT synonymous with advancement of civilization.) :unsure:

"No single idea has been more important than, perhaps as impotant as, the idea of progress in Western civilization for nearly 3,000 years. Nisbet

[Bobunf]

Aries, you said, “I personally can think of no meaningful accomplishment...[such as]...Aggressive actions of one nation against another had been resolved thru alternatives”

To which, I say, open your eyes. We don’t live in paradise, which would probably be awfully boring anyway. But consider the way in which the great confrontation between the Soviet Union and the West was resolved.

It was really an even broader conflict than that—between the philosophy of Communism and that of Liberalism; and about very important issues. To many, including me at various times, it seemed near certain that the conflict would end in thermonuclear annihilation.

The scenarios ranged from the destruction of these two superpowers and their allies, to the end of civilization, a thousand year dark age, the end of Homo Sapiens, the end of all life. None of it something to look forward to.

I remember, in the 1950s, reading George Kennan’s analysis of the issues. He advocated the twin policies of containment (effective resistance to any further Communist advances), and transformation—holding our way of doing things as an example, demonstrating to and convincing the Communists that our way was better; converting them to Liberals like us.

The question I asked myself was, “Has this ever happened before?” And the answer, of course is, “No.” Conversion after conquest, Yes, and either way; but never as a policy in lieu of conquest. The whole thing to me seemed pretty unlikely, and, actually, a little nutty.

Nonetheless, it worked. Instead of a billion dead, the conflict was resolved almost without bloodshed. This is not to diminish the sacrifice of the hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions of others who did die in the conflict. That Holocaust was avoided makes their acts even more greatly to be treasured and respected.

Here we have a great war, the greatest ever known to mankind, avoided. We blinked, and it never happened. Almost a miracle; I didn’t know we had it in us. And the mechanism of resolution was something entirely new to the species--something truly different from anything that's gone before.

What an accomplishment!

Bob

[StarLab]

Wasn't much of a resolution or accomplishment. Didn't do anything except create more political borders. As a matter of fact, it may have begun what I call the third Gathering of Central Asia. Yes, third. First were the Teutonic tribes and huns, the caucasians who now dominate America and Europe. Then came the short-lived Mongol dynasty. Now, this: fundamentalist Muslims in central Asia bent once again on continental domination, using modern technology to advance and unleash ancient dilemmas once believed resolved with the advent of Industrialism. Didn't reach central Asia, though. I fear this one is worst than the last two. The first GCA was forced West by geological problems. The second batch had nothing to gain but more political land - no more, no less. And they couldn't handle it, and thus collapsed. But now we are dealing with Holy War people, who are BENT on the destruction of advances in Teutonic civilization. The Cold War was not a resolution of any sort; on the contrary, it opened up a whole new era of possible Central Asian values of violence and destruction. Evil has just begun. For a third time.

[Bobunf]

StarLab, you said, “The Cold War was not a resolution of any sort, on the contrary, it opened up a whole new era of possible Central Asian values of violence and destruction.”

This statement doesn’t make sense to me. I assume you meant something like, “the end of the Cold War did not result in a resolution of any problem.” Or, “the Cold War conflict did not solve anything.”

Of course the ending of the conflict between Communism and Liberalism didn’t resolve all Earthly problems, anymore than paying your water bill solves the problem of the electric bill. There were two different, dangerous philosophical movements afoot. Defanging one doesn’t make the other more dangerous.

How did resolving the conflict between Communism and Liberalism open “up a whole new era of possible Central Asian values of violence and destruction?”

I can’t imagine that you believe the current difficulties with Fundamentalist Islam carry danger of the same magnitude as existed with the Damocles sword of thermonuclear Holocaust hanging over the World for decades.

I also don’t think your history would stand much analysis.

Bob

[ASEI]

for the preservation of the nature of this thread, I've deleted my political stuff.

Sorry, sometimes I can't help but respond to some things.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by ASEI@Aug 29 2004, 01:09 PM
That's crazy.

You can see why political discussion is forbidden here. Starlab is too young to know what happened. Older people take offense at his ignorance. All of you: Please return back to the astronomy related parts of this topic.

[StarLab]

Well, gee, Anton, why don't you PM me about

what happened.

In the meantime, guys, yes Anton's right...let's get back to the original discussion.

[aries_4_5_48]

.....it seems to me that every time civilization, technology, and meaningful advances are mentioned the answers, for the most part, are about the USA. We are not the sole representative of civilized man. When the 20th century is studied and a global picture is 'painted', I do not think the accomplishments of mankind will exceed those of some earlier periods. It is a purely subjective assessment. Great gains by a few does not translate into great gains for humanity. Is planet Earth in an overall better state than it was in say, 1874? B)

"Life is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." A. E. :unsure:

[StarLab]

One word: globalization.

[GOURDHEAD]

Great gains by a few does not translate into great gains for humanity. Is planet Earth in an overall better state than it was in say, 1874?

Great gains will always start with a few and then spread to the masses at large. Perhaps the spreading is slower than we like; we are better off than in 1874. Is there something special about 1874?

[ASEI]

If you see the technical revolution as a game of exponential development, then Europe merely pulled away from the rest of the world in developmental terms during the Rennaisance, and America managed to pull ahead of them when they were ravaged by two world wars.

But one must also keep this in mind - in such exponential development scenarios, even though a few countries develop at a fantastic rate, the whole world is developing as well, just slower: they are behind on the curve.

Of course, we could also be on a normal curve type development trend, seeing as how the developing world actually seems to be developing faster. That would lead to an eventual evening of the development playing field (which in turn would probably lead to a few more world wars. )

[aries_4_5_48]

.....the theoretical 'great gains eventually are realized by all' appears to function much like the 'trickle down theory' of economics, to me. World history is a repetition of one 'Break-Away' nation dominating and expanding until it surpasses the ability to sustain itself. Then the next exceptional nation takes center stage. (ie Rome, French, Spanish, British, etc.) One could come to the purely logical conclusion that the One Dominant Domino scenerio will produce the same result. If that result results in another World War, I am inclined to agree with Mr. Einstein"s assessment: "I don't know what weapons WWIII will be fought with, but I do know what WWIV will be fought with. Sticks and stones." It seems the ability to avert self-annihilation would, at least in part, define what degree of intelligence a species had achieved. Earthlings are the only species on the planet that produces exceptional individuals, but as a group, achievements are questionable... :unsure:
(My intent is to present the 'problem' as an Earth problem, not a USA problem)

"Forgive me for the banality of this observation, but there is something very wrong with the human race." D. Lessing h34r:

[StarLab]

The only thing in the way of advancements are economics, now; purely, economics. When we learn values are more important than morals, we have only one enemy left: viruses. As in AIDS, SARS, etc. Once we conquer these, we can set our minds to anything we like, as long as it's peaceful.

[aries_4_5_48]

....are you certain the problem is economics, or is it priorities? As I have said before, the species, as a whole, does not appear to be a priority. I know you are familiar with the term 'critical point'. The point at which an entity is unable to sustain itself. One could, with little bias, look at the Planet today and see definite trends.....I hope your assessment proves to be the more accurate....

"Beyond a critical point within a finite space, freedom diminishes as numbers increase. This is as true for humans in the finite space of a planetary eco-system as it is of gas molecules in a sealed flask. The human question is not how many can possibly survive within the system, but what kind of existence is possible for those who survive." Dune B)

[StarLab]

Except we've gone so far technologically that it's too late to correct the mistakes we've made that've caused harm to our planet...therefore, it is in humanity's best interest to leave earth. Pehaps we may encounter problems there, but if we choose to stay down here I think we will be always close to that Critical Point.

[aries_4_5_48]

....your assessment appears to valid, although, it is not totally inconceivable that conditions and circumstances could change to the point that the Earth and its life forms achieve a sustainabilty. It seems the population would need to be greatly reduced but that is an area in which modern Homo/Saps excel....

[John L]

During the time of the Roman Empire the first steam engine was developed and the plans, writings, and a model were stored at the Great Library in Alexandria. The burning of the Great Library destroyed this and an untold number of inventions and scientific ideas that had to then wait a further 1,000-1,500 years to come again. Had the Great Library and its contents been preserved who can say whether the Romans would not have put the first man on the Moon. Would the industrial revolution have occurred in 200 AD rather than in the last 250 years? Had the advancements of the last three centuries happened 1500 years earlier in history, where would we be today?

[Matthew]

The burning of the Great Library destroyed not just details on inventions, but also medical details. I've heard that there were details on cancer, who know's we may have been living in a cancer free world.

Unfortunatly we won't know the sheer scope of the knowledge that was stored in the Library, there could have been things that we haven't re-discovered yet. :mellow:

[Nerdman20]

Well I hate to sound naive but I ask you this.

Why does it matter what happened in the past? Yes we can learn from it, but should we not focus our efforts on the future? If we stop debating about what COULD have happened i belive that we could move further faster.

A few notes on earlier replys

Somebody said that once we conquer viruses we will be able to set our minds free to think about anything.

Good point but in my oppion there is a flaw (assuming that there are no wars hunger etc)

If we have nothing to work for why work? With out a neccesity why invent? Give me just 1 invention that wasnt built to fix, or make better a part of our lives.

One the fact that only Chirstianity has survived from The Roman Empire

What are you wrghting in now? I belive it is English, a language directly decending from Latin

Roman alphabet for Latin
The Romans used just 23 letters to write Latin:

A B C D E F G H I K L M N O P Q R S T V X Y Z

English Alphabet

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

And lets look at the word Alphabet

Alpha - A

Basicly Latin pops up in our culture alot! (Can anyone say Halflife? or Faternity?)