The Dominance of Western Culture

[The Stranger]

The Western way of life (generally speaking) is the most dominant way of life at the moment. But is it therefore also the best way of life?

First I want to clear up some things.

Technological Advance is always a step forward (even though some side-effects might be negative), when considered only in the area of Technology its always an improvement, 1.5 is better than 1.0 (though users of microsoft may want to differ :P). Technological Advance is an upward or forward motion.

Cultural Advance however is much more complicated. I'd like to distinct two forms of Cultural Advance. Namely to refine on type of Culture and to replace one type of culture with another. Example: When you have a culture of bloodshed and someone invents a machine to make this bloodshed easier or better or whatever, this would be a Cultural Refinement (by Technological means). The culture of bloodshed has improved, the culture has made a step forward. I would like to call this Cultural Evolution or Growth.
Then there is the other form of Cultural advance, namely when the culture of bloodshed is replaced by a culture of peace. I will call this Cultural Revolution or Change. (This does not mean that every replacement of one dominant type of culture by another neccesarily happens over night)
Where Technological Advance is always a forward motion, Cultural advance is not. It is undirected motion, one can't tell where it leads to. Therefore one can't really say what Culture 1.0 is or what 1.5 is or what Culture 2.0 is or why or that one is better than the other. They are different yes, but its not a difference in quality.

Technological and Cultural Advances are linked closely together, one my support the other or help end the other. Certain Technological Advances stimulate Culture (book press) per example and some Cultural Advances limit Technological Advances (Christianity).

When one Culture is Technologically more advanced it doesn't mean that is Culturally more advanced. As a matter of fact, however there are different types of life and different cultures this does not mean that one is better than the other, even though one type might be dominant. Per example one might argue that the dominant culture in music nowadays is not the best one. Or that dominant culture of Reality TV is not really an improvement. You are free to believe whatever you want though but when you say that, this and this is better than that and that, it is a personal statement. You can listen to rock, your newbour can listen to rap and your parents can listen classical music, and yet you can all get along. That is what the Western Culture prides itself for. However Western way of life itself, the way it has presented itself at the moment, is incompatible with any other way of life (and now I'm talking about something that superceeds culture, its bigger than that).

To get back to the post of Husar.


It's pretty simple, had the Ottomans had machine guns in 16xx, they had probably conquered all of Europe, just like a bunch of Europeans conquered all of Africa using guns the Africans didn't have.
If that's not it then we're just Übermenschen I guess. But then it would be even less our fault, but people conquering others and imposing this or that on them is not exactly something Europeans invented, maybe we were just good at it and it drove us to invent new things all the time.
Had the Africans sunk our ships with their coastal guns, we wouldn't have conquered it, it wasn't our fault tat the natives were a bunch of primitive weaklings. That the strong beat the weak wasn't something we invented specifically to genocide them, it was something that was just a heck of a lot easier to do to them than to the heavily armed baron and his army who were your neighbour in
Europe. The Mongols and Huns didn't ask us whether we could counter their awesome weapons and tactics either.
It's right that we shouldn't discriminate against people if they want to become contributing members of our society but if I knew that Megas Methuselah was ultimately out to reclaim his rightful place under the sun I wouldn't hire him either because the last guy who said something like that was largely responsible for WW1. There, take that

Europe was technologically more advanced, no doubt about it (even though most of the basic technology was invented somewhere else in the world, they improved a lot of it). But this techological supremacy doesn't mean a cultural supremacy. In fact one could argue that culturally Europe was one of the most backward places in the world at the 15th century. Not in the way that all the other cultures were better but most of them were at the peak of their culture, some were even in decline already. While Europe was just in the infancy of it's new culture. The renaissance.

(Something a bit off the record and directly aimed at Husar, you speak of it as if the genocide of millions of people was not a bad thing. It was the neccesary thing, no thats not what you say, it was the easiest thing. This is your oppinion and you are very well entitled to it, but it also means that when other people/culture try to gain the domininance and suicide bomb the shit out of your family it is not a bad thing. It is just a neccesary, nay, the easiest thing to do. You can't blame them for it, you can't be angry even, it is just the struggle of life then. I mighr have misinterpreted, if so, sorry.)

The problem in the end is this one, and it is a very serious one (This theory is not mine nor is it new, Heidegger also said something similar), the technological way of life (which is not neccesarily tied to western culture, but it originated there) is incompatible with any other way of life. This system that is now spreading across the world forces other ways of life and other cultures to adept or else perish. You have to join it or else you will be ignored or executed, but when you do something wrong according to its laws you will be punished nonetheless. Per example the aboriginal (australian one) way of life is very different than that of the dominant australian culture, it is not better or worse, just very different (a nature orientated vs technology orientated). However while the aboriginal way of life would have allowed the dominant culture to exist more or less in its original state, the other way around, the dominant technology based culture does not allow the aboriginal way of life perserve their ways more or less in its original state.

So the sophisticated openmindedness and sophisticated tolerance the West prides itself with do not apply on the metalevel. Where in the end it is just a monster that tries to swallow at much as it can before it will destroy itself... which is what we see happening now. The origin for this attitude I think can be found in the Thora, Bible and Koran.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You will find it hard to convince a Medievist of the cultural backwardness of Europe in the 15th century. You might get him or her to agree with you on the (late) 16th/ (early) 17th century since that is the time of what we currently associate with the phrase “I am gonna go Medieval on your ass” but even that is questionable since the ‘gains’ (or losses) of then are something we still use/content with today especially in religion.

But the 15th century? The Renaissance (example: Erasmus is thoroughly 15th century)? Print? Birth of modern cartography (i.e. the rejection of mappa mundi [which implies cultural changes that go beyond merely accepting a superior form of cartography] in favour of the Mediterranean map/journals)? In fact one could argue that (if not entirely at least more than just a large chunk of it) the basis of modern (Western) scientific thought and knowledge is that 15th century you label as backwards.

15th century by the way is not the infancy of the European culture. That would deny for instance the high medieval ages; the Carolingian renaissance, etc. etc. And it was also not the infancy of the Renaissance. The Renaissance is more complex than that; there are at least 2 distinctly different ‘flavours’ of it and they overlap somewhat but certainly not in what you might call their ‘infancy’.

Oh undoubtedly there is a lot that we may find backwards today, in comparison with say the Ottomans of then. But as you put your position that is apparently not the question (and it would yield a rather lame “yes and amen” type of answer anyway).

EDIT: More to the point; culture is as you admitted shaped by technological advancements. (No art and fashion without the discovery of the useful properties of punctured reed, or stones with a sharp edge that can cut a bone into something worth wearing as necklace, or the discovery of the fact that some stones contain something now called ocher and that it makes a wonderful crayon.) Ergo to be culturally backwards is to lack a culturally adequate response to a new technological world.

[Vuk]

I like Korean food.

[Beskar]

I willl admit, I skimmed read this. Mainly because it looked like the right answer. "When on is most technologically advanced, it isn't most culturally.". The best examples of cultural advancement are fully working cultural societies. Should like life in a Kibbutz. A society based on where everyone is there working together.

The rise of individualism is causing many problems and is the number one thing destroying social cohesion (also destroying culture). Instead of people working together, it is people working against eachother. This causes conflict and strife. It also causes a very pessemestic society. In Western schools, the idea is that the pupils don't want to be there, and they also initimate and victimise other pupils, especially those who want to learn and get an education. If you go backwards in time, or even across the seas, or even look in private education, the schools are full of people who want to be there and learn. The whole ethos is completely different.

How many people now-a-days actually know their neighbours on their street? The days are long gone where you would all know eachother like extended family and only places in Western culture that do show this are disney movies or looking in the past in History books.

[The Stranger]

You will find it hard to convince a Medievist of the cultural backwardness of Europe in the 15th century. You might get him or her to agree with you on the (late) 16th/ (early) 17th century since that is the time of what we currently associate with the phrase “I am gonna go Medieval on your ass” but even that is questionable since the ‘gains’ (or losses) of then are something we still use/content with today especially in religion.

But the 15th century? The Renaissance (example: Erasmus is thoroughly 15th century)? Print? Birth of modern cartography (i.e. the rejection of mappa mundi [which implies cultural changes that go beyond merely accepting a superior form of cartography] in favour of the Mediterranean map/journals)? In fact one could argue that (if not entirely at least more than just a large chunk of it) the basis of modern (Western) scientific thought and knowledge is that 15th century you label as backwards.

15th century by the way is not the infancy of the European culture. That would deny for instance the high medieval ages; the Carolingian renaissance, etc. etc. And it was also not the infancy of the Renaissance. The Renaissance is more complex than that; there are at least 2 distinctly different ‘flavours’ of it and they overlap somewhat but certainly not in what you might call their ‘infancy’.

Oh undoubtedly there is a lot that we may find backwards today, in comparison with say the Ottomans of then. But as you put your position that is apparently not the question (and it would yield a rather lame “yes and amen” type of answer anyway).

EDIT: More to the point; culture is as you admitted shaped by technological advancements. (No art and fashion without the discovery of the useful properties of punctured reed, or stones with a sharp edge that can cut a bone into something worth wearing as necklace, or the discovery of the fact that some stones contain something now called ocher and that it makes a wonderful crayon.) Ergo to be culturally backwards is to lack a culturally adequate response to a new technological world.

you get me wrong, renaissance was the most important cultural advance in western history. but in 15th century it just started and it would peak some centuries later. it was the start of a new type of culture. where no longer religion and religious truth but science and scientific truth would be become the new guideline.

renaissance is a perfect example of cultural revolution i would think...

on your edit:

that is not at all what I admitted, though it contains some truth. (the way you look at it, so purely technological is exactly the root of it all, but thats for later). I said Technology can shape culture, it can also end culture. At the same way, Culture can stimulate Technology or limit it.

The example you give of sharp stones is an example of when Technology is used for survival (to cut food etc) and it's later used for art. So now it is Technology that influences Culture. But the Bookprintmachine is an example when Culture influences Technology. It was invented because there was demand for it. If there was not Culture of bibles and reading books, but only a oral culture, no man would have invented the printing machine...

Ergo to be culturally backwards is to lack a culturally adequate response to a new technological world.

What would you define then, as a adequate cultural response to a new technological world? Sitting in the couch watching sitcoms?

(And again in the bolded sentence above you can see that the technological way of life is incompatible with anything else.)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The problem in the end is this one, and it is a very serious one (This theory is not mine nor is it new, Heidegger also said something similar), the technological way of life (which is not neccesarily tied to western culture, but it originated there) is incompatible with any other way of life. This system that is now spreading across the world forces other ways of life and other cultures to adept or else perish. You have to join it or else you will be ignored or executed, but when you do something wrong according to its laws you will be punished nonetheless. Per example the aboriginal (australian one) way of life is very different than that of the dominant australian culture, it is not better or worse, just very different (a nature orientated vs technology orientated). However while the aboriginal way of life would have allowed the dominant culture to exist more or less in its original state, the other way around, the dominant technology based culture does not allow the aboriginal way of life perserve their ways more or less in its original state.

Yes. If a culture, for example, believes in healing by chanting and sprinkling sacred water on the person, and they come in contact with actual medicine, then their culture is often destroyed. Not because the medicine culture is evil, but because people want to be cured of their illness.

The idea of the noble savage and "peaceful nature oriented societies" is still going strong, but it's very misguided.


From Rousseau to the Thanksgiving editorialist of Chapter 1, many intellectuals have embraced the image of
peaceable, egalitarian, and ecology-loving natives. But in the past two decades anthropologists have gathered data on
life and death in pre-state societies rather than accepting the warm and fuzzy stereotypes. What did they find? In a
nutshell: Hobbes was right, Rousseau was wrong.
To begin with, the stories of tribes out there somewhere who have never heard of violence turn out to be urban
legends. Margaret Mead's descriptions of peace-loving New Guineans and sexually nonchalant Samoans were based
on perfunctory research and turned out to be almost perversely wrong. As the anthropologist Derek Freeman later
documented, Samoans may beat or kill their daughters if they are not virgins on their wedding night, a young man
who cannot woo a virgin may rape one to extort her into eloping, and the family of a cuckolded husband may attack
and kill the adulterer.68 The !Kung San of the Kalahari Desert had been described by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas as
“the harmless people” in a book with that title. But as soon as anthropologists camped out long enough to accumulate
data, they discovered that the !Kung San have a murder rate higher than that of American inner cities. They learned
as well that a group of the San had recently avenged a murder by sneaking into the killer's group and executing every
man, woman, and child as they slept.69 But at least the !Kung San exist. In the early 1970s the New York Times
Magazine reported the discovery of the “gentle Tasaday” of the Philippine rainforest, a people with no words for
conflict, violence, or weapons. The Tasaday turned out to be local farmers dressed in leaves for a photo opportunity
so that cronies of Ferdinand Marcos could set aside their “homeland” as a preserve and enjoy exclusive mineral and
logging rights.70


I reject the assumption that you can't say that one culture is better than another. Often two cultures will have the same goals, but take two different paths in trying to achieve those goals. If one of them reaches those goals and the other fails miserably, then would you still say that they are just as good as each other?




So the sophisticated openmindedness and sophisticated tolerance the West prides itself with do not apply on the metalevel.

The west does not pride itself on blind tolerance (well, some liberals do, but not the West as a whole). And openmindedness is not the same as acceptance. If you were to say to me "in such and such a society, women are seen as inferior to men in these various ways" I can be openminded while hearing more about it, and still reject it as an inferior culture.



The rise of individualism is causing many problems and is the number one thing destroying social cohesion (also destroying culture). Instead of people working together, it is people working against eachother. This causes conflict and strife. It also causes a very pessemestic society. In Western schools, the idea is that the pupils don't want to be there, and they also initimate and victimise other pupils, especially those who want to learn and get an education. If you go backwards in time, or even across the seas, or even look in private education, the schools are full of people who want to be there and learn. The whole ethos is completely different.

I take it you intend to choose your career and wife, yes? Those people back in that less individualistic time usually had their careers chosen for them by their parents or by society.


This is the kind of thread where I really wish I knew more history :juggle2:

But from everything I do know, it is obvious that we are many times better off than we used to be. The aborigenes used to hunt by running 20+ miles through the desert and then carrying the meat back, I get some snacks out of my fridge. The greater ease of life that comes with technology allows us the luxury of having things like equal rights and personal freedom.

[Husar]

(Something a bit off the record and directly aimed at Husar, you speak of it as if the genocide of millions of people was not a bad thing. It was the neccesary thing, no thats not what you say, it was the easiest thing. This is your oppinion and you are very well entitled to it, but it also means that when other people/culture try to gain the domininance and suicide bomb the shit out of your family it is not a bad thing. It is just a neccesary, nay, the easiest thing to do. You can't blame them for it, you can't be angry even, it is just the struggle of life then. I mighr have misinterpreted, if so, sorry.)

Well, I was completely abstracting of sorts from any moral judgement, so yes, if those suicide bombers manage to bomb us into submission then they will have won, they will be superior, better.
At the moment I doubt that is going to happen though.
On a moral level I find all of it horrible though and I think I mentioned somewhere in my post(or the next) that I am in favour of peace. But some people are not and when they come you are either prepared or you go under, that's not a judgement, it's often a reality.

[Tellos Athenaios]

you get me wrong, renaissance was the most important cultural advance in western history. but in 15th century it just started and it would peak some centuries later. it was the start of a new type of culture. where no longer religion and religious truth but science and scientific truth would be become the new guideline.

I think that is a rather misguided statement. First on the relatively simple level of dating (really Renaissance starts in the middle of the 14th century as with the framework of concepts that we might consider in simple terms the humanist way of life; and it is owing to the roots claimed by the proponents of these concepts that the broader cultural movement is named renaissance).

Secondly there is the faar more misguided concept that Medieval people would have their life dictated by some religious zeal or something. Think again: that is far more 20th century. And certainly not something dating to before the 16th century with its plethora of wars about what exactly constitutes the meaning of the scripture, and what the role of government in this should be. (And if you thought that the role of government was decided upon not to interfere with matters of religion you would be quite mistaken: indeed, most princes who would not before have dared to touch these matters with the proverbial 20ft poles now considered themselves entitled to set these matters by force -- urged on by clerics and preachers of all kinds to do so.)


But the Bookprintmachine is an example when Culture influences Technology.

How? Of course culture favours some kinds of pursuits over others but other than that; why specifically should the printing press be an example of this?



Ergo to be culturally backwards is to lack a culturally adequate response to a new technological world.

What would you define then, as a adequate cultural response to a new technological world? Sitting in the couch watching sitcoms?

No, an adequate response is essentially about coming to terms with a new reality -- not about being right or wrong with the benefit of hindsight after the next responses & technological advancements have happened. Watching sitcoms is not really relevant here; unless you want to construe these sitcoms as part of such a response.

[The Stranger]

Yes. If a culture, for example, believes in healing by chanting and sprinkling sacred water on the person, and they come in contact with actual medicine, then their culture is often destroyed. Not because the medicine culture is evil, but because people want to be cured of their illness.

The idea of the noble savage and "peaceful nature oriented societies" is still going strong, but it's very misguided.

I didn't say peaceful. All I'm saying that there is nothing bad about combining nature and technology without just using one for the benefit of the other. The negative sides of this system are now revealing themselves and yet they are still trying to fix a problem of nature with technological solutions... it wont work.


I reject the assumption that you can't say that one culture is better than another. Often two cultures will have the same goals, but take two different paths in trying to achieve those goals. If one of them reaches those goals and the other fails miserably, then would you still say that they are just as good as each other?

how will you determine the goals of a culture? but what then if the the 2 cultures in question donot share the same goals (which is what i'm implying) how will you compare? and if you cant compare, how can you tell which one is better? you can't and that is the point im making.






The west does not pride itself on blind tolerance (well, some liberals do, but not the West as a whole). And openmindedness is not the same as acceptance. If you were to say to me "in such and such a society, women are seen as inferior to men in these various ways" I can be openminded while hearing more about it, and still reject it as an inferior culture.

You are very well entitled to do so, but this is at the personal level. I did make the comparison but I was talking about it on the cultural level.



But from everything I do know, it is obvious that we are many times better off than we used to be. The aborigenes used to hunt by running 20+ miles through the desert and then carrying the meat back, I get some snacks out of my fridge. The greater ease of life that comes with technology allows us the luxury of having things like equal rights and personal freedom.

we are better of from a point of view yes, and I wouldnt want to go back either. I doubt its even possible. Those equal rights and personal freedom arent really achieved yet...

[The Stranger]

I think that is a rather misguided statement. First on the relatively simple level of dating (really Renaissance starts in the middle of the 14th century as with the framework of concepts that we might consider in simple terms the humanist way of life; and it is owing to the roots claimed by the proponents of these concepts that the broader cultural movement is named renaissance).

I'm aware of that.


Secondly there is the faar more misguided concept that Medieval people would have their life dictated by some religious zeal or something. Think again: that is far more 20th century.
And certainly not something dating to before the 16th century with its plethora of wars about what exactly constitutes the meaning of the scripture, and what the role of government in this should be. (And if you thought that the role of government was decided upon not to interfere with matters of religion you would be quite mistaken: indeed, most princes who would not before have dared to touch these matters with the proverbial 20ft poles now considered themselves entitled to set these matters by force -- urged on by clerics and preachers of all kinds to do so.)

so? the middleages had the crusades, the inquisition, the genocide of lots of people for simply not sharing the same religion and the list continues. However what I meant is that on the level of Culture and Technology the emphasis changed from God to a more Humane worldview. Paintings were no longer of biblical theaters but selfportraits and landscapes. Debates were no longer held about how many angels can dance on the point of a needle but about the stars and the earths relation to it. It's a simplification, I'm aware of that, but it generally how it was.




How? Of course culture favours some kinds of pursuits over others but other than that; why specifically should the printing press be an example of this?

because you can print more bibles with it :P maybe the example was not a good one. But by culture I mean something wider than merely art.




No, an adequate response is essentially about coming to terms with a new reality -- not about being right or wrong with the benefit of hindsight after the next responses & technological advancements have happened. Watching sitcoms is not really relevant here; unless you want to construe these sitcoms as part of such a response.

In that case I agree.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

so? the middleages had the crusades, the inquisition, the genocide of lots of people for simply not sharing the same religion and the list continues. However what I meant is that on the level of Culture and Technology the emphasis changed from God to a more Humane worldview. Paintings were no longer of biblical theaters but selfportraits and landscapes. Debates were no longer held about how many angels can dance on the point of a needle but about the stars and the earths relation to it. It's a simplification, I'm aware of that, but it generally how it was.

This is not true. The Inquisition and religious genocides belong largely to the Renaissance, as does the modern concept of Racism really (justification of slavery there). Religious tollerence was much higher in the High Middle Ages, when Heretics were often subjected to lengthy sermons rather than torture and burning (reportedly worker, too!).

Specifically, in England torture was not used, and burning illegal, until after the beggining of the 15th Century.

I'll give you the Crusades, but only with reference to the genocidal mobs, the Knights, and particularly the militant Orders, were surprisingly humane with regard to the Muslim and Jewish locals. They were also very open to new ideas, including Universities, Distilation, tapestries in castles, chimneys, surcoats over armour.... The list goes on and I don't know every piece on it.

The Renaissance was the closed-minded era, as it cast the past as ignorant, and other cultures and religions as backwards; sadly this prejudice against the past is the greatest legacy of the Renaissance.


because you can print more bibles with it :P maybe the example was not a good one. But by culture I mean something wider than merely art.

No, excellent example! The Bible was the most important book in Christendom, and the ability to reproduce it accurately and (relatively) cheaply allowed a much larger portion of the population to engage in intellectual debate.

[The Stranger]

This is not true. The Inquisition and religious genocides belong largely to the Renaissance, as does the modern concept of Racism really (justification of slavery there). Religious tollerence was much higher in the High Middle Ages, when Heretics were often subjected to lengthy sermons rather than torture and burning (reportedly worker, too!).

Specifically, in England torture was not used, and burning illegal, until after the beggining of the 15th Century.

I'll give you the Crusades, but only with reference to the genocidal mobs, the Knights, and particularly the militant Orders, were surprisingly humane with regard to the Muslim and Jewish locals. They were also very open to new ideas, including Universities, Distilation, tapestries in castles, chimneys, surcoats over armour.... The list goes on and I don't know every piece on it.

The Renaissance was the closed-minded era, as it cast the past as ignorant, and other cultures and religions as backwards; sadly this prejudice against the past is the greatest legacy of the Renaissance.

hmm oke, I lack enough knowledge of the period regarding this area. I have to catch up. but again


However what I meant is that on the level of Culture and Technology the emphasis changed from God to a more Humane worldview. Paintings were no longer of biblical theaters but selfportraits and landscapes. Debates were no longer held about how many angels can dance on the point of a needle but about the stars and the earths relation to it. It's a simplification, I'm aware of that, but it generally how it was.

this was the actual point of my argument.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

this was the actual point of my argument.

Except that the "humane" period you are talking about is when Christians, previously content to dissagree, started killing each other over what were previously minor theological questions. Also, the Angels on the Head of a Pin argument was an academic exercise, a training piece in rhetoric; and anyway, nothing really changed because the greatest Physicist of the Renaissance was driven by the desire to discover God's Laws and spent just as much time on numeristic theology!

What really happened was a theological shift from nominalism to realism.

[Kralizec]

I'm going to make this post remarkably shorter by saying taht I agree with what Sasaki has said.


When one Culture is Technologically more advanced it doesn't mean that is Culturally more advanced. As a matter of fact, however there are different types of life and different cultures this does not mean that one is better than the other, even though one type might be dominant. Per example one might argue that the dominant culture in music nowadays is not the best one. Or that dominant culture of Reality TV is not really an improvement. You are free to believe whatever you want though but when you say that, this and this is better than that and that, it is a personal statement. You can listen to rock, your newbour can listen to rap and your parents can listen classical music, and yet you can all get along. That is what the Western Culture prides itself for. However Western way of life itself, the way it has presented itself at the moment, is incompatible with any other way of life (and now I'm talking about something that superceeds culture, its bigger than that).

Tastes in music, food and art are just that: taste. When people are saying that western culture is superior, they rarely have this in mind. Not many people would say that Japanese culture is inferior because they came up with manga comics or because they like to eat raw fish. Speaking of wich, Japanese culture is not western yet manages to coexist and influence it to a degree.


The problem in the end is this one, and it is a very serious one (This theory is not mine nor is it new, Heidegger also said something similar), the technological way of life (which is not neccesarily tied to western culture, but it originated there) is incompatible with any other way of life. This system that is now spreading across the world forces other ways of life and other cultures to adept or else perish. You have to join it or else you will be ignored or executed, but when you do something wrong according to its laws you will be punished nonetheless. Per example the aboriginal (australian one) way of life is very different than that of the dominant australian culture, it is not better or worse, just very different (a nature orientated vs technology orientated). However while the aboriginal way of life would have allowed the dominant culture to exist more or less in its original state, the other way around, the dominant technology based culture does not allow the aboriginal way of life perserve their ways more or less in its original state.

I don't condone the church missions and other things done to the aboriginals. You're saying however that aboriginal culture would have "allowed" western culture to exist in Australia, while we both know that's the case because it was never in a position to enforce itself over others.
There are instances of aborignals or natives of other countries voluntarily assimilating into the dominant culture, and nowadays they're generally welcome to do so (yes, I'm aware that racism does exist). But even with all this talk about "noble savages" I've never heard of a westerner voluntarily joining a native commune, or being accepted there for that matter.

You make a point about how western technology is in many cases derived from inventions from other cultures. But this isn't any different for "cultural" stuff. Toilet paper is a chinese invention, and I'd put that under culture rather than technology.


The rise of individualism is causing many problems and is the number one thing destroying social cohesion (also destroying culture). Instead of people working together, it is people working against eachother. This causes conflict and strife. It also causes a very pessemestic society. In Western schools, the idea is that the pupils don't want to be there, and they also initimate and victimise other pupils, especially those who want to learn and get an education. If you go backwards in time, or even across the seas, or even look in private education, the schools are full of people who want to be there and learn. The whole ethos is completely different.

How many people now-a-days actually know their neighbours on their street? The days are long gone where you would all know eachother like extended family and only places in Western culture that do show this are disney movies or looking in the past in History books.

A) education used to be a privilege, now it's taken for granted. That's all there's to it.
B) the everyone-knows-everyone phenomenon never existed in cities or large towns to begin with, and nowadays even less people live on the countryside. I fail to see how this is a bad thing in itself.

When homosexuals in Iran are executed, social cohesion is promoted by removing people who deviate from the norm. Individualism stresses privacy, tolerance for different minded people and freedom to not conform to the rest as long as it's not harmful to others. I'll take that over collectivism any day of the week.

[The Stranger]

Tastes in music, food and art are just that: taste. When people are saying that western culture is superior, they rarely have this in mind. Not many people would say that Japanese culture is inferior because they came up with manga comics or because they like to eat raw fish. Speaking of wich, Japanese culture is not western yet manages to coexist and influence it to a degree.

most of the time Japan is counted as western... apart from that its the Tecnological lifestyle, japan has succesfully (and quite smoothly) adepted to it, for which they deserve nothing but credit (though they had some considerable help).


I don't condone the church missions and other things done to the aboriginals. You're saying however that aboriginal culture would have "allowed" western culture to exist in Australia, while we both know that's the case because it was never in a position to enforce itself over others.
I doubt it would have the intention, the absence of ideas such as owning pieces of the world backs that. they were not a agressive people (in the sense of expanding their territory)


There are instances of aborignals or natives of other countries voluntarily assimilating into the dominant culture, and nowadays they're generally welcome to do so (yes, I'm aware that racism does exist). But even with all this talk about "noble savages" I've never heard of a westerner voluntarily joining a native commune, or being accepted there for that matter.


noble savages is nothing i said... it implies they would be better than something else (and at the sametime worse) Just call them humans. I dont know, but I think such stories do exist. However I dont see how that is supposed to make a point?


You make a point about how western technology is in many cases derived from inventions from other cultures. But this isn't any different for "cultural" stuff. Toilet paper is a chinese invention, and I'd put that under culture rather than technology.

And? (not to be childish, but it seems there is something missing, like you didnt type the last senctence)

[Tellos Athenaios]

That is not true either. Look at what exactly is depicted on famous Renaissance artwork? David; Judas kissing Jesus; the Sixtine chapel; the list goes on... By contrast the Bayeux Tapestry is pretty much a down-to-earth & true-to-fact historical account.

Those portraits are nothing like the 17th century portraits that were practically used as means of payment when an artist was out of cash. In fact those portraits are more like the carefully orchestrated political speeches at modern day summits; polticians smiling to the camera's as they shake hands -- supposedly a reassuring sign to their voters that they are ‘on top of things’...

... And for some entertaining scavenger hunt: look for the symbols of love and devotion in this painting (1):

EDIT: Removed hotlinked picture. Please host such pictures yourself. BG

Also a big fashion statement (2).

... And ponder the meaning of the fact that a single light beam should choose to appear through the opened window and in a patently impossible twist of the laws of physics choose to fall upon both the faces and hands of both husband and wife -- despite the distinct implications of the given composition...

[Kralizec]

most of the time Japan is counted as western... apart from that its the Tecnological lifestyle, japan has succesfully (and quite smoothly) adepted to it, for which they deserve nothing but credit (though they had some considerable help).

I wouldn't include Japan as a western country just because it's a democracy and technologically advanced. When I hear "western" I think Europeans and their descendents in America. Sure, the Japanese do listen to western music and whatnot but that's a mutual process.


I doubt it would have the intention, the absence of ideas such as owning pieces of the world backs that. they were not a agressive people (in the sense of expanding their territory)

Maybe. I know next to nothing about aboriginals.


noble savages is nothing i said... it implies they would be better than something else (and at the sametime worse) Just call them humans. I dont know, but I think such stories do exist. However I dont see how that is supposed to make a point?

It means that there are plenty of cases where natives decide that the newly arrived culture is preferable to their old one, while the reverse isn't true. People who have romantic notions about less developed societies rarely put their money where their mouth is because they are not willing, consciously or subconsciously, to abandon the perks of western culture that they're taking for granted.


And? (not to be childish, but it seems there is something missing, like you didnt type the last senctence)

It almost seemed as if you were suggeting that western culture imposes itself on others with technologies that it borrowed from others. Western culture has always incorporated stuff from other cultures for various reasons and still does. Cultures wich resist "western" influences are usually introvert societies. I don't see why keeping a culture "pure" of foreign influences is seen as a good thing in itself.

[The Stranger]

I wouldn't include Japan as a western country just because it's a democracy and technologically advanced. When I hear "western" I think Europeans and their descendents in America. Sure, the Japanese do listen to western music and whatnot but that's a mutual process.

dont forget australia then...



Maybe. I know next to nothing about aboriginals.

than how can you claim what you previously said?




It means that there are plenty of cases where natives decide that the newly arrived culture is preferable to their old one, while the reverse isn't true. People who have romantic notions about less developed societies rarely put their money where their mouth is because they are not willing, consciously or subconsciously, to abandon the perks of western culture that they're taking for granted.

the reverse is true, western people have gone to live with ottomans, indians, chinese etc white men have lived in african tribes. however most of the time there was no other alternative for those people but to join or die, because the people they were dealing with on the other side came to conquer and subdue. hence the reason they wouldnt join the other side, they were there to destroy it.





It almost seemed as if you were suggeting that western culture imposes itself on others with technologies that it borrowed from others. Western culture has always incorporated stuff from other cultures for various reasons and still does. Cultures wich resist "western" influences are usually introvert societies. I don't see why keeping a culture "pure" of foreign influences is seen as a good thing in itself.

i wasnt.

can you answer this question for me? Why is going to a concert and listening to a man singing and playing guitar better than sitting with family and friends playing drums and dancing? Why is worpshipping naturegods worse than to worship one allpowerful god or no god at all? Why is oral culture worse than written culture (i can see the benefit of the latter, but some form of bonding is also lost)

[Louis VI the Fat]

This is the kind of thread where I really wish I knew more history :juggle2:

But from everything I do know, it is obvious that we are many times better off than we used to be. The aborigenes used to hunt by running 20+ miles through the desert and then carrying the meat back, I get some snacks out of my fridge. The greater ease of life that comes with technology allows us the luxury of having things like equal rights and personal freedom.Lovely post Sasaki. I skipped the important bits, and quoted the more contentious bit.

It has not been until the twenthieth century, that Westerners gained the same amount of spare time as our Cro Magon ancestors did. Every improvement, and most notable, the Agricultural Revolution of 10000 BC and the 19th century Industrial Revolution, decreased living standards.

The widespread use of industrial production, at first glance, seemed to increase affluence. But it didn't. Standards of living (for most people) in Britain slipped to their lowest in a thousands years during the 19th century. What were well fed, relatively free, healthy people in 1750 by 1850 were a wrethced multitude, living in Dickensian conditions. It is very counter-intuitive. It took until well into the twentieth century for Britons to again enjoy, by most standards, the standard of living their ancestors enjoyed before 1750.

The same thing happened with the agrarian Revolution. Ten thousand years ago, a European had plenty of spare time, to be filled with cultural activities - dancing, drinking, chatting, pondering the nature of the universe. Then agriculture was introduced. Counter-intuitively, living standards decreased. It took ten thousand years for us to again reach the living standards our pre-agrarian ancestors enjoyed - well into the twentieth century. Living standard defined as health, spare time, body height, personal freedom, absence of disease, economical stability, abundance and variety of food, guarantee of income, lifespan.

By todays standards, and by those of pre-agricultural Europeans, the ten thousand years in between amounted to nothing less than life in deprived Dickensian condition.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is not true either. Look at what exactly is depicted on famous Renaissance artwork? David; Judas kissing Jesus; the Sixtine chapel; the list goes on... By contrast the Bayeux Tapestry is pretty much a down-to-earth & true-to-fact historical account.

Those portraits are nothing like the 17th century portraits that were practically used as means of payment when an artist was out of cash. In fact those portraits are more like the carefully orchestrated political speeches at modern day summits; polticians smiling to the camera's as they shake hands -- supposedly a reassuring sign to their voters that they are ‘on top of things’...

... And for some entertaining scavenger hunt: look for the symbols of love and devotion in this painting (1):


Also a big fashion statement (2).

... And ponder the meaning of the fact that a single light beam should choose to appear through the opened window and in a patently impossible twist of the laws of physics choose to fall upon both the faces and hands of both husband and wife -- despite the distinct implications of the given composition...

I could, but that would be cheating as I have the "model" iconographical analysis on my hardrive. The Stranger might also like to note the use of perspective.

[The Stranger]

I dont know, I have to ask my girlfriend, she is the expert at paintings, I only do literature :P

What is his point? That paintings of the 17th century or whatever century it is from is inferior to that of late medieval?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

By todays standards, and by those of pre-agricultural Europeans, the ten thousand years in between amounted to nothing less than life in depraved Dickensian condition.

Well, that's a bit dissingenius, isn't it? For starters, your average pre-Renaissance agricultural worker got about 1/3 of the year off in Holy-Days, and they had pig slap-up feasts laid on by their betters on May Day, Shrove Tuesday, All Hallows Eve and Christmas. Not to mention getting every Sunday off to themselves.

If you want to look for a pre-Industrial Black Period, you're really looking at the Commonwealth (Common misery) in England, or similar period in the Netherlands. Alternatively, you could look at the Hundred Years War in France or the Inquisition in Spain.

[Louis VI the Fat]

World happiness scale.

Again - as always - it turns out that Northwest Europe is superior to all. Stable social democracies beat all the others for satisfaction with life.

A University of Leicester psychologist has produced the first ever 'world map of happiness.'
Adrian White, an analytic social psychologist at the University’s School of Psychology, analysed data published by UNESCO, the CIA, the New Economics Foundation, the WHO, the Veenhoven Database, the Latinbarometer, the Afrobarometer, and the UNHDR, to create a global projection of subjective well-being: the first world map of happiness.
The projection, which is to be published in a psychology journal this September, will be presented at a conference later in the year. Participants in the various studies were asked questions related to happiness and satisfaction with life. The meta-analysis is based on the findings of over 100 different studies around the world, which questioned 80,000 people worldwide. For this study data has also been analysed in relation to health, wealth and access to education.
Whilst collecting data on subjective well-being is not an exact science, the measures used are very reliable in predicting health and welfare outcomes. It can be argued that whilst these measures are not perfect they are the best we have so far, and these are the measures that politicians are talking of using to measure the relative performance of each country.
The researchers have argued that regular testing as a collaboration between academics in different countries would enable us to track changes in happiness, and what events may cause that. For example what effect would a war, or famine, or national success have on a country's members' happiness. .
Adrian White said: “The concept of happiness, or satisfaction with life, is currently a major area of research in economics and psychology, most closely associated with new developments in positive psychology. It has also become a feature in the current political discourse in the UK.
"There is increasing political interest in using measures of happiness as a national indicator in conjunction with measures of wealth. A recent BBC survey found that 81% of the population think the Government should focus on making us happier rather than wealthier.
“It is worth remembering that the UK is doing relatively well in this area, coming 41st out of 178 nations.
"Further analysis showed that a nation's level of happiness was most closely associated with health levels (correlation of .62), followed by wealth (.52), and then provision of education (.51).

"The three predictor variables of health, wealth and education were also very closely associated with each other, illustrating the interdependence of these factors.
“There is a belief that capitalism leads to unhappy people. However, when people are asked if they are happy with their lives, people in countries with good healthcare, a higher GDP per captia, and access to education were much more likely to report being happy.
“We were surprised to see countries in Asia scoring so low, with China 82nd, Japan 90th and India 125th. These are countries that are thought as having a strong sense of collective identity which other researchers have associated with well-being.
"It is also notable that many of the largest countries in terms of population do quite badly. With China 82nd, India 125th and Russia 167th it is interesting to note that larger populations are not associated with happy countries."
“The frustrations of modern life, and the anxieties of the age, seem to be much less significant compared to the health, financial and educational needs in other parts of the World. The current concern withThe 20 happiest nations in the World are:
1 - Denmark
2 - Switzerland
3 - Austria
4 - Iceland
5 - The Bahamas
6 - Finland
7 - Sweden
8 - Bhutan
9 - Brunei
10 - Canada
11 - Ireland
12 - Luxembourg
13 - Costa Rica
14 - Malta
15 - The Netherlands
16 - Antigua and Barbuda
17 - Malaysia
18 - New Zealand
19 - Norway
20 - The Seychelles
Other notable results include:
23 - USA
35 - Germany
41 - UK
62 - France
82 - China
90 - Japan
125 - India
167 - Russia
The three least happy countries were:
176 - Democratic Republic of the Congo
177 - Zimbabwe
178 - Burundi
Source: University of Leicester Noteworthy is the high score of the Hermit Kingdom, Bhutan. Where not GDP, but Gross Domestic Happiness is the focus of policy.

France, as has often been noted before, is a black hole of discontent with life. Neither the peaceful contentment of mind of Europe's North, nor the exuberant vibracy of life of Europe's south. As the country of the synthesis of North and South, France in this aspect has taken the worst of both worlds.

Also, Husar is correct that a Teutonic colonisation of the world will increase the happiness of humanity.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well, that's a bit dissingenius, isn't it? For starters, your average pre-Renaissance agricultural worker got about 1/3 of the year off in Holy-Days, and they had pig slap-up feasts laid on by their betters on May Day, Shrove Tuesday, All Hallows Eve and Christmas. Not to mention getting every Sunday off to themselves.

If you want to look for a pre-Industrial Black Period, you're really looking at the Commonwealth (Common misery) in England, or similar period in the Netherlands. Alternatively, you could look at the Hundred Years War in France or the Inquisition in Spain.Indeed, a pre-Renaissance agricultural worker had far more spare time than the 19th century proletariat, with their work schedule of 14 hours a day, six days a week, from age six until death.

But I am afraid do not really get your post. What is disingenious about it?
(I do note I mixed up 'depraved' with 'deprived')

[The Stranger]

Also, Husar is correct that a Teutonic colonisation of the world will increase the happiness of humanity.

hence the large number of suicides and the huge increase of depressions and similar "diseases".

[Louis VI the Fat]

hence the large number of suicides and the huge increase of depressions and similar "diseases".That's anecdotal.

Numbers clearly show that Northwest Europeans are the happiest people on the planet.

[The Stranger]

That's anecdotal.

Numbers clearly show that Northwest Europeans are the happiest people on the planet.

numbers also clearly show they explosive rise of suicide and depression... i think you agree that happy people generally dont kill themself or are depressed? besides numbers are not always true... those "lists" are usually ambiguous if not downright false.

it all depends on what kind of questions you ask and who you ask, my own expierence though have shown me quite a different picture... I doubt western european people are the most happy people on earth.

edit: funny how most of them are "relatively" small countries (concerning population). the first big one if USA, quite unexpected.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

how will you determine the goals of a culture? but what then if the the 2 cultures in question donot share the same goals (which is what i'm implying) how will you compare? and if you cant compare, how can you tell which one is better? you can't and that is the point im making.

But they are all people, not that genetically different, my assumption is that their goals aren't hugely different. And if the goal is to cure the ill or ensure a good harvest, then the technological way is superior. There are lots of cultural goals that you could define. Many times you'd find it equal with neither being superior, I doubt our new years celebration is any better than the chinese new year. They have fireworks I think, and fireworks make any holiday cooler.


we are better of from a point of view yes, and I wouldnt want to go back either. I doubt its even possible. Those equal rights and personal freedom arent really achieved yet...

We've achieved a lot on that front, a lack of perfection is not a big deal.


Lovely post Sasaki. I skipped the important bits, and quoted the more contentious bit.

It has not been until the twenthieth century, that Westerners gained the same amount of spare time as our Cro Magon ancestors did. Every improvement, and most notable, the Agricultural Revolution of 10000 BC and the 19th century Industrial Revolution, decreased living standards.

By todays standards, and by those of pre-agricultural Europeans, the ten thousand years in between amounted to nothing less than life in deprived Dickensian condition.

...


Numbers clearly show that Northwest Europeans are the happiest people on the planet.

Happiness is a tough one. Being happy all the time is an evolutionary dead end. The grasshopper that fiddles all summer is starving in the winter. A species is better off if it is happy briefly and then adapts to that happiness and seeks out more.

We are good at making ourselves unhappy. Mostly has to do with our expectations.

There are famous studies done an how happy lottery winners are after 6 months compared to paraplegics after six months. I think they only scored 10% greater. But I don't know that you can measure quality of life by polling happiness. I don't know enough history to really judge, but I think you paint the old days a bit too brightly. We don't have trial by torture, death by crucifixion, starve to death, half your children die by the time they are 5 etc...

If there is any hope of increasing our levels of happiness, it comes from technology giving us insight into the brain, or drugs repairing the part of the brain that is stunted in depressed people. Which is one reason why I disagree with TS.

[Husar]

numbers also clearly show they explosive rise of suicide and depression... i think you agree that happy people generally dont kill themself or are depressed?

Some people just can't cope with being so happy.

[Lord Winter]

Well, that's a bit dissingenius, isn't it? For starters, your average pre-Renaissance agricultural worker got about 1/3 of the year off in Holy-Days, and they had pig slap-up feasts laid on by their betters on May Day, Shrove Tuesday, All Hallows Eve and Christmas. Not to mention getting every Sunday off to themselves.

If you want to look for a pre-Industrial Black Period, you're really looking at the Commonwealth (Common misery) in England, or similar period in the Netherlands. Alternatively, you could look at the Hundred Years War in France or the Inquisition in Spain.

and also ended up giving away 2/3rds of there crop every year to fuedul dues and almost starved every winter due to the unreliable nature of farming before the 1800's.

[Tellos Athenaios]

and also ended up giving away 2/3rds of there crop every year to fuedul dues and almost starved every winter due to the unreliable nature of farming before the 1800's.

Not that "your average pre-Renaissance agricultural worker". Giving away 2/3rds of your crop? Hell no. In fact taxes (in natura or otherwise) were significantly lower before the Renaissance compared to after. As a matter of fact high taxes are something of the early modern period and later: taxes correspond almost directly to the size of standing armed forces something that before the Renaissance was virtually unheard of and after it (100 years war) became the norm.

[The Stranger]

But they are all people, not that genetically different, my assumption is that their goals aren't hugely different. And if the goal is to cure the ill or ensure a good harvest, then the technological way is superior. There are lots of cultural goals that you could define. Many times you'd find it equal with neither being superior, I doubt our new years celebration is any better than the chinese new year. They have fireworks I think, and fireworks make any holiday cooler.

but would these be cultural differences or technological differences? ps chinese new year rocks man, no vision at all and a week of fireworks and ricewine :P



We've achieved a lot on that front, a lack of perfection is not a big deal.

true.



Happiness is a tough one. Being happy all the time is an evolutionary dead end. The grasshopper that fiddles all summer is starving in the winter. A species is better off if it is happy briefly and then adapts to that happiness and seeks out more.

We are good at making ourselves unhappy. Mostly has to do with our expectations.

hate to say it... but i have to agree with sasaki on the happiness thing :P its just the pursuit of happiness that keeps us busy... as soon as we achieve happiness we become unhappy..



If there is any hope of increasing our levels of happiness, it comes from technology giving us insight into the brain, or drugs repairing the part of the brain that is stunted in depressed people. Which is one reason why I disagree with TS.

and there I actually believe you are wrong, I think the technological advance is actually the reason for this depression... there is just so much that is expected from people nowadays, that just can't cope with the pressure, they stress out. technology can't fix everything. it's helpful, i like it, im not anti-technology, I'm just saying that technology shouldnt end up ruling us.

[The Stranger]

Some people just can't cope with being so happy.

that's a lame argument man... you know it's not true. if they can't stand being so happy, than theyre not happy with being happy, so theyre not happy... the emo argument is stupid.

[Beskar]

I take it you intend to choose your career and wife, yes? Those people back in that less individualistic time usually had their careers chosen for them by their parents or by society.

This is the kind of thread where I really wish I knew more history :juggle2:

But from everything I do know, it is obvious that we are many times better off than we used to be. The aborigenes used to hunt by running 20+ miles through the desert and then carrying the meat back, I get some snacks out of my fridge. The greater ease of life that comes with technology allows us the luxury of having things like equal rights and personal freedom.

I didn't know the Japanese couldn't choose their careers who hunt by running through desert. On the contrary, they are the argubly most technologically advanced nation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

and also ended up giving away 2/3rds of there crop every year to fuedul dues and almost starved every winter due to the unreliable nature of farming before the 1800's.

More like 20% during time of war, less otherwise. 10% goes to the Church, then the King taxes you for his roads and occasionally for his wars. That 2/3 doesn't belong to you anyway, it's your Lord land, and his crops.

[Husar]

that's a lame argument man... you know it's not true. if they can't stand being so happy, than theyre not happy with being happy, so theyre not happy... the emo argument is stupid.

But wouldn't that be a vicious circle and mean that they can't be helped?
Oh and no, I wasn't serious.

[The Stranger]

But wouldn't that be a vicious circle and mean that they can't be helped?
Oh and no, I wasn't serious.

I know you werent :)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

but would these be cultural differences or technological differences? ps chinese new year rocks man, no vision at all and a week of fireworks and ricewine :P

Well, if one society has elaborate "make it rain" ceremonies and such (part of their culture) and we just use irrigation and celebrate thanksgiving (our culture) there is a cultural difference.




hate to say it... but i have to agree with sasaki on the happiness thing :P its just the pursuit of happiness that keeps us busy... as soon as we achieve happiness we become unhappy..

There's a few things we can achieve that can keep us happy. Having friends, self esteem/lack of shame, having a short commute and living in a quite neighborhood as opposed to by somewhere where it's noisy all the time. Enjoying your job might be another one. But for the most part, the things people think will make them happy only do for a short while.





and there I actually believe you are wrong, I think the technological advance is actually the reason for this depression... there is just so much that is expected from people nowadays, that just can't cope with the pressure, they stress out. technology can't fix everything. it's helpful, i like it, im not anti-technology, I'm just saying that technology shouldnt end up ruling us.

I think a lot more depression is diagnosed nowadays. There is a genetic cause for depression, it has to do with having the short version of a certain gene or something, part of the brain responsible for regulating the chemicals in the brain is stunted. What prozac and such do is repair that part of the brain, that's why they take a few weeks to start working.

Technology has ruled us since we became homo sapiens.

[gaelic cowboy]

That's anecdotal.

Numbers clearly show that Northwest Europeans are the happiest people on the planet.

I agree with my fellow Orgah in Ireland it is less than a generation ago that people were very unhappy now we are all better off even if we are broke. Today in Ireland there is still many many time's more economic and cultural activities happening today in this country than before hence our high score of our own happiness.

My father lived in a country with no telly or radio no running water or electricity born in 1936 to typically large catholic family only the last member of the family got a secondary education.

He lived in a small west of Ireland town with almost no contact with the wider world. So cut off were people here he has no memories of the second world war imagine that no memories of it at all. By 1945 he would have been about nine clearly old enough to have a few memories of its affects. Ireland was so cut off and so poor half the people were starving and the other half were on the boat somewhere else.

Now we have heat in our home's traffic on our roads(completely jammed by the way) people can try to open there own business or try to educate themselves to as high as they can manage. I would change this for nothing in the world but more of the same I do not wish to see again the eighties of my own childhood a very darK time in our country.

To sum up were broke but we all know in the back of our heads were a million times better off today.

[The Stranger]

Well, if one society has elaborate "make it rain" ceremonies and such (part of their culture) and we just use irrigation and celebrate thanksgiving (our culture) there is a cultural difference.

you know just as well as I do that these societies also used irrigation and techniques to improve their crop... the "make it rain" ceremonies are just their version of thanksgiving... but somehow dancing is seen as inferior to eating till u puke fests...



There's a few things we can achieve that can keep us happy. Having friends, self esteem/lack of shame, having a short commute and living in a quite neighborhood as opposed to by somewhere where it's noisy all the time. Enjoying your job might be another one. But for the most part, the things people think will make them happy only do for a short while.


i agree.





I think a lot more depression is diagnosed nowadays. There is a genetic cause for depression, it has to do with having the short version of a certain gene or something, part of the brain responsible for regulating the chemicals in the brain is stunted. What prozac and such do is repair that part of the brain, that's why they take a few weeks to start working.

that is one theory, i dont know enough about it, but im quite sceptical about depression... i think some might be caused by genes but i also think quite alot of these people are talked into it... ive seen it happen to my best friend. doubt prozac works... :P


Technology has ruled us since we became homo sapiens.

yes it has. but not at the extent that it does now.

[Furunculus]

The widespread use of industrial production, at first glance, seemed to increase affluence. But it didn't. Standards of living (for most people) in Britain slipped to their lowest in a thousands years during the 19th century. What were well fed, relatively free, healthy people in 1750 by 1850 were a wrethced multitude, living in Dickensian conditions. It is very counter-intuitive. It took until well into the twentieth century for Britons to again enjoy, by most standards, the standard of living their ancestors enjoyed before 1750.

those Dickensian conditions are much underrated, the sheer squalor of pre-industrial life in rural Britain was staggering.

maybe it has retained some of its allure in southern france, but try some fetid tumbledown shack in a damp blustery winter in Lancashire, and i'll take a terrace house with access to a toilet and clean water any day of the week.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

on separate notes:
1) i reject the idea that cultures are all equal. i can and will judge cultures.
2) i reject the idea that significant social and cultural change can derive from from politics, politics is almost always nothing more than an exercise of new options made possible by technological advance. engineers have made the world what it is, social engineers have done nothing more than spend a lot of time and blood torturing human nature into interesting contortions in an effort to 'improve' society.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

those Dickensian conditions are much underrated, the sheer squalor of pre-industrial life in rural Britain was staggering.

maybe it has retained some of its allure in southern france, but try some fetid tumbledown shack in a damp blustery winter in Lancashire, and i'll take a terrace house with access to a toilet and clean water any day of the week.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

on separate notes:
1) i reject the idea that cultures are all equal. i can and will judge cultures.
2) i reject the idea that significant social and cultural change can derive from from politics, politics is almost always nothing more than an exercise of new options made possible by technological advance. engineers have made the world what it is, social engineers have done nothing more than spend a lot of time and blood torturing human nature into interesting contortions in an effort to 'improve' society.

It's a fact of record that pre-Industrial Britons had a higher life expectancy. Few Shacks were "fetid and tumbledown" because keeping your house in order was important, and keeping it clean was easy given that you were the only one messing it up. In the post-Industrial era you no longer had any spare time to repair a leaking roof, or the tools to do so. Also, you not only had to deal with your own detritus, but everyone else's as well.

as to clean water, Cholera was proved to be water-bourne only when a certain Gentleman in London went around breaking all the pumps, thereby stopping the disease.

[Tellos Athenaios]

those Dickensian conditions are much underrated

19th century. 19th. Not late 20th. Louis is exactly right that the 19th century was by far and away the age of the poorest living standards in Britain and other similar, Western, countries. The absolute lowest pit.

Statistical data confirms that time and again. Where does the myth come from that in the olden days people were small? Well? Actual 19th century conditions when indeed people were small on average. Why? Because of the utterly inadequate diet they subsisted on. But in the early Medieval ages people were on average nearly as tall as they are today (notable exception would be Dutch and Scandinavian populaces who have since 1950s grown well past that on average).

Why indeed do we know of the a certain disease under the name “English disease” over here? Well? Because of 19th century industrial methods and their effects on air quality (read: smog so thick it could literally black out a city -- this phenomenon was so remarkable that we have paintings of it) which combined with a diet poor on diary products leads the body to develop a deficit in vitamin D. And that is quite something because the skin can (and does) use a photosynthesis like process to produce that vitamin D, and we do not need a very large amount of vitamin D compared to say vitamins A, B or C.

There is a simple rule to riots: take away their food (or at least make it too expensive for the ‘common’ man to attain it) and you shall have civil disquiet. Why exactly does the 19th century witness so many revolutions? Just because suddenly whole nations would become highly interested in politics? Heck no; most people had more urgent matters on their mind such as you know getting your potatoes before the shops run out again, or the money was up again. Why indeed would the description of the state of economy in 1840's have a few references to “black”? Why would so many people choose to leave the continent in search for their fortune in the USA despite the clear risks to themselves and their families? It is not unlike the migrations of the Chinese in the early 20th century. Clearly something wasn't all that much fun in Europe. And why does the English language contain the expressions “sweated labour” and “sweatshop” and “mad as a hatter”?

[Viking]

1) i reject the idea that cultures are all equal. i can and will judge cultures.

I doubt that anyone who say that "all cultures are equal" mean it on a relative scale; but that an absolute judgement is subjective, while a relative comparison naturally is valid.

Which cultures have been the wealthiest in terms of money? ---> look at numbers

Which culture is the best one? --> ??

For the last comparison, you need a unit of measure; which can only be chosen subjectively (which values do you hold the highest?). Ergo, an absolute comparison is subjective as well.

[Furunculus]

sure.

--------------------------------------

@ TA & PVC

it was a learning process, things improved greatly during the IR.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

sure.

--------------------------------------

@ TA & PVC

it was a learning process, things improved greatly during the IR.

They still got a lot worse first.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Actually most of the actual results and gains of the IR did not trickle down through society as whole (assuming you refer to greater affluence sparking better education and health care and social/political opportunities) until well into the 20th century. Remember that it is 1960's when women receive the full same electoral powers as men; at least in Britain. And there is not a simple causal relation between them either -- most of these improvements are actually governmentally enforced infrastructure which governments didn't have the power nor money to do until well after this Industrial Revolution and there is a lot of political power play involved (after all this is the time of such personalities as Lloyd George (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lloyd_George)).

[naut]

The Western way of life (generally speaking) is the most dominant way of life at the moment. But is it therefore also the best way of life?
Is it best. No. It is merely the most relevant social construct in our current circumstantial situation --- in which we can interact with one another. Many ways of life offer better solutions to things such as loneliness, etc. Many ways of life are incompatible to differing scales of society. But, this way of life has developed over time for a reason --- parts of it work. They allow us for the large part to not get in each others way and go about our daily routines.

If there is one man who said it best it's Vonnegut:


A first grader should understand that his or her culture isn't a rational invention; that there are thousands of other cultures and they all work pretty well; that all cultures function on faith rather than truth; that there are lots of alternatives to our own society. Cultural relativity is defensible and attractive. It's also a source of hope. It means we don't have to continue this way if we don't like it.

Culture is entirely adaptable to situations, events or advances (scientific, technical or creative). For example the Great Fires of London:


Prior to this fire, London had no organized fire protection system. Afterwards, insurance companies formed private fire brigades to protect their clients’ property. Insurance brigades would only fight fires at buildings the company insured. These buildings were identified by fire insurance marks.

This is a cataclysmic change in cultural approach to the sometimes pertinent situation of fire-danger. Today emergency services are an integral part of Western Culture. Is having emergency services better than not having them? No. It is simply more appropriate to have them in the current circumstantial situation of humans living in urban environments, as opposed to small animal-hide huts.

As an aside:

Technological Advance is always a step forward (even though some side-effects might be negative), when considered only in the area of Technology its always an improvement, 1.5 is better than 1.0 (though users of microsoft may want to differ :P). Technological Advance is an upward or forward motion.
I disagree. More is not always better. Rather balance is best. More water can end in death, as can more sun. More power in your car engine isn't always a boon, more grip on your car tyres may not improve performance. An extra button on your key-board may not be beneficial, it may only get in the way. Scientists love to preach that more is better. But, elegance is often in the simplicity of a solution.

[The Stranger]

I disagree. More is not always better. Rather balance is best. More water can end in death, as can more sun. More power in your car engine isn't always a boon, more grip on your car tyres may not improve performance. An extra button on your key-board may not be beneficial, it may only get in the way. Scientists love to preach that more is better. But, elegance is often in the simplicity of a solution.

that is why i opt for a balance between culture, technology and nature.

by an upgrade i dont neccesarily mean more, just the newer version of it. i know what u mean though

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Technology is what you make of it though. You can argue that the iPhone is an example of "more is not always better" but I haven't bought one, so...

[The Stranger]

hmm discussing ipods now are we :P i think this thread has reached its end

[Kralizec]

dont forget australia then...

Or New Zealand ~;p



than how can you claim what you previously said?

Because the vast majority of cultures, tribes or whatever are not peaceful. Maybe the aboriginals were, but then they'd be a rare exception.


the reverse is true, western people have gone to live with ottomans, indians, chinese etc white men have lived in african tribes. however most of the time there was no other alternative for those people but to join or die, because the people they were dealing with on the other side came to conquer and subdue. hence the reason they wouldnt join the other side, they were there to destroy it.

It's always a safe bet that there were some cases.
Point is, imagine in the 21st century:
1) the number of aboriginals who decide to abandon their old culture and integrate into mainstream Australian society
2) the number of non-aboriginal Australians who decide to abandon their western lifestyle and live as the aboriginals
Even though I don't have numbers, I'm positively certain that 1) is much, much greater. Despite the fact that aboriginals are a much smaller group.


can you answer this question for me? Why is going to a concert and listening to a man singing and playing guitar better than sitting with family and friends playing drums and dancing? Why is worpshipping naturegods worse than to worship one allpowerful god or no god at all? Why is oral culture worse than written culture (i can see the benefit of the latter, but some form of bonding is also lost)

As I said before, taste in music is just taste in music.
I'm an atheist and indifferent towards the religions of other people.

Why oral culture is worse...? Can you imagine a society with roads, advanced medicine etc. wich relies on oral knowledge?
I'm not saying that technology equals happiness. I do believe that people in western countries are as a whole better off than other countries (exceptions include Japan) and that this is in no small part due to technology.

In return, can you ask this question:

Why do you think that the Germanic tribes who invaded the Roman Empire, and the Mongols who invaded China, ended up adopting the culture of their subjects rather than forcing their own culture on them?

[The Stranger]

It's always a safe bet that there were some cases.
Point is, imagine in the 21st century:
1) the number of aboriginals who decide to abandon their old culture and integrate into mainstream Australian society
2) the number of non-aboriginal Australians who decide to abandon their western lifestyle and live as the aboriginals
Even though I don't have numbers, I'm positively certain that 1) is much, much greater. Despite the fact that aboriginals are a much smaller group.


point taken, but is that because the mainstream culture is better, or is it because it is more dominant? people always flock to what is "popular". the aboriginals have to adapt BECAUSE they are the smaller group. it is only more natural that the smaller group deflects to the bigger instead of the other way around.


to say we are off better (which is external) is different to saying to I am better (which is internal)

[Megas Methuselah]

It's always a safe bet that there were some cases.
Point is, imagine in the 21st century:
1) the number of aboriginals who decide to abandon their old culture and integrate into mainstream Australian society
2) the number of non-aboriginal Australians who decide to abandon their western lifestyle and live as the aboriginals
Even though I don't have numbers, I'm positively certain that 1) is much, much greater. Despite the fact that aboriginals are a much smaller group.


But how far must one go to live their lives that would qualify as their own culture? Speak their ancestral languages? Wear their clothes? Live in their dwellings? Eat their food?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But how far must one go to live their lives that would qualify as their own culture? Speak their ancestral languages? Wear their clothes? Live in their dwellings? Eat their food?

An interesting question. On the Great Plains the Tribes abandoned their traditional settled culture in favour of Nomadism, a change that probably hastened their decline because it meant they were less tied to their land, more dispersed and more likely to over-hunt the vital Bison.

Iron, and hence steel, is an exclusively European or Near-Eastern (there is some controvisy) invention that then spread via trade and conquest. So there are few cultural isolates historical, almost none outside America or Australasia historically, and none at all today. This rather begs the question of what "culture" is and how important it should be.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Americans are worth on average 50% of what they once believed they were worth during the boom times. Once we come to accept that we don't have as much to offer in relation to other countries as we once did, we will rebound as a productive nation and our interests and opinions will gain new traction. While jobs can be performed essentially as well by foreigners for fractions of the price, our society still has security and low mortality rates. Once we pick our infrastructure up and figure out an educational system that isn't stuck in the 1950's productivity will follow and we will be able to accurately evaluate how much more our labor is worth over that of China or India's

Right now we are trying to sell a glass of lemonade for $100 open 4 hours a day and don't understand why everybody is avoiding us and going to the 20 cent 24 hour stands. Figure out that answer and our culture is back on track.

[Megas Methuselah]

An interesting question. On the Great Plains the Tribes abandoned their traditional settled culture in favour of Nomadism, a change that probably hastened their decline because it meant they were less tied to their land, more dispersed and more likely to over-hunt the vital Bison.

Some tribes were already semi-nomadic before their adoption of nomadism on the Great Plains (Saulteaux, for example). Moreover, not all of the Great Plains tribes were entirely nomadic, as some lived only a semi-nomadic lifestyle in permanent, fortified settlements (such as the Pawnee, etc.).


This rather begs the question of what "culture" is and how important it should be.

My thoughts exactly.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Some tribes were already semi-nomadic before their adoption of nomadism on the Great Plains (Saulteaux, for example). Moreover, not all of the Great Plains tribes were entirely nomadic, as some lived only a semi-nomadic lifestyle in permanent, fortified settlements (such as the Pawnee, etc.).

Well, it's still a very different form of Nomadism, and the current evidence suggests that Bison were in big trouble by the 17th Century. Anyway, the point is that horsemanship, and horse-harness, are foriegn European inventions introduced to America and which transformed the native culture.