Amusing ourselves to death

[Andres]

I could live with that except...

well, I need a house to put around my fridge. And then of course I have to have electricity to run the fridge, and I need a car to run to the store to FILL UP my fridge, and then I want some friends over to enjoy my fridge with me...

And all that takes $$$, which I have to WORK for...

And besides all that, I like to do stuff besides eat and I hafta pay for THAT...

So Andres, I wouldn't disagree with you! Full fridge is nice. But I hafta pay for that stuff, and there are a few movements out there that display tendencies to impair my ability to do so.

That's because there are still way too many people out there who want more than just a dry, warm place and a filled fridge.

It's not those that are happy with what they have that need to be conversed here at the rich West; it's those who always want more and are never satisfied.

People who are never satisfied and always want more, bigger, larger,... are the curse of humanity and they will always ruin it for the rest of us, who are just happy with nothing more but a filled fridge and a roof above our heads.

[LittleGrizzly]

Caius maybes it different in South America (Argentina specifically right ?)

I kind of assume as we got wealthier and enjoyed continued periods of stability in the west we have become apathetic to politics... whereas South Americans haven't enjoyed the same wealth and stability so politics is more important to every day people...

Iran riots for example, loads of young people in those riots, in the UK if an election was rigged and i was telling my friends to riot half of them would be wondering why it makes a difference...

"they are all the same anyway"

The motto of the unintrested... the motto of a lot of the west i think...

I'd be happy with a house, my computer, some weed, then whatever food and water i needed to keep me going... I always figured if i can work part time i would do so in no hesitation... material possessions mean little to me... or outside one or two things they mean little to me...

[Louis VI the Fat]

The point, though, would be that we are more interested in what Hannah Montanna is wearing to the next galla then who takes office in Iran or whether or not we get nuked by N. Korea. This is bad.

That's stereotyping! Just because I like Hannah Montana does NOT mean I don't know we invaded the Iran!

[Meneldil]

Well I can't speak for Andres, but as far as I'm concerned: yes, a full fridge and a beer and wine cellar is the pinnacle of human achievement.

You people worry, me and Andres fill our tummies and exchange some red Bordeaux' for an assortment of Leffe's.

I can't believe they got you aswell Louis. You, the french republican, are satisfied by a bottle of wine and some beer. What a shame.
France is supposed to open the path to worldwide enlightenement, to pave the way to universal freedom. It's either that or death.

The world would be such a wonderful place if a) everybody would have a full fridge; b) everybody would be happy with just that.

Limitless achievements? If everybody or even just a large minority always wants more and more and more... then we will never have a peaceful world where everybody is happy. Never. Jamais. Nooit.

Thing is, a lot of people don't have a full fridge. That's part of why I think your statement was disappointing: you have food, so well, everything is fine.
There's a lot of things humanity could improve. First and foremost, obviously, filling everybody's fridge would be a great step forward. But that would be only a beginning.

I personnaly loath stupid people. Call me an arrogant snob, but people who record their cryings because Michael Jackson died or because their favorite soccer team lost turn me mad. People who think they look cool by acting gangsta and speaking in a weird way make me sad. People who keep complaining about everything but refuse to do anything valuable because 'everything sucks' (ie. 'I don't understand and can't be bothered to try') are my bane.
I, for one, would never be happy in a society composed entirely of that kind of people. I'd rather commit suicide than sit down and admit 'oh well, that's fine, everybody has food afterall'.

During the 18th, some thinkers got the weird idea that you could educate people and turn them into decent citizens. I might be old-fashioned, but I think this is a great goal. I'm not asking for everyone to be an expert philosopher, but being an open-minded, enlightened, tolerant and free citizen would seem to be a good start.
Sadly most people prefer to get stuck in their own stupidity and complain whenever something goes wrong, blaming the few people that actually try (with more or less honesty) to do something.

Furthermore, the fact that I think mankind hasn't reached its full potential doesn't prevent from enjoying fine food, fine wine and fine women. One can have pleasure and still be an idealist.

[Caius]

I kind of assume as we got wealthier and enjoyed continued periods of stability in the west we have become apathetic to politics... whereas South Americans haven't enjoyed the same wealth and stability so politics is more important to every day people...

When things go wrong, I assure you that politics are important.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

That's stereotyping! Just because I like Hannah Montana does NOT mean I don't know we invaded the Iran!

Sorry; I picked the first one that came to mind.

I didn't say that Hannah Montanna = clueless.

I think that you see what I do mean though.

We are worrying incessantly about pennies and nickles while we waste dimes and quarters.

For those NOT familiar with US currency, we are majoring on the minors and minoring on the majors.

[Andres]

I admire your idealism, Meneldil.

I'm not a scientist, but I think we already know how to produce enough food for everybody. But we don't do it.

World hunger hits one billion.

How many resources and knowledge are used to give a minority that already has a filled fridge and a roof more than that? How many resources and knowledge are simply not being used, because we can't be bothered?

I'm disappointed in humanity as well, but I think it's hopeless. Many idealists who thought that it isn't, are dead. Many more will die.

There's a lot of things humanity could improve. First and foremost, obviously, filling everybody's fridge would be a great step forward. But that would be only a beginning.

No, we should just stop at that and be satisfied.

I can be happy with a filled fridge, so don't blame me for all problems in the world. It's those who always want more that are to blame.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I can't believe they got you aswell Louis. You, the french republican, are satisfied by a bottle of wine and some beer. What a shame.

It was the ancient nemesis of all things French that got the better of me for a moment there: the Fleming and his beer, filled stomach and content peace of mind.


I shall not lapse again.
Allons enfants de la Patrie! Freedom, human rights and enlightenment for the entire world while the last Frenchman still draws breath! March on, to the death!

[Ariovistus Maximus]

How many resources and knowledge are used to give a minority that already has a filled fridge and a roof more than that? How many resources and knowledge are simply not being used, because we can't be bothered?

OOOOH! Very well said!

See, I think we agree on the basics and simply come to somewhat different conclusions!

[Fragony]

Let's agree on the basics, this is a cool fridge.

[miotas]

[...]but that is a rather complacent viewpoint.
[...]Complacency is part of the problem here.

The thing is, that all the wars and fighting could indeed be solved by complacency. The solution to war is so simple, all it requires is that everybody simply do nothing.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

The thing is, that all the wars and fighting could indeed be solved by complacency. The solution to war is so simple, all it requires is that everybody simply do nothing.

Yes, if the right people were complacent.

What if war were declared, and nobody showed?

Yeah. However, since the other side is anything BUT complacent, then we cannot afford to be either.

[Rhyfelwyr]

One's security is another's insecurity I suppose...

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

No amount of education will ever prevent the people from being stupid.

The best attitude towards the grievances of the modern world is to shut up, stop worrying and get yourself bread and circuses to death. Enjoy, because the kind of period where every jimmy can have his fridge full does not last much, I would say an optimistic prediction for ours is two centuries before an imminent environmental collapse, bankruptucy or if the overwhelming idiocy of the masses finally leads us to a grievous situation.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

No amount of education will ever prevent the people from being stupid.

The best attitude towards the grievances of the modern world is to shut up, stop worrying and get yourself bread and circuses to death. Enjoy, because the kind of period where every jimmy can have his fridge full does not last much, I would say an optimistic prediction for ours is two centuries before an imminent environmental collapse, bankruptucy or if the overwhelming idiocy of the masses finally leads us to a grievous situation.

The essence of what I'm trying to point out here.

It's VERY obvious in our education system.

We could have the best materials and teachers in the WORLD, but it won't matter a jot if the students don't want to learn.

Best case they'll memorize the bare info to get through class. Summer vacation > out it goes to the mental landfill.

[Askthepizzaguy]

If you consider that having a full fridge is the final aim to be reached by mankind, then that's kind of disappointing.

Once everyone on earth has a full fridge, we can talk about how disappointing it is. Personally I think that will be humanity's greatest achievement in the modern era, about a billion times more important that landing robots on Mars.

edit: nevermind, just got to the post where Andres said basically the same thing. Put me down for that.

[Strike For The South]

Life's to short to worry about the politics. Espacily a life that includes cheap beer and loose women.

[Husar]

I admire your idealism, Meneldil.

I'm not a scientist, but I think we already know how to produce enough food for everybody. But we don't do it.

World hunger hits one billion.

How many resources and knowledge are used to give a minority that already has a filled fridge and a roof more than that? How many resources and knowledge are simply not being used, because we can't be bothered?

I'm disappointed in humanity as well, but I think it's hopeless. Many idealists who thought that it isn't, are dead. Many more will die.






No, we should just stop at that and be satisfied.

I can be happy with a filled fridge, so don't blame me for all problems in the world. It's those who always want more that are to blame.

Another good post, as I said, it's people who are not content with what they have who often make the world a better place, so many countries throw perfectly fine food away to keep the market prices stable while people in other parts of the planet die of starvation. Maybe if one could get all that food beyond the market (in this sense), then we could keep market prices stable AND feed people.
But I'm sure somebody can find a reason why that wouldn't work so we'll continue keeping the market prices stable and increasing share values while other people just die.

[Sheogorath]

The problem is our leaders.

Leaders are supposed to, you know, LEAD. But, here in the US at least, virtually every politician is focused on getting reelected rather than actually doing anything. The people who motivate the masses, who can get people to not be apathetic, don't care. They, as has been mentioned, have full fridges and, therefore, every interest in maintaining the status quo, and a stupid population.

The institutionalized bribery (AKA: Lobbying, special interest groups, etc. (I do realize that not ALL lobbying groups use bribery, some simply give information, which is fine and good.)) which plagues the US government is, in my opinion, the cause.
The grease on the wheels has congealed to the point where the machinery has effectively been jammed and only a serious jolt ever causes any movement.
The problem is, the gears in the machine are the ones who have the power. They certainly aren't going to vote for less grease if they can help it.

My main hope for Obama was his inexperience. Everybody said this was a negative point, but I held out some hope that 'inexperience' meant 'less corrupt'. Sadly, day by day, he seems intent on dashing that hope.

Short of outright revolution, the only way to solve the problems of the government would be sweeping reforms which, I think, Obama could pull off. He has the support of the people, for now at least, but the question is, of course, whether he is a Democrat, or an American. Can he act for the good of the state and the people first, or is he just another Politician?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

The problem is our leaders.

Leaders are supposed to, you know, LEAD. But, here in the US at least, virtually every politician is focused on getting reelected rather than actually doing anything. The people who motivate the masses, who can get people to not be apathetic, don't care. They, as has been mentioned, have full fridges and, therefore, every interest in maintaining the status quo, and a stupid population.

PRECISELY!

You know, if George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the other Founding Fathers had been more interested in their pocketbooks than in the good of their fellow men, the US would have collapsed before it started.

We don't seem to have many Washingtons or Adams' in today's politics.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If you believe that saying that the life span of a democracy is about 200 years, then we (The US) are in the death stage right now.

[miotas]

Where did you pull 200 from? The USA has been a democracy for over 230 years, and Britain has been democractic for over 300 years.

[Prodigal]

@OP d00d your first quote was Winston Churchill, and having met some of the apathetic electorate, he has a point.

[Sheogorath]

Where did you pull 200 from? The USA has been a democracy for over 230 years, and Britain has been democractic for over 300 years.

Clearly the system we need to go with is a republic. Venice lasted over 1,000 years.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Where did you pull 200 from? The USA has been a democracy for over 230 years, and Britain has been democractic for over 300 years.

It is just a saying I heard. Depends if you think that the US are no longer Democratic due to our government officials no longer doing what the people need but what can get them re-elected. If you think in that sense, then neither can be considered truly Democratic except maybe symbolically. I honestly don't agree with the statement, but I see it thrown around a lot.

[Sheogorath]

I'm not sure what you would really consider the US. We're still a democratic-republic in the sense that we elect officials. I suppose you could say we've become a very corrupt democratic-republic, in that the officials we elect don't do anything, except maybe get rich and get reelected.

And with our apathetic public, 2/3 of the voters just vote for whoever was in office last time, or with party lines. The remaining 1/3 either get cynical and stop bother ('all the politicians are the same, why vote?') or have their votes invalidated by the mass of 'cattle votes'.

Unfortunately I don't think the US can support a revolution, peaceful or otherwise. We don't have the huge under-30 population of Iran.

There is some hope, though. Very few of the young people I talk to, at college at least, are apathetic. Even online, the US citizens I meet are seldom not opinionated. I think, given time, the US may see a reinvigorated voter base, since apathy is gradually, very gradually, losing its 'cool factor'. We're finally starting to cast off the cynicism of the 80's.

I'd say that next decade will see some big changes in American politics. If the younger generations can gain the momentum, then things may change for the better. If not, and if we find ourselves sinking into another apathetic slump, then the US might just not be able to recover, at least by the standard means.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I'm not sure what you would really consider the US. We're still a democratic-republic in the sense that we elect officials. I suppose you could say we've become a very corrupt democratic-republic, in that the officials we elect don't do anything, except maybe get rich and get reelected.

And with our apathetic public, 2/3 of the voters just vote for whoever was in office last time, or with party lines. The remaining 1/3 either get cynical and stop bother ('all the politicians are the same, why vote?') or have their votes invalidated by the mass of 'cattle votes'.

Unfortunately I don't think the US can support a revolution, peaceful or otherwise. We don't have the huge under-30 population of Iran.

There is some hope, though. Very few of the young people I talk to, at college at least, are apathetic. Even online, the US citizens I meet are seldom not opinionated. I think, given time, the US may see a reinvigorated voter base, since apathy is gradually, very gradually, losing its 'cool factor'. We're finally starting to cast off the cynicism of the 80's.

I'd say that next decade will see some big changes in American politics. If the younger generations can gain the momentum, then things may change for the better. If not, and if we find ourselves sinking into another apathetic slump, then the US might just not be able to recover, at least by the standard means.

We can hope.

I don't buy the revolution/civil war stuff, don't think it would happen.

Reason #1 for me is that most of my generation has just enough energy to press "next channel" on the remote. No way they're going to fight a war; they don't even have beliefs to fight for. Just a lot of "whatever."

Interesting point about the lifespan of a democracy; I've thought the same thing many times.

However, the US is not a pure democracy, which changes the equation. Neither is UK. And there haven't really been that many gov'ts with such structure as ours, so it's hard to judge historically.

Something else that makes me sick is how people (US) couldn't care less about the country they live in. So long as they have a sofa, beer, and a football game they are happy.

Less than half the high-schoolers in some states can tell you how many stripes are on the US flag. I doubt more than a few % could tell you what the colors mean.

How many people know the nat'l anthem? How many people know the pledge of allegiance?

And how many of them could care less of what those things stand for even if they DID know???

They have LOST connection to our roots as a country. No; they have THROWN IT AWAY.

Thomas Jefferson:

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. "

The man is SCREAMING at us!

And worst of all, I find that many people of this country see NOTHING wrong with ACTUALLY SAYING that it is the GOVERNMENT'S responsibility to sustain our livelihood!

THIS IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS RESPONSIBILITY. In fact, average citizen, YOU are subject to responsibility. I'll bet that's a new one on you. And furthermore, I SHUDDER to think of giving the government such powers as sustaining my livelihood. For if this is the case they can just as easily take it away.

Sorry to those who are not the average.

[a completely inoffensive name]

+1 internetz for A.M. above me. However, the quote, "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories." Should have the bold word looked at carefully. The quote itself puts me in a conflict over meaning and makes me doubt my previous saying in another thread, specifically the underlined part:

The people are to be in control of their government, but mostly through indirect means because of their ability to be easily manipulated. The trust is actually put in those that are elected, not the general public. If the people are to be considered to be responsible adults, you should wonder why the Founding Fathers did not instead establish a direct democracy?

I wish to see the full letter or published work the quote comes from to see if there is any missing context or explanation around it. Doesn't saying that the rulers should not be trusted with government alone indicate that they are to be trusted with some measure and yet the next statement claims that only the general public and not the rulers should be trusted?

[Lord Winter]

Ariovistus Maximus you do know that most farmers didn't care about politics in Jefferson's time. If they pulled through okay I think the country will last as long as a determined minority understand the work that needs to be done.

[Strike For The South]

Ariovistus Maximus you do know that most farmers didn't care about politics in Jefferson's time. If they pulled through okay I think the country will last as long as a determined minority understand the work that needs to be done.

Agreed. We are much better off now than we were in the olden days.

Some of you need to realize that knowing how many stripes are on the flag and what they mean does not equate a productive populace.