Past are the ignorant years of racism, poverty, and priveliged descent.

[Huzington]

We've made it. Past are the ignorant years of racism, poverty, and priveliged descent. Two thousand years after the death of jesus, past the 'dark ages', after the 'middle ages', the 'human race' is finally victorious over the forces of evil. We have arrived at a state of almost complete knowledge, and are far wiser and brighter than any previous generation. The Human Genome Project boldly announces after testing some mixed afro-americans, and other unmixed groups, that we all barely differ genetically, and are indeed the 'human race'.

Am I reading this right? Is it possible that several generations down the track that we might well be viewed as the most spoilt, arrogant, and perhaps idiotic generation that the west has ever seen?

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Huzington
Is it possible that several generations down the track that we might well be viewed as the most spoilt, arrogant, and perhaps idiotic generation that the west has ever seen?

No, that characterization is reserved for the generation immediately preceding the speaker's generation.


It totally fits the babyboomers! Take that, Mom and Dad!

[fishbob]

The West? That the World has ever seen. Don't limit your scope, man. You got to think global.

[Huzington]

Quote:

Originally posted by fishbob
The West? That the World has ever seen. Don't limit your scope, man. You got to think global.

Why?

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
No, that characterization is reserved for the generation immediately preceding the speaker's generation.


It totally fits the babyboomers! Take that, Mom and Dad!

No, that characterization is reserved for the generation immediately following the speaker's generation.


It totally fits the Gen-X slackers! Take that, TragicMonkey

[Roboramma]

Quote:

Originally posted by Huzington
We've made it. Past are the ignorant years of racism, poverty, and priveliged descent.

Not really. There's plenty of ignorance, racism and poverty in the world. And there are probably plenty of people who still buy privelaged decenct. Maybe there are trends that suggest these things are waning, but certainly they aren't gone.
Racism is still prevalent in much of the US, Canada (where I can attest to having witnessed it plenty first hand in high school) and Europe, though certianly nowhere near where it once was, and continuing to decline. This trend is probably also true elsewhere.
Racism is alive and well over much of asia. I've had 'black' friends here who had a very hard time getting a job because of it. I even know someone who was hired long distance (from new zealand) for an english teaching job in korea and then lost it because he had to send them a photo and they saw he was 'black' (maori).
I know my examples are only anecdotes, but I'll try to back them up if anyone seriously suggests that racism no longer exists.
As for poverty, you can't tell me that there is no poverty in a world where roughly 1.3 billion people make less than US$1/day. Or where more than 1 billion people live in what the UN classifies as absolute poverty - uncertain to attain enough food from one day to the next.*
As for ignorance, I think most people on this forum are aware of how fallacious is the idea that we've somehow defeated ignorance.

None of this is to say that we haven't come a long way, or that we're not continuing to make progess. We have and we are. But the modern world is not perfect.

Quote:

Two thousand years after the death of jesus, past the 'dark ages', after the 'middle ages', the 'human race' is finally victorious over the forces of evil.

I really don't even know what that statement means. For one thing, I don't see how Jesus bears on this at all, and the dark and middle ages were not worldwide phenomena.

Quote:

We have arrived at a state of almost complete knowledge,

I don't think we have arrived at a state of "almost complete knowledge". Certainly we know orders of magnitude more than our ancestors did. Certainly our knowledge continues to grow and be tested for it's veracity at an ever accelerating rate. But there is a lot left. How many species of bacteria are there alive on the earth today? What are the exact phyical steps that take place from the moment a sperm enters a human egg to the complete construction of a human being?
Or, much more simply, why does a protien fold one way and not another (is this question the one that I'm thinking of? I don't know all that much about it..)?
How did the universe come to be?
What would a theory of quantum gravity look like?
The list remains long, and there are probably quite a few questions that we haven't even posed yet. We know a lot, but that knowledge is by no means complete. It is probably least complete when it comes to the most complex systems - like biological ones. This is why there is so much mysticm remaining about the human brain. Because not all the questions have yet been answered, some assume they cannot be answered.

Quote:

and are far wiser and brighter than any previous generation.

That we are wiser than previous generations may be defensible, but that we are brighter, meaning more intelligent, isn't. There is no reason to suggest that average intelligence has increased. It's possible that the peak intelligence in the population is higher than in previous generations, simply because there is a large population to draw from. But that doesn't suggest that we are brighter than previous generations. It's equally true that the lower ranges of intelligence will also be more full.
We may have more knowledge, and more education, but intelligence is neither of those things, nor does it depend on them for development. Hunter gatherers have plenty opportunity to both develop and make use of their intelligence. Jared Diamond has even made the suggestion (in Guns, Germs and Steel) that they have, on average, more opportunity to develop their intelligence, due to the lack of television and video games, and the large exposure to the natural enviroment with plenty of stimuli. I'm not sure I agree with him, but that we are "brighter" is, I think, unlikely.

Quote:

The Human Genome Project boldly announces after testing some mixed afro-americans, and other unmixed groups, that we all barely differ genetically, and are indeed the 'human race'.

Or more precisely, "that we all differ less than many other animals do within their own species, and that the variation that does exist is mainly within-group variation and that between-group variation is a relatively minor component of our total genetic diversity".

Quote:

Am I reading this right? Is it possible that several generations down the track that we might well be viewed as the most spoilt, arrogant, and perhaps idiotic generation that the west has ever seen?

In spite of all the above errors, I'm not sure how you got to this statement. We really are one species, with very little, and mostly superficial, difference between 'races', knoweldege really has increased dramatically since ancient, and even relatively recent times, and as to the state of the world's poor... I'm not sure that I can comment. But I don't know of anyone who would say we've defeated poverty.

* statements about poverty taken from E.O. Wilson's "Consilience" please attack if they are incorrect.

[Huzington]

Quote:

Originally posted by Roboramma

Not really.

Perhaps I should start an advice column on the detection of sarcasm.

Quote:

There's plenty of ignorance, racism and poverty in the world.

The point I am trying to make here seems to have been overlooked. We are still basically the same as we were 200 years ago, or even 5000. Human perception and 'intelligence' is quite limited, our perspective fools us into believing we're brighter than we are.

As Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and others point out, the "progressive" illusion of history - the Hegelian view - is moral pretense and has no relation to reality. There have been up to 50,000 years of human history. These 2,000 are nothing.

Quote:

Or more precisely, "that we all differ less than many other animals do within their own species, and that the variation that does exist is mainly within-group variation and that between-group variation is a relatively minor component of our total genetic diversity".

Yes, by testing mixed Afro-Americans (and other unmixed groups).

BTW this might interest you:

Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies

We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity--as opposed to current residence--is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15625622

[Roboramma]

[quote]Originally posted by Huzington
[b]Perhaps I should start an advice column on the detection of sarcasm.
My point in critiquing your strawman was not to critique what i thought was your point of view but the implied suggestion that this is a widespread viewpoint. I don't know of anyone who thinks "racism poverty and ignorance" are behind us. Certainly if there are any who do, they are a small minority.

[Huzington]

I was using hyperbole to illustrate the naivete of the viewpoint in question.

[Roboramma]

Quote:

Originally posted by Huzington
As Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and others point out, the "progressive" illusion of history - the Hegelian view - is moral pretense and has no relation to reality. There have been up to 50,000 years of human history. These 2,000 are nothing.

In some ways a progresive view is certainly true. For instance technological development has certainly followed an upward trend since the genus homo emerged. Stone tools developed from a very crude beginning to quite advanced ones with highly developed traditions of manufacture. In some areas with the right conditions, techological development progessed at faster or slower paces. There have been some few regressions (for example people reverting to hunter-gathering after having formed farming societies) but these are not all that common, and have not been the general trend.
A moral progession is harder to defend, but might be. I think that the way average person views people from outside of his or her culture is more favourable than it was 50,000 years ago. Hunter-gatherers are not the noble savage they are often depicted as. Neither are we perfect, but morally we are at least exposed to ideas of equality, and the information with which we can analyse them.
But again, I'm not sure that a moral progession can be defended. I won't say that it can't either, however.
By the way, I'd say there have been at least a million years of human history, and certainly 100,000 years of homo-sapiens history. I don't see how 'The Great Leap Forward' or whatever you want to call it, can be said to be the 'beginning' of human history.

Quote:

Yes, by testing mixed Afro-Americans (and other unmixed groups).

Why do you single out "Afro-Americans" from amoung the test-group? What problem do you see with the methodology?

Quote:

Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies

We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity--as opposed to current residence--is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15625622

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. None of this goes against the conclusion that the major percentage of variability lies in within-group variation rather than between-group variation. Because there are a few genetic markers that correlate well with ancient geographic ancestry doesn't mean that those genetic markers are of more than superficial importance.

[Roboramma]

Quote:

Originally posted by Huzington
I was using hyperbole to illustrate the naivete of the viewpoint in question.

That's cool, but what problem do you see with the actual viewpoint? What is the viewpoint that you are trying to critisize?
If you are saying 'people who think we're so great now' are idiots, i'm all set to agree. Or that human beings are inherently better than they were in the past, again, agreed. I guess I'm just not sure what your point is right now. If I seem arguementative, it's because I'm reacting to what I think you're saying. But I'm really not sure.
And I guess that's even more evidence (for those who need it) that we aren't any more perfect today than we were 10,000 years ago.

[Huzington]

Quote:

A moral progession is harder to defend, but might be.

This is the type of progression I was addressing ("the 'progressive' illusion of history is moral pretense and has no relation to reality")--not technological development.

Quote:

I think that the way average person views people from outside of his or her culture is more favourable than it was 50,000 years ago Neither are we perfect, but morally we are at least exposed to ideas of equality, and the information with which we can analyse them.

It is ahistorical and ridiculous to regard all cultures or peoples as 'equal', because you would be employing an universal ethic which transcends all cultures. There is no supra-historical sense of worth but only particular moral ideas arising from particular historical periods and cultures and have no relevance outside them.

The idea that 'humanity' has innate value is just the latest refinement of a cultural prejudice which has its origins in the Jewish religion and Christianity, one of its offspring -- that all men are brothers, because they were created by the Lord in His image, and that they are all therefre 'equal'. This is where this irrational universalist feeling comes from, and it never existed before this time except in some isolated cases (Algonquin Indians, for example). From this there inevitably arised the notion of 'human rights', and therewith the need to effect international integration and to dispel obstacles that prevent the union of 'humanity'. This concern with 'humanity' is a stupid and naive Western prejudice and the invention of 'mankind' as a taxonomic classification (though it turned out to be scientifically valid) was simply the most recent refinement of that prejudice.

[Roboramma]

Quote:

Originally posted by Huzington
This is the type of progression I was addressing ("the 'progressive' illusion of history is moral pretense and has no relation to reality")--not technological development.

Of course there's no way that we can agree whether or not there is a moral progression throughout history if we can't agree what constitutes morality. Define what is 'moral' and then we can discuss whether or not it has advanced through history.
For instance you could define 'moral' a respect for truth, if you wanted to. You might then be able to show that this has not in fact advanced through history. On the other hand, I could show that nevertheless exposure to truth has.

Quote:

It is ahistorical and ridiculous to regard all cultures or peoples as 'equal', because you would be employing an universal ethic which transcends all cultures.

Equal in what sense? Morally equivalent? I would say of course they are. When i say morally equivalent I mean deserving of equal treatment. Certainly some cultures have maintained abhorrent practices, such as slavery, or genocide, but that only means that we should treat the practitioners of those acts the same independant of their culture.
The individuals are equal in their rights, not their actions. If they are not morally equivalent what criteria do you offer to judge between then, to grant one group rights and not grant them to another?
The only other option is that no one has any rights. Is that your position? i won't argue with it until you take it as yours.

I'd also like to point out that it's most likely that biologically, it's pretty certain that things like intelligence are equivilent across culture and race.

Quote:

There is no supra-historical sense of worth but only particular moral ideas arising from particular historical periods and cultures and have no relevance outside them.

I think the moral sense is human nature, it just happens to have been extended to more of the species than it was before, by a lot of people. I also think that it is right to do this, as if it's wrong for me to kill my brother or my brother in law, or the guy down the street then it's wrong for me to kill the guy on the other side of the planet from me as well. I can't see anything that distinguishes them morally in that respect (of whether or not it's okay for me to murder them).
On the other hand if you maintain that murder is never wrong, then we can get into that as well... but that's a big can of worms that i'd rather avoid unless that is your position.

Quote:

The idea that 'humanity' has innate value is just the latest refinement of a cultural prejudice which has its origins in the Jewish religion and Christianity, one of its offspring

I'm not sure that you're right that it's only a viewpoint of abrahamic religions, but we'll skip that point for now. I'd say the idea that humanity has innate value is inherent in the idea that any individual member of humanity has innate value (including myself). If i have innate value, what separates me from everyone else that they don't?

[Huzington]

Quote:

Originally posted by Roboramma
Of course there's no way that we can agree whether or not there is a moral progression throughout history if we can't agree what constitutes morality.

mor·al (môr'əl, m�r'-)
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Quote:

Equal in what sense? Morally equivalent?

Yes.

Quote:

I would say of course they are.

Why? Can you point to some feature that all morally equal creatures possess?

Quote:

The individuals are equal in their rights,

This statement is both ahistorical and unprovable.

Quote:

If they are not morally equivalent what criteria do you offer to judge between then, to grant one group rights and not grant them to another?

Any criterion is just as baseless and arbitrary as any other.

Quote:

The only other option is that no one has any rights. Is that your position?

Not in the absolute sense, certainly.

Quote:

I'd also like to point out that it's most likely that biologically, it's pretty certain that things like intelligence are equivilent across culture and race.

You are attaching a more positive evaluation to one specific difference (intelligence) over others (e.g., man's bipedal gait). Why?

Quote:

I think the moral sense is human nature, it just happens to have been extended to more of the species than it was before, by a lot of people.'

Ahistorical, as it was only at the advent of European modernity that such an idea--indeed, even the notion of "humanity" as a taxonomic classification--has come into existence. It is just a modern cultural prejudice.

What makes humankind morally equal to one another? is there a physical property that all humans necessarily possess which gives them such value?

Quote:

I'd say the idea that humanity has innate value is inherent in the idea that any individual member of humanity has innate value (including myself). If i have innate value, what separates me from everyone else that they don't?

I'd say that no individual has such value.

Your logic can be turned around:

"If [humanity] has innate value, what separates [humanity] from [non-human animals] that they don't?"

You should be able to point to some attribute endemic to homo sapiens. But then you have the difficulty of justifying why you attach a more positive evaluation to that specific difference over others.

[Roboramma]

Quote:

Originally posted by Huzington
Your logic can be turned around:

"If [humanity] has innate value, what separates [humanity] from [non-human animals] that they don't?"

You should be able to point to some attribute endemic to homo sapiens. But then you have the difficulty of justifying why you attach a more positive evaluation to that specific difference over others.

Go ahead and turn it around, I'd take that stance as well. I do think that other animals deserve moral concideration for just that reason.
On the other hand, i don't give moral concideration to plants. Why not?
Plants are incapable of suffering. For that reason, I don't worry about, amoung other things, causing them pain. But causing pain to a chimpanzee is wrong in my view.
And this is another way in which there has been a moral progression: ie. just as moral concideration has extended to more and more of humanity, it is beginning to extend to other species as well. See, The Great Ape Project. I don't know much about the movement, but it is there.

By the way, you never responded to most of my questions (up thread) about, for instance, what you found wrong with the methodology of studies that show that within-group variation is far greater than between-group variation.

And i also don't see your point here. If there is no such thing as morality, then the error is not in who it is extended to but in the fact that it's extended to anyone. If there is morality, then by what criteria should it be extended to only a particular group?

[Roboramma]

Quote:

Originally posted by Huzington
mor·al (môr'əl, m�r'-)
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

The above definition is incomplete without defining what is good and what bad. This is what i was getting at, tell me what actions, traditions, etc. you concider to be good and what bad before you say 'there has been no moral progession through history.'
I've defined at least part of my view - ie. the extension of moral concideration to those outside of the your own group, and proposed that this is indeed the case. Of course if you think that there is no such thing as 'good' or 'bad' in this view then of course there cannot be a moral progression. It seems that might be your point, and if so that's what we'll have to argue. is it?

Quote:

Why? Can you point to some feature that all morally equal creatures possess?

I'd view the ability to feel pain as one. Maybe self-awareness, though i'm not entirely convinced there. I'd rather say 'conciousness' if that wasn't such a fuzy term. But what I mean by saying that is that if, say, I built a robot that was designed to avoid certain types of stimuli those stimuli might be defined as pain, but i wouldn't extend moral concideration to it unless i thought that it actually 'felt pain'. It's a hard thing to define, or know when it's happening in the same way that i experience it. However, it's pretty clear to me that other humans do. On the other hand, it's a little harder to be certain with other species of animal, but given that they evolved by the same process as us and that 'pain' would serve the same purpose for them, it seems very likely, at least in those animals with complex enough brains to have 'pain'.
Again, i think it's hard to define.

Now, i could just as easily say 'ah, who cares if something else feels pain'. But then by what criteria do I say 'that person is wrong when he hurts me'?
I do feel that person is wrong. That this feeling is purely biological may be true, but i still have it, and the rest seems to follow logically from accepting that.

Quote:

This statement is both ahistorical and unprovable.

I think you misunderstand what i was saying. i was saying that I would extend to the equal moral concideration. Not that they were extended that concideration in the past. And that they deserve that concideration is part of what we're arguing, isn't it?

Quote:

Any criterion is just as baseless and arbitrary as any other.

Above I gave you one criteria that I would use. It's only one part of the equation i think, but I'm certainly not entirely clear on this issue either.
But just for clarity's sake, would you extend moral concideration to anyone?

Quote:

Not in the absolute sense, certainly.

Then in what sense?

Quote:

You are attaching a more positive evaluation to one specific difference (intelligence) over others (e.g., man's bipedal gait). Why?

I didn't attach any positive evaluation to it. Many people do, however, and I was only pointing out that there is no evidence of a genetic difference in intelligence between different human populations.

Quote:

Ahistorical, as it was only at the advent of European modernity that such an idea--indeed, even the notion of "humanity" as a taxonomic classification--has come into existence. It is just a modern cultural prejudice.

evidence of this statement?

Quote:

What makes humankind morally equal to one another? is there a physical property that all humans necessarily possess which gives them such value?

I've already made one suggestion. But forget about that for now.
If there is no difference then they are equivalent. That equivalence might mean zero concideration for everyone, or high concideration. But if you don't posit a difference then they are necessarily equivalent.

Quote:

I'd say that no individual has such value.

I'm not sure i can argue with that statement. However, I can't regard causing others to suffer as morally neutral. The way that I feel when I am in pain (espeically acute pain) is horrible, and I feel it is wrong to have it inflicted upon me for no good reason. To do so to anyone else would be equally wrong. And yes, I include any other animal that can have a similar experience in that.

[billydkid]

Quote:

Originally posted by Huzington
We've made it. Past are the ignorant years of racism, poverty, and priveliged descent. Two thousand years after the death of jesus, past the 'dark ages', after the 'middle ages', the 'human race' is finally victorious over the forces of evil. We have arrived at a state of almost complete knowledge, and are far wiser and brighter than any previous generation. The Human Genome Project boldly announces after testing some mixed afro-americans, and other unmixed groups, that we all barely differ genetically, and are indeed the 'human race'.

Am I reading this right? Is it possible that several generations down the track that we might well be viewed as the most spoilt, arrogant, and perhaps idiotic generation that the west has ever seen?

I was at my father in law's house recently. He has an extensive library including all the works of all the great minds I can think of and a whole bunch of stuff I never heard of. What struck me was this - here we are, essentially, in exactly the same place we were when we were living in caves. mankind has made huge strides in terms of science and mathematics and medicine and all sorts of other disciplines. The periodic table alone is a staggering achievement and that is not even a tiny smidgen of what we have come to know. I have on my wall a huge diagram of the biochemical pathways of the body - again, staggering. And still only the tiniest fraction of what we know about biology.

The accumulated knowledge in hundreds of disciplines and subdisciplines is just nearly incomprehensible. And yet, here we are, still the same creatures we were 20,000 years ago huddled together around a fire for warmth and protection from the dark. Still plagued by the same demons. Still floundering around in search of the meaning for our existence. Still driven by the same urges and instincts that drove our ancestors. Still longing for a deep, enduring satisfaction that continues to elude most of us for duration of our lives.

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Originally posted by Huzington
The point I am trying to make here seems to have been overlooked. We are still basically the same as we were 200 years ago, or even 5000. Human perception and 'intelligence' is quite limited, our perspective fools us into believing we're brighter than we are.

I think we've made incredible progress in the past 200 years.

Slavery has been outlawed.
Racial discimination has been outlawed in virtually all first world countries.
Sexual discrimination has been drastically reduced as evidenced by laws which allow women to own property and to vote.
Life expectancy has doubled thanks to our knowledge of nutrition and medicine.

Yes, we still have a long way to go, but to say we are the same as 200 years ago is not accurate.

[jay gw]

Because of global climate change, oil depletion, and the incredibly slow pace of reform in the 3rd world, things are getting worse, not better.

[phildonnia]

The people living in the Middle Ages didn't even know it was the Middle Ages. They thought they were living in modern times!What idiots.

[billydkid]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
I think we've made incredible progress in the past 200 years.

Slavery has been outlawed.
Racial discimination has been outlawed in virtually all first world countries.
Sexual discrimination has been drastically reduced as evidenced by laws which allow women to own property and to vote.
Life expectancy has doubled thanks to our knowledge of nutrition and medicine.

Yes, we still have a long way to go, but to say we are the same as 200 years ago is not accurate.

You have to realize, this is just an eyeblink in history of mankind. You can have no idea what the next 200 years holds for societies, let alone the next thousands. There has not been a steady ascent of mankind toward some sort of enlightenment. Do you really think all those philosophers during the age of enlightenment could have imagined the coming of Adolf Hitler and the world wars? I think it is a safe bet that there is plenty of similar sort of abominations waiting for us in the future. Think of all the great, thriving, enlightened cultures that have existed and disappeared into oblivion.

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Originally posted by billydkid
You have to realize, this is just an eyeblink in history of mankind. You can have no idea what the next 200 years holds for societies, let alone the next thousands. There has not been a steady ascent of mankind toward some sort of enlightenment.

O.K. I never said there was.

Quote:

Originally posted by billydkid
Do you really think all those philosophers during the age of enlightenment could have imagined the coming of Adolf Hitler and the world wars?

No, but I am unsure as to why you are asking the question.

Quote:

Originally posted by billydkid
I think it is a safe bet that there is plenty of similar sort of abominations waiting for us in the future. Think of all the great, thriving, enlightened cultures that have existed and disappeared into oblivion.

I am not sure what those claims have to do with what I wrote. I said that "I think we've made incredible progress in the past 200 years," and "Yes, we still have a long way to go, but to say we are the same as 200 years ago is not accurate." I never said that we were a thriving, enlightened culture that will exist for centuries.

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
Because of ... the incredibly slow pace of reform in the 3rd world, things are getting worse, not better.

Interesting assertion: because things are improving slowly, they are not improving at all and are really worsening.