Are we headed towards a new dark ages?

[socialleper]

Your posts here are a classic example of the type of person I have been talking about. it may not be intentional but you come across as pedantic elitist snob who believes he is much more intelligent than the rest of us. You judge others by your academic standards and don't understand anything else. Your posts do more to stifle conversation than to encourage understanding.

I disagree. I asked him to clarify what exactly he meant by "Old Earth Creationists" and all he could do is post a link to a Wikipedia page. That's on him. If he can't explain his beliefs or back them up as being authoritative, then he's the example of a pre-Enlightenment, Dark Age mentality not me.
We need to live in a fact based world if human kind is to survive. We need to get over all this butt hurt "feeling" BS. I can explain evolution; is it perfect, no, but it is what we have until something better comes along. I'm not 100% against religious practice, I think it can be very beneficial, but I'm not willing to accept Tool Age myths as a logical construct for how life began, especially when it has no factual base. Is there possibly a divine creator? I'm not smart enough to say yes or no. But I do know for a fact that the Adam and Eve story is impossible, not only based on genetics, but on the narrative in Genesis its self.

If people want to disagree with my "academic standards", then present your opposing academic standards and lets have a debate. I love a good conversation.

Don't like my response to the OP? Don't read it, ignore it, and move on.

If someone asks "Are we headed towards a new Dark Age," that is an invitation to "Pedantic" responses. I could just say "yes", but that would be boring as hell.

"You judge others by your academic standards and don't understand anything else." That is an amazingly broad assumption considering you don't know me. I'm not a bubble person; I read things from a lot of different viewpoints and make up my mind for myself. Of course I'm making up my mind based on my own perceptions, memories, and experiences, which are flawed, and therefore subjective, but that's how all human's work.

 

[Immigrant]

You had me up to the apostrophe abuse in "humans".

 

[slobake]

I disagree. I asked him to clarify what exactly he meant by "Old Earth Creationists" and all he could do is post a link to a Wikipedia page. That's on him. If he can't explain his beliefs or back them up as being authoritative, then he's the example of a pre-Enlightenment, Dark Age mentality not me.
We need to live in a fact based world if human kind is to survive. We need to get over all this butt hurt "feeling" BS. I can explain evolution; is it perfect, no, but it is what we have until something better comes along. I'm not 100% against religious practice, I think it can be very beneficial, but I'm not willing to accept Tool Age myths as a logical construct for how life began, especially when it has no factual base. Is there possibly a divine creator? I'm not smart enough to say yes or no. But I do know for a fact that the Adam and Eve story is impossible, not only based on genetics, but on the narrative in Genesis its self.

If people want to disagree with my "academic standards", then present your opposing academic standards and lets have a debate. I love a good conversation.

Don't like my response to the OP? Don't read it, ignore it, and move on.

If someone asks "Are we headed towards a new Dark Age," that is an invitation to "Pedantic" responses. I could just say "yes", but that would be boring as hell.

"You judge others by your academic standards and don't understand anything else." That is an amazingly broad assumption considering you don't know me. I'm not a bubble person; I read things from a lot of different viewpoints and make up my mind for myself. Of course I'm making up my mind based on my own perceptions, memories, and experiences, which are flawed, and therefore subjective, but that's how all human's work.

Thanks for your response. My observations are not about any one post that you have made nor are they about religion. Debate? No thank you. There are things in life that are more important than being right. Do you understand that?
I have said my my peace and don't desire to drag this out.
I wish you well. May you enjoy the spring season with friends and loved ones.

 

[socialleper]

You had me up to the apostrophe abuse in "humans".

Oops humans not human's.

 

[socialleper]

Debate? No thank you. There are things in life that are more important than being right.

I'm sorry that you feel that debate is about "being right" and not learning about the thoughts of others through vigorous discourse.
Enjoy the Spring as well

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

I believe we are headed for another dark ages. These things you point to are IMHO only part of the problem. The most crucial issues are both political and religious in nature. Leaders in the Middle East and Far East see the American president as weak. Look at all the different radical groups in the Middle East. They are jockeying for position. Think of the U.S. as Rome and the radical groups in the Middle East as the Barbarian tribes. They see Rome teetering and are jockeying for position. eeach wants to be the one that brings down Rome. Rome's leader thinks the Barbarian tribes are junior varsity and not a problem at all.
Rome has let it's military capability go soft because of what it sees a other more importan priorities.
So Rome will fall. Chaos will ensue. Infrastructre destroyed in the wars can't be rebuilt because there are no resource and nobody will know how to put them back together again. Social chaos will get really nasty as the various races, politcal factions, and religions all fight for supremecy. Those who survive will be living about the same way people did a millennium ago. My prediction is not based on Nostradamus, the Bible, or anyone teaching his personal interpretion of Biblical writing. It is based on studying history and paying close attention to current world events.

Now, having said all that. I really hope I am absolutely and absurdly wrong about this.

 

[ArtechnikA]

Now, having said all that. I really hope I am absolutely and absurdly wrong about this.

Meanwhile, go read "A Canticle For Liebowitz," a fascinating work of post-apocalyptic fiction involving a worldwide society struggling to learn itself out of the next Dark Age.

 

[slobake]

Meanwhile, go read "A Canticle For Liebowitz," a fascinating work of post-apocalyptic fiction involving a worldwide society struggling to learn itself out of the next Dark Age.

I read that a long time ago. It was very depressing.

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

Meanwhile, go read "A Canticle For Liebowitz," a fascinating work of post-apocalyptic fiction involving a worldwide society struggling to learn itself out of the next Dark Age.

I've heard of that, but haven't read it. Been meaning too, but with the world wide shortage of round tuits and alll...

 

[ArtechnikA]

I've heard of that, but haven't read it. Been meaning too, but with the world wide shortage of round tuits and alll...

IIRC (been a while for me too) it starts out just like your scenario does: someone, somewhere in the Middle East gets the idea that by striking key targets with nukes first, they'll be in a position to rule the world. Or such is the belief when the story starts, several hundred years after the initial incident.

But the same themes prevail: a general distrust of technology not only because of "what happened last time" but because it is no longer understood, and fear of that which is not understood.

People in "3rd world" countries know how to find water, build structures from locally available materials, hunt, fish, and grow food.
People in "modern" cultures don't, largely. We think we can source information readily, because we can read, write, and exchange ideas.
We're one generation of teachers away from pandemic illiteracy. Take literacy away and force people to rely on what they can think and do on their own and that's a very bleak prospect.

 

[Gaolee]

Thinking about the Middle East as barbarians and the United States as Rome is interesting, but not quite accurate, in my opinion. There are all kinds of tribal frictions in the Middle East, similar to the tribal frictions in the Balkans. Those frictions have been playing out for centuries. One of these days, and I hope it is sooner rather than later, the people who live there will decide that ancient history is just that - ancient and gone. Information flows are far better now, so people all over the planet have access to ideas and information they wouldn't have had when all those tribal animosities got stirred up. Sure, information can be used to bolster those animosities, but it can also be used to show that people are more alike than not. Nearly all of us want our kids to grow up healthy and to be happy, productive adults within whatever culture we live in. Nearly all of us want to get on with our days without being shot at, blown up, taken down by disease, starved, or otherwise harmed for no particularly good reason. Trust is a tough thing to generate and easy to destroy, but that's what will eventually de-fang extremists of all kinds.

Look at Europe for some history. It was pretty common for Europeans to fight wars with each other. I can't imagine France and Germany going to war against each other now. It hasn't taken all that long for the antagonisms to dissipate. The conditions were right for Europeans to figure it out, and they did. It will take plenty of time for the same kinds of animosities to abate in other parts of the world, but I can imagine it happening quickly once the conditions are right. There will always be setbacks here and there, as is happening in Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, not to mention Nigeria and Somalia. It will leak out, as happened recently in Kenya. But southern Africa, with all the problems it still has to address, is doing better than it did for a long time, Zimbabwe excepted. Nigeria just had a more or less peaceful transition. South-east Asians are working on economic development rather than being murderous. Who knows, maybe Pakistan and India will decide to get along someday. Tensions have been far worse in the past. Most people like it better when their circumstances improve. Wars and conflict degrade the average person's circumstances.

I will admit to being a pathological optimist once again, but it is based on a reading of history, not just wishful thinking.

 

[bluesblaster]

people should know a bit about living off the earths resources and also expand their knowledge through modern conveyances like the internet, too much reliance on the latter will not serve humanity well in the future though Im afraid. One famous historical figure was qouted as saying " give a man a fish and he will not hunger that day, teach a man to fish and he will never go hungry again .

 

[slobake]

Thinking about the Middle East as barbarians and the United States as Rome is interesting, but not quite accurate, in my opinion. There are all kinds of tribal frictions in the Middle East, similar to the tribal frictions in the Balkans. Those frictions have been playing out for centuries. One of these days, and I hope it is sooner rather than later, the people who live there will decide that ancient history is just that - ancient and gone. Information flows are far better now, so people all over the planet have access to ideas and information they wouldn't have had when all those tribal animosities got stirred up. Sure, information can be used to bolster those animosities, but it can also be used to show that people are more alike than not. Nearly all of us want our kids to grow up healthy and to be happy, productive adults within whatever culture we live in. Nearly all of us want to get on with our days without being shot at, blown up, taken down by disease, starved, or otherwise harmed for no particularly good reason. Trust is a tough thing to generate and easy to destroy, but that's what will eventually de-fang extremists of all kinds.

Look at Europe for some history. It was pretty common for Europeans to fight wars with each other. I can't imagine France and Germany going to war against each other now. It hasn't taken all that long for the antagonisms to dissipate. The conditions were right for Europeans to figure it out, and they did. It will take plenty of time for the same kinds of animosities to abate in other parts of the world, but I can imagine it happening quickly once the conditions are right. There will always be setbacks here and there, as is happening in Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, not to mention Nigeria and Somalia. It will leak out, as happened recently in Kenya. But southern Africa, with all the problems it still has to address, is doing better than it did for a long time, Zimbabwe excepted. Nigeria just had a more or less peaceful transition. South-east Asians are working on economic development rather than being murderous. Who knows, maybe Pakistan and India will decide to get along someday. Tensions have been far worse in the past. Most people like it better when their circumstances improve. Wars and conflict degrade the average person's circumstances.

I will admit to being a pathological optimist once again, but it is based on a reading of history, not just wishful thinking.

I sure hope you are correct. Meanwhile people like us can work on our own inner conflicts and let that spread to our families, our neighbors, our towns and who knows maybe even the world.

 

[Gaolee]

I sure hope you are correct. Meanwhile people like us can work on our own inner conflicts and let that spread to our families, our neighbors, our towns and who knows maybe even the world.

From what I have seen of my son's friends and colleagues, that's happening. They have their quirks, but they don't seem to carry much social poison around with them. Sure, it's a small sample. There will always be sociopaths and psychopaths, but when the vast majority of people treat each other with dignity and respect, it will reduce the power sociopaths and psychopaths have to alter the world in unfortunate ways. It's a process, and it will never end. Good thing, too, since we would get bored living in Eden.

 

[slobake]

One famous historical figure was qouted as saying " give a man a fish and he will not hunger that day, teach a man to fish and he will never go hungry again .

Give a man a fish and he will not hunger that day. Teach a man to fish and he will spend all kinds of money on expensive equipment and his wife will never see him on the weekends.
Just joking, I get your point. One of the problems in ancient Rome was their dependency on imported wheat. Most of their agriculture at the time had been converted to vineyards and their imported food was being limited by piracy on the Mediterranean. Each Roman was entitled to a fixed amount of bread each day. When that got disrupted more problems arose in Rome.

 

[hrodbert696]

Thinking about the Middle East as barbarians and the United States as Rome is interesting, but not quite accurate, in my opinion. There are all kinds of tribal frictions in the Middle East, similar to the tribal frictions in the Balkans. Those frictions have been playing out for centuries. One of these days, and I hope it is sooner rather than later, the people who live there will decide that ancient history is just that - ancient and gone. Information flows are far better now, so people all over the planet have access to ideas and information they wouldn't have had when all those tribal animosities got stirred up. Sure, information can be used to bolster those animosities, but it can also be used to show that people are more alike than not. Nearly all of us want our kids to grow up healthy and to be happy, productive adults within whatever culture we live in. Nearly all of us want to get on with our days without being shot at, blown up, taken down by disease, starved, or otherwise harmed for no particularly good reason. Trust is a tough thing to generate and easy to destroy, but that's what will eventually de-fang extremists of all kinds.

Look at Europe for some history. It was pretty common for Europeans to fight wars with each other. I can't imagine France and Germany going to war against each other now. It hasn't taken all that long for the antagonisms to dissipate. The conditions were right for Europeans to figure it out, and they did. It will take plenty of time for the same kinds of animosities to abate in other parts of the world, but I can imagine it happening quickly once the conditions are right. There will always be setbacks here and there, as is happening in Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, not to mention Nigeria and Somalia. It will leak out, as happened recently in Kenya. But southern Africa, with all the problems it still has to address, is doing better than it did for a long time, Zimbabwe excepted. Nigeria just had a more or less peaceful transition. South-east Asians are working on economic development rather than being murderous. Who knows, maybe Pakistan and India will decide to get along someday. Tensions have been far worse in the past. Most people like it better when their circumstances improve. Wars and conflict degrade the average person's circumstances.

I will admit to being a pathological optimist once again, but it is based on a reading of history, not just wishful thinking.

Mmmm... yes and no. ALWAYS be skeptical when someone says "those people have been fighting for centuries." Or as Tonto (or some Native American) said, "Who's this 'we,' white man?"

Conflict occurs because somebody perceives it to be in their interest to fight somebody for something rather than not to. Group identities form because people perceive it to be in their interest to identify with the group, rather than not to. Both the groups and conflicts exist NOW because they respond to needs and agendas that people have NOW. Groups do not just "exist" time out of mind "just because." The identity gets renewed and perpetuated to new members as it continues to meet needs; the identity shifts and morphs as the needs change. Sometimes groups disappear altogether or even reappear, not because the people themselves disappeared or reappeared but because they stop or resume identifying themselves a certain way.

If an area is conflict-ridden, it's because something in the region's structure (social, economic, political) makes conflict a better strategy than peace for people's perceived self-interest there. If it becomes peaceful, it's because people have found ways to profit in peaceable activity better than they could by conflict. That makes it sound simple, but of course it never is.

 

[slobake]

Mmmm... yes and no. ALWAYS be skeptical when someone says "those people have been fighting for centuries." Or as Tonto (or some Native American) said, "Who's this 'we,' white man?"

Conflict occurs because somebody perceives it to be in their interest to fight somebody for something rather than not to. Group identities form because people perceive it to be in their interest to identify with the group, rather than not to. Both the groups and conflicts exist NOW because they respond to needs and agendas that people have NOW. Groups do not just "exist" time out of mind "just because." The identity gets renewed and perpetuated to new members as it continues to meet needs; the identity shifts and morphs as the needs change. Sometimes groups disappear altogether or even reappear, not because the people themselves disappeared or reappeared but because they stop or resume identifying themselves a certain way.

If an area is conflict-ridden, it's because something in the region's structure (social, economic, political) makes conflict a better strategy than peace for people's perceived self-interest there. If it becomes peaceful, it's because people have found ways to profit in peaceable activity better than they could be conflict. That makes it sound simple, but of course it never is.

I see your point but I would add that sometimes conflicts arise more out of the self interest of the current ruling parties than the general well being of the group as a whole.
From your studies and observations have you come to the conclusion groups rarely have conflict based solely on past perceived offenses?

 

[Gaolee]

Mmmm... yes and no. ALWAYS be skeptical when someone says "those people have been fighting for centuries." Or as Tonto (or some Native American) said, "Who's this 'we,' white man?"

Conflict occurs because somebody perceives it to be in their interest to fight somebody for something rather than not to. Group identities form because people perceive it to be in their interest to identify with the group, rather than not to. Both the groups and conflicts exist NOW because they respond to needs and agendas that people have NOW. Groups do not just "exist" time out of mind "just because." The identity gets renewed and perpetuated to new members as it continues to meet needs; the identity shifts and morphs as the needs change. Sometimes groups disappear altogether or even reappear, not because the people themselves disappeared or reappeared but because they stop or resume identifying themselves a certain way.

If an area is conflict-ridden, it's because something in the region's structure (social, economic, political) makes conflict a better strategy than peace for people's perceived self-interest there. If it becomes peaceful, it's because people have found ways to profit in peaceable activity better than they could be conflict. That makes it sound simple, but of course it never is.

Some places, like the Middle East, suffer from a shortage of vital resources. Food and water, for example. That means defending those resources from others is critical. When the pressure to fight for the resources necessary to stay alive abates, the reason to fight for one's clan or tribe abates as well. I think a whole lot of conflict is economically driven. It isn't just moneyed interests who can potentially profit. And yes, there have been conflicts in the Middle East for centuries, just as there have been conflicts in Europe and all over the globe off and on for centuries. Getting the economic benefit out of conflict will allow far more peace to break out.

I'm not just a pathological optimist, I'm a passionately pathological optimist.

 

[hrodbert696]

I see your point but I would add that sometimes conflicts arise more out of the self interest of the current ruling parties than the general well being of the group as a whole.
From your studies and observations have you come to the conclusion groups rarely have conflict based solely on past perceived offenses?

On the first - absolutely. I didn't say the best interests of the people as a whole, I said the perceived self-interest of the people doing the fighting. A lot of the population are innocent bystanders. And it often is rival elites fighting, though they need to have some kind of a faction to support their ambitions.

Past conflicts can feed present ones, because a shared history is one (one) of the criteria that can be used to identify group membership, and that can be appealed to for mobilization and motivation in a conflict. But they don't overdetermine the present course of action by themselves. The fact that people have fought in the past by no means dooms them to keep fighting forever in the future. Nor is fighting something people "evolve" out of into a higher, peaceful state.

Some places, like the Middle East, suffer from a shortage of vital resources. Food and water, for example. That means defending those resources from others is critical. When the pressure to fight for the resources necessary to stay alive abates, the reason to fight for one's clan or tribe abates as well. I think a whole lot of conflict is economically driven. It isn't just moneyed interests who can potentially profit. And yes, there have been conflicts in the Middle East for centuries, just as there have been conflicts in Europe and all over the globe off and on for centuries. Getting the economic benefit out of conflict will allow far more peace to break out.

I'm not just a pathological optimist, I'm a passionately pathological optimist.

Yes, resources are a major factor in conflict. People in the modern Middle East aren't fighting because they want more water to drink, though. The Syrian people aren't going to have more water with Assad gone than they have with him in power.

There's a great book on African conflicts by a guy named Williams (War and Conflict in Africa). His argument is that African conflicts are driven by "neopatrimonialism." Basically, "big men" build patronage networks to factions of followers by funneling resources to them. The ultimate (but not only) source of resources is the government, so they jockey for access to government positions and rewards, with the presidency of their country as the big prize. But the culture is thus inherently competitive and constantly in flux, as each "big man" tries to expand his own faction and squeeze out the others. If a faction sees an opportunity to seize control, or to shoulder a rival faction out of the game, or if they themselves start getting shouldered out, they can turn to violence (revolution or coup) as a strategy to seize or preserve a hold on resources.

The thing is that, while resources of various kinds (from farmland to diamonds to oil to cash) are essential to the "game" of power, neither plenty nor scarcity of resources really matter to the cause of conflict, only to the tactics of pursuing it. The cause of conflict is the game itself. It would play out no matter whether resources are plentiful or scarce, because even with plenty for everyone, you still have the competitiveness built in.

The reason some societies (like European nations) are relatively peaceful is that capitalistic democracy allows for bigger gains with lower risks by pursuing peaceful strategies rather than violent ones.

 

[slobake]