From Wondering to Worrying


Ad: Buy Girls Und Panzer Merch from Play Asia!

ghost-kun

-san
Kouhai
I want to know why whenever you compare the present day to say Fifty years ago it looks so much more bleak and lack luster?

Let me further explain when did we start worrying about what will happen to us in the near future more than wondering what we could do to better ourselves?

I'll even give a few examples, presidential debates, In the most recent elections you have no very few promises to try and advance ourselves in any real particular way I mean they are all really shallow vague promises like finding a cure to this or that, which is in no way bad at all I'm all for a safer quicker cure for cancer or eliminating aids and HIV all together but how many times did you hear them say they are going to try and promote a certain research or even really get behind a company or hospital just to get even that one further ahead. But know lets shoot back to the sixties cold war, red scare and what do you have Kennedy who was pushing things like competing with other countries in the "Space Race" Now I'm not saying they were much different back then we all know how much black bagging went on just because you laughed when you found out Lucy had red hair, but it wasn't a fore front thing, he won by show a want for bettering ourselves not just defending ourselves.

Example two TV yep a good ol' reliable extension of imagination. More popular shows in the past where based around on how things will be in fifty years or more, now you have shows that focus on stupid, normal (I use it loosely in this context, because this isn't how most people act) people who do anything and everything for money, or we even have show about girls whose parents are rich and how much they are spoiled for just living(another loose term) through another year and making to their birthdays. I was watching a show the other day on Fox some you might know it, it's called 24 and this popular show (which I don't regularly partake of) focus around a terrorist who was capable of causing planes to crash into each other around the White House.

To sum this all up I have a better question, "Why do we find less amazement in what will become of us in the next 50 years and more fear in if we will even make it that far?"
 
As usual, I blame capitalism.
tongue.gif
(besides the obvious "we're in a deep economic crisis")

We've switched to a system where the main purpose of (big) companies is to generate money for the shareholders, in order to look good at the stock exchange.
Which means short-term benefits.
But some expensive innovations can only create middle- or long-term benefits...

A corollary : the place of nation-states is now belittled, compared to the place of international companies. And states are often the only actor strong enough, or willing enough, to invest in some technologies (for exemple rocket sciences, the weapon industry, the beginning of computers...).


And as usual, I also blame a problem of perception.

The past may look better, but it isn't, really.
The USA have known the Patriot Act in the last decade. Fifty years ago, it was the MacCarthysm, which was far from better.
 
QUOTE (ghost-kun @ Feb 08 2009, 08:03 AM)I want to know why whenever you compare the present day to say Fifty years ago it looks so much more bleak and lack luster?
I think it's a more an issue of perception. If we look at things objectively we will find that people are living longer today; have a higher income (even when you factor in inflation) and people have more equal rights than before. Sure things are still not perfect but in the grand scheme of things, we have it better today than in the past.

On the one hand you maybe right; people are less optimistic about the future today than they were in the past. When you look at all the images of what people thought the 21st century would like in the 1960's it is quite laughable. Today's society does not picture people driving in hover cars in the 2050's. But just because people are less optimistic about the future does that really mean they are less happy? It's difficult to say, perhaps people are more realistic and are not taken in by the media as much as they were in the past.

One argument that is sometimes brought up is whether people were more happy in the past than they are today. People maybe richer today but it is argued the stress of work and social pressures (keeping up with the Joneses) means people are not enjoying their extra wealth. Indeed it is often argued that once people acquire a certain amount of wealth (typically enough to live comfortably) any additional wealth will not increase happiness significantly; if anything, this extra wealth may actually have a detrimental effect on happiness.

As for political stances, I'm not a complete expert on this matter, so I can't speak with full confidence but I feel most countries are more central today than in the past. By this I mean most countries are not as far right (or left) as in the past. Look at Russia, they are no longer communist country and even China (which has left tendencies) follows the capitalist model fairly closely so it more central. And looking at many Western European countries, the state funds a lot of public services so it's not exactly far right either.

This shift is also seen in the voting parties in Britain. Labour is no longer just for the working man while the conservative no longer caters for the middle-class man entirely. Both parties are trying to please everyone and are becoming more similar to one another as a result. In doing so the promises made seem less dramatic as they all sound so similar. I can only speak for Britain but I suspect this occurs elsewhere as well.
 
I also believe that the past might look brighter in retrospective than back in those times.

And I wouldnt necessarily say, that people back then had a brighter view on life. Quite the contrary, when you look at the contemporary art of the 50ties and 60ties, both moovies and literature, you will notice, how much people feared what the future would bring. They feared a third world war, another depression and many other things.
We dont really get to see how things really were back than (unless we have studied history.... and even that is debatable). We are presented a certain picture by the media..... and that picture is disorted.
 
I would agree on it being a matter of perspective. Fifty years ago? World War Two gives way to the Cold War, both of which had their own sorts of fears attached. The atomic bombs in 1945 opened up a whole new scary world, where entire cities could be eliminated in minutes and they were only just learning about the after effects (radiation, etc). I don't know if anyone who went through their school years where you practiced what to do during raids and nuclear warfare would exactly say things were more optimistic ....
 
So the feeling that I'm getting is that it's all on where your current standing in society is that affects how you look upon what is promised and what is actually being brought about. Though going on into an even farther level, once we get to a certain point in society money wise, we can't see any deeper into the wishing well of tomorrow. Now I'm going to throw another question out there for discussion. What if the issue of money wasn't an issue with looking for a brighter future, would power and intelligence(namely technology) be what is holding back any promises?

Would it take a more, or a less people driven government to progress more smoothly at this point in time? I'm not saying a dictatorship far from it but finally recognizing ourselves as a bureaucracy not democracy and having the states run more business like cutting out unneeded things that are detrimental to peace and prosperity. Or on the counter side should we the people tighten the reins we have over the government and allow less leeway and folly to be tolerated?
 
QUOTE (ghost-kun @ Feb 09 2009, 04:35 PM) Or on the counter side should we the people tighten the reins we have over the government and allow less leeway and folly to be tolerated?
just how exactly do you want to do that? If that was possible, I believe people would have done it long time ago.

I think that people have always been the same, no matter the place or time in history. We all think only of ourselves, our short term benefits, we are greedy and selfish. Thats just how it is. It wasnt any different 50 years ago and it wont be different 50 years from now on.
The society sort of regulates itself... even though sometimes it takes a crisis or a war to to just that.

Let me ask you a questien.
biggrin.gif
Arent you maybe thinking a little too hard about things, that cannot be changed?
 
QUOTE (warita200 @ Feb 09 2009, 06:27 PM)Arent you maybe thinking a little too hard about things, that cannot be changed?

What's the point of asking the "What if's" if they aren't the big ones?

The question about how I would change it that is not a way I am sure of but actually the way that I said it is the way that democracy is suppose to work, so I might of acctually asked a redundant question, because "true democracy" doesn't exists. There is no way to make 100% of people happy 100% of the time.
 
QUOTE (ghost-kun @ Feb 10 2009, 08:05 AM)The question about how I would change it that is not a way I am sure of but actually the way that I said it is the way that democracy is suppose to work, so I might of acctually asked a redundant question, because "true democracy" doesn't exists. There is no way to make 100% of people happy 100% of the time.
Democracy isn't about pleasing everyone, it is about giving everyone the chance to vote. You are right however, true democracy doesn't exist anywhere. In most societies most governmental leaders are elected on a democratic basis. However in many cases the people do not have a say on the candidates (it is often the political parties who elect the leader). Furthermore once a prime minster/president is elected we do not have a say in what laws/policies they enact. If the government wishes to increase taxes much of the public will not have a say. Granted the government will usually need to gain the approval of a council/senate but most of the public are not allowed in the said council. So it is not a truly democratic process.

But even if public had a say in every political decision would the world truly be better? Many members of the public are not knowledgeable about certain areas and it is likely the popular decision may not actually be the right decision i.e it will not be for societies greater benefit. Furthermore if every decision had to go through a democratic vote then decisions would be made very slowly.

Just take the current economic crisis as example; it is a matter that effects everyone, yet many people are not very knowledgeable about the workings of the banking/housing system and general economy. What's more even the experts in this field are in constant disagreement on the exact causes/solutions to the problem. If every decision was made in an entirely democratic manner then it would take far longer to come to an agreement, if an agreement is ever reached. By the time a decision is made (if at all) the damage to the economy would be far greater than if society elected a small panel of people to make a quick decision. Off course with a small panel the amount of power to each person is greater so the chances of corruption are higher but sometimes a compromise must be made. You will never find a perfect system.
 
One of the problems of "people making decisions" is the general preference in favour of short term decisions, which bring short term benefits, but unfortunately damage the economy in long term.
If a person has the choice between receiving some transfer payment now (= cash) or taking a decicion, that will disadvantage that person in the short term, but will be very beneficial in the long run..... what do you think will the person choose?
People simply prefer to think of NOW and HERE and dont want to wait couple of years, even if renouncing from some benefits now would bring even higher benefits in the future.

The problem with broad masses also is, that they lack the proper understanding of the economy mechanisms, just like monsta pointed out. That combined with short sightedness..... well, I wouldnt allow people to make all that many decicions.

Unfortunately, the polititians are also only human.... and they have short term preferences of their own.... so, about the solution, I dont know....
 
I'm gonna take what you said, go way back to the topic and mix the two together;
What if say we aim for some kind of robotic system of government that makes decisions based solely on facts. Then out said "decisions" we take a pole of the people in what would be the best course of action, until we whittle it down to two decisions that have the been the most voted on and select from those. This system will of course have to have a connection to all people affected by it so that they could vote but it would also have to be weighed say as one of the three branches, I would like to think of it as a house of the people. In said "house's" voting there would have to be a clear history of the "problem" given along with what changes would happen for the vote selected.

This is just a rough idea but I like to say it goes back to my "wondering" about the future instead of worrying.
 
QUOTE (ghost-kun @ Feb 10 2009, 09:09 PM)What if say we aim for some kind of robotic system of government that makes decisions based solely on facts. Then out said "decisions" we take a pole of the people in what would be the best course of action, until we whittle it down to two decisions that have the been the most voted on and select from those.
Two? In an ideal world, this may please people. It really depends where you live. Even based on fact, I highly doubt things could ever be "whittled" down to two courses of actions by the government. There are too many factors and realities here: maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the West, the North, the Natives .... each as a unique problem that needs to be addressed but one collective solution will never solve or make people happy.

Now amplify this to international policy, and how many countries there are. What is best for developed nations isn't going to be best for poverty-ridden ones, etc.

Yes, democracy exists to give people a voice. But it also exists to balance their different needs as much as possible. I would also argue that your notion of having people vote seems flawed, given that (at least here) there is an ever-growing decline in voter turnout at elections. Even if you could get it to two options, who is to say that is what people want if only 30% of the population votes? There is always talk about reforming political institutions, but if the voters still don't come nothing you do is going to make democracy function better ...

(I'm assuming you want direct, and not representative, democracy? I hope I'm not misunderstanding something here ... I feel like I am)
 
QUOTE (chiisai_hana @ Feb 10 2009, 11:43 PM)
(I'm assuming you want direct, and not representative, democracy? I hope I'm not misunderstanding something here ... I feel like I am)
Yep you slightly misunderstood the point I was getting at, I'm talk about how as technology becomes more easily accessible to the public and how internet is even easier to get people will only need to free up minutes in their day to be able to vote their opinion. And on your other misunderstanding I'm say that we will still have elected officials to govern and help balance out the peoples decisions be it wise or not. And I would like to still think that there would be a safety net, of people who train and specialize in the law and its' understandings, there just in case we did make a horrible decision so they could at least veto it.

By the way I want there it be an initial voting and final voting sort of what you would see on American idol(God I can't believe I had to reference this show for anything government related). It's sad but it's a good system. You have many choices given to you by a knowledgeable entity and from there they give you further opinions and you vote and re-vote until you get down to the most commonly and frequently voted for ones and chose one out of those.
 
So let me get this straight. Some supercomputer does a lot of number crunching (using unbiased quantitative data) and provides the public with a number of options for any given problem. The public then vote for the best decision through various voting rounds where the decisions are narrowed to 2 options. A final vote is then made where the most popular decision is carried out. To speed this process, and make voting quicker, people can vote through various mediums: ballot/postal/internet etc.

The system has several weaknesses: first it will be very inefficient; just look at American/Pop idol. It takes them several weeks to narrow the candidates from 10 to 1. Granted, some of this is done for commercial purposes. Still, such a method would take a lot of time to arrive at any decision. A panel would reach a conclusion far quicker. Couple this with the amount of decisions that need to be made on a daily basis and you'll find people will do nothing but vote for the best option available! What's more, as most of the public are not very knowledgeable in certain areas it is likely they will make uninformed decisions. As a result, it is quite likely the popular vote will not be the best vote i.e. it is not in societies best interests to carry out that decision.

Finally it should be remembered that internet voting will be prone to the same problems as postal voting, namely it will be more open to electoral fraud as the voting is less secret and various friends/family can spoof votes making the whole thing invalid. But just for arguments sake let's just say no corruption exists. Will such a system be beneficial to society? If you want an entirely democratic process where everyone has their say, then yes. If you want a system that will benefit society the most, then in my opinion no. It is too slow/inefficient and in my opinion it will be more prone to making the wrong decisions as society will simply go for the popular option. It should be remembered that the popular decision is not necessarily the best decision. That's why we have experts who make decisions on the public's behalf.
 
You have very valid points for your arguments but first I want to remind you of how lengthy the law making processes is right now, 140 days I believe senate uses to go over laws and what not. Second there are ways to becoming more fail safe with the voting process i.e. retina, thumb print or my favorite thermal scan(you can't even get the same one with twins.). And third I don't want every little thing voted on, like budget and the like, just more of the major issues. I still want a government in place. I've said that every time but it's still interpreted as if I'm say let the people choose everything.

I would just like to say I know how stupid "people" are, but I feel it is because we baby them to much. I want to give them more responsibility so that they will try to become part of the solution to issues around the world or even just in their own state, and I say if you make them feel more like they count then they will strive for more and try to make a better tomorrow. But as things are now it's "Keep your head low and be another conformist 'face' in the crowd, or we will use your soapbox to hang you." is the feelings most have in their heads.
 
QUOTE (ghost-kun @ Feb 13 2009, 01:58 AM) Second there are ways to becoming more fail safe with the voting process i.e. retina, thumb print or my favorite thermal scan(you can't even get the same one with twins.)
I can't see many people supporting this option. Elections are far too costly without the additional technology and technicians to run it properly (can you imagine if the machines stopped working on election day?). It might work in America, where elections are fairly set, but in the parliamentary system where the government can lose confidence at any point? We've nearly had two elections in six months in Canada (still could!); talk of it alone got taxpayers upset about the cost, without the addition of paying for high-tech security tactics.

As for time to pass bills ... 140 days isn't that long, really. And the senate is still a small body. You're talking a couple hundred politicians to a couple million citizens. Narrowing it down would be a nightmare. Advocacy groups, minorities, people who felt the outcome was fixed/fraudulent could make the process even lengthier if the courts get involved.

Though I agree people need to get more involved. But the tendency is to enter politics at the local level, so thinking small first might be the key rather than jumping to the national scene. To get someone interested in what happens in the capital cities, they need to see some direct impact in their daily lives. Fighting for a stop sign/railway warning, trying to get federal money for public transportation, financial relief for a local disaster ....
 
QUOTE (ghost-kun @ Feb 13 2009, 05:58 AM)You have very valid points for your arguments but first I want to remind you of how lengthy the law making processes is right now, 140 days I believe senate uses to go over laws and what not. Second there are ways to becoming more fail safe with the voting process i.e. retina, thumb print or my favorite thermal scan(you can't even get the same one with twins.)
I think many people would be uncomfortable with the idea of the government holding this sort of information. If the government had a centralised database containing everyone's retina/fingerprints it would be a major security risk. Not only that, but it could be open to abuse as the government could use this data for matters other than voting. To be perfectly honest I'm not sure I can trust the British government. Time and time again they fail to secure data properly and stuff like this happens:
Discs loss 'entirely avoidable'

No one ever found the missing disks and god knows who has the CDs now!
ph34r.gif
If the governemt stored fingersprints/retina scans etc I would hate to imagine what would happen if the data got lost! It could well lead to a increase in identity theft.

Like chiisai_hana already said, if the whole public where involved in the decision making process would be prohibitory long. This will be even worse if the public arrives at a controversial decision. The courts will be involved and the whole thing could drag on for years.

I know this isn't exactly what you are on about but it makes a good case study - in Britain they are thinking of adding an extra runway to Heathrow airport. As you can imagine it is pretty controversial decision; businesses want an extra runway while the local people/environmentalists don't want a runaway. People in various councils voted and even pressure groups where involved. Eventually the government decided that a extra runway was feasible and the airport could apply for planning permission for an extra runway (notice they didn't even decide to build the thing). The decision caused an uproar and that I'm sure the courts will get involved again. Please bear in mind the idea of a third runway was first proposed in 2003, the government finally made a decision in 2009. And that was just to allow planning permission! It will be a few years (at least) before construction gets under way. So you see, 140 days is nothing compared to this...
ph34r.gif

Go-ahead for new Heathrow runway
 
Playasia - Play-Asia.com: Online Shopping for Digital Codes, Video Games, Toys, Music, Electronics & more
Back
Top