24 Jul 14
My point in this thread so far has been that, all things considered and contrary to the OP, the quality of life has improved markedly for the majority of inhabitants of this planet over the past 100, 200 or 1000 years.
Seriously, though, there is another side that I would like to address now.
If you strip the argument of all elements of religion (which may mean that it does not belong in this forum anymore!) and stay strictly with scientific evidence, then we DO have a scenario that the current path of economic growth worldwide is not sustainable. Which means we ARE headed for a "worse" situation.
The Meadows and Forrester "Limits to Growth" forecast of the 1970s has been discredited by some as not having been realised, yet the fundamentals of this prediction have not changed since then.
We are, at present, consuming the resources of 1.6 earths. By 2050 this will have exceeded 2 earths. Clearly, this situation is not sustainable, and a major breakdown of the "Growth Model" for the world economy must be expected. This, together with the well- reported widening of the gulf between the rich and the poor, can point to an inevitable major abyss which we are hurtling towards.
A good book (with a positive slant, believe it or not) on this subject is "Prosperity without Growth".
So, if you believe that things are going "from bad to worse", I would agree with the position that the current trajectory of growth will certainly result in things getting significantly worse during the next two to five decades, without a significant united and coherent intervention by world leaders.
However, here IS a question that would fit into a Spirituality forum: if there is any Christian that agrees with my stated scenario, what should be your reaction?
Either take responsibility and do the little bit we can to affect the situation, OR say the world is in God's hands anyway, and what will be will be...
24 Jul 14
Originally posted by Rank outsider"Because you are predisposed to see the world in a negative way, and the only evidence that registers with you is that which supports these preconceptions."
Because you are predisposed to see the world in a negative way, and the only evidence that registers with you is that which supports these preconceptions.
Note that you have not attempted to acknowledge or respond to my evidence on the staggering improvement in child mortality in just the last 30 years.
You make statements which are patently untr ...[text shortened]... don't accept your vague assertions that everything is destined to get worse, or not get better.
You don't know squat about what I'm 'predisposed' to, so quit with judging me.
"Note that you have not attempted to acknowledge or respond to my evidence on the staggering improvement in child mortality in just the last 30 years."
Probably because I didn't see your post till I just now went back and found it, and if you bothered to read any other of my posts in this thread you would have a better idea of what I think about this topic instead of making knee-jerk judgements about what I think or believe.
"You make statements which are patently untrue and which you cannot even attempt to substantiate and then ignore all responses which challenge this. So your position does not develop and improve. You just complain about it and make out like it is our fault that we don't accept your vague assertions that everything is destined to get worse, or not get better."
Nobody is making any patently 'true' statements about whether or not things in this life are improving for humanity. That what require a much more comprehensive compilation of facts than are being presented in this thread.
And as far as everything getting worse is concerned I leave you with this verse, which I am supremely confident is true.
Matthew 24:21,22
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
The time refered to is the second half of the seven year period just prior to the second coming of Jesus.
But you won't believe that truth will you?
24 Jul 14
Originally posted by CalJustMany of the Christians here sound impotent, pessimistic, defeatist and thus misanthropic. There's nothing like crass YouTube clips and 'end-is-nigh' duckspeak to reveal one of the uglier and repulsive sides of Christianity.
Either take responsibility and do the little bit we can to affect the situation, OR say the world is in God's hands anyway, and what will be will be...
24 Jul 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTypical response from an 'things are getting worse' crowd.
Did people not have much larger families back then? My grandmother had seven children, my mother four, there is a neighbor of mine and he is one of thirteen! thus the potentiality for mortality is correlated with the number of children being born, tis it not? the higher the birth rate the higher the potential for fatality. Now i don't think anyone ...[text shortened]... the mortality for actual preventable diseases if its all as nice and cozy as you are making out.
I will just make up a reason why it might not be the case that things are getting better and assume it must be true.
Go away, look at the evidence, and then come back with evidence that the sole reason (or even a significant reason) for improved infant mortality rates is individuals having less children.
Good luck with that one, by the way.
(Oh, I really hope you weren't saying that, if more children are born, the number that die must also increase. If so, you really need to look at the definition of mortality rate.)
24 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI am sad to say that that is probably true...
Many of the Christians here sound impotent, pessimistic, defeatist and thus misanthropic. There's nothing like crass YouTube clips and 'end-is-nigh' duckspeak to reveal one of the uglier and repulsive sides of Christianity.
😕
24 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwI had to chuckle when you complained about me accusing you of being predisposed to see the world in a negative way and then you quote a piece of your particular religious text, which the majority of this planet does not subscribe to, talking about a time when there will be a tribulation 'such as was not since the beginning of time'.
[b]"Because you are predisposed to see the world in a negative way, and the only evidence that registers with you is that which supports these preconceptions."
You don't know squat about what I'm 'predisposed' to, so quit with judging me.
"Note that you have not attempted to acknowledge or respond to my evidence on the staggering improvement in ...[text shortened]... r period just prior to the second coming of Jesus.
But you won't believe that truth will you?
And say you are supremely confident it is true.
(Oh, and you still haven't responded to my post(s) in any substantive way. Funny that.)
Originally posted by josephwOh, and I didn't say that other people had made 'patently true' claims. I said that you had made patently false statements.
[b]"Because you are predisposed to see the world in a negative way, and the only evidence that registers with you is that which supports these preconceptions."
You don't know squat about what I'm 'predisposed' to, so quit with judging me.
"Note that you have not attempted to acknowledge or respond to my evidence on the staggering improvement in ...[text shortened]... r period just prior to the second coming of Jesus.
But you won't believe that truth will you?
One does not follow from the other, and is another reason you get into these type of discussions.
24 Jul 14
Originally posted by CalJustI disagree. It is true that continued growth at current rates are unsustainable, but slower or no growth is not equivalent to worse.
....., then we DO have a scenario that the current path of economic growth worldwide is not sustainable. Which means we ARE headed for a "worse" situation.
Yes, I realize that humans in general get addicted to economic growth and foolishly believe that a reduction in economic growth is a loss - because they compare it with what they dreamed would happen in the future - and probably also foolishly spent the money they calculated they would earn in the future based on ridiculous growth estimates.
But even if the world economy stagnates, that is not equivalent to being 'worse'. Many things will still improve even without more money being involved. Computers will get better and cheaper, medicine will get better and cheaper etc.
And finally, even if the first world nations experience significant contraction in their economies and people get poorer materially in those countries, there is still plenty of room for growth in the developing nations to balance this out.
So for example if the US and Europe stopped using such a large proportion of the worlds resources, we could then share out the resources sustainable so as to allow everyone to be better off overall and still live within the earths capabilities.
24 Jul 14
Originally posted by CalJustI dont think mankind is capable of destroying Gods creation. Th Earth is far more resilient than many realise. In any case in 2 to 5 decades much of the worlds problems that are caused by the overuse of fossil fuels are likely to disappear. Alternative clean forms of energy will gradually be the norm.
My point in this thread so far has been that, all things considered and contrary to the OP, the quality of life has improved markedly for the majority of inhabitants of this planet over the past 100, 200 or 1000 years.
Seriously, though, there is another side that I would like to address now.
If you strip the argument of all elements of religion (which ...[text shortened]... to affect the situation, OR say the world is in God's hands anyway, and what will be will be...
The problem is that there are people who are negative to their very core. You can have a perfection and there will always be someone who will find fault. Some Christians think that by being prophets of doom it makes them better Christians .. for whatever reason .. I dont understand.
24 Jul 14
Originally posted by FMFHow easily you can insult! And you defend the 'world-is-getting-better' mentality all the while contributing to its demise by criticizing Christians.
Many of the Christians here sound impotent, pessimistic, defeatist and thus misanthropic. There's nothing like crass YouTube clips and 'end-is-nigh' duckspeak to reveal one of the uglier and repulsive sides of Christianity.
Who else in this world do you harbor resentment of?
Your post proves the point being made that the world is indeed getting worse.
24 Jul 14
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadHi twhitehead,
I disagree.
So for example if the US and Europe stopped using such a large proportion of the worlds resources, we could then share out the resources sustainable so as to allow everyone to be better off overall and still live within the earths capabilities.
This subject probably requires a thread of its own - I haven't checked whether it has been handled on maybe the Science Forum.
Firstly, your first "if" is a huge one, and the likelyhood of that is not borne out by the trends.
Secondly, as I mentioned, you are wrong by saying "we can still live within the earth's resources " because we are NOT doing so now! We have to go BACK to using ONLY this one earth's renewable resources. (Currently 60% more)
Thirdly, I do not proclaim doom and gloom. There ARE things that we can do, but the evidence is that we are NOT NOW doing these things. For example, we have almost certainly already passed the point which would have allowed us to limit climate change to 2 degrees C. The large scale finding and utilization of shale oil is NOT good news, because it will prevent us from weaning ourselves off carbon fuels sooner.
But this discussion then becomes one around resource depletion, climate change and the poverty gap.
On an aside, the challenge to the premise of "Prosperity without Growth" was the book "Ferraris for All!" which takes the view that humankind will always be able to pull itself up by its own bootstrap. (e.g. the horse manure "problem" of the early 1900s). I sense that you seem to subscribe to that view.
24 Jul 14
Originally posted by CalJustI think we both agree that the trends are not sustainable.
Firstly, your first "if" is a huge one, and the likelyhood of that is not borne out by the trends.
Secondly, as I mentioned, you are wrong by saying "we can still live within the earth's resources " because we are NOT doing so now! We have to go BACK to using ONLY this one earth's renewable resources. (Currently 60% more)
And most of that 60% is the West and constitutes a tiny fraction of the worlds population. So what I am saying is we could reduce our consumption by 60% and still have the majority of humans better off than they are now.
I must say that issues like global warming cannot be measured in terms of percentages of the Earths resources. If we don't do something about that one soon, it will cost most of the world a lot.
24 Jul 14
Originally posted by josephwI am getting a clearer picture now of how credible your opinions on this issue are ~ and the degree to which oner needs to take you seriously. I thank you for that. If my post "proves" to you that the "world is indeed getting worse", and if that's the kind of stuff you're going to be coming up with, then I may have been remiss asking for "evidence" from you. 😀
Your post proves the point being made that the world is indeed getting worse.
24 Jul 14
FMFI am comparing you to Christians I know who do not sound impotent, pessimistic, defeatist and thus misanthropic.
Many of the Christians here sound impotent, pessimistic, defeatist and thus misanthropic.
Originally posted by josephw
How easily you can insult!
impotent = almost everything you [and your fellow doomsters] say about the state of the world casts yourself as weak and powerless and like you are a victim and unable to face challenges ~ if this is not so, it does not come through in any of your posts
pessimistic = I don't buy into the concept that God-is-soon-going-to-sweep-it-all-away-and-billions-of-sinners-with-it is an example of "optimism" or positivity.
defeatist = most Christians I know out here are anything but 'defeatist', so I am sure they would see a lot of the talk on threads like this as 'defeatist' in much the same way as I do; it's not so much an insult as an observation on the stance taken by most of RHP's end-is-nigh'ers; you ought not to take it as an insult and instead take whatever pride you want from having a mindset so different from those you disagree with on threads like this.
misanthropic = I sense a profound contempt amongst doom-and-gloom Christians... contempt for the human spirit and its capacity to face its challenges, contempt for its willingness and determination to tackle problems, and to make better and better lives for themselves and their children ~ I think 'misanthropic' is the apt word rather than an 'insult' per se, but we can just disagree about that.