Moderator: Community Team
Haggis_McMutton wrote:The fact that people couldn't become invisible at will.
You're completely wrong when you say diversity within society has increased. I'm primarily talking about values here, not aspects of culture such as musical instruments or cuisine (those I regard as petty). In the past you might have one group within society which dedicated itself to studying and preserving esoteric knowledge, another seeking spiritual enlightenment, others vying for material power, etc. Today you will only find Western values, which I have detailed before.BigBallinStalin wrote:(1) When you speak about multiculturalism, there's a problem with your analysis.
Sure, diversity across societies has decreased since a 1000 years, but diversity within numerous societies has increased. People speak of different cultures across the global (diversity across), but it doesn't matter if the individuals within each society are stuck with an extremely limited means to express themselves, create cultural products, etc. (low diversity within).
(2) We can look at languages, and say, "yes, the number of languages have been decreasing." But over the past thousand years, we can look at the merging of languages (e.g. English, and all its various sources from different languages), and with advancements in all sorts of technology, we have the cultural works of many societies--translated for us. Without advancements in technology, which you seem to disparage, we wouldn't be able to experience or be aware of other cultures.
(3) Greece was relatively more isolated than countries today (of course), but its legacies survived through Arabic translations, which were exported to Europe. It stood the test of time thanks to increasing globalization (i.e. advancements in technology, increases in trade across the globe) and cross-cultural exchange (trade across wide distances within a region, e.g. Mediterranean, the ancient times).
(4) What critics fail to notice is that there's increasing homogenization but also increasing heterogenization on a global scale. They're complementary, but limited approaches (holistic thinking) fail to open themselves to this obvious insight.
(5) Besides, there's many legacies created by other civilizations which were destroyed or completely lost. Trade, or cross-cultural exchange, allowed us to experience the works of Ancient Greece, but probably wasn't around to help these civilizations. If anything, you'd wish there was more cross-cultural exchange to have been able to preserve the works of these unknown Greats.
(6) At this time, I don't think you know what my notions are. Maybe you need to take a few breaths, and think things through.
(7) Calling Tyler Cowen a leftist is pretty funny though. It's inaccurate, but I'd give that a 5/10 if that was used against other people.
Army of GOD wrote:smelly farts
Hey, instead of reading your post, I've got a better idea. I'll be the one who refuses to concede while continually switching positions, goal posts, and topics, and you be the guy who stays consistent and patiently addresses all these points.Upgrayedd wrote:You're completely wrong when you say diversity within society has increased. I'm primarily talking about values here, not aspects of culture such as musical instruments or cuisine (those I regard as petty). In the past you might have one group within society which dedicated itself to studying and preserving esoteric knowledge, another seeking spiritual enlightenment, others vying for material power, etc. Today you will only find Western values, which I have detailed before.BigBallinStalin wrote:(1) When you speak about multiculturalism, there's a problem with your analysis.
Sure, diversity across societies has decreased since a 1000 years, but diversity within numerous societies has increased. People speak of different cultures across the global (diversity across), but it doesn't matter if the individuals within each society are stuck with an extremely limited means to express themselves, create cultural products, etc. (low diversity within).
(2) We can look at languages, and say, "yes, the number of languages have been decreasing." But over the past thousand years, we can look at the merging of languages (e.g. English, and all its various sources from different languages), and with advancements in all sorts of technology, we have the cultural works of many societies--translated for us. Without advancements in technology, which you seem to disparage, we wouldn't be able to experience or be aware of other cultures.
(3) Greece was relatively more isolated than countries today (of course), but its legacies survived through Arabic translations, which were exported to Europe. It stood the test of time thanks to increasing globalization (i.e. advancements in technology, increases in trade across the globe) and cross-cultural exchange (trade across wide distances within a region, e.g. Mediterranean, the ancient times).
(4) What critics fail to notice is that there's increasing homogenization but also increasing heterogenization on a global scale. They're complementary, but limited approaches (holistic thinking) fail to open themselves to this obvious insight.
(5) Besides, there's many legacies created by other civilizations which were destroyed or completely lost. Trade, or cross-cultural exchange, allowed us to experience the works of Ancient Greece, but probably wasn't around to help these civilizations. If anything, you'd wish there was more cross-cultural exchange to have been able to preserve the works of these unknown Greats.
(6) At this time, I don't think you know what my notions are. Maybe you need to take a few breaths, and think things through.
(7) Calling Tyler Cowen a leftist is pretty funny though. It's inaccurate, but I'd give that a 5/10 if that was used against other people.
As for everything else, all that proves is that "cultural exchange" worked to preserve culture, not that it lead to multiculturalism.
True.whitestazn88 wrote:the olympics will seem insane in 100 years. people won't believe we spent all that time watching sports when it could be better suited watching outrageous ceremony shows and mcdonalds/visa/other olympic sponsor commercials
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 0#p5349880
Wait, did this actually happen? Cuz I wouldn't put it past the USOC. And then I wouldn't put it past the UKOC to basically copy it. And then, in 20 years when it's the Pyongyang summer olympics, Kim Jong-Un will parachute down with the corpse of Kim Jong-Il, and I won't put it past them either.saxitoxin wrote:True.whitestazn88 wrote:the olympics will seem insane in 100 years. people won't believe we spent all that time watching sports when it could be better suited watching outrageous ceremony shows and mcdonalds/visa/other olympic sponsor commercials
Fortunately, though, the Olympics outgrew cheesy amateur theatrics after Rambo and George W. Bush parachuted from a helicopter into the 2002 opening ceremonies. Man, I was embarrassed to be a human when I saw that.
Not even just with stem cells but with robotic/mechanical organs too.Iliad wrote:I think with stem cell technology on the rise, the practise of organ donour bodies will be viewed as distasteful: extracting organs from the dead and literally inserting them into others to keep them alive may seem morbid when it's no longer necessary.
Did they record the one that thekilling and I went to?jonesthecurl wrote:people will think it's insane that you could watch jonesey for free.
Army of GOD wrote:Did they record the one that thekilling and I went to?jonesthecurl wrote:people will think it's insane that you could watch jonesey for free.
I thought we went in February or March. Can't remember though so you might be right.jonesthecurl wrote:Army of GOD wrote:Did they record the one that thekilling and I went to?jonesthecurl wrote:people will think it's insane that you could watch jonesey for free.
I believe this is the end of that very set.
I didn't put up the whole thing becaus, well, people can always buy tickets, ya know.
If humans become immortal they will go extinct.Army of GOD wrote:Not even just with stem cells but with robotic/mechanical organs too.Iliad wrote:I think with stem cell technology on the rise, the practise of organ donour bodies will be viewed as distasteful: extracting organs from the dead and literally inserting them into others to keep them alive may seem morbid when it's no longer necessary.
Assuming we either do achieve immortality/average lifespan over 100 or something, it'll be REALLY weird culturally how different the oldest generation interacts with the youngest few. "the internet? that shit is soo early aughts." I feel like a lot of people won't even know how to function with the changes in society (even compared to the oldest generation alive now who have enough trouble).
If we can ever get to the point where we can halt aging and repair cellular damage regularly, it's probable that 1) we'll also have the means to maximize cellular respiration and metabolic activity with minimum resources, and 2) the fields of bio-tech isn't just limited to human anatomy, meaning resources can be produced much more efficiently than they are now.Upgrayedd wrote:If humans become immortal they will go extinct.Army of GOD wrote:Not even just with stem cells but with robotic/mechanical organs too.Iliad wrote:I think with stem cell technology on the rise, the practise of organ donour bodies will be viewed as distasteful: extracting organs from the dead and literally inserting them into others to keep them alive may seem morbid when it's no longer necessary.
Assuming we either do achieve immortality/average lifespan over 100 or something, it'll be REALLY weird culturally how different the oldest generation interacts with the youngest few. "the internet? that shit is soo early aughts." I feel like a lot of people won't even know how to function with the changes in society (even compared to the oldest generation alive now who have enough trouble).
Reason: Earth doesn't have necessary resources to support massive population boom.