20th century progress.

[bhukkadakota]

Anyone want to help me out and discuss a bit of 20th century progresses with me? Its just a uni assignment i have. I know we have grown from 1.5 billion to 6 billion in 100 years and technology has advanced astronomically that people living in the 1900 would have trouble grasping the idea. Also the 20th century has produced wars on a world wide scale and has had more casualties in battle then the last 2000 years combined. And also we have the technology to basically destroy the world and we affect the enviroment greatly because of our machinery and mass producing factorys.

Anyone know anything else about the progress and downside of the 20th century or any good books about this subject? Thanks.

[bandecoot]

Anyone want to help me out and discuss a bit of 20th century progresses with me? Its just a uni assignment i have. I know we have grown from 1.5 billion to 6 billion in 100 years and technology has advanced astronomically that people living in the 1900 would have trouble grasping the idea. Also the 20th century has produced wars on a world wide scale and has had more casualties in battle then the last 2000 years combined. And also we have the technology to basically destroy the world and we affect the enviroment greatly because of our machinery and mass producing factorys.

Anyone know anything else about the progress and downside of the 20th century or any good books about this subject? Thanks.

I would reccommend "A History of Warfare" By John Keegan isbn 0-7126-9850-7
Thats a good primer on how war has changed since the 18th century.

Another oddball source Not for your Bibliography would be Robert Heinlein, not his fiction but his collection of Non Fiction Essays I think the later editions were called "the Universes of Robert Heinlein" Bear in mind that he was born in 1907 and saw the very changes that you want to look at. He wrote a couple of essays on that topic in fact.

Other than that a Classical historian is not much help for you.

Andrew

[bhukkadakota]

I would reccommend "A History of Warfare" By John Keegan isbn 0-7126-9850-7
Thats a good primer on how war has changed since the 18th century.

Another oddball source Not for your Bibliography would be Robert Heinlein, not his fiction but his collection of Non Fiction Essays I think the later editions were called "the Universes of Robert Heinlein" Bear in mind that he was born in 1907 and saw the very changes that you want to look at. He wrote a couple of essays on that topic in fact.

Other than that a Classical historian is not much help for you.

Andrew

Thanks for that, ill look them up. But why shouldnt i use Robert heinlein in the bibliography if i find his book?

[bandecoot]

Thanks for that, ill look them up. But why shouldnt i use Robert heinlein in the bibliography if i find his book?

Bobby is not really Academic source material. He was a popular author, not an academic one, pop him in if you want, but be prepared to defend his inclusion to your Prof or Tutor.

[CatholicSage]

I give the Twentieth Century :thumbd:. Still, good things of course did happen in it. You might want to devote a good portion of your research to the "shrinking of the world," as it were, through new methods of transportation and communication. Namely airplanes, rockets, radio, television, the internet, etc. China today no longer seems so far or distant as it did to the average American 100 years ago.

[Tween]

Have you read any Niel Postman? Amusing ourselves to Death and his thought provoking lecture, Informing ourselves to Death? He discusses many of the negatie impacts of television media and the Information Age.

Anyone want to help me out and discuss a bit of 20th century progresses with me? Its just a uni assignment i have. I know we have grown from 1.5 billion to 6 billion in 100 years and technology has advanced astronomically that people living in the 1900 would have trouble grasping the idea. Also the 20th century has produced wars on a world wide scale and has had more casualties in battle then the last 2000 years combined. And also we have the technology to basically destroy the world and we affect the enviroment greatly because of our machinery and mass producing factorys.

Anyone know anything else about the progress and downside of the 20th century or any good books about this subject? Thanks.

[Tween]

Just a quick quote from Postman to whet your appetite (hopefully)
"The computer is an answer to the questions, how can I get more information, faster, and in a more usable form? These would appear to be reasonable questions. But now I should like to put some other questions to you that seem to me more reasonable. Did Iraq invade Kuwait because of a lack of information? If a hideous war should ensue between Iraq and the U. S., will it happen because of a lack of information? If children die of starvation in Ethiopia, does it occur because of a lack of information? Does racism in South Africa exist because of a lack of information? If criminals roam the streets of New York City, do they do so because of a lack of information? Or, let us come down to a more personal level: If you and your spouse are unhappy together, and end your marriage in divorce, will it happen because of a lack of information? If your children misbehave and bring shame to your family, does it happen because of a lack of information? If someone in your family has a mental breakdown, will it happen because of a lack of information? "

[Ryokan]

I am surprised everyone capped on the 20th centruy so much. By most resonable measurements, including healthcare, GDP per capita, education, political freedom, calories consumed daily, etc. humanity, even in sub saharan Africa, is better off than it ever has been. We made collossal mistakes, but still, we are better off.
To fully understand this, I think the best book would be "The Skeptical Enviromentalist", by Bjorn Lomberg.

[Tween]

Better off than what? or whom? Perhaps if we are considering the physical only, but even then, to quote Nelson Mandela, "but in this new century, millions of people in the world's poorest countries remain imprisoned, enslaved, and in chains...While poverty persists, there is no true freedom." Are we better off spiritually, are our relationships better? Are we more compassionate, more loving, more reverent? Better off is an illusion, in my humble opinion. Do you not think that we are seduced into believing that we are better off? I most certainly do not have political or any other freedom, (and I live in S.A, the country which now has the most progressive constitution in the world) any more than those in any other century (not being of the elite class that is). I cannot choose to move around this globe without a monstrosity of forms, ID docs, passports, money in the bank, etc. I cannot go anywhere, do anything without an Identity document. I cannot survive in a so-called democratic country without a banking account. . Think about it really deeply, do you truly have freedom or does the Matrix have you?

I am surprised everyone capped on the 20th centruy so much. By most resonable measurements, including healthcare, GDP per capita, education, political freedom, calories consumed daily, etc. humanity, even in sub saharan Africa, is better off than it ever has been. We made collossal mistakes, but still, we are better off.
To fully understand this, I think the best book would be "The Skeptical Enviromentalist", by Bjorn Lomberg.

[bandecoot]

Better off than what? or whom? Perhaps if we are considering the physical only, but even then, to quote Nelson Mandela, "but in this new century, millions of people in the world's poorest countries remain imprisoned, enslaved, and in chains...While poverty persists, there is no true freedom."

He has a point there, Health care costs money, as does access to education. I would suggest it is the wide disparity between the very poor and even the midlles classes of the west that creates the impression of slavery. I would suggest also that in SA the average Zulu or Shona, was slightly better off 200 years ago than they are now. But more on that later.



Are we better off spiritually, are our relationships better? Are we more compassionate, more loving, more reverent? Better off is an illusion, in my humble opinion. Do you not think that we are seduced into believing that we are better off?

Now, I dont have a spiritual bone in my body, relationships? My wife is not required to drop a pup without her choice in the matter, I think that is a good thing, Domestic Violence is now a crime, I think thats better than it was in 1901.


I most certainly do not have political or any other freedom, (and I live in S.A, the country which now has the most progressive constitution in the world) any more than those in any other century (not being of the elite class that is).


I cannot choose to move around this globe without a monstrosity of forms, ID docs, passports, money in the bank, etc. I cannot go anywhere, do anything without an Identity document. I cannot survive in a so-called democratic country without a banking account. . Think about it really deeply, do you truly have freedom or does the Matrix have you?[/QUOTE]

Have you read the Odyssey? Odysseus was in fear of his very life when he landed on a foreign land. Even in 100 bc you could not travel in the Roman Republic without identity papers(bronzes actually) a document of manumission , release from the Legions...Forget the idea of traveling without money. You could not survive anywhere without money either as a letter of Credit or as coinage.

Humans have changed in how they veiw each other to a large extent, what has not changed much is how we govern ourselves. No Govt wants to see penniless intruders soaking up resources that their citizens(who elected them) might need.

But lets be pragmatic, in 1895 you had a very real chance of dying of polio, measles or diptheria before 10, and a simple catscratch could have killed you at any time after that. Not forgetting good old smallpox, or Bubonic Plague( there are still cases of that one today even in the west). In the 3rd world today you are simply more likely to get a nasty dose of Cholera, the others are gone for the most part.

You are correct however, there are poor people who need to get out of that trap, but its not going to be me or you alone that does it, as you say individually we are impotant to help more than one or 2 families.

I will be curious to know what your solution is.

[Ryokan]

Better off than what? or whom? Perhaps if we are considering the physical only, but even then, to quote Nelson Mandela, "but in this new century, millions of people in the world's poorest countries remain imprisoned, enslaved, and in chains...While poverty persists, there is no true freedom." Mandela is right, but even the poor are less poor than they were, and as a percentage of the global population, they are smaller. Are we better off spiritually, are our relationships better? Are we more compassionate, more loving, more reverent? We are less racist. Less imperialist. More open minded. Better off is an illusion, in my humble opinion. Do you not think that we are seduced into believing that we are better off? No, actually, if anything, I think those with an agenda try to paint a rosy picture of the past, saying is was better, or at least as bad as today.I most certainly do not have political or any other freedom, (and I live in S.A, the country which now has the most progressive constitution in the world) "Progressive" constitutions tend to limit a persons opportunities. any more than those in any other century (not being of the elite class that is). Really? You are more free than those who lived under King George of England, or slaves that lived here in the US, or the subjects of Shaka Zulu, aren't you? I cannot choose to move around this globe without a monstrosity of forms, ID docs, passports, money in the bank, etc. I cannot go anywhere, do anything without an Identity document. I cannot survive in a so-called democratic country without a banking account. . Think about it really deeply, do you truly have freedom or does the Matrix have you?[/QUOTE] You just don't have the money. And thus far in your life, what have you given to society to justify that. Its not fair that everyone doesn't have enough food to eat, or a house to live in. But the ability to summer in Europe or not need ID isn't a lack of freedom or a basic human right. Give me a break.

[Tween]

You just don't have the money. And thus far in your life, what have you given to society to justify that. Its not fair that everyone doesn't have enough food to eat, or a house to live in. But the ability to summer in Europe or not need ID isn't a lack of freedom or a basic human right. Give me a break.[/QUOTE]

I asure you I have no idea of what I do or do not have, or what I have or have not given to society. But let this not get personal. My belief is that the entire earth was created for all, my experience however is that the earth is divided up among those who have money (lots of it), and the rest who accept their little bit and go about their lives believing that "summer in Europe" is where it's at. I wish to rid myself of this mental slavery.

[Ryokan]

Where is it "at" then? Most people just want happy, healthy family memebers, and some nice things, and a tolerable job. And we are getting closer and closer to that. What is your "free" world.

[CatholicSage]

The Twentieth Century was not redeemed by the numerous medical and economic advances made during it because these likely would have happened anyway, without the horrendous wars and ideologies of the period. There are certain historical "constants" out there, one being that technology will advance and make parts of our lives easier, so it's wrong to say that the Twentieth Century was better than the Tenth Century simply because of indoor plumbing, for example. When evaluating the Twentieth Century, we should think of what should have happened, what did happen, and then see how far off the mark it was. I'd say it was pretty far off.

[bandecoot]

The Twentieth Century was not redeemed by the numerous medical and economic advances made during it because these likely would have happened anyway, without the horrendous wars and ideologies of the period. There are certain historical "constants" out there, one being that technology will advance and make parts of our lives easier, so it's wrong to say that the Twentieth Century was better than the Tenth Century simply because of indoor plumbing, for example. When evaluating the Twentieth Century, we should think of what should have happened, what did happen, and then see how far off the mark it was. I'd say it was pretty far off.


I have to say I am somewhat Gobsmacked by this. What, pray tell, should have happened and more importantly why?

[CatholicSage]

I have to say I am somewhat Gobsmacked by this. What, pray tell, should have happened and more importantly why?

Of course I will not say that this or that absolutely should have happened; everyone will have different opinions on the specifics of what should have happened, and I'm sure you would disagree with many of mine. As a broad statement that I think we can all agree with though, I will say that the titanic conflicts between ideologies should not have happened, and that these could have been avoided but for the moral failures of humankind.

[Tween]

Perhaps I am too idealistic, but my free world would be one where we have reverence for all life, that we live the words "love your neighbour as yourself" and look beyond this physical existence for happiness. Happiness is not determined by one's circumstance, for me it is determined by my knowledge that I can choose to respond to circumstances from a point of love and compassion, rather than fear.

Where is it "at" then? Most people just want happy, healthy family memebers, and some nice things, and a tolerable job. And we are getting closer and closer to that. What is your "free" world.

[bandecoot]

Of course I will not say that this or that absolutely should have happened; everyone will have different opinions on the specifics of what should have happened, and I'm sure you would disagree with many of mine. As a broad statement that I think we can all agree with though, I will say that the titanic conflicts between ideologies should not have happened, and that these could have been avoided but for the moral failures of humankind.

I would agree with about 99% of what you say, I would however state that it was the moral/ethical failure of a few people that led to those conflicts. The man in the street had about as much say in the starting of the 1st, 2nd and consequent wars as his dog did. It was of course the man in the street who had to carry the burden of said conflicts and even the cost of the not-wars.

[Ryokan]

Of course I will not say that this or that absolutely should have happened; everyone will have different opinions on the specifics of what should have happened, and I'm sure you would disagree with many of mine. As a broad statement that I think we can all agree with though, I will say that the titanic conflicts between ideologies should not have happened, and that these could have been avoided but for the moral failures of humankind.
Yes, but our sins do not negate our triumphs. And we averted a ideologically driven apocolypse, suggesting we are learning.

[Ryokan]

Perhaps I am too idealistic, but my free world would be one where we have reverence for all life, that we live the words "love your neighbour as yourself" and look beyond this physical existence for happiness. Happiness is not determined by one's circumstance, for me it is determined by my knowledge that I can choose to respond to circumstances from a point of love and compassion, rather than fear.
Okay. But for the rest of us, who are content to live in the real world, where most people are tolerable, not loved, and freedom means complaining about and firing politicians we don't like and telling bawdy jokes in public, the 20th century worked out pretty well.

[Tween]

Okay. But for the rest of us, who are content to live in the real world, where most people are tolerable, not loved, and freedom means complaining about and firing politicians we don't like and telling bawdy jokes in public, the 20th century worked out pretty well.

At one stage, I was also content with that kind of 'freedom', but found it to be rather shallow and unfulfilling to my spiritual life. I do not beleive that we are meant to live in mediocrity. To quote a friend 'Only dead fish go with the flow'. However this what is great about a site like this, it challenges each one to question his/her own world view? ;)

[Ryokan]

At one stage, I was also content with that kind of 'freedom', but found it to be rather shallow and unfulfilling to my spiritual life. I do not beleive that we are meant to live in mediocrity. To quote a friend 'Only dead fish go with the flow'. However this what is great about a site like this, it challenges each one to question his/her own world view? ;)
Well, I feel pretty full. But, as my wife is always telling me, I am a very shallow pool.

[CatholicSage]

I would agree with about 99% of what you say, I would however state that it was the moral/ethical failure of a few people that led to those conflicts. The man in the street had about as much say in the starting of the 1st, 2nd and consequent wars as his dog did. It was of course the man in the street who had to carry the burden of said conflicts and even the cost of the not-wars.

But the individuals who composed the masses did have a choice of whether or not to follow these ideologies. For example, the "guilt clause" thrust on Germany at the Treaty of Paris may have been devised by a few individuals, but it underscored the popular sentiment of those nations hit hardest by the war, especially France. Still, I basically agree with you, and that's why I chose to blame "humankind" instead of many individuals. Humanity's collective moral faults led to the suffering of many individual innocents.

Yes, but our sins do not negate our triumphs. And we averted a ideologically driven apocolypse, suggesting we are learning.

They don't negate the triumphs, but IMO they quite overshadow them because they could have and should have been avoided. We may have better medical technology and techniques than ever before, but we've created so much business for them that you might hardly notice.

[bandecoot]

But the individuals who composed the masses did have a choice of whether or not to follow these ideologies. For example, the "guilt clause" thrust on Germany at the Treaty of Paris may have been devised by a few individuals, but it underscored the popular sentiment of those nations hit hardest by the war, especially France. Still, I basically agree with you, and that's why I chose to blame "humankind" instead of many individuals. Humanity's collective moral faults led to the suffering of many individual innocents.



They don't negate the triumphs, but IMO they quite overshadow them because they could have and should have been avoided. We may have better medical technology and techniques than ever before, but we've created so much business for them that you might hardly notice.


The death of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 had very little to do with the person of the streets in London , Paris or Berlin. The attempt to prevent fiurther wars by the establishment of the League of Nations was however a result of the reaction to the unprecedented number of deaths during WW1.

The failure of the ethics of a few people led to the collapse of that body, One of my Prime Ministers being chief among them, to my shame. Leading to the aggression in 36-45( if you take Spain into account). The post 45 formation of the UN was and still is, despite controversy, a body that is dedicated to preventing general war. I think we have learned that talking is better than fighting, it may still take us a few years to swallow that unpalatable pill, but there is always that hope.