[H1N1]

I think, in all probability, the opposite is true. I believe we are on the verge of ushering in a new era, and that the next 50 years will see the world change beyond recognition.

Conventional politics cannot continue as it is - increasingly technology will render the status quo redundant as power continues to be concentrated in the hands of the tech giants, and the innovators in this sphere. I think the seismic change in this will come at the point where robotics and GAI becomes generally affordable. Such an event would render the vast majority of the adult population redundant. If that happens these people will need to be appeased, and be able to provide for their families. I suspect, given their unsuitability to the world as it may become, they will receive this income in exchange for some kind of voluntary sterilization procedure.

If you aren't smart enough or tech savvy enough to train computer systems, then within 50 years or so I suspect there will be no place for you in the economic system. Because of this, I think very soon it will be seen as the ethical choice to start manipulating the genes of unborn babies to make them smarter, to ensure that enough of the population can keep up with the rate of progress and keep up the pace of innovation.

Ultimately all of this will, I believe, happen in the west. We are still a long way ahead, and there is already tremendous established wealth here. Take Apple as an example - they are literally so rich that they've had to become a bank to find some way of using their money efficiently. Where do you think the Apple CEOs and their comrades are going to want to live? It certainly isn't going to be Lahore... I think there is such an established monopoly on technology, knowledge, and applicable ability here in the west that it will not be overcome. All the doomsday fear mongering seems, respectfully, to be motivated in part by a lack of understanding and fear of technological progress. People think everything is going to fall to pieces, but it isn't the case. Systems are 'anti-fragile', for want of a better word - they exist precisely because they are adaptable and offer a framework which can be extrapolated from to account for new variables. Life in the West may change radically in the next 50 years. There is likely to be a good degree of chaos surrounding the change. But fundamentally I am confident that progress will continue, and perhaps even accelerate.

It is a wonderfully exciting and interesting time to be alive. Far from being doomed, I think those of us in the West are ideally poised to usher in the next phase of human advancement.

[Quintus Curtius]

I'll first respond to the OP's point.

My impression is that the information revolution of the past 40 years or so has resulted in a great "leveling" of quality. In the old days, education may have been more confined to a few. But that few was better than the best today. On the other hand, ignorance and illiteracy was probably greater in the old days, as few people had access to today's levels of technology and information. So it seems like "human quality" has reverted to the mean, or has been "averaged out."

Second, I wanted to respond to H1N1's thoughtful post.

Reading H1N1's post above made me think more about this. These are deep waters, that involve questions of faith and philosophy as much as they do technology and science. He makes a good case for the idea of progress.

I agree with much of what he says, but I think it's also important to acknowledge that there is a counterpoint to the idea of "upward progress." I don't believe those who may perhaps lean towards pessimism can be dismissed so easily.

It's important to appreciate that, to get the most accurate assessment of human affairs, we should look at the longest time spans. It's good to look at all of history, from say, 3000 B.C. to the present. There were periods of "progress," and then there were periods of chaos, decline, barbarism, and ferment. Long term trends matter, but the short term matters, too.

The very idea of "progress" is in many ways a creation of the 18th century European Enlightenment. Scholars and scientists in those days believed that the progress of "Reason" would result in an upward trajectory for all fields of human endeavor. Were they right? Maybe. But there were also periods of catastrophic violence, ruin, and collapse. One need only look at 20th century history to make this point.

Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, and Herbert Spencer (along with many others) firmly believed that increasing education and technology would create a permanent, inexorable upward track of human happiness. The idea that progress in science and technology would cure human ills became bound up with the very identity of the 18th and 19th centuries, as the Industrial Revolution took hold.

But there were some dissenting voices about the inevitability of "progress." The 19th century Romantics like Nietzsche and others scorned the idea of progress. They celebrated the inherent irrationality of the human condition, and the imperative of individual action. Spengler believed history was cyclical.

The British historian John Gray said that the whole idea of progress is an "illusion with a future." Gray thought that the whole idea of "progress" was so fundamentally "encrypted into the fabric of modern life" that people would find it nearly impossible to let go of.

And then as the Quantum Age dawned in the beginning of the twentieth century, everyone assumed that war was obsolete. All would go upwards, upwards, upwards. Scientists were told that there was nothing left to discover. The public in 1900 or so was told that future wars in Europe were "impossible" because all the crown heads of Europe were related. And then 1914 came, which ushered in a new age of collapse and violence.

My point is simply that the case for "progress" is not airtight, so to speak. When we look at the entire span of human existence, we see the Beach of History littered with the sorry wrecks of failed societies, fallen civilizations, ruined states and empires, and bankrupt ideals.

Who now remembers the Kings of Phrygia? Who now knows what secrets were held by the libraries of Babylon, Nineveh, Ur, or Tenochtitlan? Are we any better than our forefathers? I am not so sure.

If we average history out on the longest timeline, we can see that our modern age of technological ease has only been around for, perhaps, 200 years. Mankind has been on this earth for 1 million years or so. Recorded history stretches back to about 5000 B.C. Perspectives matter. We should approach these matters with humility and awe, rather than assurance in an inevitable outcome.

I say this not out of any criticism at all of H1N1's point. He argues his case wonderfully, and he may be right. I remember reading a great book many years ago called "The Next 10,000 Years." The book's soaring thesis was that, no matter what happened to mankind, he would inevitably explore the galaxy and populate it. Mankind would disassemble planets and remake them in vast engineering projects. It was an incredibly optimistic vision.

Maybe it is true. But I can't help thinking of the counterpoint. The ruins and colossal wrecks of civilizations, stricken down by the hubris of man. We can't escape history, no matter how much we want. And it is good that this is so.

The military historian Stephen Van Evera's "Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict" contains a shocking number of examples of how military planners had blind optimism in their own omnipotence. This false optimism distorted their perceptions, to their severe detriment. The pattern is repeated over and over again.

One can say much the same thing about those who put too much faith in science and technology.

One of my favorite historians is J.B. Bury. He was not a believer in the idea of progress. Maybe it is hard for a historian to be so, having seen firsthand the crimes and follies of mankind happen in unceasing regularity through the ages. Bury said this about the idea of progress. I'll just leave people with this, from his work "The Idea of Progress":

It cannot be proved that the unknown destination towards which man is advancing is desirable. The movement may be Progress, or it may be in an undesirable direction and therefore not Progress...The Progress of humanity belongs to the same order of ideas as Providence or personal immortality. It is true or it is false, and like them it cannot be proved either true or false. Belief in it is an act of faith.

Perhaps this is the best way to see it. Belief in progress, like much else in human affairs, is an act of faith. Each of us must make up his own mind.

[storm]

(04-01-2016 01:48 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

Are we any better than our forefathers?

Fundamentally, we cannot ask whether things are "better" or "worse" without defining what we mean by that.

We can, for example, ask if people are "better" in the sense of life expectancy. In that case, there is a resounding yes.

Or we can ask if people are "better" in the sense of a healthy diet and a constructive community. Then that is no.

But to make the claim that there is a "better" for an individual across history? Even Kaczynski had to use some abstract nonsense like freedom. And John Stuart Mill wrote about happiness. Using his definition, the happiest possible life could be achieved in a fantasy world VR system. But such a life should be rejected.

Is there even a way to talk about whether things are "better"? Perhaps for an individual, and even then I am skeptical. The question is fundamentally linked to, "what is the meaning of life?".

Ultimately anyone who tries to make the claim that things are "better" or "worse" without specifying in what way is engaging in sophistry.

This isn't just a technical point: it's a fundamental problem with all of these arguments, and the reason why nobody has answered this question yet: it is not well-formulated.

[PapayaTapper]

Sub in "USA" for "Mark Twain"

[storm]

Blame feminism.

[dodecahedron]

all you need to know

[QCD]

This here.

[Leonard D Neubache]

I'm well aware of falling academic standards. The stuff my boy is learning at school is several years below the stuff I was being taught at the same age.

The schools dumb down the curriculum in order to make sure all the kids can get a pass mark (there's no such thing as failing anymore) and that way nobody "hurtz they feelz".

A few people here have waxed lyrical about the minority of smart people carrying the majority of dumb ones through into an age of technological wonder. For them I have a one word rebuttal.

Democracy.

p.s. This guy has some good material. This particular post is of some relevance to the subject. A nation will not be defined by it's peak citizen but by its average.

http://fredoneverything.org/onward-into-...da-anyway/

[DarkTriad]

(03-31-2016 07:44 PM)R_Niko Wrote:  

I imagine IQ increased steadily from the start of the industrial revolution until sometime in the past fifty or so years.

Access to food, medicine, and books all led to people getting much smarter. Then we got so smart we became corrupt and decadent, then society started going to shit and people began to get dumber.

There's no doubt that the average university student today is a fuckin' retard compared to one of twenty plus years ago. The biggest reasons in my opinion are: 1) media bombardment; 2) shitty parenting; 3) declining educational standards; 4) junk food and environmental toxicity.

And the facts...support your position. Flynn effect ended in the 1992.

[RawGod]

Before the modern era, the mass of people were illiterate peasants with no say in their lives and no informed opinions about anything.

The rise of the printing press, living standards and mass education brought in a brief era of citizens rather than subjects, where ordinary people could at least aspire to being informed and independent, captains of their fate. This was known as the yeoman ideal, a society of strong individuals and families engaged civically and in the "pursuit of happiness". It was built up between 1850-2000 because smart workers were needed for the more complex tasks of the era.

Now, such a citizenship is no longer needed economically, due to increased technology. We don't need many so many skilled workers, and a high number of people with actual agency is seen as a threat by the ruling class. Why would they want a nation of people with intact families, armed, knowing how to grow their own food and fix their own machinery? Especially if they read old books with dangerous ideas.

So what we are getting is a return to a world of a mass of ignorant peasants. Placated with smart phones and their physiology altered by the consumption of poor quality food, they aggressively defend the very power structure that keeps them at the bottom, just like medieval peasants.

When I walk down the street and see all of these "educated, sophisticated" people, with their lattes, electronic gadgets and opinions regurgitated from the media, I see them the same way that I would have seen the peasants of an earlier era - just background scenery, and unfortunately people who will aggressively drag me down. Get money from them and have sex with the prettier women. That's all you can do.

[Speculation]

Independant thought and critical thinking is on the decline.

So much of what passes for intelligence these days is just regurgitated 'knowledge'. Often its just eloquent words parroted with conviction and has never been critically analysed by the speaker to see if they truly believe it. It's so easy to just nod along when some genius with the same values as you makes a convincing argument about something and steal their position rather than building one of your own from scratch.

Like many people I'm often a victim of this and I'm concerned enough about it that I'm thinking of how to better structure an information filter so I don't keep falling into the subtle trap of letting 'greater' minds do my thinking for me.

Its great to have your mind stretched by the ideas of others, but not so much that you lazily cede your own capacity for truly creative thinking.

[HermeticAlly]

I think the truth is somewhere between H1N1 and Quintus' posts. In terms of life quality, opportunity, and available information, people living in advanced societies are living at the best time in human history. But in terms of moral character, community, familial cohesion, and quality of education, we're practically in the dark ages. In my experience people often confuse material progress (such as wealth, technology, opportunity) with social progress. Quintus framed it quite nicely: your perspective on all this comes down to your faith in human progress. I have zero faith in human moral progress devoid of religious and moral tradition (particularly Christianity) and a strong, admirable culture.

I have no doubt that technological progress will continue to increase, but because of moral deficiencies in the modern world, there will be a lot of bumps along the road, and these things won't necessarily continue to benefit the average person. I am very skeptical of the dramatic "collapse" theory popular in the alt-right sphere of the internet, for similar reasons H1N1 laid out. To me, it's always smacked of wishful thinking from the guns-and-survivalism crowd for the world to turn into their apocalyptic fantasy playground. I absolutely do expect wars and cultural strife, but think it will be much different, slower, and more subtle than they predict.

Is American finished? It's really hard to say. I think America's best days are behind it, but that doesn't mean that the only available future looks like something out of Mad Max. An organic breakup into smaller nation states seems pretty plausible to me.

[Daddy Chains]

(04-03-2016 08:42 AM)HermeticAlly Wrote:  

An organic breakup into smaller nation states seems pretty plausible to me.

I'm not sure how can it be "organic"?

If Cliton becomes the next Pres. expect "secession chatter" to greatly increase. 16 years of potential back-to-back radical liberal lunacy will be historically unprecedented, and will seem even more insufferable due to cause-and-effect loop mangled and magnified by Internet.

Medium and long term trend is in the data: Mestizos (of all kinds) are on the rise, and whites are on the vane. White people in states like Montana, Idaho and Wyoming will be looking for alternative forms of governance and association. Since any breakup will not be allowed by the powers to be, it will be reasonable to expect some violent conflict, unless all white men are successfully brainwashed to turn into pajama boys before that point (which is what present culture wars are for.)

The violence will happen not because hardcore American whites are itching for it, but because they will not be given any other options in their own demise. In fight or flight instinct of this kind - there's nowhere to flee.

[Daddy Chains]

The Library of Congress, saying a once common phrase had become offensive, announced it will no longer use “illegal aliens” as a bibliographical term.

The library will now use “noncitizens”when referring to individuals and the larger phenomenon of people residing in the country illegally. The library called the words more precise as well as less offensive.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-libr...story.html

[Anabasis to Desta]

While it is true that the American education system is laughable and the average American outside the Northeast knows nothing about the world, i don't think it is relevant to whether or not America will remain a world power at all.

The "spirit" of a nation is much more important than measurable metrics like HDI, Science & Math scores or questions like "who was the first person to circumnavigate the globe?".

Your average European for example knows much more about the world, is better at Maths, Science, History ... can hold an interesting conversation and is likely to be well traveled and in much better physical shape. But they're more like shallow oceans. A little knowledge about a wide variety of subjects.

America is a country of extremes. Americans tend to be like very deep lakes. They specialize. A lot of knowledge and skills in one or two discplines they dedicate their lives to.

The average Euro might be in better shape but when Americans get into fitness they go all in. Crossfit becomes their life. All the top bodybuilders are American. The best swimmers are American. The best surfers are American. Ask one of these athletes about WWII and they might even take pride in their ignorance. If they're not going to be atleast above average in it ... why care?

The average Euro might be better @ Math and Science but when Americans go for it ... they go all out with their Silicon Valley start ups and create companies like Paypal, Facebook, Yelp, Linkdin, Glassdoor or Airbnb. 8 of the top 10 Mathematicians on the planet are Americans.

First world countries like Israel, South Korea, Denmark, Singapore and Finland have mandatory military service which renders every male at least somewhat military savvy. In America however you can make a career out of killing. The best special units in the world are all American ... SEAL's, Delta, SWCC's, SARC's , Rangers. Ask one of these guys about the Crusades or the Abbasid Dynasty. They don't know and don't care because that's not their job.

America is unique in that regard because whatever you plan on doing in life, it offers the opportunity to pursue it to the very top and become financially compensated for it. Which results in the relative ignorance towards most things not related to what they're passionate about

Also the reason why Americans have this high energy can-do attitude. A blue collar mechanically inclined Oil field roustabout will work 16 hours shifts to save enough money to start his dream of owning his own custom motorcycle shop. Some farm girl from Wisconsin will drive her rusty 80's Ford truck to California to become an actress. My nigga Tyrone who just got out of the Pen will offer you his new mixtape for free to get the word out so he'll get signed by Dr. Dre's Death Row records.

This is a uniquely American mentality which might not be evident to you guys but as a foreigner who's lived in Africa, Europe and the US ... it's very admirable and the number one aspect i love about this country.

As long as this American spirit remains ... America will stay on top.

[Daddy Chains]

(04-03-2016 01:21 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

As long as this American spirit remains ... America will stay on top.

[BlueOcean]

Here's a chart that shows international reading test scores by nationality and ethnicity (taken from PISA).

Compared to other nations, US students are average. Not at the top, but not at the bottom. However, if you look at the scores for US whites, they do comparatively well.

That doesn't imply that American youths are especially well informed about history, but it's an over exaggeration to say that America is finished. At least by international standards, they're average.

http://b47i.imgup.net/Untitled125c7f.png

[zigZag]

(04-03-2016 12:20 PM)Daddy Chains Wrote:  

The Library of Congress, saying a once common phrase had become offensive, announced it will no longer use “illegal aliens” as a bibliographical term.

The library will now use “noncitizens”when referring to individuals and the larger phenomenon of people residing in the country illegally. The library called the words more precise as well as less offensive.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-libr...story.html

This is retarded. There are plenty of people who live in this country LEGALLY that aren't citizens. Like i did when i lived here on a Green Card. Jesus PC gone mad.

[Anabasis to Desta]

(04-03-2016 03:33 PM)Daddy Chains Wrote:  

(04-03-2016 01:21 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

As long as this American spirit remains ... America will stay on top.

Disgusting hipster smokes which last like 10 minutes. I don't think I've ever managed to finished one. used to smoke Camel Crush Menthols until hwuzhere ( Comte de St. Germain) introduced me to Nat Sherman Classics.

More expensive high quality smokes. Have cut down to about 1 cig a day after switching to these. Except on drinking/clubbing nights when i run through a whole pack in like 5 hours.