The world really is getting better and better

reply to post by nightbringr


I'm sure you would like to think you would "rise above it", but that's coming from YOUR perspective that was more than likely developed from your supportive ENVIRONMENT. People like your friend are in the vast minority. It is a fact that there is very little social mobility in the U.S. If you are born poor, it is very unlikely you will get out of poverty. If you are born rich, it is very unlikely you will become poor or even middle class. Some children just have no chance at a quality life. Do you think a child born into Muslim extremism, that has a gun in their hand at 3 years old, has a chance for a quality life? I'm sure in that case, again you would like to think you would "rise above it."

Human development begins at infancy and the first couple years are crucial as to how they will view the world. Genetics play a role, but the environment is really the main determining factor. Science is telling this now. So yes, the environment IS an excuse.

You are yet another example of someone that is quick to condemn the poor for being lazy or uneducated, but say nothing about the rich that have more ability than anyone to help, but choose to buy a 5th house with 30 rooms, while people are in need. If we can help the children, which also means helping the parents, to meet their basic needs, like food, shelter, education and emotional support, we can begin to solve the problems of extreme poverty and all of the negative human behavior that is associated with it.

But something tells me a lot of people don't want that. I think a good portion of society gets pleasure out of the fact that others are suffering and they are living a good life. They get pleasure from condemning and feeling superior. Especially those near the top. The ones that are most able to solve the problem.

Originally posted by Reflection
reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse

 

First off, I don't know what percentile of wealth you are in. If you are in the middle class, I don't blame you for not wanting to give up your hard earned dollars to help the poor, it's a struggle for those in the middle. Especially near the bottom of the middle, wherever that is. But as a society, can't we agree on when enough is enough?

I just don't understand when people are so against welfare, but have no problem with multi-multi billionaires, that can never get enough, when there are so many in need.

I GOT A BIG PROBLEM WITH MULTI BILLIONAIRES, BECAUSE I PROBABLY DO MORE TO HELP THE POOR THAN THEY DO.

The top 1% own 40% of the wealth. If they gave up only half of that to the bottom 50%, they would still be rich beyond belief and those 50% could actually have a life and start contributing to society. But Noooooo, greed and the never ending need for more and more is ok and being poor and "lazy" is not.

YOU KNOW WHAT, i HAD VERY FEW TOYS AS I CHILD AS A RESULT OF MY FAMILY'S FINANCIAL SITUATION. WE MADE DUE, WITH WHAT WE HAD. LOVE AND THE CHARITY OF OTHERS HELPED US TO OVERCOME OUR SITUATION. CHARITY, IS MUCH BETTER THAN GOVERNMENT THEFT.

Laziness is not a result of charity. Laziness has to do with a bleak outlook on life and being uninspired. If you are a child that's environment is uninspiring, you will become an uninspired adult. This is why you could take a child from the most impoverished region of Africa, place them in a financially wealthy, emotionally stable and supportive environment and Wah Lah! You have yourself an ambitious asset to society. People are not born lazy. They learn to be lazy from their environment, just like they learn to be criminals from their environment.

I NEVER SAID LAZINESS, IS A RESULT OF CHARITY. WHAT I SAID IS THAT THERE ARE MANY INDIVIDUALS WHO DON'T WANT TO FEND FOR THEMSELVES, BECAUSE THEY ARE LAZY. AND ALSO, FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS, WHO CAN'T FEND FOR THEMSELVES, I ADVOCATE CHARITY, AND GIVING.

So if the problem is the ENVIRONMENT and NOT the person, then isn't the solution in the hands of the ones capable of changing that environment? Can't we stop condemning the poor and incompetent parents and start supporting the innocent children? How else can the chain be broken?

IF A PARENT IS UNFIT, WHAT DOES THE GOVERNMENT DO IN SUCH CASES?

I don't advocate "stealing" from the middle class to give to the poor. I'm advocating for a narrowing of the gap between the richest and poorest. Again, if you are in the middle class, I'm not saying you should give up what little you have. I'm just saying being against welfare in general is fighting the wrong fight. We need to be fighting the billionaires. Because the reality is, if we continue to CONDEMN the "lazy" adults in society that, like I said before, were more than likely BORN into that life, we will continue to have the same problem in the future, because those children of the parents you insist on condemning, are bound to end up exactly like their parents and you will be on this site 20 years from now continuing to condemn those very children, that are now the "lazy" parents. When do we break the chain??

WE BREAK THE CHAIN, WHEN ALL PEOPLE RISE UP AND BECOME ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEMSELVES.

IT IS FAR TOO EASY TO LAY BLAME ON OTHERS.

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?

ARE THERE ANY REAL MEN LEFT IN THIS WORLD?

reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse


I appreciate the fact that you help those in need. However, nothing substantial can be done until we, as a society, narrow the gap between the rich and poor. The middle class may have the desire to help those in need, but don't have enough wealth. Until our society decides to share more of the wealth (remember, the top 1% own 40% of the wealth and the bottom 80% only own 15%), the problem of poverty will persist. More children in need, which if I'm correct, you believe to be worthy of charity, will be neglected and uneducated. More crime and suffering will follow. And considering the gap between the rich and poor is widening, it will only get worse.

There is more than enough to go around in this world. I guess the question we have to answer is: Do we believe in equality and support of humanity or is it every man for himself and poverty is necessary?

I think on the surface a lot of us say we are for equality, but underneath we really don't want it. We are afraid of equality. We want to feel superior, which is actually tied to an inferiority complex. We pine over that expensive car because we want to impress the girl and make everyone else on the road look inferior, but underneath that is the FEAR of being the average joe on the road. The rich man gets pleasure out of being sucked up to, but his biggest motivation is the FEAR of being poor.

Superiority an inferiority are based on fear. Equality is based on love. We are clearly a long way away from equality. It's really an identity problem. We believe that social status is real. We do everything in our power to feed our fake identity so we don't have to look at who we really are. The things we own, end up owning us. Strip all of that away and we can begin to actually see ourselves. We can then see the truth that NO ONE is superior or inferior to anyone else. We are all one!

When we realize that we are all one, charity isn't about helping others, its about helping ourselves.

reply to post by Skyfloating

That is your choice. As long as you dont try to impose your choice on me, I respect your choice.

we are in complete agreement here - so what is the real point of your OP?

You seem to be suggesting that some people just aren't digging all the betterness of our current planet-wide situation.

Further more, if we can't see how it's better, it's because we're letting the 'imperfections' get in our way...which leaves me wondering - are we whiny malcontents cramping your style?

:-)

Let me put it another way - you are essentially telling people that if they are not happy, it's their own damn fault for not ignoring the right stuff.

Well - yeah. Right on. There you go Sky - that is the whole truth. Some of us are just not ignoring the right stuff.

But you yourself have said it's not about being happy - it's about improvement

No. Ive caused thirld world change. I will not share what because I dont want to boast. But Ive caused change with optimism and cash.

Why did you, as you put it, cause change?

How does being dissatisfied with certain conditions or situations rule out also being optimistic?

If the world is better, how and why did that happen? If it is to continue to improve - what needs be done?

Don't worry - be happy?

Is being happy the same as being satisfied?

Let's talk about this better world of ours...

Truth: Today women are allowed to vote, and we have a Black President. Bookstores carry more spiritual literature than ever before in History. That idea is just nonsense.

Where is this then? Am I to understand that the world is really America? I always suspected this was the truth.

"But there are many threats we are facing from the Middle East"

(OK, edit - right here - to add: Excuse me? Who is 'we'? The title of this thread is: The World is getting better and better.)

Truth: While it is true that we need to stay on the alert for various threats, the recent peaceful revolutions in various Arab countries are actually a sign of awakening, not of a problem.

Awakening - from what? Bliss? Shouldn't they just be happy and appreciate how much better things are? Or do they not count because they aren't the world? That is, they aren't in America.

"We can only be happy when there is world peace everywhere and at all times"

I tend to disagree with that for several reasons, some of them shown in this thread: Do we really need world peace?. We can have overall peace most of the time and in most places, but total peace "at all times" can only come about through totalitarian rule - which is certainly not preferable in my view.

Truth is - we don't really need world peace - as long as we have peace in America.

Does everything really have to be perfect before we can be fairly happy? The statement is a strong statement to make.

Interesting question - how does it relate to your OP?

I want the world to be better and better - I honestly do

My dissatisfaction does not prevent me from appreciating that many things have in fact improved - and that things will continue to improve

I am - on occasion - extremely happy :-)

much of the time I am content - for which I am truly appreciative

Just don't tell me to put on those rose colored glasses - they interfere with my vision

And, I know better than to suggest you take yours off.

:-)

Originally posted by Reflection
reply to post by nightbringr

 

I'm sure you would like to think you would "rise above it", but that's coming from YOUR perspective that was more than likely developed from your supportive ENVIRONMENT. People like your friend are in the vast minority. It is a fact that there is very little social mobility in the U.S. If you are born poor, it is very unlikely you will get out of poverty. If you are born rich, it is very unlikely you will become poor or even middle class. Some children just have no chance at a quality life. Do you think a child born into Muslim extremism, that has a gun in their hand at 3 years old, has a chance for a quality life? I'm sure in that case, again you would like to think you would "rise above it."

Human development begins at infancy and the first couple years are crucial as to how they will view the world. Genetics play a role, but the environment is really the main determining factor. Science is telling this now. So yes, the environment IS an excuse.

You are yet another example of someone that is quick to condemn the poor for being lazy or uneducated, but say nothing about the rich that have more ability than anyone to help, but choose to buy a 5th house with 30 rooms, while people are in need. If we can help the children, which also means helping the parents, to meet their basic needs, like food, shelter, education and emotional support, we can begin to solve the problems of extreme poverty and all of the negative human behavior that is associated with it.

But something tells me a lot of people don't want that. I think a good portion of society gets pleasure out of the fact that others are suffering and they are living a good life. They get pleasure from condemning and feeling superior. Especially those near the top. The ones that are most able to solve the problem.

Hmmmm, an environment IS an excuse? A cause perhaps, but never an excuse.

Im not condeming anyone but those who are capable of working, yet chose not to and bleed off the good working folk of the world. Im all for anyone who wants to "live off the land", and make a go of it, but to collect welfare cheques simply because you can is pathetic. I would never willingly be a burden on society if I am clearly capable of working and making a living. In fact, i pride myself in doing a good job when i do work.

I by no means live a rich life, but im happy. Life is what we make it. You can sit around and bemoan your lot in life or you can get off your ass and do somthing about it.

double post

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

(Re: Life Expectancy was lower)

Are you sure?

Yes Im sure. Average life expectancy in the 18th Century was 35. The reason it has gone up is because of the improvement of medical care.

Originally posted by MindSpin
I 100% agree.

I have only read the first page of replies, and it is exactly what I thought it would be.

I thought it would be that too. Thats why I made the thread...as witness to the self-centeredness of mankind.

A bunch of people complaining about their own individual situation, while they are still on the internet and most likely have a full belly and a warm place to sleep at night. They can't buy that 80 inch flat screen though...so life sucks

First comes full belly. Then complacency. Then complaint. Then downward spiral. That could be what happened to America.

Originally posted by skylightsintheillions
IFirst of all, you cannot quantify happiness in a poll. I'm sorry but that's about as backwards as it gets.

But you can ask them whether they are happy or not and if they say they are, who are you to say they are not?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
You do. Arguments that "on average" things are better,

The graph of the world is going up, up, up. There will be curves and slumps, but overall it is going up.

and that people shouldnt complain because their fellow human around the globe is doing better are a denial of competition, and the principles of natural selection.

Where did I say people shouldnt complain? What I said was that newsmedia and "alternative" news-media does nothing but complain and that this is a distortion of reality.

Seeing that not everything is quote as horrible as they say does not rule out competition. I can, for example, enter a sports game or a job interview without feeling desperate.

You are trying to argue both ends by saying we should ignore that humans are in competition, and the game is "differential success" by celebrating our "average" successes and not being selfish, and then you promote competition. Which is it?

I didnt say we should ignore that humans are in competition. You can celebrate some successes once in awhile and still be in competition. Not everything is black and white.

Originally posted by Reflection
I appreciate some of the things you pointed out. I believe it's important to focus on the good as much as the bad, and in our society it seems that the bad is what gets all of the attention.

That being said, just as it is important to see the positives in society, it's important that we choose not to look away at the negative things.

There are a few things I'm going to have to disagree about.

Of course, but as I see it, society and newsmedia are already lopsided to negativity 99.99%. ATS is a small-scale representation of society. Look at the recent post list. How many positive threads do you see? All Im asking is to reduce negativity to 90%. And from there maybe to 80%...some day....

Have these problems ever been solved from continually ranting about them?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis


Just don't tell me to put on those rose colored glasses - they interfere with my vision

And, I know better than to suggest you take yours off.

This is a recent thread I authored: Faces of Meth.

I authored it because I was recently involved in a charity-event for a drug-rehab center for teens.

You saying I wear rose-coloured glasses because I dont buy into all the doom, fear and hatred of newsmedia is off the mark.

Originally posted by Reflection

You can't compare the current dollar's value to the 1970s. Especially considering the recent developments of the dollar. Less than a dollar a day in the 70s could get you a lot more than it can now.

As Ive mentioned, America has taken a little slump in the overall curve. So what? I know that nobody had Wikipedia and Instant Access to all the worlds information in the 1970s. We got the Internet from the U.S. Government, from the Military everyone here so passionately hates.

America will regain its old strength when it returns to the values that made it strong. Of course, since the current Generation of the U.S. sees doom everywhere, it will take a little longer for America to recover.

Originally posted by skylightsintheillions
Also, Africa is beautiful, yes. But safe and good to live in? Hell no!

The reasons your "youtube search of travel accounts" reveals people wearing nice clothes and eating at restaurants is that rich white people who visit Africa are treated royally. It's not just Africa, it's a lot of places in the world. So your assessment is foolish.
If you think that the female genital mutilation, the health epidemics and constant civil war are stunningly beautiful, then you have a very warped and demented world view.

Have you actually been to Africa? The way you are talking I am 100% sure you havent. Ive been all over Kenya, South Africa, Egypt, Namibia, Ethiopia. I trust my first hand experience more than I trust your word. I saw neither multilation, nor war, nor starvation anywhere. Not once.

But watching the News I should have assumed that I at least see it ONCE, no?

Originally posted by brianmg5
Thank you for taking the time to put this together. I find it astounding that we (humans) continue to improve our situation on this planet century after century, evolution seems to be on our side. We very seldom go backwards for very long. I would almost argue that when we do go backwards it's merely a catalyst for healthy change going forward.

Before it gets much better it sometimes gets worse temporarily. WWII is a good example of that.

Everything happens in curves and cycles, not in snapshots as the "news" media would like to portray.

I disagree but still retain a hope it will.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

(Re: Life Expectancy was lower)

Are you sure?

Yes Im sure.

Average life expectancy in the 18th Century was 35. The reason it has gone up is because of the improvement of medical care.

edit on 8-3-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

That is totally false. Life expectancy has increased for three major reasons.

1. Modern and safer industry and health institutions.

2. Mechanized labour and agriculture replacing human labour. Like; Tractors, cars, trucks, trains, cargo ships ,air plains and so on. This has made it possible for human growth; to feed more people.

3. Fossil energies increase time efficiency. For instant; People get help a lot faster. We can harvest bigger fields for crops and so on.

Than you can start to add communication and so on. Medical saves only the people in most need of instant medicare.

As i said before but that no one on this topic wants to thinks about; is why we actually are close to 7 billion people on earth. It ain't because of medicare or medication. It is because we have easy access to cheap energy. "As of yet, that is all about t change". And when it changes peoples comfort will change.

I am very disappointed in the knowledge you people posses about our functional environment. Just think about what will take place in a few years when fossil fuels no longer can sustain our functional society. I tell you it wont get much better than it is right now.

Originally posted by spy66
That is totally false. Life expectancy has increased for three major reasons.

I fully agree with you that life expectancy has gone up. I also agree with the reasons. But improved medicine is one of them. It is not "completely" false.

Originally posted by nightbringr
Im not sure how it is in the USA, but here in Canada if i decide not to work, the government will set me up with a bi-monthly welfare cheque and low rent housing and I will never be at risk of starving or freezing to death. Do you think Kings or dictators treated their citizens better?

Sounds like paradise. Many hundreds of Millions share your appreciation.

I really dont think people have any grasp of how difficult life was before electricity, running water, cars, planes, internal combustion engines and such were invented. How living as a sustinance farmer, having one bad crop could mean the very real possibility of starving over the winter.

The entitlement-crowd is not aware of how good things are in contrast. They'd rather whine.

Originally posted by Reflection
One more thought has come to mind.

What one considers wealth, as you mentioned in a reply, is subjective.

Yes. I wonder how come Americans considered "under the poverty line" own a car, a TV, a fridge, plenty of clothing and eat three times a day.

I think, as a society, we need to have a common definition as to what REAL wealth is. What direction are we going and what goals do we have as a society? Or are their NO goals and it's every man for himself?? I really don't get much of a definition from my supposed "leaders" except "The American Dream." Which is extremely vague and makes no sense, considering they outsource jobs and spend massive amounts of money on trying to control other regions of the world.

You make a great point. America especially, needs to remind itself of its values and also of those values we all have in common.

Where are we heading as a nation?

Where do we want to head?

America is in decline because no goals are being declared (yet).

I personally believe that someone is wealthy when all of their human needs are met. ESPECIALLY CHILDREN'S NEEDS! Needs can include, but are not limited to, food, water, shelter, education, transportation, energy, social interaction, emotional support from family and self discovery. That, to me, is true wealth.

This is excellent. Too bad nobody starred your post (yet). That is a great definition of true wealth.