Is the world getting better?

[ZFBoxcar]

Oh, I thought you were being sarcastic about the world being better ;)

[ArmchairGeneral]

I really think that nuclear weapons may have saved the world from extreme misery. Without nukes, I would not be surprised if we had had another world war (dang that grammar grates) if MAD had not come into existence. And if you look at the phenomenal advancement of technology during WWII, it's not hard to see that we would quickly learn to kill people even more effectively in a hypothetical WWIII. If you look at pictures of Tokyo after the fire bombing, it's pretty much indistinguishable from Hiroshima. Vast expanses of nothing but ash. I think WWII cost Russia alone something like 20 million dead. And that's without massive strategic airstrikes on their cities. In fact, I wonder if the world could have taken third world war within a 60 year timespan. Not that we would go back to the Dark Ages, but we may have been set back considerably. Heck, I may have just persuaded myself that nukes were the savior of humanity. How's that for messed up.

[Officer of Engineers]

Without nukes, I would not be surprised if we had had another world war (dang that grammar grates) if MAD had not come into existence.

Believe me. It was not through a lack of trying.

[HistoricalDavid]

OoE,

If you don't mind me asking, what were your thoughts during Able Archer?

[Officer of Engineers]

OoE,

If you don't mind me asking, what were your thoughts during Able Archer?

A LT is not smart enough to think about these things.

[HistoricalDavid]

Pardon my impertinence.

[leib10]

I voted the second option because in my experience very few people nowadays are motivated to do anything for any other reason except for greed and advancement of themselves in some way.

"When the truth walks away, everybody stays
'Cuz the truth about the world is that crime does pay."

And from what I see, for those who commit crimes and get away with it, crime DOES PAY.

[HistoricalDavid]

I voted the second option because in my experience very few people nowadays are motivated to do anything for any other reason except for greed and advancement of themselves in some way.

And 100, 200 or 500 years ago, this was not true?

[leib10]

It's always been true. If you read old books such as the Bible, you can see that human nature has not changed one iota. However, I think the scale of the problem has gone to a whole new level.

[-{SpoonmaN}-]

Things are getting better, people are generally getting richer to some degree, people are generally getting better educated to some degree, nations are generally getting either more democratic or more liberalised to some degree. Things are going peachy enough considering we live in the real world, and just about everything is better than it was in the old days.

[bandwagon]

The world overall has progressed in material wealth, - but not necessarily paralleled by happiness. (Unhappiness exists amongst the deprived of course, but also increasingly amongst the wealthier).

The moral standing of the world is in my view diminishing. Since WWII there was an ascent of morals with the pursuit of peace, the recognition of universal human rights with a reach for basic absolute moral standards, through the UN. Although the UN is a flawed, political body in the way it conducts business, it is its recognition of absolute morals that has been a great achievement.

The drive behind the imposition of these values has come from Western culture. Other cultures have lagged or stayed behind, some by a long way.

The ascent towards reaching absolute moral standard peaked (still well short) around the millennium and has fallen since. There are two reasons for this.

1. Muslim Fundamentalism. Whilst the muslim world in general may have been beginning to converge with western morals, the fundamentalists have sought to prevent this; Sharia doctrine does not recognise the priority of individual human rights. However, it is the radical movement that have precipitated a divergence. Amongst the radicals it is particularly the emergence of the toxic doctrine of Al Zawahiri, who wanted to eradicate Western values by any means both inside and outside the muslim world, adopted by OBL in the mid 90s, that is now leading to a viscious downward cycle: Unfortunately, his doctrine is becoming increasingly adopted amongst muslim all over the world, as a predicted consequence of the military action by the West in the past few years. Human rights and indiscriminate compassion mean nothing to adherents of Al Zawahiri’s doctrine.

2. Neocon foreign policy. It is recognised of course that self-defence, i.e. the targeting of a direct and imminent threat, is either included in, or ring-fenced from an absolute moral code. Neocon foreign policy, as written up in “The Defence of America”, adopted by the Bush administration in 2000 (unmandated), implements pre-eminent assault on other nations, not just as part of national security, but as strategy to further America’s global hedgemony and economic security. The plan explicitly required a “new Pearl Harbour” type event to enable it to be implemented, which was provided by 9/11. Implicit in this doctrine is a conflict with universal human right to life. Clearly the subsequent military action in Iraq and Lebanon has not changed the aims of Al Zawahiri, -how could it, this was already maxed out. But it has lead to the popularisation of the doctrine, most chillingly amongst 2nd generation immigrants. My perception is that it in turn has lead to an ascendance of dehumanistic views amongst westerners.

-certainly if these boards are anything to go by, as illustrated by these unopposed comments:

There are definitely things one could grab by the throat to quell Al Qaeda. About a billion of them in fact.
….ALL i can see is a military solution.

And these well–wishes for holding a view:

Eventually the Islamists will take care of the leftists for us....one way or another.(and you can bet your sweet assses on that prediction).
……Either way, the left will get what it's got coming...

-A case of the pot calling the Islamo-kettle a fascist-black

[Confed999]

adopted by the Bush administration in 2000 (unmandated),

As with most of your posts this one is also replete with bull****, but now you've slipped into unprovable conspiracy theory. Oh, and just a little "by the way", there was no Bush administration in 2000.

[bandwagon]

As with most of your posts this one is also replete with bull****, but now you've slipped into unprovable conspiracy theory. Oh, and just a little "by the way", there was no Bush administration in 2000.

OK elected 2000.

“The defence of America” is there for you to read. Bush’s foreign policy has been on their website, a virtual word for word match. What conspiracy theory am I proposing here.

[Confed999]

What conspiracy theory am I proposing here.

They adopted a policy, and sat back and hoped for 9/11. I suppose they orchestrated the whole thing too.

[bandwagon]

No I'm not proposing the administration had anything to do with that. But it did provide the neocons with the opportunity to sell a long proposed invasion of Iraq.


Did you ever read the PNAC's "The Defence of America"?