I thank whoever's listening everyday that there's people who care about such topics so much that they can give paragraphs' worth of measured responses because if it were up to the average idiot like me I would've just went "nuclear powered Ford? hell yeah why not" and signed off the patent along with a limitless budget.
That was a real concept, by the way.
www.ans.org
It’s based.
I think that everything has pros and cons. Some have more pros than cons and vice versa but I know for a fact that industrial revolutions have more pros than cons. Yeah, there are a lot of cons but there are more pros. Industrial revolutions are relatively new but Rome had been on the verge of an industrial revolution in it's heyday because they had steam power. Industrial revolutions are a sign of growth within a country and have consistently been preceded by the outlawing of slavery and serf labour. Countries that have had successful industrial revolutions have cheaper food that is easier to access, various options for goods and services, and usually good economy's. That said, I am someone who hates pollution and wants to protect the earth so I can't stand a lot of large corporations and industries.
I’m pretty sure I’m the only person pro-slavery on scribblehub. Lol. Also rome had potential for an industrial revolution but it would be wrong to say that they were on the verge of it. Also armside from the steam power, they had the bread mills, water wheels, and super hard concrete like 200 times better than modern concrete. Then greek fire later.
I think we're less self sufficient than before. Less superstitious too though. Although I liked it when people were superstitious, it meant more opportunities for demon-slayers and exorcists.
Yes on the self-sufficiency part. But it is wrong to blindly believe that traditions were only about superstitions. That belief is the greatest straw man argument in the history of humanity. Traditions is the breath of knowledge, and is said in odd and bizarre ways full of symbolism, this narrative technique is to further refine the soul, gate keep and to draw interest. It is a lot more intriguing if I wrote an entire paragraph in feudal English rather than saying something like “Creative endeavors are the greatest satisfactions.”
I think that people are too focused on the progress of and after industrial revolution and don't make appropriate effort to preserve the good parts that were in our society before it and some still are, instead thoughtlessy accepting this progress as inevitable and changing everything.
Yup. But there’s no progress to speak of. At least of the spiritual sense. The human race only progress their abilities to devastate one another, rather than progressing beyond cyclical cycles of hatred and depression.
This should be a neutral fact. Techno-dystopia is different than pre-industrial world, but shouldn't necessarily be bad. It is though, in many aspects, which saddens me.
I mean the mass surveillance state, bio weapons, and social engineering.
That's only natural, because with greater possibities come greater opportunities only some people can grab. It's not necessarily a bad thing, similar to how it is in human psyche. Development allows to broaden our horizons, but makes us unable to see the picture we previously thought was normal. Just like that, it's impossible for a wealthy person to truly put themselves in poor's situation, even if they can understand them.
it’s natural. I know that. Also pretty sure you misunderstood this point
The problem in current society is that it's the wealthy people that hold power over the whole society, instead of it being divided, which would allow each of them to develop in most optimal for them way. I can compare it to an old, experienced person trying to command a group of ten people from completely different environments. He can understand what their needs are, but won't be able to see them the same way and won't satisfy everyone, because he sees the greater picture he uses to his own benefit.
It would be wrong to just call out the bourgeoise. The ruling order is not exclusive of the capitalists, but of managers, deep state bureaucrats, policy makers, politicians, military officials, propagandists, scientists and philosophers. Along with other groups. Also I’m pretty sure it would be far worse if power were to be divided amongst all the stratas of society. That would spell out the potential anarchy as there is no unifying force. Optimally there should be a strong handed strata of competent aristocrats with moral character who lead, and ensure that the wishes of the other stratas are kept in line by synchronizing the interests of the nation in a moral and principled manner. For example, the bourgeoise is in favor of social and economic liberalism, meanwhile all the other stratas, the church, the working class, the military, and others are in favor of a broad paternalistic society. One that acts in favor of all the people in a moral manner. Basically under this synchronized model, competition won’t be the driving force of the nation, but instead of cooperation. this will create win win scenarios for everyone, instead of win lose, or lose lose scenarios. Also I should the fact that humans, and life in general is just naturally substantiated towards living for one’s interests. This tendency is natural part of who we are and it would be wrong to call it out as being unnatural or evil. It would be like calling a man out for drinking a cup of water every two hours. It’s what he needs to survive.
That's mostly a good thing, as long as it's replaced with something equal. The old traditions are often inconvenient or unreasonable in modern society, but it's bad if they are replaced with... nothing. Tradition is one of the things that keep society stable.
Old traditions aren’t necessarily inconvenient. This frame of thought of traditions being in confined or unreasonable is something that us humans have developed out of the enlightenment conceptions of liberty. Where liberty is redefined as being entitled towards being free to do whatever - to be free from all restraints, rather than what it has traditionally been, having the ability to survive and to transcend the human self.
Video on hyper reality
Yup. I don't want to say that, but that's a definite yes, at least in the conventional meaning. And it's rather bad.
Families are kinda... weird subject for me right now, and one I've been thinking a lot about. I recently read an article about a guy who was taking after many tribes (north american, I think, not sure) in raising his children. He was, for example, carrying the baby tied to his back instead of using a cart (I think that's the word) so it could observe the world from his perspective, and slept with their children.
Imagine my reaction when I read that people are looking weird at him for just that.
To add to what I mean, examples include children neglecting the chance to talk in person with parents and siblings and instead call them and text them. These things create a shallowness that prevents any real deep discussions of character, morality, virtue, or anything of importance manifest. This is not mentioning the fact that children don’t see their parents anymore as they just stay in their rooms and only cone out to eat dinner and stuff. I literally have on dude on my discord that is like that.
Bad. Change is inevitable, but collapse is a real prospect. It shouldn't.
change is inevitable of course, but I’d like to see something that lasts forever.
Well sorry to say but in my country half the minimal wage (after deducing all taxes and other things, of course) is about the price you need to pay for food each month if you eat like a normal human should. If you live minimally it will be much less, of course, and it's better than it was in the past, but I can't honestly say that it's good right now.
It might be good to tell us what country. Also I’m pretty sure that’s more of a your government and nation issue than the industrial revolution issue.
Politics is modern society's superstitions. Both are basically believing in supernatural.
absolutely no idea what you’ve said.
