Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4
Send Topic Print
Why the West Rules ~ For Now (Read 3563 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35907
I like fish
Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Jul 3rd, 2014 at 7:20am
 
In "Why the West Rules ~ For Now, The patterns of history and what they reveal about the future", Ian Morris weaves together the entire history of human civilisation into a coherent and interesting story. To do this, he creates his own social development index to allow comparison of societies separated by both space and time. This is similar in concept to the UN human development index, but simplified to account for the difficulties in obtaining historical information. The index is based on four separate measures (p 148)- total per capita energy use (including food, fossil fuels, etc), urbanism (maximum city population - a proxy measure for organisational capability), information processing and military capacity. These four measures tend to tell the same story.

Although a rough measure, the index highlights some interesting trends - see attached (figure 3.7, p 166). The east lead for a long period - between roughly 540 and 1770. For the entire history of human civilisation prior to 540 CE, the west lead, and has lead since 1770, although the east is now catching up again. In my opinion more interesting: a high level of development was reached in the Roman Empire during the first century CE. The same level was reached by Song dynasty China around 1100, followed by a similar lengthy decline. Both east and west broke through this level arounbd 1700. That is, European civilisation did not reach the same level as during the Roman Empire until 300 years ago.

Morris uses the index to introduce his thoery of a "hard ceiling" that limited development to the same level in the Roman Empire and Song Dynasty. The inability to break through this barrier lead to the eventual collapse of the civilisation and a long period of decline. He credits the recent breaching of this barrier to the heavy use of fossil fuels and industrialisation, which enabled the nomadic culture on the central asian steppes to finally be squeezed out. It was only around this time that a border was established between Russia and China. Prior to this, the nomadic peoples generally had the upper hand in conflict and they played a role in the collapse of just about every major empire. Genghis Khan was one of many.

Morris actually begins the story before 14000 BC, going through pre-modern human species and technology, with a focus on climate change as a key driver. He presents some interesting new evidence of interbreeding between modern humans and neanderthals, whose DNA can be found in Europeans and Asians (but not Africans).

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1399971565

Morris presents the 7 key regions around the globe where agriculture developed independently, with the east and the west centred on two of these cores. Morris argues that settlement (permanent villages) came prior to agriculture, with the initiation and rate of development largely determined by the natural suitability of an area. His argument is a subtle form of geographic determinism, including some of the ideas presented by Jared Diamond in "Guns, Germs and Steel". He shows how the western core has gradually moved north and west, while the eastern core has moved east, and at a critical time, south. A key theme is the "changing meaning of geography", which caused the core of each civilisation to move as different geographies were favoured at different stages of social development. For example, the second key stage (cities) arose with agriculture in land that was less suited to the simpler style of agriculture that initially spawned each core. A very similar concept is the "advantage of backwardness", where challenges faced on the 'backward' periphery of civilisation caused new adaptations that improved civilisation and often moved the core, usually creating a massive upheaval in the process (the most direct form being a new empire over-running the old one). Yet another similar concept is that "you cannot cross the same river twice". Literally, this is a reference to the fact that the water you crossed over last time has moved on. This is used as an analogy for the changing meaning of geography, and that an idea or strategy that worked once is not going to work a second time. Civilisation itself canges the context that created civilisation in the first place.

Morris spends considerable time discussing the process by which the cores expanded and moved, settling on an obvious combination of the spread of ideeas and technology and the movement of people, particularly in the early agricultural phases.

Another common theme Morris uses is the five horsemen of the apocalypse - migration, state failure, famine, disease and climate change. The linking of the eastern and western cores by trade sparked a major round of disease that drove down development in both cores (the black plague). However it also eventually lead to the killing of the fifth horseman of the apocalypse (migration) when the two corse expanded to squeeze out the nomadic step
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35907
I like fish
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #1 - Jul 3rd, 2014 at 7:21am
 
Empires had a tendency to expland beyond their natural limits. Victory over a hostile neighbour inevitably lead to the expansion of an empire and conflict with a new, often more hostile and dangerous neighbour.

Morris plays down the role of the individual, arguing that people (in large groups) are pretty much the same everywhere. He even argues that patterns of thought (religion, politics, renaissance etc) were very similar in the east and west and responded to development rather than driving it. That is, "each age gets the thought that it needs". A key exception in the rise of scientific thought in the west.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1404153765

He talks of 'great men' and 'bungling idiots' but argues that history often judges such characters unfairly or gives them too much credit, and that their personal contribution is at most to bring forward or push back a development slightly, or to cause it to arise somewhere else nearby. A good illustration of this is Stigler's law of eponymy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy

Stigler's law of eponymy is a process proposed by University of Chicago statistics professor Stephen Stigler in his 1980 publication "Stigler’s law of eponymy".[1] In its simplest and strongest form it says: "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." Stigler named the sociologist Robert K. Merton as the discoverer of "Stigler's law", consciously making "Stigler's law" exemplify itself.

Many inventions of the industrial revolution, as well and many contemporary scientific discoveries were made independently by more than one person and can be considered inevitable given the stage of development and the challenges faced.

Expanding on this, Morris frequently returns to what could be his central theme, that history is written by lazy, scared, greedy people looking for an easier way to do things, and that sloth, fear and greed are what has driven the rise of human civilastion.

I see this work as more complimentary to, rather than contradictory of "Why Nations Fail"

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1394832229

It is far more broad and far more detailed and seems to have more explanatory power, but less predictive power. Morris spends some time prognosticating, focussing more on the implications of the sharply rising social index that we now face (rather than whether the west or east will win), without ruling in or out a collapse. He borrows Jared Diamond's concept of a "two horse race" between the forces that will raise our standard of living and the forces that threaten to destroy modern civilisation. Overall, he seems optimistic about our ability to face the challenges ahead, but makes you wonder whether whether you want that to happen. He argues that biology makes all groups of people pretty much the same and that history was driven by geography (yet another way of putting it - "maps, not chaps"). Past developments to civilisation have changed the meaning of geopgraphy, while future developments will change the meaning of biology in confronting ways.

Morris argues that although China could have discovered the Americas, geography made it pretty much inevitable the Europeans did first. He does not elaborate on what might have happened to Europe had they not discovered America. This is perhaps where the two authors would differ most. "Why Nations Fail" puts the rise of the British Empire down to factors largely within England, but does credit Atlantic trade with helping to fund the competing interests. Morris appears to put it all down to the geographic luck of being close enough to America. Jared Diamond presents another alternative form of geographic determinism - that the fractured geography of Europe created eternally competing nations/kingdoms that would not unite the way China did, and that this competition made European leadership inevitable. Morris's discussion of China appears to support this, indirectly.

Morris does spend some time speculating what might have happened to China if it had not been swamped by the west, concluding that it would have likely expanded it's economy towards south east asia and be going through an industrial revolution now.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 15357
A cat with a view
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #2 - Jul 5th, 2014 at 7:16pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 7:20am:
In "Why the West Rules ~ For Now, The patterns of history and what they reveal about the future", Ian Morris



......Yet another similar concept is that "you cannot cross the same river twice". Literally, this is a reference to the fact that the water you crossed over last time has moved on. This is used as an analogy for the changing meaning of geography, and that an idea or strategy that worked once is not going to work a second time. Civilisation itself canges the context that created civilisation in the first place.




Oh no ?


Is this an analogy of the sociological challenges we have 'overcome', to be able to form functional - and large - human communities ?

Does Morris believe that because someone once invented an effective mousetrap, that no-one will every try to build a 'better' mousetrap ?

I don't think his argument has legs.




And we humans [i.e. i mean we accomplished 'Western' man   Cheesy   ] tend to believe that what was [in our distant past], can never come again.

e.g.
Oppression, famine, wars - coz we have so 'moved on' from the structures [or is it the lack of structures ?] that enabled those circumstances.

LOL.

Yeah, right!



"an idea or strategy that worked once is not going to work a second time"....

Because we believe that we are free now - we and our children can never become slaves ?

Because we are wealthy now - we and our children can never suffer hunger ?

Because we have enjoyed relative peaceful societies for decades - we and our children can never suffer the violence of war ?

Presumptuous.




Quote:
.....(rather than whether the west or east will win), without ruling in or out a collapse. He borrows Jared Diamond's concept of a "two horse race" between the forces that will raise our standard of living and the forces that threaten to destroy modern civilisation. Overall, he seems optimistic about our ability to face the challenges ahead, but makes you wonder whether whether you want that to happen......



Our ability to face future challenges.




Just deny members of a LARGE [i.e. numerous] society like ours, comfort and food, and watch and see what the result what the consequence to the 'harmony' in our society will be - especially, wherever that society is not predicated on justice and fairness in law!

And that is the type of society that Western societies have morphed into, imo.

The 'Me!' generation.



The society which has predicated its societal mores on justice and fairness in law [for all], and which also has a deep respect for truth, is the more robust and resilient society.

And that is why the future of 'Western' civilisation is not secure today.

'Western' civilisation is sick and vulnerable to external 'cultural' and existential threats, upon its societal structures and institutions - because those structures and institutions have corrupted themselves and become self-serving!

Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 28654
Gender: male
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #3 - Jul 5th, 2014 at 9:18pm
 
Morris playing down the role of the individual is just plain stupid.

Advances in technology, science, and academia in the lead-up to today's modern civilisation were almost entirely a product of individual effort and creative genius.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 29443
Gender: male
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #4 - Jul 5th, 2014 at 9:33pm
 

We are more adaptive.
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35907
I like fish
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #5 - Jul 5th, 2014 at 10:26pm
 
Quote:
Does Morris believe that because someone once invented an effective mousetrap, that no-one will every try to build a 'better' mousetrap ?


No. I don't think I explained that one very well. On page 93:

http://books.google.com/books?id=qNVrfoSubmIC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=Ian+Morris+why...

Morris uses it to explain why an early ice age slowed down human development, but a later one sped it up.

Quote:
And we humans [i.e. i mean we accomplished 'Western' man   Cheesy   ] tend to believe that what was [in our distant past], can never come again.

e.g.
Oppression, famine, wars - coz we have so 'moved on' from the structures [or is it the lack of structures ?] that enabled those circumstances.And we humans [i.e. i mean we accomplished 'Western' man   Cheesy   ] tend to believe that what was [in our distant past], can never come again.


To this he would say that all 5 horsemen may one day ride again, however the result is going to be completely different to what happened in the past. It would either wipe out the human race (nuclear holocaust) or we would rebuild our society very quickly, compared to the thousand year dark ages of the past. It is virtually impossible for us to now lose the knowledge we have acquired.

Quote:
Morris playing down the role of the individual is just plain stupid.

Advances in technology, science, and academia in the lead-up to today's modern civilisation were almost entirely a product of individual effort and creative genius.


The examples he gave to demonstrate this point were of key inventions and scientific advances that were made independently by 2 or more people at the same time. The closer you look at the context and the challenges facing society, the more the idea appears inevitable and the role of the individual inconsequential. The idea did not spring into existence after a thousand years of not being thought, but after 2 years of people working with the previous new idea on which it is built. One of the people he did credit with having a significant personal influence is Muhammed.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 15357
A cat with a view
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #6 - Jul 6th, 2014 at 11:36am
 
freediver wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 10:26pm:
Quote:
Oppression, famine, wars - coz we have so 'moved on' from the structures [or is it the lack of structures ?] that enabled those circumstances.And we humans [i.e. i mean we accomplished 'Western' man   Cheesy   ] tend to believe that what was [in our distant past], can never come again.


To this he would say that all 5 horsemen may one day ride again, however the result is going to be completely different to what happened in the past. It would either wipe out the human race (nuclear holocaust) or we would rebuild our society very quickly, compared to the thousand year dark ages of the past.

It is virtually impossible for us to now lose the knowledge we have acquired.





It would only take one or two generations        of an effective and sustained oppression - e.g. in a post holocaust, or in a post worldwide cataclysm world - to destroy to lose - THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE KNOWLEDGE - that we have today.
[
"...there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know."
]

e.g.
SCENARIO;
Would a generation of present-day farm labourers in North Korea 'innately' have the wherewithal [and ability and knowledge] to quickly build a functioning and productive - modern - society - if they do not have access to knowledge bases which we posses [i.e. knowledge bases which would be, in a future 'present' time, both unknown and incomprehensible [incomprehensible, because of lack of their familiarity with them] ?] ?

e.g.
If it were possible to 'plant' several families from present-day farm labourers from North Korea, on a deserted island, or as a colony on a new habitable planet, BUT, with them having no access to our knowledge bases, how quickly would such a society of people progress, over time ?



It is said that we [ourselves] came to knowledge [developed structures of learning], when individual collective communities of men and women became wealthy - because of their collective efforts.

And that this [personal wealth] allowed wealthy individuals to pursue intellectual paths ['structures' of learning] towards knowledge and 'modern' scientific knowledge.

But in post holocaust, or post worldwide cataclysm societies, where every individual [as in our past] would be forced to exert almost all of their energies to just providing their communities/families with food - there would be little time for 'contemplation' and enquiry.




Do you believe the repressive societal structure that the regime in North Korea has built - and which the regime in North Korea is able to maintain today - can never take hold in a society like our own ?

All that it would take, imo, for widespread societal oppression, is for a circumstance of 'opportunity' to present itself.

Post some worldwide affecting cataclysm ?

"The germ is nothing; the terrain is everything."




IMAGE...
...
Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35907
I like fish
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #7 - Jul 7th, 2014 at 10:24am
 
I posted that some image, or a similar version, in the other thread - Why Nations Fail.

Quote:
Do you believe the repressive societal structure that the regime in North Korea has built - and which the regime in North Korea is able to maintain today - can never take hold in a society like our own ?


Sure it could, but it could not take over the whole world. Nor have the North Koreans destroyed all the knowledge within their society. Despite their comparative backwardness, the knowledge within North Korea is unavoidably getting more advanced, even if it is only a tiny minority familiar with it. North Korea could easily - if left to it's own devices - develop nuclear weapons - a technology that has only existed for a few decades. It would also be easy enough for them to make electricity, mobile phones, microwave ovens etc.

If the entire world were to turn into some version of North Korea, there would be enourmous incentives for any leader to develop technology, because it would allow them to take over the world. The British took over the world with a far smaller technological edge. Furthermore, the path to industrialisation is already laid out in people's minds. You would pretty much have to wipe out the human race to wipe out our knowlege.

If you cut the population down, it becomes very easy to subsist. Furthermore, each step of the path to civilisation is laid out for people. Consider for example, the first step - farming. This only took off independently in 7 regions of the world, that we know of. This was because only very few locations had the right combination of crops and animals. Today, all of those crops and animals exist on all six continents. Furthermore, they are much better than the original ones. Many modern crops would be unrecognisable to the people who first farmed them. They are bigger, easier to grow, and more suited to agriculture.

It would be the same story every step of the way. The technology would already exist - in peoples minds, in books, in artefacts. Today, one man can grow enough food to feed 100. If you cut the population, but kept the technology, it would be even easier. Imagine any modern farmer suddenly faced with the situation of unlimited land and water and no-one trying to fence him in or tell him what to grow or how much water he can draw. That leaves everyone else to hook up a generator to a windmill, to figure out how to irrigate a field, to get a sewage system working, to build a tennis court, or whatever they want to do.

The more people you have, the more knowledge you have. Cut the global population by 90%, and we lose less than 1% of the knowledge. The fewer people you have, the more freedom they have to do as they please, and the harder it becomes to prevent people making themselves rich again.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
it_is_the_light
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Christ Light

Posts: 23597
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #8 - Jul 7th, 2014 at 10:50am
 
many blessings ,

well to be quite frank

the whole premise is a freemasonic hypothesis

grounded in separation and neo fuedalistic ideals

and as such

any can participate within this paradigm yes

other use freewill and observe the ruse

for what that is with so very much love

and compassion

namaste

- : ) =
Back to top
 

ॐ all are one so be at peace,in LOVE and LIGHT.... namasté ▲ - : ) = ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯
it_is_the_light it_is_the_light Christ+Light Christ+Light  
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 46003
Gender: female
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #9 - Jul 7th, 2014 at 11:07am
 
A great read, FD. I'll check this book out.

I fully agree - history is driven by economic systems.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 15357
A cat with a view
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #10 - Jul 8th, 2014 at 1:34am
 
Quote:
Sure it could, but it could not take over the whole world. Nor have the North Koreans destroyed all the knowledge within their society.



It is not so much the question of whether knowledge can somehow survive or thrive within a damaged world/society of men.

Knowledge, truth, exists - separate from man.

For me, it is more interesting relevant to know whether men will/would choose to use repression, as a path towards 'human progress' - as is so widespread in the world today.

Because, for example, repression, as a path towards 'progress', is an idea, a concept, which the regime leaders in North Korean [and to a lesser extent, the leaders of ALL other nations] have successfully 'promoted' for decades.



Knowledge is 'transmitted' [among men] as an idea, or as a concept.

From one individual, to another individual.

Repression too is [itself] another idea, another 'concept'.

Some men among us would promote the idea that 'repression' [their control] of the human psyche is somehow 'expansive' [i.e. what they really believe, is that the 'expression' of repression [among men] can be 'profitable' and 'productive' - to their own interests.     see, Matthew 20:25 and Romans 6:16 ].

But when repression is transmitted within the world of mankind it is destructive of knowledge/innovation - and, human prosperity.




Quote:
If the entire world were to turn into some version of North Korea, there would be enourmous incentives for any leader to develop technology, because it would allow them to take over the world.


Innovation is 'healthy', to the controlling influence, exercised by a tyrant ?

Only so long as the power of the new innovation is totally within the control of the tyrant.


Repression engenders a cancer which tends to limit knowledge and innovation.

Tyrants and dictators want freedom [of action] for themselves - alone.


QUESTIONS FOR OURSELVES;

Can we trust ourselves [and those around us] with freedom [of action] ?

How can we do that, allow that - on a practical level [without exposing ourselves to the criminality of some] ?

Do you trust those that you love ?

Why so ?

Why is such a trust, worthy ?

And why is it, that a [naive] trust, in a deceiver, potentially, so destructive ?






Quote:
The technology would already exist - in peoples minds, in books, in artefacts.


But would the people in that [or this!] age/world have the - freedom - to retrieve and to have access to that potentially 'dangerous' knowledge ?

e.g.
If the human governments of the 1950's thru 1990's could have somehow foreseen the consequences, that a rampant, worldwide modern internet [enabling instant, personal worldwide communication] would have on personal [and political] freedoms, and on the widespread ability of individuals to disseminate controversial information, would those governing authorities have allowed the technology that spawned the worldwide web, to have been developed ?

Genie, and bottle ?




Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist.

- Edmund Burke

Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35907
I like fish
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #11 - Jul 8th, 2014 at 5:01am
 
Quote:
I fully agree - history is driven by economic systems.


Morris's theory is geography determinism. History is largely driven by 'accidents' of geography, with humans as pawns whose role is fulfilling the inevitable. (This is obviously an overstatement of it)

Quote:
For me, it is more interesting relevant to know whether men will/would choose to use repression, as a path towards 'human progress' - as is so widespread in the world today.


No-one chooses freedom for the benefit of his fellow man. They choose it for their own interests. Repressing freedom is in effect the same as oppressing knowledge or wealth. This is the central hypothesis of "Why Nations Fail". Great Britain took over the world because of it's economic and political freedoms. Same with the Roman Empire, Venice etc. Repression lead's to backwardness. Somewhere in the world a free nation would arise and become powerful enough to take over.

Quote:
Because, for example, repression, as a path towards 'progress', is an idea, a concept, which the regime leaders in North Korean [and to a lesser extent, the leaders of ALL other nations] have successfully 'promoted' for decades.


Not really. The message they promote internally is fall in line or die. They get this message out by killing anyone who doesn't fall in line. Repression as a path to progress is a clumsy concept that would not help any leader. The Russians had some success for a while promoting communism and a centralised economy as a path to economic progress. They even convinced a lot of westerners. But the experiment failed, and now both Russia and China are liberalising at a comparitively rapid rate.

Quote:
Some men among us would promote the idea that 'repression' [their control] of the human psyche is somehow 'expansive' [i.e. what they really believe, is that the 'expression' of repression [among men] can be 'profitable' and 'productive' - to their own interests.     see, Matthew 20:25 and Romans 6:16 ].


This is true of all dictators. On average everyone is worse off, but those running the show are better off. Dictatorship also raises the stakes. If they lose power, they are likely to lease their head also. This is a common theme in "Why Nations Fail"

Quote:
But when repression is transmitted within the world of mankind it is destructive of knowledge/innovation - and, human prosperity.


It can slow progress, but it is virtually impossible to turn the clock backwards.

Quote:
Innovation is 'healthy', to the controlling influence, exercised by a tyrant ? Only so long as the power of the new innovation is totally within the control of the tyrant.


This is why so many tyrants actively suppress innovation, even if it harms their economy. It is a paradox of dictatorship. There must be some wealth for them to exploit and to protect their realm from outside takeover, but the disruption caused by an active economy always threatens them (or their cronies), in the same way our own politicians are at risk from ex-employees of Holden.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 15357
A cat with a view
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #12 - Jul 8th, 2014 at 7:34am
 
freediver wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 5:01am:
Quote:
For me, it is more interesting relevant to know whether men will/would choose to use repression, as a path towards 'human progress' - as is so widespread in the world today.


No-one chooses freedom for the benefit of his fellow man.



But men do [usually] choose freedom for their own children.




Quote:
They choose it for their own interests.


No argument.



Quote:
Repressing freedom is in effect the same as oppressing knowledge or wealth.


No argument.





Quote:
Great Britain took over the world because of it's economic and political freedoms. Same with the Roman Empire, Venice etc.


But Rome did use oppression and violence to exert its own version of 'freedom' its own self interest over other peoples.

As did the the British Empire!

Because every emerging empire has always tended to try to impose its own value system [which it always portrays as 'more virtuous'] upon others ?

Where does virtue [as a destination for the human psyche] lie ?

Pursuing what is true and open, and learning from [recognising] the mistakes we make along that path ?








Quote:
Repression lead's to backwardness.


No argument.

Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 15357
A cat with a view
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #13 - Jul 8th, 2014 at 8:02am
 
Yadda wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 7:34am:
Quote:
Great Britain took over the world because of it's economic and political freedoms. Same with the Roman Empire, Venice etc.


But Rome did use oppression and violence to exert its own version of 'freedom' its own self interest over other peoples.

As did the the British Empire!

Because every emerging empire has always tended to try to impose its own value system [which it always portrays as 'more virtuous'] upon others ?

Where does virtue [as a destination for the human psyche] lie ?

Pursuing what is true and open, and learning from [recognising] the mistakes we make along that path ?






I do not believe that - freedom - will be, or can ever be 'imposed' upon others - even when we mistakenly believe that such a circumstance could be achieved, and when we  believe that that such a circumstance would be in our own best interests.

Freedom is something which every man and woman must choose for themselves.

Freedom is something which every man and woman......must have the courage to choose for themselves.

That is why, imo, separation [from those who dwell in error] is God's counsel to us who love liberty.





Romans 8:20
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21  Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.


2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.


2 Corinthians 6:17
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18  And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.


Hebrews 12:9
Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
10  For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.





Where justice reigns, 'tis freedom to obey.

James Montgomery

Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35907
I like fish
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #14 - Jul 8th, 2014 at 10:09am
 
Quote:
But Rome did use oppression and violence to exert its own version of 'freedom' its own self interest over other peoples.

As did the the British Empire!

Because every emerging empire has always tended to try to impose its own value system [which it always portrays as 'more virtuous'] upon others ?


Freedom and democracy are more virtuous. They were barely emerging in Britain as it established it's empire, yet they ended up exporting it to much of the world.

Quote:
No-one chooses freedom for the benefit of his fellow man.


I meant to say oppression, not freedom.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Send Topic Print