GameBanshee Forums

I have to agree, that it is the individuals choice to buy into these industries. But I also believe their ability to make good choices are worse now, because of the media. Still, the responsibility for themselves is their own.

and thank you mr_sir for bringing up intolerence. I believe that in this world of equality, the pendulum has swung to far. From my experience, if you have a view that disagrees with the view of a minority, you cannot express it. We are intolerent of anything but tolerence. For instance, I was strongly against gay marriages. My reasoning, gays had the same rights as straights. They both had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That was the definition of marriage. Why should a definition thousands of years old cater to a minority? Should we change the rules of a sport because some people want to play it differently? no. Of course, I was mostly seen as a bad person because of my personal beliefs. I do not wish to start a debate on gay marriage. I am merely saying that my beliefs on those topics have made me an outsider, because I disagree with a minority.

Reminder to everyone: the porn discussion is starting to move off topic. I'm also seeing some new elements here that have the tendency to do the same, I don't think I have to name them. I see how the very nature of this discussion has the tendency to veer into all kinds of interesting subjects, but lets stay on topic shall we? Just keep that in mind before you post anything, please.

Once more, with feeling.

juggernot wrote: Secondly, I don't believe everyone but me is an idiot, if you read my post you'll see I never said that. I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth. That is the sign of a dirty debater.

You said that "almost everyone is an idiot". The implication I read was that you weren't an idiot. If I'm wrong and you actually included yourself in "almost everyone", accept my humble apology.

We live in a mostly democratic world, so if ever the government is doing something you don't like, you can speak up and things can change. However, for some reason most of society is lazy, because of the age of instant gratification. Most of society is stupid, because of them being so lazy. We are in fact, quite like lemmings. This doesn't apply for all of us, but the majority.

Again, do you consider yourself to be a part of that majority of lazy, stupid lemmings?

I have nothing wrong with people who smoke, why would I? It is the fact that they are being sold their own death by people who don't give a damn. Even if you don't die from it, your health will be poor. There is absolutely nothing beneficial about smoking, which makes one wonder how they sell. This is where I think my point on the majority being stupid proves itself. How can you convince an intelligent person to start smoking? "Hey, wanna smoke? Youll be addicted instantly. You may die. You will make yourself and others sick. Oh, and it will cost you a lot of money. We have to charge you a lot because we need to make money off you before our product kills you."

Have you ever smoked? I'm questioning your qualifications to say there's absolutely nothing beneficial about smoking. I'm pretty certain that out of the millions of smokers some of them actually enjoy their habit. Unless, of course, you consider smokers to be lemmings too.

The fashion industry is corrupt. The very fact that you mention 'fashion sense' proves that their illusions have spread quite far. While we worry about if what we wear is 'in' or not, others have no clothes. Clothes started out as a means to keep your body warm and to not be naked. That is what they still should be. The fashion industry tells you that in order to be popular, you must be able to fit into that skimpy outfit. The fashion industry prints labels on the ass and breasts of girls. While the fashion industry mostly victimizes girls, you can see how it works with the diet and porn industries. Girls who want to wear the 'in' fashion need to go on a diet. Guys that are aroused by the constant barrage of sexual images become addicted to porn.

Short of putting everyone into uniforms, there's no stopping people from wanting to look better than other people, and picking what clothes they wear is a natural way to achieve that. The current state of fashion is lamentable and does reflect poorly on society, though I hardly think that labels on breasts will bring its downfall.

Porn is in fact, one of the evils of our modern world. Anyone who watches enough of it eventually has less respect for women. We come to expect women to instantly gratify us, as the porn does. It is that urge for instant gratification, that probably leads to a lot of rape.

You're making some very bold statements here. Anyone who watches enough porn will eventually lose respect for women? I'm almost afraid to ask what you think of women who watch porn. At any rate you'll need to substantiate that statement, otherwise I'm taking it as a personal attack

We often hear that society is bad because the majority is dumb, because people are sheeps. I'd like to point out that society is mostly good for the said people. Many people are proud and happy to wear Tommy Hilfiger's clothes and to watch the latest Hollywood flop. If to some of you this is wrong, fine; but you should realize that to them, it is perfectly normal and perfectly cool, and most of all, not wrong at all. As long as these persons are not dangerous, where is the problem?

It is true that I am sometimes stunned by the idiocy that surrounds us, but can anyone name someone who never did something stupid? You should see how I don't fit in and how weird and stupid I look when I hang out with one of my childhood friend and his gang and am unable to follow their conversation because they talk about pop culture or cars. To them, I am the stupid person. Who am I to criticize them because they have never red Shakespeare, when they can change spark plugs and I can't? Yes many people have the sames tastes, dictated by fashion and publicity, but this is only one side of them (the public one). If people were so similar, they would all have the same job, the same girlfriend or boyfriend, the same house, etc. To give an exemple that we see often on this board, people are not evil if they love Oblivion.

I think we judge the wrong or right of the society on the well-being of its citizens (the emotional one, not the material one). And this is influenced by many factors, like justice, equity, respect, humanity, etc. That is why I tend to agree with Vicsun that society is not worse than it used to be, he pointed out some very disturbing elements of our past.

@Everyone who believes we are worse of today: Regardless of how big you feel our problems are today I would still like to see a comparison with the problems we had when you believe society was at it's best. Defining the time when you think it was best might also help others to better appreciate your arguments.

@Dottie: our ancestors should have never left the trees. Perhaps that is an idyllic time I could back at and proclaim "that was ideal." I am quite sure that picking parasites out of one another's fur and pigging out on fruit was preferable to becoming primates with hyper-developed brains and an awareness of our own mortality. That, and I am reasonably certain no one was being killed in the name of any sort of deity at that time...though I could be wrong about that. After all, I wasn't around 3 million + years ago.

Seriously, I don't honestly believe that "we" are any worse off today than we were at any point in the past during "our" history. I pretty much believe this applies across the board to just about every society and culture on the planet. What we are seeing is the process of evolution in ourselves, and we all should probably bear in mind that civilization is a relatively new thing on the scene, and "we" as a species have some developing and adjusting to do. Hopefully we can, or we'll join the dinosaurs in the extinct species bin. But then, that very thing is also quite natural and part of life on earth anyway. We just happen to be a highly peculiar species on the planet, the only one that possesses the ability to screw things up royally on a scale that transcends even what the dinosaurs, some of the biggest to ever walk on land, or even the insects (certainly the most numerous of advanced animal life) could ever do. Dinosaurs eat too much, they run out of food. Insects grow too numerous, insectivores have a field day stuffing their guts. But humanity unleashing a nuclear holocaust...that's completely different.

What isn't ?

I'm going to have to jump on the side of the 'true perpective' crowd here.

Our current society has numerous flaws but to suggest there was some idylic era in the past is clearly just wrong. And sorry Chanak but those monkeys were in all probablitiy a brutish and canabilistic bunch who were not ashamed in anyway of killing babies (this is based on modern studies of chimpanzees - although it turns out one isolated population were not guilty of ANY of these traits. I'll leave it to the reader to decide which of the populations our ancestors are most closely related, or perhaps the isolated group hadn't as much experience of humans..).

An interesting example of the importance of perspective is contained in this piece of hearsay that I came across recently(Disclaimer- this in no way seeks to excuse or minimise the importance of the actions of white Australia over the last 200 odd years): A local indigenous elder was complaining about how terrible things have been since the white man came. It was pointed out that -in the broader human perspective- his nation was invaded, once, over two hundred years ago by a -comparatively- benevolent nation. This needs to be compared to a region like, say the Balkans, if one is truely wishing to regard the issue in perspective.

I would like to say ignorance was a currently overarching sin, but we are (on the whole, viewed as a total global population) less ignorant now than at any time in our recorded history (And it could be argued that being able to actually record history was a breakthrough in the fight against ignorance).

Defining what is meant by 'Society' in the question will have a stong effect on anybody's answer, so in the interest of not being 'S-word' I'll answer with regard to my society (That being Australian mainstream).

The current single problem that confronts my society is amorality. Our political leaders lie with no restraint and it has become entrenched in our psyche that financial concerns trump all else. I call it the venial slide (These sins are forgivable so they don't matter as much as the ones that aren't ). - Curdis !

Curdis wrote:...And sorry Chanak but those monkeys were in all probablitiy a brutish and canabilistic bunch who were not ashamed in anyway of killing babies (this is based on modern studies of chimpanzees - although it turns out one isolated population were not guilty of ANY of these traits. I'll leave it to the reader to decide which of the populations our ancestors are most closely related, or perhaps the isolated group hadn't as much experience of humans..).Curdis !

Ah, well...perhaps I should have been more specific then. I refer to an ancestor that predated the appearance of more modern hominoid apes. That would place it well before the appearance of chimps and those that eventually led to us. So 3 million years is probably not enough....let's shoot for 5 million then. It's my understanding that humans, chimps, gorillas, orangs, etc shared a common ancestor at some point. Let's say the ancestor of that ancestor. It was probably closer to a lemur, i.e. a rather primitive primate, and certainly led a largely arboreal life.

Of course, I am hardly being serious with all of that anyway. Although I admit I personally find merit in a furry existence not spent pondering how to fleece one's neighbor out of their hard-earned cash, nor coveting their hibachi...rather, the biggest challenges were probably parasites, predators, and itches you couldn't scratch.

Certainly, chimpanzees aren't the little spotless angels they were often cracked up to be. Some groups engage in organized monkey hunts from time to time. Rather gruesome really. Killing babies, however, is not unheard-of amongst other animals and is often standard practice in groups of social animals such as wolves, for example. Squirrels, rabbits, and hamsters will also engage in that sort of behavior, only with them it manifests in a mother eating her first litter, usually.

The past? Not sure if I can do that Dottie, it is such a relative thing. I do think however that there has indeed never been an ideal society. If that were the case, then I'd like to think that old Greek society would have still been around. Interesting to see how most only relate worse with the worst; the extreme, crime, death, exploitation etc.

Anyway, statistically speaking whatever we were before the 20th century has already sextupled in occurrence simply because there are five billion more of us now. I think I'm going to call that factor one, the weakest force.

Then there is the factor [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/whats-wrong-with-society-today-no-spam-87210-p3.html#post935249"]I mentioned[/url] related to the life art described in the book, the vacuum of personal culture (quite literally, culture of the self) that is being caused by the slow death of our ancestral cultures, with roots in religion and the likes. While I agree with the that we are almost desperately filling up this vacuum with whatever we can find/buy ('The Home Shopping Network Culture' of buying philosophies instead of nurturing your own), I don't agree that this is necessarily a bad thing. I'll need a bit more proof for that, but I don't think it is implausible.

The third factor is the one I tried to explain with [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/whats-wrong-with-society-today-no-spam-87210-p2.html#post935213"]the cellphone example[/url]. It comes down to our rise in welfare not necesarily having made us happier or a better people than we were one hundred years ago. The thing that does leave quite the impression is how much worse off we are because of it. Obviously not just in terms of wars, but cardiovascular diseases, pollution, socio/economical competition (AKA the race for privilege and property), and other troubles that are clearly of our recent decades. Feel free to think otherwise on any single one of these problems, you should feel encouraged to do so on your own (in fact if your agree individual development is relevant, you should absolutely form your own opinion on the effects of the porn industry, gay marriage, whatever), it doesn't mean that the factor, the 'phenomenom' is not there. I think it's a bit too big to disagree with that entirely.

So while none of these three factors hold a clear enough grip on the passage of time for me to say, "oh man bummer, back then we happened to have an ideal society!", I do believe it shows a decline over the last one hundred years or so. One hundred and fifty if you take the industrial revolution as a starting point. Fifty if you are looking for clearer evidence. And there is no shame in holding up a concept or historical example of an ideal society if you are simply trying to find a frame of reference for our own. Just.. something to aspire to.

~~~~

I'd like to thank everyone for contributing their two cents so far. You have been most helpful.

@Tricky: I wasn't demanding an ideal society, only a comparison to the society you compare with when you said things have gone downhill.

Imo, comparisons doesnt have to be subjective in this case, the only thing necessary is that you make up criteria for how you think a good society should be. For example, in my case I might end up with something like (simplified) a good society is one where a high proportion of inhabitants can live healthy lives.

Certainly today's society both where I and vicsun lives have many problems, you mention some, but if we go back 100 years all the problems you mention (wars, cardiovascular diseases, pollution, socio/economical competition) with the exception of cardiovascular diseases was worse. In addition they had huge problems with for example infections diseases that we do not have today.

there is no shame in holding up a concept or historical example of an ideal society if you are simply trying to find a frame of reference for our own. Just.. something to aspire to.

Imo it is, because the incorrect idealisation of another society inevitably leads to erroneous ideas about how to better our present one. A good example is the marriage debate that have been discussed here on SYM numerous times, where many people long for the days when divorce rates were low, without realising the causes for these low divorce rates were not at all undying love and affection, as they seem to believe.

Dottie wrote:Imo, comparisons doesnt have to be subjective in this case, the only thing necessary is that ......worse. In addition they had huge problems with for example infections diseases that we do not have today.

That is indeed true. Looks like I have to reconsider a few things, thanks.

Imo it is, because the incorrect idealisation of another society inevitably leads to erroneous ideas about how to better our present one.

I think we have to separate the incorrect idealisation of an correct/false ideal from the correct idealisation of a correct/false ideal. The former means trouble, yes, but the latter has a chance. Whether or not the one I read about can be considered correct, I don't know. That's why I owe it to myself to learn more about it.

Do you feel it was incorrect of me to bring it up while I don't?

Tricky wrote:I think we have to separate the incorrect idealisation of an correct/false ideal from the correct idealisation of a correct/false ideal. The former means trouble, yes, but the latter has a chance. Whether or not the one I read about can be considered correct, I don't know. That's why I owe it to myself to learn more about it.

Do you feel it was incorrect of me to bring it up while I don't?

I don't really understand the definition of a correct idealisation of a false ideal, so I wouldn't be the man to answer that question. What property are you referring to when you say correct? If I'm reading you correctly it is not the historical accuracy of the ideal?

Regardless I believe it is best to base your opinions on the world as it is, rather than anything else.

I don't believe in an ideal society, because a society is the sum of its citizens, and those citizens are different and consequently have different needs and wishes: some need and deserve more liberty while some need and deserve more control. And we can go on... we often hear that there is no way to satisfy everyone, and that is true.

I can't resist to plug my favorite author here, and recommand Victor Hugo's novel: Ninety-Three. This excellent novel is a good illustration of how society's needs and individual's needs are sometimes in complete opposition and how, when faced with such a situation, it is impossible to satisfy both.

Of course, Hugo is not the first to talk about that subject, but I mention him since he his my favorite author. I could have mentioned Sophocles, who's work is mostly about this (Oedipus Rex, Antigone, etc.), and Corneille's masterpiece: Horacius.

'This is an age of individualism that knows no room for individual development.'

The question "what's wrong with society, today" seems to imply "what's wrong with the "media-manipulated-middle-class-western-society-worshipping-consumerism, today".

Complains about “society” are as old as “society” itself. In 50-60 years 2007 will become “ole’ good time” and in 200 years, if the “middle-class-western-society” survives the global pollution and global obesity, probably the “golden age” or whatever.
Society consists of individuals. Society is not something alien; it is us, good, bad and ugly. In a western society, there is plenty of room for individual development for anyone who is not lazy. Lazy people choose easy paths and easy pleasures. Lazy people liking easy things are the ballast of any society, past, present and future. Nothing new.
The progress is made by few. In any big company there are several individuals who make difference. The others are just there.