The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > History will judge us... Personally.

History will judge us... Personally.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All
As to the future’s take on 20th Century… just as we remember the late 18th century as a time of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, far from remembering whole social groups, we remember individuals, like Mozart (good guy), Robespierre (bad guy) and Benjamin Franklin (good guy).

History is remembered as the individuals who excelled and contributed to human development or those who damaged it (Robespierre and latterly Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot), not the collectivism or collective processes.

So I guess, say, Grim might be remembered to the end of whoever reads his eulogy but not much longer after that
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 31 August 2009 9:50:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Someone who died recently said where they wanted to be buried and then instructed nearest and dearest that they must visit the grave often. I can’t comprehend it, I spent a while trying to just to be fair but it is beyond me completely and I refuse to be a part of it.

Mary, you’re nuts. Yes I looked the word up. Yes you are. You are too. Are so. Fully. Crackers. Shuddup. Nine year olds ponder being insignificant soon after they try and figure out what infinite means. It is a fun exercise if trying to understand the depressed. GET OFF THE DRUGS MARY.

You’re a harsh man Col. No that isn’t necessarily a criticism so don’t tell me off. If Mary is going to have a go at me I’ve decided that upsetting one person a day is plenty and I’m going to pace myself from now on unless in a particularly brave mood or Mary has shared some of her stash.

I can’t escape that Barbara line going around in my head… can you imagine if something disintergrated planet Earth and all that was found eons later was Houel’s one tiny message on a little piece of silicon floating somewhere in space?
Posted by The Pied Piper, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 9:18:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mary, if you found my debating style overly confrontational, I apologise. These things happen when I post at 8.30 on a Friday night: well after beer o'clock.
I also will accept your rebuke about my reference to your philosophy. I probably should have written: IF that is your philosophy, I find it an empty one.
Having read your post again, I still think my question is valid, however. Acknowledging the relative size of the Earth -or the Human race- and the Universe, had should that affect the way we treat each other?
You stress that we are very, very tiny, and insignificant. Another way of looking at it, is that we appear to be very, very rare.
Perhaps our globe is a rare, verdant and precious jewel. Do we, who have been around for such a very short time, have the right to trash it?
Col Rouge, as usual you completely miss the point. It is not about Capitalism, or Socialism, or Communism. It's about Democracy.
Do you believe every one of the six billion odd human beings on this planet should have an equal right to the pursuit of happiness?
PP, always a pleasure.
Posted by Grim, Tuesday, 1 September 2009 8:30:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MaryE,

1. Does the universe have any innate qualities? If intelligent life did not exist anywhere in the universe,in what sense could there be a measure, against which, an other measure could be said to be insignificant?

2. How much of the universe is made up of Organic material? Recall most matter will be light gases such as Helium and Hydrogen.

3. Given our present knowledge, I don't see organic chemistry inconsequencial. Life is remarkable not only by our standards by the standards of physical chemistry.

4. With regard to the theme of this thread, it is not that we are inconsequential, rather Life is tenuous and the universe is quite capable of snuffing us out in a quick order.

5. We are capable of changing the environment to such an extent that we might have an ecology which will not allow to sustain our level of progress for "all" humans.

6. We might be able to sustain one or two billion peoples for a few centuries centuries, while the rest of the planet starves. What we don't have are the renewable resources to sustain a planet with our current population.

7. We have often been able to use technology to keep ahead of demons: e.g., reducing CFCs ans somewhat more furel efficient cars; yet, the technology genie might notgrant of infinite wishes.

8. An armchair solution to our position? Nuclear fusion and a world population of two billions and moderation.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 2 September 2009 12:08:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TPP “You’re a harsh man Col.”

Only on a Wednesday. Friday and Sunday we dance, so by Wednesday am a little deficient in the benevolence engendered from my rhythmic escapades.

After Sunday I am back to being a “libertarian realist”….

Grim “Col Rouge, as usual you completely miss the point. It is not about Capitalism, or Socialism, or Communism. It's about Democracy.”

“Democracy” would suggest a process of appointment of government, not the process of regulatory control.

In short, democracy gives each person a say in the election, not equal say in, say, the distribution of wealth.

Communism pretends to impose equality through the reduction of everyone into a state of equal poverty and depravation.

Libertarian capitalism infers all people are democratically free to acquire whatever they wish through legal process, as they individually feel suits themselves, without hindrance or restriction by government or the feelings of others.

Indeed, if the wealth of a nation were equally dispersed across all the population, within 7 years the previously wealthy would be wealthy again and the destitute again impoverished.

It is very simple, just as some can play the piano and others are musically challenged; the ability to acquire or maintain wealth is not equally distributed. Some folk can see and make wise economic decisions, whilst others are either economically incompetent or completely disinterested, seeing their lives as a day-by-day exercise instead of a process of development.

My future wife chooses to study for her degree in natural therapies, despite having a medical doctorate and a fist full of beauty therapy qualifications. She sees her “personal growth” in the accumulation and application of personal knowledge.

She also acknowledges a secondary ability to remain financially “independent” through accumulated material wealth in her licenses to trade on those acquired skills.

Conversely other folk think that a basic trade skill is too hard and they would rather remain unskilled (and lower paid)…

It all comes down to people making choices for themselves, and accepting the rewards and consequences of those choices
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 3 September 2009 10:12:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy