open Democracy News Analysis - The Modern way of Life: Second to None!, - Comments

David Wood on "The Modern way of Life: Second to None!"

David Wood — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 06:01:15 +0000

Might I suggest to everyone that you read Clive Ponting's excellent and very underrated 'Progress and Barabarism: the World in the Twentieth Century', I think reprinted as the 'Pimlico History of the Twentieth Century'. He does very well as explaining the astonishing juxtaposition of advances in almost all fields of human endeavour with the persistence and indeed intensification of cruelty and destruction. Every technology and political system has allowed the more efficient conduct of what human beings do, and unfortunately what human beings do includes killing each other and other species. What we need is the recognition of the ethical project that came with the enlightenment that seems to have been forgotten in favour of the endless and infinitely unsatisfactory consumption of the products of technical and economic progress or a return to ignorance and the comforting irrational certainties of 'faith'.

anneke.newman on "The Modern way of Life: Second to None!"

anneke.newman — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 11:50:41 +0000

"Is technology a sign of our evolution as a species, or does it distort the human?" Firstly, by 'technology' I read 'material culture', because the technology we possess today is the product of having built upon all the things we made in the last generation, and so on and so on. Material culture is part and parcel of our species, humans have always shaped their environments by making things that make their lives easier. (It is widely accepted that other species shape their environments to their benefit too, and some by material culture, but this is not directly necessary to my argument). Therefore, to ask whether technology/material culture is a sign of our evolution or if it distorts us is, as I see it, asking us to make a value judgement on something that is inseparable from our essence as a species. So it cannot be "a sign of our evolution" because it shaped our evolution, and we shaped it, from the beginning. It makes more sense to ask (because technology does not act independently of humans) "is technology used for good or bad ends?" Which is the same as asking "do humans act for good or bad ends?" the answer being both obviously, and hence we use technology to serve these ends, whether they be good (finding a cure for AIDS) or bad (Mengele). Arguments about the good or badness of technology as far as I can see seem to focus on good or bad qualities of humans themselves, and good technology is said to be good because it reflects the nicer aspects of human nature like altruism, and bad technology because it is facilitates, or is associated with, things agreed to be detrimental for society and the earth, like unsustainable and needless consumerism, for instance. So, to finish, anything the product of human creation is the product of human nature and its wants. There will be good and bad in everything we do, be it as a result of scientific endeavour, religious faith, you name it. Lets just hope people will strive for more of the good.

chris9234 on "The Modern way of Life: Second to None!"

chris9234 — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:15:07 +0000

So, blaming modernity for the Holocaust just gets things the wrong way round. Courtney, I'm still digesting your post but to clarify I did not blame the Holocaust on modernity. Let's be fair ok? Message was edited by: chris9234

Courtney Hamilton on "The Modern way of Life: Second to None!"

Courtney Hamilton — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:07:24 +0000

chris, " I'm not suggesting that there are not verifiably advantages of science and technology, as there are, but as Mr Gray points out, vaccinations may be a result of modern times but so is the holocaust, which without railways, poison gas, and the telegraph could never have happened." This sounds like a variation of similar argument which goes something like; the atomic bombing of Japan, the Cold War, the Soviet Gulags, the Nazi Holocaust, WW1 and 2, would not have happen if the Enlightenment, and it's project of modernity hadn't existed. But, to me, this is a backward way to look at those events in the context of the Enlightenment and it's projects of science, rationalism, historical materialism, human liberation and progress in general. To me, those tragic and avoidable human events listed above represent not the logical conclusion of Enlightenment thought. On the contrary, they represent extraordinary reactionary measures made in order to hold back progress. It was the ideas of the Enlightenment that gave us the French Revolution, that swept away backward feudalism throughout Europe - indeed, the French Revolution in the shape of Napoleon, cut European Kings and Queens down to size (except for the Russsian and English Monarchs). The Enlightenment also gave us the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution and wars of national liberation. All of these events directly made life better for those on the recieving end, and in many ways, those episodes of human history have made life better for all us. That was the first Enlightenment - what we need is a second Enlightenment, to take off from were the first one finished, 9 November 1989, the day the Berlin Wall came down. Today, we live in an age of irrationalism, an era of capitalist triumphalism, where reactionary ideas are on the asendency and progressive ideas are in retreat. So, blaming modernity for the Holocaust just gets things the wrong way round. Message was edited by: Courtney Hamilton

chris9234 on "The Modern way of Life: Second to None!"

chris9234 — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:54:40 +0000

Critics of the project of modernity have no viable alternative to it. Critics of modernism seem to want less technological advances not more. The critics of the modern way of life would love humanity to go back a 'pre-modern era' - ie... the caves no doubt. Courtney, I'm not sure I'm a critic of modernity so much as I'm against the manipulative nature of technology. People have forgotten the difference between need and want, and I have no doubt that if the word want falls from the vocabulary, no one will miss it. I need my cell phone, I need my olive oil from Italy, I need a Mercedes, etc. It's not that I'm even against any of these things, it's that I'm stunned at how we’ve all been manipulated into thinking we need these things, or can't live without these things. A contrast in our view, no doubt, would be that you might think science and technologies are a natural progression working for the benefit of mankind. I on the other hand believe that science and technologies are human devices that are directed by humans, sometimes for the profit of humans. I'm not suggesting that there are not verifiably advantages of science and technology, as there are, but as Mr Gray points out, vaccinations may be a result of modern times but so is the holocaust, which without railways, poison gas, and the telegraph could never have happened.

chris9234 on "The Modern way of Life: Second to None!"

chris9234 — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:22:39 +0000

Courtney, I have to admit that when I first read you post I thought you were criticising the western way of life until it sadly dawned on me you weren’t. Are we so lost that our whole self worth is reduced to how many techno gadgets we have, how many different cheeses rest atop our fresh ciabattas, or the little logos that rest atop our automobiles? I'm sorry but you only reaffirm my belief that modern enlightenment, modern enjoyment, and modern efficiency has turned us away from our very nature by making us into system manipulators, short-term gratification addicts, and perpetual cynic’s.

Eduardo Ferreira on "The Modern way of Life: Second to None!"

Eduardo Ferreira — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:56:45 +0000

Courtney, I hesitated in replying to your post, since it appears to be such a positive and genuine view of your part. Whoever there are some comments to make: First I will try a comparison: if the primates in the jungle where to discover means to have all the food they want without effort, and shelter when they need, without developing their mental skills, they would certainly be happy and consider themselves evolved. However we know that the necessary step in their evolution was not done. You are exactly defending such thesis, that since we have all material goods we want, we are evolved. Whoever, if you take away all the tools of modern man, and all the accumulated knowledge, you would get exactly the same man that we had 5000 years ago. You may ask: What more is there? It is believed that 2% of the human population has photographic memory, it’s a tool that renders our present education system outdated. However you have no work done to understand that ability (that we all could have but is not developed) and to teach it to the remaining 98% of the human population. This is just a single example of the human abilities not explored. Yes, we do have an excellent material development, and I am glad you consider this sufficient to reach happiness. However humanity has not evolved in capabilities or behavior. We still have the primary instincts of the caves, with much more powerful weapons. Not a bright future perspective, is it?

The Modern way of Life: Second to None!,

Courtney Hamilton — Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:35:20 +0000

I'm considered to be very fit and healthy. I like to play at least six hours of tennis per week, on a newly refurbished public tennis court near where I live. I'm sitting on a designer office chair, in my nice warm study-room pondering the question of 'what do I have faith in?' So I turn on my iMac, plug in my iPod and search for Art Blakey and The Jazz Messengers then press 'Aux' on my JVC amplifier. With the added bonus of a subwoofer, the digitally re-mastered sound is truly inspiring. But wait one second - my mobile phone has just recieved an e-mail... Its my girlfriend - 'lunch delayed by two hours'. No problem, I've got some spicy German sausage, French goats cheese, fresh ciabatta bread and some virgin olive oil, very nice - all from my local super-market on Sunday. It only takes ten minutes to drive there in my 2.5 litre BMW coupe. Right then 'what do I have faith in? - I have total faith in the Western modern way of living. I'm sick to the teeth with those who continually bombard my multimedia communication systems proclaiming that modern life is a nightmare, or worse - a complete disaster. Our society has indeed lost faith. There is no faith even in its own finest achievements. People in the West now live longer, are richer in wealth and fitter in health than ever before. Even those who are now classified as poor in developed societies like mine (UK) have access to goods and services that are far beyond the imagination of the super-rich a century ago. I've seen modern farming methods described as 'like Auschwitz'. Modern food is often called 'toxic'. Modern medicine is deemed 'unsafe'. But the truth is, there is no substance to most of these stories. Critics of the project of modernity have no viable alternative to it. Critics of modernism seem to want less technological advances not more. The critics of the modern way of life would love humanity to go back a 'pre-modern era' - ie... the caves no doubt. I want to see the unfettered growth of Western science and its application in society, and throughout the world. It was not wars that led to great social change in the past, it was the compass and the telescope that overthrew religious fuedalism over two hundred years ago. The broadband internet is my weapon choice against modern day philistines. So viva modern life - this is what I have faith in.