by Cicatrix 25 Replies latest social current
frankie,
i pretty much agree with you!
except for:
But I do see us becoming more and more warless,,in part because people speak out.
i don't see any real progress over the decades and centuries. a couple of bastards (be it bush et al., or whoever) play with the emotions of the masses and lead the countries into wars from which only the leaders profit.
Real,
I agree we still got people in power who don't know what they are doing. I think the process of evolution is zig zag and can only be seen better by backing up and takeing a wider view time wise.
Sort of a Brownian motion.
frankie,
i think bush et al. know pretty well what they are doing (namely what is best for them not the country or the average american).
and the progress on the wider scale...yes the society has evolved compared to roman times but only on the surface. let the conditions deteriorate and the true human nature comes out again. at least some of the greates atrocities in history were committed during the last century.
Real,
Yes in magnitude I agree that "the greatest atrocities in history were committed during the last century."
But that is because we have greater weapons,,I think human nature is changing to be more observant and responcible,, they may never hit a kind of utopia,,but I think more feelings or empathy. But doing it in a zig zag patern.
frankie,
we as human beings are not evolving from a strictly scientific evolutionary standpoint. there is no selective pressure that would favour intelligent sensitive and sensible people over others.
and if you look at what happened just a few years ago in cambodia, yugoslavia, ruanda...its not just the more effective weapons that caused these massacres. its us. we are and will always remain animals with a high intellect.
but i do see hope for the future due to genetic manipulation and other technologies (too late for our generations though )
Realist
there is no selective pressure that would favour intelligent sensitive and sensible people over others.
As far as I can tell selective pressure weeds out the sensitive and sensible. But I get pessimistic during war time.
This is not a direct reply to the current discussion, just an observation of the news in my area.
Every time someone new dies in Iraq from my state, the news media do an article on them, but then they list all the ones who have already died, names and hometown. Each time the list gets ominously longer and reminds people that this is a real war, where people are dying (on both sides).
I didn't think the newspapers and tv stations had an agenda. Interestingly enough, the editorial boards of the newspapers support differing political sides, Democrat and Republican.
Blondie
I found it very interesting that the Sinclair group claimed to pull these because it felt that the show was being used to promote anti-war sentiment. Until I read the statement from them, it never crossed my mind that that was the purpose of this show. I just thought it was like the reading of the names of all those who had died on 9/11. Many other journalists felt the same way. They admitted that Nightline has covered many issues involving the war.
I also found it very interesting that Sinclair group has donated thousands of dollars to President Bush's campaign. So are they going to say that THEY have no political motivation in making this decision?
Mostly, I find it very disturbing that in a country that prides itself on freedom of speech and the press, we seem to lose those freedoms when we need them the most.
I've thought about it, and frankly, I would be upset if the name of a relative of mine who had died in the war was given on such a show. I'm not sure how they planned to do this, just list name after name of the fallen soldiers, but, it is hard for me to conceive that just this action of reading a list of names of the dead, wasn't "apolitical." I think it's clear that anti-war protesters HAVE used this tactic in the past. How can you predict how the loved ones of those lost are going to perceive this? I'd be highly upset if my relative's name was used for a political base.
Regardless, I think there are far better ways to pay honor to those who have died over there. And for those who continue to serve and risk their lives.
"So is the notion, concocted and repeated by the Pentagon, that these pictures violate the grieving families' privacy. We have no way of knowing who is inside the coffins. We don't see any family members nearby. No privacy has been breached.
Has taste? Well, if the President truly finds scenes of flag-draped coffins abhorrent, maybe he shouldn't feature one coming out of the World Trade Center in his reelection ads.
But he does. Because it's not really the depiction of death that he objects to. It's death that occurred over there showing up over here."
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/8534130.htm
