Poll: When?
2019-2024
2025-2029
2030 or later
[Show Results]
 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Start of the new cycle
#21
(10-09-2018, 01:17 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ... I see no detriment to older people staying active as long as possible. The Silent are following the GI pattern of staying physically active and
socially attached quite well, and I see signs that Boomers will do much the same. X? Ask again in about fifteen years.

I remember the Lost getting left behind. Unable to adapt to the highly-mobile, rapidly-changing world of the 1960s they often got sent to the "Home For the Golden Years" -- while their child and spouse, and grandkids  took a cross-country relocation to advance the career of one or the other. Maybe that will happen again just in time for X to get such treatment. Grandpa or Grandma was simply not going to move from Greater Milwaukee to Greater Denver.

I can't disagree, being in that generational transition myself, but I still believe it will have an impact on the saecular cycle.  What and how is still TBD.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#22
So far, aging people in power is just slowing down the saeculum from its former speed, which was too fast, and speeded up by a few events such as the assassination of JFK and Hitler's invasion of the west in Dec. 1944 which speeded up the end of WWII, and thus now smoothing out the cycle and bringing it back to a normal 82-84 years. So we'll see how much further it slows.

Primarily the slowing down is the expression of the much slower pace of progress, in fact our regression, during the last 40 years in the USA at least. In this 4T now, this regression is spreading around the world at the moment. The saeculum is the wheel of progress. Since it's slowing down, turnings will take longer. All older generations and all white people are contributing to this slowdown, especially in the red states of the USA. But the fact that Silents have mostly given in to the regressive ideologies, does give it a generational cast as well. The Koch Brothers and other Silent billionaires and their money are one big reason for the slowdown.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#23
(10-09-2018, 02:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: So far, aging people in power is just slowing down the saeculum from its former speed, which was too fast, and speeded up by a few events such as the assassination of JFK and Hitler's invasion of the west in Dec. 1944 which speeded up the end of WWII, and thus now smoothing out the cycle and bringing it back to a normal 82-84 years. So we'll see how much further it slows.

Primarily the slowing down is the expression of the much slower pace of progress, in fact our regression, during the last 40 years in the USA at least. In this 4T now, this regression is spreading around the world at the moment. The saeculum is the wheel of progress. Since it's slowing down, turnings will take longer. All older generations and all white people are contributing to this slowdown, especially in the red states of the USA. But the fact that Silents have mostly given in to the regressive ideologies, does give it a generational cast as well. The Koch Brothers and other Silent billionaires and their money are one big reason for the slowdown.

If you do see a slowdown there is a supreme irony in this, considering that over the past 3+ decades there has been so much talk about the pace of life speeding up, which, among other things, made liars out of so many futurists who all but promised us that advanced technology would lead us into a society of ever-increasing leisure time. Its impact hasn't been farther from the truth. The pace of life has sped up to the point where many if not most folks no longer seem to have time for hobbies or vacations. One of the pluses (I guess) is that the whole "I don't have time" syndrome caused dating services, once considered the last resort for losers, to gain respectability. They also, however, for the most part became very expensive. Singles seemingly no longer had the time, or at least didn't want to make the time, to try and meet somebody at bars or dance. In my own experience, the former was a complete disaster, while the latter offered a little better ratio of success. In the book Gerneration X was due to become Generation Exhausted by the time they reached midlife, and were supposed to help society to slow down. So far I haven't seen any real evidence that this is happening. Are we due for a time for uncovering and expressing our deepest desires and passions?
Reply
#24
(10-09-2018, 07:24 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:
(10-09-2018, 02:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: So far, aging people in power is just slowing down the saeculum from its former speed, which was too fast, and speeded up by a few events such as the assassination of JFK and Hitler's invasion of the west in Dec. 1944 which speeded up the end of WWII, and thus now smoothing out the cycle and bringing it back to a normal 82-84 years. So we'll see how much further it slows.

If you do see a slowdown there is a supreme irony in this, considering that over the past 3+ decades there has been so much talk about the pace of life speeding up, which, among other things, made liars out of so many futurists who all but promised us that advanced technology would lead us into a society of ever-increasing leisure time. Its impact hasn't been farther from the truth. The pace of life has sped up to the point where many if not most folks no longer seem to have time for hobbies or vacations. One of the pluses (I guess) is that the whole "I don't have time" syndrome caused dating services, once considered the last resort for losers, to gain respectability. They also, however, for the most part became very expensive. Singles seemingly no longer had the time, or at least didn't want to make the time, to try and meet somebody at bars or dance. In my own experience, the former was a complete disaster, while the latter offered a little better ratio of success. In the book Gerneration X was due to become Generation Exhausted by the time they reached midlife, and were supposed to help society to slow down. So far I haven't seen any real evidence that this is happening. Are we due for a time for uncovering and expressing our deepest desires and passions?

Those futurists failed to recognize that the increase in productivity would go mostly into property rents, executive compensation, and the profits of quasi-monopolists and crony capitalists. Is the world better now than it was in 1980?  I am not sure. We have plenty of cheap entertainment and ready access to the greatest reference tool that has ever existed (the Internet), but otherwise life is not better except for political changes (like the demise of Communism and Apartheid). Maybe we simply exchange one set of exploitative and repressive elites (let us say land-owning aristocrats before World War I) for new ones (fascists in league with old elites) after some illusion of progress.

Working harder and longer to enrich and pamper a privileged class is hardly social progress. Superfluous elites have a tendency of either disappearing or becoming irrelevant, either of them progress. If the common man does not topple them in revolution or find ways in which to bypass their sordid authority, then those elites may start wars for profit intent on extending their domain only to result in defeat and ruin.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#25
(10-09-2018, 10:48 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Maybe we simply exchange one set of exploitative and repressive elites (let us say land-owning aristocrats before World War I) for new ones (fascists in league with old elites) after some illusion of progress.  

It cannot be otherwise unless human nature is improved by clever use of biotechnologies. The mechanisms of ruling change: from religious elites of the Middle Ages, through Victorian acquisitors, up to Information Age tech gurus like Zuckerberg. But the motives of these rules are the same. We need moral enhancement to really make things better.
Reply
#26
(10-14-2018, 05:25 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(10-09-2018, 10:48 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Maybe we simply exchange one set of exploitative and repressive elites (let us say land-owning aristocrats before World War I) for new ones (fascists in league with old elites) after some illusion of progress.  

It cannot be otherwise unless human nature is improved by clever use of biotechnologies. The mechanisms of ruling change: from religious elites of the Middle Ages, through Victorian acquisitors, up to Information Age tech gurus like Zuckerberg. But the motives of these rules are the same. We need moral enhancement to really make things better.

And so once again we enter the nature/nurture paradigm.  If there is some truth to the idea that there is a genetic link to amorality and aggressive acquisitiveness, this may not be fixable, barring the use of genetic engineering,  We have a tool in CRSPR-CAS9 that could do it, but the shadow of eugenics makes that abhorrent today … perhaps forever.  

I assume this will be addressed, but not soon; 'not soon' being 22nd century or later.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#27
Much of what we consider morality reflects the culture. Maybe culture adapts to technologies and economic realities, but people do not become better because they have more sophisticated technologies and better access to information. The faults of German society between 1933 and 1945 had no cause in any technological deficiency.

The relative dangers of old sins can change with time. Maybe contraception can reduce the likelihood of unwelcome children who grow up resented as burdens and thus are at risk of becoming sociopaths, only to cheapen love into lust. This said, I was discussing the classic Seven Deadly Sins (Anger, Lust, Greed, Gluttony, Sloth, Envy, and Pride) in a modern context of capitalism and national identity, only to find that some of those 'sins' are inevitable and necessary, or at least conducive to prosperity. The jewelry and floral industries would practically disintegrate without lust; greed motivates people to do necessary but unattractive work lest society depend upon slavery; envy that causes people to try to keep up with the Joneses encourages people to work, save, and invest; sloth is a reward in a leisurely vacation and as a defense against overwork. Righteous anger is appropriate against Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein -- or even Ted Bundy and Charles Manson. Gluttony is still harmful to personal health (obesity, diabetes, cirrhosis), a different concern from when the Seven Deadly Sins were established when those who overate denied food to those in need. Hubristic pride still has catastrophe as a consequence.

This said, I would now consider cruelty, cowardice, ignorance, and deceit no less deadly than the original seven.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#28
(10-14-2018, 08:12 AM)David Horn Wrote: And so once again we enter the nature/nurture paradigm.  If there is some truth to the idea that there is a genetic link to amorality and aggressive acquisitiveness, this may not be fixable, barring the use of genetic engineering,  We have a tool in CRSPR-CAS9 that could do it, but the shadow of eugenics makes that abhorrent today … perhaps forever.  

I assume this will be addressed, but not soon; 'not soon' being 22nd century or later.

WW2 memories have to fade... last veteran is expected to die in the 2030s, by this time boomers will be retired and the world will belong to Xers and Millennials, for whom Nazi eugenics is a distant history lesson. More importantly, the younger adults have been exposed to the concept of augmented humans in sci-fi movies and video games, so they are less likely to be abhorred by it. I don't think we'll have to wait until the 22nd century.

BTW, during which turning do you see transhumanism kicking in?
Reply
#29
(10-14-2018, 09:22 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Much of what we consider morality reflects the culture. Maybe culture adapts to technologies and economic realities, but people do not become better because they have more sophisticated technologies and better access to information. The faults of German society between 1933 and 1945 had no cause in any technological deficiency.

The relative dangers of old sins can change with time. Maybe contraception can reduce the likelihood of unwelcome children who grow up resented as burdens and thus are at risk of becoming sociopaths, only to cheapen love into lust. This said, I was discussing the classic Seven Deadly Sins (Anger, Lust, Greed, Gluttony, Sloth, Envy, and Pride) in a modern context of capitalism and national identity, only to find that some of those 'sins' are inevitable and necessary, or at least conducive to prosperity. The jewelry and floral industries would practically disintegrate without lust; greed motivates people to do necessary but unattractive work lest society depend upon slavery; envy that causes people to try to keep up with the Joneses encourages people to work, save, and invest; sloth is a reward in a leisurely vacation and as a defense against overwork. Righteous anger is appropriate against Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein -- or even Ted Bundy and Charles Manson. Gluttony is still harmful to personal health (obesity, diabetes, cirrhosis), a different concern from when the Seven Deadly Sins were established when those who overate denied food to those in need. Hubristic pride still has catastrophe as a consequence.  

This said, I would now consider cruelty, cowardice, ignorance, and deceit no less deadly than the original seven.

Might be worth noting that Ted Bundy was an out of wedlock child at a time when it was still considered a cardinal sin.
Reply
#30
(10-14-2018, 03:31 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:
(10-14-2018, 09:22 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Much of what we consider morality reflects the culture. Maybe culture adapts to technologies and economic realities, but people do not become better because they have more sophisticated technologies and better access to information. The faults of German society between 1933 and 1945 had no cause in any technological deficiency.

The relative dangers of old sins can change with time. Maybe contraception can reduce the likelihood of unwelcome children who grow up resented as burdens and thus are at risk of becoming sociopaths, only to cheapen love into lust. This said, I was discussing the classic Seven Deadly Sins (Anger, Lust, Greed, Gluttony, Sloth, Envy, and Pride) in a modern context of capitalism and national identity, only to find that some of those 'sins' are inevitable and necessary, or at least conducive to prosperity. The jewelry and floral industries would practically disintegrate without lust; greed motivates people to do necessary but unattractive work lest society depend upon slavery; envy that causes people to try to keep up with the Joneses encourages people to work, save, and invest; sloth is a reward in a leisurely vacation and as a defense against overwork. Righteous anger is appropriate against Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein -- or even Ted Bundy and Charles Manson. Gluttony is still harmful to personal health (obesity, diabetes, cirrhosis), a different concern from when the Seven Deadly Sins were established when those who overate denied food to those in need. Hubristic pride still has catastrophe as a consequence.  

This said, I would now consider cruelty, cowardice, ignorance, and deceit no less deadly than the original seven.

Might be worth noting that Ted Bundy was an out of wedlock child at a time when it was still considered a cardinal sin.

True. So was Manson. But Bundy was messed up far more than usual  for an out-of-wedlock child. He was smart enough that he could have had a good life had he played the game right. He blamed his perversity upon pornography, but he also devoured detective stories with lurid tales of crime. He was also an alcoholic.

By 1970, the contempt for out-of-wedlock birth was no longer placed on the child. My birth certificate (from 1955) has boxes for check-marks for "illegitimate" and "legitimate", and neither was checked. That may be the state deciding that it is not to be asked with the possibility of the distinction hurting a child over time.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#31
(10-14-2018, 12:07 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(10-14-2018, 08:12 AM)David Horn Wrote: And so once again we enter the nature/nurture paradigm.  If there is some truth to the idea that there is a genetic link to amorality and aggressive acquisitiveness, this may not be fixable, barring the use of genetic engineering,  We have a tool in CRSPR-CAS9 that could do it, but the shadow of eugenics makes that abhorrent today … perhaps forever.  

I assume this will be addressed, but not soon; 'not soon' being 22nd century or later.

WW2 memories have to fade... last veteran is expected to die in the 2030s, by this time boomers will be retired and the world will belong to Xers and Millennials, for whom Nazi eugenics is a distant history lesson. More importantly, the younger adults have been exposed to the concept of augmented humans in sci-fi movies and video games, so they are less likely to be abhorred by it. I don't think we'll have to wait until the 22nd century.

BTW, during which turning do you see transhumanism kicking in?

Once the bar is down on human gene editing, transhumanism isn't even a leap … just a short step.  I still see this as far in the future, because the Millennial scientists who are building this technology aren't ready for human gene editing themselves.  I heard one of the developers, who worked on the CRISPR program at as a PhD candidate, say that the potential for screwups was so high that adult interventions would be the early steps, with decades of oversight on the results.  In parallel, inheritable mods to non-humans would proceed from bacteria through mammals.  All of that takes time. Once both experimental processes are adequately tested (whatever that may mean at the time), it will move to human embryos and soon, off to the races.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#32
(10-14-2018, 05:25 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(10-09-2018, 10:48 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Maybe we simply exchange one set of exploitative and repressive elites (let us say land-owning aristocrats before World War I) for new ones (fascists in league with old elites) after some illusion of progress.  

It cannot be otherwise unless human nature is improved by clever use of biotechnologies. The mechanisms of ruling change: from religious elites of the Middle Ages, through Victorian acquisitors, up to Information Age tech gurus like Zuckerberg. But the motives of these rules are the same. We need moral enhancement to really make things better.

Technology cannot accomplish moral enhancement.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#33
(10-15-2018, 10:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(10-14-2018, 05:25 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(10-09-2018, 10:48 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Maybe we simply exchange one set of exploitative and repressive elites (let us say land-owning aristocrats before World War I) for new ones (fascists in league with old elites) after some illusion of progress.  

It cannot be otherwise unless human nature is improved by clever use of biotechnologies. The mechanisms of ruling change: from religious elites of the Middle Ages, through Victorian acquisitors, up to Information Age tech gurus like Zuckerberg. But the motives of these rules are the same. We need moral enhancement to really make things better.

Technology cannot accomplish moral enhancement.

What it can do is amplify the parts of the brain that show empathy and other desirable traits, and damp-down the parts that trigger aggression and violence .. among other things.  This is not "moral enhancement" in the philosophical sense, just moral modification, hopefully for the better.  I'm not sure it's smart, but I know it will be tried.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#34
Yes, better living through chemistry. A favorite slogan of LSD partakers in the Haight-Asbury sixties.

The brain is not the source of morality, however, but the soul is. So only soul work can provide morality in the long run. Drugs, genetics and invasive machinery of various and sundry kinds may only have temporary benefits. Morality does require the exercize of free will, which only exists in the soul. We need to better understand the soul and the spirit. "The soul is that faculty which we all call self-moving" -- Plato
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)