• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Were we better off before industrialization?

Well, were we?


  • Total voters
    53
As far as the original question, there are strengths and weaknesses to every age. I do believe we lost a lot when we moved from an agrarian society to an industrual one. We gained some things too. I doubt that human beings became happier, although we definitely have more material things...
 
As far as the original question, there are strengths and weaknesses to every age. I do believe we lost a lot when we moved from an agrarian society to an industrual one. We gained some things too. I doubt that human beings became happier, although we definitely have more material things...

I don't think there is many people that would disagree with that.


I am curious how you factor in that people live longer, and that there are more people today then there were before industrialization though. I consider those two things to be positives, even beyond happiness, that we have now compared with before industrialization
 
I don't think there is many people that would disagree with that.


I am curious how you factor in that people live longer, and that there are more people today then there were before industrialization though. I consider those two things to be positives, even beyond happiness, that we have now compared with before industrialization

I believe that, as it has become common to live to old age, that the elderly are less revered. They have become a common place group that is considered a burden on society. I think this will get worse and worse as the baby boomers age.
 
So wages didn't rise before government intervention? Really? Where's the proof?

I never implied that, you came to that argument in your own psyche. How you pulled that out of what I said it beyond me.

That was a low and terrible argument. It ignored all the lessons of classical economics.

No, you mean to say you believe that an artificial minimum wage ignores all the lessons of classical economics. Classical economics is not in this discussion, how you came to that, I also don't know. Try and make arguments that follow the conversation.

You're applying your knowledge of classical economics, thats fine. Youre knowledge of economics has nothing to do with the assertion that the writers of wage laws were ignorant to economics. Last I remembered developed governments had their own degree of control over the economy, which is not some sort of sanctified realm never to be interdicted upon. The economy does not have human considerations in mind. You seem to not mind that.
 
I believe that, as it has become common to live to old age, that the elderly are less revered. They have become a common place group that is considered a burden on society. I think this will get worse and worse as the baby boomers age.

WHOLE other point.

but that is important in this discussion though.

I was more commenting that even if we aren't quite as happy, we live longer, so being slightly less happy for longer could be preferable to being slightly happy for a short period of time.
 
I believe that, as it has become common to live to old age, that the elderly are less revered. They have become a common place group that is considered a burden on society. I think this will get worse and worse as the baby boomers age.

WHOLE other point.

but that is important in this discussion though.

I was more commenting that even if we aren't quite as happy, we live longer, so being slightly less happy for longer could be preferable to being slightly happy for a short period of time.


and think about all of the millions of people today that could feel happiness, when they would not have been born a few thousand years ago
 
I never implied that, you came to that argument in your own psyche. How you pulled that out of what I said it beyond me.

It's not okay, in the twenty first century representative action in the past accounts for the living wage nowadays.

You're trying to say that wages only rose because of government intervention.

No, you mean to say you believe that an artificial minimum wage ignores all the lessons of classical economics. Classical economics is not in this discussion, how you came to that, I also don't know. Try and make arguments that follow the conversation.

It has everything to do with this argument! Classical economics teaches us that those below the minimum wage will not be hired.

You're applying your knowledge of classical economics, thats fine. Youre knowledge of economics has nothing to do with the assertion that the writers of wage laws were ignorant to economics. Last I remembered developed governments had their own degree of control over the economy, which is not some sort of sanctified realm never to be interdicted upon. The economy does not have human considerations in mind. You seem to not mind that.

I don't mind that. If you want to give to charity then that's fine, but don't force people to be charitable. That's nothing more than theft.
 
As far as the original question, there are strengths and weaknesses to every age. I do believe we lost a lot when we moved from an agrarian society to an industrual one. We gained some things too. I doubt that human beings became happier, although we definitely have more material things...

No I'm pretty sure we did become happier. Less disease, a better diet, our families live much longer, friends from childhood don't die as easily, we don't go hungry almost half the year, etc. We are so much better now that we are not subsistence farmers.
 
WHOLE other point.

but that is important in this discussion though.

I was more commenting that even if we aren't quite as happy, we live longer, so being slightly less happy for longer could be preferable to being slightly happy for a short period of time.
It all depends on what happens after death. If consciousness is dependent on this physical plane of existence, then clinging to life, no matter how bleak or depressing, is our only hope of awareness.

If this life is merely a stepping stone to another, greater existence, then our physical lives are merely confining and temporal robes that we could well do without when they wear out.
 
It all depends on what happens after death. If consciousness is dependent on this physical plane of existence, then clinging to life, no matter how bleak or depressing, is our only hope of awareness.

If this life is merely a stepping stone to another, greater existence, then our physical lives are merely confining and temporal robes that we could well do without when they wear out.

hmmm...

well if we are going to argue what is better, then we need to have some assumptions.

and since many people have different religions, I think the debate should be limited to the best life or existence on Earth.


anyway, I am by no means saying that modern life starts off good, and gets worse. So if there is some life after death, then a pursuit of the best life (including the afterlife) may just involve suicide once you accomplish your spiritual goals on Earth.

I just don't see too much utility in discussing that for this topic.
 
No I'm pretty sure we did become happier. Less disease, a better diet, our families live much longer, friends from childhood don't die as easily, we don't go hungry almost half the year, etc. We are so much better now that we are not subsistence farmers.

I have looked this up MANY times, but people's standard of living doesn't determine their happiness. Other factors, such as family bonds and community do more of that.


No matter how rich you get, almost no one is happy unless they have people that they are close to. And in the past, people seem to have felt closer to others, so it is not surprising that they were happier.
 
I have looked this up MANY times, but people's standard of living doesn't determine their happiness. Other factors, such as family bonds and community do more of that.


No matter how rich you get, almost no one is happy unless they have people that they are close to. And in the past, people seem to have felt closer to others, so it is not surprising that they were happier.

They may have been closer, but those people were also much more likely to die from disease and starvation. Doesn't sound like fun, neither does hunger.
 
hmmm...

well if we are going to argue what is better, then we need to have some assumptions.

and since many people have different religions, I think the debate should be limited to the best life or existence on Earth.


anyway, I am by no means saying that modern life starts off good, and gets worse. So if there is some life after death, then a pursuit of the best life (including the afterlife) may just involve suicide once you accomplish your spiritual goals on Earth.

I just don't see too much utility in discussing that for this topic.
Since much of our experience of this life depends of chemical reactions within our body, I think that we do not have a happier life with more material comforts. The pleasure centers of the brain don't work that way, which is why the super rich aren't the super happy. That's why people become shopping addicts, because the endorphins that give us a sense of happiness are limited.

The spiritual masters teach how to gain happiness without the external stimuli of drugs, sex, or material acquisition.
 
Since much of our experience of this life depends of chemical reactions within our body, I think that we do not have a happier life with more material comforts. The pleasure centers of the brain don't work that way, which is why the super rich aren't the super happy. That's why people become shopping addicts, because the endorphins that give us a sense of happiness are limited.

The spiritual masters teach how to gain happiness without the external stimuli of drugs, sex, or material acquisition.

I agree.
I was just looking at a picture the other day of some peasants living in squalor in some godforsaken backwater... I believe it was in Tibet or the desert-y part of northern China.
I mean, these weren't even peasants, these were nomads. They were tribal people, herding yaks or something. They didn't have a pot to piss in. They didn't have any teeth. There was dirt on their faces. They were wearing clothes that looked like they were woven out of moss or something.
But they were smiling so big and genuine in this picture i saw.

So I was just thinking along similar lines the other day.
At first I was like, "Jeesh. How can they be happy?"
Then I realized, they probably have plenty of comforts in their lives.
They aren't what I'd consider "comfortable", because they're not what I was raised with.
They're outside my realm of experience.
But their lives are probably happy enough, from their point of view. Probably as happy as my life is, from mine. They'd probably just be weirded out, disoriented, and sad if we transported them here and stuck them in a suburban ranch home.

Contentment with one's life is very much dependent on brain chemistry, and less dependent on external factors than one might assume.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there is many people that would disagree with that.


I am curious how you factor in that people live longer, and that there are more people today then there were before industrialization though. I consider those two things to be positives, even beyond happiness, that we have now compared with before industrialization
Our lifespan isn't any longer, we've simply learned to reduce or eradicate death from certain diseases raising the average. We've greatly reduced death from CAD and heart attacks but we've greatly increased the occurrences of CAD and MCI. We've also seen huge increases in diabetes and weight related illness.
Advances in medical technology is a good thing but the bad thing is we haven't really figured out how to avoid the worst parts of aging, nor how to live healthier since leaving the farms, so we live longer with problems that cause suffering but not death. So are we better off?
 
Our lifespan isn't any longer, we've simply learned to reduce or eradicate death from certain diseases raising the average. We've greatly reduced death from CAD and heart attacks but we've greatly increased the occurrences of CAD and MCI. We've also seen huge increases in diabetes and weight related illness.
Advances in medical technology is a good thing but the bad thing is we haven't really figured out how to avoid the worst parts of aging, nor how to live healthier since leaving the farms, so we live longer with problems that cause suffering but not death. So are we better off?

What do you think that researchers are doing in the lab everyday? Looking for solutions to problems that kill people so that unappreciative commentators like you can live longer. Screw those researchers who are trying to extend our lives!

And we haven't learned to live healthier? What were nutritionists doing in the 19th and 20th centuries?
 
Since much of our experience of this life depends of chemical reactions within our body, I think that we do not have a happier life with more material comforts. The pleasure centers of the brain don't work that way, which is why the super rich aren't the super happy. That's why people become shopping addicts, because the endorphins that give us a sense of happiness are limited.

The spiritual masters teach how to gain happiness without the external stimuli of drugs, sex, or material acquisition.

I never contridicted any of that in my post,

and I was talking about other parts of the debate anyway..
 
What do you think that researchers are doing in the lab everyday? Looking for solutions to problems that kill people so that unappreciative commentators like you can live longer. Screw those researchers who are trying to extend our lives!
I think more of them are working on the next viagra/penis enlargement/baldness cure/or some other way to make big money. I think more of them are working on drugs that don't cure but maintain so that they have you as an ATM for years.

I think University researchers are basically the only ones working on the really important things.

And we haven't learned to live healthier? What were nutritionists doing in the 19th and 20th centuries?
Trying to make a buck. You'd think we'd have figured that one out since we can look back at history and see how, if we could possibly live to be so old 100 years ago (assuming you didn't die from the plague or something similar).
 
Our lifespan isn't any longer, we've simply learned to reduce or eradicate death from certain diseases raising the average. We've greatly reduced death from CAD and heart attacks but we've greatly increased the occurrences of CAD and MCI. We've also seen huge increases in diabetes and weight related illness.
Advances in medical technology is a good thing but the bad thing is we haven't really figured out how to avoid the worst parts of aging, nor how to live healthier since leaving the farms, so we live longer with problems that cause suffering but not death. So are we better off?

The elderly today are much healthier then the elderly in the past. Some of my grandparents are still very healthy, mentally and physically, and that would have been unheard of in the past. There are ways to avoid many of the effects of aging, but those require effort on behalf of the person. Medical technology is not free of effort. But I admit that is more debatable.

But today many people live to become elderly when they would have died earlier in the past.

Additionally, avoiding diseases and early death, is the same as increasing our lifespan any way you cut it though. Even contemporary diseases don't compare to the other diseases that have been elliminated.
 
I think more of them are working on the next viagra/penis enlargement/baldness cure/or some other way to make big money. I think more of them are working on drugs that don't cure but maintain so that they have you as an ATM for years.

I think University researchers are basically the only ones working on the really important things.


Trying to make a buck. You'd think we'd have figured that one out since we can look back at history and see how, if we could possibly live to be so old 100 years ago (assuming you didn't die from the plague or something similar).

:rofl, you know nothing of research, so go back home and stop commenting on the subject. Have you ever even seen an article in a scientific journal? I seriously doubt it.
 
Not if they lived through the Revolution.

Why would you say that? I'm sure many Americans lived incredibly rich lives. I'm sure there was much hardship, but I think they had a better appreciation for life, family, and community because of it. They also had the comfort of religion and spiritualism. It wasn't all bad. "Progress" isn't always desirable.
 
That's an awesome position.

Sure, I know you are hungry and here is a whole loaf of bread. Oh, you can't have it, you can just have enough so that you don't die. Sure, you'll suffer, probably get sick and die but at least I'll get some work out of you first.

People are just animals so why treat them any different right? As long as you got lucky, **** everyone else!! WOOHOO!!!!

Would you prefer they starve or became prostitutes?
 
Yes, I'm sure the common sweatshop wage usually illegal and based off of the lowest possible production price for a good out of no consideration for the living cost of the worker which has gone up as global food prices actually allows them to accumulate wealth.

Sure...:roll:

Yea, prostitution is much better than sewing stuff...:roll:
 
Why would you say that? I'm sure many Americans lived incredibly rich lives. I'm sure there was much hardship, but I think they had a better appreciation for life, family, and community because of it. They also had the comfort of religion and spiritualism. It wasn't all bad. "Progress" isn't always desirable.

It just seems to me like war is a terrible thing to live through. The fear, the death, the sabotage. It's too much evil.
 
Back
Top Bottom