On Sunday 20 November 2005 20:46, Ken Elliott wrote:
> I can see how some are going down, but I also see some that are improving.
> Just not sure of the ratio. Again, how do you measure such a thing? This
> question goes unanswered.
My first email with the new subject line answered that. I defined morals and
ethics. Then I looked at the condition people are in. Asked myself; What are
their values? To me they are at an all time low, and still sinking.
How do I measure that?
I've been routinely comparing the past with the present for the last 30 years.
I did not set out to look at it, but when it became obvious I could not but
help noticing it. Travelling Europe, Africa and the US have given me a lot of
perspectives. (I've always been rather philosophical and I pay attention to
people around me.)
Certain things are evolving faster than others. But all the technological
improvements means nothing if peoples morals are going down. So I don't look
at technology as an indicator. For example: when I went to Africa in the
early 80's they were morally about where the US was in the 50's. (What I'm
talking about is the morality, not apartheid.) People in general did not
sleep around. They were generally faithful. The official public values were
such that they promoted old values of faithfulness and so on.
If you look at that and compare it to how our society is looking now what do
you see? What are the moral values as promoted in movies, commercials and so
on supportive of? What images do our society promote?
What good are nuclear generators when people are too stoned, drunk, or just
out of it, to run it properly? What about all other occupations? A fireman
that is too wasted to get up is no good. An electrician, cook, cab driver,
judge who are just looking for a quick buck and not having any personal
standards?
So while many living conditions are improving, at least the know how, personal
values are going down. I say so due to the values people hold these days. How
young adults handle themselves now vs 10 years ago, vs 20 years ago.
We see certain things that should have resolved but has not. F.ex. the
quantity of blacks in prisons. (Blacks have a clear majority.) To me the
universal solution is education. Not just a piece of paper, but an
understanding of how our society works. The electorial process.
Having lived with people of all sorts of races this has been the common
denominator. Education = improved life conditions.
The problem I see is that education is not working as well for black as it is
for white, who are at an all time low. It's a complex situation, but with all
the advancements, one would have hoped it would have been resolved by now.
But the humanitarian sciences have not evolved. I'll prove it to you:
Have you noticed how hard it usually is to push a person down, to keep him
down? Like someone with a dream. Have you seen someone try to take that dream
away? In most cases it's very hard to kill off.
Now, have you ever helped a person wanting help? How easy was it to help? Did
it take a lot before that person sprang back? (I'm not talking about drug
cases, they require special attention.)
So my experience has been that in general you need 30-50 years to knock out an
artist. While it only takes a kind word to get him up again.
So how easy it is to help our fellow man. Why have the humanities not evolved
to something better? Drugging and electrocution is not help. Anymore than it
is it helpful to discuss death with children. Their focus should be on
creation, life, joy! As should yours...
Technologies are advancing faster than the ability of people to use them
correctly. The ability I refer to are issues related to pro survival
decisions. For example: The most damaging part of radiation is not in the
original fall out, but the saturation levels of the atmosphere. When the
levels get too high most bodies will die off. Both the blast and the fall out
are relatively narrow. But it adds to the saturation level. Do you know that
the person with access to the button is entirely trustworthy? Or the ones who
ive the order?
In office we got a person that in my mind is not fit for any office, let alone
that of the president. And here is the problem with that. People usually get
the kind of governement they deserve. What does that mean?
It means that when you (I'm using the general 'you') don't bother to partake
in the elections you get the shaft, and you deserve it as you could not even
do your civic duty to vote and stand counted. Show them that you care. They
would have been forced to actually listen to the people. But if we are not
making noise they'll do what the interest groups tell them to. Or whomever
else have their attention.
This is a normal phenomenon as people get less and less interested and more
and more involved with their own personal problems. It is a circular problem
and will not resolve until you get involved.
Thus we are back to politics. It's related to people. you and me. Get involved
in yours and others lives. There are lots of examples of people taking their
neighboor hood back by just being united against druggies, hookers or what
have you. But you got to be involved somehow, or you'll get the shaft.
Well that's a bit off from Linux and computers. Just a tad. But I find it fun
to open those doors every now and then. (I guess you can tell : ).
--Steve Szmidt
"They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:21:04 EDT