I was having a discussion with some my grandparents about how things have changed over the years and how now you can get the encyclopaedia Britannica on one DVD disc, compared to his 1922 version which spanned several books. It then occurred to me that in his edition there wouldn’t be any entries for “Second World War, Holocaust, television, computer, Neil Armstrong, atom bomb…etc†I’m interested if you think that since 1922 we have bettered ourselves as a society and as a species. We can now communicate with anyone in seconds, cure many diseases, and enter space. But we can also destroy all life on Earth by pressing a few buttons. Was it all worth it?
Pre-1922, people from diverse backgrounds and geographical locations couldn’t express their philosophies at the touch of a button either.
That’s gotta be progress!
Technology, however, is not always the best measure of progress- what about developments like the end of apartheid, the creation of a benefit system and free health and education for all?
I totally agree with you, there have been some amazing advances in our world. I just thought it was interesting how we can come so far, then something like the atom bomb, or the holocaust happens and suddenly the progress seems a little futile. I think that you should look at the good things in life and focus on the bright side. I just find the darker side fascinating as well I just hope that in future editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, there are more entries like; the end of apartheid, space exploration and less like the World wars.
Olly
------------------
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.
if we forget about the holocaust and world war 2 and instead focus on the fluffy wonderful things we will forget about the poverty, disease, inequality, etc. that are stiffling our world. if we edit our history it will repeat it’s self.
Human nature indeed remains constant- history doesnt repeat itself, people do.
For instance- even though Hitler desperately wanted to avoid a repeat of World War One, he ended up with exactly that.
Although history wishes it were objective, the truth is it’s highly subjective, which is why Marxist historians get everything wrong!
They approach events and sources with a fixed set of questions- if you go looking specifically for patterns of class tension then inevitably this will colour your interpretation or lead to bias.
For instance, Marxist historians have tried to point out class tension as being the cause of the Mid-Tudor Crisis, but at the time England was a pre-industrial society (no real proletariat or bourgeoisie), plus in the single rebellion linked to economic factors, the leadership was in fact made up of members of the local gentry (rich local landowners).
To think in terms of progress vice disasters is odd. Because for everything good, there must be some bad. It sucks having millions of humans die all of a sudden, but how many have died normally since the begginning of time? What I’m trying to get at is that we have progressed. We could even colonize Mars, but then all you know a giant comet smacks right into Earth, or machines plug all of us into a giant everquest game. Who knows, as long as humanity continues. That is the progress.
As some one who avidly enjoys reading books written before the 1940’s, I wonder why the usual question in matters concerning “what have we learned,” fail to ask the other part of that question “What have we forgot in order to learn the new?”
For example, you may not have the holocaust written about in the 1922 edition, or perhaps even genocide, but I’m sure it will have a section discussing the fall of Carthage, or one of a number of Roman vicotries which would probably be considered genocide today.
Or perhaps television not being mentioned, but I’m sure the older addition has a substacial section on men of letters such as Voltaire or somesuch.
In a lot of ways, I see older books the same as I see the presocratics, they started asking the questions, and came up with their versions, some of which can be quite closely analogous in model to physics models. Perhaps humans only have a couple different ways to think about things.
Still, it’s hard to argue we’re better or worse off simply because of the multiplicity of viewpoints. Was it fair to preach libety and egality to a French peasant who was never going to gain by such things? All you’re doing is making his life harder. In that sense, say political progress is kind of hokum. Is a housewife better off with a vacuum? Not really, bith methods of cleaning floors are comparable, a push in terms of effort expended.
People are so adaptable it’s almost impossible to say society (as opposed to a person. The number of people’s tastes is probably well nigh impossible to measure) is better or worse off. We could probably eat goat droppings and still be happy if that’s all we had.
I just hope that in future editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, there are more entries like; the end of apartheid, space exploration and less like the World wars.