Is western civilisation better than aboriginies of the past? (1 Viewer)

[Kwayera]

yeah but not on an island by themselves

they had to build on the foundations they pinched from the arabs
who had to build on the foundations they pinched from the greeks & indians
etc.

western civilisation on an island alone would probably still be like the vikings
or aborigines

Yeah, and that's pretty true. Civilisation seems to need interaction and competition to go forward - which is why in 40,000 years the Aborigines didn't change much.

 

[moll.]

20 million people is too many for Australia's carrying capacity.

Agreed.
One-child policy. And not just for Australia. Worldwide.
It would solve so many of the world's problems.

 

[Will Shakespear]

Agreed.
One-child policy. And not just for Australia. Worldwide.
It would solve so many of the world's problems.

pretty much

ideally we could sustain the population by skilled migration and have a below-replacement fertility rate

it's a massive injustice that there are decent folk around the world from poor/war torn countries who'd do anything to be let in here, but we pay the worst types in society shitloads just to pump out kids instead

 

[ongitsanjali]

Yeah, and that's pretty true. Civilisation seems to need interaction and competition to go forward - which is why in 40,000 years the Aborigines didn't change much.

but in spite of the fct that they didn't advance technologically or scientifically, they were still content with what they had AND were in sync with nature.

Much as we seem to think that progression is the purpose of our lives, it's not really. As long as people are happy and leading fruitful lives, we're all good. which is something they understood better than us...

i don't really see what's wrong with simplicity

 

[moll.]

pretty much

ideally we could sustain the population by skilled migration and have a below-replacement fertility rate

it's a massive injustice that there are decent folk around the world from poor/war torn countries who'd do anything to be let in here, but we pay the worst types in society shitloads just to pump out kids instead

+1
And it's just going to get worse now that it's means-tested.

 

[Kwayera]

but in spite of the fct that they didn't advance technologically or scientifically, they were still content with what they had AND were in sync with nature.

Much as we seem to think that progression is the purpose of our lives, it's not really. As long as people are happy and leading fruitful lives, we're all good. which is something they understood better than us...

i don't really see what's wrong with simplicity

Yeah, I respect it. But that doesn't mean it's better than western civilisation.

IDK, I'd personally take western science and medicine and literature - progression, yes.

 

[jb_nc]

Agreed.
One-child policy. And not just for Australia. Worldwide.
It would solve so many of the world's problems.

sup bro hows fascism for you going well?

 

[rasengan90]

There's something to be said for being sustainable custodians of the land. They were well adapted to the unique demands of the Australian continent.

As Europeans were adapted to their climate before industrialisation; as Africans and Asians were adapted to their continents. Being able to live off the land for an ancient society is not that much of an achievement. Any tribes that weren't too good at it aren't around to let us know anymore though.

 

[rasengan90]

Aborigines > Western civilisation.

They didn't kill the land.
They also didn't kill each other off.

No. You would have to be fucking retarded to claim that Aboriginies never had wars . They just use less advanced killing weapons to take people's land.

 

[banco55]

but in spite of the fct that they didn't advance technologically or scientifically, they were still content with what they had AND were in sync with nature.

Much as we seem to think that progression is the purpose of our lives, it's not really. As long as people are happy and leading fruitful lives, we're all good. which is something they understood better than us...

i don't really see what's wrong with simplicity

How do we know they were content with what they had? You seem to be buying into the whole "noble savage" bit.

 

[banco55]

yeah but not on an island by themselves

they had to build on the foundations they pinched from the arabs
who had to build on the foundations they pinched from the greeks & indians
etc.

western civilisation on an island alone would probably still be like the vikings
or aborigines

All true but if you were going to ask is Mozart a better composer then X you could say Mozart was trained from a young age, musically it was a good time to be composing etc. but the bottom line is Mozart is still a better composer.

 

[big8oyjames]

Islamic civilization which is also known as the Islamic golden age is the best

/close thread.

PS: im not trolling this time.

 

[Kwayera]

Islamic civilization which is also known as the Islamic golden age is the best

Wasn't that in, like, 1200 CE?

 

[big8oyjames]

Wasn't that in, like, 1200 CE?

no. it was from 600AD - present. our civilization hasn't come to an end. accept it. we are better. we made advancements in... stuff.

 

[jb_nc]

no. it was from 600AD - present. our civilization hasn't come to an end. accept it. we are better. we made advancements in... stuff.

such as complaining

 

[big8oyjames]

such as complaining

i never complain.

 

[jb_nc]

i never complain.

you complain when iron bans you

 

[katie tully]

lol @ some of the responses

'yer aboriginals are heaps cool coz dey did live off da land and were all sustainable yo.... even if they hadnt worked out that if it's round it rolls...'

 

[verdades]

No. You would have to be fucking retarded to claim that Aboriginies never had wars . They just use less advanced killing weapons to take people's land.

It wasn't aimed at taking land, though, because they had no land ownership. Tribal battles, sure.
But yeah, lack of effective weapons means that they didn't kill each other off. Whereas Western civilisation has spent how much money finding ways they can destroy the world with one bomb?
Pretty sure the Aborigines way of looking at it is better - at least they didn't fight for ownership of land.


And agreed for too many people in Australia.

 

[Misericorde]

It wasn't aimed at taking land, though, because they had no land ownership. Tribal battles, sure.

So those tribal battles were...for fun?
Also, don't see why "ownership of land" is any worse a reason to fight than whatever they fought for.