having engaged in a discussion recently about “the world would be a better place if…” i’ve gotten to thinking. could the world be a better place? if so, what would make the world a better place? is there something to the teachings of some great spiritualists of the past? as they taught, can humankind actually make progress to a better being? or is it a personal or temporary or after-life thing? or does progression necessitate regression for balance? vice versa?
p.s. my goal with this thread is to trigger rainjack’s aspirin dependency.[/quote]
Mission accomplished. Just imagiining all the existentialist B.S. that will be spewing unfettered in this thread, I’ve already had to reach for the Advil.
Being as that is the case - I want first crack at this one.
What are the common needs of all civilizations? Food, clothing, and shelter.
What are the common hindrances to these needs? War, pestilence, weather, and acts of God.
In the entire history of man, which of the hindrances have we been able to control? I would be willing to wager that the only thing we as humans have effectively controlled has been pestilence.
Maybe I’m a bit of a naysayer, but If we haven’t learned to control these things yet, I doubt we ever will. So that means that we will continually struggle just to meet the basic needs.
That said, making the world a ‘better place’ is a bit subjective. We in the U.S. have replaced the hunter/gather approach with the rat race. Folks in much lesser developed countries have not. But is the struggle any different? How many folks here are just a paycheck away from being homeless? Are they any better off than someone in Uganda, or Equatorial New Guinea?
I think the notion of a 'better place is a personal decision, and not one that a sociologist/anthropologist can really make for us.
Now where did I put my motrin?