Would we cease to exist without progress?

1. 71

   Jefsaidposted 12 years ago

   My wife and I often agree to disagree with regard to progress.  She feels that betterment = progress while I believe that consolidating one's position and adapting to change is progress.
   
   The question that strikes me is why are we so hell-bent on progress in the context of advancement?  Does it really improve our existence or just make it more stressful and complicated? Other animals seem happy to just exist and adapt to natures challenges. 
   
   Is progress a consequence of existence i.e. the need to survive or is the need to survive the reason for our existence?
   
   What would be the consequence of standing still and simply living in sink with World around us? 
   
   Would we eventually cease to exist?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Where there is Life there is progress.
      
      
      
      Progress is an expectation of Life and all yearn for it.
      But there is true progress and false progress.
      
      True progress have the perception of not going any where but in reality at that point is the place of most accomplishment, this is the place of rest...
      
      False progress has the perception accomplishing.much because it usually filled with activity.... But it all ends right where it has started meaning it accomplished nothing of itself neither for itself.
      
      This is the place of death ...and is easily recognizable because it uses money as one of it primary tool.

      replyreport
2. 61

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   Progress is money which is what gives people worth in the absence of something spiritual. People lived for thousands of years without progress and still do in some places. Take the American Indians for one example.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Jefsaidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Religion was the original currency created by our rulers over the centuries but has run the course of time.  Money has been implemented as the new dependency/religion.  Spirituality in its natural form is what we (the Western World) left behind yet for me it continues to tug at our conscience as the true reality and purpose for our existence.

      replyreport
3. 60

   giftedbyGodposted 12 years ago

   Let me say it like this.  Hope this will keep in line with your main thought.  I am an avid reader.  I was always going to the library to bring home a slew of books to read.  Now I have a KOBO, Kindle Pc and and  another product.  I can get a lot of free books to download and return--with no late fee.  I made a change.  I progressed to an easier process.  I can sit at my computer in the comfort of my bedroom and in an instant have the biographies to mystery stories I like.  Then I don't have to trudge in rain and snow.  How convenient!

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Jefsaidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well progress certainly does promote laziness through convenience.  Let's hope that a solar flare does not knock out the internet or disrupt our  electricity networks for an indefinite length of time.  With their innate understanding of our natural surrounds, I do not suspect the American Indians and the like would be too bothered by such an event...

      replyreport
      1. 60

         paradigmsearchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Are you serious? With the slot machines down, they would freak. And I wouldn't blame them. We're talking serious money here.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Jefsaidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I think money might be the least of their concerns.

            replyreport
4. 59

   MelissaBarrettposted 12 years ago

   LMAO.  One of you thinks they are hunting buffalo all day and the other one thinks they are playing slots all day.  The first one that says something about scalping someone gets the blue ribbon for the day...

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Jefsaidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      A few scalpings certainly seems insignificant to killing millions with an atomic bomb and stealth bombers from a computer console while hunting and eating buffaloes seems more satisfying than consuming chemicals and genetically modified crap  ...

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Hmmm.  Have you ever gutted and cleaned a buffalo?  I haven't and don't want to. 
         
         A nice serving of C2H5OH sounds much more pleasant, perhaps with assorted flavorings and frozen H2O.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Jefsaidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            With regard to "Have you ever gutted and cleaned a buffalo? "I am sure it would not seem unusual if you were used to doing it.  Someone does it in the process of providing you the nicely packaged end product you pick off the shelf.

            replyreport
   2. 60

      paradigmsearchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      They don't play the slot machines. They own them. No joke.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Jefsaidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         OMG is that what progress has done for them?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            paradigmsearchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Yep. And they're fine with it. The average member of the tribes that owns Indian casinos takes home around 10K a week or some such.

            replyreport
         2. 60

            paradigmsearchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Just an fyi. I live in a state that has Indian casinos all over the place. The stuff I've read about them in the newspapers has non-plussed me to say the least. With all that money sloshing around, all sorts of interesting things happen.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               Jefsaidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               They have clearly found a place in American society although aside from monetary gain I am not sure what other contribution the control of gambling establishments presents to their futures and that of the general community.
               
               Money only has a value in terms of Western led consumerism.  It unnerves me that such existence is precariously dependant on mother natures kindness.  A natural disaster of global scale could render monetary value useless while our diminishing comprehension of our natural environment leaves us increasingly vulnerable to such events.
               
               The decreasing number of native people that posses an inherent connection with the natural World means that we are becoming more reliant on artificial existence and less able to stand on our own two feet outside of the trappings and conveniences of modern society. 
               
               It just seems sad that the native American and other indigenous aboriginal people are becoming increasingly consumed by Western existence.  Once they are all gone we will all simply be disaffected onlookers and exploiters of our natural World without a clue of how to survive in it.

               replyreport
5. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago

   That's not 10K per tribe. That's 10K for each member of the tribe. Every week.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Jefsaidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well the colonial methods of plying natives with alcohol, trading guns, undermining their beliefs through Christianity and allocating them little pockets of useless land has certainly done the trick.  10K a week on the slot machine seems like a shallow money-driven infatuation with whirring wheels and flashing lights - the short-term thrills of a sad existence.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         paradigmsearchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I do believe that the Indians would agree with you on that. That's why they hire the locals to do all the work for $12 an hour. As for the Indians, they're either in their penthouses or traveling the world 365 days a year.

         replyreport
6. 0

   Holmes221bposted 12 years ago

   Well, the rest of the animal kingdon exists without progress.  The technology of a cat is the same now as it was millions of years ago, yet it still exists.  And mankind existed for hundreds of thousands of years, before we began to develop into the creative animal we are.  Progress isn't always certain however, as the human race has experienced dark ages before, where progress is replaced by a return to a more primitive state.  Eventually though, we will cease to exist, because all species are finite, as is our planet and even solar system. However, as it is estimated that our planet has another 5 billion years left, I won't be worrying about its end.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Jefsaidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Some of what you say truly resonates with me although our arrogant presumptions of an end to existence is purely the speculation of our scientists making predictions via a long range telescope.
      
      I take the position that existence is infinite and the Cosmos, Universe or whatever other description may be used is like a balloon that never bursts.  I feel that existence can expand or contract infinitely although its constituent parts are constant within it.  For example, progress means that physically we live longer and multiply.  As a consequence we fill more of the space within existence making it more crowded and volatile while Intellectually it becomes more complex and confused.  Being in sink with existence would create a calmer, less crowded and ultimately less complicated balance to our lives.

      replyreport
7. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago

   I'll take what Jeff says a step further.
   
   Societies invariably collapse. Always have; always will. So as far as our society goes, it's not if, but when.
   
   And when it does, 80% of the world population will be dead in 6 months. The cause of the collapse doesn't even really matter. When the infrastructure goes, so does 80% of the population.
   
   Have a nice day.

   replyreport
8. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago

   Well, well. "Aftermath: Population Zero" is on in 10 minutes. I've seen it before. But, maybe it can hold my attention a second time. Least for awhile (or not).

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Holmes221bposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If this is the same programme, which is also called "After People," I have just bought this series on DVD and find it very interesting.   It is amazing how quickly the world will return to nature.  It shows that within three years of man disappearing, even the streets of New York will have become meadows, with trees starting to grow.  And within 200 years of man disappearing, all of man's buildings will have collapsed, and will be covered with grass and trees, appearing as if they were mountains.  It is said that the last manmade objects on Earth will be everything that has been made from plastic, which will take thousands of years to return to the Earth.  What I found shocking was that there is a whirlpool of plastic in the Pacific, which is the size of Australia and getting bigger every year.  It is sad to think that this would be killing sea animals thousands of years after mankind has gone the way of the dinosaurs.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Jefsaidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         The programme seems to emphasise the destructive impact mankind has had on this planet already with the residue of our irresponsibility likely remain long after our disappearance. It would be chilling to realise how quickly masses of us pampered, clueless westerners would die out and interesting to know whether nature would re-balance itself or become dominated by another species...

         replyreport
9. 59

   recommend1posted 12 years ago

   Progress in what ???   the only progress I see is in the field of money, nothing progresses unless it is to do with money-making for your owners.  Modern economics ensures that you all think progress is good for you and that it only exists through money - it is wrong and it is falling apart at the seams.
   
   I will consider progress good for people when it does not involve bombing the cr@p out of various countries in the interests of trade, or arms length colonialisation, and is based on improving the living conditions of all people.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Jefsaidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely the point I am stressing.  I take it further by saying that 'non-progression' would be better as based on its current context of monetary gain and convenient lifestyle, progress actually drains our natural resources in areas where the majority of the World's population are trying to live in tandem with their environment.  As a consequence, millions of people who live simply within their means suffer through the exploitation of the relatively small populations of so-called 'advanced' societies.
      
      Western powers only began to show concern for the World's resources when their exclusivity to its dwindling reserves started to be wrestled away by the emergence of other fledgling super powers such as China, India and Brazil.
      
      The relentless march towards Western type 'progress' by these new competitors is sucking the planet dry at an even faster rate and competition for the World's natural resources has taken precedence over the reality that they need to be preserved.  The mass disassociation of Western city dwellers from their natural surrounds means that most are desensitised and disaffected from the true consequences of depleted resources and destructed natural environment.
      
      Certainly, the occasional documentary pulls a few heart strings but ultimately we remain intolerant to not having the conveniences of water, food, energy and fuel off the shelf or available at the flick of a switch.
      
      Our existence is in the hands of 'progress' yet our survival may be better served through 'non-progress'

      replyreport
      1. 59

         recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I would go further and say that the media mouthpieces of our owners only started to highlight these issues when the profits of our owners started to suffer.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Jefsaidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Correct! When it began to hit their bottom line.

            replyreport