The Beautiful State

[jackles]

you .im talking to you voice of time.you talkin to me.sorry for that line from taxi drive.

[The Voice of Time]

you .im talking to you voice of time.you talkin to me.sorry for that line from taxi drive.

and why would you think I'm talking of Nazi Germany or Communist Russia? Defend your position.

[Kayla]

Bad health - Traditional families used herbs and other forms of natural medicine that was way more healthy, as compared to the modern medicines that we have (such as prescription drugs, vaccines, etc).

if you were hit by a bus would you want modern western medicine, or would you want a homeopathic herbalist

how is it that western medicine is unmatched in its ability to deal with physical trauma - and yet vastly inferior in every other way to what is available to the Kalahari bushmen or in rural china

[WanderingLands]

if you were hit by a bus would you want modern western medicine, or would you want a homeopathic herbalist

how is it that western medicine is unmatched in its ability to deal with physical trauma - and yet vastly inferior in every other way to what is available to the Kalahari bushmen or in rural china

I'd go with the Herbalist as a fine choice. Also, maybe massage therapists and chiropractors would be helpful as well.

[Blaggard]

if you were hit by a bus would you want modern western medicine, or would you want a homeopathic herbalist

how is it that western medicine is unmatched in its ability to deal with physical trauma - and yet vastly inferior in every other way to what is available to the Kalahari bushmen or in rural china

I'd go with the Herbalist as a fine choice. Also, maybe massage therapists and chiropractors would be helpful as well.

You probably didn't appreciate this then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0



I can't believe The voice of times suggestion that modern times have been far more peaceful than in history but he's only willing to consider the 21st century as modern times. er i think you'll find modern times is really any time after the 1900s mate.

Yeah how convenient just ignore the two largest conflicts in human history with millions dead, and Vietnam and Korea, the cold war, the 1st gulf war, multiple US aggressions against South American states, Israel's conflicts in the ME, the Iran-Iraq war to name just a tiny number of the actual wars between various countries in the 20th century, modern times are peaceful comparatively to what, Armageddon? I think you have to take modern as a bit more than the last 14 years...

If we included the genocides of the 20th century it doesn't look very good for us so called modern humans, and the 21st isn't shaping up too well either, already there have been substantial conflicts, far more than there were between 1900 and 1910 for example.

Admittedly war has become different, methodologies have changed, death tolls rizen and so on, but I think if you compare the conflicts of history using any quantitative measures rather than narrowly measuring just a statistic you might chose, of the centuries of the last millenia, modern times are right up there in terms of war and conflict amongst nation states, probably under any rational measure at the very top of the pinnacle of human idiocy. We came close to annihilating vast swathes of the human race in on go for Gods sake.

Using the number of people who died is misleading at best when trying to argue what was the most peaceful centuries especially on its own, it's nothing short of sophistry and glosses over the issues. Please the 20th and 21st century are shaping up to be amongst the least peaceful centuries in history regardless of how you want to massage the figures, any fool can see that I am afraid.

[The Voice of Time]

I can't believe The voice of times suggestion that modern times have been far more peaceful than in history but he's only willing to consider the 21st century as modern times. er i think you'll find modern times is really any time after the 1900s mate.

It started in fact in the 1700, and every person since has used it to refer to their own lifetime... my lifetime started in 1992, and for that sake I look at the 20th century as a place far off in the past, so to me it's not worthy of being called "modern"... the Internet Age is modern, anything before that is the far away past.

Yeah how convenient just ignore the two largest conflicts in human history with millions dead

I didn't. I argued extensively about them, and a point of mine is that they are not likely to happen in our century on anywhere the scale of that time. The concept of "total war" popularized by Napoleon is slowly dying in modernized countries in favour of skirmish and diplomatic pre-war resolve.

and Vietnam and Korea

Two wars which both were bleak in comparison to the first and second world war, which came before them.

the cold war

Not an actual war, merely a figure of speech for a period of global political polarisation and armament.

the 1st gulf war

In a historical perspective a tiny insignificant war. Less than 40 000 people killed is a single battle in WW1 terms.

multiple US aggressions against South American states, Israel's conflicts in the ME

Insignificant conflicts in comparison.

the Iran-Iraq war

The latest total war the world has seen, and the way the political world map looks today likely the last in a very long time.

to name just a tiny number of the actual wars between various countries in the 20th century, modern times are peaceful comparatively to what, Armageddon?

If you've read some history you'll know just how bloody and conflict torn the 19th, 18th, 17th and so forth centuries were (7 years war, 100 years war, the Napoleonic wars and so forth). A good rule is that the further back in history you go the more conflicted years you get because there are more countries and a slower pace so many more small conflicts and long-running conflicts are going on. The amount of deaths, though there were plenty of wars before the 20th century with millions of dead, have reached a tipping point though, where after it has slowly fallen again, and the 21st century is a very different political century than the 20th.

The rules of war are very different, the blitz war developed in WW2 has been taken to such a step that when big countries attack small ones today the small stand less a chance than before. The Winter War between Soviet Union and Finland would have been greatly less favourable to Finland today. Finland would not stand had stood a chance in mustering its forces like it did in the Winter War and the Continuation War, it would critically have to depend on the first line of defence and thereafter fight fiercely to buy itself time. This way however, the war would've been over much sooner with much fewer deaths. In fact the reason for why the Iran-Iraq war ever managed to get the way it did, was because 1) the style of warfare was that of WW1 with bayonet charges from trenches and not proper modern warfare, and 2) although Iraq had a better equipped and trained military than Iran, it was greatly outnumbered and was begging to be overrun, prolonging the war and allowing for the total war to develop out of it. No country today would've fought that same way again, the war was fought in completely obsolete and stupid manners.

And you are forgetting that Europe or America is not all there is to the world. There was an Africa before Europe came, and it had wars, same with America. Not to mention an endless stream of warfare we should all be familiar with in the Mongol Conquests which is estimated to have killed nearly as many as WW2 (the world's deadliest war to date) it just lasted a shit-load many more years, and although you could say it consisted of several wars it was really just an endless stream of warfare, the Mongol's practically didn't know anything else than warfare.

And ask yourself I think you have to take modern as a bit more than the last 14 years...

To me it's not, but it's not the point, the 21st century is the point, if not calling the "the modern time", then whatever, we'll just call it 21st century.

If we included the genocides of the 20th century it doesn't look very good for us so called modern humans

There has always been genocides, big and dirty ones too, there's nothing new or particularly bad about the genocides of 20th century if you ignore WW2, if you include WW2 you have of course a very black spot on the history of humankind, but the black spot is very unique and hugely unlikely to happen again even close to the scale it happened there... a Rwandan genocide is "normal historical black spots", WW2 was something quite else, but WW2 in turn changed our understanding of the terrors of warfare extremely, so in a sense a big black spot is an investment in less black spots in the future.

and the 21st isn't shaping up too well either, already there have been substantial conflicts, far more than there were between 1900 and 1910 for example.

Uhm... no? Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... E2%80%9344 and that's an incomplete list of wars and armed conflicts. And if you look at this: http://www.war-memorial.net/wars_all.as ... &q=3&land= you'll see that in 1911 alone there started 5 different conflicts, and that's just the conflicts people care about... at that time we didn't record tribal warfare going on in hubabuland far away from our own civilization.

Admittedly war has become different, methodologies have changed, death tolls rizen and so on, but I think if you compare the conflicts of history using any quantitative measures rather than narrowly measuring just a statistic you might chose, of the centuries of the last millenia, modern times are right up there in terms of war and conflict amongst nation states, probably under any rational measure at the very top of the pinnacle of human idiocy.

We could do so much better, yes, but things are not becoming worse, on the very contrary.

We came close to annihilating vast swathes of the human race in on go for Gods sake.

But it didn't happen, which is an important point.

Using the number of people who died is misleading at best when trying to argue what was the most peaceful centuries especially on its own, it's nothing short of sophistry and glosses over the issues.

No, it doesn't. It's a very good measure that takes into account essential information.

Please the 20th and 21st century are shaping up to be amongst the least peaceful centuries in history regardless of how you want to massage the figures, any fool can see that I am afraid.

Yeah but your fears don't have to be rational.