worst invention ever?

[Mannix]

When talking about the worst thing human's have ever created, there's usually two responses that I hear: Nukes and TV. I personally don't believe either of these two things count as the worst ever because they both have some sort of positive potential in some kind of mass aplication.

Nukes are/were very handy because they managed to keep two militarily potent and ideologically opposed powers (the US and USSR) from seeking direct conventional conflict with one another, which would have been a very costly proposal no matter how you slice it. You can cite a "doomsday" scenario as a negative if you like, but it turns out I kind of hate people so no big loss there .

TV is often listed as bad because of the mind-numbing and degrading nature of most programming. While, in my opinion, 99% of everything on TV is utterly contemptable there are still some very sound educational and communication opportunities to be had from the "one-eyed god." Also we every so often run into a program like Firefly (or whatever, just an example) that's entertaining without being degrading.

I haven't really been able to personally chose a 'worst ever' but I think Caste/Heirarchy systems are probably it. I just can't find the virtue of a minority being held far above the masses while not really producing anything of any measurable value. Obvioiusly there are situations where egalitarianism wouldn't work very well, such as the military. But I honestly have to wonder how useful a military would be if there weren't any nobles to bicker at each other.

Anyway, I digress. What are some of the things I may have overlooked that have nothing to offer to humanity? Also, if anybody is 'pro-caste' I think it would be interesting if you outlined the virtues of the system as you see it, because as it stands now I just don't get it.

[Vesus]

Well... Dont animals sort of use a "Heirachy" system, although its not by blood its by fighting power? It wouldnt be something Humans invented really...

The thing I think is the worse human invention... would happen to be Doors... because they break and when your doing naugty things in your room (because it has internet access) and your mother goes to the toilet and checks to see if your awake...
My point is it would have never happened if i was just cemented into my room

[Dasanudas]

The worst invention is the idea that life is meant solely for the gratification of the senses.

As for being pro-caste, I would say that I am, but not in the sense that you probably think. The classic caste system of Vedic culture, now seen in remnants in India (brahmins, kshatriya, vaishyas, sudras or intellectuals, warriors, merchants, laborers respectively) was a caste system, but not one based on birth. The idea that one's staus in life is based on birth is a misunderstanding and degradation of the past thousand years. The caste system (or known correctly as varnasram dharma) was based on qualities and education. No matter what family a person was born in, if they had the qualities and propensities of a brahmin or vaishya or whatever, that is what they were trained as and how they fit in society. It's actually a very nice system - the nerds wouldn't have to go to Phys Ed., and the motorheads could take shop instead of Chemistry and so on. People got to do what was inherently pleasing for them to do. The perverted caste system says no matter what you want, if your father is a sudra, you're also a sudra - this is incorrect. And actually, you cannot have a system without classes like this. In the US there are intellectuals (scientists) leading the society by advising the admins/warriors (politicians and military/police) on how to govern the vaishyas (farmers/entrepeneurs) and the sudras (everyone else - which in today's world is just about everyone. A person who works for someone else is a sudra, so if you have a boss, you're a sudra.). These classifications were even seen in communism, they just started calling everyone the same title and (supposedly) gave everyone the same amount of stuff.

[darkie]

I would like to say Homework but....

Talk Shows. Mankind its doom. XD hehehe, no, no, getting serius...I vote for torture tools... yeah.

[POS Industries]

I would say Waroween, but that comes disturbingly close to falling into a different catagory on these here forums.

If I had to pick one invention that I feel is mankind's worst, I personally have a rather deep-seeded loathing of the vocal harmonizer. For those of you not in the know, this is a device that will take recorded vocals (no matter how badly sung they are) and alters their pitch to put them on key. It's why Britney Spears has a career. Making this machine was an unforgivable sin, in my opinion.

[Transcend]

Agriculture. While massively increasing the number of humans each acre can support, nothing has contributed so greatly to malnutrition, slavery, warfare, disease, and exhaustion as agriculture has.

Jared Diamond's essay on the subject; the best I can find on it.

[Trepie]

I'd have to say Communism. This isn't because I'm a pro-democratic freak. I think that Communism is the WORST form of government ever. It simply twisted the GOOD ideas of Karl Marx and turned it into a form of Dictatorship that claims to be about equality and freedom. Poor, uneducated people are easily convinced that it is beneficial when usually it leaves them poorer and worse off.

Just think of China's potential if it had become more central on the political spectrum.

I agree with Transcend to a certain extent but not entirely. Agriculture is the most important thing in Australia. It has caused a LOT of problems though. *caugh* Salinity *cough*.

[Transcend]

Originally Posted by Trepie

Just think of China's potential if it had become more central on the political spectrum.

Actually, I disagree on that point. China needed communism. At the time of the Chinese Civil War, China was (under the supposedly-democratic KMT) little more than a land of warlords, as it had been for centuries. The Communists managed--between catastrophic failures of leadership--to unify the nation, standardize the language, bring literacy to the masses, and stabilize its politics. They managed to turn a giant pseudo-anarchic failed state into a solid nation. And once they managed to stabilize China (with 15 lost years thrown in), they began a program of slow, steady reform that has turned them into an economic powerhouse with absurd levels of growth.

Really, the only two options for China were communist dictatorship under the CCP and military dictatorship under the KMT. The military dictatorship, in several decades, did nothing but abandon the country to warlordism. The Communist dictatorship, in half a century, managed the slow rise of a superpower. I really can't see how 'increased centrism' would have led to anything better for China. Already the speed at which they're liberalizing is almost (and very possibly is) too fast for stability--they're trying to avoid a Soviet-Union-style collapse. Their economy is entirely dependent on foreign trade and investment--and both would shut down in the chaos of a revolution, sending China into a tailspin. The path the government is following now is working very well indeed.

And as for Communism being the "worst government ever..."
I'm fairly certain that any of the various forms of kleptocratic dictatorships that do not redistribute wealth to the masses are worse than those that do so inefficiently. I would say theocratic dictatorships, removing both personal and political freedoms, are worse than communist ones. I would say military juntas and tyrannies are worse. Fascism is worse. Strong-man states are generally worse. I would venture to guess that anarchy is worse as well.

And yes, agriculture is important to Australia. It's required to support the number of humans that the world has. But life, by all measurable standards, was better for humanity before agriculture than it was after it. Simply having more humans around at the expense of quality of life does not seem like the best goal.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Transcend

Actually, I disagree on that point. China needed communism.

Not to sound nasty, Transcend, but there are probably millions of innocent Chinese civilians buried in holocaust-esque mass grave sites who'd find good reason to disagree with that statement.

[Transcend]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Not to sound nasty, Transcend, but there are probably millions of innocent Chinese civilians buried in holocaust-esque mass grave sites who'd find good reason to disagree with that statement.

Holocaust? Now there's a bit of a leap. Millions of Chinese died under Mao Zedong, but the vast majority of them were as a result of the disastrous agricultural program Great Leap Forward and the ensuing famine. Never have the Chinese engaged in mass intentional genocide. Actually, Tibet excluded (and that's a very complex issue), the CCP was far, far more tolerant of minorites than the KMT was. I'm not going to say China has a stellar history or that its recent history hasn't been punctuated by appaling abuses of power. But at the same time you need to look at the bigger picture. Could the Kuomintang--a vicious organization known for wholesale slaughter of political dissidents--have governed a fractous, rebellious China any better? Would China today be better off if it were a pseudo-feudal military dictatorship?

"Democracy" is not a word that has ever had any meaning in pre-1989 Chinese politics. Since the Shang dynasty to the modern day, rule of government has been absolute. Chinese political thought never advanced past despotism in any meaningful way. It's naive to think that one despot would be more pleasant than another. Might as well take the despots who were able to stabilize and unite the Chinese nation to the point where democracy is beginning to look not only like a possibility but an inevitability

Originally Posted by Mauve Mage

That's an interesting idea, Transcend.

*explanation of human development*

So while agriculture has created problems, it has also saved us from problems. We could speculate that without agricultural development, we would still be like cavemen. Our numbers would certainly be fewer, which would eliminate the overpopulation we face today, but would we really be any better off? There would still be malnutrition. There might be less disease, as there would be fewer humans and few or no domesticated animals to spread them, but there would still be some. It is difficult to say whether warfare would remain; would we fight over herds of deer or hunting grounds?

For comparison, look at the lifestyles of modern hunter-gatherer tribes untouched by modern civilization. Life expectancy is comparable, malnutrition is actually far lower than it is in most of the modern world, and leisure time is doubled or tripled. Disease is rare. War exists but in the form of occasional skirmishes. Mass slaughter in the vein of any modern war is impossible and pointless.

In any measurable fashion, quality of life has greatly decreased for all but the top several percent since the introduction of agriculture. What problems has agriculture saved us from that it has not also created?

Locke: I would put forward that calling 'language' an invention is similar to calling 'happiness' an invention. Anything as deep-wired into the human brain as language comprehension and usage is cannot be called an invention unless you call 'walking' an invention.