worst invention ever?

[Trepie]

Ok, I didn't think of it like that. You're right, of course. (About China).

My point about Communism wasn't that it was literally the WORST form of government ever. I was stating that the way they promise equality and brainwash their citizens in bad. In many facist governments where only the government has ANY money at all, the people at least know that they are oppressed. Communism makes people think that they are getting a fair go when really, if the theory was followed right, they should be much better off.

I get your agriculture arguement now. It is a very interesting point of view and I don't believe it fanatically but I can see that it makes a lot of sense.


Plastics = Major Pollutant

Mebbe, antique style, silver or pewter cups/goblets are better than glass ones but plastic is not. The glass breaks but it can be disposed of easily because it is simply sand and such, plastic requires a lot of energy to destroy or recycle.

[Transcend]

Originally Posted by misterchainsaw

Well id have to say politics and religion those two things contribute to alot of bad things liek war, racisim and other things of the sort....try not to think of material inventions. "anarchism: The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished." Id just like to say that if anarchism was a political party, well that would just be ironic.

I don't think religion, racism, war, and politics are inventions. I would say that anything that:
1. Appears universally in human society
2. Has always existed in all human societies
3. Is not created by a process of conscious trial-and-error
is innate to the human condition and thus is not an invention.

[Fifthfiend]

Dude, totally an easy one.

Worst invention ever? So easy.

Lying.

It all just flows from there.

[mauve]

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.

That's an interesting idea, Transcend.

However, if agriculture WASN'T developed, we as humans would have run into other problems. Throughout ancient history, the pattern of human development from nomadic tribes to semi-sedentary and sedentary civilizations has been remarkably similar world-wide.

Nomadic tribes followed herds of animals. In order to survive, human populations in these tribes had to be relatively small. Otherwise, there would be too many humans and not enough food. However, the domestication of plant and animal species and eventual developmenet of farming techniques led to a more sedentary lifestyle. Agriculture led to a surplus of food, which allowed for a rise in poulation. This, in turn, created a need for a more advanced social heiarchy, in order to keep things under control. Now that these people had permanent or semi-permanent homes, a surplus of food, and social order, social specialization could develop. Suddenly, you could spend your days making pottery and then trade three jars to your neighbor, who was a weaver, for a blanket. Prior to this, you'd have to raise or hunt your own food, and make all of your own goods.

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?

[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.

[Lockeownzj00]

Id just like to say that if anarchism was a political party, well that would just be ironic.

Your post and sentence make no sense, and show a lack of understanding of the world around you.

Also, there's a difference between Communism, and a Communism used as a trojan horse for Fascism. Perhaps China did need Communism--not what they got.

1. Appears universally in human society
2. Has always existed in all human societies
3. Is not created by a process of conscious trial-and-error
is innate to the human condition and thus is not an invention.

I'm sure the poster meant an object, but to expand the question, 'invention' doesn't have to only carry connotations of physical existence. Memes, and even language, and even modern neologisms, yes, are still inventions, albeit of a much more abstract sort.

Besides--'always existed?' Had to start somewhere, no?

[misterchainsaw]

id just like to say that if anarchists had a political party(dose that make more sense?)...well that would just be ironic. And how dose that show i have very little understanding of the world around me?

[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.

[Nique]

And how dose that show i have very little understanding of the world around me?

Becuase while it may seem a little funny, the fact is that anarchy does not mean '0' organization, and it is in fact a political idea. Therefore, a 'political' party that supports anarchy would not nessecerily be in direct violation of anarchist princeples. They have groups with members and everything.

Buy thinking it ironic and non-sensical, you show little understanding of what anarchy is.

..That said, it is kind of silly.

[Dasanudas]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

Dude, totally an easy one.

Worst invention ever? So easy.

Lying.

It all just flows from there.

Quoted for truth, but on this note, without lying there would be no fiction. Do you really want a world without...oh, I don't know...8BT? That and I don't know if we can say that lying is man-made invention. I could tentatively say that animals who use lures, camoflage, mimicry, etc. are in a sense lying. Still, in spite of this, I would agree that lying is right up there on bad inventions.

"When a man lies he murders a part of the world." - Merlin from the moive Excalibur (cool voice when he says it too)