https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020...the-future

Our society has been declining since the 60s is the thesis of the book. Don't really agree with the prognosis, but its an interesting read.

"When Boeing introduced its flagship 707 jet airliner in 1958, the power to cruise at 977 kilometers per hour did more than enable routine transcontinental commercial flights. It fed the optimistic self-understanding of a society proud to have entered the Jet Age. More than sixty years later, we are not moving any faster. Boeing’s latest plane, the 737 MAX, has a cruising speed of just 839 kilometers per hour—to say nothing of its more catastrophic limitations.

The since-retired 707 was a success. The new MAX looks like a failure. As for the 747 jumbo jets that we are still flying today fifty years after their 1969 debut, they are a sign of what Ross Douthat calls decadence. By “decadence” he does not mean delicious sensuality or over-the-top indulgence (think Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate dancing mid-flight in the upper-deck cocktail bar of a 747 in last year’s Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood) but stagnation and complacency, a dissipation of creative energy, a jaded will merely to muddle through...."

I agree and disagree. We have seemed to have moved past "major" innovation to a certain degree and shifted our focus to rapid small scale innovation, IMO due to the hyper short attention span of modern society. Example would be that the smart phone was a huge technological advance, but do we need a possibly slighter better model every year? Honestly, Elon Musk, who I think is 50% carnival barker, is one of the few out there that is dreaming big.

We have been in spiritual decline since the late 60's. We took God out of the schools, now push atheism as the government sponsored religion.

According to the description and details of a society in decline in the NT, we are in the latter stages of it. The latter stages are easily identified as the sexual/gender confusion and glorification of LGBTQ lifestyles and values.

Its actually God Himself who keeps a hedge pf protection against the people falling into a collected depraved mind and spirit. As we pull away from Him and don't repent, He pulls back the hedge of protected more and more. The further and faster we slip into depravity and immorality.

We are so far along this path now that most people here would read this comment with an eye roll or laugh. Even though these facts are totally obvious an undeniable, people are so blinded and comfortable with things now they have totally blinded themselves to the obvious. Most now think we actually came from monkeys and the entire universe just blinked into existence from nothingness for no reason at all. And this is considered logical and enlightened.

Even most Christians today are far, FAR more excited at the thought of meeting little green men from outer space than their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. How far we have fallen.

God help us.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." - Proverbs 1:7


People today do not fear God, they instead mock Him and pretend He does not even exist.


"A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings." Proverbs 1:5-6

"Incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God. For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: Prov 2


Despite being more educated and the Word being more readily available than any previous generation ever, most Christians today have little interest in what God tells us in the Bible. Most simple want to be able to say they are in the club and just make up the rest as they go.

They have all the time in the world to stare at facebook and other social media sites, binge watch their favorite TV shows, video games and music but have no time at all to seek God and His eternal Words to us. They have no interest in it at all.

They will say God is first and foremost in their lives, but they couldn't tell you the most back elementary things the NT teaches or where they are at in the Bible. But they could go miles deep and hours long on Star wars/LOR/GOT lore or countless other TV shows and moves, and could talk for hours about the details of their favorite game or musics artists, or politics. Ask them something as elementary as where the Gospel is stated in the Bible and they are clueless.

(03-07-2020 10:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020...the-future

Our society has been declining since the 60s is the thesis of the book. Don't really agree with the prognosis, but its an interesting read.

"When Boeing introduced its flagship 707 jet airliner in 1958, the power to cruise at 977 kilometers per hour did more than enable routine transcontinental commercial flights. It fed the optimistic self-understanding of a society proud to have entered the Jet Age. More than sixty years later, we are not moving any faster. Boeing’s latest plane, the 737 MAX, has a cruising speed of just 839 kilometers per hour—to say nothing of its more catastrophic limitations.

The since-retired 707 was a success. The new MAX looks like a failure. As for the 747 jumbo jets that we are still flying today fifty years after their 1969 debut, they are a sign of what Ross Douthat calls decadence. By “decadence” he does not mean delicious sensuality or over-the-top indulgence (think Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate dancing mid-flight in the upper-deck cocktail bar of a 747 in last year’s Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood) but stagnation and complacency, a dissipation of creative energy, a jaded will merely to muddle through...."

Well the 707 and later beefed up 747 are really just retooled B52's. Have we really improved upon that aircraft? Look at its longevity and usefulness.

When the briefly put the Missouri back into operation it had one massive advantage over the nuclear navy. A cruise missile would have a hard time sinking it. The armor plating was just too thick. It was good weapons platform for what it was designed for, but only its mission was outdated. The Brits learned this lesson in the Falklands when they lost an aircraft carrier.

So toss in the Apollo 11 and the subsequent Moon Landings and other than putting a rover on Mars what exactly have we done?

I expect to get some hate for what I'm about to say but think about it before responding:

We know we live in a finite solar system with a sun that will go supernova when it runs out of fuel, and that we are subject to E.L.E. events with comets, asteroids, and other possibly rogue planets which have escaped their orbits. We also know that super volcanic eruptions can lead to extinction. Therefore it only seems prudent as a species that we should always be working toward viability in space with the ability to overcome distances and the issues of interstellar logistics for the preservation of the species. God did give us a brain and told us to be good stewards of this earth and I believe implied in that directive is the command to be good stewards of life in general and if God created the earth and people then God also created all of the heavens and in it is implied permission to travel space and to advance the species.

Now the part that some people won't like. Nature teaches us that life advances and survives with the most able of any species. Any effort and time we waste being concerned with the least developed of our cultures, or the slowest of our species, is an impediment to the ultimate survival of it. We need charity and care for all who need assistance, but we must travel in all areas of endeavor at the speed of the most able because upon their shoulders rests survival.

God could come at any time. But until God does the burden of advancing humanity rests solely with us.

IMO, we will continue to devolve until a massive crisis makes us stare into the face of extinction and only then we will advance again at the speed of the brightest and best. The Plague begat the Renaissance. Only when humanity is faced with death and hardship does it exalt innovation in all areas of life and give itself to move past its superstitious thinking which define as man corrupting God's directives.

(03-07-2020 10:44 PM)banker Wrote:  I agree and disagree. We have seemed to have moved past "major" innovation to a certain degree and shifted our focus to rapid small scale innovation, IMO due to the hyper short attention span of modern society. Example would be that the smart phone was a huge technological advance, but do we need a possibly slighter better model every year? Honestly, Elon Musk, who I think is 50% carnival barker, is one of the few out there that is dreaming big.

I think its more economics and public griping.

Back in the early 1960's---flying was still largely for the well to do and the businessman. Bigger jets like the 747 allowed for more seats. Cutting down on the space between aisles and the width of chairs allowed for even more seats. These extra seats lowered the per-seat price and really opened up flying up for the masses.

The other reason planes arent faster is the public griped about it. Any plane going faster than 767mph is going to cause a sonic boom. People dont like those. The Concord basically could only fly fast over the ocean. Everywhere else (as in over land) it flew at slower sub-sonic speeds to avoid window rattling sonic booms. Thus, it was no different from most other airliners on many overland routes. The airlines came to the conclusion that more speed would really only be useable on certain limited routes.

For there to be another leap forward in speed that also fits with modern airline economics----you'd need a big plane that flys really fast while being very fuel efficient--without causing a sonic boom. Otherwise, it doesnt really work on the profit and loss side of the business (at least it didnt work for the Concord).

Collectively, the airline industry hasn't made money since the 1978 act that deregulated the industry. Southwest does well, but every traditional large carrier has either gone under, been bought out under distress, or filed bankruptcy several times. It's a make a billion, lose a billion business.

(03-08-2020 01:06 AM)banker Wrote:  Collectively, the airline industry hasn't made money since the 1978 act that deregulated the industry. Southwest does well, but every traditional large carrier has either gone under, been bought out under distress, or filed bankruptcy several times. It's a make a billion, lose a billion business.

That was kind of what I was getting at---the airliners arent very different because it a very expensive technologically advanced liner that goes very fast, carries relatively few people, and burns a crap load of fuel probably wont make the airlines any money.

That said---the OP has a point. We connected the Great Lakes with canals. We built a railroad across the American wilderness to connect a nation. We built the Panama Canal---digging across a friggin' continent---connecting the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. We sent men into space and landed on the moon. We cured Polio and largely defeated bacteria and many viruses. We developed a artery opening procedures to save people from heart disease---and when that wasnt enough learned how to actually replace a heart--or even replace parts of it.

We made a huge leap in connectivity with the internet. But lately---leaps in technology have been more about the next iphone or the next big "app". Hell---even Apple seems to be running out of ideas to improve the iphone. It seems all they can think to do is add new cameras.

We arent really doing "big" things anymore.....and I have to say---I dont know why. Perhaps the OP is on to something. On the other hand---maybe its because we spent eleventy trillion dollars fighting the cold war---and then another eleventy trillion on the war on terror. Imagine if that money had been aimed at some other "big" project.

Airlines aside, I'd argue that there is simply less competition for the big boys in the private sector. Newer tech companies usually just get bought up and absorbed by the large companies. We're in a new age of monopolies. Less intense competition = less need to come up with that next big break. Companies are trying to create slightly better tech with the hopes Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook etc will buy them out. Keep churning out the same thing as long as it is making you money, which it is.

Quote:We arent really doing "big" things anymore.....and I have to say---I dont know why. Perhaps the OP is on to something. On the other hand---maybe its because we spent eleventy trillion dollars fighting the cold war---and then another eleventy trillion on the war on terror. Imagine if that money had been aimed at some other "big" project.

I agree with that, though there are some outliers. At this point it is going to take some of the world's richest people simply pushing society along because they want to, or some sort of imminent threat


On the other side of that, a few decades isn't that long in the grand scheme of not having done big things.

I wouldn't go so far as to say we are a decadent society. We have always had a pioneering, entrepreneurial attitude, and we still have our entrepreneurial successes--Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Sam Walton, and others come to mind. And we are just ornery enough that when Richard Nixon gave us the 55 mph speed limit, we learned how to use DB radios. But we are losing some of our entrepreneurial, pioneering edge.

I see two things that I think contribute:
1) We used to see great success as something to be celebrated, now we see it more as some sort of exploitation to be taxed. I can remember when I was in school, we were always taught to strive for success, to stand out from the crowd. Now the schools seem to be teaching "tallest daisy syndrome," that anyone who succeeds needs to be brought down for the sake of "equality."
2) We don't have much of a safety net for those who risk and fail. I remember hearing Sir Richard Branson speak at an event I attended, and he made the point that the existence of NHS made it seem less risky for him to take the chances he needed to take to start Virgin.

In other words, we increase the risk and decrease the reward. My approach would be a combination of:
1) a comprehensive safety net comprised of a) a subsistence-level universal basic income (UBI), based either on Milton Friedman's negative income tax (NIT) or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, which is the NIT adapted to a consumption tax environment, and b) the Bismarck universal private health care/insurance model. This would seriously mitigate the risk.
2) paid for by a combination of flat taxes and a consumption tax, set at a level to generate sufficient tax revenues to balance the budget.

Along with those things would come a number of other things I'd like to see done--multiple tracks in secondary education to challenge every level from our brightest and best to those who struggle, a more robust vocational education system up through at least community college level to train the people we need to operate a more competitive economy, leaner and meaner national defense (with the emphasis on both leaner and meaner) that we never have to use because nobody dares pick a fight with us and we don't go around picking on them, and a replacement foreign policy instead of the Bretton Woods paradigm that has been out of date since the Berlin Wall fell.

(03-08-2020 12:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 10:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020...the-future

Our society has been declining since the 60s is the thesis of the book. Don't really agree with the prognosis, but its an interesting read.

"When Boeing introduced its flagship 707 jet airliner in 1958, the power to cruise at 977 kilometers per hour did more than enable routine transcontinental commercial flights. It fed the optimistic self-understanding of a society proud to have entered the Jet Age. More than sixty years later, we are not moving any faster. Boeing’s latest plane, the 737 MAX, has a cruising speed of just 839 kilometers per hour—to say nothing of its more catastrophic limitations.

The since-retired 707 was a success. The new MAX looks like a failure. As for the 747 jumbo jets that we are still flying today fifty years after their 1969 debut, they are a sign of what Ross Douthat calls decadence. By “decadence” he does not mean delicious sensuality or over-the-top indulgence (think Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate dancing mid-flight in the upper-deck cocktail bar of a 747 in last year’s Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood) but stagnation and complacency, a dissipation of creative energy, a jaded will merely to muddle through...."

Well the 707 and later beefed up 747 are really just retooled B52's. Have we really improved upon that aircraft? Look at its longevity and usefulness.

When the briefly put the Missouri back into operation it had one massive advantage over the nuclear navy. A cruise missile would have a hard time sinking it. The armor plating was just too thick. It was good weapons platform for what it was designed for, but only its mission was outdated. The Brits learned this lesson in the Falklands when they lost an aircraft carrier.

So toss in the Apollo 11 and the subsequent Moon Landings and other than putting a rover on Mars what exactly have we done?

I expect to get some hate for what I'm about to say but think about it before responding:

We know we live in a finite solar system with a sun that will go supernova when it runs out of fuel, and that we are subject to E.L.E. events with comets, asteroids, and other possibly rogue planets which have escaped their orbits. We also know that super volcanic eruptions can lead to extinction. Therefore it only seems prudent as a species that we should always be working toward viability in space with the ability to overcome distances and the issues of interstellar logistics for the preservation of the species. God did give us a brain and told us to be good stewards of this earth and I believe implied in that directive is the command to be good stewards of life in general and if God created the earth and people then God also created all of the heavens and in it is implied permission to travel space and to advance the species.

Now the part that some people won't like. Nature teaches us that life advances and survives with the most able of any species. Any effort and time we waste being concerned with the least developed of our cultures, or the slowest of our species, is an impediment to the ultimate survival of it. We need charity and care for all who need assistance, but we must travel in all areas of endeavor at the speed of the most able because upon their shoulders rests survival.

God could come at any time. But until God does the burden of advancing humanity rests solely with us.

IMO, we will continue to devolve until a massive crisis makes us stare into the face of extinction and only then we will advance again at the speed of the brightest and best. The Plague begat the Renaissance. Only when humanity is faced with death and hardship does it exalt innovation in all areas of life and give itself to move past its superstitious thinking which define as man corrupting God's directives.

In line with your last paragraph, notice how often great people are born poor. Sometimes they are born rich and become great with all their advantages. What is unusual for the middle class to become great leaders. They are too comfortable and don't have all the connections and advantages of the rich. The poor are driven by need. The middle class don't "need" it.

In competitive things I did like chess and running, I was driven forward by poor performances, not by good ones. You see that in sports coaches. It is a very rare coach like Nick Saban who doesn't get complacent with success. Our society is complacent.

Planes, Trains, Automobile, are people movers, and while the world hasn't moved much, in the advancement of all 3. We are now able to be in China from America....instantly. All it took was a bunch of 0s and 1s and the world became connected the way no people mover, ever could connect us.

Medical has out smarted mother natural in keeping us alive long passed what we were probably attended to be. So the world has advanced, just not in speed. Those of us that are getting close or already at the point of "get off my lawn" might not see the 0s and 1s as a good thing. Those that are just starting life's journey see's it the same as we look at the Planes, Trains, and Automobile

(03-08-2020 12:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Now the part that some people won't like. Nature teaches us that life advances and survives with the most able of any species. Any effort and time we waste being concerned with the least developed of our cultures, or the slowest of our species, is an impediment to the ultimate survival of it. We need charity and care for all who need assistance, but we must travel in all areas of endeavor at the speed of the most able because upon their shoulders rests survival.

God could come at any time. But until God does the burden of advancing humanity rests solely with us.

IMO, we will continue to devolve until a massive crisis makes us stare into the face of extinction and only then we will advance again at the speed of the brightest and best. The Plague begat the Renaissance. Only when humanity is faced with death and hardship does it exalt innovation in all areas of life and give itself to move past its superstitious thinking which define as man corrupting God's directives.

There is some truth to this. I think people who believe if we just have more scientists we'll get to fusion energy faster are deluded. We weren't the first to get the atom bomb because we had the most scientists. We were first because we had geniuses like Richard Feynman, Enrico Fermi, and John VonNeumann. Those guys were the best of their generation.

On the other hand, I do think a lot of people just assume that technological progress works like climbing a staircase where every step is no higher than the last. That's not true at all. A lot of technologies that people thought we'd have by now are legitimately a lot more challenging to bring about.

I'll use computers as an example. It wasn't that long ago that when you bought a computer it was obsolete within months and processing speed doubled about every year. Now I've got an 8-year-old machine and the CPU is just as fast as the stuff that's on the market today. That's not Intel just getting decadent and not caring about innovation. The problem is that you can't just keep making transistors smaller and smaller forever because eventually if they get small enough quantum effects make them useless. And someone will bring up quantum computing but that's only going to make a narrow scope of computing processes faster. The laws of nature put limits on what kind of technology you can create.

(03-08-2020 09:56 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 12:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Now the part that some people won't like. Nature teaches us that life advances and survives with the most able of any species. Any effort and time we waste being concerned with the least developed of our cultures, or the slowest of our species, is an impediment to the ultimate survival of it. We need charity and care for all who need assistance, but we must travel in all areas of endeavor at the speed of the most able because upon their shoulders rests survival.
God could come at any time. But until God does the burden of advancing humanity rests solely with us.
IMO, we will continue to devolve until a massive crisis makes us stare into the face of extinction and only then we will advance again at the speed of the brightest and best. The Plague begat the Renaissance. Only when humanity is faced with death and hardship does it exalt innovation in all areas of life and give itself to move past its superstitious thinking which define as man corrupting God's directives.

There is some truth to this. I think people who believe if we just have more scientists we'll get to fusion energy faster are deluded. We weren't the first to get the atom bomb because we had the most scientists. We were first because we had geniuses like Richard Feynman, Enrico Fermi, and John VonNeumann. Those guys were the best of their generation.
On the other hand, I do think a lot of people just assume that technological progress works like climbing a staircase where every step is no higher than the last. That's not true at all. A lot of technologies that people thought we'd have by now are legitimately a lot more challenging to bring about.
I'll use computers as an example. It wasn't that long ago that when you bought a computer it was obsolete within months and processing speed doubled about every year. Now I've got an 8-year-old machine and the CPU is just as fast as the stuff that's on the market today. That's not Intel just getting decadent and not caring about innovation. The problem is that you can't just keep making transistors smaller and smaller forever because eventually if they get small enough quantum effects make them useless. And someone will bring up quantum computing but that's only going to make a narrow scope of computing processes faster. The laws of nature put limits on what kind of technology you can create.

The other thing that people forget about with new technologies is scale. Some things that work great inside a lab don't work so great when scaled up for real world use.

(03-08-2020 10:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 09:56 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 12:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Now the part that some people won't like. Nature teaches us that life advances and survives with the most able of any species. Any effort and time we waste being concerned with the least developed of our cultures, or the slowest of our species, is an impediment to the ultimate survival of it. We need charity and care for all who need assistance, but we must travel in all areas of endeavor at the speed of the most able because upon their shoulders rests survival.
God could come at any time. But until God does the burden of advancing humanity rests solely with us.
IMO, we will continue to devolve until a massive crisis makes us stare into the face of extinction and only then we will advance again at the speed of the brightest and best. The Plague begat the Renaissance. Only when humanity is faced with death and hardship does it exalt innovation in all areas of life and give itself to move past its superstitious thinking which define as man corrupting God's directives.

There is some truth to this. I think people who believe if we just have more scientists we'll get to fusion energy faster are deluded. We weren't the first to get the atom bomb because we had the most scientists. We were first because we had geniuses like Richard Feynman, Enrico Fermi, and John VonNeumann. Those guys were the best of their generation.
On the other hand, I do think a lot of people just assume that technological progress works like climbing a staircase where every step is no higher than the last. That's not true at all. A lot of technologies that people thought we'd have by now are legitimately a lot more challenging to bring about.
I'll use computers as an example. It wasn't that long ago that when you bought a computer it was obsolete within months and processing speed doubled about every year. Now I've got an 8-year-old machine and the CPU is just as fast as the stuff that's on the market today. That's not Intel just getting decadent and not caring about innovation. The problem is that you can't just keep making transistors smaller and smaller forever because eventually if they get small enough quantum effects make them useless. And someone will bring up quantum computing but that's only going to make a narrow scope of computing processes faster. The laws of nature put limits on what kind of technology you can create.

The other thing that people forget about with new technologies is scale. Some things that work great inside a lab don't work so great when scaled up for real world use.

At least so far, an example is all that nano-technology that Rice has been researching for 15-20 years since the first "announcements."

Having not read the article, at X altitude an airliner is only going to go so fast. The Concorde flew at 60,000', about double that of an ordinary Airliner, and at a speed of Mach 2. I guess it was a gas guzzler or was too expensive to maintain. That altitude and speed can make sense for intercontinental flights so we might see an Airliner do that again.

We are no better or worse off than before. The problem is that the internet has given the worst parts of all segments of society a voice that they normally did not have.

Also, I find it disingenuous to talk about what America "used to be" when there were some horrible things taking place back then.

I remain hopeful for this country as long as we put ourselves first.

(03-08-2020 09:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 12:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 10:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020...the-future

Our society has been declining since the 60s is the thesis of the book. Don't really agree with the prognosis, but its an interesting read.

"When Boeing introduced its flagship 707 jet airliner in 1958, the power to cruise at 977 kilometers per hour did more than enable routine transcontinental commercial flights. It fed the optimistic self-understanding of a society proud to have entered the Jet Age. More than sixty years later, we are not moving any faster. Boeing’s latest plane, the 737 MAX, has a cruising speed of just 839 kilometers per hour—to say nothing of its more catastrophic limitations.

The since-retired 707 was a success. The new MAX looks like a failure. As for the 747 jumbo jets that we are still flying today fifty years after their 1969 debut, they are a sign of what Ross Douthat calls decadence. By “decadence” he does not mean delicious sensuality or over-the-top indulgence (think Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate dancing mid-flight in the upper-deck cocktail bar of a 747 in last year’s Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood) but stagnation and complacency, a dissipation of creative energy, a jaded will merely to muddle through...."

Well the 707 and later beefed up 747 are really just retooled B52's. Have we really improved upon that aircraft? Look at its longevity and usefulness.

When the briefly put the Missouri back into operation it had one massive advantage over the nuclear navy. A cruise missile would have a hard time sinking it. The armor plating was just too thick. It was good weapons platform for what it was designed for, but only its mission was outdated. The Brits learned this lesson in the Falklands when they lost an aircraft carrier.

So toss in the Apollo 11 and the subsequent Moon Landings and other than putting a rover on Mars what exactly have we done?

I expect to get some hate for what I'm about to say but think about it before responding:

We know we live in a finite solar system with a sun that will go supernova when it runs out of fuel, and that we are subject to E.L.E. events with comets, asteroids, and other possibly rogue planets which have escaped their orbits. We also know that super volcanic eruptions can lead to extinction. Therefore it only seems prudent as a species that we should always be working toward viability in space with the ability to overcome distances and the issues of interstellar logistics for the preservation of the species. God did give us a brain and told us to be good stewards of this earth and I believe implied in that directive is the command to be good stewards of life in general and if God created the earth and people then God also created all of the heavens and in it is implied permission to travel space and to advance the species.

Now the part that some people won't like. Nature teaches us that life advances and survives with the most able of any species. Any effort and time we waste being concerned with the least developed of our cultures, or the slowest of our species, is an impediment to the ultimate survival of it. We need charity and care for all who need assistance, but we must travel in all areas of endeavor at the speed of the most able because upon their shoulders rests survival.

God could come at any time. But until God does the burden of advancing humanity rests solely with us.

IMO, we will continue to devolve until a massive crisis makes us stare into the face of extinction and only then we will advance again at the speed of the brightest and best. The Plague begat the Renaissance. Only when humanity is faced with death and hardship does it exalt innovation in all areas of life and give itself to move past its superstitious thinking which define as man corrupting God's directives.

In line with your last paragraph, notice how often great people are born poor. Sometimes they are born rich and become great with all their advantages. What is unusual for the middle class to become great leaders. They are too comfortable and don't have all the connections and advantages of the rich. The poor are driven by need. The middle class don't "need" it.

In competitive things I did like chess and running, I was driven forward by poor performances, not by good ones. You see that in sports coaches. It is a very rare coach like Nick Saban who doesn't get complacent with success. Our society is complacent.

I think the biggest differences are simple ones. Throughout my education there was one thing that my instructors drilled into our heads, "The pursuit of excellence." That ideal was long ago abandoned for minimum standards.

We no longer strive to make ourselves ever better, we strive to clear the lowest bar so we can advance, but advance towards what? Being slightly better than the dumbest for whom the minimum standards are prepared so they might matriculate and not fail only to clog the system? Adapting to, and thriving from, this low standard are teachers who now benefit from less blowback because so many grades are inflated and so many parents are relieved, at least until the Lohans of the world need to buy their kids into college.

Minimum standards have, and are, dumbing down our society. And that is affecting every other area of our lives. If you don't believe me then I ask you this simple question, "Are you having to waste time correcting the mistakes of others which impact your monthly bills, credit information, hospital records, or any other business relationship or store experience?" I rest my case. I hardly ever had to waste time on any of those until the last 20 years and it's only getting worse and many times because of data entry issues with computer uplinked information which when corrupted is almost impossible to eradicate or universally correct.

(03-08-2020 11:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 09:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 12:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 10:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020...the-future

Our society has been declining since the 60s is the thesis of the book. Don't really agree with the prognosis, but its an interesting read.

"When Boeing introduced its flagship 707 jet airliner in 1958, the power to cruise at 977 kilometers per hour did more than enable routine transcontinental commercial flights. It fed the optimistic self-understanding of a society proud to have entered the Jet Age. More than sixty years later, we are not moving any faster. Boeing’s latest plane, the 737 MAX, has a cruising speed of just 839 kilometers per hour—to say nothing of its more catastrophic limitations.

The since-retired 707 was a success. The new MAX looks like a failure. As for the 747 jumbo jets that we are still flying today fifty years after their 1969 debut, they are a sign of what Ross Douthat calls decadence. By “decadence” he does not mean delicious sensuality or over-the-top indulgence (think Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate dancing mid-flight in the upper-deck cocktail bar of a 747 in last year’s Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood) but stagnation and complacency, a dissipation of creative energy, a jaded will merely to muddle through...."

Well the 707 and later beefed up 747 are really just retooled B52's. Have we really improved upon that aircraft? Look at its longevity and usefulness.

When the briefly put the Missouri back into operation it had one massive advantage over the nuclear navy. A cruise missile would have a hard time sinking it. The armor plating was just too thick. It was good weapons platform for what it was designed for, but only its mission was outdated. The Brits learned this lesson in the Falklands when they lost an aircraft carrier.

So toss in the Apollo 11 and the subsequent Moon Landings and other than putting a rover on Mars what exactly have we done?

I expect to get some hate for what I'm about to say but think about it before responding:

We know we live in a finite solar system with a sun that will go supernova when it runs out of fuel, and that we are subject to E.L.E. events with comets, asteroids, and other possibly rogue planets which have escaped their orbits. We also know that super volcanic eruptions can lead to extinction. Therefore it only seems prudent as a species that we should always be working toward viability in space with the ability to overcome distances and the issues of interstellar logistics for the preservation of the species. God did give us a brain and told us to be good stewards of this earth and I believe implied in that directive is the command to be good stewards of life in general and if God created the earth and people then God also created all of the heavens and in it is implied permission to travel space and to advance the species.

Now the part that some people won't like. Nature teaches us that life advances and survives with the most able of any species. Any effort and time we waste being concerned with the least developed of our cultures, or the slowest of our species, is an impediment to the ultimate survival of it. We need charity and care for all who need assistance, but we must travel in all areas of endeavor at the speed of the most able because upon their shoulders rests survival.

God could come at any time. But until God does the burden of advancing humanity rests solely with us.

IMO, we will continue to devolve until a massive crisis makes us stare into the face of extinction and only then we will advance again at the speed of the brightest and best. The Plague begat the Renaissance. Only when humanity is faced with death and hardship does it exalt innovation in all areas of life and give itself to move past its superstitious thinking which define as man corrupting God's directives.

In line with your last paragraph, notice how often great people are born poor. Sometimes they are born rich and become great with all their advantages. What is unusual for the middle class to become great leaders. They are too comfortable and don't have all the connections and advantages of the rich. The poor are driven by need. The middle class don't "need" it.

In competitive things I did like chess and running, I was driven forward by poor performances, not by good ones. You see that in sports coaches. It is a very rare coach like Nick Saban who doesn't get complacent with success. Our society is complacent.

I think the biggest differences are simple ones. Throughout my education there was one thing that my instructors drilled into our heads, "The pursuit of excellence." That ideal was long ago abandoned for minimum standards.

We no longer strive to make ourselves ever better, we strive to clear the lowest bar so we can advance, but advance towards what? Being slightly better than the dumbest for whom the minimum standards are prepared so they might matriculate and not fail only to clog the system. Adapting to, and thriving from, this low standard are teachers who now benefit from less blowback because so many grades are inflated and so many parents are relieved. At least until the Lohans of the world need to buy their kids into college.

Minimum standards have, and are, dumbing down our society.

in summary, the phrase is "strive to create and promote incentive"....

and relative to the rest of the thread(s) en macro, the law of diminishing was always given relative to time as fewer ops find ze open door....

IMO, what too many whiff is the U.S. is in infrastructural/educational despair with an aging % whose wealth is being siphoned whilst promoting the 'soy factor' as valid....that's right up your 'alley', JR....

8 years of Zero was a fk'n crippler in context...

(03-08-2020 12:12 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 11:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 09:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 12:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 10:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020...the-future

Our society has been declining since the 60s is the thesis of the book. Don't really agree with the prognosis, but its an interesting read.

"When Boeing introduced its flagship 707 jet airliner in 1958, the power to cruise at 977 kilometers per hour did more than enable routine transcontinental commercial flights. It fed the optimistic self-understanding of a society proud to have entered the Jet Age. More than sixty years later, we are not moving any faster. Boeing’s latest plane, the 737 MAX, has a cruising speed of just 839 kilometers per hour—to say nothing of its more catastrophic limitations.

The since-retired 707 was a success. The new MAX looks like a failure. As for the 747 jumbo jets that we are still flying today fifty years after their 1969 debut, they are a sign of what Ross Douthat calls decadence. By “decadence” he does not mean delicious sensuality or over-the-top indulgence (think Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate dancing mid-flight in the upper-deck cocktail bar of a 747 in last year’s Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood) but stagnation and complacency, a dissipation of creative energy, a jaded will merely to muddle through...."

Well the 707 and later beefed up 747 are really just retooled B52's. Have we really improved upon that aircraft? Look at its longevity and usefulness.

When the briefly put the Missouri back into operation it had one massive advantage over the nuclear navy. A cruise missile would have a hard time sinking it. The armor plating was just too thick. It was good weapons platform for what it was designed for, but only its mission was outdated. The Brits learned this lesson in the Falklands when they lost an aircraft carrier.

So toss in the Apollo 11 and the subsequent Moon Landings and other than putting a rover on Mars what exactly have we done?

I expect to get some hate for what I'm about to say but think about it before responding:

We know we live in a finite solar system with a sun that will go supernova when it runs out of fuel, and that we are subject to E.L.E. events with comets, asteroids, and other possibly rogue planets which have escaped their orbits. We also know that super volcanic eruptions can lead to extinction. Therefore it only seems prudent as a species that we should always be working toward viability in space with the ability to overcome distances and the issues of interstellar logistics for the preservation of the species. God did give us a brain and told us to be good stewards of this earth and I believe implied in that directive is the command to be good stewards of life in general and if God created the earth and people then God also created all of the heavens and in it is implied permission to travel space and to advance the species.

Now the part that some people won't like. Nature teaches us that life advances and survives with the most able of any species. Any effort and time we waste being concerned with the least developed of our cultures, or the slowest of our species, is an impediment to the ultimate survival of it. We need charity and care for all who need assistance, but we must travel in all areas of endeavor at the speed of the most able because upon their shoulders rests survival.

God could come at any time. But until God does the burden of advancing humanity rests solely with us.

IMO, we will continue to devolve until a massive crisis makes us stare into the face of extinction and only then we will advance again at the speed of the brightest and best. The Plague begat the Renaissance. Only when humanity is faced with death and hardship does it exalt innovation in all areas of life and give itself to move past its superstitious thinking which define as man corrupting God's directives.

In line with your last paragraph, notice how often great people are born poor. Sometimes they are born rich and become great with all their advantages. What is unusual for the middle class to become great leaders. They are too comfortable and don't have all the connections and advantages of the rich. The poor are driven by need. The middle class don't "need" it.

In competitive things I did like chess and running, I was driven forward by poor performances, not by good ones. You see that in sports coaches. It is a very rare coach like Nick Saban who doesn't get complacent with success. Our society is complacent.

I think the biggest differences are simple ones. Throughout my education there was one thing that my instructors drilled into our heads, "The pursuit of excellence." That ideal was long ago abandoned for minimum standards.

We no longer strive to make ourselves ever better, we strive to clear the lowest bar so we can advance, but advance towards what? Being slightly better than the dumbest for whom the minimum standards are prepared so they might matriculate and not fail only to clog the system. Adapting to, and thriving from, this low standard are teachers who now benefit from less blowback because so many grades are inflated and so many parents are relieved. At least until the Lohans of the world need to buy their kids into college.

Minimum standards have, and are, dumbing down our society.

in summary, the phrase is "strive to create and promote incentive"....

and relative to the rest of the thread(s) en macro, the law of diminishing was always given relative to time as fewer ops find ze open door....

IMO, what too many whiff is the U.S. is in infrastructural/educational despair with an aging % whose wealth is being siphoned whilst promoting the 'soy factor' as valid....that's right up your 'alley', JR....

8 years of Zero was a fk'n crippler in context...

Incentives for my generation:
1. To be able to feed oneself when graduation from the 12th grade meant you were on your own.
2. To be able to provide shelter for oneself and clothe oneself.
3. To have an income sufficient for the acquisition of transportation and enough savings to be able to afford to get married.
4. Enough to have children and get them educated.
5. Enough to be able to lay aside for retirement more savings.

Those have all been destroyed by student loans that students don't believe they actually have to pay back.

Destroyed by parents so cowed that they let 30 year old neerdowells stay at home and eat at the parents table.

Destroyed by government giving housing or providing shelter.

Destroyed by walk away from obligation auto loans.

Destroyed by government who pays for illegitimate children and feeds their mommies as well.

And now destroyed by the attack on marriage in general.

And destroyed because government pays them no matter how much they fail, and gives them free time, since no work is required, to organize gangs, burglarize, steal, rape, and sell drugs to the children of those who do work to pay for their asses through taxes.

If a citizen is going to be on the public dole two things should happen:
1. As long as they live off of the taxes from others they should not be allowed to vote.
2. If they get a check they should be working for 8 hours a day 5 days a week performing some public service.

That way vagrancy laws can go a long way to ending daytime working hours crime.

Why? Because all self determination must begin with the accountability to support at least yourself and acquiring full rights should be the incentive to achieving it.