Blame use of CPI for low interest rates

masonic

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2001/08/02/the-truth-about-the-environment&ved=2ahUKEwjL9vrxuYrcAhVFKlAKHeJtAQIQFjABegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0uK8iF1hRW5WsAyguX5FEC

This is why statisticians shouldn't venture into science. Even if they are trying to sell their book. I suppose if you have to go back almost 20 years to find someone whose opinion you agree with, that probably tells you something.

ValiantSon

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

I do believe in global warming but I don't think it really matters if half the species on the planet and a few archipelagos dissapear

Time to start reading some biology textbooks then!

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Mankind still can't find peace, still commits horrible crimes at home sometimes, even though we know better deep down, we are flawed- ideas like gravity and evolution and round earth or free market struggled due to biases, so once again where mankind doesn't want to believe something it won't. Today we still struggle with left wingers and active investors

1. Gravity is a demonstrable law of physics.
2. Evolution is a theory, for which a corpus of evidence exists, that suggests it is correct.
3. The Earth being round (not exactly a sphere, however) is another demonstrable fact.
4. The benefit of free markets is debatable, and completely different from the two facts and one well-established theory in your list.

Stop comparing apples and oranges.

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

and before the industrial revolution mankind did not very much for quite a while.

Looks like you could do with reading quite a bit of history, in addition to the biology.

System

Valiant - I believe in all those 4 things but my point I'd those ideas were not quickly accepted by humanity - just because something is true/has strong evidence (even when it does) it is still slow to gain traction

You have to think, why did it take centuries to come up with the computer?

ValiantSon

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Valiant - I believe in all those 4 things but my point I'd those ideas were not quickly accepted by humanity - just because something is true/has strong evidence (even when it does) it is still slow to gain traction

You have to think, why did it take centuries to come up with the computer?

You are still comparing apples with oranges.

You don't seem to understand how technology advances. There is no universal ideal that is, "the computer". Millenia (not centuries) of human civilisation resulted in numerous advances, with each generation building on the achievements of their forbears. It has nothing to do with an idea gaining traction, and it also has nothing to do with your unsubstantiated theory about the metric used to measure inflation affecting interest rates.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." - Sir Isaac Newton, 1675

Oh, and you still need to read lots of history and biology, as your comments clearly show sizeable gaps in your knowledge relating to how civilization has developed, and the impact on the eco-system of the loss of, "half the species on the planet and a few archipelagos disappear[ing]."

System

Mankind wasted a lot of time building monuments, fighting wars, etc, and a lack of social mobility meant ideas would only be considered if they came from nobility, people back then didn't see a need to develop and religion was used to make serfdom more paletable

Specifics/ semantics take too long

antrobus

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Mankind wasted a lot of time building monuments, fighting wars, etc, and a lack of social mobility meant ideas would only be considered if they came from nobility, people back then didn't see a need to develop and religion was used to make serfdom more paletable

Specifics/ semantics take too long

Not one second of time has every been wasted on education. Eons have been squandered on idle speculation.

I'd suggest you devote your time to the former rather than the latter.

ValiantSon

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Mankind wasted a lot of time building monuments, fighting wars, etc, and a lack of social mobility meant ideas would only be considered if they came from nobility, people back then didn't see a need to develop and religion was used to make serfdom more paletable

Wrong on so many levels. I am a historian, and I have to tell you that you are making so many assumptions that your comment has no credibility. To illustrate a point, there was no serfdom in England before the Norman Invasion, and religion was not used to make serfdom more palatable.

Why do you think, "building monuments" was a waste of time? Do you really think that we don't still build monuments?

Do you think that we no longer have wars? The last century has been one of the most violent in history.

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Specifics/ semantics take too long

Eh?

Sapphire

ValiantSon wrote: »

Millenia (not centuries) of human civilisation resulted in numerous advances, with each generation building on the achievements of their forbears. It has nothing to do with an idea gaining traction, and it also has nothing to do with your unsubstantiated theory about the metric used to measure inflation affecting interest rates.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." - Sir Isaac Newton, 1675

Oh, and you still need to read lots of history and biology, as your comments clearly show sizeable gaps in your knowledge relating to how civilization has developed, and the impact on the eco-system of the loss of, "half the species on the planet and a few archipelagos disappear[ing]."

With regard to the 'numerous advances of human civilisation, with each generation building on the achievements of its own forbears', I would say this is true of the history of our society, which took a couple of painstaking millennia to get to where it is now. However, that it is not the case in many other parts of the world, which appear to be 'stuck in a rut' and not benefitting much from the 'building' of their own achievements, for whatever reason (climate and the resulting natural environment, geology, religion, traditions linked to those things, and so on, all interrelated). If you look at the Aboriginals of Australia, they existed without 'advancing' for millennia, since they were limited by their natural environment from doing so, and didn't really need to 'develop'. 'Advancements' have generally come about from competition between clans, tribes, city-states and so on (vying for diminishing resources, especially due human populations outgrowing their habitats, has been a driving force behind such competition). I don't think the human species has changed to alter the basic 'tribal' drive of humanity, however much we, in our currently cosseted society, may try to convince ourselves that it has.

Also, I do believe that history seems cyclical rather than linear. All great civilisations fall. I somehow don't think that our own civilisation is immune to a fall, however improbable that may currently seem to many in our society. Decadence and probably complacency generally precede falls in human civilisations, and there is some evidence of those things in our society.

Agree with your final paragraph.

ValiantSon

Sapphire wrote: »

With regard to the 'numerous advances of human civilisation, with each generation building on the achievements of its own forbears', I would say this is true of the history of our society, which took a couple of painstaking millennia to get to where it is now. However, that it is not the case in many other parts of the world, which appear to be 'stuck in a rut' and not benefitting much from the 'building' of their own achievements, for whatever reason (climate and the resulting natural environment, geology, religion, traditions linked to those things, and so on, all interrelated).

Your analysis is anglo-centric. You have ignored the fact civilization developed in Asia and Africa before it did in Europe. I didn't actually say anything about geo-specific civilizations, I talked about human civilization as a whole.

Are you really suggesting that your so-called, "stuck in a rut" societies are not civilised? Or are you suggesting that there has been no technical advances coming from within them? That would also be wrong.

Sapphire wrote: »

If you look at the Aboriginals of Australia, they existed without 'advancing' for millennia, since they were limited by their natural environment from doing so, and didn't really need to 'develop'. 'Advancements' have generally come about from competition between clans, tribes, city-states and so on (vying for diminishing resources, especially due human populations outgrowing their habitats, has been a driving force behind such competition). I don't think the human species has changed to alter the basic 'tribal' drive of humanity, however much we, in our currently cosseted society, may try to convince ourselves that it has.

Hmmm, you're getting dangerously close to representing the idea of the 'white man's burden'. Aboriginal society was civilized; technical advancement and civilzation are not the same thing.

You'll find that a number of major developments have nothing to do with clan/tribal/national rivalries. For example, the printing press is the product of ingenuity divorced from these supposed pressure, so too is Newton's Principia Mathematica, Einstein's theory of relativity and the corpus of works (Planck, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Born) that established quantum mechanics. While such competing agencies (a more accurate and inclusive historical term) as you hint at do have relevance, they are not the only method of affecting change. Causation is complex and myriad in its forms.

Sapphire wrote: »

Also, I do believe that history seems cyclical rather than linear.

No, history is not cyclical. This is one of the great myths, but neither is it linear. Linear history would suggest progress, in the mould of the Whig view, but this has frequently been demonstrated to be false. Cyclical history fails to appreciate the unique characteristics of all events and socities, and instead opts to draw superficial comparisons to reach a flawed view.

Sapphire wrote: »

All great civilisations fall. I somehow don't think that our own civilisation is immune to a fall, however improbable that may currently seem to many in our society. Decadence and probably complacency generally precede falls in human civilisations, and there is some evidence of those things in our society.

I haven't actually argued anything to do with this.

I do, however, take exception to the idea of, "great civilizations" as this is a pejorative view.

Sapphire

Your analysis is anglo-centric. You have ignored the fact civilization developed in Asia and Africa before it did in Europe. I didn't actually say anything about geo-specific civilizations, I talked about human civilization as a whole.

No, my broad statement is not 'anglo-centric'. By our society, I meant European civilisation, including 'anglo civilisation'. There were many civilisations in human history and prehistory, and each one was different and unique. I don't think you can talk about 'human civilisation as a whole'. I know full well that civilisations (in the form of city-states rather than nations) developed in the Near East (Mesopotamia and Anatolia) and in India, for example (the Harappans) several millennia before ours. I've studied the former and have been involved in its archaeology so know a fair amount about it. There is too little known about the Harappans to form many conclusions about them.

Are you really suggesting that your so-called, "stuck in a rut" societies are not civilised? Or are you suggesting that there has been no technical advances coming from within them? That would also be wrong.

Really? Some do not seem to have produced many 'technical advances'.

Hmmm, you're getting dangerously close to representing the idea of the 'white man's burden'. Aboriginal society was civilized; technical advancement and civilzation are not the same thing.

What are you talking about? I mentioned nothing about Australian Aboriginals and 'white men' and any 'burden'. I was merely talking about how the Aboriginal societies of Australia had remained at a certain level because they did not need to 'progress' and lived in harmony and balance within their environment. They had their own culture, with myths and legends passed down through elders that are thought by eminent geoscientists to describe geological events millennia ago, long before the development of writing some 2,000 years ago in some other parts of the world.

No, history is not cyclical. This is one of the great myths, but neither is it linear. Linear history would suggest progress, in the mould of the Whig view, but this has frequently been demonstrated to be false. Cyclical history fails to appreciate the unique characteristics of all events and socities, and instead opts to draw superficial comparisons to reach a flawed view.

And many would disagree with this view, but this is too complex an issue to be tackled here.

I do, however, take exception to the idea of, "great civilizations".

In many people's view, though obviously not in yours, a 'great civilisation' can easily be characterised as such by the 'advances' it leaves behind (architecture, artefacts, visual imagery and so on). But again, too complex an issue to be tackled here.