Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

What will our generation frown upon, that our grandchildren will find acceptable? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jimbo007)
    I don't believe you would; People sometimes decide against a certain career path because of the lack of pay. The system would encourage people to do what they job they would enjoy most, as all jobs would be reasonably well paid.

    I didn't say that, I defiantly addressed this point earlier. Uhhh, one crucial aspect of Marxism is that if the public want something changing within government infrastructure, there is a vote on it (Marxism suggests an extension on current democracy), therefore if future generations were unhappy, there would be further implementation of democracy.

    I think most people would admit Communism is a great idea in theory, but not practical in the current world we live in.
    Well I'd disagree because you'd have a lot of people like me who don't know what they want to do so they'd take what was well paid. Your theory is just that without anything to back it up.

    Regardless of my second point about younger generations can you not see how impractical it is to try and get everyone to suggest a figure for what every single different job role should earn and then count it up and work out an average? Organising one election is time consuming enough, this would be like having an election a day for a few years.

    It's a nice idea for the poor a horrible idea for the wealthiest half of society


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    Well I'd disagree because you'd have a lot of people like me who don't know what they want to do so they'd take what was well paid. Your theory is just that without anything to back it up.

    Regardless of my second point about younger generations can you not see how impractical it is to try and get everyone to suggest a figure for what every single different job role should earn and then count it up and work out an average? Organising one election is time consuming enough, this would be like having an election a day for a few years.

    It's a nice idea for the poor a horrible idea for the wealthiest half of society


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    I think most people would agree communism is a good idea in principle. Just because of the sheer number of people who are currently in poverty.

    Nobody who would benefit from communism is likely to complain, only people who make a loss. And I think more people would make a gain than a loss.

    Plus some people who would make a loss would also agree it's a good idea in principle

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    Well I'd disagree because you'd have a lot of people like me who don't know what they want to do so they'd take what was well paid. Your theory is just that without anything to back it up.

    Regardless of my second point about younger generations can you not see how impractical it is to try and get everyone to suggest a figure for what every single different job role should earn and then count it up and work out an average? Organising one election is time consuming enough, this would be like having an election a day for a few years.

    It's a nice idea for the poor a horrible idea for the wealthiest half of society


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I can agree with what you're arguing to an extent, however there ARE people out there (maybe a small figure, I don't know) who decide not to do a fulfilling job as it means little pay, this system would to some extent eradicate that problem. Undoubtedly many would pursue higher paying jobs, but these jobs would be crucial ones to society for instance doctors or teachers so the high demand would be beneficial as the best of a large supply of labourers could be put in these crucial professions.

    Firstly, as I said in an earlier post; wages wouldn't necessarily be decided for every job, but a formula of wages could be created based on what society thinks is deserving of a high paying job I.e. the more benefit to society the job has, the higher pay it should have and so on. This system would be inconvenient, that doesn't mean it couldn't, or shouldn't be done. It's inconvenient for society to develop at all, it's much easier to just leave it as it is, but people see societal development as more important than 'convenience'. Also, more efficient democratic processes could be made.

    First, I'd say its more a nice idea for the 90% and a horrible one for the richest 10%. Also, people often overlook the other benefits of an idealist Marxist society: Less working hours, more time invested in hobbies and arts, encouragement to live a fulfilling life and not surrender to the 'rat race' etc. so in theory a Marxist society would benefit everyone ( NOT in monetary terms, but in 'fulfilment' etc.). At the moment people embrace capitalism because of the possible material and pecuniary benefits it gives them, however they don't consider overall happiness. Perhaps human nature will evolve to become less concerned about money and possessions and more concerned about fulfilment and equality, perhaps not.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jimbo007)
    I can agree with what you're arguing to an extent, however there ARE people out there (maybe a small figure, I don't know) who decide not to do a fulfilling job as it means little pay, this system would to some extent eradicate that problem. Undoubtedly many would pursue higher paying jobs, but these jobs would be crucial ones to society for instance doctors or teachers so the high demand would be beneficial as the best of a large supply of labourers could be put in these crucial professions.

    Firstly, as I said in an earlier post; wages wouldn't necessarily be decided for every job, but a formula of wages could be created based on what society thinks is deserving of a high paying job I.e. the more benefit to society the job has, the higher pay it should have and so on. This system would be inconvenient, that doesn't mean it couldn't, or shouldn't be done. It's inconvenient for society to develop at all, it's much easier to just leave it as it is, but people see societal development as more important than 'convenience'. Also, more efficient democratic processes could be made.

    First, I'd say its more a nice idea for the 90% and a horrible one for the richest 10%. Also, people often overlook the other benefits of an idealist Marxist society: Less working hours, more time invested in hobbies and arts, encouragement to live a fulfilling life and not surrender to the 'rat race' etc. so in theory a Marxist society would benefit everyone ( NOT in monetary terms, but in 'fulfilment' etc.). At the moment people embrace capitalism because of the possible material and pecuniary benefits it gives them, however they don't consider overall happiness. Perhaps human nature will evolve to become less concerned about money and possessions and more concerned about fulfilment and equality, perhaps not.
    To me what you suggest just sounds like a poorly knitted jumper; not very good with lots of holes in. I would much prefer a world where it is entirely possible for someone who starts off poor to become rich and vice versa, where there are several tiers of personal wealth, it's essentially social Darwinism


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    To me what you suggest just sounds like a poorly knitted jumper; not very good with lots of holes in. I would much prefer a world where it is entirely possible for someone who starts off poor to become rich and vice versa, where there are several tiers of personal wealth, it's essentially social Darwinism


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The system we have is certainly the most convenient I can think of. What we have is a watered down version of social Darwinism, which is fundamentally what we see in all species, therefore people argue it is the best system. However, why be content with a system that has such huge flaws and crippling inequalities; it is NOT feasibly possible for a kid born in rural Africa where they have no education, water, food etc. to become rich. Therefore it isn't survival of the fittest, but survival of those born in a developed country preferably with rich parents.

    I'm not necessarily saying Marxism is the answer, what I'm arguing is don't be content with a system that is unfair because it fits into our convenience and our animal nature. We have an imperfect society, why settle for that? Why not strive for improving society?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    My biggest bet (or at least hope) is about children. I think one day our descendants will look back on some of the authoritarian attitudes we have towards children now with horror and disgust.

    I think anti-drug sentiment will probably die down with the years.

    Not that we so much "frown on" it as such today, but I think things like intellectual property are dead in the water and governments trying to keep them are fighting a losing battle.

    Ditto the state trying to control immigration.

    While (rightly) remaining critical, I think our grandchildren will judge Gerry Adams/Sinn Fein/Provisional IRA more kindly than the current generation do.

    Probably will take a little longer than 2 generations, but I reckon at some point in the next century or two people the way we use surnames will change (I think they'll be less fixed, and be more about personal significance than family links).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I would rather be dead than see the next generations tbh. Put it this way, if I lived a 100 years ago and saw the current generation as it is today, I would want to die.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tom_Ford)
    I would rather be dead than see the next generations tbh. Put it this way, if I lived a 100 years ago and saw the current generation as it is today, I would want to die.
    Good job you'd probably be at the front then...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Good job you'd probably be at the front then...
    :lol:
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Quady)
    I tend to round the cost of a taxi or haircut up, and I thought a 10% tip in a restaurant was customary - no?
    In the US or an American abroad it's usual also it's 12.5% to 20% depending on location and how much the meal is, 10% is just a slap in the face. As one of my friends said, 5-10% was for bad service, 12.5-20% is for normal service and 20%+ is for excellent service.

    Rounding up a taxi ride is different to tipping.

    I only tip when I'm in NYC or LA, in LA when I go from LAX to where I'm staying, I generally tip $5 on top of a rounded fare which ends up at 15% (usually). That said I'm usually like "keep the change" to most depending on journey, I did accidentally tip $80 at a bar once but in fairness, I got served instantly the entire night after that :lol:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    We'll probably end up living in a society where you're considered a bigot for thinking beastiality and peadophilis are wrong, seems to be heading that way.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hau28)
    We'll probably end up living in a society where you're considered a bigot for thinking beastiality and peadophilis are wrong, seems to be heading that way.
    Given that we recognise that neither children nor animals can consent to sex, I don't see it. I don't see the neuroscience changing either.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jimbo007)
    The system we have is certainly the most convenient I can think of. What we have is a watered down version of social Darwinism, which is fundamentally what we see in all species, therefore people argue it is the best system. However, why be content with a system that has such huge flaws and crippling inequalities; it is NOT feasibly possible for a kid born in rural Africa where they have no education, water, food etc. to become rich. Therefore it isn't survival of the fittest, but survival of those born in a developed country preferably with rich parents.

    I'm not necessarily saying Marxism is the answer, what I'm arguing is don't be content with a system that is unfair because it fits into our convenience and our animal nature. We have an imperfect society, why settle for that? Why not strive for improving society?
    That is essentially survival of the fittest. The 'fittest' are those born into circumstances which make them most likely to thrive and besides our political system is going to do little to help people in Zimbabwe living under a corrupt government, helping those people is a separate issue.

    As of yet no one has come up with a better system, I'm happy to consider another system but as of yet I haven't heard anything that's even comparable


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Designer babies.

    Overpopulation will incentivise parents to only have one child with certain desired features. Mainly due to the increased cost of raising a child.


    Speaking with reference to the next ~100 years, I predict that universities as we know them will not exist.

    Instead more specialized schools will be built where 16-17 year olds decide on a profession earlier on in high school and will therefore study only a select group of specialized subject ( far more specialized than now), culminating in a final exam that will determine their entry into their chosen school.

    .

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hau28)
    We'll probably end up living in a society where you're considered a bigot for thinking beastiality and peadophilis are wrong, seems to be heading that way.
    This. There will be a double standard shown towards bestiality in that animals consent implicitly by taking part in the act. Necrophilia will be accepted because corpses are just realistic sex dolls with no soul or senses. Incest will be accepted because people are lazy and their brother/sister/father/mother are just "there". Paedophillia might take a little longer, but Gawker are working on it.

    We must not judge! We are all equal!

    This is all against the better judgement of every generation that came before us. We are slowly becoming less and less civil.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    This. There will be a double standard shown towards bestiality in that animals consent implicitly by taking part in the act. Necrophilia will be accepted because corpses are just realistic sex dolls with no soul or senses. Incest will be accepted because people are lazy and their brother/sister/father/mother are just "there". Paedophillia might take a little longer, but Gawker are working on it.

    We must not judge! We are all equal!

    This is all against the better judgement of every generation that came before us. We are slowly becoming less and less civil.
    I suppose the first step in this descent towards chaos was the acceptance of homosexuality :rolleyes:

    Why are you under the ludicrous impression that previous generations were more civilized than us?

    I suppose you think that enslaving a continent was a "better judgment" than tolerating the private sexual affairs of your neighbors.

    The fact that you even conflate the acceptance of pedophilia with the notion of a progressing society shows how close minded you are.

    Fortunately, minds like yours are an endangered kind, that will soon be eradicated due the prevalence of an increasingly. educated population.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xenorebrem)
    I suppose the first step in this descent towards chaos was the acceptance of homosexuality :rolleyes:

    Why are you under the ludicrous impression that previous generations were more civilized than us?

    Fortunately, minds like yours are an endangered kind, that will soon be eradicated due the prevalence of an increasingly. educated population.
    http://gawker.com/5941037/born-this-...ium=socialflow

    http://www.theamericanconservative.c...rk-bestiality/

    I wasn't joking. This is the progressive ideology; the ideology of equality and liberation. You need to open your eyes. Progress is tolerance, comrade!


    "e̶d̶u̶c̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ indoctrinated" <- fixed.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Feudalism ticks the box, as do others that pre-dated capitalism. In the days of feudalism, capitalism wasn't even a concept, how can you discount the idea that there is another system we don't yet know of that we would move to?
    It's already been done...because of the Russia, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Cuban revolutions.

    History isn't linear, or the same for all countries. In fact, that is quite the idea of Marxist history, especially with the idea that the entire human history can be divided up into four epochs (Ancient, Fuedal, Capitalistic, Socialistic)

    The idea of changes in the methods of production were brought about due to changes in relations of production and due to productive forces to move from one of the four epochs, bringing about new ruling classes) is not a new one.

    Marxist history was fundamentally compromised by the fall of the USSR, to a point where it doesn't work.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammy4041)
    It's already been done...because of the Russia, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Cuban revolutions.

    History isn't linear, or the same for all countries. In fact, that is quite the idea of Marxist history, especially with the idea that the entire human history can be divided up into four epochs (Ancient, Fuedal, Capitalistic, Socialistic)

    The idea of changes in the methods of production were brought about due to changes in relations of production and due to productive forces to move from one of the four epochs, bringing about new ruling classes) is not a new one.

    Marxist history was fundamentally compromised by the fall of the USSR, to a point where it doesn't work.
    ok...?

    Did I ask?

    Or learn anything there?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    "...how can you discount the idea that there is another system we don't yet know of that we would move to?"

    Marx had that idea about 150 years ago. Which was my point. But it's not a view that I would agree with.

    Things are not linear. It's not a steady progression from 'not frowned upon' to 'frowned upon'...

    Some things become taboo, become harmless and taboo again. Some things also shift from not being frowned upon to being frowned upon to not frown upon.

    OT, my guess would be something like marijuana or something.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.