• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Is western civilisation better than aboriginies of the past? (3 Viewers)

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Will Shakespear said:
yeah but not on an island by themselves

they had to build on the foundations they pinched from the arabs
who had to build on the foundations they pinched from the greeks & indians
etc.

western civilisation on an island alone would probably still be like the vikings
or aborigines
Yeah, and that's pretty true. Civilisation seems to need interaction and competition to go forward - which is why in 40,000 years the Aborigines didn't change much.
 

moll.

Learn to science.
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,545
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Graney said:
20 million people is too many for Australia's carrying capacity.
Agreed.
One-child policy. And not just for Australia. Worldwide.
It would solve so many of the world's problems.
 

Will Shakespear

mumbo magic
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,186
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
moll. said:
Agreed.
One-child policy. And not just for Australia. Worldwide.
It would solve so many of the world's problems.
pretty much

ideally we could sustain the population by skilled migration and have a below-replacement fertility rate

it's a massive injustice that there are decent folk around the world from poor/war torn countries who'd do anything to be let in here, but we pay the worst types in society shitloads just to pump out kids instead
 

ongitsanjali

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
98
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
Kwayera said:
Yeah, and that's pretty true. Civilisation seems to need interaction and competition to go forward - which is why in 40,000 years the Aborigines didn't change much.
but in spite of the fct that they didn't advance technologically or scientifically, they were still content with what they had AND were in sync with nature.

Much as we seem to think that progression is the purpose of our lives, it's not really. As long as people are happy and leading fruitful lives, we're all good. which is something they understood better than us...

i don't really see what's wrong with simplicity
 

moll.

Learn to science.
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,545
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Will Shakespear said:
pretty much

ideally we could sustain the population by skilled migration and have a below-replacement fertility rate

it's a massive injustice that there are decent folk around the world from poor/war torn countries who'd do anything to be let in here, but we pay the worst types in society shitloads just to pump out kids instead
+1
And it's just going to get worse now that it's means-tested.
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
ongitsanjali said:
but in spite of the fct that they didn't advance technologically or scientifically, they were still content with what they had AND were in sync with nature.

Much as we seem to think that progression is the purpose of our lives, it's not really. As long as people are happy and leading fruitful lives, we're all good. which is something they understood better than us...

i don't really see what's wrong with simplicity
Yeah, I respect it. But that doesn't mean it's better than western civilisation.

IDK, I'd personally take western science and medicine and literature - progression, yes.
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
moll. said:
Agreed.
One-child policy. And not just for Australia. Worldwide.
It would solve so many of the world's problems.
sup bro hows fascism for you going well?
 

rasengan90

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2006
Messages
300
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Graney said:
There's something to be said for being sustainable custodians of the land. They were well adapted to the unique demands of the Australian continent.
As Europeans were adapted to their climate before industrialisation; as Africans and Asians were adapted to their continents. Being able to live off the land for an ancient society is not that much of an achievement. Any tribes that weren't too good at it aren't around to let us know anymore though.
 

rasengan90

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2006
Messages
300
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
verdades said:
Aborigines > Western civilisation.

They didn't kill the land.
They also didn't kill each other off.
No. You would have to be fucking retarded to claim that Aboriginies never had wars . They just use less advanced killing weapons to take people's land.
 

banco55

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,577
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
ongitsanjali said:
but in spite of the fct that they didn't advance technologically or scientifically, they were still content with what they had AND were in sync with nature.

Much as we seem to think that progression is the purpose of our lives, it's not really. As long as people are happy and leading fruitful lives, we're all good. which is something they understood better than us...

i don't really see what's wrong with simplicity
How do we know they were content with what they had? You seem to be buying into the whole "noble savage" bit.
 

banco55

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,577
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Will Shakespear said:
yeah but not on an island by themselves

they had to build on the foundations they pinched from the arabs
who had to build on the foundations they pinched from the greeks & indians
etc.

western civilisation on an island alone would probably still be like the vikings
or aborigines
All true but if you were going to ask is Mozart a better composer then X you could say Mozart was trained from a young age, musically it was a good time to be composing etc. but the bottom line is Mozart is still a better composer.
 

big8oyjames

Banned
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
227
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
Islamic civilization which is also known as the Islamic golden age is the best

/close thread.

PS: im not trolling this time.
 

big8oyjames

Banned
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
227
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
Kwayera said:
Wasn't that in, like, 1200 CE? :rolleyes:
no. it was from 600AD - present. our civilization hasn't come to an end. accept it. we are better. we made advancements in... stuff.
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
big8oyjames said:
no. it was from 600AD - present. our civilization hasn't come to an end. accept it. we are better. we made advancements in... stuff.
such as complaining
 

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
lol @ some of the responses

'yer aboriginals are heaps cool coz dey did live off da land and were all sustainable yo.... even if they hadnt worked out that if it's round it rolls...'
 

verdades

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
142
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
rasengan90 said:
No. You would have to be fucking retarded to claim that Aboriginies never had wars . They just use less advanced killing weapons to take people's land.
It wasn't aimed at taking land, though, because they had no land ownership. Tribal battles, sure.
But yeah, lack of effective weapons means that they didn't kill each other off. Whereas Western civilisation has spent how much money finding ways they can destroy the world with one bomb?
Pretty sure the Aborigines way of looking at it is better - at least they didn't fight for ownership of land.


And agreed for too many people in Australia.
 

Misericorde

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
30
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
verdades said:
It wasn't aimed at taking land, though, because they had no land ownership. Tribal battles, sure.
So those tribal battles were...for fun?
Also, don't see why "ownership of land" is any worse a reason to fight than whatever they fought for.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top