Es un análisis sin sentido. . La gente alcanza progreso al acumular experiencia, hoy la gente ha alcanzado mas progreso porque pueden tener sexo seguro, y cuando tienen sexo la mujer no queda embarazada. Antes la humanidad enfocaba su esfuerzo en el cuidado de los hijos que se suscitaban por docenas.
And then we have politicians, normal ordinary people, a really really small group of people compared to the total population, no smarter then the rest of us and yet we have them running the world with their silly stupid laws enforced by thugs in blue. Isn't about time we give up this nonsense?
@hazeee123 absolutely agree hazeee! If we had true freedom, the advances would move to light speed- and we'd be able to live to 500 or more by now, among lots of other cool things.
think about it. all wealth is subjective, but it develops a 'price' in the free-market.
this prices depends on the amount of money in that system. for example, adding a zero to every dollar doesn't make anyone richer, as the price will also increase to the same degree..
so we can see price is relative, and can only exist for a product in comparison with another product.
so to take the whole world, and give it a GDP is wrong.
@100CommonCents To argue that the quality of living for the average human being hasn't made drastic improvements in the last few centuries is preposterous.
The "collective brain" that Ayn Rand lived under was almost entirely lobotomized. The myth about socialism/communism is that it's all about the collective, when really it's about a small elite making all the decisions and reaping all the benefits while the rest of the collective has no freedom to make decisions and suffers. In a free market republic, all areas of the brain are allowed to operate.
@ShinyStarSilver How is what you jus described different from oligarchic capitalism such as the uk/us? Elite controlling and reaping benefits and the workers/collective being messed over? C'mon dude. Wake up.
Martin and captain: Mr Ridley talks about exchange of ideas. You represente a great example. Nothing good came out of it, but I have not read any such entertaining conversation on a public network for ages:)
I haven't heard most of the points he's making anywhere else, at least in the way he's doing it. It's so simple it's stunning. Thanks for posting this Lee.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
another one of those "evolution" geeks!!!!!!!! i thought darwin did his part well....ridley cut the crap buddy.....there is already enoughof darwinism...we dont want any further ridleyism...total s h i t video
Matt Ridley's a funny one. He's certainly a clever guy, and an excellent science writer, but he had an interesting other career as a director at Northern Rock bank, which was one of the most badly over-extended banks in the UK at the start of the credit crunch. I think he has a weakness for over-optimism and a reluctance to see problems around the corner. Nevertheless, interesting video.
@henrycate The Romans thought that the British were too stupid to be much good for anything, and the Caledonians were too stupid even to be worth taking as slaves. Somehow those poor stupid people built the greatest empire the world has ever seen. Intelligence is not really down to individuals, it resides in a culture. Diamonds don't shine out from a bucket of mud. If Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin or Adam Smith had been born a thousand years earlier we would never have heard of them.
I’d argue that capitalism is by far the most moral economic structure known to man. The human mind is a powerful and useful tool, but humanity cannot thrive without the ability to freely share its ideas. This is exactly why communist governments in Russia and China completely and totally failed after so many years. Their governments’ central planning never left the human mind entirely free to formulate and share its ideas.
@freewngs Why wouldn't Ayn Rand want to see this? she advocated a society where everyone works for their best interests, and having more time is in your best interest . He is not advocating the "Collective Brain." He is advocating is a society where people specialize in a task, and consequently become very adept at that task. This means that they will do that task faster, so they will have more free time. Because they have more time, they will be able to invent, and innovate.
I dispute the time frames discussed in this video (an example of a paleontologist who doesn't know how C14 or Ar-Ar/Ar-K dating works or doesn't - part of his thesis being that the parts don't know how the whole can conceive, it's suiting and not surprising).
However, the thrust of his thesis is spot on and salient - the exchange ("free market") of goods, ideas, and technology propel a race or society ahead and the sum of the whole is greater than the parts. Eloquent affirmation of Adam Smith.
@Gharalam Sure! First, remember that systems are everywhere, social, economic, socio-economic, ecological, biological, computer, electrical to name just a few.
Liberals, in my experience, look at systems as being static. Let's take Al Gore's environmental arguments for example. He is assuming a static system, that nothing is going to change and that system will degrade into failure. Bad data from too small a data set aside, it completely disregards innovation and systemic complexity.
For instance, VP Gore claims the 90's were the hottest 10 years in over a century. but if you look at the data in context, it is much cooler now than it was in the pre-industrial era. In fact, 400 years ago, Palm tree lined London's streets.
For free-capitalism arguments I would point you to Lee Doren's response to "The Story of Stuff". The best rebuttal to the socialist group I have seen yet.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
so human advanced through life due to sexual exchanges?
Nop.. animals stayed that way because they were meant to be animals and nothing else, and if they were meant to be something else they would have achieved more than human can ever achieve.. on the other hand humans were meant to be scumbags and thats how they advance through life.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The whole argument about the neanderthals not having cooperative exchanges between the sexes and groups is a load of shit. There has been scores of evidence proving the neanderthals shared resources with other groups. Not to mention the neanderthal males right arms were far larger then those of female neanderthals. You don't get a huge right arm from jerking off. This guy gets paid to spread his nonsense?
Um, what the hell does arm size have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with what you are saying. Bigger arm size does not mean female Neanderthal did not hunt. There is a lot of evidence that shows that females DID hunt.
And no, Neanderthal were nowhere NEAR as social as we are. They stayed in small isolated groups never more than 20 or so people. Get your facts straight before you embaress yourself.
@Eterna1Soldier Arm size does have to do with one's ability to use a weapon... such as a spear (which the neanderthal used almost exclusively). Why the need for larger muscles otherwise?
I agree, in comparison. They were not even close to as social as C.M. But this guy says that this condition of 'not being as social as C.M.' led to their demise, it didn't. This condition would only hamper their ability to defend against a species (C.M.) that made war a lifestyle. Warrior monkeys FTW!
What I find interesting is the implications this has with regards to regulation. Regulation tells people there is one right way to do something and punishes those who would do it differently. Regulation actually works to stop the process of ideas meeting and mating - in the name of protecting the ignorant.
@ShinyStarSilver Precisely :-) Democratic decision making is non-inventive, because we all have to agree to ONE way of doing things, rather than let the ideas compete with each other, as multiple experiments.
This is the perfect argument for why Capitalism, while it isn't a perfect system, is still the best system by far to extend the technological development of our species, but to increase innovation and be more knowledgeable than our previous generation.
There are so many fucking communist, liberals on youtube its not even funny. Once you get on one profile it links to 100 more. Its fucking disgusting.
being the same age as Lee and going through our school system (in america) I too have a lot of communist views, but I do believe in freedom and liberty, the truth is no matter which way you do it the majority gets exploited by the minority "elite". The problem is not liberal or conservative, capitalsim or communism, but rather PEOPLE
@john5246 the problem is liberty and freedom cannot exist without property and property cannot exist (at least in the long term) without capitalism. People are neither exploitative nor good. the question is not if people were better or if elites really exist as they do in the communist narrative. the question is what is the just use of power? How to best secure the most liberty for everyone. Communism offers no answer to these kinds of questions.
why does capitalism always aggregate wealth at the top? Why do the richest keep getting richer? There is nothing wrong with getting richer, but the concentration of wealth at the top is disgusting, yes it's disgusting when some go to the bathroom with gold-plated toilet paper and others can barely eat. Is this a problem with the free-market system or with the current state of our government?
@john5246 why does socialism and communism aggregate wealth with those on top of of their respective political system? Where the poor stay poor due to the fact they are not of the political class are connected and no matter how much work is applied there is no way to change their standing.
I have to pipe in here...we do not have a pure Capitalist System, we have a mixed economy with ever greater emphasis placed upon policies that promote "the Collective Welfare." These laws do not improve, make more efficient, or provide greater equality of outcomes after they have been passed. The opposite occurs:
What we end up with is a Top-Bottom Heavy Population, with Elites controlling the lives of everyone else; Capitalism did not cause this, Overzealous Collectivism has.
@captaindiesalot Capitalism is a system which depends upon a state, there has never been a successful economy or society without a state. Yes people can survive in places like Somalia, but human culture does not thrive there. Success depends upon a dynamic balance between the the state as enabler of trade and progress and the negative aspects which you are obsessing about.
There will never be a fixed solution to this, the debate on the size and function of the state will never end.
A minimal state, not a MASSIVE, Overbearing, Regulation Loving, Taxation and Spending behemoth like what we have now. A state that is LIMITED to the following areas: Enforcement of Contracts, National Defense, & Foreign Treaties. The REST, and yes, I do mean THE REST, is supposed to be handled, by the separate states.
@captaindiesalot Limited by whose armies? The present instantly becomes the past. A vote taken in the present can't tie the hands of the people of the future. Moving powers from where they can be used and giving them to organs which cannot effectively use them is just silly, it's like giving your feet the power to decide where you're going, you'll end up not going anywhere. The only sensible approach is to keep the powers where they could be used and vote for people who won't abuse them.
Nonsense. Minimal government offers Individuals the benefit of maximum freedom. Military might is used to project power and protect the body politic and the individuals within same. The ONLY WAY to maximize individual freedom is to limit Nat'l Gov't within the national boundary. The US is structured Constitutionally to achieve this goal, the balance of power between The People & The State has failed, because gov't has ENABLED ITSELF to violate The Constitution.
@captaindiesalot The people should rule. The living people, not the dead people.
The people make the rules and the people can change the rules. You want to see the rules changed and somehow expect them to stay changed for ever. Why? You haven't even won a fucking war or found some new land. How come you can change the rules but five or ten years down the line those people can't change them again?
Interesting theories you have. Write a novel, not a constitutional amendment.
You must be a fucking idiot. FUNDAMENTAL RULE of American Society is The Constitution. It is a ROCK that the nation is built upon. It can be changed by the "living people," you arrogantly point to, via "The Amendment Process."
What's NOT meant to happen is the usurpation of The People's Rights by arrogant politicians and their judges, who are assholes like you, and who have a total disregard for the enunciated rights contained within the Document. OK, Next.
@captaindiesalot You clearly detest politicians unless they have been safely dead for two hundred years and you don't trust the people either. You want the people to change the unchangeable rules and never change them back again. When somebody points out the absurdity of your position you pull the full Sam the Eagle crap and retreat claiming victory.
If you want smaller government keep voting for it every time there is an election, if your position is popular you will get your way.
Again, I think you need to read The Constitution before you try to lecture me. Stick with the UK. Our SYSTEM was never supposed to be this Big, Unwieldy, Invasive, Controlling, Expensive, Bloated, Statist, Collectivist, or Carnivorous.
Yes, I detest politicians and bureaucrats. This is why we fought to free ourselves from England. We didn't fight to trade your collectivists with home grown ones, quite the opposite.
@captaindiesalot I am fully qualified to lecture on the US constitution.
Countries evolve and their aspirations change. It is not reasonable to fossilize the vision of one divided committee over two hundred years ago and tell your nation that they've been doing it wrong ever since.
If the people want smaller government candidates offering smaller government will be elected and all will be well. That's democracy. You want thanatocracy: rule of the dead.
This statement proves that you have not read our Constitution. We are NOT a democracy, we're a Constitutional Republic, and there is a significant difference. Martin, stick to common law, you have a lot to learn about both the history of our nation, and how The Constitution works.
@captaindiesalot I said that's democracy, government and legislature are elected by the people. If the people want small government they should vote for people who want to keep government small during the time of their office. You want to wave a magic wand and stop the people being able to have a big government whether they want it or not, for ever. You are not a mythical national hero cum demigod, your constitutional ideas have no more validity than anybody else's and will not bind the future.
That's the point, I don't have to do anything. Simply add to the myriad of voices who are saying that we need to get the nation back to the Constitutional Mandate of our government.
The future can be bound by the Constitutional founding of the nation.
@captaindiesalot What exactly is so wrong with voting for people who endorse small government that makes bitching about it instead a superior strategy?
I'm not arguing this point, you arrogant ass. I'm ARGUING that The Constitution DEFINES a much smaller government than we have; the current gov't is beyond the boundaries of the parameters of what The Constitution allows. We're going to vote for those who say they want smaller gov't, but it was never supposed to get this far. We need a REAL radical who will stand for The Constitution.
@captaindiesalot Go and have your argument with somebody who cares and understands your magical ideas. I am not arguing what you are arguing so there's nothing to be gaining from us each continuing a different argument past each other.
@captaindiesalot We? You fought in the American rebellion? That's pluralis maiestatis, it tend to be a common complaint amongst self-important windbags.
Well, come and visit sometime, and we can insult each other in person, but you better play golf. Look, you're entitled to your opinion. You won't change your mind, and I'm definitely NOT (how's that for CAPITALIZATION?) going to change my mine.
Your nation is on the backside of history, and people like me are trying to not follow your example. Sermo datur cunctis; animi sapientia paucis.
@john5246 The concept that Capitalism, (FULL private ownership of property, investment, incentive, ec,) that your'e playing on is a fallacy. No evidence exists that producers produce by the exploitation of the poor. "the rich" and "the poor" are not static categories in the US by any measure. in fact it is economic controls that keep the potentially producing poor as the impoverished while dis-encouraging the rich-producers from investing. See Hayek, Goldberg, Mises and Woods
@Reckless3057 well, even if you were being exploited like that, it's still many many times better to be exploited that way than to be exploited by an overly-powerful government; governments, if given enough power, will eventually exploit all aspects of life, just look at North Korea.
@john5246 "Why do the richest keep getting richer? ... Is this a problem with the free-market system or with the current state of our government?"
Neither, it's a problem with you coveting that which others have instead of getting off your lardy bottom and accumulating wealth yourself. If people being poor disgusts you, then work extra hard and distribute your wealth to those with less. If helping people inspires you, you can do the same. Or you can become a politician like Al Gore.
Excellent. This is a much more eloquent version of my counterargument to almost any liberal cause, particularly the environment. I have troubles with many of the things that liberals, particularly socialists and environmentalist say, because they assume a static system. Something that simply does not exist.
13:43 Hayek "use of knowledge about society" While this idea is not really new, I think it's an essential idea to understanding economics and institutions.
Though, now I do legitimately wonder why you have such disdain for "academic intellectual" ideas. Isn't the university supposed to be the place that has the "free exchange" of ideas?
mmm all those impressionable minds. I just wish a certain part of society could even begin to open their minds to this idea of free exchange among peoples. They seem to think that restricted exchange, or forced exchange is the way to go.
What about altering the ecosystem and the great pacific garbage patch and more plastic than plankton in the oceans? There is always a catch. If humans have to survive by depending on one another while polluting then they must be individually inferior and not worthy of survival.
Its more economical to throw out something than to keep it for further use.
Thats the only reason we have trash in the sea. Plastic and oil is so abundant that its seen as nothing special. Since its not special/not worth much to us we throw it out.
individually inferiority means nothing since we all work together and our collective specialization is what makes our society work. At the same time brings everyone up at the same time.
Those of you who think that socialism has some merits just need to look at North Korea. That's pure concentrated socialism for you. Now, if you think somehow a little bit of socialism is good for you, just go ahead and take a long drink from your toilet bowl next time you're thirsty. Go ahead. It's mostly water.
I love the intro, talking about in the 1970s they were all going to die. Who were perpetuating such myths? The 'progressives'... now we have 40 years of hindsight and who had it right? The capitalist, who makes EVERYONE richer, EVERYONE more prosperous, EVERYONE healthier, and by protecting individual free choice—a lot of ideas lost their virginity to the benefit of mankind. More sex makes a happier world! :D
OUTSTANDING VIDEO! Aptly a cooperative collaborative effort : )
I am big into this stuff & this video provided me with a couple of perspectives I'd never really delved deep into. Extremely valuable stuff ... by brain jumped with excitement as epiphany resulted from putting together some very sound, true & tested realities in human behavior. The catalyst is the amazing synergy, actually a synergistic combination of existing synergies those behaviors can bring to be under the right circumstances
The main reason that tools have have become so amazing is simple... it is WHO owns the tools and benefits from their use. Man will always find a solution faster and more effectively when HE/SHE are able to be the beneficiary of their own efforts.
I've thought about this concept before and realized that should a cataclysm occur, we'll be blasted back to the stone age. None of us know enough of even simple products - like a pencil - to be able to continue making them. And, - most of us have lost skills such as spinning, weaving, hunting, canning, etc (which our great grandparents knew), we'll be in a really bad situation.
@macpduff I would have to disagree. When Rome fell, civilization persisted because monks saved information about technologies etc. Now, we have the internet, not to mention vast solid archives which document basically everything.
Unless of course Islam by birth rate & immigration takes over Europe, inserts microchips into human flesh, forces all business transactions into the world wide web, eliminates Jews by global positioning satellite, sweeps away Christian converts from the far East, nukes America, subjugates all women in their kingdom.
Then the world will work towards no flesh for people will isolate. Read Revelation to understand our future. Ideas don't have sex; people do. The Muslims are doing this sex better.
good video, but you can watch them from the actual content provider at the TEDdirector channel. i dont see how this was a critisism or commentary. you just uploaded the exact video as is.
The rarity of conditions in which such idea-sex occurs is what so many miss. There is almost none in, say, Saudi Arabia or Somalia. Islamic cultures account for almost a fourth of the world's population, and yet their civilizations contribute almost ZERO to humanity -- in patents or scientific theories or anything other than mass murder.
Some cultures are OBJECTIVELY SUPERIOR to others. All the products and services that all humans on Earth enjoy are the fruit of Christian and Jewish culture.
@TylerNull well while Europe was in the dark ages the Islamic culture was making great advances while the Christians were busy killing each other. With out the advances made by the Islamic culture theirs no telling where we would be.
@Thebattlewalrus Right. And the Muslims didn't spend all their time killing each other back then. Saladin killed far more Muslims than he ever did Crusaders.
Moral equivalency might make you feel good because there is no "winner" but it is far too simple to describe a complicated world. Stop with the false dichotomies.
@gregvs3 i wasn't trying to make some moral equivalency i was just pointing out to who i replied to that the Muslim world contributed to the world we have today
@TylerNull It seems you missed the entire point of this video. No cultures are objectively superior. The West has enjoyed more trade and has therefor been blessed with more technological advances. Think of Japan during its isolation period. Cut off from the rest of the world, the samuraii and shogun were still ruling a feudal country. Only a hundred and fifty years later (with the addition of trade and cultural exchange) Japan now provides OBJECTIVELY SUPERIOR robotics, electronics, etc.
Thereby, you demonstrate the abject depravity at the core of your notions. Notable too, the inability to discriminate right from wrong that's inherent in your statement is the legal definition of insanity.
Oh, and Japan's culture was bitch-slapped out of its thousands of years of feudalism and imperialism by the USA with the atomic bombs. THAT was the transition point there.
@TylerNull also did you mean Christian or European? I think youre confused. Most christians live in South America which I wouldn't say always has the highest standards of living, though it certainly is a wonderful place with great and intelligent people. So what was it. Are you saying Christian culture is scientifically superior or European culture?
@TylerNull The Islam empires were the seat of wisdom and development during the christian dark ages. The Judeo Christian empire is currently dominant. That does not mean it is inherently superior. In the next 100 yrs a Chinese individual may be makking the same remarks as you about Sino culture and its inherent superiority to Judeo Christian.
@orb204 And if you look at WHY the Abbasids were so successful it was precisely because of their extensive trade networks. Western Europe was sent into the dark ages because the collapse of the Western Roman Empire meant the end of safe passage for traders from one region to another. Everyone was flung into self sufficiency (much like Tasmania) and became horrendously poor as a result. I wish every Congressman was forced to watch this video. Might make them think twice about trade "protection."
Arab civilizations stopped contributing to mankind's advancement when the pedophile founder of Islam began raping his nine year old "wife" and reduced West Asia to warring tribes led by clergy-warlords. Islam is warfare, and their fascist plague continues today across the globe.
Islam contributes NOTHING.
The tiny nation of Israel contributes more to science than all Muslim cultures globally.
Muslims are a bunch of socialist goat-fucking idiots.
I want each & every one of these depraved sand-Nigger pedophiles put to death. America needs to bomb the hell out of all their countries...The sands of Saudi Arabia need to be so scorched that they turn to GLASS! Capitalism is freedom! Islam is socialist goat-fucking pedophile SLAVERY!
All throughout the Arab-Islamic world, you see that socialism is upheld as some kind of moral imperative -- from Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party to Mu'ammar Qaddhafi's Libya.
These stupid sand-Niggers don't understand freedom.
Although, if you're one of those stupid Human Rights activists, you probably worship Karl Marx & socialism is great for you too.
Good video, it reminded me that the world always seems like it is ending but it never does because people don't stop moving, believing and working...by work i mean human accomplishments.
He's right about technological advances, and, if government were to step out of the way, those advances would happen at a much greater pace.
escapethecollapse 3 months ago
Es un análisis sin sentido. . La gente alcanza progreso al acumular experiencia, hoy la gente ha alcanzado mas progreso porque pueden tener sexo seguro, y cuando tienen sexo la mujer no queda embarazada. Antes la humanidad enfocaba su esfuerzo en el cuidado de los hijos que se suscitaban por docenas.
ACERTIXO2002 4 months ago
professor cooney brought me here
AznPr1des 5 months ago
And then we have politicians, normal ordinary people, a really really small group of people compared to the total population, no smarter then the rest of us and yet we have them running the world with their silly stupid laws enforced by thugs in blue. Isn't about time we give up this nonsense?
hazeee123 9 months ago 4
@hazeee123 absolutely agree hazeee! If we had true freedom, the advances would move to light speed- and we'd be able to live to 500 or more by now, among lots of other cool things.
escapethecollapse 3 months ago
I cringe whenever people measure wealth in terms of dollars.
selfrealizedexile 9 months ago
how on earth can you put world GDP on a graph?
think about it. all wealth is subjective, but it develops a 'price' in the free-market.
this prices depends on the amount of money in that system. for example, adding a zero to every dollar doesn't make anyone richer, as the price will also increase to the same degree..
so we can see price is relative, and can only exist for a product in comparison with another product.
so to take the whole world, and give it a GDP is wrong.
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents To argue that the quality of living for the average human being hasn't made drastic improvements in the last few centuries is preposterous.
BurnBeforeEating 9 months ago
this is why collectivisation and central planning will never work.
Liberty and Austrian economics people!
read:
The Law - Bastiat (religious, but still excellent)
Economics in one lesson - Hazlitt
CytherLynx 1 year ago 11
interesting video posting on my blog for readers to enjoy
ideagirlconsulting 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser
The "collective brain" that Ayn Rand lived under was almost entirely lobotomized. The myth about socialism/communism is that it's all about the collective, when really it's about a small elite making all the decisions and reaping all the benefits while the rest of the collective has no freedom to make decisions and suffers. In a free market republic, all areas of the brain are allowed to operate.
ShinyStarSilver 1 year ago 4
@ShinyStarSilver How is what you jus described different from oligarchic capitalism such as the uk/us? Elite controlling and reaping benefits and the workers/collective being messed over? C'mon dude. Wake up.
Patrickmjett 1 year ago
Martin and captain: Mr Ridley talks about exchange of ideas. You represente a great example. Nothing good came out of it, but I have not read any such entertaining conversation on a public network for ages:)
Roquist25 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I haven't heard most of the points he's making anywhere else, at least in the way he's doing it. It's so simple it's stunning. Thanks for posting this Lee.
fishblades 1 year ago
Comment removed
fishblades 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is the best TED presentation I have seen till now
VelkaVrana3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is the best TED presentation I have seen till now
VelkaVrana3 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
another one of those "evolution" geeks!!!!!!!! i thought darwin did his part well....ridley cut the crap buddy.....there is already enoughof darwinism...we dont want any further ridleyism...total s h i t video
dreadedarcher 1 year ago
5:53 to 6:00 there's a guy staring with his mouth open :D
misestrelka 1 year ago
Matt Ridley's a funny one. He's certainly a clever guy, and an excellent science writer, but he had an interesting other career as a director at Northern Rock bank, which was one of the most badly over-extended banks in the UK at the start of the credit crunch. I think he has a weakness for over-optimism and a reluctance to see problems around the corner. Nevertheless, interesting video.
bimblinghill 1 year ago
Shit...evolution. Ideas that came together accidentally. Geez...
Aeronomer 1 year ago 2
"It's not important how clever individuals are, he says; what really matters is how smart the collective brain is." And you fell for this! :-(
henrycate 1 year ago
@henrycate The Romans thought that the British were too stupid to be much good for anything, and the Caledonians were too stupid even to be worth taking as slaves. Somehow those poor stupid people built the greatest empire the world has ever seen. Intelligence is not really down to individuals, it resides in a culture. Diamonds don't shine out from a bucket of mud. If Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin or Adam Smith had been born a thousand years earlier we would never have heard of them.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago 2
Hegel!
MuhakgreetsWonhyo 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A WEE BIT OF RUBBISH IF YOU ASK ME JOLLY GOOD THEN
XanatharEye 1 year ago
this video is 16 minutes of the best of my day
somana89 1 year ago
Thanks for opening my eyes to this, Lee. I'll be checking it out!
satirewriter07 1 year ago
That was the best thing I've gotten out of this channel
eking20002000 1 year ago
Please submit this for machine translation, captions would be useful
SlyphRoph 1 year ago
Nice Link
Hierophant2 1 year ago
I’d argue that capitalism is by far the most moral economic structure known to man. The human mind is a powerful and useful tool, but humanity cannot thrive without the ability to freely share its ideas. This is exactly why communist governments in Russia and China completely and totally failed after so many years. Their governments’ central planning never left the human mind entirely free to formulate and share its ideas.
Buergs323 1 year ago 6
"It's not important how clever individuals are, he says; what really matters is how smart the collective brain is."
Ayn Rand wouldn't like to see this.
freewngs 1 year ago 2
@freewngs Why wouldn't Ayn Rand want to see this? she advocated a society where everyone works for their best interests, and having more time is in your best interest . He is not advocating the "Collective Brain." He is advocating is a society where people specialize in a task, and consequently become very adept at that task. This means that they will do that task faster, so they will have more free time. Because they have more time, they will be able to invent, and innovate.
T3ckno93 1 year ago
@freewngs Haha, are you a WWART (What Would Ayn Rand Think) person too?
HerrSchenkel 1 year ago
@HerrSchenkel Haha, no. But I read two of her books recently. Funny profile pic you got there btw.
freewngs 1 year ago
Wow, this is a very interesting video about ideas, learning, and information.
I should watch more of these kinds of videos.
I remember there is a person (which I just found out the username is called QualiaSoup) that has made some of these types of videos.
mbarrera47 1 year ago
At first I was like, "What does this have to do with free market capitalism?" But I have to say, that was very interesting.
ryanmshepard92 1 year ago
I dispute the time frames discussed in this video (an example of a paleontologist who doesn't know how C14 or Ar-Ar/Ar-K dating works or doesn't - part of his thesis being that the parts don't know how the whole can conceive, it's suiting and not surprising).
However, the thrust of his thesis is spot on and salient - the exchange ("free market") of goods, ideas, and technology propel a race or society ahead and the sum of the whole is greater than the parts. Eloquent affirmation of Adam Smith.
seismedia 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
ii believe there will be one for porn
keithcry 1 year ago
fffffffffffffffffffffffff
keithcry 1 year ago
Thanks for sharing this!
tofuEtr 1 year ago
First thing I saw was oh god a 16 min video. I was hooked 10 seconds in. What a wealth of information.
dynamitemike65 1 year ago 19
@Gharalam Sure! First, remember that systems are everywhere, social, economic, socio-economic, ecological, biological, computer, electrical to name just a few.
Liberals, in my experience, look at systems as being static. Let's take Al Gore's environmental arguments for example. He is assuming a static system, that nothing is going to change and that system will degrade into failure. Bad data from too small a data set aside, it completely disregards innovation and systemic complexity.
Wrlss911Pro 1 year ago
For instance, VP Gore claims the 90's were the hottest 10 years in over a century. but if you look at the data in context, it is much cooler now than it was in the pre-industrial era. In fact, 400 years ago, Palm tree lined London's streets.
For free-capitalism arguments I would point you to Lee Doren's response to "The Story of Stuff". The best rebuttal to the socialist group I have seen yet.
Wrlss911Pro 1 year ago 2
if you want to make a pie from scratch you must first create an entiire universe
innappropriateguy 1 year ago 6
@innappropriateguy or we can just simplify things with just the raw (non-synthetic) resources found
LVCIVSTVLLIVSATELLVS 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
so human advanced through life due to sexual exchanges?
Nop.. animals stayed that way because they were meant to be animals and nothing else, and if they were meant to be something else they would have achieved more than human can ever achieve.. on the other hand humans were meant to be scumbags and thats how they advance through life.
ZzzzigzzzZag 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The whole argument about the neanderthals not having cooperative exchanges between the sexes and groups is a load of shit. There has been scores of evidence proving the neanderthals shared resources with other groups. Not to mention the neanderthal males right arms were far larger then those of female neanderthals. You don't get a huge right arm from jerking off. This guy gets paid to spread his nonsense?
baihbalm 1 year ago
@baihbalm
Um, what the hell does arm size have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with what you are saying. Bigger arm size does not mean female Neanderthal did not hunt. There is a lot of evidence that shows that females DID hunt.
And no, Neanderthal were nowhere NEAR as social as we are. They stayed in small isolated groups never more than 20 or so people. Get your facts straight before you embaress yourself.
Eterna1Soldier 1 year ago 4
@Eterna1Soldier Arm size does have to do with one's ability to use a weapon... such as a spear (which the neanderthal used almost exclusively). Why the need for larger muscles otherwise?
I agree, in comparison. They were not even close to as social as C.M. But this guy says that this condition of 'not being as social as C.M.' led to their demise, it didn't. This condition would only hamper their ability to defend against a species (C.M.) that made war a lifestyle. Warrior monkeys FTW!
baihbalm 1 year ago
I think Thomas Malthus just got swept from the board.
Atreus21 1 year ago
@Atreus21 No He wasn't.
theinsane102 1 year ago
Cultures in Africa...still living like they were thousands and thousands of years ago.
Edubbplate 1 year ago
Very interesting.
TheElephantEffect 1 year ago
What I find interesting is the implications this has with regards to regulation. Regulation tells people there is one right way to do something and punishes those who would do it differently. Regulation actually works to stop the process of ideas meeting and mating - in the name of protecting the ignorant.
ShinyStarSilver 1 year ago 22
@ShinyStarSilver
Exactly what i was thinking as well
Buergs323 1 year ago 3
@ShinyStarSilver Precisely :-) Democratic decision making is non-inventive, because we all have to agree to ONE way of doing things, rather than let the ideas compete with each other, as multiple experiments.
jjenkov 1 year ago
Magnificent video. It makes utter nonsense of any objection to free trade.
Atreus21 1 year ago 4
I found this to be a great video, thanks for sharing!
snowlionud 1 year ago 3
Something tells me Lee was thinking "free market free market free market" under this.
npeffer 1 year ago
Great video.
elpidi0526 1 year ago
fascinating stuff, thank you for posting
allan9654 1 year ago
Thanks Lee. That was a fascinating video.
llllloooooo 1 year ago
dialectical materialism :O
Spalg 1 year ago
11 people think they know how to make a computer mouse from scratch.
Altimadark 1 year ago 40
@Altimadark As of this update, 23 people think they know how to make a mouse from scratch.
Altimadark 1 year ago 26
This guy is insightful... The philosophy of technology. I like this a lot.
collins1188 1 year ago
This is the perfect argument for why Capitalism, while it isn't a perfect system, is still the best system by far to extend the technological development of our species, but to increase innovation and be more knowledgeable than our previous generation.
CGIGamer 1 year ago 3
I liked this post very much :)
Libratarot 1 year ago
Thanks for bringing this to me! This was fascinating.
andyandymax 1 year ago
There are so many fucking communist, liberals on youtube its not even funny. Once you get on one profile it links to 100 more. Its fucking disgusting.
45means45 1 year ago 5
@45means45
being the same age as Lee and going through our school system (in america) I too have a lot of communist views, but I do believe in freedom and liberty, the truth is no matter which way you do it the majority gets exploited by the minority "elite". The problem is not liberal or conservative, capitalsim or communism, but rather PEOPLE
john5246 1 year ago
@john5246 the problem is liberty and freedom cannot exist without property and property cannot exist (at least in the long term) without capitalism. People are neither exploitative nor good. the question is not if people were better or if elites really exist as they do in the communist narrative. the question is what is the just use of power? How to best secure the most liberty for everyone. Communism offers no answer to these kinds of questions.
Reckless3057 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Reckless3057
why does capitalism always aggregate wealth at the top? Why do the richest keep getting richer? There is nothing wrong with getting richer, but the concentration of wealth at the top is disgusting, yes it's disgusting when some go to the bathroom with gold-plated toilet paper and others can barely eat. Is this a problem with the free-market system or with the current state of our government?
john5246 1 year ago
@john5246 why does socialism and communism aggregate wealth with those on top of of their respective political system? Where the poor stay poor due to the fact they are not of the political class are connected and no matter how much work is applied there is no way to change their standing.
sockmess 1 year ago 9
@john5246
I have to pipe in here...we do not have a pure Capitalist System, we have a mixed economy with ever greater emphasis placed upon policies that promote "the Collective Welfare." These laws do not improve, make more efficient, or provide greater equality of outcomes after they have been passed. The opposite occurs:
What we end up with is a Top-Bottom Heavy Population, with Elites controlling the lives of everyone else; Capitalism did not cause this, Overzealous Collectivism has.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago 41
@captaindiesalot Capitalism is a system which depends upon a state, there has never been a successful economy or society without a state. Yes people can survive in places like Somalia, but human culture does not thrive there. Success depends upon a dynamic balance between the the state as enabler of trade and progress and the negative aspects which you are obsessing about.
There will never be a fixed solution to this, the debate on the size and function of the state will never end.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett
A minimal state, not a MASSIVE, Overbearing, Regulation Loving, Taxation and Spending behemoth like what we have now. A state that is LIMITED to the following areas: Enforcement of Contracts, National Defense, & Foreign Treaties. The REST, and yes, I do mean THE REST, is supposed to be handled, by the separate states.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot Limited by whose armies? The present instantly becomes the past. A vote taken in the present can't tie the hands of the people of the future. Moving powers from where they can be used and giving them to organs which cannot effectively use them is just silly, it's like giving your feet the power to decide where you're going, you'll end up not going anywhere. The only sensible approach is to keep the powers where they could be used and vote for people who won't abuse them.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett
Nonsense. Minimal government offers Individuals the benefit of maximum freedom. Military might is used to project power and protect the body politic and the individuals within same. The ONLY WAY to maximize individual freedom is to limit Nat'l Gov't within the national boundary. The US is structured Constitutionally to achieve this goal, the balance of power between The People & The State has failed, because gov't has ENABLED ITSELF to violate The Constitution.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot The people should rule. The living people, not the dead people.
The people make the rules and the people can change the rules. You want to see the rules changed and somehow expect them to stay changed for ever. Why? You haven't even won a fucking war or found some new land. How come you can change the rules but five or ten years down the line those people can't change them again?
Interesting theories you have. Write a novel, not a constitutional amendment.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett
You must be a fucking idiot. FUNDAMENTAL RULE of American Society is The Constitution. It is a ROCK that the nation is built upon. It can be changed by the "living people," you arrogantly point to, via "The Amendment Process."
What's NOT meant to happen is the usurpation of The People's Rights by arrogant politicians and their judges, who are assholes like you, and who have a total disregard for the enunciated rights contained within the Document. OK, Next.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot You clearly detest politicians unless they have been safely dead for two hundred years and you don't trust the people either. You want the people to change the unchangeable rules and never change them back again. When somebody points out the absurdity of your position you pull the full Sam the Eagle crap and retreat claiming victory.
If you want smaller government keep voting for it every time there is an election, if your position is popular you will get your way.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett
Again, I think you need to read The Constitution before you try to lecture me. Stick with the UK. Our SYSTEM was never supposed to be this Big, Unwieldy, Invasive, Controlling, Expensive, Bloated, Statist, Collectivist, or Carnivorous.
Yes, I detest politicians and bureaucrats. This is why we fought to free ourselves from England. We didn't fight to trade your collectivists with home grown ones, quite the opposite.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot I am fully qualified to lecture on the US constitution.
Countries evolve and their aspirations change. It is not reasonable to fossilize the vision of one divided committee over two hundred years ago and tell your nation that they've been doing it wrong ever since.
If the people want smaller government candidates offering smaller government will be elected and all will be well. That's democracy. You want thanatocracy: rule of the dead.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett
This statement proves that you have not read our Constitution. We are NOT a democracy, we're a Constitutional Republic, and there is a significant difference. Martin, stick to common law, you have a lot to learn about both the history of our nation, and how The Constitution works.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot I said that's democracy, government and legislature are elected by the people. If the people want small government they should vote for people who want to keep government small during the time of their office. You want to wave a magic wand and stop the people being able to have a big government whether they want it or not, for ever. You are not a mythical national hero cum demigod, your constitutional ideas have no more validity than anybody else's and will not bind the future.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett
That's the point, I don't have to do anything. Simply add to the myriad of voices who are saying that we need to get the nation back to the Constitutional Mandate of our government.
The future can be bound by the Constitutional founding of the nation.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot What exactly is so wrong with voting for people who endorse small government that makes bitching about it instead a superior strategy?
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett
I'm not arguing this point, you arrogant ass. I'm ARGUING that The Constitution DEFINES a much smaller government than we have; the current gov't is beyond the boundaries of the parameters of what The Constitution allows. We're going to vote for those who say they want smaller gov't, but it was never supposed to get this far. We need a REAL radical who will stand for The Constitution.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot Go and have your argument with somebody who cares and understands your magical ideas. I am not arguing what you are arguing so there's nothing to be gaining from us each continuing a different argument past each other.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@captaindiesalot We? You fought in the American rebellion? That's pluralis maiestatis, it tend to be a common complaint amongst self-important windbags.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett And over-use of capital letters is a symptom often associated with the same syndrome.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett
Well, come and visit sometime, and we can insult each other in person, but you better play golf. Look, you're entitled to your opinion. You won't change your mind, and I'm definitely NOT (how's that for CAPITALIZATION?) going to change my mine.
Your nation is on the backside of history, and people like me are trying to not follow your example. Sermo datur cunctis; animi sapientia paucis.
captaindiesalot 1 year ago
@john5246 The concept that Capitalism, (FULL private ownership of property, investment, incentive, ec,) that your'e playing on is a fallacy. No evidence exists that producers produce by the exploitation of the poor. "the rich" and "the poor" are not static categories in the US by any measure. in fact it is economic controls that keep the potentially producing poor as the impoverished while dis-encouraging the rich-producers from investing. See Hayek, Goldberg, Mises and Woods
Reckless3057 1 year ago 2
@Reckless3057 well, even if you were being exploited like that, it's still many many times better to be exploited that way than to be exploited by an overly-powerful government; governments, if given enough power, will eventually exploit all aspects of life, just look at North Korea.
LVCIVSTVLLIVSATELLVS 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@john5246 "Why do the richest keep getting richer? ... Is this a problem with the free-market system or with the current state of our government?"
Neither, it's a problem with you coveting that which others have instead of getting off your lardy bottom and accumulating wealth yourself. If people being poor disgusts you, then work extra hard and distribute your wealth to those with less. If helping people inspires you, you can do the same. Or you can become a politician like Al Gore.
seismedia 1 year ago
@john5246
You forget the 'elite' do fall in capitalism one way or another.
Communism doesn't have the built in fail safe.
KurzLuppii 1 year ago 3
Excellent. This is a much more eloquent version of my counterargument to almost any liberal cause, particularly the environment. I have troubles with many of the things that liberals, particularly socialists and environmentalist say, because they assume a static system. Something that simply does not exist.
Lee, nice catch!
Wrlss911Pro 1 year ago 2
Wow. TED just now uploaded this video. I guess you got to them, Lee.
JohnJ2427 1 year ago
13:43 Hayek "use of knowledge about society" While this idea is not really new, I think it's an essential idea to understanding economics and institutions.
rayyf69 1 year ago
@rayyf69 correction, that's "use of knowledge in society"
rayyf69 1 year ago
this is really good!
capitalist4life 1 year ago
Interesting video. Thought it was great!
Though, now I do legitimately wonder why you have such disdain for "academic intellectual" ideas. Isn't the university supposed to be the place that has the "free exchange" of ideas?
insidetrip101 1 year ago
mmm all those impressionable minds. I just wish a certain part of society could even begin to open their minds to this idea of free exchange among peoples. They seem to think that restricted exchange, or forced exchange is the way to go.
sedatedlife18 1 year ago
another hockey stick chart.
imcolinemorris 1 year ago
What about altering the ecosystem and the great pacific garbage patch and more plastic than plankton in the oceans? There is always a catch. If humans have to survive by depending on one another while polluting then they must be individually inferior and not worthy of survival.
edmondov 1 year ago
@edmondov
>.> what is your definition of polluting?
Its more economical to throw out something than to keep it for further use.
Thats the only reason we have trash in the sea. Plastic and oil is so abundant that its seen as nothing special. Since its not special/not worth much to us we throw it out.
individually inferiority means nothing since we all work together and our collective specialization is what makes our society work. At the same time brings everyone up at the same time.
KurzLuppii 1 year ago
i wrote an essay on this last semester the similarities between the free market and evolution are remarkable.
chainzdown2dadik 1 year ago
Those of you who think that socialism has some merits just need to look at North Korea. That's pure concentrated socialism for you. Now, if you think somehow a little bit of socialism is good for you, just go ahead and take a long drink from your toilet bowl next time you're thirsty. Go ahead. It's mostly water.
633562 1 year ago
@633562 and yet, it's amazing how many people still fall for that crap!
throwntomato 1 year ago
good watch
killingedge123123 1 year ago
Lol @ evolution, sounds like my biology professor. ^_^ Good analogy though.
thisnamepwnsyours 1 year ago
This video makes me very thankful I was not born 10000, 1000 or even a 100 years ago.
conchobarmanthei 1 year ago
free markets ftw
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
This is a very sexy video.
richardcadbury 1 year ago
Is this the lecture you said you were going to upload?
hugatreekillababy 1 year ago
This guy is a f'kin genius. Luv it
jsh78mang 1 year ago
Wunderbar, Lee! This is a great video- thank you for posting.
VonMeissen 1 year ago
Fantastic the blokes brilliant :) I'm subscibing :)
TheFirstAngloSaxon 1 year ago
I love the intro, talking about in the 1970s they were all going to die. Who were perpetuating such myths? The 'progressives'... now we have 40 years of hindsight and who had it right? The capitalist, who makes EVERYONE richer, EVERYONE more prosperous, EVERYONE healthier, and by protecting individual free choice—a lot of ideas lost their virginity to the benefit of mankind. More sex makes a happier world! :D
EisenFeuer 1 year ago
i didn't think it was possible for society to regress without nuclear war. but he makes a convincing argument that banning trade would do just that.
optionism 1 year ago
@optionism
It would... Peace comes from free trade.
We only got attacked by Japan in WW2 because we restricted trade with them.
KurzLuppii 1 year ago
OUTSTANDING VIDEO! Aptly a cooperative collaborative effort : )
I am big into this stuff & this video provided me with a couple of perspectives I'd never really delved deep into. Extremely valuable stuff ... by brain jumped with excitement as epiphany resulted from putting together some very sound, true & tested realities in human behavior. The catalyst is the amazing synergy, actually a synergistic combination of existing synergies those behaviors can bring to be under the right circumstances
omegahpla 1 year ago
The main reason that tools have have become so amazing is simple... it is WHO owns the tools and benefits from their use. Man will always find a solution faster and more effectively when HE/SHE are able to be the beneficiary of their own efforts.
ProudConservative2 1 year ago
Thx for posting!
julianhpike 1 year ago
LOL 6 dislikes -- oh oh oh --- no no no -- the ski really IS falling!!!!!
James92802 1 year ago
Penguins trade sex for nest materials?
Chiszle 1 year ago
Graet video
Adlershof 1 year ago
I just read "I, Pencil"... what a fabulous and subtle commentary on individual liberty!
Above all, it inadvertently defines the two warring mindsets in conflict today:
Big-government socialists have no faith in free people. Small-government individualists have such a faith in free people.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
man i am so glad you posted this. i havent watched a TED vid in forever, great vid.
SuprVlln 1 year ago
Very Very interesting video. I haven't seen it yet on their channel. It is from July.. so maybe it will be up in a few weeks. Thanks for posting it.
Boehoehuahoei 1 year ago
3 words: James Burke: Connections.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
Youtube= Idea porn.
CalvinJGreen 1 year ago 4
Spontaneous order for the win bitch!
JJDarklink 1 year ago
Good find!
JohnJ2427 1 year ago
I heard a very similar talk that matt ridley gave in Chile, he is brilliant.
tapoe 1 year ago
I've thought about this concept before and realized that should a cataclysm occur, we'll be blasted back to the stone age. None of us know enough of even simple products - like a pencil - to be able to continue making them. And, - most of us have lost skills such as spinning, weaving, hunting, canning, etc (which our great grandparents knew), we'll be in a really bad situation.
macpduff 1 year ago
@macpduff
That cataclysm frankly is the anti-capitalist, anti-free market, anti-technology movement.
HowTheWorldWorks 1 year ago 11
@macpduff I would have to disagree. When Rome fell, civilization persisted because monks saved information about technologies etc. Now, we have the internet, not to mention vast solid archives which document basically everything.
BurnBeforeEating 1 year ago
@BurnBeforeEating
We did have the dark ages though.
KurzLuppii 1 year ago
He is telling it correctly.WE were told only have 1-2 children wear warm clothes turn down your heat and the earth WILL smile . What happened?
lancaster4314 1 year ago
Unless of course Islam by birth rate & immigration takes over Europe, inserts microchips into human flesh, forces all business transactions into the world wide web, eliminates Jews by global positioning satellite, sweeps away Christian converts from the far East, nukes America, subjugates all women in their kingdom.
Then the world will work towards no flesh for people will isolate. Read Revelation to understand our future. Ideas don't have sex; people do. The Muslims are doing this sex better.
ABAisSCIENCE 1 year ago
Incredible presentation. Thank you for posting this.
RomanV101 1 year ago
An entertaining and quite informative discussion of the evolution of ideas. Brilliant! =^[.]^=
Raycheetah 1 year ago
Great catch, TED is a wonderful source of enlightenment.
kmg501 1 year ago
good video, but you can watch them from the actual content provider at the TEDdirector channel. i dont see how this was a critisism or commentary. you just uploaded the exact video as is.
thisscreensucks 1 year ago
@thisscreensucks
This video wasn't up to the best of my knowledge on YouTube.
HowTheWorldWorks 1 year ago
idear <3
lacrossguy06 1 year ago
The rarity of conditions in which such idea-sex occurs is what so many miss. There is almost none in, say, Saudi Arabia or Somalia. Islamic cultures account for almost a fourth of the world's population, and yet their civilizations contribute almost ZERO to humanity -- in patents or scientific theories or anything other than mass murder.
Some cultures are OBJECTIVELY SUPERIOR to others. All the products and services that all humans on Earth enjoy are the fruit of Christian and Jewish culture.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull well while Europe was in the dark ages the Islamic culture was making great advances while the Christians were busy killing each other. With out the advances made by the Islamic culture theirs no telling where we would be.
Thebattlewalrus 1 year ago
@Thebattlewalrus Right. And the Muslims didn't spend all their time killing each other back then. Saladin killed far more Muslims than he ever did Crusaders.
Moral equivalency might make you feel good because there is no "winner" but it is far too simple to describe a complicated world. Stop with the false dichotomies.
gregvs3 1 year ago
@gregvs3 i wasn't trying to make some moral equivalency i was just pointing out to who i replied to that the Muslim world contributed to the world we have today
Thebattlewalrus 1 year ago
@TylerNull It seems you missed the entire point of this video. No cultures are objectively superior. The West has enjoyed more trade and has therefor been blessed with more technological advances. Think of Japan during its isolation period. Cut off from the rest of the world, the samuraii and shogun were still ruling a feudal country. Only a hundred and fifty years later (with the addition of trade and cultural exchange) Japan now provides OBJECTIVELY SUPERIOR robotics, electronics, etc.
gangreneday 1 year ago
@gangreneday
"No cultures are objectively superior"
Thereby, you demonstrate the abject depravity at the core of your notions. Notable too, the inability to discriminate right from wrong that's inherent in your statement is the legal definition of insanity.
Oh, and Japan's culture was bitch-slapped out of its thousands of years of feudalism and imperialism by the USA with the atomic bombs. THAT was the transition point there.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull also did you mean Christian or European? I think youre confused. Most christians live in South America which I wouldn't say always has the highest standards of living, though it certainly is a wonderful place with great and intelligent people. So what was it. Are you saying Christian culture is scientifically superior or European culture?
gangreneday 1 year ago
@TylerNull The Islam empires were the seat of wisdom and development during the christian dark ages. The Judeo Christian empire is currently dominant. That does not mean it is inherently superior. In the next 100 yrs a Chinese individual may be makking the same remarks as you about Sino culture and its inherent superiority to Judeo Christian.
orb204 1 year ago
@orb204 And if you look at WHY the Abbasids were so successful it was precisely because of their extensive trade networks. Western Europe was sent into the dark ages because the collapse of the Western Roman Empire meant the end of safe passage for traders from one region to another. Everyone was flung into self sufficiency (much like Tasmania) and became horrendously poor as a result. I wish every Congressman was forced to watch this video. Might make them think twice about trade "protection."
TCoop6231 1 year ago
@orb204
"The Islam empires were the seat of wisdom ..."
WRONG.
Arab civilizations stopped contributing to mankind's advancement when the pedophile founder of Islam began raping his nine year old "wife" and reduced West Asia to warring tribes led by clergy-warlords. Islam is warfare, and their fascist plague continues today across the globe.
Islam contributes NOTHING.
The tiny nation of Israel contributes more to science than all Muslim cultures globally.
TylerNull 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Damn right!
Death to Islam!
Muslims are a bunch of socialist goat-fucking idiots.
I want each & every one of these depraved sand-Nigger pedophiles put to death. America needs to bomb the hell out of all their countries...The sands of Saudi Arabia need to be so scorched that they turn to GLASS! Capitalism is freedom! Islam is socialist goat-fucking pedophile SLAVERY!
TylerNuI 1 year ago
@TylerNuI Islam is socialist? LOL troll much? Thanks for the laughs.
HumanRights4Everyone 1 year ago
@HumanRights4Everyone, why don't you do the research for yourself:
All throughout the Arab-Islamic world, you see that socialism is upheld as some kind of moral imperative -- from Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party to Mu'ammar Qaddhafi's Libya.
These stupid sand-Niggers don't understand freedom.
Although, if you're one of those stupid Human Rights activists, you probably worship Karl Marx & socialism is great for you too.
But yes...Islam endorses SOCIALISM
TylerNuI 1 year ago
this just makes sense
maritimetimes 1 year ago
Good video, it reminded me that the world always seems like it is ending but it never does because people don't stop moving, believing and working...by work i mean human accomplishments.
GravDiga 1 year ago
Very nice little video. I completely agree that trade is one of the best practices of mankind.
cataphracts123 1 year ago
Pure Genius. VERY well said.
bodybuilder444444