In Veeky Forums

Long live the emperor desu lads

Humans don't advance. Only technology does.

Reactionaries are fucking faggots.

You can appreciate a historical period without overly romanticizing it and deluding yourself times were somehow "better". It's even more cringe-worthy than watching nostalgiafags harp about the 90s, especially because the reactionaries are harping about how great a certain time period was, despite never even having lived in it and being separated from it by at least half a century, if not much more.

Even worse, people have not particularly changed.

>"hurr, I read a nice romantic poem once, that means everything was much better back then!"

Fucking faggots.

This is semantics. Technology (collective knowledge in general) is the tool we use to measure human advancement.

Except when humans use technology to enhance themselves.

Gene therapy and what not,

>Is the tool that I use
FTFY

The tool that everyone except yourself uses.

No it's not semantics. No technology that currently exist can change a human being away from what he essentially is; namely a primate mammal ape.

And it's highly unlikely that this will ever happen.

I don't know how, but you managed to be even more pessimistic and jaded than a reactionary. How have you not killed yourself?

This is about individuals, not about collective humanity.
Nobody is talking about our kidneys getting bigger, we are talking about our civilization getting more sophisticated.

>there are people who dream about being subservient to a single man's whims and desires

How fucking stupid are you people? Can't we at least get some fascists or neo-cons instead of this garbage?

Yeah, but what is considered sophistication is a matter of perspective.

Some people consider it sophisticated for a culture to be able to have writing, and others consider a culture to be able to create hydrogen bombs sophisticated.

These things are both a form of technology, and yet one of them produces life-giving literary art, and the other has only a destructive purpose.

So which one is it?

How was my post pessimistic?

Sure, I can appreciate a certain time period. That doesn't mean I idealize it as a Golden Age: I recognize that throughout all of human history, without exception, there have been good times, as well as terrible times. Some have enjoyed themselves or ridden on the wave of artistry and high culture of their time, and others have suffered and labored in miserable conditions, or died in wars or for some other reason.

There is no Golden Age. Some periods may have been relatively more prosperous, others relatively more dark, but never has any period been ideal in any sense of the word, so to picture an age where things were "just right" (according to reactionaries) is idiotic.

Nobody would compare writing to nuclear power and say writing is more sophisticated, you are talking nonsense.
There is an obvious trend for civilization to get more sophisticated over time. We know more, and can do more, and expect more.

Are you that dense?

Imagine its 1916. Now imagine its 1945.

One of those eras had bi planes and the other had jet engines and nuclear weapons.

Really, we could be totally frakensteining it up right now but illegal to do clones in the west.

China not so much.

>Nobody would compare writing to nuclear power and say writing is more sophisticated, you are talking nonsense.

Okay, so imagine a future then where technology is so powerful that even an individual can cause harm on a massive scale?

This is true already, terrorists can kill 130 people in a theatre in downtown Paris before police are able to do anything.

Now quintuple that power, and imagine the "sophistication" of the future.

That seems dumb to me user. How do you quantify sophistication?

It's apples and oranges, or more like apples and spaghetti, it's two totally different realms of our culture that you're comparing.

>There is an obvious trend for civilization to get more sophisticated over time.
The technology we used gets more advanced, sure, but that's a pretty bad yardstick to measure advancement. Humans aren't defined by the tools we use.

When you use previous knowledge to build further knowledge, that is sophistication.
From radio, to phones, to iPhones, is a growth in sophistication.

You are going for muh feels here, but better ways to kill each other is also sophistication.
Again, you are misusing the word.

how can knowledge and understanding be an end if we already possess it
are you saying achieving greater knowledge and understand ad infinitum is the goal?
that seems to have no end

>You are going for muh feels here

No, no I'm not. I'm just giving you a hint that there's no reason to be optimistic about the future, given our history.

Good luck putting the genie back in the bottle. Personally, I think futility and impotence are very becoming on you.

Sure, there may be some sort of advancement?
But towards what? What is truly the end goal of humanity?
You can't say humans advance if you cannot specifically point out to what it is exactly we are advancing towards.

it's the left-wing version of SJW

It's our word, we're taking it back.
2 and 3: Is a tumor progressing to IV stage good?
Because we're not advancing in postive ways.

Majority of right wing people on Veeky Forums are only that because of sjws on the internet.

It may be an insult to some but by and large it's an apt descriptor
Most people I know who are "reactionary" are because they are /reacting/ to some perceived change they don't like. Various liberal movements in the US have been really ramping the /racial/ rhetoric and /identity/ politics as of late, so surprise surprise, many /REACT/ by acknowledging their white /racial identity/

Check out this Whig faggot

TIRED: universal suffrage was a mistake
WOKE: mass literacy was a mistake