Anonymous #1 22h

It generally means post-enlightenment Western European and American cultural and political thought A bit of a proxy for a nondescript “white culture”

23

Anonymous OP 21h

Western political thought has kinda been a net positive for humanity as a whole. The enlightenment brought on secularism.

17

Anonymous #2 21h

that doesn't mean it's morally wrong not to like it

2

Anonymous #2 21h

How do you define net positive? (Hard mode: without self-referring to Western ideals)

3

Anonymous OP 21h

i mean humanity is better off than it was in any other point in history

1

Anonymous #4 21h

Same question I asked #2: how are you defining better off (without just relying on Western secular assumptions)

3

Anonymous #4 21h

It has never been more directionless and nihilistic than any other point in history

1

Anonymous OP 21h

humans aren’t dying. humans can prevent dying. that’s better off as a species. life expectancy is up. nothing in that has to do with western values.

0

Anonymous #4 21h

By what means is it justified that living longer is Good? There are many eastern philosophies that hold living to be suffering, and therefore a longer life not to be good.

1

Anonymous OP 21h

by means of evolution. my means of survival. if you’re to look at humanity objectively, you can’t look at eastern or western beliefs. humans kill humans at lower rates.

0

Anonymous OP 20h

Western societies are debatably the most inclusive in the world. You are more free to live life the way you want and say what you want. Western countries are more democratic and have more leisure time on average than non-western countries.

3

Anonymous #4 20h

What do you mean “by means of evolution”? Thats not a way of knowing, whats a process. Thats like saying “how do we know this water in the cup is good to drink?”..”because the water cycle!”. If humans killing each other at lower rates is universally Good, then North Korea is a very good state, because their regime makes the murder rate quite low

6

Anonymous #6 20h

Why is inclusivity a Good? If you had a society that allowed all things at all times, it would be maximally inclusive, and total anarchy in a literal sense

4

Anonymous #6 20h

Why is leasure time inherently a Good? Youre not justifying any of these, just treating it as self evident (because youre using a Western POV)

4

Anonymous #4 20h

this entire argument is meaningless and devoid of any empirical grounding. Especially when one takes into account the anthropogenic climate crisis…

1

Anonymous #7 20h

it’s a yik yak comment section. i don’t care that much about it 😂 if you want to check you can see yourself

0

Anonymous OP 20h

you can’t be that ignorant. if that’s what you think my position is then i don’t know what to tell you

1

Anonymous #4 20h

Please elaborate on your meaning then “youre ignorant about my argument, you should just know it!” isnt good discussion

1

Anonymous #4 20h

mate you introduced bad arguments, without much support, while ignoring the unprecedented existential issues facing our species caused entirely by our own greed and hierarchal oppression (especially post-industrial revolution) rather than defending “western societies” out of dogmatic belief, I recommend you take a good long look at the negative impacts we’ve had on our species, and planet, in its entirety; and yes I relate that to the western world as we’re the predominant orchestrators

1

Anonymous OP 20h

i'm not speaking anything of western or eastern societies. i agree with your original post. all im saying is that it is undeniable from a species survival perspective that we are better off now than we have been in all of human history. the number one priority for every living thing on earth is live. despite all of the bad in the current world, we are doing exponentially better from a species standpoint

1

Anonymous #7 20h

i’m not defending western society

1

Anonymous #4 20h

(also, you introduced those arguments, it’s your responsibility to support them. it’s irresponsible and bad faith to say to “check and see yourself” (paraphrasing).)

1

Anonymous #7 20h

dude, i don’t care enough to find sources from a fucking class a years ago

1

Anonymous #4 20h

in all fairness I’m confused by your comments then? the post was about western societies and culture, and when OP was having an existing conversation you joined in to that adding “I mean humanity is better off than it was in any other point in history” if your intention wasn’t to discuss the topic at hand, and you didn’t clarify otherwise until now, what was the point? the exponential growth and development of our species is not inherently linked to western societies

4

Anonymous #7 20h

i suppose i should clarify that yes. i was referring to humanity being net positive

1

Anonymous #4 20h

and for your comment to OP: you’re conflating the trajectory of human development as somehow being related to western society. mate you joined this convo in the first place…

1

Anonymous #7 20h

see my comment above^

1

Anonymous #4 20h

ahh so it’s about human development overall, rather than western societies in particular? on that front I’d actually agree, but I’d go further and in a different direction as to say that western societies has been potentially holding us back from even further development (on a global scale, on the premise of continued colonization, oppression, forced extraction of resources, etc etc) then of course, the existential threat of anthropogenic climate change, which is here to stay now :(

1

Anonymous #4 20h

What does it mean for a species to survive better? Number of individuals? If so, bacteria do best. Biomass? Then insects. Lifespan? Trees are the best How do you qualify what is better off for a species?

4

Anonymous OP 20h

Additionally, why is survival the purpose of life? Many things are quick to die, like cicadas. Is it genome reproduction? Then viruses are the ultimate psuedo-life form

5

Anonymous OP 20h

not dying. my argument is very very simple lol. every living things goal is to live and reproduce. we all have different timeframes we do that in

1

Anonymous #4 20h

If that is true, then are people who are homosexual or asexual not human? Are they fundamentally missing the purpose of life? Additionally, if reproducing is a Good, then contraception is bad. A more developed society would ban it, and also should encourage childbearing at the earliest possible age to maximize reproduction. If lifespan is a Good, then Glass Sponges, who live up to 15k years are the most Good thing there is.

1

Anonymous #4 20h

You also haven’t given justification for why they are good other than an appeal to nature fallacy

1

Anonymous OP 20h

dude. you are taking my argument way too far. i’m not talking about people. all i am saying is that humanity is better off now than anytime in human history.

1

Anonymous #4 20h

okay, let me ask you this then: do you also recognize that humanity is the closest to extinction than we’ve ever been before?

1

Anonymous #7 20h

(not only the extinction of our own species, but the vast majority of all life on the planet)

1

Anonymous #7 20h

we’re not closer than human history. 99% of humans were killed almost 1,000,000 years ago. for like 100,000 years our population was that low. climate change is absolutely real and absolutely destroying the planet. but i have full faith that humanity has the ability to “reverse” (loosely using that word) climate change. it will take centuries and lots of coordination, but if humans want to, we will. i do believe that we eventually will

1

Anonymous OP 20h

I’ll give you example. I live in New England. I work and live with people of wildly different ideals and belief systems. Yet we all get along.

1

Anonymous #4 20h

that was an extinction event that you’re referring to, and not just for humans (homo sapiens) If I’m not mistaken, you’re referring to the bottleneck event that resulted in the extinction of our closest relatives, such as the Neanderthals (homo neanderthalenis) I’ll give you that though, that was indeed a close-call extinction event, but it was not caused by our own actions. your individual belief that climate change will eventually be reversed, is in all honesty, meaningless with all due

1

Anonymous #7 20h

you’re well within your rights to believe that

1

Anonymous #7 20h

respect. it’s projected that we will suffer global population loss in a matter of a century or less, and the leading scientists and organizations dedicated to this topic do not believe it’s reversible any more. it was reversible for some time, but we as a species refused to take the necessary action. during our lives, we will see the sea levels rise, weather patterns become increasingly unstable year over year, the distinction between season begin to blend, crop yields failing, and so much

1

Anonymous #7 20h

worse. I’m sorry but attempting to cite the concept of human exceptionalism as a defense against the foreseen consequences of our own actions is a bit foolish. Even if we accept your premise, is billions of lives worth that?

1

Anonymous #4 20h

obviously I am, but this is not a matter of differing opinions, it’s a matter of the severity of the situation. deluding ourselves in order to justify a dogmatically held belief is not something to be justified or admired. it would be your right to believe that the world is flat, but you’d always and inherently be fundamentally incorrect, no matter how hard you tried to justify that belief (I know you don’t believe that, but as a hypothetical to explain my point regarding opinion vs fact)

1

Anonymous #7 20h

yes, all of that is correct

1