It was unthinkable by most people at the start of the Twentieth Century. That's the sense in which I meant it. In many ways. I was born in one country, I lived for several years in another country, and now I live in yet another country. But I wasn't talking about my personal possibility for travel. I was thinking of businesses, and goods being transported around the world in a way that wasn't possible at the start of the Twentieth Century. Some of the food I eat, most of the clothes I wear and all of the products I use are not made locally, but they're made somewhere else entirely, and that's only because faster transportation has made this possible. What was that thing about unfounded assertions? I travel a lot, I live in a country that's not my native one, and I'm not American. Once again, it's not about my own vantage point. I was referring to how other people (everyone) can communicate with anyone else. Before the era of mass communication, few people had a clue of what it meant to live in a different country or even a different city. Few people could imagine what it meant to live in a different social class, or to lead a different kind of life. Throughout the Twentieth Century governments have fallen, the rights of women and minorities have gained more prominence, and several other aspects of everyday life have been revolutionized in ways that have only been made possible by an increase in the possibilities of communication. This is analyzed brilliantly by the sociologist Joshua Meyrowitz in his book "No Sense of Place". Here are a few examples of mentalities that need catching up: - Religious beliefs and practices don't make any sense in light of the current scientific progress, but many people still think they do. Additionally, many people still believe that an ethical behavior can only stem from religious beliefs, but that's false, too. These beliefs in turn leads people to cause damage to other people (or to inhibit their freedom) in the name of religion or a "higher power". Of course the situation is not the same everywhere. - Patriotism and excessive nationalism don't make sense either, and at the very least they need to be revisited. When many corners of the world are getting every day more alike, being "proud" of having been born in one place rather than another, and assuming certain "rights" because of that, is an unfounded prejudice that can only have negative results. - The idea, that many have, that there is a nearly-perfect form of government and that form is a democratic republic is well-intentioned but naive. The best form of government hasn't been invented yet. And when it does get invented, it might be too late because technology (and society with it) will have changed again in the meantime. For millennia the world hasn't changed much, and there were just a handful of forms of government to choose from. Now none of them suits our society, but change in that department is much much slower than technological change, so we live in the present surrounded by institutions created by our great-grandfathers and run by our fathers and grandfathers. No, it's dictated by their parents and grandparents – by people who managed to adapt to the TV and the remote control, but not quite to the Internet. Until a few years ago, George W. Bush was one of the most important men in the world in terms of the power he held; would you say that his mentality is adapted to the realities of our present time? I don't think so.We can travel from major air hub to major air hub at a substantial percentage of Mach 1. That's a long way from "unthinkable."
How much does it affect your life?
Americans, if we're going to be specific, have been wandering for 150 years... and are here because of wanderlust. We've been nomads since the Reformation. And hey - if you want to visit the Empty Quarter it's just as much of a bitch for you as it was for TE Lawrence once you break clear of Riyadh. You aren't going to, though, so it doesn't much matter.
And you have superficial relationships with disparate people all over the globe but you have fewer superficial relationships with people in your neighborhood.
I don't know what "mentalities" you think you need to "catch up", but the last adaptation I made was "shit - a lot of the people who hire me are on Facebook, I better set up an account."
The thing you're missing is that victory belongs to those who adapt. The world you live in is being dictated by people who have figured out how best to take advantage of the situation.
Sez who? Scientific American ran an article on bullet trains 150 years ago. "Unthinkable" is a hyperbolic term used when one wants to dismiss all debate. Nope. Not lettin' ya. The same was true for Benjamin Franklin. Hell, son, for someone born in Serbia in 1919 the same is true without the dude having to move houses! Which would be unique except for the fact that "country" is a modern term anyway and duchies in Germany used to change hands every ten years or so. So nobody had an imagination prior to the invention of television? As I recall, more people read James Fenimore Cooper's Leatherstocking tales than read Victor Hugo... and in more languages. Been to the Empty Quarter? No? Then it's a "founded assertion." My grandparents grew up without telephones. They adapted just fine. Say it again. It will remain just as false. I'm going to let you have this one, not because I agree, but because it's more important to get you back on track - so what? How does this "average person" that you insist you are not care a whit about the methodology employed to topple Mossadegh? Now let's get to your examples: Has been true since Galileo at least. Has been true since Sargon of Akkad or earlier. 'K, here's where you show your ass and demonstrate that you read a book about the 20th century with no understanding of the context of the 19th and earlier centuries. "Nationalism" was a product of The Enlightenment. Germany has been a "country" since 1871. Italy ceased to be a bunch of warring nation-states in the 1860s. As an "OMG CHANGE" example, "nationalism" is a recent adaptation. I was unaware that the world had adopted democracy, and further unaware that we've had to "adapt" to it. I like to quote Churchill on this one - "Democracy is the worst form of government except for every other one." This is a bizarrely ignorant statement. I'm gonna say the burden of proof is on you. Every form of government suited every society it had or it was replaced by revolution. QED. Whatever, dude. Obama's got a Blackberry. Are you trying to argue that if GWB had Facebook the world would be a better place? 'cuz I'd like to see that. * * * Look. I responded because you clearly had a lot of despair in your post. Based on your response, you clearly have a lot of affection for that despair. Fine. Keep it. Just allow me to point out that when you insist on a perspective against all evidence to the contrary, you are - wait for it - ...failing to adapt. Good day.It was unthinkable by most people at the start of the Twentieth Century. That's the sense in which I meant it.
I was born in one country, I lived for several years in another country, and now I live in yet another country.
Before the era of mass communication, few people had a clue of what it meant to live in a different country or even a different city
What was that thing about unfounded assertions? I travel a lot, I live in a country that's not my native one, and I'm not American.
I was referring to how other people (everyone) can communicate with anyone else
Few people could imagine what it meant to live in a different social class, or to lead a different kind of life.
Throughout the Twentieth Century governments have fallen, the rights of women and minorities have gained more prominence, and several other aspects of everyday life have been revolutionized in ways that have only been made possible by an increase in the possibilities of communication.
Religious beliefs and practices don't make any sense in light of the current scientific progress, but many people still think they do.
Additionally, many people still believe that an ethical behavior can only stem from religious beliefs, but that's false, too.
Patriotism and excessive nationalism don't make sense either, and at the very least they need to be revisited.
The idea, that many have, that there is a nearly-perfect form of government and that form is a democratic republic is well-intentioned but naive.
For millennia the world hasn't changed much, and there were just a handful of forms of government to choose from.
Now none of them suits our society,
No, it's dictated by their parents and grandparents – by people who managed to adapt to the TV and the remote control, but not quite to the Internet.
Until a few years ago, George W. Bush was one of the most important men in the world in terms of the power he held; would you say that his mentality is adapted to the realities of our present time? I don't think so.
I find it humorous that while pointing out a supposed means used to dismiss an opponents view point in a debate, you yourself use a technique that also could be seen as intending to dismiss an opponents view point. Your whole post is also unnecessarily argumentative."Unthinkable" is a hyperbolic term used when one wants to dismiss all debate. Nope. Not lettin' ya.
You can find it humorous all you want - it does not change the fact that the argument was dismantled in my previous post (it's not only "thinkable" to travel as fast as a jetliner, it's easily demonstrable). No, it is dismissive. My original post was hopeful but apparently, that is not permitted when one is busy wringing one's hands about the future because one has read a Penguin Classics "History of the 20th Century."I find it humorous that while pointing out a supposed means used to dismiss an opponents view point in a debate, you yourself use a technique that also could be seen as intending to dismiss an opponents view point.
Your whole post is also unnecessarily argumentative.
How much does it affect your life?
I would suggest that the ability to quickly travel far distances, affects our lives in ways outside of personal travel much more so. For example, shipping a package, receiving goods from other parts of the country and world are all things that were very difficult to do in the not-too-distant past. -These are every day conveniences. These conveniences allow goods and services to be more efficient and cost-effective. The car I am parked in right now is full of products and is itself made of components that likely came from all over the world.
...and how much different would your life be if that car were 100% made in Detroit? How much different would your life be if instead of buying your clothes at BigMart you bought them at the local tailor's? How much different would your life be if your caesar salad came from vegetables grown an oxcart ride away, rather than Mexico? Yeah, it's a geopolitical change, but it's still a salad.
From a cost perspective it could be very different. I was at Target yesterday and I bought tennis balls, shaving cream, Annie's pizza rolls, a cup of coffee and pens. Without the ability to quickly source those products, a store with that many varried products at a low cost might not exist. It saved me time. No doubt. My life would be different. Not saying for the better or worse, but different.
100 years ago, would you need tennis balls? Shaving cream? Pizza rolls? Pens? That's my point. The gadgets and greebles in your life are different, but the gadgets and greebles do not materially impact your life. Now, if we were talking contact lenses or insulin there'd be an argument. At the same time, 100 years ago there was a lot less myopia and diabetes. This whole thread is desperately lacking perspective.