Do you agree with that statement?
Do they?
Why should they?
You can make your answer in regards to anything that takes your fancy; medicine, finances, society, technology.....
2006-10-16 18:14:31 · 7 answers · asked by Yellowstonedogs 7 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
That statement assumes a lot.
Steady improvement is more easily measured within a single society, while cross-cultural progress quickly becomes more difficult to define. The word "should", does not always pan out to "did". In the United states it is easy to say how living conditions, medicine, technology, etc. have grown in a linear manner, but go back a couple of hundred years, and the groth rate of improvement of the human condition quickly begins to look a lot spottier and more sporradic.
2006-10-17 06:00:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would be nice if each generation lives better.
Coments on statement: I do not belive this is possible because growth is always limited. Human's grow (physical) between 7-14. Then that growth stops. Companies in the NASDAQ are classified as "Aggressive Growth" since the economists predict rapid growth for short time periods. Eventually, a major company will buy them out.
Do they: The Baby Boombers had a rapid growth because of the population increase after the war. Since the economy was bottemed out, they could only go up. They were able to provide better life style for their childreen (technology, society, and medicine). Economies move in cycles. Eventually, the cycle will make it near impossible for one generation to do better; rather they will struggle.
Why should they: It is good to care after your childreen. Everyone compairs their life, and most will say, "I can do better than my parents".
2006-10-17 11:16:21 · answer #2 · answered by Giggly Giraffe 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, eventually some idiot leader with to much power (so Bush is just barely left out) will launch a nuke at someone. Then every other natin that has nukes will fire at eachother. Then we'll have a nuclear winter. And die. So no, that is an example of generations not being better. I'd bet people who weren't part of Hitler's perfect race would say they had it harder than other before them. This statement is only true for the ignorant.
2006-10-17 01:23:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that each generation could live better but it depends on many things, society is always changing, and at times, not for the better, you must maintain your moral and values that were implemented, and hopefully they were good ones. Technology changes all the time, but I don't care for the "New and Improved" some things are better left alone.
I just believe one should encourage others to maintain Value, Love and respect and pass it down.
2006-10-17 08:31:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think physcological illness is the big one for the future, nervous breakdowns and such. Yes every generation would hopefully be made better by learning from the previous one's mistakes and that the more information we are given the better off we should be. Of course that's the theory - real life is something else.
2006-10-17 01:28:39 · answer #5 · answered by auntynoall 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree they should. However, the current 20- and 30-somethings are the first generation who may not live better than their parents, due to the national debt, pollution, and inflation.
2006-10-17 01:22:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, why not ?
Everything progresses ahead sciece, medicine, technology - everything.
And so should and does the world.
2006-10-17 01:17:50 · answer #7 · answered by James 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋