Thank you all philosophers for your answers. Have a great day!
2007-10-13 01:43:14 · 14 answers · asked by Third P 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
You have two loaded terms here, one is "wealth" (and other people have talked about the different kinds of wealth), the other is "forward". Lots of people simply assume that as society changes over time all change is a "forward" movement... that all change is somehow an improvement. Most of the time they cite scientific progress as a way of demonstrating that point... but history teaches us that this is not true.
Think about this....Has life in Zimbabwe gotten better since the end of the Rhodesian civil war? Is Ho Chi Mhin City a better place today than it would be if South Vietnam had not fallen and it was still Saigon? Would Cambodia today be better or worse if Pol Pot and his guys had never taken power? Wouldn't Germany be better off if Hitler had never taken power? Would Cuba be better without Castro? What if the Kerenski Government had held on and Russia had not gone Communist in 1917, wouldn't the world be a better place? Despite what Marx said about the inevitable march of history, all change is NOT necessarily a change for the better.
So you have to look at how you define "forward". As C.S. Lewis once said, "If you are on the wrong track, the first thing you need to do is turn around and go back." There are lots of places on Earth where people would be better off by UNdoing some of the "progress" that was made in the 20th Century.
You need to define "forward" movement. From financial and technological perspective the World is much better off that it was 50 or 100 years ago. However from a spiritual and moral perspective the West is undoubtedly worse off today than it was in Victorian Days. Contrawise things were much worse spiritually and morally before "the Great Awakening" than they were during the Victorian Era (look at a Hogarth Print for detalis of what life was like before the Great Awakening).
"Forward" implies not just movement, but purposeful movement towards a goal. Before you can ask "are we moving forward?" you have to have a defined destination you can measure your progress by.
2007-10-13 03:23:52 · answer #1 · answered by Larry R 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It depends on what you mean by humanity moving "forward." We live longer, grow more food with less effort, cure diseases, afford college, fund our nation's defense, buy better homes, and research environmental questions with money. All this and more is moving us forward. But you make "wealth" sound like something a government can manufacture in order to provide everyone with more. Money is made in the private sector. The best way to move the private sector forward is for governments to keep their hands off (laissez faire) and LET the private sector raise our standard of living.
2007-10-15 20:55:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depending on what wealth you're talking about. There are many different types of wealth including financial wealth; love, or knowledge. I think with both love and knowledge that is the best way to move humanity forward, but not by means of pribes or economic.
2007-10-13 09:24:35 · answer #3 · answered by Green Phantom 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Financial wealth? I assume that's what you mean.
No. Money has virtually nothing to do with moving "humanity forward." If I understand you, only being humane--wise, tolerant, understanding & compassionate, can "improve" humanity.
"My" country is considered rich, yet is in great debt to many other countries; does not take care of its own. We have a multitude of homeless, starving, dying from lack of health insurance, & our intrastructure is imminently in grave danger. The "wealth" is held by a few, & this gives them power to make laws that increasingly deprive us of our most essential needs.
The world "could" be bountiful but it is not. Wealth breeds greed. Greed for even more wealth breeds war, death & destruction.
No, my friend, wealth will never "move humanity forward." I believe I've understood your question. If not, please just ignore what I've said.
2007-10-14 00:09:52 · answer #4 · answered by Psychic Cat 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Both (wealth) welfare state and family planning (a couple should not bring children up over and above two children by family) might move humanity forward.
I think that your question belongs to the category environment or politics.
2007-10-13 12:49:21 · answer #5 · answered by jbaudlet 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wealth is the only way to move humanity forward, but in the absence of brains it is forward to doom, an all powerful will on the shoulders of a blind lame intellect.
The Will is positive, the Judgment is negative.
2007-10-13 21:59:42 · answer #6 · answered by Psyengine 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Wealth is what is moving humanity forward now, and to quote Dr. Phil, "How's it working?"
With all the wars, animosity between peoples, and pety infighting, I'd say, "Not to well."
Love, understanding and tolerance is whats needed to truly move mankind forward. Not more money.
2007-10-13 09:21:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Wealth without wisdom leads to more pain.
2007-10-13 10:57:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, wealth would take away the struggle. It is in struggling that humanity is moved forward.
2007-10-13 09:11:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Well, when you think of all the money we have given Africa to help the people...that the people never see. And, one of the largest private contributors that would give food to Africa has stopped, because they have determined that their donations have actually been hurting Africa's economy and own food production. So, I think it is more complicated that one thing.
2007-10-13 10:06:56 · answer #10 · answered by april 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋