Saturday, May 18, 2013
Depressing Thought
So on Friday I had a really dark thought and was wondering what you guys think about it. As we've been studying the 20th century, I have noticed some similarities between the totalitarian leaders (Stain, Hitler, Mao): all killed millions of people but actually did help industrialize and improve the economy of their respected country. This led me to the question, which I am now asking you all, in general is it necessary to suppress/kill one group of people in order to industrialize? Which then lead me to the question, is industrialization worth it? Sorry, I know this is pretty dark but I think it is interesting and am wondering what your ideas are on it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that not one human life is worth industrialization. All of the totalitarian leaders mentioned used fear to control people. In other words, they killed anyone and everyone who opposed them because they were afraid of those people rising up against them. For example, Stalin massacred the Kulaks who were successful farmers only because he knew they had a lot of land and some power. However, not all countries used fear in order to advance economically. America's industrial revolution was driven by opportunity and competition, not fear and in this, the government did not kill one person in order to advance. This is because the American government used minimal federal restrictions which allowed the growth of the industrialists.
ReplyDeleteBut America did use slavery and child labor. Maybe it wasn't quite as noticeable because there was no one person to blame, but in order to advance America did need to subjugate African Americans and then in order to industrialize even further we used child labor and people from other countries we considered inferior (I'm thinking Chinese working on the railroads). Plus, we had to completely wipe out the Native Americans that were there before.
DeleteAlso, I doubt we as Americans would learn about it if we massacred people to become more powerful. Like Caroline said, we used slaves and decimated the Indians in the name of 'freedom' and 'industrialization' and 'manifest destiny'.
DeleteAnd we don't learn about the Indians in school now do we?
DeleteOops meant to keep these comments as one.
While there are many events in American history that are regrettable, most of them were not implemented by the ruling government to spur industrialization. Child labor, for example, I don't think was used by the government. Privately owned companies tactics are different than governmentally owned policies. In the other countries, the government specifically murdered people with opposing views to get ahead.
ReplyDeleteGardner, this is a genius question. I think that yes, major sacrifices are completely necessary to industrialize. This is obvious just by looking at every single nation that has ever tried to industrialize or get ahead. Even if slavery and subjugation were avoidable, which I'm not sure they are, you still need to get a lot of labor from somewhere, not to mention destroying the planet and changing human lives in the process. Nick Gerace is going to make fun of me and call me a pacifist for saying this, but I think it is totally unnecessary. I thought the point of industrialization was to advance and improve the quality of our life, but looking back, it seems like industrialization made things much worse in the long run. If you look at our world today, it seems like the countries who stayed out of imperialism, industrialism, and world wars are more stable and rank higher on the list of happiest countries (thats a thing. I googled it). Also, I think there's something to be said for simple living, and I don't think industrialization will make us happier/make the world a better place.
ReplyDeleteBear with me my answer might be a little confusing. I agree with Gabbi. It does seem like major sacrifices are needed to industrialize. Usually when the project of industrialization is taken on its goal is to be done as quickly as possible. Since we live in a society where capitalism does run the world I think we are a little blind to what industrialization does to the minority and we only think of the benefits it bring to the economy. As Gabbi said, someone does need to build and to work in the factories and such that were created. Since the leaders want it to be done fairly quickly unfair conditions whether that be through unfair work hours or social inequality usually occur. Unlike Gabbi I do think that industrialization is worth it. Industrialization connected the world without it the world would be completely different. I just wish the way they countries could achieve industrialization was different
ReplyDeleteI think Treazure has a good point- I think that the speed at which industrialization occurred lead to a lot of oppression/sacrifices. It was a brand new idea with never before used methods, and I can see where regulations may have been neglected, and people hurt. That being said, everything said and done I think that Industrialism has increased our standard of living dramatically, and that it was good for the world- it brought things like medicine, minimum wages, and better working conditions in the end. A slower rate of change could have saved lives- but you know 20:20 hindsight
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is fair to say that because industrialization was a new idea it was understandable that they didn't "follow regulations." Especially come Mao, industrialization had happened in the the US, Russia, and most of Europe. It was no longer a new idea; in fact, he was playing catch up. I understand your argument with speed, but couldn't that also be used to argue with industrialization? Industrialization encourages people to modernize as quickly as possible and therefore basically requires intense human labor and sacrifice. To most of us now, I can see why we would have thought that industrialization has increased our standard of living, but has it really? Sure now we have air conditioning, iPhones, etc. but (oh gosh I sound like Gabbi...) we also now have global warming caused by the pollution from industries. People have been inhabiting earth for thousands of years but just recently (with industrialization) have we gotten to the point where we have destroyed the earth so much that we may not be able to live here much longer. Plus, they did have medicine back then and like we've talked about, sickness has gotten worse from industrialization because people are closer together. Personally, I do not think industrialization was worth it or is a good thing in general.
ReplyDeleteI'm talking about the beginning like in America and GB. You argued that their industrialism is based upon child labor and slaves, which is true to a great extent. I'm arguing that the same thing could have taken place without the sacrifice, but it would have resulted in a slower revolution. The encouragement for speed comes from competition between countries, (capitalism) which is a different discussion- I'm trying to say that is not necessary to sacrifice all those lives to achieve industrialization- in Japan they embraced the changes! It was the individuals- mao, and stalin who killed those people not Industrialism. (and on your original question you sighted Hitler but he killed people because of ethnicity/race, not to industrialize- the industrial revolution in germany actually gave the people jobs and hope, not oppression)
ReplyDeleteAs for the quality of life bit, well you can go back to living on a farm, breaking your back for food that an overlord will take as soon as your done, starving if the rains don't come in time. I don't want to be there. As for the diseases, they existed WAY before industrialization- leprosy, black plague etc.
It is only now with medicine and technology that we understand germs and hygiene, and have new medicines. I mean we have pretty much eliminated small pox, a leading killer for hundreds and thousands of years. And the environment was hurt and that was a mistake but now with industrialization we are trying to fix it. I'm sorry that so many people had to get hurt, but I'm glad I live in the industrialized world.
Paige, you say that industrialization is possible without sacrificing so many human lives. Maybe its possible, but if we went back and tried it again, I'm sure the same thing would happen again. You can't have industrialization without competition, because then everybody feels like they have to catch up out of self-defense. You used Japan as an example. Things were going fairly well for them before we sent Commodore Perry over, but then they had to industrialize or get bullied and robbed by Western powers. This led to years of violence, warfare, and destruction in Japan. Therefore, how can you say that they embraced industrialization and it worked out for them? They were forced into it because the West was so caught up in industrializing that they thought it was okay to take advantage of Japan for their materials. To address your other point, I think you have a biased opinion of the pre-industrialized world. Not everybody was cavemen, peasants, and farmers! From 2 years of World Civ, you should be familiar with many great civilizations, including republics and democracies, that were very advanced. To counter your last point, even though we have advanced technology due to industrialization, I think we are less healthy overall today than we were before. We still die from diseases all the time. So even though we're so "advanced" and we have all this technology, we're still not healthy, there's still war, poverty, starvation, etc., so how far have we actually come?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and am on your side of the debate.
DeleteI think in general, suffering is needed for any country to advance. To get ahead means that someone has to be below you or in worse conditions, whether it's slaves, forced labor, child labor, etc. It wouldn't be considered a "higher standard of living" without being able to compare it to someone who is suffering more than you. I don't think industrialization would have come about as quickly as it did without suffering and I agree with you on your point about how even if we went back in time, the same thing would've happened.
For further support on your point about how not everyone was a caveman or farmer: there were plenty of merchants, businessmen, and craftsmen in China during the Ming Dynasty and during the Renaissance and Italy.
I agree with your last point, but I also want to expand on it a little more. I think we sort of talked about this in 8th grade with Mr. Miller about how we as humans take one step forward and three steps back. Concerning medicine and diseases, sure we've nearly gotten rid of leprosy and the black plague, but bacteria and viruses evolve very quickly and they are reappearing as "super bugs" that are immune to current medicine (which is why we have to get vaccines every 4-6 years because of the new strains of diseases). Also, because we producing things that are chemically processed because we are so "advanced" we risk introducing harmful chemicals, new bacteria, organisms, and diseases that are resistant to current medicine. A different example are nuclear weapons. It's incredible and frightening that we've engineered something that can wipe out an entire city with our modern technology.
It united japan and stopped the Warlords and eliminated Feudalism. Gabbi everyone was pretty much was peasents and farmers- especially when you go back in time to pre industrialization- there was no specialization because they had to farm or die. In France the whole problem was that the majority of the nation, the 3rd estate had no rights. That was a common theme back then. THere were no rights for the peasents, no womens rights, no garentee that you would survive the next year. the civilizations I believe you are thinking of- Rome, Greece- still had slaves, and the majority of people were tolling away in the feilds. The people you read about in the textbooks were the elite and the minority. Industrialization, in the long run has lead to security against famine specialization and womens rights(YAY!) And of course people still die- thats part of life. But the average life span has greatly incresed with industiralzation, and is still increasing in 2nd world counries where they are industrializing presently. things are getting better. The world is by no means utopic, there is stll war poverty and starvation, but the industrial revolution has improved standereds of living and continues to do so.
ReplyDeleteI feel like I'm intruding in this heated debate between Paige and Gabbi, but I'll still do it. I agree in pretty much everything with Paige. Industrialization has taken us a long way of what we were before and it is true that A LOT of lives were sacrificed, but as Paige said it is mainly because of the speed at which industrialization happened. To add to your point Paige, most of the civilizations before the industrial revolution happened had slaves and forced labor; i.e. Egypt, Sumer, Roman, Mongols, Greek, Aztec, Persians, etc. Curiously all of these civilizations were at one point the most powerful of their region. Maybe it's not the prettiest way to go about it, but industrialization with slaves and force labor is more effective for a civilization to thrive.
ReplyDeleteAlso, industrializing has brought us many benefits not only material, but cultural. Since during the industrial revolution the use of steam was first used and more advanced ways of transportation were invented, cultural traditions, customs, beliefs, food, art, architecture, culture, history, science knowledge (i.e. number system from india, number 0 from the mayans), and more are shared among civilizations. I think that due to this increase in overall culture we have reduced the number of wars the world is in. Most of the wars now a days are not country against country, with a few exceptions such as the US and Afghanistan. Still, because we have a better understanding of where a civilization comes from we are able to think before taking action. In ancient times, the only moments when there was peace was when an empire was present and most than half of the population was suppressed.
Finally, (I know this is a long post, but I need to say it all) I think as Paige said, although industrialization has lead us to Global Warming, it is now leading us towards a "greener" future. Thanks to the advances in medicine and science we are able to help people live instead of 40 years, about 76 (fact! google it). Starvation is still a problem, but it has always been it's not like in 1700's people were all well-fed. Still, it is a problem that as a whole, the entire world is trying to fix.
Industrialization has not only improved our living conditions, but also our connection as a whole race.
I think that in the long run this argument all comes down to what one values more. Paige and Sebastian, I agree that industrialization has led to a longer lifespan and more or less a guarantee against famine, but Paige I do not agree with your statement that it has increased our standard of living. Wars are still fought and some people still do not have rights; instead of tolling in the field, people are now working away in the factory or, in some places, a sweatshop. Back then, farming was really the only form of work, as you have stated, so I think it would be fair to change your observation from ‘farm or die’ to ‘work or die.’ But couldn’t you say that is still the same now? In that sense I do not think industrialization has done much good. But going back to the issue of life expectancy and starvation, yes we have improved on those things now through industrialization, but only in a very unnatural way. Now someone can live until 76 (Sebastian I'll take your word or it) but usually only by having medicine pumped into their bodies. For me at least, if I was that old or sick, I would rather die than live what is basically a half-life where I rely on medicine. Like Paige said, everyone dies-that's part of life. Also, as far as starvation goes, we have plenty of food reserves but only because we are now able to pump fake preservatives into them. This, in turn, has led to other health problems altogether such as diabetes. All in all, I think that this argument boils down to what people value more: the natural and the uncertainties involved vs. the more modern manufactured security.
ReplyDeletedoes it take suffering to industrialize? to me the short answer is yes. industrialization is costly and is a complete social, economical, national turn around in which the structure of everything is changed and made a bit more complex. it takes vast amounts of resources and raw materials not to mention the physical labor. so yes to industrialize it takes tremendous effort and many will suffer making this change, but does one group need to be the only group that suffers, no. in countries that "need" to industrial rapidly the suffering will be greater because the process is compacted and speed up exponentially increasing the work load. now is it worth it? id say its up to your personal morals but it is hard to deny that the quality/ standard of life has increased as a result of it. we all enjoy the benefits of it everyday, cars, computers, phones, electricity, school, exceptional medical car, without the industrial revolution these thing may never had happened. i find it hard to say it isn't worth it or even take a moral high ground in this because id feel hypocritical to take advantage of these benefits and mock its origins.
ReplyDelete