The End of America (and Western World)

[LadyCrimson]

Instant gratification and pandering to short attention spans have become the new drugs to lull the populations into a state of semi-comatose ignorance and lethargy.

...sorry, my attention wandered, can you repeat that? ...

[TrashMan]

Each time comes with it's own problems and it has it's own pro's and cons.

 

To say that every time period is the same and that everyone is jsut effected by nostalgia would be incorrect. But it would also be incorrect to say that everything was better before.

 

Some thing may have been.

 

Do I think humantiy is f***** it'self up? Yes. The unhealthy lifestyles, the pollution and all the other problem make it hard to be an optimist.

[Gorth]

Instant gratification and pandering to short attention spans have become the new drugs to lull the populations into a state of semi-comatose ignorance and lethargy.

...sorry, my attention wandered, can you repeat that? ...

 

tl;dr;

 

Technology evolved, humanity devolved

[pmp10]

I wouldn't worry about the western world.

As fall of empires go it's still seems relatively healthy.

It will stick around for the next 200-300 years until humanity is obsolete.

Or at least until we blow everything up.

[Rosbjerg]

Lots of populist nationalism even amongst mainstream parties..., which is alarmingly like what happened during/ after the Depression in the 30s...

 

I cannot help the feeling that in a century people will look back at this era as one which had almost limitless potential but ended up squandering pretty every single bit of it. Too many short term non fixes, pushing any reckoning into the future in the hope that some sort of miracle will turn up to fix everything, too much selfishness and too little self control.

 

Someone posted a little picture on 9gag that really had me thinking.. it said something like "What would be the most outrageous thing from our time, that you would show a guy from the 1800s? And I thought, I have this device in my pocket, with access to all the information and knowledge humanity has ever made or found and I use too look at pictures of cats..." .. I haven't been back on that page since..

 

So yeah, I agree and I felt for a long time that we were headed in the very wrong direction precisely because of this, but in the latter days of 2012 I started noticing a significant shift in the attitude and mentality of people I talk to and random people I encounter - an seemlingly awakening realization that 'this is it' and we have to fight back in what little or major way we can. People starting to take care of themselves, joining movements/protesting, moving from materialism towards inner strength and wealth.. 60% percent of my friends stopped smoking suddenly, myself included and just small change like that. I see it as a response to the extreme emotions rising after this crisis and a "what is outwards lost shall be inwards gained" to quote a Danish poet. So I choose to be optimistic.

[obyknven]

Political comics of 70s

 

In present times i can't find even something similar. All art too political correct and sterilized. Why Western artists now avoiding not-mainstream and conflicted themes? Maybe they just don't have nuts for it?

[Rosbjerg]

I've seen plenty a lot more critical of western culture than that, in newspapers through the years.. Just the other day one of the major papers ran a rather big 2 page story wirtten by a member of the occupy movement, raging against capitalism, privatized banking, the monetary system and western materialism in general.

 

But that criticism is still pretty mainstream and so is your cartoon.. Try questioning the fundamentals.

 

[Valsuelm]

In present times i can't find even something similar. All art too political correct and sterilized. Why Western artists now avoiding not-mainstream and conflicted themes? Maybe they just don't have nuts for it?

 

Those that do would be and are marginalized by the media and the droves of mindless goons like the guy in the cartoon in front of the TV would go along with it. In all parts of the mainstream media you for the most part have folks with lower than average intelligence spouting off their nonsense and repeating the BS they're told to, and a public that moves generally in two directions. One towards being more and more brainwashed all the time, and the other towards realizing that almost everything they're told in the media is a lie or a twist. The former refers to the latter often as 'conspiracy theorists' as if it's some kind of bad thing, and willfully, even gleefully deny themselves deeper thought. While the latter often constantly tries to wake the former up from their daze with rare but meaningful success.

 

All in all though, there's a real lot of folks without minds capable of higher thought and critical reasoning. Everyone but the truly mentally handicapped have the potential for it, but most refuse to realize it having been conditioned not to from an early age (as that cartoon eludes to somewhat). You can tell someone that something very true, provable, and uncontroversial such as that the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned. For a moment you might see a flash of thought in their eyes if they even know what the Fed is, or can understand the significance of what that means. But sadly most of the time they'll just go right back to their mindless parroting of stuff they're told to think. Mention something very true and provable such as what happened to building seven of the WTC, and these folks will call you a nut they're so conditioned to reject what isn't fed them by the media, or contradicts what the media told them. Occasionally though that spark in their eyes actually ignites into a flame and a quest for knowledge, the truth, ensues.

 

I've seriously met dogs with better reasoning than most of the people I've ever met in my life. Not that dogs like that are common, definitely not, but the comparison is fair.

 

As far as the 70s go. Comics like that were even rare then. We're 100+ years into the total brainwashing adventure set upon us by the industrialists at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. What were the most important and common bits of discussion before this adventure in your average public place such as a pub were religion/spirituality and politics, things that actually matter to everyone on the planet whether they think so or not. Replaced they are with superficial conversations about things like 'sports' and pick a celeb of the day such as Snookie, things that don't matter one lick in any meaningful way to the person talking about them.

 

Go look at comics from the 19th century and you'll find oodles and oodles of commentary such as what you posted. Despite what many indoctrinated folks believe these days, people back then (at least in the U.S.) were on average far more informed and thinking than they are today. There's oodles of places you can find proof of this, such as newspapers, books, college exams, speeches, et all from those days.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Valsuelm

[JadedWolf]

Just chiming in to say that I, too, would say that lady nr. 2 is the better looker. Painfully slim is not my cup of tea.

 

Also, yes, the time that Western civilization rules the roost is going to end sometime. And not because we've fallen into some sort of decadent wasteful era akin to the last years of ancient Rome, but simply because other countries are catching up. We're not that special anymore, deal with it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Quite a bit of fear porn in this thread.

 

BTW Girl 2 looks better, 8/10.

[obyknven]

Quite a bit of fear porn in this thread.

 

BTW Girl 2 looks better, 8/10.

It's pic illustrated average figure. Girl 2 looks fatter, and it's means increase population of fat peoples. It's not good thing anyway.

 

 

 

Overweight just dangerous for health, but not only this. Fatness indicated wrong lifestyle, dangerous food and medication. Why food so ****ty now? Ask this question to:

Monsanto

http://www.lapress.o...es.asp?art=5792

Cargill & ADM

http://www.guardian....-dominate-trade

http://www.gritfish....farmq-subsidies

Carrefour, Metro, Wal-Mart, Ahold and Tesco

http://www.fairer-ag...rmarkets_G8.pdf

[Volourn]

But smoking - which was cool in the 70s - was so so healthy. L0L

[Hiro Protagonist]

I'm going to go against most people here and say I prefer slim women instead of chubby overweight women.

 

My partner is slim and looks great and she likes for me to be slim as well. The main reason being healthy without any unnecessary health risks associated with obesity. I've put on weight in the past and have now taken it off and given the choice, I prefer to be slim and healthy than overweight.

[Valsuelm]

But smoking - which was cool in the 70s - was so so healthy. L0L

 

 

Amazingly, and sadly, smoking is still cool amongst a very large portion of the populace. It's really probably not any more or less cool than it was once upon a time in most segments of the population.

 

The only real differences between now and the 70s in regards to smoking is that the connection to ill health is solid and not even debated anymore, advertisements are legally limited, there are laws (many ridiculous ones at that) against smoking in many places, and there are disgusting amounts of taxes on them in many places. People still do it. Younger people even making up more of the smoking population than the old in many studies and estimates.

 

What kinda blows my mind is that a lot of them smoke generics due to the disgustingly high taxes and exorbitant cost, so the advertisements for Camel et al can't be blamed... and generic cigarettes are generally exponentially more disgusting smelling and tasting than the brand names.

 

Another big difference between now and the 70s is that the concept of 'addiction' is far more widely spread than it was in yee olden days. Nowadays many smokers (and other substance abusers) blame their 'addiction', as if they have no control over their actions. They freely submit to the idea that their willpower is not sufficient enough to overcome an unnatural craving for something that poisons their body. There's even a billion dollar industry to 'help' people quit, when the only thing that will make them quit for the most part is them making up their mind that they are done.There are some people who even are convinced they have an 'addiction gene' or a 'smoking gene'. Hogwash through and through this is, but a lot of people believe it, and it's quite pitiful.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Valsuelm

[Hurlshort]

Smoking numbers have dropped tremendously in the last 30 years.  They have leveled off in the last decade at about 20 percent, but that is still a huge decrease.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Smoking numbers have dropped tremendously in the last 30 years.  They have leveled off in the last decade at about 20 percent, but that is still a huge decrease.

 

Don't you know better than to use facts in an Oby thread?

[Valsuelm]

 

Smoking numbers have dropped tremendously in the last 30 years.  They have leveled off in the last decade at about 20 percent, but that is still a huge decrease.

 

Don't you know better than to use facts in an Oby thread?

 

Yea.... except that isn't correct by most estimations, and Oby is pretty good with his/her facts. Much better than most others posting in these threads.

 

By most estimations, smoking peaked sometime in the 50s, and began declining after then, though not buy much in the 60s. The two decades that saw the largest drop in smoking were the 70s and 80s, where over the course of those two decades smoking amongst the adult population went from around ~40% to ~28%. Since around 1990 the prevalence of smoking dropped somewhere around ~5%. The last ~20 years has not seen a huge decrease in smoking, despite all the draconian laws that have been put in place in the last 10 or so.

 

Those are of course estimations. And if one looks around at the various figures out there, there are some differences between the various estimates.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Valsuelm

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Smoking numbers have dropped tremendously in the last 30 years.  They have leveled off in the last decade at about 20 percent, but that is still a huge decrease.

 

Don't you know better than to use facts in an Oby thread?

 

Yea.... except that isn't correct by most estimations, and Oby is pretty good with his/her facts. Much better than most others posting in these threads.

 

By most estimations, smoking peaked sometime in the 50s, and began declining after then, though not buy much in the 60s. The two decades that saw the largest drop in smoking were the 70s and 80s, where over the course of those two decades smoking amongst the adult population went from around ~40% to ~28%. Since around 1990 the prevalence of smoking dropped somewhere around ~5%. The last ~20 years has not seen a huge decrease in smoking, despite all the draconian laws that have been put in place in the last 10 or so.

 

Those are of course estimations. And if one looks around at the various figures out there, there are some differences between the various estimates.

 

 

Oby? Good with facts? Only if you are a bat**** ruski or libertarian who thinks RT tells the unbiased truth.

 

Also this.

 

An estimated 45.3 million people, or 19.3% of all adults (aged 18 years or older), in the United States smoke cigarettes.¹ Cigarette smoking is more common among men (21.5%) than women (17.3%).

 

19.3% is about 20% in most circles. no?

[Calax]

19.3% is about 20% in most circles. no?

Eh, 19% given rounding.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

19.3% is about 20% in most circles. no?

Eh, 19% given rounding.

 

 

19% is "about" 20%. Using "about" as synonymous with "approximately", which is what I assume Hurlshot meant by "about".

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

Smoking numbers have dropped tremendously in the last 30 years.  They have leveled off in the last decade at about 20 percent, but that is still a huge decrease.

 

Don't you know better than to use facts in an Oby thread?

 

Yea.... except that isn't correct by most estimations, and Oby is pretty good with his/her facts. Much better than most others posting in these threads.

 

By most estimations, smoking peaked sometime in the 50s, and began declining after then, though not buy much in the 60s. The two decades that saw the largest drop in smoking were the 70s and 80s, where over the course of those two decades smoking amongst the adult population went from around ~40% to ~28%. Since around 1990 the prevalence of smoking dropped somewhere around ~5%. The last ~20 years has not seen a huge decrease in smoking, despite all the draconian laws that have been put in place in the last 10 or so.

 

Those are of course estimations. And if one looks around at the various figures out there, there are some differences between the various estimates.

 

 

Oby? Good with facts? Only if you are a bat**** ruski or libertarian who thinks RT tells the unbiased truth.

 

Also this.

 

 

>An estimated 45.3 million people, or 19.3% of all adults (aged 18 years or older), in the United States smoke cigarettes.¹ Cigarette smoking is more common among men (21.5%) than women (17.3%).

 

 

19.3% is about 20% in most circles. no?

 

 

 

'Bat**** ruski'?

 

You have a problem with Russians? I'm not Russian, but I think they have some pretty beautiful women, and they at least attempted (but lost due to interference from the US/British Oligarchs) to revolt and form a real free state. Though it's been near 100 years now it's a lot more than most nations where the people think they are free can say.

 

That said, Putin is one evil mofo. Communism is evil and on the rise (despite the myth it's dead), and the Russian government is no friend to the U.S. or it's citizens. However neither is the U.S. government for the most part.

 

RT is what just about every other network is: a varying degree of news and propaganda. RT however generally does not sink to the 'entertainment' level that most networks have.The major differences between Russia Today and the most main stream networks are that RT is more open with it's foreign affiliation, your average reporter/anchor is quite a bit more intelligent on RT, and in general the stories on RT are actually closer to the truth than you'll find on the mainstream networks.

 

Just like Russians once got news stories they wouldn't normally hear on their networks from Radio Liberty, Americans get news from RT (and other non mainstream sources) that they wouldn't normally get from their news sources. If you think there isn't rampant censorship and propaganda coming out of the big 3, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, Reuters, AP, et al, you're one of the many brainwashed. Of course fans of Fox think MSNBC is extremely bias, and fans of MSNBC pretty much only tune in to get their Fox hatred fix, but in the big picture both networks are generally working for the same agendas and those who think their network isn't bias is an ignorant fool. Much the same as anyone thinking that voting for Romney over Obama, or Obama over Romney (or Bush over Gore, Gore over Bush, Bush over Kerry, Kerry over Bush... and it goes on like that a good couple decades) was going to give you any great meaningful difference except hairstyle and different flavored BS.

 

Just about all news networks are extremely bias one way or another, and not in the way most think (left vs. right).  Just about all of them are beholden to their owners. And most American news networks are owned by those who benefit directly from all of the wars we've been in over the last half century plus, the poisons in the food, the increasing police state, etc.

 

Always ask yourself: 'Why am I being shown this story?'

 

And yes. You are correct. 19.3% is about 20%.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Valsuelm

[Calax]

Uh, since when did a comment about a single person related to everyone of that nationality?

 

And the russian population did install a democracy, but that democracy failed so hard it created the USSR. Although that was also the germans putting Lenin on a train back into Russia to kill off the german threat on the eastern front.

 

You keep saying the "why am I being shown this story" shpeel, but when you get right down to it, you're using the news outlets that agree with you (particularly the ones that are hardcore right wing) in order to prove all your points. So how are we supposed to take you seriously if your entire point about the news is that "every source except my own is false"?

 

As to the thrust of the thread, I think in part it's the fact that we are eating larger portions with more processsed sugars, but also that our diets are increasing in general nutrition overall, and with an increase in that, you end up with a general size increase.  I find girl number 2 in the OP more attractive.

 

I think one of the issues in general in america right now is not that we're getting larger. But more the social stigma on being stupidly thin while our bodies want to be larger. Right now, our bodies are actually evolving to deal with excess weight and generate body heat (brown fat).

[Zoraptor]

Everyone uses the news outlets that agree with them to prove their points, a logical dictat given that you can hardly use outlets that don't agree with you to prove your points. RT is a funny one as it is mainly designed to troll the western political elite, hence you have Max Keiser (more infotainment/ opiniotainment than anything on Fox, possibly even when Glen **** was still on air) ranting about metaphorically (more or less) dragging bankers out and shooting them en masse which is broadly left wing and lots of stuff on UKIP which is broadly right wing- the common factor being that it will cause delicious butthurt amongst top tier politicos who are antipathetic to Russia. The real problem from the 'mainstream' perspective about RT is that all it has to do is knock holes in their narrative to get credibility- they don't actually have to establish a proven alternative, just a plausible one.

 

Ultimately the causes of obesity come down to too much energy in processed food and not enough exercise in compensation. The ubiquitous fructose corn starch/ corporate welfare subsidy is partly to blame in the US, but it doesn't adequately explain why weights are increasing throughout most of the west as well.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Zoraptor

[Calax]

Ultimately the causes of obesity come down to too much energy in processed food and not enough exercise in compensation. The ubiquitous fructose corn starch/ corporate welfare subsidy is partly to blame in the US, but it doesn't adequately explain why weights are increasing throughout most of the west as well.

I think that's just where having more food comes in. Not only is our weight skyrocketing, but it seems like our general size is bumping up. People are taller and just larger as a general rule. I'm about 6'1 and 240ish, both my parents are below 6' and nobody in either family breaks that level. In our christmas photos I look downright massive next to them.

[Rosbjerg]

It's the carbs more than the general food intake I think.. American (well western) food in general has a huge amounts carbohydrates. The low carb diet / Paleo thing is sweeping Denmark, so I decided to try it out. Eating bacon and eggs every morning etc and generally food I thought would be unhealthy (high fat, but low carb), has made me loose over 2lb in 5 days and made my bodyfat drop 2%. I mean, you can't argue with results.. and this is even without working more out.