Why the world is a better place than before

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Because the peasants hated their horrible life so much they could fantasize about a magic place to be when they finally died? What on earth are you talking aobut?

He was pointing out how silly your statement was by reversing it and it making just as much sense.

There are a lot of people who believe religion has been a benefit to society for a variety of reasons. You may disagree, but then again, no one made you King.

[Patroklos]

Do you think your hunter gathers were without religion?

Probably, after reading the rest of the trash you have posted here.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Yeah sorry.

I do think that religion played a large part in many cases. Where ever surpluses occured I think they were encouraged for religious and political reasons not to make peoples lives better.

I'd most vehemently disagree!

I'll tell you, in brief, about the principles embodied in the ArthaShastra, one of the ancient (c. 200 BC) treatises on statecraft and economics.

The entire basis of the monarchical tradition in India, since the beginning, was that the king acted as a centre of power in order that the concentrated power could be used to serve the people.

The first duty of a king was to maintain a healthy treasury, so that he could use it to tide over difficulties, if and when they arose, so that difficulties could be dealt with without impoverishing the citizens of his state.

The maximum upper limit on taxes was one-sixth of produce; a maximum tax rate of 16.667% on agriculture.

There was a system of duties on non-agricultural products, the duty varying with the product and whether the product was imported or exported.

The king was advised to waive agricultural tax in times of crop failure, and to use the accumulated treasury for the work of the state.

One of the intriguing pieces of advice was that when there was a bumper harvest, whenever there was a surplus that threatened to destabilise the market and to lead to farmers making a loss, the king was advised to buy the crop, and from then on to maintain that as a buffer every year so that when there was a crop failure, the state could then sell the grains they had in stock, keep the market stable and prevent food from becoming unaffordable, and still make a tidy profit in the bargain - a total win-win for everyone.

There were incentives provided to people to build infrastructure - for instance, if a village built its own water works or irrigation system, they would pay no tax for a period of a few years. If a man worked to bring a piece of barren land under the plough, he would pay no tax on that income for a period of five years.

When the treasury was full, and there was no difficulty, the king was advised to use the treasury to build urban public works, agricultural infrastructure, and a to extend the system of roads and ferries which was used by the state and its citizens.







Does all this look as though it was done just for the aggrandisement of the king or of religion?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Here's a good excerp. You guys are really acting very stupid. Pick up a book plz.

Health and the Rise of Civilization

Can you stop being a rude, patronising little knob for five minutes and articulate an argument without hurling books at people and insulting them?

Your source claims that there can be a price to progress, in some respects and under some circumstances. That's not exactly news. The industrial revolution was horrendously painful for the working class that undertook it, but the benefits are here now for future generations to reap.

What is your point anyway? That we should revert to nature? Are you a progressive socialist or a reactionary like Ludd?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Because the peasants hated their horrible life so much they could fantasize about a magic place to be when they finally died? What on earth are you talking aobut?

Dude, you really should read something on medieval European history.

But the main problem is that you still see religion through your "it's oh teh evil" glasses. And btw I consider myself an atheist. But it plays no role how you and me see religion, it's important how people saw it in those early societies we talk about.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
There are a lot of people who believe religion has been a benefit to society for a variety of reasons.

Again, based on what though. It didn't benefit the people as far as things like provide them a better diet or a better life. It certainly has worked against that in many ways.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Those things really have no relevency. We are talking about a transformation from a hunter-gatherer society to a feudal society. Those other professions came later.

Actually, I came up with that list thinking about ancient Egypt - one of the earliest civilizations (that we have any records from).

That DOES have relevancy, because it speaks to what specialists do for a society. As society has evolved, we've ended up with more specialists, like accounts and claims handlers (you and I), and also like doctors, scientists, etc, who have made positive contributions to our lives and the lives of others. In other words, there is more to it than the peasants and the oppressors.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro


Dude, you really should read something on medieval European history.

But the main problem is that you still see religion through your "it's oh teh evil" glasses. And btw I consider myself an atheist. But it plays no role how you and me see religion, it's important how people saw it in those early societies we talk about.

I need to read something?! Jesus H Christ! It doesn't matter how people viewed religion. Religion has caused so much suffering that it's incredible.

[Jon Miller]

I thought in most old religions that it was only the warriors/etc that were honored in the afterlife. I thought that the poor were their slaves there as well as in this life.

Christianity came into the scene after most of the world was already agricultural. (and in most cases had been for 1000s of years)

Jon Miller

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Can you stop being a rude, patronising little knob for five minutes and articulate an argument without hurling books at people and insulting them?

Your source claims that there can be a price to progress, in some respects and under some circumstances. That's not exactly news. The industrial revolution was horrendously painful for the working class that undertook it, but the benefits are here now for future generations to reap.

What is your point anyway? That we should revert to nature? Are you a progressive socialist or a reactionary like Ludd?

I'm a communist. I don't believe in reverting back to primative society I believe in going forward to create a new kind of society.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I need to read something?!

Yes.

Jesus H Christ! It doesn't matter how people viewed religion. Religion has caused so much suffering that it's incredible.

Prove to me the the main cause for all this was religion.

[Arrian]

The main cause of human suffering is humans. Religion was mostly just an excuse. Mostly.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Again, based on what though. It didn't benefit the people as far as things like provide them a better diet or a better life.

Again, I'd disagree. The reason why tribal people in India were simply assimilated into urban life, instead of being wiped out, was because of the osmotic influence of the Vedic religion, which acted as a source of progress and as an agent of change for a very long time to come, and is taking up that role again with respect to society even right now.

Originally posted by Kidicious

It certainly has worked against that in many ways.

I'd say the positives outweighed the negatives.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Does all this look as though it was done just for the aggrandisement of the king or of religion?

A very good and informative post. However, I don't see how that tells us why the society transformed from hunter-gatherer.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
The main cause of human suffering is humans. Religion was mostly just an excuse. Mostly.

-Arrian

No Arrian. You need some justification for setting yourself up as an elite. You need food surplus, but you also need some justification to rule over people.