Why did North America succeed while Latin America failed.

Started by Greg, June 14, 2018, 02:58:20 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

dellery

Different races behave differently. The Anglo, Germanic, and Nordic people tend to be able to govern themselves individually better than other races. Systematically exterminating the indigenous tribesmen in an area and imposing colonial pograms designed to ensure racial homogeneity helped North America to progress ahead of the  South.
South America is still being civilized, the North just wiped the uncivilized people off the map, and in doing so gave themselves a many centuries long head start.
Blessed are those who plant trees under whose shade they will never sit.

The closer you get to life the better death will be; the closer you get to death the better life will be.

Nous Defions
St. Phillip Neri, pray for us.

Greg

Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Uruguay all have same sex marriage.

So much for them not being bad.

They are not much better on Abortion.  They are probably worse on adultery by the major point is they are corrupt places where there is less rule of law, far more nepotism and bribery, poor education etc.

What do you carry in your pocket or have in your house that was invented in Brazil or Colombia.  When do they feature on the international political stage?

They do very little because most of their time is taken up just making their dysfunctional country work.  But that's like claiming to be celibate when you are the elephant man.  Of course you are celibate.  But if you don't pray more than the adulterer or do some virtue or avoid some sin that you could reasonable commit, then what of it?

Iceland haven't started any wars.  That doesn't make them a peaceful nation.  They haven't stopped any either.

Is mediocrity the fruit of Catholic culture in Latin America.  Is that your defence?
Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

Jayne

Quote from: Gardener on June 14, 2018, 03:29:54 PM
The main problem with evolution and its tension with the Fall, Original Sin, and the implications of Adam and Eve comes down to Polygenism vs Monogenism. The former destroys the very notion of Original Sin (which makes the Faith pointless per its own teaching). The latter retains it. The former is scientifically held. The latter is held by Faith. The former will change its mind in 100 years (as it has changed its mind in the last 100 years). The latter cannot, and will not, change lest it cease to exist. I choose the latter. I don't care if I am scoffed at. I reject evolution. I hold to a creationist viewpoint. DNA is code. You don't magically yield code. Have all the arguments you want about micro and/or macro evolution, shapes of snouts and methods of environmental adaptation, etc. The Code is what it comes down to. Code is ultimately a storage mechanism for something immaterial. An idea. A consequence. A cause and effect. An if/then/else statement: nestled in the billions and trillions of combinations. That doesn't just happen, even over a very long period of time.
And with the Code, comes by necessity, two parents. If that's not true, then maybe that wild-haired ancient aliens dude is right. But if it's not true, the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general, is about the most retarded thing this side of ethanol in gasoline.

For the most part I agree with you.  Monogenism is non-negotiable.  As Catholics we must believe that.  And if the current views of science are not compatible with it, then science is wrong.  But it might not always be wrong.  Since science by its nature is always open to change then perhaps some future understanding of evolution will be compatible with monogenism.

Something like this has already happened before.  Back in the early centuries of the Church's existence, science said that the equator was so hot that nobody could survive travelling through it.  Therefore the people who lived on the other side of the globe must have originated there.  Since this was in conflict with monogenism, Christians rejected the possibility of people living there.  Some even rejected that the earth was a sphere and threw out science, in general, as a pagan belief not suitable for Christians.

Eventually science changed.  People learned that the equator was not as hot as they had believed.  So Christians stopped thinking that monogenism implied that people could not live on the other side of the world.  It turned out that science was reconcilable with Christian theology after all.

Evolution can only be true if it is reconcilable with Christianity. Obviously if you think that evolution cannot be reconciled with monogenism, you have to reject evolution.  But that does not mean that there is anything wrong with other people trying to reconcile them.  I don't know enough about science to say whether it is reconcilable or not.

Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.

Mono no aware

Quote from: Jayne on June 14, 2018, 05:35:21 PMSomething like this has already happened before.  Back in the early centuries of the Church's existence, science said that the equator was so hot that nobody could survive travelling through it.  Therefore the people who lived on the other side of the globe must have originated there.  Since this was in conflict with monogenism, Christians rejected the possibility of people living there.  Some even rejected that the earth was a sphere and threw out science, in general, as a pagan belief not suitable for Christians.

This seems strange.  How did they know, scientifically, that there were "people who lived on the other side of the globe" if the globe had never been circumnavigated?  How did they mark the equator in the second and third centuries?  The maps from that period show only Europe, North Africa, and Asia.  You appear to be confusing "science" with "people speculating about things."  Whereas any grade schooler can tell you that the scientific method involves testing your hypotheses.  What you are describing has little to do with science as we actually understand it.

It's possible that every last thing we know about DNA, and everything we've learned from DNA modelling, is completely wrong.  But that would be on a par with the earth turning out to be flat.  The flat earthers could, somehow, be right, and all our acquired scientific understanding of a global earth has been the result of a deception.  The bottom line is that if your position is, "we can wait for science to overturn itself on polygenism," then you (or a person trying to reconcile evolution and creation) are essentially a creationist.

Gardener

Quote from: Jayne on June 14, 2018, 05:35:21 PM
Quote from: Gardener on June 14, 2018, 03:29:54 PM
The main problem with evolution and its tension with the Fall, Original Sin, and the implications of Adam and Eve comes down to Polygenism vs Monogenism. The former destroys the very notion of Original Sin (which makes the Faith pointless per its own teaching). The latter retains it. The former is scientifically held. The latter is held by Faith. The former will change its mind in 100 years (as it has changed its mind in the last 100 years). The latter cannot, and will not, change lest it cease to exist. I choose the latter. I don't care if I am scoffed at. I reject evolution. I hold to a creationist viewpoint. DNA is code. You don't magically yield code. Have all the arguments you want about micro and/or macro evolution, shapes of snouts and methods of environmental adaptation, etc. The Code is what it comes down to. Code is ultimately a storage mechanism for something immaterial. An idea. A consequence. A cause and effect. An if/then/else statement: nestled in the billions and trillions of combinations. That doesn't just happen, even over a very long period of time.
And with the Code, comes by necessity, two parents. If that's not true, then maybe that wild-haired ancient aliens dude is right. But if it's not true, the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general, is about the most retarded thing this side of ethanol in gasoline.

For the most part I agree with you.  Monogenism is non-negotiable.  As Catholics we must believe that.  And if the current views of science are not compatible with it, then science is wrong.  But it might not always be wrong.  Since science by its nature is always open to change then perhaps some future understanding of evolution will be compatible with monogenism.

Something like this has already happened before.  Back in the early centuries of the Church's existence, science said that the equator was so hot that nobody could survive travelling through it.  Therefore the people who lived on the other side of the globe must have originated there.  Since this was in conflict with monogenism, Christians rejected the possibility of people living there.  Some even rejected that the earth was a sphere and threw out science, in general, as a pagan belief not suitable for Christians.

Eventually science changed.  People learned that the equator was not as hot as they had believed.  So Christians stopped thinking that monogenism implied that people could not live on the other side of the world.  It turned out that science was reconcilable with Christian theology after all.

Evolution can only be true if it is reconcilable with Christianity. Obviously if you think that evolution cannot be reconciled with monogenism, you have to reject evolution.  But that does not mean that there is anything wrong with other people trying to reconcile them.  I don't know enough about science to say whether it is reconcilable or not.

The evolutionists themselves say it's not able to be reconciled.

In abc123's Feser link, we once again see the attempt to square the circle. Note the idea of non-human "human" animals. Human in all but a rational soul, it would seem based on the explanation. But animals still have animal souls. They are already living. So the Genesis 2 account, which is specific, would be weird and make very little sense. Further, if the substance of something is known by its accidents, generally, then what are we to understand of these pre-adamic "humans"? And, beyond that, why specify that Eve was created from Adam if the genetics are of no concern? Wouldn't it just make more sense to create Eve from some proto-human female animal? Are we to believe, then, as one might entail, that God essentially transubstantiated Adam from animal to the body, blood, soul, and humanity of Adam (man, proper)? And then, having done so, he remains hidden under the veil of animal accidents? That still provides genetic problems for those who wish to join the two concepts.

However, it presents a problem because the Hebrew doesn't offer that concession:

For the same word used of Adam's creation is used of the animals too. (without going into parts of speech, chay)

The soul is what animates every living thing. Be it vegetative, animal, or rational. Further, the life/soul/animating principle and the rational aspect for a human, are immediate and the same instant. Deny that, and the "morning after pill" is really no different from a laxative. It would be nonsensical and superfluous to say that God gave a soul to something already with a soul. Rather, it would only make sense if the account is as given: God formed Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed a soul into him. Otherwise, we have a basic violation of Aristotelian metaphysics and you can throw the Summa in the trash to boot. Moreover, some blatantly interpret in their translation in modern translations in order to make this work. But it doesn't because it reads into Scripture a pre-conceived notion.

So no, I don't find the theory Feser puts forth as tenable. If I, a moron, can see these issues, surely Feser could (should). Why he wouldn't foresee AND answer them is odd.

As for science and its changing, I agree. It will change. It will change because it is a secular pursuit of truth and has no bedrock of reality. It will eventually come to a place where it must make a decision: God: Truth, or militant atheism that admits no morality, no ethics, and we descend into the animalistic chaos from whence they claim we come.

As Robert Jastrow wrote,
Quote"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
God and the Astronomers

I just hope they won't be friggin' Jesuits.
"If anyone does not wish to have Mary Immaculate for his Mother, he will not have Christ for his Brother." - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Greg

All this waiting is very dull.

I thought life was a journey.  A straight and narrow path.

Seems like the Trad version of life is to eat, sleep, shit, shave and wait an indefinite period like some cult that keeps moving doomsday but never questions whether the fact they need to keep moving it, implies they don't know when or if it is coming.
Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

awkwardcustomer

Capitalism - the one word answer to the OP question.

Max Weber explains why in 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'.

For those who have done well under the Capitalist system - congratulations. But if you want the goodies that capitalism is so adept at producing en masse, then you can't really complain about the soul destruction that comes with it. It's part of the package.
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.

Greg

We have all done well under Capitalism.  Even the poor of the world are better off under it with a TON of fringe benefits they don't pay for.  Socialism only works, for a while, because of capitalism.  Governments don't make any profits, they just tax the profits of the producers.  The producers are capitalists or working for capitalists.

Socialism could not exist without capitalism to fund it.  For most of history most people who lived were grindingly poor and there was very little trickle down from the rich.  Hence the French and Russian revolutions.  People revolt when they have little to lose.

Today we all live longer, see our children born without half of them dying of disease, travel the world, jet across vast oceans in hours rather than months, with no sea-sickness or scurvy.  Women don't have to marry men they don't really like in order to have a roof over their heads.  Doctors from rich countries turn up in bongo-bongo land and immunize children.  Smallpox eradicated.  Food is incredibly cheap compared to incomes, historically so and we have tons of leisure time.  No working from dawn to dusk.

The smartest people rise to the top and make the best use of resources.  The poorest and stupidest get a huge amount of trickledown.  Fabulous roads, free schools, free healthcare, free libraries, public transport, the Internet, Google voice (which is like some sort of miracle as far as I am concerned).  The internet is a fabulous invention that you can affordably access just about anywhere in the world.  The poorest of the poor have mobile phones in Africa.  They didn't invent them or manufacture them or supply the infrastructure that makes them work and neither did distributists or socialists or communists.  Capitalists did ALL of it.

Example of Capitalism.  I was written to on LinkedIn last Sunday by a 27 year old Philippina woman about help for sales.  There are 100s of such people and I ignore 99 out of 100 because they are mostly useless time-wasting idiots, but this lady was different.  I spoke to her Monday morning on Skype and quickly realized she was exceptional which I suspected she was from her LI profile.  Very intelligent, street smart and really knows her onions.  With my contacts she can easily go from billing at $12 per hour to $80 per hour.  Currently she is capped at $12 because she is just another Philppina woman in a country full of them all offering the same "research services".

So I will set up a loose partnership with her.  I find the customers and she runs her business with the 5 people who work for her and we split the profits.  A win-win situation.  7 hours time difference, other side of the world and she brings her children up (she recently married) in an air-conditioned apartment, instead of a rice paddy or a Manila slum.  This time next year she will be earning 300% of what she is earning now.  I will be making an extra $50k per year just for making a few choice phone calls to some CEOs.

Unthinkable without the internet and free Skype calls and message and Google documents and LinkedIn.  Just could not happen.  All of those are due to Capitalism.  And the world in 30 years is going to be even more interconnected.  Your children are going to be working with Chinamen, Australians, Nigerians and lots and lots of robots.

That's capitalism.  It works.  It is fabulous.

And there's no reason it has to be soul destroying.  Take 2 hours off each day to focus on your soul.  You can afford to because you have excess.  You don't NEED an iPhoneX.  You don't NEED a new car.  You don't NEED a second holiday.

Just came back from Phnom Penh, Singapore, Manila and Kuala Lumpur.  Asia is booming.  New motorways, giant skyscrappers going up everywhere, richer people all thanks to Capitalism.  China is doing better too.  Ask the typical Chinaman if he feels his soul is destroyed compared to living in China over the previous 50 years?  I bet he does not.

A load of Traditionalists from all over the world are able to come on this forum every day 24x7x365 and socialize with people they could never afford to visit (time wise or cost wise), drive internal combustion engines to trad masses powered by oil sucked out of the ground 1000s of miles away all thanks to capitalism.

In your (plural) distributist, Royalist, socialist utopia once the King decide Pope Francis was his buddy you (plural) would be turfed out of your (plural)  grace and favour apartment and find yourself (plural) homeless.  Just look at the way Bonaventure was treated by his Catholic School employer or the SSPX treats priests who ask legitimate questions.  Nothing worse that a theocratic state working hand in glove with some inbred royal moron who likes medals pinned on his chest by a Pope, Grand Mufti or other religious leader.
Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

Greg

Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

The Harlequin King

Quote from: Pon de Replay on June 14, 2018, 11:43:59 AM
Whatever Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were.  A god, yes, but a personal and particular god, difficult to swallow.  "Pagan" is a good word, but nowadays it connotes listeners of Norwegian black metal lighting bonfires to Odin.  "Agnostic" will suffice.  Xavier recently told Gloria Patri something like, "God is your father, Gloria Patri, not the monkey."  I liked that.  Me, my father is neither a deity nor a monkey.  He is a human primate (technically, a great ape).

I mostly lurk on this forum these days, but I was sorry to read this. I enjoy your posts, but I felt this might be the trajectory you were heading toward.

Mono no aware

Quote from: The Harlequin King on June 15, 2018, 07:15:14 AMI mostly lurk on this forum these days, but I was sorry to read this. I enjoy your posts, but I felt this might be the trajectory you were heading toward.

I appreciate the kind words from one of my favorite posters.  You can probably continue to lurk, as your legacy is already set.  Aside from the encyclopedic store of liturgical knowledge, "Jay Pee Deuce," I think, has entered the lexicon.


james03

QuoteFor those who have done well under the Capitalist system - congratulations. But if you want the goodies that capitalism is so adept at producing en masse, then you can't really complain about
Quotethe soul destruction
that comes with it. It's part of the package.

So capitalism is responsible for building virtue (I'll argue it does a good job with the virtue of diligence, but not important)?  Not the Church?

The reason we have societal sewers is BECAUSE of the Chruch.  First came the denial of EENS, then came Vee Poo.  Then came the 60's.

Catholics who lived in the US during it's capitalist phase were extremely moral.  I read some articles from the time of Catholics shunning people who had gotten divorced, for example.  There is the amazing photo of a Eucharistic Congress with 100's of thousands kneeling in the mud in the rain.

The Church failed us, which is why the SSPX exists.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

james03

QuoteDid South American natives have lower IQs than North American?
It was low.  Current Mexican IQ is 88.  Spain is 98.  Mexico is on the higher side, but a rough estimate of native IQ at 80 is reasonable.  El Salvador has an IQ of 80.  Haiti has an average IQ of 67, which is functionally retarded.  The difference between North and South is that the Spanish didn't wipe out the natives.  In the USA they were displaced and sent to reservations, and then there was the smallpox epidemic.

Latin America was colonized by the Spanish.  The Spanish did impose a caste system, which economically is very inefficient.  I'd argue the problem in Latin America is a mix of both, low IQ and the caste system.

The question remain whether a country like El Salvador can thrive with an average IQ of 80.  Perhaps some sort of caste system is needed, but it doesn't work for Catholics as you would need some brutality.  Even though the native population would be better off, envy takes over.  Yes, they are better off, but they see that the smaller upper caste is doing much better.  When the leaders emerge, you have to kill them.  Doesn't work for Catholics.  So the locals decide to "spread the wealth" and bring in socialism.  Before long they are Venezuela.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

LausTibiChriste

Quote from: Heinrich on June 14, 2018, 01:56:46 PM
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on June 14, 2018, 10:00:09 AM
You phucks can keep arguing over useless shit.

How authentically Catholic.

You talk like a real tough guy. Would you ever consider coming to Colorado so I can give you an authentic self defense lesson? Or MMBD? Your choice

Is the irony lost on you?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son Of God, Have Mercy On Me A Sinner

"Nobody is under any moral obligation of duty or loyalty to a state run by sexual perverts who are trying to destroy public morals."
- MaximGun

"Not trusting your government doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist, it means you're a history buff"

Communism is as American as Apple Pie

james03

QuoteAs for science and its changing, I agree. It will change.

Science is slowly starting to accept that the fundamental property of existence is information, which sounds a heck of a lot like Aristotelean forms.  For example "charge" is merely an accounting book entry.  It isn't "anything" at all.

I just started reading Jaynes's "Probability Theory, the Logic of Science".  It is about this subject.

The information on DNA is a big problem.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"