Liberal view of Government.

[MSimon]

It was very sustainable for some 60 years. The large amount of low quality immigration and the lack of Austrian children are the cause for the slowly emerging problems. These things however do not mean that the system in general is bad. It is another one of your broad statements.

Yes. It. WAS.

Now what?

[Skipjack]

Yes. It. WAS.

Now what?

That should have read "has been". I apologize. Sometimes I make mistakes. It still is sustainable. The problem is that it might become unsustainable. That is NOT the fault of the system itself though, but of the other things that are going wrong in my country. These things are (and you will probably agree with me on this) mostly the fault of the socialist idiots in my country.

Science in the land of Christianity did not take off until the fragmentation of the Church. i.e. post Reformation.

Exactly!

When did your illness become my problem? It didn't used to be that way.

Well, you know when you help the ones in need a little bit, it does improve the society as a whole. E.g. , you reduce crime (if it means either certain death or stealing and maybe even murdering, you can guess my choice). You will also have an easier time motivating your people to do certain things for your country (e.g. go to a war), if they like the country they live in. If you feel supressed and without hope, you might want to join the "others". Europe went through a long learning period in this regard with social unrest, (often failed) revolutions and also farmer uprises. Generally it was the poor people that took part in this.

Of course if your health care is my problem I'm going to want the government to crack down on all your unhealthy choices.

They do that here to some extent, e.g. by taxing cigarettes (a lot).
I dont see anything wrong with that. Prevention is definitely better than fixing something up once a catastrophic event occurs. I think that our stronger focus on prevention is why we have a higher life expectancy.


The link you posted once again- falsly -uses the number of transplants as an indicator of the quality of the system. Once again, I have to say that this is WRONG. The number of transplants is an indicator of the number of available donors! It is not an indicator of the quality of the system. All countries have waiting lists (very long ones) for donor organs. If you cant get an organ to transplant, you cant make a transplant surgery

Also, note how close Austria is to the US. That with us only spending a fraction of you on healthcare.

It is well known that those of a religious persuasion generally live longer.

Hmm, my grandma was very religious and got 90 years old. May grandfather was an atheist and made it to 92 years. Of course this is not representative of the statistics, but I want to see those first and the reasoning behind why it is so.
I can not really see why this would make any difference.

I/we don't hate the french.

When they did not want to join your crusade to Iraq, quite a few US citizens that I personally know were already talking about war with France and that quite seriously...

Everything i'm seeing tends to indicate that Europe will be a Muslim continent in 50 years, so we may or may not have a friendly relationship with it in the future.

I agree with you on that. It is a scary situation and one of the reasons why I would rather like to move elsewhere. I have hard Iceland is quite nice...
LOL

]Maybe, but I'm thinking more Doctors and more Competition might be beneficial. Perhaps create an apprentice type Doctor? One that can't proscribe narcotics, but can proscribe Antibiotics, Anti-fungals, and Viral inhibitors ?

I dont know about the US, but in Austria, all doctors to be have to go through a few years of the so called "residency" here (turnus). In this time they are still in traning basically, but are already working in a hospital. They of course are somewhat limited in what they can and can not do. So I think that this is pretty much what you describe.

Btw, my father and my sister both are medical doctors and good ones. They would probably be able to provide some interesting input into this discussion from their point of view. All I know is that we had a time when we had way to many doctors here in Austria, because they made the medical studies to easy. It did lower the prices a bit, but that was outdone by the decrease in quality. The result was a lot of quackery and all sorts of incidents that made my father furious
The lowered standards were a result of socialist policy, btw (you may find that interesting). They wanted to reduce the cost of the health care system (more doctors that can be force to accept less pay due to competition) but in the end had to realize the errors in their ways and now they are making the studies harder again.

They taught people a moral code that made them less likely to rape, rob and steal. It dampened down the bad things that people do to each other, and made a stronger more symbiotic society.

There is very little wrong with the general morals tought by christianity (and I am saying that as a completely unreligious person), but all christian churches tend to interfer with politics too much. Like any larger insititution they want to increase or at least maintain their power.
This has had many very bad results.

The Protestant Schism was the result of the perception that the Catholic Church had lost its moral way.

Yes, but the protestants were not that much better than the catholics. They were e.g. also taking part in witch hunts.

I believe they did a great many good things throughout their history.

The question is whether the good outweighs the bad. I have my doubts.
I think the catholic church is responsible for a lot of the shit that went down in Europe and it delayd our development.
The US was founded by a lot of those that wanted to escape the catholic supression. Dont forget that.

Even adding those casualties into the mix doesn't come close to the Deaths caused by the Socialists and the Muslims.

Communists and muslims. Socialists are going more towards the grey area (and I still dont like them much, just to make that clear).

I don't think I wrote that.

Sorry my mistake. It is somewhat hard to keep an overview with so many posts and so much to scroll in that little window below.
I apologize.

All of Europe bears the blame for not having more children. As I have pointed out elsewhere, having children has always been considered the right thing to do, as well as a duty. It makes it possible for a society to defend itself.

YES, I fully agree with you on that. This is one of the big failures of socialism.
There is another problem: Hitler supported women having lots of children. Nowadays, we have this extreme anti Nazi thinking here (which has its positive sides, dont get me wrong) that has been very kindly supported by the US as well, btw. Anyway, so having lots of children, or mentioning the idea of supporting women with lots of children more, emmediately makes all the lefties cry "you are bringing Hitler back!".
In Germany and Austria, the whole "anti Nazi" thinking has also brought about a kind of "anti German culture" thinking. Culture is good as long as it is not our own
In an environment like that, you get the results we have to deal with right now. I dont like it, but again that is not the fault of our health care system. It might be the fault of our social system (pensions, unemployment money, etc). This I have my gripes with. Oddly enough, ours is not much more expensive than yours (you pay some 12.5 % or so to it, right?). As a self employed I pay some 15% for it (I think employees pay arround 23% here, or rather the company pays it for them, result is the same though). Both you and me are to much in my opinion, especially considering what we get for it.
I dont see the need for either of them also. I would much rather get rid of that completely.

[TDPerk]

Quoteation of MSimon:
Science in the land of Christianity did not take off until the fragmentation of the Church. i.e. post Reformation.

Skipjack wrote:
"Exactly! "

And the Reformation was not the destruction of Christianity, or it's abnegation or dilution. What I wrote in relation was that Christianity evolved--unlike other religions--to permit scientific endeavor which was potentially contrary to it's tenets, not that it was that way from the start. Since I doubt Skipjack is in violent agreement, I suspect he has no idea what the significance of that flexibility was, or how it is distinguished from the other advanced monotheistic societies.

[alexjrgreen]

I suspect he has no idea what the significance of that flexibility was, or how it is distinguished from the other advanced monotheistic societies.

Until the fall of the Byzantine Empire, Islam was a notable promoter of empirical enquiry and the scientific method. Its contribution to Optics, Algebra, Astronomy and Medicine is well known.

[Skipjack]

And the Reformation was not the destruction of Christianity, or it's abnegation or dilution.

Not quite true. The catholic church lost quite a bit of influence, especially in the northern European countries. They did not give that up freely though (30 year war).
Once it had become possible to argue the dogmas of the catholic church the christian religion in general (catholic and protestant) became questionable by thinkers and philosophers. It was still difficult and even dangerous for a while though. As I said in Austria it was the humanistic, worldly rulers Empress Maria Theresia and her son JosephII that put an end to killings, imprisonments and intolerance in the name of christianity.
Once that step was done, science was able to grow rapidly.
Generally though science has always been very "unchristian".
Just look at stem cell research and genetics and see the incredibly strong resistance that it gets from the christians. Heck, evolution is still being questioned by them, in the US and the vatican anyway. It has been pretty much accepted anywhere else, LOL.
In any case the christian religion has only been less anti science than some others, because it had no other choice. They could not stop progress (but maybe slow it down a bit), without the help of the worldly leaders (thanks to secularity) and so it was an "adapt or die" situation for them.
Much of the supression of science in islam has to do with the increased fundamentalism that has happened since its conception and especially in the recent decades. This has to do with the general anti western mindset as well.
Of course, since secularism in islamic countries is not as strong, or sometimes even non existant, the religion has much more influence on what science can do, or can not do.

As with communism. Well they did have some science as well, but neglected genetics (as they contradict the diamat).
As any other religion, communism is built on a foundation of dogmas. Once you start to question the dogmas, the religion collapses, if it does not manage to somehow adapt.
This is the reason why the christian religion is loosing so many of its followers here in Europe.
In contrast islam, especially the more fundamentalist versions of it, do not allow the questioning of its dogmas. This is why it is still going strong.

[Skipjack]

I should add, that any religion or ideology, will always try to ban science that could question its dogmas. If it cant ban it, then it will try to demonize it. Demonization of certain branches of science is always a good indicator for how "open" a society, or a political direction really is.
In this regard it is noteworthy that in both the US and Europe, genetics have been faced with a lot of demonization, yet for different reasons.
Here it is mostly the socialists that do it (as I mentioned earlier, it contradicts the diamat), in the US it is mostly the Christian right that does it ("cant play god" and all that).
Just look at all the movies and TV- series coming out of Hollyweird that depict genetics as an evil branch of science. "A Monster".
It is totally ridiculous.

[djolds1]

I suspect he has no idea what the significance of that flexibility was, or how it is distinguished from the other advanced monotheistic societies.

Until the fall of the Byzantine Empire, Islam was a notable promoter of empirical enquiry and the scientific method. Its contribution to Optics, Algebra, Astronomy and Medicine is well known.

Until al-Ghazali, who was several centuries BEFORE the Fall of Constantinople.

[alexjrgreen]

I suspect he has no idea what the significance of that flexibility was, or how it is distinguished from the other advanced monotheistic societies.

Until the fall of the Byzantine Empire, Islam was a notable promoter of empirical enquiry and the scientific method. Its contribution to Optics, Algebra, Astronomy and Medicine is well known.

Until al-Ghazali, who was several centuries BEFORE the Fall of Constantinople.

Al-Ghazali (1058 - 1111) Sociology, Philosophy;

Ibn Rushd (1128 - 1198) Philosophy, Medicine, Astronomy;

Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi (1201 - 1274) Astronomy, Non-Euclidean Geometry;

Ibn Al-Banna (1256-1321) Mathematics;

Ulugh Beg (1394-1449) Astronomy, Mathematics;

among many others...

[djolds1]

Until the fall of the Byzantine Empire, Islam was a notable promoter of empirical enquiry and the scientific method. Its contribution to Optics, Algebra, Astronomy and Medicine is well known.

Until al-Ghazali, who was several centuries BEFORE the Fall of Constantinople.

Al-Ghazali (1058 - 1111) Sociology, Philosophy;

Ibn Rushd (1128 - 1198) Philosophy, Medicine, Astronomy;

Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi (1201 - 1274) Astronomy, Non-Euclidean Geometry;

Ibn Al-Banna (1256-1321) Mathematics;

Ulugh Beg (1394-1449) Astronomy, Mathematics;

among many others...

Al-Ghazali is the primary killer of Islamic science. His doctrine of Occasionalism moved Islamic cause and effect away from purely physical causes and toward constant minute intervention by the Will of Allah. Nothing like Western science can develop if everything is held to be acts of divine will as opposed to the independent operation of divine law. The two are not the same.

[alexjrgreen]

His doctrine of Occasionalism moved Islamic cause and effect away from purely physical causes and toward constant minute intervention by the Will of Allah.

Today we call it Zitterbewegung and file it under Quantum Mechanics...

[Skipjack]

Today we call it Zitterbewegung and file it under Quantum Mechanics...

God does not throw dice... neither does Allah
Just messing with you guys.
I think that this comparison is a bit far fetched Alex.

[djolds1]

His doctrine of Occasionalism moved Islamic cause and effect away from purely physical causes and toward constant minute intervention by the Will of Allah.

Today we call it Zitterbewegung and file it under Quantum Mechanics...

And without the intervening mechanistic science of da Vinci and Newton we would still have the science and technology of 30 BCE had we adopted such an esoteric philosophy far before we had the tools to test it.

[alexjrgreen]

The point is that metaphysical interpretations of ultimate cause, whether they're called Christianity, Islam or Quantum Mechanics, don't prevent you from doing science.

[Diogenes]

As far as I know, the Jews have the most Nobel prizes for sciences of any one group on the planet, percentage wise. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the contributions of Jewish (and other) Scientists, but that is irrelevant to my point. My point (or theory, if you will ) is that Christianity created the conditions that made it possible for Scientists (of all types.) to work and prosper and to pursue their research. These advances took place in predominantly, unashamed Christian nations.

Science in the land of Christianity did not take off until the fragmentation of the Church. i.e. post Reformation.

That is a point that a friend of mine made while discussing this issue with him. I hadn't thought of that, but it does indeed seem to be the case. It could be that Catholicism in Europe created the same kind of conditions that the Chinese Civil service created in China. Stagnant development.

[Skipjack]

The problem with any religion (including ideologies like communism) is that they are ultimately very conservative. They have to be. Their principles are based on something that someone made up with the knowledge standard at that point in time (or less than that). So any new scientific discovery threatens the dogmas the religion is based on.
Any religion, be it nationalsocialism, be it communism, be it islam, be it christianity, behaviourism, etc. They all, all have dogmas, "eternal truths" that make their foundations. They can not change these dogmas, or their ideology will become absurd, or it might even have to reverse its teachings all together. They cant do that, or they will cease to exist.
Take national socialism as an example. One important part of the whole ideology was that the Germans were superior to everybody else particularily the jews. Now if (and I am not saying that it is so, but I could imagine it to be so), science discovered that the jewish have a genetic mutation that makes them better at math (just a hypothetical example, dont beat me up over that), the ideology would be ultimately disproven.
So, what would a Hitler do? He would try to prevent any research into this direction. Honestly, one of my theories is that Hitler actually knew that the jews were superior in some aspect (or suspected it) and in order to make his ideology true, he had to get rid of them.

To give another example: Genetics were prohibited in the soviet union. There was some research done, but it quickly got discredited. A lot of geneticists were sent to Siberia. Why? Because it does not go along with the diamat. Since it would prove the diamat to be wrong and cant be proven wrong with scientific methods, it had to be removed, scilenced and destroyed.
I think it was Suslov who initiated the complete destruction of modern day genetics in the USSR.
Again a religion was shaken in its foundations by the advance of science.