Are we living in a second Renaissance?

[Wildor]

The use of the vernacular in literature and the invention of perspective in painting, coupled with the invention of the printing press, are widely credited to have introduced and sustained the first Renaissance. Today, the multiplication of communication devices and technology, the omnipresence of mass media, the free-form styles of modern art (mostly introduced by the perspective shattering approach of cubism) and the ever faster rate of change in our societies ("All that is solid, melts into air.") are all indicative of a far different world. Is this a revolution? Is this a second Renaissance?


Open debate.

[Brooke ♥♥]

I think it would be considered more of a revolution for multiple reasons.
A Renaissance really means reborn. But modern art and communications is innovating and inventing new technologies and ways to express art. All the advances in technology has shown how much humans have advanced mentally in time. The thought of things like phones/i pods etc were never even thought of in past century's.

So this would be considered more of a revolution as we are leading new ways of technological advancements. The Renaissance was mainly a way to help the culture of that time get out of a social black hole and introduce new ways to express art. Modern art branches of of past art to create new and more innovative ways to share that art for different cultures.

But as we are on that note, I believe that modern art depend to much on those technological advances and overshadows the much needed contemporary art of pictures, and such. If modern culture puts all focus towards technological communications, All other forms of art will be forgotten. This would be when a second Renaissance would be needed.....

[BigBlugga]

how does anyone come back after that?^

[Axer NZ]

Artistically? No way. We're actually falling into a new Dark Age, art-wise. When a canvas covered in red squares or vomit or squiggly lines can be considered art and could be purchased for thousands of dollars... well, it's certainly not GOOD.

Even in other respects, this is not a renaissance, as (to our knowledge) there has never been a human civilization at this level of advancement. The world is, simply, though illogically, getting smaller by growing larger.

You see, for a very long time the human population was relatively stable. A low life expectancy and high infant mortality rate led to very slow increases. However, as technology became more advanced, it was possible to save many lives that would have been lost and lengthen them, too. As the increase rate of the increase rate increased, there were more and more people, who pioneered more and more advancements, making more and more people. This cycle continues today, with its primary purpose the creation of more people and generating new technology in other sectors almost as an afterthought. Especially in communications and transport, but also in others, the rapid gains made insurmountable distances and impassable barriers effortlessly easy to bypass. Thus, smaller by larger.

[armbarchris]

The majority of the the population is, in America at least, getting stupider, not smarter. Modern art sucks and there is hardly any 'rebirth' going on.

[devis666]

No matter what it is I sense A crash coming in the near future. All great civilizations fell, mostly after a renaissance or revolution in the though of people. Couple that with the ignorance and greed growing here and we are doomed. I predict it shall happen within the next 50 - 100 years

[Rota]

I'm with Axer.
There's a power structure in place that likes things to stay status quo. Sure there are going to be advancements and inventions. But the reins are being held tight to keep the pace of advancement under control. The last thing we need is some idealist doctor actually curing aids rather than just treating it, or some idiot economist like me ending poverty.

P.S. I have a workable plan that could all but eliminate poverty in America. If it works, it could easily be implemented in other countries. But, I'm never going to get it to the ear of anyone with influence. And even if I did, it will never be allowed to see the light of day.
note: The plan does not add any additional taxes and uses very little spending increase in a department that already exists.


Also, since someone else said it already, we are getting less intelligent as a nation. Intelligence is a trait not sought after when choosing a spouse. There are far more smart single lonely people, than moron lonely people.

[Axer NZ]

=P.S. I have a workable plan that could all but eliminate poverty in America.

I have one of those, too! It's called Stop Spending 45% Of Our Money On Bombs.

[Brooke ♥♥]

I have one of those, too! It's called Stop Spending 45% Of Our Money On Bombs.

That would not end poverty, The money would just be handled by the government,which we all know how that goes
Some of the ways to end poverty would be to give government less control over certain areas of a country well being.

[Rota]

That's a good single idea Axer, but that's not really a plan. And it doesn't address the poverty issue, it just gives the gov't less debt to worry about. My idea is far more complex than that.