They were creating their movie and explaining how things happen. By "they", I mean all ancients trying to figure out how we should live together. — Athena

And as we all do, every day, both as individuals and as groups.

I also know the ancients invented more and more gods — Athena

They also conquered foreign lands whose gods had to be accommodated, assimilated, or subsumed in their own pantheon, because direct suppression invariably engenders a stiffer resistance. The RCC didn't care, because it was squandering the human and material resources of independent nations on its religious wars. But ancient civilizations had to budget their available resources. Some foreign gods were also imported through commerce and migration; some of these gained popular support.

I am bewildered that we can not achieve "the better" through reasoning. — Athena

We could. That's exactly why the lusters after power, wealth and supremacy so strenuously and so often successfully oppose any attempt at rule by reason.

As for 'doing better' just line up all your own presidents for comparison.

Anyway, isn't it helpful to see a modern example of thinking about the gods/aliens and humans? — Athena

Yeah, I liked how B5's author, Joseph Michael Straczynski used the Vorlons to represent the ancient notions of gods and angels and the Shadows as Satanic demons. He used such to appeal to those sci-fi fans who thought that high tech aliens, could easily be mistaken by humans, for deities.
It was a great foundation for a very entertaining and thought provoking story arc that was dramatised over a 5 year span of series, a number of movies and an attempt at a spin-off series.

The name ‘Celts’ is a modern name which is used to describe many tribes of people who lived during the Iron Age. — universeness

Does it matter what word we use to identify a group of people as long as the concept is understood? I am hurting with our new technological correctness. Before we had education for this, we used the "Conceptual Method" for education. Teachers were told to not fuss over the details, but to focus on the concept. This created an atmosphere where the student and teacher could strongly disagree and the student would be correct as long as s/he understood the concept. Which also goes with teaching logic and that we should never be too sure of ourselves, because we can not know all there is to know. AND I AM VERY GRATEFUL TO YOU FOR OPENING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ME TO EXPLAIN OUR DIFFERENCE OF THE PAST. We are experiencing cultural change and things are a little rough right now.

I think it's more interesting to talk about the relations between the Greek city states and the Spartans and of course, the Persians. The Spartans for example, imo, were xenophobic Nazis of the worse kind and the Greeks not much better, especially under that hell spawn, Alexander the butcher. — universeness

You have presented facts well. May point is more conceptual, but I could not clarify the concept without your opening for me to do so. :smile: Now how do I do this within the context of the mythology of the TV show you have shared with us. Again let me say I am very grateful for your contribution to this thread. My original thought was the Greeks and Celts (maybe with a different name) shared notions of liberty and curiosity and spiritual matters, as opposed to the Romans who were much more materialist, meaning less spiritual. Ah, stumble- you have led my mind into new territory and I am realizing I do not have the words for the concept, except to say Romans were materialistic and the Greeks and Celts shared a spiritual consciousness. Hum, I am noticing there is not much difference between the words "materialistic" and "militaristic". :love: Oh my, you have opened doors of consciousness. I hope you can take further into this awareness.

I need to run and can not finish my reply. I hate being called back to mundane reality when my heart and soul are flying free in the conceptual realm. :roll:

I hope you can take further into this awareness. — Athena

So, why not stick for now to comparing the Spartans with the Athenians, the Thesbians and Thebes,
Rhodes, Corinth, Argos etc. The influence of the Greek city states on islands like Crete and Cyprus.
The Trojan War etc, etc. The Romans came much later and the Spartans were more Nazi like, than even the Romans imo.

Hum, I am noticing there is not much difference between the words "materialistic" and "militaristic" — Athena

That would apply more to Athens, which was both, than Sparta, which was militaristic, but ... um... more spartan in lifestyle. they outlawed currency and their top virtues were equality (among citizens), military fitness, and austerity.
Meanwhile the Celts were warriors, mercenaries, traders and explorers, farmers and crafters, more given to luxury in personal adornment than in public show.
I wouldn't call any of the cultures more 'spiritual' than any other: they all had their supernatural beliefs, values and loyalties.

The Spartans were more Nazi like, than even the Romans — universeness

I never thought of comparing Spartans to Nazis or vice versa. Knowing that Spartans were very disciplined, tough and people of a warrior city-state, was not enough for such a comparison.
So I had a short look on the Web and indeed I found quite a few references connecting these two odd varieties of people. Here's a link with a maina and a few other papers on the subject:

Sparta in Nazi Germany

In Sparta, if you were disabled at birth, or had a mental illness as a child, they would murder you.
Mostly you were thrown from a high hill, or left for the animals to eat you.
Children were removed from their mother at a young age and brutalised and militarised, very early.
They were a vile civilisation, that is bizarrely celebrated by the West, as a nation of brave warriors who fought the 'evil Persians.' I speak as a het sys, white, western male, and I think the Persian's were easily, as civilised as the Greeks and certainly more so, than the savage Spartans.
Hitler admired the Spartan system of 'militarisation of their youth,' from an early age and the 'weeding'out of the weak members of their society.
He also admired the German order of the Teutonic knights, who were also a brutal order, who fought in the crusades.

they would murder you. — universeness

They would kill or abandon defective children.
Your code of law and ethics do not apply to that culture. The Spartans were not unique in this practice. It was forbidden by the Christian churches, not on the grounds of compassion - they didn't mind how horrible a life the child would have - but because they wanted more Christians. They still do - and so do the Muslims want more Muslims - they still do.

Most Stone Age human societies routinely practiced infanticide, and estimates of children killed by infanticide in the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras vary from 15 to 50 percent. Infanticide continued to be common in most societies after the historical era began, including ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Phoenicians, ancient China, ancient Japan, Aboriginal Australia, Native Americans, and Native Alaskans. Infanticide became forbidden in Europe and the Near East during the 1st millennium.

Guess when overpopulation started to become a problem.

And son of a gun, if we want peace, we need a president who knows better than say stupid things that piss off the leaders of violent countries. Creating ourselves as the enemy of other nations is a really stupid thing to do! and I am very disappointed in our present leader. — Athena

This one's a disappointment (in my book, a damp squib compromise, but if he died in office, you'd have an insurrection - at best) and the last one was.... I don't know what you think, but it's no secret what I think of the last one.
So? Have you done it yet? Have you lined up all the presidents in chronological order and compared their [actual, factual] characters and achievements to trace the arc of US history?
What if you stopped thinking of what was better in the past and what's better in the present (Spoiler: they don't match) and think of the story unfolding? If US history were a long-running TV series, what would probably happen next?

What can I say?
I have been in Sparta a couple of times, it's a great place and I like Spartian people! :grin:
(I mean, things change! :grin:)

They would kill or abandon defective children.
Your code of law and ethics do not apply to that culture. — Vera Mont

My code of law and ethics did not apply to the Nazis in the 20th century, as far as they were concerned, when they murdered lots of innocent people, just like the Spartans did. That's why I damn their 20th century notions of civilisation, as equally, as I damn the Spartan one, which lasted far longer, from 8th century BCE to about 200 BCE. Crime is crime, it does not reduce in it's potency or injustice due to the passage of time.

You are absolutely correct that the Spartans and the Nazis have no monopoly on behaving like savages.
Every attempt at founding a human civilisation has 'savage' behaviour as an element.
It's just that some, like the Spartans, Nazis, Romans etc, etc had honed and employed utter savagery as one of the main drivers of their governance.

All current humans should be ashamed and angry towards such examples of 'how to build a human civilisation.' There are a lot of statues that are still erected, that I would tear down. There are a lot of butchers and horrors that existed in the past that remain soooooooo admired, even revered, and are held up as that which WE and OUR children should emulate. When in truth, we should all spit on their memorialisations. I find it incredible that the French still admire Napoleon and the British still admire Churchill, We still call Alexander, 'Great' and Caesar was so lauded, that other nations used his name to make their autocratic titles, such as Tsar/Csar, Shah, Kaiser etc. It's totally moronic, skewed thinking, imo.

We talk about our admiration of the Greek civilisation, but we consider them the bad gangsters when it comes to Troy but then good gangsters, when it comes to the Persians. :roll:
Then we use excuses for such bad thinking, such as, 'we tend to support the underdogs.' Instead of seeing all the leaders involved in these wars as Mafia style bosses of armies of duped, mostly savage, brutalised people. In other words just gangland style BS, trying to pass itself of as 'we are spreading culture! our culture! which is obviously the best culture! and is divinely sanctioned!' :roll: :scream:
Honestly!! What an utter bunch, of utter BS!! All these models and means of founding a human civilisation, in NO WAY warrant the inclusion of 'civil' or the concept of 'nation.' They were all built on bloody conquest and involved the slaughter of more innocents than they did gangsters killing gangsters.
It was about stealing the resources of the other side and gaining personal wealth and status by doing so. It was as basic as that and nothing more glamourous than that.
SHAME on all those vile historical gangsters! They are still with us, which is why I am a secular humanist and a socialist and I despise capitalism.

:grin: Yeah, I don't think there is anywhere in the world you could visit, if your pre-requisite was 'the people of this land have no 'savagery' in their history.' I think none of us could leave our front door and may not even be able to remain in our own house.
One of my best friends is a German! :lol:

We talk about our admiration of the Greek civilisation, — universeness

I don't. In fact, I consider civilization the wrong turn in human evolution and the invention of money and religion the two worst ideas of civilization. I admire and excoriate individual persons, respect and disdain certain attitudes - not entire nations.

In other words just gangland style BS, trying to pass itself of as 'we are spreading culture! our culture! which is obviously the best culture! and is divinely sanctioned! — universeness

Yet you have no reticence in retroactively imposing your own legal code on past civilizations, trashing regimes with which you disagree and proclaiming the superiority of 'modern' thinking over other eras and western values over other cultures.

They are still with us, — universeness

Yes, humanity is still humanity: it still contains all the same elements that stone age, bronze age and medieval populations did, satisfies the same drives with ever more sophisticated tools.

Some of us wish it would improve [ie fall in line with our own world-view]; some wish it so sincerely and passionately that we imagine ways such improvement could be brought about, insist that it's already happening and we just need to fight a little harder, believe a little more fervently to achieve the perfection of humankind.

the invention of money and religion the two worst ideas of civilization. — Vera Mont

Never have more truthful words been typed or spoken Vera!!! :clap: :clap: :flower: and repeated by so many.

I admire and excoriate individual persons, respect and disdain certain attitudes - not entire nations. — Vera Mont

I damn entire 'systems of governance' and via that, the nation or population that either supports it or does not do enough to change it. I also admire individuals. Even historical leaders like Spartacus or whoever the true leaders were, but more importantly, those every day people who rose up in slave revolts/revolutions etc. I have little interest in nationhood other than as a stepping stone to global unison. One planet, one species.

Yet you have no reticence in retroactively imposing your own legal code on past civilizations, trashing regimes with which you disagree and proclaiming the superiority of 'modern' thinking over other eras and western values over other cultures. — Vera Mont

I don't know where you get this notion of 'modern thinking.' The thoughts I have regarding a better way for human beings, to make a better global human civilisation, are not 'modern' or new, they are modern and ancient. Socialism and secular humanism has existed since the genus homo came into being, imo.
Altruism even exists in the animal world.

It seems to me that you seem to enjoy playing devil's advocate, just for the fun of doing so at times Vera. You will type words to indicate that you yourself, do not approve of Ancient Greek society;

I don't. In fact, I consider civilization the wrong turn in human evolution — Vera Mont

and at the same time, you accuse me of having a lack of reticence, when I outright damn systems such as the ones employed by the Spartans, Greeks, Romans etc.
You can choose a more gentil approach if you wish, but I choose to be less of a snowflake about calling savage behaviour savage.

Yes, humanity is still humanity: it still contains all the same elements that stone age, bronze age and medieval populations did, satisfies the same drives with ever more sophisticated tools. — Vera Mont

No, we need to be a little louder than that and a little more insistent, that the savage side of nature, needed in our days in the jungle is NO LONGER REQUIRED!

Some of us wish it would improve [ie fall in line with our own world-view]; some wish it so sincerely and passionately that we imagine ways such improvement could be brought about, insist that it's already happening and we just need to fight a little harder, believe a little more fervently to achieve the perfection of humankind. — Vera Mont

Now you are sounding a little better Vera! I know you have become a little jaded. Apathy is just good people losing heart, when in truth they are still doing the best they can, to combat nefarious people and nefarious practice. But 'perfection' is merely a placeholder to be forever asymptotically reached for. It is not a state we ever will, or need to, achieve.

If some become to tired to continue to fight the good fight, then let them lie and stew in disappointment with their own species, if they wish. That's just another small win for the for ever, very active nefarious.
When it comes to those humans who are only interested in themselves and those they care about and don't care one jot about anyone or anything else OR they follow 'silly' divine dictates, then I will remain in opposition to them, for ever. No matter what culture they prefer or claim is critical.

Bad people exist in all cultures, modern and ancient but I DO think that they CAN be more easily identified and held to account today, than in the past.

As for 'doing better' just line up all your own presidents for comparison. — Vera Mont

I am not sure that would have any value because one man does not have that much power compared to the cultures that make up the US or any nation. For me, the measure of a nation is the result of culture. What we believe is based on culture, what we do is based on culture. Basically, we are reactionary and shaped by our place and time in history. We are unconscious of why we do things, and why think as we do, and react as we do. "Know thyself" is an Ancient Greek aphorism but I don't think we are paying much attention to that wisdom. Going through life reacting without reasoning brings us to regrets.

This one's a disappointment (in my book, a damp squib compromise, but if he died in office, you'd have an insurrection - at best) and the last one was.... I don't know what you think, but it's no secret what I think of the last one.
So? Have you done it yet? Have you lined up all the presidents in chronological order and compared their [actual, factual] characters and achievements to trace the arc of US history?
What if you stopped thinking of what was better in the past and what's better in the present (Spoiler: they don't match) and think of the story unfolding? If US history were a long-running TV series, what would probably happen next? — Vera Mont

I don't think we share enough thoughts in common to have the slightest idea of what the other one is talking about. I sure have no idea what you are talking about or think is important. I am thinking culture and human nature. You appear to be thinking politics.

I am afraid I know too little of the show to have anything to say about it, except it appears to be good mythology. Joseph Campbell, an expert on mythology, said that we need a shared mythology and he thought Star Trek was our the best mythology we had a few years ago. Your show is next in line to fill the need for mythology and reconsider our past religious mythology.

Joseph Campbell thought that when we do not have a shared mythology, we create our own mythology and use the people in our lives to fill the different roles. So we end up in psychoanalysis trying to figure out our role in our private mythologies, our personal dramas. I fell in love with Greek mythology because I saw it as a way to learn how to be my own hero when I was very vulnerable and needed to become my own hero. Which carried me forward to studying philosophy.

Mind you, when I was in the middle of my parenting years I went from being an ideal 1950's mother and wife, to "just a housewife". It was a terrible identity crash along with an economic crash and divorce. I understand all this sociologically, not politically.

So, why not stick for now to comparing the Spartans with the Athenians, the Thesbians and Thebes,
Rhodes, Corinth, Argos etc. The influence of the Greek city states on islands like Crete and Cyprus.
The Trojan War etc, etc. The Romans came much later and the Spartans were more Nazi like, than even the Romans imo. — universeness

For sure being a good citizen in Sparta was very different from being a good citizen in Athens. Athens adopted democracy from Sparta a city/state that demanded strict conformity to its military needs and took care of its citizens who had nothing to do except support Sparta's military needs. However, Athens encouraged individual differences and created jobs, but not welfare for its citizens. Athenians remained fully responsible for their own well fare. Understanding the differences between Sparta and Athens may be a very important thing for people in the US to know.

Germany was the modern Sparta and the US was the modern Athens. Then the US adopted the German models for bureaucracy and education and now the US is what it defended its democracy against. Where would you like to go with this discussion of cultural differences?

"just a housewife". — Athena

I have never understood that phrase and even as a het, sis, man, I find it offensive.
Housewife/husband, home maker etc, when in truth is a very demanding job why looks like it requires a great deal of skill and patience to become good at. I am glad I have never had to do that job.

Where would you like to go with this discussion of cultural differences? — Athena

Athens adopted democracy from Sparta — Athena

In what way do you consider Sparta, to have been democratic?
From Spartapedia.com:
Classical Sparta produced a nearly unique socio-political structure in history. The structure employed elements of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy combined with a highly stratified class system. Its chief characteristic was its totalitarianism; the individual served the state, and not vice versa.

When you drill down a little further, the elements of democracy, suggested above, are a 'stretch' to say the least. Do you see any possible democracy that can come from;
"The Spartiates were the only full citizens and they owned the majority of the fertile land in Laconia and later Messenia which the helots worked for them. "

That would apply more to Athens, which was both, than Sparta, which was militaristic, but ... um... more spartan in lifestyle. they outlawed currency and their top virtues were equality (among citizens), military fitness, and austerity.
Meanwhile the Celts were warriors, mercenaries, traders and explorers, farmers and crafters, more given to luxury in personal adornment than in public show.
I wouldn't call any of the cultures more 'spiritual' than any other: they all had their supernatural beliefs, values and loyalties. — Vera Mont

You may have being spiritual confused with religion? Being materialistic is not lusting for things. Being materialistic is believing everything is matter, meaning gods and other spirits are not possible. Celts were not materialistic and neither were Greek philosophers who could conceive of the trinity of God. Christian Romans were killing each other in an argument about Jesus being the son of god or the God (the trinity). Romans did not have a word for the concept of the trinity of God so if Jesus was the son of God that would mean more than one god. There were all kinds of arguments about if Jesus was a God, when was he born or when he was baptized, or when he died. Roman kings could become gods when they died, but they were mortals when they lived. A Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three gods or three expressions of the same thing. Back in the day Christians killed each other because of that debate.

The Celts won wars because they fought with the power of their gods. They were uncivilized and undisciplined when it came to war, and they were terrifying with their screaming and yelling and assure that they had the most powerful gods.

Back in the day, people thought the people who won wars had the most powerful god. Constantine realized the power of war and god, and united the Romans with one God after he saw the sign of a cross in the sky and this God made it possible for him to win a war. :lol: That is mythology and it works wonders when you want people to carry weapons and run into each other knowing the likelihood of being killed.

Egypt had a trinity of spirit. One part of the trinity dies when our body dies. A second part of the trinity is judged and may or may not be allowed into the good life. The third part of the trinity always returns to the source and because one with the source. Everything was part of a spiritual reality. That is the opposite of being materialistic like those people who deny there is a god with angels and demons.

Altruism even exists in the animal world. — universeness

That's in a whole different category from political systems and ideologies. All of the same drives exist the rest of the animal world that exist in humans - it's just that most social animals have mechanism to control these, so that opne overweening drive should not crowd out expression of the others. Primitive human societies consciously invented social controls against hubris, vanity, greed and lust for power. Civilized codes of morality and law are intended to do much the same, but are far less effective, or else have the opposite effect in stratified, stupefied organizations.

Bad people exist in all cultures, modern and ancient but I DO think that they CAN be more easily identified and held to account today, than in the past. — universeness

What's the difference, if they're followed anyway - whether in spite of their badness or because of it?

I am not sure that would have any value because one man does not have that much power compared to the cultures that make up the US or any nation. — Athena

That one man is the one the entire nation, according its its acknowledged, sworn-by and much vaunted constitution, by its established electoral process, through the changes of its culture, selected to lead the whole nation and represent it among the world's nations.

I sure have no idea what you are talking about or think is important. I am thinking culture and human nature. You appear to be thinking politics. — Athena

I wot not where these two entities can be severed.

You may have being spiritual confused with religion? — Athena

As do many religious and spiritual people. I don't know what any of them mean by it.
How I used them was: materialistic people are concerned with possessions and social status; spiritualistic ones are concerned with the personal 'soul' or 'essence' and its relation to the supernatural.

The word democracy means- a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

There is not one model of democracy. All governments to varying degrees are autocratic and democratic. So the Christian dominated Republic of Germany became the enemy of the US in two world wars and we fought against the authoritarianism of Germany, just as Athens opposed the authoritarianism of Sparta. The US and the Greek city-states had slaves. Christian Europe had serfs that are the same as slaves, except serfs and sold with the land and the property rights of slaves do not tie the slaves to the land. Democratic governments can restrict who gets to vote. The US concept of equality has changed over the years and there are still pockets in the US that resist treating people of color with equality.

I am running out of time, but quick here is the story of Athens adopting Spartan democracy. It was genius to defend Athens at sea, but this also required a lot of men to row the boats, and in a sea war everything sinks so they would get no booty for their effort. Also, Athens did not have the money to pay men to get on the boats, so a deal was cut. If the men defended Athens they would get the right to vote. Economic conditions were pushing for democracy, but the need to defend Athens turned an idea into action.

After the war, Athens created government jobs, built a universtity to attract people from around the world,
they rebuilt Athen's temple that was also expected to attract people from around the world. Athena's new temple taught the world of democracy with statues and pictures. This was a whole new relationship of the gods and a new relationship for the people. You may remember the gods battle with each other and threw each other out of power just as humans did, but with the temple of Athena comes rule by reason.

Alot of this was extremely different from Sparta, but it was brought on by war and adopting the democratic part of Sparta's organization for war. Athens did not take care of everyone as Sparta did, but Athens did all in its power to provide opportunities and improve the economy. If we understood such things perhaps we would also increase opportunities but not give everyone welfare. Some members of society need help but we have taken that too far.

Except single parents could be considered working people and we might pay more attention to the well-being of children. Someone has to care for the children and the children and their caregivers have needs that must be met.

Primitive human societies consciously invented social controls against hubris, vanity, greed and lust for power. Civilized codes of morality and law are intended to do much the same, but are far less effective, or else have the opposite effect in stratified, stupefied organizations. — Vera Mont

I broadly agree. Years ago, I read about (and then saw it dramatised in a movie called 'The Fall of The Roman Empire' (I think)) such an attempt by the Roman senate.
It was tradition to welcome any conquering hero at the head of Rome's legions via a parade through the streets of Rome. The senate insisted that a slave be placed behind the returning hero, in their chariot.
The slave's job was to regularly whisper, throughout the celebrations, into the ear of the hero, that he was just a man. 'Do not forget that thou art a mere man, a mere mortal.' Not a very successful system, in hindsight, but I am sure we can do better today.

What's the difference, if they're followed anyway - whether in spite of their badness or because of it? — Vera Mont

Because what gandhi said is not only true, it will eventually become the solution that happens faster and faster and with less and less damage. Eventually tyrants holding significant power, will become as impossible as is possible. In my opinion Ukraine should already have resulted in WW 3, but I remain quite hopeful that it will not.
“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. — universeness

Of course that's true. Equally of bad kings and good presidents, bad presidents and good kings; honest preachers and corrupt judges, corrupt preachers and honest judges. Maybe truth and love will triumph in the end, but I don't remember many instances of it happening in history I've read or witnessed.

The word democracy means- a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. — Athena

I prefer the definition of democracy as governance of, for and by the people.

You have some eccentric views of what might still be labelled as 'democratic' or 'partially democratic.'
I demand undiluted democracy and any intermediate state of affairs means the fight continues.
Promising Athenian men a vote if they role play galley slaves is not 'introducing democracy as a right in law. It's a compromise for nefarious reasons which can be removed without the democratic mandate of the entire population, just like Rode vs Wade was removed in the USA.

Athens did not take care of everyone as Sparta did, — Athena

What do you mean, Sparta took care of everyone? They had a savagely enforced hierarchy of privilege.
Those in servitude to them lived in much more 'spartan' conditions than those higher up the hierarchy.
Any surplus people or weak people they considered no longer useful, were disposed of.

Maybe truth and love will triumph in the end , but they sure haven't yet. — Vera Mont

This is the year 2023. Evolution via natural selection had 13.8 billion years.
The genus homo has only been here for a small duration in the cosmic calendar.
10,000 years of tears and bloody conflict is only 23 seconds in the cosmic calendar.
Give us a freakin chance Vera!!!!!! The Genus Homo never even arrived until 9:25pm on Dec 31st!

The Genus Homo never even arrived until 9:25pm on Dec 31st! — universeness

Give us a freakin chance Vera!!!!!! — universeness

OK You have a minute and a half
Take all the time the universe will give you. Just don't expect me to believe we're bred better now than we were 10,000 years ago. Or this hopeful, wishful, wistful wisp of BS:

When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. — universeness

90 seconds is 39,375 years in the cosmic calendar so, That's not too bad a deal!
Perhaps not 'bred better' but certainly a lot more of the global population has access to a lot more info than in the past, and we can communicate more, as you and I are demonstrating now, on this thread.
I am sure your struggle with your own 'jading' will continue, and it's not yet all pervasive.
It can't be or you could not be bothered to debate the points you debate on TPF.
Even though you choose to output such defeatist commentary, as:

this hopeful, wishful, wistful wisp of BS:
When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won.
— universeness — Vera Mont

I am not such a fan as gandhi was, in HIS notion of love, as he employs it above, but I fully agree with his use of 'truth' above.