Age of progress?
>>1031887
>industrial revolution wasn't progress
It wasn't exactly moral or good sometimes, but it was progress.
Beats living in mudhuts
Steampunk is best.
>>1031903
What's wrong with child labor?
>>1031887
however dreary and disgusting it may look without the age of progress 99% of the world would remain farmer peasants ruled by a 1% aristocracy (of noble birth or otherwise) and people would be dying of the pox or some other ghastly infectious disease
>>1031903
>children of farmers dont do labor
lolololololololol
The real ages of progress were the Gothic and Enlightenment. The Industrial Revolution was nothing but the process of putting technologies developed by the Scientific Revolution into practice.
>>1031887
Romantics please leave
You can't stop progress
>>1031887
By the definition of progress coined in the 18th century and sanctified in the 19th century, then yes, the Industrial Revolution was an age of progress.
>>1031903
Name a single point in human history prior to the modern age where children were not expected to work to help their families.
>>1032143
Name a single point in human history prior to the modern age that had a concept of 'children' similar to ours. That's kinda the problem.
>>1031904
this thought has passed my mind lately. I understand children can be subject to abuse, but if this could be eliminated in principle, why shouldn't children be allowed to work for a wage? All the skills of primary school could be learned in work and it would have meaning because it was actually applied in a manner in which the child would benefit... Plus experience, idea of discipline and the child would get pocket money from his wages (which could be given to his family or put in a special bank account which he cant touch till 18?)
>>1031902
No.
Nobody can do proper steampunk because steampunk is just Victorian shit.
>>1031903
>Progress is about Morals
>>1031897
From a materialist point of view it absolutely was. Fit right in with Enlightenment ideals, even though Enlightenment ideals led to widespread nihilism that even today cannot be satisfied, no matter how far along in tech we go
>>1031887
yes
>>1032186
because children have no skills and can only to the lowest of work, which would provide them with no opportunity to learn new skills
>there was a lot of smoke, therefore there was no progress
Fantastic logic, mate.
>>1031903
>implying children didn't use to plow the fields for thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution
The Industrial Revolution was the first time when the question of child labour was discussed seriously, though.
>>1031887
Yes. The fact people are whining over the internet about child labor is proof that it is progress even if you judge it solely in terms of utilitarianism.
In the past sapient beings would live short lives of suffering under nature, now they control nature. The only remaining problem is sapient beings inflicting suffering on other sapient beings, but with the end of slavery, democracy and such things we seem to be heading in the right direction.
The edgiest meme of course would be to go "HURR FAT AMERIBURGERS WATCHING SUPERBOWL AND CHOPPING DOWN RAINFORESTS HUMANS ARE SHIT", but that is just a spook, as much as the belief that humans have been divinely appointed or superior in some way. Shitmemes aside, mother gaia doesn't exist and life on earth would be eradicated by the sun anyway so it was going nowhere, humans might fail but they might also succeed so it is worth a try.
