If we stopped fighting long ago

[Wakongo95]

Hi, I am new to this forum so I'm not quite sure if posting this here is the correct plcae but it seems like it this so here goes.

I have been pondering this question for a while now; say if humans stopped warring with one another say,  100k years ago or so and used the higher cognitive gift that evolution has given us over othr animal, would we have made mars look like earth right now? And wouold we have the technology to physically explore our galaxy? 

[Phi for All]

50 minutes ago, Wakongo95 said:

and used the higher cognitive gift that evolution has given us over othr animal,

I think you mean "better used" the gift. As it is, we're extremely cooperative compared to most species. Combined with high degrees of communication, tool use, and hands we don't need to walk with, we've been able to survive and thrive in most environments. We've aggressively become the only species capable of leaving the planet.

We've made mistakes, of course. Personally, I think higher intelligence will always mean the possibility of bigger mistakes. They're also an opportunity for bigger learning experiences. 

It's easy to imagine us in better circumstances "if only". I'm sure if we hadn't devoted so much time to aggression, we'd have a very different society today. I'm just not sure it would be better. What if our aggression is a natural consequence of our fierceness in protecting our loved ones? What if our conquering tendencies are powered the curiosity that leads us to explore new territory? 

I have a LOT of trust (not faith, not hope), that humans are becoming more cooperative all the time. Evidence shows that we're just as apt to be warlike, but we're doing more and more together these days. Or we were until the recent nationalism craze. Two steps forward...

[swansont]

A lot of our technological advances were enabled by war. You mention exploring the galaxy and that means rockets. Rocketry owes a lot to the German research in WWII. Of course, there are a lot of variables involved, and you could make many arguments in either direction, depending on your assumptions, for any of the multitude of examples one could present.

[Wakongo95]

On 6/5/2019 at 5:37 PM, Phi for All said:

I think you mean "better used" the gift. As it is, we're extremely cooperative compared to most species. Combined with high degrees of communication, tool use, and hands we don't need to walk with, we've been able to survive and thrive in most environments. We've aggressively become the only species capable of leaving the planet.

We've made mistakes, of course. Personally, I think higher intelligence will always mean the possibility of bigger mistakes. They're also an opportunity for bigger learning experiences. 

It's easy to imagine us in better circumstances "if only". I'm sure if we hadn't devoted so much time to aggression, we'd have a very different society today. I'm just not sure it would be better. What if our aggression is a natural consequence of our fierceness in protecting our loved ones? What if our conquering tendencies are powered the curiosity that leads us to explore new territory? 

I have a LOT of trust (not faith, not hope), that humans are becoming more cooperative all the time. Evidence shows that we're just as apt to be warlike, but we're doing more and more together these days. Or we were until the recent nationalism craze. Two steps forward...

Interesting perspecive about being being violent to protect our loved ones. However, most of the violence we display are fueled by greed and not protection of our loved ones. As for better coorperation, I kind of don't see it because our climate is getting warmer and warmer and our leaders are no doing enough to cut down on carbon emission and other polluting factors. will we even be here in say, 200 years time? I don't know.

On 6/5/2019 at 8:48 PM, swansont said:

A lot of our technological advances were enabled by war. You mention exploring the galaxy and that means rockets. Rocketry owes a lot to the German research in WWII. Of course, there are a lot of variables involved, and you could make many arguments in either direction, depending on your assumptions, for any of the multitude of examples one could present.

Fair point

[dimreepr]

50 minutes ago, Wakongo95 said:

Interesting perspecive about being being violent to protect our loved ones. However, most of the violence we display are fueled by greed and not protection of our loved ones.

Most of the violence is not due to greed, it's fear; fear that what I have may be taken which is automatically my loved ones/things/stuff.

It may look like greed but that's because it's selfish.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Wakongo95 said:

Interesting perspecive about being being violent to protect our loved ones. However, most of the violence we display are fueled by greed and not protection of our loved ones.

Greed, or the desire to have more resources for your own family and loved ones? Greed, or wanting to provide a better life for your children than you had? Greed, or wanting to insure a lasting legacy of security and prosperity?

Just claiming "most" of the violence is due to greed needs to be backed up by something. Evidence suggests there are more motives than simple greed.

1 hour ago, Wakongo95 said:

As for better coorperation, I kind of don't see it because our climate is getting warmer and warmer and our leaders are no doing enough to cut down on carbon emission and other polluting factors. will we even be here in say, 200 years time?

In my lifetime, I've seen pollution cut dramatically when the US administrations care to invest in stricter regulations, and despite the extreme greedies always trying to loosen them, the air and water in my state are better than when I was young. It may be difficult to see from your perspective, but I urge you to do some investigation that will arm you with more than just incredulity. There are a LOT of people taking climate change very seriously. Many of those who aren't are doing so to protect their livelihoods (and thus their families) in the oil & gas industry, so again, simple greed is too lazy an explanation. 

We can do better, but you shouldn't ignore what's already being done. And allow for many more things to be influencers. Money is only so important these days because the extreme greedies want it to be the metric by which all are judged. Most folks put money much farther down their wish lists.

[Wakongo95]

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Greed, or the desire to have more resources for your own family and loved ones? Greed, or wanting to provide a better life for your children than you had? Greed, or wanting to insure a lasting legacy of security and prosperity?

Just claiming "most" of the violence is due to greed needs to be backed up by something. Evidence suggests there are more motives than simple greed.

In my lifetime, I've seen pollution cut dramatically when the US administrations care to invest in stricter regulations, and despite the extreme greedies always trying to loosen them, the air and water in my state are better than when I was young. It may be difficult to see from your perspective, but I urge you to do some investigation that will arm you with more than just incredulity. There are a LOT of people taking climate change very seriously. Many of those who aren't are doing so to protect their livelihoods (and thus their families) in the oil & gas industry, so again, simple greed is too lazy an explanation. 

We can do better, but you shouldn't ignore what's already being done. And allow for many more things to be influencers. Money is only so important these days because the extreme greedies want it to be the metric by which all are judged. Most folks put money much farther down their wish lists.

From what I read in New Scientist, air pollution and water pollution is getting worse every time and they claim the government are doing vry little about it. Maybe the magazine has a more pessimistic tone? Are there other science magazines out there with a more optimistic view?

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Most of the violence is not due to greed, it's fear; fear that what I have may be taken which is automatically my loved ones/things/stuff.

It may look like greed but that's because it's selfish.

What about wars over resources? 

And I think the Sci-fi books I indulge in doesn't seem to be giving me much hope in humanity either haha

Edited June 7, 2019 by Wakongo95

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, Wakongo95 said:

From what I read in New Scientist, air pollution and water pollution is getting worse every time and they claim the government are doing vry little about it. Maybe the magazine has a more pessimistic tone? Are there other science magazines out there with a more optimistic view?

That's the case currently, with the uber-conservative governments we both have. Again, pollution tends to go down under administrations that care more about breathing and drinking than profits. I think conservatives like the amazing investment opportunities that occur when you let things get really, really bad before you fix them.

NatGeo has a list of environmental abuses under Trump: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/

[Wakongo95]

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

That's the case currently, with the uber-conservative governments we both have. Again, pollution tends to go down under administrations that care more about breathing and drinking than profits. I think conservatives like the amazing investment opportunities that occur when you let things get really, really bad before you fix them.

NatGeo has a list of environmental abuses under Trump: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/

Wow sounds like armageddon or some form of nihilism. Here in the UK, the UKIP leader Nigel Farage is also denying climate change as well. If things get worse, will it be reversible? 

Edited June 7, 2019 by Wakongo95

[Phi for All]

Just now, Wakongo95 said:

Wow sounds like armageddon or some form of nihilism. 

No, it's just what happens when private ownership isn't well balanced with public needs and funding. Everything becomes about growth and profit, and things like people and the environment take a back seat if we don't keep vigilantly regulating how we want our society to treat us.

4 minutes ago, Wakongo95 said:

Here in the UK, the UKIP leader Nigel Farage is also denying climate change as well. If things get worse, will it be reversible? 

Several branches of science find their studies converging on the fact that we are adversely affecting our overall climate. Really, the only objections to consilience are monetary ones, that it will cost too much money to risk being wrong. It's silly though, since an investment like that could only result in a much cleaner and efficient use of resources and an enormous improvement in quality of life for thousands of species, most especially humans.

[Wakongo95]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

No, it's just what happens when private ownership isn't well balanced with public needs and funding. Everything becomes about growth and profit, and things like people and the environment take a back seat if we don't keep vigilantly regulating how we want our society to treat us.

Several branches of science find their studies converging on the fact that we are adversely affecting our overall climate. Really, the only objections to consilience are monetary ones, that it will cost too much money to risk being wrong. It's silly though, since an investment like that could only result in a much cleaner and efficient use of resources and an enormous improvement in quality of life for thousands of species, most especially humans.

I concur