Humanity and why we have hope.

[PeterJ]

I do not see scientific advance as the answer but the entire problem. I think we all will in the end, when it's too late. .

[kristalris]

T-O-M (To-Open-Minded best call you Tom then)

 

Well Tom, you being a pacifist I'm puzzled at the killing Nazi zombies bit. Anyway Sweden though being neutral like us Dutch in 1940 have a very large armament industry Saab, Bofors etc.

 

The problem with being a pacifist I.M.O. is exactly what you point out in your killing Nazi zombie game. If Gandhi had been up against Nazi's instead of the Brits and we all had adhered to being a pacifist, we would never of heard of the guy. It only works given you are up against at least some moral standard.

 

I agree with your qualms on the patriotism and the money involved in the States. But he what's new wasn't it president Eisenhower (ex general) who warned about not letting the industrial military complex get the overhand? That was wise, and yes the States hasn't adhered to that wisdom.

 

Fighting a war inherently involves getting more patriotism. That is not wrong per se, because inevitable even necessary given the need to fight a war.(Which you would disagree on even against Nazi's or not?)

 

Having NATO attack Afghanistan was warranted IMO after 911. I've no qualms with the Dutch involvement there. What I don't find very wise is not getting in without an exit strategy. Copying history where it worked like the Romans and the British and Dutch colonial powers and not copying what doesn't work Vietnam and Vietnamisation. I.e. win the conventional battle in max a year as was done and then form a foreign legion whereby Afghans provide the soldiers NATO the leadership and air support. And don't have Afghans work as soldiers in their own region. And mix them up as a band of brothers in other regions. Provide them with weapons training proper NATO leadership and security up to a pension, and health care for their families. And simply perform a stable (police) force for law and order that the Lawa Jirga wants as long as it is within international Law. So not an Afghan army but a NATO army. Remember the Taliban came about due to the disorder caused by what are now are Afghan allies. People - as history shows - will then choose any form of order above disorder. Then you get terrorists flying into the Twin Towers. The Romans showed this works for a thousand years. Tried and tested. You can also do this within the international law system.

 

What we've done now is create more terrorists then we've killed and killing a lot of our soldiers and civilians in the process. More then where killed in 911 in the first place. Stability is still very fragile and if NATO where to leave the Taliban will be back, like in Vietnam.

 

The invasion of Iraq on the other hand was stupid to begin with, and IMO indeed the product of not keeping the industrial military complex at bay. And a contributing reason to the financial chaos we have. Paying an Afghan to fight and die for his own country is far cheaper and BTW Just.

 

So again be wise and organize it. If not we're sunk. So have hope in the States from indeed starting to learn from the past. The States is also the country of the New Deal, and the Tennessee valley authority etc.

 

Again: being wise needs good organisation of just that. And that is copying what worked in the past and not what didn't work.

[Bill Angel]

Again: being wise needs good organisation of just that. And that is copying what worked in the past and not what didn't work.

Most people including myself would agree with you. But in looking forward rather than backward in time, the key foreign policy situations for which a successful strategy needs to be developed relate to Syria and Iran. Should the US and NATO sit on the sidelines ( with respect to military action) simply chanting the mantra "we don't want a repeat past mistakes"?

[kristalris]

Most people including myself would agree with you. But in looking forward rather than backward in time, the key foreign policy situations for which a successful strategy needs to be developed relate to Syria and Iran. Should the US and NATO sit on the sidelines ( with respect to military action) simply chanting the mantra "we don't want a repeat past mistakes"?

Well, there's a distinct difference between sitting on the sideline and going in Gong Ho stile like in Iraq. To quote Eisenhower again on foreign policy: speak softly and carry a big stick.That seems to me to be wise. BTW US foreign policy has turned very much to the better IMO since "W" was on he ball so to speak.

 

The situation in the entire middle east is very unstable to say the least, and in part it is completely new. I guess the internet has struck again. Looking at Syria Egypt, Libya et all. Syria indeed is already involving NATO: we Dutch are sending Patriot anti missile missiles to Turkey, on which I agree.

 

Iran and nukes etc. & Israel boy oh boy. Strategy? IMO indeed speak softly and carry a big stick. The trick is to avoid using the stick. That trick is called wisdom and guts. Effective diplomacy getting to know the people, building trust and bridges. The only way that can work is hope that the leaders in charge on which we have any influence are wise and are supported in doing that. Whatever that is.

 

Anyway whatever we do or don't do it is educated guesswork at best. And hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

 

Sometimes doing nothing can be best, some problems need time to resolve the problem without too much interference in situations where we don't know what we are getting into like Iraq (which wasn't true, most people knew before that war that Iraq as a country didn't exist: ).

Edited January 10, 2013 by kristalris

[imatfaal]

Well, there's a distinct difference between sitting on the sideline and going in Gong Ho stile like in Iraq. To quote Eisenhower again on foreign policy: speak softly and carry a big stick.That seems to me to be wise. BTW US foreign policy has turned very much to the better IMO since "W" was on he ball so to speak

 

It was Roosevelt recycling a west african proverb - not Eisenhower.

 

Frankly most of the world breathed a sigh of relief once W was off the ball and consigned to history - Obama did his best with a bad starting position and personally I am glad to see him bring in a non-interventionalist.

 

The situation in the entire middle east is very unstable to say the least, and in part it is completely new. I guess the internet has struck again. Looking at Syria Egypt, Libya et all. Syria indeed is already involving NATO: we Dutch are sending Patriot anti missile missiles to Turkey, on which I agree.

Lumping together Syria through to Libya is one of the problems we have - from the western (Dutch, English, American etc) perspective they might appear at first glance to be similar - in reality they are hugely different and treating them en masse is the sort of colonial thinking that created the problem in the first place

 

Iran and nukes etc. & Israel boy oh boy. Strategy? IMO indeed speak softly and carry a big stick. The trick is to avoid using the stick. That trick is called wisdom and guts. Effective diplomacy getting to know the people, building trust and bridges. The only way that can work is hope that the leaders in charge on which we have any influence are wise and are supported in doing that. Whatever that is.

Agree completely - can'o'worms. Perhaps if the large non-involved states stopped trying to play one side against the other and trying to finagle deals for oil and support we would be at least in a better starting position

 

 

Anyway whatever we do or don't do it is educated guesswork at best. And hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

 

Sometimes doing nothing can be best, some problems need time to resolve the problem without too much interference in situations where we don't know what we are getting into like Iraq (which wasn't true, most people knew before that war that Iraq as a country didn't exist: ).

[kristalris]

 

 

Lumping together Syria through to Libya is one of the problems we have - from the western (Dutch, English, American etc) perspective they might appear at first glance to be similar - in reality they are hugely different and treating them en masse is the sort of colonial thinking that created the problem in the first place

 

 

Oeps, Roosevelt it was of course. Still, correct position whether West African, Swedish or whatever.

 

And I of course fully agree, don't lump them together. Just the point I was trying to make. The only reason I did lump them together is that I guess internet is/ was the catalyst. BTW colonial thinking only in respect to using power when the use thereof is wise. Not to sec try and steal everything they have. That I quoted the way Romans went about it doesn't mean I'm in favor of reintroducing slavery. Quite the contrary.

[SamBridge]

So for the longest, I looked at our species with a mild distaste. After I took us off the pedestal that we put ourselves on as the most prestigious species on our planet everything started looking up. We have come a long way from our primate ancestors.

It was only a few hundred years ago most the world was in the slave trade.

 

Yes we pollute, yes were wasteful, and yes most of our governments/systems are not perfect but they are improving. Were still evolving. So to me as long as we don't kill ourselves off with war or depletion of our resources, our future is possible.

 

Anybody have a stand on if they think our species will make it off the planet or perish on it?

 

With the production of highly capable computers we definitely will, we can simulate things that are incalculable by humans in a single lifetime, I'm actually using computers right now to research a way to shield Earth from meteors and gamma-ray bursts.

[kristalris]

 

With the production of highly capable computers we definitely will, we can simulate things that are incalculable by humans in a single lifetime, I'm actually using computers right now to research a way to shield Earth from meteors and gamma-ray bursts.

A few years back I thought that there was a sighting in the news of an object that we saw, if I remember correctly three weeks or months prior to it passing earth at, what was it 30.000 or so km. I can't remember if this was a size that we would get a new Golf of Mexico. Nice swimming there now BTW. Anyway I guess if one of those hits, the discussion on the amount of hope will certainly abruptly change for the worse.

 

Sobering thought seeing it at such short notice. Sometimes blissful ignorance is nice. Hope you find a way to prevent it.

[Ceasium]

@ The original post

 

We are all human, but not everyone is the same. I can say that a large part of our community is driven by the basics of life, just look at what most people worry about or strive to. (Reproducing themselves, having enough food on the table, and enjoy themselves whilst achieving this) When I see the statistics on obesity in the world, I pretty much lose all my faith in humanity. People are eating the amount for three persons instead of just one, they have no control over themselves, indicating that if a real problem suddenly pops up the world will sink into chaos. (they don't do stuff for the greater good, or think about mankind as a whole that needs to survive for a much longer than only this snapshot in time. People are just too selfish, and therefore do not see the need to solve problems with which they are not confronted). Most of my friends refuse to use their bike to go to work, or to go shopping even though I'm faster with my bike than they with their car on the same small stretch, again selfishness that kills the globe. And we all are (including me) too materialistic, which means we are using earth's recources for the wrong purposes. (Including labour, if we put the same effort in curing diseases, or solving the energy problem as we do in making cars we would chuckle at the simplicity of those problems, once we've solved them. But hey! You can make way more money with cars than doing something pro Bono, so those problems will lay on a shelf untill they get financial attractive to solve) And the last nail in the coffin of hope is when I see how much votes the populistic (racist) party gets in my country. I mean they find it more importand to get rid of all the foreigners, which we need anyway, than solving the current financial crises ... .

 

The reason why I still have hope is mainly psychological. I'm more of an realistic optimist, than a pessimist that mocks all day long. I think the way Italy is handeling their financial crises - by installing a technocratic government which focuses only on solving the financial crises, instead of getting their asses re-elected and remaining populair amongst the people, is a textbook example for all the other countries in the world. They have seen that they are in need of a government which is not influenced by any lobby, or by their own prestige, so that it makes decisions based on facts and statistics to choose the best available sollution. Another beacon of hope is the speed of the current technological development. I am convinced that we are capable of solving every major issue in a matter of decades, as long as we don't destroy ourselves fist. We have stopped the increase of the ozon gap by working together, we are able to do the same with the green house gasses once the situation gets urgent enough. And apart from that humans can change their habits, they only need a bit of steering in the right direction and that is what our governments should do. (Fast food taxes, stimulating people to use public transportation, or bikes instead of their cars etc. etc. etc.)

Edited January 10, 2013 by Ceasium

[SomethingToPonder]

We do have hope. but the human race as a whole needs to start looking to the future. We are slow to gradually develop because not everyone in the world is a "good citizen" now by good citizen i dont mean someone who never breaks the law. I know many people with their degrees in law who enjoy a spliff at the end of the day instead of a pint. it dosn't mean that they are criminals. By Good citizen i mean people who Want to further us as a race.
Society always has people that are not going to contribute anything to advancing the human race. It is my belief that we should be aiming our young people into scientific jobs at the moment, Not every single young person will follow the educational path , which is normal so you will still have the people to do the jobs that Needs done. but all the while we should be focusing on the future.

The government is so focused on making money and extorting it's own citizens that it puts that in front of further advancing us.
we could have massive amount of technology if they decided that That was our priorities. Our priorities at the moment are money. Which is useless because although it makes our civilization function, It's value is assigned by us, at the end of the day its just paper and metal that we have given a value too.. without sounding communist if we were to dedicate some people to jobs such as farming, sewage etc and gave them housing free for their work or something along the lines. not 100% sure what though and we Scrapped money.

The whole human race works together, all the worlds resources pooled into one, Used for what matters. There is no need for money as everyone has what they need. Technology is free for us you dont need to pay, now people would say that this couldn't possibly work because industrys require money to function, but not if all the workers get anything they need free. any human gets what they need free, and we use all the worlds resources to further ourselves.

if aliens came to earth tomorrow, they would not look at us humans as different colours they would look at us as a human race who dont work together and are split and divided by countries religions and much much more.

[Phi for All]

The whole human race works together, all the worlds resources pooled into one, Used for what matters. There is no need for money as everyone has what they need. Technology is free for us you dont need to pay, now people would say that this couldn't possibly work because industrys require money to function, but not if all the workers get anything they need free. any human gets what they need free, and we use all the worlds resources to further ourselves.

Workers getting whatever they need for free is different from "any human gets what they need free". I've often thought it would be interesting to have a cooperative economy without money. I think you'd need a Minimum Subsistence Level, where very basic needs are met with no work required so no one is homeless or starving. On the other hand, if you choose to work and contribute to society, you're eligible for whatever your society manufactures or provides.

 

I like this mostly because it would encourage us to build things for functionality and longevity rather than consumption and repeat purchases. I'm not sure we can ever quench our thirst for trade, though. It would be very interesting to see if a system like this could continue to breed innovation and progress, some of the hallmarks of capitalism.

[too-open-minded]

Couldn't agree more with you phi.

[Ben Banana]

I'm just one of those people who has grasped more hope for humanity due to simple observational events. I find it sensible to trust the condition of our society and believe there's naturally enough people that are sufficiently desperate and enabled to collectively improve society through simple honest means. Our world is strong enough. Society will sort itself out. We will become smarter and happier without a 2 page topic designated for people to point out and discuss specific strong-points and optimisms of our society. There's no particularly strong and special reasons or highlightable facts aside mere nature. I find it futile to discuss specific reasons for hope.

Many people have lost hope in humanity, it seems. That might be a fun explanation for its apparent success that I believe in.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Ben Banana

[kristalris]

Workers getting whatever they need for free is different from "any human gets what they need free". I've often thought it would be interesting to have a cooperative economy without money. I think you'd need a Minimum Subsistence Level, where very basic needs are met with no work required so no one is homeless or starving. On the other hand, if you choose to work and contribute to society, you're eligible for whatever your society manufactures or provides.

 

I like this mostly because it would encourage us to build things for functionality and longevity rather than consumption and repeat purchases. I'm not sure we can ever quench our thirst for trade, though. It would be very interesting to see if a system like this could continue to breed innovation and progress, some of the hallmarks of capitalism.

I agree with you. I find the idea of a guaranteed basic income very interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee

 

I also think that given modern technology it could for instance work in the sense that you say with the Euro split it in a digital Social Euro to provide this income. Subsequently for instance Greece could give € 500,= per month and the Dutch € 1000,=. You would have a guaranteed social minimum that can be spent but prevented from being accumulated if not spent within say three months. Being digital it is then easy to change what can be bought with it. Further more labor hiring and quitting a job at a social level is then simple. If an employer wants to bind a worker more then you will have to pay normal Euro's and taxes. Europe at the moment is under a lot of strain. That is dangerous. We need a way not only per country to make it work but also across Europe. Being digital you don't need a lot of bureaucratic systems to make it work.

 

Of course if you join the system you need to subscribe for work in order to receive the digital Euro's. If you want more income you will have to work harder more efficiently in order to acquire normal Euro's.

 

Apart from that the digital age also provides the means to consider having international only digital shares and accountability for the period the were held to the degree of its worth plus dividend during that period. This might help in finding a balance in striving for profit yet in an accountable way. Profit as the engine is an indispensable but unbalanced also highly unstable method IMO.

 

Anyway I guess if we want to have hope for the future we need to fundamentally rethink certain aspects of our international society.

 

One thing that has clearly shown not to work IMO is the communist solution. It only still "works" in Cuba and in my favorite country North Korea. (China now a capitalistic communist society of sorts .)

Edited January 11, 2013 by kristalris

[Ophiolite]

I'm just one of those people who has grasped more hope for humanity due to simple observational events. I find it sensible to trust the condition of our society and believe there's naturally enough people that are sufficiently desperate and enabled to collectively improve society through simple honest means. Our world is strong enough. Society will sort itself out. We will become smarter and happier without a 2 page topic designated for people to point out and discuss specific strong-points and optimisms of our society. There's no particularly strong and special reasons or highlightable facts aside mere nature. I find it futile to discuss specific reasons for hope.

 

Many people have lost hope in humanity, it seems. That might be a fun explanation for its apparent success that I believe in.

I found your post difficult to understand, so I have some questions and observations that may help you to help me. should you wish to do so.

 

When you say you have grasped more hope for humanity, do you mean that you have become more hopeful, or you have generated more hope? the use of the active verb grasp creates ambiguity.

 

How does an observational event differ from an ordinary event? How does a simple observational event differ froma complex one? Is the distinction important and if so how?

 

Why do you think that desparate people will be more motivated to behave in rational cooperative ways than non-desparate people?

 

Why do you find it sensible to trust the condition of society? What makes you feel that we can consider the diversity in global cultures insufficient to merit considering them distinct societies? What are the similarities between say, Peruvian subsistence farmers and Wall Street brokers that enable us to consider them part of a single society?

 

Can you give examples of where major problems have been solved by just trusting to luck and expecting that things will sort themselves out?

 

If there is no point in discussing this sort of thing, why are you discussing this sort of thing?

[proximity1]

My comments in reply are intersperesed below following the remarks to which they refer:

 

"I specifically replaced the pedestal with a ladder so it wasn't an anthropocentric argument. "

But as I understand it, humans are either at the top of the ladder or at least "above" all other organisms. So, by my reckoning, the "ladder" form is a difference without an important distinction from the pedastal; you see it as signficant, I see that. I think that if we're at a rung which places us apart (i.e. above, rather than somewhere alongside other organisms) that's because we take as given what is hard to deny is a value-system "of, by and for the people." To me, that's not really any less an anthropocentric point of departure.

 

 

I think your desire to cast humans in a negative light made you misread my words.

I think what I'm really up to is interpreting the implications of your words differently from you--but I understood your intended meaning from the first, just as you've reiterated it here. This isn't an a priori "desire" on my part, it's rather a frank recognition of numerous important facts about human kind which are there--and which aren't particularly flattering-- whether we want to look at them or not. I don't have to "cast" humanity in any particular light. We're there in that light without casting, and in the light, there are things which are to our credit and things to our discredit. I think that my seeing our "warts" is plain honesty on my part. As I understand you, my seeing them and mentioning them as important, not merely "oh, and by the way...", means I"m casting us in a negative light.

A ladder allows for improvement while a pedestal enshrines us.

For me, a ladder, having "rungs", implies a hierarchy and we're above the rest in that hierarchy unless I've mistaken your views.

 

We're not the ultimate animal on this planet, but when it comes to being guardians of the future of the planet, there's no other animal even in contention.

Again, I understood that to be your view. Here's my counterview: For a moment, take, for example, our own value judgements as we consistently apply them to the plant and animal kingdom and notice that, if other organisms were able to do so, and applied our own value judgements to us, to humanity, just as we apply those same judgement to other organisms, then it would happen that, for no small number of plant and aminal kiinds, homo sapiens would be considered a deadly "pest" species, something requiring suppression or, better, eradication, in the interests of the health and survival of those other living plants and animals.

I'm aware that your pessimism ignores our successes and simply focuses on our failures.
So why bother talking in geological time with regards to human achievement? It sounds like you're just going to look for any way to make us look worse and ignore what we have achieved.

 

Because that geological time frame offers a perspective which permits us to see "progress" and "success" in a way that shows how the duration of our existence compares with that of other organisms from whose evolutionary successes our kind has eventually developed. No single-celled organisms, then no multi-celled organisms. No invertebrates, then no vertebrates. You know what's interesting about that ladder? its presentation suggests in an automatic and unconscious way that somehow, somewhere, some way, there was some "climbing" done. As it seems to me, humans didn't "climb up" to their position; rather, they "emerged" there. And for that chance development, we have in a metaphorical way, the preceeding earlier developed living organisms "to thank", or we could never have emerged "above" them.

I guessed you missed the part where I said "We've done pretty well surviving the discovery of uranium" and "we're not out of the woods yet".

My view is that one precludes the other. By my reckoning, as long as we're not out of the woods yet, we should refrain from congratulating ourselves on doing pretty well surviving the discovery of uranium.

 

That would explain why you strawmanned my position by claiming my statement is premature. It's not, you know. We haven't wiped ourselves out with nuclear weapons, despite all the capability.

My focus is on where we're headed, on what the fairly-viewed evidence--all of it, the good and the bad--suggests about where we're tending to go, rather than where we've been or what we've come through. If, for example, as it seems to me may be the case, both our potential for and our probability of an eventual "wiping ourselves out" is increasing rather than decreasing, then it's there that our attention should be directed and not on how well we've done so far. If you leap off the roof of a 60-floor building, things will go along "well enough" for the descent over the first 59 floors.

 

 

 

???? The insanity I obviously referred to is global nuclear war. The rest of your sentence was so choppy as to completely dilute whatever meaning you were trying to convey to me. Please try again.

 

 

Okay. As you had put it,

 

"We've done pretty well surviving the discovery of uranium. Not out of the woods quite yet, but we've steered clear of complete insanity and that says a lot about us."

And my point was that, if by "suriving the discovery of uranium" we take your implication that, just as I'd understood you to mean, "The insanity I obviously referred to is global nuclear war" then the fact remains that our capacity to trip the nuclear-war "wire" remains just as present as it has ever been since the U.S.-Soviet arms race. The U.S. (and client or allied states, Britain, & France), tRussian Federation, the People's Republic of China, India, Pakistan and, not least, Israel, all have nuclear weapons. North Korea seems on its way to obtaining them; Iran is on the same trajectory.

 

So, I fail to see how the objective tendencies still in force are less rather than more cause for concern than was the case throughout the so-called "Cold War" period. The world's potential for avoiding cataclysmic warfare hasn't improved one iota that I can point to. So, what I don't understand is why "complete insanity" should be confined to the actual resort to nuclear warfare rather than remaining right on the point of that eventuality year on year, decade after decade, when it does not appear that time is working in favor of the prospects for general planetary human survival on this specific count.

 

 

 

 

This tangent tells me that you have huge, untapped reserves of disdain and loathing for our "pathetic" species.

Like yours, my views are based on comparative virtues and vices. Which other organisms have our capacity for doing sudden and irreversible global destruction? Which other organisms can foresee the environmental impact of their behaviors? Indeed, which other organisms possessing an "ego"--and there are some--exhibit more good cause for dismaying disdain at the pathos of our own kind? Humanity isn't a monolith. It's a mosaic. The highly-advanced technological societies of people have preyed upon and in a number of cases, wiped out, more environmentally harmonious human societies--ones without the technical means to match and defend themselves from machine-powered centrally-organised competitive and rapacious human societies.

 

We could, conceivably, bequeath both survival and the works of literature and music, to future generations. Instead, we appear on the path to bequeathing those generations neither a livable environment nor a wealth of cultural treasures. What's not to disdain about that?

 

Some people do this as a way to set themselves up as some kind of authority on what humans ought to be doing.

Absolutely they do. And if I'm not a worthy and contributing member of such a group, then I consider that I'm wasting my time here in living. I have much to say about what humans ought to be doing but are not doing.

Despite people like you, I think the species as a whole is uniquely capable of extending the future of this planet's life beyond the life of the planet itself.

If humans survive that long, it won't be despite "people like me".

 

 

 

"When the sun goes red giant, I think we'll be watching it happen from another system entirely."

 

 

 

If we have genetic progeny that one day sets up house on a planet in another solar system, should that progeny happen to watch our Sun's spectacular red giant flame-out or not, at such a remove from this time, those future creatures may feel no more kinship affection for us than you yourself feel for, say, bacteria which first emerged in the primordial slime of this planet. It strikes me that your view of eons-long future human evolution--whatever else it produces--remains wonderfully enchanted by itself, stuck on amour-propre. As I see it, we either attenuate our special egotism or we do ourselves in by it.

 

I understand that you see that as malicious disdain and see your own view as the benign and balanced one. I'd rather have the native American societies of the pre-Columbian era than have i-Pods and space-stations or extra-terrestrial colonies for myself or descendants.

Edited January 11, 2013 by proximity1

[Ben Banana]

When you say you have grasped more hope for humanity, do you mean that you have become more hopeful, or you have generated more hope? the use of the active verb grasp creates ambiguity.

 

I have become more hopeful.

 

Why do you think that desparate people will be more motivated to behave in rational cooperative ways than non-desparate people?

 

I don't. They can't chose to absolutely behave in any higher degree of rationality. They can try, but that's not how it works and I never said it works like that either.

 

 

Why do you find it sensible to trust the condition of society?

 

Except North Korea. I've realized it is very naive to distrust the condition of humanity in its entirety. Except for some extraordinary characteristics, it is incomprehensible for the most part. Of course society itself may be distrusted, but it is virtually impossible for the total condition to be evaluated to an extent that determines whether its quality is merely good or bad. I trust that it is 'good enough' by a concept that is comparable to the explanations for why biological evolution works. It's 'meta-causal.'

 

What makes you feel that we can consider the diversity in global cultures insufficient to merit considering them distinct societies? What are the similarities between say, Peruvian subsistence farmers and Wall Street brokers that enable us to consider them part of a single society?

 

I find this extraordinarily irrelevant.

 

Can you give examples of where major problems have been solved by just trusting to luck and expecting that things will sort themselves out?

 

I'm not merely trusting luck. Problems are solved by problem solvers. The ironic thing no one here realizes is... what problem? What could be sort out by itself? Why may you have lost hope for humanity? Despair? Negative societal evaluation? You do have the burden of explaining why it is reasonable to be hopeless in the first place. Honestly, that is not a reasonable idea. I assert that it is an emotion, and that's good. Anyone who claims otherwise is saying nonsense. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with emotions being appart from reason, although emotions may cause trouble. Isn't that how you classify a thought as an emotion? My sense of trust is an emotion based on my personal experiences and observations. I do not have a solid empirical argument for hope, and you bastards certainly don't either, especially to the contrary opinion. I am annoyed by your expectations. This is ludicrous.

 

You can model the system virtually. I don't believe there are any key examples to name which more effectively demonstrate how such a model corresponds to proper phenomena than any other observations (aside from their value in clarity), but of course it is useful to observe specifics. We can share those observations, but it is useless to name any single observation as a key reason. I suspect it to be a 'meta-causal' phenomenon.

 

If there is no point in discussing this sort of thing, why are you discussing this sort of thing?

 

I will claim that the first "sort of thing" you name is very different from the "sort of thing" that I am trying to discuss.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Ben Banana

[too-open-minded]

I thinks its good to look at humanity with a sense of pride for the fact that we have made it this far in the past few hundred years with overcoming things like slavery and racial discrimination. While at the same time having a sense of doubt, something to strive us to overcome things like war and monetary corruption.

[Phi for All]

But as I understand it, humans are either at the top of the ladder or at least "above" all other organisms. So, by my reckoning, the "ladder" form is a difference without an important distinction from the pedastal; you see it as signficant, I see that. I think that if we're at a rung which places us apart (i.e. above, rather than somewhere alongside other organisms) that's because we take as given what is hard to deny is a value-system "of, by and for the people." To me, that's not really any less an anthropocentric point of departure.

Sigh.

 

The OP asked if we'll ever make it off-planet. Is there another animal at any other place on "the ladder" that can claim a higher rung on spreading Earth life off-planet? That doesn't make my argument anthropocentric. If I were to place bears at the top of the ladder with regard to removing honey from wild beehives, are you going to claim I'm being ursinopocentric?

 

 

I think what I'm really up to is interpreting the implications of your words differently from you--but I understood your intended meaning from the first, just as you've reiterated it here. This isn't an a priori "desire" on my part, it's rather a frank recognition of numerous important facts about human kind which are there--and which aren't particularly flattering-- whether we want to look at them or not. I don't have to "cast" humanity in any particular light. We're there in that light without casting, and in the light, there are things which are to our credit and things to our discredit. I think that my seeing our "warts" is plain honesty on my part. As I understand you, my seeing them and mentioning them as important, not merely "oh, and by the way...", means I"m casting us in a negative light.

I chose to address the title of the thread directly, pointing out why humanity has reasons to hope. That doesn't mean I ignore our "warts", mistakes and frailties.

 

 

For me, a ladder, having "rungs", implies a hierarchy and we're above the rest in that hierarchy unless I've mistaken your views.

Your mistake is in expanding my arguments to include areas I never meant to include. Remember the "Anybody have a stand on if they think our species will make it off the planet or perish on it?" question?

 

Again, I understood that to be your view. Here's my counterview: For a moment, take, for example, our own value judgements as we consistently apply them to the plant and animal kingdom and notice that, if other organisms were able to do so, and applied our own value judgements to us, to humanity, just as we apply those same judgement to other organisms, then it would happen that, for no small number of plant and aminal kiinds, homo sapiens would be considered a deadly "pest" species, something requiring suppression or, better, eradication, in the interests of the health and survival of those other living plants and animals.

I fail to see how this is a "counterview" to mine. It has a very limited amount of application to humans being our best chance at developing a way to leave the planet.

 

 

Because that geological time frame offers a perspective which permits us to see "progress" and "success" in a way that shows how the duration of our existence compares with that of other organisms from whose evolutionary successes our kind has eventually developed. No single-celled organisms, then no multi-celled organisms. No invertebrates, then no vertebrates. You know what's interesting about that ladder? its presentation suggests in an automatic and unconscious way that somehow, somewhere, some way, there was some "climbing" done. As it seems to me, humans didn't "climb up" to their position; rather, they "emerged" there. And for that chance development, we have in a metaphorical way, the preceeding earlier developed living organisms "to thank", or we could never have emerged "above" them.

I don't think humans have always been in their present position, having "emerged" there. Iirc, developing civilizations had something to do with it. You're right, it is development rather than a climb, but as I said before, you're applying my ladder argument too broadly. I meant it solely to be a comment on our position to be able to leave the planet.

 

 

My view is that one precludes the other. By my reckoning, as long as we're not out of the woods yet, we should refrain from congratulating ourselves on doing pretty well surviving the discovery of uranium.

I understand. Glass half-empty. Got it.

 

 

My focus is on where we're headed, on what the fairly-viewed evidence--all of it, the good and the bad--suggests about where we're tending to go, rather than where we've been or what we've come through. If, for example, as it seems to me may be the case, both our potential for and our probability of an eventual "wiping ourselves out" is increasing rather than decreasing, then it's there that our attention should be directed and not on how well we've done so far. If you leap off the roof of a 60-floor building, things will go along "well enough" for the descent over the first 59 floors.

I think you underestimate just what a leap in destructive capability nuclear weaponry meant for humanity. If we had gone from flint arrows to sub-machine guns over the course of ten years, it still wouldn't compare with the development of nukes. If we don't applaud the fact that we're still here, we fail to acknowledge that it took hard work and a degree of sanity to make it this far.

 

And I dislike your building leap analogy. It guarantees complete destruction where nuclear capability merely threatens it.

[Ben Banana]

Sigh.

 

Sigh.

[too-open-minded]

Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them. I think Einstein said this, although theres all kinds of quotes on the internet with his face that he never said.

 

Anyways this sense of doubt I speak of, something to fuel someone to prevent a catastrophic event. Being able to analyze problems in our system. Pondering at if they might get worse, better, or how to make it better.

[proximity1]

Sigh.

 

The OP asked if we'll ever make it off-planet. Is there another animal at any other place on "the ladder" that can claim a higher rung on spreading Earth life off-planet? That doesn't make my argument anthropocentric. If I were to place bears at the top of the ladder with regard to removing honey from wild beehives, are you going to claim I'm being ursinopocentric?

 

 

I chose to address the title of the thread directly, pointing out why humanity has reasons to hope. That doesn't mean I ignore our "warts", mistakes and frailties.

 

 

Your mistake is in expanding my arguments to include areas I never meant to include. Remember the "Anybody have a stand on if they think our species will make it off the planet or perish on it?" question?

 

I fail to see how this is a "counterview" to mine. It has a very limited amount of application to humans being our best chance at developing a way to leave the planet.

 

 

I don't think humans have always been in their present position, having "emerged" there. Iirc, developing civilizations had something to do with it. You're right, it is development rather than a climb, but as I said before, you're applying my ladder argument too broadly. I meant it solely to be a comment on our position to be able to leave the planet.

 

 

I understand. Glass half-empty. Got it.

 

 

I think you underestimate just what a leap in destructive capability nuclear weaponry meant for humanity. If we had gone from flint arrows to sub-machine guns over the course of ten years, it still wouldn't compare with the development of nukes. If we don't applaud the fact that we're still here, we fail to acknowledge that it took hard work and a degree of sanity to make it this far.

 

And I dislike your building leap analogy. It guarantees complete destruction where nuclear capability merely threatens it.

 

I owe an acknowledgement of several of your points as well made and showing in certain senses a flaw in some of my retorts--

 

RE: "The OP asked if we'll ever make it off-planet. Is there another animal at any other place on "the ladder" that can claim a higher rung on spreading Earth life off-planet? That doesn't make my argument anthropocentric. If I were to place bears at the top of the ladder with regard to removing honey from wild beehives, are you going to claim I'm being ursinopocentric?"

 

I grant that, as a presupposed worthy objective, "making it off the planet" is in all reasonable liklihood exclusively a human prospect. Similarly, the bears example is quite apt. So, no, I wouldn't have charged you with ursinocentric impulses. On the other hand, if you were a bear, and urged that, perhaps I'd have to think again.

 

RE: "And I dislike your building leap analogy. It guarantees complete destruction where nuclear capability merely threatens it."

 

That's your best point, I think. I must concede that it shows the greaest weakness in my view. I have only a half-leg, then, on which to stand in suggesting that, the longer the present state of affairs persists, the less ground we should consider we have for self-congratulations and, on the central point, for our eventually "making it off the planet."

 

That goal may be the key to our divergent points of view. For me, the prospect for and worthiness of making it off the planet is a very low priority and interest--there are so many other matters which, as I see it, better deserve our attention and resources---but that doesn't preclude my thinking the topic is worth considering and discussing. On the contrary ...

Edited January 12, 2013 by proximity1

[Phi for All]

 

I owe an acknowledgement of several of your points as well made and showing in certain senses a flaw in some of my retorts--

 

RE: "The OP asked if we'll ever make it off-planet. Is there another animal at any other place on "the ladder" that can claim a higher rung on spreading Earth life off-planet? That doesn't make my argument anthropocentric. If I were to place bears at the top of the ladder with regard to removing honey from wild beehives, are you going to claim I'm being ursinopocentric?"

 

I grant that, as a presupposed worthy objective, "making it off the planet" is in all reasonable liklihood exclusively a human prospect. Similarly, the bears example is quite apt. So, no, I wouldn't have charged you with ursinocentric impulses. On the other hand, if you were a bear, and urged that, perhaps I'd have to think again.

 

RE: "And I dislike your building leap analogy. It guarantees complete destruction where nuclear capability merely threatens it."

 

That's your best point, I think. I must concede that it shows the greaest weakness in my view. I have only a half-leg, then, on which to stand in suggesting that, the longer the present state of affairs persists, the less ground we should consider we have for self-congratulations and, on the central point, for our eventually "making it off the planet."

 

That goal may be the key to our divergent points of view. For me, the prospect for and worthiness of making it off the planet is a very low priority and interest--there are so many other matters which, as I see it, better deserve our attention and resources---but that doesn't preclude my thinking the topic is worth considering and discussing. On the contrary ...

We seem to be a very complex species. One of our greatest negative aspects is our warlike quality, which is weird since I think one of our greatest positive aspects is our ability to cooperate and communicate with each other. Competition causes waste, futility and inequality, but also drives innovation, progress and discovery.

 

Reaching for the stars isn't a negative aspect of our civilization. The resources we spend on it doesn't take away from other worthy pursuits here at home. We CAN do many things at once with our present capabilities. The innovation, progress and discovery we generate from trying to get off-planet help here at home as well, since much of the technology and procedures we come up with for space travel are applied to earthly problems. I also think we're capable of learning to treat our planet and all its inhabitants better as well as working towards more space exploration.

 

I think a bit of congratulations on our successes is very healthy, as long as we don't stop there and rest on our laurels. If we're always trying to better ourselves as humans and as residents of this planet, and don't assume that we're simply the best already, we can hope that our failures can be learned from and our successes built upon. Secretly, I also hope that exploring space might give us a better appreciation for Earth. Personally, I love to travel and see other places, and when it's time to go home I always appreciate what I've got there a great deal more than before.

[proximity1]

We seem to be a very complex species. One of our greatest negative aspects is our warlike quality, which is weird since I think one of our greatest positive aspects is our ability to cooperate and communicate with each other. Competition causes waste, futility and inequality, but also drives innovation, progress and discovery.

 

Reaching for the stars isn't a negative aspect of our civilization. The resources we spend on it doesn't take away from other worthy pursuits here at home. We CAN do many things at once with our present capabilities. The innovation, progress and discovery we generate from trying to get off-planet help here at home as well, since much of the technology and procedures we come up with for space travel are applied to earthly problems. I also think we're capable of learning to treat our planet and all its inhabitants better as well as working towards more space exploration.

 

I think a bit of congratulations on our successes is very healthy, as long as we don't stop there and rest on our laurels. If we're always trying to better ourselves as humans and as residents of this planet, and don't assume that we're simply the best already, we can hope that our failures can be learned from and our successes built upon. Secretly, I also hope that exploring space might give us a better appreciation for Earth. Personally, I love to travel and see other places, and when it's time to go home I always appreciate what I've got there a great deal more than before.

 

I think you're indulging yourself here. There are many ways of doing so. A very common one is to fall into fashions of opinion which are routinely expressed--so routinely that they succeed in passing in and out of consciousness without much of any critical analysis.

 

So, we have in your presentation a host of such commonplace notions, offered in what seems to me is a rather easy and off-hand way.

 

For example,

 

 

 

" Competition causes waste, futility and inequality, but also drives innovation, progress and discovery."

 

This glosses over without consideration the question of whether and to what extent we could secure the inovation, progress and discovery by means which are deliberately calculated to eliminate competition, inequality and waste. I believe that our usual methods are hide-bound practices which grew up in a piece-meal and often power-interest-serving manner and that with that comes the rather large doses of competition, waste, futility and inequality. But these are typically what the economists call "externalities"--those who reap the benefits of such practices are generally one (privileged) set of people and those who bear the burdens and costs are another (much less privileged) set of people.

 

 

 

"Reaching for the stars isn't a negative aspect of our civilization."

 

Whether or not it's a negative aspect would depend entirely on what the ramifications are, the costs and benefits in actual life, of "reaching for the stars," wouldn't it? If that "reaching" means in fact that there are numerous vital interests which suffer, which go begging in dire need for lack of adequate public (or private) money, then the real consequences of reaching for the stars, however noble or impressive they may seem to the people who advocate for them, are that dollars spent to one end are not available for use toward other ends. The determining factors in such divvying up are all matters of the arrangements of power in society.

 

 

 

"The resources we spend on it doesn't take away from other worthy pursuits here at home."

 

No? Everything I know about public finance, budgets, and the everyday stake-holding and turf-protecting of public officials, corporate powers, their lobbying arms, and their opponents in search of support for competing claims on public and private money tells me that your assertion is about as far from the actual facts of the modern world as one can get.

 

 

 

"If we're always trying to better ourselves as humans and as residents of this planet, and don't assume that we're simply the best already, we can hope that our failures can be learned from and our successes built upon. Secretly, I also hope that exploring space might give us a better appreciation for Earth. Personally, I love to travel and see other places, and when it's time to go home I always appreciate what I've got there a great deal more than before."

 

 

All of that helps us understand why your priorities are as you present them here. But those hopes aren't vouchsafed. There is no reason why, besides offering you comfort and peace of mind, they cannot also be in practical fact simply vain, unrealized hopes.

 

What if we aren't always trying to better ourselves?--and, after all, isn't it an easy exercise to point to convenient supporting examples and ignore counter-examples? There are always some trying to "better themselves"--however "better" is defined. And there are always others who aren't? The crux is how many are there of each kind? What are the relative proportions? What is the direction of the current trends, tendencies? You can " ... hope that exploring space might give us a better appreciation for Earth," but we know, don't we?, that no one has ever suggested that this be, even hypothetically, a potential condition of present or future allocation of precious resources. When has an engineer, a scientist or other professional participant ever suggested that, in case the hoped for better appreciations for earth don't pan out, don't materialize, then, well, we're going to very seriously review and adjust the terms, conditions and levels of resource allocations to those ends? Instead, the fact is, if the hopes are forlorn, this is too little and too late in influence. No one would pass on next term's or next session's funding because the pay-offs in earth-appreciation weren't demonstrable. I know of no effort even to measure or observe them.

[SamBridge]

A few years back I thought that there was a sighting in the news of an object that we saw, if I remember correctly three weeks or months prior to it passing earth at, what was it 30.000 or so km. I can't remember if this was a size that we would get a new Golf of Mexico. Nice swimming there now BTW. Anyway I guess if one of those hits, the discussion on the amount of hope will certainly abruptly change for the worse.

 

Sobering thought seeing it at such short notice. Sometimes blissful ignorance is nice. Hope you find a way to prevent it.

The earth would heal eventually, there's at least the capability to make underground environmental stabilizers and in a few countries around the world there's giant underground domes that can hold thousands of people, there's few meteors in the solar system that can actually destroy the entire crust of the Earth that we are in the orbit of, most meteors are under heading near us are less than 100km large, not saying it's good if one hits, it will do a lot of damage and probably wipe out many species, but it's not going to boil the oceans away or strip the atmosphere or destroy all of the crust, it would just theoretically leave a crater 1000km large, like that one near Mexico, Earth still survived. Even if humanity get's wiped out another species will just take its place eventually.

Edited January 14, 2013 by SamBridge