Humanity is devolving

[Pat Hagar]

 

But who has been directing the advancement of human technology? Humans! If you think our tech has improved life, then you must see that it's humans that have been improving it, making it work more efficiently and humanely. We ARE able to work together more efficiently, and we continue to improve in that regard.

 

We're better than our ancestors. We have more to deal with, much more, but we're much more educated overall, and have a much clearer access to ideas and processes from other cultures. Humans still have conflicts, but with the way global culture works, we cooperate and share with each other FAR more than we isolate and hate.

 

I don't know what metric you use to "impress" yourself, and I'm beginning to suspect it's a metric we'll never be able to meet. Very similar to the "Humans are unnatural" argument, it's a stacked deck being used against us, we'll never be "natural" by that criterion. And just in case I'm misunderstanding you here, I'd like you to verify that you aren't impressed by the way our intelligence takes raw data from billions of sources and turns it into incredibly complex information.

 

Also, I find it more than a bit cynical that you claim the amount of people who care about improving the world is insufficient to avoid "our demise", when something like "caring" is a variable that can change almost overnight. If you like, I can provide a list of links to anecdotal evidence that human caring can have upsurges that accomplish great good. And as our communication capabilities increase, so does our ability to affect things like caring.

 

You overlook the fact that we've accomplished what no other creature could come close to, we've managed to figure out how to leave the planet of our birth. We could spread Earth's life to other places, if we find that life is more unique than we thought. Evolution has no scheme in mind, but it's a mechanism that helps species survive, and there's not much else that could help life on Earth if our sun goes red giant. We could be an evolutionary linchpin for the continued development of all life as we know it.

 

And the reason I don't like the word "devolve" is because it's misleading on a science forum, where evolution has a very specific meaning. What you're talking about is NOT the opposite of evolution, so I think you're making this concept unnecessarily difficult to learn, and that's what I find ugly about it.

Yes, we are capable of converting raw data to complex information and I believe this to be another sign of advanced technology. At this time it would seem that I am incapable of verbalizing my thoughts so others can understand them and I will drop the subject. As I mentioned above I was not trying to start a debate I only wondered if anyone had considered this view and I find that no one either has or wants to. I did not think this thread in a "General Philosophy" area would be disruptive even on a "Science Forum", at least it was not meant to do so. Both beauty and the opposit is in the eye of the beholder.

 

P.S

"I don't know what metric you use to "impress" yourself, and I'm beginning to suspect it's a metric we'll never be able to meet."

 

The best always pleases me.

 

Respectfully,

Pat Hagar

Phi, after I quickly checked your stated age I had to award +1 to you... for the spirit, of course. I hope I will follow your footsteps (I am only 18+ behind you).

 

Unfortunately, in last few years I find it increasingly difficult to keep up the spirit (LOL - let me know if I should be drinking or smoking anything special )... Okay, okay, just few days ago I read that Mother Terese had problems with her faith, so I suppose I am not doing that bad after all... Okay, to say at least something seriously: I find our western civilization very much unfocused, like if we see no problems to solve. So we look for anything to entertain us.

 

That said, I must go now check latest Kim Kardashian Ass pictures (selfie ones!)

 

...

 

Phy, after I return I would appreciate to hear your personal opinion - were people equally unfocused 40-45 years ago?

It would seem people today are still unfocused if the Kardashian's hold that much interest. Only her plastic surgeon knows for sure.

We each get to choose what we see in the world, where we focus our attention, and how we ultimately respond. My recommendation is that we all spend less time focusing on the Idiocracy and more time focusing on the Renaissance and enlightenment happening every single day all around us and collectively become the change we wish to see.

I agree.

Since you use the term 'devolve', I guess that in your opinion the overall trend in human civilization has been negative/backward/harmful/bad/evil.

So, 'evolve' in your world means progress in a good/positive/beneficial way.

 

As far as technology is concerned, I think human moral development is out of sync with technology with the latter lagging behind. Almost everyone is aware of climate change and pollution and would like to do something about it but technology is still dependent on carbon fuel.

 

Also, if you look at history, I'm sure you'll agree we've come a long way since human sacrifice, slavery, ignorance of the importance of the environment and divine interpretation of natural events. Surely, this must be progress in your eyes.

 

What may be said however, in your defense, is that evil has become more sophisticated. So much so that it is difficult to recognize it. Military dominance has been replaced by economic dominance. Slavery has been replaced by human trafficking and racism. These are inevitable as evil minds adapt to the laws enacted to check them. Loopholes are found and readily exploited to produce a class of evil so 'refined' that it may be undetectable.

I fully agree that something other than "carbon fuel" is needed but until that time comes we are pretty much stuck with what we have available. As to your second point yes,we have "come a long way" but all you mention is still with us. The progress is good but not good enough.

A word to slavery. AT some time in our history every nationality has been in slaved to another race. This goes back before the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians etc. so slavery is nothing limited to only those of a certain color or race. It is an abomination of the human race in general. Much of the so called evil that exists today is very detectable such as I.S.I.S. and according to them it is "divine interpretation".

 

Respectfully,

Pat Hagar

 

The top three bastions of ignorance in the world today. Greed, lack of education, and textspeak could keep us from getting offplanet.

 

 

 

I'm curious, in rereading the OP, it seems our "humanity has fallen by the wayside". What exactly is humanity, and why does it decrease as our technology increases? Could tools ever make us less human?

I did not mean that it decreases, but our humanity has not kept up with the advances in technology. I chose an inappropriate word. I did mean that overall I believe our technology is advancing so rapidly it would seem that we as sentient beings are going backwards. Tools do not make us "less human" but they have become to much of a crutch to lean on. If we have a problem we should develope a tool to solve it rather than go back and eliminate the problem to start with. It is a bit like the comment I read from a British machanical engineer more than twenty five years ago "During the developement of any machine problems are likely to result. The usually way to produce a quick fix is to add more parts. This only circumvents the original problem and does not solve it". Tools are great but they are not the whole answer.

 

Respectfully,

Pat Hagar

I think I have answered all questions that have arisen from my original post. If not please let me know and I will do my best to answer everyone.

 

Respectfully,

Pat Hagar

 

P.S.

I still do not know how this software works as I did not mean to make one running comment to all.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Pat Hagar

[Phi for All]

Yes, we are capable of converting raw data to complex information and I believe this to be another sign of advanced technology.

Imagine you walk into a room. You aren't using any technology to do it, all you need are your senses. You see a desk with lots of stuff on top of it, and a chair in front of it. Every bit of data this picture has for you can be turned into useful and complex information; e.g.,there's no person in the chair but the coffee you smell is steaming in the yellow cup that says, "World's Best Dad", tickets to today's baseball game are laying in the pocket of a well-worn leather outfielder's glove, and a magazine is folded open to an ad for a cure for male pattern baldness.

 

Can you picture that? The more I tell you about what's on this desk, the more you know about its owner, and the more you're able to build on the knowledge of each piece of data, turning it into useful information. Your intelligence, not your technology, allows you to do this. You can practically predict the future with that intelligence of yours, it's such a powerful tool.

 

At this time it would seem that I am incapable of verbalizing my thoughts so others can understand them and I will drop the subject. As I mentioned above I was not trying to start a debate I only wondered if anyone had considered this view and I find that no one either has or wants to. I did not think this thread in a "General Philosophy" area would be disruptive even on a "Science Forum", at least it was not meant to do so. Both beauty and the opposit is in the eye of the beholder.

This is what we do here, we discuss ideas, mostly looking for evidence that supports or disproves them, and clarification of terms. Because most ideas are wrong, and none of us by ourselves is capable of looking at every perspective. No criticism is directed at you, you aren't your idea. Most people come here for a critical review. It's not really a debate, it's a discussion. Around a table, not at the podia.

 

The best always pleases me.

Then look at your OP again and tell me how it's the best metric to use for gauging whether our humanity is falling by the wayside. Perhaps you should define what you think humanity is, or what it means to be truly human. I'm not worried you're setting the bar too high, I'm worried you're setting the bar in a spot we could never reach. You talk about how we're all too short-sighted to change the evolution of the universe, and that dooms us to extinction. That's not a metric, that's a done deal. You've condemned us from the outset.

 

I fully agree that something other than "carbon fuel" is needed but until that time comes we are pretty much stuck with what we have available. As to your second point yes,we have "come a long way" but all you mention is still with us. The progress is good but not good enough.

See what I meant in my first comment? The metric you set is so sloppily defined (none of the progress we've made so far is good enough), there's no way for us to meet it.

 

I did not mean that it decreases, but our humanity has not kept up with the advances in technology. I chose an inappropriate word. I did mean that overall I believe our technology is advancing so rapidly it would seem that we as sentient beings are going backwards. Tools do not make us "less human" but they have become to much of a crutch to lean on. If we have a problem we should develope a tool to solve it rather than go back and eliminate the problem to start with.

Crutches are tools, but tools aren't crutches. I think this is another metric you're judging us by that's unfair and unproductive. It's like saying the Great White Shark unfairly relies on his teeth to survive. It's what we do, what we got when we gave up the safety of the trees and started cooking our meat. We gave up claws and teeth for tools, we put up with back pain and worse to walk upright to free our hands for tools and support our huge heads. You say this isn't the natural/unnatural argument, yet you don't include tools as part of what's natural about us.

[Pat Hagar]

Can you picture that? The more I tell you about what's on this desk, the more you know about its owner, and the more you're able to build on the knowledge of each piece of data, turning it into useful information. Your intelligence, not your technology, allows you to do this. You can practically predict the future with that intelligence of yours, it's such a powerful tool.

 

Yes, I agree that our intelligence has improved. I am in no way referring to a backwards movement in that. I am talking about how we treat others in general. To quote one of your comments “Well, we don't want anyone "falling by the wayside" by over-using the internet... “, I responded with another “SAC” “The best always pleases me.”

 

This is what we do here, we discuss ideas, mostly looking for evidence that supports or disproves them, and clarification of terms. Because most ideas are wrong, and none of us by ourselves is capable of looking at every perspective. No criticism is directed at you, you aren't your idea. Most people come here for a critical review. It's not really a debate, it's a discussion. Around a table, not at the podia.

 

If you will look at the definitions I believe what has occurred in this instance has turned from a discussion to a debate, or at the least it is a very gray area.

 

Then look at your OP again and tell me how it's the best metric to use for gauging whether our humanity is falling by the wayside. Perhaps you should define what you think humanity is, or what it means to be truly human. I'm not worried you're setting the bar too high, I'm worried you're setting the bar in a spot we could never reach. You talk about how we're all too short-sighted to change the evolution of the universe, and that dooms us to extinction. That's not a metric, that's a done deal. You've condemned us from the outset.

 

You might possible be correct. From what I have learned of this exchange I may have expected to much. My definition of being humane “Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement”. Yes, we definitely have intellectual advancement but we are somewhat short on the moral end. Nothing is a “done deal” if things change and they always can but you cannot change what can't be seen.

 

See what I meant in my first comment? The metric you set is so sloppily defined (none of the progress we've made so far is good enough), there's no way for us to meet it.

 

Actually I would say you are the one with the defeatist attitude. You seen to be accepting of mediocrity.

 

Crutches are tools, but tools aren't crutches. I think this is another metric you're judging us by that's unfair and unproductive. It's like saying the Great White Shark unfairly relies on his teeth to survive. It's what we do, what we got when we gave up the safety of the trees and started cooking our meat. We gave up claws and teeth for tools, we put up with back pain and worse to walk upright to free our hands for tools and support our huge heads. You say this isn't the natural/unnatural argument, yet you don't include tools as part of what's natural about us.

 

I believe your analogies are not as well thought out as they could be. In fact I only asked if anyone other than myself had considered this as an option. From most of the response I received it would seem to verify my statement. Instead of answering the question most chose to react negatively and question my motives for posing it.

 

Respectfully,

Pat Hagar

Edited June 25, 2015 by Pat Hagar

[Phi for All]

I believe your analogies are not as well thought out as they could be. In fact I only asked if anyone other than myself had considered this as an option. From most of the response I received it would seem to verify my statement. Instead of answering the question most chose to react negatively and question my motives for posing it.

 

 

 

You misunderstand then, possibly because you think there was a question in your OP. There wasn't, it was all assertion, starting with the title. My criticism was about the assertive statements you've made, in a discussion about the ideas you posted on a science site. I disagreed with most of them, I told you why, and I questioned some specifics about how you arrived at your conclusions, but I never questioned your motives. I always assumed you were generalizing your poor opinion of some people onto all people, and I was just hoping to point out some contradictions.

 

You've possibly described a percentage of humanity, but not all. You paint your picture with too wide a brush, imo, and ignore efforts individuals make to become better. Now you're angry and frustrated that we haven't just agreed with you, and I can see why. You were thinking you could just ask "if anyone other than [your]self had considered this as an option" and only people with a similar opinion would join in, so there wouldn't be a debate (or even a discussion, really).

 

Let me ask you this, do you think your perspective is due to looking at humanity as a whole, rather than the societies and individuals we really are? It would be easy to say humanity isn't doing enough to improve themselves, because we rarely act as an entire species, and the groups that represent the biggest drag on our humanity seem to get themselves in the news more often. Innovation and progress usually happen somewhere specific and then eventually spreads.

[Pat Hagar]

 

You misunderstand then, possibly because you think there was a question in your OP. There wasn't, it was all assertion, starting with the title. My criticism was about the assertive statements you've made, in a discussion about the ideas you posted on a science site. I disagreed with most of them, I told you why, and I questioned some specifics about how you arrived at your conclusions, but I never questioned your motives. I always assumed you were generalizing your poor opinion of some people onto all people, and I was just hoping to point out some contradictions.

 

You've possibly described a percentage of humanity, but not all. You paint your picture with too wide a brush, imo, and ignore efforts individuals make to become better. Now you're angry and frustrated that we haven't just agreed with you, and I can see why. You were thinking you could just ask "if anyone other than [your]self had considered this as an option" and only people with a similar opinion would join in, so there wouldn't be a debate (or even a discussion, really).

 

Let me ask you this, do you think your perspective is due to looking at humanity as a whole, rather than the societies and individuals we really are? It would be easy to say humanity isn't doing enough to improve themselves, because we rarely act as an entire species, and the groups that represent the biggest drag on our humanity seem to get themselves in the news more often. Innovation and progress usually happen somewhere specific and then eventually spreads.

Yes,much of my opinion is due to to "some people" but those seem to be the ones that makes most of the impression in our world and that seems to be what our society works on or at least listens to.

 

I am not angry that no one does not "just" agree with me. The other side "yours" tries to ignore it as much as possible. A problem cannot be overcome if one is not willing to realize there is a problem.

 

To be continued:

 

Respectfully,

Pat Hagar

[Harold Squared]

Over the entire history of the human race even though technology has expanded drastically there humanity has fallen by the wayside. I believe we will eventually go the way of the Dinosaur to extinction. I find this most regrettable. With all our potential to change even the evolution of the universe we choose to take the shortsighted option and live only for immediate personal gain.

 

I would be quite interested in hearing others opinions on this matter.

 

Respectfully,

 

Pat Hagar

Do you mean to imply that the dinosaurs met their end due to moral depravity and shortsightedness? They were around longer than we have been, for whatever that is worth. The fossil record does not reveal their angst, if indeed they were so afflicted.