Mankind has been extremely successful in solving techical issues and making technical advances but are not where we should be socially. Why?
We can fly trans-globally and put a man on the moon but can not control our base need for social and religious intolerance based on our own assumptions that only we can be correct in our beliefs and that all others must be wrong?
I wonder if those attributes we dislike in ourselves and consider flaws aren’t the very attributes responsible for our successes? It could be that if our “flaws” really were useless baggage we’d have dumped them already. Could they have been selected by nature for preservation because they have helped us survive?
Just thinking out loud…
Human issues are more complex than technological issues.
Phaedrus could be right, that our flaws may have been selected by nature for our preservation because they have helped us survive. And I do believe we develop and progress through ‘perverse means’, by having our flaws constantly present and engaging us.
Social change always seems to lag technological change.
Though has been argued that it was the reformation that led the renaissance, it has also been argued that technological change spurred the reformation.
The social construct has crumbled in the face of relentless technological change and various new and old constructions are vigorously competing to gain the consensus and eventual dominance.
Unfortunately, our choice seems limited to the past century’s bugaboos of socialism and capitalism.
This shows a serious flaw in our thinking, defining our current social dynamic in opposing concepts irrelevant to the current social reality of synthesis adaptation consensus and cooperation.
We need a new idea with a new name that will remove the age old tension between the advancement of the individual and the advancement of society.
It may be that in the past resources were limited and some would need to suffer so others could advance, this is no longer true.
“We need a new idea with a new name that will remove the age old tension between the advancement of the individual and the advancement of society.”
Do you have any suggestions as to the new idea and name, unrealistic42? Perhaps we have reached the end point of new ideas and names. Perhaps what we live today is the end point and all there is, is to develop on it.
Thank you for sharing that perspective. Put in that perspective, viciousness and cruelty may be what has been required for survival.
In that scenario, our desire to be good represents our struggle to survive without having to resort to those things.
Where should we go from here?
I don’t think you can judge society. You’re a part of your society. You see your society and judge it based on your societies’ beliefs.
I think that our present state of development is the actual beginning of human culture. For the first time in history the entire world is connected together. There are no more mysterious barbarians just over the horizon. You can watch american idol in a small village in New Guinea or Siberia and people are engaged.
It is a new paradigm.
I think the new idea can be based on the premise that there is enough for everyone to have a good life. We can start from there.
As for a name…that will have to come on its own
I will not be so pretentious as to give it one or egotistical enough to think any name I choose will be universally adopted.
I don’t agree with your premise that we cannot judge society just because we are part of it.
That’s like saying we can’t judge the steak your eating because you cooked it.
We must always continue to determine what is good and where we are compared to the bar we set.
I say we have found it acceptable for others to suffer and that is not good enough.
I had wondered wether the social changes are more of a personnel nature than the technological ones. Technology can be developed and then shared more freely than social.for example i have a computor i know how to use it but if i had to make one i wouldnt know where to start. Social changes i feel must be embrace by all for we habe to understand on an individual level why we have to make these changes. So imo we therfore can only move as fast as out slowest person.
like someone has already pointed out:
technology is linear and can be measured by numbers, patterns and diagrams.
Humans and human societies are not always as predictable, and like global warming for example, the issue is so complex, we can never draw a clear diagram that encompases “everything” so we speculate.
Technology is less speculation that’s all.
Could it be that social improvements are not as hard to accomplish but rather we’re simply just not as motivated to strive for them.
well yes, humans usually don’t take action or care unless they really see how it will affect them immediately. Few are realistic about the long term.
humans are pleasure/pain functioning organisms, we want a new pair of shoes more than we want to set up a 10 year plan to clean up the river.
we are fucken stupid! evolution has done us in, only abstract brainwashing (good brainwashing if there is such a thing) can save us.
The premise that there is enough for everyone to enjoy a good life is not new. Of course, that sort of empty phrase might be self-soothing in a “Hey, look how good a person I am” sort of way, but you’re ignoring some pretty important questions that precede such a statement. For example:
Ok, I will tell you what a good life is all about. Food, shelter, health care, education, employment, and a healthy environment.
If each of these items is adequately supplied to every person on the planet, I think we would have a lot less strife in the world.
As far as who determines the best way to achieve this, I cannot say. But I can say there should be enough of each item so nobody suffers from its lack.
to jaggermeister:
I’m not ignoring them or so stupid I don’t understand your point. I want your opinion on how mankind might be moved in that direction?
The ends don’t justify the means. I agree it’d be swell if everyone had enough food, shelter, healthcare, etc. But I’m pretty sure that god’s not gonna come down and bless everyone with all that, which means someone down here’s going to have to do it.
How mankind might be moved in that direction? Honestly, I’m not sure. The only thing I know is that it won’t be with a gun to their back. Though, maybe I’m being too optimistic.
it doesn’t…? Doesn’t it sometimes? For example, Eating a dead person is usually considered repulsive, but if that is what you have to do in a situation of severe starvation if you choose to survive, then I think the ends do justify the means.
I agree that the ends usually don’t justify the means, but sometimes it may.
Killing or hurting another person in self-protection is another obvious example. the means are negative, but neccessary, so the ends DO justify the means. It is all circumstantial.