The Inevitability of Society

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Just wondering if we actually had/have any say in the way our societies develop in structure with the passage of time, or wether it was all inevitable right from the first evolution of our natural species-bound traits.

I mean - we’re tool-making monkies with a penchant for abstract thinking geared toward manipulations of forms. We pair-bond for long periods. We’re territorial, sexually and spacially. Seldom nomadic, unless driven by available resources. We’re comparitively weak physically, and unarmored against hurt and element. Were these initial variables enough to make us jump through all the social-hoops we have done to the present day…? Could it really have been any other way…?

Let me discount a few things. First, temporary blips like communism, it lasted what…? About 75 years in Russia, before falling down dead like the exhausted old man it was. China - North Korea - how long will it last before the temptations of the West overwhelm the body politic…?

Fundamentalist Religious rule. ie: the Middle East, these guys are supported up and out of the normal process of things by sudden discovery of natural resources - huge injections of cash - enabling the old regimes to avoid the compromizes they would have had to make to get where they are otherwise. The old bitch of religion in these countries can afford the cosmetic surgery to keep her looking pretty, and the hormone injections to keep her out of her death-bed.

So I’m talking about the parts of the world that went through a fairly comprehensive set of technological achievements, without skipping too many levels by piggy-backing on others. Europe and the US I suppose.

[size=75][feel free to elaborate here - I realize it’s all a bit shakey][/size]

Anyway - onto the main thrust:

(Bearing in mind that the purely organic/instinctive factors in our make up change too slowly to effect the mayfly of society - this leaves technology the only thing fast enough to be a player.)

I’m thinking that developmental levels of technological process - (which must follow some basic steps of progression - ie: no good inventing and making a ferrari if the wheel doesn’t exist, and no way to weave the internet, if you haven’t already got past the “two-paper-cups-and-some-string” level of comms) - dictates pretty much the type of society created at any one point in time.

Okay - brave new worlds can be discovered (ships, firepower) and declarations of independence/constitutions declared with handy borrowings from Locke - but it’s all actually dependent on the tech-level of the time.

*Without better-than-your-legs transport, you stay in isolated groups, and have a comfortable tyranny.

*Without good weapons, and the strategy that flows naturally from the nature of these weapons you have no Empires.

*Without ‘levelling’ technological development - there is no equality.

*Without good media/comms technology - there is no will toward ‘transparant’ government.

A bit skimpy but you get the general drift.

You could bark on about religion being an effector - but is it…? Okay - all societies develop some form of God-concept (it seems inherent, but lets not quibble about it here - leave it to the religious forum) and the accompanying fripperies of organized religion.

Shamanism/ancestor worship. Based on the healing powers of the Shaman, and his predictive abillities. Cue medicinal technology, cue meterology - exit shaman.

Christianity - Jesus, eternal life, miracles, plagues, damnation etc. Cue life extending medical tech once more, cue the baubles of flight, telephones and other modern-day miracles, cue enjoyable vices and dry-out clinics, cue psychotherapy. - exit Christianity and other biggie religions.

Yani - Technology, after a certain level, tends to cut the legs out from under the Church. God gets dissolved like Alka-Seltzer, and disappears into the philosophic realm of “Don’t have a fucking clue.”

So the first question. Can you imagine any situation in History where the establishment of a society-type was not influenced directly by technology…?

And the second (la-la land) question - if technology is the only defining variable in society-building - and actual physiological attributes (beyond those that facillitate tool-use), being secondary - can we expect the Aliens, once they finally get up the nerve to come off the back wall and ask us to dance, will have societies not unlike our own…?

Comments on a soggy-beer-mat please.

Tab.

2

Hello F(r)iends,

Tab, I am fond of the old saying “Necessity: the mother of invention.”

While it is true that technology has helped shape civilization, we must never forget who forges technology. "Could it really have been any other way?" Yes. A few mutations in a different direction and who knows where we would be today. Also, in my opinion, we can’t discount the influence of organized religions: Scientology born in our era… with new technology comes new religions. Eastern Medicine is still widely practised and has a large cult following in the States…

So where am I headed? It has always been scientists (inventors), philosophers (politicians), theologians (Aquinas), THINKERS, that have led the way in shaping our society. While our organic makeup (DNA or whatever) changes “too slowly”, our mental capacities have improved because we can build on the ideas of the past. We do not start with a veritable “tabula rasa” (no pun intended… ok, maybe a little) because we have recorded the achievements of our ancestors. Thus, I would conclude that it is not technology that dictates the type of society created (as Zeno once said, the Chinese had gunpowder/steam engines and they produced firecrackers and lil toys) but rather he who has enabled technology into existence. And when aliens arrive and begin to level out our cities with their advanced technology do you think our inferior technology will save us or our capable minds? That said, certainly we agree that technology has had some (maybe even a large) influence on society…

Cheers Mate, :slight_smile:

-Thirst

3

Hi Thirst - Thanks for the reply.

Actually - I’ve fucked up.

I built a bit of a false dichotomy in separating man from technology. Doh - I took the shell off the snail and accused it of leading it’s maker. Ah well.

Live, learn, etc.

:blush:

4

:smiley:

In that case, Tab, I agree with you.

5

Where’s the “stick tongue out and waggle hands with thumbs in ears” smilie…?

6

Hi Tab,

I knew I shouldn’t have sent the books. Coherency is starting to slip… :wink:

I can’t see how one can identify any particular trait, tendency, concept (secular or religious), as being the, or even the major, impetus in the formation of a society. Does technology both form and constrain us? Of course. But to single out technological development as the major driving force behind social development is a bit of a reach.

Consider: the printing press didn’t come into being to better circulate programming instructions for your VCR, but to provide better instruction (christian) to a wider audience. The impetus behind the internet was Christian religion if you reach back far enough. That mass communication has shaped and controlled much of modern life is an extension of religious socializing.

It is true that technology by itself can be a sociological mediator. Birth control pills certainly changed the social landscape. Any technological innovation brings positive and negative society changing potential, but the roots of technological development isn’t or at least wasn’t societal need…

uhhhh, what was the question again? :astonished:

JT

7

Hi JT - I was just thinking along the lines of how much the symbiotic relationship we have with our toys has effectively short-circuited our ‘evolution’ I mean - say we chuck some poor infant into the wilds, with say very caring, but exceptionally dumb guardians - that kid will be busted back down to primitive homosapien in the twinkling of an eye.

The human snail is very much all shell these days.

The most interesting to me though, was the idea of technology’s fairly logical steps of progression - okay - I get that, just like evolution, there is no hand on the tiller to be exact - but this progression would be the same everywhere pretty much, the rate/speed of progression linked to the actual intelligence of the host being. But if technology does have a great effect on society - then all life forms in the universe will share some common traits in how they organize themselves, if they use tools, ie the actual differences in biology might not make much of a difference. Which cheers me up for some reason.

I blame Star-trek. It’s set me up to believe that all life is roughly humanoid, and speaks English with a Southern twang.

Beam me up Scotty.

8

Hi Tab,

Ah ha! A direction!

OK. I see where your speculation is headed… It’s true that we are tool makers; it’s even more true that our first ‘test’ of intelligence is the ability to make and use tools. I’d agree that tool making has and will continue to ‘evolve’ our intelligence in ways that seem abstracted from nature, but since we can’t have certainty that nature has purpose, how would one compentently make the judgement that we have two different evolutionary tracks - biological and technological? Is there any test of nature that suggests that biological evolution isn’t to be over-ridden by technological innovation at some point?

If you ask many of the young people in the industrialized western nations, “Where does milk come from?” They will answer that it comes from the grocery store. Older and more world-wise heads will say tsk tsk, and patiently explain that milk comes from cows. The truth is, neither will have ever touched a cow’s teat, and so either answer is sufficient - unless technological evolution collapses.

All this considered, I agree that technology has abstracted us away or beyond our biological evolutionary path. This isn’t to say that it isn’t somehow natural. We are still at a point where we may choose to reject technology as a way of living, but I don’t see it happening but in small enclaves that promote a ‘return to the earth’ philosophy. The time is coming, and rapidly, where our survival will be inextricably tied to technological innovation. Whether this evolutionary ‘advance’ will succeed is questionable.

Will other intelligent life forms follow a similar path? Now we’re getting out there on the limb quite a ways… Assuming similar environmental conditions (a BIG assumption) it would be reasonable to assume that the biological pattern of evolution would at least be recognizable, and that tool making would arise in those life forms as well. But there are so many other possible forms of intelligent life, that it gets really fuzzy as to what we might encounter. How would one judge a life form that uses nothing but the equivelant of ‘mind’ to communicate and to manipulate and move their physical surroundings? Is this biological or technological evolution? After all the Star Trek re-runs are considered (I’ve considered most of 'em) the anthropomorphic model of the universe is questionable at best - but all of it is natural…

JT

9

Hi tentative,

Hum, hasn’t technology often aided the human condition. I mean should humanity return to using sticks to start a fire to cook with, or a sun dial to tell the time? Yes, many people in the industrial West would not have a clue how to survive without technology, heck, many do not know how to cook a meal, but isn’t this a step backward.

I prefer living with the technological conveniences, and would dislike even returning to the technology of the 1960’s, manual typewriters, no cell phones, albeit, I don’t give a fig for television as the vidiot box puts me to sleep.

Hum, I may be misunderstanding you, but don’t advances usually occur from human and societal need? We have traffic light to prevent members of society from suffering automotive accidents. We created trains to better transport people. The connection of the two U.S. railroad lines better transported individuals to underpopulated areas in the U.S. to further the government’s political purpose, and alleviate the overcrowding in our cities.

Hope this makes sense, just received news that my first cousin Janet, 56, and Uncle Bill passed within the last three days. I believe Janet’s passing was the final blow for the old guy.

10

Hey Tentative, Aspacia,

Hokay - if we add an ability to use and create technology into a mutually-promoting gene-cluster, alongside abstract intelligence, and an accompanying physicality able to manipulate objects easily - ie: combine technology into biological evolution as an extention of a gentetic trait. Then an inheritable tendency for technophillia will also be beneficial, and so favoured by evolution. (As long as we agree technology is useful in promoting your likelihood of procreating/surviving to procreative age) - So I don’t think we ever lived in an age where we had a choice to live more… Naturally. Perhaps for our species - technology use is the closest to nature as we get. A tiger cannot make the decision to lay aside his claws and become a vegetarian, and I think we may have the same trouble laying down our hammers.

We can see this instinct apparent in Aspacia’s post - humanity likes it’s toys - and adapts very quickly to them, to such a point where the absence of something - let’s say mobile phones - is felt keenly as a loss. Even though we existed perfectly happily without mobile phones only a decade or so previous.

This would lead me to surmize that an anti-tech tendency has been on the evolutionary no-no list for a long time. The technophiles have been selected for.

The technological short-cut is obviously a hands down winner for evolution. ie: monkey comes down from tree - heads off into plains - picks up antelope femur - takes over the world. And at, at least on an evolutionary-timescale, does so blurringly fast.

ie: any form of life that mutates sufficiently to the point of developing tool-use and invention - will suddenly leap ahead of it’s rivals. The poor tiger - locked into unextended biological evolution just won’t be able to keep up - how many millions of years have we been throwing pointy sticks at them…? And they still haven’t developed bullet-proof skin… :unamused:

(The only way bio-evolution keeps its hand in is in the microscopic - bacteria and viruses, do manage to keep up with technological advance.)

So - Can I assume that if it works here - then on any planet/enviroment, the first life-form to develop technology will tend to take over rapidly.

ie: Dominant life-forms are all technophiles.

(btw - the psychokinetic alien- sorry to burst your bubble - but okay - I, Mr. Monkey, wish to lift a one-ton rock from here to there. So does Mr. Brainiac. The actual energy required to shift said rock will be the same - whatever method I use. I borrow Fred’s Fork-lift truck, and burn some petrol. Mr. Brainiac furrows his brow, and burns a hell of a lot of calories. So, unless he was as big as a blimp to begin with - he’s rapidly going to run out of steam… Technology in this way auguments by externalizing power-sources, Mr. Brainiac - though way-cooler than Mr. Monkey, still could not compete with him. Okay - you can go further and say Mr. Brainiac mentally taps into some kind of external mojo to do his tricks - but remember - evolution starts simple and builds complex - but only if simple is beneficial to begin with in its own right. Psychokinesis without a decent wattage, would be of little use, and certainly of less use initially, than an predilliction for antelope femurs)

So - if we assume dominant life-forms are technophiles - then we can make some guesses about them -

*They must be able to sense the external world in order to manipulate it.

*They must be able to transfer the knowledge of one generation to the next - or live incredibly long life-spans. (Which would slow their evolution, unless they allowed for mutation through a badly conserved genome-equivalent - and reproduced prolifically throughout their lives).

*They must physiologically be able to manipulate things. And mentally coordinate these manipulators.

*They must have a sense of time - and a human like way of thinking - ie: past format memory/direct experience of linked-moments/planned future activity.

So - they have ‘eyes’ ‘brains’ and ‘hands’ plus a ‘language’, ‘mental wristwatches’ and like to write stuff down…

So far so human…

The only way I can think of for a life-form to compete without using external and non-organic technology is if it could master its own genetic ‘industrial’ capability - ie: chemically design, construct, and ‘give birth to’ offspring with intricately gene-tailored forms - an organic gun for example - firing poison shards of bone etc… But now my sad trekkie sci-fi past is showing… :blush:

Tab.

Ps: As for the ‘Simular enviromental conditions’ I think there are fairly narrow enviromental parameters for the conditions that are favourable to life - the intelligent gas monster is unlikely - unless he’s a hive-mind of microscopic individuals - then you have logistic problems with intercommunication.

PPs: It’s the other way round - technological advances come without initial applications - and are then adopted by society, sometimes in ways the original inventors never dreamed of. We really create stuff - just because we can, an end in itself - rather than a means.

11

Hi Tab,

OK, I’m going to give you almost all you’ve said with just one tiny reservation; there is an implied assumption that technological advance doesn’t sow the seeds of it’s own destruction. If we accept the human model of evolution as the benchmark, then your observations are correct as far as they go, but it just may be that our, or any other life form’s technological ability dead ends. The tiger may win after all. Humans are an interesting evolutionary experiment, but the jury is still out.

Remember, for all their technology, Krypton was a failure. :wink:

JT

12

I see your point, the microwave came about during WWII military research. The scientist conducting an experiement, felt something very warm and sticky against his skin, his chocolate bar had melted. Ta Dah, thankfully we now have microwaves.

13

If memory serves, Krypton’s sun burned out. It has been more than forty years since I have read comics, and twenty since the Superman movies and taking the munchkins to the show.

14

Yes - technology outpaces the wisdom of the monkey, though when we go - we’ll probably take the tiger with us.

Just a few other bizzare thoughts.

*If the rise of technophillic life is almost guarenteed - and we assume that along the way, some type of machine-sentience is achieved/achievable - Then maybe all we are is the handmaiden of inorganic ‘machine’ life…?

*Life on this planet took a heavy chronological setback at the wiping-out of the dinosaurs - ie: the dominant species got obliterated, and evolution started back almost from scratch. On other planets, more ‘fortunate’, perhaps the technology level of the dominant species is not just a few millenia ahead - but hundreds of millions of years ahead… :astonished:

*The cyborg thing - if we say technology is an extention of our humanity - rather than a parallel - then even if we go the whole hog, and mesh with our machines - we will still be human, by default. And with all our little augumentative toys, couldn’t we be classed as cyborgs already…?

Anyroad - this has turned from social into the fuzzyscience half-hour,

Thanks for watching, and see you all next week, same place, same time.

The truth is out there.

Tab.

15

Sorry Tab,

But I thought technology and humanity was where you were heading with this thread.

16

Ahh-well, luckily I drive better than I steer threads, otherwise I’d never get home of an evening.