h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In looking at the discussions in this topic, it seems to me that arguers on both sides are assuming that people are fundamentally different from other animals and that their (our) behavior is governed by imperatives that are more abstract than those that govern other organisms. I don't agree. This does not mean that I dislike people, it's just that I no longer believe, as I once did, that we are improvable, let alone perfectable.

That said, war, or any other brutal behavior, is neither justified or unjustified. It is. Wolves fight. Gorillas fight (although they are more civilized about it than we are). Scorpions fight. Expecting us not to fight is unrealistic. I don't like it. I try not to fight, myself. But, we are who we are. Since we are technologically advanced, our fights are devastating and all the more unfortunate.

To paraphrase the Guide, maybe the invention of the wheel was a bad move.

Admittedly, there is a big chunk of human nature that makes us get into groups and do nasty stuff to the other groups in a sort of tribalistic survival struggle.

Having said that, humans aren't your standard type of animal, we're social animals, and we're living in unnatural circumstances. The stakes have been lowered, most humans no-longer have to struggle to survive. Sometimes what's natural isn't always the best idea. Sometimes cooperation works better than competition. Sometimes your survival instincts make you jump out of the frying pan...

We can stop fighting long enough to build the Hoover Dam, the Internet, put a man on the Moon, but we can't suppress our animal instincts enough to improve ourselves or strive for perfection?

Humbug. Too many people lead non-violent lives for me to agree that our brutality is insurmountable.

I agree, the vast majority of people don't really care about how this or that person does things, just so long as they dont interfere with them. Watching programs like Around the World in 80 days and Pole to Pole illustrates this. What the problem is is that a few people want power, money or whatever and to get it they say that those people are not like us therefore they don't count and they have something we want so lets take it! Or that land once belonged to us so we want it back, just excuses for people, who have more than most anyway, to get more.

I truely believe that if those leaders had to actually pick up a gun and sit in some mud filled trench then there would be far less war. Also if so called religious people actually read their books (the bible/koran whatever) and actually practised what was in those books then there would also be less war.

Humans not improvable? We are improving all the time, just a few people look into the past to justify their own homicidal tendancies!

Steve

AlmostaDutchman said: "I truely believe that if those leaders had to actually pick up a gun and sit in some mud filled trench then there would be far less war"

can you give an example of a war that would not have happened had the leaders had to fight?

I think the majority of world leaders of past and present would be highly averse to fighting as a regular infantryman, and would do just about anything they could to prevent wars if they were going to be on the front line like that.

Skatehorn said "can you give an example of a war that would not have happened had the leaders had to fight?"

Can you give an example of one that did even though they did fight?

If you discount ancient wars where the Generals and Kings actually got a sword out and went into battle because they liked it then any war fought in the modern era could fall into my belief. Vietnam, Falklands, Gulf, Iraq v Iran, this latest debacle. If I remember correctly there were no leaders on any side with a gun in their hands shouting "Ok lads lets get 'em" and then leading a charge against the enemy.

What was the reason that any of the above wars started? Was it because someone wanted something that the others had?

Steve

So, let's ask: Is eating ever justified?

Yes, you say, if you don't eat you die.

Then, is eating only justified when you're starving, or is it justified (I still don't know what "justified" means) to eat if you're peckish, or think you might be in the future if you don't eat?

But, you say, eating doesn't hurt other people.

That is certainly untrue in our modern industrial food production environment. Furthermore, is it only hurting people that forms the criteria for justification?

War hurts people in a much more direct way than eating does.

Even those leaders who fight wars like to make sure that they're unlikely to get hurt, ie. they're usually the ones with the steel platemail and the huge retinue to protect them, and also if possible they're on a horse so they can get away quickly.

So What conclusions can we draw from the argument??

Are humans improvable - I think the answer must be "Yes" because if you ask the reverse question. Can humans get worse then the answer is also - "Yes".

I don't know how to stop Leaders tucked away in bunkers from deciding to go to war except to introduce International Law that outlaws it. Then unfortunately the only way to enforce the law would be to threaten that country with war??? So is it possible to outlaw it?

I'm not sure I agree that the converse proves the argument. You say that people can get worse. What does that mean? Can gorillas get worse?
People are what we are. We are social animals to be sure but we our current state always defines the norm, just as with other social animals. Given untenable pressures we behave in unpleasant ways. Does that make us "worse"?

I guess what I hope is that we will come up with social institutions (laws, governments) that protect us as individuals from ourselves as individuals. I don't believe that it is fair to ourselves to expect us to behave nobly in response to unbearable pressures. That some individuals do is inspiring but 2 million years haven't produced that many examples.

You seem to pose that a few individual choices govern the way you judge and entire species. I agree that there are non-violent individuals, and probably quite a few of them, but I agree that humanity as a whole is not improving. I personally believe it is quite the opposite.

Yes, I feel that as a whole we are regressing. Why? Because we are not progressing. Look at the leaps and bounds made in thought and reason from the late 1400's through the late 1700's. Now compare the 1700's today. Use the "civilizing" factors of crime, poverty, the arts, and philosophy. Is there any nation with a better crime rate now than the 1700? What about mean living standard? The arts are, of course a matter of personal taste, but can you think of a modern artist as enduring as a Micaelangelo, Raphael or Leonardo? And modern philosophies are little more than rehashes of the age of reason which were in turn rehashes of the classic philosophers, probably rehashes themselves.

Yes, there are new things out there, but what have they really changed? Autos, it is now faster to get somewhere you could have gone anyway. Computers, it is now faster to compute something you would have computed anyway. (Besides, these aren't new, just different.) Planes see autos. Have these things offered anything that could be said to be an improvement to civilization.

Then take into account the balance between oppurtunity and production. Computers, Movies, TV, and the Internet are the major new developments in media, but what have they offered? With the greater access to the world is the world coming together? Or are these media serving to fragment us all the more? Movies and TV have become the opiates of the masses lowest common denominator at their best. Computers and the internet have provided the biggest playground for free expression ever, and the most powerful learning environment since the library of Alexandretta, but with the exception of a few shining gems like this, what is the majority of thier power wasted on? More sites like this with intellegent and academic discussion or porn?

Please don't feel this is a personal attack, I think you must be among the civilized just for hoping that there could be a better world. But we just aren't enough to change the tide of population and Darwin.

Yes, Darwin. Look at the world. Civilization only saves the population, it doesn't give a rip about the individual. The traits that pass on good qualities don't amount to a hill of beans in the scheme. Demographically, world-wide the less educated, and more violent people are having the most kids. (I am not talking race, I am talking the demographics of all races, so let's not even drag that into it.) And face it, if a non-violent meets a violent, who will be surviving to pass on the ol' DNA? "Here, have this flower and be happy." "Thanks, wimp."

I do not consider this a license to do whatever, but just facts. The future is doomed. Oh well, I probably won't be around for it anyway.

Sorry so long. Kinda been on my mind for a while.

MattP

I believe that for you to state correctly that humans are not improvable, you must first of all consider what to improve. Would you be prepared to walk in the street and KNOW that everyone you saw was perfect? My opinion is that it is our IMperfections that define our charater traits.
This is not an attack on all of your valuable comments on this topic, I would just like to make sure that you know what are you doubting about.

For someone to say that they believe that humans could be more perfect, they must first consider what life would be like if everyone was "perfect".And what do you mean by improving humans? Are you tackling the physical form of the human body, the way humans treat one another, or the way people generally ARE?!?!?

Personally I believe, that it would be impossible for the world to be completely at peace. The theory just doesn't work. It has been proved during the course of history that people always want more...whether it be land, food, etc. Hasn't it been noticed that the theory of a world where people are completely equal and CONTENT with what they have is impossible?
I mean, come on...how can ANYONE expect EVERYONE to be content with what they own... its the way of life, people win people lose. It is the wave in which we ALL live in, and that is our equality. (did that make ANY sense?)It is the dependance on others, the knowledge that someone will succeed and someone will fail, that binds us to a community.
You see, it is only by knowing that things will go on, that we are all in an equal situation. A sick man will lead to the development of a new medicine...
To conclude my very complicated and confusing message, I ask you this:
Do you think the improvment of humans is WORTH it?what would you improve?
Ciao, hippos on stilletos

Hi MattP,

Maybe I shouldn't have used technological achievements to illustrate my point. I'm trying to prove that our Gross National Happiness can be improved, that people can be happier and less cruel. The technology itself doesn't prove happiness or compassion, as evidenced by daisy-cutters, cluster-bombs and tactical nukes.

I wouldn't concede that technology or philosophy or the arts have stagnated since the 1700s, but those things have little to do with whether humans can improve their happiness or decrease brutality on a large scale. Not to get all Luddite about things, but if people could get along with their neighbors better by giving up cell phones and growing their own food, then I'd consider that an improvement. However, I don't see any reason that technology should necessarily cause people to be more brutal or less brutal.

I can't really think of a big event that would prove people are getting happier or more compassionate. I just thought that if they can stop killing each other long enough to play with giant dams and thousands of miles of tv cables and shooting each other out of Earth's atmosphere, they must have set aside brutality for a little while.

...Of course, I might be ignoring the people displaced by giant dams, the tons of steel used for tv cables instead of building shelter or tools for poor people, and of course, the millions who starved in nations where spacecraft were given priority.

I give up.

wow......i think you've managed to convince the best of us....

-hippo

I didn't mean to harm anyone's worldview or anything.

I would love for the world to be happy, and better. I'll even go so far as to hope someone proves me wrong. But things are not looking up.

I think everyone should try to improve the world, but we are not the rocket propelling Humankind to the stars, we are the parachute slowing his decent into the abyss.

Me and my cheery worldview strike again.

MattP

Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you on some of that.

I think if you take into account increasing population, we can safely say that the crime rate has decreased in many areas. There are certainly countries with better living standards than they used to, I'm not sure about the world as a whole, but I suspect its gone up because of certain things that are around a lot more these days like sanitation, effective medecine and running water. I know there are lots of people who don't have those, who don't have food etc., but there have always been lots of people who haven't.

Arts well, things have changed, don't look at the traditional areas for improvements, look at areas where there have been recent developments. Photography & music for a start. Also comedy - where would the world be without Monty Python? Philosophy has changed direction too. Consider philosophy of the brain. And did anyone ever argue "all you need is love," before the 20th century?

I'm not sure these things are good ways to judge a good society anyway, but I can think of a lot of reason's why today's is better than that of previous centuries. For a start, the general huge reduction of slavery. Then there's democracy. Ok, so it doesn't work that well, but its better than any other government type there's been before, and what it has that is so important is the capacity for change.

So, I think you can say that society has improved and is improving. As for people, well, people are people are people and I suspect that the only major changes in the past few millenia are the circumstances.

I still have a rosy worldview, but I give up trying to prove it here.

A few months ago my grandfather told me he was worried about the state of the world. If he had known how things would go, he might not have brought children into the world. (This was shortly after my grandmother passed away, so maybe not an objective time to ask about his worldview.)

But right now I'm thinking of baby names. We're going to have a little sub-subcomandante in about 8 months, and I have no doubt that we'll have a good time together and that I'll never regret bringing it into the world.

Just can't figure how to convince the rest of y'all why life is beautiful.

Bouncy Bit,

I was refering to democracy as the development out of the Age of Reason rehashing the Greeks, Athens was a democracy. For that matter Early Rome was a representative republic, just as the US is.

As far as "all you need is love" 2000 years ago we nailed a dude to a tree for that because he couldn't come up with a catchy tune to put it to.

BTW, I am curious, if these factors are not the judges of society, what do you feel is? How would you feel the world improved? Unity? Peace? I chose my critera on the hirarchy of needs.

Subcom.Deidzoeb,

Strangely enough, I am a happy person, and applaud your impending sub subcom. Congratulations. I don't think that we are completly in the hopper yet, and the harder we try, the longer we avoid it. I just wonder when it has been 30+ years since we first went to the moon, and we are just now getting our act together for a LEO Station. Look back at the dates in early Sci-Fi. Following the advancements of the first half of the century, we should have been much further along than we are.

MattP

PS. It is nice finding a place to stretch my mind. I have really enjoyed this debate. Thanks all.

I'm no expert - I find most Roman history pretty boring for some reason - but I'm pretty sure that Rome would have been less representative than the USA because of slavery and lack of women's suffrage for a start. Modern Democracy has advanced somewhat since early Rome, although it stil has a hell of a long way to go.

I messed up on "all you need is love". The Buddhists were probably the first past the post on that one.

I'm not sure establishing a moonbase is really a big deal for most of mankind. Its an expensive dream for a few people, it won't change anything for most. As for art and philosophy, that's just self-expression. Its more important that the self-expression is there than what is produced.

What do I think are the most important attributes to society? Very difficult to define. Food, clean water, sanitation, good healthcare, education (not necessarily schooling though). Freedom of expression and tolerance. Change. Stability to an extent that allows people to achieve something, but not so much that it results in stagnation. Gradual redistribution of wealth. Something to do on a Friday night.

Are any of these things likely to ever happen? Not a chance, its not that we have the wrong society, we have the wrong species, but I think those aspects of society can be and have demonstrably been improved.

I'd rather live today than as a serf in autocratic Russia for a start.