Is the world getting better?

[Vinod2070]

I will say it is getting better just because the world of Islam is no longer able to slaughter millions of people and enslave them now. They at least have to pretend to be "peaceful and tolerant" now even though they don't want you to seriously believe that.

[JAD_333]

I'd say that on the whole the world was getting better in a lot of places and worse in some others, but on the whole it's getting better. What really highlights the worse bits is that we have unparalleled ability to examine the worst bits in the history of civilization. When we have the ability to find out as much bad stuff going on in the World as we have time to look, it paints a very bad picture.

The truth is that bad things have always gone on, it's just our awareness of them that's changed...

I take it you come down on the side of the world doesn't change in general, only that conditions improve here and there and likewise worsen.

The original question is flawed. People have different ideas of what the "world" is. There is the world of science; the world of religion; the world of business; and so on. But most everyone who has pitched in to this thread seems to be taking the world as the world of human existence and all its facets. Thus people think the world is getting better, worse or is unchanging depending on conditions in which man lives today. But, they overlook the basic fact that man himself has not changed. He is capable of the same goodness and cruelty, the same billiance and stupidity; and the same generosity and selfishness today as he was at the beginning of history. And because the nature of man hasn't changed, the world hasn't changed. It still flows and ebbs as alway and no amount of religious influence or enlightened attitudes has or will make the world any different than it was at the time of the ancient Greeks or Egyptians. The only way the world will change is if people change, and while that isn't impossible, it is improbable. We can't do anything to change the world, but we can change ourselves. So it's time to decide: Miller Lite or Bud Lite.

[Parihaka]

I take it you come down on the side of the world doesn't change in general, only that conditions improve here and there and likewise worsen.

The original question is flawed. People have different ideas of what the "world" is. There is the world of science; the world of religion; the world of business; and so on. But most everyone who has pitched in to this thread seems to be taking the world as the world of human existence and all its facets. Thus people think the world is getting better, worse or is unchanging depending on conditions in which man lives today. But, they overlook the basic fact that man himself has not changed. He is capable of the same goodness and cruelty, the same billiance and stupidity; and the same generosity and selfishness today as he was at the beginning of history. And because the nature of man hasn't changed, the world hasn't changed. It still flows and ebbs as alway and no amount of religious influence or enlightened attitudes has or will make the world any different than it was at the time of the ancient Greeks or Egyptians. The only way the world will change is if people change, and while that isn't impossible, it is improbable. We can't do anything to change the world, but we can change ourselves. So it's time to decide: Miller Lite or Bud Lite.

And yet I'd argue that things have changed, simply because the ability to murder individuals or groups has been restricted in many parts of the world. That is a change in the nature of man.

[JAD_333]

And yet I'd argue that things have changed, simply because the ability to murder individuals or groups has been restricted in many parts of the world. That is a change in the nature of man.

I think it is good that you brought that up because it shows that man can create social structures that check man's base tendencies. But can you say that laws against murder, for example, actually change man's nature? Wouldn't you say they restrain his nature.

Shifting gears a bit and speaking of murder, one runs across descriptions of what life was like in places where murder was very rare even though governmnental authority was practically non-existent. There is a remote region of the US called Appalachia which stretches from western Maryland to South Carolina and Tennessee. It is a mountainous region which until well into the 20th Century was practically inaccessible. The population was mostly descended from Scottish immigrants who came to America before the Revolutionary War. They fought in the Revolutionary War to defend their freedom and again in the Civil War for the same reason. When Lincoln called for volunteers from Tennessee, they turned out en masse. Life in Appalachia was very hard and still is in places. Everything they needed they made themselves, even the booze made from corn we call shine. Contact with outsiders was rare. Law officers were even rarer. Yet, burglary and murder were practically non-existent. The reason had to do with the near absense of government presense. In lieu of government they had developed a practical code of behavior that everyone followed of their own accord out of pride. So, when it comes to murder, a case can be made that well enforced laws help keep it down, but at the same time, it may be that pervasive government regulation of all aspects of life leads to frustrations that ultimately explode in violence. None of which argues that man has changed one iota since the beginning of recorded time.

[Dwarven Pirate]

I will say it is getting better just because the world of Islam is no longer able to slaughter millions of people and enslave them now. They at least have to pretend to be "peaceful and tolerant" now even though they don't want you to seriously believe that.

True. And neither is the West any longer able to do these things.

[Parihaka]

I think it is good that you brought that up because it shows that man can create social structures that check man's base tendencies. But can you say that laws against murder, for example, actually change man's nature? Wouldn't you say they restrain his nature.

Shifting gears a bit and speaking of murder, one runs across descriptions of what life was like in places where murder was very rare even though governmnental authority was practically non-existent. There is a remote region of the US called Appalachia which stretches from western Maryland to South Carolina and Tennessee. It is a mountainous region which until well into the 20th Century was practically inaccessible. The population was mostly descended from Scottish immigrants who came to America before the Revolutionary War. They fought in the Revolutionary War to defend their freedom and again in the Civil War for the same reason. When Lincoln called for volunteers from Tennessee, they turned out en masse. Life in Appalachia was very hard and still is in places. Everything they needed they made themselves, even the booze made from corn we call shine. Contact with outsiders was rare. Law officers were even rarer. Yet, burglary and murder were practically non-existent. The reason had to do with the near absense of government presense. In lieu of government they had developed a practical code of behavior that everyone followed of their own accord out of pride. So, when it comes to murder, a case can be made that well enforced laws help keep it down, but at the same time, it may be that pervasive government regulation of all aspects of life leads to frustrations that ultimately explode in violence. None of which argues that man has changed one iota since the beginning of recorded time.

now you see Jad, I can never tell whether or not thou makest the mock. Would this be the same Appalachian mountains that was home to my extended kin the McCoys?

[JAD_333]

now you see Jad, I can never tell whether or not thou makest the mock. Would this be the same Appalachian mountains that was home to my extended kin the McCoys?

It is. So, you're a McCoy...do you know any Hatfields?:))

[Dwarven Pirate]

I take it you come down on the side of the world doesn't change in general, only that conditions improve here and there and likewise worsen.

The original question is flawed. People have different ideas of what the "world" is. There is the world of science; the world of religion; the world of business; and so on. But most everyone who has pitched in to this thread seems to be taking the world as the world of human existence and all its facets. Thus people think the world is getting better, worse or is unchanging depending on conditions in which man lives today. But, they overlook the basic fact that man himself has not changed. He is capable of the same goodness and cruelty, the same billiance and stupidity; and the same generosity and selfishness today as he was at the beginning of history. And because the nature of man hasn't changed, the world hasn't changed. It still flows and ebbs as alway and no amount of religious influence or enlightened attitudes has or will make the world any different than it was at the time of the ancient Greeks or Egyptians. The only way the world will change is if people change, and while that isn't impossible, it is improbable. We can't do anything to change the world, but we can change ourselves. So it's time to decide: Miller Lite or Bud Lite.

I disagree with this. I'd say man has changed. The brutalities of day to day life in even our recent past of a few hundred years ago tell me this. While we do still have a tendency to turn upon our neighbor in a violent manner for basically irrational motives, the tendency seems to be toward compassion and reason. The identity group of the average person also seems to be rapidly expanding, which I think is a major, if not THE major, contributor toward peaceful relations.

I would also go on to posit the idea that this is possible mainly due to expansion in vocabularies, but that's for some other thread, maybe. Basically, it is evolving cultural paradigms shaped by language that is the effectual process, whatever the actual causal entities may be.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm saying that based on historical trends eventually the identity group will include all of us. From self, to clans, to tribalism, to city-states, to nations, to ideologies(?), to universalism.

[JAD_333]

I disagree with this. I'd say man has changed. The brutalities of day to day life in even our recent past of a few hundred years ago tell me this. While we do still have a tendency to turn upon our neighbor in a violent manner for basically irrational motives, the tendency seems to be toward compassion and reason. The identity group of the average person also seems to be rapidly expanding, which I think is a major, if not THE major, contributor toward peaceful relations.

I would also go on to posit the idea that this is possible mainly due to expansion in vocabularies, but that's for some other thread, maybe. Basically, it is evolving cultural paradigms shaped by language that is the effectual process, whatever the actual causal entities may be.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm saying that based on historical trends eventually the identity group will include all of us. From self, to clans, to tribalism, to city-states, to nations, to ideologies(?), to universalism.

DP:

The change you think you see in man is not change in the basic animal, but the result of influences on his basic nature. Let's imagine man as a large control board in a recording studio. All the slide controls sit there inert until someone moves them. When the engineer moves a slide, the sound changes. Would you say that the control board has changed its basic nature? No. It's built-in properties were manipulated from outside to produce a different result. That's the state of man today, yesterday and always. Fashions change, new innovations come about, enlightened reasonings are developed, and all that, but they are just influences. Man's response to them comes from his existing wiring.

And please don't try to argue that man can replace his old control board with a new one. Man may think he's the cat's ass, but look at him as he really is. For example, has he yet to bring peace to the world? No. Why not? He just ain't built to be peaceful all the time. His nature dictates that he be in conflict; he always feels a need to overcome some hurdle...some mysterious hurdle. You want to find answers, focus on that basic contradiction. And how about this question: Why does man fight for peace? Could it be that he is too stupid to realize that fighting is contrary to peace? Or is he fooled by leaders who say they want peace but in reality just want power. Peace is only possible if all people will it. But they won't, because nothing ever changes in that basic conflict within them. A man can change himself, but that is another subject.

[wajahat]

it's getting worse. whole islands are sinking in the pacific due to rising ocean levels caused by melting of polar ice.if this goes on then in 30-years from now cities like Sydney & sanghai will be under the ocean.

[Parihaka]

it's getting worse. whole islands are sinking in the pacific due to rising ocean levels caused by melting of polar ice.

Really? Which ones?

[gunnut]

it's getting worse. whole islands are sinking in the pacific due to rising ocean levels caused by melting of polar ice.if this goes on then in 30-years from now cities like Sydney & sanghai will be under the ocean.

Did you know the ice sheet on the SOUTH pole is getting thicker because it's colder there now?

I think the world is getting worse because the next ice age will hit soon. Everything above the temperate zone will be covered by vast glaciers and millions of people will be forced to most to the tropics.

[Dwarven Pirate]

DP:

The change you think you see in man is not change in the basic animal, but the result of influences on his basic nature. Let's imagine man as a large control board in a recording studio. All the slide controls sit there inert until someone moves them. When the engineer moves a slide, the sound changes. Would you say that the control board has changed its basic nature? No. It's built-in properties were manipulated from outside to produce a different result. That's the state of man today, yesterday and always. Fashions change, new innovations come about, enlightened reasonings are developed, and all that, but they are just influences. Man's response to them comes from his existing wiring.

And please don't try to argue that man can replace his old control board with a new one. Man may think he's the cat's ass, but look at him as he really is. For example, has he yet to bring peace to the world? No. Why not? He just ain't built to be peaceful all the time. His nature dictates that he be in conflict; he always feels a need to overcome some hurdle...some mysterious hurdle. You want to find answers, focus on that basic contradiction. And how about this question: Why does man fight for peace? Could it be that he is too stupid to realize that fighting is contrary to peace? Or is he fooled by leaders who say they want peace but in reality just want power. Peace is only possible if all people will it. But they won't, because nothing ever changes in that basic conflict within them. A man can change himself, but that is another subject.

Firstly, if one completely rejects darwinism and the theory of evolution, then no change can be admitted, and if one embraces the theory, then change must be admitted. I think that is evident and undeniable. It follows that if one favors the middle ground of these two stances then change is probable.

Regardless, I think looking at man and his "control board" of influences as separate entities is too narrow a paradigm. I reject it out of hand, actually :) I think these things are wholly inter-connected. There is plenty of science operating on the fringes of main-stream thought that points to this e.g. in physics and biology.

EDIT: Well, I want to expand on my first paragraph there. Take the domestic dog as an example. I think it is obvious that we can and have engineered genetically less aggressive animals via breeding programs. To say that this sort of thing is absolutely categorically impossible in humans seems (fill in the blank).

Now one can posit that people naturally become more aggresive since this enables better rates of survival, or that less aggressive traits are encouraged since following law keeps one free to breed (to put forth two very simple opposing ideas). However it is working out, even if it is a wash overall, once you admit biological change somewhere you cannot go back and categorically deny it is happening.

[JAD_333]

Firstly, if one completely rejects darwinism and the theory of evolution, then no change can be admitted, and if one embraces the theory, then change must be admitted. I think that is evident and undeniable. It follows that if one favors the middle ground of these two stances then change is probable.

I don't reject Darwinism. But Darwinism offers nothing to explain why man nature hasn't changed over all the years of his known existence. It only explains, at best, why his physicality has altered. Darwinism is about physical change, not emotional or intellectual change.

Breeding dogs to be less aggressive is not at all related to Darwinism. It's cross breeding, or in the case of plants, grafting. Besides, even the most docile dog will get snarly if you threaten its life or screw with its bone.:)

So you can reject my analogy of a control panel subject to outside influences if you like. But the next time you feel lovingly about someone or flaming mad at someone, just ask yourself whether you brought it about internally or if some external event triggered your emotion. If you're honest with yourself, you'll see it was an external influence. And that, my friend, has been the condition of man since way, way back.

Now one can posit that people naturally become more aggresive since this enables better rates of survival, or that less aggressive traits are encouraged since following law keeps one free to breed (to put forth two very simple opposing ideas). However it is working out, even if it is a wash overall, once you admit biological change somewhere you cannot go back and categorically deny it is happening.

There's a pony in there somewhere. Can you explain it in simpler terms.

[Dwarven Pirate]

I don't reject Darwinism. But Darwinism offers nothing to explain why man nature hasn't changed over all the years of his known existence. It only explains, at best, why his physicality has altered. Darwinism is about physical change, not emotional or intellectual change.

I wasn't talking about your personal beliefs, just throwing evolution out there. But evolution certainly does affect more than musculature and bone structure. The growth of one's brain and central nervous system is controlled by the same processes that control how long your fingers are, namely, your DNA. Or can it be explained how one's brain is somehow off-limits when it comes to evolution change? Even random mutation ought to affect one's brain somehow, somewhere.

Maybe I dont understand the distinction you draw between physicality (your body?), and emotion and intellect. But it seems to me at first glance that you deny these things are subject to changes in one's physical nervous system?

Breeding dogs to be less aggressive is not at all related to Darwinism. It's cross breeding, or in the case of plants, grafting. Besides, even the most docile dog will get snarly if you threaten its life or screw with its bone.:)

I'd say it is. I could dissemble and say that while it isn't actually natural selection, the processes that force change upon the dog species have the same effect, making how the motive forces apply to the question of whether or not this thing is actually happening irrelevant, but the premise is just hubris (in the sense that humanity is a part of the natural world). Imagine you are outside of the dog-breeder's set and indeed it is natural selection.

Now, whether or not the most docile dog will attack in order to save it's own life may well be true. Are humans this way? No. There are many instances of people quietly awaiting their own sure death. How this applies to the questions in this thread I dont know, but its a fact.

So you can reject my analogy of a control panel subject to outside influences if you like. But the next time you feel lovingly about someone or flaming mad at someone, just ask yourself whether you brought it about internally or if some external event triggered your emotion. If you're honest with yourself, you'll see it was an external influence. And that, my friend, has been the condition of man since way, way back.

You could be right, but it doesnt speak to the idea that the outside influences required to make one react aren't changing in the mean. Does it take more or less pressure for a man today to commit murder than it did 5000 years ago? Who could say...

[/quote]Now one can posit that people naturally become more aggresive since this enables better rates of survival, or that less aggressive traits are encouraged since following law keeps one free to breed (to put forth two very simple opposing ideas). However it is working out, even if it is a wash overall, once you admit biological change somewhere you cannot go back and categorically deny it is happening.

There's a pony in there somewhere. Can you explain it in simpler terms.

Hmmm, pony? This flies over my head, lol.

Again, not speaking at yourself in that last sentence. This was an aside offering opposing(?) views to how natural selection might operate in modern society. One, that self-interest is encouraged as it allows one to amass wealth (security) and opportunity. Two, that docile behavior is encouraged as it enables one to live freely and avoid judgements. Finally, that any societal pressures that may be acting to influence the evolution of man may very well be cancelling themselves out.

BUT and this is the part that is probably unclear?

But if we can show that there has been change in man over time in history due to environment that has changed the very nature of the species, then to deny that it could continue today is certainly wrong. Now, I believe our intellect and emotion has its basis in our physical structure, and that if we say that our physical structure has evolved over time, then I have to admit to at least the possibility that our intellect and emotional make-up has likewise evolved in some manner. I did not suspect that there could be a difference between physical nature and intellect/emotion which would render the latter unchangeable, and in fact I still don't.

Does that help to clarify what I meant?