Are things better?

sonic1 · February-2nd-2006, 12:06 PM

Some time ago we debated this subject, albeit briefly, whether human misery has decreased and atrocities toward human beings also decreased. I am curious to read your opinions on this again. I have been reading a lot of ancient history as well as about the various wars that defined Europe, the Middle East, and in general the world.

Though I am sure there is still a lot of evil in the world, and that human suffering is still great, surely things have improved. For instance, it is not common practice to accuse one of heresy, put him or her on a spit in the public square and roast them alive for being a little odd (or pissing off the wrong person). What is more, that was done in the attendance of families, in the name of christ. People are not quartered so often anymore. Nor are they de-bowled routinely. Though I am sure there are instances here and there, this is not so common as it was. There must be slightly less disease than there was at one time. And poverty in the world means something a little different than it did then, does it not? Is it not much less common than before to find people with absolutely nothing to eat? Or am I being fooled by the writers of history?

Adam Hill · February-2nd-2006, 12:16 PM

There's quite a nice section in Notes From The Underground about how we fool ourselves into thinking we are less barbarous.

Adam Hill · February-2nd-2006, 12:29 PM

The only gain of civilisation for mankind is the greater capacity for variety of sensations -- and absolutely nothing more. And through the development of this many-sidedness man may come to finding enjoyment in bloodshed. In fact, this has already happened to him. Have you noticed that it is the most civilised gentlemen who have been the subtlest slaughterers, to whom the Attilas and Stenka Razins could not hold a candle, and if they are not so conspicuous as the Attilas and Stenka Razins it is simply because they are so often met with, are so ordinary and have become so familiar to us.

In any case civilisation has made mankind if not more blood-thirsty, at least more vilely, more loathsomely bloodthirsty. In old days he saw justice in bloodshed and with his conscience at peace exterminated those he thought proper. Now we do think bloodshed abominable and yet we engage in this abomination, and with more energy than ever. Which is worse? Decide that for yourselves. They say that Cleopatra (excuse an instance from Roman history) was fond of sticking gold pins into her slave-girls' breasts and derived gratification from their screams and writhings. You will say that that was in the comparatively barbarous times; that these are barbarous times too, because also, comparatively speaking, pins are stuck in even now; that though man has now learned to see more clearly than in barbarous ages, he is still far from having learnt to act as reason and science would dictate.

But yet you are fully convinced that he will be sure to learn when he gets rid of certain old bad habits, and when common sense and science have completely re-educated human nature and turned it in a normal direction. You are confident that then man will cease from intentional error and will, so to say, be compelled not to want to set his will against his normal interests.

sonic1 · February-2nd-2006, 12:46 PM

I am sorry but I think that is total bullshit.

While I am reluctant to be too starry-eyed about the human condition, one cannot ignore the facts. We humans are probably still the blood thirsty apes we have always been. But we temper ourselves more than we ever have. And we even overcome those impulses to help out people. Look at the tsunami relief efforts. Though nothing what it could be, there was a time when nobody would have lifted a finger to help. And now we do.

I cringe at this role, but as much as I am much more prone to pointing at the dark side of humanity, I cannot honestly say that things are worse or the same as during times like the 30 years war or the spanish inquisition or the dark ages in general.

Though I wonder if times and humanity were somewhat worsened by the rise of judeo-christian religions.

Squaredancecalling Steve · February-2nd-2006, 12:52 PM

I would not want to go back to the days before indoor plumbing and novocain.

Brian Olewnick · February-2nd-2006, 01:02 PM

If you could somehow concoct the "average" Earth person from 1806 (or any significantly distant past) and compare it with that same person from 2006, I have little doubt that the person from 2006 would, all things considered, say that s/he was better off. I can't prove this, of course, but it's hard for me to imagine otherwise.

Adam Hill · February-2nd-2006, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonic1

I am sorry but I think that is total bullshit.

While I am reluctant to be too starry-eyed about the human condition, one cannot ignore the facts. We humans are probably still the blood thirsty apes we have always been. But we temper ourselves more than we ever have. And we even overcome those impulses to help out people. Look at the tsunami relief efforts. Though nothing what it could be, there was a time when nobody would have lifted a finger to help. And now we do.

I cringe at this role, but as much as I am much more prone to pointing at the dark side of humanity, I cannot honestly say that things are worse or the same as during times like the 30 years war or the spanish inquisition or the dark ages in general.

Though I wonder if times and humanity were somewhat worsened by the rise of judeo-christian religions.

We simply have more effective ways to destroy greater numbers of people. And we have others do it for us. And we are not much troubled by the innocent non-combative people killed, either. Is this moral progress, Jared?

And even though we know and think it is bad that tens of millions suffer, and suffer from things that can be conquered and eradicated, and we do nothing about it, and do not demand that our governments do anything about it. Is this enlightenment, Jared?

GregM · February-2nd-2006, 01:19 PM

Surfer · February-2nd-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonic1

But we temper ourselves more than we ever have.

I think that the social controls regulating human behavior have become more refined, but generally, no, I dont think human behavior has changed that much if at all over the centuries.

Are you just talking about Western culture, Jared, b/c about 10 years ago, 1/4 of a million people were hacked to death with machetes in 6 weeks in Rwanda.

sonic1 · February-2nd-2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Hill

We simply have more effective ways to destroy greater numbers of people. And we have others do it for us. And we are not much troubled by the innocent non-combative people killed, either. Is this moral progress, Jared?

And even though we know and think it is bad that tens of millions suffer, and suffer from things that can be conquered and eradicated, and we do nothing about it, and do not demand that our governments do anything about it. Is this enlightenment, Jared?

You are speaking of deception. Morality cannot be judged upon the decieved. Although modernity does decieve, people accept less abominible behavior than they used to. People, as I said above, do not go to the public square to watch heretics burned at the stake. I bet you will find more people opposed to the death penalty today than before the Enlightenment. Look at the big to-do we made about Iraqi torture (we all know worse happened than documented). People got really upset. That would not have happened before.

sonic1 · February-2nd-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surfer

I think that the social controls regulating human behavior have become more refined, but generally, no, I dont think human behavior has changed that much if at all over the centuries.

Are you just talking about Western culture, Jared, b/c about 10 years ago, 1/4 of a million people were hacked to death with machetes in 6 weeks in Rwanda.

But that sort of thing used to be the rule, not the exception. The very fact that you think that news shows times have changed. Why should you care about what happens in Rwanda?

Of couse I do to, not to imply that I don't.

Adam Hill · February-2nd-2006, 01:26 PM

To me, the basic appeal of literature from earlier times, even the earliest we have, is that human nature has remained the same, and thus, great lit is always relevant. Only the external worlds change, not the internal ones.

And what Dostoyevsky was arguing in that section above is: if we have changed our values to acknowledge a broader definition of what's barbarous, and yet we still do barbarous things and indifferently allow barbarous things to occur all the time, then how can we claim we are more morally advanced people.

sonic1 · February-2nd-2006, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Hill

To me, the basic appeal of literature from earlier times, even the earliest we have, is that human nature has remained the same, and thus, great lit is always relevant. Only the external worlds change, not the internal ones.

And what Dostoyevsky was arguing in that section above is: if we have changed our values to acknowledge a broader definition of what's barbarous, and yet we still do barbarous things and indifferently allow barbarous things to occur all the time, then how can we claim we are more morally advanced people.

That is putting everyone in the same pot and judging them the same. I am a scientist and percentages matter to me. And percentate-wise that barbarism is definately less common among people. And that, to me, says things are better.

Adam Hill · February-2nd-2006, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonic1

You are speaking of deception. Morality cannot be judged upon the decieved. Although modernity does decieve, people accept less abominible behavior than they used to. People, as I said above, do not go to the public square to watch heretics burned at the stake. I bet you will find more people opposed to the death penalty today than before the Enlightenment. Look at the big to-do we made about Iraqi torture (we all know worse happened than documented). People got really upset. That would not have happened before.

People get really upset. What do people do?

Surfer · February-2nd-2006, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonic1

But that sort of thing used to be the rule, not the exception. The very fact that you think that news shows times have changed. Why should you care about what happens in Rwanda?

Of couse I do to, not to imply that I don't.

Well, I care about what happened in Rwanda because I know what happened in Rwanda. We live in the era of 24 hr, immediate news. Even 40 years ago, 99% of the world would have never known that it happened, so its difficult to judge how people's attitudes have changed.

I mean, Conrad's account of the exploitation of the Belgian Congo raised more than a few eyebrows in its day.

sonic1 · February-2nd-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Hill

People get really upset. What do people do?

Much much more than they would have ever done before. In the past it wouldn't have even been news.

Quote:

Well, I care about what happened in Rwanda because I know what happened in Rwanda. We live in the era of 24 hr, immediate news. Even 40 years ago, 99% of the world would have never known that it happened, so its difficult to judge how people's attitudes have changed.

I mean, Conrad's account of the exploitation of the Belgian Congo raised more than a few eyebrows in its day.

Actually, the story of Rwanda was appauling in how it was NOT covered. Other stories seemed more important to print. Unfortunately a blow job is still much more newsworthy than murder. But if people were more aware they would have been appauled. I have talked to many people who don't even know about it.

rollhead · February-2nd-2006, 01:39 PM

I am wondering how the numbers of the millions of people now moldering in U.S. prisons compares to the numbers (percentagewise) who were drawn and quartered hundreds of years ago?

I am guessing that there are many more people (again percentagewise) in prison for life, or facing the death penalty, on trumped up charges, than there were people drawn and quartered or burned at the stake for being a witch.

As to disease, I think many people in the medical field are anticipating a pandemic that will wipe out millions in the next few decades, owing in large part because of the 'advances" in antibotics, which are causing the evolution of a "super bug."

It's the so-called "Coming Plague" which has been discussed for over a decade now:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014...Fencoding=UTF8

I think that most every generation takes a Panglossian view that the time they live in is the "best of all possible worlds," which is an illusion.

But my belly is full, so I can't really complain.

Surfer · February-2nd-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonic1

Much much more than they would have ever done before. In the past it wouldn't have even been news.

Meh, I dont necessarily agree with that.

Quote:

Actually, the story of Rwanda was appauling in how it was NOT covered. Other stories seemed more important to print. Unfortunately a blow job is still much more newsworthy than murder. But if people were more aware they would have been appauled. I have talked to many people who don't even know about it.

Yes, but I think my point remains. People only care if they know about it, and in the past, they didnt know about it.

I think the Rwandan genocide got about the same amount of coverage that the Sudanese genocide is getting now. And relatively the same amount of action from Western countries and the UN. How's that for progress?

rollhead · February-2nd-2006, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surfer

Well, I care about what happened in Rwanda because I know what happened in Rwanda. We live in the era of 24 hr, immediate news. Even 40 years ago, 99% of the world would have never known that it happened, so its difficult to judge how people's attitudes have changed.

I mean, Conrad's account of the exploitation of the Belgian Congo raised more than a few eyebrows in its day.

Did you read "King Leopold's Ghost"? It's a more recent account of the exploitation of the Belgian Congo.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/061...Fencoding=UTF8

Surfer · February-2nd-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rollhead

Did you read "Leopold's Ghost"? It's a more recent account of the exploitation of the Belgian Congo.

I have not. I'll keep it in mind.

cookie · February-2nd-2006, 02:06 PM

I think it's definitely better for women, at least women here in the States and other "1-st world" countries. We are no longer required by law to submit ourselves to the institution of family or service careers like schoolmarm and nurse. We can vote and speak for ourselves. We can choose whether or when to have children. We do not have to "submit to our husbands." We can trade freely in the marketplace. In short, we can do pretty much whatever we wanna do. We have social and economic power that our mothers and grandmothers didn't have or weren't encouraged to pursue. We have more freedom than women in ages past (and, sadly, some women today) could have realistically hoped for.

Of course, extraordinary women paved the way by doing what they damn-well pleased in spite of rules or tradition. Some of them died for it. All of them made it easier for women like me. Now, I hope that my generation leads the way in making it better for everyone---not just women who are denied their freedoms, but also men who should be free to choose their ideas of who they "should" or are "expected" to be. Freedom and choice are good for everyone.

Also, modern appliances really help a chick out. My husband has absolutely no trouble using them. Simple and effective.

Adam Hill · February-2nd-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonic1

Much much more than they would have ever done before. In the past it wouldn't have even been news.

That's the actual deception you mention in an earlier post. We know more--when we care to--and do very little.

Cookie mentions something that is an undeniable and radical change in the social order, at least as far as the west is concerned. Women's liberation and also the end of colonialism are certainly the two major social and moral developments of the modern world. Of course, this hasn't changed the nature of man, but they are examples that humans can improve their external environments.

Still, I would argue that women's liberation would not have succeeded were it not so essentially connected to economic interests. And as for the end of colonialism, that hasn't led the former colonial powers to feel morally obligated to honestly address and seek to resolve the problems in these countries that continue misery.

sonic1 · February-3rd-2006, 10:58 AM

I am sorry but I still can't conclude from the above that things are no better. There are many many many places in the world now where you can be a woman, or of a different race, or be a complete heathen, and not only avoid being enslaved, burned alive, or imprisoned but you can actually move up in the world. Not just in the US, but in Europe, and even in countries in the developing world. Before the Enlightenment nobody gave much thought to peasants slaving for kings and other such bodies of royalty (thinking of the greeks), except worrying about uprisings. And while the corperations and CEOs of the world do carry a certain royal flavor, it is nothing like it was before.

The world used to never have safe havens for the common people. Think of how much terrible work went into buiding those egyption pyramids which even with our technology today would be a terrible feat, let alone with bare hands and crude technologies as must have been used.

The average person, MOST PEOPLE, lived terrible lives, due not just to disease, but also to rampant and unquestioned injustices that are far less frequent today, albeit not non-existant. It is almost a joke to even compare the US imprisonments mentioned above, though I don't think them as unimportant; as I have said many times in these pages we have to judge ourselves by modern standards, and it is certainly horrible that people are swept up and sent to strange romanian torture camps or whatever the hell they are doing. It is terrible what they did to the iraqi prisoners of war these past few years, but nothing NOTHING compared to what has gone on before in the world. Rule of law, though not perfect, and admittedly taken a little backwards these past 5 or 6 years, has protected people, even if imperfectly, where it had never before done.

For every modern atrocity you can mention, nothing compares to what people used to do, and if you don't know or believe that, I suggest reading (or returning to reading) some history.

I know I stand the chance of offending you all, but what a bunch of spoiled babies you are! You really have no idea how lucky you are to live in modern times. It is easy to take for granted what you have. For just a smattering of what you all have written in these pages, there was a time you would have lost your lives for such behavior. While I believe in more freedom than less, and while I think we have a long way to go, I could never say that we have not gotten anywhere, or that things are the same. I really have a hard time understanding why anyone would believe otherwise.

Adam Hill · February-3rd-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonic1

I know I stand the chance of offending you all, but what a bunch of spoiled babies you are! You really have no idea how lucky you are to live in modern times. It is easy to take for granted what you have. For just a smattering of what you all have written in these pages, there was a time you would have lost your lives for such behavior. While I believe in more freedom than less, and while I think we have a long way to go, I could never say that we have not gotten anywhere, or that things are the same. I really have a hard time understanding why anyone would believe otherwise.

Relax, Jared. You're shifting the thesis of the thread. I doubt anyone would prefer to live in earlier ages, but saying so doesn't mean you've acknowledged that human nature has improved. Human society has, yes, but it has also compensated for such improvements by making other things far worse (weakening families, encouraging selfish greed, passivity, etc).

My basic point which I made above, which Dostoyevsky made long before me, is that one can argue that we are worse if we've enlightened our moral thinking and still do all too little to prevent or alleviate so much cruelty in the world.

sonic1 · February-3rd-2006, 11:11 AM

I think it is you that needs to return to the thesis: whether human misery has decreased and atrocities toward human beings also decreased is what I said exactly-I was not asking to debate whether people were more moral or not.

I don't BTW mean to discredit your (and Dost'sky's) point. But I really don't believe in morality anyway. Not at least in the current meanings of the word.

Adam Hill · February-3rd-2006, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonic1

I think it is you that needs to return to the thesis: whether human misery has decreased and atrocities toward human beings also decreased is what I said exactly-I was not asking to debate whether people were more moral or not.

Okay, I believe human misery and atrocities toward human beings have not decreased. I think I read somewhere that in the 20th century, at least 170 million people were killed by some form of political violence.

rollhead · February-3rd-2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Hill

Okay, I believe human misery and atrocities toward human beings have not decreased. I think I read somewhere that in the 20th century, at least 170 million people were killed by some form of political violence.

Nice and tight there Adam. Good work.

sonic1 · February-4th-2006, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Hill

Okay, I believe human misery and atrocities toward human beings have not decreased. I think I read somewhere that in the 20th century, at least 170 million people were killed by some form of political violence.

Unfortunately there is no reliable data from the olden times to compare with, so I am not going to debate numbers specifically. But suffice it to say that there are safe places in the world where once there were not. There are protected rights in the world where once there were not (In fact most of the time humans have padded upon the earth there have been no human rights).

This is not to say there is no work to be done, or that we can sleep at night thinking the world is all disney. But in my opinion, ridding the world of physical miseries and poverty might have an incredible effect. That is, if we don't destroy ourselves or our environment first. There are times I think we won't make it.

Adam Hill · February-4th-2006, 05:16 PM

Jared, we share similiar traits of idealism, and perhaps part only over the depths of pessimism--mine being especially deep-seated.

sonic1 · February-4th-2006, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Hill

Jared, we share similiar traits of idealism, and perhaps part only over the depths of pessimism--mine being especially deep-seated.

Just because I think things are a bit better than they used to be does not mean I am not pessimistic. It is just that while I see a lot of cruelty in the world today, and hardness toward the experience of others outside of one's defined world, there has been some improvement. Will it matter in the long run? I have no idea, and if there was a stake involved, I would bet that human dignity would be the loser. Though no matter what happens; even all-out nuclear war would not rid the planet of humans. Only cockroaches compete when it comes to persistance and survival. That of course does not mean civility has any hope.

However I prefer a world with civility.