Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's probably fair to say I bought into a lot of Humanism while in college. I guess it's just part of the idealistic culture that thrives on many college campuses.
I'm in the process of giving up my cherished belief that humans can improve the human condition and become better over time. I have suffered way too much "cognitive dissonance" in trying to maintain that belief. Like any religion, it "works" until it no longer explains reality. Then one is faced with two options: give up the religion, or deny the facts.
I can no longer deny the facts. Humans are what they are: just another animal.
The Question, my friend is not whether or not Humans CAN improve the human condition. Humans CAN but not all Humans WILL
Humanism to me is that humans will use human tools, specifically science and technology to improve their lives, as opposed to using religion to do so. We as Humanists for example would reject the claim "We should do this because the Bible/church/religion says so" Instead, we should say that we have the technology and ability to do something in the best interests of science, medicine, human welfare, and move forward with it.
Most Humanists that I have met are also agnostic or Atheist. Atheism being a self descriptor which I use often.
The Question, my friend is not whether or not Humans CAN improve the human condition. Humans CAN but not all Humans WILL
True it is a distinction between individuals and the species. Individual humans can better themselves. I am not convinced that the species ever can. In fact I am just about convinced that it inherently cannot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LargeKingCat
Humanism to me is that humans will use human tools, specifically science and technology to improve their lives, as opposed to using religion to do so.
Is technology sustainably going to improve lives? If we as a species are not able to handle technology then we will inevitably (as a species) misuse it, thus denying many of its benefits even to responsible persons (or creating unacceptable tradeoffs).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LargeKingCat
We as Humanists for example would reject the claim "We should do this because the Bible/church/religion says so" Instead, we should say that we have the technology and ability to do something in the best interests of science, medicine, human welfare, and move forward with it.
The rub is, who decides in practice when something is "in the best interests of human welfare" and who (if anyone) does a sustainability analysis? Most of the time we deploy technology because we can and want to, without adequately reflecting on whether we should or looking at long term knock-on effects. To the point that right now to sustain the thin veneer of technology that keeps us comfy, we are consuming the resources WAY too fast, and ignoring or discounting the many voices warning us of this.
It is a mistake to assume that a realistic view of the situation equates to "giving up". More properly it equates to adjusting expectations and assumptions and strategies. Facts aren't pessimistic or optimistic; they just are.
That said, leaving dogma and other aspects of authoritarianism behind is helpful to the individual. It does not change that as a species we will keep returning to them again and again.
I get it, and I am no advocate of rose coloured sunglasses let alone Leibnitz and his belief this is the best it ever could be. Human morality requires that we see what is wrong and how it could be better (1) and work for it even if it seems that we might be losing ground.
Yet there is the light in both tunnels (both the hate cult and the rush to dictatorships) and in an odd way that most Christian of tales - LoR tells us what the light is, though not how to get there. I watched a good vid on the lighting of the beacons as a symbol of the hope against all the odds that is the motif of the book and films. Realism is one thing "We can't win so why fight" is quite another. Tolkien of course works out the plot so it succeeds and is an analogy of God has it all in hand. Nope, he does not, if I had to make a bet. It's in our hands and we can see what we have to do, if we have the will and strength to do it.
But Transponder, you passionate persistent polemicist, I hear you ask, where are you in all this? The most is sitting on Treebeard's shoulder, having realised, if I don't pitch in somehow, there won't be a Shire. Not for anyone.
(1) and even the concept of a perfection without fault or flaw, though we could not imagine what it would be like. But that debunks that stupid argument from Anselm that perfection must exist.
True it is a distinction between individuals and the species. Individual humans can better themselves. I am not convinced that the species ever can. In fact I am just about convinced that it inherently cannot.
Is technology sustainably going to improve lives? If we as a species are not able to handle technology then we will inevitably (as a species) misuse it, thus denying many of its benefits even to responsible persons (or creating unacceptable tradeoffs).
The rub is, who decides in practice when something is "in the best interests of human welfare" and who (if anyone) does a sustainability analysis? Most of the time we deploy technology because we can and want to, without adequately reflecting on whether we should or looking at long term knock-on effects. To the point that right now to sustain the thin veneer of technology that keeps us comfy, we are consuming the resources WAY too fast, and ignoring or discounting the many voices warning us of this.
Yes, we can and we have.We live longer, better and healthier and learn do and travel more than ever.
It IS Better and no thanks to religion but to science and learning.
It is not perfect, but you know, i am not a golden ageist as well and no rose colored spectacles. While I adore Tolkien I disapprove as he believes it was better when we ruined forests by slash and burn and only farming saved us. We hunted species to extinction and only now do we make efforts to preserve them. We can't achieve perfection and there will always be those who do not care about others and we'll have exploiters, criminals and wannabe dictators. But the more we can build the reasonable, the democratic (1) and those who care about improving society - assuming we can agree the direction of improvement - the better the not too bad and better than it was, will be. Gaia is the concern at the moment. Trying to help it and for voting for those who have that in mind not letting fossil fuel companies do what they like is a little bit we can do. I think we see the right direction and even how to go that way, and to give up when it seems that barriers and blocks are getting worse, will guarantee the forces of Morder (2) win.
(1) yep sorry, dirty word , but fact is it is the best of all bad systems and even dictatorships know it and pretend that democratic is what they are (apart from Theiocracies who do not care about what people think)
(2) and Tolkien never realised that the accusations he threw at science and secularism applied more to his theistic Luddism.
It's already on my Kindle, thanks for pointing it out. I know you were responding to Freak but I'm always willing to consider changes to my worldview.
A good worldview isn't necessarily intuitive, at least not without a change of assumptions, and sometimes not even then. However, when you have to keep dealing with cognitive dissonance, it is a clue that the worldview might need revision.
It's arguably my favorite book that I've yet read. I read it 10+ years ago over the course of several visits to a Borders bookstore, so my opinion of it would surely change somewhat were I to re-read it today, but given that my own worldview hasn't substantially changed over the course of that time period, I think my verdict on the book would be broadly similar
Yep ... it's only the privileged that can say how much better the world has gotten in the past couple of centuries. Ask the people on the fronts of the current wars how much less brutal it is. Ask the folks in the ghettoes and prisons ... life for those folks is unchanged.
Yes. I have a brother who has bought in to the whole neoliberal / libertarian / Silicon Valley ideology that says unregulated capitalism and technology will create ever-improving living standards for everyone. When I try to point out how the system doesn't work so well for those kids mining cobalt in the Congo, he usually says, "well, it's better than what they were doing before." You know, the standard rationalization for exploiting desperate people with few options. Then he gives me that "don't be such a Debbie-downer" look.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Heck today many can ask their kids how much hope they have of a better life ... they are rapidly losing hope and suicide rates are soaring amongst the young, amongst blacks ... I have been saying for some time now that when the house of cards finishes collapsing we will probably end up with a 16th century standard of living. I agree the unprecedented prosperity of recent generations is anomalous.
Young folks today will probably have it worse than their parents, unless they are born into the privileged classes. Working class kids are right to lose hope. They face a world where they have to compete with Third World labor AND endure rapidly-rising food prices due to climate change.
Young folks today will probably have it worse than their parents, unless they are born into the privileged classes. Working class kids are right to lose hope. They face a world where they have to compete with Third World labor AND endure rapidly-rising food prices due to climate change.
I am not sure but what even many of the wealthy will do all that well before much longer.
There's a great movie on Netflix currently, Leave the World Behind. One of the characters is an investor for wealthy people and he opines that the scary thing about the world is that no one is really in charge, since the system has a life of its own. Even the rich can only hope for a "heads up" about what's coming next.
And in my observation, the elites mostly aren't paying attention to any sort of warning ... they are too arrogant in their role as Masters of the Universe.
I am not sure but what even many of the wealthy will do all that well before much longer.
There's a great movie on Netflix currently, Leave the World Behind. One of the characters is an investor for wealthy people and he opines that the scary thing about the world is that no one is really in charge, since the system has a life of its own. Even the rich can only hope for a "heads up" about what's coming next.
And in my observation, the elites mostly aren't paying attention to any sort of warning ... they are too arrogant in their role as Masters of the Universe.
I saw that last night and thought it was one of the best movies I have seen in awhile.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, but fact is it is the best of all bad systems and even dictatorships know it and pretend that democratic is what they are (apart from Theiocracies who do not care about what people think) 
