Everyday I, as I’m sure many do, find myself pondering the future of our species. I read about new technologies being created, in develpment, or on the drawing board and they frequently are just astounding to me. The like of which I can remember being purely fanstasy as recently as my childhood (I am in my early twenties) But as amazing as these steps are I can’t help but wonder what a unified species could accomplish. What humankind, sans all the dividing stigmas of nationality, religion and the like, could really accomplish. We are such a supremely social creature, and yet vast groups of us can’t seem to look at the greater good of the species as a whole.
So I have two questions that I think are at least interesting talking points:
1) Where do you think we would be technology-wise if not for the retarding factors I mentioned above?
2) What will (or more realistically ‘would’) it take for Humankind to uniformly work together?
Of course there will always be disagreements. But not everyone is inclined to kill over them. Different points of view should spur new discussion and ideas, not retalliation.
I don’t see it happening, but I would love nothing more in this vast existence than to live to see a world where humans can switch their loyalties away from the like of individual nations, poitical or social parties/leaders, and petty gods and direct it in unison towards the outlook and advancement of the species as a whole.
1) Where do you think we would be technology-wise if not for the retarding factors I mentioned above?
2) What will (or more realistically ‘would’) it take for Humankind to uniformly work together?
1) Impossible to say. On one hand, I wonder whether we would have built a truly responsible culture that acts according to the principles it claims to believe in, or whether that musing is itself wishful thinking. I’m inclined toward the former a bit, even as I remember Groucho Marx’s line “If I could walk that way, I wouldn’t need the talcum powder.”
2) We will have to take our principles and in particular education seriously, and recognize that we now know enough about how the human brain works to do some values training in the schools. That would be a major first step but probably it will not work so long as there are major elements of resistance.
Without reading George’s post, I was thinking alien encounter. It is a little fantasy to think about, but that would solve a lot of problems, of course while making new ones. It all depends on the alien beings intention. Here are my thoughts:
1. If the beings are peaceful, their technology is vastly superior to ours. Perhaps this has allowed them to see a creation of a universe or the origin of a life form…or even create life from nonliving elements. This would through a big wrench in the gears of most religions. Of course there would be rebuttals like there always are, but this would be a hard nut to crack for the current religions of the world.
2. If they are not peaceful, we would be forced to come together in our extermination, because let’s face it, we will be wiped out, no “Independence Day” scenario there.
The other thing that could bring us together is if we can somehow construct life, or can witness life forming ourselves, from inorganic substances. Science has proven evolution, but has not had physical proof of life origins. Again, this would not be the end-all in the argument, but it could help.
By this post, it is easy to see that I think religion is the biggest problem, but I am sure something will take over if religion dies (which it never will). In reality I think we are destined to be divided by something.
So why don’t we have something as simple as a national recommended reading list?
Classified by age and subject. Does any nation have something like that?
Controlling the distribution of knowledge is a major strategy in maintaining the social structure. A global internet may do funny things over time but the internet doesn’t change the people. Bad information can be spread just as well as good information.
Even putting electronic interfaces into our brains won’t affect the quality of information coming from other people. To an extent the computers just result in more garbage to wade through.
1) Where do you think we would be technology-wise if not for the retarding factors I mentioned above?
2) What will (or more realistically ‘would’) it take for Humankind to uniformly work together?
1) If our leaders behaved rationally in confronting the issues we face in the sustainability of our mixed culture, we would build self sustaining communities all over the country sides, that harvested the energy of the land in a clean fashion.
2) Shared purposes and principles. If the longevity of human kind and our freedoms would be a concern it would be a focus on providing people with the above.
I haven’t read it yet, but it sounds like a response to your questions and comments might be contained in Stephen Law’s book, The War for Children’s Minds. The idea is that it is better to have lots of different ideas floating around, allowing them to compete and thus grow, rather than all of us settling on one way and stagnating. The thought of one good way sounds intriguing, but we are so far from knowing what that might be, it seems we should concentrate on how to live with our differences for now.
Even a seemingly bad idea should be archived and preserved and the process for how we arrived at it, and how we decided it was not worth pursuing further. All of that might be useful later when we come up with something else. Or at least, prevent us from going through the same process and arriving at the same faulty conclusion.
The idea of us needing some disaster, or external threat to bring us together just doesn’t work for me.
I haven’t read it yet, but it sounds like a response to your questions and comments might be contained in Stephen Law’s book, The War for Children’s Minds. The idea is that it is better to have lots of different ideas floating around, allowing them to compete and thus grow, rather than all of us settling on one way and stagnating. The thought of one good way sounds intriguing, but we are so far from knowing what that might be, it seems we should concentrate on how to live with our differences for now.
Even a seemingly bad idea should be archived and preserved and the process for how we arrived at it, and how we decided it was not worth pursuing further. All of that might be useful later when we come up with something else. Or at least, prevent us from going through the same process and arriving at the same faulty conclusion.
The idea of us needing some disaster, or external threat to bring us together just doesn’t work for me.
The photo on the cover of this book is of a small girl standing on a box on a pebble beach with her arms outstretched as if flying. It is a charming picture, and conjures up the idea that something goes on inside children’s minds that is different from what goes in our own once we get older.
And a book that looks at this disparity would indeed be very welcome. Alas this is not at all what Stephen Law has in mind. Here is instead a rather literal, rather journalistic account of current political controversies over the spread of ‘relativism’ in schools and society, and the erosion of traditional forms of moral authority, notably religious.
I don’t agree 100% with review comment probably need to read the book.
But as amazing as these steps are I can’t help but wonder what a unified species could accomplish. What humankind, sans all the dividing stigmas of nationality, religion and the like, could really accomplish. We are such a supremely social creature, and yet vast groups of us can’t seem to look at the greater good of the species as a whole.
So I have two questions that I think are at least interesting talking points:
1) Where do you think we would be technology-wise if not for the retarding factors I mentioned above?
Technology was probably aided by our weapons culture and nationalism, if truth be known. It is the only thing I would ever thank the Pentagon for.
2) What will (or more realistically ‘would’) it take for Humankind to uniformly work together?
First would be an inclusive Humanism that moved away from religious acrimony, allowed people the privacy of their beliefs, and instead focused on our species’ governance. Empowering the UN to end militarism and corruption are foremost.
I don’t see it happening, but I would love nothing more in this vast existence than to live to see a world where humans can switch their loyalties away from the like of individual nations, poitical or social parties/leaders, and petty gods and direct it in unison towards the outlook and advancement of the species as a whole.
I like the way you dare mention the word species - bravo. As a unifying project, colonize the Venusian atmosphere.
The critical component toward human progress will be young people like yourself with the maturity to ask these questions. Please do speak for our species - we are an endangered genus in dire need of your stewardship.
I think “progress” took a “wrong turn” with the advancement of technology as we know it.
With a little more thoughtful planning we could have created an environment to exist more
in harmony with nature, rather than trying to war against it. Such an environment would
be more “life-friendly” and less cancer-causing. The overuse of fossil fuels is probably due
more to the “greed” of those who profit from this situation than to the inadequacy of
scientific developments to far exceed those capabilities with cleaner, more environmentally
friendly technological advancements.
What will (or more realistically ‘would’) it take for Humankind to uniformly work together?
First would be an inclusive Humanism that moved away from religious acrimony, allowed people the privacy of their beliefs, and instead focused on our species’ governance. Empowering the UN to end militarism and corruption are foremost.
You would “empower” the United Nations to “end militarism” and “corruption” ?
Nope. The UN is a bloated agency that has done nothing to save lives, nor improve them, on the whole. The only thing that the Pentagon should do, is protect us from foreign invaders and those that attack us, which is the constitutional requirement of the executive branch.
The UN should be defunded by the US, moved out of our Nation and never heard from again.
Nope. The UN is a bloated agency that has done nothing to save lives, nor improve them, on the whole.
Interesting that an agency with less funding than the fire dept. of NYC, <2% of arms spending, is “bloated”.
The only thing that the Pentagon should do, is protect us from foreign invaders and those that attack us, which is the constitutional requirement of the executive branch.
Have you ever considered that invading countries, and gunboat diplomacy might draw some animosity? Have you? Can you?
The UN should be defunded by the US, moved out of our Nation and never heard from again.
In my recent eBook (The Humanist) the UN becomes fully funded via a shift of military spending on the globe toward its collective care. Nuke nations are boycotted - successfully. The US Navy is towed to Singapore, the vibrant new HQ of the UN, where the Nimitz becomes the UNS Nightingale, a helicopter/hospital ship.
We could have used her in Haiti. Won’t happen until 2017, though, in the meantime support the UNPA (UN Parliament movement).
)
