More or Less Sophisticated Savages

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: More or Less Sophisticated Savages

#21  Postby MattHunX » Jun 18, 2010 4:29 pm

Dudely wrote:
MattHunX wrote:
Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:Your analysis presupposes a linear progression towards an ethereal and vague goal. Such goals do not exist in this universe, so your analysis must be rejected.


No it doesn't.


In a way, he is right. The very definition of what it is to be savage or not is based on your own bias, morality, and the area and time in which you live. Our ideas of cruelty and savagery come from our morality, which has evolved to serve a purpose in our groups dynamics, but which is not necessary or even possible for other species to have. If it were lions whose brains had enlarged and whose hands evolved to grasp tools i doubt we'd be having a conversation on how to most humanely kill cattle. Nature doesn't care.

We are animals, of course. People on both sides of of the environmental/conservation/animal rights argument forget that. Not only are we monkeys with shoes (and therefore no better than those monkeys we have no problem slaughtering), we are a part of the earth as well. Too often I hear people talk about humanity like it was some sort of other force separate from nature. It's not. Nature put us here along with every other species. To an alien species the difference between a mall and a termite mound is a matter of scale and complexity. To complain about a mall destroying a wetland should be focused on the negative ramifications of that action, not the fact that it is intrinsically wrong. It's not.

The only thing that separates us from the rest of the species on this planet is our responsibility. We are the only ones with both the foresight to see something bad coming and the tools with which to stop it. But let's not pretend our savagery, our uncaring attitude, or our consumption of resources is our conscious doing. Those are not things we decide to do, they are things we are compelled to do, and it takes work to control ourselves and our own flawed nature. The earth has damaged itself many more times and in many more worse ways than we ever have. Now, finally, it has produced something that can stop it.

I would not lose faith. There is too much in this universe to look forward to.


That's all fine. I agree. But, we had relatively quite some time to start being responsible and learn from mistakes, and yet, most of the race haven't. I lost hope in those. There is only a minority that sees where the race is headed and what should we do. But, what can a minority do? Perhaps a lot, but progress of that kind, and the kind that is going on in some areas now, is just painfully slow. Not good enough.
User avatar
MattHunX
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 10947

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: More or Less Sophisticated Savages

#22  Postby Dudely » Jun 18, 2010 4:39 pm

Perhaps you're right. But with the right tools conscious change can become more powerful than natural complacency. For example- we could genetically modify ourselves to, say, be more aware of how our actions affect the environment, or the long term effects of our actions on a large scale (both things our brains were not designed to do). It is doubtful (once you get past the idea of genetically modifying yourself) that anyone would be against that, even though many don't do those things now.

EDIT: So that means I think our tools have not yet tipped the scales in favor of being consciously responsible, and so we, on average, fall into our dangerous and destructive natural habits.
Last edited by Dudely on Jun 18, 2010 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This is what hydrogen atoms do given 15 billion years of evolution- Carl Sagan

Ignorance is slavery- Miles Davis
User avatar
Dudely
 
Posts: 1450

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: More or Less Sophisticated Savages

#23  Postby MattHunX » Jun 18, 2010 4:43 pm

Dudely wrote:Perhaps you're right. But with the right tools conscious change can become more powerful than natural complacency. For example- we could genetically modify ourselves to, say, be more aware of how our actions affect the environment, or the long term effects of our actions on a large scale (both things our brains were not designed to do). It is doubtful (once you get past the idea of genetically modifying yourself) that anyone would be against that, even though many don't do those things now.


That's an usual idea, to be honest. The only thing I can think of along those lines is to lengthen the human life-span through some bio-tech advancements. That way, the smart, the savvy, the scientists, the doctors, the biologists, the physicists will have more time to work on solutions.
User avatar
MattHunX
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 10947

Print view this post

Previous

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest