Global Harmony is Inevitable

[joe1776]

Like Puerto Rico? Florida? You'll find stories of some heroes, sure. But no one tells the truth of it that there are far more people fleeing crisis to save their own hides. Heroism is rare.

I don't believe that. It's hard to think of a crisis in my lifetime where the heartwarming stories didn't outnumber those of selfish acts.

 

[joe1776]

I'm pretty sure places like Afghanistan provide clear evidence of this backslide.

Like I said , you're redefining the word.

 

[joe1776]

And with this, it still stands that there are many factors involved in how we respond, if we even respond at all. Texas shrugged while New York froze, and many people who pretty much ignored the rape and murder of Kitty Genovese. There was a response to 9/11 to help, and an international outcry over the rise of ISIS, but the response to the recent hurricanes in places like Puerto Rico were appalling at best.

You can't make your case without some serious cherry-picking of the evidence.

 

[Augustus]

Yes, I can image crises, but we have always been at our best in a crisis.

We might bond together tighter with our 'in group' in a crisis, we don't necessarily sing kumbaya with our global brethren.

What makes you think a nuclear war would bring us closer together? What would our society even look like in the aftermath?

I'm confident that won't change. It's human nature.

Some people welcomed Syrian refugees, and for others it made them more nationalistic and resentful. Would 50 million be welcomed with open arms if climate change wrecked the ecosystem? I'm pretty sure a lot of people would be wanting to put up the 'no vacancies' signs quite forcefully.

Human nature is not instinctively to conceptualise an international brotherhood of man at all times, especially when it significantly impacts their quality of life in a negative direction.

 

[Augustus]

Strawman

How can global harmony be inevitable in a species that is unusually violent by nature?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I don't believe that.

Doesn't matter if you believe it or not, that's what happens. When 9/11 happened, how many people ran towards the towers? How many hundreds more ran from them?

When Puerto Rico was wiped out by a Hurricane, how many chipped in to help them get back on their feet? How many ignored them, how many sent "thoughts and prayers," and how many blamed them due to various political scandals?

When the Florida shooter opened fire, how many rushed one man to stop him, and how many cowered and fled?

You get the "heartwarming stories" because stories about people filling their britches in fear doesn't make for good press. Because people need those (often exaggerated) stories of "hope and bravery" to distract them from their fears and insecurities because life isn't an easy fairy tale.

 

[joe1776]

What makes you think a nuclear war would bring us closer together? What would our society even look like in the aftermath?

Another strawman. You're on a roll.

Some people welcomed Syrian refugees, and for others it made them more nationalistic and resentful. Would 50 million be welcomed with open arms if climate change wrecked the ecosystem? I'm pretty sure a lot of people would be wanting to put up the 'no vacancies' signs quite forcefully.

I'm sure you wouldn't get 100% open arms. So what?

Human nature is not instinctively to conceptualise an international brotherhood of man at all times, especially when it significantly impacts their quality of life in a negative direction.

Another strawman. Isn't it obvious , even to you, that when you have to redefine my argument for me that you're running on empty?

 

[joe1776]

How can global harmony be inevitable in a species that is unusually violent by nature?

From my OP:

• Oxford sociologist Manuel Eisner's study persuasively demonstrated a long-term pattern of declining homicide rates across Europe over 800 years.

• Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker makes a well-documented case for moral progress in his book History and the Decline of Human Violence. A brief summary of his argument can also be heard on his TED Talks video: The Surprising Decline of Violence.

 

[joe1776]

Doesn't matter if you believe it or not, that's what happens. When 9/11 happened, how many people ran towards the towers? How many hundreds more ran from them?

When Puerto Rico was wiped out by a Hurricane, how many chipped in to help them get back on their feet? How many ignored them, how many sent "thoughts and prayers," and how many blamed them due to various political scandals?

When the Florida shooter opened fire, how many rushed one man to stop him, and how many cowered and fled?

You get the "heartwarming stories" because stories about people filling their britches in fear doesn't make for good press. Because people need those (often exaggerated) stories of "hope and bravery" to distract them from their fears and insecurities because life isn't an easy fairy tale.

I'll concede that I lack the persuasive powers to change your mind on this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Like I said , you're redefining the word.

Then what do you call it when women's rights are discarded by a society? What we would consider LBGT rights also were greatly diminished as Islamic Conservativism grew in these areas. If that isn't a backslide, then what is?

You can't make your case without some serious cherry-picking of the evidence.

I haven't been cherry picking. We respond to gun violence by saying we need more of those violent objects of destruction to keep us safe. Natural disasters do not get much of a response, but when it comes to war we tend to jump on the band wagon.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Oxford sociologist Manuel Eisner's study persuasively demonstrated a long-term pattern of declining homicide rates across Europe over 800 years.

Is this the same Oxford that concluded that Islam is a religion of peace? Yeah, sure.​

I'll concede that I lack the persuasive powers to change your mind on this.

You lack the evidence, rather.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Another strawman. You're on a roll.

Actually, it's a strawman to state such as claim as being "inevitable." We cannot say with certainty either way that it will or won't happen. And right now it doesn't seem probable.

 

[joe1776]

Actually, it's a strawman to state such as claim as being "inevitable."

I made the original argument. Therefore, it's impossible for me to create a strawman which is a distortion of the original argument.

We cannot say with certainty either way that it will or won't happen. And right now it doesn't seem probable.

If you want to make a counter-argument, you need to explain why it doesn't seem probable. Otherwise, your claim in unsupported.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You are not immune from creating strawmen in this thread; all that means is that you're addressing or arguing against a point that was not made with the person you're engaging. You being the OP has nothing to do with it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I like your optimism, @joe1776. Surely technology has made the world very, very small.

 

[joe1776]

You are not immune from creating strawmen in this thread; all that means is that you're addressing or arguing against a point that was not made with the person you're engaging. You being the OP has nothing to do with it.

Technically, you're correct but the poster was referring to a conclusion in my argument offered in the OP.

 

[Augustus]

Another strawman. You're on a roll.

I'm not sure you actually realise the implications of your argument of the inevitability of harmony.

So if there was a nuclear war, do you consider that global harmony would still be still inevitable?

I'm sure you wouldn't get 100% open arms. So what?

Are you confident that 50 million people would not be forcefully kept out? Do you consider it impossible that such an event could lead to extremist governments gaining power in the West?

If yes, why? If no, how does this relate to global harmony?

Another strawman. Isn't it obvious , even to you, that when you have to redefine my argument for me that you're running on empty?

You keep saying people redefine things. When someone uses backslide to mean backslide you somehow consider it mendacious. When someone gives an argument against inevitability, it's a 'strawman'.

I'll spell it out for you. If people can start looking after their own interests in a crisis, then global harmony isn't inevitable.

• Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker makes a well-documented case for moral progress in his book History and the Decline of Human Violence. A brief summary of his argument can also be heard on his TED Talks video: The Surprising Decline of Violence.

Pinker's use of stats is terribly flawed as I explained in another thread. The 'declining trend of violence' would also be statistically reversed in a nuclear war.

But even if he is 100% correct, he doesn't make your argument. He simply believes it is probable there will be a trend towards reduced violence and increased cooperation. He doesn't predict 'global harmony' and he doesn't consider it 'inevitable'.

Have you even read his book?

“Though I am confident that human sacrifice, chattel slavery, breaking on the wheel, and wars between democracies will not make a comeback anytime soon, to predict that the current levels of crime, civil war, or terrorism will endure is to sally into territory where angels fear to tread. What we can feel sure about is that many kinds of violence have declined up to the present, and we can try to understand why that has happened.”

 

[joe1776]

I like your optimism, @joe1776. Surely technology has made the world very, very small.

I think that communications technology will accelerate our moral direction. If I'm right that the direction is positive, that's a good thing.

 

[Augustus]

Surely technology has made the world very, very small.

In terms of the Global Village, villages are not always the most tolerant of places.

Better fences make for better neighbours.

 

[Truthseeker]

There is no long-term trend to real unity. What we see are nations and racial groups and political groups causing divisions. Nations are fragmenting because groups within the country can't live together. It's true there is less war between nations, but that is because war today is too costly with the technology we have today.

The Baha'i Faith advocates real unity, in the form of not putting your racial group or nations above other racial groups over others. Man is selfish so he won't get there on his own. To get there we need religion, not the religion that causes division between other religions but promotes harmony between religions.