Global Harmony is Inevitable

[Shadow Wolf]

The unforeseeable that I allowed for renders it uncertain.

If it is uncertain, then it is not inevitable. And you did not claim it was uncertain, but a thing that will happen.

I resorted to that only because you were cherry picking and redefining terms.

You haven't demonstrated how. You haven't even defined "backslide" despite multiple requests from multiple members.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

We would not exclude anyone, even religions not started by a Manifestation of God.

See, right there, divisive language that contradicts your posed ideology.

All cultures are valid.

Unless they make claims on divinity that you disagree with, then they're wrong and mistaken.

This very thread is prime example and evidence for why global harmony is at best unlikely, and realistically impossible.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I wrote a recent post on my optimistic personal philosophy which replaces the need for a religion. I encountered resistance from a few pessimistic posters who used the word "Utopian" which implies unrealistic optimism. I also got resistance from a Christian who, based on scripture, predicts that the end times are near. So, here's my argument that global harmony is inevitable and that my optimism is a realistic prediction based on the evidence.

This is essentially a measurement problem, so we have to be careful to isolate what we intend to measure.

Here's what we need to know:

Q. Are average human beings today morally better, worse, or the same compared to their average ancestors?

A. Average human beings today are kinder people than their average ancestors of any past era. Like a simple binary code, pain and pleasure signals coming from the unconscious function of our brains provide us with an on-board moral guidance system. We refer to it as our conscience. We are punished with the pain of guilt after we have intentionally caused harm to someone innocent. The pain of guilt is not severe, but it can nag us for a lifetime. When we treat others with kindness, we are rewarded with pleasure. We feel good about it.

Humanity is now, and probably has always been, making moral progress. We are treating each other better right now than at any time in our history. However, that encouraging fact is not obvious. There are five factors that can cloud our view:

1. Population growth causes the total number of criminal acts to increase even when the crime rate goes down. It also inflates the number of soldiers involved in wars.

2. Advances in weapons technology inflate the numbers killed in war. Each soldier in the Second World War carried a more effective weapon than the soldiers in the Crusades; but that fact doesn't imply that the Crusader was a better human being.

3. Advances in communications technology makes it possible for us to see video footage of violent events the day they happen from halfway around the world. In the USA of the 1950s the switch-blade knife wielding act of the disturbed teenager would have made page three of the local paper. Today, his far more harmful act using an assault rifle would be seen around the world.

4. We will read about far more rape, child molestation, and about men abusing their wives and children today than the public did in the 1920s. That is not because the rate of those crimes is increasing. It is because those crimes were seldom reported in those days. They were seldom reported because, if reported, they were seldom punished.

5. The belief that our primitive ancestors once lived in harmony with nature is most likely a popular myth accepted uncritically only by stubborn pessimists who, despite all the evidence to the contrary, remain convinced that humanity is going straight to hell.

Evidence of moral progress is extensive. Here's a partial list:

• The hateful way the world's religions sometimes treat each other is still a problem today but the problem has diminished considerably since the time of the Crusades;

• The sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity and Islam condone slavery and treat women as subservient to men in addition to giving other very bad moral advice. This is evidence that the men who wrote those texts two thousand years ago lived in societies that were morally immature by today's best standards;

• Racial and national prejudices have been weakening; among the nations, many once-traditional enemies are now trade partners;

• Imperialism is waning as powerful nations are much less likely today to want to dominate the weaker nations to extend their empire.

• Children of the poor are still used as cheap labor in a few cultures, but compared to the past, much progress has been made with Child Labor laws;

• In morally advanced cultures, men are learning to treat women as equals and they are not getting away with abusing women as they once did;

• Caste systems, like India's, which have resulted in unfairness for many over centuries, are gradually crumbling;

• Not very long ago, violent strikes were common during Management and Labor negotiations; it happens far less often today;

• Employers have learned that it is profitable to give both employees and consumers more respect and better treatment than they once did;

• Government corruption and oppression are still a problem but much progress has been made since governments for the people have been replacing governments for the privileged;

• During past wars in human history, civilian populations were ravaged; today, attempts are being made to limit the targeting to combatants;

• Because of the Geneva Convention and other similar efforts, prisoners of war are treated better now than at any time in our history;

• We still hear about prisoners being tortured but, in the Middle Ages, torture was a thriving industry. Clever devices were designed and made to maximize pain;

• NFL Football provides mild violence as entertainment, but it is nothing compared to the spectacle of slaughter seen in Rome's Colosseum;

• The nations of the world have abolished slavery; it's still a problem but not nearly to the extent that it was just a few centuries back.

• 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.

Now that we have the evidence sorted, the argument for global harmony is fairly simple:

p = premise
C = Conclusion

p1 Humanity's moral progress is a long-term trend;

p2 When we make moral gains, we hold them. There's no evidence of backsliding; for example, we don't expect to someday see slavery condoned in the nations of the world as it once was.

p3 We humans are at our very best in responding to a crisis;

C1 Therefore, barring an unforeseeable calamity that will kill off our species, the moral gains will continue; we will hold those gains; and global harmony (I didn't say perfect harmony) is inevitable. It's just a matter of time.

EDIT: For additional evidence including some links, see Sunrise123's post #3.

Your right, about Global Harmony as being Inevitable.

 

[joe1776]

If it is uncertain, then it is not inevitable. And you did not claim it was uncertain, but a thing that will happen.

It is inevitable barring the unforseeable. That's what I said.

You haven't demonstrated how. You haven't even defined "backslide" despite multiple requests from multiple members.

Nobody asked for a definition but I gave this one earlier: " backslide refers to a sliding back from an achieved level." I gave you an example in the OP, having the nations of the world once again condone slavery after having abolished it would be backsliding.

 

[joe1776]

This very thread is prime example and evidence for why global harmony is at best unlikely, and realistically impossible.

Do you have reasons to support that claim?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Do you have reasons to support that claim?

How much harmony do you see here, joe? What makes you think 7 billion people will do any better?

 

[Augustus]

I've not seen an indication that you understood the argument. You've offered one distortion of it after another.

What is your definition of 'global harmony'?

yes. I don't think human nature would be changed in any way.

So with half the world uninhabitable and a severe nuclear winter leading to food/water supply problems, you would still expect to see moral progress, rather than backsliding?

My claim is that, long term, our species is making moral progress and I don't see any hypothetical event that you might create that will change our basic nature.

No your claim was that 'global harmony is inevitable'. It was not the far more qualified claim that moral progress is probable in the long term excepting an unforeseeable event.

"Backslide" refers to a slide back from an achieved level. Does that help?

That was the exact context that multiple people used it in and you claimed they were redefining it.

The issue is the level of violence in human nature. Please explain how advanced weapons changes that level. Is a man with a bow and arrow morally better than one with an automatic rifle?

What I said in another thread was that modern weapons technology makes wars less probable but more destructive.

You are more likely to have a fistfight with someone than a gunfight. Wars in the past were usually highly limited, the majority of the population would be unaffected by the average war.

Industrialised warfare with modern planes, missiles, etc between 2 well matched powers is highly destructive and thus less likely.

Are 1000 small wars 'morally worse' than 1 massive war?

Will you quote me, please? Where did I claim that Pinker supported my entire argument?

So you were aware that he specifically argues against your main point but you still chose to quote him in support of it?

That's called quote mining. It's generally considered dishonest to quote someone in support if they clearly disagree with you, unless you at least note their disagreement.

 

[YmirGF]

Do you have reasons to support that claim?

Isn't it blatantly obvious? How dark is that tinting on your rose coloured glasses?

Again, I ask, "How do you propose to bring the Muslim world into your vision of global harmony?"

The only way they would go with this is they were at the head of the pack and Islam dominated.

 

[joe1776]

How much harmony do you see here, joe? What makes you think 7 billion people will do any better?

How much I see and how much you see are probably different. We can't debate perceptions. But my arguments rests on the upward moral trend for which there's plenty of evidence. If your worldview is formed by only the present, you can't possible see a trend. Only by comparing the present to the distant past can you see progress.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

How much I see and how much you see are probably different.

That doesn't change how much there is, nor does it answer the question. How much harmony do you see in this thread?

But my arguments rests on the upward moral trend for which there's plenty of evidence.

Not really. You've got a lot of circumstantial evidence that speaks for a single region (not the world at large,) and nothing to suggest definitively that it's any better or worse than it's been in the past.

Only by comparing the present to the distant past can you see progress.

Well that's really skewing the scales. Life today is so much better than the distant past when they slept on hay and wiped their arse with their hand, so obviously prosperity and social perfection is inevitable. Never mind that we're several trillion dollars in debt, the flu is epidemic in Texas, we've still got racism issues, and we can't go a month without a mass shooting.

 

[danieldemol]

Hi Joe,
I think we’ve seen some progress, and remain hopeful that humans can see it is not really in the interests of the billions of people living in the world’s cities to burn them to oblivion in a nuclear war.
Kind regards,
~Dan

 

[joe1776]

What is your definition of 'global harmony'?

Cooperation between the nations of the world to benefit the quality of life for the citizens of the global community.

So with half the world uninhabitable and a severe nuclear winter leading to food/water supply problems, you would still expect to see moral progress, rather than backsliding?

Yes. We're talking about the real world not a Hollywood production to add drama.

No your claim was that 'global harmony is inevitable'. It was not the far more qualified claim that moral progress is probable in the long term excepting an unforeseeable event.

Quote me, please. Where did I state or imply anything in conflict with my OP?

That was the exact context that multiple people used it in and you claimed they were redefining it.

If I did, you should be able to quote an example or two.

What I said in another thread was that modern weapons technology makes wars less probable but more destructive.

I agree with that but it has nothing to do with the level of violence in human nature -- which is one of our topics.

So you were aware that he specifically argues against your main point but you still chose to quote him in support of it?

I quoted him as an authority on the decline of violence only. I have no idea what he thinks on any other topic, nor do I care.

 

[joe1776]

Isn't it blatantly obvious? How dark is that tinting on your rose coloured glasses?

Do you always open a debate by grandstanding?

Again, I ask, "How do you propose to bring the Muslim world into your vision of global harmony?"

I start by assuming that Muslims are human beings. They're making moral progress like the rest of the world.

The only way they would go with this is they were at the head of the pack and Islam dominated.

Going back a few centuries, the Catholic Church had the same ambition. Today, they have a pope that I'd like to sit down and have a beer with.

 

[YmirGF]

Do you always open a debate by grandstanding?

No, but in this case, it was all I felt was warranted.

I start by assuming that Muslims are human beings. They're making moral progress like the rest of the world.

By what yardstick?

Going back a few centuries, the Catholic Church had the same ambition. Today, they have a pope that I'd like to sit down and have a beer with.

Unfortunately there is no similar figure in the Muslim world, so the comparison is meaningless.

 

[joe1776]

That doesn't change how much there is, nor does it answer the question. How much harmony do you see in this thread?

I didn't realize that you were referring to this thread. I agree that there's not much harmony in this thread, but I can't see the relevance to the topic. Did you think that global harmony means that people wouldn't have differences of opinion?

Not really. You've got a lot of circumstantial evidence that speaks for a single region (not the world at large,) and nothing to suggest definitively that it's any better or worse than it's been in the past

Okay. That comment tells me all I need to know.

 

[joe1776]

By what yardstick?

Well, they're still prone to the Jihad but look at it today in comparison to past centuries.

Unfortunately there is no similar figure in the Muslim world, so the comparison is meaningless.

It's more hopeful that Muslims are not led by one individual. Too much power invested in one leader is a dangerous thing.

 

[YmirGF]

Well, they're still prone to the Jihad but look at it today in comparison to past centuries.

It's more hopeful that Muslims are not led by one individual. Too much power invested in one leader is a dangerous thing.

I understand, @joe1776

I actually quite like your thinking but just have reservations about its lack of pragmatic application.

It's like when Muslims claim that Islam is a religion of peace. It is... once they have killed off all their opposition. Yep, things do get pretty peaceful then. It's true.

Call me a cynic, but like @Augustus I am a pretty keen observer of human behavior and the psychology behind that behavior. I'm concerned about how many will have to die to achieve this global harmony.

 

[joe1776]

Hi Joe,
I think we’ve seen some progress, and remain hopeful that humans can see it is not really in the interests of the billions of people living in the world’s cities to burn them to oblivion in a nuclear war.
Kind regards,
~Dan

The bully-dictators of the world are still a problem, especially when they have nuclear power. They don't represent the moral level of humanity now and they never have.

 

[joe1776]

I understand, @joe1776

I actually quite like your thinking but just have reservations about its lack of pragmatic application.

It's like when Muslims claim that Islam is a religion of peace. It is... once they have killed off all their opposition. Yep, things do get pretty peaceful then. It's true.

Call me a cynic, but like @Augustus I am a pretty keen observer of human behavior and the psychology behind that behavior. I'm concerned about how many will have to die to achieve this global harmony.

I don't think you really understand that this is a prediction that I'm making based on the evidence that I've presented. It's not a plan that you can criticize as impractical or Utopian.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I didn't realize that you were referring to this thread.

Though it's quite clear that I was referring to this thread, you have the same question and issue on a global scale, "perspective" aside.

I agree that there's not much harmony in this thread, but I can't see the relevance to the topic.

Then I ask for a third time; if six or seven people can't popular a thread harmoniously, what makes you think 7 billion can?

Did you think that global harmony means that people wouldn't have differences of opinion?

Ultimately, yes. It's all a matter of what opinions, but the ones that will always crop up shatter your assumed harmony. If I like metal music and you like classical, we can coexist. But if I value my faith as a religion, Baha'i Bob thinks I'm a quaint relic fool, Christian Cathy thinks I'm a heretic, and Jihad Joe wants to kill me as an infidel, there goes your harmony.

And with human nature, those opinions will never go away.

Okay. That comment tells me all I need to know.

Quite a divisive and disharmonious comment.