Global Harmony is Inevitable

[sayak83]

No member of the UN can make unilateral decisions that would do damage to another without the threat of sanctions from the membership. That was the point of creating it in the first place.

Only works for the weakest states. No country with a sizeable millitary and economic heft gets sanctioned.

 

[joe1776]

Only works for the weakest states. No country with a sizeable millitary and economic heft gets sanctioned.

UN members imposed sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine.

 

[sayak83]

UN members imposed sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine.

Some did. No effect on Russia.East Ukraine effectively Russian controlled now.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This upward moral trend has probably been going on since the origin of our species. Short of an unforeseeable event that kills off our species, the trend is likely to continue.

I just gave you some foreseeable events that could potentially wipe us out, and cause enough social instability that global unification/harmony will not happen.

 

[joe1776]

I just gave you some foreseeable events that could potentially wipe us out, and cause enough social instability that global unification/harmony will not happen.

It's only your unrealistic pessimism that causes you to conclude that a trend that's probably as old as our species, which had to overcome all the hardships of the past, will be undone by a future event.

That's probably because you've watched too many movies. Hollywood loves the idea of humanity reduced to inhumanity by awesome catastrophe.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's probably because you've watched too many movies.

Wonderful assumption! Brilliant! Peer into the mind of someone across the internet, someone you don't know, and say "you've watched too many movies."

It's only your unrealistic pessimism that causes you to conclude that a trend that's probably as old as our species, which had to overcome all the hardships of the past, will be undone by a future event.

This is a point you'll need to take up with various scientists. Those saying a meteor large enough to wipe us out can strike us and we won't even see it coming until it's right on top of us. Those who say a natural disaster such as a super volcano eruption will have dire consequences for the entire global population. Nuclear catastrophes and terrorism are a very real possibility, especially considering the very high amount of MUF.
And the only trend we've had that is as old is our species is evolving. Socially, we go back and forth constantly. Such as, things in Rome changed when Christianity took over, and the "liberal" Roman ways were replaced with Conservative Christian ways. Even public bathhouses we closed, as the idea of social progress is subjective.

 

[joe1776]

Wonderful assumption! Brilliant! Peer into the mind of someone across the internet, someone you don't know, and say "you've watched too many movies."

Peering wasn't required. It seemed the most likely explanation for your unrealistic pessimism.

This is a point you'll need to take up with various scientists. Those saying a meteor large enough to wipe us out can strike us and we won't even see it coming until it's right on top of us.

Those who say a natural disaster such as a super volcano eruption will have dire consequences for the entire global population.

Maybe I should have used the word "unpredictable' rather than "unforeseeable." That would have cut off speculation on dire events that are merely possible.

Nuclear catastrophes and terrorism are a very real possibility, especially considering the very high amount of MUF.

Only dedicated pessimists jump to the conclusion that human nature would be changed by extreme hardship.

And the only trend we've had that is as old is our species is evolving.

Agreed. As I described in the OP, our evolved brain is using its pain and pleasure centers to make us better human beings by rewarding kindness and punishing selfishness when it causes others harm.

 

[sealchan]

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.

Thank you for your work on this. It is a problem in our society how the media hyperfocused on tragedy but does not put that into context. Perhaps context is fraught with opinion...however the implicit opinion that crime is more newsworthy than acts of kindness sounds to me like the desire to invoke anxiety is seen as profitable .

 

[sealchan]

Good suggestions. Thanks.

Care of the disabled...i wonder if that is another good long term statistic

 

[joe1776]

Thank you for your work on this. It is a problem in our society how the media hyperfocused on tragedy but does not put that into context. Perhaps context is fraught with opinion...however the implicit opinion that crime is more newsworthy than acts of kindness sounds to me like the desire to invoke anxiety is seen as profitable .

Agreed and thanks for your comments.

 

[joe1776]

Care of the disabled...i wonder if that is another good long term statistic

Sure, I can use that. A History of Disability: from 1050 to the Present Day | Historic England

 

[Augustus]

Stating your opinion that my evidence is anecdotal is not debate. Taking examples from my list and showing how or why they are anecdotes would qualify as debate. You haven't done that.

I've given many pieces of evidence that you are well aware of.

Your views of the effect of culture on cognition seem to be purely based on your own experience and worldview - anecdotal

You assumption that "We humans are at our very best in responding to a crisis" is purely based on anecdotal evidence - It's fairly easy to demonstrate that crises can bring out the best in people, the worst in people or the average in people. (WW2 for example)

Your perspective on the workings of human conscience and how this makes 'global harmony' inevitable - not sure if this specifically counts as anecdotal or just unrigorous and narrative driven.

Some more:

"During past wars in human history, civilian populations were ravaged; today, attempts are being made to limit the targeting to combatants" - Anecdotal based on the actions of a few countries (pretty much NATO) who sometimes use precision guided munitions. Certainly no evidence presented that civilian casualties are declining in wars.

"Because of the Geneva Convention and other similar efforts, prisoners of war are treated better now than at any time in our history" - anecdotal - doesn't apply to civil wars and insurrections, 'enemy combatants', etc. - No information about what is average presented.

And your statistical projections to the future are obviously unscientific.

Moreover, your opinion that I have "turned it into an iron law" would be debate if you showed how I've done that.

See thread title.

 

[joe1776]

I've given many pieces of evidence that you are well aware of.

Your views of the effect of culture on cognition seem to be purely based on your own experience and worldview - anecdotal

You assumption that "We humans are at our very best in responding to a crisis" is purely based on anecdotal evidence - It's fairly easy to demonstrate that crises can bring out the best in people, the worst in people or the average in people. (WW2 for example)

Your perspective on the workings of human conscience and how this makes 'global harmony' inevitable - not sure if this specifically counts as anecdotal or just unrigorous and narrative driven.

Some more:

"During past wars in human history, civilian populations were ravaged; today, attempts are being made to limit the targeting to combatants" - Anecdotal based on the actions of a few countries (pretty much NATO) who sometimes use precision guided munitions. Certainly no evidence presented that civilian casualties are declining in wars.

"Because of the Geneva Convention and other similar efforts, prisoners of war are treated better now than at any time in our history" - anecdotal - doesn't apply to civil wars and insurrections, 'enemy combatants', etc. - No information about what is average presented.

And your statistical projections to the future are obviously unscientific.



See thread title.

About anecdotal evidence: If I were to tell you that I had an experience with telepathy and then describe it to you, that would be unreliable anecdotal evidence that telepathy is possible because it's based on my personal experience that cannot be verified. But, when I write the following, I'm claiming the statement is true:

• 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;

If you think the statement false, and state your reasons why, then you have challenged my evidence in debate. But labeling my evidence as "anecdotal" doesn't eliminate your obligation to show it to be false anymore than labeling your bills "paid" will eliminate your need for money.

As for the rest of your post, you are trying to raise the standard for proof I must meet to an unreasonably high standard for an argument made in an Internet forum. That's a common tactic when posters can't challenge an argument fairly.

 

[Augustus]

If you think the statement false, and state your reasons why, then you have challenged my evidence in debate. But labeling my evidence as "anecdotal" doesn't eliminate your obligation to show it to be false anymore than labeling your bills "paid" will eliminate your need for money.

Actually...

If you said "My friend got robbed in Singapore which means Singapore must be a dangerous place", someone wouldn't try to disprove the evidence (my friend got robbed), they would question your inference.

Anecdotal evidence is statistically unrigorous and thus doesn't lead well to making highly confident generalisations. It is not necessarily incorrect.

As for the rest of your post, you are trying to raise the standard for proof I must meet to an unreasonably high standard for an argument made in an Internet forum. That's a common tactic when posters can't challenge an argument fairly.

As I said before, you did this yourself by claiming 'inevitability'. Then when people disagree you say "prove my prediction about the future won't happen in the future", which is impossible.

Many people have point out the flaws in your reasoning in jumping from historical trend to iron law of the future via a bit of cod psychology Significant issues like whether a nuclear war or global food shortages might prove are simply dismissed with a dubious cliche "we are at our best in crisis".

Anyway, when it gets to "you can't challenge my arguments fairly" instead of actually replying to them, the enjoyment of the discussion diminishes exponentially so it's time to call it a day.

Thanks for the discussion, even though we disagree.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Agreed. As I described in the OP, our evolved brain

They have, and continue to do so. But social "progress" becomes a tricky thing because we can't place it on a linear time scale like we can biological evolution.

Only dedicated pessimists jump to the conclusion that human nature would be changed by extreme hardship.

I didn't claim it would. I don't even claim to know that much about what human nature is. But, what I did say, is these foreseeable events can happen, and that our path to global harmony is fragile, and such an event could shatter progress made towards that goal.

Peering wasn't required. It seemed the most likely explanation for your unrealistic pessimism.

It's not at all likely. In the movies, the hero saves the day and everything gets back to being fine in the end, perhaps even better. In real life we rarely get such a luxury.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I'll repeat the answer that you missed earlier: I agree that there's little harmony in this thread. However, I think it's a dumb, irrelevant question.

And I'm going to repeat for the FOURTH time now (stop avoiding the question); if there's little to no harmony between fifteen people in this thread, what makes you think 7 billion will do any better?

I was told in this thread that I'm going to Hell but that's evidence of nothing on the global scale.

Your right; the evidence on a global scale is much worse. People being accused of witchcraft in Africa and Pacific Asia, and being burned at the stake or beheaded. ISIS killing anyone who disagrees with their religious ideology. North Korea being themselves. Russia discriminating against homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses and Pagans. It goes on and on.

That one man is the moral leader of the biggest religion in the world.

Firstly, no he's not. Roman Catholicism has only 1.3 billion members. Comparatively Islam has 1.8 billion. Secondly, it is still very hypocritical for you to use this one man as a prime example of your thesis when not only do you dismiss and ignore leaders of large and influential nations (because they're detrimental to your idea,) but the Catholic Church today as a whole does not reflect the actions of Francis, even if he is the pope.

Unlike slavery, the genocide problem in the world has never been under control.

Slavery has never been under control. Do you really think that slavery no longer exists, even in America?

 

[joe1776]

Actually...

If you said "My friend got robbed in Singapore which means Singapore must be a dangerous place", someone wouldn't try to disprove the evidence (my friend got robbed), they would question your inference.

Yes, of course, but that's completely irrelevant because you weren't given anecdotal evidence in my argument.

As I said before, you did this yourself by claiming 'inevitability'. Then when people disagree you say "prove my prediction about the future won't happen in the future", which is impossible.

I never said that. You made it up. Another strawmaan.

Anyway, when it gets to "you can't challenge my arguments fairly" instead of actually replying to them, the enjoyment of the discussion diminishes exponentially so it's time to call it a day.

Thanks for the discussion, even though we disagree.

I enjoyed it. Thanks.

 

[joe1776]

And I'm going to repeat for the FOURTH time now (stop avoiding the question); if there's little to no harmony between fifteen people in this thread, what makes you think 7 billion will do any better?

Were you stamping your foot in outrage as you typed that? I have no intention of answering your irrelevant question.

Your right; the evidence on a global scale is much worse. People being accused of witchcraft in Africa and Pacific Asia, and being burned at the stake or beheaded. ISIS killing anyone who disagrees with their religious ideology. North Korea being themselves. Russia discriminating against homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses and Pagans. It goes on and on.

You make the same basic error that most people with a pessimistic worldview make: You can't see a moral trend because you're only looking at the present. On top of that, it reflects the one offered by the media which rarely reports good news.

Firstly, no he's not. Roman Catholicism has only 1.3 billion members. Comparatively Islam has 1.8 billion.

Islam is divided into different sects. Catholics are the biggest faith under a single leader.

Secondly, it is still very hypocritical for you to use this one man as a prime example of your thesis when not only do you dismiss and ignore leaders of large and influential nations (because they're detrimental to your idea,) but the Catholic Church today as a whole does not reflect the actions of Francis, even if he is the pope.

The leaders of the nations aren't "detrimental" to my position. They're just a mixed group who are not primarily expected to be moral leaders.

Slavery has never been under control. Do you really think that slavery no longer exists, even in America?

You're coming off as very desperate to try to score a debating point.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I have no intention of answering your irrelevant question.

Quite relevant to your thread, and this posed "inevitability" of global harmony. I will take this as you are completely unable to answer the question, face reality, and would rather bury your head in the sand with dreams and blind optimism.

You make the same basic error that most people with a pessimistic worldview make: You can't see a moral trend because you're only looking at the present. On top of that, it reflects the one offered by the media which rarely reports good news.

You make the same basic error of tragic optimists. The trends of today and the history of yesterday write the future. You blatantly ignore these trends and instead opt to rely on your written-in-the-clouds fantasy of tomorrow. What the media tends to report is irrelevant: these things happen, and they are detrimental to your delusion.

Islam is divided into different sects. Catholics are the biggest faith under a single leader.

Two sects. As is Catholicism, but this is largely irrelevant to the fallacy that you employ: you uphold one man that supports your dreams, and ignore ten that destroy it.

The leaders of the nations aren't "detrimental" to my position. They're just a mixed group who are not primarily expected to be moral leaders.

On the contrary, they are chosen to be leaders of nations, and as such are absolutely expected to be moral leaders. We look to them for our laws, our national policies, and when they fail as moral leaders we decry them as tyrants and dictators. You claim that "harmony" is inevitable, yet for that harmony we need these world leaders to ALL cooperate - something that has never happened, and there is no indication will happen. Leaders like Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, and pretty much anyone from the Middle East disprove your notion of "moral trends" that point towards global harmony, yet you ignore this in favor of... one man. Not even a world leader.

You're coming off as very desperate to try to score a debating point.

I won't even say what you're coming off as, but we'll mark this as another fact that you're unwilling to face in an argument that is rapidly unravelling. It is undeniable, even for you, that slavery still exists. Thus it has never been "under control", as you claimed.

 

[joe1776]

Quite relevant to your thread, and this posed "inevitability" of global harmony. I will take this as you are completely unable to answer the question, face reality, and would rather bury your head in the sand with dreams and blind optimism.

I'm crushed.

You make the same basic error of tragic optimists. The trends of today and the history of yesterday write the future. You blatantly ignore these trends and instead opt to rely on your written-in-the-clouds fantasy of tomorrow. What the media tends to report is irrelevant: these things happen, and they are detrimental to your delusion.

I'll admit that I lack your talent for seeing long-term trends by looking only at the present.

Two sects. As is Catholicism, but this is largely irrelevant to the fallacy that you employ: you uphold one man that supports your dreams, and ignore ten that destroy it.

Name the ten who destroy it, please.

On the contrary, they are chosen to be leaders of nations, and as such are absolutely expected to be moral leaders.

Nonsense. The best we can hope for from the politicians is that they aren't completely corrupt.

I won't even say what you're coming off as, but we'll mark this as another fact that you're unwilling to face in an argument that is rapidly unravelling. It is undeniable, even for you, that slavery still exists. Thus it has never been "under control", as you claimed.

OK, that's fine.