The Progress of Humanity

Fanny Cradock

My question is this:

Is humanity heading in the right direction?

I'll give 3 simple options to the question: Yes, No, Don't know.

I'm looking of an answer that will factor in the human condition - the sum of our collective personal experiences as a species - and our achievements and failures - in terms of both technological and social achievements or failures.




Since the bottom fell out of the world economy, it has become almost impossible to dodge the relentless barrage of apocalyptic financial forecasts, political finger pointing, and the notion the world got drunk on the good times. These recent events have highlighted to me how quickly things can fall down around our heads, and they have also got me questioning where humanity is as a species and in what direction we are going. But as we all know that bad news sells, it means that getting an objective perspective on the progress humanity (or lack of) is challenging.

I have encountered the notion that humanity - aided by the tools of rationality, reason and science - is marching inexorably towards a type of utopia, albeit a very human one. And yet I don't see much evidence of this. Yes, we have made tremendous leaps in our understanding of the world and the universe, and we have developed social systems (democracy, for example) and economic systems (free market, for instance) that appear to work in the West - which is to say nothing about their suitability for the rest of the world. Despite these achievements, I am not convinced that we have really made matching advances in the moral framework that we pin all these achievements on.

While open to other opinions, I believe that the world is a mess and the combination of science, reason and rationality is not a panacea for its ills.

Morbert

I think the problem is that, while it's relatively easy for scientific knowledge to pass down through the generations, moral lessons are often lost. Morality is closely tied to our capacity for empathy/sympathy, and it can be hard to sympathise with people in a history book. Does it mean we're doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over? Possibly, but I would hope not.

Phototoxin

Science / Medicine yes

Arts, values, morals no

Fanny Cradock

I put the poll in to generate a little interest and see if there is any correlation between a persons beliefs in relation to God and the view of mankind's progress. I realise that the poll options are a little constricting (I actually find my own question difficult to answer in the poll) and I'm beginning to regret putting them in. So please feel free to expand on your position!

Fanny Cradock

Phototoxin wrote: »

Science / Medicine yes

Arts, values, morals no

I would agree with this myself. Without the moral framework I mentioned in my first post it all seems rather rudderless.

Mickeroo

In some ways i think we are heading the right way, people are finally becoming more environmentally aware,more open minded and more tolerant. On the other hand there is still a lot wrong with the world,and a lot of our work to save some of the planet is probably too little too late. Rainforests are still being chopped down,ice caps are still receeding and people are still being murdered in some places on an epic scale. Unfortunately,while i believe rationalism and science promote peace more than a segregated religious society ever could, I think there will always be wars and corruption because above all else thats human nature.

Húrin

I find it hard to decide. It is impossible to make a total assessment of the entire world; our views will be highly biased towards Europe.

I also have doubts that humanity as a whole ever makes a net moral progress.

Finally, we are heading in the same direction we have been for two thousand years, towards the divine renewal of the world. That will happen whatever we do.

Mickeroo wrote: »

In some ways i think we are heading the right way, people are finally becoming more environmentally aware,more open minded and more tolerant.
...

Unfortunately,while i believe rationalism and science promote peace more than a segregated religious society ever could, I think there will always be wars and corruption because above all else thats human nature.

The idea of an undivided society dominated by rationalism is intolerant in itself.

The movement especially in the UK, to force action on climate change is heartening, but often it looks like swimming against the stream, at the top of Niagara Falls. Not that I think that there is no hope of averting runaway climate change, I just doubt that the moral improvement necessary to rapidly retreat from rising CO2 emissions is there. It may have to be a case of forcing and frightening governments into action, whether it be by strikes, protests, or food and fuel price shocks.

People may be more tolerant, but that seems to be based on reducing the amount of time spent with other people. Alienation is so much more prevalent in our society, and the very manifestation of community is on the ropes in a lot of places.

santing

The poll presupposes that we are heading somewhere... I don't think mankind has changed much in the last 20 centuries, so overall no progress not for good or for bad.

God's plan is going forward though. His Kingdom when righteousness will reign over the earth will come (soon). And there will be a renewal of all things. God's plan does progress!

hairyheretic

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would agree with this myself. Without the moral framework I mentioned in my first post it all seems rather rudderless.

The problem with that is some of what is considered 'right' or 'moral' tends to change with culture and time.

In general terms I think humanity is improving, if slowly.

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Is humanity heading in the right direction?

I answered "I don't know" by virtue of the lack of unanimity in the term 'humanity'. Wealth, values and cultures are so vastly different that I'm not sure there's even any validity in the term.

Northern Europe, and other parts of the First World have the luxury of disposable income that can be put towards noble aims such as reducing climate change or CERN, but most of the world is only concerned with food and shelter.

If there is such a thing as "humanity", the problem facing it is not a moral issue, but a numerical one.

The world's population is growing at a serious rate, ironically fueled by poverty and medical technology. It's simply unsustainable. So rather than wonder how humanity is getting on today - I'd be concerned about humanity will cope with some sort of future Malthusian catastrophe.

ChocolateSauce

I predict most atheists will say yes, most theists will say no, and agnostics will be more ambiguous.

I voted yes. Although there are localised exceptions, I generally think that the world is improving on the whole, on average, over the last 50 years. The last 8, not so much, but hopefully Obama will counter that neocon trend.

Rev Hellfire

I put down don't know.

While I'd agree with Dades that net material wealth in western and first world countries has lead to vastly improved living conditions for the people there I'm not so sure people are any more content with their lot. More comfortable perhaps, but not happier.

That been said I'd much prefer to be a discontented European than a starving African

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

While open to other opinions, I believe that the world is a mess and the combination of science, reason and rationality is not a panacea for its ills.

Compared to what?

Can you pick a time when the world was less of a mess?

Interesting talk from the TED conference a while back about the perception of things being worse at the moment, which seems to always be the generation the person is living in. I've read theories that this is evolutionary, we compare the present not to the general past but to our childhood, when we were more carefree, and as we get old we get more worried and cautious and concerned about things because so we better protect our children. A side effect of this is to view the present as being particularly bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

The Mad Hatter

Phototoxin wrote: »

Science / Medicine yes

Arts, values, morals no

*considers posting rant*

*decides against it*

I think that humanity, like the arts, is not improving; merely changing.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Compared to what?

Can you pick a time when the world was less of a mess?

I'm not sure that we know enough about history to answer that. For example, today over 50% of the world's population lives on less than $2 per day. Thousands of years ago they didn't have dollars at all, but were they living in the kind of poverty and misery that is the lot of the majority of humanity today?

Even if they were, poverty was a 'given' with no real solution to it. Today we live in a world where the answer to poverty is readily available in our mastery of natural resources, yet our greed and perpetuating of inequality keeps the majority of humanity in squalor.

So maybe things are getting worse in the sense that a 25-year old who drools and needs bottle fed is more pitiful than a new born baby in the same condition.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Thousands of years ago they didn't have dollars at all, but were they living in the kind of poverty and misery that is the lot of the majority of humanity today?

I doubt it. Thousands of years ago the worlds population was measured in millions, not billions. They may not have had technology, but when you have those resources all you need is fire and a sharp stick.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I'm not sure that we know enough about history to answer that. For example, today over 50% of the world's population lives on less than $2 per day. Thousands of years ago they didn't have dollars at all, but were they living in the kind of poverty and misery that is the lot of the majority of humanity today?

No. It was probably much much worse.

Even if you look at things like child mortality rates between now and 100 years ago there has been huge decrease.

The TED talk above talks about mortality rates of males in early hunter gatherer societies. The odds that a male would be killed by another male are as high as 30 to 50%. Imagine, even in sub-Saharan Africa if every male had a 30% chance of being killed at the hands of another male.

PDN wrote: »

Even if they were, poverty was a 'given' with no real solution to it. Today we live in a world where the answer to poverty is readily available in our mastery of natural resources, yet our greed and perpetuating of inequality keeps the majority of humanity in squalor.

Yes but you are comparing now to an imaginary utopian vision of what we could all be if we were less greedy and selfish, rather than the past, when we are more greedy and more selfish, which is what the thread is about.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Today we live in a world where the answer to poverty is readily available in our mastery of natural resources, yet our greed and perpetuating of inequality keeps the majority of humanity in squalor.

I don't really believe the answer to poverty is readily available, because I don't believe for a minute we have mastery over natural resources.

What do you believe we can do - that is technically viable - to feed every hungry mouth on the planet?

PDN

Dades wrote: »

I don't really believe the answer to poverty is readily available, because I don't believe for a minute we have mastery over natural resources.

What do you believe we can do - that is technically viable - to feed every hungry mouth on the planet?

If we are talking technically viable, then we could redistribute wealth and resources in a way that is fairer. The obstacles to that are ones of human sinfulness and greed, not of technology.

For example, I work among impoverished tribal peoples in Northern Nigeria. When it comes to election time there is no technical hindrance that stops politicians from delivering bags of rice to every village in order to buy votes!

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that it would cost $30 billion per year (that figure is also Exxon's tax bill for one year) to ensure that no-one starves any more. The US spends $100 billion per year in pursuing its war in Iraq.

Húrin

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I put down don't know.

While I'd agree with Dades that net material wealth in western and first world countries has lead to vastly improved living conditions for the people there I'm not so sure people are any more content with their lot. More comfortable perhaps, but not happier.

That been said I'd much prefer to be a discontented European than a starving African

I am as fervent an opponent as anyone of the idea that "more wealth = more happiness", but anybody who claims that a starving African is as happy as a well fed European is deluded. Once basic needs, like food and shelter, are met, happiness begins to increase at a much slower rate as good are acquired. This is the law of diminishing returns. However, a starving person, worried about where the next scrap of food is coming from, is very rarely a happy person.

Dades wrote: »

Northern Europe, and other parts of the First World have the luxury of disposable income that can be put towards noble aims such as reducing climate change or CERN, but most of the world is only concerned with food and shelter.

Mitigating climate change is not a noble aim, it's an essential aim. To put it on the same level of frivolity as CERN is mad.

If there is such a thing as "humanity", the problem facing it is not a moral issue, but a numerical one.

The world's population is growing at a serious rate, ironically fueled by poverty and medical technology. It's simply unsustainable. So rather than wonder how humanity is getting on today - I'd be concerned about humanity will cope with some sort of future Malthusian catastrophe.

Economic growth is by far a larger problem for humanity than population growth.

A growth rate of 3% a year for the world economy means that it doubles every 23 years. If a growth rate of 3% were sustained, this means that we humans would, over the next century, have used sixteen times the amount of resources that we have ever used before (Monbiot, 29.01.2008). Theclimate cannot take another century of that. The cliché that “a rising tide lifts all boats” takes on a grim new irony in the context of global warming. This model does not take account of the ecological externalities of growth.

Citing population growth as the main problem is blaming the poor for the excesses of the rich.

PDN wrote: »

Thousands of years ago they didn't have dollars at all, but were they living in the kind of poverty and misery that is the lot of the majority of humanity today?

Before civilisation existed, many anthropologists believe that horticultural and hunting tribes needed only work for four or five hours a day. I think that the "nasty, brutish and short" picture of prehistoric life is not true.

Dades wrote: »

What do you believe we can do - that is technically viable - to feed every hungry mouth on the planet?

Resilience. Most food production should be relocalised, everywhere. Globalisation has destroyed a lot of places in the third world by forcing them to create and depend on an export-agriculture economy. Such economies are highly vulnerable to oil and food supply shocks (which we are also vulnerable to).

Dades

PDN wrote: »

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that it would cost $30 billion per year (that figure is also Exxon's tax bill for one year) to ensure that no-one starves any more. The US spends $100 billion per year in pursuing its war in Iraq.

I find that statistic impossible to take seriously. Does this figure include all the potential costs of implementation, or is it just the market cost of a year's worth of rice for everyone on the planet?

Húrin wrote: »

Mitigating climate change is not a noble aim, it's an essential aim. To put it on the same level of frivolity as CERN is mad.

Ah yes, a quest to understand the mechanics of the universe is frivolous when you know exactly who built it already, and why.

Húrin

Dades wrote: »

I find that statistic impossible to take seriously. Does this figure include all the potential costs of implementation, or is it just the market cost of a year's worth of rice for everyone on the planet?

I think that such a plan can never be a permanent solution.

Ah yes, a quest to understand the mechanics of the universe is frivolous when you know exactly who built it already, and why.

That's not why I said that. It is good to be able to make experiments like CERN, and it's not frivolous in the sense of buying Ugg boots and chocolate biscuits. But comparing it to a necessity for survival like action on climate change is inappropriate.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that it would cost $30 billion per year (that figure is also Exxon's tax bill for one year) to ensure that no-one starves any more. The US spends $100 billion per year in pursuing its war in Iraq.

Considering America and Europe spend approx $50 billion a year on aid, that would lead one to conclude that the problem is not simply money.

Take for example Live Aid in the 1980s. There have been a good number of reports that suggest that Live Aid aid actually ended up doing a lot of harm. Why? Because to get the aid to the people who were starving the aid workers dealt within the corruption of the local governments who were forcing people off their land as part of a resettlement program. The problem was not the money, the problem was the corruption and policies of the local governments. And you can't change that by simply throwing money at it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/24/g8.debtrelief

So it is some what simplistic the notion that these problems are simply happening because we in the prosperous countries just don't give a hoot

Anyway, this is all slightly off topic. Mortality rates in Africa have been falling significantly over the last century due to advances in medicine and infrastructure.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Before civilisation existed, many anthropologists believe that horticultural and hunting tribes needed only work for four or five hours a day. I think that the "nasty, brutish and short" picture of prehistoric life is not true..

That idea has some what been discredited.

It is an idea put forward by people like Sahlins in the late 60s, but the data they use is some what miss leading.

For example they measure as "work" the time taken to gather or catch food. They ignore the time taken to prepare food, or any other activity required to live such as building shelter. If one looks at modern western society by the same standard, the time we take to "gather" food is about 15 minutes a day, a sharp decrease from the 4 to 5 hours of ancient people.

When one factors in all the work hunter gathers did the time they spend "working" (working being defined as any activity required to ensure continued survival) they work far in excess of the modern 40 hour week that a western person would spend working a job.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

That's not why I said that. It is good to be able to make experiments like CERN, and it's not frivolous in the sense of buying Ugg boots and chocolate biscuits. But comparing it to a necessity for survival like action on climate change is inappropriate.

I mentioned the two as luxuries affordable only to part of the world, because for a large part of the planet immediate "survival" is more pressing than carbon levels.

ChocolateSauce

Dades wrote: »

I don't really believe the answer to poverty is readily available, because I don't believe for a minute we have mastery over natural resources.

What do you believe we can do - that is technically viable - to feed every hungry mouth on the planet?

My opinion as a scientist is that we need a radical overhaul of the type of food we eat; specifically, I think every plant, and some animals, should be genetically modified to make them more efficient and more nutritious.

With advanced genetic engineering for every crop, coupled with advanced intensive farming, we could feed upwards of 20 billion.

Regarding CERN, considering it cost something like 0.003% of the planets GDP, I don't think it was very wasteful, especially when you compare it to a trillion spent annually on warfare.

AtomicHorror

The agnostic vote is split evenly three ways. But of course :pac:

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Considering America and Europe spend approx $50 billion a year on aid, that would lead one to conclude that the problem is not simply money.

Take for example Live Aid in the 1980s. There have been a good number of reports that suggest that Live Aid aid actually ended up doing a lot of harm. Why? Because to get the aid to the people who were starving the aid workers dealt within the corruption of the local governments who were forcing people off their land as part of a resettlement program. The problem was not the money, the problem was the corruption and policies of the local governments. And you can't change that by simply throwing money at it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/24/g8.debtrelief

So it is some what simplistic the notion that these problems are simply happening because we in the prosperous countries just don't give a hoot

That's exactly my point - the problem is one of human greed and sinfulness. That greed exists both among prosperous nations and among those who hold governmental power in developing nations.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

That's exactly my point - the problem is one of human greed and sinfulness. That greed exists both among prosperous nations and among those who hold governmental power in developing nations.

i.e. - The problem lies with humanity. I don't think we can stop at greed. Xenophobia lies at the heart of much of the problems, where nations, villages tribes etc cannot work together to get themselves out of the mire. Until cultural and religious differences can be overcome, there is a limit to what any outsider can do (and no I'm not advocating spreading atheism in Africa!)

Handsome Bob

I voted No (Agnostic).

I think we are progressing in the right direction in regards to medicine. Medicine cannot be going in the wrong direction if it is working towards (slowly but surely) being able to combat terminal illnesses for effectively.

However, the reason I voted no is because as a society I am not happy with our progression (or lack thereof). We may live in a time where technology has made life so much easier, but the distribution of life improving technology, wealth, welfare provision and basic living necessities (food, housing etc) are by no means, in any way, distributed evenly.

Also, though I have my certain reservations about religion in the hands of the wrong people, it by no means disturbs me as much as scientific advancements in terms of warfare. When there was once a time that people who were under siege could at least put up a fight in order to protect themselves, we live in a world where you can simply be obliterated while sitting in your house by a bomb dropping. Progression?

Húrin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

My opinion as a scientist is that we need a radical overhaul of the type of food we eat; specifically, I think every plant, and some animals, should be genetically modified to make them more efficient and more nutritious.

With advanced genetic engineering for every crop, coupled with advanced intensive farming, we could feed upwards of 20 billion..

Have you been reading Monsanto propaganda?

Gambler

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I predict most atheists will say yes, most theists will say no, and agnostics will be more ambiguous.

I voted yes. Although there are localised exceptions, I generally think that the world is improving on the whole, on average, over the last 50 years. The last 8, not so much, but hopefully Obama will counter that neocon trend.

Hehe you can tell the future!

Interesting to see (so far) out of 5 theist votes everyone said no, out of atheists the majority say yes, about half that number don't know and one says no and the agnostics have 2 yes, 2 no and 1 don't know.

You have to wonder if that says more about the personalities of people with different beliefs systems (or lack thereof) than about how humanity is actually really doing..

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

That's exactly my point - the problem is one of human greed and sinfulness. That greed exists both among prosperous nations and among those who hold governmental power in developing nations.

I'm not disputing that. But I don't think it is getting worse as time goes on. People are less greedy and selfish to others than they were, for reasons talked about in the TED conference link

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

Have you been reading Monsanto propaganda?

No, just science journals and Nobel Laureate's opinions.

Húrin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

No, just science journals and Nobel Laureate's opinions.

would any of them happen to be online for my perusal?

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

would any of them happen to be online for my perusal?

There is a lot of misinformation on the internet, and about a highly controversial topic you're unlikely to find pure science without a political spin. New Scientist.com requires a subscription as do most other leading journals. The wikipedia entry is unusually unhelpful. I'm sure you could find them, but with respect I don't really want to do it for you. A lot of the information I've had imparted to me I got from off-line sources, like the UCD library and from lectures at Irish Skeptics meetings.

The science behind GM is sound, it is the ethics which is usually the mainstay of debates.

philologos

I find it interesting the difference between the atheists votes in the polls and the theist votes in the polls. Why is it that Christians seem to find the world going in the wrong direction moreso than atheists I wonder?

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

I find it interesting the difference between the atheists votes in the polls and the theist votes in the polls. Why is it that Christians seem to find the world going in the wrong direction moreso than atheists I wonder?

Because the world's becoming more secular?

PDN

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Because the world's becoming more secular?

No, I don't think that's it, for two reasons.
1. The world isn't getting more secular. If you look at a map you will see many nations that were secular 50 or 100 years ago, but now are much more religious (eg most of the Middle East & Northern Africa, the former Soviet Union, China etc.).
2. Christians don't equate secular with bad. Most of us would see a secular democracy as infinitely preferable to the current regimes in most Islamic nations - and some of us see a secular Ireland as much better than the old domination by the Catholic Church.

Húrin

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Because the world's becoming more secular?

Ireland =/= the world.

I'm not sure why most theists think the world is getting worse. I don't subscribe to that.

Perhaps it has something to do with the increasing privatising of everything (like plant DNA, public space, etc), or perhaps it is due to the fact that appealing to moral values has less credibility in the west now than it once did?

Húrin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The science behind GM is sound, it is the ethics which is usually the mainstay of debates.

I don't doubt that it is possible to genetically modify crops. I doubt that rolling out such crops will do anything to help world hunger. There's not much GM can do when the water starts to run out and the soil disappears, is there? The idea of copyrighting crops and using market forces to spread these monocultures over large regions of the world, to the detriment of traditional breeds, always seemed very stupid to me. What if a fatal disease develops in it? You've got a famine and Monsanto has your money.

nyarlothothep

Hmmm, its heading in a direction, as to right or wrong, I would say politically and ethically in the West its like a tug of war. Yes we enjoy more freedoms and there is a higher level of equality than say in the medieval times. However, these rights we enjoy were wrested from elites, they don't hand these out to the "peons", and in cases where you could say they do, its under pressure. But there is always this drag effect, the institutions we live with often cover up the truth and influence us to become "good" components of the system. And the system up until now has been a consumer based culture which promotes self interest and distracts people from their own lives and what is going on in the world. So we decide our own direction by how we react to our environment and the historical legacies which influence it. We as a species need to "grow up" with regards our responsibility towards the environment and to appreciate the significance of the bigger picture, in the respect that long term measures while not immediately profitable will yield higher dividends ultimately. I think this is definitely achievable. There is no consensus on what exactly human nature is, though one fallacious argument, which is used a lot, involves defining it in terms of greed, which kind of consigns it to this historical period right now, where we are encouraged to think of people in that way by capitalist culture. What about empathy, solidarity, many natural positive traits? Our survival depends on becoming space farers.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

Why is it that Christians seem to find the world going in the wrong direction moreso than atheists I wonder?

The wrong direction is better for business? A tendency to look at the world as a breeding ground for sinfulness in need of spiritual rescue? :pac:

Though to be fair there aren't really enough votes in the poll to conclude much!

Back on topic - you can't discount the role of the media in bringing bad news straight to our attentions, more so than it ever has. 50 years ago Africa was a place where lions lived, now every conflict or disaster is covered (or at least documented).

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Our survival depends on becoming space farers.

We've still got about another 5 billion years (that's 10,000 in creationist years) before our sun turns into a white dwarf. No too much of a hurry then!

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not disputing that. But I don't think it is getting worse as time goes on. People are less greedy and selfish to others than they were, for reasons talked about in the TED conference link

While it was an interesting talk, I'm afraid I didn't find all that convincing. He seemed to be quite selective in his analysis. For instance, he says, "the number of battle deaths in interstate wars has declined from more than 65,000 per year in the 1950's to less than 2,000 per year in this decade." That sounds good until you realise that he has chosen a time where major conflicts like the Korean War happen to skew the figures. According to this document (Click on Yearly Total Battle Deaths.xls) 1950, for example, had substantially higher battle death rates than at any other time between 1946 – 2005.

Interestingly, and evidently not without controversy, William Eckhardt's study of conflicts between 3000BC - 2000AD found that "the twentieth century was by far the most violent century in world history, both in absolute terms and in relative terms".

Pinker is correct, though. Deaths from conflicts have mercifully been on the decrease since the end of the Second World War. This is in no small part due to the decline in the number of inter-state wars. However, while the instance of these epic wars between nations has fallen, there has been a sharp overall increase in the numbers of intra-state wars over the same time. These are considered to be lower intensity wars, though, arguably there is nothing as brutal as civil war. Probably due to the interdependence of our national economies it seems that the very nature of war has shifted over the last 50 years. But who is to say that it will stay this way? Resources are certainly becoming scarcer, and yet we continue to expand as a race. Could we be having oil or water wars in years to come?

He also compares the battle death rates amongst a number of tiny tribes living 1000's of years ago to worldwide conflicts doesn't seem like a fair comparison. Firstly, where these tribes living in a particularly violent time? Or where they an unusually aggressive tribe? What of the advances in battlefield medicine? Somebody only looking at the battle death rates of The German Empire/ Germany between 1914 -1945 in would certainly have a skewed perspective of the greater German society. Secondly, I don't believe that you can simply look at battle death proportions and make any statement on our improving morality. IMO, a 3% battle death rate out of a tribe 1,000 is not an improvement over a 1% battle death rate out of a population of 10,000,000. I'm interested in the actual total figures, not their proportions. This is where I feel that statistics don't really tell the whole story.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe that you can simply look at battle death proportions and make any statement on our improving morality. IMO, a 3% battle death rate out of a tribe 1,000 is not an improvement over a 1% battle death rate out of a population of 10,000,000. I'm interested in the actual total figures, not their proportions. This is where I feel that statistics don't really tell the whole story.

If you're trying to establish whether or not people are "improving morality", then firstly, you need to look at the percentages, and not the absolute numbers. Otherwise any positive or negative effect you're looking for will be swamped by an increase in population.

And that's assuming that you can form any reliable conclusions about "morality" in the general sense, by using a single and very extreme index of anti-social behaviour. Especially if, as you're doing here, you're using war deaths as the source data since war is typically not related to any particular personal moral decision, but instead depends upon high-level administrative ones.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

If you're trying to establish whether or not people are "improving morality", then firstly, you need to look at the percentages, and not the absolute numbers. Otherwise any positive or negative effect you're looking for will be swamped by an increase in population.

Indeed! But Pinker uses tribes in the Amazon rainforest and New Guinea highlands - possibly particularly aggressive tribes - and compares them to the West in the 20th century. It seems to me that he has taken a snapshot of two entirely different civilisations and inferred from this. Even if we accept that there is a correlation between tribes in the Amazon and modern western culture, it doesn't follow that there has been an ordered reduction in violence throughout the millennia - only between those two civilizations.

robindch wrote: »

And that's assuming that you can form any reliable conclusions about "morality" in the general sense, by using a single and very extreme index of anti-social behaviour. Especially if, as you're doing here, you're using war deaths as the source data since war is typically not related to any particular personal moral decision, but instead depends upon high-level administrative ones.

I realise that war death is hardly the yardstick to measure moral improvement, but I'm simply replying to what I saw as one of Pinker's weaker arguments. As for war not being typically related to personal moral decision, I would have though that there was enough evidence to suggest that it often is. From the queues of men waiting to enlist at the start if the First World War to the ideological reasons behind the Taliban and every civil war in between it would seem reasonable to suggest that war is often seen as a moral choice by more then just the men at the top.

Húrin

I'm finally going to decide to vote "Don't know" on account of the fact that I think that humanity is neither morally better nor worse than it ever was before.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Why is it that Christians seem to find the world going in the wrong direction moreso than atheists I wonder?

I would imagine it is the other way around, that people who worry the world is going in the wrong direction will be Christians.

As detailed in New Scientist recently, there seems to be a strong connection between a feeling of one's life being out of control, or beyond one's own control, and behaviour associated with the supernatural and religion, such as viewing random events as having meaning and purpose (there was a whole thread about that behaviour a while back)

This appears to be a mental safety net, to stop us becoming overwhelmed by the random or the world around us, we naturally project order and purpose on things, even when it doesn't actually exist. (experiments with people have shown this)

People who see the world as getting worse will naturally gravitate to a systems that explain this in a way that is easy to comprehend and which provides some mental comfort and relief through the introduction of order and explanation. Randomness, particularly in relation to our lives, seems to be something our brains don't like thinking about very much, which obviously has evolutionary advantages (a person who never sought to structure their lives in anyway is at a disadvantage in terms of living long enough to mate)

ChocolateSauce

Wicknight wrote: »

People who see the world as getting worse will naturally gravitate to a systems that explain this in a way that is easy to comprehend and which provides some mental comfort and relief through the introduction of order and explanation. Randomness, particularly in relation to our lives, seems to be something our brains don't like thinking about very much, which obviously has evolutionary advantages (a person who never sought to structure their lives in anyway is at a disadvantage in terms of living long enough to mate)

While this isn't untrue, I don't think that's why the religious think the world isn't headed in the right direction. I could be wrong, but I think they see it going in the wrong direction because the religion they follow is under attack from science, and they are losing vast numbers of believers to non-belief. This in turn creates a situation where the morals proscribed to them by the holy books are being left in the past and replaced by a new set which they do not agree with.

Fanny Cradock

Húrin wrote: »

I'm finally going to decide to vote "Don't know" on account of the fact that I think that humanity is neither morally better nor worse than it ever was before.

Fair point. I would probably change my tentative 'No' to a tentative 'Don't know' for the same reasons.

By way of producing something positive, I was recently listening to a sermon by N.T. Wright (Bishop of Durham) entitled Surprised by Hope (As I've hosted it, and my subscription is fast running out, it might not be up there too long). If you can make it past the chap at the start with the horribly chirpy American twang then it's well worth while a listen.

There are also a number of more detailed talks with Hope as the central theme at Harvard. I haven't yet had a chance to listen to them, but he is normally an excellent orator and most Christians will get a kick out of him.
http://www.hgscf.org/talks.htm

Fanny Cradock

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

While this isn't untrue, I don't think that's why the religious think the world isn't headed in the right direction. I could be wrong, but I think they see it going in the wrong direction because the religion they follow is under attack from science, and they are losing vast numbers of believers to non-belief. This in turn creates a situation where the morals proscribed to them by the holy books are being left in the past and replaced by a new set which they do not agree with.

I wouldn't agree with this. I don't buy the notion that science attacks faith or that Christians are adhering to an outdated set of morals. This is just a rehash of Enlightenment thinking. Furthermore, it's a very Eurocentric perspective. Indeed, this is evidenced in your belief that we are losing vast numbers of believers to non-belief. It certainly seems that Europe is in a post-Christian phase, but what about the rest of the world? Christianity is making large advances there.