[From John] Ira previously wrote the following, “All animals, including we humans, are wired with an emotional system that has been "designed" (by evolution and natural selection) to serve as an ombudsman for the long term survival and reproduction of the society we have been socialized in. Absent a properly socialized emotional system, we would focus on our own short-term and short-sighted interests and our society would fail.”
I accept Ira proposition as far as he takes it. The problem as I see it is that his expression, “for the long term survival and reproduction of the society we have been socialized in” does not provide for the long term survival of humankind as a whole, rather it provides for the midterm survival of the strong, who, ultimately are overthrown and fade into history. There seems to be no inherent evolutionary (natural selection) process that assures the long-term survival of mankind as a whole. History bears this out, dynasties have continually risen and fallen since cities and nations were formed. Towns, cities and nations were sacked, men were enslaved if not killed outright, man warred against man. Today is no improvement, in the last century we have had the two most destructive wars in history. It also included the largest mass genocides in history – the Holocaust Stalin’s purges and the murders of the Pol Pot. Today we are confronted with terrorism and the constant wars in Africa. Nuclear war threatens us. There seems to be no end.
With the rise of the world economy man may find in his own individual selfish interest the need for stability throughout the world; this may lead to a form of super-ethics applicable to all mankind. Mini steps have been made with the Geneva Convention and the United Nations but they are very weak. While there is a general consensus amongst the developed nations that such super-ethical standards are necessary, national interests often over ride this consensus.
We have a long way to go.
I accept Ira proposition as far as he takes it. The problem as I see it is that his expression, “for the long term survival and reproduction of the society we have been socialized in” does not provide for the long term survival of humankind as a whole, rather it provides for the midterm survival of the strong, who, ultimately are overthrown and fade into history. There seems to be no inherent evolutionary (natural selection) process that assures the long-term survival of mankind as a whole. History bears this out, dynasties have continually risen and fallen since cities and nations were formed. Towns, cities and nations were sacked, men were enslaved if not killed outright, man warred against man. Today is no improvement, in the last century we have had the two most destructive wars in history. It also included the largest mass genocides in history – the Holocaust Stalin’s purges and the murders of the Pol Pot. Today we are confronted with terrorism and the constant wars in Africa. Nuclear war threatens us. There seems to be no end.
With the rise of the world economy man may find in his own individual selfish interest the need for stability throughout the world; this may lead to a form of super-ethics applicable to all mankind. Mini steps have been made with the Geneva Convention and the United Nations but they are very weak. While there is a general consensus amongst the developed nations that such super-ethical standards are necessary, national interests often over ride this consensus.
We have a long way to go.
5 comments:
There are no guarantees John, except for death and taxes. (With medical miracles, we're not 100% sure about death anymore :^)
My anal rationality does not allow me to believe in an External Creator God who cares about us enough to keep us from self-destructing. Therefore, it is possible -even likely- humankind on Earth will self-destruct.
Indeed my free online novel is based on a 2001 quote from Stephen Hawking: "I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years. Unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars."My GOD (General Organizing Device) is evolution and natural selection and survival of the fittest at each level: individual animal, group, species, ecological niche, ...
As you point out, societies and civilizations rise and fall as they coooperate, compete, absorb, and destroy each other. That is GOD at the national and international level. Within each society/nation, there are interest groups and individuals that cooperate and compete, GOD at that level.
The GAIA folks believe there is a sort of GOD at the Earth level. Perhaps there is. Perhaps the UN or, more likely the G20 or transnational corporations will become a caring GOD at the Earth level.
We can complain about the situation but that's the way it is. From the origin of life with the first bacteria, it has been cooperate, compete, absorb, destroy!
Like the song says: "You can't roller skate in a buffalo herd, ... you can't take a shower in a parakeet cage, ... BUT YOU CAN BE HAPPY IF YOU'VE A MIND TO BE!" Be happy, don't worry. It's a WONDERFUL life!
My GOD has created the civilization and technology we enjoy today (but life is short - eat dessert first!)
Ira Glickstein
While I have only read a chapter or so of your novel, I am currently reviewing your perdictions from The Hawking Plan.
I have read them and am attempting to arrange them in some form of time line. It is interesting that the perdictions only cover a 35 year span ending 41 years in the future. While I am awed by some of your perdictions, the rapid cnanges that have occurred in the last 50 years certainly make them possible. More later.
John said: With the rise of the world economy man may find in his own individual selfish interest the need for stability throughout the world; this may lead to a form of super-ethics applicable to all mankind.
Joel responds: Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to devise super-ethics. I was researching "imbedded carbon" in the Prius when I came across the following document. It involves the conflict between producer nations like China and consumer nations like the United States, as to who should pay for the carbon dioxide produced when a product is made. Even when the ethical goal is in agreement among nations (less carbon dioxide), there is always an advantage to be had by one or the other. "Super-ethics" doesn't mean that conflict can't arise over the details of implementation. -Joel
http://ictsd.net/i/news/bridges/44150/
Too true Joel, I read your reference and will have to think about its implication, however I was referring to the more serious problem of genocide and the exploiting of the weak. In an earlier blog, I commented that each nation through its laws established the minimum ethical standards for that nation. Religious and other groups may establish higher ethical standards that they as individuals may practice however; they cannot establish lesser standards, for example in the United States, one cannot adopt polygamy without incurring the wrath of federal law. In some cases, as in Nazi Germany the ethical standards were lowered to permit genocide of the Jews. If Hitler had not attempted to conquer all of Europe, that genocide may have continued indefinitely.
There is nothing wrong with competition, competition in sports and in the marketplace unless that competition harms others. For example, China may trade with the United States, take advantage of their cheaper labor force and supply products to the United States. In turn, China’s economy will grow; its people will have an improved standard of living.
However, if the Chinese leaders in encouraging that trade forced cheaper labor, kept their people is serfdom, I would consider it ethically wrong, even though ethically legal in China. America might reduce trade with them to attempt to force an appropriate ethical standard, other developed nations, France for example, may continue trading with China thus countering our efforts.
It is this conundrum I was addressing. There seems to be no inherent disposition in man to assure the continued existence of mankind. Joel, you said, “Even when the ethical goal is in agreement among nations (less carbon dioxide), there is always an advantage to be had by one or the other. “ Super-ethics" doesn't mean that conflict can't arise over the details of implementation.” I disagree if that conflict is not in the best interest of mankind; this only proves that man’s inherent selfishness will prevail at the expense of mankind.
Joel, the link you provided over-complicates the matter.
It is an issue with Cap and Trade where you could argue that the ultimate consumer of the product should pay for the fossil-fuel carbon released into the atmosphere.
With a Carbon Tax it is all greatly simplified. If, for arguments sake, we assume it is in the interests of what John called "super ethics" to control carbon levels worldwide, the key is to impose the costs on those who have an opportunity to make effctive choices. If the US imposed a Carbon Tax at the mine, well and port, that would raise costs for manufacturers and consumers, All would be motivated to use less energy.
The cost of products made with petroleum (such as plastics) would go up, motivating stores to charge for disposable packaging and thus rewarding customers who bring their own bags and bottles, etc.
Other countries might impose a Carbon Tax of their own, with similar effects on reducing carbon gasses. If the oil producers had a Carbon Tax and the US did also, that would effectively double the tax on imported oil. That would make US-origin oil relatively less expensive here.
Ira Glickstein
PS: To John: Thanks for reading parts of my novel and predictions. About a half-dozen new readers/skimmers land on the novel daily. In the past two weeks, one from Volgograd, Russia and another from PA have read it through and made kind comments.
Post a Comment