ChatterBank0 min ago
Is Progress A Myth?
44 Answers
'Meliorism'; the belief that the moral and material condition of humanity will improve over time, is this viewpoint in consideration of the events of the 20 and 21st centuries looking a bit dodgy?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I’m not sure you have that right, Khandro. It’s not so much a belief that the moral and material condition of humanity will improve over time, but rather that human interference with natural processes are capable of producing an outcome which is an improvement over a natural one. An important difference. Whilst I do think that humans are capable of producing an outcome which is an improvement over a natural condition, for example advances in medicine eliminating disease, I don’t think it will happen to any great degree in other areas. Human nature is what it is.
There is no God given standard for morality, it is a human construct and changes over time. But, for example, I'd reckon thinking slavery is ok one century and thinking it an abomination in another, seems to be progress to me. It's by acknowledging problems and changing society's rules to suit that we progress. But I still think we're progressing at a rate of 1 step forward for each 1000 changes inflicted. Hopefully individual improvement comes over generations with improved society/peer pressure.
naomi; // human interference with natural processes are capable of producing an outcome which is an improvement over a natural one..............for example advances in medicine eliminating disease//
While being grateful for the intervention of medicine myself, I'm no longer in a position (I think :-) of passing on my genes. But every time we 'interfere' with the natural health condition of the young we are weakening the human genome. Of course like any parent I would wish to have my child treated for illness, but isn't there a long-term price to pay?
I watched 'Fitzcarraldo' again recently in which Herzog had cast many Amazonian Indians, and was struck by how beautiful and healthy looking all the children were; bright eyes, strong in teeth and body. Likewise the 'poor' children we see on the news in the camps, caught up in the Middle Eastern conflicts.
Medical intervention can be a blessing, but also a weakening process, counter-productive to 'progress' I fear.
While being grateful for the intervention of medicine myself, I'm no longer in a position (I think :-) of passing on my genes. But every time we 'interfere' with the natural health condition of the young we are weakening the human genome. Of course like any parent I would wish to have my child treated for illness, but isn't there a long-term price to pay?
I watched 'Fitzcarraldo' again recently in which Herzog had cast many Amazonian Indians, and was struck by how beautiful and healthy looking all the children were; bright eyes, strong in teeth and body. Likewise the 'poor' children we see on the news in the camps, caught up in the Middle Eastern conflicts.
Medical intervention can be a blessing, but also a weakening process, counter-productive to 'progress' I fear.
OG. As you are such a strong Darwinian, I would have thought you would see the harsh reality of nature :0)
An example might be the West's burgeoning use of childbirth by caesarean section possibly leading to a proliferation of narrow-hipped women incapable of giving birth by any other means.
I doubt that there are many narrow-hipped women up the Amazon, nor manic-depressives either!
An example might be the West's burgeoning use of childbirth by caesarean section possibly leading to a proliferation of narrow-hipped women incapable of giving birth by any other means.
I doubt that there are many narrow-hipped women up the Amazon, nor manic-depressives either!
I'm unconvinced such a recent practice would have an effect such as that already. But in any case, medical advances may well allow gene manipulation to ensure women no longer have such an issue. It is about taking ones "evolutionary" path into our own hands rather than rely on the natural system; which doesn't care how many individuals suffer.
"But every time we 'interfere' with the natural health condition of the young we are weakening the human genome. Of course like any parent I would wish to have my child treated for illness, but isn't there a long-term price to pay? ... Medical intervention can be a blessing, but also a weakening process, counter-productive to 'progress' I fear."
I can sort of see where you are coming from, if for example pre-emptive treatments result in a loss of "natural immunity" -- and separately the rise in use of certain medicines has led to some bacteria becoming resistant to them.
On the other hand, the first point is not really something to worry about as long as medicine exists, because what has happened there really is that our fight against diseases is no longer limited by what our bodies can do. Our defences against disease instead are now "evolving" much faster due to organised medical research. This also deals with the latter point, at least in the long term, because natural evolution being governed by (weighted) random processes ought in the end to be defeated by specifically-chosen mutations/ changes.
In any case medical advances have meant that disease is much less of a threat than it was in the past, and this trend will continue.
I can sort of see where you are coming from, if for example pre-emptive treatments result in a loss of "natural immunity" -- and separately the rise in use of certain medicines has led to some bacteria becoming resistant to them.
On the other hand, the first point is not really something to worry about as long as medicine exists, because what has happened there really is that our fight against diseases is no longer limited by what our bodies can do. Our defences against disease instead are now "evolving" much faster due to organised medical research. This also deals with the latter point, at least in the long term, because natural evolution being governed by (weighted) random processes ought in the end to be defeated by specifically-chosen mutations/ changes.
In any case medical advances have meant that disease is much less of a threat than it was in the past, and this trend will continue.
naomi; //how curious that you don’t consider the elimination of disease to be a positive step.//
That is not what I said. The complete removal (if in fact we have) of smallpox from the planet is obviously advantageous to humanity, but remember, during the worst outbreaks in history, not everyone exposed to the virus, contracted it, similarly ebola and HIV recently.
However, in the OP I was also thinking of other forms of perceived human progress as well, as long as we keep affirming how we are progressing, largely as a result of technology, the less likely we are of making an objective assessment of just where we really are.
I'm sorry to say, I feel desperately pessimistic for the future, both morally and materially. It used to be axiomatic in farming communities that you left the land in better condition than you found it. We can no longer pretend that we are leaving the planet so.
That is not what I said. The complete removal (if in fact we have) of smallpox from the planet is obviously advantageous to humanity, but remember, during the worst outbreaks in history, not everyone exposed to the virus, contracted it, similarly ebola and HIV recently.
However, in the OP I was also thinking of other forms of perceived human progress as well, as long as we keep affirming how we are progressing, largely as a result of technology, the less likely we are of making an objective assessment of just where we really are.
I'm sorry to say, I feel desperately pessimistic for the future, both morally and materially. It used to be axiomatic in farming communities that you left the land in better condition than you found it. We can no longer pretend that we are leaving the planet so.
naomi; I really don't know; we seem to be mistaking these 'signs of progress' as an actual reality and we have come to believe that the world we have made from these symbols actually exists. Could this idolisation of our present condition not be a component of human nature, masking a reality which is illusionistic?
@O_G
"I'm unconvinced such a recent practice would have an effect such as that already."
The effect is that those who once might, in past centuries, have struggled to attract a partner or, having found one, risked death in childbirth can now survive the first attempt and at least achieve replacement (2 births), or increase their presence (3 or more births) in the population, as a whole.
At the population level, all it means is a slight change in the population mean or an extension of one tail of the bell curve.
If civilisation ever collapsed, they are in for a lot of pain and/or doomed. As long as doctors exist, they can thrive. But that applies to all of us, as diseases have to get meaner in order not to get wiped out, like smallpox.
"I'm unconvinced such a recent practice would have an effect such as that already."
The effect is that those who once might, in past centuries, have struggled to attract a partner or, having found one, risked death in childbirth can now survive the first attempt and at least achieve replacement (2 births), or increase their presence (3 or more births) in the population, as a whole.
At the population level, all it means is a slight change in the population mean or an extension of one tail of the bell curve.
If civilisation ever collapsed, they are in for a lot of pain and/or doomed. As long as doctors exist, they can thrive. But that applies to all of us, as diseases have to get meaner in order not to get wiped out, like smallpox.
Also wanted to say that evolution is not 'directional'. Or, perhaps, I should say that it is a human construct to assume that it has a 'direction', or that we represent the pinnacle of achievement.
With population increase, it may be that smaller body size is the answer to both the need to eat less, each and the need to avoid suffering in the heat of warmer climate. Great, lumbering lummoxes, who eat like a horse or can't stand summer heat already, could be a thing of the past.
However, smaller bodies might lead to smaller craniums and declining brain power. As species go, that is all we have going for us (give or take opposable thumbs).
With population increase, it may be that smaller body size is the answer to both the need to eat less, each and the need to avoid suffering in the heat of warmer climate. Great, lumbering lummoxes, who eat like a horse or can't stand summer heat already, could be a thing of the past.
However, smaller bodies might lead to smaller craniums and declining brain power. As species go, that is all we have going for us (give or take opposable thumbs).
Technically humans have changed little since ancient civilisations. They still follow primitive religions, kill each other on a major scale, and believe dishonest rulers. No one learns from the errors of previous generations so the pattern repeats every generation. However new energies appear to be coming in and a few spiritual teachers claim to be transmitting a new level allowing people to gradually evolve to a higher level of consciousness. Certainly a small percentage of people have done this already as they tend to find each other one way or another and compare progress, but as yet it is an advance guard with many more who need to follow before society as a whole can change.
