Global Harmony is Inevitable

[joe1776]

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.

In your first request, you used the word "here." So, it wasn't "quite clear" to me that you meant here in this thread as opposed to "here and now" or something in that vein.

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?

Your question was answered when I said I saw no relevance to harmony in this thread and global harmony.

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.

But they have been going away. As I pointed out in the OP, when you compare the way religions treat other religions today, compared to the way they treated others in past centuries, you will see evidence of moral progress.

If I'd lived back in the year, 1400, Christians would have likely burned me at the stake. Recently, Pope Francis implied that I might even make it to Heaven if I'm good. But then he's not a typical Christian
.

Quite a divisive and disharmonious comment.

You're right, it was. Sorry about that.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

In your first request, you used the word "here." So, it wasn't "quite clear" to me

In reply to you asking what support I had for the statement that this thread is example of disharmony.

Your question was answered when I said I saw no relevance to harmony in this thread and global harmony.

That does not answer the thrice-asked question.

But they have been going away. As I pointed out in the OP, when you compare the way religions treat other religions today, compared to the way they treated others in past centuries, you will see evidence of moral progress.

No you don't. You see evidence of social restraint. Not five minutes ago I was told that I'm going to hell for worshipping false idols. I know for certain from experience there are people who wish me dead for my beliefs. The law deters them from doing so, but the intent has not changed.

Recently, Pope Francis implied that I might even make it to Heaven if I'm good. But then he's not a typical Christian

No he's not. But this isn't the first time you've mentioned him here; it's odd that you would use one man as an example of moral progress, but refuse several world least actions as detrimental to your stance because "they don't represent us all".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

A nuclear catastrophe is not unforeseeable. A pandemic plague is not unforeseeable. A resurgence of actual Fascism is not unforeseeable. The UK did vote to leave the EU. Global terrorism is a reality. Societies are becoming more stable, but we are one super volcano eruption away from societal instability. Or any other of a number of possible natural disasters, such as a large asteroid striking the Earth.

 

[sayak83]

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.

Yes, there is cause for cautious optimism. But it's not inevitable. And while there is grounds to believe that there will be increased cooperation, trade and law governed systems of global governance..global harmony is very unlikely. Crimes like smuggling, trafficking, corporate and banking frauds, corruption etc. are likely to continue to increase.I also suspect a peak in violence and wars at 2040-2060 period associated with peak population, economic duress due to increasing automation making job based systems of employment obsolete, and global tensions between assertive Asian countries, US and an increasingly vibrant set of African nation's that will struggle with climate change effects. If that transition gets through relatively peacefully, I expect a global version of EU like system coming into place by 2070 as a defacto world government, run by several blocks of elite countries. This should be followed by increasing space exploration and colonization efforts at the end of the century.
If however the transition is not peaceful, we may expect a spiralling series of wars and depressions more like what happened between 1910-1950. Such spirals are hard to predict, but the potential if major wars and mass deaths and increased regional authoritarianism are possibilities. The world will be far hostile place to live in, in such a situation, as we would not be able to contain either climate change or global ecological damage caused by human activity.

This is as far as I can infer. I will, as always hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, there is cause for cautious optimism. But it's not inevitable. And while there is grounds to believe that there will be increased cooperation, trade and law governed systems of global governance..global harmony is very unlikely. Crimes like smuggling, trafficking, corporate and banking frauds, corruption etc. are likely to continue to increase.I also suspect a peak in violence and wars at 2040-2060 period associated with peak population, economic duress due to increasing automation making job based systems of employment obsolete, and global tensions between assertive Asian countries, US and an increasingly vibrant set of African nation's that will struggle with climate change effects. If that transition gets through relatively peacefully, I expect a global version of EU like system coming into place by 2070 as a defacto world government, run by several blocks of elite countries. This should be followed by increasing space exploration and colonization efforts at the end of the century.
If however the transition is not peaceful, we may expect a spiralling series of wars and depressions more like what happened between 1910-1950. Such spirals are hard to predict, but the potential if major wars and mass deaths and increased regional authoritarianism are possibilities. The world will be far hostile place to live in, in such a situation, as we would not be able to contain either climate change or global ecological damage caused by human activity.

This is as far as I can infer. I will, as always hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.

That's about where I stand. We can get there, but the path is very fragile.

 

[Augustus]

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

That already happens.

Does 'global harmony' involve no more wars and all countries operating in the 'global interest' and not in the national interest?

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

You claimed that the Khmer Rouge killing 1/3 of the population of Cambodia didn't constitute moral backsliding because:

"In order to backslide, the problem has to first be under control, but not necessarily completely eliminated. We're never had warlike aggression under control."

Cambodia seemed to have the genocide problem under control in the pre KR era.

Afghanistan used to be a place that hippies went to to smoke hash and wear ridiculous knitwear. Now they would likely be kidnapped and possibly beheaded for doing so.

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.

It's the same topic, what does the historical decline of violence tell us going forward?

So Pinker is credible when he is discussing the decline of violence, but when he warns that his data should in no way be interpreted as standing for the inevitability of global harmony he becomes one of these irrational pessimist that are stone cold wrong as they ignores all of the evidence that you have compiled to prove that it is?

Pinker is the apogee of self-congratulatory optimistic Enlightenment fanboyism and selective history, and even he thinks you are out of your mind wrong on the issue.

While you will disagree, you seem to have a fundamentalist mindset on this issue.

A fundamentalist believes their ideological worldview reprints the paradigm for the rest of humanity. They don't accept that their worldview is a product of their cultural environment, but instead that it reflects a universal truth intrinsic to our existence

From this they cherry pick and distort information to feed their confirmation bias and remove any cognitive dissonance.

The mere suggestion that a nuclear WW3 could drive highly problematic for the prospects of 'global harmony' is simply dismissed as 'Hollywood fantasy'. The fragility of a technologically complex, highly interconnected world is simply brushed under the carpet. In the last 100,000 years of 'human nature', 99,700 saw minimal moral improvement (and that's giving the last 300 some major benefit of the doubt), yet that last period is seen as defining who we 'really' are and represents the only possibility for the future.

Another aspect of a fundamentalist mindset is total lack of ability to empathise with others who may view the situation differently. Such people are simply deluded fools wilfully blind to the truth. The incompatible aspects of their cultures are deemed harmful anachronisms to be eradicated so we can make way for the new order.

You acknowledged in another thread that some recalcitrant 'foolish' people who weren't on board with your Brave New World might have to be forced into getting with the program. You also refused to accept that people from diverse cultures might have problems accepting significant parts of your paradigm as you believe your views transcended culture (when they are really an obvious product of it).

A fundamentalist is blessed with great certainty about what the future holds and cannot conceive of the possibility that their confidence may be based purely on thin air. The fundamentalist is adamant though that this confidence is based on the most solid of foundations that any reasonable person operating with a clear mind and free from bias would have to agree with.

Yor argument is based on choosing some anecdotal and statistical evidence from the past and turning it into an iron law about the future in a most unscientific manner that seems to be based on little but blind faith. It seems to lack the imagination to perceive of any challenges or obstacles that could prevent this from happening.

Finally the fundamentalist beliefs that their ideology is practical, even though non-fundamentalists see it as utopian.

There can be few things more utopian than inevitable global harmony.


We'll never agree on this though.

 

[William Milverton]

.
.
You have written :-
Q. “Are average human beings today morally better, worse, or the same compared to their average ancestors?”

Human beings today are morally better than their average ancestors because of greater wealth and for no other reason.

Greater wealth is dependent on stable Earth conditions and nothing in human history should give you comfort on that point.
The last 200,000 years have been human advancement followed by Earth disaster followed by start again. Over and over and over and over. What persuades you that this natural process has stopped?


You have written :-

“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;”



Humanity has never been faced with the internet before. Humanity has never had to cope with software before. Humans are now entering a technological era beyond their capability to deal with.


Software will shortly be available that will allow a Government to continuously track every member of its population. Most Western populations will be so sick, depressed and infuriated at being continually predated by criminals that they will vote for it to be implemented.


Robotic tracking of a population will yield a tax bonus. Everyone will have to pay in full on time.
This will result in such oceans of cash pouring into Governments they will, at first, be at a loss what to do with it. After a pause they will, naturally, pour the money into developing ever more sophisticated software and robotics for more thorough control of populations, and weaponry of unbelievable power.


Software and Robotics will be so powerful that if a Government decides to remain in power there is nothing the people will be able to do about it.


The Hadron Collider will eventually bring humanity to the realisation that everything they see with their eyes is essentially electricity. They are in the equivalent of a video game.
With that realisation, weaponry will be developed that simply deletes people or buildings from the game. Aim the weapon, press the button, and whatever is in front of it is gone. Disappeared without trace – a person, a group of people of any size, a vehicle or building containing people.


Naturally there will be Governments that abuse this power
Naturally there will be nations that say something should be done about those Governments.
You will be aware that sub-space travel removes all barriers of time and distance that slows down one nation from invading another.


You have written :-
”Global Harmony is Inevitable”

People such as you wrote exactly the same before each of the following events :-
Mongol Conquests (1205–1312)
Hundred Years' War (1337–1453)
American Revolutionary War (1775–1782)
Napoleonic Wars (1799–1815)
American Civil War (1861–1865)
World War I (1914–1918)
World War II (1939–1945)


It's going to be glorious.
Not harmonious.
Glorious
Exactly the same as the rest of human history
.
.

 

[joe1776]

That does not answer the thrice-asked question.

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.

No you don't. You see evidence of social restraint. Not five minutes ago I was told that I'm going to hell for worshipping false idols. I know for certain from experience there are people who wish me dead for my beliefs. The law deters them from doing so, but the intent has not changed.

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

No he's not. But this isn't the first time you've mentioned him here; it's odd that you would use one man as an example of moral progress, but refuse several world least actions as detrimental to your stance because "they don't represent us all".

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

 

[joe1776]

A nuclear catastrophe is not unforeseeable. A pandemic plague is not unforeseeable. A resurgence of actual Fascism is not unforeseeable. The UK did vote to leave the EU. Global terrorism is a reality. Societies are becoming more stable, but we are one super volcano eruption away from societal instability.Or any other of a number of possible natural disasters, such as a large asteroid striking the Earth.

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.

 

[joe1776]

That already happens.

The trend has started.

Does 'global harmony' involve no more wars and all countries operating in the 'global interest' and not in the national interest?

Of course.

You claimed that the Khmer Rouge killing 1/3 of the population of Cambodia didn't constitute moral backsliding because:"In order to backslide, the problem has to first be under control, but not necessarily completely eliminated. We're never had warlike aggression under control."Cambodia seemed to have the genocide problem under control in the pre KR era.

Unlike slavery, the genocide problem in the world has never been under control. This "backsliding" concept seems to be difficult for you to understand.

It's the same topic, what does the historical decline of violence tell us going forward?

On its own, nothing. Combined with the other evidence I offered, it supports my argument.

So Pinker is credible when he is discussing the decline of violence, but when he warns that...

I answered this question previously.

Yor argument is based on choosing some anecdotal and statistical evidence from the past and turning it into an iron law about the future in a most unscientific manner that seems to be based on little but blind faith. It seems to lack the imagination to perceive of any challenges or obstacles that could prevent this from happening.

I'll never understand why posters think that their opinions of an opponent's argument constitutes actual debate.

 

[joe1776]

.
Human beings today are morally better than their average ancestors because of greater wealth and for no other reason.

I think you're wrong but I can't debate an opinion. Why don't you start a thread outlining your argument in support of that conclusion?

Greater wealth is dependent on stable Earth conditions and nothing in human history should give you comfort on that point.
The last 200,000 years have been human advancement followed by Earth disaster followed by start again. Over and over and over and over. What persuades you that this natural process has stopped?

I'm not persuaded that it has stopped because I doubt it ever happened.

Humanity has never been faced with the internet before. Humanity has never had to cope with software before. Humans are now entering a technological era beyond their capability to deal with.

I see the Internet as an an advance comparable to the Gutenberg press which was great for human thought. Don't judge it by its rowdy beginning. I imagine the first stuff that came off the old Gutenberg was porn also.

Software will shortly be available that will allow a Government to continuously track every member of its population...

I doubt that will happen.

Software and Robotics will be so powerful that if a Government decides to remain in power there is nothing the people will be able to do about it.

Unlikely.

The Hadron Collider will eventually bring humanity to the realisation that everything they see with their eyes is essentially electricity. They are in the equivalent of a video game.
With that realisation, weaponry will be developed that simply deletes people or buildings from the game. Aim the weapon, press the button, and whatever is in front of it is gone. Disappeared without trace – a person, a group of people of any size, a vehicle or building containing people.

I'm getting the feeling that you're a pessimist by nature.

Naturally there will be Governments that abuse this power. Naturally there will be nations that say something should be done about those Governments. You will be aware that sub-space travel removes all barriers of time and distance that slows down one nation from invading another.

NO, I'll admit that I wasn't aware of sub-space travel.

You have written :-
”Global Harmony is Inevitable”

People such as you wrote exactly the same before each of the following events :-
Mongol Conquests (1205–1312)
Hundred Years' War (1337–1453)
American Revolutionary War (1775–1782)
Napoleonic Wars (1799–1815)
American Civil War (1861–1865)
World War I (1914–1918)
World War II (1939–1945)

If it's not too much trouble, I'd like to see a copy of what they wrote before the Mongol Conquests.

 

[joe1776]

Yes, there is cause for cautious optimism. But it's not inevitable. And while there is grounds to believe that there will be increased cooperation, trade and law governed systems of global governance..global harmony is very unlikely. Crimes like smuggling, trafficking, corporate and banking frauds, corruption etc. are likely to continue to increase.I also suspect a peak in violence and wars at 2040-2060 period associated with peak population, economic duress due to increasing automation making job based systems of employment obsolete, and global tensions between assertive Asian countries, US and an increasingly vibrant set of African nation's that will struggle with climate change effects. If that transition gets through relatively peacefully, I expect a global version of EU like system coming into place by 2070 as a defacto world government, run by several blocks of elite countries. This should be followed by increasing space exploration and colonization efforts at the end of the century.
If however the transition is not peaceful, we may expect a spiralling series of wars and depressions more like what happened between 1910-1950. Such spirals are hard to predict, but the potential if major wars and mass deaths and increased regional authoritarianism are possibilities. The world will be far hostile place to live in, in such a situation, as we would not be able to contain either climate change or global ecological damage caused by human activity.

This is as far as I can infer. I will, as always hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.

You didn't debate the evidence, including the decrease in violence, that I offered for the upward moral trend. Yet, you predict more crime and more wars without offering evidence to support your opinions.

Negotiation is not a good tool for settling disputes between nations. Thus, they resort to violence.

I think the tool for settling disputes of all kinds has already been invented: Binding arbitration by an unbiased expert panel. For example, under UN supervision, members of an expert panel would be randomly selected by computer from a list of eligible applicants. Each side in the dispute would submit their case in writing. The entire process might be seen on the Internet.

The long-standing Palestinian-Israeli conflict could be settled quickly with the enforcement done as a UN peace-keeping mission.

Obviously, it would need the major players among the nations of the world to give the UN that power and responsibility.

 

[Augustus]

I'll never understand why posters think that their opinions of an opponent's argument constitutes actual debate.

You quoted: "Your argument is based on choosing some anecdotal and statistical evidence from the past and turning it into an iron law about the future in a most unscientific manner"

This is a factually correct and specific criticism of your argument. There is nothing scientific (or even rational) about your approach to inevitable global harmony, the end of human conflict and people putting global good ahead of their own. I've given countless explanations which you well know.

Pinker, who you identify as a credible expert, specifically notes that, as a scientist, he cannot make assumptions about the future based on past trends continuing.

You deny we evolved to have an in/out group perception and also the effect of culture on cognition which, again, are unscientific. You haven't done anything to demonstrate you view of human morality is an accurate reflection of scientific understanding on a most complex issue.

Giving your opinion, based on evidence and reasoning, of why an opponents argument is incorrect is the very essence of debate.

 

[sayak83]

You didn't debate the evidence, including the decrease in violence, that I offered for the upward moral trend. Yet, you predict more crime and more wars without offering evidence to support your opinions.
Negotiation is not a good tool for settling disputes between nations. Thus, they resort to violence.
I think the tool for settling disputes of all kinds has already been invented: Binding arbitration by an unbiased expert panel. For example, under UN supervision, members of an expert panel would be randomly selected by computer from a list of eligible applicants. Each side in the dispute would submit their case in writing. The entire process might be seen on the Internet.
The long-standing Palestinian-Israeli conflict could be settled quickly with the enforcement done as a UN peace-keeping mission.
Obviously, it would need the major players among the nations of the world to give the UN that power and responsibility.

Which would never happen.

 

[joe1776]

Which would never happen.

Why not?

 

[joe1776]

You quoted: "Your argument is based on choosing some anecdotal and statistical evidence from the past and turning it into an iron law about the future in a most unscientific manner"

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

 

[sayak83]

Why not?

Nobody gives up power willingly.

 

[joe1776]

Nobody gives up power willingly.

They've already done that by joining the UN, they just need to see the advantages of extending that commitment further.

China and the USA want to compete on trade not on a battlefield.

 

[sayak83]

They've already done that by joining the UN, they just need to see the advantages of extending that commitment further.

China and the USA want to compete on trade not on a battlefield.

UN does not have any power. No nation have lost power by joining UN.

 

[joe1776]

UN does not have any power. No nation have lost power by joining UN.

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.