(Unofficial) Beliefs questionnaire for RF

[Augustus]

**Philosophical Beliefs**

- What is your main philosophical worldview? (e.g. existentialism, pragmatism, humanism, etc.)

Doesn't really have a neat label.

Some of the things it contains: Value pluralism and a tragic view of human nature. Anti-utopianism (and to a lesser extent, anti-meliorism)

- What are some of the most important philosophical questions for you? (e.g. what is the meaning of life, what is the nature of reality, what is the basis of morality, etc.)

How we can minimise violence and oppression in a world where we live alongside those we don't like.

How we can minimise the harms done by well-intentioned but hubristic utopians and meliorists who have excessive faith in human reason to remake the world the way they want it to be (but that ignores human nature.

- How do you approach philosophical problems and arguments? (e.g. using logic, intuition, experience, authority, etc.)
- How do you evaluate philosophical claims and evidence? (e.g. using criteria of validity, soundness, coherence, consistency, etc.)

It depends, but one thing I wish more people used would be Chesterton's Fence:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, 'I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away.' To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: 'If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.'

Also:

Lindy effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

- How do you apply your philosophical beliefs to your everyday life and decision making? (e.g. by following certain principles, values, goals, etc.)

Unconsciously

**Religious Beliefs**

- What is your religious affiliation or identity? (e.g. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, etc.)

atheist

- How do you relate to other religions or worldviews? (e.g. by respecting diversity, seeking dialogue, challenging differences, etc.)

I try to understand why they have been so successful for so long, as this almost certainly means they offer many things of significant value.

- How do you cope with doubts or challenges to your religious beliefs? (e.g. by seeking answers, trusting faith, changing views, etc.)

I don't really care


**Political Beliefs**

- What is your political orientation or ideology? (e.g. liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian, etc.)
- What are some of the main political issues or causes that you care about? (e.g. democracy, human rights, environment, economy, security, etc.)

For me, scale matters more than some political label from a spectrum.

Decentralisation of governance is the main thing I care about.


- How do you form and update your political opinions and preferences? (e.g. by researching facts, listening to experts, following news, engaging in discussions, etc.)

Reading useful sources while avoiding as much news and current affairs as possible as it is mostly noise.

- How do you participate in political activities or movements? (e.g. by voting, campaigning, protesting, donating, volunteering, etc.)

I don't see much value in doing much at the moment as I see it as unlikely I can make much difference and no mainstream movements support my aims.

- How do you deal with political disagreements or conflicts? (e.g. by compromising, persuading, debating, avoiding, etc.)

I enjoy debating them, but don't take it too seriously. It's either for fun, to help process thoughts or to generate food for thought.

If other people have different views, I'm not going to take offence or lose any sleep over it.

 

[MikeF]

**Philosophical Beliefs**- What is your main philosophical worldview? (e.g. existentialism, pragmatism, humanism, etc.)

Doesn't really have a neat label. Some of the things it contains:

Value pluralism and a tragic view of human nature. Anti-utopianism (and to a lesser extent, anti-meliorism)

Anti-utopianism and anti-meliorism really stood out to me as I did not have a ready understanding of what those terms might mean. In a quick survey, it seems that anti-utopianism opposes efforts to promote and implement a utopian vision, opposes radical change, and interestingly, would be against, or at least resistant to, experimenting with collective life. I see the idea of a collectively perceived utopia as a literal impossibility in light of the fact that no two individuals, let alone a whole collective, will possess the exact same set of subjective needs, wants, and desires. I see utopianism more as a specific individual's dream or fantasy of their ideal world and as such, not something that needs to be necessarily opposed given the structure of modern political systems today. In other words, one can advocate for their particular notion of utopia, but getting a political consensus together to implement a proposed utopia would be impossible in my view.

Looking up the term ‘meliorism’, I found this from Wikipedia:

“Meliorism (Latin melior, better) is the idea that progress is a real concept leading to an improvement of the world. It holds that humans can, through their interference with processes that would otherwise be natural, produce an outcome which is an improvement over the aforementioned natural one.” LINK​

I don’t know if the above fits with your concept of the term, but I’ll use it for the basis of my comments.

There are two parts to the above, the first is the premise that there is such a thing as progress. The second is the premise that human beings can induce or cause progress to occur by human action. If one is anti-melioristic, what does that mean in relation to the two parts? The prefix ‘anti’ connotes being against something, in opposition to it, but would acknowledge the reality of the thing being opposed. Does this mean the anti-meliorist is against progress, or specifically against the human attempt to induce or achieve progress, or is it being ‘against’ the notion that there is such a thing as progress, that progress does not exist? For me, the use of the ‘anti’ prefix does not fit this latter notion, although off the top of my head I do not have a replacement term that I would suggest as a better fit. Declaring something as a non-thing seems different than being against a thing that is an actual thing.

Obviously, the notion of progress is a subjective one and as with the impossibility of a utopian consensus, no two individuals will have the exact same notion of what constitutes progress in every aspect of individual and collective life. I think we might both agree that societies objectively change over time. The concept of progress requires change, but the term also requires some element of improvement, with improvement being subjectively perceived. Utopianism seems to declare an objective and universal ideal that would be considered to apply to the whole collective. Meliorism, on the other hand, I see as saying human action can produce an objective change that is subjectively perceived as an improvement, not necessarily universally perceived, but that some sense of a majority would perceive some varying degree of improvement. Would you agree with this interpretation of meliorism?

Anyway, I am interested in your take on it. Does anti-meliorism mean anti- social improvement for you, or something else entirely.

 

[Orbit]

Hi, so I'm going to keep this post short and sweet, it's a questionnaire for RF.

Form:

**Philosophical Beliefs**

- What is your main philosophical worldview? (e.g. existentialism, pragmatism, humanism, etc.)
- What are some of the most important philosophical questions for you? (e.g. what is the meaning of life, what is the nature of reality, what is the basis of morality, etc.)
- How do you approach philosophical problems and arguments? (e.g. using logic, intuition, experience, authority, etc.)
- How do you evaluate philosophical claims and evidence? (e.g. using criteria of validity, soundness, coherence, consistency, etc.)
- How do you apply your philosophical beliefs to your everyday life and decision making? (e.g. by following certain principles, values, goals, etc.)

**Religious Beliefs**

- What is your religious affiliation or identity? (e.g. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, etc.)
- What are some of the core beliefs and practices of your religion or worldview? (e.g. belief in God, karma, reincarnation, prayer, meditation, rituals, etc.)
- How do you relate to other religions or worldviews? (e.g. by respecting diversity, seeking dialogue, challenging differences, etc.)
- How do you cope with doubts or challenges to your religious beliefs? (e.g. by seeking answers, trusting faith, changing views, etc.)
- How do you express your religious beliefs in your personal and social life? (e.g. by attending services, observing holidays, following rules, joining communities, etc.)

**Political Beliefs**

- What is your political orientation or ideology? (e.g. liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian, etc.)
- What are some of the main political issues or causes that you care about? (e.g. democracy, human rights, environment, economy, security, etc.)
- How do you form and update your political opinions and preferences? (e.g. by researching facts, listening to experts, following news, engaging in discussions, etc.)
- How do you participate in political activities or movements? (e.g. by voting, campaigning, protesting, donating, volunteering, etc.)
- How do you deal with political disagreements or conflicts? (e.g. by compromising, persuading, debating, avoiding, etc.)

My answers:

**Philosophical Beliefs**

- What is your main philosophical worldview? (e.g. existentialism, pragmatism, humanism, etc.) Existentialism
- What are some of the most important philosophical questions for you? (e.g. what is the meaning of life, what is the nature of reality, what is the basis of morality, etc.) Questions regarding morality and the Objective nature of things.
- How do you approach philosophical problems and arguments? (e.g. using logic, intuition, experience, authority, etc.) By asking more questions and pretty much leaving it at that. And lending an open ear to answers, both my own I come up with and the answers of others.
- How do you evaluate philosophical claims and evidence? (e.g. using criteria of validity, soundness, coherence, consistency, etc.) Real world experience, reason, and logic.
- How do you apply your philosophical beliefs to your everyday life and decision making? (e.g. by following certain principles, values, goals, etc.) I use them to help shape my actions and decision-making by trying to apply them in real-world ways, ie wearing my beliefs on my sleeve.

**Religious Beliefs**

- What is your religious affiliation or identity? (e.g. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, etc.) Non-theist
- What are some of the core beliefs and practices of your religion or worldview? (e.g. belief in God, karma, reincarnation, prayer, meditation, rituals, etc.) N/A
- How do you relate to other religions or worldviews? (e.g. by respecting diversity, seeking dialogue, challenging differences, etc.) Through open conversation.
- How do you cope with doubts or challenges to your religious beliefs? (e.g. by seeking answers, trusting faith, changing views, etc.) By thinking about things more.
- How do you express your religious beliefs in your personal and social life? (e.g. by attending services, observing holidays, following rules, joining communities, etc.) I keep a lot to myself. Some may say this creates a contradiction between "wearing my beliefs on my sleeve" and me saying that I keep to myself. However, while I'd say that I'm transparent - some people simply don't want to hear it. So in such a case, I keep to myself.

**Political Beliefs**

- What is your political orientation or ideology? (e.g. liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian, etc.) Progressive socialist
- What are some of the main political issues or causes that you care about? (e.g. democracy, human rights, environment, economy, security, etc.) Democracy, humans rights, LGBT+, economy
- How do you form and update your political opinions and preferences? (e.g. by researching facts, listening to experts, following news, engaging in discussions, etc.) By thinking and re-evaluating given current information.
- How do you participate in political activities or movements? (e.g. by voting, campaigning, protesting, donating, volunteering, etc.) A mixture of things.
- How do you deal with political disagreements or conflicts? (e.g. by compromising, persuading, debating, avoiding, etc.) By talking things out, or by recusing myself from the conversation.

Ok, that's a long questionnaire, but I'll try to get through it.

Q: What is your main philosophical worldview? (e.g. existentialism, pragmatism, humanism, etc.)

Secular humanism

Q: - What are some of the most important philosophical questions for you? (e.g. what is the meaning of life, what is the nature of reality, what is the basis of morality, etc.)

None of those things really bother me any more. I used to go round and round with "what is the meaning of life?", but settled on "it's the meaning you give it".

Q: - How do you approach philosophical problems and arguments? (e.g. using logic, intuition, experience, authority, etc.)

I will typically seek out the relevant facts and peer-reviewed research concerning the matter, if such things apply to the question. If such things don't apply to the question, I go with my gut.

Q: - How do you evaluate philosophical claims and evidence? (e.g. using criteria of validity, soundness, coherence, consistency, etc.)

I wasn't aware that philosophy was an area where claims and evidence necessarily apply. Questions like "What is the meaning of life, nature of evil, logic of morality etc" don't really have evidence for them. They are more matters of opinion. For non-evidentiary philosophical claims, I will judge them on the basis of my own inherent sense of right and wrong.

Q: - How do you apply your philosophical beliefs to your everyday life and decision making? (e.g. by following certain principles, values, goals, etc.)

I try to apply the principles of compassion and non-harm to others to these situations.

Q: - What is your religious affiliation or identity? (e.g. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, etc.)

Agnostic atheist, who was Presbyterian for 50 years. The rest of the questions that you asked under "Religion" don't apply.

Q: - What is your political orientation or ideology? (e.g. liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian, etc.)

I am a (U.S,) liberal, and what that means to me is that I think our tax dollars should be used in part to provide public education free from political interference and compassionate programs to assist the less fortunate and marginalized in society. I am for a mixed socialist/capitalist economy and social safety net such as we see in Sweden, for example.

Q: - What are some of the main political issues or causes that you care about? (e.g. democracy, human rights, environment, economy, security, etc.)

My main political concerns could be grouped under the heading of "human rights": access to taxpayer-funded affordable health care; access to free public education through the university level; making sure millionaires and corporations pay their fair share of taxes; getting corporate and million/billionaire money out of politics; preserving American democracy and the separation of church and state.

Q: - How do you form and update your political opinions and preferences? (e.g. by researching facts, listening to experts, following news, engaging in discussions, etc.)

My values of compassion, justice, and non-harm to others inform my political opinions and preferences. On specific political issues, like immigration or transgender issues, for example, I form my opinion based on peer-reviewed and non-partisan research. I also seek out the perspectives of the groups affected by public policy/legislation.

Q: How do you deal with political disagreements or conflicts? (e.g. by compromising, persuading, debating, avoiding, etc.)

I try to supply facts about the issue at hand; it mostly doesn't work.

 

[Secret Chief]

short and sweet

I'd hate to see one of your long and sour ones then.

 

[Little Dragon]

**Philosophical Beliefs**

- What is your main philosophical worldview? (e.g. existentialism, pragmatism, humanism, etc.)
- What are some of the most important philosophical questions for you? (e.g. what is the meaning of life, what is the nature of reality, what is the basis of morality, etc.)
- How do you approach philosophical problems and arguments? (e.g. using logic, intuition, experience, authority, etc.)
- How do you evaluate philosophical claims and evidence? (e.g. using criteria of validity, soundness, coherence, consistency, etc.)
- How do you apply your philosophical beliefs to your everyday life and decision making? (e.g. by following certain principles, values, goals, etc

I am a positive nihilist and realist and old softy. I believe in scientific advancement in technology and all the progress and freedom that offers. Freedom from hunger, pain, sickness, poverty and even, the Earth's gravitational field.
I rely on intuition when considering metaphysical and other untestable hypothesis. With the measurable testable physical universe I evaluate claims exclusively with the scientific method and other objective methods of inquiry,
I follow the nihilist code of living for today and make decisions based on the mundane realities and necessities of life, however I believe that one must also act on impulse sometimes, take a risk, one must take that step into the unknown. All things in moderation.

 

[Augustus]

Looking up the term ‘meliorism’, I found this from Wikipedia:

“Meliorism (Latin melior, better) is the idea that progress is a real concept leading to an improvement of the world. It holds that humans can, through their interference with processes that would otherwise be natural, produce an outcome which is an improvement over the aforementioned natural one.” LINK
I don’t know if the above fits with your concept of the term, but I’ll use it for the basis of my comments.

There are two parts to the above, the first is the premise that there is such a thing as progress. The second is the premise that human beings can induce or cause progress to occur by human action. If one is anti-melioristic, what does that mean in relation to the two parts? The prefix ‘anti’ connotes being against something, in opposition to it, but would acknowledge the reality of the thing being opposed. Does this mean the anti-meliorist is against progress, or specifically against the human attempt to induce or achieve progress, or is it being ‘against’ the notion that there is such a thing as progress, that progress does not exist? For me, the use of the ‘anti’ prefix does not fit this latter notion, although off the top of my head I do not have a replacement term that I would suggest as a better fit. Declaring something as a non-thing seems different than being against a thing that is an actual thing.

It's worth noting that technological progress is real, the question is whether or not social progress is also real.

For me meliorism is soft-utopianism.

It sees progress as cumulative and perpetual. History is unidirectional (progress), there are no permanently intractable problems, and no limits to the improvements that can be made. It is an offshoot of optimistic and teleological Christianity.

The pre-Christian view is tragic - humans are a fundamentally flawed species who cannot escape their nature. We can make progress in some areas, but history is cyclical and we can easily lose all of our gains (20th C totalitarianism for example). There are limits to human ability to control social forces, and we must design systems that mitigate our flaws while accepting they cannot be fixed.

This leads to 2 very different approaches to problem solving:

1. How can we work towards global harmony and peaceful mutual understanding (meliorist)
2. How can we minimise the chances of violence in a world where we will never really understand each other, often don't like each other and have different and often incompatible needs and wants (tragic)

anti-meliorism is just a rejection of the idea that social progress is cyclical, not unidirectional, many problems are intractable, and a failure to recognise this will likely make things worse rather than better. It is not opposition to the idea we can make limited, temporary improvements in some areas, but a warning against hubris when dealing with complex systems we don't really understand, and can't really control

 

[Willamena]

Hi, so I'm going to keep this post short and sweet, it's a questionnaire for RF.

Form:

**Philosophical Beliefs**

- What is your main philosophical worldview? (e.g. existentialism, pragmatism, humanism, etc.)

Just me.

- What are some of the most important philosophical questions for you? (e.g. what is the meaning of life, what is the nature of reality, what is the basis of morality, etc.)

The most significant is what am I? Once you figure that one out, a lot of others fall into place.

- How do you approach philosophical problems and arguments? (e.g. using logic, intuition, experience, authority, etc.)

By using me.

- How do you evaluate philosophical claims and evidence? (e.g. using criteria of validity, soundness, coherence, consistency, etc.)

By contrasting them to Hume and Dogen. And me.

- How do you apply your philosophical beliefs to your everyday life and decision making? (e.g. by following certain principles, values, goals, etc.)

My beliefs are me. Their application is me.

**Political Beliefs**

- What is your political orientation or ideology? (e.g. liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian, etc.)

Liberal. Mostly democratic socialist.

- What are some of the main political issues or causes that you care about? (e.g. democracy, human rights, environment, economy, security, etc.)

Yes. Democracy, human rights, environment, economy, security, etc.

- How do you form and update your political opinions and preferences? (e.g. by researching facts, listening to experts, following news, engaging in discussions, etc.)

My political opinions were formed when I was young. They are maintained by observation.

- How do you participate in political activities or movements? (e.g. by voting, campaigning, protesting, donating, volunteering, etc.)

N/A

- How do you deal with political disagreements or conflicts? (e.g. by compromising, persuading, debating, avoiding, etc.)

I don't deal with them, because they are reoccurring and perpetual. I observe the world.

 

[Heyo]

It's worth noting that technological progress is real, the question is whether or not social progress is also real.

For me meliorism is soft-utopianism.

It sees progress as cumulative and perpetual. History is unidirectional (progress), there are no permanently intractable problems, and no limits to the improvements that can be made. It is an offshoot of optimistic and teleological Christianity.

The pre-Christian view is tragic - humans are a fundamentally flawed species who cannot escape their nature. We can make progress in some areas, but history is cyclical and we can easily lose all of our gains (20th C totalitarianism for example). There are limits to human ability to control social forces, and we must design systems that mitigate our flaws while accepting they cannot be fixed.

This leads to 2 very different approaches to problem solving:

1. How can we work towards global harmony and peaceful mutual understanding (meliorist)
2. How can we minimise the chances of violence in a world where we will never really understand each other, often don't like each other and have different and often incompatible needs and wants (tragic)

anti-meliorism is just a rejection of the idea that social progress is cyclical, not unidirectional, many problems are intractable, and a failure to recognise this will likely make things worse rather than better. It is not opposition to the idea we can make limited, temporary improvements in some areas, but a warning against hubris when dealing with complex systems we don't really understand, and can't really control

Interesting, but why not both?

I see social and moral progress as a sine wave superimposed to a positive slope. In a short term you see the rise and fall and assume a tragic world view. On longer time lines the ups and downs become just noise in the dominating, constant rise.
That way I can remain an utopist in the long run while being a realist that things may go sour in the short.

 

[Augustus]

Interesting, but why not both?

I see social and moral progress as a sine wave superimposed to a positive slope. In a short term you see the rise and fall and assume a tragic world view. On longer time lines the ups and downs become just noise in the dominating, constant rise.
That way I can remain an utopist in the long run while being a realist that things may go sour in the short.

It's not impossible that such a trend could be occurring, I just don't think the evidence supports it.

It's hard to see the 20th C totalitarianisms as merely a 'blip' on an upward trend, they were as bad as anything in history.

Technology, for a while and in certain parts of the world, enabled us to create environments that mitigated some of the more violent tendencies in humans, but these last only as long as the environment is sustained.

It's more through luck than human progress that we haven't had a nuclear war yet. Environmental collapse is a possibility. Technology may start causing major problems whether it is AI, social media, cheap and powerful weapons that mean small numbers of people can cripple whole societies or something as yet unknown, it is a real possibility.

For me, the upward slope ignores these things in the future, and ignores the past events that could easily have wiped out that trend in one event.

 

[Heyo]

It's not impossible that such a trend could be occurring, I just don't think the evidence supports it.

In most of the world our attitude towards human rights has vastly improved. Slavery, on which the Greek, Roman and other empires rested at a time is outlawed and despised almost everywhere. We have have more countries with a democratic government than in any time before. Women can vote. Minorities are protected.
I see those political indicators as a sign of more moral societies.
Yes, we do fall back into barbarism locally or temporally. But the overall, long-term trend is still positive even so it doesn't look like it today.

 

[Augustus]

In most of the world our attitude towards human rights has vastly improved. Slavery, on which the Greek, Roman and other empires rested at a time is outlawed and despised almost everywhere. We have have more countries with a democratic government than in any time before. Women can vote. Minorities are protected.
I see those political indicators as a sign of more moral societies.
Yes, we do fall back into barbarism locally or temporally. But the overall, long-term trend is still positive even so it doesn't look like it today.

If there had been a nuclear war in 1962, how do you think that would have impacted this perceived trend?

Some things have changed, but human propensity to violence and warfare remains largely unchanged. Large numbers of people across the world celebrated Hamas murdering and raping civilians, others cheer for the destruction of Gaza.

The veneer of civility is easily punctured by our tribalism, and human time scales are long.

 

[Heyo]

If there had been a nuclear war in 1962, how do you think that would have impacted this perceived trend?

It would have been one of the fall backs into barbarism I already admitted to.

Some things have changed, but human propensity to violence and warfare remains largely unchanged.

Nope. Crime, especially violent crime, is down on an all-time low in almost all of the civilised world. (Though you wouldn't think that if you follow the news. You have to read the statistics.) Wars and violent conflicts and especially the number of people killed are on an alt-lime low worldwide. Europe has remained widely without wars for 75 years now (from conflict centre until a hundred years ago).

Large numbers of people across the world celebrated Hamas murdering and raping civilians, others cheer for the destruction of Gaza.

The veneer of civility is easily punctured by our tribalism, and human time scales are long.

We are aggressive by nature and we need social pressure, education and high living standards to keep us from expressing that aggressive nature but it can be done and there is evidence that it works.

 

[MikeF]

It's not impossible that such a trend could be occurring, I just don't think the evidence supports it.

It's hard to see the 20th C totalitarianisms as merely a 'blip' on an upward trend, they were as bad as anything in history.

Technology, for a while and in certain parts of the world, enabled us to create environments that mitigated some of the more violent tendencies in humans, but these last only as long as the environment is sustained.

It's more through luck than human progress that we haven't had a nuclear war yet. Environmental collapse is a possibility. Technology may start causing major problems whether it is AI, social media, cheap and powerful weapons that mean small numbers of people can cripple whole societies or something as yet unknown, it is a real possibility.

For me, the upward slope ignores these things in the future, and ignores the past events that could easily have wiped out that trend in one event.

I would say there are two distinct issues at play. The first is the relatively fixed pool of genetic material that sets the foundation of behavior and personality for every newborn human being. Whatever change occurs, it is neither great enough nor fast enough to create an appreciable change in the factory model human being we see throughout recorded history. So in that regard, there is no appreciable improvement over that time period, and there is nothing that can really be done about that.

The second issue is that the ultimate behavior of a human being is influence by many other factors above and beyond the inherent instinctual behaviors derived from their genes. It is here, in the expression of human behavior as a culmination of these many factors that we do see appreciable change over this time period. I think it is shortsighted to simply dismiss this.

Is there some possibility of an all out nuclear war? My guess would be that it would be negligibly small given the number of people required to buy into and participate it such an event. I think visceral self-interest, self-survival, and current social mores make such an event unlikely. Even still, if it were to occur, I don't think it wipes out all the realized social benefits up until that point. I would say such an event is akin to an asteroid from space hitting the earth and destroying all life. Does that mean that up until that point all the evolutionary adaptations and improvements organisms made to better survive was all a fiction, not improvements at all because they ultimately couldn't survive an asteroid strike? Perhaps you'll say that all out nuclear war may be unlikely, but there is a good chance a small group could set off a nuclear device. And to me, that is still the same as an asteroid strike. With billions of people, there is always a statistical chance, given the fixed pool of genetic material, that there will be some that are maladapted or aberrant in their behavior, or in some way resistant to conforming to basic social norms, or were the product of a negative environment. I put mass shooters in this category as well. These types of things will always be a statistical possibility and are the product of the first issue above. They are, in essence, accidents of nature.

We can't change or improve basic human nature, but we can and do improve how we handle that fact.

 

[Augustus]

Wars and violent conflicts and especially the number of people killed are on an alt-lime low worldwide

This is very debatable.

For most of history we have no idea how many people died, so comparisons are meaningless. Pinker badly misuses this data in his Better Angels.

Over the past 200 or so years when we have meaningful data, the data doesn’t support that conclusion.

Most people in the past died from secondary effects of war also, or easily treatable injuries and illnesses by today’s standards.

Anyway, per capita war death rate tells us very little about human propensity for violence. World population doubled in 50 years, why would we expect wars to increase proportionally? There are all kinds of variables that can influence per capita rates.

So the data doesn’t support the conclusion, and even if it did it wouldn’t necessarily mean anything for human propensity for violence.

These and more are covered in Only the dead by Bear Braumoller if you are interested in the topic.

It would have been one of the fall backs into barbarism I already admitted to.

We are aggressive by nature and we need social pressure, education and high living standards to keep us from expressing that aggressive nature but it can be done and there is evidence that it works.

This is why I see progress as temporary and fragile rather than cumulative and robust, it is contingent on forces beyond our control.

Sooner or later we stop avoiding catastrophes by pure luck, and we aren’t smart enough to maintain (relative perceptions of) high living standards in perpetuity.

The more technologically sophisticated our society is, the more fragile it becomes.

 

[Heyo]

So the data doesn’t support the conclusion,

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one

and even if it did it wouldn’t necessarily mean anything for human propensity for violence.

Not for the innate propensity but for the meditated actions. We may just be hairless apes but for all our instinctive behaviour we also have the ability to think rational (well, at least a significant minority has). And as long as we keep valuing rationality, we can also keep our emotions under control.
You may again question the data but the failing support for irrational believes in civilised countries is, imo, an indicator for more use of our frontal lobes.

This is why I see progress as temporary and fragile rather than cumulative and robust, it is contingent on forces beyond our control.

The only "force" we have to control is education.

Sooner or later we stop avoiding catastrophes by pure luck, and we aren’t smart enough to maintain (relative perceptions of) high living standards in perpetuity.

The more technologically sophisticated our society is, the more fragile it becomes.

The more technologically sophisticated our society is, the less likely we are to risk to lose it.

A moral community is a prosperous community. War has little to offer except for the desperate and the irrationally greedy.

 

[Augustus]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one

AFAICS, even if you trust the data and the analysis of it in general, there simply hasn't been enough time since WW2 to make any trend statistically meaningful given a single major war would negate the trend completely and we are still within the normal random distribution for another major war being 'due'. It's like making a claim about investing in the stock market based on the assumption that a major crash won't happen in the next 100 years.

And that is if you trust the data and analysis. If you are interested in the data that contradicts Pinker's (imo somewhat dishonest) Better Angels.

Not for the innate propensity but for the meditated actions. We may just be hairless apes but for all our instinctive behaviour we also have the ability to think rational (well, at least a significant minority has). And as long as we keep valuing rationality, we can also keep our emotions under control.
You may again question the data but the failing support for irrational believes in civilised countries is, imo, an indicator for more use of our frontal lobes.

Even if we assumed the (obviously untrue) hypothetical that some individuals could be perfectly rational, that wouldn't scale to whole societies.

Humans collectively are certainly not rational.

The more technologically sophisticated our society is, the less likely we are to risk to lose it.

The more complex, the less we have the ability to control it whether we like it or not. Complexity means fragility.

A moral community is a prosperous community. War has little to offer except for the desperate and the irrationally greedy.

It has plenty to offer, and always has done, At least if we look at human nature as it is rather than how we would like it to be.

Look at Ukraine/Russia and Israel/Palestine. These are almost spectator sports for many people around the world.

War appeals to far more than narrow self-interest.

 

[Heyo]

AFAICS, even if you trust the data and the analysis of it in general, there simply hasn't been enough time since WW2 to make any trend statistically meaningful given a single major war would negate the trend completely and we are still within the normal random distribution for another major war being 'due'. It's like making a claim about investing in the stock market based on the assumption that a major crash won't happen in the next 100 years.

And that is if you trust the data and analysis. If you are interested in the data that contradicts Pinker's (imo somewhat dishonest) Better Angels.

Interesting.
Lies, damn lies and statistics. But as I see him lying with his statistics, I can understand why you don't accept Pinker's statistics. Interesting is also the location and the audience. People who want to hear that war will still a viable business as their salary depends on it.

Even if we assumed the (obviously untrue) hypothetical that some individuals could be perfectly rational, that wouldn't scale to whole societies.

Humans collectively are certainly not rational.

Neither are single humans. But people who are well educated, in a society that values rationality, are more rational than people were in the past.

The more complex, the less we have the ability to control it whether we like it or not. Complexity means fragility.

Not necessarily. Some complex systems are pretty self regulatory.
And I never said that once we have reached a state of relative peace (like the EU), we can lean back. Peace keeping is a continuous task and slacking can have severe consequences.

It has plenty to offer, and always has done, At least if we look at human nature as it is rather than how we would like it to be.

Plenty? Since WWI no-one has gained anything from inter-country war but weapons manufacturers.

Look at Ukraine/Russia and Israel/Palestine. These are almost spectator sports for many people around the world.

War appeals to far more than narrow self-interest.

Good examples. Both these conflicts have already cost more than can ever be regained by either side "winning".

 

[crossfire]

Hi, so I'm going to keep this post short and sweet, it's a questionnaire for RF.

Form:

**Philosophical Beliefs**

- What is your main philosophical worldview? (e.g. existentialism, pragmatism, humanism, etc.)

Pragmatist. Beliefs are tools.

- What are some of the most important philosophical questions for you? (e.g. what is the meaning of life, what is the nature of reality, what is the basis of morality, etc.)

Whichever one is useful at the moment.

- How do you approach philosophical problems and arguments? (e.g. using logic, intuition, experience, authority, etc.)

Observations, intuition, logic. If trying to discern a certain philosopher's point of view I will examine their writings.

- How do you evaluate philosophical claims and evidence? (e.g. using criteria of validity, soundness, coherence, consistency, etc.)
- How do you apply your philosophical beliefs to your everyday life and decision making? (e.g. by following certain principles, values, goals, etc.)

Goal is ending of suffering.

**Religious Beliefs**

- What is your religious affiliation or identity? (e.g. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, etc.)

Mercuræn Mahayana Buddhist.

- What are some of the core beliefs and practices of your religion or worldview? (e.g. belief in God, karma, reincarnation, prayer, meditation, rituals, etc.)

Anicca (impermanence,) Dukkha (unsatisfactoriness,) Anatta (not-self,) Nirvana. Meditation.

- How do you relate to other religions or worldviews? (e.g. by respecting diversity, seeking dialogue, challenging differences, etc.)

Respecting diversity, although I do love to engage in some productive heated debate.

- How do you cope with doubts or challenges to your religious beliefs? (e.g. by seeking answers, trusting faith, changing views, etc.)

Observation, often through meditation.

- How do you express your religious beliefs in your personal and social life? (e.g. by attending services, observing holidays, following rules, joining communities, etc.)

Eh?

**Political Beliefs**

- What is your political orientation or ideology? (e.g. liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian, etc.)

Libertarian.

- What are some of the main political issues or causes that you care about? (e.g. democracy, human rights, environment, economy, security, etc.)

Individual rights.

- How do you form and update your political opinions and preferences? (e.g. by researching facts, listening to experts, following news, engaging in discussions, etc.)

News.

- How do you participate in political activities or movements? (e.g. by voting, campaigning, protesting, donating, volunteering, etc.)

Voting. Also Pastafarian dialog when appropriate.

- How do you deal with political disagreements or conflicts? (e.g. by compromising, persuading, debating, avoiding, etc.)

Debate, and trying to understand the other side.