What is more important; socially or scientifically based evolution?

[New-ideas]

In todays fast paced world, the human race is evolving in many different ways. However, consider this, is it more important that the planet evolve socially, global relations, moral understanding, religous tolerance etc.

Or should we be focusing on scientific advancement to further humanity in the World, things such as medical research, Waste disposal methods or alternative fuels?

 

Thought it might lead to some intresting ideas.... enjoy!:)

[Tormod]

With all due respect - I fail to see what you're asking. Surely what is seen as a moral question for some is a different question for others? A technological breakthrough can be an immoral issue for others (for example how stem cell research can save lives yet is opposed by religious fundamentalists like the US President).

 

I don't see how social evolution/change has anything to do with human evolution either. Exactly how do you see the human race evolve?

[New-ideas]

Well perhaps I worded the question wrong? What Im trying to ask is whether people think humanity will go forward, evolve so to speak, but from a non-biological persective.

 

Social evoulution, I can see why some might not understand what I mean, theres probably hundreds of better ways of describing what im getting at.

What I mean is, the evoultion of social links and relationships bewteen people, will we grow stronger as humanity, or will our conflicts destory us? Is it more important for us to become more interconnected and socially strong, or will scienctific breakthroughs, such as the one you descibed, be what propells humanity forward?

[Tormod]

I think it's a very complex issue. Most importantly the answer will depend on one's world view. If one for example is of the opinion that technological progress stems from wars, then wars will be seen as a propagator of a "better humanity". On the other hand, if one thinks that technological progress can stop wars from happening, that is a valid but almost opposite view - yet both favor technological advance.

 

I happen to think that the most important "evolution" we are seeing in the world today is the interconnectedness brought by the Internet, cell phones and satellite communication. Perhaps we're also seeing a growing awareness of our "one planet, one destiny" situation, for example in the global warming debate.

 

Just some thoughts... ;)

[New-ideas]

I happen to think that the most important "evolution" we are seeing in the world today is the interconnectedness brought by the Internett, cell phones and satellite communication.

 

Thats an intresting idea, especially considering the numbers of arguments there are for and againist the internet itself. I mean aswell being a highway for international communication, its also the place where humanity expresses its "darker" side. I suppose you have to consider the reprecussions of any major breakthroughs in technology, the power it brings us, also emcompasses a certain amount of social and moral resposibility. I'm personally all for the internet, the open communication of ideas and theories about the World you on this site and others like it, I think its definite step forward.

[New-ideas]

I seem to also be having trouble with that quote tool, nevermind...

[Tormod]

Just make sure you leave a tag at the end of the quote. ;)

[TZK]

Your question is very clear to me.

 

Social evolution is key. Our lack of it thus far has created an extremely dangerous situation. IE a bunch of monkeys running around with nuclear weapons.

 

I would not be surprised if what is currently seen as an age of great scientific advancement will one day be seen as a dark age of sorts. An age devoid of the very social evolution you are talking about, which in my opinion can truly only arise from introspection. An approach to self understanding which is considered outdated by psychology; an approach to self understanding modeled after the highly succesful methods used in investigating classical physics... Typical human mistake - trying to replicate a method that was succesful somewhere else in a situation where the attributes that made the approach successful before are no longer present.

[CraigD]

… is it more important that the planet evolve socially, global relations, moral understanding, religous tolerance etc.

Or should we be focusing on scientific advancement to further humanity in the World, things such as medical research, Waste disposal methods or alternative fuels?

I don’t believe social and scientific progress present an either-or option, but rather are complimentary. Societies experiencing great advances in science and technology are, I think, likely to experience advances in global relations, religious tolerance, and other cultural improvements.

 

This question seems to me to conceal a question about the dominant methods (or paradigm) best suited to addressing social, technical, and scientific problems – as Tormod notes, a very complicated question.

Social evolution is key. Our lack of it thus far has created an extremely dangerous situation. IE a bunch of monkeys running around with nuclear weapons.

As someone who grew up in tense “détente” period of the Cold War, I agree emphatically. Although I lack a ready supporting reference, I recall that a poll conducted of Americans in my age cohort during the 1970s indicated over half considered it more likely than not that they would die as the result of a major US-USSR nuclear war. Added to the ambient anxiety and pessimism of the 1970s, that period exposed me to the “Fermi paradox”, and the popular explanation of it that holds that the invention of nuclear weapons marks an uncircumventable limit to the technological progress of nearly any society, terrestrial or extraterrestrial.

I would not be surprised if what is currently seen as an age of great scientific advancement will one day be seen as a dark age of sorts.

Though I suspect New-ideas may be correct in his prediction of future history’s view of the last century or five, I think the darkness’s cause is more likely to be ascribed to non-scientific (though occasionally scientifically informed and supported) factors having to do with the control of people through economic, social, and governmental means by exploitive minorities, than to advances in science and technology. That is, it will be explained by many of the same causes attributed to the previous “feudal era” Dark ages, though the “present dark ages” will, I suspect, be considered less dark than the previous.

An age devoid of the very social evolution you are talking about, which in my opinion can truly only arise from introspection.

”Devoid” seems an overstatement. In my estimation, particularly in richer nations, a greater fraction of people in present-day society than in any large society at any time in history is engaged in serious introspection. As sociologist, historians, and philosophers (such as Josef Pieper anthor of “Leisure, the Basis of Culture” have noted, there appears to be a connection between the wealth of a society and the amount of introspection that goes on in it.

An approach to self understanding which is considered outdated by psychology; an approach to self understanding modeled after the highly succesful methods used in investigating classical physics... Typical human mistake - trying to replicate a method that was succesful somewhere else in a situation where the attributes that made the approach successful before are no longer present.

One does get this impression of psychodynamic (Freud, etc) and more modern psychology. As Psychologist Abraham Maslow put it “when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”.

 

However, the complicated question of what the right tool looks like is, I think, profound and unanswered. I’ve no confidence that the long or short term improvement of humankind can be accomplished entirely or even predominantly though introspection. The right tool may, I suspect, still be the scientific “hammer” so successful in classical and modern physics, but a hammer of a correct and improved kind.

 

Mine is by no means an original opinion. Alfred Korzybski, WWI German Intelligence officer turned sociologist, linguist, philosopher, and developer of the theory of general semantics, was said to have responded to the social calamity of WWI by noting that, if human beings built governments as well as they built bridges, war, injustice, and most other social problems would be eliminated. Korzybski concluded that this could be accomplished with increased precision in non-scientific language, with which I do not entirely agree, but I applaud his central position that, just as scientifically engineered bridges have helped people more than hurt them, science can be made to realize its potential to solve, more than create, social problems.

[New-ideas]

Social evolution is key. Our lack of it thus far has created an extremely dangerous situation. IE a bunch of monkeys running around with nuclear weapons.

 

I share this point of view as well. Although science may open up to us, incredible power and oppruntunity, noone has ever stopped to question if humanity is ready for these advancements. Humanity as a whole, in my opinion, has not really evolved socially for around 2000 years, we share many of same ideals and laws as the Romans did. Many of our emotions, overide moral obligations, where moral judgement should be applied. It is unfortunate we still often see things from a selfish perseptive, with many decisions in world polictics being made to suit a nation of group of nations, rather than the whole of humanity.

 

I suppose the real question is, how will humanity evolve socially over the next few hundred years, or if we will in fact evolve at all.

[charles brough]

Your question is very clear to me.

 

Social evolution is key. Our lack of it thus far has created an extremely dangerous situation. IE a bunch of monkeys running around with nuclear weapons.

 

I would not be surprised if what is currently seen as an age of great scientific advancement will one day be seen as a dark age of sorts. An age devoid of the very social evolution you are talking about, which in my opinion can truly only arise from introspection. An approach to self understanding which is considered outdated by psychology; an approach to self understanding modeled after the highly succesful methods used in investigating classical physics... Typical human mistake - trying to replicate a method that was succesful somewhere else in a situation where the attributes that made the approach successful before are no longer present.

 

. . . my favorite subject! What I read in your post is that you are saying that there is a social evolution process that accounts for the total growth of human numbers and our growing cultural heritage. It is just that the process, you imply, in not working now. You also imply the process is subject to "introspection" and the scientific method.

 

I am intently interested in what you believe this social evolutionary process is! What IS the natural selection process going on? And is this process really apt to be affected by our subjective efforts to change us or it?---or make things worse?

[charles brough]

I share this point of view as well. Although science may open up to us, incredible power and oppruntunity, noone has ever stopped to question if humanity is ready for these advancements. Humanity as a whole, in my opinion, has not really evolved socially for around 2000 years, we share many of same ideals and laws as the Romans did. Many of our emotions, overide moral obligations, where moral judgement should be applied. It is unfortunate we still often see things from a selfish perseptive, with many decisions in world polictics being made to suit a nation of group of nations, rather than the whole of humanity.

 

I suppose the real question is, how will humanity evolve socially over the next few hundred years, or if we will in fact evolve at all.

 

. . . my favorite subject! You seem to be saying that there is a social evolutionary process going on with us that has accounted for the immense growth of our numbers and the equally important growth in our cultural heritage. Would you be good enough to give me an idea of what you think the natural selection process IS that is involved in this social evolution?

Once you are able to fully explain the process, then you would be in an excellent position to explain what psychologists and introspection would be of use. Otherwise, I fear that it is all subjective and only contributes to the problems.

 

charles, HOME PAGE

[New-ideas]

Would you be good enough to give me an idea of what you think the natural selection process IS that is involved in this social evolution?

 

I fail to see how social evolution, encompasses any form of natural selection, could you perhaps what you are implying by "natural selction process", so I can better answer your question :doh:

[charles brough]

I fail to see how social evolution, encompasses any form of natural selection, could you perhaps what you are implying by "natural selction process", so I can better answer your question :doh:

 

How can there be evolution if there is no natural selection? The question really gets down to what is the "thing," the unit, or the organism that is evolving and hence that is experiencing natural selection.

 

For there to be "social evolution," therefore, there has to be some sort of a genetic element so that the natural process can result in "progress." A change has to come about that lasts and is carried on.

 

Societies, however, have no genes and chromosomes. That means there cannot be a biological evolution going on.

 

However, what has illuded social theorists all this time is that there exists a way that natural selection can occur between societies that is non-genetic. It would have to be a process that is not biological. And since all the change has to be with the societies---we have not changed biologically---it has to be the result of evolution. I propose that is exactly what has been happening.

 

It is easy to see why this has all illuded everyone before: it is the religious systems which bind us into the societies that have been experiencing natural selection and, hence, evolving society. No one has dared to think that before. It means that religions are expendible; that their function is evolutionary and the actual beliefs of the different society-bonding religions has only a termporary connection to reality---that being when the religion is new, having first arisen---and they grow less and less effective both as bonding systems and as accurate belief repositories---as they age.

 

This also explains why civilizations and their societies rise and fall. Its all there in HOME PAGE

 

charles

[New-ideas]

You know I never thought of it in that context, but what we must remember is that we are looking at a process beyond biological evoultion, although the underlying principles are the same, they are not the same thing. I mean to look at natural selection in a animal or plant is simple, you study its characteristics over a period of time, and observe biological adaptations, and make conclusions and to the reasons of these adaptations.

 

So to try and apply this to societal evolution, you must consider it from a number of different angles, moral, political, economical etc. So in my opinion to ascertain any sort of rough conclusion about this "natural selection", you would need to study different soceites over different periods in history, chronologically comparing the moral, polictical and economic standings of each period in history.

 

If I have mislead myself in the concept you are trying to ask me about, please correct me so i can better understand what you getting at. I don't think however, from what I can understand of this, you can classify social evoultions "natural selections", its far too big as a subject to put breifly.

 

About your stance on religion, although I myself am a atheist, I firmly believe that religion has had a crucial part to play through soical history. Christianity, Islam... All major religions started back at the dawn of civilisations, and with them, came a moral code, a set of rules by which people were expected to live. With this came moral understanding, and it gave people the ability to view things from a moral aspect. It allowed us to evolve and grow in societies where we had the moral and social guidelines to then begin to actually question religion, the existance of God so to speak.

[charles brough]

new-ideas, I concur with all you wrote. About studying other civilizations, I have done quite a lot of that. In fact, I even wrote a book early in my work entitled "The Cycle of Civilization." More than that, I went back and managed to piece together the evolving process I found---clear back into pre-history---from the bits and pieces of evidence that do exist.

 

Amazing to hear of a fellow atheist who understands the functional importance of religion. Surely, you also, then, appreciate that that function continues and is something we can never outgrow. We need religions to bind us into larger bodies or groups than the hunting-gathering groups we evolved in. So, to build a new civilization to replace the now failing and no longer advanced religions of the world, we have to have a new one---it just has to be a non-"spirit" world-view system and way of thinking.

[New-ideas]

Well I'm glad I understood your point, I think alot of people can understand why religion is a important factor in historic terms, but not within modern day soceity.

 

Modern day religion still stands as a very important factor in my opinion, despite the amount of conflict it can cause, it is the foundation to most nations way of life. However, the world is expericing change, a fundamental shift in how people think about the world. As we move forward, people are becoming increasingly more questioning about the world around them. More people are turning to atheism, as they realise there is no physical proof of any God.

 

This is an important step forward for humanity, we strive to question mor and more, to ask why. I hope in years to become, these questions will unfiy humanity, and make us realise some more important common goals. This may never happen however, and if it does will take many generations to do so.

 

While religion binds together many nations of the world, providing stablility, it also leads to conflict as we have seen e.g. the terrible events of 9/11 .If events like these continue to cause international conflict, I would fear that they could increase and lead to humanities self annillation, rather than its social evolution.