Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 26 May 2012 07:12 AM
Dennis: Easter Island when occupied, must’ve had shared illusions, but they also denuded island that of trees, and may have contributed to the population vanishing.
Instead of tolerance of others’ illusions, first on my list should have been knowledge and its creation. Progress there requires openess and a culture of criticism and tolerance of other ideas.. The despoilation of the island was no doubt the proximate but not the ultimate cause of that people’s ruin. A ruin which ensued even though they may have had a shared illusion. The ultimate cause of that society’s demise (and all others) was the inability of a static society with its static illusions to create new knowledge to overcome problems. It is the same for us with global warming and all other types of threat. We can survive if we create the knowledge.
So my list would go:
1. food
2. water
3. openess to new ideas, to criticsm and the valueing of freedom. These shared values are essential to:
4. the creation of new knowledge that will enable us to overcome problems
So maybe 3 and 4 apply. What and how can we choose illusions or shared values that maximize the extent to which resources are most efficiently exploited and distributed? In some mythical land in which water is clean and plentiful, food grows low on branches, fish are easily captured, the climate is temperate and there are few people, the shared illusions aren’t as critical. If and as there’s fewer resources in relation to demand, then those shared illusions become much more critical. I’m making perhaps a rash assumption that to some degree the populace has some manner of choice here over shared values (illusions, cultural mores, governing ideology), since otherwise there’s no point in this thread.
Ultimately, we must create the knowledge necesary to produce more food, more resources and more wealth - we must do that even if we are sensible enough to reduce our population - for without new knowledge we cannot even solve our present problems or deal with known threats, much less unforeseen threats. To produce new knowledge fast enough, the values of openess to new ideas, to criticsm and freedom of expression are essential.
Hobbs and Malthus were wrong. But understandably given the knowledge that was available in their day. In one respect, and one respect only, are we different from all other animals. Unlike them, we have the abilitty to create new knowledge fast enought to over come problems. We are not forced to wait/hope for naturally occuring genetic novelties. Our survival depends only on our ability to create knowledge fast enough to overcome threats to our survival.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 26 May 2012 07:12 AM
Dennis: Easter Island when occupied, must’ve had shared illusions, but they also denuded island that of trees, and may have contributed to the population vanishing.
Instead of tolerance of others’ illusions, first on my list should have been knowledge and its creation. Progress there requires openess and a culture of criticism and tolerance of other ideas.. The despoilation of the island was no doubt the proximate but not the ultimate cause of that people’s ruin. A ruin which ensued even though they may have had a shared illusion. The ultimate cause of that society’s demise (and all others) was the inability of a static society with its static illusions to create new knowledge to overcome problems. It is the same for us with global warming and all other types of threat. We can survive if we create the knowledge.
So my list would go:
1. food
2. water
3. openess to new ideas, to criticsm and the valueing of freedom. These shared values are essential to:
4. the creation of new knowledge that will enable us to overcome problems
So maybe 3 and 4 apply. What and how can we choose illusions or shared values that maximize the extent to which resources are most efficiently exploited and distributed? In some mythical land in which water is clean and plentiful, food grows low on branches, fish are easily captured, the climate is temperate and there are few people, the shared illusions aren’t as critical. If and as there’s fewer resources in relation to demand, then those shared illusions become much more critical. I’m making perhaps a rash assumption that to some degree the populace has some manner of choice here over shared values (illusions, cultural mores, governing ideology), since otherwise there’s no point in this thread.
What you seem to be alluding to is the maintenance of knowledge, which historically triggers societal problems. The problem is that the same (lack of) constraints that promote and cultivate innovation and creativity, also allow chaos and irrationality. It seems like “control” is the underlying theme, which we, as humans, seem to have a problem improving upon, let alone perfecting. The charismatic villain is a stereotype, but also riddles our history with embarrassment.
Individual sacrifice is also a problem. Utilitarianism v retribution forms too many value paradigm shifts. But then again, I don’t know why, yet again, I’m responding without adding to the conversations. Sorry, DC.
Ultimately, we must create the knowledge necesary to produce more food, more resources and more wealth - we must do that even if we are sensible enough to reduce our population - for without new knowledge we cannot even solve our present problems or deal with known threats, much less unforeseen threats. To produce new knowledge fast enough, the values of openess to new ideas, to criticsm and freedom of expression are essential.
Hobbs and Malthus were wrong. But understandably so given the knowledge that was available in their day. In one respect, and one respect only, are we different from all other animals. Unlike them, we have the abilitty to create new knowledge fast enought to overcome problems. We are not forced to wait/hope for naturally occuring genetic novelties. Our survival depends only on our ability to create knowledge fast enough to overcome threats to our survival.
Religion and other forms of irrationality that hobbled static societies will not survive the necessary changes. They must wither. Or reinvent themselves in some miraculous way. It is not looking well for religion. If it were we would be doomed.
Individual sacrifice is also a problem. Utilitarianism v retribution forms too many value paradigm shifts. But then again, I don’t know why, yet again, I’m responding without adding to the conversations. Sorry, DC.
As far as I’m concerned, this is not a settled issue, but one wide open. I may have enough “sense” to realize the basic requisites needed (space, arable land, energy, etc) but I’ve no great conclusions about what kinds of ideological paradigms (cultural mores, shared values, illusions) are the most likely to promote the kinds of continuing increase in knowledge, skills and technology that seem to me required given we do not have static societies but so far at least growing and changing ones. Wow, that was an awkward sentence.
The BM’s of the world in a knee-jerk manner, of course reply with something to the effect of submission to and compliance with their particular idea of some god; but as far as I can tell, that kind of ideology never has and does not deal with resource exploitation and distribution. IOW, the god argument isn’t so much wrong as irrelevant to this thread. When people or a society are sick, with decreasing WBCC, they may pray a lot, but then turn to various technologies in an effort to deal with that illness; or they blame someone else as causing their problems.
It may well be too grandiose, but since when has that been a problem here, but might it be reasonable to try to explicate and articulate as much as possible the broad parameters of an ideology that might arguably serve to promote the best development of science and technology? I admit an assumption that is it is science and technology on which I’m betting that any “Cure” might lay.
DENNIS: I may have enough “sense” to realize the basic requisites needed (space, arable land, energy, etc) but I’ve no great conclusions about what kinds of ideological paradigms (cultural mores, shared values, illusions) are the most likely to promote the kinds of continuing increase in knowledge, skills and technology that seem to me required given we do not have static societies but so far at least growing and changing ones.
You are betting right, Dennis.
But some of our societies are still static. Afganistan for example is not fertile ground the the growth of new knowledge. In such places religion poisons the very soil where new knowledge migh otherwise grow.
Even in some ‘dynamic’ societies there are pockets of poison - pockets such as the US bible belt - where BMs and irrationalism reign supreme and by whom much needed progress is hindered. They drag such societies down, hobble them and prevent progress material and moral.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 26 May 2012 08:24 AM
Hobbs and Malthus were wrong. . . .
I think we can benefit from extra effort toward word-use honesty when engaging in meta sorts of discussions. That’s what seems to be going on at the long and slow-moving current threads in the Philosophy section. Those are certainly meta-issue threads there, and contributors take their time in choosing each word they type. What implications can be dreamed up surrounding words such as immoral, wrong, evil, moral, right, good? How do such implications get categorized, remembered, noted? In the fast-moving and bulging current thread at the Atheism-Secularism-Humanism section, words fly back and forth with only the rare attempt at the meta chore of examining them closely. The central question there, Do you atheists hold to any hope of God saving the day?, is camouflaged and paraphrased into Ph.D. vocabulary and reference. That process is anything but meta.
I suspect that until we get our words figured out, progress will continue only by random chance, as per Dreiser more than a hundred years ago.
Hitler was wrong (as he was in so many things) when he said that the Jews were the universal poisoners of all peoples. It was not the Jews but religion that is the universal poisoner. The notion of different peoples is an illusion and a very malevolent and insidious one. In few other animals is there less genetic diversity. (Evidence of the bottleneck and near extinction that occurred before the trek out of Africa). Since the demise of the Neanderthals there has been only one extant species Homo: us, sapiens - the wise. And we inherited the earth - not the nation state, although that illusion served us for a while. That illusion must shrugged off. It is happening. But is it happening fast enough to provide the necessary global environment in which we can create knowledge fast enough to overcome our problems? That is the question. Our greatst problems are global, not national.
Rob, what I’m trying to say is that future socially necessary illusions will replace current ones. Wouldn’t it be nice if a sizable group of concerned people could help vet them by previously having categorized certain key terms into manageable and honest psychological slots?
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 26 May 2012 08:54 AM
DENNIS: I may have enough “sense” to realize the basic requisites needed (space, arable land, energy, etc) but I’ve no great conclusions about what kinds of ideological paradigms (cultural mores, shared values, illusions) are the most likely to promote the kinds of continuing increase in knowledge, skills and technology that seem to me required given we do not have static societies but so far at least growing and changing ones.
You are betting right, Dennis.
But some of our societies are still static. Afganistan for example is not fertile ground the the growth of new knowledge. In such places religion poisons the soil where new knowledge migh otherwise grow.
Even in some ‘dynamic’ societies there are pockets of poison - pockets such as the US bible belt - where BMs and irrationalism reign supreme and by whom much needed progress is hindered. They drag such societies down, hobble them and prevent progress material and moral.
While I understand and tend to share your bias against religion, I’m really not as sure it is religion as some clearly isolated variable that tends to stagnate a society. It may be one, but I’m thinking that widespread ignorance and poverty, as well as perhaps historical isolation from differing cultures, all in a contest of a resource poor living space, all contribute. Not, in other word, a single sufficient variable but multiple variables interacting.
Rob, what I’m trying to say is that future socially necessary illusions will replace current ones. Wouldn’t it be nice if a sizable group of concerned people could help vet them by previously having categorized certain key terms into manageable and honest psychological slots?
You may well be right there, NV. But I’ll have to leave that to the psychologically literate. Do you have any ideas in that regard?
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 26 May 2012 08:54 AM
DENNIS: I may have enough “sense” to realize the basic requisites needed (space, arable land, energy, etc) but I’ve no great conclusions about what kinds of ideological paradigms (cultural mores, shared values, illusions) are the most likely to promote the kinds of continuing increase in knowledge, skills and technology that seem to me required given we do not have static societies but so far at least growing and changing ones.
You are betting right, Dennis.
But some of our societies are still static. Afganistan for example is not fertile ground the the growth of new knowledge. In such places religion poisons the soil where new knowledge migh otherwise grow.
Even in some ‘dynamic’ societies there are pockets of poison - pockets such as the US bible belt - where BMs and irrationalism reign supreme and by whom much needed progress is hindered. They drag such societies down, hobble them and prevent progress material and moral.
While I understand and tend to share your bias against religion, I’m really not as sure it is religion as some clearly isolated variable that tends to stagnate a society. It may be one, but I’m thinking that widespread ignorance and poverty, as well as perhaps historical isolation from differing cultures, all in a contest of a resource poor living space, all contribute. Not, in other word, a single sufficient variable but multiple variables interacting.
Yes, Dennis, it is one. Perhaps the major one. What variable do you think most promotes overpopulation and widespread ignorance and poverty?
Yes, Dennis, it is one. Perhaps the major one. What do you think promotes overpopulation and widespread ignorance and poverty?
That’s plausible, but for the moment I’m thinking more of a multivariate scenario.
However, somehow “getting rid of” religion isn’t going to address the issue, if indeed that is an issue on this thread, as to what are the traits we can name that seem most likely to maximize the development of science and technology? Agreed, minimizing the degree to which a society was governed by “submit and comply” with either a theistic or secular ideology that poses some unchallenged authority figure, and of course attending minions, seems preferable. But that’s also a “should not be” kind of statement, and I think we need as well or more “should be” kinds of traits.
Yes, Dennis, it is one. Perhaps the major one. What do you think promotes overpopulation and widespread ignorance and poverty?
That’s plausible, but for the moment I’m thinking more of a multivariate scenario.
However, somehow “getting rid of” religion isn’t going to address the issue, if indeed that is an issue on this thread, as to what are the traits we can name that seem most likely to maximize the development of science and technology? Agreed, minimizing the degree to which a society was governed by “submit and comply” with either a theistic or secular ideology that poses some unchallenged authority figure, and of course attending minions, seems preferable. But that’s also a “should not be” kind of statement, and I think we need as well or more “should be” kinds of traits.
