

The Chimera of Human Advancement - dnetesn
http://www.tricycle.com/blog/chimera-human-advancement

======
archgoon
As a counterpoint, Stevens Pinker argues in "Better Angels of our Nature" that
the world has become more peaceful in the past millenia.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natu...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature)

So although we might despair that humanity hasn't changed, it may well be the
case that we are in fact making slow, albeit sometimes halting, progress.

~~~
jal278
A counter-point to the 'halting human progress is good enough' argument: If
technological advance enables a person or society to be more destructive by
orders of magnitude, then humanity's outcome (even if we are progressing,
albeit slowly) could still be catastrophic.

Take atomic weapons: It is clear that as a society we are not ready for the
responsibility that they grant us (e.g. they've edged us close to Armageddon a
few more times than is comfortable).

~~~
moron4hire
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that nukes are a good idea, nor do I think
anyone should have them, even countries that could meet the most stringent
requirements of "responsibility", but doesn't the fact that we haven't
destroyed ourselves yet rather much make it _not_ clear that we're not
responsible enough for nuclear weapons? Yes, we've come close to
Armagettingiton a few times in the past, but don't you think the fact that we
haven't demonstrated that responsibility ultimately won the day?

~~~
Zigurd
That's a bit like careening down the road narrowly missing a terrible
collision a few times and saying "My driving is improving." Nuclear weapons
are the most reliable way we have to destroy our civilization. We need to get
rid of them as soon as possible.

~~~
moron4hire
Well yeah, but if you successfully do it for 50 years, are you a bad driver or
are you just competing in a racing league? Again, my point is, it's not
"clear".

------
waps
TLDR: Technology ("human achievement") is useless because "it doesn't give us
greatness (of character)" (note that they believe that any worldly possession
or anything that makes life easier is fleeting and thus worthless)

I can understand that a 5 year old believes this, or someone who is homeless
with no possible way out. It strikes me as a viewpoint that is designed to
keep the homeless/the extreme poor "in their place". Convince them that it's
not even worth it to try to improve their situation, that God himself would
oppose that (maybe gods would be the more appropriate word ?). I bet any smart
tax-collecting ruler would be a huge fan of this faith. For anyone else I
think their everyday experiences will contradict this way of thinking enough
to convince them otherwise.

I think that it is in fact possible, desirable and worth it to try to improve
myself and my situation (economical, technological, literary, knowledge,
familial, ...). Improving my character is only a component of that, necessary
but far from sufficient, and technology helps a LOT, though admittedly
probably not with the character part.

------
jqm
Religion and philosophy have tried for millennium to change human character.
They have been unsuccessful for the most part, and this failure will likely
continue.

Because.... we are bound by biology. Change that and everything changes. And
this is the threshold where we stand right now. I don't know where it leads.
But I'm pretty sure it is the future.

Never bet against technology in favor of philosophy.

