Civilization (Humans)

by dhw, Friday, November 07, 2008, 08:52 (5652 days ago)

In recent posts, David has raised two questions: 1) "international ethics" ... how can we police the world to make sure it behaves itself? 2) "How civilized are we as humans" ... have we progressed since the hunter-gatherer period and the "stick with your own kind mentality"? These are big questions, and I'll try to set the ball rolling with a few thoughts. - The themes are clearly interconnected, because no group will want others to interfere, impose alien ideologies, or use "policing" as an excuse to further their own ends. David says quite rightly that the UN hasn't worked. The reason why it hasn't worked is that all powers consistently pursue their own interests, and this will be the case no matter what international organization we have. The UN does function on a humanitarian level, and nations are quick to respond when there are natural disasters. But when the disasters are man-made, especially by despotic regimes, there is no workable system of "policing" that can safeguard against abuse by the major powers. Consequently, national tragedies such as the Congo, Darfur, Burma, Tibet, Zimbabwe etc. will continue to go unchecked unless diplomacy can make inroads and/or the UN really can unite and muster the power to give itself authority. So my answer to the first question is: at the moment we can't, but the UN still offers us our best chance. - How civilized are we? What does "civilized" mean? Our astonishing technological advances have not changed human nature ... they merely serve to reinforce the traits that have always been there. And these don't just go back to the hunter-gatherers. Humans are social animals, and we constantly draw false distinctions between ourselves and other animals. The forces that drive them and us have never changed: e.g. survival, food, shelter, reproduction, dominance, territory. For many animals, belonging to a group is of fundamental importance, from our fellow primates right down to ants. Our human groups are many and varied: family, gang, football club, tribe, race, religion, country ... the principle remains the same, and "civilization" simply makes us forget the primitive instincts that underlie most aspects of our lives (perhaps excluding the arts, but they have no bearing on international ethics). It's like the concrete that makes us forget the grass and earth beneath. Strip away the cover and you are back to Nature. So my answer to your second question is that human nature hasn't changed and we need our groups. That doesn't mean those groups are desirable ... only that they're natural. - However, I would like to qualify this observation with one major exception. I've already mentioned the humanitarian level of UN activity, and I do believe that humankind has made immense progress in altruism. On individual, national and international levels there is compassion on a vast scale. This is exemplified by the charities, but even in politics there have been huge strides, e.g. with the concept of the welfare state, and aid to developing nations. But compassion has to compete with many negative factors in the global scheme of things, and I cannot see these other factors ... like greed and ambition ... ever being eliminated. So-called "civilization" only increases the scale of our good deeds and our bad.