Civilization (Humans)
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.
Civilization
by David Turell 
, Friday, November 07, 2008, 14:31 (5652 days ago) @ dhw
Michael Crichton, a wonderful "fantasy" author, was an M.D. from Harvard. He was a very deep thinker and extremely well informed. These are his thoughts on environmentalism as religion and what the 'real' indigenous people are like in their societies. http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html Our civilization came from what he describes. This piece raises many avenues of thought and discussion.
Civilization
Response to David's link to http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech- Michael must be a joy to have on a one week camping trip. He probably never stops complaining. Most of the article was devoted to proving that nature is natural and humans are beasts. I would have conceded that. His other point - that environmentalism is just another religion and therefor should be replaced by science - is questionable. People can get pretty religious about their science. Witness the heated discussions on this and other similar sites about evolution. Besides, science doesn't accomplish things, people accomplish things. And, if no one cares, nothing gets done. So, if you take the caring out of the environmental issues, nothing will get done. I will grant his point that civilization and science has improved the lot of humans, but sometimes at the expense of the other creatures we share the planet with. His points on DDT are a little startling. It wasn't killing the birds outright. It was making the eggshells so thin and fragile that they weren't viable. Several species of endangered carnivorous birds had a dramatic rebound in population when DDT was banned. His point is either ignorant or deceptive. The rest is standard anti-global warming diatribe, persuasive to those who already persuaded. Nothing new there.
Civilization
by David Turell , Saturday, November 08, 2008, 01:11 (5651 days ago) @ Carl
His points on DDT are a little startling. It wasn't killing the birds outright. It was making the eggshells so thin and fragile that they weren't viable. Several species of endangered carnivorous birds had a dramatic rebound in population when DDT was banned. His point is either ignorant or deceptive. > The rest is standard anti-global warming diatribe, persuasive to those who already persuaded. Nothing new there. - Not startling to me if you take the time to follow the science. It only hurt bird eggs because so much was overused. Would it surprise you to know that WHO said in 2006 DDT can be used indoors in proper amounts safely? - As for global warming, the temperature satellites in the trophosphere have dropped back several degrees in the past year or so, Alaskan glaciers are again growing, Arctic Sea ice is more extensive at the end of this summer than in past summers, Antarctic Ice is thickening, and the sun has no spots for one year which means it is in a cooling cycle. The warmest year in the 20th Century was 1931, second was 1998, and it has cooled since then. One of the problems is the fact that many 'official' temperature sites are in big cities which are 'heat islands'. The USA has the best temperature on land records going back to about 1850. But the measurements are still in the same spots as the cities grow and throw off heat. The satellites are the best guide, but only since the 1970's. We only came out of "The Little Ice Age" in the 1850's. It lasted from about 1450 till then. We have warmed since then but are 2 degrees lower than Greenland was 1,000 years ago. There were crops planted there at that time, the reason for the name. - In science until something is absolutely settled, there are two good sides to the arguments. An open mind is better than any other approach. Michael Crichton was a brilliant man with a scientific background as I pointed out purposely. I suggest you rethink your comments about him.
Civilization
David: "As for global warming, the temperature satellites in the trophosphere have dropped back several degrees in the past year or so, Alaskan glaciers are again growing, Arctic Sea ice is more extensive at the end of this summer than in past summers, Antarctic Ice is thickening, and the sun has no spots for one year which means it is in a cooling cycle. The warmest year in the 20th Century was 1931, second was 1998, and it has cooled since then. One of the problems is the fact that many 'official' temperature sites are in big cities which are 'heat islands'. The USA has the best temperature on land records going back to about 1850. But the measurements are still in the same spots as the cities grow and throw off heat. The satellites are the best guide, but only since the 1970's. We only came out of "The Little Ice Age" in the 1850's. It lasted from about 1450 till then. We have warmed since then but are 2 degrees lower than Greenland was 1,000 years ago. There were crops planted there at that time, the reason for the name. - In science until something is absolutely settled, there are two good sides to the arguments. An open mind is better than any other approach. Michael Crichton was a brilliant man with a scientific background as I pointed out purposely. I suggest you rethink your comments about him." - I have several times in my posts compared science with religion, because they are both faith based for those of use who are not knowledgeable at the leading edge of controversial topics. I cannot prove the Big Bang, elaborate on the specifics of evolution or debate the pros and cons of Global Warming at the level where decisions have to be made. I, and I daresay none of us on this site, are really qualified to do anything more than take the scientists words on what the realities are. There are anti-Global Warming voices, but they are in the minority and most suspect on motives. The vast majority of the scientific community advising at levels where decisions are made say it is real and a serious problem. I believe them on faith. If that group changes its mind, I will believe that on faith also. I am not qualified to do more. As far as Michael Crichton, he was a brilliant medical student who went on to become a brilliant entertainer. I read and loved his first book, "Andromeda Strain", when it came out. To my knowledge, he was never a practicing scientist. His qualifications in that area are greater than mine but substantially less than those whose lives and carriers have been spent in the field. I don't have faith in him when he disagrees with the experts.
Civilization
by David Turell , Saturday, November 08, 2008, 05:14 (5651 days ago) @ Carl
I, and I daresay none of us on this site, are really qualified to do anything more than take the scientists words on what the realities are. There are anti-Global Warming voices, but they are in the minority and most suspect on motives. I believe [scietists] on faith. If that group changes its mind, I will believe that on faith also. I am not qualified to do more. > As far as Michael Crichton, he was a brilliant medical student who went on to become a brilliant entertainer. To my knowledge, he was never a practicing scientist. His qualifications in that area are greater than mine but substantially less than those whose lives and carriers have been spent in the field. - You have ignored factual material I presented in my first paragrph to show that there is doubt about the currect global-warming hypotheses. Where did that information come from? Had you seen it before? You have no idea because you are unwillling to look around at material that is available. You simply want to take propagandistic material presented in the news journalism press. They dote on bad news, fear and disaster because it sells. I know many scientists with no 'agenda' who doubt the current scientific proposal for the causes of the current global warming. This generalization of 'agenda', what does it mean, whose agenda, or does 'red herrng' equal honest debate? And you sell youerself short. Any intelligent person can read books on both sides of the debate and come up with some reasonable conclusion not based on so-called faith. - I have had the same medical school training Crichton had, just a little earlier in time. You have no idea how we are trained, how much science we understand, how we are taught to be skeptical and logical. Crichton understood how to follow the scientific findings just as I can. You need to read Bjorn Lomborg, "The Skeptical Environmentalist", 2001, to get a more neutral picture of environmetal concerns and solutions. He is a thoughful environmetalist. Read Thomas Kuhn, "The Nature of Scientific Revolutions", 1962, one of the most important books by a philosopher of science. Scientists follow each other like sheep until they are proven wrong. I've seen this in medicine and described it in another thread. - Further Crichton's reasoning about religion follows that in Karen Armstrong's "A History of God", 1993, a former nun's very learned history of the monotheistic western religions. I've discussed her in another thread. Real understanding of these issues requires an open mind and study on your own. Never accept the pap that the world is constantly deluged with. That provides only a superficial, perhaps wrong viewpoint. It may be a majority viewpoint, but science is not a voting process. It is deciding what is as close to factual proof as is possible.
Civilization
Carl compares science to religion "because they are both faith based for those of us who are not knowledgeable at the leading edge of controversial topics." He has no faith in Michael Crichton "when he disagrees with the experts." David writes: "Real understanding of these issues requires an open mind and study on your own. Never accept the pap that the world is constantly deluged with. It may be a majority viewpoint, but science is not a voting process." - One of the features of "civilization" is that its complexities have made us dependent on others in virtually every sphere of life. I need the help of an expert to deal with my car, accounts, plumbing, food, body. Other people need my expertise in my own particular field. That's how our society works. And all our transactions are based on faith ... that the expert knows his stuff, and everything will be fine after his/her ministrations. Unfortunately, this dependence has a huge down side. Look at the current banking crisis, the businesses that crash, billion-pound IT systems that don't work, catastrophic invasions... - In the field of science, I'm in the same boat as Carl, and have to rely on what the experts say. But what are we supposed to believe when they disagree? If we go back to the topic of abiogenesis, which is a crucial element of atheism and was the subject of many earlier posts on this forum, we find no evidence but plenty of faith: atheist scientists (who are in the majority) believe in the theory, and theist scientists don't. An agnostic keeps an open mind, in spite of the majority vote. - When it comes to the incalculably important issue of the environment, David presents us with information about the troposphere, Arctic Sea ice, Alaskan glaciers etc., and Michael Crichton's information comes from "prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature". The fact that these observations, which stem from reputable sources, run counter to the current trend doesn't mean that they're wrong. On the other hand, when Crichton says: "I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was," I think of my watering eyes and sore throat whenever I'm subjected to someone else's fag, and I reckon he's talking rubbish! So which observations should I believe? Again I'll keep an agnostic's open mind until I'm satisfied that something has been proved. - However, personal beliefs are one thing, and the state of the planet is another. If urgent action is needed on certain environmental issues (we may disagree on which ones), I have no choice but to rely on the experts in all related fields. But which experts? This is where I think Crichton has hit the nail squarely on the head: "We need an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in this field get honest fast. Because in the end science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost." As with the UN, impartiality is essential, and to Crichton's political agendas (including those of the scientists themselves) I would add other vested interests such as big business and religion. If science is not impartial, it's worthless, and in any human field, policies based on false information can only lead to disaster.
Civilization
by David Turell , Saturday, November 08, 2008, 16:30 (5650 days ago) @ dhw
An agnostic keeps an open mind, in spite of the majority vote. > when Crichton says: "I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was," I think of my watering eyes and sore throat whenever I'm subjected to someone else's fag, and I reckon he's talking rubbish! So which observations should I believe? Again I'll keep an agnostic's open mind until I'm satisfied that something has been proved. > If urgent action is needed on certain environmental issues (we may disagree on which ones), I have no choice but to rely on the experts in all related fields. But which experts? This is where I think Crichton has hit the nail squarely on the head: "We need an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in this field get honest fast. Because in the end science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost." - May I add my kudos for a very fine review of where we are in this discussion. but, second hand smoke is not a permanent health hazard. Statistics show that over the long term there are not permanent effects to the health of the second hand smoker. The immediate annoyance is without question. - Crichton's comments about the need for an impartial organization are right on the point. Unless you have been a part of scientific research, and I have, you will not understand the politicization of scientific research. Darwin was independantly wealthy. No one supported his research. But today almost all research is dependent upon monetary grants, either governmental or from private foundations. To study anything one writes grant requests. If you are in academia your standing in your institution depends upon how well your research goes, and also how much money you bring in. Many salaries are all or in part supported by the grants, and only some money for salaries may come from the institution. In general the grant must be written to appeal to a group of peers, peer review pure and simple. Since in general the majority of scientists are joined to Darwin at the hip, if you propose something anti-Darwin you are lucky if you get the grant. This is why the Altenberg Conference is so important. The big shots recognize some changes in thinking and direction are needed. Crichton knew this process well. And in a real sense modern science is politicized as I have described. - Read Bjorn Lomborg's bio on Wikipedia. He is making an honest attempt to be an economically practical environmentalist. He has been accused of plagerism, falisifying data, etc. The charges didn't stick, but he is vilified. the moral is this: an open mind in science is a dangerous thing to your career. A research-fellow scientist in Darwinism at a large New York university contacted me surreptitously because of my book. He wanted references to anti-Darwin thought, but he didn't want his bosses to know his true feelings.
Civilization
International Ethics The UN has worked, just not perfectly. It provides a forum for discussion and arbitration between nations and expressing an international consensus, but also leads to international paralysis. It needs an enforceable new international standard of behavior, like the Magna Charta, Sharia law and the various national constitutions are for individuals, where nations surrender a degree of autonomy to gain stability. Nations would submit to the will of the majority standard in areas of international concern. It also needs a standard for good governance, with an international group to teach and enforce governance and help solve internal problems. Better techniques than economic embargo is needed, since that punishes the innocent most. There should be enforceable standards for minimal human rights that brings international intervention if violated. International approbation and focused violence in the most egregious cases might work - go after the nations leader. Africa is a mess. The Middle East needs some conceptual breakthrough to bring down the barriers. Venezuela, formerly the most stable and prosperous nation in S.A., seems to be going down the toilet. Do we have the right to stop it. How would you do it. Chaves' aims are good, to spread the wealth to the masses in poverty, but his methods are ultimately self destructive. - How Civilized Are We The last half of the 20th century was much less violent than the first half, and a lot of that can be credited to the UN. A lot of the credit also goes to nuclear weapons which made world war so unthinkable. The world is filled with proof that compelling people through violence to change their behavior is not as effective as diplomacy. China vs Taiwan is an example of talk vs. fight. Better to argue for decades than the devastation of war. Violence must be totally overwhelming to be effective, and modern human rights concerns won't allow that. We must enlist the effort of the peaceful majority against the violent minority. The world needs to keep expanding the definition of "us" in the "us vs. them" thinking. Much progress has been made between social classes, ethnic groups and religions, but until Americans and Europeans think of Africans as "us" instead of "them", we still have a ways to go at being our brother's keeper. Civilization is designed to tame the human beast, and it has done a pretty good job, especially over the last sixty years. I expect it will continue to progress in starts, fits and stumbles.
Civilization
by xris , Friday, November 07, 2008, 19:26 (5651 days ago) @ Carl
WE should have a club that is so good every one wants to join but the conditions of joining this club you abide by its rules...the UN should have had hard and fast rules of behaviour and ethics..
Civilization; early starts
by David Turell , Thursday, September 03, 2009, 14:33 (5352 days ago) @ dhw
There are European stone axes just dated going back at least 700,000 years. Just how bright were our ancestors? -http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/902/5