What do you think of Humanity?
I had recently asked someone this question, and thier answer interested me.
Personally, I think humanity dosent hold as much value as it once did.
Its not to the point which everything is just chaos, but its escalated to the point where no one really gives thier actions a second look.
What do you think?
|
1
point
it is human nature to oppress, it is human nature to bow down, it is human nature to fight back, it is human nature to destroy, it is human nature create, it is human nature to search for the truth, it is human nature to blind oneself, it is human nature to compromise, it is human nature to conform, it is human nature to be different, it is human nature to advance, it is human nature to stay behind, it is human nature to think, it is human nature to be reckless, it is human nature to be skeptical, it is human nature to be gullible, it is just human nature... nothing about human nature is truely human nature because human nature is truely too sporatic and spontaneous, the one and only constant of human nature is if there is one type of individual there is going to be more... and groups can effect the actions of general humanity. I tend to look at human traits within humanity as waves, sometimes we enter times we're people are oppressive and monstorous, other times we can refer to "golden era" we're we are as close to the peak of happiness together as we can be. 1
point
1
point
Personally, I think humanity dosent hold as much value as it once did. Its not to the point which everything is just chaos, but its escalated to the point where no one really gives thier actions a second look. Historically, it is better to be alive today than at any other point in history. Slavery was once a widely accepted practice across the globe, and warfare was once more prevalent. During the dictatorships of Hitler and Stalin we saw some of the most horrendous genocides to have ever occurred. People as a whole are more intelligent than they have been in the past. I would argue that humanity has gotten much better over the past thousand years or so. Side: Joe's the man
1
point
"I would argue that humanity has gotten much better over the past thousand years or so." I would agree but its a bity like saying a polished turd is a better turd. We have capacity today to things that nobody could have even fathomed in those primitive periods you reference, our technology has advanced and but has our ethics and morality? Its not as simple an answer as some might think. Our behaviour and what is considered acceptable has most certainly changed but i would argue this should be construed not as a paradigm shift but merely a shift in boundaries and constraints "During the dictatorships of Hitler and Stalin we saw some of the most horrendous genocides to have ever occurred." Why do piont only to WW2, why not piont to genocide of the noble american indian, or the Incas, Aztecs, Australians aboriginals, Tazmanians etc. Two books you should read that are very relevant to this debate, 1. Guns, Germs, and Steel 2. Straw Dogs The second is by the far the best, and most relevant to this debate, it really is an unsettling book that will challenge any fanciful notions you have about secularism, progressivism etc. You expressed as admiration of Christopher Hitchens in the past read this book and then tell me whether you still agree with his overall philosophy. Side: Joe's the man
I would agree but its a bity like saying a polished turd is a better turd. Depending on how you view humanity as a whole. Some people believe that humanity is generally good and others believe humanity is generally bad. Are you a pessimist or an optimist? I don't see humanity as being distinctly either. Humans are human. Why do piont only to WW2, The combined massacres of Hitler and Stalin dwarf any other genocide in history. That is why. why not piont to genocide of the noble american indian, or the Incas, Aztecs, Australians aboriginals, Tazmanians etc. There are numerous genocides to which I could point to including those within Burma and Sudan, but I chose those of Hitler and Stalin because they represented the greatest loses of life. I suppose you want me to point to these genocides that you list because it emphasizes your anti-western-civilization sentiments. Western civilization is not any more or less prone to genocide than any other group of people on earth, they just have a greater technological capacity to carry out such genocides, give this technology to any group of people and you will see the exact same thing. The "noble" native Americans of which includes numerous culturally and linguistically diverse nations, some of which practiced slavery and torture, were not morally superior to the invading Europeans. This notion of peaceful noble native Americans is as much as a stereotype as anything else. Certainly they should not have been treated as they were, a point I will concede. People tend to romanticize the underdog as you often do. I can't speak too much on the aboriginals, because I am admittedly ignorant on that issue. Side: Joe's the man
|
