I could argue that there is no inherent good found in parallel thinking versus serial thinking because immoral choices could be made using both. However, the issue I have in Jim’s “Why we are doomed” post is mostly with tone. I disagree with following assertion that humanity’s lot hasn’t improved over time: “I was thinking about why we (mankind) haven't made all that much progress in human relations in the past millennium or so”.
Humanity today is far better off, on average, than it ever has been. Though progress is not necessarily inherently good (our ability to kill more efficiently, for instance), almost all progress is for the better. As Julian Simon says, “Our species is better off in just about every measurable material way…. The material conditions of life will continue to get better for most people, in most countries, most of the time, indefinitely. Within a century or two, all nations and most of humanity will be at or above today's Western living standards. "
Even as our ability to kill as grown exponentially, casualties of armed conflict has actually decreased. In Jim’s and my lifetime, we have experienced an era of peace that may only be rivaled by prehistory when the human population was so low, warfare didn’t exist. Over the past 60 years, worldwide deaths by warfare is approximately 800,000 per year (1 million deaths a year occur by car accidents). Compare this to the bloody Roman and Greek period, where 3.5-4 million a year were killed, or even compare it to the pre-state era (between 5,000-12,000 years ago) when 1 in 4 died from war illustrates this improvement.
The decrease in deaths as a result of warfare is not the only evidence of improvement. Worldwide literacy is at 82%, better than the zero percent a few thousand years ago. From the 1950s to today democracies have quadrupled (not arguing representative government is the best but they historically rarely fight each other and are more open to trading). Worldwide life expectancy has more than doubled when compared to a 100 years ago. Humanity has eradicated diseases, such as smallpox, which has killed more people in the 20th century than all wars in the 20th century combine. The world’s population has never been freer- slavery is at an all time low; minorities continually gain rights and freedoms across the globe.
Today’s world is a better place in every conceivable way compared to a 12,000, 1000, 100, even 50 years ago. The world’s population is safer, healthier, warmer, less hungry, wealthier, more educated and peaceful than ever before in the history of the human race.
That is not to say that the world is not a dangerous and terrible place for many, many people. There is, and always will be, huge room for improvement. But the historical evidence is promising: we have been progressing for the better ever since the day we climbed down from the jungle tree-tops and started walking around upright.
More specifically to Jim’s point- I agree quite a few antiquated evolutionary adaptations exist in the human brain, and that they need correcting (though not from serial to parallel thinking). Correcting genetic disposition for depression, or eliminating a jealous boyfriend’s desire to punch the guy his girlfriend is flirting with, would certainly be beneficial to the progress of mankind.
4 comments:
I agree. My first paragraph was clumsily written. I see now that "human relations" means everything from war to commerce to medicine. Certainly human progress has been phenomenal. I meant human communications. While I did write "talking to one another," it was not emphasized. Essentially the whole first paragraph (and title) was meant to be just an attention grabber. It worked too well.
The 'tone' I intended was slightly whimsical and heavily fantastical. I wanted everyone to try to imagine what it would be like if we could process multiple ideas in our minds at the same time. Perhaps someone would come up with a sci-fi series where humanity would meet such a species and how their civilization would be different.
Anyway, I'm blaming my miscommunication on the fact that I can only process one thought at a time.
Sorry, I need a little more clarification on this thought experiment, is "process multiple ideas in our minds at the same time" literally thinking two thoughts simultaneously or thinking like an independent observer, for example, thinking about an issue like an American and a Frenchman simultaneously.
My concept was "literally thinking two thoughts simultaneously." Perhaps it would lead to madness before lucidity.
Just to restate Pete's point and to show that great minds work alike, here's what book critic John Lanchester had to say: "A person in good health in a Western liberal democracy is, in terms of his objective circumstances, one of the most fortunate human beings ever to have walked the surface of the earth. [Our hunter-gatherer ancestors] would have regarded our easy, long, riskless lives with incredulous envy." I might add that probably our 19th century ancestors would also regard our lives with incredulous envy.
Post a Comment