DandomRudeDo you think the good in Humankind can prevail?
SpendrillI sure hope so.
AliceI don’t know. Let’s test it really quick, shall we?
Say a few nice things about conservatives.
They’re really good at ignoring the truth.
Use your name checks out
Their strength of conviction is admirable.
AsidonhopoThe classical conservatives are often good at barbecue and fixing/building things, and country music was okay in the 90s, I guess.
You’re cool 😎 you know what’s up
Appreciate the chill dawg
AlwaysNowNeverNotMeThey're certainly loyal to a fault.
Voting just like there pappy with nothing to show for it.
I would hope so but I’m cynical so I think no.
What good?
If evil was both natural and convenient, everyone would be evil.
Well, I see it the way that everyone is evil, me, you, everyone. It just depends on how evil you really are. There’s you and me (not very evil) and there’s people like Racists who are a lot more evil.
BoozillaI think humans (like all animals) are fundamentally flawed for several reasons. Animals, including us, are programmed to procreate and consume and (for some species) construct things. It’s all about survival and thriving. All animals all have a general “I got mine, fuck you” mindset.
We despise cancer for its brainless infinite growth programming…when our operational model is hardly different.
In short, I think we’re all a bunch of selfish idiots competing against each other and other life forms. There is no greater purpose or benevolent spirit watching, much less cheering us on. Where there is life, it’s just reproducing and eating and dying and repeating that cycle for as long as the local environment allows.
So no, I don’t think the good in humankind will prevail. There’s evidence all around that goodness is losing the battle to greed and other self-destructive tendencies. Things which are hard-wired in the human animal. Don’t look up!
Is that an excuse to not even try? No, I don’t think so. I think we are still morally and ethically obligated to always strive to do better and fight against that brainless animal programming. Even if goodness ultimately fails, it can greatly reduce suffering along the way. And perhaps keep the concept of a new “enlightenment” alive long enough that we do eventually figure out a way to break out of that animal programming and build some kind of egalitarian utopia. Because there is also evidence all around us of people preforming selfless acts of self-sacrifice to help others.
I think the chances are very, very slim of that utopia ever happening. Because quite frankly, evil is like a force of nature and goodness is like a guy with a shovel and a plan. But I do think utopia is theoretically possible.
In short, I think it goodness will not prevail, but I would love to be dead wrong about this. I hope goodness wins.
originaluciferhow do you explain the values indicating that the world has never been a safer place than it is today, and gets safer constantly?
i smell a lot of confirmation bias in your comment.
This sounds like Pinker. I think his book was debunked, wasn’t it?
It’s not one person, its a tremendous amount of statistics.
Sources?
Some good and encouraging stats in there. Most of which do little to undermine my position about fundamental human nature.
Article last updated in 2018. The war in Ukraine, genocide in Gaza, rising inflation, food and petroleum shortages, global warming, mass extinction of myriad species, and ascending fascism are all pulling these graphs back towards regression to the mean, I’m afraid.
The media tends to overstate these things on the crime and despair side, I will quickly admit that. But there’s plenty of wishful thinking and denial coming from psychologists and sociologists (and often-cited airport books) on the other side.
Pinker and others in his camp were/are arguing that giving more power to the state helps mitigate and even reverse many of these social issues. I agree with them on this. But, the staristics and context of the underlying data is a bit dubious.
Appreciate the article. Thanks.
Call me Lenny/LeniI don’t mean to say this to sound like a pessimist (in fact, humans have been shown to be wonderful on an individual level), but I have low faith/regards to “humankind” as an entirety having their appreciable side endure. I define this similar to what Aristotle would say is the tripartite soul, where balance of thought is prioritized and people see passions for what they are, but in my experience, this couldn’t be further from how most people act. I’ve seen families and even cultures befallen because those contributing to their demise are so accustomed to each other and their own pre-existing customs that “due process” becomes a memory, perhaps a beforethought to a certain question. Even as one might remind us how crude and imperfect the human being is as a construct, the same people often choose to wear it, demonstrating that “human nature”, which is a term we use to excuse a myriad of things, is worse than any other form of neurodivergence I have come across, which in a poetic sense may be why my closest associates are outside the neurotypical realm. In such a dog eats dog world, I’d be regretfully glad to be eaten.
Why do we always consider cultures as inherently better than cults? Are there no exceptions to this? - lemm.ee
This might sound like a question inspired by current events, but I’ve actually been thinking of this for a while and can give pointers to a few times I had asked this or talked about it. The people who the masses look up to seem to have a strange way of dishing out their opinions/approval/disapproval of the groups of the world. Some groups can get away with being considered good no matter how negative their actions are while other groups are stuck with a high disapproval rating no matter how much good they might do, and a discussion on whether “culture” or a “cult” is involved almost always comes up. An example of this is the relationship between Islam and Scientology, in fact this is the most infamous one I can link to having spoken about. People on a certain side of the thinktank spectrum (the same side Lemmy seems to lean towards at times) are quick to criticize Scientology even though they consider “classic Islamic philosophy”, for a lack of a better way to put it without generalizing, as not inspiring a call for critique to see how one may change it. And I’ve always wondered, why? One at times leads people to trying to exterminate innocent groups [https://masto.ai/@Fizzymus/111209226230438251], the other one is just “Space Gnosticism” that has a few toxic aspects but hasn’t actually eliminated anyone. Of course, I’m not defending either one, but certainly I’d rather live in a stressful environment than one that actively targets me. This question has been asked a few times, sometimes [https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/6uxalf/why_do_liberals_have_no_qualms_about_criticizing/] without me but sometimes [https://www.tumblr.com/deviantartdramahub/730118017112031232/so-in-case-people-didnt-know-what-was-going-on?source=share] when I’m around to be involved, and they always say (and it’s in my dumb voice [https://lemm.ee/post/10862834] that I quote them) “well Scientology is a cult, of course we can criticize them” and then a bit about how whatever other thing is being talked about is a part of culture. This doesn’t sit well with my way of thinking. I was taught to judge people by the content of their character, in other words their virtues, so in my mind, a good X is better than a bad Y, in this case a good cult should be better than a good culture, right? Right? In fact, as what many might call a mild misanthrope, I’d flip it around and point out how, over the course of human history, alongside seemingly objectively questionable quirks people just brush off (like Japan for a while has been genociding dolphins for their meat value just above extinction “because it’s culture” or how there are people in China who still think dinosaur bones are a form of medicine waiting to be ground up), no group/culture has kept their innocence intact, every country having had genocides or unnecessary wars or something of the like, things they ALLOW to happen by design. Then they turn around and tell so-called “cults”, even the ones that have their priorities on straight compared to cultures, that they are pariahs and shouldn’t count on thriving, even though their status is one that doesn’t necessitate gaining any kind of guilt. I was a pariah growing up, almost everyone else revolved around a select few people that seemed in-tune to the culture, and they would say anyone who revolved around people outside the group (me for example) was “following a cult”, and this hurt at the time, but now seeing all the wars going on right now, I might consider this a compliment. My question, even though it by definition might make affirming answerers question whether they are pariahs or a part of the cultural arena, is why does nobody agree? Why are cultures “always precious” while cults are “always suspicious”?
MentalEdgeNope.
For that to happen, the good ones would need to be bad enough to shoot the really bad ones in the face.
We should have been blowing up pipelines and sinking mega yachts for decades by now.
But this civilization is just too damn polite to do more than kindly ask the parasites among us to please stop killing us before they don’t have anything left to eat.
If things get better, if will be after we nearly go extinct.
Yup, any catastrophe is a reset. But the problems in us remain. The fundamental shifts aren't learned. I gives weight to that idea of filters of civilizations. We can delay them, but not avoid them
👍Maximum Derek👍Money is power and power corrupts. We ether have to get rid of the wealth or make their wealth mean less.
In the US, publicly funded elections would be a decent first step.
Sadly, no. I think most people are apathetic about anything that does not immediately and directly impact themselves. Evil doesn’t need much more than that to thrive. Meanwhile, good requires active participation, selflessness, and continual vigilance to thrive.
Judging by the number of people who cannot literally lift a finger to make roads a safer place through the use of turn signals, I don’t hold much hope for humankind, as a whole, to put in the continual effort to quash “evil”.
GiganI’m an optimist, but I think so. The overall trend in humanity’s history is things are getting better. There are less wars, crime, hunger, disease, etc. There have been missteps and steps backwards of course, but overall humanity has been able to overcome major obstacles and I think that will continue.
It may be hard to see right now because there are so many crises we are facing, but it’s always been that way, people are just more informed now.
A person needs to be strong to be kind.
… and all that variations of noblesse oblige principles out there.
with that out of the way:
If the most prevalent form of strength is money, like capitalism, then the way to earn it must be through greed.
…the good in humankind…
with greed, no. excessive greed is not good.
… can prevail
especially the prevail part. There’s a few notably strong people not swayed by greed, but it can only go that far. Greed is a really strong force for both incentive and corruption.
Yes. I believe in humanity. We have done so much and the potential is unimaginably high.
WahotsI certainly think so. We have the extremes always, but on the whole, we seem to be moving in the direction of progress, fewer wars, more conservation, better equality, etc. This stuff just takes time.
Everytime I look to my left and right and the people surrounding me, I come to the conclusion that most people are nice and good. It doesn’t look that way if I’m reading the news, however. I think most people are in fact good and the medua coverage is skewed. But we definitely need to defend our world from the assholes. It’s a constant struggle to prevail.
It's possible, but I'm afraid we may go through a period of fascist factions completely taking over several first world countries and trying to stomp that out first
Do you own a firearm and take it to train out on ranges?
If not, the odds that it will get stomped out is very very very unlikely since the people that actively go out and buy guns and train with them are mostly boot licking right wing gun nuts and cops.
No chance in Hell will the left leaning LGBTQIA+ accommodating community will survive unless we start seeing more left wing militias and gun clubs.
I do. But I think we all have to make an effort. Which sucks but we just got to get on with it. Some stuff about our lives is good because others sacrificed for it in the past and some things are bad because we haven’t yet fought for it properly. Good vs Evil etc. Life is uncomfortable buddy, because it is currently imperfect and probably always will be. You have to stay in the fight though, otherwise it will definitely be lost.
Every time except one
chickenMaybe, but I think it is possible that at some point it could become permanently too late for that. If your every move is tracked, if your thoughts and actions are all anticipated and directed, if automated systems can silence or kill anyone, we can lose all possible agency. If the entities retaining agency find a way to be sustainable and stable, things can stay that way indefinitely. People often seem to think that we’ll always get another chance, and given enough time things may change, but I think it is very likely that we will lose, with finality.
guyrocketMostly no.
We're going after the rails on a crazy train.
🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 🏆If it could, it would have by now.
B4tid0I want to believe.
I don’t know what to expect but I am try and hopes other too. I believe we all want to be happy , I hope we all figure out.
Either way we die at the end.
BizarrolandYeah. The good in humankind is the reason why we're not currently rioting in the streets.
The goodness is holding out hope that our innermost desires for what's best for ourselves and for the future of humanity will win over the short term narrow-minded greed that is currently ruining everything.
What did not good doesn't know is that the good has already won, and if the not good does not concede defeat soon enough the good will strike with righteous and ignition and a fury that cannot be abated short of blood.
No. I believe we are likely witnessing the inevitable answer to the drake equation.
The same lizard-brain instincts that allowed our ancestors to survive (competition, resource hoarding, power centralisation) are fundamentally self destructive to that same society as it approaches post-scarcity capability.
In other words, when you have a society that evolved on selfishness and power imbalances, potential post-scarcity will always see those in power try to artificially create scarcity in order to remain in power.
I used to think we could rise above our baser selfishness when the time came. Now I don’t believe we will, nor that its even likely possible.
That lizard-brain instinct to protect what’s “yours” at the expense of everyone else is what got our civilization here in a resource poor world, and will cheerfully destroy it in order to maintain that scarcity for the sake of some.
LinkerbaanEvil empires are nothing new. The have came and went as long as humanity has existed.
what does prevail entail?
i hope not a snail… lets not go down that trail.
Obviously. I mean look around you. You think any of this would be possible if evil were more powerful? I’m talking the clothes, the lights, the shelter, the food, the relative safety, the infrastructure, the language, the libraries of entertainment and knowledge. How about the open source software we’re using right now to communicate, and the fantastic technology that’s running it?
It’s all evidence of the power of Good
Agreed.
The clothes is the first thing you listed and that’s funny because they are a product of sweatshops exploiting people from the poorest parts of this planet consuming insane amounts of potable water to make and 40% of them are sent to landfills never ever being worn.
If it’s not slave labor, ie if the people are there by choice, then that “sweatshop” is a job those people find preferable to all the other ways they can spend their days. In other words, a step up. I have no problem with sending my money overseas to people for whom it is more valuable, for whom it has more purchasing power.
is a job those people find preferable to all the other ways they can spend their days
Like dying of hunger. Do you think garbage collectors in our society chose this career path?
You are attempting to justify exploitation and it disgusts me.
It’s more of an ever ongoing battle than a decisive victory.
Good cannot flourish while greed does.
Capitalism cannot exist without extensive, institutionalized greed.
Can? Yes, absolutely.
Will? Probably not.
It has. Often. More often than not, in fact. But not always. There have been periods of greater suffering and lost progress.
The trend of good’s prevalence is a matter of history. It’s been called the zeitgeist (Hegel) which evolves over time, a trajectory we can evaluate in hindsight.
In particular, knowledge, the value of life, our collective moral understanding and enumeration of human rights all trend upward over time.
But if by “prevail” we mean a kind of universal perfection, where all forms of suffering are eradicated and only joy and pleasure remain, then no, good cannot prevail. If it did, good would cease to exist, denied its fundamental nature as an evolving concept.
It doesn’t happen on its own. People have to make it so. However, what some people view as good results in what others view as bad.
Some might see universal health care as good, where others see profits as good. These are in opposition.
Unfortunately, the people who see profits as good tend to have more disposable resources and more effective propaganda than people who see universal health care as good.