Rog: Where do you agree/disagree?
Andy: I wouldn't know where to begin. I think I can find some small grains of
truth in your post, but I don't agree with the spirit of your beliefs or outlook
on "developed" socieities at all. Almost every opinion you express, I could
demonstrate evidence to the contrary. I think that you do pose an interesting
question, though -- "Is society making progress." My novice opinion is that MOQ
might say that it is, but not for any of the reasons you cite. I would be
interested in others perspective on this question, as well as how Pirsig's
reference to "Indian" culture in America might reflect on this. My takeaway from
Lila was that the "democratic" culture in America today was greatly influenced by
Native American culture. I also felt that, in terms of Quality, Pirsig would
give the edge to Native Americans society over modern "democratic" societies. I
am not sure of this, however.
So, Rog, as I said before -- I think that you mistake the evolution of complexity
for improvements in quality. This might be considered as evolutionary progress,
but I disagree with your assertion that this represents an advancement in quality
-- which you appear to conclude is represented by a historical improvement in the
quality of the human experience during a representative lifetime, i.e. the
quality of our experiences during our lifetime is greater than the quality of
experience during the lifetime of an individual in Shawnee, Assiniboine,
Seminole, or othe native societies in America before the arrival of Europeans.
Of course, you know, I don't agree.
Regards,
Andy
RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> To: Andy and anyone interested
> From: Rog
>
> Is society making progress? What are your thoughts?
>
> Andy,
> You accuse me of being overly optimistic on social progress. Let me state my
> position, while trying to avoid isolated anecdotes. In all cases, I will
> compare today's best social quality against other examples or eras, rather
> than against an absolute. My argument is that it is getting better, not that
> it is good enough.
> Do you agree with the following social improvements?
>
> Developed nations become interrelated and mutually dependent and are less
> likely to go to war with each other (democracies are very, very unlikely to
> wage war).
>
> Developed nations support more people to a higher standard of living than
> ever previously possible. They provide better equality of opportunity,
> better education, better health, better lifespan, better variety of
> entertainment/experience/freedom and a better standard of living.
>
> Developed societies are more capable of sustaining their necessary resources
> than previous eras. Developed nations face no shortage of energy. There are
> lots of alternatives, and as technology advances, the alternatives expand and
> the price tends to drop. Other resources are either renewable (if managed
> well) or if limited, they are substitutable, recyclable, or also benefit from
> improved technology.
>
> Developed nations produce less environmental damage (to biodiversity,
> forests, water/air quality,etc) per person than did previous generations or
> than do less developed nations. Developed nations are learning to find
> balance with their environment, and they are wealthy and enlightened enough
> to do something to ensure this occurs. The glaring unsolved problem is
> hypothetical global warming. I believe the solution here is obvious though
> (invest in technology to quickly shift to clean, non-greenhouse-causing
> energy sources, and even more importantly, to quit reproducing like
> rabbits!).
>
> Less developed countries have also gained more in the last 50 years than in
> the prior 500. They have made big improvements in education, literacy,
> elimination of slavery, enhanced freedom for women and minorities, enhanced
> income, improved health, medical care, nutrition, lifespan and child
> mortality, etc. In comparison to the advanced societies or to any ideal, they
> have a long way to go though.
>
> I believe social governmental structure has improved over prior eras.
> Democracies are imperfect, but remarkably successful considering. They are
> better so far than other forms of government (at ensuring social quality).
>
> Developed countries spend less of a share of their GDP (wealth, resources,
> what-have-you) on defense than have previous eras. I believe armaments,
> defense and attention to survival were much more significant in feudal Europe
> or primitive New Guinea, for example, than in modern Europe.
>
> I believe people are less likely to die via murder or warfare in developed,
> democratic countries than in past eras of history (some problems still come
> from undeveloped countries and undeveloped but technologically-enhanced,
> centralized-command governments)
>
> I believe that developed nations can sustain themselves without having to
> exploit less developed cultures. They do not need to steal, enslave etc
> others to produce their wealth. (In fact, I believe exploitation is
> unsupportable and counterproductiveover the long term -- but this is REAL
> debatable).
>
> Finally, developed societies have progressed in the fields of science and
> technology and related fields of knowledge. They have created the
> intellectual level.
>
> IN CONCLUSION:
> I see incredible social progress over recorded history, and I see it
> progressing faster over time. I don't see progress as uninterrupted or
> inevitable though. Also, I see where progress leads to new problems. The
> biggest current problem is an outcome of our greatest success -- namely our
> success at improving nutrition, medical care, lifespan and reducing child
> mortality. We fixed the biological problem of *death* without compensating
> by lowering birth rates. This is leading to the overtaxing of the earth and
> her resources. The main solution is of course controlled growth (fewer kids),
> and this can happen lots of ways (and tends to occur spontaneously in
> developed societies -- probably due to female freedom). The secondary
> solution is continued technological progress to learn how to get more out of
> less.
>
> It is odd to view the absence of death as a *problem,* but it is in some
> ways. The solution needs to embrace empathy for all men and cultures though
> (as well as for the planet and our intellectual progress).
>
> Where do you agree/disagree?
>
> Risky Rog
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:47 BST