How Do You See Humanity?

[PW4000]

Obviously, this OP was inspired by the "How Do You See Black People" test. So, I decided to create my own test.

The fact that a thread like that even exists, or that such a question would even be necessary, and the fact that some of the replies were so 'blind' to the apex of the question itself, is proof positive that my theory about humanity being approximately 3000 to 4000 years behind its potential progress curve, is proof worthy.

Think about it. Of course, I know that asking some of you to actually 'think' is a monumental suggestion in and of itself, but just ponder the type and kind of world you might live in today, if all of humanity actually had the intelligence and the moral backbone to exist as selfless human beings seeking only that which promotes the progress of humanity.

As one who knows a little bit about mathematics, aerodynamics and subatomic physics, I can 100% promise you that in less than 3000 to 4000 years from now, the collaborative relationship between both the physics and the aerospace science communities, will solve the propulsion problem that is partly responsible for restricting human interstellar travel with return and recovery. Relax, I won't turn this into aerospace science thread. However, I have thought about this mathematically.

It is my strongly held personal belief that there is a genuine (real) connection between the intellectual growth and progress/achievement curve of humanity down through the millennia, that is directly proportional to the product of aggregate intellectual input and inversely proportional to the square of the magnitude of humanity's ethnic divisions. This proportionality can be derived in a number of different ways, but I believe the fundamental structure of the inputs to be very sound. To put it rather simply, the stronger the ethnic divisions throughout the world, the weaker the intellectual aggregate impulse that gets applied to moving the planet further into the future with a higher rate of progress and accomplishment that serves all humanity.

This should not be an earth shattering revelation to anyone. It is based upon the easily understood principle that not only will no house divided stand forever, but that no divided planet with intelligent life will ever achieve its true potential, or even come remotely close to doing so.

Why?

Number one: The leading causes of war in all of recorded human history are rooted in Power & Control, as well as Ethnic & Cultural instability. From those two primary amalgamated composite structures are derived all of humanity's sub-contextual causations for war: Religion, Economic, Territorial, Resources, Imperial Conquests, Disputes of various kinds, etc.

Number two: The fewer number of people engaged in mortal conflict, or being negatively and adversely impacted as a direct consequence of mortal conflict brought about through the primary causations of war, the few number of people there will be engaged in the intellectual pursuits necessary to steepen the progress and achievement curve of humanity on a global scale.

When you constantly live in a world of negativity, it is very difficult to produce positive thoughts and the resources that are expended in the constant and ongoing strife within society as a whole, robs the cradle of intellectual creativity and deprives it from producing healthy, abundant and diverse off-spring. Einstein, once wrote that "imagination is everything" and he later went on to insinuate that without imagination, humanity will never extend beyond what it already knows.

When you keep degrading yourself by thinking that your ethnic bias is somehow progressing either intellect, or your position in life - you categorically define yourself as one of the many shallow pins with no depth of penetration into that which has the potential to free humanity to become all that it can be. In other words, the real drag on human development and its progress into the future, are those who are morally and intellectually without the capacity to envision themselves living in a world where they actually contribute to the upward angular momentum of a vibrant and progressive curve of achievement, for the common good of all fully sentient beings who call earth their home.

You can call it a Futurist point of view. You can call it a Utopian Society. Or, you can label it "Perfection" and therefore unattainable. But, no matter what you might call it, the fact of the matter is that no intellectual species will ever be greater than its weakest link. Until all of humanity decides that its future is more important than its past, or that its future is more important than the mythical divisions created by those who lack genuine vision, moral clarity and intellectual stability, this planet will continually drag the progress and achievement curve in the gutter and never reach its fullest potential. United we stand. Divided, we ultimately perish.

Our archaeological origins reside in Africa, but our future, if genuine progress is our aim, is well beyond the Milkyway. But, long before that can ever have the slightest chance of becoming a reality, all of humanity will have to shift-forward into new realm of thought as it relates to how it "Sees Itself," not merely here on planet earth, but throughout the entire Universe. Anything less than our absolute best in aggregate intellectual focus on the common good, won't be good enough to ever gain ground on our 3000 to 4000 year slow start.


How do you "see" humanity:

A) Capable of gaining ground on a 3000 to 4000 year slow start?
B) Incapable of ever reaching its fullest potential due to ignorance, ethnic strife and war?

 

[Sonic]

Obviously, this OP was inspired by the "How Do You See Black People" test. So, I decided to create my own test.

The fact that a thread like that even exists, or that such a question would even be necessary, and the fact that some of the replies were so 'blind' to the apex of the question itself, is proof positive that my theory about humanity being approximately 3000 to 4000 years behind its potential progress curve, is proof worthy.

Think about it. Of course, I know that asking some of you to actually 'think' is a monumental suggestion in and of itself, but just ponder the type and kind of world you might live in today, if all of humanity actually had the intelligence and the moral backbone to exist as selfless human beings seeking only that which promotes the progress of humanity.

As one who knows a little bit about mathematics, aerodynamics and subatomic physics, I can 100% promise you that in less than 3000 to 4000 years from now, the collaborative relationship between both the physics and the aerospace science communities, will solve the propulsion problem that is partly responsible for restricting human interstellar travel with return and recovery. Relax, I won't turn this into aerospace science thread. However, I have thought about this mathematically.

It is my strongly held personal belief that there is a genuine (real) connection between the intellectual growth and progress/achievement curve of humanity down through the millennia, that is directly proportional to the product of aggregate intellectual input and inversely proportional to the square of the magnitude of humanity's ethnic divisions. This proportionality can be derived in a number of different ways, but I believe the fundamental structure of the inputs to be very sound. To put it rather simply, the stronger the ethnic divisions throughout the world, the weaker the intellectual aggregate impulse that gets applied to moving the planet further into the future with a higher rate of progress and accomplishment that serves all humanity.

This should not be an earth shattering revelation to anyone. It is based upon the easily understood principle that not only will no house divided stand forever, but that no divided planet with intelligent life will ever achieve its true potential, or even come remotely close to doing so.

Why?

Number one: The leading causes of war in all of recorded human history are rooted in Power & Control, as well as Ethnic & Cultural instability. From those two primary amalgamated composite structures are derived all of humanity's sub-contextual causations for war: Religion, Economic, Territorial, Resources, Imperial Conquests, Disputes of various kinds, etc.

Number two: The fewer number of people engaged in mortal conflict, or being negatively and adversely impacted as a direct consequence of mortal conflict brought about through the primary causations of war, the few number of people there will be engaged in the intellectual pursuits necessary to steepen the progress and achievement curve of humanity on a global scale.

When you constantly live in a world of negativity, it is very difficult to produce positive thoughts and the resources that are expended in the constant and ongoing strife within society as a whole, robs the cradle of intellectual creativity and deprives it from producing healthy, abundant and diverse off-spring. Einstein, once wrote that "imagination is everything" and he later went on to insinuate that without imagination, humanity will never extend beyond what it already knows.

When you keep degrading yourself by thinking that your ethnic bias is somehow progressing either intellect, or your position in life - you categorically define yourself as one of the many shallow pins with no depth of penetration into that which has the potential to free humanity to become all that it can be. In other words, the real drag on human development and its progress into the future, are those who are morally and intellectually without the capacity to envision themselves living in a world where they actually contribute to the upward angular momentum of a vibrant and progressive curve of achievement, for the common good of all fully sentient beings who call earth their home.

You can call it a Futurist point of view. You can call it a Utopian Society. Or, you can label it "Perfection" and therefore unattainable. But, no matter what you might call it, the fact of the matter is that no intellectual species will ever be greater than its weakest link. Until all of humanity decides that its future is more important than its past, or that its future is more important than the mythical divisions created by those who lack genuine vision, moral clarity and intellectual stability, this planet will continually drag the progress and achievement curve in the gutter and never reach its fullest potential. United we stand. Divided, we ultimately perish.

Our archaeological origins reside in Africa, but our future, if genuine progress is our aim, is well beyond the Milkyway. But, long before that can ever have the slightest chance of becoming a reality, all of humanity will have to shift-forward into new realm of thought as it relates to how it "Sees Itself," not merely here on planet earth, but throughout the entire Universe. Anything less than our absolute best in aggregate intellectual focus on the common good, won't be good enough to ever gain ground on our 3000 to 4000 year slow start.


How do you "see" humanity:

A) Capable of gaining ground on a 3000 to 4000 year slow start?
B) Incapable of ever reaching its fullest potential due to ignorance, ethnic strife and war?

I enjoyed reading this a lot, thank you! I'm going to define humanity as society. I believe society itself is oppressive and ignorant. Why do we have wars? Ignorance. Why are people treated poorly? Ignorance. It seems like a lot of people in society are brought up to be power hungry. They want more money so they can buy more things and impress others or have control over them. It's insane that people are treated differently because they have different beliefs than other. Currently, I don't see society changing and I highly doubt that it can ever reach its true potential. Humans tend to be power hungry and oppressive to others with different views. The people in power are the people who come up with what is "moral," and how the society should live. And as long as the people in charge are heartless, entirely profit-driven, or only looking out for themselves, then society cannot advance as efficiently as possible.

 

[Deuce]

I think in 3000 years we'll have already destroyed ourselves. We possess several fundamental cognitive flaws that I believe make it impossible for us to get past this sort of conflict.

1) Tribalism. It's hard-wired. When we were cave men, the "others" really were coming to get you. They were going to take your food, water, and women. People who are different are Bad, they are the Enemy, and they must be stopped. Racism is an example of this underlying problem, but it's just a symptom of the underlying cause. Everything gets colored by this Us vs. Them thinking. The other race is bad. The other religion is bad. The other political party is bad. The other sports teams fans are bad.

2) Confirmation bias. We focus on things that make us right and ignore things that make us wrong. If you've decided this month was windy, you notice and remember all of the windy days and pay little attention to the calm days. At the end of the month, you've convinced yourself it was windier than normal even though it actually wasn't.

3) Source amnesia. We only really remember the broad strokes. Little details like what the source of information was, how credible that source was, what it actually said etc, get forgotten. Every knows that in the 1970s all the scientists said we were headed for an ice age. Number of scientists who actually said that? Zero. Not one. Because you don't remember a scientists saying that. You remember a time magazine cover. You might have even read the article, but what you don't remember is that not one scientist in the article said anything about an ice age.

4) Our memory sucks. We can convince ourselves that we remember things that never actually happened.

Combine the above. We hate the other people. They're bad, so we perceive everything they do in that light. Even when it seems good, we perceive bad motivations underneath, thus proving their badness! Somebody said something about them being bad, 6 months later you don't remember that thing turned out to be false, or how that somebody was actually a nutjob. We just remember the Bad Thing.

But we've always been this way. Why haven't we obliterated ourselves yet? Well, now we're actually capable of doing that. Our tools of war have gotten more and more powerful, producing them has become easier and easier. The above cognitive issues? They're getting worse, and the fault is that glowy box you're looking at right now. The internet is the most powerful tool of information ever created, but that also makes it the most powerful tool of misinformation ever invented. Horse**** spreads unbelievably fast. The truth moves slower, because the truth is more complicated. But the truth doesn't work when fiction has already been decided to be fact. When we solidify a belief, proof to the contrary doesn't alter our belief, it actually solidifies it. You cannot reason someone out of an opinion they did not reason themselves into.

Bull**** is getting faster, weapons are getting more powerful, and we're still horrifyingly bad at assessing information objectively.

 

[lizzie]

I think in 3000 years we'll have already destroyed ourselves. We possess several fundamental cognitive flaws that I believe make it impossible for us to get past this sort of conflict.

1) Tribalism. It's hard-wired. When we were cave men, the "others" really were coming to get you. They were going to take your food, water, and women. People who are different are Bad, they are the Enemy, and they must be stopped. Racism is an example of this underlying problem, but it's just a symptom of the underlying cause. Everything gets colored by this Us vs. Them thinking. The other race is bad. The other religion is bad. The other political party is bad. The other sports teams fans are bad.

2) Confirmation bias. We focus on things that make us right and ignore things that make us wrong. If you've decided this month was windy, you notice and remember all of the windy days and pay little attention to the calm days. At the end of the month, you've convinced yourself it was windier than normal even though it actually wasn't.

3) Source amnesia. We only really remember the broad strokes. Little details like what the source of information was, how credible that source was, what it actually said etc, get forgotten. Every knows that in the 1970s all the scientists said we were headed for an ice age. Number of scientists who actually said that? Zero. Not one. Because you don't remember a scientists saying that. You remember a time magazine cover. You might have even read the article, but what you don't remember is that not one scientist in the article said anything about an ice age.

4) Our memory sucks. We can convince ourselves that we remember things that never actually happened.

Combine the above. We hate the other people. They're bad, so we perceive everything they do in that light. Even when it seems good, we perceive bad motivations underneath, thus proving their badness! Somebody said something about them being bad, 6 months later you don't remember that thing turned out to be false, or how that somebody was actually a nutjob. We just remember the Bad Thing.

But we've always been this way. Why haven't we obliterated ourselves yet? Well, now we're actually capable of doing that. Our tools of war have gotten more and more powerful, producing them has become easier and easier. The above cognitive issues? They're getting worse, and the fault is that glowy box you're looking at right now. The internet is the most powerful tool of information ever created, but that also makes it the most powerful tool of misinformation ever invented. Horse**** spreads unbelievably fast. The truth moves slower, because the truth is more complicated. But the truth doesn't work when fiction has already been decided to be fact. When we solidify a belief, proof to the contrary doesn't alter our belief, it actually solidifies it. You cannot reason someone out of an opinion they did not reason themselves into.

Bull**** is getting faster, weapons are getting more powerful, and we're still horrifyingly bad at assessing information objectively.

Iow, we're human.

For the most part, I view humanity as just a little above the level of the other mammals, with much more destructive capability. It would be wonderful if people could put down their biases, and their tribalism, and do what is beneficial for themselves and others, but we're not made of that cloth just yet. There's a few shining stars, but not many. For now, we will do what nature itself dictates, and each individual will just plug along life's path, doing what he needs to do, until he dies.

The goals in the op sound lofty, but they are not without their downside.

 

[Canell]

Bull**** is getting faster, weapons are getting more powerful, and we're still horrifyingly bad at assessing information objectively.

Yeah, unfortunately we are something like that. :3oops:

 

[Rainman05]

Humans are like wolves.

One species, multiple subspecies (or races, breeds) and multiple variations of each subspecies (ethnic groups).

When one pack of wolves comes in contact with another because one trespasses on the others' territory, trouble arises. This happens regardless of what the packs of wolves are. They can be of the same breed and same variation (i.e. like when the greeks fought one another in ancient times)... same breed and different variations (like when the french fought the english), or different breeds ( like when arabs fought with blacks, or europeans fought with arabs, or countless beyond countless examples).

It is very simple. I do not see this as being a bad thing, I see it as being a natural thing. As long as we masquarade it as being something it isn't... a social construct or racism or something stupid like that, we will never be able to solve our differences and understand them, on a large scale and thus, we can never have a real peace between races. Peace is not made through ignorance and wishful thinking, it is made through research and science and education.

 

[Jonsa]

I take a more optimistic approach, and believe that as our knowledge base increases, our technology base expands, our social structures mature and expand we have every opportunity to unite as citizens of the planet as opposed to artificial national constructs.

I agree that we as homo sapiens sapiens - the culmination of millions of years of evolution - are hard wired with certain behaviours and fears. this hardwiring is slowly being chipped away by our increasing intellectual capabilities and removal of primal threats. We have a long way to go before we can render Morris' Territorial Imperative obsolete, but there are positive signs in this regard.

As our knowledge increases, we have already rejected the biblical notion of races. Science has proven definitively that there are no other existing subspecies of homo except homo sapiens sapiens - regardless of colour, ethnicity, origin etc. Genetic studies have now provide us with a realistic picture of who we are and where we have come from in an anthropological sense. At some point in the not too distant future, I think our external differences will no longer be an excuse for divisivness, aggression and hatred.

AS our technology increases we have collectively eliminated our need to hunt/gather which over time slowly erodes that hard wiring required to be successful in this survival mode. Technology has constantly if unevenly improved our standards of living, and perhaps more importantly expanded our expectations of what those standards deliver to us. As communication technology becomes pervasive, our ability to share, educate, direct, plan, debate, entertain, research, etc. is exponentially growing. The ability to articulate, compare and debate political/economic/social/religious viewpoints across multiple nationalities and multiple philosophies is contributing to a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of all political constructs we have invented.

Today we are experiencing in varying degrees a conflict between science and spirituality. More and more people are rejecting the hidebound doctrines of ancient religion and while not necessarily foresaking their personal beliefs in a god, are accepting of the realities that science describes. The current confrontation of modernity with Islam will accelerate this shift and I believe that pervasive communications coupled with education will facilitate both an Islamic reformation and a second christian reformation within the next generation or two at the most.

We have all of the necessary attributes and resources needed to reach out to the stars. While it is not by any means a sure thing, I'd like to think that my ancestors might view interstellar travel and communication to be routine.

(that probably comes from a life long addiction to hard science fiction - but ,....)

 

[wolfman24]

In a **** load of trouble!!!!

 

[Slartibartfast]

 

[ChrisL]

Well, after reading some of the posts in some of the other threads, I would say that right now I feel pretty discouraged about "humanity" right now. I feel like we are plagued by a lot of ignorance and douchebaggery.

 

[Fisher]

Think about it. Of course, I know that asking some of you to actually 'think' is a monumental suggestion in and of itself, but just ponder the type and kind of world you might live in today, if all of humanity actually had the intelligence and the moral backbone to exist as selfless human beings seeking only that which promotes the progress of humanity.....When you constantly live in a world of negativity, it is very difficult to produce positive thoughts and the resources that are expended in the constant and ongoing strife within society as a whole, robs the cradle of intellectual creativity and deprives it from producing healthy, abundant and diverse off-spring.

A bit of a hypocritical posture me thinks.

 

[WcBeasley]

While I would sincerely LOVE to believe that Humanity WILL reach the stars and expand beyond our little blue marble, I find that until we can rewire our brains and rid ourselves of greed, bigotry, and several other self destructive habits we will stay captive to this solar system. We have the POTENTIAL to conquer the Galaxy(scientifically speaking). Historically we have risen above many and various problems that have plagued us. Yet just when it seems we are about to break from our mental bondange one group or another comes forth and begins to denounce knowledge and learning as heretical and convinces a large swathe of humanity to join in their idiocy. Such as the destruction of the Library of Alexandria...twice, the Inquisitions, WWII, just to name a few examples. Can we rise above our animalistic nature? Yes. Will we? That is to be seen. As far as the 3-4000 year time line put forth... I believe that we will either destroy ourselves completely or break free of our self imposed bondage within the next 500 years.

 

[Voltaire X]

Yeah, unfortunately we are something like that. :3oops:

I'm pretty sure this is fake... gunshots sound a lot louder than that in real life.

 

[Canell]

I'm pretty sure this is fake... gunshots sound a lot louder than that in real life.

No, dude, watch any video with gunshots on YouTube and see. I think the cameras limit the sound to a certain level. Sometimes I even wander how the microphones bare this powerful blast without failing.

 

[Surtr]

We're a complex viral infection that kills, eats, and ****s anything we come into contact with, which will result in the destruction of our planet, and ultimately ourselves.

 

[gavinfielder]

As one who knows a little bit about mathematics, aerodynamics and subatomic physics, I can 100% promise you that in less than 3000 to 4000 years from now, the collaborative relationship between both the physics and the aerospace science communities, will solve the propulsion problem that is partly responsible for restricting human interstellar travel with return and recovery. Relax, I won't turn this into aerospace science thread. However, I have thought about this mathematically.

I'd be interested in seeing this math. I can't believe it could possibly take 3000 years to achieve interstellar travel, a lot of theories on it exist already, some of the technologies even already exist. It's not going to take 3000 years, it's not going to take 1000 years. Just from conjecture, I'd give it 500 years at the most, just from the economic side of it and barring any breakthrough discoveries. What math are you doing to suggest 3000?

 

[DaveFagan]

We're a complex viral infection that kills, eats, and ****s anything we come into contact with, which will result in the destruction of our planet, and ultimately ourselves.

It's depressiing, but a logical, objective observation of the species supports this statement. I also think that we will likely kill the planet within a few hundred years. The life support system is going to collide headfirst with excessive population density and bone-headed stupidity. The bone-headed stupidity is magnified by greed and the for profit motive of the World powers and Corporatist/Capitalist lack of liability for environmental destruction. We have to maintain a life-supporting ecological infrastructure to survive. Do you see much of that around you? I perceive and incessant destruction of that infrastructure, but it's not the fault of the Businesses doing the damage because they legally avoid liability. That is what the Corporate structure is designed to do. Seen any Japan nuke meltdowns lately? Radiated fish? Global Warming? Artic ice melt? I honestly don't mean to be depressing, but desire to state the obvious.

 

[Deuce]

It's depressiing, but a logical, objective observation of the species supports this statement. I also think that we will likely kill the planet within a few hundred years. The life support system is going to collide headfirst with excessive population density and bone-headed stupidity. The bone-headed stupidity is magnified by greed and the for profit motive of the World powers and Corporatist/Capitalist lack of liability for environmental destruction. We have to maintain a life-supporting ecological infrastructure to survive. Do you see much of that around you? I perceive and incessant destruction of that infrastructure, but it's not the fault of the Businesses doing the damage because they legally avoid liability. That is what the Corporate structure is designed to do. Seen any Japan nuke meltdowns lately? Radiated fish? Global Warming? Artic ice melt? I honestly don't mean to be depressing, but desire to state the obvious.

To be fair, the death toll from Fukushima is zero.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

A think a version of tribalism is pretty accurate. It has always been about "us" and "them", it just depends on the situation. It typically is geographic but we have extended that on to things like politics, wealth and sports.

I like him, you hate him; therefore, I hate you. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." All that yadda, yadda, yadda.

When the aliens* start attacking, we will probably band together as a world. And when some galactic empire* starts attacking our galactic empire, we'll be in there pulling for out side. Go team!

* The above comment does not confirm or refute the existence or lack of existence of aliens or galactic empires.

 

[Van Basten]

We're an interesting bunch, to say the least. There's assholes, good people, greedy people, nigh-selfless people, etc. I have a positive view of humanity, and don't see a reason to that "I hate humanity" nonsense which is usually fueled by disgust for the actions of people who are by far in the minority.

 

[wolfman24]

My thinking is from a quote by Albert Schweitzer over 65 years ago

"We have lost the ability to foresee and forstall, we shall end by destroying ourselves."

Intelligence (understanding) is not prized in this country and maybe not in the world. The journalist write their papers and report the news for people with the understanding and comprhension of a 5th grader. We quibble about nonsense instead of working together. We fear the unknown or what we do not understand instead of exploring it and finding out about it.

We refuse to step out of our own secure comfort zones and realize the potential in people and the world as a whole. We are one earth not segments, why is that so scary? Some of us bury our heads in the ground and believe that this will keep us safe or fight to the death over the status quo.

Time moves whether you like it or not. The train is leaving and I fear we will not be on time to catch it.

"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to relive it." Sound wisdom

 

[PW4000]

I enjoyed reading this a lot, thank you! I'm going to define humanity as society. I believe society itself is oppressive and ignorant. Why do we have wars? Ignorance. Why are people treated poorly? Ignorance. It seems like a lot of people in society are brought up to be power hungry. They want more money so they can buy more things and impress others or have control over them. It's insane that people are treated differently because they have different beliefs than other. Currently, I don't see society changing and I highly doubt that it can ever reach its true potential. Humans tend to be power hungry and oppressive to others with different views. The people in power are the people who come up with what is "moral," and how the society should live. And as long as the people in charge are heartless, entirely profit-driven, or only looking out for themselves, then society cannot advance as efficiently as possible.

You are welcome, Sonic.

Your causations for "society" and its illness are interesting. I spent roughly 10 years of my life studying money and learning how to grow capital. I did it for three very good reasons. I saw the instability in global economies, its impact on the job market and came to the conclusion that that relatively few of the career paths that I was either qualified for by way of formal education and/or actual industry experience, would be "safe" from significant volatility. I also grew-up poor and knew what a life of insufficient income would mean in future years, having seen my parents struggle to make ends meet. Lastly, I always knew that there was something 'significant' for me to do in life, that went well beyond just my own personal desires and needs in life.

Today, I run and manage a private fund that is closed to the public began with my own capital. I expect to use it as the funding source for a global non-profit organization at some point in the not so distant future, providing much needed services to people who might otherwise life their entire life going without. So, my study of money goes beyond my own personal interests. My view of money, has changed over the years and I see it as tool for effecting positive change around the world. I think people who hoard money, merely for the sake of hoarding it, are not fulfilling their best destiny, nor are they living an optimal life - regardless of how many 250 ft yachts they manage to build over the course of their lifetime. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 250 ft yacht. It employees people, keeps the economy moving along and yachting (I hear) can be great fun and an awesome way to unwind and relax.

However, there is most certainly something deadly wrong when those who can afford to build that new 250 ft yacht, are so myopic that they can't bring themselves to pay any attention to the fact that millions of Children around the world go to sleep each night hungry. That blows my mind. When you can clearly make a change in the lives of people without it causing severe damage to your own lifestyle, and you sit on your rear-end doing absolutely nothing but blowing a new hole through the roof of your bank accounts, then it is my personal belief that you don't deserve what you have. That's just my own personal take on the matter.

So, this takes your premise and really narrows it down to one word: Greed.

You can take a huge percentage of humanity's problems and place them directly under that one word - and you would be very precise and accurate for having done so. There are too many people in this world that have no moral sense of the "common good." They are in it for themselves and damn everybody else who can't get their own.

Much of our entire global society is predicated on money. We work on jobs that we don't like for money. We put up with bosses that we don't like for money. We live in places that we would rather not live for money. We spend inordinate amounts of time away from home and our families for money. We exchange vast amounts of our time each day for money. We rob for money. We steal for money. We cheat for money. We lie to our electorate for the sole purpose of being supported by those who have money. We create false ideological political barriers to progress just so we can control the money. Our entire world rotates on its axis because of money. When we decide to make changes around the world for the improvement of the common good - it takes money do it. Money makes the world "go-round."

So, how on earth do we change such a paradigm - predicated on the almighty dollar?

There are ways to do it, but the powers that be most certainly won't bring any of them up for discussion and/or debate.

 

[PW4000]

I think in 3000 years we'll have already destroyed ourselves. We possess several fundamental cognitive flaws that I believe make it impossible for us to get past this sort of conflict.

A pretty interesting analysis of humanity's First Brain Theory. The Primal Redux. Our inability to stray too far away from our most primitive instincts has been written about for quite some time now. Law Enforcement even uses some of these primal instinctive outputs to make decisions on whether or not a suspect is being truthful, or not being truthful. We have First Brain examples of human behavior all over the place - and you are correct, it is very much a part of who we are as human beings. Group Think, jumps out of most of what you presented and is probably the most relevant to a political forum. Ideological Group Think, also has a lot to do with what your thesis and in particular to politics, is the source of factors that down through history, were responsible for destroying entire nations.

To try to put what you say into the context of how nations undermine their own existence, all one needs to do is explore the relationship between various forms of Group Think and previous nations/empires of the past that were deemed to be the greatest of their time. From the Mesopotamian, to the Egyptian and eventually the Roman, etc., it seems as if humanity in the aggregate never learns the vital lessons from the past. Often times though we forget to mention the s-l-o-w-l-y transforming nation of China, from being an Sovereign Imperial, to Communist and now to Socialist Republic.

In fact, China, if it remains on this multi-hundred year trajectory, has some potential for becoming the poster child for how really long-term "Democracies" are formed - as their "next stop" just might be full-blown Representative Democracy. It certainly won't happen in my life-time, but if you classify the trajectory of their form of government as "indicative," then you have to conclude that it is possible, given their starting point. We rarely talk about Japan's "ascent" to Democracy all that much either, even though it was an "Imperial Navy" that struck into the heart of Pearl Harbor, not so very long ago. Today, Japan, by many standards, excluding much of its economic problems over the past 20+ years, would have to be considered a thriving Democracy, as we define it.

I'm talking about "change" and the "potential" of human beings to grasp the notion and actually build societies based upon the principles embedded in the reasons for change. We could say that Japan, is futuristic look at China, on a smaller scale and conclude that, if people are capable of shedding the ideological group think of Imperialistic structures in favor of Democratic structures, then holistic social evolution to something even better than Capitalism is also possible. I have not yet described what I think is better than pure Capitalism, at this point. I'm just looking at history and accepting the fact that large scale "change" within an entire nation is possible. The old Egyptian empire is no longer extant, for example. Egypt still exists, but the old paradigms are gone and that is new potential Democracy now going through its own birth pangs. Again, I'm just looking for evidence that lasting long-term change in humanity is possible, in juxtaposition to what you wrote.

So, given these elements that you outline: Tribalism, Confirmation Bias, Source Amnesia - and your theory that in 3,000 years humanity will have made itself extant, I search for the causes that nullify your premise and provides a platform for some kind of human consensus that change is not only good, but necessary for the survival of all humanity, though your post does pin down the notion that such change is even possible. I think that if global society can get beyond its beliefs about "money," that humanity has a better than 50% chance of moving itself along the path to correcting many of the long standing mistakes it has made down throughout the generations.

Though my faith in humanity to make these corrections is waining, I am the eternal optimist and the perpetual optimizer. Thanks for the post - the points made are certainly not things to ignore going forward.

 

[PW4000]

The goals in the op sound lofty, but they are not without their downside.

What "IF" were were being visited ever 100 years by beings beyond our ability to comprehend and significantly advanced beyond our technological standards. Just - what if that were the case. What "IF" these advanced beings took a close look at our collective behavior from a global social and global environmental standpoint, that they themselves once had to deal with at some point in their own history - wherever they happen to call home in the Universe. What "IF" each time they visit us, make their assessment and board their "vehicle" for the return trip back to their home, they do so shanking their heads at not just our lack of progress, but indeed our actual regression?

What "IF" they were part of a much larger contingent of advanced beings from various places throughout the Universe, where they themselves were only a fraction of the total number of different types of beings throughout the Universe. What "IF" there were multiple - for lack of a better term - Advance Races, who put together each 100 years, a task force for making First Contact with human beings. However, upon arrival and inspection of our behavior with respect to the each other and the planet, they are forced to get back into their vehicle and go back home shaking their heads while saying themselves: They are just not ready to join us. Never leaving a trace that they were ever here.

Think about what 3,000 to 4,000 years of working for the common good might have net us at this point. We might not only be well beyond where we are today, but we might have been finally introduced for the first time to our other Brothers and Sisters who look nothing like us, but share the exact same Universe, with the exact same physical laws (Newtonian).

I don't wonder about this "IF" scenario every day. However, it has crossed my mind once or twice before as a possibility, however small.

 

[PW4000]

That video was indeed a good example of the deeply rooted problems with human transformation. We are indeed devolving across the board in so many different ways, that it does seem rather useless at times to even talk about the potential for humanity to change.

No matter the where you look on earth, you can find human beings doing some incredibly horrific things to other human beings, or the planet:






When we make changes in our society, we are going to have to deal with all the instances of Child Abuse and all the wrong teachings that have been given to Children by their parents. This level of transformation obviously cannot be accomplished in a single generation. So, the question becomes, if humanity is ever to reach its fullest potential, what kinds of changes need to be made and how systemic do those changes need to be?