We need to evolve.

We need to evolve.

Humanity is fundamentally flawed and I will explain why I believe a shift in our current paradigm is needed to peacefully coexist with one another in the future or face extinction.

I find myself dwelling on the current and past state of human existence. I try to rationalize everything that happens in our modern world and attempt to convince myself the end justify the means, but what and whose end are we talking about? The world is full of examples that create a shadow on the future of our species, its growing, and I know you the reader may sense it as well.

Do you ever find yourself thinking about how our current societal construct works, even extended to the global scale, and wonder why does this system appear to work but lead to conflict, prejudice and introversion.

This being said, I feel that some critical changes must occur in our societal/physical evolution in a direction that seems to be in contradiction with nature as we typically know it. What would we as a species have to become to exist or are we destined to continually destroy, enslave and dominate each other.

This thread is incredibly abstract, but can be rooted in concrete examples we see every day streaming through the mass media and previous historical events.

To begin the dialogue I would like to make the following observations;

Human evolution has produced a species that once promoted the survival of the fittest and strongest individuals to procreate and insure its longevity. As we advanced and became more cognitively and psychologically developed, the emphasis on survival of the fittest became less and less critical. It was the thinkers who became the medium in which the survival and growth of our species was dependent on.

The question became for our ancestors, how do we effectively organize a conglomeration of our species without killing each other and here is were one of our first crux's becomes evident. Leadership.

"Leadership is "organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal". The leader may or may not have any formal authority. Students of leadership have produced theories involving traits,[2] situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values,[3] charisma, and intelligence, among others. Somebody whom people follow: somebody who guides or directs others."

This is not a thread to condem the so called 1%, as examples of this can be found in everyday interactions from Soccer Mom organizing the kids for practice or an executive leading is firm to future profit gains, to political leaders leading their nations down the road of war. The appointment of a leader, democratically elected or otherwise, creates tension and conflict between others who see themselves in a leadership role. The concept of having a leader, breeds competition between your fellow man/women and this compeitition can lead to resentment, abuse and conflict.

To prevent this initial post from being to over-drawn I will summarize. Human development (evolution) has crafted a being able to think, love, hurt and create and do not get me wrong these traits are what produce the greatest parts of humanity. However do they also hold us back from true potential and are we stagnating as a species?

In order to save time here are some key issues in my mind that are fundamental aspects of the human species and what effect they have on us and the world.

Love - The old saying, "Kill for love". How many times in the news do you see individuals kill each other for "love" or its deviations (lust, desire, passion, etc)

Greed - Horrible atrocities on the part of multi-national companies or nations are committed in the name of profit. As evident in our every day lives, my fellow members should be able to link hundreds of examples of this.

Belonging - Human nature to belong to a group, to help each other survive and flourish. How many times in history are groups deem certain negative acts acceptable.

These are but a few examples we can trace to the world around us. Do we need to evolve beyond our current state of understanding what it means to be human? Do you think we can prosper in the future with the world of today.

Do we have to go beyond love? Will we stop being human and become something else?

I know each one of you have thought about this at some point. What does our future hold?

In my minds eye, it is possible we evolve to a point where their is no longer a "we" or a you and I. Each of us become a singularity in itself. We evolve to a point of pure energy in which each one of us becomes a our own universe and we do no perceive anyone or anything beyond ourselves.

Deep?..... Please let me know that you to have thought about this and feel that current examples of destructive behaviour is inheritably human and requires change for survival.

reply to post by MDDoxs





the thing i always come back to in thought is war..... double digits of billions every year on defense budget from the taxpayers in the US alone..... if all nations were in peace thats double digits of billions of dollars in the US alone to put to better use.......

also this would be restricting some freedom,,, but a common accepted notion of priority and necessity..... consumer society and dollar stores filling up landfills, when enough food is made in the world to feed every human every day, yet half the world is starving day to day......

we are smart enough and there are resources enough for every family to have a home, eat, get an education, and have a productive job in society.....

but i see clearer that the rat race mentality is what prevents this...... when corporations need to make a profit they dont care about their human family,,,,, they care about the most number of consumers consuming their product..... and then they have o buy the consumer through billion dollar unnecessary industries like advertising..
planned obsolescence,, pharmaceutical industry,, holding back of technology,,, military secrets,,, royal elites,,,, etc..

I know each one of you have thought about this at some point. What does our future hold?

reply to post by MDDoxs


I think you're right, we'll definitely see a stagnation if it isn't happening already.

Society promotes the herd-like existence. Our power is our numbers, and like a school of fish, we don't mind sacrificing the individual to save the many. We like to grind down anything exceptional.

In my opinion, we will see the dilution and devaluing of the individual to the point where we find him dangerous and unnecessary. We will resort to a universal mob mentality and forget who we once were. However, I also think prolonged periods of mediocrity, for instance before the Middle ages, do eventually offer a breeding ground for greatness (from the Middle ages came the Renaissance). So maybe we should embrace this mediocrity in order to foster greatness. I'm on the fence.

Great topic. Something to think about.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I dont think mediocrity or dullness will exist in the world at the rate the human race is progressing technologically and scientifically,,,, from now on, there will never be a dull moment, as long as you are connected to the happenings of modern society....

maybe when we have machines do everything for us,, and we know longer need to know things because our phones can look all recorded information in human history in nanoseconds,, then the human spirit will become a bit lost..... but the other side of the coin that i see occurring,, is the human spirit progressing,, and taking control over itself and its tools and technology to allow it to do more and greater things,,., our advancement, tools and technology thus far has allowed us to do more in less time,,, and do multiples of things that were impossible before the implication of such technology and tools.....

Yes.

But it will be done naturally. I'm of the opinion that history has been one long process of the rational individual's liberation from the mold.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Yes, I agree; we are capable of producing great technology. But are we not modest enough to admit that the vast majority of people in the world have absolutely nothing to do with the conception, design and engineering of that technology? This may be generalizing but the majority of people are only really capable of being taught how to use that technology, much like an ape can be taught sign-language or a dog can be taught to ride a bike. I don't think the ability of being taught how to use something is that great of an accomplishment.

I think the way people act on the internet is a good example of what humanity is capable of doing with technology. We have this ultra-fast method of communication and sharing of information which basically forms us into a synthetic hive mind, and look what the majority of people do with it; its a vast lawless wasteland of advertisements, shock value and greed. Its a community of companies giving us playgrounds to run around in. We should be making vast advances in health and well-being and the environment, but we only seek to fill our boredom. Look at our attention span in the day and age. There's no need for focus anymore because we'll invent something to focus for us. I think we should be at least questioning whether this low a level quality in information—void of art and originality, completely repetitive, banal and greedy in its intention—is unhealthy to our evolution. (I am aware this is a huge generalization)

Anyways. Its tough to say, but the direction we're headed so far needs further scrutiny.

I think there's two different schools of thought, in at least some respects.

The first is that social development follows a linear track; that thousands of years ago, all human beings were living in caves, and that with the level of technology that we have now, this is the first time in history that we've ever had it, ever.

The second is that technological development is actually cyclic; that certain elements of knowledge and inventions are periodically rediscovered and then lost again, over a period of tens of thousands (and possibly even millions, for all I know) of years. I think the OOPArts ("out of place artifacts") phenonemon supports that idea.

The main reason why this is important, is because whether or not we believe in the linear track or the cyclic paradigm, actually has a very strong influence on how we interact with technology, and how we think it should be interacted with. I come across people online at times, who seem to have accepted the appeal to modernity fallacy; that is, they think that something can only be good if it is new, and anything that is old therefore has to be inherently defective, by default.

I think that has a lot to do with our current problems, as a society. Watching Game of Thrones recently, among other things, has impressed on me the idea that tradition is important, and that we shouldn't always throw things away, just because they're old.

My advice to you, OP, rather than thinking about how we need to evolve, would actually be to look at those elements of human society which have worked for us in the past, and figure out the specific areas where they need to be updated; and then aim for a synthesis of the two.

The people who are seeking control of our society, like the Whiggish/linear social/technological progression model. The reason why they like it, is because it encourages people to throw away everything which might have been a source of strength and independence (and therefore freedom) for them in the past.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


ok yea,,, i see what your saying,,,, but individuals choose what to do with their time,,,,, noone makes anyone look up internet doom and porn all day,,,, anyone could go to school and work in a science or medical lab,, and millions and millions of people do that,,,,,,, every branch of this advancement is covered,,, there are people who advance cars, and every little piece for everything,, computers,, biology, chemistry, and infinite subsections of these things,,, your upset that individuals dont have more to do with the creation of things,, but not only do they,, but it is hard and challenging to do,, so in society,, one person does their skilled job, and reaps the benefits of the whole....
you cant expect one person to innovate many areas of technology,, and be a writer,, and surgeon, and politician, inventor, ,,. all though people like that do exist,, you want to see everyone operate on that level?

i hope i understood what you were getting at, let me know if i did..

reply to post by petrus4


I agree with the jist of what you say.....

"The people who are seeking control of our society, like the Whiggish/linear social/technological progression model. The reason why they like it, is because it encourages people to throw away everything which might have been a source of strength and independence (and therefore freedom) for them in the past. "

about this,,, i have come to the conclusion that those leading, and speedily knocking on the door of innovation and invention is because we are so close to reaching a certain point that they can taste it..... in the last 150 years...its been a mad dash of work to bring us to our current knowledge, understanding, labs and materials, science and technology...... the people that are alive today in the world, in even halfway decently comfortable positions, love this world and their families and what a human can do and accomplish on this world,,.,. i think the biggest motivator is immortality,,,, the future human civilization will have an amazing legacy,,, all due to the perseverance, intelligence, and hard work of the past generations, leading back to the first humans,,,, an unbroken chain of life...,. the time period we are entering into is a game changer...

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

ok yea,,, i see what your saying,,,, but individuals choose what to do with their time,,,,, noone makes anyone look up internet doom and porn all day,,,, anyone could go to school and work in a science or medical lab,, and millions and millions of people do that,,,,,,, every branch of this advancement is covered,,, there are people who advance cars, and every little piece for everything,, computers,, biology, chemistry, and infinite subsections of these things,,, your upset that individuals dont have more to do with the creation of things,, but not only do they,, but it is hard and challenging to do,, so in society,, one person does their skilled job, and reaps the benefits of the whole....
you cant expect one person to innovate many areas of technology,, and be a writer,, and surgeon, and politician, inventor, ,,. all though people like that do exist,, you want to see everyone operate on that level?

i hope i understood what you were getting at, let me know if i did..

edit on 17-6-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

First of all, I'm not upset that individuals don't have more to do with the creation of things. They already have everything to do with the creation of things. Mankind as a whole does not get to take credit for the creation of things. Mankind didn't create the printing press; mankind didn't invent electricity; mankind didn't make discoveries in science. It was individuals who did. My neighbour, who spends most of his days playing video games for extremely unhealthy amount of time, and spends the rest of the time partying and being an obnoxious tool, is a part of mankind and doesn't deserve an ounce of credibility regarding the creation of great things.

I was trying to say that man has this vast wealth of technology and look what the majority do with it. They use it as a playground to curb their boredom. Any idle time, which is important for a person of reason, is filled with fodder. This is how we use technology. The majority don't use technology to better themselves or better the environment or better society.

If everyone realized their potential, they could be just as great as any man whoever lived—Jesus, Buddha, Socrates, Newton, Einstein, Galileo, Da Vinci, Fredrick the Great etc. But for now, the majority choose to be domesticated herd-animals who need to be taught how to use things and told what to do because we don't have the time and energy to even try to be great anymore.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


this what happen when technology is not everywhere, truth of it then lean to prove it being wrong when it is not a real fact
the intention behind those intelligent things is evil, such as meaning being great instead of admitting that it is always from leaning on objective knowledge that great things appear
a self mind is never great u should too get over it, the value of ones is different to the value of all
what is all is to truth superiority, objective facts once absolutes they become others facts abstractions that cant b but better since all is already there, when there is smthg the possible is only superior to it while from that absolute positive thing as its zero base

while one value is different, since never in relation to anythng else so never in real needs of superiority or existence, its value is itself freedom which is truth value, if truly isolated from all

so we have the correlation between truth value and truth superiority while truth value is theorically different ones so active individuals that may justify and recognize truth superiority too before being, which is the reason of existence fact

reply to post by LesMisanthrope



true...I agree completely.. i think it may be because an individuals most valuable possession is themselves, and its easier to enjoy your fun and play and friends and leisure,, and have work a separate duty to get by/make a living,, a lot of people get jobs or careers that is their passion and love,,, but there are a lot of people who get jobs, to save for the future, live for the present, and have money to spend on beer and BBQ on the weekends.....
who will shepherd the masses,, who will take away their individuality and free will and leisure,, and tell them not to spend their money or time on this or that.... i know thats not what you want,,, but the way the world is ( at least america) is built around freedom,,,,, you get to live your life how you want to, as long as you dont screw with anyone elses..... if we established priorities and strict objectives i can imagine all that freedom lost,, how would one justify the arts... or tanning salons,, or the 99 cent stores...... where as in a capitalistic free market society there are enough people that enjoy and support these ventures that they can exist,, are seen as valuable,, and enjoyed by a population of free individuals..

DP ............double post

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

true...I agree completely.. i think it may be because an individuals most valuable possession is themselves, and its easier to enjoy your fun and play and friends and leisure,, and have work a separate duty to get by/make a living,, a lot of people get jobs or careers that is their passion and love,,, but there are a lot of people who get jobs, to save for the future, live for the present, and have money to spend on beer and BBQ on the weekends.....
who will shepherd the masses,, who will take away their individuality and free will and leisure,, and tell them not to spend their money or time on this or that.... i know thats not what you want,,, but the way the world is ( at least america) is built around freedom,,,,, you get to live your life how you want to, as long as you dont screw with anyone elses..... if we established priorities and strict objectives i can imagine all that freedom lost,, how would one justify the arts... or tanning salons,, or the 99 cent stores...... where as in a capitalistic free market society there are enough people that enjoy and support these ventures that they can exist, are seen as valuable,, and enjoyed by a population of free individuals..

Yes agreed. We get what we want. We get what we pay for. There is a demand that's being fed, and the majority is fueling that demand. I wouldn't call that freedom, but merely more choice when it comes to what we are allowed to consume.

If the majority rules in culture, we automatically receive a mediocre or medium quality of information as it has to be spread or diluted to appease the many. Is this base quality of information harmful to our evolution? I don't think it can offer anything positive myself. In politics, democracy seems necessary, but in culture or art, democracy doesn't belong. There's no alternative I can come up at the moment without falling into Plato's idea of philosopher kings ruling the many, except for shaming and discouraging repetitious and banal ideas with no cultural value.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


your right with your line of thinking....... if everyone in the world was on the same team,, and didnt need to compete against each other,, but work together with everyone,,,have mellow schooling in modern and important and practical studies and implications,, enlightening school... every human on earth would be a genius,,, do productive work that fits their passions and skill sets,,, and the work week could still provide time for individual expression and days of leisure and arts..... all humans are humans,,, we all need a place to live,, and food to eat,,,, I can only imagine any intelligent and advanced society made of individuals have come to this same conclusion,,, view their species as equals,, and work together for the benefit of all,,,

reply to post by ImaFungi


stop preaching nonsense, anything is only an absolute fact, truth is not waiting for u to decide being good to make u genius, if it was possible to existence to b out of superior individuals, it would b done already long time ago
it is not possible and the proof as an absolute obvious proof is here and u, despite all what u know of now and invest energy to b at ur best form

individuals value is the freedom they assume from objective existence, how far they respect that objects are superior free existence, where the uppest level is kind like me who clearly move for objective superiority so in knowing having to loose smthg for what truth superiority must always b first, so anything which is not existing absolutely should never b

reply to post by absolutely


ok yes..... But humans have came very far from our humble beginnings... it is not easy to lead a large number of people,, in a tribe, a village, a pack of gypsies, a city, a town, a country, a modern civilization.......

humans have always had to stick together... mainly to reproduce.... but also because you doing this, i doing that, lesmisenthrope doing that,, and we share the fruits of our labor,,, is better then me trying to do all 3 duties,, you trying to do all 3 for your self,, and him all 3 for himself....... now this multiplied over the enitre world and we have every technology and thing imaginable,,, games and cars, and boats, and tools, and arts, and materials for homes,,, the individual is certainly most valuable,,,, you yourself and what you want to do with your time,,,, but if you want to reap the benefits of the creations of the modern world,,, you get a job and make money so you can take part in the things modern life has to offer..... so in that way,,, we are in this together and on the same page....
you and i didnt invent computers or the internet...... most people didnt invent cellphones, computers, and the internet, or harnessing fire,, or sewer systems,,, yet we can conveniently use these things and depend on them... the modern world is our village,,,,,, you and I are the leaders.... what is the best things we can do for the individual? for all people? and to ensure the future generations of humans experience and positive and glorious existence on this earth we have come to call home?

reply to post by ImaFungi


u said that u agree but show how u didnt read my post

once individuality respect objective being a whole always more existing then itself in freedom ways, then not only the notion of else existence would be real which is the exclusive reason of helping hands, but also next step would b the present individuality that consider objective superiority freely so really never meaning being part of and proving it by becoming much more free out all existence while respecting it and confirming its right values
there the true existence could start through true individuals freedom as conscious constancies out of everything having the right to also be positive superior value always in true freedom ways

Originally posted by absolutely
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

u said that u agree but show how u didnt read my post

once individuality respect objective being a whole always more existing then itself in freedom ways, then not only the notion of else existence would be real which is the exclusive reason of helping hands, but also next step would b the present individuality that consider objective superiority freely so really never meaning being part of and proving it by becoming much more free out all existence while respecting it and confirming its right values
there the true existence could start through true individuals freedom as conscious constancies out of everything having the right to also be positive superior value always in true freedom ways

I read your post but guess i didnt understand completely.......

are you saying that the individual should always have the most freedom,, the highest say,,,,,the ability to do whatever they want when they want?

then you would also agree that every human that exists,, exists as an individual with this potential and ability to have the most freedom,, the highest say,,,,,the ability to do whatever they want when they want?

so how do these individuals work together,,, what is the best way for them to have a system of organization?
or is any working together,, any system, any order, any organization restricting the supreme freedom of the individual; therefore bad/evil....... so the only/ best way for things to be ,,,,, is wild west,,, every man for himself chaos? with no cooperation leading to progression,, which gives the most potential and probability for innovation,,, the sharing of ideas, work,, resources, information..

reply to post by MDDoxs


I think that I would agree that humanity itself, among the various social groups world wide, is deeply fundamentally flawed. I am not completely certain that it is due to all the individuals themselves, but caused by the values and pressures of the social paradigm that they reside within.

I, like you, have also frequently ruminated on the history of man's existence and like others here, see the constant flow of warlike and destructive behaviors that make it appear that we may never escape that. I have my own conclusion, possibly mere opinions about that and the reasons behind it.

I personally ignore current societal constructs as I think that their values, if one can really find any that are valuable, are mere manipulations for people, convincing them to accept many manners of action that I think are detrimental and therefore harmful to humanity in general, and yet are so deeply embedded in the various public's psyche as to be nearly impossible to dissuade or help out of. So for me, I find these constructs to be useless, devoid of merit, and destructive toward the human inner self and seemingly designed to persuade people from looking inwardly , as that value is held in very low regard.

It is a non argument to state that "they like it that way", when the major point is that they have succumbed to a naturalization process that asks them to act in non natural ways. (Of course they would unwittingly like it) While it is all seemingly natural in it's process, I cannot be convinced that it is. To "think" that something is "natural" is not the same thing as it really being so. The psychology of a matter can easily occult the truth.

So the question will remain open and persistent about what it would take to "evolve" humanity into something that bears no past resemblance to our violent history, present, and illusory but promising future.

I believe that the Hobbesian observation that "might makes right" is an astute one given humanity's past. But that does not mean that the idea that the strong prevail is any more a natural occurrence than than the psychology of that. Are we saying that straight out of the chute that we are violent domineering creatures from birth? I think not. That's a fairly pessimistic and fatalistic view. The idea that the strong prevail can be logically equivalent to the idea that the healthy and intelligent live on. Our total existence seems to have been a mixture of the two. Besides, I think that most people that talk about the idea that "Only the strong survive." are only partly right and that all contexts must be considered.

There is a body of evidence that says that in more "natural" states that what we people do is work collectively to our mutual benefit. If man is truly a social creature, then that would pass the common sense test easily. So I would suggest that man's warlike "nature" possibly came after that probably in short order lead by the psychological traits of fear, jealousy, anger, desire and most of our other probably more animalistic traits rather inherently human traits, though this is very hard to determine because we cannot go back there and observe.

I see that you have listed some traits that you consider as contributory to the negative direction of social groups. (I am paraphrasing you.) Good traits as well. I think that the negative traits have overcome the positive ones from the web of belief that most conditioned people hold. I will still insist that they are not completely at fault and should not be berated about as we all normally like to do. In other words, they are simply not mindful of the condition they are in.

I think that societal values that include such things as control, manipulation, fostering of selfish behaviors (in a negative, destructive sense), domination, winning, prevailing, being top dog, being discompassionate, interpreting phrases like: To Thine Own Self Be True, as hooray for me and screw all of you, are taught, meaning nurtured, traits and are not necessarily innate for us. So my question to you is how will we ever be able to "unteach" these nasty things in order to convince people to give a darn about each other and the "Us" that is? Why is all the negative self destructive "nature" of societal uselessness so seemingly necessary?

I am unconvinced that we can collectively evolve without casting all this aside. Some people evolve on their own, paying attention to the access they have to the real corpus of wisdom in the world while the masses and the masters of the masses hold that at bay as if it were some sort of anathema.

How many times have you stated something helpful and instructive to a person who instantly jumps to the irrational position of simply arguing against wisdom rather than give it a little thought, and some HONEST introspection?

That ignorance is pervasive.