On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:05 AM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hey Chuck, > > I think we can probaly say that better just means better in many > aspects, so yes it may mean more socialy aware, and yes it may also > mean envirmentlay aware and the rest of your list here. > > My point is more holistic, taking the whole. Are we more socialy > aware than say 100 years ago? Well perhaps, but maybe not, we'll have > to look long and hard at our histories to answer that. > Actually, I think technology and cultural influences have mediated human behavior quite a bit. For instance, a remote village in the UK a thousand years ago might have welcomed a Muslim with open arms. However, if that Muslim chose to cut the village elders throat because he was an infidel then the village would probably think twice about welcoming Muslims in the future. Today due to our technology and our interactions with other cultures we know that not all Muslims are fanatics. > However this may be a step forwards but in other areas have we taken > steps backward? Taking the whole into account I can see little > evidance of forward movement. The human animal is more or less the same as > we have always been. > Here, the subject of human morality and social behavior is so amorphous that there is no way to point to any specific facet and say "there is an example of forward progress". Is it forward progress for Italians or Turks or Europeans or forward progress for the entire human race? If so, who is it that defines and measures forward progress? Is my idea of forward progress and yours the same? My point is that the topic is too broad to make any meaningful discourse on. > I disagree. It is perfectly capable of humans to let go of both anger > and jelousy. > By 'letting go' I assume that you mean acquiring anger and/or jealousy over a certain situation and using self-control to let go. I didn't say anything about letting go in that context. What I was referring to was the hardwired emotions that we all have. Without anger, jealousy, love, hate, empathy, we lose a significant portion of what defines us as human. To quote: >> As long as we are human I think we will >> suffer anger and jealousy. It's how we deal >> with it as individuals and as a society that >> determine the measure of growth. The thing about 1000 years ago and rape is you just don't know if that > is true, or if you do I would love to see any source material that has > brought you to this conclusion. > The issue isn't rape but the ethical framework that dictates behavior. While each culture has it's own framework in general ethics have matured over the centuries and that maturation has been reflected in the laws that govern. Typically most cultures are and historically, have been male dominated. This has led to a bias in the way individuals are treated. That dichotomy has at times required a higher standard of proof from the victim than from the perpetrator. I really don't want to do the research to support my assertions but I'm sure it shouldn't be too hard to find specific examples if you're that driven. Perhaps I spoke disingenuisly if so forgive me. I have had many a > debate with our American brethren on gun ownership, and what I get > most is protection from those who may brake into your house, mug you, > attempt to take your loved ones, etc.. If it looks like fear, and > smells like fear and sounds like fear, there is a very good chance > that is it fear. > Heh. Do you really believe that all American gun owners are frightened rabbits hiding away in their homes just waiting for the bogey man to burst through the front door? Guns have multiple uses as I assumed was clear in my post. One most definitely is protection. There is a real possibility that someone could break through the front door but it's not something that consumes every thought for every moment of the day. As to hunting as you alude to here, rifles my good man or shot guns > for that, so you would agree that there is no need to own a hand gun > or an automatic weapon? > Have you ever fired a hand gun or automatic weapon? Many people have hand guns and automatic weapons for the same reason that people own basketballs. Just as there is no good reason to fire at a target or a beer can, there is no good reason to shoot a basketball at a hoop - and yet we do. > Not more intelegent but more socialy intergrated? Nope I think that > perhaps the opposite is true. > This link is a thesis on the intelligence of prehistoric man: http://www.custance.org/old/earlyman/3ch1.html If you read it you'll see that our intelligence over the centuries hasn't changed significantly. As to social integration. I am not referring to tolerance of other cultures. I am referring to the organization and function of individuals within a single society. Look at world wide politics at this moment in time. France have just > made laws banning Muslim woman dressing in any kind of face covering. > Social intergration? Today our Prime Minister was on the TV telling > how he is planning on cutting down imergration into the UK from > 100,000s to 10,000's. Social intergration? Nope it seems to me that > we are entering into an age of misrust of those not of our own culture > or heritage. > I don't know anything about french law concerning dress but if the PM is cutting down on immigration I'd guess that there are other motivations besides cultural mistrust. Economic considerations probably being primary. > On the other hand, gene therapies, real movment in nuculare fusion via > laser or plasma, stem cell tecnolgy, phones that are computers. More > intelegent? > Technological progress isn't the same thing as increased intelligence.
