Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Zaptruder t1_iqqk9eb wrote

It's a vector, not a point.

You strive for utopia - you don't reach it.

Human nature is such that it will always want.

Bring a caveman into 21st century society and he'll think it's utopia for a while.

Bring a 21st century man into Star Trek society and he'll think its utopia too... at least for a while.

As individuals jostle for more individual freedoms, it'll rub against the freedoms of others, so tension and conflict will always exist in some form.

534

FrankTankly t1_iqtsbcz wrote

This

>It’s a vector, not a point.

Is such an elegant explanation. Well done.

41

Sphaerocypraea OP t1_iqrfe9r wrote

What if an imaginary person lived in a state of nature, in isolation from other humans? Would they simply cease to be human, if they had no experience of tension or conflict with other humans? I recall a comment to this effect by Hannah Arendt.

18

Zaptruder t1_iqrfu8g wrote

Only if you define humans by whether or not they exist, and whether or not they have social contact.

Which in both cases isn't typically how people define 'human'.

So, not sure why such an imaginary human would stop being human in that imaginary scenario.

12

ccaccus t1_iqrzaaq wrote

>whether or not they have social contact

Part of what makes humans human is their mental capacity. I'd argue that a person without sustained social contact would be rather inhuman.

3

Zaptruder t1_iqs34mh wrote

There are all forms of outliers among humans, along all sorts of dimensions.

I think we might casually toss around the term inhuman as hyperbole while still recognizing that they're literally still humans.

8

iiioiia t1_ir1qtb2 wrote

There are a wide variety of methodologies (and cognitive implementations of those methodologies) for IsHuman().

1

Sphaerocypraea OP t1_iqrg8g4 wrote

How do people typically define human?

2

Zaptruder t1_iqrgvbf wrote

Typically defined biologically, as a creature of the human species, with relevant genetics that beget various physical and mental traits, with acceptable variance to accommodate for genetic variance (i.e. a human missing arms or legs at birth is still human).

Anyway; back to I guess the point you're making? Objecting to the phrase: "Human nature will always want"?

It's a pretty accurate generalization of human behaviour and motivation systems. Exceptions allowed. But on a population scale would be so improbable as to not be worth considering (i.e. in a large complex society, we will not eliminate the human capacity to want more and to create tension and conflict. In an ideal society, the tensions and conflicts are mild and don't result in much harm).

6

Sphaerocypraea OP t1_iqrhijv wrote

I agree that’s how biologists define human. Can human also be defined by criteria of other disciplines? Or is it an exclusively biological concept?

2

noonemustknowmysecre t1_iqsefpg wrote

>. Can human also be defined by criteria of other disciplines? Or is it an exclusively biological concept?

Obviously biological, unless you're being poetic.

....are you trying to talk about "personhood"?

2

Zaptruder t1_iqri4rs wrote

Sure. It's a term that's used broadly in many ways depending on context, but it generally relates to the perceived unique conditions of been the biological human.

Anyway, what's the point of this line of questioning?

1

twistedtowel t1_iqs21d6 wrote

His odd line of questioning did make me think… is there an issue with people only focusing on the biological definition of human? Or even the incomplete definition of being human as i do believe many people leave out the emotional and mental aspects of being human because they are still not well defined scientifically (i would hypothesize).

6

MinervaNow t1_iqs3kie wrote

Counterfactuals like this are immaterial. Humans are by nature social. The hypothetical is in fundamental conflict with reality, so any takeaway from it is meaningless.

3

CoderDispose t1_iqs98ja wrote

We have discovered humans who never saw another human until they'd completely finished development, and they literally cannot learn to communicate with other humans. I don't know that I'd say it's necessarily meaningless, just very unlikely to apply to any of us.

Edit: I stand corrected - see below. Apparently some have learned communication to varying degrees

8

One_Hand_Smith t1_iqti5yt wrote

Contrary to popular belief theirs quite a few cases just like this, not all of them end up being unable to learn language, some can, others only partially, and some can't.

Almost always though they are stunted, but one girl managed to normalize enough to get married so it's not an absolute.

2

redditexcel t1_iqtf651 wrote

>literally cannot learn to communicate with other humans

"literally cannot learn to communicate with other humans"
Examples?

1

iiioiia t1_ir1r3q4 wrote

> The hypothetical is in fundamental conflict with reality, so any takeaway from it is meaningless.

Can you explain what you mean here? Just because a hypothesis doesn't perfectly align with "reality" (whatever that is, opinions vary widely), how would this make it impossible for meaning to co-exist?

1

ChaiWithCinnamon t1_iqzmsxg wrote

No, if they had proper previous human experience, and developed among other humans. Possibly if you consider cases such as Oxana Malaya. Though genetically, definitely still a human.

1

mR-gray42 t1_iquqsq2 wrote

>Human nature is such that it will always want

There are some positives to this if you think about it. People wanted to be able to communicate by a quicker method than by writing letters, so they made the telephone. They didn't want to go through some of the hassles horses and carriages provide, so they made cars. We weren’t content to just become immune to diseases, so we went to work studying them, making vaccines, and even eradicating illnesses like Polio. Yes, it's in human nature to never be satisfied, but sometimes people will see negative aspects of society and ask, “Hmm, how can this be improved upon?” It may not happen in their lifetime, but even asking such a question is a good start.

1

Zaptruder t1_iquqyra wrote

Yeah, I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing - it's just part and parcel of our genetic psychological makeup.

Anticipation, motivation, comparison (resulting in greater wants) are core mechanisms of our cognitive makeup that emerges from our genetic biology.

2

iiioiia t1_ir1rp2i wrote

Modern humans seem to have some sort of an innate aversion to engaging in intellectual activities that past people engaged in enthusiastically...I wonder if the world is becoming so complex and filled with propaganda and bad news that there is some sort of a mass psychological effect in play, like individual minds are individually shutting down certain processes, perhaps in a self-defensive stance of some sort?

Have you noticed any of this or am I maybe talking out of my arse?

edit: ping /u/Meta_Digital based on your comments.

2

Meta_Digital t1_ir21324 wrote

Yes, I think there is a different way in which people engage in our era as opposed to history. Likely, many people historically didn't do it and we didn't have the technology to be exposed to that anti-intellectualism yet, but nonetheless society produced intellectuals, which it is doing less and less today.

Personally, I think it comes down to dogma and taboo. Intellectualism isn't allowed to flourish as it once was. For many intellectuals, their expertise is a point of shame or brings out reactionary violence. My field is environmental philosophy, and I know I and my colleagues in the past haven't much appreciated being treated as extremist terrorists. I think this trend really started in the 19th century with the backlash against most of the great intellectuals like Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, etc. who challenged the dogma of the time. Today, the most cited scholar in human history (Noam Chomsky) was blacklisted by the media.

Also, since seeking utopia has been demonized so heavily, anyone who would otherwise be pushing for a better world is stuck modelling our dystopia instead. We see the backlash against environmentalists, feminists, Marxists, vegetarians, race issues, and really any critique of the authoritarian structures in society.

In the place of intellectuals, we get the worship of billionaires and other powerful figures. The climate today paints ideas like socialism or communism as a naive utopia while dreaming of living on Mars with Elon Musk or maybe driving in one of his dangerous and ineffective traffic solutions. In essence, we're allowed to think and dream only about what benefits the powerful. Anything else is seen as foolish or dangerous.

2

iiioiia t1_ir267m2 wrote

> but nonetheless society produced intellectuals, which it is doing less and less today

And of the ones we do produce, do you think it is possible that they are "of a different kind", perhaps in ways we are not able to discern?

> Personally, I think it comes down to dogma and taboo. Intellectualism isn't allowed to flourish as it once was.

Agree....and I (perceive myself to) notice this in many different forms....for example, on plausibly "intellectual" subreddits, people (including genuinely intelligent ones) refusing to engage in intellectual discussion. Do you think my read is off here? ("For many intellectuals, their expertise is a point of shame or brings out reactionary violence" suggests not?)

> I think this trend really started in the 19th century with the backlash against most of the great intellectuals like Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, etc. who challenged the dogma of the time. Today, the most cited scholar in human history (Noam Chomsky) was blacklisted by the media.

Agree!! And, it's a shame, bordering on surreal (at least in modern internet times) imho.

> Also, since seeking utopia has been demonized so heavily...

In my experiencing floating the idea in different venues (online and in person, across a decently wide variety of cultures) the mere mention of it tends to invoke laughter, and if that is challenged then....other weird stuff starts to happen. I've yet to encounter someone who can push beyond their innate reaction, although to be fair I haven't done too many experiments.

> The climate today paints ideas like socialism or communism as a naive utopia...

Maybe not the same thing, but I have noticed a pattern where if someone is in favour of a general idea, and if you go like "Ya, yes let's do that then....", people suddenly switch tack and are like "Whoa whoa whoa, <and then various reasons why actually pursuing the very goal they proposed is a bad idea, or their interest level in their own idea simply drops 90%>". It's very strange and may seem impossible, but I see it over and over.

2

Meta_Digital t1_ir2cl06 wrote

> And of the ones we do produce, do you think it is possible that they are "of a different kind", perhaps in ways we are not able to discern?

I think somewhat. Historically, intellectuals tended to be part of the privileged class, and though they often challenged certain norms, they just as often served to justify the forms of power of their era.

I think, over time, intellectuals in general became more critical of those power dynamics. Enlightenment thinkers were critical of religious dogma, liberal theorists were imagining an alternative to the monarchies of the day, socialists were critical of capitalist structures, and anarchists were critical of the emerging nation state.

Along with this deepening skepticism for the traditional structures of society came backlash. History could have probably gone one way or the other, but the way it went was a victory for the power structures against intellectual analysis. Today, I think, we're living in an era (a kind of Dark Age in a sense) where unjustified power structures have asserted themselves (mostly through violence, their primary tool) and seem invincible (and even inevitable).

The remaining intellectuals are fearful of speaking out too much, subverted to serve power unintentionally, suppressed entirely, or quietly sabotaged through language and information manipulation.

> Agree....and I (perceive myself to) notice this in many different forms....for example, on plausibly "intellectual" subreddits, people (including genuinely intelligent ones) refusing to engage in intellectual discussion. Do you think my read is off here? ("For many intellectuals, their expertise is a point of shame or brings out reactionary violence" suggests not?)

As far as social media, I think many experts in their field have little to gain and just don't engage. With misinformation so rampant and many of the people posting being either hired by corporations to serve their agenda or simply automated bots, it's likely not the best use of time.

In person, I find that intellectuals are more than happy to engage in conversation. Excited even, given how few and far between it is to find someone willing or enthusiastic towards stimulating conversation.

> I've yet to encounter someone who can push beyond their innate reaction, although to be fair I haven't done too many experiments.

We're trained by corporate propaganda (which we call advertising instead) to act based on our feelings even when it contradicts our ability to reason. That's the defining characteristic of a consumer, and I think it takes a somewhat exceptional individual to overcome that. The sciences have more and more been about controlling populations, and the methods being employed on us are extremely effective. That's what I suspect is happening, and why we can see it getting worse over our lifetimes as new methods are developed and perfected.

> Maybe not the same thing, but I have noticed a pattern where if someone is in favour of a general idea, and if you go like "Ya, yes let's do that then....", people suddenly switch tack and are like "Whoa whoa whoa, <and then various reasons why actually pursuing the very goal they proposed is a bad idea, or their interest level in their own idea simply drops 90%>".

I've seen this sometimes, and I wonder if it's a form of learned helplessness. We are certainly trained, from childhood on, to feel like we can't have any impact on the world. It's one thing to speculate about the future and another thing entirely to work towards that. This is a major problem I've seen in movements that want to change society for the better, and probably one of the major reasons why we've gone through such a long period without serious rebellion or revolution to the current conditions. At the same time, though, I'm seeing this less and less among younger people, so there might be a time soon that there is once again active resistance to worsening conditions.

2

iiioiia t1_ir2npsd wrote

> I think, over time, intellectuals in general became more critical of those power dynamics. Enlightenment thinkers were critical of religious dogma, liberal theorists were imagining an alternative to the monarchies of the day, socialists were critical of capitalist structures, and anarchists were critical of the emerging nation state.

I think of it as an onion that can be peeled, except when people peel off a layer or two (genuine or otherwise), they often find something (genuine or otherwise) so compelling that the possibility that there are more layers often slips their mind.

> The remaining intellectuals are fearful of speaking out too much, subverted to serve power unintentionally, suppressed entirely, or quietly sabotaged through language and information manipulation.

...~hypnotized

> Along with this deepening skepticism for the traditional structures of society came backlash. History could have probably gone one way or the other, but the way it went was a victory for the power structures against intellectual analysis. Today, I think, we're living in an era (a kind of Dark Age in a sense) where unjustified power structures have asserted themselves (mostly through violence, their primary tool) and seem invincible (and even inevitable).

I think the primary tool is propaganda - propaganda is an interesting word, because the unique way that each mind conceptualizes it (both in general but especially with respect to certain scenarios) is a function of propaganda itself. (Note: my usage of the word "propaganda" includes both deliberately nefarious kinds, as well as just plain old misinformation, regardless of motive).

> As far as social media, I think many experts in their field have little to gain and just don't engage.

Agree...but I am speaking of those that do, and among those there seems to be little diversity when it comes to behavior regarding beliefs/truth - many things come in a normal distribution, some of them are easy for the mind to accept (height), some are not (cognitive behavior).

> In person, I find that intellectuals are more than happy to engage in conversation. Excited even, given how few and far between it is to find someone willing or enthusiastic towards stimulating conversation.

Until one touches certain sensitive topics!

> We're trained by corporate propaganda (which we call advertising instead) to act based on our feelings ...

Agree...but I am proposing that there is a subset of ideas that ~no one can escape, that seem to be so intolerable to the mind, it melts down into logical and emotional chaos - we've all seen videos of batshit insane Trump supporters, I believe that ~all people can be brought to a similar state of mind (if perhaps to a lesser magnitude of accompanying bizarre behaviors).

> I've seen this sometimes, and I wonder if it's a form of learned helplessness.

Learned via propaganda is my intuition - my theory is: if someone starts talking about your plan but in a way that you haven't encountered before, or in a way that proposes opposing/modifying The System, fight or flight type heuristics kick in, and the conscious mind is helpless against that.

It's a wild and wacky world out there!!

2

ICFAOUNSFI t1_iqwo8j4 wrote

Here’s something that’s always bothered me:

If we’ll never reach utopia, why bother striving towards it?

1

Zaptruder t1_iqwofoh wrote

Because things get better by moving in that direction.

It's simply an idea - that we can aspire for society to be much better than what it is now; and we can imagine it, then deconstruct it, assess it, then see what we can actually do within the limits of our reality to move in that direction.

The alternative is having no direction, no guide post. Society lurches from one direction to another, without clear progress. Society moving on the whims of chance, as the games of luck and opportunity play out at high levels, and the rest of us deal with the fallout.

3

ICFAOUNSFI t1_iqwr15s wrote

I get it - so we aren’t striving for utopia at all. We are instead inventing a hypothetical “perfect world” to which we can compare our own world, and thus improve our own world to make it “more perfect”. We aren’t trying to fix it, just make it less broken.

2

Zaptruder t1_iqwtxk4 wrote

Yep.

Thing is, as we progress, we'll find the previous idea of the 'perfect world' wanting - either we'll have progressed enough to see how the concept was unattainable (i.e. we didn't factor in the issues that the solutions would create), or our values will have shifted such that previous ideation no longer seems like as great an idea as it did before - or we'll have additional requirements for 'perfecting' things.

And so we iterate and improve - thus a vector, not a point.

2

iiioiia t1_ir1s4r5 wrote

> It's simply an idea

Certain simple ideas seem to cause the mind to retract, as if it has some innate fear or something.

> The alternative is having no direction, no guide post.

Well, there's also ~authoritarianism, or basically rule by people who are not so lazy.

0

kontra5 t1_iqugi05 wrote

> Bring a caveman into 21st century society and he'll think it's utopia for a while. > > Bring a 21st century man into Star Trek society and he'll think its utopia too... at least for a while

No way. That's what you wish they would think. It heavily depends on which location of particular time they'd get exposed to, and even then, more likely the strangeness would (out of fear of unknown and strange that's innate) leave impression of dystopia. In any case it's very relative on many factors some of which I mentioned. Sorry to say your comment was not very thought out.

−1

Zaptruder t1_iquh6xa wrote

Sorry you expected a pedantic multipage exceptions list out for an off the cuff example, when some charitable interpretation would suffice.

If you time travel and teleport into a battlefield in any era, yeah it's not going to leave a particularly positive impression.

But I shouldn't have to say any of that; assuming that the reader has the ability to understand reasonable context.

0

kontra5 t1_iquyq1k wrote

I did not expect pedantry. There is quite a range in-between superficial and based on that (as I argued wrong) conclusion and pedantry. Feel free to let me know why you think one way or the other regarding, in this context of time travel, immersion into something significantly new, different (and weird and unknown) to result in first impression of utopia rather than the (again as I argued) likely opposite - dystopia.

0