Civilised Past, Present And Future
Dread
Join Date: 2002-07-24 Member: 993Members
Join Date: 2002-07-24 Member: 993Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">equality, inferioirity</div> I wonder if future generations will consider us barbarians.
Perfectly virtuous, kind and conciderate people kept slaves only two hundred years ago and there was nothing wrong with it. If you were to tell them that they were participating in, encouragin and prolonging one of the most noxious and inhuman practices imaginable they would have thought you mad.
Just a little while ago our grandfathers thought that there was nothing controversial in being a democratic state and withholiding votes from half of the population. Those who campaigned for femine suffrage were hysterical, women didn't understand politics. They should never be allowed to vote, argued majority of men.
Now, in the year 2003 we look back and wonder how that kind of discrimination could have ever happened. However I'm sure that our grandchildren will be horrified by some practices that we indulge, that most of us keep perfectly normal. Such as hunting, imprisoning animals for our own amusement and eating meat.
That's right, civilised world as we know it, will be probably 100% vegetarian in the year 2150+. Or so I'd imagine seeing the progress in rights of living creatures. This whole quesition of the refinement of moral values is an interesting one. Only thing that can be kept as dividing factor between living creatures and their value or status, is their difference. However the difference is in the eye of the beholder. Slaves were concidered different and inferior because they were born poor or were born in different place. Women were kept inferioir because it's the 'weaker' sex. Now we keep animals inferior because they are very different. I guess the next step is to grant animals full "human rights" and to keep only plants and rocks inferior to us.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not especially green but I'm just intrigued by this question. Moral values change as time passes and I'm very curious to see the world after 100, or even 50 years from now on.
So, Nostradamus' next incarnation, how do you think moral values will evolve and can we truly ever place a clear cut between humans, races and creatures, where they should have equal rights and what's the inferioir race? Can we say it's wrong to keep slaves? Can we say women are equal to men? Can we say we are better than animals?
..or is it just an output of our time. Who are we to judge past civilisations? Are we civilised ourself, or can man ever be civilised? Maybe it's just a thought in our heads. Peoples races and genders are not alike. Humans and animals are not alike. How can we tell man and woman are equal but man and animal is not, or that eastern and western people are equal even though they are different.
In my opinion, equality is just a buzz-word and there is no clear line that can be drawn in equality.
Ps. This thread is not devoted to racial arguments if one race or sex is better than another, but for discussion about equality and inferioirity now and in future.
Perfectly virtuous, kind and conciderate people kept slaves only two hundred years ago and there was nothing wrong with it. If you were to tell them that they were participating in, encouragin and prolonging one of the most noxious and inhuman practices imaginable they would have thought you mad.
Just a little while ago our grandfathers thought that there was nothing controversial in being a democratic state and withholiding votes from half of the population. Those who campaigned for femine suffrage were hysterical, women didn't understand politics. They should never be allowed to vote, argued majority of men.
Now, in the year 2003 we look back and wonder how that kind of discrimination could have ever happened. However I'm sure that our grandchildren will be horrified by some practices that we indulge, that most of us keep perfectly normal. Such as hunting, imprisoning animals for our own amusement and eating meat.
That's right, civilised world as we know it, will be probably 100% vegetarian in the year 2150+. Or so I'd imagine seeing the progress in rights of living creatures. This whole quesition of the refinement of moral values is an interesting one. Only thing that can be kept as dividing factor between living creatures and their value or status, is their difference. However the difference is in the eye of the beholder. Slaves were concidered different and inferior because they were born poor or were born in different place. Women were kept inferioir because it's the 'weaker' sex. Now we keep animals inferior because they are very different. I guess the next step is to grant animals full "human rights" and to keep only plants and rocks inferior to us.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not especially green but I'm just intrigued by this question. Moral values change as time passes and I'm very curious to see the world after 100, or even 50 years from now on.
So, Nostradamus' next incarnation, how do you think moral values will evolve and can we truly ever place a clear cut between humans, races and creatures, where they should have equal rights and what's the inferioir race? Can we say it's wrong to keep slaves? Can we say women are equal to men? Can we say we are better than animals?
..or is it just an output of our time. Who are we to judge past civilisations? Are we civilised ourself, or can man ever be civilised? Maybe it's just a thought in our heads. Peoples races and genders are not alike. Humans and animals are not alike. How can we tell man and woman are equal but man and animal is not, or that eastern and western people are equal even though they are different.
In my opinion, equality is just a buzz-word and there is no clear line that can be drawn in equality.
Ps. This thread is not devoted to racial arguments if one race or sex is better than another, but for discussion about equality and inferioirity now and in future.
Comments
In society I'd expect a general shift in opinions to the what we now call liberal side. Will all the world's problems be solved? no of couse not. There will still be racists, homophobes and sexists. War will probably still plague us, religous fundamentalism, and the terrorism it can spwan, will probably continue to increase (Gershom Gorenberg's <u>The End of Days</u> is a great book about this, y'all should read it). There will probably be some new societal problems. But over all I'd say the world will probably be a "better" place than it is now.
I would agree that there will be an increase in vegetarinism, though bacon is awfuly good for 100% of the population going vegan on us.
As far as future generations go, I'm sure sooner or latter we will be consider primitve, backwards, and ignorate. Just look at the diffrence in philosphy since Darwin, and it would be very vain of us to think that we know enough there won't be another equaly preception shattering discovery in the future that will reinvet the way we think.
My last thought on this matter is that <i>yes we can judge past civilizations</i>.....History is not an impartial science (though neither is science, but thats another topic completely). History isn't a bunch of facts, people's names, wars and dates. Its the interpretation of those facts that leads to what hostry really is. Each generation writes its own history, as the saying goes, because each generation has a different (hopefuly more "advanced") outlook of life...a different ethos, to use some of my well paid for college vocabulary, to see those facts through.
If we are not allowed to judge the past, then how can we saw slavery is wrong? Prehaps we should not condem the induviduals, or even the cultures of the past, but we must be able to say "Slavery wasn't right, but it happened", for by jugding the past we insure that we don't , in the future, allow similar errors in morals.
Personally I don't see the world progressing towards some utopian ideal of civility. Our ideals will certainly evolve, but evolution is not nessesarily the equivilent of progress. We often look at our past involvement in slavery and ask ourselves "How could we be so barbaric? How can one human being own another? We workers should be glad we're not the proporty of our employer", but who is to say a future generation wont look back and ask "How could we have been so barbaric? Forcing unskilled workers to support themselves through such a turbulant economy? We slaves should be glad there not on there own in the world". Ok, its a bit of a streach, but I stand by the originaly idea.
As for judging history, we can certainly try, but before you go calling things barbaric you should try to empathise with their situation.
Imho the world will grow more liberal than the conservative's worst nightmare. Things like healthcare , (high) minimum wage and reduced working time will be human rights , while most countries will set up some kind of socialist system. The other states still clinging to capitalism will be considered rogue and barbaric. Most of the world's borders will be virtual , so you may freely travel from Vladivostok to Abidjan. Commercialism over internet will be severly regulated , so you would rarely see any popup or banner add.
US vs EU vs China. Its all going to happen....
US vs EU vs China. Its all going to happen.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We have no reason whatsoever to attack China. And China isn't going to attack any nuclear power considering how few missiles they have... nothing to fear for now.
If armageddon happens , blame it on thoses reelecting GW Bush...
I think large scale conflicts will once again plague humanity once a counter to nuclear weapons is found. If one is never found, I think that nuclear powers will never again engage in total war with one another. However, I think that every weapon will eventually become obselete, so with that in mind I do worry about what will happen when nukes become obselete. Maybe some new weapon of terrible power will emerge that will prevent nations from fighting. Who knows?
When looking back into the past, as a historian, one of the hardest things to do is be impartial. To have to sit down and work out why murdering Jews in death camps was a poor economic decision is a tough job. To look at slavery and try and understand the point of view of Confederates. When not writing academic essays and the like, one can and does judge. But historians have to be more impartial than one would imagine. Passing judgement on the decisions and thoughts of past generations isn't something historians officially do. We can say why they may have been poor decisions given the resulting economic, social, cultural or political consequenses. But words like right and wrong, good and evil, are not used by us often or even at all.
Nooooo! Equal rights for rocks! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
But anyway, the whole meat-eating thing is a bit of a paradox; eating meat is "wrong" since it involves killing animals that have done nothing to deserve death (other than taste finger lickin' good), yet if we didn't eat cows, pigs, and chickens, what would we do? Release them into the wild? Haha, good one. How long do you think a 'wild' chicken would last?
So you see, we have to kill animals or they'll die!
You know what I mean <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
And as for <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You've been playing too much C&C Generals<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> since when is Europe in C&C generals? We're all hippy tree-huggers aparently.
Oh, except for the UK, but we only went to war because Tony Blair is in bed with America, or more specifically, Bush. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I think that , as a over-confindant history major, I must respectfuly disagree with you. The concept of history as a impartial science is a hold over from the 18th century.
To quote <u>A Students Guide to the study of History</u> by John Lukacs (who has had visting-professorships of history in a multitude of colleges, from Columbia to Princeton to John Hopkins, in case you wish to questions his authority in such matter)......
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We must reconize that history, by its very nature, is "revisionist".....There may be 1,000 biographies of Abraham Lincoln, but there is no reason to doubt (indeed, it is almost certain) that sooner or later there will be a 1,001st one, with something new in its contents, not necessarily because of new materials that its author had found, but because of his new viewpoint."(pg 20-21)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To say that a person can even be truely impartial is, in my opinion, a mistake. Everything you experiance is filtered, by your previous experiances, by your culture, even your launguage has an giant impact in the way you think of things.
I started out college wanting to be a scientist, as was fully convinced of the correctness of the idea that scienctists are impartial people, and should be held apart from the teeming, unwashed, opinionated masses by their massively supieror capabilites of reasoning with out interference of such things as prejudces and emotions. Okay so maybe thats a little bit of hyperbole, but it captures more or less the feelings I had.
Over the course of a year, I slowly came to relise that scientists are just like everyone else. Science isn't as impartial as people like to belive. Even the first ideal of science, that people can understand the world around them, is a philosophical opinion, which as such is a person's opinion. If you have that opinion before you even begin research, then you have a bias. If you have a bias, then can you truely be impartial? And if the concept of science is naught more than an philosophical idea, then how can one say it has anymore weight, anymore truth, than the agnostic idea that humans can never comprehend the truth of the universe? If you decide that it does has more weight, that fine, but again you have already prejuced yourself, and as such are no longer an impartial observer of the world.
I would say that murdering Jews in death camps was more that just a poor economic decision (I personaly think Germany might have had a chance if not for the massive amount of resources the military Hitler sunk into his goal of eradicating the Jews) but that it was also wrong, and evil.
Now I'm not saying that trying to see things from the historical people's perspectives is not an important part of the study of history. Some of the most fascinating things I've ever read are studies of the mindsets of people in Germany, during the Nazi period. But an understanding of why someone might praticepate in genocide, or even just turn their back to it, does not excuse them from the moral implications of thier actions. To say, "well thats just how people were back then" , is a huge mistake, for it could then follow that fifty, a hunderd years from now people will "just be like that" again. Does that make the impending genocide anymore correct than it is now?
Looking back over my argument though I see that you do have point though. There is a place for the attempting impartiality in history. Without acknowelging that there is only one way the events of the past have happened, and trying to discover what really happened (which arguably is impossible without a time machine) is very important, for without attempting that first, nothing else can possibly be obtained from the field. Prehaps we should leave it at that history has two equaly important parts; the part in which one studies the past events, and part where one must interpret those events to find meaning for our times in those events.
I tend to find that the best way to analyse history is from an impartial viewpoint. Yes, true impartality is very hard to achieve but I do try when I'm researching. Perhaps I put my point across incorrectly: I will still say for example, that the Germans killing Jews in WWII was "wrong", but the reasoning I will give is that it tied up valuable state resources and elimated a potentially useful labor source. I won't say "It was wrong" because I believe it to be morally incorrect. I think that if one is to truely understand history, emotions and feelings must play little part.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But an understanding of why someone might praticepate in genocide, or even just turn their back to it, does not excuse them from the moral implications of thier actions. To say, "well thats just how people were back then" , is a huge mistake, for it could then follow that fifty, a hunderd years from now people will "just be like that" again. Does that make the impending genocide anymore correct than it is now?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if people are like that again then thats' humanity for you. If Hitler had slaughtered Jews in 1500 or 1600, the European community would have praised his efforts. Are we to say those people were wrong for holding views that Jews were to be hated? By our standards, yes. But at the time, such views were held to be common. One can of course go into reasons why these views may have detrimental to social or economic development but I don't think that we can class such people as "wrong" or "evil". Everyone's interpretation of what is "wrong", "right", "evil" and "good" differ depending on location, culture, religion and time. Who is to say in 100 years people won't see Hitler as some kind of genius? When studying history, I hence find that when we start classifying actions, beliefs or ideas of the past as "evil" or "wrong", we are applying our own cultural and social standards to the past. Thus we are removed from true impartality and we cannot hope to understand the past properly.
Don't get me wrong, I can't watch footage of WWI without breaking down in tears. That jades my opinions of WWI generals and the conflict itself. But I try and eliminate such emotional outbursts from affecting my academic work. It's tough, but I feel it is the only way to truely understand history.
PETA went into a Mink farm and released all the Minks. They all got splattered over the highway, eaten by bigger animals, etc.
As for what the future will hold? Simply it'll be half of everyone's dreams and half of everyone's nightmare.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah.....I twas worried, closest I've yet met at my college is a philosphy major..... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Very well argued as well. i think I see your point, and shall no longer contest the place of attempted impartiality in history...espeicaily in academic work, which upon reflection most certinly should not be overly influenced by ones opinions.
I wish you well in your studys. Speaking of studies, have any particular area of interest? Personaly I'm most interested in the medieval period, or rather the transitions into it from the fall of the Roman Empire, and the subsequent "Dark Ages" and then the back out during the Renaissance. And looking back over my work thus far (admittedly a very small amount), I denfinatly could have spent some more time trying to empathize with times, may I thank thee for showing me a weakness in my understanding of history. :
And I see no indication to believe that vegetarianism will significantly increase in the future. The global struggle for moral dominance is between atheistic pragmatists (who reference predatory food chains in nature to claim their biological right as omnivores), Christians and Muslims, who both teach that animals are devoid of soul and rights. Animal rights are not on the agenda of any important group.
I wish you the best in your studies as well. The world needs every historian it can find. If the state of the history department at my university is any indication, history is hitting hard times. Heck, I'm a double history major and I'm the only one of them I've ever met <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
My focus lies mainly with military history. I have studied subjects that span from pre-Roman times to the present, but most of my work is now centered on 19th and 20th century military history, with the American Civil War, World War I and II being the conflicts I focus on. After I graduate this year I plan to keep on studying until I have completed my PhD, at which stage I will be looking for a job lectureing. Thankyou kindly for your feedback as well, I am honoured that you thought so well of my interpretation of historical study. Keep up the good work mate <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> `
So you see, we have to kill animals or they'll die!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was going to make a similar argument in first post, but I came to the conclusion that if people felt strongly enough about animal rights not to eat them, then we'd probably make them their own wildlife preserves.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PETA went into a Mink farm and released all the Minks. They all got splattered over the highway, eaten by bigger animals, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, there are people out there who do alot of stupid things in the name of what they believe, on both sides of the proverbial political fence. However, there are such things as 'No Kill Shelters' were animals are taken to live out there remaining days not being prepared for slaughter.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And I see no indication to believe that vegetarianism will significantly increase in the future. The global struggle for moral dominance is between atheistic pragmatists (who reference predatory food chains in nature to claim their biological right as omnivores), Christians and Muslims, who both teach that animals are devoid of soul and rights. Animal rights are not on the agenda of any important group.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That may be true, but then why is it on the increase? is it just a fad?
Personally I think that deep down we all have some objection to the idea of killing other animals for food, but the fact is that they just taste too good to give up so we construct arguments to defend our love of a fine Black Angus burger, more for ourselves than others. That may be why we find support for the continued eating of meat from both the religios and scientific communities.
At this point I believe people figure out some sort of replacement for meat, perhaps manufactured in laboratories. People didn't want to give up on slaves either but currently we have machines that replace slaves rather effeciently.
Have you got any idea of the complexity of a chicken leg ? We won't have manufactured meat for a while , or it will be utterly tasteless.
I would hardly eat meat ersatz...
Have you got any idea of the complexity of a chicken leg ? We won't have manufactured meat for a while , or it will be utterly tasteless.
I would hardly eat meat ersatz... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
For example some vegetables taste like meat if cooked the right way(soy, or so I've heard). Or maybe we just start cloning and producing only legs of chicken in laboratories. I don't know what happens but I'm pretty sure there will be less and less killing animals.