Human Destinies
This is surely nothing new to the world, but as I was walking the dog this morning, I was thinking about humanity from the widest perspective possible. For lack of a better term that might present itself later, I’m calling it Human Destinies. There’s a point to that. I speculate that we must either achieve our Destinies, or it means we’ve destroyed ourselves. To put it another way, I speculate that achieving such Destinies could be an essential part of the defining characteristics of human beings. In other words, it’s just what humans do—or they cease to exist; they become extinct.
Now, the thing is, there’s no superfluous stuff, here. We’re talking about the widest scope possible—events that changed entirely the course of human history, irrevocably.
Here’s what I came up with:
1. Agriculture / Basic Civilization.
2. Enlightenment / Secularization.
3. Technology / Capitalism / Industrialization.
And that’s it, so far. Now, given the above, what’s number 4, out into the future? I further speculate that your answer to what number 4 is tells us a great deal about you. It could be the ultimate litmus test, in fact.
Go ahead and comment, if you dare.
Update: Greg Swann, referenced by someone else in the 3rd comment, posts his own extensive comment, below. He also gives us even more at his own place.
Update 2: Human Destinies – Part 2 is up.
WHAT IT'S ABOUT AND HOW IT WORKS
Free The Animal is an eclectic writing project about everything since November 2003. 23 years, 5,500 posts, 5 million words.
It's a paid membership blog. Most posts are free and public, but only paid members can comment. What determines whether it's free or paid is when I publish. Monday through Friday, free and public. Saturday and Sunday, for paid members. That's it. Membership info here.
Speeking of human nature I agree we have no right to violate the rightr of another but it seems to have been lost in our policy of capitalism. See the new laws on damages pushed by president bush. Do we belive in Democracy or capitalism. I believe in Democracy and capitalism was our economic system. It now has not check or balance with the fall of communism and is in trouble of emploding on itself.
I have hope the values of democracy will prevail but it may take another decade to get to the point of swinging the political pendelem back to the left.
#4. World peace — a kind that does not involve government coercion, but is freely chosen by all. A "technology of society" that allows humans to live together in harmony, without harming or killing one another.
A worthy destiny, wouldn't you say?
4. The end of savagery, as described in Greg Swann's "Meet the Third Thing" essay (which I assume you've read.) Basically what the first commenter said — but then I am his son, after all, so maybe it's not surprising we think alike.
5. Splendor, as per Greg Swann. Humanity embracing something similar to Ayn Rand's philosophy. "Eudaimonia", maybe? (I haven't read Nicomachean Ethics, but I just read the Wikipedia article.)
I am optimistic enough to believe that these two things are inevitable, that humans being what we are, and with the inevitable development of greater technologies, the use of coercive force will eventually be so undesirable by anyone — the alternatives (and price) being so great — that most, and eventually _all_, will forsake it. Once force is no longer an option, the collectivists of all stripes will have nothing to stand on, especially in the face of the prosperity and productivity technology can and will allow among free people. A philosophy suitable to this reality would be soon to follow. (To a lesser extent, we have similar technology now. The internet — or perhaps even just the blogosphere — is a good example of what I see human civilization being like, eventually — a free market by necessity, with the ability to "shine the light" on the evils of the world and make it very difficult, if not impossible, for them to get away with their evil. Without mass communication, how long would the Nazis or Soviets have lasted? With it, how much sooner did they fall than, say, the Romans? With the _internet_, how successful would the Nazis have been with the Holocaust, or the Soviets with the Gulag?)
There's a lot more to this, but this comment is long enough. (Which is to say, I have to think about it and I'm tired.)
Worthy? Perhaps, but unachievable. There will always be people who refuse to respect the rights of others.
#4 – The growing up of the human race, the moral acceptance of the capitalism in #3, and the squaring of the 'contradiction' in most people's minds to the point that the majority realize there is no right to violate the rights of another.
I dunno. I'm having a hard time grasping capitalism as a human destiny. That's a bit ethnocentric, considering that capitalism really isn't prevalent or inevitable in all functional societies. Granted, its the basis for the society thats currently most powerful, but it's too unstable to consider as an ultimate destination. What happens when the distance between the haves and the have nots gets too far? Rebellion? Anarchy? When I think of a destiny, I'm thinking of a permanent truism. Maybe a hybrid of capitalism and something else? Something a bit more stable.
Anyway, given the steps you've presented, I'd say the fourth step would have to be colonization. Each of the previous three steps serve to enable man to function in a larger sized world. Each takes a small group and makes it capable of taking on new members. Agriculture to feed and allot work. Secularization to organize and unify. Technology to make great distances smaller. The next logistical step would have to be colonization to other worlds/societies. Of course, they haven't been discovered yet, but in a vacuum, it appears to be a logical destiny.
Seems to me that you are leaving out the most important part of the equation. The Creator. God Almighty. Or maybe He just created us and didn't particularly like what He had done, so just dropped us and has not, nor is, nor will ever soil His hands with us again. Sorry, that is not the God I know. But I suppose we are entitled to our individual opinions. Jesus Loves You!!
Larry
I like where maine is going with this, but I would add that a prelude to colonization would have to be some sort of unification- not necessarily the peace and harmony described by the Jackson's- but at least an end to armed conflict between countries and a more companionable attitude towards each other and the resources of the earth. Colonization without cooperation would be ultimately fruitless, as humanity would still be prone to destroying itself, just on new lands.
Your list comprises innovations we owe to the Greeks–considered in the large. Obviously certain ideas, like the husbandry of grains, are pre-Hellenic, while the Enlightenment is a post-medieval Hellenic revival. But all of these ideas, plus many others, are united in the sense that their first explicit expression–and often still their best expression–comes to us from the Greeks.
I think the next step in your list is the globalization of Hellenism. This has been going on forever; Judaism, Islam, Communism and many, many other movements are anti-Hellenic counter-revolutions. Until lately, the best transmission of Greek ideas has been by trade (and there were Greek trading posts all around the Mediterranean well into the Dark Ages and the Islamic ascension). In the modern era, it is the free(er) trade states that have taken up this task, with fabulous success–in Cain's World, the world of products, proceeds and practices but not of ideals. The Bush Doctrine seeks to extend this process by political action, with at least the implication that the world of ideals also belongs to Cain–an idea that has always been missing from our revivifications of Greek culture.
What is going on right now in the Middle East is an illustration of how change actually happens. Nothing is gradual. Everything is one way until is it suddenly another.
I agree in general with Jackson, fils, above, except that I think Splendor will come first (one mind at a time) and that both of those outcomes are further out in time, in the main. As individuals, we not only stand on the shoulders of giants, we have at our fingertips a lever such as Archimedes never imagined–the Net.World. But in groups we are still little more than gibbering chimps. The dawn of Splendor is the resolution to stand always alone, and the renunciation of savagery is a consequence of Splendor.
But still, we are witnessing remarkable changes, and the long-term consequences upon the individuals directly affected will be astounding. Visualize a world peopled by Ethical Egoists. This will happen. It will seem impossible until the day after it suddenly seemed inevitable. But as ontology, as physiology and as psychology–and therefore as epistemology–it is ultimately unavoidable. This is how we are made as things and this is how we must behave in order to thrive as the things that we are. The more we learn of and accept what we are, the better we will do at learning of and accepting what we are.
This–this way of thinking and acting–is our gift from the Greeks. Because of them, our destiny our ours to make.
I have two further steps, and then human history will perhaps be at an end, or if not, certainly be beyond my power to imagine.
#4. True individualism. The three advances Richard lists all depend on one another. The way to the enlightenment was prepared by agriculture, which gave men the leisure time needed to stop and think about the consequences of the division of labor it necessitated. Those ponderings gave men the means to rationally direct the division of labor and thus enabled technology and industrialization. Capitalism is just another aspect of both – it is the technology of distributing resources in a context of highly individuated labor.
These advances all share the common trait of individuating the human race. Division of labor individuated our manual work; the enlightenement individuated our thoughts, our politics, and our ethics; capitalism individuates our resources.
Capitalism in turn gives the individual a level of power previously unattainable except through collectivisation. What will come next is individualism as taken for granted, as the norm, as just what is rather than an "ism". Swann's splendor may come, but it will be a side-effect.
#5 Can only come about through true (nearly) universal individualsim. The collective effort required is simply too large to be organized by anything short of rational self-interest. We are at present confined to a very precise and very rare context that can support the physical substance from which the mind arises. The final(?) advance will be to individuate our physical contexts. One day humans will become free of their default environment. A combination of technologies will support this, but broadly they consist of two parellel efforts: taking our environment with us, and changing our very nature to adapt to different environmental contexts. It will be the ultimate application of reason: the ability to allow the physical tool of reason to exist anywhere and anywhen, permeating every corner of the universe.
The even numbered advances may not be true advances after all. Both are advances of thought, with no direct real consequences. The consequences were there, to be sure, but they were only realized by the odd numbered advances that made concrete the ideas these advances of thought imagined. It may be that numbers 2 and 4 are not advances in themselves, but periods of consolidation and planning for numbers 3 and 5. Does this imply a #0? I think it might. There must have been some similar thoughtful period that allowed for the technological and social realities necessary for agriculture. I could make an argument for monotheism, itself an astounding theoretical advance (and arguably an individualistic one) at a time when supernatural gods were the only construct available to humans to integrate the entirety of reality. But the timing does not fit without a severe (and probably unsupported) restriction of the context of agricutlure as an advance of civillization.
I'm sure Swann can make a much more compelling argument for the Greeks, as they certainly seem to be the man behind the curtain lurking around all of this.
Nice blog!
I found you on blog explosion.
Keep up the good work!
4. The hive mind. When any individual is able to contribute to and read from a collective conversation; where merit determines how far an idea will be replicated and go and capital, credentials, contacts, access, and fame play little or no role.
"In the long run, we will all gleam."
Look: people have managed to dodge individualist ontology for two thousand years. Most crucially, it's had its brains beaten out since 1776.
Some people just can't pay attention to the facts right in front of them.
"The hive mind."
How about an individual contributing the idea of individualism to the hive?
Bennet's ideas are similar to those of libertarian math god SF author Vernor Vinge, especially his novel "Marooned in Real Time."
Remember 1950's sci-fi movies, that is how most people thought the future would be. We would all have our own spaceships, there would be no roads, no walking…you just stand on a moving sidewalk that takes you right to where you need to be, vacuum tubes replace elevators and you push a button and out pops a fully cooked meal.
And that is how they thought it would be by the year 2000!!!
Look at our cars they are more square now than ever…..unforeseen.
But that is just one example of how people get it wrong.
If you talk about colonizing another planet….you must be talking about that other planet in our solor system that has an atmosphere……planet…um, oh, I forget, but I know it's out there….somewhere.
Hey, we can't even colonize this planet properly, you want to take this dog and pony show to another planet?
How long do you think people are going to want to set in their little housing pod on the moon (or mars or any other planet….you pick one) stareing out the window smelling their own farts longing to be back on earth.
To live in space, or on another planet, you have to be extremely busy all day keeping your life support systems functioning….boy, that sounds like fun. Don't even think about growing food using the sun's light, without an atmosphere to filter it the sun will just burn everything to a crisp, thats why those guy's (astronauts) have to wear space suites, so they don't burn to a cinder and they have to have lead soled boots so they don't float away.
We are a product of THIS planet and this is where we shall stay, if anybody does go to live on….that other planet, they will come back with their horror stories of malfunctions like "I crapped my pants twice a day the entire year that I was there with no way to wash them" and near misses, like "Yeah I went to start the engine so we could leave the planet and the start switch broke off in my hand, but, luckily we had this pile of crap and I was able to mold a handfull of it into a switch and…here we are" but they will say, as they always do "the earth sure looked beautiful from out there….like a big blue marble".
So, boiled down the only upsides to leaving the earth is: 1. You can float.
2. the earth looks pretty.
And now the "god" thing.
Honestly, it would be nice if #4 was whatever it is going to be only without religion.
Because #4 won't have peace if it has religion, for those of you that want peace, that's the only way your gonna get it, sorry.
99% of all the wars fought in #1, #2 and #3 were over religion, the other 1% merely for survival, if you controll the religion of people you controll the religious people. Right now though we are heading for a two religion planet, east(muslem) vs. west (christian), and currently both sides are recruiting at an alarming rate, two huge groups of religious people all ready to be controlled.
O.K. after all that I am going to tell you what #4 will be, you may want to write this down or print this page out because you will want to prove to people in the future that you knew what the future would bring from a blog reply that was written 3-5-2005….and here it is:
#4 ORGANICS!
That's right…organically grown computers, and tons of other organically grown devices that think what we want them to think, they are allready growing strings of organic matter that is far more dense, holds more information, works in an intuitive manner that far ecceeds any silicon chip.
Say goodbye to all the telephone and power lines, no need for wires they can use organically grown strings to make solor panels so dense that one the size of a football field could power a rather large population. And if everyone had their own power supply made from the same material, it would only require a 2foot by 2foot square of the stuff to power your house.
Plus, Organic relay stations that communicate over great distances without wires but with intuition, the list goes on.
Just remember you heard it here first.
My use of the term "hive mind" is no more intended to imply collectivism than the concerted ordered and rationalized group activity made possible by capitalism does. Capitalism allows a million free people to work together on one project, via price signals and other mechanics. The "hive mind" allows a million free individuals to contribute to a single evolving rational conversation where nothing other than the strength of your words matters. And the refining process is so ruthless.
Also, just as in "The Puppet Masters" once in the hive mind it is addictive, the forcably removed individual forced air into his IV to kill himself. Maybe someday in the future people will spend hours reading the Internet publications for self-validation, an echo of their thoughts in far distant places.
> Look: people have managed to dodge individualist ontology for two thousand years. Most crucially, it's had its brains beaten out since 1776.
This is not an argument. It is not even a sneer, properly speaking, just a dyspeptic belch. But if we treat it as an argument, it falls to pieces:
> people have managed to dodge individualist ontology for two thousand years
I would say that individualist ontology originated with Ayn Rand. Even so, whether or not people managed to "dodge" the truth of human life–and surely this is true, and surely the span of time is much longer than two thousand years–this means nothing. The truth of human life is nevertheless true, and it is nevertheless accessible to any mind seeking to discover it.
There's more: Has "dodging" human ontology benefitted its practitioners? I would argue soundly to the contrary. "Dodging" the truth of human life is the means, mode and method of self-destruction. The argument to be made from here is that, as the connection between "dodging" the truth of human life and pain, misery, poverty, disease and premature death becomes more and more obvious, the practice will become less common, not moreso.
> Most crucially, it's had its brains beaten out since 1776.
This unpacks to nothing, It says, ontology–the truth of human life–has in some way been disproved since 1776. This is false, of couse, but it's not what Beck means to say. What he means is that a Cain-like utilitarian argument of individual rights–which is NOT individualism, the politics of ethical egoism–has been attacked by academic philosophers, politicians and their minions since 1776. This of course is not news. It simply has nothing to do with the ontology of individualism, nor with the likelihood of any particular human discovering and guiding his life according to that ontology. The one says nothing about the other.
There is no argument from Beck, there is never any argument from Beck. Like his fallen idol Hunter Thompson, he makes a fashion of his misanthropy, but it is entirely unfounded. If academics at war with egoism because they are communists are simultaneously at war with academics at war with egoism because they are utilitarians, this says nothing at all about the progress of the idea of egoism. It has nothing to do with anything. In the same respect, counting the noses of idiots and pretending to compare this count with an hypothesized idiot-free past is fruitless. The war for truth against falsehood and error is won one mind at a time. And this war cannot be lost so long as there is one mind alive seeking the truth of human life.
Look, Greg: you don't have to consider anything "an argument" and I really don't care anymore. The fact is that I stated a fact, and facts always speak for themselves.
"This is Beck's argument, which he does not make explicitly: People do not want to or will not or cannot discover the truth."
That is not true. Now, you can say that that's my argument all day long, but it's not.
And I should bloody hope we might dispense with all this "no argument" horseshit once you've presumed to assert that very thing.
> The fact is that I stated a fact, and facts always speak for themselves.
That ideas we might like were once ascendant among the elite doesn't address their acceptance among the hoi polloi. My bet is that the proportion of reasoned supporters of libertarian ideas is greater now than at any time in the past–this because of Ayn Rand. Even so, it doesn't matter. If those ideas are wrong, then fifty million Frenchman can be as wrong as one. And if they are right, then they will triumph in the end no matter how many morons might oppose them.
This is Beck's argument, which he does not make explicitly: People do not want to or will not or cannot discover the truth. People do not wish to live as well, as wisely or as long as they might. People by nature prefer the failure of all to the success of any. None of this is defended, it's just grumbled about. It cannot be defended because the facts, ubiquitous and uncontroverted, disprove it utterly.
The facts are apprehensible to all. Human minds cannot comprehend them without reasoned conceptualization, and they cannot they communicate them without reasoned argument. This, too, is human ontology, indisputable fact. Billy, your collection of incidents mean nothing without conceptual connection. And when they are connected, they mean less than nothing. Your case is disproved and your caviling is dismissed.
No, Greg. Let me explain it to you: you've spent a great deal of effort to assert that I never make any argument, all before you come here to assert what my argument is, which is wrong.
I don't know what your problem is with it, but it's a statement of the facts. You're the one who said I never make any argument. You're the one who then stated what my argument is (although you said I don't have one). And what you said is my argument, isn't.
If it's incoherent, then you're the one who should look at the facts of what you're done.
> That is not true. Now, you can say that that's my argument all day long, but it's not.
> And I should bloody hope we might dispense with all this "no argument" horseshit once you've presumed to assert that very thing.
Wow. This could not be less coherent if it were written by a nine-year-old girl. No one ever concedes defeat on the nets, but a flame-out like this is close enough.
It's a lot worse than "unfair", Rich.
It's not true.
> Greg, I think the comment about Billy considering Hunter Thompson an "idol" is unfair.
No one who can read for style can doubt the influence Hunter Thompson had on Billy Beck. It's not as pungent as it used to be, which is good IMO, but it's still there. Res ipse loquitur.
> Billy's not being irrational.
Billy is not being rational, paying reason to reason. My take is that it's because reason refutes his case. Your mileage may vary.
> I'd ask you not to subject me (or Billy) to this on this blog.
No one ever has to ask me to leave twice.
There's a couple of things I want to point out, here, for the record.
Greg, I think the comment about Billy considering Hunter Thompson an "idol" is unfair. I read his original post and he condemned the guy. One of the very few emails I sent to anyone from Hawaii was one to him saying that he got the assessment right.
I also don't think there's any cause for the personal insults. Billy's not being irrational. You guys go way back, and I just hate to see this. You know I consider you both friends, so I'd ask you not to subject me (or Billy) to this on this blog.
You know I appreciate the hell out of you posting here, but I just have to stand up on these points.
Greg:
Not asking you to leave, man. Just asking that we show a little more civility and respect to one-another–especially among friends.
John,
I've looked everywhere, under the couch cushions, outside in the car, I've checked back shelf in the closet – but for the life of me, I can't find the context in which your statement is contained. You must have dropped it before you got here.
The context that the rest of us, in this other universe, are operating is this: "I speculate that we must either achieve our Destinies, or it means we’ve destroyed ourselves.". That context has two qualities which render your comment indecipherable: It posits two mutually exclusive alternatives and is temporally open-ended. You should have stopped at 'further comment seems pointless'. We didn't require a demonstration.
"Stylistic influence on" is not the same as "idolizing".
Since everyone else participating in this discussion seems to inhabit a different universe from the one I inhabit, furthur comment seems pointless. Your four-step program (even with the rather ominous blank at the end) sounds nice, Mr. Nikoley; and since you've been assured of it's inevitability, well, that's even nicer, isn't it?
Well, John, I can't say that I know precisely what you mean with respect to the "four-step program." Then again, that's nothing new.
We should know what # 4 will be because things that exist always provide the foundation for the future. Since the present exists, why don't we already know?
Do you know what Greg? For years I had people, including Billy recommend me to your writing. This is going back to HPO and beyond.
To be perfectly blunt… aside from a few articles you wrote on this blog detailing your son's horrific experience with the public school system – There isn't even a snippet of a thing you've written that I've ever considered to be decent writing.
In fact – your entire retinue is bubbling pretense and sheer affectation. At the heart of the matter, I doubt you could string together a plain language explanation of what the FUCK you are talking about if somebody put a gun to your head and was forcing you to do so.
So for you to be yammering on about how the "style" of Billy's writing isn't even his own, isn't authentic to him and he's just a Thompson wannabee — is without question, in one word:pathetic.
I don't know if you've patched things up with him or not over this. But I'm telling you that from where I'm sitting, I've tried for years to make my way thru your convoluted shit. Ya know what Greg? When it came right down to it – even after extreme effort to grind thru all the flowery pretty prose –you didn't seem to ever really have anything to say.
Stick that in your "Splendourous" pipe and smoke it.
OK, I appreciate you dropping by (Meagan?). But I already asked Greg to keep the personal attacks out of it, so let's all do that, K?
#4 – Communication. This obviously ties in with technology, but certainly it's effect on our world will set it apart, making it an entity in and of itself.
Communication has already led to great advancements, and continues to spark our imaginations – on universal, global, national, communal, local, and individual levels. With the ease of sharing whatever crosses our minds, the potential for future growth is exponential. The more information shared, the more learned. The more learned, the more we grow. The more we grow, the further we advance…..
There's my two cents. Can't wait to find out what it's worth.