High-Tech Nothing
Faster or Smarter, Neither, Both?
I am not a Luddite who wants to destroy looms. The modern age has made life comfortable in ways unimaginable just twenty years ago. I live in a house that my great-great-grandmother built over 140 years ago — and cannot imagine doing so, as she did Hesiod-like, without running water, electricity, or a phone, not to mention some Zantac and Zyrtec in the cupboard.
But we should remember what technology is — a delivery system, a pump — not our essence, not water itself. Human nature remains constant and predictable while the ever-changing rate of technological growth obscures this insight. That I can talk to Argentina with a four-second dial, or find out how to treat leprosy on the Internet in ten seconds, or be constantly directed by a soothing female voice how to navigate through downtown L.A. does not thereby mean I have any more to say to an Argentinian than my great-great-grandmother might have, or that thereby I would be necessarily more or less willing to drop historic prejudices against lepers, or that I would have any more business in L.A. than did my grandfather with his nine-farmer open party-line, strung along the road with vineyard wire on eucalyptus poles. I could, of course, but that fact would hinge on considerations that might outweigh the speed or ease of my knowledge and decision-making.
I bring all this up because in the last two weeks I heard and read some strange things about how technological changes have transformed our very politics and way of life. Here is a sample: the ubiquity of ultrasound scans has turned public opinion against abortion; drones have revolutionized our ability to conduct asymmetrical wars; cell-phone cameras have outraged the world about Bashar al-Assad’s butchery in Syria in a way that was not true during the news blackout over Hafez al-Assad’s earlier liquidation of Hama; social networking and the Internet have created new sorts of communities and networks; and the Internet has kept politicians honest, since now we have instant recall of everything they’ve said or written.
All are true to an extent — but not to the extent that we think. Let me explain.
Abortion
It is a fact that the nation is now about split evenly between pro-choice and pro-life positions, in a way the former view used to easily trump the latter in polls. And it is also accurate to say that with the ability to see a moving, live fetus during the first trimester, it is harder to convince Americans that life does not begin until birth or at least the latter months of pregnancy. But does that fact mean that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned soon, or that the public will pass referenda and the courts will uphold them barring abortion?
I think hardly. The truth is that about half the voters still support abortion even if they know that they can now see the fetus that is to be aborted, very clearly even in the first few weeks — and with the latest equipment even earlier. Notions about choice, or convenience, or embarrassment — or almost anything — are innate to humans, and cannot so easily be changed by unequivocal evidence that abortion clearly entails terminating a visible living, growing human. Ultrasounds — and even more exact imagining to come — simply bring home the reality of abortion. But that fact does not necessarily thereby mean that many are not already accepting of that reality and know full well the consequences of abortion. Abortion remains, then, an ethical issue, whose contours can be altered, but ultimately not necessarily all that altered, by technology. Whether to kill a human or not was not the only consideration of the pro-choice adherents, and proving to them that such a choice entailed just that fact did not necessarily change hearts and minds, however it may have clarified some of the issues involved.
Drones
Predators allow us to kill hundreds of would-be terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan in ways that we otherwise might not have with special forces missions. It gives us, then, new advantages. Yet Afghanistan will be won or lost not through technology per se, but through age-old considerations about the cost in blood and treasure of making the Taliban accept our political agenda of a constitutional Afghanistan, and the degree to which we select the proper balance between hearts-and-minds counter-insurgency and punitive killing of the enemy — and have courageous troops, good officers, fine equipment, sound strategy, and public support to carry out those missions. The danger, then, is that some think we can disconnect from the war, and assume console killing from Nevada substitutes for much of the cruel calculus of the battlefield.
The horror, the horror …
Of course, we can now see daily horrific images from Syria. Thousands there are photographing the Assad (no longer apparently Hillary Clinton’s purported “reformer”) atrocities, which in turn can then be text-messaged in real time around the world. That results in millions watching grotesqueries in a way they could not when the father’s bulldozers leveled Hama and 20,000 corpses beneath it.
But is the world thereby more moral, more shamed, now more ready to intervene and stop what it did not in Cambodia or Rwanda? Maybe, maybe not. But the decision will be made largely through a balance of humanitarian considerations and realpolitik (blowback from intervention, costs, losses, aftermath, etc.). These photographs from Syria may make our choices more clear, but I doubt they themselves will change much about our ultimate decisions — other than to cause greater embarrassments for a short time should we not act. The German people did not need photos from Auschwitz to know well enough what their government was engaged in; I remember hearing vague accounts of Rwanda, and could imagine the level of carnage without seeing hourly pictures. The Clinton administration chose not to intervene not because it did not have enough evidence.
Facebook to Google
When I walk about in the rural countryside of central California I see the very poor texting while they peddle at intersections, and I see the same zombie-like mesmerization while walking a few hours later on University Avenue in Palo Alto, not far from the ground zero headquarters of it all at Google and Facebook. Millions are second-by-second obviously reading and typing away in a manner not true just a decade ago. And whatever they wanted to do back then, they are certainly doing it faster and more easily now. Twitter language surely is faster than old-fashioned English.
But are they speaking any more clearly, writing more effectively, gaining more pleasure from reading a tweet than a letter? In some cases yes, in others no. But as an out-of-it observer, who reads students’ papers, receives lots of emails and paleo-letters, and visits many campuses, I do not see any marginal increase in either happiness or literacy. In our zero-sum lives, for every minute spent writing “Hey, Liz, just hanging at the mall, whatsup?” at 60-second intervals, there is also another minute lost. I am not saying that those lost seconds would have been spent browsing Dante or reviewing advanced electronics, but they might have. It is not inconceivable that the brain can be more productive while silently walking than by walking and texting — or even that it might be pondering how to be a better friend or communicator than friending and communicating instantaneously without such requisite prep.
Electronic Gotchas
Thanks to the Internet, in about a minute I can find a past quote from Obama about recess appointments, filibusters, campaign financing, super-PACs, taxes, debt ceilings, deficits, Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, preventative detention, or Iraq, and then juxtapose it to another diametrically opposite quote — and thereby demonstrate that Obama is duplicitous, hypocritical, and demagogic in a way unusual even for politicians. These electronic trails surely make politicians more careful of what they say, since John Q. Citizen has access to it in a way unthinkable in our recent past.
But so what? I’ve written such columns frequently, and posted such a contrast today on the corner at National Review. Proof upon proof only makes Obama supporters sigh about these unfair and perhaps racist “gotchas,” and his opponents only more exasperated at the sheer hypocrisy of it all.
Instant access, exact quotations, even a video of the remark certainly bring high drama to the argument, but like the fifth footnote about the articular infinitive in Thucydides at the page bottom, they become redundant. To the degree such juxtapositions are determinative depends not on their number or clarity, much less on mastery of Google, but rather to the degree that they are used effectively to illustrate an argument, a skill that is not so predicated on technology. Humans are just as likely to say “So what?” when presented with ten vivid discrepancies, as they are with a vaguely remembered single anecdote, if there is no higher purpose to such data retrieval.
Nothing, Everything — or Something?
Cell-phoning simply has accelerated what was — or was not already — there. I like finding the GPS directions to a Starbucks in a strange city, and appreciate those engineers who gave us such options. But coffee is coffee, existence is existence, and if I don’t use my saved time wisely, it is not necessarily any better invested than in stopping and asking directions.
The point is not to denigrate high-tech, but to remind us that it a tool that is as good or bad — to paraphrase Shane — as the person using it. But with one great caveat, today’s glitzy technology is so impressive, so captivating to the human brain that it has the ability to confuse us about master and slave, cause and effect, the pump and water in a way the abacus or the telegraph did not. Sometimes consumer high-tech is the Catholic pessimist Tolkien’s master ring, a thing seemingly of great potential, but one that might corrupt those who think they can use its power for goodness.
Use it — but beware that at best the speed, ease of use, and greater awareness at our fingertips simply accelerate, emphasize, and accentuate whether we are dunces and boors or pretty informed and decent folk. And at worst, it is more likely to make us the former rather than the latter.
Since the dawn of mankind itself man’s major attribute *is* his technology (and the means to manipulate it.) Control of fire, how to make bits of stone on a thin stick into a projectile weapon, and so on — technology. The point is that man is inseparable from his technology; it is indeed man’s essence.
But, with the intellects(?) we have (ineptly) managing this country, the U.S. will look more like Haiti than Europe in a few more years.
Check out Haiti on Google earth, and then read up on their economy and government(?).
Thank goodness for womankind too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_hopper
And “animalkind”!
http://animalkind.org/home.html
“Fishkind”, too!
http://www.fishkind.com/
Then there’s “otherkind”, such as some of the trolls that show up in the comments section:
http://storygames.pbworks.com/f/otherkind.pdf
“Humankind” is supported by Obama; Here it is:
http://www.humanmedia.org/catalog/home.php
Delia;
Dr. Hanson has this posted on his web page:
Oriana was a “David” that confronted many giants; She especially liked to get in Gaddaffi’s face.
Looks like Dr. Hanson has a certain respect for Oriana’s intuition.
“…it is indeed man’s essence.”
Good, Rand, one could say that. One could also say that language is man’s essence, that thinking is man’s essence, etc., is man’s essence. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to denigrate your insight. I probably wouldn’t have thought of it on my own. I am just trying to say you may have over-reached a bit.
Fred, dolphins are either sentient or just this side of it, and many animals are aware. Most communicate, so language and thinking aren’t unique to man. Meanwhile many primates can use simple tools and the best of them can fashion simple ones. What separates man is that tool making plus language/thinking equates to mastery of technology. Hence I argue that man *is* technology. At least how this is how it appears from my chair. (And yes Delia “man” refers to the species, not the gender. :-)
John Lilly’s drug induced epiphany to the contrary notwithstanding,
porpoises are not people; The are about as bright as a dog.
The best description of our uniquely human nature I have heard is this:
Plants bind energy through photosynthesis, animals bind space through
mobility, and man binds time through memory; The past, present and future
are all available for manipulation within the mind.
My sister gave up surfing conservative websites for Lent.
I’m going to urge her to seek a dispensation for this dazzlingly provocative essay by our dear Dr. Hanson.
Denying oneself this fruit born of technology would, indeed, be rejecting the loom of reason.
Where’s the crude, rude, socially unacceptable taboo in a printer?
#2 Catherine…
Re: “Denying oneself this fruit born of technology would, indeed, be rejecting the loom of reason.”
Are you kidding? Our “Reason” is what is at risk here. “This fruit” resembles that Apple [!] in that Garden. Beware of talking snakes.
It’s a lot easier to sell drugs when you’re not tied down to the apt. all day waiting for a land line to ring when the rent’s due. Cell phones made selling drugs fun and liberating. Plus if you don’t want to be bothered you can lie and say you’re not home.
Telephone pagers already had done that for drug dealing and prostitution in your mother’s day – long before cell phones could fit into a purse.
While our technology progresses, human nature is little different than in the days when men used to beat each other over the head with clubs and rocks.
My boss, who went to college in the 1950s and was exposed to classical Greek and Roman writers, never tires of reminding me about this. He’s right, of course.
This reminds me of a story I have told now and again for over 30 years. Give me 500 of your most hard hearted atheist, your most liberal of liberal elites who wish to change human nature and make everything fair and equal.
Then wall off Montana with a 500 ft. tall, 300 ft below ground deep wall by 60 foot wide wall with no gates or means of escape. Give them seeds, one hoe for every ten people, a shovel for every 20 people, an axe for every 30 people, a dozen candles w/holders for everyone, vegetables good for one year that can be stored in an under ground earthen cave, cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, wolves, bears, etc. and all the other animals already in Montana in a ratio common to the modern U.S. Give them modern clothing, two sets each, winter and summer, their choice. No books. Certainly no electronics. Nothing else.
Leave them there and come back in a 1,000 years.
My hunch is that you will find a heirarchy of power in several territorial villages of not more than 400 to 500 people each, with trade, marriage, love/hate, rituals, warfare, weapons, some proto-religion or gaialike faith and a commensurate fear of nature, the Sun, the heavens and the unknown others and maybe some writing and a lot more.
Of course the lefts I tell this to laugh and mock and then we have another glass of wine and they go back to texting each other about fairness, ending hunger, ending warfare and poverty (all noble goals I might add) and watching MSNBC, 60 mintues, and documentaries on why conservatives are hunch backed naifs clinging to their guns and religion.
Then again maybe they’ll dig down 325 ft and tunnel out or build a proto-kite or airplane and fly out or a real big ladder and parasail out. Afterall I didn’t say they were necessarily ignorant, rather that they are atheist and far right liberal progressive. So let them prove they know more than we knuckledraggers know is all I’m saying.
You are correct professor human nature does not change.
“This reminds me of a story I have told now and again for over 30 years. Give me 500 of your most hard hearted atheist, your most liberal of liberal elites who…..”
Dear Larsky,
Your story has been shown to be correct quite recently, and it took merely weeks, not years to play out! I believe it was Zombie, and perhaps others, who noted that the “Occupy …” groups quickly began to develop a social order very much like the one they claimed to despise!
p.s. The may indeed try to build a proto-kite or airplane, but, being solar or wind powered, it would never get off the ground! Again, I believe it was Zombie who reported on their hilarious attempts to operate a pedal powered computer.
Twinkle twinkle.
Yes. The funniest part was the social structure they had. The highly-educated put themselves in charge, but were incapable of doing day-to-day tasks. When the time to work came, like to do some sanitation or fetch-and-carry, they sought out the lower-class, less-educated drudges to do the job. It was Animal Farm in a nutshell. Some animals are more equal than others. The pigs did the thinking, because they are smarter, and thinking is hard work.
It took them almost no time to devolve to this arrangement, however much they aspired to nobler concepts. The aristocrats put themselves in charge, as always.
Oh, and when it came rime to use the stage, well, only certain viewpoints were allowed.
Your actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear a word you are saying.
I can barely hear myself shrink. But all the better to fit into serfdom and servitude. I still cannot find a textie for forelock, so I still have to tug mine in real time, in reality.
As I stated at another thread:
“It’s so easy to fool people today, about what’s black, white; up, down; in, out; soft, or hard. Just give it a sly euphemism.”
The Democrat Party practices this daily.
P.S.
And how long will it be before we have ultra sound showing the fetus reacting to a painful electric shock to show they have feelings, and drones programed to search and destroy other drones?
This type of technology is never ending, and creates prey for itself.
Cybergeezer:
And so does the Republican Party.
Various Technologies have changed humanity in countless ways, although it has never been overnight after its introduction.
The printing press made mass education possible, until then education was dispensed to monarchy, religious and ruling classes. Once the masses understood concepts of Liberty, freedom and the pursuit of Happiness, Monarchies and religious orders fell and replaced by Republic Democracies. But it took time understanding new found power of the printing press.
The Internet will change Humanity , through mass instant communication. it will take time for it to transform the world, but it certainly will and in manners we cannot imagine yet.
Medical technology will literally change Humanity from the inside out. Stem cell therapy is capable of repairing damaged heart muscle from heart attacks, growing new teeth, restoring eyesight, livers, kidneys, etc. This is occurring in Hospitals today, every day.
These are just two examples how technology has and will continue to change humanity. In the end technology may appear to make Starbucks easier to find, but without tech there would not have been grandfather enjoying coffee with his granddaughter in the first place.
“The printing press made mass education possible, until then education was dispensed to monarchy, religious and ruling classes. Once the masses understood concepts of Liberty, freedom and the pursuit of Happiness, Monarchies and religious orders fell and replaced by Republic Democracies.”
No, this is not quite how it happened. First, everyone understands liberty, regardless of education. Second, until the growth in the economy after the “Dark Ages”, most people were too busy trying to scratch out a living by sustenance farming to get an education. While the printing press certainly helped the cause of education, people back then had amazing memories, and could memorize entire books. The ready access to books caused people to lose this talent. The anti-religious nature of what you have been taught is unfortunate, for not only is it incorrect, but just the opposite of what happened. The Catholic Church is the originator of the modern university system. Also, the anti-monarchy bias is also incorrect. The country that is the grandfather of modern republics, and most responsible for spreading the idea around the world is Great Britain, and they still have their monarchy.
And of course every single change was for the best, right?
Interesting comment. But I tend to agree with the Good Doctor. These technologies may increase the speed, range, impact and duration of human actions; but the essence of what drives individual and groups of humans to do what they do, seems to me to remain more or less unchanged throughout recorded history.
We are fundamentally a technological species. One could argue that adaptive tool-making is THE defining characteristic of our species. As Prof. Hanson says, tools alter how we go about achieving our objectives, but the objectives themselves seem to remain constant.
In fact, where one does detect slight shifts in terms of human motives, those shifts seem to come from moral and spiritual forces, not technological ones. For instance it was Jesus Christ who brought the values of compassion, forgiveness, self-reflection etc. to the forefront in the West. This is why the human rights movement is a product of western culture.
This (as you suggest) could all change in the future with the advent of artificial intelligence, genetic alteration and enhancement, human-machine cyborgs etc. It will be interesting to see how it all unfolds…
I do think though that a lot of the reactionary, totalitarian, anti-free market, anti-technology, anti-democracy, control-oriented thinking that characterizes the Left today is an unconscious reaction to the fear of the chaos and unpredictability that comes with rapid technological innovation. They want to control things because they feel threatened by change. Technology may not change human nature, but it is indeed a great driver of economic change (and economic equality!). Thus the Left champions what it professes to hate, and opposes the things that are its reason for being (at least in the minds of the lefties themselves). As I’ve said before, one might pity them, if they weren’t so destructive.
Dr. Hanson;
Would you do a big favor for your fans and write an autobiography?
Please?
We have the drones now. Iran and other enemies are buying them up and will be unleashing them on our forces when the time arrives. Assymetrical battlefield engagement is coming and we are sitting ducks, much easier to find than an enemy in a cave.
One area that I think technology has negatively impacted is “self-reliance”. The pioneers crossing the plains in their wagons had to be able to fix any problem that arose or they died. That same mentality largely held true until the 1950’s and the telephone became more accessible. I recall reading the Inter-Office correspondence from the 20’s to the 50’s where I worked and at the bottom it said “Telephone or Telegraph only in case of emergency” which meant you had to handle your own problems. Now fast forward to today… you don’t need to know anything, just look it up on Wikipedia. Or, if you have a problem just call your parents or the City 411 line (or 911 if the eatery runs out of chicken nuggets). You don’t need to rely on yourself because the “experts” are on standby. Rugged individualism now means that you don’t have the latest generation SmartPhone. We’ve come a long way Baby… maybe it’s time to go back. Maybe it’s time to understand that technology is a tool rather than a crutch.
But what are crutches other than tools?
The sort of independence you refer to was destroyed by specialization rather than technology, though the two trends are definitely related. The simple fact is that it is impossible to know how to do everything these days. It always WAS impossible, but the sum of human knowledge has increased immensely due to specialization. I was an Eagle Scout, know my way around the wilderness, firearms, etc, I can build a fire without matches etc. I know enough about carpentry, electricity and plumbing to build a house, though it would take me a lot longer than somebody with more skill. I can’t fix a car to save my life. I can do brakes, oil, filters, simple stuff, but anything beyond that I’m useless. I have some general knowledge, but mostly it’s specialized.
My job is specialized to the max–I’m in ‘computers,’ but what I do is use one specific application across many platforms. Outside that specialty my general knowledge is getting every day more obsolete. I used to be able to tear down a laser printer replace a part, and put it back together in under 10 minutes, including 57 screws–now I have trouble replacing the print heads in an inkjet printer. The real effect of technology is the expansion of knowledge and its availability, which makes requires specialization. That is the principle difference–being able to carry a library around with you. Even so, having a library doesn’t give you all the knowledge it contains, you still have to read it, find it, finess out what you specifically need. Therefore scholarship is just as important now as in the time of the Pharoahs. I think the good Doctor is right in general, that human nature hasn’t changed at all, but it is now much harder for the educated elite to hoard their knowledge as they have done forever. That is the one area where technology has made the only real progress against the worst parts of human nature, and it started with the printing press rather than the computer.
Still, the educated elite is trying their best, aren’t they? They sell ignorance like it’s crack, and are doing their darnedest to keep as many people down as possible. The real reason for all the ridiculous crap in school is distraction; filling up people’s brains with fluff so they won’t know to miss the important stuff. In a very real way the left has always worked to give the worst parts of human nature full sway, especially by pretending there is no human nature, and the bad parts are just dandy, or at worst were caused by a horribly evil enemy, like Society. They believe in human nature, and use it to their advantage constantly. There’s a reason every wicked enterprise in history preaches the same things, only the actors change. There’s no difference between a Catholic priest whipping up a Pogrom against Jews in the middle ages and a OWS ‘intellectual’ preaching hate against rich. They both work on the envy, ignorance and insularity of their mobs, dehumanize the foe as the ultimate evil, and nudge nudge wink wink deplore violence against them. The same dynamic works for a Missouri (Democratic Party) mob shooting Mormon women and children or New York (Democratic Party) mob lynching blacks during the draft riots, a Brownshirt beating up Jews in Bavaria, a labor activist shooting at ‘scabs,’ or a Muslim murdering a US soldier because somebody else destroyed a desecrated Quran.
Human nature COULD change, but the worst parts get in the way too often. And those worst parts have so many allies that I reckon it won’t change until the Christ returns.
VDH proves his point in one way. When you can use Google to show the inconsistencies of Obama, Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum, and you choose in column after column to use it only for Obama’s inconsistencies, then something other than Google is at play.
A larger underlying question has to do with the phenomenon of person y holding opinion x, a opinion not shared by many of y’s peers; but when y can go to an internet site and find many others who also hold opinion x, and they all reinforce each other, rather than arguing with their peers who disagree, does that significantly change the culture and make it more fractured with less of any kind of consensus possible?
The largest question of all: has human consciousness changed significantly in 6,000 years? To assert that it has not may be at the core of a generally conservative view of life.
YES, and NO.
If I may paraphrase the article.
So ending human sacrifice, the rise of written language, ending slavery, and making women almost equal were essentially cosmetic changes? The rise of agriculture, then cities, then Christianity, then legislatures, an Enlightenment, an American and then many other Revolutions, extending the Magna Carta to ever increasing numbers of people, the rise of science, being able to view earth from space and then millions of other galaxies, an on and on, we essentially have the same consciousness of those who sacrificed their children to bring rain or ward off “evil?” Hmmmm.
“…and making women almost equal…”
Making women almost equal? Who do you think you are?
How about men accepting women as equals? I do – apparently you do not.
Your Freudian slip is showing.
Typical liberal attitude – spoken from the top of your nose. Do you also ‘make’ blacks ‘almost’ equal?
Ending slavery, (Really Dwight? Can you possibly be that naive?)
The rise of agriculture (Unless it is an evil corporate farm, dairy, or feedlot),
then cities (Where the entitlement sheep can be congregated),
then Christianity (the bane of progressives everywhere),
then legislatures (riddled with cronyism and corruption),
an Enlightenment (steadily being negated by Marxists the world over),
an American and then many other Revolutions (all revolutions are equal, eh Dwight?),
extending the Magna Carta to ever increasing numbers of people (name the last group to whom it was extended),
the rise of science (and subsequent corruption of it to The Church of Global Warming and Wealth Redistribution),
being able to view earth from space and then millions of other galaxies (thanks to NASA before its mission was to help Muslims feel good about themselves),
and on and on, we essentially have the same consciousness of those who sacrificed their children to bring rain or ward off “evil?” (the way progressives are sacrificing the unborn to bring “progressive enlightenment” and ward off Christianity)
Hmmmm is right.
Excellent rejoinder.
Are you saying that Aboriginal Australians 150 years ago had a “different conciousness” than white Europeans??
That they were somehow fundamentally inferior humans? Because that’s an awful lot like what your post looks like it’s saying dwight, given that they never had any of the advances you mention and you link those advances to humanity.
When you have one society where people have reproduced, and flourished…or not, in response to their environment, and have done so for thousands of years, it seems reasonable to assume that the consciousness, which I will grant is a very complicated thing, would be somewhat different in the groups, even when you take the nurture piece out of the equation. And if there is selection going on, then the aborigines would also be somewhat different from their ancestors 6,000 years earlier.
When you multiply that 6,000, by another 100,000, or whatever number is needed to get back to a time when there were somewhat human creatures about, SOMETHING happened to them to get to us. Given those numbers, one can easily make the case that VDH is correct, because true consciousness change happens slowly, over a long period of time. But any revolutionary technological change may benefit or enable one part of the spectrum of humans, more than others.
We are still left with a nature nurture question and you can obviously change nurture immediately by adoption. Old societies would cull out certain people early, usually because they simply died, or because the practices or scriptures of the society proscribed their destruction. In societies where those groups survive and reproduce, the gene pool changes. All this is part of the whole guns, germs, and steel thing, even if Diamond would want to come down on the side of equal or similar consciousness, I’m not sure that his analysis finally pushes one that way.
The people in the past who heard God directly, as related in scriptures anyway, today might be institutionalized, as hearing voices in one’s head, out of burning bushes, or out of other various fires is considered pathological. More likely, such people who were relatively sane, would explain/present their visions in a more societally acceptable manner.
For the religious and/or the conservative, the question to be asked is: does a simple designation of good and evil completely explain humanity 6,000 years ago and, does it do so now. Are Muslims, essentially EVIL people, or something else? Are there good and evil people with all groups, all religions, and are all those good and evil people, essentially the same, except for one simple fact; some chose good (as they know it) and some chose evil (as they know it)?
Glad I’ve cleared that up. eh?
Dwight wrote: “The largest question of all: has human consciousness changed significantly in 6,000 years? To assert that it has not may be at the core of a generally conservative view of life.”
Do you mean cognitive abilities by your use of ‘consciousness’? Consciousness is an act of awareness and has nothing to do with the content of that awareness. Cognition is an act of understanding the nature of which we are conscious. So, the question really is: Do different peoples, both now and in the past, have different cognitive abilities?
To assume, as does Dwight, that they DO, is in my view, a profound analytic error. It assumes that our capacity to acquire knowledge, is genetic and not simply genetic, but these genetic capacity is particular to a specific group, to a particular population. And furthermore, that this genetic capacity differs among different sets of the human population. I reject that; our knowledge base is societally developed. Our cognitive capacities are common and universal.
Dwight says, “When you have one society where people have reproduced, and flourishe or not, in response to their environment, and have done so for thousands of years, it seems reasonable to assume that the consciousness, which I will grant is a very complicated thing, would be somewhat different in the groups, even when you take the nurture piece out of the equation”
But you can’t take ‘nurturance’ out of the question because our knowledge base is not genetic but entirely learned; it’s socially acquired and retained within the society. Certainly, different populations have developed different knowledge bases but their capacity-to-know, to be both wise and ignorant, is common to our species. The different so-called ‘races’ or groups don’t have different cognitive abilities.
As for the people ‘in the past who heard god directly’ – well, we still accept such ‘revelations’ as true. I’m sure you know that the Islamic Qu’ran is understood as the direct words of god and if you, an Islam, believe differently, you are a heretic. And, we have plenty of preachers in our various sects who consider that they have direct communication with god, from the Raelians to the Black Liberation ministers. They are not, to my knowledge, locked up but have many followers.
By the way, you can’t, as you suggest, ‘change nurture immediately’. I consider that it takes at least three generations to change a particular societal belief to another one. Beliefs are considered ‘truths’ and you don’t change them at the drop of a hat.
The cognitive capacities of our species, in my view, have not changed from the origin of our species homo sapiens. Equally, our psychological nature has not changed. What has changed is our knowledge base – and, using the scientific method of objective observation and empirical evidence – we can expand and develop that base. All of us, any of us – regardless of our ‘race’.
The way you can change nurture immediately is to have the child adopted into a new culture; I was not trying to say that you can change the nurturing culture, overnight, because obviously such things change slowly.
To assert that such a thing as human nature exists may be conform to opinion for most of recorded history but it is fundamentally revolutionary when considering that the pieties and consensus in social science held against such existence for the greater part of the 20th century; and it has been the social sciences that have shaped culture and politics over that same period.
“ending human sacrifice, the rise of written language, ending slavery, and making women almost equal were essentially cosmetic changes?”
Yes. VDH is speaking of fundamental human nature. The changes you speak of are changes in our society, due to the increase of knowledge and experience, but they do not change human nature itself. Remove people from their culture and they will revert – as illustrated so graphically in “Lord of the Flies”. Slavery still exists, oppression still exists – and can you really say that in the places where these happen human nature is so different from your own?
The Progressives hold that human nature will improve through time until Utopia is possible. Conservatives hold that human nature hasn’t changed over the past 100,000 years or so, will not change much regardless of our technical and social advancements, and that Utopia is just as impossible for us now as it was for the ancient Greeks.
I understand your concerns, but I am not a utopian, nor do I see us being anywhere close to such a condition. Even when I was young, I bridled at a college professor telling me that he believed we were perfectible; he said that he needed to believe that.
But, I think that with the correct tradition and nurturing we are “improvable.” We may never know whether that improvement reflects a real change in human consciousness. The Third Reich would be Exhibit A for “not really improved” but even in Germany many of the rank and file sympathized with Jews like Victor Klemperer, even if they had voted for Hitler. Would such a remnant have sympathized 6,000 years ago? I don’t know, but would guess that they would have objected less.
Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Bill because he said that you had to change men’s hearts, not just their laws. That statement gives us one of the major problems with the position that you “can’t legislate morality.” because there is a difference when you are affirming the rights of females or minorities, even if you are restricting my rights and freedom to dominate them by hook or by crook. Did such a law change my heart? Will it change my children’s hearts if they are raised in a modified culture?
But isn’t this the conservative conundrum? When do you make a law because humans need it, BECAUSE their natures are not going to change, and when do you avoid making the law because their natures will never change and they should be left that freedom?
“When do you make a law because humans need it, BECAUSE their natures are not going to change, and when do you avoid making the law because their natures will never change and they should be left that freedom?”
That’s easy. Laws are for restraining, not impelling. We keep you from doing evil. We do not force you to do good.
Trying to force someone to do good is theocracy. It is what Conservatives are accused of. It is true in some few cases, but most SoCons believe in free will. If there is physical or economic harm involved to another, then you must be restrained from such harmful actions.
Even then, the cure must not be worse than the disease. Taking away a pre-K kid’s lunch because it is not sufficiently healthy, as some busybody defines it, is worse than the “unhealthy” lunch. You start interfering in the prerogatives of people in the raising of their own children, and it leads to all kinds of ugliness. You better have damned good reason to cross that particular line.
It takes wisdom to know the difference between doing good by stopping evil and doing evil by impelling good.
No, Dwight, human nature is not improvable. Our nature is what it is. All we can do is struggle against our basic natures. God aids us in that struggle by offering a better way. Thou shalt not.
You do not change the basic nature by changing the culture. You are merely changing the environment. People react certain ways based upon various factors. The nature remains unchanged. The responses are different, because the things they are responding to are different.
To illustrate this, try teaching any kid from any culture in the world the game of Monopoly, then watch the behavior. The behaviors follow the same patterns.
A child from a very devout Christian family might have the rare different response, eschewing the lure of avarice. That doesn’t mean that avarice has no appeal to him, but rather, that he has been conditioned to put Satan behind him. His human nature has not changed. It is just resisted better.
You can call that cultural input, if you like. The culture is different. The environment is different. The human nature is the same. It is all about restraining the base nature, not changing it. Liberals think they can change it. They can’t. It cannot be changed, only restrained. There is a huge difference, there.
Is your point that everyone is equally competitive? Clearly that is not the case, even if competitiveness is a basic trait of human nature.
I don’t think that you have a any solid evidence on how kids from different cultures would respond to monopoly, any more than how they would respond to baseball. I would assume that most people would prefer winning to losing, but so many other permutations of skill, defense mechanisms, cultural training, sexuality, extraversion, introversion etc. or lack of of the same, make your certainty rather dubious. All these kids would have already been nurtured in their culture, so maybe you should be more specific about what you think this Monopoly game would show us. Have you studied anthropology…or do you just know these things from the gut?
Translation Alert!
“Have you studied anthropology…”
You are a Certified Credential Modern Liberal with effusive confirmation from a chosen, closed set of peers. No flatulence there, at least from the back end.
“or do you just know these things from the gut?
You are a “burping, farting, and yelling, ‘so’s your Obama-lovin’ mother’ (Dwight, February 23, 2012 – 6:28 am) Conservative.
Those are your choices. Courtesy of Fart Cop. Nothing like a Renaissance “Person” is allowed.
Hey D-White, what set of rules is the Ping Pong Tongue playing by? Is the game called at 7-0 or 11-0? That’s the “humane” Modern Liberal thing to do. And of course, your sitting on a Pick It Fence made of lit match sticks “blathering” is, well, beyond thoughts and intentions of most Non-Modern Liberals. No need for the fireworks. Yeah, nothing like a Northeast former Mr. President supporter quasi RINO lighting it up.
Well PJMers, be easy on D-White. He has confirmed as least two things. He has outted himself for Romney. And he is that teacher who once kicked you out of class for “farting”. Ok ladies excepted. After all, those darn “burping, farting, and yelling, ‘so’s your Obama-lovin’ mother’ (Dwight, February 23, 2012 – 6:28 am) Conservatives are know for taking the hits for damsels in distress. Modern Liberal “Hope” that there is a bus nearby so that they may affect “Change”.
Little did Red Pencil Neck Fart Cop teacher know that he was aiding and abetting a future Conservative Movement.
Lather was 30 years old today…
Apparently that would be a “no” for having studied anthropology. What does it matter what the rest of the world does, when we define ourselves as “exceptional?” And we are; it’s just that most of you vacillate between exceptionally good (sometime back in the days of….was it before Obama, before LBJ, before FDR, before Wilson, before Jackson, or before the Federalists scammed the country with their Big Government Constitution?) and exceptionally bad; spoiled, liberal, effete, sensitive, wimpy etc.
I don’t recall kicking anyone out for farting, but certainly would have done so for loud and repeated ones. Had I one ready, I might have gone the other way and farted in response, but then the classroom might have had to be cleared.
You can’t match my points, punch for punch, but can slip into your own world of innuendo. Good for you; you have to learn to play within your own limitations. And I love the way you try to tattle, as in “here’s what he said yesterday…or last year.” Hey, I know that you can’t keep track of them all, but certain ones regarding Wasilla or farting, seem to stick. Again, you have to swing at the pitches you think you can hit and let the rest whiz by. You’ve been called out on strikes many times, but then, who’s keeping score?
Did I ever tell you about the time I visited Talkeetna?
“Hey, I know that you can’t keep track of them all…”
Hmmm… “Burp” “Fart”… Fred Meyer firecracker…
The Educational Establishment speaks “Flatulence”. New teaching method, apparently. –
“Had I one ready, I might have gone the other way and farted in response, but then the classroom might have had to be cleared.” Fart Cop!
ThoughtCrime D-White, ThoughtCrime. Look what happened to that 4-year old and her dad. “They” might disallow your existence for thoughts like that.
Look D-White, with your point about women being “almost equal”, you got another nail in the Pick It Fence But. And those with other “conclusions”, several more nails followed. Stick to the game plan! Being decisive only brings the Conservative “burping, farting, and yelling, ‘so’s your Obama-lovin’ mother’ (Dwight, February 23, 2012 – 6:28 am) swarm upon you. Be opaque! Never come to a conclusion. That’s why you have “friends” in academia, the press and the government. The thinking is done already, for… you.
You know, many Conservatives own nail guns (so be careful what you wish for), as they are more inclined than “exceptionally bad; spoiled, liberal, effete, sensitive, wimpy etc.” Modern Liberals to do their own work. Conservatives, rather than receive their intellectual awareness (and therefore resulting physical action) from such experts as Mr. and Mrs. President, or the nearest government Credentialed Certificate holder, or some gal/guy in Hollywood, can and do nail for themselves.
And that’s why Mrs. Palin attracted/repelled you (“the sound of her voice…”). Romney’s better, because he looks to be Play Dough in the hands of skilled Modern Liberal Political “Artists”.
I’ll move over to the “Left” hand and play the last 10 points to 21 that way. There really exists “the kindness of strangers”, unlike the gunpoint forced smiling give 21 points demanded by so many Modern Liberals.
2/4 feel…
I visited Talkeetna
There I met Norm “Mineeta”
He was gonna be buildin’ a road
Through my Pick It Fence But abode
He said he was there for me
“Give Red Pencil Neck somthin’ free”
Yes, my “free” chains
And my classroom flatulent brains
“…but when y can go to an internet site and find many others who also hold opinion x, and they all reinforce each other, rather than arguing with their peers who disagree, does that significantly change the culture and make it more fractured with less of any kind of consensus possible?”
Dwight, have you ever tried to go to Kos, Muffington, Saloon, Lying Points Memo, or any other marxist propaganda outlet and tried to reason with them using another point of view? If you have it might help explain why you come here, where you are welcome, in your daily attempt to demonstrate your totally objective, above the fray, too wise to make a decision, critical, plague on both your houses attitude. If you never have, well, you are just kidding yourself. That’s OK though. It hurts nobody but you.
Accepting an easy illusion over something real and more difficult is itself human. So, in a way we agree. We are not less human as androids replace us.
This has been told to earth many times, I suspect.
The combination of cellphones, text-messaging, etc., may make it easier for us to see the atrocities in Syria in gruesome detail. However, it is unlikely to make Assad give a damn what the rest of the world thinks about them.
Generally, that sort of “consciousness raising” of a brutal dictator requires him to no longer be a dictator. Which usually requires him to be removed by force.
So far, I don’t see anybody in the halls of power concluding that it’s worth doing. Mostly, they seem to be trying to spin this as a temporary aberration in an otherwise benign record of rule.
It’s a story we get over and over again from the “enlightened elite’”; It goes, “You just don’t understand, their culture is different from ours”.
Well, yes, it is. So was Iraq’s under Saddam. That still didn’t make it OK for him to feed people he didn’t like into a wood-chipper, feet first.
The corollary is always, “You’re just against him because (fill in the blank).” With a side order of “chickenhawk” name-calling.
How about, “I’m against him because he’s a vicious bastard who seems to define his power by how many people he can get away with killing. And you seem to want him to stay in power because you like the fact that he doesn’t like us, or our friends.” With a side order of “Of course, you don’t count Israel among your friends, do you?”
Information is only effective if those making the decisions know what to do with it. And that depends on exactly who they, personally, perceive as being “the good guys”.
clear ether
eon
“The Catholic Church is the originator of the modern university system. Also, the anti-monarchy bias is also incorrect. The country that is the grandfather of modern republics, and most responsible for spreading the idea around the world is Great Britain, and they still have their monarchy”
Sorry Anonymous, This is not accurate. The modern University system is derived from medieval Guilds ( basically trade Unions) that taught skills and talents from Goldsmith to Farming. Formal Universities such as Paris, Bologna and Cambridge were corporations set up between professors and students. It was the church’s desire to control education and religion that brought involvement of the Church in building extensive cathedral universities. But it was all based on the trade Guild system.
There is no single country that can be called the grandfather of the Republic democratic system. This was a process that started in Sparta, Athens, Rome and continued in Northern Italy under Res Republica forms of government. There were also republic in Early Russia and Iceland, in particular the Icelandic Althing which is the oldest parliament system…all before Britain existed as a Nation. Britain certainly contributed to the world, but cannot be called the grandfather of Republic or can claim any more share than those that preceded.
Also, am not sure if you fully understand the causes of American Revolutionary war in 1776..?? It was to overthrow the chains of British Monarchy and establish the Republic of the United States.
As far as Britain’s Monarchy it is a shadow of what it once was, held in place for nostalgic reasons. There is Zero Political power in the Monarchy, it provides only ceremony, etc, etc. If they wish to Keep the Monarchy in place that is fine, but to claim it is a political power is nonsense.
If there is any one Nation on earth most responsible for spreading Ideals of a Democratic Republic, it is the USA.
“Formal Universities such as Paris, Bologna and Cambridge” were founded at abbey sites and grew out of the schools founded by monks there.
The bells rung (or recordings of same played through loudspeakers) played to mark the hour at universities worldwide are throwbacks to the church bells of the medieval Catholic calls to prayer. Even at secular State-run universities today those chimes are especially elaborate at noon, 3 PM and 6 PM though not one in a thousand students there would recognize, for example, the 6 PM bells as a call to the vesper prayers.
Try again.
P.S. The earliest written description of the scientific method was made by a medieval Catholic priest (who later became a bishop). If you agree that knowledge is good, thank the Catholics.
“Britain certainly contributed to the world, but cannot be called the grandfather of Republic or can claim any more share than those that preceded.”
You must be kidding.
Britain colonised and civilised half of the world, without Britain there would be no America, no enlightenment no though on individual freedom. Americans always seem to forget that the founding fathers were British men demanding british freedom from their tyrant king.
I suggest that anyone who wants to get a better understanding of the tremendous influence of the UK on the USA should read “Albion’s Seed.”
http://www.amazon.com/Albions-Seed-Folkways-Cultural-ebook/dp/B000SEKM9C
Yes, they influenced the founders tremendously both in what they wanted and didn’t want in their government. I think most conservatives recognize Britain for its influence on our culture and realize that to be why it is(or was until Obama) our closest ally.
Excellent obversation Dr. Hanson.
Human nature is immutable. We can read the writings of the past 5,000 years and immediately understand the motives and emotions of the carachters involved. Technology does not alter our ancestral bond a whit. We are the same folk that built Rome and the same tribe who sacked her. It is in our DNA. Evolution may eventually alter our desires but that is not something that happens in thousands of years but over millenia. This is the human condition.
Many thanks for your works.
We all know a fool when we see one, but never when we are one.
You may look like a fool, but why open your mouth and remove all doubt.
These hi-tech days, why it seems as if seeing and hearing, as senses, have been extended into tiny machines, so that flowing electrons wiggle various elements to convey, instantaneously, FOOLISHNESS.
The constant connectivity to other people that has become so prevalent, to an old codger like me, is a message that a whole lot of humans are reluctant to take their lips off mommy’s tit. Not only are way too many “grownups”, men especially, still living at home with their parents, but even when escaping their PHYSICAL abode, in other ways they are still attached.
Also, perhaps “coffee is coffee” sums up the basic truth, which must prevail, despite the manufacturing of more tools of greater productivity into smaller packages.
It is STILL TRUE that coffee is horrible for the body!
Most people know about the downside to drinking it, maybe from having had too many cups of it too fast, and getting jittery and/or having a hard time falling asleep. Or, they may also know it’s bad for the heart.
How many of you Starbuck’s fans know the following—
In the colon exist friendly lacto-bacillus bacteria, which are there to help digest food. Coffee tends to KILL these guys. The result?
The ‘food” petrifies, turns into “nonfood” aka CRAP, or toxins, and is transferred throughout the bloodstream into the trillions of cells of the body, IN PLACE OF the food that should have been digested by the coffee-destroyed bacteria.
Put this realization into your awareness, with every swallow of the java you “enjoy”.
By the way, the Nazi’s gave meth to their soldiers, before battles. In America, these days, low-grade speed, known as coffee, is the ticket to ride into our daily “battles”.
The ongoing overeating of garbage logically results in more and more obese and SICK people.
The latest number signaling approaching disaster, to wit that each American is $44,000 in debt, as their portion of the USA deficit, could be likened to the burgeoning FAT surrounding each person.
Here’s an idea—have each American analyzed, as follows: at this time, their ideal weight is X, and they weigh Y. Take the difference, so say Maxine Tubby weights300 pounds, but should weigh 130. Her “contribution” to the American Well-being Deficit is 170 pounds. Then, sum up ALL Americans, and that’s it!
Let’s see—about 2 out of 3 people are overweight or obese. Say the average excess fat per person is 30 pounds—probably too low, eh? Thirty pounds times 300,000,000 people would mean TEN BILLION pounds of fat.
Say each person owes $45,000. How many dollars per pound? Why, that’s only $1,500 per pound! Wait—that’s a very expensive pound!
Talk is cheap. Fatness is expensive.
Say, you aren’t the First Lady incognito are you?
Shhh.
Don’t expose my cover.
After two generations in engineering practice, I think there is a quantitative, if not qualitative difference in modern mankind and the influence of technology on his conduct. An example is climate change and its influence on America’s energy policies. I do not believe there has ever been any time in human history, in which so many ignorant PhDs have struggled to harm human life, for personal gain. It is a rebuttal position. Stalin had his phony scientists, as did Hitler. Issac Newton railed against his enemies.
One basic metric of higher education is societal contribution. We know the struggles of Tesla, Edison, , and others, both against ignorance (they would call it trial and error), but also against each other. But today we have libraries of peer reviewed documents which only the author, and their buddy have read. Today we have a thousand different hockey sticks; some are straight and flat. The only common characteristic is that all authors claim dogmatic truth. Which is technically impossible. Thus, it is an inescapable fact that all of our meters, and non linear regression curve fitting software are fancy polysyllabic ways to lie, to intentionally mislead. As our national math and science scores decline, we hold infallible positions on sea level predictions, 1,000 years from now. In the last few days, a member of our National Academy of Science, and until recently, chairman of an American Geophysical Union task force on scientific -ethics, admits to stealing his political opponents private papers. The charge of his fraud, lying, is pending.
In science, journalism, politics, law, regulation, government, business and academia, our current societal elite sit at the bottom of ethical conduct. It was not always so. It is unsustainable.
“In science, journalism, politics, law, regulation, government, business and academia, our current societal elite sit at the bottom of ethical conduct. It was not always so.”
Actually, it has always been so. These areas have always been filled with mediocrities. The world is filled with mediocrities. Always has been. In order to compete, they have to cheat. They rely on circumstances of birth and good-old-boys networks to achieve.
The truly capable have always had to overcome these things. They have never needed these things, and they know it. They resist involvement in such things, preferring to make it on their own merit. The capable have always had to pull against the sheer inertia of the entrenched masses of mediocrity in order to effect real change or improvement.
75-80% of new jobs are created by small business. Why? Go to an entrepreneur, some guy making it on his own merit, with a good idea, and he will rush to implement it.
Try that in a corporate environment or government with all their bureaucratic thinking and masses of mediocrities. Endless meetings . Further studying. Numerous reports. Political infighting. Fighting for credit for success, assuming success is ever allowed. And so forth.
America was a brief interlude in the history of Man. It was an experiment in meritocracy. It is why it was so unbelievably successful. But as ever, the mediocrities band together to succeed by sheer weight of numbers. They drag it all to a halt, and Mankind shall proceed as ever before our Rise and Fall.
Already you can see it. Art and literature are on the decline. The pace of health science development has slowed dramatically in the few years of this Millenium. Same with wealth. Same with engineering. Where’s the new 8th wonder of the world? Heck, we can barely keep our roads and bridges repaired.
Improvements are happening, but the pace is slowing dramatically. It will continue to slow, as the amount of capital available is diminished by hungry governments, and as those same governments, filled with mediocrities, enact ever more regulations. One ends up fighting the Tar Baby government.
Look at our Presidents of this new Millenium. Bush and Obama. Does not mediocrities describe them both? How about the field of Presidential candidates? Any Reagan there? An Ike, maybe, or a Coolidge?
Reagan was a colossus. Everybody liked Ike. Even silent Cal was hugely inspirational to people. They effing loved him! All of them were great. They were highly competent. Their results were great. You knew that before you ever voted for them. Anyone like that now? Mediocrities. None up to the huge challenge.
Mediocrities cannot tolerate a meritocracy, because they are relegated to their proper roles in the lower end of the spectrum, and the mediocre vastly outnumber the shining stars of a society. So, they gang up and act as a massive drag on the true men of ability.
Mediocre men run businesses into the ground, while walking away with millions. Corporations invest in government and skim wealth, rather than create it.
Great men seek to build things. They desire to live off the fruits of their own labors, rather than the fruits of the labors of others. They do not smile in the mirror, because of how much they have managed to steal.
The more mediocrities a society possesses, and the more they are indulged, the harder it is for great men to achieve great things.
Misery and poverty is the usual condition of Mankind, and we are now returning to that lowly state from the all-too-brief interlude called freedom. You think it was not always so, because it wasn’t that way in your lifetime, but your lifetime was the exception which proves the rule. No, it has always been this way, but for a brief shining time, when free men could breathe free.
Your comment is the best I ever seen. Excellent.
Thank you
A high compliment, indeed. Thank you, sir.
I second Sam’s judgement. I am afraid you are correct.
It’s late afternoon in Obama’s America.
In the spirit of the upcoming Oscars, this post indirectly reminded me of a Mickey Rourke quote on the possibility of winning an Oscar: “In the big picture, you can’t eat it, you can’t f— it, and it won’t get me into heaven.”
And yes, he was robbed of an Oscar for The Wrestler.
As usual, very well said. Thanks VDH.
One huge change is word processors. They making ginning up lengthy papers so much easier and faster, but do they make us better writers?
And as I noted comparing the Battle of Saipan to the Battle of Helmand Province, the role of the Marine Corps has really not changed that much over the last 65 years.
Think about the technological changes in the last 100 years. All the money spent on education.
Now, here is a quote about education from 1909
It could just as easily have been written yesterday.
Just to put things into perspective, recall that in 1909 most people didn’t finish high school. Most high-school grads then were females, men went into business or the trades pretty early. Also, only a very thin percentage of adults had any post-high school education at all. Of those who did, it was mostly females because finishing school – whether of the collegiate sort or otherwise – was important in order for her to marry well.
Thus, those complaints from 1909 don’t speak well of the highly-schooled of that day, do they?
Truth, crushed to earth shall rise again! The Internet abundantly reinforces this. It’s true, human nature doesn’t change: people emotionally committed positions will use the ability of logic and verbal skills to make what is strongly felt look rational. If you have ever speculated in commodity trading, with fundamental analysis, you will quickly find out how vulnerable you are yourself. But the truth is still the truth, and your rapidly diminishing equity will ultimately force you to face the truth.
Nevertheless, I am a bit more optimistic: the incessant bombardment of the truth via Internet has only just begun. The big lie (political ideology that justifies centralized autocratic powers) of the ruling classes will die the death of 1000 cuts. Just look what happened to the global warming movement.
Fundamentally held big picture perspective evolves slowly, but evolve it will. I was startled by George Gilder’s prediction that the 21st-century will be century of faith (about 10 years ago in a special edition of Forbes), and increasingly, I’m beginning to believe it.
Conservatives can be their own worst enemy with their unattractive, dour, pessimistic outlook: that endless barrage of calamity howling in defensive trenches is not the way to conquer new territory. Leadership is needed with that confident optimism that Reagan had about the collapse of the “evil Empire”. It happened suddenly and unexpectedly;postmortem analysis showed the Soviet Union to be much weaker than imagined.
Dwight wrote, “VDH proves his point in one way. When you can use Google to show the inconsistencies of Obama, Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum, and you choose in column after column to use it only for Obama’s inconsistencies, then something other than Google is at play.”
Dwight wrote, “VDH proves his point in one way. When you can use Google to show the inconsistencies of Obama, Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum, and you choose in column after column to use it only for Obama’s inconsistencies, then something other than Google is at play.”
And you have proved his point exactly. You complain about how some criticize only Obama, but you ignore those who criticize only others than Obama, e.g. ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, NY Times.
When the mainstream media go after Obama with the same maniacal, chops-licking glee they went after Palin, we’ll talk.
And then all the drummers arrived in the Echo Chamber. And the noise got very loud and at the same time pointless.
Ha! Just like that little voice in your head.
Speaking of Predator drones, can anyone here shed some informed light on Subtitle B, sections 321-325, of the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 201l? Those sections authorize “Unmanned Aircraft Systems” in U.S. airspace. Obama signed it into law on Valentine’s Day. Skynet?
Think HAL.
I wish Dr Hanson had written about the immediate personal controlling affects th’ PC-gizmo-gadget-hand-held-thumb-dialling-wrong-numbered Thing has upon us mere human consumers.
What is in Control here? Apple? Microsoft? Windows? What is determining what we attempt to communicate to Liz down at th’ Mall?…every sixty seconds?…such trivial BS. I hope whatever it is, it’s still originating inside our brains, and not an amalgam with some illiterate [in the old fashioned sense] code-writer’s idea of what we should be using. Face-Book-Like-Wise?
What are these code-writers-programers omitting in their Operator’s Instructions? Why do these damned onion-skinned-layered-with-complexities “apps” not respond to our “commands” exactly as we type on these tiny stylus-requiring keyboards. Why are we repeatedly frustrated at that “Error” pop-up? We’re not all that dumb.
Are we not controlled by illiterate Code-Writers and Programmers? There seems to be an abject lack of old fashioned communication. Illiteracy abounds.
Think of an Octopus-Hydra-Headed-HAL. They love it…..don’t they?
Abortion, drones and dictators, oh my !
Human nature is constant in the same sense as the quadratic equation;
It always gives the same output for a given set of inputs, but the output
depends on the input.
In the near future, the next ten years, expect to see a vaccination against
pregnancy, miniature assassination drones, and an immersive virtual reality
which puts US voters on the streets of places like Hama, and convinces them
to approve of sending in the drones to terminate dictators like Assad.
Are you afraid to expose the Obama Internet Drone that assassinates every negative commenter that criticizes him and his policies?
Indeed Dr Hanson, I wonder if we are really more moral than our grandparents’ generation, of whom my classmates constantly berate for their ignorance and cruelty.
My .02, my perception of our human nature plummeted with the advent of message boards and scrolled-down to the comments sections under the article (present company mostly excluded!). I live in hope that they are written by a small self-selected cadre of trolls while the core of America is too busy to pay attention.
I must take exception to your assertion that “These electronic trails surely make politicians more careful of what they say . . .” with regards to the internet and the appliances with which we traverse these trails. Seriously, Dr. Hanson, do you ever watch these people when their incongruous utterings are paired before them for explanation? They stand there with their mouths open like a cow watching a passing train, or bristle at the temerity of anyone to so much as entertain the blasphemy of questioning the integrity or intellect of the public servant. These are not our best and brightest, in most instances, and the sense of self-righteousness they feel at the sound of their own voices almost guarantees an endless bounty of contradiction and outright stupidity left as internet “crumbs” for our handheld “Hansels and Gretels” to follow.
Nonetheless, Dr. Hanson, I’m thankful daily someone invented the wheel.
A few years ago I was talking to a friend on the phone and invited him over to my house. I said, “Let me give you the directions.” He replied, “No, I have your address.”
That was an “Aha!” moment for me. I realized that he could just look it up on Google Maps or equivalent. He didn’t need to write down verbal directions from me.
Which was a good thing. Here’s an example of me giving directions:
“You go straight for two lights…or is it three?…then turn right. Damn, I can’t remember the name of the side street. I think there’s a gas station on the corner. It’s a Mobil…no, wait, I think it’s a BP now…Aw, shoot, I know this route like the back of my hand. I drive it every day.”
Who says there’s no such thing as progress?
ETAB wrote: “Dwight wrote: “The largest question of all: has human consciousness changed significantly in 6,000 years? To assert that it has not may be at the core of a generally conservative view of life.”
Do you mean cognitive abilities by your use of ‘consciousness’? Consciousness is an act of awareness and has nothing to do with the content of that awareness. Cognition is an act of understanding the nature of which we are conscious. So, the question really is: Do different peoples, both now and in the past, have different cognitive abilities?
To assume, as does Dwight, that they DO, is in my view, a profound analytic error. It assumes that our capacity to acquire knowledge, is genetic and not simply genetic, but these genetic capacity is particular to a specific group, to a particular population. And furthermore, that this genetic capacity differs among different sets of the human population. I reject that; our knowledge base is societally developed. Our cognitive capacities are common and universal.”
It is certainly a valid question as to what consciousness is, as opposed to cognitive abilities, and I don’t have the answer, but if you accumulate a lot of scientific knowledge regarding issues that the universe/earth has been around for a long time and that semi-humans and humans have been around for a longer time than we can completely mentally and emotionally absorb, and that information becomes a general knowledge on which the next generation builds and makes its decisions about hiring, firing, and reproducing one would expect that SOMETHING happens to us over time.
Let’s boil it down to the image in the movie 2001 of the ape man smashing the bones with his new killer tool, and one of the bones soars up and (thanks to Kubrick’s vision) becomes a space station, to me one of the great moments in Cinema, and clearly one of the great moments in us becoming human. The paintings on the caves at Altamira and Lascaux show yet another moment, really as was the other, the culmination of millions-billions of moments.
Now what was your question? I will grant you that it may be necessary for most of us to believe and live as if we were not the culmination of all that stuff trailing behind us, and pray, “Jesus, save us!” regularly. Been there, done that, but you get left with the paradox of the closed system of our belief; in both our personal meaning and importance and that God loves us…and those galaxies, which just go on and on and on and….
Keep up or get left in the dust. Thus it has always been.
Still sounds like the professor is pining for fjords.
Fjord? What is the virtual equivalent of a Fjord? I think it’s the other way around. The Professor is grounded in the real world and understands that at best hi tech is a tool to help us navigate our way through life and the riches it has to offer. Pity the poor souls who experience life as a series of bits and bytes.
I once thought the internet would be the great playing field egalitarian equalizer. Unfortunately the Prof is correct, it only reinforces our propensity to be stupid or enlightened. It hasn’t enhanced our ability to critically sort through and analyze the vast amounts of information at our fingertips.
Interesting that the brightest most successful of the Silicon Valley elites send their own children to private schools that eschew high technology.
The military intelligence commnunity’s struggles to reap the benefits of these technologies at the bloody cutting edge of the 1980′s produced numerous insights and pithy descriptions.
As a battle hardened old leatherneck once told me, “If it isnt waterproof and small enough to fold up and fit into the pocket of my flack jacket, f*** it. I don’t need it. At the time, tactically employing the USMC’s laser designator was also described as similar to carrying a small vending machine up the hill and then aiming it at the target.
As to the impact technology really made on most of us this phrase always seemed to fit. “It’s just like 3 hogs looking at a wrist watch.”
My favorite was and still is (just ask my kids). “Bulls*** at the speed of light is still Bulls***.” Pogo has been spot on all along.
I keep hogs entertained with a smart phone all the time.
B.S. at the speed of light turns back into grass.
I’ll give you credit for knowing how to scroll down to the bottom of the page and puttin’ in the information to post a comment though.
Yu kno ur technologee!
Pardon my pith.
“paleo-letters” — Heh.
“It is not inconceivable that the brain can be more productive while silently walking than by walking and texting — or even that it might be pondering how to be a better friend or communicator than friending and communicating instantaneously without such requisite prep.”
So true. I see this kind of bizarre dynamic in the workplace. God help us when this generation begins to run things. Look at how the Boomers are doing it now. Their children will fare no better.
Thank you, Dr. Hanson.
Off to watch the latest installment of “Doomsday Preppers”.
Please let me know if you’re looking for a article author for your blog. You have some really good posts and I believe I would be a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I’d absolutely love to write some content for your blog in exchange for a link back to mine. Please shoot me an email if interested. Thanks!
Do you have a spam issue on this website; I also am a blogger, and I was wanting to know your situation; many of us have created some nice procedures and we are looking to swap methods with others, be sure to shoot me an e-mail if interested.