Humanity itself isn't the problem, our particular culture is the problem.

[greyl]

edit: "our particular culture" does not equal "The U.S.A.", but it includes it.

[adigal]

1. Americans need to turn off American Idol

and wake up and look around at what is happening to our own country, in triple-time!! It is terribly frightening that something like 50% of our fellow Americans think that it is OK to trash the 4th Amendment to keep us "safe."

Can't wait until Bush goes after the 2nd Amendment, because "terra'rists have weapons, ya know, so we want to know who in Al Queda has a weapon here."

[Totally Committed]

2. Humanity creates the culture it lives in...

Sorry, but that's how I see it. But, it could be a "chicken or the egg" conundrum... dunno. I do think we are complicit to a large extent. There would be no "American Idol" without a large part of our society more interested in that than, say, Darfur. If more people were interested in who died in Katrina than "Brangelina", that's what would be reflected in the media. Most of the people in America take the "path of least resistance" rather than responsibilty for what goes on around them. Most people in America would rather have a man as uninformed and unexceptional as they are as their President than a well-informed, intelligent human being. We have only ourselves to blame, and while turning off "American Idol" would be a good start, it would only be a start.

Until we insist on being educated, and having our children educated, and not expect a guy who we'd like to have over to the backyard for a BBQ as POTUS, this country is on the road to hell. No kidding. HUMANITY IS THE PROBLEM.

TC

[Dorian Gray]

21. I agree....

though I would like to add that American Idol is less offensive than, say, The Bachelor. Now that show truly exhibits the problems within our society! :)

[greyl]

29. Humanity has created many thousands of cultures.

Ours is one.
How is ours working out? ;)

There exist today cultures that "our" culture would call modern "stone age" cultures - in New Guinea and Brazil for example, who have a heritage that extends back a few million years to the beginning of humanity.
Our culture, our lifestyle, our vision of our place in the community of life, is only several thousand years old
Our culture has serious problems practically built into it. The evidence is becoming ever more plain and abundant. Because of its design, our culture is failing. I don't see how we can save the world as long so many people misplace the fault with humanity itself. (as so many religions do)

[Boomer]

3. Nope, homo sapiens is the problem

Not every human culture reflects the worst aspects of our natures, but the potential always lurks beneath the surface. Our history as far back as we can uncover is one of warfare, empire building, overpopulation, exhaustion of local resources and cultural collapse. And it looks like we're going to continue that cycle until there are literally no more resources left anywhere.

[salvorhardin]

6. Well, with that kind of reasoning

You might as well slit your wrists now.

[Boomer]

11. What an odd line of reasoning

By your own line of "reasoning":

* We all die eventually, so why not slit our wrists now.
* Our species will end eventually, so why not slit our wrists now.
* Our sun will die eventually, so why not slit our wrists now.

Just because I recognize the underlying patterns of human behavior that lead to empire building and collapse doesn't mean I want to hurry the process along. Like most humans, I'm rather enthusiastic about enjoying what time I have left and optimistic enough to hope I miss out on the chaos in our future. Living is about "now", not "later."

[salvorhardin]

13. I disagree

Since all organisms, including humans, are concerned with the continuance of the species then all living is about both. Humans happen to have the unique ability to plan their effect on the environment as well build defenses against it. Soon we may even have the capability to plan ourselves at a genetic level. To say that we have no control over the future is to cede the present.

[Boomer]

20. You keep shifting the argument

I'm not sure how you get from "We should all just slit our wrists" to issues about control over our future, but what the heck.

Humans are very clever, in the short-term, but we don't do so well on long-range planning and the changing of short-range goals to avert future disaster.

We have built everything from pyramids to computers, and are even delving into genetic manipulation. All marvelous toys, no doubt about it, and many of which provide an immediate rise in population numbers. But our ability to comprehend and act upon the consequences of our immediate actions is limited. Very limited.

Individual desire for wealth right now (in whatever form) always trumps the collective good. Fish out the oceans now, to get top dollar. Have all the children we want. Tear up farmland to build McMansions. Raise crops that depelete the soil and lower the water table. Have swimming pools, fountains, and golf courses in the middle of desert. The list of short-sighted actions leading to the destruction of our ecosphere are endless.

Unfortunately, another hallmark of humans is to build enduring institutions and cultures that persist even when the invididuals within them recognize that the patterns are self-destructive.

We are a young species, and the jury is still out on whether we can persist long enough to give ourselves airs of superiority.

[salvorhardin]

22. If you truly believe

that you have no control over the future, if you believe that you can not make a better world for yourself, then why even bother living? That's the ultimate outcome of giving up your future -- death. Similar for societies, the fact that mistakes in the past should not stop us from trying for a better future. I just see your mode of thought as nihilistic and entirely defeatist.

[Boomer]

35. Talk about nihilism

Taking on responsibility for the welfare of the entire planet throughout the remainder of history is a rather awesome burden. Good luck with that.

I'm a little less... ambitious. I don't think I can shape a better world for everyone for all time, only my own corner of it for today. I do the best I can with what I've got, for as long as I've got it. The fact that I'll be dust tomorrow doesn't depress me. I try to take lessons from my cat, Alex, one of the more serene creatues I've met: Savor the moment. He's dust now, but he had a heck of a good time while he was alive. If I can enjoy myself half as much as he did, I'll have had a full life.

[greyl]

18. Your history is incorrect - it's actually mythology.

The first tip-off that it's mythology is that you believe that our culture is the end result of evolution or any creation story.

You think the human timeline is: First Humans > Paleolithic Humans > Mesolithic Humans > Neolithic Humans > Us

In scientific reality: after Neolithic Humans > 10,000 other cultures and us.

edit: I'm not picking on you, because I think that 95% of our culture believes the same myth you do.

[papau]

40. So there was only one Neolithic culture- interesting. Guess "culture" only

applies to the latest - and that the cultural history of warfare, empire building, overpopulation, exhaustion of local resources and cultural collapse does not apply to Mesolithic Humans.

Interesting.

[InaneAnanity]

4. The problem is religion

Including christianity, but not limited to it. All religions are the problem.

[Goblinmonger]

8. I'm with you.

I just had that discussion with my wife yesterday. Unlike my atheist, she is agnostic with a belief in some kind of higher power. She said that was a little harsh and that it is the people in power in the religion that are the problem. I told her I did not think that was a difference. Spirituality is not a problem. Religion is a system that makes it far too easy for crazy people with bat shit crazy ideas to get other people to do their evil bidding.

[varkam]

27. I'd say I would have to agree. n/t

[greyl]

31. That deserves serious re-consideration.

Do you agree that the 5 major religions that are in global competition today were invented in response to a fucked up local culture, not in response to some flawed condition of humanity at large?

[InaneAnanity]

38. No, it's flawed humanity

I only see four religions in any sort of conflict: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism.

But no, its our humanity and not the culture that created these problems. Some of us are smart enough to see dogma for what it is, but the vast majority of humans are just peons who will latch on to whatever they can grab. It's our nature to do so.

[greyl]

39. What reasons do you have for believing that?

Keep in mind:
1. human tribalism has worked for 3 million years and is still working today.
2. in less than 10,000 years, our culture, which is not an example of tribalism, has over-populated the earth nearly destroying all living evidence of the other thousands of time-tested cultures.


"I only see four religions in any sort of conflict: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism."

I didn't describe the 5 major religions as being in conflict exactly, I said they were in global competition. But since you brought it up, there have in fact been at least a handful of recent bloody wars fought in the name of Buddhism.
Those 5 religions are all products of one and the same culture - ours.

[salvorhardin]

5. You don't think that's perhaps a false dichotomy?

And which problem? There's lots of problems. I'm sure you're referring only to the sociopolitical problems, but still I don't think they have a single-source cause and many problems have more than one causation.

[greyl]

10. No, because "Our culture" does not equal "humanity".

As I ask it, the question isn't vague, it's bedrock basic.

I knew there would be variances in answers due to differing ideas of what "our culture" and "humanity" mean, but that doesn't invalidate the various answers at all. In fact they all provide insight into how "the problem" is identified by different people. In this case, progressives who are more socially conscious than conservatives. I believe that successful solutions to "the problem" depend on understanding "the problem" and discerning between symptoms and underlying illness, so to speak. I'm trying to identify the surface and edges of the cultural lens we collectively look through.

Unfortunately, most people in our culture have grown up believing that the human race is inherently flawed. To show my hand, I think it's incredibly myopic, ignorant, misguided, counter-productive, dangerous, and hopeless to believe that humanity is the problem. The evidence is out there showing that humanity outside of our 10,000 year old culture can live as happily, successfully, and non-destructively as beavers, sparrows, koalas, pythons, and dolphins.
What a wonderful world.

[salvorhardin]

12. What do you mean by socially conscious?

I don't know. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't see how any answer can be valid if the problem (and associated terms) aren't well defined in the first place. I just don't see the products arising out of that kind of thinking have any value. They're just states of mind bearing a coincidental relation to the real world at best.

[greyl]

14. Inadequate shorthand for globally aware and free of intellectual prejudice

and cultural myth.
It's a high standard, and the vast majority of people in our culture don't meet it.
I'm fine tuning my own views and angles of attack as it were, in relation to other opinions.
"Socially conscious" wasn't included as an idea to keep in mind in the poll question, for a reason. :)

[greyl]

15. In addition re "the problem"

"I don't see how any answer can be valid if the problem (and associated terms) aren't well defined in the first place."

I didn't want to define "the problem" in any specific terms, because I thought it would be implicitly understood that it meant "the main, underlying problem that leads to the rest". Whatever the poll respondents may define as "the rest of the problems" isn't as important, in my mind, as where they place the main faultline in our world.

Sorry that I've been replying in a rushed way, Sal. :)

[salvorhardin]

23. I'm sorry, and I don't intend this to be a personal attack

but I find the idea that there is one central problem from which all others stem to be terribly sloppy thinking. I mean, isn't that frighteningly similar to the concept of original sin? I think to say, "it's all religion's fault" or "if it weren't for those meddlin' scientists, we'd all be living in peace" or what have you, well, it leads to the very kind of black and white thinking about the world and humanitiy's place in it that both you and I decry regularly.

[greyl]

33. Don't worry about that.

There was no implication in the OP that there is one central problem from which all others stem.
Our culture is 1 thing like the program to land men on the moon then bring them back alive was 1 thing.

The authentic question behind the poll was "how many of us believe that humanity itself is to blame for the biggest problems that humanity faces?"

I'm not proposing, exactly, that there is one central problem from which all others stem, but since you bring it up...

We're on a boat in the middle of the pacific in a storm.
The boat is leaking. Not just one leak, but many. Portside, starboard - the water is rushing in.

Some daft shipmate screams "It was the glue! It was the glue!"

The captain says "the idea that there is one central problem from which all others stem is terribly sloppy thinking."

that may be a bad analogy errmph. :)

[salvorhardin]

36. You said: "Humanity itself isn't the problem, our particular culture is th

'The problem' and then again 'the problem'. Use of the definite article implies a singular problem.

[greyl]

37. I see, well sorry about being unclear.

I'm not sure how I could have asked the question better though. Did it prevent you from making a choice?

As I asked the question, "the problem" is inclusive rather than exactly singular.
Isn't that implied by the very nature of the meanings of "culture" and "humanity"?

Iow, can you imagine a meaning of "the problem" that is truly singular and outside the realm of either humanity or our culture?

[supernova]

7. No, we are the problem

because everything we do is imperfect.

There are flaws and imperfections with every culture on the planet.

[greyl]

17. Only one culture has brought the earth to impending destruction.

(by that I mean making it increasingly uninhabitable to the community of life, not like the earth being blasted to smithereens. Although...)

It wasn't a collective effort of all human cultures, because the majority of human cultures don't believe that man was made to conquer and rule the world.

"There are flaws and imperfections with every culture on the planet."

I think we'd agree that there are degrees of flaw and imperfection, and that some cultures are time tested to work(and are still working) while some others are not.

[supernova]

19. But not because we're that smart

It's because we happened to come along at the right time for that to happen. Could just as well have been the Ottomans. Let that sink in for a minute. That means we in the west would now be the ones who are technologically behind.

I think we'd agree that there are degrees of flaw and imperfection, and that some cultures are time tested to work(and are still working) while some others are not.

Sure there are degrees. However, show me a successful culture that hasn't engaged in war at some time in their existence. All successful cultures go through period of relative peace and stability vs more aggressive periods. And some of those periods can last a long time such that, it can seem to the individual observer that "that's the way it's always been," either for war or peace. The Pax Romana lasted a thousand years. That didn't stop Rome from being sacked. And it didn't stop Rome from enslaving their conquered.

But it is the cycle of life. We human beings are capable of great peace and great aggression. Why we choose one over the other at any given time is a riddle as old as we are. If you're thinking tribal or native cultures, think again. They too have periods of war and peace, though their spirituality is more likely to be deeply connected to the earth than ours.

Now my hope is one day, we will work ourselves out of this king if the hill dominance mentality that we have. But it will take everyone on the planet realizing this, no matter our individual philosophies or religions.

Will we do that? Who knows? Is it worth trying and dying for? Everyday.

[greyl]

32. The Ottomans are VERY recent history.

And they are part of "our culture".

Humans as intelligent as you and I and Noam Chomsky have existed for at least 200,000 years.
There are Pygmies(Mbuti and Baka) alive today that are as intelligent as Al Gore.

Let that sink in for minute. ;)

[supernova]

34. What is your point?

I'm not really following you. If you want discourse with me, you're going to have to be more obvious about your point.

I used the Ottomans because they are in fact, not Western culture. And please show me where I said that humans have only recently gotten smart. And I made no jokes or otherwise, about Pygmies or others being less intelligent. Quite the opposite.

[papau]

41. Sounds like evolution was rapid once we learned to talk. Given animal

IQ is now considered so close to Human (tool use and all that emotion and feelings and problem solving) I wonder why they did not evolve to our level over the last 200,000 years.

The one thing I agree with is that there are very smart Mbuti and Baka.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. False, there are good and bad people in every culture

The only question is which ones happen to be on top at the moment.

[greyl]

16. Most cultures don't want to be "on top".

Why do you seem to presume that all human cultures desire to "fight" to be the conquering force in the world? Because you think humans are the problem, of course. From what I gather, your faith is weighted by a salvationist religion that assumes humanity is divinely flawed and in need of salvation and prophets to tell us how to live because humans never figured it out on their own. Needless to say, the authors of the Bible weren't aware of how long humanity had been thriving, so assumed that man appeared on earth as conquering civilization builders only a few thousand years before. It was a somewhat logical presumption for the time, but it was ignorant.

Was your answer based on your religious beliefs, or do you think you separated them out?

[Goldensilence]

24. coming from one who understands your argument

i thinks perhaps you should define culture and what it means in this sense. The background of beliefs and assumptions that comprise a civilization. For example would you say Egyptian culture was that different from Roman? Or did the later evole from the first? Of course this is taking some Spengler and Toynbee into thought and their idea of culture as an organism. US culture is really not all that different from Roman. Specially after the takeover of Christianty. They wanted to rpess that their way of life was it. WE have the same old habit thinking the US way is still the right and only way to live. No matter how destructive it is.

We could've learned a lot from native north and south american tribes.

[greyl]

28. Thanks for understanding the argument. :) However,

I don't think the poll answers would have changed if at the outset I had explained what I mean by "our culture". I think someone who believes that humanity itself is to blame for the major problems that threaten the community of life on earth wouldn't change their answer after hearing that "our culture" doesn't include the Bushmen of the Kalahari or the Yanomami of Brazil, but does include the civilizations of Egypt, Rome, China, Saudi Arabia, the U.S.A etc.

So no, I don't see the Egyptian culture as being essentially different from Roman.
They are both a product of our 10,000 year old culture. :)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. I'm not talking about cultures being "on top"

I'm talking about whether people of good will are on top in a given society or sneaky, amoral low-lifes are on top (as we see now).

My religion does have a doctrine of original sin, but that's simply a theological way of saying "nobody's perfect."

If you've heard of a society where everyone behaved in a positive manner, with no oppression, no violence, no theft, no murder, no exploitation, then I'd love to know which one it is. The idea of pre-urban or pre-agricultural cultures as being happy innocents is a sweet myth. The over 150 distinct Native American cultures have many admirable traits, but even pre-Columbian North America saw wars between tribes (the Lakota and Cheyenne were woodland tribes until the Ojibwe and others drove them onto the plains), and some of their social customs were harsh. Human beings are human beings, whether they live naked in grass huts in the Amazon jungle or wear designer clothes in a townhouse in Manhattan.

Similarly, if you know of a person who behaved in a positive manner throughout his or her life, without ever oppressing anyone, without getting violent, without sabotaging someone else, without quarreling over stupid things, without being prejudiced, without acting selfishly, without disregarding another person's feelings, without objectifying another person sexually, without exploiting someone else's weaknesses, without ignoring someone else's needs (not that any one person would have done all these things, but I've done some of them, and I bet you and everyone you can think of has too) I'd like to know who that is.

Sure, my religion says that no one is perfect, but that's been my observation, too. You may like or dislike certain people, but if you know even your favorite people long enough, you come to see their flaws. (And you continue to love them, as long as their flaws aren't dangerous to you in some way.)

[greyl]

30. I am. :) I'm glad you recognize the idea of the "noble savage" as a myth

because I do to.

"I'm talking about whether people of good will are on top in a given society or sneaky, amoral low-lifes are on top (as we see now)."

Right, you see the problem as resting in a fault of humanity as opposed to the particular system the human finds himself in or is charged to lead.
If the culture is broken, it doesn't matter how much intrinsic good will the leader has, unless she finally says "Instead of fixing the crumbling box we're in, I'm going to throw it away and start with a better box."


"My religion does have a doctrine of original sin, but that's simply a theological way of saying "nobody's perfect."

Really, that's all it is? Nobody's perfect? The doctrine of your religion says Jesus sacrificed his life because "nobody's perfect"? I don't think so. Isn't it really because that doctrine dictates that all humans are born in need of divine salvation and that if they die before being saved... it's their own fault if they find themselves in a hellish afterlife? The idea that "nobody's perfect" would be meaningless to the community of Canadian Geese. "Who cares?", they'd honk. "Our system works for us the way we are."

Mind you, I'm not arguing that some peoples were/are perfect at all. (we are perfectly what we are) There are no "noble savages".
Several thousand cultures, however, managed to hum along just fine with imperfect members because their cultural system was sustainable. If that weren't the case, humans would not have survived for the 3 million years prior to our culture. We became human by living in ways that worked - by having thousands of diverse and successful cultures. For 3 million years, humanity was no more a scourge to the planet than termites, mourning doves, garter snakes, otters, penguins, tuna, or orangutans. Like those other animals, man didn't live as though the earth was made for their species and their species was made to conquer and rule it.
Only our culture has crippled the community of life on earth. No other culture even fathoms such a goal. The punchline is that, in response, our culture says, "Well, we've just got to conquer it even better".

The community of life works on a principle of limited competition, so of course there is a certain low level of violence and death among and between living creatures, including the successful cultures that aren't ours.

But this shit is getting ridiculous, don't ya think?

To end on a lighter note,
"Sure, my religion says that no one is perfect, but that's been my observation, too. You may like or dislike certain people, but if you know even your favorite people long enough, you come to see their flaws. (And you continue to love them, as long as their flaws aren't dangerous to you in some way.)"

I agree. I also believe that it's the imperfections of our beloved that we are really in love with. :)

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nikia]

51. Most cultures want to survive in the easiest possible way

If they developed successful agriculture, increased in numbers, and and need more land and reasources, most cultures will want to pursue "being on top" by aquiring that from other people.

[catbert836]

25. Yes, that's exactly it!

Our culture (i. e. the one world culture) seems to have this attitude that it's okay to beat up the earth in a never ending quest for resources, overpopulate the planet, because there will never be any consequences. Other cultures have (and still do) live in harmony with the earth.

[Strong Atheist]

43. Which problem are we talking about? nt.

[greyl]

44. lol :) nt

[Strong Atheist]

45. Actually, I was serious ... nt.

[greyl]

46. Yes, I thought so. That's why it was funny.

...because I've tried to explain what "the problem" represents in this thread already. :)
Basically, I want to know what your first instinct is.
"The problem" is the most general way you can think of "the major crises on earth involving people".
It doesn't matter how individuals may define those crises, just where they place blame and/or responsibility.

"The problem" isn't the issue, "our culture" vs "biological/spiritual humanity itself" is the issue.(in the context of this poll and the discussion to come)

[salvorhardin]

47. The problem

The problem is people who want to reduce complex topics and issues down to a single cause du jour.

[greyl]

48. So, you think "our culture" is "simple" relative to

some more complex topics somewhere?

edit: I guess that was a stupid question. Please name a few topics more complex than our 10,000 year old culture and its effects in the world.

[Strong Atheist]

53. In that case, it is the many (not one) facets of "human nature".

People talk about "human nature", as if there is only one. Blatantly not true. There are the people who want it all (Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Mellon's), and the people who want nothing (Gandhi's, Mother Teressa's), and the people whose wants are in bewteen. There are attention-needers (movies stars, rock stars, politicians), and those who don't need the approval of the limelight. There are those who want to conquer the world (Alexander, Genghis, Hitler, etc.) and those who don't even understand that motivation (like... well... myself. I have enough problems running my own life; I don't need to be trying to run the lives of the other 6 billion of you...). There are people who need religion, and those who don't.

Obviously, there is no one "human nature", but in general, people and their darker sides (greed, lust, fear, envy; the whole seven sins thing) are "the problem".

[greyl]

49. kick. Are there any questions I haven't answered? nt

[Nikia]

50. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

Sorry greyl and others who believe that we are the only aggressive culture, many cultures who had the oppurtunity to expand their territory through war, stealing resources, and exterminating/and or exterminating other people did. Any ethnic group occupying a large territory likely did this.
I recently began reading his book Collapse about humans dealing with their environment. There are several examples of humans destroying their environment, albeit locally, as well. I just finished reading about Easter Island where the people completely deforested their island and killed almost all of the birds. The book includes several other examples too.
People do what works for them. Tribal hunting and gathering worked as long as there was low population density in a particuliar area and it was not advantageous to engage in a sedentary lifestyle, like agriculture which lead to increased population growth. Increased population growth leads to a need for a government type organization and increasing one's people's territory. If there are other people in that territory, there will probably be a conflict ending with the extermination or assimilation of your idealized peaceful hunters and gatherers. At the time the Europeans conquered the Americas, most hunter gatherers were living where the remaining live today, in land unsuitable for agriculture. Cultures that had a long history of sedentary agriculture, governmental orgination, and technology were able to make some of that land suitable for agriculture, thus displacing more hunter gatherers. That culture turned out Europeans. It could have just as easily been many other cultures given the oppurtunity.

[Odin2005]

52. The "Humanity is evil" and "technology is evil" stuff is annoying.

The problem is not humanity or technology, it's overpopulation and a ruling class that encourages wastefulness and consumerism to keep thier profits up. If the world population was only 500 million everyone could have an extremely high quality of life without ruining the planet.