The total number of people killed in imperial China, including during the 3 kingdoms era plus the two world wars is about 300 million. Its like killing every man, woman and child in the USA. If you count other wars, revolutions and genocides throughout recorded history, the casualty number is probably many times higher.

Today we've made mass killing easier. U can fight a war by pushing buttons from a bunker like a video game.

IMHO, the only reason why we haven't gone extinct is because we're breeding faster than we can self destruct.

One thing immediately jumps out in this scenario. Our tech progress very moves fast but our mental progress is very slow. In fact, I don't think minds have evolved much since Emperor Qing's time. We've only developed the means to kill each other more efficiently.

This gap between tech progress and personal/social development progress widens with every new scientific discovery. I suspect that as long as this gap exist, humans will continue to kill each other. When they are at par, maybe we've progressed so far mentally that we lost all desire to kill each other. Maybe.

If you agree that our tech progress is moving much faster than our social capability to cope with it, the question I pose is, does this lag have an evolutionary value? If yes, what do you think such a lag would serve, since evolution is supposed to enhance survival rather than extinction?



This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 19 2010, 12:05 PM

What happens if I dont agree? I cant see the corellation you mention between technology progress, mental development, and the need for war or genocide.

If mental development is slow how can technology progress further? One genius is all it takes? Then wait 170 years (Einstien birthdate minus Newton death date) to make a new leap.

Beastboy, you keep saying maybe, maybe, maybe. Please draw out how it links up.

In 170 years not everyone could not fully graps Newton's Law then Einstien came along with new concepts. Without total comprehension of Newton, how could people know what Einstien is talking about. So this becomes the reason for war?

Ok, I didn't use the right terms then.

When I say mental development, I don't mean IQ. I mean the ability to discern between right and wrong, moral and immoral. As I mentioned in another thread, a high-IQ genius can do stupid things and an uneductaed person can do wise things. So what I am saying is, our capability to develop weapons etc has far surpassed our ability to discern between right and wrong. That is the gap I am talking about.

If you don't agree, that's okay. I'm not here to impose my view or seek anyone's approval. I just want to know what others think. If my hypothesis is flat wrong or ridiculous, that's fine too. Am not here to whack or be sarcastic to anyone who don't agree with me.

Thanks for the explaination . I guess it come down to science and ethics, but then again it is the policy makers that makes the decision.

I still have problem understanding this passage below

The ability to kill using one push of the button is nothing to the ability of the serial killer/cannibal who plan methodically, stalks their victim, drug the victim, cut their victims while the victims are still alive and let their victims watch their own flesh is gorge by the serial killer / cannibal.

Those are actual human killing machine. The ability to kill by using technology is the will of the person to perceive the right or wrong.

Ancient China during 3 Kingdoms - it is more to a 3 different will for freewill in 1 kingdom, dictatorship in 1 kingdom and monarchy in 1 kingdom. These 3 cannot co-exist alone but as it co-exist together, human blood will forever flow the land.

Is this your own interpretation?

yes.

Ok let me try to give an analogy.

Technology moves ahead at 100 kmh. Human wisdom grows at 1 kmh. If they had a race, after the first hour, wisdom trails technology by 99km. That is the gap.

The gap simply means we are a high-tech low-wisdom society. The chance of someone getting killed using that high tech is very high & we have a history of wars to show that fact. For every new weapon invented that doesn't have a corresponding discovery of wisdom, the gap between tech and wisdom widens.

Its contrast, the high-tech high-wisdom society, is where the rate of tech development is the same as wisdom development. The gap between the two forces is smaller or negligible. Because we wise up as fast as we invent our technology, the chances of someone getting killed is lesser because by then, we will have realized that killing each other is not a wise thing to do.

If you watch Star Trek, the Klingons represent the high-tech low-wisdom society. The Vulcans represent the high-tech high-wisdom one.

This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 19 2010, 04:29 PM

there is no such thing as a moral 'progress', since morality itself is relative.

and the progress of machines is always determined by humanity generally wants. We want to travel long distances in a short time? Now we have cars. We want to cook our food? Now we have stoves. We want to kill people from afar? Now we have guns.

Okay, I get it. High wisdom is a much better word than social/personal development which can be equate to intelligence ...

It still comes down to hatred as the basis for people to clobber one another. However smart or wise you are Beastboy, if I see you in real and irritate you enough, you will whack the shit out of me.

Vulcuns are bad example. They have no emotions. They will not be fuelled with fury to punch me out. Romulan are the same as Vulcuns high tech and high wisdom. They love to clobber the Vulcans (their distant relatives) simply because Vulcuns differ with them on the issue of emotion long ago.

I know where you're coming from but we are discussing this within a framework that has a starting point, as in its immoral to do x 300 years ago but now its not.

Morality can and has been be made relative to the progress of technology. Take the cloning example. Because of the fear of the Frankenstein effect, societies impose ethical restrictions on the application of the science. While I know that fear itself cannot be construed as wisdom, there is an effort to provision for the unknown. Caution is a form of wisdom.

The same will happen in AI and robotics.

We've seen spots of this throughout our technology history but its mostly been confined to innovations that impact food, health sciences and the environment. It doesn't seem to apply to weapons of mass destruction... yet, and unfortunately, because of the gap I mention, we have situations of unstable nations with nuclear bombs. Its the scene of an immature child holding a high tech weapon, ready to throw a tantrum and annihilate us all.

This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 19 2010, 03:50 PM

Looks like you got all this from Koei's Dynasty Warrior 6. For you information, it is not true. Koei is more into "what if" situation for this version.

There are actually low-tech, high-wisdom people that manage to control hatred: highly-achieved monks that live in seclusion. A few years ago in Burma, many monks were killed just like that. They did not fight back. I'm no monk but the point is, it is not an impossible thing.

Vulcans ... I thot they do have emotions but they are just able to suppress them? Romulans are less capable of suppressing it so it turns into violence.

We humans are probably born with violent streaks ourselves - survival instincts. Our inability to control anger and hatred is proof that wisdom-wise we haven't really changed from ancient times. We just got better at killing each other.

Back to your question. This lag is here help us realise how much we had specialise in killing each other. It is best we begin to close the gap. Thus that will fit into your preseverance concept. It may well be the last warning. Weapons of mass destruction is way ahead compare to Qing Long's time as you mentioned. Some day a wise kid with a tantrum can just resort to his super toy gun and balst the shit out of mother earth. That is the lesson for not trying to narrow the gap. But nothing can be done if there is total anhiliation. Just like the dinasours we will be extinct. This is the other side of your coin - the destruction concept.

One of the things I posed is whether this lag has an evolutionary value for humans.

From the stone age onwards, we've been developing tools that helped us survive and evolve to this state. If we hadn't, we probably be t-rex's dinner. Our intelligence gave us the technology that gave us an evolutionary advantage. It enhanced our survival.

Now, the very thing that took us to the top of the food chain looks set to bury us. If our intelligence was a biological agent, then its starting to act a lot like a self-destruct gene. Like I said, the only reason why we haven't gone extinct is because we're breeding faster than we can kill each other with our wars. That gene will complete its job when someone finds a way to take every living person out. Its not a technological impossibility.

And this is the conflict that I come to: if intelligence is a product of our evolution and evolution was supposed to enhance our survival as a species, then why has it brought us to the brink?

man's nature remain the same, despite technological prowess.

---

Added on May 20, 2010, 1:40 amthe human ego changes everything. the 'we' and the 'us' that u talk about becomes only the 'i' to the human. survival of the best means i live and u die. since to the most advance of species....the only threat can only come from its own kind.

This post has been edited by teongpeng: May 20 2010, 01:44 AM

I agree to what you've posted. Personally speaking, the progress of technology seemed to have have dampen the values of humanity itself. Technology, as it will state, is simply something to improve the lives of mankind. What I see that it's actually going on is that we are treated with massive amount of instant gratification, thanks to the progress of technology, and with that instantaneous satisfaction of our needs and desires seemed to have devalue of what one may call the "virtues of humanity", and perhaps has given us the luxury to not value human lives that much so that's it's simply easier to start killing people, and forgetting to mention, a whole lot of them too, in atomic proportions.

From an evolution point of view, it is a chicken and egg situation. Evolution works in circles. If you try to break out of it, some unseen central fugal force will pull you back. T-Rex had come to the end. Soon all species will come to their end. All must come to their end then another big bang will bring a rebirth.

IMHO, tech is neither good nor bad. tech has increased our lifespans, which is good. Instant gratification has turned patience from a virtue into a liability, which is not good. The question I wud ask is, will the harmful effects of tech cancel out the beneficial effects say 100 years from now?

To answer this we I doubt we can escape studying the human mind. If its in our nature to bash each other - and no need to go so far... there's plenty of it here at LYN forum - what is the source of this, and to what extent did technology play a part?

Hmm... I thot the dinos disappeared due to an external event, not due to evolution... like most extinctions that happen every day. Either their food supply got destroyed or a super predator came into the picture or a global extinction event like a comet strike happened. However, our destiny may be unique because its a scenario where the species itself causes its own extinction as a result of the technology it created. I can't think of any other species has this "self destruct" attribute so my 2 questions: is this attribute a natural outcome of evolution and if so, how does it enhance the survivability of the species when it clearly seems to be doing the opposite.

There is one thot I got from the movie "The day the earth stood still." They say we humans are at our best only when we are at the brink, faced with our extinction. If that is true, then mental pain is the evolutionary pressure that will drive us to the next level. The only problem I find with that is, the brink itself may be nothing less than extinction level event like the release of neutron bombs, hence I come back to square one.

The way you put words together to form queries are simply mind boggling. I've gone through some of your posts in other topics (many which you started). I can't understand it why you refuse to phrase it clearly and in a layman manner? You're cramming in too much phrases and jargons to make people takes your discussion seriously (this guy's a brainy person vibe), but it tends to confuse people further.

I bet you tried to mean, "will mankind be doomed (physically/morally) by continous scientific advancement 100 years from now?", which seems like something you've written before earlier, rehashed again in different wordings.

This post has been edited by alanyuppie: May 20 2010, 12:48 PM