Utopianism

Human Resources: Social Engineering In The 20th Century

Another link here

"Human Resources: Social Engineering in the 20th Century explores the rise of mechanistic philosophy and the exploitation of human beings under modern hierarchical systems. Topics covered include behaviorism, scientific management, work-place democracy, schooling, frustration-aggression hypothesis and human experimentation."
Let me ask which philosophies can the enslavement of African Americans be blamed on? Or if we look back further into history the enslavement of peoples by the Roman Empire? I think it reasonable to think there are practical reasons for the exploitation of people. Can you be so certain materialism is the great evil philosophy you argue it is when the exploitation of people has happened all throughout recorded hishory?
 
Can you be so certain materialism is the great evil philosophy you argue it is when the exploitation of people has happened all throughout recorded hishory?

This is a point I've made before on these forums. It's such an obvious point that I feel a bit stupid having to make it, but I never get a decent response from the anti-materialist people here. There's been an incredible amount of exploitation, injustice, cruelty and violence throughout the last 10,000 years or so of human civilization. It's absurd to try to blame materialism, Christianity or atheism for this. The things we need to look at are human nature and the state.
 
This is a point I've made before on these forums. It's such an obvious point that I feel a bit stupid having to make it, but I never get a decent response from the anti-materialist people here. There's been an incredible amount of exploitation, injustice, cruelty and violence throughout the last 10,000 years or so of human civilization. It's absurd to try to blame materialism, Christianity or atheism for this. The things we need to look at are human nature and the state.

Has there ever been a time when a vast majority of the population simultaneously believe in determinism while disbelieving in moral realism or any supernatural moral authority?

I concede nobody can make a definitive claim on what will happen, though the arguments on this forum by people claiming any philosophy save nihilism and moral relavitism still have a place in such a world don't make me optimistic about the outcome.

Last I checked Harris can't even answer what the right age is for telling a child everything they do was, possibly barring quantum fluctuation, decided at the moment of the Big Bang.
 
Has there ever been a time when a vast majority of the population simultaneously believe in determinism while disbelieving in moral realism or any supernatural moral authority?

I concede nobody can make a definitive claim on what will happen, though the arguments on this forum by people claiming any philosophy save nihilism and moral relavitism still have a place in such a world don't make me optimistic about the outcome.

Last I checked Harris can't even answer what the right age is for telling a child everything they do was, possibly barring quantum fluctuation, decided at the moment of the Big Bang.

You're just dodging the question and changing the subject here. The question is, how do you explain all the violence, injustice, cruelty and exploitation that's gone on over the last 10,000 years or so of human civilization? I think there are many factors, but the two main ones are human nature and the state. What do you think?
 
You're just dodging the question and changing the subject here. The question is, how do you explain all the violence, injustice, cruelty and exploitation that's gone on over the last 10,000 years or so of human civilization? I think there are many factors, but the two main ones are human nature and the state. What do you think?

I just find your question irrelevant. There's a variety of potential factors to account for immoral - whatever that means under materialism - acts throughout human history.

What I thought we were discussing was the potential for a paradigm to create a utopia or dystopia.
 
I just find your question irrelevant. There's a variety of potential factors to account for immoral - whatever that means under materialism - acts throughout human history.

What I thought we were discussing was the potential for a paradigm to create a utopia or dystopia.

As I see it, there are two forms of utopianism, this-worldly and other-worldly. This-worldly utopians think they can make this world a perfect or at least much better place. Other-worldly utopians think there is another world, usually an afterlife, that's perfect or at least much better than this one. According to these definitions, I would say that Alex is a this-worldly utopian and Jeff Long is an other-wordly utopian.

For this-worldy utopians, history is extremely important. Such people think they know why there's been so much violence and injustice throughout history, and it's ususally just one thing. It's capitalism, the state, religion, human nature, philosophical materialism, atheism, satanism, liberalism, or whatever. If we can get rid of or change this thing, then we can solve all our problems and make the world a much better place.

My main critique of this-worldy utopianism is historical. That is, I think they've got the history wrong. If the history were correct, then their utopianism would be perfectly understandable and I might agree with them. If we had strong historical evidence showing that people or societies that believed in the afterlife and/or psi phenomena had no violence, greed or selfishness then that really would be food for thought. As it stands, though, we don't have this, and so Alex's idea that belief in the afterlife and psi will make the world a much better place just seems silly.
 
As it stands, though, we don't have this, and so Alex's idea that belief in the afterlife and psi will make the world a much better place just seems silly.

Apologies if you've provided the quote earlier in this thread, but where does Alex say this?
 
Apologies if you've provided the quote earlier in this thread, but where does Alex say this?

As far as I know, he's never stated it as clearly and unambiguously as this on Skeptiko, but he has suggested many times that he thinks materialism is somehow responsible for war, consumerism and technology worship, and that there's no way we could engage in such behavior if we realized that we were all connected and that our actions have eternal consequences.

But of course I could be wrong about both Jeff Long and Alex being utopian. This is just the feeling I get from reading and listening to them. Maybe I've got it all wrong and Alex actually believes that there will always be a substantial amount of poverty, exploitation, war, greed and selfishness in the world, even if people do come to have the 'right' beliefs about psi and the afterlife. This could be what he really thinks, but it's very unlikely given everything he's said on the show. If we really want to know the answer, we should just ask him, "Do you think that belief in or knowledge of psi and the afterlife could completely eliminate war, greed, exploitation and selfishness in this world?" It would be interesting to see his response.
 
Last edited:
I just find your question irrelevant. There's a variety of potential factors to account for immoral - whatever that means under materialism - acts throughout human history.
To be very blunt, this bug up your arse over materialism has little to do overall why humans have treated other humans badly throughout recorded history. This, I don't like materialism repetition is becoming more of a rant than a viable argument.
 
Last edited:
To be very blunt, this bug up your arse over materialism has little to do overall why humans have treated other humans badly throughout recorded history. This, I don't like materialism repetition is becoming more of a rant than a viable argument.

Well that would obviously be the case because most people in human history were not materialists. Which is why I find the examination of history irrelevant.

The question of producing utopias/dystopias is about the future, not the past.

As for whether I have a viable argument or not, please feel free to supply a logical counterargument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
“Study the past if you would define the future.”
― Confucius

But what part of history predicts that the majority of the population will be okay with the idea there is no such thing as personal responsibility, and that no success or positive character trait is genuinely deserved and is instead dependent on causal chains + quantum fluctuation?

Seems to me materialists are taking a big gamble when they evangelize their faith, and I'm not seeing what makes people think this won't be a big problem. Even Harris notes his book arguing neuroscience refutes free will caused a worsening of depression for some of his readers.
 
Seems to me materialists are taking a big gamble when they evangelize their faith, and I'm not seeing what makes people think this won't be a big problem. Even Harris notes his book arguing neuroscience refutes free will caused a worsening of depression for some of his readers.
And immaterialists are taking a big gamble when they tell people there are lives after this one. That might make a person decide to end this life in anticipation of something better. And so on and so forth.

~~ Paul
 
And immaterialists are taking a big gamble when they tell people there are lives after this one.
I'm not sure what's material or immaterial, but the (sometimes not so subtle) hints of lives before this one are quite ubiquitous and the odds of it all being coincidence are well worth betting against.

Cheers,
Bill
 
And immaterialists are taking a big gamble when they tell people there are lives after this one. That might make a person decide to end this life in anticipation of something better. And so on and so forth.

~~ Paul
Some days ago I tried to confirm what I read many years ago without success. What I read those longs years passed is when the Catholic church was converting the peasants in Europe all of which lived miserable lives when they heard the message of eternal heavenly life many of the peasants committed suicide, enough that the Church made suicide a mortal sin.
 
And immaterialists are taking a big gamble when they tell people there are lives after this one. That might make a person decide to end this life in anticipation of something better. And so on and so forth.

~~ Paul

I don't really see those as equivalent.

We already know there were religions that assumed pleasant afterlives for just about everyone, or just assumed all afterlives were emotionless and dull. The impact this has had on a massive scale seems to not result in civilization ending suicide, regardless of all the other negative effects one might attribute to religion.

Last I checked Coyne just assumes things won't change, he gives no good reason for it. Harris can't even come up with a good age to tell kids they have no real control over their actions. It just doesn't seem materialists thought this through when they decided to evangelize their faith.

Regardless, immaterialism of a certain variety being bad doesn't make materialist lack of foresight good. X being bad doesn't let Y off the hook.

Some days ago I tried to confirm what I read many years ago without success. What I read those longs years passed is when the Catholic church was converting the peasants in Europe all of which lived miserable lives when they heard the message of eternal heavenly life many of the peasants committed suicide, enough that the Church made suicide a mortal sin.

I'd be very interested in seeing this. I always thought it was odd Dante held suicide to be a sin in the Commedia, since it seemed to me a rather bizarre moral judgement.

Surprisingly, given the time period, he seemed more sympathetic toward homosexuality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some days ago I tried to confirm what I read many years ago without success. What I read those longs years passed is when the Catholic church was converting the peasants in Europe all of which lived miserable lives when they heard the message of eternal heavenly life many of the peasants committed suicide, enough that the Church made suicide a mortal sin.
Who cares. They seem to focus their answers on Shirley MacLaine when they should direct them towards Stevenson et al., LOL.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/reincarnation

Cheers,
Bill
 
I'm not sure what's material or immaterial, but the (sometimes not so subtle) hints of lives before this one are quite ubiquitous and the odds of it all being coincidence are well worth betting against.
And the odds of there being any sort of libertarian free will are also worth betting against.

The whole idea that certain ideas should not be "evangelized" because they are "dangerous" is unworkable.

~~ Paul
 
We already know there were religions that assumed pleasant afterlives for just about everyone, or just assumed all afterlives were emotionless and dull. The impact this has had on a massive scale seems to not result in civilization ending suicide, regardless of all the other negative effects one might attribute to religion.
I certainly wasn't suggesting that the idea of an afterlife is "civilization ending."

Last I checked Coyne just assumes things won't change, he gives no good reason for it. Harris can't even come up with a good age to tell kids they have no real control over their actions. It just doesn't seem materialists thought this through when they decided to evangelize their faith.
So you're suggesting that people should suppress their philosophical ideas if you decide that they are dangerous? I really have no idea what you're suggesting.

Regardless, immaterialism of a certain variety being bad doesn't make materialist lack of foresight good. X being bad doesn't let Y off the hook.
I have no idea what sort of thinking you believe is lacking, nor how much brain policing you are proposing. The whole concept of suppressing ideas for the sake of people's well-being is unworkable.

~~ Paul
 
Back
Top