What is more important; socially or scientifically based evolution?

[New-ideas]

In todays fast paced world, the human race is evolving in many different ways. However, consider this, is it more important that the planet evolve socially, global relations, moral understanding, religous tolerance etc.
Or should we be focusing on scientific advancement to further humanity in the World, things such as medical research, Waste disposal methods or alternative fuels?

Thought it might lead to some intresting ideas.... enjoy!

[Tormod]

With all due respect - I fail to see what you're asking. Surely what is seen as a moral question for some is a different question for others? A technological breakthrough can be an immoral issue for others (for example how stem cell research can save lives yet is opposed by religious fundamentalists like the US President).

I don't see how social evolution/change has anything to do with human evolution either. Exactly how do you see the human race evolve?

[New-ideas]

Well perhaps I worded the question wrong? What Im trying to ask is whether people think humanity will go forward, evolve so to speak, but from a non-biological persective.

Social evoulution, I can see why some might not understand what I mean, theres probably hundreds of better ways of describing what im getting at.
What I mean is, the evoultion of social links and relationships bewteen people, will we grow stronger as humanity, or will our conflicts destory us? Is it more important for us to become more interconnected and socially strong, or will scienctific breakthroughs, such as the one you descibed, be what propells humanity forward?

[Tormod]

I think it's a very complex issue. Most importantly the answer will depend on one's world view. If one for example is of the opinion that technological progress stems from wars, then wars will be seen as a propagator of a "better humanity". On the other hand, if one thinks that technological progress can stop wars from happening, that is a valid but almost opposite view - yet both favor technological advance.

I happen to think that the most important "evolution" we are seeing in the world today is the interconnectedness brought by the Internet, cell phones and satellite communication. Perhaps we're also seeing a growing awareness of our "one planet, one destiny" situation, for example in the global warming debate.

Just some thoughts...

[New-ideas]

Originally Posted by Tormod

I happen to think that the most important "evolution" we are seeing in the world today is the interconnectedness brought by the Internett, cell phones and satellite communication.

Thats an intresting idea, especially considering the numbers of arguments there are for and againist the internet itself. I mean aswell being a highway for international communication, its also the place where humanity expresses its "darker" side. I suppose you have to consider the reprecussions of any major breakthroughs in technology, the power it brings us, also emcompasses a certain amount of social and moral resposibility. I'm personally all for the internet, the open communication of ideas and theories about the World you on this site and others like it, I think its definite step forward.

[New-ideas]

I seem to also be having trouble with that quote tool, nevermind...

[Tormod]

Just make sure you leave a [/quote] tag at the end of the quote.

[TZK]

Your question is very clear to me.

Social evolution is key. Our lack of it thus far has created an extremely dangerous situation. IE a bunch of monkeys running around with nuclear weapons.

I would not be surprised if what is currently seen as an age of great scientific advancement will one day be seen as a dark age of sorts. An age devoid of the very social evolution you are talking about, which in my opinion can truly only arise from introspection. An approach to self understanding which is considered outdated by psychology; an approach to self understanding modeled after the highly succesful methods used in investigating classical physics... Typical human mistake - trying to replicate a method that was succesful somewhere else in a situation where the attributes that made the approach successful before are no longer present.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by New-ideas

… is it more important that the planet evolve socially, global relations, moral understanding, religous tolerance etc.
Or should we be focusing on scientific advancement to further humanity in the World, things such as medical research, Waste disposal methods or alternative fuels?

I don’t believe social and scientific progress present an either-or option, but rather are complimentary. Societies experiencing great advances in science and technology are, I think, likely to experience advances in global relations, religious tolerance, and other cultural improvements.

This question seems to me to conceal a question about the dominant methods (or paradigm) best suited to addressing social, technical, and scientific problems – as Tormod notes, a very complicated question.

Originally Posted by TZK

Social evolution is key. Our lack of it thus far has created an extremely dangerous situation. IE a bunch of monkeys running around with nuclear weapons.

As someone who grew up in tense “détente” period of the Cold War, I agree emphatically. Although I lack a ready supporting reference, I recall that a poll conducted of Americans in my age cohort during the 1970s indicated over half considered it more likely than not that they would die as the result of a major US-USSR nuclear war. Added to the ambient anxiety and pessimism of the 1970s, that period exposed me to the “Fermi paradox”, and the popular explanation of it that holds that the invention of nuclear weapons marks an uncircumventable limit to the technological progress of nearly any society, terrestrial or extraterrestrial.

Originally Posted by New-ideas

I would not be surprised if what is currently seen as an age of great scientific advancement will one day be seen as a dark age of sorts.

Though I suspect New-ideas may be correct in his prediction of future history’s view of the last century or five, I think the darkness’s cause is more likely to be ascribed to non-scientific (though occasionally scientifically informed and supported) factors having to do with the control of people through economic, social, and governmental means by exploitive minorities, than to advances in science and technology. That is, it will be explained by many of the same causes attributed to the previous “feudal era” Dark ages, though the “present dark ages” will, I suspect, be considered less dark than the previous.

Originally Posted by New-ideas

An age devoid of the very social evolution you are talking about, which in my opinion can truly only arise from introspection.

”Devoid” seems an overstatement. In my estimation, particularly in richer nations, a greater fraction of people in present-day society than in any large society at any time in history is engaged in serious introspection. As sociologist, historians, and philosophers (such as Josef Pieper anthor of “Leisure, the Basis of Culture” have noted, there appears to be a connection between the wealth of a society and the amount of introspection that goes on in it.

Originally Posted by New-ideas

An approach to self understanding which is considered outdated by psychology; an approach to self understanding modeled after the highly succesful methods used in investigating classical physics... Typical human mistake - trying to replicate a method that was succesful somewhere else in a situation where the attributes that made the approach successful before are no longer present.

One does get this impression of psychodynamic (Freud, etc) and more modern psychology. As Psychologist Abraham Maslow put it “when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”.

However, the complicated question of what the right tool looks like is, I think, profound and unanswered. I’ve no confidence that the long or short term improvement of humankind can be accomplished entirely or even predominantly though introspection. The right tool may, I suspect, still be the scientific “hammer” so successful in classical and modern physics, but a hammer of a correct and improved kind.

Mine is by no means an original opinion. Alfred Korzybski, WWI German Intelligence officer turned sociologist, linguist, philosopher, and developer of the theory of general semantics, was said to have responded to the social calamity of WWI by noting that, if human beings built governments as well as they built bridges, war, injustice, and most other social problems would be eliminated. Korzybski concluded that this could be accomplished with increased precision in non-scientific language, with which I do not entirely agree, but I applaud his central position that, just as scientifically engineered bridges have helped people more than hurt them, science can be made to realize its potential to solve, more than create, social problems.

[New-ideas]

Originally Posted by TZK

Social evolution is key. Our lack of it thus far has created an extremely dangerous situation. IE a bunch of monkeys running around with nuclear weapons.

I share this point of view as well. Although science may open up to us, incredible power and oppruntunity, noone has ever stopped to question if humanity is ready for these advancements. Humanity as a whole, in my opinion, has not really evolved socially for around 2000 years, we share many of same ideals and laws as the Romans did. Many of our emotions, overide moral obligations, where moral judgement should be applied. It is unfortunate we still often see things from a selfish perseptive, with many decisions in world polictics being made to suit a nation of group of nations, rather than the whole of humanity.

I suppose the real question is, how will humanity evolve socially over the next few hundred years, or if we will in fact evolve at all.