Is exploitation necessary for human progress?

[ribozyme]

My question is rather simple: could exploiting humans lead to a greater good? I thought this idea was rather disgusting as it calls for a dereliction of “social justice” (however defined: John Stuart Mill and Catholics use of different definition of this concept). Why should I have hope that “injustice” will be solved?

Yes, I am a misanthrope and I have conveyed that here in several other threads. I do not like human nature and I find that humans are addicted to sex (they use advanced technology to feed this extremely primitive predilection). Why should I have hope in human progress if all we are hardwired to do is to reproduce and compete for mates? Gee… life really is pointless if the only goal is to preserve our genes.

Anyone want to give me some hope regarding humanity? Why should I even respect human life?

I found some interesting rant on the Immortality Institute forum.

imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18740

The problem with your ideals is that it is both a lot easier and much more agreeable with natural evolution to rely on elitism to improve the human gene pool as well as the standard of living for the most amount of people. For example, without feudalism and slavery the West would not have been able to industrialize, without the exploitation of the masses by the capitalists the industrialized nations would not have been able to develop the most basic machines which all our modern technology relies on, and without wars we would not have any of the cutting edge technology which have provided the greatest increases in both lifespan and in living conditions for the most amount of people.

The hierarchical nature of evolution provides the ideal and most proven way of improving species to adapt to their environments. This also applies to human society which without the exploitation of the weak by the elite would not have advanced to the technological and social levels we are experiencing today. No one lives without the will to power and the will to reproduce which necessarily requires domination and elimination of competitors for mates and resources. I would argue that by attempting to defy nature through the widespread adoption of technologies that would benefit the masses, we are surrendering our species to forever imperfection.

I found it ironic that someone would say that on a “pro-life” (look at the name of that forum) message board.

I do not advocate some positions that I used to anymore… for example; I will ask why do people value intelligence? Does intelligence have any value?

Whether a general ‘improvement’ in height, strength, or intelligence
would be a benefit at all is even more questionable. To the individual such improvements will benefit his or her social status, but only as long as the same improvements are not so widespread in society that most people share them, thereby again leveling the playing field. . . . What would be the status of Eton, Oxford and Cambridge if all could go there? . . . In general there seems to be no connection between intelligence and happiness, or intelligence and preference satisfaction. . . . Greater intelligence could, of course, also be a benefit if it led to a better world through more prudent decisions and useful inventions. For this suggestion there is little empirical evidence…

In a recent article, another author opines: “Crucially, though, despite the fact that parents may want their children to be ‘intelligent’, where all parents want this any beneficial effect is nullified. On the one hand, intelligence could be raised to the same amount for all or, alternatively, intelligence could be raised by the same amount for all. In either case no one actually benefits over anyone else. . . . [The] aggregate effect, if all parents acted the same, would be that all their children would effectively be the same, in terms of outcome, as without selection.”16

nickbostrom.com/ethics/statusquo.pdf

In other words, if everyone is intelligent, intelligence would have no value; intelligence is only valued because it provides an advantage against others. Therefore, it has no utility whatsoever. Another example is human height as being tall provides little advantage except for being tall and attractive to others (and in sports, a zero-sum game). This propensity for status allowed our progenitors to effectively compete for mates and further propagate their genes. Such an attitude was valuable in a competitive environment with limited resources.

I think efforts to improve humanity will ultimately fail because of human nature. I used to think eugenics (in the form of embryo selection and genetic engineering NOT selective breeding) would lead to a utopia. It is likely it would lead to a world with more hatred, conflict and strife.

 

[ribozyme]

Disclaimer: I am not prescribing any agenda here… Instead, I want to know why I shouldn’t be a misanthrope. Why should I even respect humanity? Human existence is simply a legacy of pointless competition. I just want to watch anime in a state of despondency and have little contact with humans (currently my lifestyle) as they are better depicted fictionally than in reality.

Is the human propensity for hierarchy desirable? Does it lead to exploitation and suffering to benefit the few at the cost of immense suffering?

 

[manualman]

You realize you are at a catholic site, right? Nobody here is likely to agree with your core assumptions, so it is pointless to discuss more advanced concepts since we effectively don’t even speak the same language.

If you view humanity as thoroughly despicable with no redeeming attributes, then we have no common ground to dialogue and build on. I suggest you turn off the anime and volunteer to help with something like Habitat for Humanity. Observe some real humans interacting for a while and see what happens.

Back? Now did what you see REALLY look like hopeless selfishness was the norm, or did you see a more complex interplay of BOTH noble virtue AND tragic vice in the people you met? In christian terms, we understand that God made us good, but we chose sin and as a result have been tainted by evil. We retain the basic goodness, but suffer the evil inclinations as well. Doesn’t that match what you see better than your theories?

P.S. No. Exploitation is NOT necessary to civilizational advancement. God just has a knack for opening up SOME good opportunities out of evil actions. This never justifies the evil, but it does provide some solace for its victims.

 

[estesbob]

Disclaimer: I am not prescribing any agenda here… Instead, I want to know why I shouldn’t be a misanthrope. Why should I even respect humanity? Human existence is simply a legacy of pointless competition. I just want to watch anime in a state of despondency and have little contact with humans (currently my lifestyle) as they are better depicted fictionally than in reality.
immense suffering?

And you have gained these profound insights after 17 years on earth? I think as you mature you will look back at your thoughts when you were 17 and be profoundly embarrassed. I know I do.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Disclaimer: I am not prescribing any agenda here… Instead, I want to know why I shouldn’t be a misanthrope. Why should I even respect humanity? Human existence is simply a legacy of pointless competition. I just want to watch anime in a state of despondency and have little contact with humans (currently my lifestyle) as they are better depicted fictionally than in reality.

Is the human propensity for hierarchy desirable? Does it lead to exploitation and suffering to benefit the few at the cost of immense suffering?

You shouldn’t be a misanthrope because it’s much more interesting not to be one. Misanthropy is a failure of empathy. You have to be able to identify with other people before you can think of them in a favorable way. I recall, some years back, when it suddenly occurred to me that in my profession I was being exposed to the “core” of individuals without my really being aware of it. I began paying closer attention. All of those uninteresting people are just like you, but in different ways. One of my favorite questions now is: “what do you want your life to be like after this is over?” I ask it in order to formulate legal objectives, and it’s the best way I have found to do that. The answers often astound me, and they are often much more profound than I expected they could be much earlier in my life. One encounters wisdom very unexpectedly; learns that the “pointless competition” is anything but pointless most of the time, and actually does learn to care what happens to the person.

But you have to ask. Not everyone is in my position, where I am able to just go right to the point and ask people “ultimate” questions or questions very near to them. But everybody has the opportunity to see if he/she can get below the surface of the shell people build around themselves.

I’m not going to make too much of what I am going to say next, but I feel compelled to do it. When I was a callow youth in college, a very entertaining, very smart fellow in my dorm somehow didn’t seem quite “with” the rest of the world. He had a very witty, but cynical remark for just about everything. He really was funny. In those days, we were pretty brash and didn’t consider anything private, so one day I was sitting at his desk in his room waiting for him, and noticed a card his mother had sent him, so I read it. In it, she said “you’re wrong in your assessment. People really are interesting, but you have to give them a chance.” I put the card back and didn’t think too much of it. A couple of years later, he shot himself. That was back before there were the psychotropics we have now. With some, depression might be a barrier to finding out “what another wants his life to be like” and such things. If one’s own life is not interesting to him, another’s certainly won’t be. Be sure that is not what you’re dealing with. It’s very easy to find out.