Self hating humans

gradii

Why is this a thing? especially in what appears to be a community of STAR TREK fans, a show about Humanity bettering itself?

mustrumridcully0

It's kinda a hip attitude, I think. It might have something to age and experience.

But Star Trek is about a world in which Humanity is already better then what we are now. This can give the impression that we are failing.

Though the Star Trek history seems to suggest we aren't. We might actually be doing better than expected. After all, there was no Eugenic Wars, and those Sanctuary District Riots didn't happen (not even the districts).

Ultimately the dislike of humans does come from our failing. Too many of our problems look like they are short-sighted and it just seems we should do better than that.

But it seems to ignore we've already achieved a lot. Heck, the whole concept that many of us live in a democracy, that we have cures and treatments for diseases that used to be deadly, and that we have the attitude that life - in general, and that of other people - has value. That a prevailing opinion is that the human rights are a good idea and apply regardless of skin color or sex... This wasn't neccessarily always the case in history.

gradii

Right, and while this Life-Valuing attitude might not be universal to all humans, it has the potential to spread. Humanity is far from hopeless even in real life.

legendarylycan

considering the bell riots happened in the early '20s, the districts still have a chance of being formed, because we haven't hit 2020 yet​​

angrytarg

Emo teenagers/early twens being edgy and not having the best or most thorough knowledge of things.​​

theraven2378

We might prosper in the future if we don't wipe ourselves out in wars, the history of humanity is a violent history of war and conflict. All we need is that proverbial boot up the backside to for us to change our ways.

dalolorn

angrytarg wrote: »

Emo teenagers/early twens being edgy and not having the best or most thorough knowledge of things.​​

I wouldn't quite put it like that. (Though I am a teenager myself, so take that as you may. )

Mustrum's right - we have made a lot of progress, and it's a bit hope-inspiring that Star Trek's predictions were worse than reality. On the flip side, positive things like the attitudes he mentioned or our continuing technological advances (right now I'm hoping that this one turns out to be viable ) do seem to be offset by other, less favorable factors. (Overwhelmingly so, if you believe in various conspiracy theories.)

We might not reliably know that we're going to obliterate ourselves, but we can hardly say we're any better at knowing we're not going to do so.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

mustrumridcully0

theraven2378 wrote: »

We might prosper in the future if we don't wipe ourselves out in wars, the history of humanity is a violent history of war and conflict. All we need is that proverbial boot up the backside to for us to change our ways.

I expect that there will always some conflict, as sad as it sounds. There will always be some sparse resources that could be "worth" fighting for. And maybe fighting for sparse resourcse is better than just arbitrarily deciding some people just don't get access. Unless all future fighting will be over whether you get access to the newest iPhone. But if it's food, living space, water, air, freedom...


Our goal has to be to minimize the "sparseness", of course. That is what we did over many centuries now in many areas - like agriculture. As hazardous as some aspects of industrialized agriculture may be - it feeds a lot of people. The challenge is figuring out solutions that work long-term - or finding new solutions once the old ones bite us back.

We might not reliably know that we're going to obliterate ourselves, but we can hardly say we're any better at knowing we're not going to do so.

There is this weird statistical argument that says that we must be closer to the end of humanity then the beginning, or something like that. But I think a lot of these arguments rely on unproved assumptions.

Just for example - even if it came to a global nuclear exchange, there is not actually a guarantee that all humans would die from it. We might lose almost everything we build up so far, but it's possible that there will be regions where people survive, and can build the next civilization.

jonsills

Cynicism is an attractive state to those who want to look "cool", because it lets you criticize things without having to consider possible alternatives or solutions. In fact, it discourages such things - cynicism is lazy, saying that everything sucks and there's no use trying to fix it.

I've found that the state typically affects those who have been brought up to believe that everything is great, there are no real problems to face, and they are (for one reason or another) Golden Children who face a world of unending possibility. Then they go out into that world and discover that they are in fact children of privilege, and that the wonders they take for granted are built on the backs of others. In many cases, they then fall into the comfort of cynicism, because that lets them continue to enjoy those comforts without ever having to consider how to spread that largesse (why bother, when all humans are mean, vicious scum?). It's fed further by all those who try to find some basic distinction between humans and other animals, usually focusing on the negatives (humans are the only animals that war/enslave/kill for sport/pollute/waste resources/ad infinitum nauseum). In fact, every one of those behaviors can be found in the wild (especially war, slavery, and killing for sport - the first two are particularly popular in the realm of insects), but the cynic prefers to ignore these fact, because it's easier to despair over humanity than to do a little research.

For further on the topic of the ease and laziness of cynicism, I recommend reading the blog of Dr. David Brin (davidbrin.blogspot.com). And don't miss the comments on each entry - with three exceptions, the blogmunity there is among the most courteous and erudite I've had the pleasure of participating in.​​

marcusdkane

That's just the 'White Guilt' and self-loathing which has been drummed into people in the past twenty/thirty years...

Examples:
Got a slightly better deal in life than someone else(me)? FEEL BAD ABOUT IT YOU PRIVILEGED DOUCHE!!!

Got a slightly different deal in life than someone else? OMFG I MUST DISPLAY SJW VALUES SO THEY KNOW I'M COOL TO THEIR PLIGHT!!!

Khaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!!!!!!!!


F*cking weak-mindedness is what it is... >_<

Be yourself, be happy about it, let people be themselves and be happy about it, and just Get On with your own life...

angrytarg

jonsills wrote: »

(...) In fact, every one of those behaviors can be found in the wild (especially war, slavery, and killing for sport - the first two are particularly popular in the realm of insects), but the cynic prefers to ignore these fact, because it's easier to despair over humanity than to do a little research.
(...)

I didn't want to go in there considering the user in question would not accept those examples, but "killing for sport/hunt for fun" is intrinsic to predators. Practically all of them also hunt without a immedeate need for food because that's what they do, it's their behaviour. You can feed a predator and take away the "need" to hunt, but if they can't hunt they'll degenerate. Hunting, for a predator, is as much "entertainment" as it is "work". Also, the higher primates should also display all of the "negative human features".​​

dalolorn

Hmmm, I wonder if the 'entertainment' in this case is a built-in way of rewarding training for when the predator does need food...

lordrezeon

jonsills wrote: »

Cynicism is an attractive state to those who want to look "cool", because it lets you criticize things without having to consider possible alternatives or solutions. In fact, it discourages such things - cynicism is lazy, saying that everything sucks and there's no use trying to fix it.

I've found that the state typically affects those who have been brought up to believe that everything is great, there are no real problems to face, and they are (for one reason or another) Golden Children who face a world of unending possibility. Then they go out into that world and discover that they are in fact children of privilege, and that the wonders they take for granted are built on the backs of others. In many cases, they then fall into the comfort of cynicism, because that lets them continue to enjoy those comforts without ever having to consider how to spread that largesse (why bother, when all humans are mean, vicious scum?). It's fed further by all those who try to find some basic distinction between humans and other animals, usually focusing on the negatives (humans are the only animals that war/enslave/kill for sport/pollute/waste resources/ad infinitum nauseum). In fact, every one of those behaviors can be found in the wild (especially war, slavery, and killing for sport - the first two are particularly popular in the realm of insects), but the cynic prefers to ignore these fact, because it's easier to despair over humanity than to do a little research.

For further on the topic of the ease and laziness of cynicism, I recommend reading the blog of Dr. David Brin (davidbrin.blogspot.com). And don't miss the comments on each entry - with three exceptions, the blogmunity there is among the most courteous and erudite I've had the pleasure of participating in.​​

I agree with you on most of that, a lot of this pessimism is just a mask for moral equivalency. I think in some cases it runs deeper than just a casual acceptance of a privileged status quo.

Some of it is used as an excuse to deflect criticism and responsibility for poor lifestyle choices. This can range from things as simple as parents blaming entertainment and society for their children's behavior, all the way up to criminals blaming their victims for their crimes.

angrytarg

dalolorn wrote: »

Hmmm, I wonder if the 'entertainment' in this case is a built-in way of rewarding training for when the predator does need food...

Probably, as "playing" is after all nothing but "train" for some situation.​​

wombat140

There's a stronger argument; it's an evolutionary advantage to animals to enjoy doing something that's good for them, because that means they'll do more of it and put more effort into it. So animals that do enjoy it will be more successful and it will get selected for. But as you say that then means that, since they've evolved to enjoy doing that, they'll do it even in situations where they don't particularly need to, just because they like it - there's no reason for evolution to stop that since, as you say, it keeps them in practice for when they do need to. (I got most of that from a book called "Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good". I recommend it, it's a great read - interesting science, philosophy, and cute animal stories all at once.)

alexmakepeace

Also, our brains don't work in an entirely logical way: negative events and observations tend to be more memorable than positive ones, so we all have built-in jade-colored glasses.

theraven2378

In a way, the human mind is hardwired in a sense towards conflict, it's the fight or flight survival trait which all humans have

alexmakepeace

theraven2378 wrote: »

In a way, the human mind is hardwired in a sense towards conflict, it's the fight or flight survival trait which all humans have

All animals have those responses. What's unique about humans is that we are unusually good at overcoming them compared to other animals. Not always, of course--our 10,000 years of cultural development are still wrestling with 3,500,000,000 years of living in the brutal, competitive world of the animals. But no species (that we've encountered) shows as much consideration for the well-being of its fellow species and the world in general as humans do.

wombat140

Yes, and saying that we're "hardwired" always to have that instinct isn't the same as saying that we're doomed to be always fighting. We also all have a healthy instinct to run like heck when faced with armed men trying to kill us, and that hasn't stopped us from having wars. So by the same reasoning, having an instinct to fight when threatened can't stop us from not having wars.

jonsills

wombat140 wrote: »

Yes, and saying that we're "hardwired" always to have that instinct isn't the same as saying that we're doomed to be always fighting. We also all have a healthy instinct to run like heck when faced with armed men trying to kill us, and that hasn't stopped us from having wars. So by the same reasoning, having an instinct to fight when threatened can't stop us from not having wars.

ANAN: There can be no peace. Don't you see? We've admitted it to ourselves. We're a killer species. It's instinctive. It's the same with you. Your General Order Twenty-Four.

KIRK: All right, it's instinctive. But the instinct can be fought! We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands, but we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers, but we're not going to kill today! That's all it takes. Knowing that we won't kill today.

- "A Taste of Armageddon"​​

gradii

"This is mankinds dream! mankinds destiny! to go the farthest, climb the highest! to envy, hate, and devour each other!"

-Rau Lecreuset

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOpN1r-C_CM

artan42

I hate some humans. Not all. But some.​​

jonsills

As an interesting light on this discussion, a study of mammalian violence at Spain's University of Granada resulted in a rather intriguing chart (compiled by Ed Yong of The Atlantic) rating species by the number of deaths caused by their own kind. Meerkats topped the list, with 19.36% of meerkats killed by other meerkats. The chart ends with brown bears, 9.72% of whose deaths are directly attributable to other brown bears.

Humans didn't even make the list; in a modern civilized society, it turns out that a scant 0.01% of our deaths are at each others' hands. Extrapolating from data on other primates, the researchers concluded that in a Hobbesian "state of nature", that number would skyrocket - all the way to about 2%. We're really not very good at killing each other, as it turns out...​​

nikeix

Weird, because the death toll of WWII all by itself is more than %.01 of the number of humans who have ever lived.

I have some concerns with their methodology.

jonsills

nikeix wrote: »

Weird, because the death toll of WWII all by itself is more than %.01 of the number of humans who have ever lived.

I have some concerns with their methodology.

Not that much more - try 0.07% (an estimated total historical population of approximately 107 billion, give or take variant subspecies like Denisovans or Neanderthals, and an upper limit on the WWII death toll of 80 million - many estimates of that are much lower). And given that WWII was a statistical aberration during which many deaths occurred in what can hardly be called a civilized society, I don't really see the flaw. (Keep in mind that the projected murder rate in the wild was expected to be 2% - the 0.01% rate applies in societies at peace, with a strong emotional component against murder.)​​

theraven2378

WWII was the darkest chapter in our history as a species, the worst examples of man's inhumanity to man in history. We came out of it more enlightened from the horror. Modern man is more a post WW2 society with a few infamous blotches here and there.

hfmudd

I just wanted to thank @johnsills for busting out that quote (one of my favorites) before I could.

dalolorn

Who's johnsills?

And yeah, it's a good quote - the trick is in the execution.

starswordc

shadowfang240 wrote: »

considering the bell riots happened in the early '20s, the districts still have a chance of being formed, because we haven't hit 2020 yet​​

Believe it or not, the mayor of San Francisco actually proposed doing exactly what was depicted in "Past Tense", forcibly segregating the homeless and mentally ill into a ghetto, while the episode was being filmed. #StrangerThanFiction

nikeix

theraven2378 wrote: »

WWII was the darkest chapter in our history as a species, the worst examples of man's inhumanity to man in history. We came out of it more enlightened from the horror. Modern man is more a post WW2 society with a few infamous blotches here and there.

Well, if you're schooled only in western history . China had some doozies along the way. Comparing deaths per capita within the area affected, the American Civil war was also rather non-trivial. There's a reason we refer to these kind of events as "losing a generation".

If one war is seven times the average put forward when measured against the entire population of the species ever, I'm just not buying .01% is anything but damn lies being called statistics. Allowing for wikipedia to be subject to dispute they still list NINE wars with death tolls high enough to account for .01% all by themselves. That's like taking the average rainfall and only counting sunny days.

"UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) reported a global average intentional homicide rate of 6.2 per 100,000 population for 2012 (in their report titled "Global Study on Homicide 2013")."

That's over half of the supposed .01% rate just in murders in what's ultimately a quiet year. Without counting wars at all.

We're WAY more bloody-handed than what's been put forward.