Evolving standards of decency

[nerdanel]

We often view our society as having evolved into something ostensibly better, on the whole, than those which preceded it. Some positive changes are blatantly clear, such as abolition of torture, particularly cruel forms of state-sponsored execution, and slavery. More subtly, Western society has become increasingly open to the notion of liberty as "presum[ing] an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct." (Kennedy, Lawrence) Whether or not this is a positive change is an open question, but it seems likely that future generations will view it as such.

Discussions of societal progress frequently showcase people speaking in proud tones, claiming that evolving standards of decency mean that our society is much more civilized, human, and humane than our ancestors'. Of course, this assertion may itself be challenged; arguably, commitment to progressiveness has in some cases forced the abandonment of our predecessors' wisdom.

More humbling, however, is the obvious truth that, assuming no nuclear WWIII or divinely apocalyptic end to the world in the interim, we will be the long-dead ancestors of some future society. In what ways are they likely to view our society as primitive, uncivilized, or inhumane? How will they view the individual vis-a-vis society? What will they think we got right, and what will they condemn us for having gotten wrong? In 2150? In 2500? In 3000?

[vison]

Excellent question.

No time for it just now, but will ponder,and return!


Yes, indeedy, Xcellent question!

[Primula Baggins]

Indeed an excellent question, but any answer will depend strongly on the economic and environmental situation at the time in question. An extreme possibility is the "Star Trek" future of universal plenty and happiness. It's based on two pretty unlikely developments: an energy source so efficient that energy is essentially free, and a technology that lets people use that energy to synthesize whatever they want, instantly—gourmet meals, fine clothing, art objects. . . .

Anyway, in a context like that, with no poverty and none of the usual reasons for war, people might be better educated and, on the whole, more "decent" than the average human can afford to be here and now. They would probably be appalled by the poverty and inequality we take in stride, and by the fact that we take it in stride.

However, I can't believe that free energy or replicator technology will ever exist; the Star Trek future is only a pretty fairy tale. I think we are headed for devastating climatic changes that will only worsen the problems and inequalities we have now. In other words, the future could be much worse than the present, and it might be we who would be shocked by the inhumanity of those times.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Prim is an optimist compared to me.

[Túrin Turambar]

It's interesting, isn't it? Will we be viewed by the scholars of the future as the Roman Empire or the barbarian hordes? I'm inclined to think the former - we will be generally respected by future civilisations, but some of our practices they will no doubt consider barbaric. It'll take me a while before I think up whivh ones.

Great thread btw.

[Frelga]

Prim is an optimist compared to me.

Or me.

[Primula Baggins]

I suppose it's an optimistic outlook compared to what we older types grew up with—what seemed like a fairly strong chance of all-consuming nuclear annihilation.

[Ethel]

I don't think they'll care so much about our civility. (Or lack thereof.) I think they will curse us for our poor stewardship of the earth.

[tinwë]

Standards of decency have the unique ability to go in completely opposite directions at the same time. For instance, the status of women in Western societies has both improved and worsened in the last 100 years. Suffrage and career opportunities have improved, but the objectification of women, and more importantly the acceptance of such treatment as common, has worsened greatly, imo. Some things, such as gay-rights, are seen as improvements by some, degradations by others. I’m sure there are many people who feel that our society is not ostensibly better today than it has been in the past.

An interesting twist on your question would be to ask if people from the past would view present day society as “better”?

I agree though, that in many ways we are more enlightened today than in the past, and I would like to think that process will continue. In some ways I am certain that it will. For instance, I have little doubt that issues regarding sexual orientation, gender and racial equality will continue to become more tolerant and humane. Some things, however, are not just a matter of enlightenment, but are affected by forces that are, at least somewhat, beyond our control. Prim has mentioned the one that I think will be the most important - the energy/environmental issue. Whether the future will be ostensibly better will depend not only on how we deal with those issues, but how any changes to the environment effect us. Drastic climatic changes, should they happen, could deal a serious blow to future societies, who may look back on this as a sort of golden era. Or not.

If wishful thinking is what you’re after, I would hope that people 500 years from now will look back with disdain at our barbaric abuse of the environment, our colossal waste of energy, our callous exploitation of the weak and powerless, our monstrous disparities between the wealthy and the poor, and our blindness in abandoning community in favor narrow self-interest.

[elfshadow]

Very interesting question!

I agree with tinwë, I believe (or at the very least I hope to believe) that future generations will view our era as a destructive one. I think that the state of the environment could go two ways...energy efficiency and simple awareness will drastically improve the conditions of the environment, or they won't, and the quality of the environment will continue to spiral downward. I dearly hope for the former. If that happens, then we will probably be viewed as a society that cared very little for our environment and surroundings. But I'd rather be viewed as uncaring then have future generations live in a complete wasteland.

I also would like to believe that the future society will be a lot more tolerant about sexual orientation, and that they'll view marriage between two people of the same gender as we now view interracial marriages. Also, I hope there will be more equality of the sexes.

Perhaps they'll have gotten rid of nuclear weapons, and all WMDs in the future. If so, they'll view us in a more destructive light, and possibly wonder why we felt we had to have all those weapons. Will they think of us as an era of fear and paranoia?

[nerdanel]

I guess this question has infinite layers to it, and unfortunately, I haven't given it as much thought as it might merit. But a few reflections in unstructured format:

I began this thread after completing some reading on capital punishment in America. I was thinking of some 18th century American greats, and how their greatness always seemed tempered to me by their acceptance of human slavery. I've heard it explained that we should be more forgiving, because those people were a product of their times - just as we are a product of ours.

In what ways are we a product of our times? What views of ours, that seem completely natural, will seem wrong...immoral...barbaric to future generations? I had just finished reading arguments that capital punishment was both normatively wrong as well as unconstitutional - and I found myself wondering (I am loosely pro-death penalty) whether future generations would condemn state-sponsored executions, and those of us who believe they may sometimes be justified.

From there, my brain wandered to something a professor of mine said years ago. We were studying pre-Civil War history, and had just read pro-slavery arguments from that time, that were mindbogglingly reprehensible to our contemporary sensibilities. The class was expressing outrage - "Why did we even have to READ this?" "These people considered themselves humans? How could they live with themselves?" "We're supposed to respect the memories of anyone from this time period?" After the professor quelled the outrage, he said, "As tempting as it is to villify these people because we now understand their beliefs on certain subjects to be horribly immoral, I fear that future generations will have reason to view us in a negative light, for that very reason. That doesn't mean you have to feel less outraged, but it does mean that you should consider where OUR society is doing things that will horrify future generations."

Of course, what he said was reasonably obvious, but it flies in the face of a tendency of many to think of our society as the "end times" - the Final Product that is the result of previous generations' evolution. It's not always intuitive (perhaps because it's humbling) to realize that we're a part of the process - merely a part of the evolution towards some end result that we're never going to get to see.

So it was with those musings that I posed the question. I'm glad that I did not attempt to answer it in the same post, because I see that my first view of the question was myopic. I tend to be most interested in social inequities, both purposeful discrimination and socioeconomic disparities, and I was thinking most keenly about the ways in which society might progress or regress in that regard. Prim came in with a very important point, though, "any answer will depend strongly on the economic and environmental situation at the time in question." tinwë's answer is probably closest to what I would have given if I typed one up.

As I mentioned, I'm also interested in how future generations will view the individual vis-a-vis society. I wonder whether the trend towards Western individualism will continue, and if it does, what its ramification for families, or other organizational units, will be.

[Ethel]

In what ways are we a product of our times? What views of ours, that seem completely natural, will seem wrong...immoral...barbaric to future generations? I had just finished reading arguments that capital punishment was both normatively wrong as well as unconstitutional - and I found myself wondering (I am loosely pro-death penalty) whether future generations would condemn state-sponsored executions, and those of us who believe they may sometimes be justified.

I had a touchstone moment about 20 years ago. (I'm sorry to always be so anecdotal, but that's how I think.) I was living in Laguna Beach, in California. My son was a baby. I was at the local pharmacy to fill a prescription for him - he had horrible ear infections. In front of me, in line, was a Hispanic gentleman. His English wasn't very good. He was telling the pharmacist that his son's ear hurt, and he had a high fever, and asking what the pharmacist could recommend.

The pharmacist told the Hispanic gentleman that the child needed to be seen by a doctor. The Hispanic gentleman made it very clear that he felt that was impossible - so what was the next best thing? The dialogue went on for a long time. The pharmacist was very worried about the child - as was I. In the end, the pharmacist sent the gentleman away with some liquid Tylenol.

Our eyes met - me and the pharmacist. We were both so unhappy. Afraid that the Hispanic gentleman's child would end up deaf or dead. That's what untreated high fever does. But what could we do? Neither of us knew. I got my Amoxycillin and went home to dose my own child.

But I have never forgotten that moment. This is just my opinion, of course, but I think there is something very wrong with a society where children of the illegal and/or unfortunate... can't see a doctor when they are sick. If that makes me a soft-headed liberal, so be it.

To this day, I wonder about the Hispanic gentleman's child. Was Tylenol enough to cure him, or did he suffer other effects of untreated illness?

The death penalty? I don't worry about that so much. I worry about children of illegal aliens who can't get health care.

[The Angel]

"They thought that video games were harmful! My word, what absolute savages they must have been!"



How future societies view us will depend on them as much as us. I imagine that during the dark ages in Europe, Roman civilization was viewed as some kind of golden age of wonder and plenty. Many of the better re-tellings of the Arthur myth portray Arthur as a figure trying to preseve Roman-esque civilization in Britain against the overwhelming oncoming darkness, traditionally represented by "barbaric" saxon invaders.

Likewise puritannical precursors to our current society would have viewed Roman society, with its orgies and decadent emperors as hopelessy amoral -- a once great society brought low by its own moral decrepitude.

If, over the next couple of centuries, society becomes a lot less permissive, more "traditionalist" then we'll probably be viewed in manner similar to how current society views the liberal excesses of the 60s, but to the tenth power. However, if society gets more tolerant, then we'll be viewed as intolerant. Likewise with technologhy and the environment. If current trends continue, and we continue to consume a lot more than we produce, we'll be the guys who screwed the pooch. If a solution is found, we'll be the guys who laid the building blocks for whatever civ develops on the back of the new energy source, the way the Victorian engineers and entrepreneurs are viewed, because they were the ones who started burning fossil fuels in earnest.

Of course, there's all kind of crazy things that could happen. We could get pocket cold fusion generators while a fundamentalist Christianity rises in the West and there's a war between extremist Islam and Christianity (again). Our civilization could dwindle almost completely if no viable alternative to fossil fuels is discovered. We could have a Matrix/Terminator style war against sentient machines.

Speculation on future development is essentially pointless -- who could have predicted the internal combustion engine and its effects?. A question we can answer though, is what will be the lasting things we'll leave behind? We've been great builders. Even a pretty nasty apocalypse will leave behind plenty of signs of our cities and industry. Our developments in agriculture and industry, the human race is the largest its ever been. Life expectancy is the longest its ever been.

Obviously we're not perfect, and we have a reasonable chance to really screw the pooch very effectively indeed. I think that, on balance, a reasonably even handed historical analysis of our society will find more pluses than negatives. Assuming, of course, that such an analysis is possible in whatever society is doing the analysing.

[Primula Baggins]

I agree that there's no certain way to predict likely futures, because one can't know all the factors and the way they interact is complex, even chaotic. And there are the big unknowns, such as the internal combustion engine (as Angel mentioned) and the Internet, which was not predicted in any of the huge volume of genre novels and short stories published in the 1940s, '50s, and early '60s—unpredicted, and yet nothing has affected the developed countries of the world more strongly.

Because I write science fiction, I see this as a fun opportunity: I can devise any number of plausible futures. In my first novel (not the one I just sold), Earth a few centuries from now is recovering fairly from a global warming disaster that destroyed agriculture in much of the world (a cold Europe, a hot North America) and inundated the coasts. Society in the surviving areas is straitlaced compared to modern Western culture, and there is a widely accepted "Gaian" religion that's comforting, not very demanding, and governmentally supported. The religions of our time are illegal, but persist underground. There is not a lot to go around, and a strong ethic of care and conservation is drilled into children in school. (The book isn't even set on Earth, but I had to work all this out to know where my human characters come from and what drives them.)

In my second novel, Earth is just a legend—it was long ago destroyed by runaway nanotechnology and self-aware machines.

And of course other SF writers all have their own numerous futures of various levels of bleakness. It's a fun game, but based on past performance, not a single one of these hundreds and thousands of professional prognosticators, in spite of all their careful thought and study, is ever going to come anywhere close to what's really going to happen.