Re: Mind's Eye Towards a modern morality

I think one aspect to consider is what types of thinking it would take
to build up an infrastructure of citizenry with a more scientific world
view, and what that even means (hopefully more rational). This comes
with some challenges in assimilation and integration, what entry points
are there, is there even interest (or is it a funding sinkhole). And
ethically, should we develop defenses to teach to our young for
identifying and combating faulty reasoning and logic, what forms this
might take. Maybe through introducing a broad immersion of diverse
concepts they will self-immunize and make the changes generationally
(and is that process fast enough for current/future challenges) if we
just concentrate more on exceptional qualitative development. It takes
time and attention, people are overworked and full of anxiety.

I was trying to wrap my head around a challenge between technology and
culture a little while back that involved high performance materials
like stainless steel, high pressure steam and platinum plated ceramics
and getting these things into the hands of your average third world
farming community or poorer. Then it hit me, people don't need a source
of gadgets, universities, a western way of life, industries and all that
to benefit from modern knowledge, all that is necessary is an accessible
vehicle, a friend, neighbor, or community. A few minutes later I had
drafted an integrated energy refinement system using natural resources
like clay, wood, soil, and rock to produce clean, high efficiency
centralised heating with waste byproduct applications for sterile
drinking water, safe human waste processing, personal/laundry cleaning
chemicals and medicinal applications. It's gathering dust somewhere
around here in the form of a scribble and a few notes.

An accessible vehicle for the modern layman might be in how scientific
approaches can be used to refine, redirect redefine and optimize our
ends and means- and the Idols need to be outed as ill defined means that
set an unrealistically low bar for problem solving capacity. That is one
emphasis for science at the inroad of ethos, what potential could we
released by directing a portion of energy toward actually solving
problems and making solutions accessible? I wonder.

Just a couple thoughts while trying to find that voice I put down
somewhere. ;-)

On 5/18/2012 12:13 AM, archytas wrote:
> My stance towards most moralising is one of incredulity, yet I'm a
> moraliser and believe most of our problems lie in our lack of personal
> and collective morality. Economics as our political and business
> class practice it is fundamentally immoral against a scientific world-
> view, My view of science is that it is full of values and the notion
> of it as value-free is a total and totalising dud. Only lay people
> with no experience of doing science hold the "value-free" notion of
> science.
>
> You can explore some of the moral issues arising in modern science in
> a lengthy book review at London Review of Books -
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response.
> The book's topic is climate change.
>
> Coming up to 60 I regard the world as a abject failure against the
> promises I thought were being made in politics. I'm a world-weary old
> fart now, tending to see the generations coming up as narcissist
> wastrels who don't know what hard work is (etc.) though I think the
> blame is ours, not theirs. I think the problem is our attitude
> towards morality. The tendency in history is to focus on religion for
> moral advice - this is utterly corrupt and we have forgotten that much
> religious morality is actually a reaction against unfairness and the
> wicked control of our lives by the rich. It is this latter factor
> that is repeating itself.
>
> Much moralising concerns sex. This all largely based in old fables
> for population control we can still find in primitive societies such
> as 'sperm control by fellatio' (Sambians) and non-penetrative youth
> sex (Kikuyu) etc. - and stuff like 'the silver ring thing'. The
> modern issue is population control and that we can achieve this
> without sexual moralising - the moral issues are about quality of
> life, women as other than child-bearing vessels and so on. We have
> failed almost entirely except in developed countries - to such an
> extent the world population has trebled in my lifetime despite
> economic factors driving down birth-rates in developed countries
> without the kind of restrictions such as China enforced.
>
> We are still at war.
>
> Our economics is still based in "growth" and "consumption" and notions
> human beings should work hard - when in fact the amount of work we
> need to do probably equates to 3 days a week for 6 months of a year.
> 75% of GDP is in services and only 6% in really hard work like
> agriculture. We could have a great deal more through doing less and
> doing what we do with more regard for conservation and very different
> scientific advance. My view is it's immoral that we won't take
> responsibility for this and review our failures. I believe this
> failure inhibits our spiritual growth and renders us simply animal.



>
> Human life may be much less than I value it at and just a purposeless
> farce. The first step in a new attitude towards morality is to
> consider living with a scientific world-view. The implications of
> this are complex and probably entail shaking ourselves from a false-
> consciousness to be able to see what is being done in our name. We
> need a modern morality not based in the creation of fear and demons to
> enforce it, or the feeble existential view of the individual. We are
> social animals and need to get back to some basics developed with
> modern knowledge, not in past religious and empire disasters.
>
> Religion has a role in this in my view - religion we might recapture
> from sensible history - I'd recommend David Graeber's 'Debt: the first
> 5000 years' as a read here.