Peace via Discoveries and Inventions by Eckard Blumschein

[deleted]

Hi Daniel,

Alfred Nobel's invention of dynamite made wars even more horrible. Was he therefore a moron when he encouraged even more important inventions? Those who right now scored my essay low without perhaps understanding it might draw such conclusion. Let me first clarify that Nobel took the perspective of mankind, not of a single person or nation. Also his attitude was not to increase prosperity in the sense of more money and well-being. How to really avoid war was to him and is still a question of existence as are other questions of responsibility for humanity as a whole including the question how to adapt the size of population to the limited resources and the growing man-made risks and wasts.

Discoveries, inventions, and other contributions to what I would like to call the collective intelligence of mankind do not directly help us to avoid wars but they are forcing mankind into responsibility. I see ideological conflicts the traditional lack of such intelligence. Boku Haram has eventually no chance against the intelligent rest of the world. I don't see much hope for peace between Sunnites and Shiits, Jews and Muslems unless they are forced to live up to intelligent responsibility by means of discoveries, inventions, etc.

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Christi,

I decided replying to you last post here because it touched a main difficulty to understand Nobel's reasoning as I understand him.

You wrote: "I believe that the individual, provided that is free, would choose universality, loyalty to mankind, rather than loyalty to small local circles", and you referred to instinct.

Nobel spoke of ideal direction. He did definitely not assume, and behavioral research confirmed that animal individuals are not loyal to all individuals of the same kind. Responsibility for mankind is not something natural but belongs to slowly growing collective insight that is still not yet absolutely reliable. And this responsibility implies putting restrictions to individual freedom. Similarly, the ten commandments restricted some unacceptable freedoms. They were already a step forward away from animal freedom, and they were OK if they didn't demand to accept the dominance of a God who is at least a bit different from an also dominant God of a different group. Meanwhile, the whole mankind sits in the same boat. It is the progress of science and technology that demands to set the truly reasonable restrictions of freedom. Nobel wrote of the "forces of the circumstances".

I consider Nobel's seemingly crazy insight an unwelcome because truly foundational one in contrast to many essays that are dealing with symptoms and/or old remedies to cope with them and even more at variance with questionable suggestions or recommendations to focus on what could be important in future.

Yes, Nobel had "a rather opposed perspective", but no, animals like us do NOT "have a natural sense of universality".

Best regards,

Eckard

Cristinel Stoica

Dear Eckard,

Thank you for the reply and clarifications. By the text you quoted, I meant that people choose "universality, loyalty to mankind, rather than loyalty to small local circles" if they are free. This is a key condition, and without this, I agree with you that they will not be universally loyal. But this key condition is difficult, or perhaps impossible to fully ensure. Given that I think that the fragment you quote should be taken in its context, I provide the link where your original comment and my complete reply can be found. For completeness.

Best regards,

Cristi

[deleted]

Dear Christi,

I am not sure whether we agree. You are certainly correct in that the loyalty to a group "builds on top of this instinct (which is by nature about the individual) larger egos, which are social classes, clans, favorite soccer team, nationality, religion... It is just a way to enlarge the ego."

I described this in my essay as a strategy: "Patriots behave like groups of animals that learned during evolution to fight for the survival of their own group on cost of an enemy." Mankind as a whole has no enemy and no agreed leader to whom it could be loyal and responsible. Responsibility in the sense of Nobel is something on the highest level of social structure, quasi the final step beyond religion. I consider it acceptable if a human has the right of suicide while it is not logically acceptable from the perspective of mankind if everybody can decide to have as many children as possible.

Doesn't responsibility for mankind preclude the freedom of subordination below a religion or a nation?

Best regards,

Eckard

Cristinel Stoica

Dear Eckard,

You say "Patriots behave like groups of animals that learned during evolution to fight for the survival of their own group on cost of an enemy."

I agree.

"Mankind as a whole has no enemy and no agreed leader to whom it could be loyal and responsible."

That's disputable. Mankind as a whole has as enemy anything that endangers it, such as natural disasters, or even itself. Also, if it has to be loyal to some entity, it would be optimal to be loyal to mankind itself, but how could this be defined to avoid endangering parts of mankind?

"Doesn't responsibility for mankind preclude the freedom of subordination below a religion or a nation?"

I think so, but I prefer not to give definite prescriptions for indefinite situations. This is one reason why I prefer that people decide for themselves, but are offered the best tool to decide. In your example, I don't quite see as freedom the freedom of subordination below anything, being it the nation, mankind, or God. But I think that everybody should be free to choose such a subordination. If it would be a rule that subordination to mankind is better than subordination to smaller entities, then this would imply strong violations of human rights. For example, should a person be sacrificed to transplant its organ, if this would save several other lives? There are all kinds of situations, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to find general rules of priorities.

Best regards,

Cristi

[deleted]

Dear Christinel,

I appreciate your readiness for dealing with Nobel's rationalism. You argued that mankind as a whole is the enemy of natural disasters or even of itself.

My dictionary tells me: "You can describe someone who intends to harm you as your enemy". Nature is not someone, and it does not intend.

Mankind as a whole has one and only one perspective that is definitely not identical with the perspectives of any part of it. Therefore it cannot be the enemy of itself but the enemy of any particular group or individual. Being enemy is a mutual relation.

You feared: "If it would be a rule that subordination to mankind is better than subordination to smaller entities, then this would imply strong violations of human rights."

Well, that's why I consider Nobel's and mine reasoning unwelcome but necessary.

Best regards,

Eckard

[deleted]

Dear Christi,

You gave an example: "Should a person be sacrificed to transplant its organ, if this would save several other lives? There are all kinds of situations, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to find general rules of priorities."

I don't at all see this a question to be decided from the perspective of mankind. What interests of mankind will have priority? The primary aim is definitely to avoid anything that seriously endangers the wellbeing or even the survival of future generations.

So far there are "merely" local wars because, as predicted by Nobel, a direct military confrontation between superpowers would harm both sides too much.

The nations are failing to agree on responsible treating of resources and waste.

Voluntary contraception already works in rich communities with social security.

Racism, national-socialism, anarchism, naive patriotism, and heroism are to be overcome for the sake of mankind, as already was slavery.

The actual perspective of mankind does not include any destiny and no backward orientation. There is no way back and no realistic escape from earth.

Mankind is doomed to enforce responsibility if necessary against individuals.

Best regards,

Eckard

Eckard Blumschein

Tihamer Toth-Fejel addressed my essay elsewhere.

Here is his complete post together with ++ my reply ++.

Dear Eckard,

Most essays considered the context of the word "humanity" in the contest question and it fits your definition #1 (mankind), though many also thought that our future would be brighter if we all acted more like definition #3 (show kindness).

++ Yes.++

You wrote: "To Muslims the doctrine "as many (Muslim) children as possible" is a value in the sense of #3, and when I lived together with a Tunesian he told me why: The more children, the more food for the elderly."

In a primitive society with no pension plans or social security, that certainly makes logical sense, don't you think?

++ Of course, all traditional ethics, in particular the monotheist ones, arose from former needs. ++

Rich countries have fewer children, and they also take better care of their environment (even if they keep growing their population). So ask the next question (as Ted Sturgeon always urged): Why aren't you trying making everyone rich?

++ Even if this did work, I see it a nightmare to the people who already told me that they lived in the capitals of pollution (cities like Calcutta or Peking) if all of the billions of poor people could live as comfortable as do I and perhaps you too. Marx was merely correct when he criticized Malthus for focusing on poverty which is indeed primarily a question of distribution. ++

Again, ask the next question: Why do Muslim countries (on average, even with all that Middle East oil) have the lowest standard of living on this planet?

++ Oil did not yet matter when Queen Victoria ruled India which was overly rich but also overly poor at a time. While India was the first country to start a population control policy in 1952, its industry l developed not as fast as did China's. Purely Muslim countries worldwide as well as non-Muslim countries in Africa tend to suffer even more from growth of their population. ++

It's because they believe that Allah is utterly transcendent, and as Master over us slaves, he is not necessarily beneficent nor ordered. This is what Al-Ghazali, the 2nd-most influential prophet (after Mohammed himself), in fact did teach. The unintended consequence of this was that it destroyed the fledgling sciences in the once-great Islamic civilization--by denying that God's universe had predictable causes or that any causes would make sense. Science breeds technology, and technology is the lever of wealth, because it allows everyone to accomplish more with less. Hence the low standard of living for Islam.

++ Yes, Europe and Northern America benefited from the ages of renaissance and enlightenment. ++

You admitted that "the notion overpopulation lacks a reference value". I'm not sure what you mean by that, other than the fact the carrying capacity of an environment can be (and has been) changed considerably; first by the evolution of photosynthesis (which poisoned the atmosphere and caused a 300 million year ice age), then the evolution of multi-cellularism (the most totalitarian regime possible), the development of consciousness (which made psychological suffering possible; as opposed to only physical pain), and more recently the invention of fire, agriculture, food preservation, and the green revolution. Each step significantly increased the carrying capacity of Earth, though it changed the environment significantly too.

++ Boomsters believe in a horn of plenty that magically supplies its owners with endless food and drink. I consider such cornucopians irresponsible. ++

It seems that you cannot imagine the next step, so it cannot happen. Please read my essay on "Three Crucial Technologies" and tell me why nanotechnology and expanding into Space won't increase the carrying capacity of this solar system by many magnitudes.

++ I will comment on your hope elsewhere. ++

Are a conservative in the traditional sense: afraid of change?

++ I don't see Nobel arguing for conservation of nature but for the perspective of mankind. ++

You also said, "It is indisputable that the consequences of unlimited growth cannot forever be compensated." I bed to differ. Our single-celled bacterial ancestors would probably have said the same thing 3.6 billion years ago. As Malthus said more than 200 years ago. Isn't it indisputable that the exponential growth of Moore's Law and Kurzweil's more general Law of Accelerating Returns have a much faster growth rate than human reproduction? (e.g. 18 months vs 30 years) I will concede that according to our best current scientific theories, Asimov's ball of flesh can't expand any faster than the speed of light.

++ As far as I know, Paul Ehrlich does not base his conclusions on inappropriate mathematical "laws". Malthus definitely underestimated the technological progress and overestimated poverty. However, discoveries and inventions increase the possibilities and responsibilities of the mankind as a whole, and I am claiming to agree with Nobel on that they enforce more responsibility rather than providing unlimited possibilities. Let's be wary of perilous optimism. ++

Finally, you said, "Ethics needs to be modified, and I consider this a pressing most fundamental necessity." Ethics *ought* to be modified?

++ Yes, this is something at variance with Marxism, libertarianism, free marked enthusiasm, American conservatism, some kinds of feminism, and blind advocating of human rights. In the abstract of my essay I listed authorities who are teaching futile speculative models, denial of causality, religious dogmas, naïve patriotism, heroism, and putatively ideal social systems as at variance with Nobel's perspective. ++

Do you realize the inherent contradiction in your statement? How can you apply an imperative to changing a set of imperatives? You can't. At any rate, Ethics is objective, not subjective. If it was subjective, then it would only be an individual's or group's changing opinion. How do you know that it isn't your "personal ethics" that needs to be changed?

++ Ethics are moral beliefs and rules about right and wrong. If there will be an objective ethics then it must be the ethics of the whole mankind and must answer the question how to ensure the survival and wellbeing of mankind including the earth as its basis (not the other was round and also not related to some sort of personal opinion or god). I see this question a not yet completely answered fundamental one with serious consequences. ++

What's wrong with having a ball of humanity augmented by silicon, diamondoid, biology, and superconducting machines expanding into the universe at light speed, transforming all the dead matter in the universe into life that thinks, feels, and loves?

++ Unfounded guesses distract from what should be done he and now. A machine that expands into the universe at light speed contradicts to physics. What is dead matter? How can life think, feel, and love? Life is the quality which people, animals, and plants have. ++

Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

Eckard,

I rushed through your essay. It is well researched with a lot of historical facts and information. I believe it should make the final list of 40. I can't vote this year because I did not enter the competition so I have no rating code.

Good luck.

Akinbo

[deleted]

Akinbo,

For unknown reason I can also not vote.

Already in my abstract I anticipated that my questions may be unwelcome to authorities who are

- teaching futile speculative models (Christian Corda even ignored the topic, of the contest, Jonathan Dickau advocated for the freedom to speculate, others tried to model the future)

- denial of causality (which is logically related to an a priori given spacetime and forced Roger Schlafly to contradict his own sound reasoning)

- religious dogmas (at least those like Tejinder Singh and George Gantz agreed on that leaving earth is no option as to escape responsibility, while Mohammed Khali was of course not in position to accept the logical necessity to limit population growth)

- naive patriotism, heroism, and putatively ideal social systems (I have to apologize for hurting feelings of those who belong to diverse political directions like US-nationalism, liberalism, anarchism, etc.).

I am merely disappointed because nobody so far dealt with my Figs. 1 and 2.

Eckard

« Previous Page