Monkeysphere

[pieces o nine]

I came across this article while looking for something else, and although it's from 2007, I thought it was interesting and wondered what you sibling-peeps think.

What is the Monkeysphere?

First, picture a monkey. A monkey dressed like a little pirate, if that helps you. We'll call him Slappy.

Imagine you have Slappy as a pet. Imagine a personality for him. Maybe you and he have little pirate monkey adventures and maybe even join up to fight crime. Think how sad you'd be if Slappy died.

Now, imagine you get four more monkeys.
. . .

Now imagine a hundred monkeys.
. . .
At what point, in your mind, do your beloved pets become just a faceless sea of monkey? Even though each one is every bit the monkey Slappy was, there's a certain point where you will no longer really care if one of them dies.

So how many monkeys would it take before you stopped caring?
That's not a rhetorical question. We actually know the number.

Some science bits and then the article relates to us:

The Monkeysphere is the group of people who each of us, using our monkeyish brains, are able to conceptualize as people. If the monkey scientists are monkey right, it's physically impossible for this to be a number much larger than 150.
. . .
Those who exist outside that core group of a few dozen people are not people to us. They're sort of one-dimensional bit characters..

I think there's a lot of untapped discussion material in this article. This paragraph jumped out at me as I'd had to wait at several intersections while pedestrians on cellphones (and completely oblivious to their surroundings) muppeted off curbs to cross the street at one-tenth of a mile per hour.      Not that I would *ever* wedge my head out the window!   

Think about this the next time you get really pissed off in traffic, when you start throwing finger gestures and wedging your head out of the window to scream, "LEARN TO #*@ DRIVE, #*@!!" Try to imagine acting like that in a smaller group. Like if you're standing in an elevator with two friends and a coworker, and the friend goes to hit a button and accidentally punches the wrong one. Would you lean over, your mouth two inches from her ear, and scream "LEARN TO OPERATE THE #@* ELEVATOR BUTTONS, $&%!!"

That's one of the ingenious things about the big-time religions, by the way. The old religious writers knew it was easier to put the screws to a stranger, so they taught us to get a personal idea of a God in our heads who says, "No matter who you hurt, you're really hurting me. Also, I can crush you like a grape." You must admit that if they weren't writing words inspired by the Almighty, they at least understood the Monkeysphere.

I wish Christopher Hitchens were still alive just to see if I could get his take on that thought!

"So I'm supposed to suddenly start worrying about six billion strangers? That's not even possible!"

That's right, it isn't possible. That's the point.

What is hard to understand is that it's also impossible for them to care about you.

Ahhh, there's the rub. Many of the monkeys I have encountered (ones *definitely* outside my monkeysphere, I should admit) seem to lack the bandwidth to grasp that one.

. . .
but the truth is if a man doesn't feel sympathy for his fellow man at $6.00 an hour, he won't feel anything more at $600,000 a year.

Or, to look at it the other way, if we're allowed to be indifferent and even resentful to the masses for $6.00 an hour, just think of how angry the some Pakistani man is allowed to be when he's making the equivalent of six dollars a week.

It's not all the French's fault.

Nope, I'm probably not going to buy that monkey's book! But I really liked the article...

[Sibling DavidH]

That is really interesting, Pieces!  Thank you.  Plus, I stole the pirate monkey picture and posted it elswhere. 

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Interesting.  And directly related to how we monkeys evolved into social groups-- it was unlikely that our primitive-brain social groups exceeded 150 monkeys.   And more likely, it was that way for the majority of our primitive existence (pre-speech and therefore, pre-history).

So the question becomes:  can we, as a species, overcome this instinct before it's Too Late?   


Too late for what?  Well.... that ought to be obvious, but there's any number of things that could topple our global society monkeysphere back to the point that most (if not all) humans hairless* monkeys died out.  Kill enough of any given species within an area, and the genetic diversity (or lack thereof) will do the rest.   Even if, globally, there are sufficient monkey-humans** to survive, with the death of technology, they couldn't get together enough to stop the genetic destruction of our species.   And once the global food distribution is eliminated, that right there will wipe out vast swaths of monkey-culture.

Since we've previously wiped out all species close enough to us, to interbreed with?  That leaves nothing but extinction for us.  The lovely scenario oft written of by science fiction doom-sayers nonetheless:  a too primitive human situation will make our species go extinct, if there is insufficient genetic diversity.   This would be even worse, if the "what" was some sort of super-biological agent-- no, not one escaped from a lab, but rather one that evolved to be our Silver Bullet.  The genetic evidence seems to indicate this has happened in the past with other species. 

Of course, if our species did survive such a culling, it would strengthen the genetics of the survivors to the point that they'd not need to worry about it for another million generations or so.   Also, of course, such a vast change in numbers, it'd be unlikely that anything of our present era would survive-- even concrete will break down over time, if unburied, and rather quickly too.  Concrete is only limestone after all.   

And another worrisome aspect of our current culture:  the vast majority of information we have now?  Only exists as electronic ones and zeros.    If you don't know the key?  You cannot possibly decode it into anything meaningful. 

Don't believe me?  Even now, there are multiple ways in which to group, classify and encode using one's and zeros:  how many digits at a time becomes a single code-bit? (character)  In which order to you interpret these?  Is the order of interpreting the individual characters the same as the order of ones & zeros within a single character the same?   Do you group the characters in still larger settings--sets?  And these large-sets, grouped still larger set-groups?   And how about compression techniques?  Is the entire group-set under some sort of compression method, to save redundancy?   (90% or better, is these days)

And how about encryption?  Much of the ones and zeros are encrypted.... which involves more compression, more code-switching, more-more-more layers keeping the meaning away from strange, prying eyes....

... !!!

No, most of modern data has been rendered 100% unreadable by anyone without the Keys to the Kingdom.   The chance that a newly-emerging post-human society dredging up anything from today, and finding it useful, is pretty much zero.

... meh.

So much for Ugluck, the distant, post-human archeologist, digging up something from 2012, that would let his newly bronze-age culture quickly regain a foot-hold in modernism-- he unearthed a cache of silvery plastic discs though.  Some still having the paint on one side still legible.   He wondered what "AOL" was-- perhaps some religious organization?




____________________

* hairless--more or less, at least hairless as compared to our nearest still-living cousins
** as distinguished from the other monkey cultures left on Earth

[Swatopluk]

A few Mormons have to be kept alive. Their church makes big bucks from data rescue. They have stored just about any type of data recording device ever used and info about their use in some fortified caves and use them to transfer data from obsolete systems to new.
Interestingly mankind started with the most durable methods (clay tablets, expected shelf life if treated properly: >100k years) and now for the most part uses ones that last less than the average human lifespan.

[Griffin NoName]

Unfortunately there are >150 sick and disabled people in Britain.

And yes, before anyone asks (were you going  to?), Nazi-like slogans have started appearing.

[Aggie]

The Monkeysphere is the group of people who each of us, using our monkeyish brains, are able to conceptualize as people. If the monkey scientists are monkey right, it's physically impossible for this to be a number much larger than 150.
. . .
Those who exist outside that core group of a few dozen people are not people to us. They're sort of one-dimensional bit characters..

I think there's a lot of untapped discussion material in this article.

The universe is like that, or at least our perception of it is.  A fair bit of what we think we perceive, especially with relation to vision, is just made up by the brain according to necessity.  The only portion of the world that you need to resolve comprehensively is that portion which is in front of you at the moment, and the same for people. Certain speculative theories about the nature of the universe suggest that things may not need to actually exist in their full rendering where an observer is not present.

In an unnaturally large social environment (>150 people), it's simply impossible to acquire information in enough detail to construct a useful rendering of each person. While it's not a stretch to posit that we seek to acquire more detailed information about those we like (i.e. are socially or otherwise attracted to), I'd be willing to wager that we also feel compelled to 'like' and interact with those we have the most detailed information about.  This would explain (aside from cultural reasons) why we continue to have irrationally fond feelings towards family even when they are rather horrible people, and it certainly helps explain celebrity / tabloid culture.  Given enough information about a stranger, I think one would start having generally philial feelings towards them.

 The lovely scenario oft written of by science fiction doom-sayers nonetheless:  a too primitive human situation will make our species go extinct, if there is insufficient genetic diversity.   This would be even worse, if the "what" was some sort of super-biological agent-- no, not one escaped from a lab, but rather one that evolved to be our Silver Bullet.  The genetic evidence seems to indicate this has happened in the past with other species.  

The question is, what is too primitive? Although it'd make good sense to flee from the cities if a Big Scary hit, survivors would tend to reassemble near the major centres, I think. Depending on the rate of destruction of the Big Scary, there are likely to be caches of resources remaining in these areas (food may be scarce, but clothing, tools, equipment, petroleum and the like would still likely be plentiful).  The first generation should have a fair bit of knowledge left intact - there would be mechanics, there would be computer-savvy people, there would be survivalists who know how to feed and house themselves regardless of the circumstances. For the record, there are also a huge number of people currently living in the world without major help from advanced technology, and while they would not likely lead the vanguard of rebuilding, their way of life may not be significantly affected, or may even improve. Being a slightly-greater-than-subsistence-level farmer will become a relatively lucrative trade in a world without globalized food markets. There's no reason to suspect we'll drop into a pre-agricultural state, and agriculturalists are pretty good at taking a DIY approach to solve problems with whatever materials are at hand.

It's a question of time, I suppose...  what happened in the first 3 generations would be critical.  These generations should be able to maintain direct access to knowledge, shreds of culture, and skill-sets from before the break, and would have limited but usable access to technology (computers, internal-combustion machinery, even alternative-energy technologies).  The potential for recycling the detritus of the old civilization would also be huge; there would be little need to worry about mining in order to secure metals, for example, as there would be huge amounts of scrap iron/steel and aluminum ready to hand (which can be handled with relatively primitive techniques, at a pinch.  Low-tech plastic recycling shouldn't be overly difficult, either). Critically, the first generations will have usable road and rail systems that make the prospect of travel and trade quite possible, even with human- or animal-powered vehicles (covering 100 miles in a day on a bicycle is not out of the question).  The loss of modern medicine will be the biggest blow; while it's possible that we'll retain the knowledge, it might take some re-learning to work out how to culture and distribute antibiotics on a wide scale under the new conditions.

Also, in immigrant-based societies such as North America, the level of genetic diversity would be much higher and there would be less fear of a genetic bottleneck than in homogeneous countries (Africa's got tremendous genetic diversity on its own).  It's worth noting also that in terms of genetic diversity, most of human history has been spent in localized groups of >150 people, with probable limited intermarriage between closely related groups in the vicinity. Our bigger worry currently is that we are too genetically 'weak' in the developed world because modern medicine has stripped out many of the selective pressures that used to keep us sharp.

[pieces o nine]

That is really interesting, Pieces!  Thank you.  Plus, I stole the pirate monkey picture and posted it elswhere. 

How did you think I stumbled upon the article in the first place? Googling for monkey+pirate, of course! When I saw this one TOP I had a moment of thinking -- Wait! Did I steal that from DavidH?   

My take on this was a little less global. a little more local to my monkeysphere. I thought about the different places I've lived, the many different sets of people I've met in each of them -- through work, socially, from classes, from church, from volunteering, in changing neighborhoods, romantically + all *their* associated sets, including extended families! -- and the sheer numbers of people I've said goodbye to because of one of us moving on over the years...

When I call my mom, she always gives me an update on People Who Have Died That I Should Know And Be Upset About. [The ages of these people have steadily dropped from grandparents' generation, to parents', and now encroaching on mine.] A part of me is faintly -- irrationally -- irritated when she asks some variation on, "Do you remember Mrs. Obscure? She was the 4H Leader when your sister was in 4th grade? Her kids went to [college in some completely different state than any of us live in]? No? Well, she died. Cancer. She was only [insert age here]."

Part of me thinks: For carp's sake, mom, I didn't know her  then, and that was mumblety years ago!   But I make appropriate noises even though -- weirdly -- I don't care. Not really. I have suddenly reached a stage where I have to write the city & business name on my phone, as my subconscious will randomly supply past numbers. This ability to limit my monkeyshere is probably good for my mental health, but can make me appear cold and uncaring to those I have [grown] past.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

It's a survival mechanism, I think:  were we to be overly sentimental over every single person we hear about who has died, and who has some sort of link to us--even if more than 6 degrees of separation?

We'd be nothing but sentimental 24/7.

The fact is, people die.  It's what we do as a species-- every day, someone's someone dies.  So odds are, on any given day, someone you once knew or had some connection to in the past, dies.

The numbers (of people) are too large to be otherwise, and we as a species have become too mobile for the most part.

But as already pointed out, this mobile phenomena is pretty much a "first world" thing; more primitive cultures still have the majority of folk be born, grow up and die within a 100 mile radius (or less).

But I think the inability to care about someone who has become in essence, a complete stranger, keeps us from being overwhelmed, emotionally.

I do not know if that is a good thing, or a bad thing or neither--

-- but it's a fact of a mortal existence, that's for sure.

[Swatopluk]

The old term used over here was Kirchturmpolitik (bell tower policy). It describes a mentality/situation that the mental horizon of the common person stretched about as far as the bell tower of the local church could be seen and/or its bells heard. The rulers were very much in favor of that. Ludwig I. of Bavaria (predecessor of Ludwig II. of Wagner and Neuschwanstein fame) wrote poems against the railway because he clearly saw that this new mode of transportation would literally widen the horizon of his subjects and that this would have fatal longterm effects on the political status quo.

[Griffin NoName]

Good thing he never knew about aeroplanes

[Swatopluk]

Well, those did not really become means of mass transport until after WW2. Before that is was for the rich and privileged.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Well, those did not really become means of mass transport until after WW2. Before that is was for the rich and privileged.

Indeed it was.

In spite of that (or maybe because of it) Tulsa became a spot-on-the-map largely in part due to it's having an airport back in the 20's, and being near the edge of flying-range for most of the metal birds airborne in those days.

I've seen some of the photos dating back to the 20's and 30's depicting our airport.  All grass, naturally, but the location's still the same now as then.   Which, when I think of it, is kinda unusual.   Most of the earliest airports were moved further out from the major cities, and the former land co-opted for other development.   

[Aggie]

We'd be nothing but sentimental 24/7.

The fact is, people die.  It's what we do as a species-- every day, someone's someone dies.  So odds are, on any given day, someone you once knew or had some connection to in the past, dies.

The numbers (of people) are too large to be otherwise, and we as a species have become too mobile for the most part.

But as already pointed out, this mobile phenomena is pretty much a "first world" thing; more primitive cultures still have the majority of folk be born, grow up and die within a 100 mile radius (or less).

To tie together two pieces of that post, the fear of and seeming unnaturalness of death is largely a "first world" thing.  Smaller-group cultures who stay within a couple day's walk of their birthplace (and often in harsher environments) know the people around them much better as a result, but see them die a lot more frequently.  I suspect that's why they are sometimes better at celebrating life, and tend towards having much more mythology and ritual regarding death.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Good point, Aggie.  The more "primitive" cultures do seem more in touch with their feelings and recognize the mortality of life.

[Aggie]

I was speculating on this last night, and thinking that it's easier to understand the rise of religiosity in the context of a society where death is a regular part of life. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say that some form of communal religious practice is a natural offshoot of those circumstances.



Which got me to thinking.... maybe atheism is a natural offshoot of a society in which death is hidden and usually only occurs under predictable circumstances (end of life, after battle with a long-term terminal illness rather than a short battle with a communicable disease, etc).

It leans a little heavily on the 'no atheists in a foxhole' line of thinking, but that doesn't mean is necessarily a false conclusion.

[The Meromorph]

I was speculating on this last night, and thinking that it's easier to understand the rise of religiosity in the context of a society where death is a regular part of life. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say that some form of communal religious practice is a natural offshoot of those circumstances.



Which got me to thinking.... maybe atheism is a natural offshoot of a society in which death is hidden and usually only occurs under predictable circumstances (end of life, after battle with a long-term terminal illness rather than a short battle with a communicable disease, etc).

It leans a little heavily on the 'no atheists in a foxhole' line of thinking, but that doesn't mean is necessarily a false conclusion.

With respect, I disagree with every part of every statement in your post... 
In particular, I even more strongly disagree with the last sentence. 'No atheists in foxholes' is manifestly untrue, self-serving, arrogant beyond acceptability, insulting to truly religious people, insulting to atheists, and invalidates any conclusion drawn from it.
I have talked with family members who have been under fire in foxholes, and avow the statement is nonsense.
I, myself, although never having been in an actual foxhole, have faced what seemed to be imminent death three times. On none of those occasions did religiosity enter into my head or heart.

You are still my respected and beloved Sibling...     

[Griffin NoName]

I, myself, although never having been in an actual foxhole, have faced what seemed to be imminent death three times. On none of those occasions did religiosity enter into my head or heart.

I am with you on this one.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I was speculating on this last night, and thinking that it's easier to understand the rise of religiosity in the context of a society where death is a regular part of life. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say that some form of communal religious practice is a natural offshoot of those circumstances.



Which got me to thinking.... maybe atheism is a natural offshoot of a society in which death is hidden and usually only occurs under predictable circumstances (end of life, after battle with a long-term terminal illness rather than a short battle with a communicable disease, etc).

It leans a little heavily on the 'no atheists in a foxhole' line of thinking, but that doesn't mean is necessarily a false conclusion.

I find I cannot agree here.  Respectfully.    

I think atheism is a natural consequence of information density:  once sufficient information becomes easily available to people, sooner or later, they realize that religion is based on woo (essential untruth), and the only consequences of that, is basic atheism (no belief in woo).

But that sometimes leaves a kind of "ritualistic gap" in the lives of some folk, so they will create something to fill that with.  Secular Humanism is one such. Universal Unitarianism is another.   Being abducted by space-aliens is yet another one.

As for atheists in a foxhole?  I know of many such-- atheists who serve, that is.   And I've followed closely the deaths of several noted atheists too-- none have fallen back on superstition at the Nth minute, in spite of predictions by woo-sellers (religious) to the contrary.

Religion is an offshoot of our curiosity-- and nothing more than that.  When information is insufficient to explain observations?  Religion all too often steps up and offers up woo to "fill in" the informational gaps.

Alas, if it only ended there?  We'd all be better off-- but it doesn't.  

Once religion becomes entrenched, certain members of the Haves group begin to twist it into chains, to keep the masses under their lock-and-key.

Have I given this subject a lot of thought?  

You betcha.  

(edited for clarity)  

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-- SNIP --

With respect, I disagree with every part of every statement in your post... 
In particular, I even more strongly disagree with the last sentence. 'No atheists in foxholes' is manifestly untrue, self-serving, arrogant beyond acceptability, insulting to truly religious people, insulting to atheists, and invalidates any conclusion drawn from it.
I have talked with family members who have been under fire in foxholes, and avow the statement is nonsense.
I, myself, although never having been in an actual foxhole, have faced what seemed to be imminent death three times. On none of those occasions did religiosity enter into my head or heart.

You are still my respected and beloved Sibling...     

Well stated, and I agree with you fully here.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I, myself, although never having been in an actual foxhole, have faced what seemed to be imminent death three times. On none of those occasions did religiosity enter into my head or heart.

I am with you on this one.

[Aggie]

  I completely agree.

I do stick by my original line of reasoning, and disclaimer (if not my grammar  ):

It leans a little heavily on the 'no atheists in a foxhole' line of thinking, but that doesn't mean is necessarily a false conclusion.

....which is to say I'm not happy of the similarities between my argument and the concept of 'no atheists in a foxhole', and aware that the connection between the visibility/prevalence of death with religiosity could suggest that I'm barking up that tree.  

On a related note, I wasn't facing imminent death, but I was in a minor emergency situation this week (swamped my kayak in the middle of a large lake and had to swim for shore towing the boat) and I certainly wasn't calling out to God. I did use my air-horn to call out to a nearby boater when I was ~200 m from shore, as I was starting to get tired and a bit hypothermic by that point.  Any other emergency situation I've been in tends to be similar...  I've been aware of the danger and the situation, and at some level panicked, but functionally quite calm and able to just keep doing what it takes to survive (or take care of the person who's having the emergency).


In any case, the point I was trying to draw was that there are cultural and sociological reasons for certain ideas regarding the divine to ascend or descend in a society, and there are certainly cultural and sociological reasons for atheism picking up momentum in our current society. Bob has explained some of those reasons better than I have, but I do stand my assertion that it's 'easier' to be atheist in a society where death usually comes late in life with a reasonable amount of notice given beforehand.  

I'm making no statement regarding the validity of superstition, religiosity or atheism here, just that the prevalence of (visible) atheists is a function of cultural factors.  There have always been those few brave contrarians willing to stand up and assert that There Is No God, but as Bob points out, at this point in time it's a valid and rational viewpoint.  At other places and times in history where the workings of the physical world were less clear, atheism was often be considered to be an utterly irrational position according to the knowledge of the day.


_{I apologize for too-often forgetting that it's not easy being atheist in places where religulous woo-sellers are loudly and actively railing against it, and twisting religious affiliation into a political tool.  It's not a social issue in my world; overly religious people are a minority here and there's no stigma attached to being atheist.}

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Cultures are what they are-- and we are the sums of what we were raised in.  Too true.

I suspect some of us in the US are a bit "gun shy" with regards to overt religiosity being force-fed to us on a daily basis.   

I'm glad you explained a bit more what you meant and it's clear I misunderstood what you said earlier, due to my own cultural-biases.     I'm glad we (here at TF) continue the conversation in a deliberately-polite style, such that the misunderstands can be cleared up (or at least lessened somewhat). 

If only such polite give-and-take could happen out in the "wilds" of a mixed religious/not-religious settings.  Alas, it's most difficult to do that-- even amid seemingly like-minded groups, we see a great deal of #*^)(# behavior.... meh.

I suspect that's why I'm still posting on this site after all these years.. in direct contrast to other sites I've since drifted away from.   My most recent site-leaving was Topix-- haven't posted there all summer.   Good for me, I says-- I've run my course (5 years) and enough is enough.   I was starting to repeat the same things over and over, and saw it as imminently pointless.

But here, we [at toadfish] still manage to come up with new and interesting things to talk about.

[Griffin NoName]

I am sad that you found yourself repeating at Topix; it always seemed to be a good place.

Re. new and interesting things, there must always be such or the world would be smaller.

[Aggie]

 

_{I apologize for too-often forgetting that it's not easy being atheist in places where religulous woo-sellers are loudly and actively railing against it, and twisting religious affiliation into a political tool.   It's not a social issue in my world; overly religious people are a minority here and there's no stigma attached to being atheist.}

^should read overtly 

[Roland Deschain]

Good point, Aggie.  The more "primitive" cultures do seem more in touch with their feelings and recognize the mortality of life.

You have to be careful of the "Noble Savage" line of reasoning here, but I believe that this is essentially correct. The closer we feel to death as a populace, the more religious people are likely to get. What is also relevant is that we were all once like this, and as our consciousness developed, we needed to understand the world around us to a greater degree, as the more primitive parts of our brain were still there for us, not only keeping us from harm, but also alerting us to it with increasing rapidity.

We as a species started anthropomorphising our world, most likely starting out with something akin to animism, but also including the rocks, the earth, and the waters of the world. We saw associations where there were none, such as in the behaviour of members of our primitive societies and natural disasters, and as the tools weren't available to us to investigate the reasons behind them, we again turned to those areas of our brains that helped us survive before, adding easy to understand explanations for something so very traumatic. The short explanation is that it was comforting, and in a world so fraught with danger, especially with a species with the level of sentience our ancestors had, psychologically it was a natural thing for us to do. That's not to mention the ideas being a great way to control the behaviour of a populace, and hence keeping the local shaman in control.

Once these ideas began to spread throughout the human population, they took hold, and strongly. The roots of our burgeoning religiosity, which were probably reasonably well-established long before we left the African continent, helped ease our passage around the world, explaining so much of what we saw and allowing us to survive quite easily, or relatively so. The also kept us coherent as a society, no matter the number of people within each group.

It hasn't really been that long since increasing numbers of us have started thinking beyond that, maybe 10 thousand years at the most, with the invention of writing most likely one of the major causes of that. The ability to record information ensured that it would change far less often than the previously oral histories our species were used to, although it didn't mean it wouldn't ever change, as is obvious from the history of the Jewish and Christian Bibles. It also ensured knowledge could be passed on more efficiently from generation to generation. Unfortunately, the ignorant - whether wilfully or manipulatively so, or through lack of access to knowledge - continued the superstitions of our past, and the idea was so comforting and powerful, it survived into the present day. Lack of access to information, as in most of the population being pretty illiterate and not travelling much, helped keep the majority ignorant.

This is essentially the information/knowledge hypothesis posited above. Slowly but surely, science increases our knowledge of this world and the universe that surrounds it. Where once existed pinholes in the heavens for the fire to shine through now exist immensely large balls of hydrogen and helium, burning away for what seems to us like an eternity. As I said above, the roots of this are in the beginning of writing, but i'd say also in agriculture, as we were suddenly able to settle down in far greater numbers.

Knowledge is addictive, as the internet shows us so succinctly, and our thirst for understanding equally so, even if it's shallow, such as that sought out on celebrities. We're all subject to this whether we like it or not, as that natural curiosity appears to be one of the genetic legacies that ultimately led us out of the trees, and into the savannah and beyond. If we look at any of the great cultures and civilisations of the past, especially those we have many written records for, we begin to question not only the world around us, but also the fundamental tenets we had grown up with. The great Greek philosophers were one such group, thinking on anything and everything they could, and the same happened in Rome before its fall.

This is not to say that there is always pride before a fall, as in us abandoning the old gods to worship the new ones of science and reason, but to say that without a more homogeneous understanding of the world, those civilisations were more apt to fall to the more barbarous ones around them, which is why we need to be careful of any fanaticism which ignores the simple and elegant truths that nature and science provide to us if we but ask the right questions.

This is why it always amuses me when I see ignorant religious people using that which was made by doctrines anathema to their religion, or seemingly so. Fundies on the internet is a bit of a laugh, but it is testament to the principle of doublethink that they can do so without the slightest hint of irony. The PC (or Mac) they use, the software that enables them to use it, and the platform on which they are able to communicate; all of these came from the minds of those who have rejected the old superstitions, from atheists and agnostics. The laws that protect them were made in spite of what their religious texts say, and many times in direct contradiction of them, yet they laud them as if it were a religious virtue that was doing so. The medicine that keeps them alive is an abomination before some of their gods, and at the least is taking away the determinism suggested by an omniscient deity.

The main problem is that we are hard-wired to have some philosophy to believe in and hold on to, and the danger inherent in rising disbelief is in what that previous belief is replaced with. We can laugh at the UFO nuts, at the conspiracy theorists, at the psychic healers, and the spiritualists, but what they seek is the same as that which we all seek: understanding in a world gone mad.

------------------------------------------

In spite of that (or maybe because of it) Tulsa became a spot-on-the-map largely in part due to it's having an airport back in the 20's, and being near the edge of flying-range for most of the metal birds airborne in those days.

I suppose these days, everywhere's 24 hours from Tulsa...

[Aggie]

The main problem is that we are hard-wired to have some philosophy to believe in and hold on to, and the danger inherent in rising disbelief is in what that previous belief is replaced with. We can laugh at the UFO nuts, at the conspiracy theorists, at the psychic healers, and the spiritualists, but what they seek is the same as that which we all seek: understanding in a world gone mad.

Ayuh.  I've personally found that pure scientific rationalism and the de-facto atheism that goes with it (in the absence of other beliefs) to be deficient in providing understanding, which is why I consider myself post-atheist and purposefully work with the irrational / transrational at times. There are a lot of neural processes and subroutines that run below the level of consciousness that aren't easily placated by reason alone, IMHO. YMMV.

[Roland Deschain]

Ayuh.  I've personally found that pure scientific rationalism and the de-facto atheism that goes with it (in the absence of other beliefs) to be deficient in providing understanding, which is why I consider myself post-atheist and purposefully work with the irrational / transrational at times. There are a lot of neural processes and subroutines that run below the level of consciousness that aren't easily placated by reason alone, IMHO. YMMV.

There is no dogma in [pure] atheism other than the stated lack of belief there in any god, whereas in agnosticism there is none at all, with the agnostic atheist, which is what I officially identify as, coming somewhere inbetween. It is the absence that is the worst part, which is why humanism exists as a movement, as it neatly fills that need for a personal doctrine without the need to remove the rationality and evidence-based reasoning. This gap can also be filled with something else, such as a passion for astronomy, say, or a thirst for understanding our existence in a naturalistic way.

No matter how much we may want the irrational and the supernatural to exist, the simple fact is that they probably don't, not as we understand them, and to fill that god-shaped gap with something just as irrational is to do a disservice to the reason we never believed or stopped believing in the first place.

[pieces o nine]

             

I've been revisiting random books in my theology/heresy section, and followed Hitchens [god is not great ] with Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy [The Jesus Mysteries ].  The first time I read gnostic texts I was a happily lapsed college student with no intention of ever returning to Church. I was completely bewildered by concepts such as barbelo and the personification of Sophia -- it all seemed like some weird "drop into a blender and push frappe" version of Egyptian texts and Buddhism. I purchased the Freke and Gandy book as a deliberate counter to the orthodoxy I was resisting when going through a deaconate 'discernment' program many years later.

I've read a carpload on religion & spirituality from the gamut of time and cultures and this re-read "made sense" -- in the sense that I had a much better mental picture of what was happening in the Semitic, Greek and Roman worlds when Christianity was hatching. I read most of it accepting their arguments that literalism overwhelmed and replaced gnosticsm, as they meshed well with reasoned comments and assessments I've read by an assortment of different writers, coming from a range of positions and world views. Also, because I can see much the same thing happening with the Religious Right attempting to overwhelm and replace every other option in my own country and lifetime, using the same techniques and the same arguments employed by apologists in the 2nd through 4th centuries. So yeah, I mostly enjoyed the book and found myself thinking that the world would be a much better place if these barbelo and Sophia people had win the day.  

At the same time, I found myself being jolted into complete, irritated dismissal of their work by frequent unsupported assertions which made absolutely no sense. (Mostly of the "There is a KNOWING Beyond Knowledge" ilk.) In the past, these kinds of assertions would either have gone unnoticed, or else I would have made a sincere effort to embrace them as part of becoming more, like, spiritual.    

I don't know if I will ever reach the point when I can say that I don't believe in anything outside the measurable, material world. At the same time, I'm quite sympathetic to that viewpoint and much prefer reading atheist commentaries to my still-favorite Heretical authors. I was sad to *not* be in Denver this past weekend, as AronRa and Matt Dillahunty (amongst others, and better known to USians, I'm guessing) were speaking, and I was quite sorry to miss hearing them live.

Living in a Red area of a Red state has had a profound influence on my views -- I was always comfortable with cafeteria spirituality when living in more liberal areas. Now that I am confronted -- in the most unexpected ways -- on a regular basis with what True Religion looks like, I find myself drifting steadily towards unbelief. It takes more effort to resist the culture and continue my education in this environment, but with the Web as a ready resource there is more incentive to continue that education.

All this is going the long way to say that I agree with the concept that education relieves the need for superstition and guesswork that fuels Religion.

The challenge, I think, is how to handle the [need] addressed by activities that so easily turn into Religion or Orthodox State: marking life milestones; encouraging and honoring reflection and introspection (ok - not that one so much in Western religion!); and perceiving a [value] to life beyond cold, heartless bean counting.


[edited fer speelingk!]

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

... SNIP ...
The challenge, I think, is how to handle the [need] addressed by activities that so easily turn into Religion or Orthodox State: marking life milestones; encouraging and honoring reflection and introspection (ok - not that one so much in Western religion!); and perceiving a [value] to life beyond cold, heartless bean counting.

I agree with your conclusions in your earlier bits, no need to repeat.  I'd like to comment on your last paragraph a bit.

According to the materialists I've read, the universe is exactly what you said, which I've put in red for emphasis above.

The Universe has no sentience (as far as we can perceive or measure), and indeed doesn't care if we lowly humans even exist, let alone survive.   Or so it appears, even upon close (and far) inspection.

I was first confronted with the "uncaring" or "caviler attitude"¹ of the very fundamentals of reality, when I read a short story back in 8th or 9th grade or so:  The Cold Equations..   The summary is a very good description of the story, which can be found in it's entirety here.

But, having both free will and self-awareness?  We can go right ahead and create our own Cosmic Meaning of Life².

And that, to me, is even more cool than if we were ants who discovered the glass wall and who/what was beyond it.

For if the Universe really did have Cosmic Rules that Judged Humanity, we would necessarily be locked into whatever those were, irregardless of our own merits and/or weaknesses-- rendering anything (and everything) we humans did as ultimately meaningless.   And why not?  Faced with actual Cosmic Rules?  Our mere mortal thoughts and ideas would be no more noteworthy than a chalk drawing created on an ice-sheet during a summer heatwave...

... but since we cannot seem to find any Cosmic Rules of any kind?  We get to supply our own.

And that, I think, makes it all the more interesting.

It's as Significant-with-a-capital-S as we may like, too.


________________

¹ I realize these are also a personification of the Universe too.  It's what we humans do best:  we personificate everything. 

² The Universe and Everything. 

[Swatopluk]

As some obscure American writer of the last century put it

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.
   
   H.P. Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

[Griffin NoName]

But here, we [at toadfish] still manage to come up with new and interesting things to talk about.

I've been mulling this over again. I wonder if it is because we have such splendid topic drift? Or partly that. Discussions can evolve without being hemmed in by sticking to one central core topic.


^ what Swato quoted.

[pieces o nine]

... SNIP ...
The challenge, I think, is how to handle the [need] addressed by activities that so easily turn into Religion or Orthodox State: marking life milestones; encouraging and honoring reflection and introspection (ok - not that one so much in Western religion!); and perceiving a [value] to life beyond cold, heartless bean counting.

I agree with your conclusions in your earlier bits, no need to repeat.  I'd like to comment on your last paragraph a bit.

According to the materialists I've read, the universe is exactly what you said, which I've put in red for emphasis above.

The Universe has no sentience (as far as we can perceive or measure), and indeed doesn't care if we lowly humans even exist, let alone survive.   Or so it appears, even upon close (and far) inspection.
...

I'm glad you responded, Bob, as I didn't mean that the Cosmos / Mulitverse / Whatever is too cold for my tastes -- I'm quite happy with it being that way!

I meant cold, heartless *human* bean counters dissociatively calculating: 'collateral damage' in wars and 'police actions'; acceptable loss of [human, let alone any other!] life due to air/water/food poisoning so that some corporate executives are exempt from any responsibility as long as they make a profit; and carefully resisting any awareness of 'outsiders' from a given, privileged monkeysphere.

Naturally, religion doesn't curb any of these impulses, but it often pretends  to. I find it disheartening to hear religious people who earnestly claim that they would just run amok, man, if they didn't have True Religion holding them in check. Sometimes I think we should believe them, and try to shape their religions *for* them, in order to help them control themselves.  Bleah - that would be an even a worse kettle of fish[es and loaves]!

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

As some obscure American writer of the last century put it

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.
   
  H.P. Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

Indeed-- that does put it even better perspective.  All religion's gods are pretty anthropomorphic, with humans playing a center-stage role.   Lovecraft recognized that, I suspect, and wrote about things that were so indifferent to humans, that were humans to manage to comprehend even a little bit, they'd go insane.

What would an ant's brain do, if forcibly exposed to the complexities of how a modern computer functions?   Likely, you'd damage the ant's mind beyond repair.

_________________

But here, we [at toadfish] still manage to come up with new and interesting things to talk about.

I've been mulling this over again. I wonder if it is because we have such splendid topic drift? Or partly that. Discussions can evolve without being hemmed in by sticking to one central core topic.


^ what Swato quoted.

Yes.  Topic drift seems to be encouraged here, rather than Moderated (as in elsewhere).    I think that's a good thing, myself.

About the only rule I chafe under, is the single-post one, requiring one to re-edit their last post, to fit in replies to subsequent postings.    But I manage to suffer through it anyhow...

____________________________

I'm glad you responded, Bob, as I didn't mean that the Cosmos / Mulitverse / Whatever is too cold for my tastes -- I'm quite happy with it being that way!

I meant cold, heartless *human* bean counters dissociatively calculating: 'collateral damage' in wars and 'police actions'; acceptable loss of [human, let alone any other!] life due to air/water/food poisoning so that some corporate executives are exempt from any responsibility as long as they make a profit; and carefully resisting any awareness of 'outsiders' from a given, privileged monkeysphere.

Naturally, religion doesn't curb any of these impulses, but it often pretends  to. I find it disheartening to hear religious people who earnestly claim that they would just run amok, man, if they didn't have True Religion holding them in check. Sometimes I think we should believe them, and try to shape their religions *for* them, in order to help them control themselves.  Bleah - that would be an even a worse kettle of fish[es and loaves]!

Aaah, that does fit well-- and you are correct, Capitalism in it's "pure" (unfettered) state does create such heartlessness in it's advocates.   

One of my favorite examples of such heartlessness, came in a talk about risk factors:  the speaker mentioned a series of risks that a potential product (to be sold) would create.  I.e., a list of annual deaths from simple use and distribution of said product, and so forth.

One of the audience said that was too high, and the product should be curtailed or restricted.

The speaker went on to state that the actual risk was 10 times as high as what was stated, and that the product was already on the market-- and literally plumbed into most homes:  natural gas.

The problem with natural gas, is that it's distribution grew too quickly, and under very lax rules, before anyone really realized it's potential for disaster.  And now, we are pretty much stuck with it-- we do the best we can to mitigate it's potential for disaster, but not as much as we could.

However, if we as a society suddenly decided to stop producing & distributing it?   Millions of the marginal-living households would suddenly be without cooking and heat, and without the means to go to an alternative.

Part of the blame is profit-- for certain.  But part of the blame is also a problem of too many folk's decisions have to be changed, over a huge swath of our society--including many different government bureaus, and many different areas of our culture, some for-profit, some not.

So we continue to live with a product that destroys lives (and property) by the thousands annually.   And we make slow, but steady progress at mitigating it's worst effects:  a modern natural gas furnace is at least 100 times safer than one even made 20 years ago, do to some fundamental changes in it's operation.

Can we force people to replace old, but functional furnaces?  Not really-- those that can, do so.   But many folk are strictly dependent on what they have already, and cannot afford to fix the issue.

---------

One single example among millions of similar examples, I suspect.

Cold, heartless bean-counters?  Yes-- these exist aplenty, unfortunately.  And having a culture that is greed-centric (capitalism) keeps creating these people in droves.

Do I have an example of an alternative (to greed-based) system that would actually work?  No.   

But I do thing we needn't go crazy either:  limited capitalism (i.e. one with strict regulations in place to limit the effects of the heartless bean-counters) seems to be a good compromise over an unlimited one.

What makes me sad, though? 

Is the deeply religious idiots who don't know the basic premises of their own faith!    I'm speaking of the strongly religious right-wing in America:   who speak the word "capitalism" with the same reverence they reserve for the names of their holy figures.

As if they do not understand that their hero-god, Jesus, was rather the opposite of a capitalist! 

*sigh*

[Bruder Cuzzen]

I remember this article . Qwerty posted this over there some time ago . From a columnist of Cracked Magazine online I think .