slug.com slug.com

9 2

If humanity was capable of removing all suffering would we still have sufficient motivational markers to advance technologically and culturally.

Let me be more specific, the suffrage of labor, disease, famine ect... Suffrage of such things has caused humanity to drastically innovate through science and technology to find better and easier ways of doing things or making labor less strenuous or disease less lethal ect.. If we no longer had such challenges would we wither technologically and culturally??

Pate49 6 Apr 16
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

9 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Humanity would advance without the Buddhistic/Darwinian concept of existence = suffering.
Necessity is of course the mother of invention; however, there is another factor intrinsic to human nature, curiosity.

When Newton witnessed the figurative apple fall in the orchard was he experiencing some sort of existential angst, was he in pain (perhaps, if the sky fruit landed on his ample skull)? Or, was his genius sparked by pure, altruistic, curiosity? More importantly, if the apple had miraculously risen from the ground and reattached itself to the branch, would the redoubtable man of science christened it, ytivarg?

When an infant reaches for his first toy is he hoping to alleviate suffering? Of course not, he is merely curious. A case may be made that boredom is a type of suffering and reaching for a toy alleviates boredom. Would a society without challenges and suffering not also be boring? Given the abundance of leisure, health, and presumably intellectual clarity, such a society would of necessity gravitate toward incredible creativity and an overwhelming urge to explore.

0

I do not believe so. Increased knowledge of the fragility of our position on this planet and the terrifying hostility of the forces ranged against the Earth from without and within, will only get us to strive harder to attain to other world colonization as a barrier against extinction. This requires quantum leaps in technology to achieve. The status of our post scarcity and wellness society will have no effect on this larger inevitability.

0

I fail to see how voting has anything to do with this.

1

I often wondered if the description of heaven wasn't akin to a state of welfare bliss. The human spirit thrives on adversity and resistance, what would we do with none?

2

If there was no suffering (in its broadest terms) how would you measure advancement? What would make something better or worse?
Fortunately, like space and time, suffering is relevant only to the observer so it is impossible to remove all suffering as long as multiple observations can be made.

2

In the event we were able to solve these issues it's likely we would just manufacture hardship.
Similar to a hunger games scenario.

Interesting theory, can you elaborate?

@Pate49 Society as we currently inhabit is based on several forms of scarcity.
Often overlooked is our driven desire for purpose. Generally speaking scarcity of purpose leads to a volatile subject class. In a world were you have solved all scarcity issues it only would cause a greater loss of sense of purpose.
So your options would be large changes to societal behavior( difficult due to a existence based in survival) or manufacture some sort of Hardship endured by a chosen class. Thus giving individuals in "power" cause to keep the system and those oppressed a oppressor to fight. (Demolition Man).

Perhaps as society came closer to this end we would change but currently we are very wired for a need of a "cause". Which Our leaders already take advantage of.

@CodeNameZebra, in response to your first post, Andrew Klavan did a video recently sort of talking about this. He's directing it toward the left, but you can just generalize it again to all of mankind. Principle applies, I think.

@chuckpo Much appreciation for the follow up and in-depth explication. Interesting thoughts.

1

Good question. Less suffering, less progress. Our goals would be different for sure, if we had any.

1

Lots of people will disagree with me here, but I think innovation is independent of wanton greed or 'suffering'. There is this thing in us that wants to know--wants to be better--wants to move in a direction toward something-evolve--whatever that thing is, it's powerful. I believe we would do things without a direct external reward/punishment system. Maybe that's the hippie-left side coming out (told everyone I'm an independent), but I just think we could make it if we reconceptualized 'economy'. We may not be there yet. But, maybe eventually. Maybe we have to go so far down this road of greed until people have had their fill of useless stuff--maybe then we'll drop this idea of having more than them

What's funny, and I know I just fell down the rabbit hole, none of the social structures we've put into place have to be like this. There are other ways to live and think about living. We have gone down one path of choices to get where we are. But, we could have branched off in different ways at any point. Just because this is what it is doesn't mean there aren't other ways it could be.

0

I doubt it.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:31171
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.