Has the World Improved?

[WalkerW]

Absolutely the world has improved steadily in the last couple hundred years. Even before that the groundwork was laid for this improvement beginning with the "enlightenment", which was in full career when the LDS faith was started.

The world had been continually improving long before the Enlightenment.

[tana]

Looking at the history of the world on a very landscape basis. The world hasn't improved the human condition along spiritual or moral lines. It has merely become more efficient in dessiminating information and our ability to do things. Sure we live longer, but for many our lives are just as empty and unfulfilling. We tend to fill the void with video games, television, and other low level gladiatorial pleasures. We value sports heroes above other types, we still worry about what the neighbors think and we obsess about ourselves instead of others. We have not changed from the aerite of the Greeks or gravitas of the Romans, we do not view the world holistically but compartmentally, and we watch TV and think that makes us learned of things in the world.

The more I learn the more mankind and society (both now and in the past) the more it appears cyclical and not necessarily a reflection of the furtherance of mankind in meaningful ways.

Good post

From my perspective, In the last 20 years I've seen a big increase in eastern philosophy influencing the west. And I've seen the mainstream conservative western religions backing off of their hard-line literal *hell* positions. But maybe that's just because that is what I am wishing for....

I don't think that western *Christian* religions spend enough time trying to enhance character development of it's participants. It's been 25 years since I've been to meeting, but I remember it as being a whole lot of gospel doctrine and not many iotas of self help, meditation techniques, liberation from the self seminars, etc....

Point being, I don't think that western religion does much toward altering the personality of the individual. I think that a persons personality gets set early in life and little can be done to change it. Little changes, maybe, drastic changes....not so much.

Consider that the personality of the individual has developed over eons of pre-existence, factor in genetic predisposition of the mortal body.....(and spirit body?)....Throw in a dose of inadequate nurture and you've got an individual pretty much set for life.

Case study: My seminary teacher, c.1976. Bishops wife, family friend, loud, overbearing, self important, condescending, fire-breathing, scripture thumping bigot..... Proud owner of a 1st class ticket to the Resurrection because of her adherence to all things Mormon.

Case study: My bishop, her husband. Family friend. Good man, full of integrity, salt of the earth. More practical minded than strict application of rules. He did tho like to toss in off-colored jokes when it was just us guys. Slipped up a few years ago and ex'd for adultery.

Case study: My ex-wife, Remarried Evangelical from Nebraska.... became Evangelical in Nebraska. Same person, just now *more* of a sense of entitlement and excuse to be a redneck.

Obviously there are good people, people of integrity and grit, inside of religion and outside of religion.....but not *because* of religion.

I don't think that we can look at it as if a *quanta* of goodness has been allotted to this system/universe/existence, and that that quanta of integrity has now gone or is going somewhere else. That quanta of goodness/kingdom of heaven has already returned (never left) and is inside us.... we just simply need to find it.

[thesometimesaint]

nicolasconnault:

Such "advice" would be strongly condemned by my professions Code of Ethics.

http://www.clinicalsocialworkassociation.org/content/ethics-code

Clinical social workers are aware of the social codes and ethical clinical social workers are aware of the social codes and ethical expectations in their communities, and recognize that violation of accepted societal, ethical, legal, and moral standards on their part may compromise the fulfillment of their professional responsibilities and/or reduce public trust in the profession.

[nicolasconnault]

nicolasconnault:

Such "advice" would be strongly condemned by my professions Code of Ethics.

http://www.clinicals...ent/ethics-code

Clinical social workers are aware of the social codes and ethical clinical social workers are aware of the social codes and ethical expectations in their communities, and recognize that violation of accepted societal, ethical, legal, and moral standards on their part may compromise the fulfillment of their professional responsibilities and/or reduce public trust in the profession.

Good point, it seems that social workers have a stronger commitment to ethics that counselling psychologists in private practice, understandably so. I do hope that the behaviour I described isn't endemic to the profession.

[mmmcounts]

The facts are this: more Americans have access to education then ever before. More Americans have access to healthcare then ever before. There are more avenues for assistance then ever before. Violent crime rates have been reduced drastically in this country in the past 15 years. Yes, there are problems with healthcare, education, etc. But they pale in comparison to the problems of just a century ago, when education was only for the wealthy or the connected, healthcare for the poor was non-existent and the country was divided upon racial lines.

And for anyone who watched the State of the Union address (or for anyone who's paid attention to the general state of education in the world at large), you've been reminded of how many countries in other parts of the world have not only caught up to America in many ways but are leaving us behind. India and China are both emerging as superpowers and no longer qualify as impoverished nations; that alone contributes to tremendous improvements in the lives of about a third of the world's population. Europe's population may be in decline, but many of those countries are somewhere in the process of fixing educational and job-placement systems that were notoriously broken for a very long time. Africa is still a real problem spot in the world, but hey, at least they got rid of apartheid in South Africa.

Anyway, the main idea is that America is continuing to take steps toward improvement, and if you look at the rest of the world over the course of the past generation or so, many countries are making far more dramatic improvements than America is.

[Jeff K.]

Actually education in the US isn't quite as bad as some with agendas have made it out to be (and granted they can always be better). U.S. schools doing OK

The study, called the Program for International Student Assessment, was conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris. It covered the OECD's 34 mostly wealthy member nations (including the United States, most European countries and Japan) and 31 others. The test was scored on a zero-to-1,000 scale, and the best-performing students were in Shanghai, China, (one testing area that's not a country) with average scores of 556. South Korea (539) and Finland (536) were next. The United States ranked 17th (500), slightly above the average (493) of the OECD's advanced countries. This was behind Japan (520) and Belgium (506) and just ahead of Germany (497), France (496) and Great Britain (494).

Good, perhaps. But not great.

However, the overall scores don't tell the full story. The U.S. Department of Education examined the American scores by race and ethnicity. This report ("Highlights from PISA 2009") allows comparison with countries whose ethnic and racial compositions are more homogeneous than ours. For example, you can compare the scores of white non-Hispanic Americans with the scores from Canada, a country that is almost 85 percent white. This is an admittedly crude approach, but it suggests that U.S. schools do about as well as the best systems elsewhere in educating similar students.

Among non-Hispanic white Americans, the average score was 525

[Questing Beast]

...

Questing beast, you have quoted me, but have not addressed whether or not you support this reasoning.

1. Technology, science, education opportunities, equality of rights and other such indicators are valid indicators of overall world "goodness"

2. A good world is an indication that we're doing the right thing, overall

3. The world is better today on all the indicators mentioned in #1 than it was 100 years, 200 years, 1,000 years ago

4. Therefore the world, overall, is better today than it was 100 years, 200 years, 1,000 years ago

5. Therefore we're doing "the right thing", overall

6. Therefore our society is not in moral decay and we shouldn't worry about any prophecies regarding our destruction because of our supposed wickedness

1. If technology is good and science (knowledge about the real world) is good and equal opportunity (no prejudice) is good, ditto equal rights, then "other such indicators" show the world as good instead of bad. "Good" applies to improved conditions too, not just a definition for "God".

2. It is doing the right thing "over all" when we concentrate on reaching everyone with the good things our culture has invented and provided.

3. This is absolutely true if we go by what evidence we possess. You can argue that some set of "unknowns" will completely change what we deduce from the evidence of history. But that is special pleading.

4. Since nothing like this "outreach" into the developing world has ever been done before, with as much opportunity for improvement, of course the world today is better than at any other time.

5. If "it" is working then it is right and we are doing it right. But in fact, better as things are, we have enormous room for improvement in everything. The way we tackle terrorists, bullies, dictators, et al. the evil men who don't play fair, is far from effective and often is not done right. "We" make many mistakes. Our lifestyle needs to be maintained far more efficiently, to spare the planet further damage, etc.

6. This is a non sequitur. Because 1 through 5 never said anything about "moral decay". You bring it up out of the blue at the end. This is known as a bait and switch. The material betterment of mankind and sparing our resources as much as possible are the concerns of a moral people; a people who love justice and equality, etc. I do not believe that a wicked, predominantly "bad" population can bring such improvements forth, ergo MOST people are MOSTLY good/moral in their motives and goals/desires....

[Questing Beast]

Looking at the history of the world on a very landscape basis. The world hasn't improved the human condition along spiritual or moral lines.

That can simply mean that "there is nothing new under the sun" where homo sapiens is concerned. And do we NEED improvement? The world is a testing place for new human beings. More of them are alive today than ever before: this year we teach 7 billion souls. If you think that along with our technological improvements, and their spread to include everyone, "we" ought to improve spiritually in some kind of compatible comparison, then this seems fallacious to me. Prophecy is consistent in asserting a paradisiacal world will only arrive when "God" decides it is time: not through any group effort by us to improve our morality.

It has merely become more efficient in dessiminating information and our ability to do things

MERELY? The resulting potential good is enormous: just the spread and control of the Church alone would be impossible without our disseminating information and ability to do things. All group efforts are made possible and sped up by the technology we now have.

Sure we live longer, but for many our lives are just as empty and unfulfilling.

Lives in lower technology societies were empty and unfulfilled because of the same failures to live for others and not just ourselves. Technology hasn't increased this "soul disease" of Narcissism.

We tend to fill the void with video games, television, and other low level gladiatorial pleasures. We value sports heroes above other types, we still worry about what the neighbors think and we obsess about ourselves instead of others. We have not changed from the aerite of the Greeks or gravitas of the Romans, we do not view the world holistically but compartmentally, and we watch TV and think that makes us learned of things in the world.

It beats hearing of things through "the grapevine" months or years after the events. And our entertainments in moderation are alright. Joseph Smith was a wrestler and engaged the men and boys in snowball fights. I rather imagine that if he were alive today he'd be an avid sports fan and probably would have been a star on the BYU football team.

The more I learn the more mankind and society (both now and in the past) the more it appears cyclical and not necessarily a reflection of the furtherance of mankind in meaningful ways.

The so-called pride cycle in the BofM is nowhere visible in secular history. People in groups are more complex than that. Those stories are like parables to prove a point about inconsistency: a person or people who turn away from consistent attention to the greater good wind up watching their lives go into decline; both interest-wise (ennui) and attending to the needful things that the rising generation will depend on. Materialism is only evil if it becomes the "god" holding a person's affections to this world. People who are preparing to die don't get caught up in materialism over spiritual things....

[nicolasconnault]

1. If technology is good and science (knowledge about the real world) is good and equal opportunity (no prejudice) is good, ditto equal rights, then "other such indicators" show the world as good instead of bad. "Good" applies to improved conditions too, not just a definition for "God".

2. It is doing the right thing "over all" when we concentrate on reaching everyone with the good things our culture has invented and provided.

4. Since nothing like this "outreach" into the developing world has ever been done before, with as much opportunity for improvement, of course the world today is better than at any other time.

Your rose-tainted view of the Western world kindly extending its bounties to the poor, underdeveloped world is pure fantasy. I have to wonder if you've ever travelled abroad to any of these countries recently.

Would you say that mega-corporations like Monsanto are providing good and equal opportunities and "good things our culture has invented and provided" to India? This is just one example, there are many more.

5. If "it" is working then it is right and we are doing it right. But in fact, better as things are, we have enormous room for improvement in everything. The way we tackle terrorists, bullies, dictators, et al. the evil men who don't play fair, is far from effective and often is not done right. "We" make many mistakes. Our lifestyle needs to be maintained far more efficiently, to spare the planet further damage, etc.

I consider the purpose of human life on earth to be more than just surviving, making each other comfortable and being kind to nature. I know you mostly disagree, so we'll have to drop this point out of the argument.

6. This is a non sequitur. Because 1 through 5 never said anything about "moral decay". You bring it up out of the blue at the end. This is known as a bait and switch. The material betterment of mankind and sparing our resources as much as possible are the concerns of a moral people; a people who love justice and equality, etc. I do not believe that a wicked, predominantly "bad" population can bring such improvements forth, ergo MOST people are MOSTLY good/moral in their motives and goals/desires....

Yes my choice of words wasn't the best, I should have stuck with the wording of point #2. However, you are making another estimation of overall goodness that is only grounded on a limited viewpoint. I'm sure that, as a rational being, you realise that your views are very influenced by the media and what they show us. Have you taken a look at the documents leaked through Assange? Do they show you the actions of a "moral people, a people who love justice and equality"?

Besides, wickedness is defined as rebellion against God, not just the absence of honesty, justice or equality, and I know that you don't believe we can really do anything "morally wrong" in the sight of God. Or do you?

[paulpatter]

Hopefully this doesn't break a cross-posting thread, but the Mormon Transhumanist Association* has an interesting thread that might pose interest to some here:

Has the world improved?

Basically, several posters point to quite a bit of evidence suggesting general improvement in the world and not decay. What say you?

* Disclaimer: I'm loosely associated with the group. In generalities I can find several points of agreement, but in specifics, especially with respect to doctrinal interpretations, I find significant variance.

To claim that the world has improved is to claim that humankind has improved; i.e., that the natural man has been subdued. Advancements in knowledge and its application--laudable as they are--have not changed the natural man. In that context, I doubt that the "world" has improved.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 01 February 2011 - 07:03 AM, said:

Looking at the history of the world on a very landscape basis. The world hasn't improved the human condition along spiritual or moral lines.

That can simply mean that "there is nothing new under the sun" where homo sapiens is concerned. And do we NEED improvement? The world is a testing place for new human beings. More of them are alive today than ever before: this year we teach 7 billion souls. If you think that along with our technological improvements, and their spread to include everyone, "we" ought to improve spiritually in some kind of compatible comparison, then this seems fallacious to me. Prophecy is consistent in asserting a paradisiacal world will only arrive when "God" decides it is time: not through any group effort by us to improve our morality.

And do we need improvement?!?!? Absolutely. Having more people alive does not speak to the improvement of man, it merely speaks to subjugation of things that kill man. There is a huge difference between that and the improvement of man. One would think with all that testing that man would learn and grow wiser. Are we wiser now than we were 100 years ago? 500 years ago? 1000 years ago? No. We make the same mistakes.

Quote

It has merely become more efficient in dessiminating information and our ability to do things

MERELY? The resulting potential good is enormous: just the spread and control of the Church alone would be impossible without our disseminating information and ability to do things. All group efforts are made possible and sped up by the technology we now have.

The potential good is enormous, and yet, the "potential good" has always been enormous regardless of technological level and the dissemenation of information. Yes group efforts are indeed sped up but that doesn't mean its good. Germany became a very efficient killing machine with its technology. It doesn't automatically make it "good".

Quote

Sure we live longer, but for many our lives are just as empty and unfulfilling.

Lives in lower technology societies were empty and unfulfilled because of the same failures to live for others and not just ourselves. Technology hasn't increased this "soul disease" of Narcissism.

So the non technological lives of Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, these lives were unfulfilled eh? We fill our lives with our modern lives with TV and sports, the driving force for internet development was pornography, look around you for heavens sake. The most popular venues that take up most of our time are computers, television, radio, and mostly as a form of entertainment rather than a form of learning.

Quote

We tend to fill the void with video games, television, and other low level gladiatorial pleasures. We value sports heroes above other types, we still worry about what the neighbors think and we obsess about ourselves instead of others. We have not changed from the aerite of the Greeks or gravitas of the Romans, we do not view the world holistically but compartmentally, and we watch TV and think that makes us learned of things in the world.

It beats hearing of things through "the grapevine" months or years after the events. And our entertainments in moderation are alright. Joseph Smith was a wrestler and engaged the men and boys in snowball fights. I rather imagine that if he were alive today he'd be an avid sports fan and probably would have been a star on the BYU football team.

Are you trying to tell us that our entertainment is in moderation? Because if you are, you are sadlyl mistaken. I am not saying entertainment is not good, but I am saying that we are too entertained as a general society, and not edified. If you would like I can probably bring up several talks that substantiate as much.

Quote

The more I learn the more mankind and society (both now and in the past) the more it appears cyclical and not necessarily a reflection of the furtherance of mankind in meaningful ways.

The so-called pride cycle in the BofM is nowhere visible in secular history. People in groups are more complex than that. Those stories are like parables to prove a point about inconsistency: a person or people who turn away from consistent attention to the greater good wind up watching their lives go into decline; both interest-wise (ennui) and attending to the needful things that the rising generation will depend on. Materialism is only evil if it becomes the "god" holding a person's affections to this world. People who are preparing to die don't get caught up in materialism over spiritual things....

Now that is baloney. I suggest you look to the War of 1812 as one of those cycles. World War II Germany is another, the pride cycle really hit us in Vietnam, World War I is an excellent example as well for the European pride cycle. It is nowhere visible if you choose not to see it. And people in groups are not nearly as complex as you may want to believe. Materialism, being something that we simply must have for the sake of having certainly does reduce our thought process. And it is relatively prevelant today, and in existence in history. Even if you refuse to see it.

[Yirgacheffe]

Good point, it seems that social workers have a stronger commitment to ethics that counselling psychologists in private practice, understandably so. I do hope that the behaviour I described isn't endemic to the profession.

Again do you have anything to back up this assertion? This topic will make for some interesting conversation at an upcoming family wedding, where 2 of my family members are those "counselling psychologists in private practice" you have been maligning here. Maybe I'll e-mail a link to this for now.

[nicolasconnault]

Again do you have anything to back up this assertion? This topic will make for some interesting conversation at an upcoming family wedding, where 2 of my family members are those "counselling psychologists in private practice" you have been maligning here. Maybe I'll e-mail a link to this for now.

I've told you that my comments were based on personal observation and anecdotal evidence, and then I said that I hoped that what I have observed isn't endemic to the profession. I don't think I need to back my comments up any more than this, but I will gladly concede that they make for a weak argument. I certainly didn't intend to malign anybody, but I can see that my comments were not very useful.

Furthermore, I am myself a provisional psychologist, training to become a clinical psychologist, so I don't hold any grudge towards that particular professional field

[Yirgacheffe]

I've told you that my comments were based on personal observation and anecdotal evidence, and then I said that I hoped that what I have observed isn't endemic to the profession. I don't think I need to back my comments up any more than this, but I will gladly concede that they make for a weak argument. I certainly didn't intend to malign anybody, but I can see that my comments were not very useful.

Furthermore, I am myself a provisional psychologist, training to become a clinical psychologist, so I don't hold any grudge towards that particular professional field

Psychologists frequently prescribe depressed patients with a treatment of one-night-stands, for example.

Yes you explained that this quote was based on "personal observation and anecdotal evidence", which I agree is a weak argument. But then you went on to expand on it and imply (shown in the quote below) a general lack of ethics among psychologists. Quite frankly I see this as going far beyond your comments being "not very useful" and arriving at simply ugly.

Good point, it seems that social workers have a stronger commitment to ethics that counselling psychologists in private practice, understandably so. I do hope that the behaviour I described isn't endemic to the profession.

[nicolasconnault]

Yes you explained that this quote was based on "personal observation and anecdotal evidence", which I agree is a weak argument. But then you went on to expand on it and imply (shown in the quote below) a general lack of ethics among psychologists. Quite frankly I see this as going far beyond your comments being "not very useful" and arriving at simply ugly.

You're right, that was out of line and unjustified. I'll think twice before posting stupidity like this in the future...

[Questing Beast]

Your rose-tainted view of the Western world kindly extending its bounties to the poor, underdeveloped world is pure fantasy. I have to wonder if you've ever travelled abroad to any of these countries recently.

Would you say that mega-corporations like Monsanto are providing good and equal opportunities and "good things our culture has invented and provided" to India? This is just one example, there are many more.

The actions of the rich who exploit the developing nations OUTRAGES popular feeling; otherwise this evil you speak of would be a non story. So yes "we" are spreading our influence to improve those less advantaged than ourselves. That there is much blame as the process continues is no surprise to me.

I consider the purpose of human life on earth to be more than just surviving, making each other comfortable and being kind to nature. I know you mostly disagree, so we'll have to drop this point out of the argument.

Behaving justly in all situations is the main point of being here. Learning how to be just is the core value of arriving at a state of Joy. This world is and has always been very well suited to provide continuous teaching scenarios. It isn't supposed to become a sinless paradise, either through forced behavior "for the common good" or from transcending our temptations.

... you are making another estimation of overall goodness that is only grounded on a limited viewpoint. I'm sure that, as a rational being, you realise that your views are very influenced by the media and what they show us. Have you taken a look at the documents leaked through Assange? Do they show you the actions of a "moral people, a people who love justice and equality"?

Again, "we have learned by sad experience that it is the tendency of almost all men that when they get a little power as they suppose they begin to exercise unrighteous dominion" (paraphrase): of course "absolute power corrupts absolutely". That's why our system of self-gov't was set up so that it doesn't operate on "autopilot" or in some distant venue, like most Euros seem to be content with. Even with our established checks and balances, the USA is in deep trouble because too many corrupt politicians and rich megahuge corporations behind them are waging a campaign of wealth and power brokering. But we KNOW of these inequities because most people in the Media are not in positions of self-aggrandizement and instead desire to expose the inequities everywhere that they find them.

If I take your words as literally accurate, then I should be better served to do the ostrich thing and stop trying to learn what goes on in the world. We have the information sources for good and ill that we have got; we have the history, accurate or revisionist that we've got. And we have each of us our own little world of surrounding fellow travelers. Based on ALL of those sources of evidence: how can you claim that the world is getting wickeder and worse than at any other time in history? And if you don't assert that, then you are in disagreement with most of the Sunday school and priesthood and Relief Society lessons wherein our time is likened to Sodom and Gomorrah or the days of Noah. The evidence from the world as a whole does not support that dogmatic view. There is too much good growing to allow that to be true: people EVERYWHERE are far too good and sympathetic to even strangers to allow that negative assertion to be true. In order for you to actively believe that the world is spinning down toward the apocalypse you have to cognitively deny the huge body of evidence to the contrary.

Besides, wickedness is defined as rebellion against God, not just the absence of honesty, justice or equality, and I know that you don't believe we can really do anything "morally wrong" in the sight of God. Or do you?

You've drawn an inaccurate assessment of what I believe if you think I believe that. I may hold a theological concept that places everything in the universe as "God" manifesting. But I do not hold to the denial of free will: which "pantheists" often fall for, to remove any need for making right choices. We are manifestly conscience-holding creatures. Our choices always matter. Therefore if you strike against your core feelings of right and wrong you do "sin" against "God" whose purpose in this world appears to be getting us all to choose to be creatures of Joy: behaving unjustly to yourself and others is antithetical to Joy. I also believe that our consciences agree with everyone's 99%+ of the time. That fact is why "Justice" is an understandable concept even with large cultural differences interfering and complicating the defining of it....

[Nomad]

Walden:

Christian morality, not the world, is what is coming to an end. You can continue to run around telling everyone how the sky is falling, but the rest of the world will continue to move forward to usher in even greater advances over the next centuries, by which time Christianity will be a thing of the past.

[nicolasconnault]

If I take your words as literally accurate, then I should be better served to do the ostrich thing and stop trying to learn what goes on in the world.

I'll reply to your post in detail later, but I just thought I should mention that ostriches do not put their heads in the sand when threatened

[Walden]

Walden would no doubt reassure us that these fanciful faces from beyond

[Deborah]

I guess the demise of the Greeks and the Romans can be attributed to their turning away from the gods of Olympus....they hold about as much sway as the god of Christianity. Eventually, the god of Christianity will be given as much credence as the gods of Olympus are today.

Not likely. Agnostics and atheists have been trying to deny the God of Christianity for centuries. In spite of our secular society religion is still very strong and God still plays an important part in people's lives.

[Walden]

Not likely. Agnostics and atheists have been trying to deny the God of Christianity for centuries. In spite of our secular society religion is still very strong and God still plays an important part in people's lives.

I would expect that a greek citizen, circa 500 BC, would have stated exactly the same thing about the gods of Olympus.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would expect that a greek citizen, circa 500 BC, would have stated exactly the same thing about the gods of Olympus.

Really? They would have stated that "Agnostics and atheists have been trying to deny the Gods of Olympus for centuries."

I would expect that they would not have said any such thing. How is that for a naked assertion.