How far has humankind progressed?

thoughts
Some thoughts: some people feel that one of our problems is the fact that civilization has overly suppressed our more primitive needs--that the reptile was not THAT bad--and that now we have become unnatural, and this shows in many psychological ways. Some may argue that civilization itself--or the particular kinds of civilizations we have formed--are the bases of our problems. For example patriotism, the nation/state, private property, tyranny, theocracies, etc. These are not primitive forms but, as you say, they express primitive drives (but so can positive institutions). So, it seems that our basic (primitive) nature has destructive elements, and that civilization, i.e., the sublimation of that nature, may or may not improve us; it depends on the nature of that civilization.
I tend to agree with you that our physical evolution has ended, or at least slowed down. We preserve those born defective; we even make it possible for them to reproduce the defects through their offspring. But we do this for the perfectly valid belief that the individual is more important than the species. By the "joint project" to "change our humanity for the better" are you referring to programs of genetic engineering (eugenics) or collective efforts to create humane and enlightened civilizations?
Thanks for a very provocative issue.

What constitutes "progress"?

Our manipulation of the physical environment has certainly become more effective in achieving short term goals. Quantity and quality of life appears to have improved at least for some of us, but perhaps at the expense of others (both now and future).

However, other than division of labour to achieve positive joint goals, "social progress" has remained ensnared by base instincts, and conflicts tend to be exacerbated in degree of barbarism by the use of modern technology. "Religion" although purporting to be a force for "good" at the individual level appears to be the opposite at the macro level . In fact some "spiritual movements" even argue that periodic conflict is the "natural order of mankind" because we are subject to "cosmic forces" (e.g. the Hindu gunas") which make it all inevitable.

As for Darwinian evolution, there is no reason to suppose that "we" or reached the limit of "useful mutation". It may be that genetic engineering has taken such mutations out of the hands of "fate" and gven "us" control. Whether this could be called "progress" has of course been hotly debated in literature.

A little clarification/extension to my views of "natural" and "primitive";

There tends to be a tradition of "mother nature hugging" mentality within society - if it's "natural" it has to be good/right/inevitable. While I would consider myself a nature "lover", in that I do my best to avoid damaging natural habitat, keep the best interests of the creatures with which we share this planet always in mind, I actually "hate" nature - the system.
The natural world behaves as it does, because it has "worked", more or less, up till now; it is a system by which each entity preys upon and paracites all others, either directly, or via the heirarchy of the "hallowed" food chain.
Death and destruction rule the day, and the more violent, and ferocious a member of any specie is willing to be, the larger will be its share.
The more sympathetic to the needs of other one is, the more likely you will be "eaten".
If anyone (that we could get our hands on) even suggested designing such a system, they would probably be "strung up" before nightfall.
Nature (the system) stinks, but we currently have no option, we are stuck with it; but, please, don't praise it.
Humanity has a similar love affair with the "primitive". If a group of people can survive without cell phones, skyscrapers, paved roads, etc., etc., ... they are "wonderfull" and we should study their ways, adopt their colourfull clothing, and copy what we can of their phenominally backward culture. We sometimes draw the line at putting leaches on our stomachs to cure the flue, and killing imperfect children in "traditional" ceremonies, lending our wifes to visitors for their recreation, and other less than positive activities.
Primitive is something that, with luck, you grow out off, and going back to it is not an option.

The problems that we face, are that the evils of these "ways" are woven tightly into the fabric of our "civilized" institutions; when you have killed all competitors, in order to survive for a few million years, it takes a "lot" of hesitation, and rethinking, to break the habit.
When, for centuries your partner in life has been considered, and treated like a "servant", it takes some pretty extensive reordering of priorities to realize she is your equal, and deserves your respect and honour. This hideous heritage comes from nature; it is part of our primitive background; and it requires a conscious effort to separate from the demands of a savage past, in order free ourselves from our "hardwiring", and create what could be a glorious future.

Here I add a caution, a caveat; while many primitive practices were (and are) dangerous, savage, or downright "silly", much can be learned from aboriginal knowledge of the natural world, and much good has also been derived from ancient practices; we must not discard the valuable with the ludicrous - assess, assess, assess!!

cultures
Bogowo, thanks for an interesting, original and complex thesis. While reading through it my responses were complex and hard to sum up. One line, I respond with YES, next NO, the next PERHAPS and so on. I can make an observation regarding your comments on "primitive" ways. Many anthropologists (the turn of the century Functionalists, following Malinowski) have claimed that virtually all customs, no matter how bizarre on the surface, persist because they are "functional," which is to say, they promote the survival of the people practicing them. This position has been greatly modified over the decades. I also note something interesting in your orientation. Unlike most others you are NOT romantic about the past, but unlike most others you ARE romantic about the future. By means of modern science and rationality we will someday completely lift ourselves out of mud of our instinctive and primitive past and into higher realms of a man-made (as opposed to nature-made) future. Am I at all correct in this assessment?
p.s., Mankind (with or without his science) IS part of nature.

I hate intellectual discussion. When I hear the words `phenomenology' or
`structuralism', I reach for my .357

words
Dyslexia, the first thought that came to my mind was, "He must engage in a lot of intellectual discussions if he comes across "phenomenology" and "structuralism." Frankly, I like "phenomenology" but "structuralism" makes me go for my 38.

Jln; (an aside - we'd better keep our eyes on dys's hands while we discuss the "p" word, or the "s" word)

Your comment "Mankind (with or without his science) IS part of nature."

Quite so! At the moment, but not for long; my comment about evolution being over was aimed at "natural" evolution.
It is now time for evolution to fall into our hands, and, in the long run, I feel we will end our stint on this planet as "midwives" nursing in the "new being"; intelligently designed, not requiring other life forms for fuel, therefore not needing a savage competetive nature; able to store terrabytes of information in its processor, and to augment that whenever required.
Its potential will be unlimited, with enhanced replacement parts readily available and an unlimited life expectancy; our prime challenge will be designing a suitable, comprehensive, "bug" free bios. The "applications" will take care of themselves.

evolution
Bogowo, I think your general predictions will mainly come to pass. My only concern is that, as Aldous Huxley worries in his Brave New World, we may have the technology to take things into our own hands but not the wisdom to do it right.
I enjoy your "futurological bent." Are you familiar with Karl Popper's caution that it is, in principle, very unlikely that we will be able to predict future human behavior, because that behavior rests largely on future knowledge. And by definition, we do not have that "future" knowledge "now."

What about the basic concept of good and evil? When I think of all the good that has come about, there are just as many atrocities.

The battle between good and evil seems, to me, to be eternal. No matter how we progress, there are those who will blindly harm anyone who stands in the way of their ambition; a small time politician or the CEO of Enron, the administration of a middle eastern country or the administration of the most powerful democracy in the world.

Social good does seem to have outpaced evil, but for how long? There are always going to be Hitlers or Pol Pots or the more banal, but powerful leader who misuses his power. Evil appears to be part of the human condition.

Will genetic engineering be able to remove evil from human nature? Will BoGoWo's "new beings" be programmed without evil? If so maybe there is hope for the future, if not for humanity.

future
Good questions, Diane, despite the fact that it has been argued that "good" and "evil" are not objective things, but instead are culturally endorsed evaluations of things. Now I know this is a can worms, so I only mention it. But the question of how are we going to generate people who will manifest in their thoughts and actions more of the "good" than the "evil" is what cultural morals and the socializaiton of people are about. I'm assuming that Bogowo includes in his optimistic predictions (optimistic if one fancies that kind of future) new and more effective ways to socialize people. And, I hope he includes, the design of social and economic systems that make it easier for people to be content with the status quo.

Actually the point is these will not be "human" beings; they will be beings that we create, totally.
Therefore they will not be bound by our primitive heritage; to them there will be no good and evil, the concepts will be unnecessary; they will build where we destroyed; they will love where we hated; they will challenge the universe, where we shrank from it for fear that its nature was ours.

evolution
They will not be "human" beings because they will be our creations, you say. Does that mean they will somehow be artificial beings? I like the notion that they will be beyond good and evil, but that means that they will be so programmed that they will behave in desireable ways (desireable to whom?), without having to resort to ethics. They will not have to make ethical calculations taking into account moral principles. They will be automatons, unable to make decisions based on options. That sounds too much like a programmed computer to me. Nevertheless, I was going to say that you are doing science fiction, but it seems to be more like a form of philosophical fiction (full of hypothetical challenges to notions of morality, free will, and other considerations). Carry on.

I am only listening in; and it is quite engaging. But from my own humble perspective, there was never a question that we are in fact evolving. The sweeping speculative issue that needs to be addressed in terms of socio-economics, religion, domestic and foreign politics, to me was always: Evolving toward What?
I don't think we are collectively ready to handle our own evolution; at least until we get a grip on the day to day business of civic living. For now, "the law of the jungle" seems to work for all ( as a more "civil" version of our primative selves).
Personally, I think we will always need our basest primal nature to some degree; we hunt and kill, but throw it on the gas grill; we don't rain dance, but irrigate. I believe the challenge is being able to mend the er of our ways; such as dependancy on fossil fuels (that is a biggy and should challenge our capacity to evolve...we actually, as a species, have to think).
As Gaugin so aptly asked in 1897 "Where Do We Come from? What Are We? Where Are We Going?"

We came out of the primordial mist and still have our umbilical cord attached. Man's basest qualities still exist. That has be demonstrated time and time again through the ages. Where are we going as the funeral service so aptly notes" Dust to Dust."

evoution
Colorific, my understanding of evolution is that it has to do primarily with survival, with adaptation to environmental challenges. When the latter change, we change insofar as our species enjoys adaptive (statistically abnornal) properties acquired by beneficial mutations. Of course, this means that only the members of our species who have those properties will adapt and reproduce, producing future generations in which the adaptive properties become statistically normal.
But, as far as I know, there is no divine plan or goal in this process. That is the product of romantic visions, best left to StarTrek. But in Bogowo' interesting speculations, goal becomes relevant once humankind takes its development (by means of both socialization and genetic manipulation) into its own hands, once it becomes a product of intelligent design rather than the interface between random mutation and environmental changes.

http://www.metanexus.net/archives/message_fs.asp?listtype=Magazine&ARCHIVEID=7736
Morality at the Planck scale: Assume consciousness at the level of fundamental spacetime geometry at the Planck scale, suggests Stuart Hameroff. Could the soul then be a particular distributed pattern in that fundamental spacetime geometry?

===========================================
This article is off subject in many ways and is fairly long, but it adds another dimension to the discussion and it gives BoGoWo a working chance at affecting evolution toward a race of 'new beings;' beings with all the desirable qualities we wish for as humans while removing the evil, base qualities we deplore. It just involves a few manipulations using quantum physics. Go for it, BoGoWo.

Without technological manipulation, it seems to me, humans will always battle with evil, but will also appreciate beauty and experience love. I don't think those would be part of our lives if evil ceased to exist. As Au said, we are still umbilically connected with our primordial past.

If I were given the opportunity to eradicate evil by giving up my aesthetic senses, I would choose to keep evil. As I wrote that sentence, I realized what an awful choice I made, yet I can't imagine life without contrasts and feelings. Those senses are what make me human and give me a love and appreciation of the sweetness of life.

It is quite clear that I am not far enough along on the evolutionary scale to have the altuism to give up that part of my consciousness. To evolve enough to attain a state of altruism and purity of soul, I think BoGoWo's idea is the only one that would work--and it would involve giving up our humanity.

It's hard to think of George Bush Jnr as being the result of 2 million years of evolution. Makes it look like we've gone backwards.

Wilso
That is called devolution

evil
Diane, I agree with your choice. If I could choose between a sterilized life of goodness (meaning a lack of "evil" behaviors), I would choose a world in which "evil" actions were possible as well as a non-sterile life of aesthetic, passionate, and creatively "evil" (but not harmful) behavior. I would feel as did the character, John Savage, in Huxley's sterile Brave New World. To me the real choice is between creative and passionate living and non-creative and dispassionate living.

JL, indeed.