The Wrong Side of History
Dec. 23rd, 2010 12:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynHistory is full of things that are abominations in modern Western society but which were not only tolerated but seen as outright positive things in prior eras (and which continue to be treated as such in some parts of the world. Eg:
* slavery
* treatment of women as property
* racism
* sexism
* serfdom
* indentured servitude
* colonialism in the name of "civilizing the savages"
* criminalization of miscegenation
Etc.
These are things that people pretty much don't argue in favor of in modern America. Granted, there are enormous debates over how much discrimination remains based on gender or race. But very few people will argue that discrimination on those grounds is good. In other areas (like sexual orientation or discrimination against those who are not cisgendered), the debate is more vehement. The trend line is towards acceptance but we're not there yet.
Sometimes I wonder what's next. In two or three hundred years, what will humanity be looking back on and saying "How could those 21st century Americans commonly accept something so awful, so abominable, as that"? Not something that we're really debating right now, but something that most people don't even think about. Something that's just the background of our lives, just the way things are and always have been.
Some of my candidates:
* Animal rights: maybe in 2310 "pet ownership" will seem as cruel and inhuman as "slave ownership" today.
* Employment: "employee" will be considered a step up from "indentured servant" -- "It's not as bad as slavery, of course, but still wrong".
* Children's rights: all current forms of disciplining children will be regarded as child abuse.
These aren't things that I actually think are horrible, mind you. I'm just trying to imagine what things I could be terribly wrong about, just as I consider many things people in 1710 took for granted as "part of the natural order" to be terribly wrong. And of course, there are fringe groups on these issues already: PETA, Communists, "unparenting" in its more radical forms.
What do you think that you might be wrong about?
* slavery
* treatment of women as property
* racism
* sexism
* serfdom
* indentured servitude
* colonialism in the name of "civilizing the savages"
* criminalization of miscegenation
Etc.
These are things that people pretty much don't argue in favor of in modern America. Granted, there are enormous debates over how much discrimination remains based on gender or race. But very few people will argue that discrimination on those grounds is good. In other areas (like sexual orientation or discrimination against those who are not cisgendered), the debate is more vehement. The trend line is towards acceptance but we're not there yet.
Sometimes I wonder what's next. In two or three hundred years, what will humanity be looking back on and saying "How could those 21st century Americans commonly accept something so awful, so abominable, as that"? Not something that we're really debating right now, but something that most people don't even think about. Something that's just the background of our lives, just the way things are and always have been.
Some of my candidates:
* Animal rights: maybe in 2310 "pet ownership" will seem as cruel and inhuman as "slave ownership" today.
* Employment: "employee" will be considered a step up from "indentured servant" -- "It's not as bad as slavery, of course, but still wrong".
* Children's rights: all current forms of disciplining children will be regarded as child abuse.
These aren't things that I actually think are horrible, mind you. I'm just trying to imagine what things I could be terribly wrong about, just as I consider many things people in 1710 took for granted as "part of the natural order" to be terribly wrong. And of course, there are fringe groups on these issues already: PETA, Communists, "unparenting" in its more radical forms.
What do you think that you might be wrong about?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I hesitate to mention it
Date: 2010-12-23 11:40 pm (UTC)If you want one that's likely to really provide a wedge between people on both sides of the issue, I give you Abortion.
Consider: In ancient times, the proper way of dealing with unwanted children was "exposure". Leave the kid on a mountainside to die. This was acceptable because infants were not seen as having recieved their souls until they were of a certain age. (This age being determined by when they were most likely to reach adulthood. In some estimates, as late as being 5 years of age.)
At that point, exposure would be more termed as child abuse, and a crime.
In our current society, the equivalent of "ensoulment" is being born alive.
But, medical advances are being made as we go along. Because of incubators, Premature babies who survive their early births today would have died only a few decades ago. As medical science advances, we push back the date at which survivability becomes possible further and further. That pushes back the date when an abortion is a "choice" instead of a "child."
How far back could it be pushed theoretically?
Imagine the development of more advanced incubators: One that could develop a fetus to a survivable stage from a fertilized embreyo. (Or even farther, from an egg and a sperm cell?)
At some point, the date when a fetus can survive, will be considered the point at which it becomes "human".
If technology reaches that point, abortion becomes child abuse.
Yes, I know. This is a Very Contraversial Point I'm bringing up. That's why I hesitate to mention it. But, I think there are a lot more people who are willing to fight to say that humanity begins at conception than there are people willing to fight to say that animals being kept as pets is an inhumane crime.
Re: I hesitate to mention it
Date: 2010-12-23 11:55 pm (UTC)A substantial number of Americans *right now* think that abortion is unequivocally evil. A substantial number also think that access to abortion is a human right. Having History rule one way or the other on the subject isn't going to surprise a person of today. Having History decide that housecats are entitled to all the legal rights and protections of humans would probably surprise most PETA members. :D. And that's what I was trying to think about -- things I take for granted, like owning a cat, or putting a child in timeout, or throwing out an old mop, that aren't controversial now but might be the battleground for 22nd century civil rights. Or whatever.
Abortion
Date: 2010-12-24 08:51 pm (UTC)Here's the problem...
Abortion has been an issue for over 2,500 years -- it goes back further than the Hippocratic Oath. I don't see that issue as likely to disappear in just the next 300 years.
Re: Abortion
Date: 2010-12-24 09:11 pm (UTC)OTOH, depending on how much technology overcomes infertility issues, adoption for newborns may become less popular. :/
Re: Abortion
Date: 2010-12-25 09:15 pm (UTC)But, I do see storm clouds on the horizon.
Let me put it this way: Looking at the current way the law works:
- Partial-Birth Abortion is legal.
- It is illegal to care for an newborn that has (somehow) survived an abortion and the newborn must be allowed to die. (Basically, by exposure)
In my opinion, the pendulum has swung as far in that direction as it is likely to (at least in this country. In China, abortion is mandatory in some cases.
I'm not saying it will be better or worse if there are restrictions placed on abortion, (I honestly don't know. I could go either way) but I can see it coming.