The Wrong Side of History

[rowyn]

History 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?

Comments

[sebkha.livejournal.com]

I'm a little surprised nobody has suggested religion yet.

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

Religion has been happening for over 4,000 years.

It's not going to disappear in 300 years.

(Although I absolutely promise that it will change. Heck, religion has changed dramatically in the last 10 years.)

[sebkha.livejournal.com]

Well...more of the population of the world is likely to live in the next 300 years than did in the last 4000. So cultural inertia isn't an argument with the strength it might seem to have at first blush.

very doubtful

[tahkhleet.livejournal.com]

the attempt to wrangle with the unknown and distill terror and uncertainty into awe and purposefulness is not something I believe most the species will ever be able to do without. There are plenty of people who can but barring effective genetic engineering aimed at emotional temperament I don't see it working.

Now, on the other hand, could we come to a time when hierarchical organized religion was regarded as an obvious evil? It's conceivable. However, I would say that you would have to see people living in an anarchy _politically_ before they'd be up for living in anarchy epistemologically and spiritually. "Master narratives" don't work very well for most people if they are not held by at least a whole community.

In principle, this "community wide" requirement shouldn't be indispensable. But I think it will be challenging for society to mature beyond it. However if people get over that challenge they could get very hard assed against people acting that way ever again, aye.

It didn't occur to me because I can't conceive of any other way to do religion anymore in light of the experiences I've had the last two years. The underlying reality isn't a uniform delusion or a uniform anything. it's a headache inducing muddle.