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}
Re: Property?
Date: 2010-12-26 05:56 pm (UTC)Saying, 'your society whose only defined property is that people will not be forced to do what they don't want to do will force me to work as a slave in a fish mine because of this ridiculous scenario from some other society which is just like today's society except that I remove one thing' is just silly.
"No one will work in a factory if it didn't pay well. Without people manufacturing goods, nothing would be manufactured." Neither part of these are universal truths. Can you break one or the other and solve that part of the challenge?
"Why would we stress and strain to feed a calf to adulthood if someone can walk onto [the farm I'm using] and load it off to feed his family without saying thank you?" Then don't. You obviously don't like farming -- you'd have to be rewarded for doing it with money or social standing (the 'thank you'). You shouldn't have to be a farmer. Does this mean society has no farms as we know them today? Maybe. Does it mean it has no meat? That sounds like a technological challenge.
Re: Property?
Date: 2010-12-26 06:28 pm (UTC)There are some jobs, that are necessary to the maintenance of society.
Those jobs are absolutely vital to the health and wellbeing, of people when the population is in the billions.
Producing food. (Meat or vegitable)
Producing shelter. (Houses, buildings, apartments)
Maintaining infrastructure. (Water, Sewage, repairs to buildings)
Maintaining the peace. (Police, Firemen, Soldiers)
Some of these are dangerous.
All are difficult.
Your system appears to remove a great deal of the incentive to do these difficult and dangerous jobs. Incentives matter. Without incentive, these things will not get done on the scale that they absolutely need to be done to feed clothe and shelter 6 billion people.
Example: The reason we celebrate Thanksgiving, is that the first 2 years of the colony in New England, they went by a Socialist model. Everyone worked the farm. Everyone took an equal share.
So went the theory. But, since everyone took an equal share, no matter how big the harvest, most people simply didn't show up to work the fields. Let someone else do the work, and they'd get the same reward no matter what. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
The colony was on the brink of starvation for 2 years. People did starve to death.
The third year, individuals were allowed to plow their own ground, and reap their own harvest. That's what stopped the starvation. People went out and produced their own food. That's why we have Thanksgiving. The colonists gave thanks that the famine was over, and they wouldn't starve that winter.
Your system doesn't appear to have a solution for that, as far as I can see.
Re: Property?
Date: 2010-12-26 06:55 pm (UTC)Re: Property?
Date: 2010-12-26 08:49 pm (UTC)Cooking and cleaning is a lot easier to do than growing food, making clothes, or fixing a sewer.
Logically, there must be people out there who enjoy cooking and cleaning. Find six people who are willing to cook and clean for you for no charge.
Um ...
Date: 2010-12-26 09:28 pm (UTC)Re: Um ...
Date: 2010-12-27 12:33 am (UTC)Barring massive genetic engineering redesign of the human brain, Psychologically, that's just not in the cards.
It was one of the really big stumbling blocks in Star Trek The Next Generation, that had me rolling my eyes.
Oh, well, I get the impression that you guys just don't understand where I'm coming from at all. Additionally, I'm having a really hard time understanding why you think the notion of Property is a big problem.
That's why I followed up on this: Because I don't understand where you're coming from. I guess I've done a bad job explaining my point of view, and I'm mystified at what you're really trying to fix. To me, what you see as a big problem, I see as the motivating factor that keeps civilization from falling apart. Knock out that foundation, and the house comes tumbling down.
Everyone wants to eat the cake, but no one wants to do the dishes, and few even take the time to thank the ones who do the dishes, nevermind the people who put the food on the shelves in the supermarket.