Comments on: A Test of Moral Progress

By: conchis

conchis — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:07:17 +0000

We are built to be nicer to each other when times are good,

This seems to fit the story Benjamin Friedman's tells in The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, where he

contends that periods of robust economic growth, in which most people see their circumstances palpably improving, foster tolerance, democracy and generous public support for the disadvantaged. Economic stagnation and insecurity, by contrast, usher in distrust, retrenchment and reaction, as well as a tightfisted callousness toward the poor and—from the nativism of 19th-century Populists to the white supremacist movement of the 1980s—a scapegoating of immigrants and minorities.

By: Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:48:58 +0000

Re: I don’t know the scientific standing of dual inheritance theory (both behavioral genetic AND cultural selection) [...]

I made a video about that topic recently (http://youtube.com/watch?v=w_6rPOiFhps).

Synopsis: 1 textbook – subject explicitly excluded; 1 textbook – subject not mentioned; 1 textbook – subject covered in a few paragraphs. Coverage was generally appalling.

Here’s what the textbook that got it right said:

“In short, humans have two unique hereditary systems. One is the genetic system that transfers biological information from biological parent to offspring in the form of genes and chromosomes. The other is the extragenetic system that transfers cultural information from speaker to listener, from writer to reader, from performer to spectator, and forms our cultural heritage.”

– Evolution, Strickberger, 1996.

By: Torben

Torben — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 05:52:55 +0000

Uhm, tell that to Genghis Khan. One bad guy can upset quite a lot of social selection for good behaviour. Also, do you have any evidence to indicate social pressure to be effective at such relatively short evolutionary time scales?

By: Moral progress « Jim’s Blog

Moral progress « Jim’s Blog — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 03:26:50 +0000

[...] Robert Hanson observes we are less inclined to kill, rape and plunder than in past centuries, and proposes some explanations for this: [...]

By: Robert Koslover

Robert Koslover — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:50:26 +0000

I agree with you, but I’m not a social scientist, so feel free to tell me I’m being naive here. I would add that: (1) law and order (especially the fear that one may be arrested, tried, prosecuted, and punished), and (2) fear of God (in particular, a religious belief that one will be judged if one does not obey God’s laws, even if one is not caught by one’s fellow man) might have something to do with this “moral” behavior? Add to that, (3) the “great equalizer” (see http://www.factmonster.com/biography/var/samuelcolt.html) and (4) the relative minor importance/economic value nowadays of human slave labor (heck, we don’t even enslave oxen all that much, in modern societies), and I think you might have much of the explanation for our “moral progress.” In contrast, societies run by despots (e.g. North Korea, Cuba) demonstrate, I think, that modern humans have not advanced at all biologically, in any moral sense. Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin are hardly fundamentally different from us in their genes. Rather, they were not subject to (or overcame) moral constraints on their behavior. Woe to any society that fails to constrain these ambitious, clever, and utterly ruthless monsters. Let us not delude ourselves that humanity has advanced beyond them. And remember, “good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” — George Orwell

By: TGGP

TGGP — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:55:39 +0000

Being rich doesn’t prevent the bottom from rebelling, its more the opposite during a crisis of rising expecations. Read “The Economics of Repression” in Luttwak’s Coup Detat. He uses Papa Doc as his case study, but Kim Jong Il’s North Korea is a good example today.

By: Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:28:55 +0000

Technology is good at concentrating weath in the hands of an elite few. The rest of society just has to be kept rich enough not to stage a rebellion and seize power. So far, that has meant that a majority of voters do OK – and a trailing edge falls into the poverty gutter.

More resources will probably mostly make the rich even richer. General quality of life might rise a bit – but there will probably still be a poverty gutter.

As to what will happen when most minds live inside computers – then we will probably have brains of many different sizes with different roles – and then the whole concept of “per-capita wealth” won’t make much sense – except as a meaningless average.

By: jimrandomh

jimrandomh — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:48:32 +0000

You’ve left out an important explanation: biological evolution of humans. For most of recorded history, societies have branded many of those who treat others badly as criminals and killed, imprisoned, and otherwise lowered their genetic fitness. While this process is imperfect, in that some groups manage to escape notice or deflect blame, it is nevertheless sufficient to produce steady moral progress with no other explanation needed.

By: Interessantes woanders (2009.08.19) › Immersion I/O

Interessantes woanders (2009.08.19) › Immersion I/O — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:07:14 +0000

[...] A Test of Moral Progress [...]

By: billswift

billswift — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 04:40:43 +0000

I think it’s a feedback loop; becoming wealthier allowed our ancestors to bring more people into “personhood”, which in turn by increasing the returns of dealing with them more closely and reliably increased their wealth; which lead them again around the loop, a “virtuous circle” as it were.