Are humans becoming worthless?

[Jack]

As humans become more plentiful, does the value of the individual diminish?

When there were fewer of us, individual contributions to society were of greater significance and more noticeable. An individual could make a difference in their community, in the world.

Now that humans are so numerous and only show signs of increasing in numbers in the future, are we at risk of making humans worthless? Can the increase in violent crimes be attributed to more people placing less value on human life? Is war becoming more acceptable because the value of the individual soldier has decreased?

Finally, does Christianity, along with similar religions, contribute to the devaluation of individuals by portraying humans as essentially evil?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Isherwood As humans become more plentiful, does the value of the individual diminish? When there were fewer of us, individual contributions to society were of greater significance and more noticeable. An individual could make a difference in their community, in the world.

A profound, and interesting thing to ponder. This ranks right up there with "why are we here" in my opinion.


On the other hand, there is no denying that people utilize the inventions of others more proficiently than ever rendering us more technologically dependent, but still building from the "community".


So I think individual contributions still matter, it's just that often noticing requires you to be interested in the specific topic that the contribution falls under.

Quote by: Isherwood Now that humans are so numerous and only show signs of increasing in numbers in the future, are we at risk of making humans worthless?

I can only speak on a personal level, but yes, I do percieve that the general value of the individual is not, in a broadest possible sense, what it used to be.

Quote by: Isherwood Can the increase in violent crimes be attributed to more people placing less value on human life?

I think violent crime ( in this country ) is directly related to the disenfranchisement of the individual through pernicious legislation meant specifically to do just what it did, disenfranchise the individual.

Quote by: Isherwood Is war becoming more acceptable because the value of the individual soldier has decreased?

This is entirely subjective in my opinion. To some,, it certainly seems to be the case.

Quote by: Isherwood Finally, does Christianity, along with similar religions, contribute to the devaluation of individuals by portraying humans as essentially evil?

Another profound question I don't have the answer for. :(

[Osborn F Enready]

Isherwood said: As humans become more plentiful, does the value of the individual diminish?

I think there are several competing ideologies that push that theory, yes.

I think the truth lies in nature itself, and the cold truth is that yes, indeed this is a result because as life becomes more plentiful, the value of life is blemished by the variety that life provides, often that variety being a cause in itself to the formation of collectives based on polarized opposites of values.

I personally, think it is natural for collective societies to consider rational limitation of the individual, but the trend toward authoritarianism that is bred in most societies through patriotism, national identity, cultural values influences us to subjectively over-reach, as a new mother with her first child tends to be over-protective. Add to this technologies ability to influence culture through electronic, printed and live media, and you have a very angry stew that causes polarization and divide based on individual values, forming into collectives which are usually associated with "political parties" or "religious groups".

I think evolution, happiness, productivity and inherant value is a direct equation to the amount of liberty the individual has to become fully realized to their personal aspirations, desires, needs and ability. The most valued societies are those which limit the encroachment of the system of government, into the peoples lives, unless the people seek a resolution to a substantial problem that causes regional unrest.

I think the society that can provide the consistent balance of sticking to core limitations of government over-reach, by securing "natural" individual rights in law, and in cultural values and teachings, while still allowing government to ensure a "level" playing field for all of its citizens both econonmicly and socially, is the goal of societal man, or if not the current goal, should be.
I think that is the true pinnacle of what mankind could reach, and the only realistic proposition that would allow any type of global peace.

Isherwood said: When there were fewer of us, individual contributions to society were of greater significance and more noticeable. An individual could make a difference in their community, in the world.

It is still ONLY individual contributions that do the work. Teams and corporations are made up of talented individuals, and without the individual, there is no team, and no corporation or any ideas or technology.

Isherwood said: Now that humans are so numerous and only show signs of increasing in numbers in the future, are we at risk of making humans worthless?

I think that is a goal of many theories, and the reason that people around the world need to take control of their governments, design new ones to reflect our common threads of individual rights, and limit them to enforcing the laws that secure those rights.

Isherwood said: Can the increase in violent crimes be attributed to more people placing to value on human life? Is war becoming more acceptable because the value of the individual soldier has decreased?

Yes, and Yes.

Some theories argue from the point of finite resources, which leads again to a natural instinct for survival of the fittest, or surivival of those who "think alike" and can secure that vision through military force.

Some theories argue from the point of religious ends, and actually push reality to conform to "beliefs" the individuals hold as core beleifs. The bigger and more well financed the religions base, the more social and political influence it wields indirectly.

Some theories argue from the economic perspective, some the social perspective, some a mixture of both.

Usually all of them hold one promise at their core.....bettering you, the individual, and your place in the world. They do that to gain power, since it is the individuals who form collectives that give the collective its power.

Another thing most of them share, is a subjective view of how limitation of liberty for some individuals,results in more liberty for all.

I think once we remove subjectivity from the view of rights infringement, we will be much better in achieving the next evolution of man, and truly having a global effort toward productive, stable, sustainable peace.

Isherwood said: Finally, does Christianity, along with similar religions, contribute to the devaluation of individuals by portraying humans as essentially evil?

I think the answer is clearly that all religions play a huge role in dividing and polarizing people, who share the same common goals while on earth. This is to me, a perfect example of how when religion is not kept private, to the individual, it becomes a non-beneficial to the society as a whole, since it creates and furthers divide and polarazation based on subjective values and beliefs.

One of my favorite, and in my opinion, most prophetic quotes from a collection I frequent:

“The liberty of the individual is a necessary postulate of human progress.”
-Ernest Renan

I know a little about Renan, and while I don't support everything the man has said or stood for, I feel this could be his most prophetic words ever put to paper, that I have seen.

To me, the true value of the human being lies in the ABILITY, natural ability to conquer the natural world for survival, yet reach a common middle ground with our peers.

I think based on our individual make-up, and our natural progression in life process from "birth collective family", "individual", to the CHOICE of forming a new collective by creating a family, shows we are naturally inclined to both societal (collective) and individual living.

I think the best system is one that recongnizes the indivual fully, by full protection of individual rights, which allows the biggest variety of personal collectives, without infringement from subjective laws or bias, and allows all individuals and collectives to work most efficiently, productively and beneficially to those who make it up.

I think the United States Constitutional Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, strike the closest chord to that ever achieved by man, yet, that I know of, and I also think this is the highest value that could be achieved by government without the use of force being used to try to change mans nature, desires, abilities and happiness.

[kubedawg]

Well I personally think, that the more people there are, the more there is a need for technology to be unique, to fit that specific person, so in a sense yes, however, you know how inventors/engineers aren't that good at making a specific product very user friendly, well, that causes a lot of people to learn that technology more, even if it's out of mere frustration. What matters most is our ability to have good school systems, with innovative teaching habits so our kids won't grow up into a lifestyle where everything is available to them so they don't need to pick themselves up and be unique and become innovators themselves or inventors.

[bishop]

Quote by: ish As humans become more plentiful, does the value of the individual diminish? When there were fewer of us, individual contributions to society were of greater significance and more noticeable. An individual could make a difference in their community, in the world.

if you went back even further, you'd find centuries of time rife with slavery and serfdom - where the individual's value was akin to livestock's value. when wars were fought, did anyone give a damn about all of the innocents who would be killed in the process? nope. i'd argue that the value of the individual has never been as highly valued as it is today.

Quote by: ish Can the increase in violent crimes be attributed to more people placing less value on human life? Is war becoming more acceptable because the value of the individual soldier has decreased?

violent crime has been a near constant imo... sure, the rates fluctuate, but there's always crime - attributable to all sorts of causes from poverty to poor family life. as for war.... the media censors it, removing most of the "dirtiness" of war. the way we fight war is like playing a video game (occupation and nation building are different from war imo). and, you have a society that is heavily motivated by fear-based emotion, and seemingly allergic to rational thinking before acting.

Quote by: ish Finally, does Christianity, along with similar religions, contribute to the devaluation of individuals by portraying humans as essentially evil?

i took a bunch of religious courses during my undergrad, and came to understand that islam has traditionally been able to give even the poorest of the poor a sense of dignity. (this came from evangelical, atheist and jewish/israeli professors in point of fact.) christianity's portrayal of human worth has certainly changed over time. i see a lot of similarities between today's fundies and the puritans - who seemed to think of humanity as a wretched and damnable race.

whether/not religion promotes humanity's worth seems to be dependent on whether/not you're religious... i doubt atheists see religion being of any benefit - and the true believers probably feel the opposite (i remember bush sr. saying that atheists shouldn't even be allowed to be u.s. citizens).

[Kamehameha34]

Not only that; massive conformity precludes individuality on all levels. This definitely plays a role in our worthlessness.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: bishop if you went back even further, you'd find centuries of time rife with slavery and serfdom - where the individual's value was akin to livestock's value. when wars were fought, did anyone give a damn about all of the innocents who would be killed in the process? nope. i'd argue that the value of the individual has never been as highly valued as it is today.

Just look at population as a factor. For a better representation of what Ish is saying, look at America's history from 1800 - 1900. Don't look at the slavery, look at the general worth of white men, due to the fact that this group is the only one with constant legal status.

violent crime has been a near constant imo... sure, the rates fluctuate, but there's always crime - attributable to all sorts of causes from poverty to poor family life. as for war.... the media censors it, removing most of the "dirtiness" of war. the way we fight war is like playing a video game (occupation and nation building are different from war imo). and, you have a society that is heavily motivated by fear-based emotion, and seemingly allergic to rational thinking before acting.

Ok, but look at the causes of the wars in the past 100 years. As you move forward, they are generally fought over pettier things.

[bishop]

my posts were just based on how i interpreted ish's initial post.. it seemed open to interpretation..

Quote by: kame Just look at population as a factor. For a better representation of what Ish is saying, look at America's history from 1800 - 1900. Don't look at the slavery, look at the general worth of white men, due to the fact that this group is the only one with constant legal status.

well, if you want to just focus on white men, then there's the example of poor and landless whites in early america - who didn't have the right to vote. looking at italians and irish, they were treated as some inferior race.. they were hardly treated remotely similar to they way they are today.

Quote by: kame Ok, but look at the causes of the wars in the past 100 years. As you move forward, they are generally fought over pettier things.

the wars over the past 100 years to this day, and before, have been fought over power/money. bush's escapades are just one small example of our race's history of imperial and exploitative wars.

[Athena]

Yes, our human value decreases when our numbers increase. This has a biological foundation. However, before explaining the biological factor, I want to acknowledge the importance of full bellies to valuing humans, and the importance of concepts to valuing humans. We learn those concepts and values from our culture, and our cultures have improved since our bellies have been full. When bellies are empty most the time, their best survival move is to not value life too much, not one's own or anyone else's. So there are a few things that play into how much we value each other.

Those who organize themselves with kinship ties, will naturally value someone associated with them through kinship, more than those who are not united by kinship. Religious communities function much in the same way as tribes organized around kinship. Then we have professional groups and unions. Then we get into other areas of social status from being on the inside of Bush's circle to being a gang member. We divide between "us" and "them" and those who are one of "us" have more value to us than those who are one of "them". And so we come to "The Lonely Crowd", where we are so overwhelmed with humanity, and so disenfranchised, sharing no bonds or obligations with each other, that we begin to shut down and engage with each other less and more superfacially.

The is a biologically reason for this. Our brains consume a lot of energy. Intimate relationships consume a lot of energy. Saying hi to someone on the bike path, without really paying attention to this person, is low energy, and ignoring this person is even less energy. But, is it safe to ignore the stranger? Regardless of how safe we feel, we experience tension when we are physically close to another person, and we deal with this by turning people into objects. That is we start responding to people as extensions of machines, or completely ignore the people on an elevator. We might smile and exchanged the annoying "how are you" "fine thank you", with everyone knowing the question is not inviting you to engage in a personal relationship and unload your pains and sorrow. Something you may desparately need to do, but the extension of the machine must get on to the next customer and probablely doesn't want to actually listen to you and be there for you, anyway. We frantically work every day to maintain our sanity in a living situation that pushes beyond what our human systems we designed to do, and seriously fails to meet our human needs for intimacy.

Compare this to an African village where a mother's first child is given to the village. This first child is raised by everyone in the village, all adult females are the child's mothers and all adult males are the child's fathers. Mothers keep their second child, but that first one is used to bond everyone in the village. Bonded human beings are going to be far more important to each other, than humans struggling frantically to have their own time and space, undisturb by anyone else, just to maintain their sanity.

If we ever accept our biological limits and needs, we might organize ourselves for sanity, and reduce the social problems we have created by holding a totally unrealistic idea of what it means to be human. We are not created separate from the animal world, with no biological limits. We are not as much like God as religious people might like to believe, and then cursed with sin because of what a woman ate. We share much in common with the animals and have very real limits, and when we accept that, we might love ourselves a little more, be more tolerant and forgiving, and manifest a better reality for ourselves.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: bishop well, if you want to just focus on white men, then there's the example of poor and landless whites in early america - who didn't have the right to vote. looking at italians and irish, they were treated as some inferior race.. they were hardly treated remotely similar to they way they are today.

Hard to compare when there were different standards for "value" in place, then.

the wars over the past 100 years to this day, and before, have been fought over power/money. bush's escapades are just one small example of our race's history of imperial and exploitative wars.

Actually, the US entered WW1 because of the Germans attempting an alliance with Mexico against the US should we enter the war, and we entered WW2 because of the attack on pear harbor.

Korea and Vietnam were fought because of conflicting government types, and Iraq is being fought over, literally, nothing.

[Praxius]

In older times, individuals would be noticed more for what they do, but as times change, society evolves and the technology improves, it's now changing from one individual, to a collective of humans making one large difference.

We are slowly heading towards a human collective. Are humans becoming worthless? Nope. You can break one pencil, but a handful of pencils are more difficult to break.

And throughout the news, there are still plenty of individuals who are making big differences.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Praxius You can break one pencil, but a handful of pencils are more difficult to break.

But it makes for a better bon fire.

[Praxius]

True.... just don't inhale the paint.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Isherwood As humans become more plentiful, does the value of the individual diminish?

I wonder what value life will have, if machines are given rights.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Compugasm I wonder what value life will have, if machines are given rights.

I'm sure the machines will determine that.

[abub]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 and we entered WW2 because of the attack on pear harbor.

which explains why primarily american soldiers carried out operation torch in algeria in 1940. :rolleyes:

[Sarah22]

In my opinion, the humans are not becoming worthless. We are needing to take on more responsibility with the advances in society, so there are inevitably more opportunities "do wrong".
Think of the world on a smaller scale. A couple has only one child. Are they contributing to the well-being of that child? Yes. Do they have more worth just because they can contribute more fully of themselves than the couple with 4 children? no.
The point being that when there were fewer people, the contributions were not better than our contribution millions of people later.

[Slevin57]

I think it's all quite relative.

We tend not to care very much about people around the world. Obviously if we felt that everyone was valuable to us, we would be back in Africa instead of abandoning them and hoping that the problem will just go away.

Realistically speaking people are born and die every minute of every day.

I think that we should all hold a common respect among each other. I don't really think the value of humans overall is declining, despite our large population.

[sevendogs]

I agree that life of individual declines in value, when population is large. This is particularly so, when natural resources are depleted. China and India are good examples of this. Christianity, like all religions, will transform according to popular demand. When people are prosperous, preachers praise the rich (they know where the money is!) and they are quite liberal about freedoms. When people are too many and they are poor, they may emphasize apocalyptic future and hopes on resurrection of the body... after the second coming again.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Isherwood As humans become more plentiful, does the value of the individual diminish? When there were fewer of us, individual contributions to society were of greater significance and more noticeable. An individual could make a difference in their community, in the world. Now that humans are so numerous and only show signs of increasing in numbers in the future, are we at risk of making humans worthless? Can the increase in violent crimes be attributed to more people placing less value on human life? Is war becoming more acceptable because the value of the individual soldier has decreased?

I think that as our numbers increase, we lose a certain kind of value, but not our "human" value.

For instance, if humans were an endangered species, each person would have a very high value because each is so very important to the survival of humanity as a whole.
Additionally, if a certain ethnicity of humans developed an immunity to a threatening disease in the form of antibodies, and if it were possible to use those antibodies to combat an epidemic of that disease, those people would have that additional value.

So, people or things can have multiple levels or types of value, and just because one value subsides or increases doesn't necessarily mean other types of value will follow.
So, even if our value of uniqueness, impact, or importance to the world decreases, our value as being human, or having those traits that make us human (a soul, as theists would say, or perhaps free will, intelligence, the human spirit, etc...) are still retained.

Basically, no, we don't lose our human value, but maybe our value in other areas decreases.