Many people feel that we have become better as a human race over the course of time. We have done many things that would make one say "Yes we have done well in progression" and then there are those who would say "No we are no better off then the neanderthals". As a society, we must try to better ourselves from our predicessors and try to progress further then they had in an effort to "make our mark" on history.
At the beginning of the semester, we read about how Roochnick fealt we might or might not have progressed over time. In my opinion, we have and yet we have not. There are many things that play into progression of society. If you look at the scientific side of things, you could argue for progression due to the fact that we have such a better understand of how the body works right now then ever before. We have cures for disease and illness and replacing missing limbs with artficial ones. These are a few of the positives we have had as a modern society.
My question lies in that of have we really progressed as much as we think? We are no better off in that of war. In fact, some would say we are even worse then ever before. We have the ability to kill on such a massive scale in todays' world. We can drop one bomb and level an entire city within seconds. Does this ability show as a benefit or are we worse off now then ever before? We are leading the same amount, if not more wars, right now and we still deem ourselves "better".
Progression of society leads to many new and exciting times. It is also a factor in many unjustices. To progress as a society, we should hold ourselves to an idea that we must make the same amount of progress in science as we do in war and politics. The gains we see in these are few and far between because these bring such negative outcomes. Benefiting from progression should be something that helps find an end to war and unneeded death. The playing field should be leveled and we as a society should be willing to put the same amount of effort forth as we do to finding cures.
If we measure by the amount of lives taken, we have progressed. But is that progression or regression?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Steven,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting post. I am definitely suspicious of the notion of "progress" because of the linguistic importance and value it holds in Western discourse. "Progress" is inherently conceived to be positive. So long as acts are committed and things developed in the name of progress, it becomes near impossible to hear the potential negative implications of such societal advancement.
I imagine that our Western understanding of progress is at least partially attributable to Hegel, whose "dialectical philosophy" presupposes that the syntheses that develop from a series of theses and conflicting anti-theses are propelling society and history towards advancement.
Though dualistically characterizing progress as advancement or regression is probably dangerous, understanding it as universally beneficial is even more problematic as it prohibits the possibility for criticism. Like the example you provide, the development of the bomb provides a select few individuals to literally obliterate millions at a time. Nonetheless, it provides others with symbolic safety and comfort. The bomb securitizes a population under the guise of nationalistic defense and protection against the dangerous "they," the other who cannot be trusted or tolerated. If this is societal progress, then progress is nothing more than a march towards mass death.
I also am very suspicious of "progress." At the current time we still seem to be a people who's best response to genocide is making inspiring movies ten years after the fact.
ReplyDeleteAlso Shayan, I've been thinking about "the bomb" for a while now. It seems to have prevented a number of wars (M.A.D.) but has it made people better, or just given us a sense that nothing is worth fighting for? And exactly how long can it go before some one eventually uses it? dunno.