# No, really, where are we going? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 13, 2007, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823 "2007-06-13T07:44:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2007, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/41 "2007-06-14T03:12:18Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] On a more serious note, I don’t agree at all with the idea that happiness is something different to everyone. Thinking about research in psychology, particularly that of [Abraham Maslow](http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/maslow.html), I’ve seen plenty of evidence that there’s a definite set of goals that human beings pursue to reach happiness. [/QUOTE] General goals, sure, but there’s plenty of difference. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs actually shows this pretty well (though I don’t think it’s totally accurate). Physiological needs, sure, generally the same, though of course people with certain conditions may need more (diabetics, for example) That’s the basic stuff we actually _need_. Safety needs, and we’re already into differences. Do you fear death daily? Because there are people who do. Do you feel you need a weapon in order to walk outside safely? Perhaps a burglar alarm? Do you have any particular phobias? Belonging needs - how many friends do you need to have? Are you particularly clingy with partners? Do you need to see your family and friends often, or can you go without them for some time? And so forth. Sure, people generally get happiness though the same generaly goals. But their routes and methods are wildly different. While happiness may mean the similar things to similar people, it’s still very much individually defined. I feel pretty confident in saying people are happier nowadays (overall, anyway). People have less to fear (again, overall). We have more chances to self-actualise. On a purely practical side, there’s more of us and we live longer - more room to fit happiness in, even if you think people’s levels of happiness haven’t changed. And in the spirit of the OP, i’d add that even though there may be no gods, that doesn’t mean we brush aside people’s sense of religious or spiritual fulfilment and say they don’t exist. They, too, add to the overall amount of happiness, even if those people are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2007, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/42 "2007-06-14T03:49:18Z")
[QUOTE=VarlosZ] IChristians have eternal happiness and the task of creating on Earth the Kingdom of Heaven as motivation, but what do we secular humanists have as a goal for all of man? [/QUOTE] Perfecting the world. (To steal from a religious tradition, in this case Judaism: _Tikkun Olam_. But the concept is wholly secularly compatable.) A secular humanist does not necessarily deny God. A secular humanist just does not require God to motivate actions aimed at perfecting the world. (S)he accepts ehtical standards as axiomatic truths without the need for God. They are, as they say, “self-evident.” Reward in the afterlife? Unneeded. You do it because it is right. Period. A just life lived in pursuit of making the world a better place and in pursuit of understanding the universe is its own reward. End of story. Does a secular humanist always succeed in moving the world towards perfection? Of course not. No more than a religious fundamentalist has succeeded in “creating on Earth the Kingdom of Heaven.” But as for the fundamentalist it is the destination that informs the journey. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2007, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/43 "2007-06-14T04:35:56Z")
[QUOTE=Haunted] I did not address this in my last post and I don’t think I can edit my post, but I think that suggesting that human technology will solve the problem of global warming (or any similar problem) is like saying that our natural resources are infinite. [/quote] No, it’s not at all like that. Whether our natural resources are infinite or not is sort of irrelevant when they are all marketized. > [@](#): > > Or, it’s just so… unlikely. We discussed something like this - \*The Seven Myths of Something or Other \* - in college. It’s not unlikely: it’s pretty much the history of technological advancement so far. For instance, none of us should be alive today if the doomsayers of the past were to be believed: we were all going to starve to death because the world didn’t have enough arable land. But then someone found a way to triple the crop output of many major food crops and here we are. 40 years ago, college students were told that things like aluminum and copper would be incredibly scarce within a few decades and it would be a big disaster of a resource crunch. Instead, if anything, they are cheaper and more available today. Of course, if they ever did get scarce, they’d get more expensive… and people would respond and react to that and get on fine without them anyway. > [@](#): > > Popular belief in myths like “Science Will Save Us,” is one of our biggest problems, in my opinion. I disagree. It seems like, in fact, a fairly reasonable assumption. In fact, I have every expectation that long before we are be able to cut back our carbon emissions enough to make more than a small dent in the human contribution to global warming someone will develop a means to counterbalance the trend directly. We just aren’t going to get around worrying about it right now because we’re busy with other more important things. We’ll get to it when it becomes more of a pressing issue. I’d bet good money on that, if I had any. > [@](#): > > Who is going to create this technology? Anyone that becomes particularly motivated to work on solving the problem, or who finds it lucrative enough to worry about. > [@](#): > > Trust me, I’m a scientist. Perhaps, but you’re probably not an economist, which would be the much more relevant field for guaging how human beings will respond to market pressures or major resource needs. ---
**Author:** ![Haunted](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/898d66/32.png) [@Haunted](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haunted)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2007, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/44 "2007-06-14T11:40:55Z")
Well, I do admire your optimism, **Apos**. I wish I could share in it, but I can’t. And here’s why: > [@](#): > > We just aren’t going to get around worrying about it right now because we’re busy with other more important things. We’ll get to it when it becomes more of a pressing issue. Honestly, speaking as someone who has been working as an environmental scientist since the late '80’s, I can’t stress enough that the time when our environmental problems became a pressing issue has long passed. It might not be too late if we were doing more for the environment that we rely on to provide our most basic needs, but that’s not happening. And I think that’s because our governments seem to be more interested in economics than anything else. Our shortsightedness, our belief in the panacea of science/technology, our greed, our fear/denial (inability to truly consider and comprehend the super scary outcomes of our actions), our arrogance… these will be our downfall. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2007, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/45 "2007-06-14T14:53:03Z")
[QUOTE=Haunted] Honestly, speaking as someone who has been working as an environmental scientist since the late '80’s, I can’t stress enough that the time when our environmental problems became a pressing issue has long passed. [/quote] I would suggest that is because it sounds like you don’t really do any sort of legitimate cost benefit analysis. All you seem to be considering are bad things happening to the environment now and the future consequences of that, without looking at the good things we get in return and the future consequences of THAT. As a result, you get a ridiculously flawed picture of what is worth doing and when and how. As I said, people like you decades ago were forseeing doom just like you are now. Difference is that they were different dooms… and none of them actually came to be true or anywhere near true: technology made them obsolete almost immediately. Global Warming is a pretty good example: it’s going to take a century or two before it has any truly nasty impacts on human life. But I bet someone comes up with a way to counteract it far more dramatically than we can cause it within just the next decade. > [@](#): > > It might not be too late if we were doing more for the environment that we rely on to provide our most basic needs, but that’s not happening. And I think that’s because our governments seem to be more interested in economics than anything else. Economics encompasses just about everything when it comes to decision-making, so I don’t see that as a bad thing. Your assumption is simply that the decision making with regards to simply ignoring more environmental crises is irrational and shortsighted: that it doesn’t take into account all the dangers you see. I’m arguing that, in fact, that assumption is probably wrong: it’s not shortsighted or irrational. It does take into account those dangers… and still judges them to mostly unimportant at the moment… rationally. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2007, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/46 "2007-06-14T16:13:12Z")
Since we are born ,live and die, we have to do our best to make heaven on earth. America is still a very selfish country. Until we realize that we are all together and we must make the country better for all we are doomed. There is a plus that people get from helping. We all know it when we do it. As a nation we do not . The only time we focus an being American is when we have a war or a crisis like a hurricane destroying property. Me first helps no one. Our religions seem to recognize the fundamental truth that we are all brothers. Our country should be judged by how we treat the least of us. However our news and TV stress the privileged. That is where we are being judged . I weep for us. Our values are being strip mined for profit. Everything is for sale. My latest problem with religion is it has been politicized and sold . I want them to go back to serving the weak not justifying the wealthy. When we base our actions on the old religious values we will become a better place. ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2007, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/47 "2007-06-14T16:24:50Z")
It seems to be contagious . ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2007, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/48 "2007-06-14T16:26:39Z")
**nitpick** I sort of resent the fact that secular and atheist have become interchangeable, when the entire point of secularism was so that multiple religions could live together with each other and even those who lack religion. I believe in God and an after-life, but also secularism. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2007, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/49 "2007-06-14T18:26:45Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] **nitpick** I sort of resent the fact that secular and atheist have become interchangeable, when the entire point of secularism was so that multiple religions could live together with each other and even those who lack religion. I believe in God and an after-life, but also secularism. [/QUOTE] This is an important point, and I think many posters here are missing the intent of the original question. Religious organizations not only provide a framework for personal satisfaction, they also (with a few exceptions like Buddhism) offer a plan/goal/mission for humanity as a group. To be clear, this is more than merely a mutually-acceptable social code–a set of rules we abide by because we want to enjoy the advantages of living in a group. It is a set justification for that code, an underlying purpose that allows one to interpret unexpected events, and an ultimate mission that allows a person to see that there is a point to existence outside of personal satisfaction. A person can argue that “secularism” does not provide this and (more strongly) that it shouldn’t provide this. That’s OK, but given the prevalence of religion it appears to be something that people want, and so if secularism doesn’t provide it, its proponents who use secularism as a substitute for religion might want to argue why an “ultimate purpose for humanity” is really unnecessary. **Mswas** has a point; though I would venture to say all atheists are probably secularists, secularism does not contradict religious belief, and its clear some secularists are getting something from religion that their philosophy cannot seem to provide. A person could also argue that science in general and economics in particular fill this gap. I single out economics because its been cited in this thread and one of its roles is to rationally analyze social interaction, something that religions generally do by creating a divinely-inspired rulebook. I’m not sure, however, that they’re equivalent: Rulebooks tend to be proscriptive, whereas economics seems to work best as a descripitive mechanism. Ditto general science; it may be able to explain the _how_ of nature, but is somewhat poorer at the _why_. I’m not saying this is a legitimate interpretation of the failings of Science, but I can say the case for allowing them to fill this need in humanity–a justifiable purpose for our future as a sentient group–has not been proven. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2007, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/50 "2007-06-14T20:58:33Z")
[QUOTE=everywill] We survived ice ages, we survived the Black Plague, we survived World War II. We can survive a few pesticides. Our survival’s not the issue. All the nuclear bombs in existence today won’t wipe out the few dreary survivors in the belly of Africa or Australia. There will always be a few people left. The question of happiness always leads to a clear conclusion: There is no way for a person to consistently feel happy. Look at it differentially. Our bodies can’t feel our position in space, nor our velocity. All we can feel is acceleration. In the same way, we can’t feel happy based on how much we objectively have, and we can’t feel happy based on our success relative to others’. All we can feel is when we grow in prosperity (a new job, a cheeseburger, winning the lottery) or in misery (a termination, illness, losing a game). So the only useful goal is to be constantly growing in prosperity. The struggle for freedom (political freedom, societal freedom, freedom from illness and hunger and pain, freedom from want) is all we have. As they say, it’s not the destination, it’s the journey. [/QUOTE] There is a way to be consistently happy. It doesn’t lie in the direction of money. The way to happiness is to help others, as long as you do that you will be happy. Guaranteed. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2007, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/51 "2007-06-14T21:47:56Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] There is a way to be consistently happy. It doesn’t lie in the direction of money. The way to happiness is to help others, as long as you do that you will be happy. Guaranteed. [/QUOTE] Um, helping others is just like every other activity on the planet: sometimes it’s good, and sometimes it’s bad. I gotten nothing but shit before for helping people. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2007, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/52 "2007-06-15T00:24:45Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] > [@](#): > > Christians have eternal happiness Do they? [/QUOTE] They believe they do. And in the context of this discussion, that’s all that really matters. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2007, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/53 "2007-06-15T00:52:40Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] Um, helping others is just like every other activity on the planet: sometimes it’s good, and sometimes it’s bad. I gotten nothing but shit before for helping people. [/QUOTE] I think it varies from person to person. In some parts of our society sacrificing our selves for others is seen as the only noble action. IMHO the reality is that if we see people as having equal value we can also see that we are primarily responsible for ourselves, and we truly can benefit others by taking good care of ourselves. As with many things it’s about balance. If someones gift is enterprise then they benefit the society they live in by having a vision, building a business and employing others. They may get wealthy by doing this and it’s up to them to decide what to do with this wealth. Look at companies like Ben and Jerry’s who made a concerted and fairly successful effort to establish a socially responsible company that not only made yummy ice cream but treated their employees fairly and give part of their profits to good causes. {the peace bar} When my kids were growing up and we had some issues we coined a phrase that I think holds some basic truth. Sometimes you gotta love somebody enough to kick them in the ass. Programs like AA talk about making people deal with the consequences of their actions as being the best thing you can do for them. So, helping others is a good thing but it can take some different forms, and I, me, myself, am deserving of some positive attention as well. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2007, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/54 "2007-06-15T02:28:53Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] I think it varies from person to person. [/QUOTE] Yes, that was actually my point, a rebuttal of **lekatt’s** “The way to happiness is to help others, as long as you do that you will be happy. Guaranteed.” People don’t always appreciate help, and sometimes they’ll hate you for it. I’ve gotten all kinds of shit just for helping people, including a boot in the bean bag. It’s just like his ‘love conquers all’ garbage. Just meaningless platitude sprayed around in the hopes it’ll hit something. ---
**Author:** ![Full\_Metal\_Lotus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/df705f/32.png) [@Full\_Metal\_Lotus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Full_Metal_Lotus)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2007, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/55 "2007-06-17T22:47:07Z")
I helped this blind guy across the street the other day… It was tough, because he didn’t want to cross the street - stephen wright FML ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2007, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/56 "2007-06-18T01:27:32Z")
[QUOTE=Leaper] They believe they do. And in the context of this discussion, that’s all that really matters. [/QUOTE] No, it’s not. If simply believing that something were good enough, then no one would ask questions like “why bother.” ---
**Author:** ![lightwait](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@lightwait](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lightwait)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2007, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/57 "2007-06-19T01:24:44Z")
What if we could acheive a place, on this planet, that we could live in absolute comfort and forever—if we chose to. What if everyone born had the choice to live forever or to cease living. Is there a chance that we could achieve a “forever” life if all cultures got together with their accumulative knowledge and worked toward that goal? Do you think we as mankind, in fact and in time, could triumph over death—if we wanted to? Why or why not? Blessings ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2007, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/58 "2007-06-19T01:50:41Z")
[QUOTE=lightwait] What if we could acheive a place, on this planet, that we could live in absolute comfort and forever—if we chose to. What if everyone born had the choice to live forever or to cease living. Is there a chance that we could achieve a “forever” life if all cultures got together with their accumulative knowledge and worked toward that goal? Do you think we as mankind, in fact and in time, could triumph over death—if we wanted to? Why or why not? Blessings [/QUOTE] This seems like a subject for a new thread not a way to revive an old one. IMHO ---
**Author:** ![lightwait](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@lightwait](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lightwait)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2007, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823/59 "2007-06-19T04:55:55Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] This seems like a subject for a new thread not a way to revive an old one. IMHO [/QUOTE] I don’t think you answered my questions. Blessings [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-really-where-are-we-going/407823.md?page=2)