Ship of Fools: That shall not be acceptable...

Thread: That shall not be acceptable... Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029138

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Across in DH, Barnabas62 made the following comment:

quote:
The generation before mine were, in the majority, racist to some degree, sexist to some degree, and also convinced that homosexuality was a perversion. Some of them, including very elderly people I care a lot about, are still stuck in the previously socially acceptable mindset.

The context is not particularly important to this thread. Indeed, whatever your POV on those issues, it seems incontrovertible to me that there are some things that our parents regarded as unexceptionable which we would collectively disagree with, or see differently. And it seems to me that since things have always been that way, then it will continue.

So - what I would like to explore is - what ideas or ways of seeing things are unexceptional now, but which might be unacceptable to future generations?

This one is going to need a bit of work. By definition, those things will not be obvious to us. And just to clarify, this is not about any pre-existing dead horse issues, nor is it an invitation to ride some personal hobby-horse. It is about how we (i.e. this age) collectively see things, which may on further inspection not hold much water, to the extent they may be uncongenial enough to be rejected in future.

Any thoughts?

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

Animal Welfare possibly. In particular the way animals are kept, transported and killed. Eating meat which is mass produced is still the 'default setting' for most of us. The right to eat meat is often taken for granted.

Mental health treatment - both for those with organic and functional illnesses. We may (fingers crossed) look back in 50 years time and have a real feeling of process regarding how people are assessed and treated (in both senses of the term).

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Quite a few thoughts, now I come to think of it.

I'm pretty sure that the developments in the field generally known as AI, and the spin-offs from genetic research are going to raise a range of moral and ethical conundrums which will challenge current notions of social acceptability. There are signs of this already.

I've also got a feeling that further technical developments designed to protect people from random violence may begin to bite into cherished historical notions of privacy and the free society. Again the trends are already there, and I guess the pressures will increase.

Quality of life v sanctity of life arguments seem likely to heat up even further as the means of increasing lifespans exceed the ability of even wealthy societies to pay for them, and the developing means of manipulating and fertilising eggs throw up all sorts of possibilities for eliminating some congenital disorders.

Global resource management in the light of the various threats of climate change, and the rather different impact of economic globalisation seem likely to lead to some re-evaluation of the value and benefits of nation states, given the difficulties of getting agreement over co-ordinated action in the global public interest.

I expect the moral maze to grow many more dead ends, even more detoured routes and the need for ever more sophisticated maps to find the way through.

But I may be unusual for a 72 year old. I enjoy learning, am generally comfortable with change and don't feel threatened by it. I foresee a good deal of muddling through.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I'd like to hope in the not distant future "White people live longer not because of their DNA but because of inequality." will not be news link) both because it generally won't be true, and because where we do have racial disparities we at least kind of admit them. (I would have thought that the racial gap we have in health care quality in the U.S. was obvious already, but the Atlantic is a publication I respect, so I am going to have to shudder and accept that it's not as much common knowledge as I'd wish)

I'd like my daughter (and sons!) to live in a world where female politicians get the same quality of questions and interest as men. A world where you don't ask women mainly about their hair/clothes while you ask men about world policy.

I'd like to hope my children (grandchildren slightly less impossibly, I fear) will live in a world where there are many more PoC touted as models. Respected people of color to see in games, people appearing in somewhat representative numbers in politics, in movies, in science*, etc.

*Neil de Grasse Tyson is great, but he's one of the very few.

[ 13. April 2015, 14:40: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Animal Welfare possibly. In particular the way animals are kept, transported and killed. Eating meat which is mass produced is still the 'default setting' for most of us. The right to eat meat is often taken for granted.

In certain left-wing and liberal circles that I frequent, the move is already afoot to have animal-rights become as accepted as human-rights, and meat eating lowered to the same moral status as cannibalism.

Thing is, though, a lot of the people advocating this position don't seem to have thought it through too clearly. They say things like "Well, white hunters killing seals for the fur market in Europe is evil, but if they're indigenous hunters whose communities depend on seal hunting for their economic survival, well, that's okay." They don't seem to get that by the logic of the animal-rights movement(see Peter Singer et al), clubbing a seal on the head is no different from clubbing a human on the head.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

I agree with Jack o' the Green about animal welfare, though I see this more as an offshoot from current disagreements over dominion/stewardship of the planet.

I think another potential issue might come with a re-examination of economics, with a shift to the left causing us to reassess the ethics of how profits are made. This might echo the moves made towards the abolition of slavery, only this time going further, advocating the abolition of any form of economic exploitation for commercial gain.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

The way children are so often treated without respect in schools and families.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Stetson's post is troubling, given that that wild meat is actually affordable in the north because you shoot or catch it yourself. When milk is $17 for 2 l and bullets cost $2 each, it's pretty straightforward.

BTW, the clubbing of seals isn't generally the practice of indigenous people. Mentioning it trots out an unfortunate and inaccurate image of what living off the land is.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Stetson's post is troubling, given that that wild meat is actually affordable in the north because you shoot or catch it yourself. When milk is $17 for 2 l and bullets cost $2 each, it's pretty straightforward.

BTW, the clubbing of seals isn't generally the practice of indigenous people. Mentioning it trots out an unfortunate and inaccurate image of what living off the land is.

Fair enough. Though, the point remains that if killing animals is wrong when white hunters do it, it should be wrong when anyone does it.

quote:
given that that wild meat is actually affordable in the north because you shoot or catch it yourself.

Well, the context I was specifically thinking of was not killing animals for one's own consumption, but killing them to sell to market. I have heard it argued that it's okay for indiginous people to do this, but not whites.

And, anyway, even if you are killing the animal for your own eating purposes, that shouldn't matter, if animals are supposed to be equivalent to humans in terms of rights.

(For the record, seal hunting is fine by me, reagradless of the reasons or the cultural background of the hunters.)

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

It begs a couple of question doesn't it though? How do we accept that that animal life is worthy of respect and preservation, but have unaffordable ideas of what and how to eat and sustain people. Further, is it then okay to slap a mosquito, set a mouse trap, take a medicine to eliminate parasitic worms?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

As well as much of the above, I hope that our prison systems will be seen with horror, and the remnants of capital punishment.

I would love to think that acceptability of prostitution will have been left behind too, in a world where human dignity is valued.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Transphobia will become less acceptable and understanding of gender will become less tied to physical sex and to the binary. I doubt that transphobia will ever disappear completely, but our future selves will be horrified at the way transgender people are used as the punchline of jokes, even by people who are quite progressive in other respects. Transphobic jokes - which are currently everywhere - will be as uncomfortable to watch as the racist humour of the 1960s and 1970s is today.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Animal Welfare possibly. In particular the way animals are kept, transported and killed. Eating meat which is mass produced is still the 'default setting' for most of us. The right to eat meat is often taken for granted.

In certain left-wing and liberal circles that I frequent, the move is already afoot to have animal-rights become as accepted as human-rights, and meat eating lowered to the same moral status as cannibalism.

Thing is, though, a lot of the people advocating this position don't seem to have thought it through too clearly. They say things like "Well, white hunters killing seals for the fur market in Europe is evil, but if they're indigenous hunters whose communities depend on seal hunting for their economic survival, well, that's okay." They don't seem to get that by the logic of the animal-rights movement(see Peter Singer et al), clubbing a seal on the head is no different from clubbing a human on the head.

I think Jack is talking about something bigger here, or at least I would be in making that argument.

One can certainly argue the ethics of meat-eating in general. But even if one accepts the premise that humans are meant to be omnivores, that doesn't settle the issue. Killing an animal-- even fairly brutally is not nearly as ethically challenged as keeping an animal in horrific conditions for it's entire life, as is the norm in most factory farming, or breeding in extreme abnormalities that cripple said animals. If one accepts meat-eating, then every animal consumed will have to have one Very Bad Day. One can and should try to make it as quick and humane as possible, but more than that, we should ensure that it is only ONE Very Bad Day-- not a lifetime of them.

In that paradigm, hunting is (with some notable exceptions) probably the most ethical form of meat-eating, since the animal is living the life it is meant to live-- out in the wild, free and unencumbered, up until the end.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It begs a couple of question doesn't it though? How do we accept that that animal life is worthy of respect and preservation, but have unaffordable ideas of what and how to eat and sustain people. Further, is it then okay to slap a mosquito, set a mouse trap, take a medicine to eliminate parasitic worms?

My own view is that animal-wleafre legislation, even of the most moderate, SPCA-ish variety, is based on iconsistent moral premises.

We say, for example, that it would be wrong, and illegal, for a guy to smash mice to death in his basement just because he's a sadist and that's what gets him off. However, if a demolition crew is about to set off some explosives to take down an old building in order to put up condos, and someone comes running up and says "Stop, stop, there's a family of mice on the tenth floor!!", we don't expect them to halt the demolition to remove the mice.

Even though the mice in the building will suffer just as much as the mice in the sadist's basement, and for not much more in the way of human benefit(we can live without another luxury condo).

Taking my point to its logical conclusion, you'd have to admit that, if we're not going to protect the mice in the building, there's no reason to think we need to protect the mice in the sadist's basement. But abolition of all animal-welfare laws is not a place that many people, myself included, really want to go to.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Cliffdweller wrote:

quote:
If one accepts meat-eating, then every animal consumed will have to have one Very Bad Day. One can and should try to make it as quick and humane as possible, but more than that, we should ensure that it is only ONE Very Bad Day-- not a lifetime of them.

Peter Singer, who I mentioned earlier as the intellectual godfather of animal-rights, has justified his own consumption of free-range chicken, on the grounds that animals, unlike humans, don't have a developed concept of future existence, and so killing them(if done painlessly) does not impart the same degree of emotional anguish that killing a human would.

I dunno. He might have managed to square the circle on that, insofar as the debate is limited to the eating of meat.

[ 13. April 2015, 16:27: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

I'm interested that no-one has yet considered that in the future things might change so that, for instance, it is not acceptable to regard women and men as equal and our current views are regarded as an aberration.

M.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I'm interested that no-one has yet considered that in the future things might change so that, for instance, it is not acceptable to regard women and men as equal and our current views are regarded as an aberration.

M.

Would you care to give a concrete example of how such an anti-egalitarian trend might play itself out?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I have in mind the prospect that a more enlightened future generation will discover that microwaves in the atmosphere are the origin of so many ills and maladies that today have 'no cause'.

They will see old films of us using our microwave ovens and will hide behind their fingers in horror whilst crying out "What we they thinking??" [Ultra confused]

[ 13. April 2015, 16:41: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Stetson, not really, no. It was just a passing thought that everyone was assuming that the future would be more liberal, accepting, egalitarian etc. but there's no real reason to assume that to be the case.

M.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I'm interested that no-one has yet considered that in the future things might change so that, for instance, it is not acceptable to regard women and men as equal and our current views are regarded as an aberration.

I was actually considering that. The pendulum is likely to swing the other way at some point; we're already beginning to see a bit of a backlash against political correctness and a move away from it. My prediction would be that that would increase.

It will be played out against a background of strife, probably, because I don't see the current political situations resolving peacefully overnight. Attitudes tend to harden in times of adversity and people become less liberal. Possibly religious faith will be on the increase with some hardline moral attitudes going with it.

Gender roles for men and women, despite all the talk of equality, are currently still laden with expectations, likely inherited preconceptions, but still there. I don't think you will ever get rid of that.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I'm interested that no-one has yet considered that in the future things might change so that, for instance, it is not acceptable to regard women and men as equal and our current views are regarded as an aberration.

M.

It is interesting. I suggest it seems unlikely to us because we detect a massive historical tide moving in these issues, and that despite local eddies and currents, the movement is one way.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I suggest it seems unlikely to us because we detect a massive historical tide moving in these issues, and that despite local eddies and currents, the movement is one way.

The question is how much longer the late Empire of the West will last. Maybe it will rule the world another century, maybe it won't. If it does, then the tide seems to be going one way, that's true. But if it doesn't, then it is unlikely that all the current trends will be carried on by the various challengers for socio-cultural world supremacy.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

That particular tide has only been running that way (in the UK) since 1850, hatless. Had you been standing on the threshold of the 1850's, you could have made the same argument, but it would have been heading in entirely the opposite direction, and for very much longer.

Not that I would wish to encourage a rash of dystopian scenarios, but I think M and Ariel were simply exploring aspects that made no assumptions of movement in one direction only.

I'm intrigued by Barnabas62's post - a more detailed analysis of consequences could add more ideas there I think.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I'm interested that no-one has yet considered that in the future things might change so that, for instance, it is not acceptable to regard women and men as equal and our current views are regarded as an aberration.

M.

I rather thought the same thing as I started reading this thread, which assume things will continue along the current trend.

I read this piece about the treatment of transgender children by Brendan O'Neill the other day. Whereas now some people might regard his views as transphobic, is it not entirely possible that thirty years down the line we might look back on this sort of thing as a kind of child abuse? I've no strong views on the subject but it seems entirely plausible.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Very interesting question and very interesting thread.

I think it's quite right not to assume that everything will continue to get more 'progressive' in the way we currently assume that word implies. It's also quite good to remind oneself that until 1945 revealed where such things led, most 'progressive' opinion thought eugenics was a great idea and assumed the future would be eugenic.

Nor has everything hitherto moved in a 'progressive' direction. I find it quite troubling that compared with forty years ago, people no longer seem to feel uncomfortable admitting to blatant social prejudice, as long as it is not founded in race, sex or sexuality.

There will almost certainly be at least one current 'progressive' idea that will come to be regarded as appalling, but it is difficult to predict which it will be. Animals may be the one. However, my own suspicion is that it may be somewhere on the nurture end of the nature v nurture debate, and the preference in 'progressive' circles throughout my lifetime to believe human nature is infinitely malleable.

As some shipmates have pointed out, the global opinion formers of the future will not all be North America, Western Europe or anglophone.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

I'd suggest that the question of how much a currently acceptable view may go into reverse, is probably dependent on how much the 'progress' is based on just current social norms which have been shaped by western liberalism.

On the other hand it may have been shaped by much wider currents e.g. changing attitudes on racism may be more shaped by people travelling further, exploring other cultures and more marriage between those of different ethnic groups. I think the pluralism of our own times may well be shaped by such factors. In which case the possibility of reversals is less likely.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I think western liberalism is also rather shaped by our current relative plenty. If that continues and spreads, I suspect what I consider progress will continue. If instead scarcity increases, I would definitely expect reverses.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Gwai - I think you are right. That would be the big unknown and would have considerable potency - probably negatively.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Enoch wrote:

quote:
However, my own suspicion is that it may be somewhere on the nurture end of the nature v nurture debate, and the preference in 'progressive' circles throughout my lifetime to believe human nature is infinitely malleable.

Somewhat related to that, I have an inkling that in about 100 years(it'll take time) universal and compulsory education will be regarded as a mistake, basically a failed social experiment.

Partly, I think this will be connected to a narrowing of the socio-cognitive gap between adults and youth, and the gradual vanishing of adolescance as a transitory period bridging childhood and adulthood.

Personal bias: I am largely autodidatic in my knowledge. Junior-high for me consisted mostly of things that I had already taught myself outside of the classroom(or would soon be teaching myself, eg. history), or things that I lacked the innate capabilities to ever understand(eg. math). So, for the amount that I did actually learn, I could probably have just gone to school for an hour or so a day, and gotten a part-time job for the rest. Then, gone back to school for upgrading when I was in my twenties and wanted to go to univeristy.

Yes, I am suggesting that a return to child-labour might not be such a bad thing.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I'd suggest that the question of how much a currently acceptable view may go into reverse, is probably dependent on how much the 'progress' is based on just current social norms which have been shaped by western liberalism.

On the other hand it may have been shaped by much wider currents e.g. changing attitudes on racism may be more shaped by people travelling further, exploring other cultures and more marriage between those of different ethnic groups. I think the pluralism of our own times may well be shaped by such factors. In which case the possibility of reversals is less likely.

I think you're quite right to raise the question of how the direction of our current culture will be shaped. Western Europe is currently experiencing a sharp decline in its birth rates, whilst also enjoying a trend towards greater longevity. We will, quite simply, need more young people to balance our economy. Where will they come from? Well clearly there are areas of the world where birth rates are expanding, and these are overwhelmingly populated by people with more traditional faith views than currently predominate in Europe.

Whilst I don't expect a cultural shift as radical, say, as that in Iran after the fall of the Shah, the trend towards more liberal views may well go into reverse over the next couple of generations.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think western liberalism is also rather shaped by our current relative plenty. If that continues and spreads, I suspect what I consider progress will continue. If instead scarcity increases, I would definitely expect reverses.

You can see it already. The rise of the tea party in America is directly related to the economic downturn. There are other factors, but the bulk of the fuel was the threat of scarcity.
Reactionary politics are fueled by uncertainty.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

How the elderly are treated, especially treating dementia with anti-psychotic medication.

I hope that the treatment of intellectually delayed and vulnerable adults will be similarly regarded.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

I remember reading a similar discussion on another website, a few years ago, with all the usual stuff about how we treat prisoners and non-human animals, and so forth. At which point one wag chipped in with "allowing criticism of the Prophet Mohammed". The thing is, we just don't know, do we? It's very tempting to say that penal reform or animal rights, to run with those particular examples, are part of the onward march of ineluctable progress but then that is how a certain type of Edwardian would have regarded socialism (in its Webb-Shaw Fabian manifestation) and eugenics and look how that turned out. All we can do is argue for justice, as we see it, in the here and now without worrying too much as to whether or not we earn the plaudits or condemnation of our grandchildren.

Of course, if I could go back in time to 1945 and quiz my grandparents about, say, race relations or homosexuality or corporal and capital punishment I suspect that I would have been slightly aghast at their opinions. On the other hand I would be somewhat inclined to cut them quite a lot of slack because both my grandfathers were somewhat active in the war against National Socialism. I think that a significant difference is that I can't see anything where subsequent generations can be said to be leaving them an equally positive legacy.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

The impending already developing global ecological crises will render all other questions moot …

While the rate of human population growth is slowing, our numbers are still increasing, and the size of our population is already far above anything the Earth can sustain …

Our parents and grandparents used to speak blithely about "our" world, "our" oceans and forests and atmosphere, not malevolently but naively … We (they) thought that we may do as we please with what belongs to us …

The realistic understanding is that we belong to, utterly depend upon, a world -- oceans, soil, atmosphere, millions of other species -- that certainly does not belong to us …

The human species is in deep peril ...

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

Taking my point to its logical conclusion, you'd have to admit that, if we're not going to protect the mice in the building, there's no reason to think we need to protect the mice in the sadist's basement. But abolition of all animal-welfare laws is not a place that many people, myself included, really want to go to.

I believe St Thomas Aquinas argued that though animals have no rights, we ought not to be cruel to them because that might make it easier to be cruel to people. In this case, I suppose bashing rats for pleasure in a basement is more likely to make you think "Ooh, I wonder if this works with people?" than merely blowing them up as collateral damage.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

In the medium term animal welfare could be difficult to insist upon if natural habitats continue to be destroyed and the earth's population continues to grow. The demand for meat, raw materials, and places for humans to live will probably take priority over animal welfare in many countries.

The provision of consumer goods and services for pampered pets is likely to increase in societies where standards of living are rising, but perhaps that's not exactly 'animal welfare'.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

Taking my point to its logical conclusion, you'd have to admit that, if we're not going to protect the mice in the building, there's no reason to think we need to protect the mice in the sadist's basement. But abolition of all animal-welfare laws is not a place that many people, myself included, really want to go to.
I believe St Thomas Aquinas argued that though animals have no rights, we ought not to be cruel to them because that might make it easier to be cruel to people. In this case, I suppose bashing rats for pleasure in a basement is more likely to make you think "Ooh, I wonder if this works with people?" than merely blowing them up as collateral damage.

Okay, but if the basis for outlawing an activity is that it might inspire someone to take things a step too far, that has some interesting implications for human freedom.

You could argue for the criminalization of BDSM, for example, on the grounds that some participants will eventually want to try it out on non-consenting people. Same logic could apply to wrestling, violent computer games, or any number of other activities.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Well I wouldn't claim my views are particularly coherent, but those things are sort-of acknowledged - I understand BDSM communities are quite strict about safewords and not letting you be the master until you've done a stint as the slave, and we have age restrictions on violent films and games to protect impressionable youth.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
So - what I would like to explore is - what ideas or ways of seeing things are unexceptional now, but which might be unacceptable to future generations?

The current Western view of these types of issues centers around the importance of individual rights and injustices committed against individuals.

A more global perspective would recognize that this is not the view shared cross-culturally. Other cultures tend to have an orientation that is more strongly focused on the good of the whole rather than the rights of the individual.

It seems likely to me that as the dominance of the West declines in the future, the same will happen to Western ideas about what is and is not acceptable. Specifically, the Western-driven orientation to individual rights, and our sensitivity to injustices committed against those rights.

This makes me think that things that are unexceptional now, but which will be unacceptable in the future, will be things that we see ourselves as having a right to, even though they may harm society. They might be things like the over-use of resources - using too much water, fuel, food, etc. Or they might be things like engaging in anti-social behaviors - unpleasant actions that are currently protected by our devotion to individual rights.

These are the kinds of things that represent a serious clash of culture between the West and the rest, and possibly between the present and the future. [Biased]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

As to hunting animals. We can clearly distinguish between hunting that is essentially harmless (except by definition to the prey), like hunting deer. There are a =lot= of deer around; removing a couple million of them will have only beneficial effects. (You should see what they did to my daylilies this week.)
Compare this to hunting whales. Some species have been hunted into extinction, and others are nearly extinct. I have no problem with one set of rules for deer and another for right whales. Nor should there be real difficulty about changing the rules, as species recover or become more rare.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

You could argue for the criminalization of BDSM, for example, on the grounds that some participants will eventually want to try it out on non-consenting people.

There have certainly been prosecutions of some involved in S&M in the UK, on the grounds that the consent of the victim is not a defence to an assault charge. I don't know how the law stands in this regard now.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Back to the OP's query. If you look at the past, you can see behaviors that were acceptable then that are clearly not doable now. Slavery is the best example. So we are definitely heading in a direction (on this one point) that we agree is good.

There are many, many novels that speculate on future developments in this line. A good one might be Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. In which the Lunar citizens lay out their bill of rights; it includes air and cubic, not something we worry about. But there was some government official in the Midwest just the other day who alleged that there is no human right to water.

Posted by Full Circle (# 15398) on :

Re OP
I would like to think that there might be equal access to health care dependant on need, not nationality

Re animal rights
Sadly I'm a pessimist on that one. Sadly I think there may be hardly any animals left, except farm animals

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

I think they'll look back at our talk about "race," with amazement. Some young person will find an old form with check-boxes for Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, etc. and say, "What the fuge? How did that work? Did you hold people against a color chart? At what point along the equator did people change from White to Hispanic? Or is Hispania a country? What was "Bi-racial?" Wouldn't that have been everyone outside Ethiopia?

They'll also be shocked at all the underweight people, some adults actually seeming to be under 200 pounds. Pitifully small clothing in the museums. How did they breed?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

BDSM just may be quite a relevant example to work on.

Even where it is not illegal, it isn't really approved of. A lot of people who otherwise think of themselves as liberal on sex, don't like the idea at all.

Back in the 1970s, there were some who argued that the sexual freedom others were claiming should be extended to paedophilia. There was a scandal recently when it was alleged that prominent politicians who in their younger days had been involved in the NCCL (National Council for Civil Liberties for those in other countries) may or may not have extended rather too much slack to an organisation called Paedophile Information Exchange who were claiming that civil liberties should include their liberty to run their network.

Today, this sounds as an outrageous claim to a civil liberty. If BDSM enthusiasts are making the same claim now, will this come to be seen as obviously fair or outrageously beyond the pale? Irrespective of whether we care, who of us now can say?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

...What race were the red-heads? Really? they're more different than this picture of a person from Mexico City and this one from New York and they were different races right? What was the reason? Was it to make sure people from the same race didn't marry? Was it kind of like incest and would make human's weak? Just the opposite? What? Can we divide up the classroom and assign everybody what their race would have been? Not if you value your teacher's license? Let's quit talking about it now, I think William is crying and she never cries."

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Enoch wrote:

quote:
Back in the 1970s, there were some who argued that the sexual freedom others were claiming should be extended to paedophilia. There was a scandal recently when it was alleged that prominent politicians who in their younger days had been involved in the NCCL (National Council for Civil Liberties for those in other countries) may or may not have extended rather too much slack to an organisation called Paedophile Information Exchange who were claiming that civil liberties should include their liberty to run their network.

Today, this sounds as an outrageous claim to a civil liberty. If BDSM enthusiasts are making the same claim now, will this come to be seen as obviously fair or outrageously beyond the pale? Irrespective of whether we care, who of us now can say?

I don't think you'll ever see BDSM treated with the same degree of revulsion that pedophilia is. For most liberal-minded people, the pivotal factor in determining the morality of a sexual act is "consenting adults", with both parts of the equation being non-negotiable.

I know people who have a problem with BDSM, regarding it as holding serious psychological pitfalls for the participants. But even they are able to maintain cordial friendships with people who are into it. Very few people could likely maintain similar frienships with pedophiles.

From here on in, I think that the most negative the mainstream will get about BDSM would be sort of the way some people think about boxing: "Well, it seems like kind of a messed up sport to be into, what with getting your head bashed in and all, but if that's what they wanna do, well, it's their choice". I don't think you're going to see widespread calls to crack down on the practices, except maybe from conservative religious types.

And yes, I've heard about the court cases where it was ruled that consensual BDSM could still be prosecuted. Seems rather parernalistic to me, and I can't imagine too many BDSMers will be pressing charges, lest they make themselves look ridiculous. "Yes, your honour, I ASKED her to singe my chest hairs with a flame, but when she actually did it, I kinda wished she hadn't."

[ 14. April 2015, 20:12: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

The comments about BDSM are interesting. At the moment, kink appears to have gone mainstream with Fifty Shades and all that, but at the same time the British Board of Film Classification has banned certain, more extreme sex acts from pornographic films, including spanking.

There seems to me something of a contradiction there but goodness knows how things will play out in the coming decades.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The comments about BDSM are interesting. At the moment, kink appears to have gone mainstream with Fifty Shades and all that, but at the same time the British Board of Film Classification has banned certain, more extreme sex acts from pornographic films, including spanking.

There seems to me something of a contradiction there but goodness knows how things will play out in the coming decades.

But that's specifically for material that's been legally defined as pornography, right? There has always been a bit of a double standard between what is allowed in a "respectable" book or film(eg. Fifty Shades, to some people), and what is allowed in pornography.

If some of the stuff shown in The Garden Of Earthly Delights(for example) were portrayed in cartoons for a porn mag, it might be viewed very differently by the law.

[ 14. April 2015, 20:18: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The entire issue of consent (into which BDSM can be folded) is fairly recent. The idea that people should agree, and be able to agree, to sex has developed over time. The age of consent when Victoria was queen was 12. People recognized that the seven-year-old prostitutes were being abused, but a 12-year-old was a hooker. Even now there is no agreement about the proper age of consent, and there are exceptions, the best known being the Romeo-and-Juliet loophole. (If you are 30 and having sex with a 14-year-old, it's jail; if you are 15 then you might not be prosecuted.)

I think we could agree that consent is important and good, and that it should not be dialed back. We do not want to go back to the Don Draper days when you could abuse your secretarial staff, nor to the Pepys practice of rogering the maid.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
The age of consent when Victoria was queen was 12.

But by the time Elizabeth was on the throne...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Thinking about something I've written on the Ferguson thread, I rather hope it will horrify people in the future to what extent we still admire violence, and believe that those who live by the sword will not perish by it, as long as they are wielding the sword in a cause we or they think is noble.

What I'm getting at is the odd fact that when we regard pornography these days as not just unsavoury but exploitative, we regard films where violence is portrayed as perfectly OK so long as it's in the right cause, viz KickAss. I quite enjoyed watching that film, but if you stop and think, you could not do the sort of killing Hit-Girl went in for without it completely destroying your personality. We deplore terrorist organisations that kidnap children and make them fight as soldiers, yet we are happy with this on screen.

It's related to two really bad ideas:-
1. That being armed is like having a super willy, and
2. That there's something clean and cleansing about using it decisively.

Then there was the A-Team which was broadcast as suitable viewing for tea-time on a Saturday afternoon. I know it's an old series, but I don't think anything has changed. Everything about that series was ethically deeply unhinged.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

What I'm getting at is the odd fact that when we regard pornography these days as not just unsavoury but exploitative, we regard films where violence is portrayed as perfectly OK so long as it's in the right cause, viz KickAss.

There is a seventeenth century work by Cyrano de Bergerac called "The Other World or the Comical Estates and Empires of the Moon", which is considered to be one of the earliest works of science fiction.

Cyrano travels to the Moon and is somewhat shocked to see its inhabitants wearing phalluses at their waists, and asks why they don't wear swords like decent folk. The Moon-dwellers are shocked in their turn and point out how much better it is to carry an organ that gives life rather than an instrument of death.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's related to two really bad ideas:-
1. That being armed is like having a super willy, and
2. That there's something clean and cleansing about using it decisively.

and
3. Revenge is good. Uma Thurman, Charles Bronson, Mel Gibson, and Liam Neesom have all taught us that violence is fine, even admirable, provided the victim did something to us first.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's related to two really bad ideas:-
1. That being armed is like having a super willy, and
2. That there's something clean and cleansing about using it decisively.

and
3. Revenge is good. Uma Thurman, Charles Bronson, Mel Gibson, and Liam Neesom have all taught us that violence is fine, even admirable, provided the victim did something to us first.

Well, it's not just modern pop-culture that teaches us this, even though that makes the easiest target. The only problem we are supposed to have with Prince Hamlet, for example, is that he didn't take revenge fast enough.

And don't get me started on The Book Of Revelation.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Yes, I could believe that our great-grandchildren would be appalled at the incredible availability of firearms and heavy armaments in our world.

Another 'right' that will possibly become universal in our lifetime is that of connectivity. Already it is considered a martyrdom, that you can't have a net connection on certain trains or airplanes. My husband once actually stalked out of a hotel after we checked in, when he discovered that it did not have wifi. (To be fair I should mention that he is a computer scientist, so for him it really would be a martyrdom.)

All this has happened within our memory; I would be willing to believe that very soon it'll be enshrined right up there with life and liberty. It will come under the header 'pursuit of happiness.'

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The current Western view of these types of issues centers around the importance of individual rights and injustices committed against individuals.

A more global perspective would recognize that this is not the view shared cross-culturally. Other cultures tend to have an orientation that is more strongly focused on the good of the whole rather than the rights of the individual.

This makes me think that things that are unexceptional now, but which will be unacceptable in the future, will be things that we see ourselves as having a right to, even though they may harm society.

Imagine - back then they let people have as many children as they wanted, without consulting the community who would support and educate those children. There were no qualifications in parenting skills...

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

Another 'right' that will possibly become universal in our lifetime is that of connectivity.

Oh yes. I don't have a cell-phone and I sense hostility from people who think it's rude of me not to be available for their calls while I'm grocery shopping. We have a land line in the kitchen. Everyone who knows us, knows that I walk with a cane, but they only let it ring two or three times before they hang up because they simply can't be bothered to wait more than that. I should have a phone in my right hand at all times in case they want to talk!

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This makes me think that things that are unexceptional now, but which will be unacceptable in the future, will be things that we see ourselves as having a right to, even though they may harm society.
Imagine - back then they let people have as many children as they wanted, without consulting the community who would support and educate those children. There were no qualifications in parenting skills...

So it works both ways!

Maybe things that we see as unacceptable will be seen as unexceptional in the future. [Paranoid]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Imagine - back then they let people have as many children as they wanted, without consulting the community who would support and educate those children. There were no qualifications in parenting skills...

I think you're onto something there Russ. That's already the case in China, and we're starting to see an increasing trend that first smokers and now fat people should be penalised because they are potentially going to cost the health service more in the future.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddie:
Maybe things that we see as unacceptable will be seen as unexceptional in the future.

When I was a child divorce was seen that way, and well into my early adulthood, gaiety was.

[ 16. April 2015, 14:37: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddie:
Maybe things that we see as unacceptable will be seen as unexceptional in the future.
When I was a child divorce was seen that way, and well into my early adulthood, gaiety was.

I think that we all understand the trend towards liberalization and individual rights and liberties.

It is hard to imagine that this trend will ever be reversed. It seems to go hand in hand with education and industrialization.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That's already the case in China, and we're starting to see an increasing trend that first smokers and now fat people should be penalised because they are potentially going to cost the health service more in the future.

But in a hundred years the government will give special tax benefits to the smokers and fat people in gratitude to them for dying earlier and saving them a bundle in social security.

[ 17. April 2015, 00:32: Message edited by: Twilight ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Looking back, they may find it hard to imagine that people treated fresh water as though it was free.

People will think of getting fresh fruit from half way around the world in the same way we view the miners in Gold Rush San Francisco sending their laundry to China.

Countries with aging populations may be looking for immigrants.

There may be some new major religion.

Synthetic meat may replace animals, initially for cost but then when meat eating may cause revulsion.

Boxing and American Football may be thought of as illegal forms of bdsm.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

I'm hoping that in some day soon, the following syllogism will start gaining traction...

A. Breaking into cars constitutes a crime against property, not person.

B. Furthermore, very few people, upon hearing a car alarm go off, are going to be inclined to rush to the scene of the crime, or even bother calling the police.

C. Thus, there is little if any justification for the disruption to sleep, rest, or all-around general comfort engendered by car alarms going off at all hours of the day and night. All such devices should therefore be banned, and anyone breaking said law should be treated no differently than anyone else setting off equally loud noises in public.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0