This came up, thanks syntiger6.
As the world increasingly adopts ideas like human rights, and respect for human diversity, as the norm, where can the hate-filled , evil and prejudiced people go ?
Science offers no support for hate, politics demands respect for majority opinion, philosophy for logic etc. But religion with, increasingly, no role in the global debate, is looking for support/money/credibility wherever it can find it, asks no questions, and can be manipulated to say anything you want.
Do you think its a given ?
They go under the radar and feel oppressed for not being able to spread hate unchecked. Until a charismatic leader rally them and show that they are still in big numbers.
This brings us to a problem. If you change society too fast you will suffer this reactionary waves as people are "left behind". That happened because the change was in some way forced upon those people.
This can happen in 2 situations.
The first is if the majority wants the change and the minority (in the sense of numbers not power) does not accept and keep being butthurted.
This can only be solved by showing that the change was done, was part of democracy and is beneficial and needed for society, otherwise the "losers" will feel that their freedom is being threatened (and it becomes more evident in a culture like USA where self entitlement is mixed with freedom).
The other way and more difficult to justify is when the representatives do not reflect the majority opinion and despite lack of popular support they impose some new rule or politic of incentives.
This will feel as the powerful trying to impose something on the people (and this time it really is). Than it might be correct in the numbers and results, but still will be against the will of the people and people have right to be idiots and the vote and will of an idiot should have the same weight of the vote and will of an enlightened.
The is the burden of the enlightened to convince the idiot until the big number is on the enlightened side and not to force the idiot to comply.
In both cases the only way to avoid the reactionary wave is have open discussions always explaining and not confronting those who were "left behind". Always have in mind that their vote weights the same as yours and the faster the society moves the more "left behind" will exist until they gather critical mass for a charismatic leader to harness power from them.
Short answer, yes.. As long as people will swallow narratives hook, line, and sinker, without consideration for facts, morality, or objective reality religion and politics will propagate hate and lies. You are what you eat, we think what we see and hear. I wish it was different. I wish hate and evil were not self reinforcing with the media and social networks people consume. If I believed in wishes instead of science I would not be here.
With evolution there is no given. Evolution tends to adapt to conditions present during a given time. It has been shown that a specific organism could change with a changing environment but then revert back to the original organism when the conditions revert back to where it was at the first. Another fact is that physical changes are the slowest to change but social one are the second slowest to change. Hate politics can dominate given the right conditions. Imagine the conditions if the Nazis had won?
No offense, but what is the support for science saying that there is no support for hate and what does that mean? Culture and psychology support the practice of hate and has since before recorded history as this report about what might be the earliest evidence of warfare:
The concept of the "Other" exists in all cultures to varying degrees and the the Other is generally hated and feared. The goal of early humans might have been to pull together to ensure the continuation of the species, but when humans splintered into groups, the the Other sometimes became the enemy; outsiders within the groups were shunned and even expelled from the group.
Tribes/clans competed for food, land, and necessities. The competition also went beyond necessities as humans have always been selfish. Religion became a tool of the powerful.
No, none of this is going away any time soon.
Majority opinion is easily manipulated and often wrong. Christianity is declining, which I think is a good thing, especially since it seems to be getting replaced by secularism. However, there is bad news to go along with the good. Islam will continue to grow, and it is expected to equal Christianity in size by 2050. Also, officially atheist China needs no religion to justify trampling human rights.
[Muslims are the fastest-growing major religious group, largely because they have the highest fertility rate and the youngest population. As a result, the Muslim population is expected to increase from 1.6 billion people (23% of the world’s population as of 2010) to 2.76 billion people (30% of all people in 2050). ](http://[pewresearch.org]
the absolute uni - thought strict party line nature of both the posts and comments, coming out of agnostic.com today (this presumed bastion of free thought) on the subject of the twin revolutions is terrifying. to find uni - thought absolutism like this in earlier history one has to go back to stalin's purges of "left / right deviationism", to hitler's purge of decent from 1934 on, or to the dystopian "fiction" of george orwell and aldous huxley.. both these famous critics of uni - thought posited a public straw man black hat - bad guy opposition used like a pinata to ostricise any oppositional thought. more scary than this post itself, is the " imprinted duckling" uniformity of the comments. all mention of past riots, crime statistics, male suicide rates, female admission favoritism across the board, or anything not among the feminist / blm talking points, is dismissed as trumpism or from the religious yahoos. one of huxley's key thoughts was the idea of twin mind tyrannies using each other as justification. here that is today, even on agnostic, and its shameful.
I question the post's premise a bit. I think we can perhaps say the "idea" of human rights is spreading around the globe, but to say the "adoption" of said rights is becoming "...the norm" seems to me to be woefully premature. Hate remains alive and well. e.g. Trumpism, Brexit, neo-nazis in Europe, anti-lgbtq violence everywhere but also encouraged by governments such as Russia, Nigeria, Uganda, Jamaica, etc.
Hate may actually be an instinctive response to fear of change and fear of diversity. Even flocks of birds often bully individuals with unusual coloring, for example.
As we progress and get better and better where does hate go? It hides. Hate hides until something or someone comes along and tells it to come out and express itself. It might even be said that this is normal and then you see hate run for public office. There might even be flags to support police deaths or shirts with writing that declares six million was not enough. Because we do want a basic human dignity this sort of thing will happen in cycles. Many of us will feel that it does not exist to this degree and will tend to forget it. Hate wants what you have. We should never forget that.
I'm not sure science doesn't support hate, aggression seems to confer evolutionary advantage and teasing the two apart seems challenging. I don't have to hate someone to kill them and take their stuff but I end up with their stuff. While the world's major religions claim to offer moral guidance they have failed spectacularly, worse than nothing really there does seem a need in humans to follow authority. I think your initial question is cause for hope not despair, respect for human rights is increasing. In the era of chattel slavery is wasn't the norm.
If you’re trying to portray politics as hate-free I may have a hard time suppressing a chuckle.
If the “world” is increasingly adopting good attitudes, that means it’s increasingly letting go of bad attitudes. If there is a fixed proportion of the population that is continuing to hate, then the world is not improving. Pick one.
Meanwhile, best not turn Sny into a synner.
Well, nobody has only faults or only qualities. People many times have the need of making others look bad and think they are righteous to harm others because they don't like them, see them as evil or whatever, not realising that they're being evil themselves. Speaking for myself, I wish I could say I have only done good deeds but, unfortunately, I can't. I admit to have done wrong things to people in the past. Does it make me evil by nature? I wouldn't be surprised if there were other people who can say the same about themselves.