--- Una McCormack una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk wrote: > Stephen Date wrote:
Let me reprhase what I said. Primitive (I use the word very
loosely)
societies can be dangerous. Life is often cheaper
than
in technological situations.
Stephen, could you clarify that point? You seem to be suggesting that technological advancement leads to or carries with it some degree of moral advancement.
I think that it often does. There appears to be some kind of correlation between what Karl Popper described as The Open Society and the scientific method.
Broadly speaking, in closed societies knowledge is handed down by tradition which may not be criticised. In open societies, free discussion and rational thought is both accepted and encouraged. Obviously open societies are more conducive to the scientific method.
Of course there are a number of important caveats. Open societies can be prone to irrationalism on certain subjects. (Macarthyism in the US for example). Furthermore societies such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia combined scientific advance with Totalitarianism. The fact that both regimes were defeated in the sphere which they held to be their special excellence (War for the Nazi's; economics for the Soviets) is perhaps an indication that in the long run Totalitarianism is self defeating.
Definitions of the good society are notoriously problematic. Lord Macaulay made the rather prosaic suggestion that the mortality rate was probably the best index. On this heading the combination of science and democracy comes out top.
None of which is to say that technologically superiority equates to a right to invade and conquer.
Stephen.
P.S. Sorry this is Off Topic. Can anyone let me know how I get onto the spin list ?
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie