Comments on: How will history judge?

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:08:59 +0000

Obviously, in 2104 everyone will wax nostalgic about the days, 100 years previous, when there was a truly infallible source of boundless wisdom and truth—the blog, “I Could Be Wrong”. They will have nothing but pity and disgust, however, for the benighted fools who failed to recognize the inestimable gem in their virtual midst.

By: theCoach

theCoach — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:52:23 +0000

I think the pity/disgust will be regarding our morality being based on souls/blank slates (whatever your opinion of Pinker, his book does identify an incoherent foundation of much of our core beliefs about agency). They will ikely envy the lower population of humans, the higher population of exotic animals and the relative wealth of unditurbed natural geography. They will find our inability to bridge the societes of the well off and the very poor infathomable (that people were still experiencing massive starvation, and curable diseases).

By: Jeffrey Kramer

Jeffrey Kramer — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:37:31 +0000

Future generations will pity us for having to get through life without Soma.

By: clevernamehere

clevernamehere — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 03:47:58 +0000

dsquared Well, first, I’d note that 100 years can be a long time. A black man in 1860 had a much, much different status than a black man in 1960. Second, there are a number of factors at work. A) greater education – more people, through sonograms and biology classes, are learning that the unborn IS a living organism. B) I think that contraceptive technology will be greatly improved by 2104. The greatest opposition to the recognition of the unborn as people is, as I have said, due to the inconvenience that consideration would have for the rest of us. I think abortion will disappear because unplanned pregnancies will, to a large extent, disappear. You might say, “Then, if you believe the days are numbered for this practice, why does this issue matter so much?” It’s because future recognition of fetal humanity comes too late to save those destroyed today.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:27:38 +0000

Since abortion has been a constant feature of human society, regarded as unpleasant but sadly often necessary, for more than two thousand years, I’d be interested to know why our friends think that the next 100 years will bring a sea-change.

By: CleverNameHere

CleverNameHere — Sun, 08 Feb 2004 20:33:37 +0000

A ball of cells implanted in the womb is not a person, sorry. The sad thing is I really, really, really wish I could believe as you do. Worrying about getting a girl pregnant really puts a crimp in my sex life, which, I’m sure, is a large reason so many people convince themselves that a “ball of cells” isn’t a person. Unfortunately, it is a biological fact that the “ball of cells” is an individual living organism, and that it is a HUMAN organism. As far as I can see, the only reason one can put forth for NOT considering it to be a human at an early stage of development, is because it is highly inconvenient to the rest of us to do so. This isn’t some religious nut speaking, I’m not a Christian. I’m an agnostic. But I believe in respecting human life, and that’s what this is. If you can convince me otherwise, I would heartily welcome it, because it would make my life much, much easier.

By: Troy

Troy — Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:22:12 +0000

joe and clevername, I hate to break it to you but there will still be post-conception abortion, just like there will be legal contraceptives. A ball of cells implanted in the womb is not a person, sorry.

By: Troy

Troy — Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:18:07 +0000

The movie Demolition Man had some good digs. Freedom has been under assault by do-gooders for 100 years now (2004). It’s still legal to drive a car that can go 200MPH on the street. We can make totally anonymous cash transactions. Our movements are not tracked 24/7 like they will be. There’s still relatively untouched wilderness to enjoy. In 100 years it will take an active effort to separate ourselves from talking, monitoring nanny computers. Everything will be wired together (wirelessly). The wealthy will be able to live forever young, or at least not grow old. Population-wise, we are now basically at replacement level + immigration, though the newer the immigrant the larger the family apparently. As for politics, who the hell knows. America can either go back to a revival of 1920’s Disneyland Main Street innocence or down some Orwellian rathole.

By: pessimist

pessimist — Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:00:43 +0000

ENVY: the last generation before the great wars of the 21st century DISGUST: the inequality between rich and poor (always is, always has been…)

By: CleverNameHere

CleverNameHere — Sun, 08 Feb 2004 07:41:56 +0000

Envy: To have been alive during a period of musical explosion. Disgust: 22nd century Americans will view abortion the same way we view slavery. They will be unable to fathom how a supposedly enlightened, secular society maintained that an individual living organism was actually only “potential life”, and that this indisputable member of Homo sapiens was not a “person”.

By: Joe M.

Joe M. — Sun, 08 Feb 2004 04:37:58 +0000

What they will view with disgust? The fact that we allowed abortion. (I’m assuming that there will continue to be a general trend towards expanding the number of human beings deemed worthy of society’s protection.)

By: clew

clew — Sun, 08 Feb 2004 03:04:14 +0000

I’ll expand on rex’s idea and give “Private automobiles” as the answer to both questions. “You moved around in tons of metal each? With no safety precautions? And they were so loud! and they smelled bad! and EVERYONE had one, even children!….. Boy, that must have been fun.”

By: Rex

Rex — Sun, 08 Feb 2004 01:54:11 +0000

Admiration/Envy/Nostalgia: “When oil was plentiful, and we could all have a surpurb standard of living by basing our entire way of life on it” Disgust/Pity: “That we never did anything about running out of oil before it was too late”

By: John Smith

John Smith — Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:51:01 +0000

Most disgusting? A tie between the jury system and prisons. Juries are selected for their ignorance of the subject-matter for decision, their non-expertise in the difficult skill of fact-finding: their deliberations are not monitored and – worst of all, they do not give reasons for their decisions. The prisons are governed by the kind consent of the prisoners – or, more accurately, the hardest bastards, often put away for the worst crimes – and the prison guards – whose legendary corruption and brutality in California is a standard that most do not fail to attain for lack of trying.

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:02:36 +0000

On the moral level, I’m guessing Micah is right—the lack of effort we put into fighting global poverty will be regarded with disgust. People will read that millions of children died every year and most could have been saved with a relatively modest expenditure (people around here probably have a better notion of the money needed, but I think I’ve read that somewhere in the ten billion per year range could save millions). They’ll look at what we do spend money on and note the crocodile tears we shed over people murdered by our political foes and find it nauseating. Or perhaps funny—after a hundred or so years the sense of outrage might be moderated and people might just find the hypocrisy kind of entertaining. OTOH, if the folks 100 years in the future are part of the Borg collective they’ll erect a monument to the Fox News Channel as the harbinger of things to come.