People on this forum claim if the economy collapses and people don't have what they need there will be social chaos. So are they admitting when people do not have what they want or need they react negatively. If so, it would suggest there has been no real progress to human behaviour over the last few centuries it is like saying people have not improved morally but just been put in a situation where they don't need to behave immorally to have what they need. I would agree with the opinions of those who say people will behave immorally if they had what they need taken away and even worse I stand of the position people will now do negative operations to get what they want from desire rather than necessity when previously did not. This draws me to my original point if humans have not evolved socially and digressed have they evolved mentally. Are the achievements of mechanics and science due to human ability to invent or was it god given knowledge. If that situation people have been put in due to new advancements where they do not need things was created through a god given knowledge rather than human progress it would suggest a divine will to prevent pain. It goes further though if it is god given knowledge it means all of the progression in society is given to us by god all of the things we have are presents from a higher conscious. And why are certain people given the knowledge to progress society and other not. Therefore is the prevention of these people of ability developing their ideas denying the will of god on earth and the institutional neglect of progress a obstacle in the way of gods attempts to eliminate pain. What do you think. (This is the post with capitals for you. I would agree the third sentence in the first paragraph could have a stop between centuries and it is.)
with respect that was the whole point of the post. if the things we need are taken away and people admit society will behave badly when necessities are taken away is that saying that form of progression, namely the civilised coexistence with limited violence is not down to evolution but simply a luxury. in which case have we even evolved morally or mentally? or is it just we have been given the knowledge we need to reduce pain. my further point went on to assume if the ability to create that society is based on knowledge enabling tools and machines reducing effort to achieve sustainability then where did that knowledge come from. if we have not evolved morally or mentally have we evolved intellectually and thus if not is all of the advancement from a higher conciousness. my point being in short. if we have not evolved or progressed with our attitudes towards other people and the social calm is only due to abundance of resources, whether that be from machines or infinite resources. then have we evolved intellectually or are the intellectual progressions given to us. can you evolve intellectually and not morally? assume if people have evolved intellectually and designed machines that ease pain. have they evolved morally to want to put the effort in when designing the machines to reduce the pain. effectively they care enough about people to sacrifice their time to ease others pain. thus if you put it the other way round if people have not evolved morally to want to ease pain. have they evolved intellectually as they are not willing to sacrifice resources for others when they are finite thus have we evolved intellectually at all or is it from a higher source as it has been clear people will not make those sacrifices challenging the concept that created the drive for intellectual progress in the original instance.
i would also like to add the concept of evolution is from the observations of physiological development to meet the environment. the concept of developing to meet the environment is based on that physical observation thus the concept of mental or moral or intellectual evolution is based on the concept meeting the needs of the environment. the word for definition of that progression is based on the physical development, which indicates that was observed first then applied to other progressions. thus are those other progression evolution or is evolution the only word that relates to the similar development of mental or moral or intellectual progression. although they may be similar to evolution as they are all progressions they are not necessarily evolution but you have only described it as evolution because that is closest definition you can give to depict the situation. it does not mean it is evolution it simply means that is the closest linked word you can find to explain the process you observe. it is like saying three people become more intelligent because of evolution. you could say one became more intelligent because he stood on his head, another because he ate fish and the other because he practised. they all progressed that is the common factor, is it because of evolution or simply you observed that they meet the needs of their surroundings and because in the physical world that is called evolution you have applied the same word to describe the reason for the progressions. they are not necessarily linked.
Gees Morgan this is a good question. probably a Haiti observation. "And why are certain people given the knowledge to progress society and other not. " I believe that everyone has a talent to progress society, some are aware of their talent and choose to do nothing, they just don't act on it. Others, do no follow through to develope this talent to the fullest. Still others due to circumstances put it aside. On the issue of moral vs intellectual progress correlation, Imo, I think this is an unfair comparision between the two. Not related, although both are human. Generally people know better but take the easiest path. I think everyone is born with a resistance to life,(doing what you don't want to do but necessary) some just don't want to do it.
i never made any reference to anyone being evil. i never made references to scientist's, is the fact they are intelligent related to environmental factors or divine intervention. is the progress you describe as evolution and the progress of science linked or not. if not where does the progress come from?
"For example" is my example to you. I know you did not say that about evil and the scientist. So I am asking if you are talking about how people can be smart and evil too.
because they were not the people that initiated the progress they merely observed and imitated the knowledge there. if the scientist was evil and enabled progress then your argument is sound. however is the motivating factor, if there is one, to progress based on the will of ending pain.