- 04 Apr 2017 20:18
#14793610
OK. Can you tell me what this line of reasoning has to do with the OP? In particular, the final paragraph:
"The impression I hope the reader is getting at this point is that current technological trends harnessed to old national rivalries for world power will lead to a future where rationality has an exalted place in the world, but I have often been struck by how ironic it is that most of those, at least as far as I've seen, who put the most explicit emphasis on a future guided by reason, namely secular humanists and theistic liberals of similar inclinations, are not really in the vanguard of reform towards this goal at all. A rational future is possible, and even quite likely, but it won't come about because of a deep affection and wonder for human nature as it is, combined with the gentle nurturing of those noble traits that are already present in humankind, as these people suggest. Rather, it will come about because people fear falling too far behind their rivals in other nations, that their nation will be subjected to the indignity of becoming a permanent vassal state—or perhaps something much worse. (Appeals to mercy predicated on the common humanity of all parties involved in a dispute were sometimes effective during the last arms race. In the coming arms race, there may eventually be no common humanity to speak of. In turn, 'we share the same biology, regardless of ideology' might well then of course fall on deaf ears, because it will simply be untrue.) I share the humanist's belief that the world will most likely be won over to reason one day, but not because people will eventually recognize it as intrinsically virtuous, but because their only alternative will be to live in very great dread of what might happen to them if they don't change."
Let's try to stay focused here.
Hong Wu wrote:There is no such thing as technocracy, the complex bills in modern countries are already fashioned by the experts, the elected officials merely present them. It is a imaginary ideology for intellectuals who imagine themselves being dictators yet are so lacking in political acumen that they don't appreciate that their better colleagues are already making the policies.
Western liberalism is already completely rational, within the sphere of arguments that they allow to be heard, said sphere only partially overlaps with reality and that is why they keep failing.
OK. Can you tell me what this line of reasoning has to do with the OP? In particular, the final paragraph:
"The impression I hope the reader is getting at this point is that current technological trends harnessed to old national rivalries for world power will lead to a future where rationality has an exalted place in the world, but I have often been struck by how ironic it is that most of those, at least as far as I've seen, who put the most explicit emphasis on a future guided by reason, namely secular humanists and theistic liberals of similar inclinations, are not really in the vanguard of reform towards this goal at all. A rational future is possible, and even quite likely, but it won't come about because of a deep affection and wonder for human nature as it is, combined with the gentle nurturing of those noble traits that are already present in humankind, as these people suggest. Rather, it will come about because people fear falling too far behind their rivals in other nations, that their nation will be subjected to the indignity of becoming a permanent vassal state—or perhaps something much worse. (Appeals to mercy predicated on the common humanity of all parties involved in a dispute were sometimes effective during the last arms race. In the coming arms race, there may eventually be no common humanity to speak of. In turn, 'we share the same biology, regardless of ideology' might well then of course fall on deaf ears, because it will simply be untrue.) I share the humanist's belief that the world will most likely be won over to reason one day, but not because people will eventually recognize it as intrinsically virtuous, but because their only alternative will be to live in very great dread of what might happen to them if they don't change."
Let's try to stay focused here.