Sure thing.
Also, note that our society constantly practices scientific research and meta-reflective discourse (e.g. about our society: where we are headed and why? what is morality and where does it come from? How would possible answers affect the answer that we give? etc..). As far as I can tell these practices tend towards, at least, some degree of change. Though it nonetheless seems broadly possible that we could direct ourselves towards a stable state which experienced minimal change. At present I'm sure we have a few scientific/intellectual/social revolutions left in us (think possibilities like a comprehensive neuroscience, changing views on the nature of morality, different treatment of social 'others' and international extension of social justice) - but at the end of all that will we find some kind of equilibrium? Who knows. It seems almost too complex to speculate.
Even our most institutionalised forms of philosophy/morality (religions probably) are prone to change with the developing views of society. I'm not much of a student of religion but at face value the various major schisms that have occured seem to reflect the intellectual climate of the time to some degree (in other words they seem to accomodate certain aspects of contemporary thought at those points). Nonetheless, fundamentalists remain and so religion seems to at least be resilient to change to some degree (though keep in mind, we are looking at an extremely short time scale in terms of evolution).Schroedinger said:Thank goodness some sanity prevails. Whilst I think the 'betterment' of humanity is a rather nebulous goal, I do feel that humanity by its own baser traits naturally performs some form of eugenics. (Sup Darwin). Whether we're talking about forcing the hand of selection to choosing characteristics that we see as contextually viable (Intelligence, whiter-teeth, etc), we would be facing the situation where we try to extend our philosophies and morals as purely objective concepts. In that, were we to preserve traits for all times, we would preserve those purely beneficial in our own society.
Which, I think, seems to undermine the whole notion of evolution of society and the powerful force of change?
Lolrony?
Also, note that our society constantly practices scientific research and meta-reflective discourse (e.g. about our society: where we are headed and why? what is morality and where does it come from? How would possible answers affect the answer that we give? etc..). As far as I can tell these practices tend towards, at least, some degree of change. Though it nonetheless seems broadly possible that we could direct ourselves towards a stable state which experienced minimal change. At present I'm sure we have a few scientific/intellectual/social revolutions left in us (think possibilities like a comprehensive neuroscience, changing views on the nature of morality, different treatment of social 'others' and international extension of social justice) - but at the end of all that will we find some kind of equilibrium? Who knows. It seems almost too complex to speculate.