The Illusion of Sophistication
If it is indeed true that there is no objective standard for what is right, then the only standard for what is right is what the greatest number of people agrees upon. This is so obviously flawed that it hardly merits discussion, as the objective laws of nature are not determined by opinion. But what about morality? Also a laughable notion, as all the atrocities of history were simply "moral during the times they were committed," because they were committed by majorities, or at least by those in power... and those in power are usually a reflection of the people.
However, the smug used-car salesman-style philosopher of today declares that yes, all atrocities were moral in light of the fact that they were committed by a majority— it is only because of how our society has "evolved" that we are able to collectively determine retroactively that anything in particular was immoral... and you should thank your lucky stars that we have, in fact, "evolved", and that we are not languishing in a morass of stifling traditions and dogma.
However, the harshness of former eras was not stopped by casting off moral laws, but is made possible almost exclusively by fossil fuels. There is almost no useful "modern" invention that can be maintained without fossil fuels, and likewise there is no abundance that does not currently require the unsustainable use of dwindling resources. Computers? Stoves? Cars? TVs? Literally any handheld device? Even nearly worthless crap like T-shirts and coffee mugs are only available in abundance because of fossil fuels. There is hardly anything worth mentioning in a modern home that did not have fossil fuels involved somewhere in its production. Without that (dwindling!) resource, all your knowledge and sophistication is nearly totally worthless. When the availability of resources dictates that you will become ever more impoverished, then you will see that the growing disappearance of harshness was actually an illusion. Then people will remember that some of the 20th century was actually harsher than the centuries before, despite the abundance and the 'sophistication'.
If you were dropped into the 16th century, what are the odds that you, with your current knowledge, could even adapt adequately to your surroundings, let alone use your 'sophistication' to thrive as a revolutionary thinker? Will anyone thank you for coming up with the idea for a light bulb? No, you'll have to actually make one in order to be worth anything, and once you make it, it has to be possible to integrate into society in order to make you rich and not make you little more than a magician.
No, "There is nothing new under the sun". Indeed, "The present contains nothing more than the past, and what was found in the effect was already in the cause". Nearly nothing could have happened except in the exact way that it happened, and what supposedly "evolved" has always been there since the beginning, and there has been merely an exchange and blossoming of the fixed amount of matter in the universe God created. There is nothing about today's society that is objectively superior to the former days; any ease and abundance we enjoy cannot continue to burgeon, and it can't even be sustained. Furthermore, whether we win or lose, without the context of God, it is only a technical loss or benefit relative to life, which is a mere anomaly of self-perpetuation.
Indeed, the elevation of the status of women is only possible because of the temporary abundance provided by fossil fuels. If the 'elevation' of women were to occur without fossil fuels, they would essentially need to use arms to enforce their claim rather than organized and militarized shrieking in discontent, which is only possible because of the free time made possible by a temporary surplus energy supply.
The used-car-salesman-style modern philosopher can expound upon the virtues of the systematic elimination of suffering, and he can be very persuasive in his mission to satisfy the longings and wants of all factions he deems worthy, but if he doesn't have the physical means to provide what he declares possible, then it is so much hot air. For example, you can bemoan the plight of criminals, and with infinite resources, we have infinite resources to dedicate to reform them. But without infinite resources, you have to think long and hard about how they must be allocated. Indeed, if you do not have bread for your children, it does not matter if you "believe" the child should have bread, or even if you are able to prove the claim that he "should" have bread. If you don't have bread, you'll have nothing to eat but your words.
If it is indeed true that there is no objective standard for what is right, then the only standard for what is right is what the greatest number of people agrees upon. This is so obviously flawed that it hardly merits discussion, as the objective laws of nature are not determined by opinion. But what about morality? Also a laughable notion, as all the atrocities of history were simply "moral during the times they were committed," because they were committed by majorities, or at least by those in power... and those in power are usually a reflection of the people.
However, the smug used-car salesman-style philosopher of today declares that yes, all atrocities were moral in light of the fact that they were committed by a majority— it is only because of how our society has "evolved" that we are able to collectively determine retroactively that anything in particular was immoral... and you should thank your lucky stars that we have, in fact, "evolved", and that we are not languishing in a morass of stifling traditions and dogma.
However, the harshness of former eras was not stopped by casting off moral laws, but is made possible almost exclusively by fossil fuels. There is almost no useful "modern" invention that can be maintained without fossil fuels, and likewise there is no abundance that does not currently require the unsustainable use of dwindling resources. Computers? Stoves? Cars? TVs? Literally any handheld device? Even nearly worthless crap like T-shirts and coffee mugs are only available in abundance because of fossil fuels. There is hardly anything worth mentioning in a modern home that did not have fossil fuels involved somewhere in its production. Without that (dwindling!) resource, all your knowledge and sophistication is nearly totally worthless. When the availability of resources dictates that you will become ever more impoverished, then you will see that the growing disappearance of harshness was actually an illusion. Then people will remember that some of the 20th century was actually harsher than the centuries before, despite the abundance and the 'sophistication'.
If you were dropped into the 16th century, what are the odds that you, with your current knowledge, could even adapt adequately to your surroundings, let alone use your 'sophistication' to thrive as a revolutionary thinker? Will anyone thank you for coming up with the idea for a light bulb? No, you'll have to actually make one in order to be worth anything, and once you make it, it has to be possible to integrate into society in order to make you rich and not make you little more than a magician.
No, "There is nothing new under the sun". Indeed, "The present contains nothing more than the past, and what was found in the effect was already in the cause". Nearly nothing could have happened except in the exact way that it happened, and what supposedly "evolved" has always been there since the beginning, and there has been merely an exchange and blossoming of the fixed amount of matter in the universe God created. There is nothing about today's society that is objectively superior to the former days; any ease and abundance we enjoy cannot continue to burgeon, and it can't even be sustained. Furthermore, whether we win or lose, without the context of God, it is only a technical loss or benefit relative to life, which is a mere anomaly of self-perpetuation.
Indeed, the elevation of the status of women is only possible because of the temporary abundance provided by fossil fuels. If the 'elevation' of women were to occur without fossil fuels, they would essentially need to use arms to enforce their claim rather than organized and militarized shrieking in discontent, which is only possible because of the free time made possible by a temporary surplus energy supply.
The used-car-salesman-style modern philosopher can expound upon the virtues of the systematic elimination of suffering, and he can be very persuasive in his mission to satisfy the longings and wants of all factions he deems worthy, but if he doesn't have the physical means to provide what he declares possible, then it is so much hot air. For example, you can bemoan the plight of criminals, and with infinite resources, we have infinite resources to dedicate to reform them. But without infinite resources, you have to think long and hard about how they must be allocated. Indeed, if you do not have bread for your children, it does not matter if you "believe" the child should have bread, or even if you are able to prove the claim that he "should" have bread. If you don't have bread, you'll have nothing to eat but your words.
