4 ms·
> Colonialism, Slavery and imperialism were seen as justified expressions of the natural order. Skulls were assembled from around the world and brain volumes me
by monoideism 6y ago
> Colonialism, Slavery and imperialism were seen as justified expressions of the natural order. Skulls were assembled from around the world and brain volumes meticulously noted down to “prove” this.
And to expound a little more - most rational, intellligent people from those eras believed in these things as well. After all, they told themselves, most reasonable, compassionate people do.
As such, it's interesting to ask yourself what we do today that will be held as barbaric by some future generation. Chances are, it'll be something that most of us believe to be normal and right.
And if you're someone who doesn't have any opinion that your peers would find scandalous, or at least unorthodox, chances are you are participating in some act that a future generation will find appalling but that is entirely acceptable today.
Abortion?
Meat eating?
Or some other practice that most of us take for granted.
For the same reason, we shouldn't judge past generations by today's moral standards. It makes no sense.
- pseudalopex 6y ago> "It is fraught to judge individuals outside of their time, but it is clear from the documentation presented that Millikan lent his name and his prestige to a morally reprehensible eugenics movement that already had been discredited scientifically during his time," Rosenbaum said. Why should I have a problem with the idea future generations might take my name off a building?
- aaron695 6y agoWhy do anything. Why not just use whatever resources you can get your hands on and burn it all. The concept of some sort of future is why some people do more. You mightn't care, perhaps having kids is your thing, perhaps is extincting a species or designing a better ice cube, everyone's different, for some people it's buildings. I think a lot of people are realising giving money to universities instead of building a bigger boat is a bad idea. They are probably right.
- rayiner 6y agoAs technology for saving premature babies continues to improve, I think elective second trimester abortions (mostly illegal in Europe, but constitutionally protected in the United States under Roe v. Wade) will come to be seen in a different light. It’s legal to abort a 22 week old fetus in about half of states (including the states where most of the population lives) even without any special emergency or medical condition: https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-22.aspx https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-22..... The record for saving a premature baby is a bit under 22 weeks: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/11/14/mom-delivers-earliest-premature-baby-ever-and-chooses-resuscitate-miracle-aughter-now-healthy-toddle/861386001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/11/14/mo...
- lalaland1125 6y agoWould it then be feasible to replace second trimester abortions with early births? I think most pro-choice people would accept early birth as an alternative if it were safe.