David Hume's Politics: General Outline - May be of benefit to future Marsians

Palomar · 2002-08-09 22:54:34

*I thought the political folder might benefit from Hume's political ideas. :::DISCLAIMER::: I'm not posting this material for the sake of debate. I may enter into debate, if time permits and debate offers itself, but may not [time constraints]. Though I'd like for Marsian colonies to be sharing, cooperative, and communal in attitude and in everyday practice, I realize this may not be humanly possible. Hume is not cynical, IMO; he is simply honest.

David Hume being, again, the 18th century Scottish philosopher.

1. Hume had some sympathy with aspirations toward a communistic
equality:

"It must indeed be confessed that nature is so liberal to mankind
that, were all her presents equally divided among the species, and
improved by art and industry, every individual would enjoy all the
necessaries, and even most of the comforts, of life...It must also be
confessed that wherever we depart from this equality we rob the poor
of more satisfaction than we add to the rich, and that the slight
gratification of a frivolous vanity in one individual frequently
costs more than bread to many families and even provinces."

2. But Hume felt that human nature makes an egalitarian utopia
impossible:

"Historians, even common sense, may inform us that however precious
these ideas of _perfect_ equality may seem, they are really at bottom
_impracticable_; and were they not so, would be extremely pernicious
to human society. Render possessions ever so equal, men's different
degrees of art, care, and industry will immediately break that
equality. Or if you check these virtues...the most rigorous
inquisition is requisite to watch every inequality on its first
appearance, and the most severe jurisdiction to punish and redress
it...So much authority must soon degenerate into tryanny."

3. Hume dismissed as childish the theory (soon to be revived by
Rousseau) that government had originated in a "social contract" among
the people, or between people and ruler:

"Almost all the governments which exist at present, or of which there
remains any record in history, have been founded originally either on
usurpation or conquest or both, without any pretense of a fair
consent or voluntary subjection of the people...It is probable that
the first ascendant of man over multitudes began in a state of
war...The long continuance of that state...common among savage
tribes, inured the people to submission."

Material found in _Political Discourses_ by David Hume, c. 1752

--Cindy

Byron · 2002-08-10 08:28:38

Good post, Cindy...

Hume certainly made some valid points about the potential of "equality" while stating that a wholly equal society is virtaully impossible due to human nature.

However, I would like to make a point about a possible future Martian society...and that is that just by virtue of being there in the first place, the "rules" of human nature are going to be a bit different than we have experienced here on Earth. The first Martian settlers will likely consist of the "best and brightest" so to speak...basically you will be taking the most productive members of the human race and creating a whole new society of just those people. So what we consider to be "human nature" here on Earth, which includes people on the bottom side of the bell curve, the slackers, and the multitudes who do not think more than a day ahead (these are the qualities that permit society to be governed, btw, even in 3rd world countries where the rich have everything, and the poor have nothing)...definitely will NOT be "human nature" on Mars.

So the rules of the game will be turned on its head when we go to Mars...and I would hope the future Martian settlers will have the sense to use their awesome collective intelligence and ambition to create a society that is superior to any here on Earth. Of course there will be problems, like determining who has to perform the "dredge" jobs on Mars, or interpersonal differences which could place people in danger, but overall, I think the settlement as a whole will learn to share all the resources and labor much more equally than here on Earth, and that this will take place out of neccesity rather than the simple desire to create the "perfect" society.

B

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-11 20:03:19

The sad fact of the matter is that even given the 'best and brightest" personnel in the first colony, they eventually have children.
Children are a genetic lottery. However brilliant and socially responsible the parents, the offspring will be a lucky-dip of character types. Some will be "slackers" (as Byron describes it), others will be anti-social or even violent. Some will be addictive personalities and some may even be megalomaniac murderers!!
In the end, we'll have all the problems of Earth-based society reproduced (literally! ) on Mars.
I know a lot of people say that with careful nurturing, all our children can be made into good citizens. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that this is not the case. I believe most of WHO we are is WHAT we are ... built in.
I suppose many of us just don't want to believe that some humans are simply destructive or plain useless. The very concept seems to justify ideas like eugenics and genocide, so people shy away from it and pretend it's not so. But I think it is, unfortunately.

Phobos · 2002-08-12 00:03:24

"It was a great fallacy on the part of Jean Jacques Rousseau to have assumed that primitive society was established by a free contract entered into by savages. But Rousseau was not the only one to uphold such views. The majority of jurists and modern writers, whether of the Kantian school or of other individualist and liberal schools, who do not accept the theological idea of society being founded upon divine right, nor that of the Hegelian school - of society as the more or less mystic realization of objective morality - nor the primitive animal society of the naturalist school - take nolens volens, for lack of any other foundation, the tacit contract, as their point of departure.

A tacit contract! That is to say, a wordless, and consequently a thoughtless and will-less contract: a revolting nonsense! An absurd fiction, and what is more, a wicked fiction! An unworthy hoax! For it assumes that while I was in a state of not being able to will, to think, to speak, I bound myself and all my descendants-only by virtue of having let myself be victimized without raising any protest - into perpetual slavery."

That last Hume quote by Cindy reminded me of how Bakunin scoffed at Rosseau's idea of the "tacit" contract between the state and individual. Sorry, couldn't help it.

Children are a genetic lottery. However brilliant and socially responsible the parents, the offspring will be a lucky-dip of character types. Some will be "slackers" (as Byron describes it), others will be anti-social or even violent. Some will be addictive personalities and some may even be megalomaniac murderers!!

Being that Mars will have a very small gene pool for a long time, it makes you wonder if the people who may eventually
live there will be more open to the idea of genetic tinkering than we are on Earth. Personally, I don't like the idea of a bunch of engineered cookie-cutter people. I'd rather put a lot of resources into artificial intelligence and just let people live without being genetically altered. I think eventually human labor and intelligence may prove to be obsolete on a large scale anyway regardless of genetic engineering and we'll have to adopt a different economic system to account for the massive loss of jobs. Maybe we could make people share holders of the "state" and thus they would receive automatic "dividend" payments. And of course if people wanted to start up their own businesses that would be ok to. Being 9/10 anarchist, I think people should be as free as possible including economically. Then again maybe we should just go full anarchist. I'm all for it.

Bill White · 2002-08-12 08:39:02

The sad fact of the matter is that even given the 'best and brightest" personnel in the first colony, they eventually have children.
* * *
In the end, we'll have all the problems of Earth-based society reproduced (literally! ) on Mars.

Reminds me of the old quip - "Wherever you go, well, there you are!"

"Doing Mars" will be an extension of the millenia-old story of humanity - not a means to escape from it.

Humans must bury their parents and raise their children. Whether physically, emotionally, intellectually or psychologically and whether we are talking bio-parents/children or metaphorical parent/child relations involving mentors, teachers, or even authors whose books people love and learn from.

Going into space will NOT change this in the least, IMHO.

Unless the rationales and justifications for entering space acknowledge and incorporate this human fact - IMHO - space advocates will be unable to "sell" doing space to the majority of humanity.

As I posted before, I believe a spacefaring species can only be defined as one in which children are born and raised at more than one celestial location. Until then, space travellers are mere tourists.

clark · 2002-08-12 14:53:11

The issue of equality is a driving force behind human interaction since the dawn of recorded history.

All the conflicts that ever were, are, or will be stem from "inequality"- be it inequality in resouce distribution, or in an inequlaity of the application of rights.

So how does this apply in the context of Mars?

The same issues of inequality will still exsist no matter where human ingenuity places humanity. That basic "human nature" though is molded by the environment in which it inhabits. So what ramifications can we deduce given the known environment on Mars, and how will this affect the "human nature" in regards to inequality and the distribution of resources or rights?

The problem in my mind arises from the result of inequality, and how it has been manifested historicaly. Racial divisions, class struggles, socio-economic hierarchy of opportunity; these all lead to an eventual violent outburst to restore some modicum of equilibrium which reduces the tensionstemming from real or perceived inequality.

This has been the way things have been done on Earth for thousands of years- a group of people get oppresed until they get fed up, they then overthrow their oppresors and use the opportunity to establish another system whereby there is a greater perception of equality.

The problem is the historical precedence for the manner in which equality is reestablished, i.e- violence. How can you legitametly allow violence in an environment so fragile as the one that will be experienced by living on Mars?

On earth, people riot and apartments burn. People have the opportunity to flee to where the fire is not- such as the outside. Where do the martians go when their homes burn?

If we accept that some fundamental process of human behavior will forever remain unchanged, we must then look how to effectively mitigate or manage that behgavior to reduce the liklihood of it's effects.

This means strong central authority with the power to prevent the loss of life and propoerty- especially when the property is so inextribably linked to life.

Palomar · 2002-08-12 18:03:33

Shaun: "The sad fact of the matter is that even given the 'best and brightest" personnel in the first colony, they eventually have children.
Children are a genetic lottery. However brilliant and socially responsible the parents, the offspring will be a lucky-dip of character types. Some will be "slackers" (as Byron describes it), others will be anti-social or even violent. Some will be addictive personalities and some may even be megalomaniac murderers!!"

*So true. Tennis star Andre Agassi was bragging, upon the birth of his son by Stefi Graf, that their child would also grow up to be an all-star world athlete because of his "superior genes." And what kind of people have comprised both sides of Agassi and Graf's families for the past 10 generations at least? Probably "average 9-to-5 Joes." I don't wish Agassi and Graf any BAD luck, but comments like that are irresponsible and just plain stupid. Who hasn't seen photos of the biological children produced by the unions of gorgeous movie stars? Most are average, some are homely, few are as beautiful/handsome as their parents. Most children of very talented, successful people don't have a talented bone in their body. When's the last time anyone here has heard the latest smash hit gone platinum song by Paul McCartney's son? On the other hand, where were all the earth-shattering achievements by Paul McCartney's father? Or maternal grandmother? Or great-great-uncle?

Shaun: I know a lot of people say that with careful nurturing, all our children can be made into good citizens. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that this is not the case. I believe most of WHO we are is WHAT we are ... built in.

*Hmmmm. I'm 50/50 on this one. Obviously some of what we are IS built in [genetics], but of course there's environmental factors, home life, etc., etc. I have, however, warmed up ::more:: to the notion of "most of who we are is what we are, built in" after watching my nephew, who just turned 20. He moved to my vicinity with my mother in 7/2001. I had been mostly away from him for 9 years [physical distance], and he had been away from his father since age 8 [divorce/father wants nothing to do with him]. My sister was married to my nephew's father for 10 years, so I got to know him quite well. It's amazing how many mannerisms, attitudes, facial expressions, and ways of expression of Anthony are identical to his father's...even though he didn't grow up with his father, and from infancy to age 8 his father spent very little time with him.

However, I shun "genetic determinism" when it reaches the point where it wishes to free everyone of any sort of personal responsibility/accountability for any/all actions "just because it's in the genes." There are many things I chose to do or not to do...CONSCIOUSLY.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-08-12 19:59:00

This means strong central authority with the power to prevent the loss of life and propoerty- especially when the property is so inextribably linked to life.

Of course, you better temper this strong central authority rather well or you'll just have another riot where the people attempt to overthrow the tyrants in charge. All the guns, security cameras, and torture devices at the disposal of the more equal people against the sheep are only so effective. I wonder how the Spanish anarchists would have responded to the "need" for strong central authority.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-13 19:13:24

I tend to agree with much of what Clark has just said. Human history is indeed full of conflict over inequality. It's also full of conflict stemming from greed and power-hunger ... which then results in a conflict to reverse the inequalities resulting from that!! A seemingly unending chaos of unrest and violence. (No wonder all those aliens have eschewed the idea of open contact ... Land on the Whitehouse lawn? And get shot at by security guards? ... I don't think so!! )
Cindy has very eloquently said what I have been trying to say! How right she is in her assessment of the talent differential between the generations. What went before is no indication of what to expect in the future. The genetic system is just too complex and the available combinations when two gene pools mingle at conception is immense. But then, as she goes on to say, quite rightly in my view, we are not just puppets. A quote from a movie whose title I can't recall just came to mind: "Nature is what mankind was put on Earth to rise above!" (That was it! Katherine Hepburn in "The African Queen". ) There is such a thing as free will and we don't all have to slavishly follow our more primitive instincts.
Phobos makes another excellent point when he states the danger of forcibly trying to control our "wilder" side. Human nature seems like the proverbial pile of marbles ... the more you try to gather them into one orderly group, the more they slip through your fingers and roll off in all directions!
Human behaviour is simply uncontainable because of its unpredictability. But that's what makes us special. And, in as much as you can't have good without evil, if you want those occasional exceptional talents who inspire the whole race to higher achievements, you have to accept that those occasional antisocial misfits and misanthropes will come along too!
It's the price you have to pay for being human ... here or anywhere else in the solar system, as Bill quite rightly says.
???

Palomar · 2002-08-14 13:17:26

you have to accept that those occasional antisocial misfits and misanthropes will come along too!

*While I dislike misanthropes, I'd like to point out that not all "misfits" are antisocial. In fact, some of history's greatest thinkers, inventors, explorers, and DOERS were just that...misfits. Of course, there are degrees of being a misfit, and yes some of them can be REAL stinkers. Being a misfit can come about as a result of an extremely high IQ or possessing a very strong talent in some regard. Many "misfits" are dubbed so because they -- not deliberately -- simply are not part of the "status quo." This doesn't necessarily mean, however, that they are malignant or malicious people. In an environment where CONFORMITY is emphasized and demanded 24/7/365, any little aberration from it will mark the person doing so "a misfit." Of course, there are nasty, negative misfits as well -- people who can't get along with anyone else, who pick fights and engage in self- (and other-) destructive behavior.

I've been considered a "misfit" by my family, probably because they are rigidly this-n-that and I'm the proverbial Family Wild Card and a freethinker to boot.

If you march to the beat of your own drum -- instead of trying to keep in step with others to the beat of society's drum -- you'll be labeled a "misfit."

And no, Shaun, I didn't take your post the wrong way; I understand where you're coming from. I just wanted to elaborate on it.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-15 07:10:37

Phobos,

That last Hume quote by Cindy reminded me of how Bakunin scoffed at Rosseau's idea of the "tacit" contract between the state and individual. Sorry, couldn't help it.

Ahh, Bakunin was wise. I may have to read some of this Hume, though I lament that I have no time to read much as of late.

Being that Mars will have a very small gene pool for a long time, it makes you wonder if the people who may eventually live there will be more open to the idea of genetic tinkering than we are on Earth.

I was thinking about this, and it's an interesting point. I don't really see this as a problem, though, since I feel that population density would increase over time, as more people immigrated. It would become a problem if the population density stayed low, however...

clark,

This means strong central authority with the power to prevent the loss of life and property- especially when the property is so inextribably linked to life.

What do you mean by property? Who owns the hydroponics garden? Who owns the water reservoir and purification facility? Who owns the solar panel field? Who owns the metallurgy factory? Who owns the chemical factory? Who owns the roads? Who owns the radio-waves? Who owns the damn air?

Where, in space, is the line between public and private property? Where is the line between possession and property?

Property can be the exact opposite of what you said. Property, indeed, can mean death. How long until the owner of the water reservoir fueds with everyone about prices? How long until he starts shutting off access?

Will this strong central authority respect the owner of the water reservoir and defend him from those who fued against him to lower prices? I don't see it happening. Such a government would not last very long.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-08-09 22:54:34

Re: David Hume's Politics: General Outline - May be of benefit to future Marsians

#2 2002-08-10 08:28:38

Re: David Hume's Politics: General Outline - May be of benefit to future Marsians

#3 2002-08-11 20:03:19

Re: David Hume's Politics: General Outline - May be of benefit to future Marsians

#4 2002-08-12 00:03:24

Re: David Hume's Politics: General Outline - May be of benefit to future Marsians

#5 2002-08-12 08:39:02

Re: David Hume's Politics: General Outline - May be of benefit to future Marsians

#6 2002-08-12 14:53:11

Re: David Hume's Politics: General Outline - May be of benefit to future Marsians

#7 2002-08-12 18:03:33

Re: David Hume's Politics: General Outline - May be of benefit to future Marsians

#8 2002-08-12 19:59:00

Re: David Hume's Politics: General Outline - May be of benefit to future Marsians

#9 2002-08-13 19:13:24

Re: David Hume's Politics: General Outline - May be of benefit to future Marsians

#10 2002-08-14 13:17:26

Re: David Hume's Politics: General Outline - May be of benefit to future Marsians

#11 2002-08-15 07:10:37

Re: David Hume's Politics: General Outline - May be of benefit to future Marsians

Board footer