Monday, 29 July 2019

Humans, Humanity, and Human Rights - Chapter 1 - What I Don't Currently Know to My Satisfaction

This project commenced with a conceptual outline, published on Saturday 1st December, 2018, at: https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2018/12/humans-humanity-and-human-rights.html
I’ve decided I’ll post each chapter in its first, raw state, and you, Dear Reader, can see if my later research (probably long after I've finished this first version, in my retirement, should I be fortunate enough to actually get to retire) led to any change. (You can also think about the points I am making.) 
I've come up with an initial structure of the book (no guarantees it won't change), and will add the links to each chapter in the latest installment as they are published. Owing to the size of each chapter, I will have to publish this using the sub-chapters. Links below, and also here.

*****

Chapter One – Introduction to Concepts, and On Early Humans

Chapter One: What I don't currently know to my satisfaction


(As a digression, I was going to title these sections “what ‘we’ don’t know”, but someone else may well know what I’m going to raise here, so using the royal “we” was, I considered, presumptuous and quite possibly wrong. Also, if I do manage to get this published, I doubt very much that I’ll have the luxury of publishing updated editions – that’s OK, this book, as with virtually all others, will eventually become dated and obsolete. It’s better, though, IMO, for the author to make sure that is brought to the Reader’s attention early, in the interests of promoting thoughtful, reflective and constructively critical reading. As a final point, I’m not really interested in others’ opinions / knowledge other than as expressed below: if you think I’m an idiot and some things in the list below are well known, you are welcome to your opinion / knowledge - and you may well be correct, but, at the time I’m writing this, this is the situation as far as I am concerned. By the time you read it, my opinion may have changed . . . )
What I currently don’t know to my satisfaction (I know I will expand this when I edit it, but I am keen to get the first version of this first chapter up, so here ‘tis):
·         Major (to me) question:

o   Why no-one else (especially someone with credibility or even academic qualifications) has thought to do this, or something similar. (If they have, where?)
o   How a proper, objective and independent consideration of philosophical (logical) fallacies would rate this chapter (dammit, Jim, where’s Spock when you need him?);
o   How I would have written this chapter if I had done all the reading and study I want to.
o   The actual, probably pre-historic origin of human rights thinking / action.
o   Adequate details of Australia’s indigenous cultures. By the way, I actually don’t consider that I need to know those: I would love to see an indigenous person draw on that rich history and culture and write their version of what I am covering in this book.
o   To what extent I can rely on the descriptions of pre-historic cultures in Jean M. Auel’s Earth’s Children series of books.
o   To what extent and in what manner Neanderthals and early homo sapiens interacted.
o   How well I can rely on the experiences of modern re-enactors of pre-historic cultures.
o   Differences in the thinking and world views of people in pre-historic cultures as compared to modern, industrialised cultures.
o   The quantitative benefits of families, groups, tribes, companies, organisations, or nations treating its constituent members with respect and dignity, including fully respecting and realising human rights, throughout history and in various cultures.
o   How death rates from violence of humans through our history compares with that of primates.
o   The extent to which kindness is uniquely or human or can be used to define “human”, which includes how much what reasonable or normal people (not scientists) would find kindness in life other than humans, and to what extent kindness can be considered characteristic of life itself.
o   The extent to which “tough love” and similar ilk could be justified, and exactly by what, in humanity’s gatherer-hunter eras – past and present;
o   Exactly how much of a struggle was survival then compared to now (keeping in mind the variety of circumstances humans find themselves in, and the wide range of ways we can struggle)?
o   How can the hardening of the human heart created by social engineering over the last few millennia be best undone?
o   How can bad motivation (e.g., keeping power, protecting oneself, or for self-gain) for plausible actions (e.g., the “we’ve all got to tighten our belts” line) be detected/identified, and made apparent / proven?
o   How can people be brought to accept and work constructively with variety?
o   How can people be enabled to be comfortable with the non-binary reality of gender?
o   To what extent I can actually rely on the word analysis I have used to support my proposal that being kind is – or should be - an essential part of being human?
o   To what extent can I rely on looking at genetic neighbours for any conclusions?
o   What circumstances were like in the early tribes that were moving out of Africa – how much of that move was violence, and how much was actively thinking and deciding to avoid conflict?

·         Other questions:

o   The differences between Cro-Magnons and modern humans, and the ins and outs of the history of sub-species under homo sapiens – for instance, when I was younger I am fairly sure I was told modern humans were homo sapiens sapiens.
(Digression and minor whinge: how can I get Word to accept that some repeated words are not mistakes – as in the preceding sentence, and Australian names such as Baw Baw. Will a future version of Word allow us to add exceptions to that “rule”? J )
o   Exactly how quickly the first Australians adapted their cultures to Australian conditions.
o   What percentage of human DNA would be Neanderthal if Danny Vendramini’s Neanderthal Predation theory applied (I suspect it would lower than it actually is – see preceding footnote in this chapter).
o   What challenges other people have experienced to the view that groups “do better” under “fairer and more humane” conditions. (Yes, the fact that this question is in the “minor to me” section is arrogant and self-centred, isn’t it?)
o   Can the hardening of the human heart created by social engineering over the last few millennia (until the Enlightenment, perhaps? Or the Gutenberg printing press and modern literacy?) be quantified?
o   Exactly how did specialisation start?
o   What academics and experts think of all this is of very minor curiosity to me.





Posted by at No comments:

Humans, Humanity, and Human Rights - Chapter 1 (I)

This project commenced with a conceptual outline, published on Saturday 1st December, 2018, at: https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2018/12/humans-humanity-and-human-rights.html
I’ve decided I’ll post each chapter in its first, raw state, and you, Dear Reader, can see if my later research (probably long after I've finished this first version, in my retirement, should I be fortunate enough to actually get to retire) led to any change. (You can also think about the points I am making.) 
I've come up with an initial structure of the book (no guarantees it won't change), and will add the links to each chapter in the latest installment as they are published. Owing to the size of each chapter, I will have to publish this using the sub-chapters. Links below, and also here.

*****

Chapter One – Introduction to Concepts, and On Early Humans

I.  Summary / conclusions


My day job inclines me toward the use of dot points, so here’s my first summary (and my apologies that this copies from Word to Blogger so poorly, but that is out of my control):
·         we physically evolved from a common ancestor of hominids and primates;
·         archaeological evidence suggests cooperation was important, and that ancient people were more evolved than we give credit for – backed by modern gatherer-hunter societies;
·         human rights is about enabling all people to be their best, and that was what was best for small groups trying to survive – discrimination weakens the group by losing access to human capital;
·         both modern hominids (humans) and primates suggest kindness in leaders important, but:

o   in many ways, being human is linked to being humane – essence of humanity;
o   kindness is not limited to humans, but possibly the extent of kindness is unique to us;
o   our biases tend to blind us – e.g., not noticing same sex relationships in animals, quibbling about personality in animals (which flourishes when animals are treated as individual,, and not crushed);
o   given militaries have to expend lot of effort getting people to be capable of harming others, the absence of kindness may be a sign of damage to humans;

·         rules evolved to manage conflict and population and ensure survival:

o   we can get some idea of that from modern gatherer-hunters;
o   archaeology shows interacted, so that tools, resources, techniques, people, etc were shared for mutual benefit (some of the benefit perhaps mutual obligation?);
o   survival was probably the earliest application of 2nd generation (economic, social and cultural) rights, but the ancient perspective was likely different to that of moderns;
o   our evolution on this and other thinking/social matters shows our capacity to change at a rate greater than that of natural selection (aka “evolution”), which is a trait that our genetic neighbours – who share more than we may be comfortable with in other ways (as do other animals – even dinosaur babies may have had big eyes to look cute) – don’t have, and that potential for change faster than evolution is a “superpower” that – Peter Parker like - comes with responsibility;
o   somewhere, it went wrong and individuals began to dominate – but that was more likely later, when agriculture / civilisation changed everything (which, overall, was good, but there were problems – just, when addressing those problems, one must be sure not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, rather, one should change so get the best of both changed and unchanged, and the worst of neither):

-          we had to learn that things like abuse of power, which was probably one of the earliest abuses of human rights, was “bad”, and should be stopped;
-          being aware and able to articulate is a defence against abuse of, and enables realisation of, human rights;
o   notions around “not being weak” being somehow desirable are signs of damage to society, much as the absence of kindness (including an addiction to “tough love”, as opposed to valid, constructive criticism) is a sign of damage to individual humans – and enforced uniformity cuts out the possibility of evolving to better things;

Now, how reasonable is all that?

Self-critique – Chapter One

There are a number of areas I would like to be able to formally study in, such as philosophy and history, but have not been able to – and may have to defer until either I retire, or possibly even to a future life J . In the meantime, I’ll have a look at this summary from the point of view of the little I do know of such topics, as well as the review / analytical / “critical” [1] thinking I have developed from life [2] and for my day job.
In addition, Dear Reader, please keep in mind that I may simply be flat out wrong J .
If you want a good guide to this, I thoroughly recommend Brendan Myers’ [3] “Clear and Present Thinking”, available free online at http://www.brendanmyers.net/nwpbooks/cpt.html. Other guides to this topic also exist [4] . I intend to study these many arguments the way I studied engineering at uni – lots of summarising and repetition, until I feel comfortable that I can recognise which of the many fallacies apply to a situation. However, I have not done that as yet.
I’m not, by the way, looking at all the fallacies, only what I understand are the more common ones. When I edit this, I’ll add a one sentence description (and I may add more fallacies, and be more comprehensive in my assessments); in the meantime, I’ll provide some links for now.
False equivalence [5]
One of the things which most concerns me is the extent to which we can draw from modern knowledge – including modern scientific knowledge. It is impossible to use primary sources in the modern sense, as they simply don’t exist – we don’t have YouTube clips recorded by the first, shiny, just out of the evolution box humans, nor even written records . . . although we do have their bones to read (and other evidence).
I personally am reasonably comfortable with the various forms of modern science that I’ve relied on – although, given my life circumstances, I have accessed much of that second hand (through media reports and books for general public consumption).
Overall, I consider this philosophical error a possibility, but I rate as a low likelihood.
Ad hominin fallacy / straw man attack [6]
I’ve been fairly conservative, and have attempted to be balanced as I write this, but I have been a victim of various forms of discrimination in my life, including the “tough love” view, and thus have likely worded my arguments on that more harshly than perhaps a more objective person without my life experience would.
Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) [7]
This is, I consider, similar to my point in this section: I am open to the charge of saying “no-one can disprove early humans didn’t think the way I am suggesting”. I’ll leave it to you, Dear Reader, to consider whether I am guilty as charged or not on this point.
False dilemma [8]
I don’t think I have made this error: I’ve tried to refer to shades of grey and the range of opportunities, but it is still a possibility.
Slippery slope [9]
There are implications which come from my arguments, particularly around things like the near ubiquitous belief in “tough love” et al. I consider that we do need to consider those issues, and, in my defence, point out that I am far from the first to suggest so – refer to the collected works of Buddha, Christ, Gandhi, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., etc for more.
Circular Argument (petitio principii) [10]
I had thought a great deal about these matters before I started writing, but some of the evidence I’ve uncovered has genuinely surprised me, so I consider I have not fallen in to this error.
Hasty generalisation [11]
I consider I’ve been fairly cautious in my arguments, so, again, I don’t consider I’ve fallen in to this error – by the standards of the everyday person.
By strict academic / scientific standards, however, I clearly have – I am not relying on evidence with demonstrated repeatability that has been tested by critical peer review.
And yet, somehow, I still sleep at night . . .
More seriously, Dear Reader, this is a point you should keep in mind as you read this book. I’m “ahead of the curve” here, and further evidence may disprove my speculations.
Red herring [12]
Hmm . . . fish’n’chips . . . nope, didn’t work: I haven’t distracted myself or, I consider, you, Dear Reader, so this one doesn’t apply either.
Tu Quoque (you too) Fallacy [13]
I don’t consider that applies to this chapter, but I can see how it could apply down the track.
Causal fallacy [14]
This one definitely could apply – I’m attributing various matters to things like “being human”, but, particularly given the occurrence of kindness in animals and our biased and limited understanding of that, I could well be wrong. maybe it is just life that is kind . . .
Fallacy of Sunk Costs [15]
I have invested a great deal in this project, and yes, I do want to see it through and be worth publishing, so this fallacy is one you, dear reader, should be aware of as you read and critique my work.
Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) [16]
If you were reading this at the rate I write it, you would now have to pause and spend five minutes ROFLMAO.
Nope.
Next.
Equivocation (ambiguity) [17]
This is another one which could result from my attempt to be cautious: keep it in mind.
Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) [18]
This is another one which could apply – not only from my writing, but because, in my experience, many people like cute animals etc, and thus there may well be a bias in you, Dear Reader, on this one.
The counter argument to erring towards cute and kind can seem rather soulless (and sometimes it is)¸but the point here is to try and maintain some balance and objectivity and self-awareness as you read and reflect.
Bandwagon Fallacy [19]
See “appeal to authority” above.


[1] I often wonder if academics realise that “critical” thinking has, to many people, a purely negative association – in the sense of attacking to destroy, harm or put down someone – rather than meaning “objective”, “balanced”, or “taking a step back to look at the bigger picture / review / make sure nothing has been overlooked or forgotten”. In this case, I’m most unlikely to be attacking myself, so I am using this term in the academic sense.
[2] In our over-addicted to qualifications (which I suspect is so people can avoid taking responsibility) world, it is too easy to forget how invaluable experience is. I tell all the graduates who come to work for me that their degree is a Licence to Start Learning. Furthermore, some of the best learning I have experienced has been through informal or what can, perhaps, be described as informal (or semi-formal J ) learning. In terms of analytical thinking and understanding, nothing I’ve come across has been better than the informal personal growth work I did in the 1980s.



Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)