Non fundamentalist Christians

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Spoken like a true technocrat!

Do you disagree with anything, or do you simply want to categorize me?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I dispute that in its entirety. It is education (of which science is only a part) and wealth that have kicked the legs from beneath religion. I dispute though that we have an increasing amoral society. If anything I think the evidence is absolutely clear that society is more moral than at any time in history. We have some of the lowest crime rates in hist ...[text shortened]... e they were running away from the religious governments of Europe to a more secular society.

Why is it that I always end up arguing against you? I was given the impression that we were going to have a more diverse pool of participants in this thread. But they all seem to have fled.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you disagree with anything, or do you simply want to categorize me?

Apart from the wild generalisations in which somehow 'we' are better off than at any time in the past, I could pick this:

We have devised vast, technical processes for managing society smoothly and efficiently, with what seems to be a callous disregard for the individual people who actually make up that system.
And I disagree. I am very much in favour of efficiency precisely because it benefits the people.

Well, that is obviously unsatisfactory. The imposition of systems of industrial-era efficiency on societies who hadn't asked for it was unequivocally disastrous for very large numbers of people. Whether you choose to focus on the Enclosures in Britain (more efficient to have sheep on land than people living on it for generations - so get off my land, says the squire, the law is on my side since the Act was passed, get ye hence to Gin Lane) or the marvellously efficient means by which Leopold cornered the world rubber market with his progressive extraction methods in the Belgian Congo (to say nothing of the efficient use of railways to transport vast quantities of people to certain German factories), it seems clear that efficiency in and of itself is a two-edged sword.

The wise choice sometimes is to be inefficient, using labour-intensive methods to produce food, for example. The efficiency of monoculture production in parts of India has been very little to the benefit of erstwhile peasant farmers who have now become wage slaves.

In most cases people do not get the choice to opt into a more 'efficient' way of doing things: decisions are made for them by highly educated technocrats who know better (who wouldn't know better than an illiterate peasant what is good for him?!) and the human cost is simply ignored. Another case would be the construction of massive dams in China and Africa. Populations displaced by large dam construction number in the millions. However, hydropower is widely considered a most efficient source of energy, and so carbon neutral too.

Originally posted by rwingett
Why is it that I always end up arguing against you? I was given the impression that we were going to have a more diverse pool of participants in this thread. But they all seem to have fled.

twhitehead is truly a fiend. Like some undersea monster of logic, see how he prepares to wrap his gelid tentacles around the plump humanity of your argument.

Originally posted by rwingett
Why is it that I always end up arguing against you? I was given the impression that we were going to have a more diverse pool of participants in this thread. But they all seem to have fled.

Certain topics always result in complete silence from most theist posters. I don't know what it is about this thread that has had that response. Maybe most of the theists here are more fundamentalist than they are comfortable with?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
twhitehead is truly a fiend. Like some undersea monster of logic, see how he prepares to wrap his gelid tentacles around the plump humanity of your argument.

Ha! I'd like to know who gave this a thumbs down.

Originally posted by rwingett
Ha! I'd like to know who gave this a thumbs down.

Me. Who were you expecting?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Me. Who were you expecting?

Now I see I misread the post. I thought it said "truly a friend", not "truly a fiend". That one letter changes the meaning considerably.

Originally posted by rwingett
Now I see I misread the post. I thought it said "truly a friend", not "truly a fiend". That one letter changes the meaning considerably.

Yeah, I had to read it several times to spot that.

Something wasn't making sense and it took me a while to work out what it was.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Apart from the wild generalisations in which somehow 'we' are better off than at any time in the past, I could pick this:

So do you dispute that in general (however wild) we are better off?
What would you choose, a modern secular government, or a theocracy from the dark ages?

Well, that is obviously unsatisfactory. The imposition of systems of industrial-era efficiency on societies who hadn't asked for it was unequivocally disastrous for very large numbers of people.
You are clearly looking for specific examples of misuse of power. (and the Hitler example was a cheap shot with no justification, suggesting that you are getting desperate). However I would argue that these examples are little different from the various atrocities perpetrated throughout the ages by leaders for various reasons (including religion) and has very little to do with efficiency and is certainly not a required outcome.

The wise choice sometimes is to be inefficient, using labour-intensive methods to produce food, for example.
And I disagree. If the system is faulty, then fix it, don't break it.

In most cases people do not get the choice to opt into a more 'efficient' way of doing things:
Then either they need to do something about that (revolution / strike / self empowerment ?) or the technocrats in charge need to do something about it. Even your solution is essentially the technocrats (you) making a decision on their behalf, but in my opinion, not the best decision at all.

Another case would be the construction of massive dams in China and Africa.
There is absolutely no doubt that the Kariba dam was one of the best things to happen to Zambia. We are almost entirely dependent on it and two other hydroelectric schemes for our electricity. The damage they have done to the environment and people is far outweighed by the benefits and has caused far less harm and loss of life than alternative energy sources.

Populations displaced by large dam construction number in the millions.
Have you looked into coal mining? And the smoke from coal powered electricity plants? I can assure you coal is much worse than hydroelectric.

I am probably a technocrat (as you are too) but I am perfectly willing to be convinced that I am wrong about efficiency if a reasonable argument can be made. But whenever I have discussed it with rwingett I have not seen him give any justification for the removal of efficiency.

I am not however a capitalist. I am a lot more socialist than the US. I do think workers should be paid more, and I am very much in favor of employee owned businesses. But the fact remains that it takes leaders to create the system and I would rather those leaders be technocrats than power hungry dictators or religious leaders.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Certain topics always result in complete silence from most theist posters. I don't know what it is about this thread that has had that response. Maybe most of the theists here are more fundamentalist than they are comfortable with?

Clearly you haven't read the entire thread, so why don't you go do that?

I won't wait up.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Clearly you haven't read the entire thread, so why don't you go do that?

I won't wait up.

Are you saying you know the reason why theists would shy away from this topic?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you saying you know the reason why theists would shy away from this topic?

A variety of theists ought to embrace this topic, as consonant with their spiritual traditions. I would confidently include members of the Greek Orthodox faith, more tentatively Russian Orthodox, Coptic, Roman Catholic.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So do you dispute that in general (however wild) we are better off?
a) What would you choose, a modern secular government, or a theocracy from the dark ages?

Well, that is obviously unsatisfactory. The imposition of systems of industrial-era efficiency on societies who hadn't asked for it was unequivocally disastrous for very large numbers of p ...[text shortened]... pl would rather those leaders be technocrats than power hungry dictators or religious leaders.

a) Are we better off in general? In material terms: Some are, some aren't. The devil is in the detail. And: given the risk of six degrees of global warming: isn't the very opposite likely to be the case? In terms of natural inheritance (biodiversity) we are very much worse off ... / False dilemma. (Post edit observation: Look at the war in the DRC today. Players include multinational corporations, various insurgent groups, Uganda, Rwanda (Paul Kgame: technocrat supreme!), with stake-holders fanning out across the globe (perhaps your PC contains elements from Congolese mines). None have a religious agenda. Power and profit is the name of the game.)
b) On the contrary: Nazi Germany is a supreme example of managerial efficiency triumphing over humanity. I took care to include other examples (Belgian Congo was arguably worse than Nazi Germany, but received less attention because its victims had (and still have) a lower media profile) but Godwin's Law is merely descriptive, it is no cause for disqualification! The point stands: efficiency is a two-edged sword.
c) It's difficult to reduced complex human interactions into a 'system'. In many cases such systematisation is precisely what broken society in the first place. Of course it's tempting to move everyone onto a collective farm and start all over, but that tends to generate a new set of problems ...
d) Agreed, once the horse has bolted ... The Naxalite insurgency and the current mining strikes in South Africa are both variations on the theme (with efficiency being particularly pertinent in the latter case: efficiency for what? Profits (already as efficient as possibly)? Safety (bosses reluctant to jack up safety due to cost / unfeasibility of automating deep level mining)? Union fees? (unions unwilling to see job cuts in favour of automatisation).
e) Far outweighed by the benefits to whom? Fewer than 20% of Zambians have access to electricity. Then look at the environmental impact of the Three Gorges scheme in China. And the popular resistance to dam-building schemes in Myanmar.
f) Well it's not really as clear cut as that! Coal kills thousands of workers a year and is clearly filthy - so hydro would appear to be a no brainer. However, apart from the massive social and environmental devastation caused by dam construction (especially the new megadams, as built in China and proposed for the Amazon) it seems that dams are significant contributors to global warming! (See: http://www.internationalrivers.org/campaigns/reservoir-emissions; http://cleantechnica.com/2012/08/09/dam-drawdown-an-overlooked-global-warming-culprit/).
g) Efficiency is simply fine-tuning a process as far as possible and is not to be confused with the process itself. So in the Nazi railways example, it was obviously the process that was the problem, not the efficiency of the process. And the process was a problem because of the end it served. So I would call for better processes at the service of wiser ends. And it's probably wisest to go bottom up not top down. When anything, from banks to dams, is too big to fail (Three Gorges: no turning back!), problems can be expected.

I would rather leaders be leaders. Technocrats are not leaders, they are managers. When managers take control, the problem sets in - because managers don't lead, they manage! Leaders innovate and take risks ... Anathema to the manager. - And an observation: the Stalinist collectivisation system was probably the biggest example of technocracy running amok that the world has ever seen. (In that sense Communist Russia was the biggest, latest bloom of the Enlightenment ...) Sharp lessons are to be drawn from it, especially for socialists.

Can't believe I responded to all of your embedded, tentacular posts! You fiend!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
a) False dilemma.

OK, probably not the best posed question. However, it is difficult when dealing with wild generalizations isn't it? So would you prefer a modern working secular government (not a dictatorship in Africa) to a historical theocracy (feel free to pick your favorite). Remember that we are talking about whether life in general has improved and whether a shift from theocracy to secular government is in any way responsible. In fact, the original chalenge was slightly different, it was rwingetts claim that:

... science has kicked the legs from beneath religion (which occasionally did lead people in a moral direction), we are left increasingly with an amoral society.

b) On the contrary: Nazi Germany is a supreme example of managerial efficiency triumphing over humanity.
Nonsense. The Nazi's lost their humanity long before they brought in managerial efficiency. Their allied opponents also made use of managerial efficiency to defeat them. You are confusing the method with the cause.

Belgian Congo was arguably worse than Nazi Germany,
The Belgian Congo is efficient?

In many cases such systematisation is precisely what broken society in the first place.
And I dispute that society was better or more 'fixed' in the past. Please give an example of a pre-broken society.

Of course it's tempting to move everyone onto a collective farm and start all over, but that tends to generate a new set of problems ...
No, it mostly generates the old set of problems that we have tried so hard to get away from. Worse, most people who do that try to cheat and take the benefits of modern civilization with them. Others would argue that it is the farming itself that is the cause of all our problems and we should go back to hunter/gathering. Any takers?

d) Agreed, once the horse has bolted ... The Naxalite insurgency and the current mining strikes in South Africa are both variations on the theme (with efficiency being particularly pertinent in the latter case: efficiency for what? Profits (already as efficient as possibly)? Safety (bosses reluctant to jack up safety due to cost / unfeasibility of automating deep level mining)? Union fees? (unions unwilling to see job cuts in favour of automatisation).
I blame it on inhuman management and racism. The solution is of course treating the workers better. But this has nothing to do with efficiency and everything to do with greed. People will be greedy and mistreat others however efficient or inefficient the processes are. Making mines less efficient will not help. If anything, it will result in lower profits and thus make the management want to find more ways to cut costs (at the expense of the workers.)
The best solution of course is to educate the workers so that they are better able to a) fight for their cause or b) get alternative employment. But that is a long term and expensive solution - nevertheless I believe all governments should be massively increasing their education budgets focussing on the poor.

e) Far outweighed by the benefits to whom? Fewer than 20% of Zambians have access to electricity.
They nevertheless benefit from the electricity. Our GDP is driven almost entirely by copper. About half our electricity goes to the copper mines. So ultimately, most health/education services are driven by Kariba. OK, maybe only 20% of Zambians have access to health/education, but thats a whole lot more than the 0.1% that were moved to make way for the dam. And don't get me started on the main source of protein in Zambia, Kapenta, that comes from Kariba.

Then look at the environmental impact of the Three Gorges scheme in China. And the popular resistance to dam-building schemes in Myanmar.
Sure, lets look at them. (I don't put much store in popular resistance, as that tells us nothing).
Show me statistics on how many people will benefit from the Three Gorges scheme and how many people will suffer. Don't forget to include statistics on coal mining and burning in China. And remember to factor in global warming and the world wide devastation it promises.

.... it seems that dams are significant contributors to global warming!
OK, now you may have a point, I'll look into it.
But lets suppose us technocrats decide that Dams do cause more global warming than coal. What will we do? We will look for the most efficient solution! Checkmate!

So I would call for better processes at the service of wiser ends.
A true technocrat at heart.

And it's probably wisest to go bottom up not top down. When anything, from banks to dams, is too big to fail (Three Gorges: no turning back!), problems can be expected.
I disagree. Problems exist at every scale. Larger scales do not mean larger problems overall. They do mean larger efficiencies.

the Stalinist collectivisation system was probably the biggest example of technocracy running amok that the world has ever seen.
To be honest I know very little about Russian history. Whats your take on China? From what I know of its history, many of its early failings were because the government made too many decisions for political reason and not enough for the benefit of the people.
I also think that you are often confusing technocracy with capitalism.