I'll get to this after the Stone Age debate with Flint is over.  Don't want to give him ideas.

i think as long as you are consistent with your view of what betterment is, the betterment of human civilizations has to equate to the betterment of humanity.

for example, if we define good as free. if the human civilization is more free, then humanity is more free.

the problem is that each individual has different views on betterment; bettering oneself is typically a personal, life long struggle; a civilization with a singular goal is going to go against vast sums of the population's views on what betterment is. you too strongly enforce specific views and everyone becomes very similar and bland, there's a lack of variety; you do the opposite and let people believe what they want and there's anarchy...

Multiple problems with this line of reasoning:

1: Empirical evidence is very difficult to obtain.  Within natural sciences, answers tend to come much easier than in social sciences due to the ability to generate experiments.  If I want to test some hypothesis in laws of natural science, I can generally establish an experiment, using a controlled environment, to prove or disprove the hypothesis.  When I can't generate that experiment, there is room for doubt.

Now look at the social sciences.  Is it really physically possible to create a true experiment, where you can compare a control society to another society, with both being entirely the same with the exception of the one testable condition?  As of now, we have no capability to create most example societies for examination (with the exception of very small communities).  As such, we have to rely on outside historical examples for whatever statistical data we use to back up our claims.

However, all individuals are tainted experiments.  We have huge amounts of historical influences.  There's so many outside influences upon any one society.  All these little influences upon societies, then, become variables that taint the experiment.

2: Your theory scenario assumes that individuals are given as much time as is necessary in order to conduct their debate.  That rarely, if ever, occurs.

3: There is a level of irrationality in humanity: that of argument preference.  At a young age, we're susceptible to accept ideas and believe them more than competing ideas.  That creates a stumbling block against the creation of that end point in discussion.

This is only a small portion of the problem.  Secondary sources, evidence gathering, and other problems create barriers against achieving that final debate outcome.

@avo

"i don't think you can rationally deduce what is bettering yourself"

We're talking about bettering humanity as a whole, not just the individual, or is your point that what is ultimately bettering for the individual is also bettering for humanity as a whole?

@ Zarf

I'm merely showing that there probably is not one single most excellent way to better humanity.  I'm saying that the problem in our world today is, basically, stagnation in bettering humanity due to nations using methods which frustrate each others' methods.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> Does the betterment of civilization necessarily equate the betterment of humanity?

Depends on how one would quantify "Betterment".

As i see it, the betterment of civilization creates a dependency on betterment or progression, humanity then suffers for as civilization progresses the less resilient humanity remains to elements they once endured prior to civilization progression.

Few examples are social progression in reference to violence in most civilizations, we are becoming more, and more pacifistic (Compared to prior generations), we are alienating ourselves from violence, and death for the betterment of our civilization, but at the same time that weakens humanities' resolve to commit violence in the essence of survivalism -

So i guess thats the issue here, Progression vrs Survivalism, the more we go to one, the less we have of the other, but in short, no i do not think progression (betterment) of civilization aids in the betterment of humanity, as it degrades survivability.

It weakens humanity, not civilization.

Civilizations will thrive when the threat of violence is low, typically as an onset of less need to invest resources into populace security, police forces, ect --- resulting in more public programs, less tax dollars to security, less enforcement of garden-variety laws, less pork barreling, a safer community also tends to be worth more, more aesthically pleasing, a happier populace means more work productivity, and a better economy.

But, pacifism weakens HUMANITY.

if the civilization is pacifistic it doesn't mean it won't have the means to control threats, it just means majority of the civilization will be ignorant of it.

Stop thinking of Demolition man (Good movie) -- There will always be a force designated for disabling threats, but it's the size, and resources of that threat that can be an issue, when combined with global pacifism, you run the risk of non-human threats that will not be controllable.

Not necessarily, avo.  Civilization requires a level of development, stability, and interdependence which creates unique risks.

A good modern example is disease spread.  Increasing international commerce and movement of people creates conditions which allow diseases to spread throughout the globe much quicker than they would in a non-developed world.

That may be an example of what xeno is looking for here...

Gimme that 20 seconds back!  X(

@Imperial

"progression (betterment) of civilization aids in the betterment of humanity, as it degrades survivability."

This is all pending the acceptance of your idea that 'betterment' necessarily means 'progression'.  Survivability could just as easily be seen as 'betterment' - that is, improving human beings' capability to survive in our - as most global warming proponents say is - increasingly inhospitable environment.  In that regard, increased survivability would also be considered 'progressive, wouldn't it?

@ Zarf and Avo

"A good modern example is disease spread.  Increasing international commerce and movement of people creates conditions which allow diseases to spread throughout the globe much quicker than they would in a non-developed world.

That may be an example of what xeno is looking for here..."

I'm not looking for any specific examples.  Why do you always assume I have some sort of hidden agenda, Zarf?  All I am asking is whether or not humanity, in it's drive to 'better' civilization is also in fact bettering humanity itself.  I'm also asking if there is even a dichotomy between the two?  Is there a difference between 'civilization' and 'humanity' or are they synonymous? 

If we determine they are not synonymous, we will need to define what 'betterment of humanity' might be and, therefore, what 'betterment of civilization' might be.  Avo's point is that we can't objectively define either terms.

Does anyone disagree?

"if it doesnt and no harm comes from global transportation, then i think it would generally be good for both civilization and humanity"

Perhaps a good test of whether or not civilization and humanity are synonymous, we could brainstorm an event that might be good for civilization but not good for humanity, like, I don't know, ROBOTS!!!!!

@esa

"I am writing this on my cell phone"

The mobile phone is another example of a technology that might be better for civilization than it is for humanity.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> I'm not looking for any specific examples.  Why do you always assume I have some sort of hidden agenda, Zarf?

I'm not accusing you of having hidden agendas.  I simply thought that debate relied upon having empirical examples.  Crazy, isn't it?  X(

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> @ Zarf

"empirical examples" are expected, Zarf.  Now, you're accusing me of not using empirical examples and, therefore, not debating properly.  Yawn.  Why do you always do that? 

What I said, Zarf, , I am not expecting any particular empirical examples.  That is not to say I am not expecting any examples at all.  Of course I am, just not any PARTICULAR example supporting one side of the issue or the other. You simply misinterpreted what I meant.

Look, avo made an argument that any action which benefits humanity would always help civilization.  I presented an example to counter that, and said that when considering whether this was even an issue, you were probably considering examples SUCH AS what I stated, in which the gains to civilization (in this case, constant flow of goods and services across borders) conflicts with desires of humanity (to not be globally susceptible to deadly diseases).

Never in my posts did I say that you were ONLY looking for examples such as this.  My only point was that the consideration of this question was probably brought on by examples, such as what I cited, in which civilization required a direction which runs contrary to human interests.  Stop reading into what I say.  X(