Hypothetical Question... new human civilisation

simu

If you and a bunch of toddlers were the only survivors of a disaster that wiped out the rest of the human race and you had to raise these toddlers to become the Adams and Eves of a new human society, what knowledge would you pass on to them? Would there be ideas from our present civilisation you woud not mention to them for fear of negatively affecting this "New Eden"? What sort of ethical ideas would you try to pass on to them? Which myths and stories of our present-day world, if any?

Just wondering!

Splinter

id pass on that burberry cloth is never EVER to be used for anything

Sleepy

Interesting thought simu, and one that deserves far more than a quick straw poll of posts on AH... but anyways my contributions:

They'd be fed a constant diet of good music, Boyzone, Britney Spears etc. would be wiped from the face of the planet.
There would be no God, Gods or religion of any kind.
The central law of society would be 'do no harm'.

And I'd try to educate them about the dangers of in-breeding

The_Minister

simu wrote:

If you and a bunch of toddlers were the only survivors of a disaster that wiped out the rest of the human race and you had to raise these toddlers to become the Adams and Eves of a new human society, what knowledge would you pass on to them? Would there be ideas from our present civilisation you woud not mention to them for fear of negatively affecting this "New Eden"? What sort of ethical ideas would you try to pass on to them? Which myths and stories of our present-day world, if any?

Just wondering!

I would give them a copy of every book by Adam Smith and watch the fun begin:)

super_furry

I'd train them as gladiators then make them fight to the death for my pleasure.

The_Minister

Sleepy wrote:

They'd be fed a constant diet of good music, Boyzone, Britney Spears etc. would be wiped from the face of the planet.

Beethoven 24/7

Sleepy wrote:

There would be no God, Gods or religion of any kind.

Wouldn't they all start committing suicide?

Sleepy wrote:

The central law of society would be 'do no harm'.

Mill's law is flawed. A better one is not to harm any people who don't deserve it.

pyramuid man

I would tell them not to eat yellow snow.
Alternatively I would never mention religion and see the chaos unfold.

Sleepy

Firespinner wrote:

Wouldn't they all start committing suicide?

Uhm, why?

TBH, the idea would be to raise them to be strong enough, sensible enough people not to need the crutch that religion provides to the weak and stupid.

R-KEANE

Sleepy wrote:

Uhm, why?

TBH, the idea would be to raise them to be strong enough, sensible enough people not to need the crutch that religion provides to the weak and stupid.

well thats ignorant. i think you'd have to spend your life studying all religions everywhere in order to be able to make a statement like that without sounding ignorant.

Faith

I'd teach them all about evolution, with no mention of creationism or intelligent design.

Kiith

dont you need like 12 different people (i.e no relation) to succesfully breed a new civilisation? i mean without inbreeding going on, and a bunch of redneck's popping out? dunno where i heard that, but i'm *fairly* sure i did...

anyway, i'd leave religion out, as well as some of the darker aspects of human nature (i.e murder, cannibals, zombies, chuck norris etc...). teach them to be nice, well behaved (for the most part) people....actually scrap that....i'd train them to think that they were helper monkeys.

DANCE MOJO DANCE!!!

toiletduck

I'd teach them about the many adventures of the A-Team.

I'd give them a copy of "A theory of justice" by John Rawls.

kurisu

hmm you could teach them everything but the concept of ownership, that could create an interesting civilisation.

hullaballoo

I would teach them that money is unnecessary.

For the most part, I'm a capitalist in the way I view the world (at least, that is the label people would generally give me, given my beliefs on economics and politics), but in a sort of paradoxical way, I think that the world would be an entirely better place without money.

The way I look at it is that everybody could just do what they do, be it hair dressing, sheep farming, law pronouncing, accounting etc. and not charge anybody for it. Thus, if I need items for subsistance, I go down to the supermarket, take what I need from the shelves, and leave the supermarket. Then, if the proprietor of the supermarket needs legal assistance for some reason, then I would do it for him, without a fee.

This would work but for one major issue - the demand for certain jobs (if all were equally rewarding) would drop. Very few people would want to become accountants, for example, if they didn't have money as a driver.

Other than that, it would solve a great deal of problems that we have as a society, and it would also mean that Muslims would regard us in higher esteem, which would be a good thing in my opinion.

R-KEANE

hullaballoo wrote:

I would teach them that money is unnecessary.

For the most part, I'm a capitalist in the way I view the world (at least, that is the label people would generally give me, given my beliefs on economics and politics), but in a sort of paradoxical way, I think that the world would be an entirely better place without money.

The way I look at it is that everybody could just do what they do, be it hair dressing, sheep farming, law pronouncing, accounting etc. and not charge anybody for it. Thus, if I need items for subsistance, I go down to the supermarket, take what I need from the shelves, and leave the supermarket. Then, if the proprietor of the supermarket needs legal assistance for some reason, then I would do it for him, without a fee.

This would work but for one major issue - the demand for certain jobs (if all were equally rewarding) would drop. Very few people would want to become accountants, for example, if they didn't have money as a driver.

Other than that, it would solve a great deal of problems that we have as a society, and it would also mean that Muslims would regard us in higher esteem, which would be a good thing in my opinion.

It would probably start off like that but i think people are instinctively selfish and will weigh up the difference between giving someone some fruit and cleaning out a gutter.

hullaballoo

Beat the selfish instinct out of them with a stick then.

I'm not instinctively selfish, otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to hypothesise the above. I originally came up with that idea when I was about 8. Of course, I've added the odd frill since then, but I grasped the basic concept at a very young age.

R-KEANE

hullaballoo wrote:

Beat the selfish instinct out of them with a stick then.

I'm not instinctively selfish, otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to hypothesise the above. I originally came up with that idea when I was about 8. Of course, I've added the odd frill since then, but I grasped the basic concept at a very young age.

perhaps, it was only a theory but i beleive it. people are selfish about everything. i bet you have been selfish at some time in your life

coffee_cake

R-KEANE wrote:

perhaps, it was only a theory but i beleive it. people are selfish about everything. i bet you have been selfish at some time in your life

So if that's true, we should just give up altogether? :rolleyes:

hullaballoo

Only to prevent myself becoming a victim of someone else's selfishness (or other trait as a result of a lack of scruples).

R-KEANE

bluewolf wrote:

So if that's true, we should just give up altogether? :rolleyes:

huh? i never said that. selfishness keeps businesses making money, keeps families together. it does alot of good aswell as alot of bad.

R-KEANE

hullaballoo wrote:

Only to prevent myself becoming a victim of someone else's selfishness (or other trait as a result of a lack of scruples).

i doubt it. have you never not let a car into your lane or something small like that?

hullaballoo

No, not intentionally. I always hold doors open and let people go before me etc. I'm not selfish, but I can still be a prick.

kurisu

well you certainly cant beat the selfishness out of them with a stick , thats what stalin tried (metaphoricaly , evil dictator) and it just hurts everyone

Sleepy

R-KEANE wrote:

well thats ignorant. i think you'd have to spend your life studying all religions everywhere in order to be able to make a statement like that without sounding ignorant.

My view (extremely sceptical agnostic) comes from an educated understanding of logic. Belief in a religion comes from either the ignorance of, or dismissal of (usually through a fear of life not holding some 'purpose'), common sense and logic. I don't see how my view is the ignorant one tbh.

Back on topic - I would try to foster a culture where learning and the quest for knowledge were things to strive for.

nesf

Deleted User wrote:

I'd give them a copy of "A theory of justice" by John Rawls.

Really? That strikes me as a truly bad idea.

nesf

hullaballoo wrote:

I would teach them that money is unnecessary.

For the most part, I'm a capitalist in the way I view the world (at least, that is the label people would generally give me, given my beliefs on economics and politics), but in a sort of paradoxical way, I think that the world would be an entirely better place without money.

The way I look at it is that everybody could just do what they do, be it hair dressing, sheep farming, law pronouncing, accounting etc. and not charge anybody for it. Thus, if I need items for subsistance, I go down to the supermarket, take what I need from the shelves, and leave the supermarket. Then, if the proprietor of the supermarket needs legal assistance for some reason, then I would do it for him, without a fee.

This would work but for one major issue - the demand for certain jobs (if all were equally rewarding) would drop. Very few people would want to become accountants, for example, if they didn't have money as a driver.

Other than that, it would solve a great deal of problems that we have as a society, and it would also mean that Muslims would regard us in higher esteem, which would be a good thing in my opinion.

That runs into severe problems. As already pointed out, some jobs require some extent of inequality in rewards due to their nature. Or limited positions. Who decides who is a farmer and who is a doctor? etc.

hullaballoo

nesf wrote:

That runs into severe problems. As already pointed out, some jobs require some extent of inequality in rewards due to their nature. Or limited positions. Who decides who is a farmer and who is a doctor? etc.

Yeah, I'd already acknowledged that, it is a major flaw in the idea alright. Especially because the only realistic way to deal with it would be to assign jobs to certain lineages for example, or certain regions. I'd be completely against that as well, because people should always get to choose.

There is one saving grace though. Only certain people are intellectually suited to certain jobs - I mean, there would still be exams, and in that sense, careers would be self-selecting. If people were to work towards their aptitudes, rather than what they think is prestigious, then they'd be happier too. (They wouldn't work towards what is prestigious, because all jobs would have equal status, so job prestige would be a moot point.)

Sleepy

But surely some jobs will always have prestige due to the nature of the job itself? For instance, a doctor will always be looked up to more than a box maker because he saves lives whilst the box maker, well, just makes boxes...

The Sweeper

I would teach them science and show them nature.

Humanity has thousands of years of experience making up religion for itself.

nesf

hullaballoo wrote:

Yeah, I'd already acknowledged that, it is a major flaw in the idea alright. Especially because the only realistic way to deal with it would be to assign jobs to certain lineages for example, or certain regions. I'd be completely against that as well, because people should always get to choose.

But, in theory, choice is in our present day system. The Government will pay for my education in any subject I want, regardless of my background. They'll even give me a stipend towards living expenses if my family earns below a certain level or if I come from a certain area.

You'll find though that some people will still not work though. Essentially another large issue in your idea is the lack of an incentive to work. If I can just walk in and pick up a loaf of bread or two regardless of what I am doing, why would I work at all? What is there to provide me with a reason to work hard and commit myself to labour? A sense of social duty? It wouldn't work.

hullaballoo wrote:

There is one saving grace though. Only certain people are intellectually suited to certain jobs - I mean, there would still be exams, and in that sense, careers would be self-selecting. If people were to work towards their aptitudes, rather than what they think is prestigious, then they'd be happier too. (They wouldn't work towards what is prestigious, because all jobs would have equal status, so job prestige would be a moot point.)

Ahh, but those who set the tests may set them in, and mark them, in such a way as to streamline jobs towards certain social groups, in theory.


I think that money, is to some extent, necessary in a society just to simplify barter. The issues with fiat money systems still exist though. Perhaps you'd be happier with a nice middle ground such as Complementary Currency or similar.