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

R-KEANE

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.

Crucifix

I remember Feynman basically answered this question, and his answer was a short but informative sentance about the nature of matter. I'd probably go with something similar.

Jeeves

Just a few thoughts on this matter. How exaxctly would you passs on this information to this new civilisation? Would you not in fact be creating a new religion by giving them a philosophy,a view or a way of life to follow. Would you not infact become a God, and they would naturally need to have faith that yours is truly the rightous path. Most religions bar satanic ones preach, love,peace, selfnesses, and non violence, they do not preach hate, bigotry, greed ,extremism and violence this is truly a human element. From a christianity point of few God did not bomb the tax-man, he had dinner with him in order to help him. Secondly money cannot get up and shoot a person, it cannot stab, poison and butcher people, its the human element again that provides such actions.
Men and women of science maybe you hold the answer, you only have logic, facts, the truth which could save man kindness from disease of body and mind.
You can break everything down to an atomic level, the following quote i think speaks for itself although further observations are available online, see if science and logic can reason, how this possibly benefited man kind?

"A bright light filled the plane," wrote Lt. Col. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb. "We turned back to look at Hiroshima. The city was hidden by that awful cloud...boiling up, mushrooming." For a moment, no one spoke. Then everyone was talking. "Look at that! Look at that! Look at that!" exclaimed the co-pilot, Robert Lewis, pounding on Tibbets's shoulder. Lewis said he could taste atomic fission; it tasted like lead. Then he turned away to write in his journal. "My God," he asked himself, "what have we done?" (special report, "Hiroshima: August 6, 1945")
note: Paul Tibbets was Colonel, not "Lt. Colonel," when he was the pilot of the Enola Gay.

My point is that some of the suggestions have lead to some of mans biggest problems, how could we possibly condemn another generation, i have no solutions to this riddle, i think that it might be safer to give them nothing until we solve this human flaw. The odds are stacked in there favour if they recieve nothing from us, and leave them to fate.

Sleepy

So, we should let them go forth on their own path, to start off as cavemen and progress through thousands of years of warfare instead of educating them about human history and why it's not a good idea to go down the path of war?

I completely disagree with the notion that you would become a god, unless you started claiming to have risen from the dead and started performing magic tricks and declaring them miracles and even then you wouldn't be a god, you'd be a hoax. Although judging from the success of that chap two thousand years ago it may be as good as the same thing.

Oh, and btw, from a christianity point of view, God is a pretty vengeful and violent figure if you read your old testament...

Jeeves

Well if you want to look at it that way, you believe that they would go through years of warfare in their evolution as we did( and we still have not learned from our mistakes) so then you must believe that any new civilisation must be fated to go through this process of evoloution, thus you cannot stop this process even with education. Sorry that might not be the clearest

Do we not at this stage in our evolution, not have thousands of years
of experience in warfare, we do not have to be taughts the effects of warfare, we can see the effects presently everyday in our lives and a full history to back it up. So in saying that, why are we still at war. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_date_of_last_war) follow this link to see how many countries are currently at war, we have learned nothing, we cannot teach our fellow man not to go to war, tell me how do expect to teach a new civilisation that war is a bad idea when we with experience cannot see it is a bad idea.

Also just another clarification on the last posts, maybe i was wrong to suggest you would be a "god" but you at least would become a figure head or leader of a philosophy in providing a source of information and maybe im wrong,which i very well could be ,but i thought the prophet Mohammed was regarded as a God or leader by the muslim faith but i believe he never claimed to brought back from the dead. Jesus Christ was brought back from the dead, his father the almighty was never in human form to be brought back to life.

Finally, all i am saying is that to interfere would maybe suggest that we have founded the perfect world which is not strictly true, we are still in the process of our own evolution. If we founded the perfect world without hate, greed and war and learned to live in peace then we would truly have a legacy to leave behind.

Dades

Jeeves wrote:

i thought the prophet Mohammed was regarded as a God or leader by the muslim faith but i believe he never claimed to brought back from the dead.

AFAIK he was 'only' a prophet to the God of Islam (and Christianity and Judaism) - not himself one.

I don't think it would really matter what you taught the survivors. Once they are old enough, they will think for themselves and their personal traits will kick in. Some will be passive, some will be aggressive, some will seek power, some money etc. etc.

Wiping out the current crop of civilisation won't wipe the human condition we are afflicted with.

I suppose a reading of The Lord of the Flies would be a start though.

Mortmain

I think that, if my conscience could allow me, I'd actually quite like to try and experiment. Drawing upon the preceeding discussion, i'd split them into two tribes on opposite sides of the land and erect an impassable, impenetrable barrier. I would provide the necessities for life to each tribe on a unforseen basis until they were old enough to fend for themselves. In the meantime, I would provide one tribe with Dan Brown, Cecelia Aherne and John Grisham books, MTV 24/7, Westlife CD's, taped copies of American Idol and copies of heat magazine ("Celebrity Sweat Patches" editions). The second TRibe would be provided with all the greatest philosophical and literary works known to man. I'd watch as each tribe developed and introduce them to each other when they turned 21 - I do think it would prove most interesting.

Dades

Mortmain wrote:

The second TRibe would be provided with all the greatest philosophical and literary works known to man.

That would indeed be an interesting experiment, although if I might quote a great literary work myself - "There is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast."

Personally I'd rather be on the low-brow side of the wall until I was 21.

Asiaprod

simu wrote:

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!

Buddhist philosophy and compassion. No Gods, not even one little one. The tooth Fairy for the sake of the kids wouild be ok.

Zulu

Great question. I'd try to create as altruistic a society as possiable. ...fu(k knows how I wouldn't screw it up, but I'd give it a shot.

nesf

Mortmain wrote:

I think that, if my conscience could allow me, I'd actually quite like to try and experiment. Drawing upon the preceeding discussion, i'd split them into two tribes on opposite sides of the land and erect an impassable, impenetrable barrier. I would provide the necessities for life to each tribe on a unforseen basis until they were old enough to fend for themselves. In the meantime, I would provide one tribe with Dan Brown, Cecelia Aherne and John Grisham books, MTV 24/7, Westlife CD's, taped copies of American Idol and copies of heat magazine ("Celebrity Sweat Patches" editions). The second TRibe would be provided with all the greatest philosophical and literary works known to man. I'd watch as each tribe developed and introduce them to each other when they turned 21 - I do think it would prove most interesting.

That essentially is happening today tbh. The results are not pretty. Balance is key, etc.

Freelancer

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!

Interestingly I've come across a relatively obscure low budget BBC series from the 70s called "survivors". It ran for about 33 episodes (donkeys for BBC in the 70s) and was written by Terry Nation (wrote alot of doctor who (including inventing the daleks) Blake 7, and er, produced Mc Guvyer)

The basic premise is a cataclysmic plague has decimated the planet, and the population of Britain is reduced to maybe 10,000 people. All the remnants of society exist, cars, shops, etc, but the cities and even small towns are pretty much uninhabitable due to stench, and rotting corpses and associate diseases they bring.

Some survivors grab what they can and hunker down, protecting what they have and plunder, some go out try and build communities.

So far so ho hum. But it does get philosophical, there are survivors who are talking about what happens to the next generation and the one after, one theorises that within two or three generations they'd be reduced to primitive agrarian society.

Anyway, onto the actual point of the debate. Suppose there was such a calamity and what would or could you teach.

Medicine? A necessity surely, but if a doctor survived, could he teach outside his speciality? Medicine has been come a rarefied and specialised diverse set of skills. What if the only doctor who survived was a radiologist? What could they teach about surgery? Even a surgeon needs a specialised team around them to work, and they may fully understand how everyone else operates, but could they teach someone surgery, someone else anesthesiology, etc etc. Hell could a modern doctor make medicine like aspirin or antibiotics from scratch? I'm sure he could but it would be a lifetime achievement for one doctor to play every role in a modern hospital, could he pass on that knowledge?

Ditto an engineer. He could teach civil engineering, construction etc. But does he know much about architecture? For that matter his he needs lime, cement, tools. What do you do when the last hammer or axe breaks? Does he know how to dig for ore? How to work in a mine? How to smelt? Two or three generations after such a disaster, knowing how to be a modern mechanic is not going to help you, knowing how to be a blacksmith will.

My point is, we've reach such a critical mass in the specialisation of our knowledge, that it'd be impossible for you or I to teach the very fundamentals of our society, so in the case above that you are suggesting I'd ditch the Foucault, Voltaire and the bible, and start teaching them to read, and how to snare rabbits, and let them worry about the existentially crap, when their tummies are full around the open fire.

I'm aware that this more of a philosophical question about what are the good and bad points of modern society, I'd just raise an interesting point about societly codependence.

Mortmain

Freelancer wrote:

Interestingly I've come across a relatively obscure low budget BBC series from the 70s called "survivors". It ran for about 33 episodes (donkeys for BBC in the 70s) and was written by Terry Nation (wrote alot of doctor who (including inventing the daleks) Blake 7, and er, produced Mc Guvyer)

The basic premise is a cataclysmic plague has decimated the planet, and the population of Britain is reduced to maybe 10,000 people. All the remnants of society exist, cars, shops, etc, but the cities and even small towns are pretty much uninhabitable due to stench, and rotting corpses and associate diseases they bring.

Some survivors grab what they can and hunker down, protecting what they have and plunder, some go out try and build communities.

So far so ho hum. But it does get philosophical, there are survivors who are talking about what happens to the next generation and the one after, one theorises that within two or three generations they'd be reduced to primitive agrarian society.

Anyway, onto the actual point of the debate. Suppose there was such a calamity and what would or could you teach.

Medicine? A necessity surely, but if a doctor survived, could he teach outside his speciality? Medicine has been come a rarefied and specialised diverse set of skills. What if the only doctor who survived was a radiologist? What could they teach about surgery? Even a surgeon needs a specialised team around them to work, and they may fully understand how everyone else operates, but could they teach someone surgery, someone else anesthesiology, etc etc. Hell could a modern doctor make medicine like aspirin or antibiotics from scratch? I'm sure he could but it would be a lifetime achievement for one doctor to play every role in a modern hospital, could he pass on that knowledge?

Ditto an engineer. He could teach civil engineering, construction etc. But does he know much about architecture? For that matter his he needs lime, cement, tools. What do you do when the last hammer or axe breaks? Does he know how to dig for ore? How to work in a mine? How to smelt? Two or three generations after such a disaster, knowing how to be a modern mechanic is not going to help you, knowing how to be a blacksmith will.

My point is, we've reach such a critical mass in the specialisation of our knowledge, that it'd be impossible for you or I to teach the very fundamentals of our society, so in the case above that you are suggesting I'd ditch the Foucault, Voltaire and the bible, and start teaching them to read, and how to snare rabbits, and let them worry about the existentially crap, when their tummies are full around the open fire.

I'm aware that this more of a philosophical question about what are the good and bad points of modern society, I'd just raise an interesting point about societly codependence.

I doubt that we would revert back to being a primitive agrarian society, though I see your point. The fact that any survivor would be aware of what medicine/engineering/electronics etc. was capable of at one stage would be enough to catapultsociety forward in far larger bounds then those initially taken.

As regards ditching the Voltaire etc. - what would you reccommend teaching people to read - Anne and Barry will only bring one so far and then we need to move forward.

I think the essential thing would be to do, show or teach something that would inspire people to be more than just the some of their parts - I think that this is what essentially makes us human.

Mortmain

nesf wrote:

That essentially is happening today tbh. The results are not pretty. Balance is key, etc.

I don't agree with you - there is no isolation in today's society. Those who wish to immerse themselves in the world of academia cannot avoid being exposed to pop culture. Those who wish only to immerse themselves in pop culture have academia thrust upon them in school. Though they may wish to distance themselves from it, they are nonetheless aware that society deems it desirable to be so orientated. The isolation of the two groups would be the key - would the two groups develop different skill sets, or the same with differing levels of expertise?

Freelancer

Mortmain wrote:

I doubt that we would revert back to being a primitive agrarian society, though I see your point. The fact that any survivor would be aware of what medicine/engineering/electronics etc. was capable of at one stage would be enough to catapultsociety forward in far larger bounds then those initially taken.

Well yeah, I'm aware of lots of things, we just don't understand them to degree that would be of any use. Take penicillin, I understand the principle of how it was found, what it does, how it's important. And I suppose if you stuck me in a working laboratory I could try and figure out how it works. I understand how DNA works, I'm just not sure I could explain RNA sequences to a group of children.

So unless you actually went out and talk children everything and I mean everything from mechanics to physics to algebra, to animal husbandry, to horticulture, to meteorology, to metallurgy that knowledge will just slip away. These children won't be able to teach their children.

For at least a few generations of society there will be a diminishing return on education, society won't advance on the previous generations knowledge, society will have to distill and refine what is necessary for survival from the vast array of knowledge we possess.

At the same time, the resources left over from our society will start to dwindle, and the the society will have to spend more time and energy becoming self sustainable. Machinery will have rusted and petrol will have gone, and these your children's children will be plowing fields with horses.

Now if you've not given them an education in horticulture, and metrology they're screwed. Furthermore if you've not given them an education in chemistry, biology and pharmacy, and say a potato blight happens they're really screwed.

You've got three or four of the grandkids trying to experiment to make pesticides that they've only read about in books. They're using the looted remains of laboratories, but through entropy and decay, they've got to go further and further afield to find basic things like glass beaker. Why don't they make more? Because you forgot to teach them how to make glass.....

As regards ditching the Voltaire etc. - what would you reccommend teaching people to read - Anne and Barry will only bring one so far and then we need to move forward.

I think the essential thing would be to do, show or teach something that would inspire people to be more than just the some of their parts - I think that this is what essentially makes us human.

Obviously the classics, and everyone needs to read to a high standard, but I think this situation would be alot bleaker then this social experiment makes out.

rsynnott

pyramuid man wrote:

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

Er, what? What chaos would this be? In any case, we know that people are perfectly capable of making up religions all on their own.

Freelancer wrote:

Ditto an engineer. He could teach civil engineering, construction etc. But does he know much about architecture? For that matter his he needs lime, cement, tools. What do you do when the last hammer or axe breaks? Does he know how to dig for ore? How to work in a mine? How to smelt? Two or three generations after such a disaster, knowing how to be a modern mechanic is not going to help you, knowing how to be a blacksmith will.

Very true. Our society is vastly dependent on a huge industrial base.

Catsmokinpot

Sleepy wrote:

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

who are you to instill in them the belief that there is no god? let them make their own decision. instilling beliefs into people wether the belief is that god does exist or god doesnt is a bad idea and bring a whole host of problems

eg. scientologists dont believe in god yet theyre a multimillion dollar brainwashing society, whos out to get everyone who doesnt follow thier way of thinking

heres what id do, give them a good lesson in history, about everything that has happened to lead up to this point. then id teach them. how to defend themselves, how to defend others, how to hunt, how to gather, how to make fire, how to build a shelter, that life isnt always fair, not to kill, not to steal, not to rape. basic principals and then let them off to make thier own decisions about the rest of it.

i would also teach them not to hold on to their opinions so dearly, and not to take too much meaning out of what others have said in the past. as this brings a whole host of religios + social + scientific problems

i would love to bring up a society based on ideas and not beliefs

Sleepy

Catsmokinpot - while you say you'd like a society based on ideas and not beliefs, I'd like one where thought and governance were based on logic and common sense instead of superstition and fear. I think a society without any religion would be more sensible, peaceful and better run than one with one. It's been the justification for far too many evils to be considered desirable in society imho.

Catsmokinpot

Sleepy wrote:

Catsmokinpot - while you say you'd like a society based on ideas and not beliefs, I'd like one where thought and governance were based on logic and common sense instead of superstition and fear. I think a society without any religion would be more sensible, peaceful and better run than one with one. It's been the justification for far too many evils to be considered desirable in society imho.

every decent belief you have that you think is right came from the bible, wether we like it or not, religion has taught us alot. religion is when man is trying to be good.

alot of people take their own meaning out of things, they hold on too much to what others have said and try to make it doctrine, then religion gets misconstrued, distorted, and wrecked. its not religion at fault its mans belief that he is special/that he is right that wrecks it. its so easy for man to blame his problems on a thing instead of himself. you teaching a bunch of toddlers that there is no god is just as bad as saying that there is one.

that sort of a belief is a personal one. when i bring my kids up im going to teach them all about religion, not just about catholicism which seems to be the basis of all irish religion classes (again because man has built the belief that he is right and that others are wrong even in this brewing "multicultural" society), but about every religion then let him/her make his own mind up. but remind him all the way along that he is not right, because at the end of the day that belief is a stab in the dark.

Catsmokinpot

Catsmokinpot wrote:

every decent belief you have that you think is right came from the bible

What the hell are you on about?

rsynnott

Catsmokinpot wrote:

every decent belief you have that you think is right came from the bible, wether we like it or not, religion has taught us alot. religion is when man is trying to be good.

I see. Most of the decent beliefs in the bible basically involve not harming others; they are common-sense and contribute to a stable and happy society. All other major religions have similar core values; people seem inclined to think of them on their own. They are in no way dependent on belief in a god or gods. It's the crap they are accompanied by that makes religion dangerous. "Thou shalt not kill" - common sense. Rules about mixing fabrics, or stoning homosexuals, or not eating peas on passover, erm, no. Silly.

Secular humanism encompasses basic human decency, without the nonsense.