Asklemmy @lemmy.ml Aurelius @lemmy.world 12mo ago

Who in history (either present or in the past) do you think has had the biggest positive impact on humanity?

222

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

222 comments

But without "heroes" who is doing the actual work? Like again: Darwin, Huxley and couple other dudes actually had to make observations, collect data, come up with an, at that time, absurd sounding idea and defend it against societal pressure. And you don't think that they have influenced history and could be replaced by anyone else? I vehemently disagree that the data fits your perspective.
- Sure, if Darwin had been hit by a horse-drawn bus, we'd still have evolution. And probably a YouTube short about "The sailor-naturalist who almost discovered evolution (but died)". It would just be Wallace's theory of natural selection. There you go, one data point.
  
  I was going to bring up some less clear-cut examples, but I guess I should ask what your point is, because I feel like I'm missing something. I think Darwin was a cool guy, but I don't think he was unexpected. Yeah, they did the work, but work is cheap, every peasant in history did work. Why should I care more about Darwin than the people who fed Darwin, and who were themselves (something like) inevitable?
  
  Wait lets back up und make sure we understand each others point:
  
  The way I see your perspective: you say that individual role in history is rather unimportant, we are all just part of some complex process wich leads to an inevitable progress through forces mostly outside individual control. Is it fair representation or did I miss something?
  
  My perspective is: in the end it's individuals/groups who make specific things that contribute to progress, while sometimes the individuals might be replaceable, they sometimes also leave their individual marks on the events or theories they create (Freund vs. Jung for example - if Jung was more influential we might have quite different psychology). And even if they are replaceable, in the end it's still individuals that have to make things happen.
  
  some complex process which leads to an inevitable progress through forces mostly outside individual control.
  
  I actually have no idea where the process is going, and can't rule out the enlightenment as a transitory phase, which scares me more than anything. If you just meant progress as in evolving some way, then yes.
  
  And even if they are replaceable, in the end it’s still individuals that have to make things happen.
  
  And this is where I agree, but don't see the significance. In the end the set of possible outcomes and their probabilities are the same. Is this a free will vs. determinism thing, maybe? Or maybe you're thinking in normative terms, while I'm thinking in in descriptive terms.
  
  I think this more of a perspective thing, that might be related to free will vs. determinism.
  
  In the end the set of possible outcomes and their probabilities are the same.
  
  Lenin or Trotkij taking power leads to rather different outcomes in my opinion.
  
  (I assume you mean Stalin, unless this is a different guy I don't know about)
  
  So far, yeah. I estimated two centuries for individual actions to wash out, though, and that was just one ago. On the other hand, if it would have lead to some complex chain of events ending in certain MAD, that could take millennia to become a human footnote, and would leave extinctions that may not ever be reversed. The 20th century was kind of a metastable point where everything is amplified.
  
  I hear Trotsky was also pretty unpopular. He was Lenin's chosen heir, so I'm guessing he had a chance, but even if Stalin had died at some point pre-revolution it's possible Zinoviev or someone would have taken his place.
  
  No I actually meant Leon Trotsky, just wrote his name from memory. He wanted more the Cambodian way of communism.
  
  So far, yeah. I estimated two centuries for individual actions to wash out
  
  Even if I would accept that estimation, in those two hundred years the lives of many humans are greatly impacted, which is for me all that matters in the end. Since I like to view history from human point of view this seem pretty relevant. If you take an impartial abstract point of view - than nothing really matters since the universe will disappear anyway at some point. Maybe that's the difference in our perception.
  
  Yeah, Trotsky vs. Stalin. You wrote Lenin, who you probably know was a predecessor to both of those two rivals, and who died of apparent natural causes related to old age shortly after the revolution.
  
  Even if I would accept that estimation, in those two hundred years the lives of many humans are greatly impacted, which is for me all that matters in the end.
  
  Oh absolutely! We're not totally powerless, just nearly. In some ways that's harder, because we still have to try if there are some things we can make better.
  
  In real life, I do activism, and I've been a vegetarian for years. What this has changed is that I focus more on the quiet background side of activism, and I don't stress out about being super ambitious. If I had money, I'd do philanthropy. If I was born into an autocracy, I'd just have to settle for being kind to whoever I come across, and supporting the less-terrible side when, outside of my control, wartime or revolution comes. And sometimes, I also try and contribute to the discussion intellectually.
  
  The same would apply if I had been born Charles Darwin. I'm not Darwin, though, and the only thing I control are my own actions. He's just a part of history, like everyone else in that era. Many argue about the free will of individuals, but large groups definitely have no free will. For example, advertising and political campaigning, major industries, are built on top of that fact.

222 comments