Thank you for an interesting article. I would like to share my thoughts, if I may.
The ability to learn and remember has its evolutionary advantages – it enables group members to predict the future and adapt to new situations. However, it seems that every now and then the ruling western elite goes through a collective retrograde amnesia (difficulty in retrieving old memories).
Group remembering is a constructive process, more a negotiation within a group – an agreement partly based on lived experience. Each individual remembers only a part of what a group needs to know. Some events are stored, others are discarded. A collective memory is based on consensus. Frequently renegotiated. An assumption that we agree on common values is necessary.
Whenever a person leaves a group, a memory is lost. Knowledge is lost. When a generation, such as those who experienced the horrors of war, depart over time, those left behind try to enhance cohesion. Still, if the ruling elite separates itself from the rest of society and demands obedience, social norms are not internalised. When there is no feeling of belonging, there is no motivation. So, all the new elite has are platitudes (‘we are in it together’). Those who never endured suffering impose ‘consensus’ onto others. If led by Machiavelians, they will feed each other’s ignorance, arrogance, and delusions. Platitudes lower self-reflection and humbleness (a personality trait important in testing (HEXACO) for indicators of personality disorders, such as the Dark triad), which the new elite sees as a weakness.
Complex emotions, such as guilt, shame, and pride, most children develop by about age three, and their emergence depends, in part, on cognitive development. Due to our ability to reflect, even at such a young age, we learn about ourselves and the world. To consider another’s point of view is essential for developing empathy. This ability is later crucial in developing self-awareness and healthy skepticism.
Loneliness reigns over individualism. In a world of greed, where everything is a commodity, distrust impacts social cohesion and social ability to predict the future and adapt to a new environment. Hence, society’s survival is compromised.
Science fiction literature might provide an interesting backdrop to the practical question. My, admittedly limited, understanding of the genre is that most future universes depict two 'truths' coming into conflict. Ultimately, one truth is proved to be 'right'. In reality, though, one way of looking at it is that the hegemony simply shifts from one dominating view to another. I wonder if, within this, lies an element of human nature that humility and tolerance will never overcome.
Herman Hesse's The Glass Bead Game might provide potentially interesting literary insight. While set in the future, it isn't really science fiction. But it might provide a counterpoint to your musings about the internet.
Thank you for an interesting article. I would like to share my thoughts, if I may.
The ability to learn and remember has its evolutionary advantages – it enables group members to predict the future and adapt to new situations. However, it seems that every now and then the ruling western elite goes through a collective retrograde amnesia (difficulty in retrieving old memories).
Group remembering is a constructive process, more a negotiation within a group – an agreement partly based on lived experience. Each individual remembers only a part of what a group needs to know. Some events are stored, others are discarded. A collective memory is based on consensus. Frequently renegotiated. An assumption that we agree on common values is necessary.
Whenever a person leaves a group, a memory is lost. Knowledge is lost. When a generation, such as those who experienced the horrors of war, depart over time, those left behind try to enhance cohesion. Still, if the ruling elite separates itself from the rest of society and demands obedience, social norms are not internalised. When there is no feeling of belonging, there is no motivation. So, all the new elite has are platitudes (‘we are in it together’). Those who never endured suffering impose ‘consensus’ onto others. If led by Machiavelians, they will feed each other’s ignorance, arrogance, and delusions. Platitudes lower self-reflection and humbleness (a personality trait important in testing (HEXACO) for indicators of personality disorders, such as the Dark triad), which the new elite sees as a weakness.
Complex emotions, such as guilt, shame, and pride, most children develop by about age three, and their emergence depends, in part, on cognitive development. Due to our ability to reflect, even at such a young age, we learn about ourselves and the world. To consider another’s point of view is essential for developing empathy. This ability is later crucial in developing self-awareness and healthy skepticism.
Loneliness reigns over individualism. In a world of greed, where everything is a commodity, distrust impacts social cohesion and social ability to predict the future and adapt to a new environment. Hence, society’s survival is compromised.
Well, how I am supposed to disagree with that ;-)
Science fiction literature might provide an interesting backdrop to the practical question. My, admittedly limited, understanding of the genre is that most future universes depict two 'truths' coming into conflict. Ultimately, one truth is proved to be 'right'. In reality, though, one way of looking at it is that the hegemony simply shifts from one dominating view to another. I wonder if, within this, lies an element of human nature that humility and tolerance will never overcome.
Herman Hesse's The Glass Bead Game might provide potentially interesting literary insight. While set in the future, it isn't really science fiction. But it might provide a counterpoint to your musings about the internet.