Perhaps not 'bred better' but certainly a lot more of the global population has access to a lot more info than in the past, and we can communicate more, as you and I are demonstrating now, on this thread. — universeness

Make up your mind what you're measuring, human evolution or access to satellites? They don't progress in the time-frame or scale.

I am not such a fan as gandhi was, in HIS notion of love, as he employs it above, but I fully agree with his use of 'truth' above. — universeness

At what points in history have which 'truths' won what conflicts?

The Genus Homo never even arrived until 9:25pm on Dec 31st! — universeness

Give us a freakin chance Vera!!!!!! — universeness

OK You have a minute and a half
Take all the time the universe will give you. Just don't expect me to believe we're bred better now than we were 10,000 years ago. Or this hopeful, wishful, wistful wisp of BS:

When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. — universeness

There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. — universeness

Of course that's true. Equally of bad kings and good presidents, bad presidents and good kings; honest preachers and corrupt judges, corrupt preachers and honest judges. Maybe truth and love will triumph in the end, but I don't remember many instances of it happening in history I've read or witnessed.

I am not sure that would have any value because one man does not have that much power compared to the cultures that make up the US or any nation. — Athena

That one man is the one the entire nation, according its its acknowledged, sworn-by and much vaunted constitution, by its established electoral process, through the changes of its culture, selected to lead the whole nation and represent it among the world's nations.

I sure have no idea what you are talking about or think is important. I am thinking culture and human nature. You appear to be thinking politics. — Athena

I wot not where these two entities can be severed.

You may have being spiritual confused with religion? — Athena

As do many religious and spiritual people. I don't know what any of them mean by it.
How I used them was: materialistic people are concerned with possessions and social status; spiritualistic ones are concerned with the personal 'soul' or 'essence' and its relation to the supernatural.

Altruism even exists in the animal world. — universeness

That's in a whole different category from political systems and ideologies. All of the same drives exist the rest of the animal world that exist in humans - it's just that most social animals have mechanism to control these, so that opne overweening drive should not crowd out expression of the others. Primitive human societies consciously invented social controls against hubris, vanity, greed and lust for power. Civilized codes of morality and law are intended to do much the same, but are far less effective, or else have the opposite effect in stratified, stupefied organizations.

Bad people exist in all cultures, modern and ancient but I DO think that they CAN be more easily identified and held to account today, than in the past. — universeness

What's the difference, if they're followed anyway - whether in spite of their badness or because of it?

The child is born with the "desire to believe", and this cannot be properly represented as the "tabula rasa" because something has to support this capacity the capacity to actually believe. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's a survival machine. In order to survive, it requires information; it must construct a mental model of its world. It must be able to rely on the consistency and continuity of the information in order to keep living. In order to live in a society, it must also learn the mores and expectations of that society, so it becomes necessary to believe what its care-givers teach it about the rules and customs.
What a child is taught may be non-factual, but it's more likely to be able to function in an intact world-view constructed of facts, misconceptions and fictions than a random scattering of pure facts.

We talk about our admiration of the Greek civilisation, — universeness

I don't. In fact, I consider civilization the wrong turn in human evolution and the invention of money and religion the two worst ideas of civilization. I admire and excoriate individual persons, respect and disdain certain attitudes - not entire nations.

In other words just gangland style BS, trying to pass itself of as 'we are spreading culture! our culture! which is obviously the best culture! and is divinely sanctioned! — universeness

Yet you have no reticence in retroactively imposing your own legal code on past civilizations, trashing regimes with which you disagree and proclaiming the superiority of 'modern' thinking over other eras and western values over other cultures.

They are still with us, — universeness

Yes, humanity is still humanity: it still contains all the same elements that stone age, bronze age and medieval populations did, satisfies the same drives with ever more sophisticated tools.

Some of us wish it would improve [ie fall in line with our own world-view]; some wish it so sincerely and passionately that we imagine ways such improvement could be brought about, insist that it's already happening and we just need to fight a little harder, believe a little more fervently to achieve the perfection of humankind.

And son of a gun, if we want peace, we need a president who knows better than say stupid things that piss off the leaders of violent countries. Creating ourselves as the enemy of other nations is a really stupid thing to do! and I am very disappointed in our present leader. — Athena

This one's a disappointment (in my book, a damp squib compromise, but if he died in office, you'd have an insurrection - at best) and the last one was.... I don't know what you think, but it's no secret what I think of the last one.
So? Have you done it yet? Have you lined up all the presidents in chronological order and compared their [actual, factual] characters and achievements to trace the arc of US history?
What if you stopped thinking of what was better in the past and what's better in the present (Spoiler: they don't match) and think of the story unfolding? If US history were a long-running TV series, what would probably happen next?

they would murder you. — universeness

They would kill or abandon defective children.
Your code of law and ethics do not apply to that culture. The Spartans were not unique in this practice. It was forbidden by the Christian churches, not on the grounds of compassion - they didn't mind how horrible a life the child would have - but because they wanted more Christians. They still do - and so do the Muslims want more Muslims - they still do.

Most Stone Age human societies routinely practiced infanticide, and estimates of children killed by infanticide in the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras vary from 15 to 50 percent. Infanticide continued to be common in most societies after the historical era began, including ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Phoenicians, ancient China, ancient Japan, Aboriginal Australia, Native Americans, and Native Alaskans. Infanticide became forbidden in Europe and the Near East during the 1st millennium.

Guess when overpopulation started to become a problem.

Hum, I am noticing there is not much difference between the words "materialistic" and "militaristic" — Athena

That would apply more to Athens, which was both, than Sparta, which was militaristic, but ... um... more spartan in lifestyle. they outlawed currency and their top virtues were equality (among citizens), military fitness, and austerity.
Meanwhile the Celts were warriors, mercenaries, traders and explorers, farmers and crafters, more given to luxury in personal adornment than in public show.
I wouldn't call any of the cultures more 'spiritual' than any other: they all had their supernatural beliefs, values and loyalties.

I am bewildered that we can not achieve "the better" through reasoning. — Athena

We could. That's exactly why the lusters after power, wealth and supremacy so strenuously and so often successfully oppose any attempt at rule by reason.

As for 'doing better' just line up all your own presidents for comparison.

They were creating their movie and explaining how things happen. By "they", I mean all ancients trying to figure out how we should live together. — Athena

And as we all do, every day, both as individuals and as groups.

I also know the ancients invented more and more gods — Athena

They also conquered foreign lands whose gods had to be accommodated, assimilated, or subsumed in their own pantheon, because direct suppression invariably engenders a stiffer resistance. The RCC didn't care, because it was squandering the human and material resources of independent nations on its religious wars. But ancient civilizations had to budget their available resources. Some foreign gods were also imported through commerce and migration; some of these gained popular support.

I know. What a sweet Pollyanna! Good-looking, too.

Hopefully the story improves after each great effort to change things for the better — universeness

Wishful fantasy. If the greed-driven corporate economy and the deceitful, infighting, xenophobic government of an interplanetary empire is exactly like the corrupt, deceitful, infighting, xenophobic government of ancient Assyria, where is the "better"? Where is the arc of history?

For me the brain in vat argument is rather non-workable and fallacious. — Benj96

To me, it's always just seemed unimaginably cruel.

It helps keep things straight in one's mind to refrain from stuffing too much meaning into one little word.
There are communications - in whatever language - that convey information. These may be factual, instructional, deceitful, inaccurate, emotional, invented for entertainment, etc.
There are statements intended to be believed, that either convey information regarding specific subject matter or more general principles and concepts. These may be true - within situational constraints - or false, or distorted or mistaken.
There are testable, verifiable facts - which may be situational or general.
We are not equipped to evaluate anything for universal, eternal or absolute truth.

I am not surprised he became a little pessimistic. — universeness

He started out pessimistic and suspicious. He ended up optimistic, in control and finally prepared to be happy.

Draw a line against the darkness! Join the army of light! — universeness

I'm too old to enlist in an army. Plus, I've hated uniforms since Grade 1. Besides, what's the core message of B5? Another two thousand years, still money, still religion, still war, still exploitation and oppression, cruelty and deceit - same old crap on a much bigger stage.

Words must transmit facts. — Andrew4Handel

Word can transmit facts. Nothing compels or impels them to do so. They're just tools, to be used as the competent user intends, or unpredictably, if the user is incompetent.

I am just thinking aloud here but truth and falsity do seem to be evaluations we can make of mental states or properties available to consciousness and the act of consciously evaluating. — Andrew4Handel

We do. Not always accurately.

But it seems we actually have a large amount of verifiable facts available to our mind which I think serves a good foundation for forming further factual beliefs. — Andrew4Handel

Of course. That's what critical thinking is. The more actively aware you are of this, the more effective your thinking will be. The first and biggest hurdle to overcome is fear of questioning received wisdom. The second is learning to trust yourself.

As John Sheridan has been known to utter, "absafragginlootly — universeness

I lean toward Garibaldi's outlook. But you knew that.

Cultural narratives, national identity stories are very difficult to question, let alone relinquish. Thus, we tend to pick the good bits from the past to be proud and ignore all the associated bad and demand the good bits back, then turn around without batting an eyelash and insist that it's better now and still improving.

Would you follow the Shadows or the Vorlons in the Babylon 5 universe, or would you reject them both? — universeness

Since they come at you with a sneaky question, by the time you begin to understand the choice, you're already committed. (And then they both betray you.) Not a bad analogy for political systems.

(We just started watching it again last week, but had to skip so many unsavoury episodes, we switched over to DS9. More fun, less torture.)

As global overpopulation has resulted in a flood of people coming to US borders and overwhelming cities that are pressed to care for them, it is only logical for us to sincerely wish their own nations could meet their needs. — Athena

Global overpopulation is caused by factors readily traceable through history. The proselytizing religions had a fair amount to do with it, as did the requirement of agriculture and war machineries for cheap human raw material. Industry needed fewer workers, but a surplus labour pool kept them in perpetual competition and thus kept wages low. Unfettered reproduction in the lower classes has always served the interes of the upper classes, who kept their own relatively low, by the simple expedient of constraining their women and casting their own surplus seed to the lower classes.

. We want the best for everyone and sent many of them our Industries believing if their economies grew commerce for everyone would get better. — Athena

Now there's a typically American whopper of a historical distortion! American industry colonized the 'developable' world the same way the British had before them - with the aid of military intervention where guile and buying already corrupt officials failed. The industrialists were, at first, strip-mining everywhere for natural resources, and later for cheap, compliant labour. If the process was made easier by replacing inconvenient or unco-operative native governments, they had the means to do so. Those countries didn't become 'shitholes' by accident or the local population's efforts.

Throughout the nineteenth century and up to the 1930s,

American corporations stridently resisted local opposition — https://www.unmpress.com/9780826319968/the-century-of-u-s-capitalism-in-latin-america/

as they secured what they wanted in Latin America, cheap labor, plentiful raw materials, and favorable business conditions. After World War II, Latin American nationalism and revolutions forced American-owned enterprises to redefine their business model throughout the region. U.S. businesses integrated themselves into local societies through direct investment in manufacturing and the creation of broad-based consumer societies eager to buy everything from Coca-Cola to Chevrolets

Here are eight of the most notorious cases of US interference in Latin America.

Nothing remotely Star Trekky!

It is impossible for the whole world to have the standard of living of the US, because... — Athena

...we already grabbed the goodies and we're not gonna share.
How much hunger could be alleviated with just the food Americans waste?

he United States discards more food than any other country in the world: nearly 40 million tons — 80 billion pounds — every year.

And of course, the waste doesn't start or end with food.
(BTW - the American standard of living is not exactly uniform throughout the American population - and some Africans are quite wealthy, too.)

I am wondering, isn't it possible to determine what is a myth and want is a fact? — Athena

*Myths and facts have only the most tenuous relationship.*
If you mean determine what's true and false in history, the answer is: Not always. Documents and chronicles are as often falsified as destroyed; witnesses and participants lie, or are intimidated into silence. Past facts may be unrecoverable, unverifiable. But a good many historical facts do survive; conflicting and differing records can be compared; time-lines and family lineages traced; supporting documentation found in the form of personal correspondence and journals; business ledgers, cargo manifests, registers of birth, marriage and death survive... Even quite a lot of physical evidence can be detected by scientific methods. It's painstaking, intellectually demanding work, but there are those who love it and are faithful to it.

* The word 'myth' is so frequently used to stand for falsehood or lie that it's now considered an exact synonym. It is not. A myth is a story that has been passed down in a culture through oral tradition; it may have had some basis in fact at one, or it may be a conflation of old legends; either way, they are part of the fabric of a human society; a narrative of identity and continuity; it's purpose is not and has never been to deceive anyone. I would plead for a distinction between 'myth' and 'lie'. *

I want to argue the US has lost its way — Athena

It has been led by the nose-rings. But not just recently. The Civil War era was no more ruled by reason than the moderns one is.

I love your argument and if I had a better brain I would start a thread to debate the evils of slavery. Unfortunately, my weak brain can handle only one subject at a time. — Athena

It's not about the 'evils' of slavery; it's about the incompatibility bondage with democracy. A slave-holding state/economy may be entirely reasonable, but can never get its cultural head around the equality of individuals. That was the fatal compromise that doomed the Great American Experiment.

Power and influence can be 'home grown,' very quickly in fact, when there is a ground swell of 'revulsion' about a repressive system that has caused much human suffering for a long time. — universeness

Indeed. That happens periodically, too.

The exact number of people that were killed in the Russian Revolution is disputed amongst historians. The number ranges anywhere from 7 million to 12 million people killed between 1917 and 1923, most of them being civilians.

What comes out the other end is anyone's guess.

The estimated total number of casualties from the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars is 2.5 million combatants' casualties with another one million civilian casualties, which in relation to the population was similar to the First World War.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Iranian-Revolution https://www.britannica.com/event/Arab-Spring

You might like these documentary series Lucy Worsley made about historical lies - she's very entertaining.

I just worry for their protection, if they choose to use evidence, as the main determinator of what is truth and what is myth — universeness

They already publish volumes and volumes. But the only people interested in reading any of it are ones with no power or influence.

Surely, things can only get better, when m.a.d IS the other option — universeness

A valid one. "Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad" is quoted as a "heathen proverb" in Daniel, a Model for Young Men (1854) by Reverend William Anderson Scott.

Who would you put on such a committee? — universeness

F'rinstance

The World History Association is a professional association of scholars, teachers, and students organized to promote world history by encouraging teaching, research, publications, and personal interactions. It was founded in 1982 by a group of university faculty and secondary-school teachers determined to address the needs of a newly emerging historical sub-discipline. As described in its constitution, its mission is to “promote activities which will increase historical awareness, understanding among and between peoples, and global consciousness.”

The problem isn't who will research well and report their findings as accurately and truthfully as possible - they're already doing that. The problem is giving them a voice that can be heard and heeded.

In this scenario I think a philosophers quest for truth is somewhat dubious .... — Andrew4Handel

How about non-existent? I don't think philosophy is a quest for truth at all; it's more a search - quest is too romantic a word - for some modus vivendi that would yield the best results - best, that is, by the philosopher's reckoning, which is formed by his time and culture and experience and convictions.

the philosopher is trying to either prop up some of societies pre-existing paradigms/values or advocate for his or her own ideology rather than being unbiased — Andrew4Handel

Of course. Their function is to evaluate how well or badly their society is doing, as measured by their own standards, then try to figure out how it's failing or succeeding, then establish the principles by which it ought to operate. That does require the philosopher to believe some fundamental truths or even Truths - but these are not the same truths that scientists are searching for in the next room.

It takes about a thousand facts to add up to a truth, and a million to constitute a Truth. Facts may be comparable to fireflies, lightbulbs and stars with a commensurate lifespan.

So you don't value truth, but you resent falsehood? — unenlightened

I don't value truth for its own sake, but resent baseless accusations.

That seems a bit negative... — unenlightened

The first part is negative; the second, positive.

Do you value truth or something? — unenlightened

Not for its own sake, particularly. But I do resent baseless accusations.

So, we want truth, but do love us a good lie. — Hanover

That's the key. We so much want some things to be true, and some things to be untrue, that we're prepared to accept whatever we want to hear, whether it's true or not.

Three pages of lies — unenlightened

Proveit!

I wasn't aware you thought these problems are only relevant in the US. — T Clark

On the contrary, I have cited any number of examples of the same phenomenon in other countries, on other continents. Trump is the American manifestation - a particularly sleazy one: they're not all tax-evading, traitorous rapist conmen who even stiff their own lawyers - but some are more vicious, and some are fanatical.

You are contributing to the problem just by the comments you make here. — T Clark

I'm sorry. I didn't realize 'the problem' originated here or was caused by the comments of random people with zero power or influence. Perhaps I should appease them more. Has that worked in the past? But I'm old and running out of time.

Trying to resolve conflict with large groups of people while treating them contempt doesn't work, — T Clark

Nothing works. I'm not "treating" them at all; I'm not communicating with them; there is not a snowball's chance in hell of resolving these conflicts.

If no interest means wickedness can actually gain power and sit in power and control, then an interest in politics and political parties becomes necessary. — Beena

Wickedness doesn't gain power through lack of anyone's interest; it gains power through money, deceit, manipulation and the assistance of people who choose the dark side - for whatever reason.

But the arc of history for the past two centuries has been towards liberty. — RogueAI

Sometimes. History is not a well-written novel; its arc more likely to be shaped like A Chinese New Year dragon.

September 11, 2001 changed the situation. Human rights received a set-back as a number of countries decided that fighting terrorism was the key security challenge. This was reasonable enough, but in the process, many of them committed appalling violations of human rights in the name of counter-terrorism. Though it was a few years later - hard to pick a precise date - that this reversal in the progress of rights became an actual backlash against them.

You can see it in your own country, as well as many others.https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2017/12/backlash-against-human-rights

(Somehow, I managed to screw up that citation three times. The quote and link are two different sites referring to the same topic.)*
*No wonder I broke America!

And, of course, regimes are not forever. Democracies are toppled, just as theocracies and other kinds of totalitarian government. Economies collapse; wars are won and lost; borders are redrawn and laws redrafted.

I think you are both equally responsible for the mess we find ourselves in. — T Clark

How so? None of my ancestors ever owned another human being and the longest period I spent in the United States was January, 1993.

What if a committee made a sincere effort to determine what is myth and what is fact? — Athena

It would have to be international - historians who have no national loyalties, or else have thrashed out their biases among their peers. It is possible for a academics to see past and beneath their own inherited mythology. Indeed, quite a few have published fat, well-documented books on the historical distortions in their own nation's identity-story.
Of course, there is a much larger number of books published with the aim of distorting it farther, to serve one faction or another. It's not easy for a the average reader to evaluate them. And, given the investment people have in - and the sacrifices they are asked to make for their country, belief in that narrative is not easily swayed.

One might even say you are full of passionate intensity. — T Clark

I may be the worst, but I'm never passionate.

If the average person does not have an interest in politics etc., it does not mean they are into following some fanatic ideology, so it's okay. — Beena

If the sane people have no interest - more to the point, if they feel bereft of agency - they leave the field wide open to fanatics, lunatics and criminals.

I don't know how we can maintain a discussion that mixes myth with facts without agreement about what is a myth and what is a fact. — Athena

You have, I think, successfully summarized all exchanges on the subject of all national histories and traditions.

Cliche with literary pretentions — T Clark

The surrounding text ain't too shabby, literary-wise.
I do not, however, see its relevance to my respecting only those worthy of respect - can't make out where that's supposed to place me in the comparson.

Well, Zeus was a notorious serial rapist, while Jehovah just did it the once afawk... so, I guess progress has been made.

Yes, but then much could also be done to build a sense of common purpose among our fellow citizens. — T Clark

Indeed. And those efforts will be opposed just as vigorously by the same powerful factions that block access of citizens to sound information and the exercise of clear thinking.
Hence my doubt regarding the achievability of either, though I approve the attempts at both.

As I noted, we can do something right now - treat people with respect. — T Clark

By all means, do so. I remain selective.