Industrialization infiltrated many core structures of human culture, taking even the basic concept of time and giving it rules to follow. The state and market followed, promising independence from others through reliance on the government. Soon, with insurance and such promising protection from the financial detriments of many situations, nearly everyone has developed some reliance in the state (Harari 360). This only arose, however, when the scope of communities broadened; forgetting our foundations in small family groups, humans branched out into massive numbers, creating businesses and social structures which included millions. This expansion took the core from the community level, meaning we needed large scale policing to keep order (Harari 376). This meant the removal of a family unit from any political sense, and brought independence to individual consumers who were all then strapped to the welfare of the state.
Objectivity, as a rule, is generally the most basic form of perception to keep in mind when analyzing scientific and historical fields; information cannot be quantified if it is bias—or can it? In many cases this is true, especially in matters of empirical sciences, but when considering the fate of humanity, should we not also include the perceptions of those that constitute this group? Humans should most definitely be aware of our role from an outside perspective as far as environmental and universal scales go, but when it comes to the fate of our species, I feel a little bias is necessary. Our capacity to think, feel, and understand ourselves really provides a unique view into people as a whole that we cannot get when surveying animals or other systems. In being cognizant of our place with each other and the set of morals we have curated over time, it’s crucial to remember we are people when outlining what will occur down the road, rather than forgetting the very basic emotions we perceive to be “bias.”