Problems of Human Invention

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.”

2 thoughts on “Problems of Human Invention”

  1. This reliance on the government was really caused by people wanting to recognized as an individual and not just by what community they were apart of. Also, people weren’t responsible for their neighbor’s taxes or the crimes of a family member. The part I liked the most about what you wrote was about bias. I’ve read your sentence about humans needing to be a little bias when thinking about our future many times, and it is really growing on me. We are the only animals that can think and understand the way that we do. So, I wonder is this means that you think we as a species should care more about the other species and planet when considering the future or that we should only look for the survival of the human race. Why does homo sapiens have to be the end or preserved? I believe that just because it might be the end of homo sapiens in the future, doesn’t mean that the end of humans is also going to happen.

  2. Hey Heather! I really liked your post! I agree with you point that people in the modern area did allow for the State and market to grow so powerful because they put a lot of trust and reliance of the government. Similar to what you said about insurance companies, people also invested a lot of money into banks, even though banks only hold about 10% of their currency in a physical form. I also really like in your second paragraph when you talked about how all people should have outside perspective when it comes to the world. It implies that although historian could help us in the future to come, it will be up to the masses to really control the outcome. Great post!

Comments are closed.