This is irrelevant precisely because humanity has never possessed the capacity for self-annihilation that it does now. This has not been made possible until the modern era, so using history as a guide is faulty. It's a little difficult to initiate a species-wide extinction with technology that consists of slings and arrows and irrigation ditches.If humanity is annihilated, that would stop progress by definition, but that's not the issue. The issue is this: barring human extinction (which environmental degradation is unlikely to bring about), can progress be stopped by human nature? If history is any guide, the answer is "no."
I highly doubt that environmental problems will lead to nuclear annihilation in this century.
I cited war in regards to the self- stultifying propensity of human nature, but in terms of spending I was speaking of military spending versus medical research spending. You have turned this into healthcare and war spending.We already spend more on healthcare than on war.
This is a difference between disease research spending versus overall healthcare spending just as there is a difference war expense and general global military spending. Each is a subcategory of the other.
Okay, it seems both of us were comparing apples with oranges to a certain extent. If you're interested only in medical research, the correct comparison would be between medical and defense research. I don't know the exact amounts involved in that comparison. However, I do know that spending on medical research over the past several decades has been in the trillions. I also know that healthcare spending is much higher than military spending.
http://www.informati...lar-o-gram-2013
Here we go again. I was specifically talking a disease research, not healthcare spending. There is a distinction.The fact that we spend more on healthcare than on war may indicate a certain degree of social progress.
Anyways, even citing "healthcare" spending within a profit-based system as evidence of an altruistically progressing species is hardly convincing. The exorbitant costs of modern healthcare that have inflated expenditure statistics are more of a reflection of insatiable corporate greed than humanity's selfless outpouring of support.
How much money do we spend on non-profit humanitarian programs. How much does the world spend and anti-poverty and anti-hunger programs.
When non-profit humanitarian spending exceeds global military spending and the self-seeking profiteering of the private sector...maybe that would signify evidence of real human progress.
Even if the cost of for-profit healthcare (which is mostly concentrated in the United States) is excluded, non-profit healthcare spending still dwarfs military spending.
Progress---including the social kind---doesn't necessarily depend on altruism. I'm more interested in the ends (i.e., progress), rather than in the means (i.e., profit vs non-profit vs humanitarian spending).
Edited by Florin Clapa, 21 May 2014 - 08:24 PM.