The above heading is often declared by mid-wit philosophers as if they are speaking of something truly remarkable and profound. Let us dissect this idea, and show that it is complete nonsense.
Evolved for the Spear?
The spear is a truly ancient weapon, long predating written history. Would anyone dare argue that, because we are thousands of years ahead of the spear, we are more “responsible” or evolved for it? I mean to say, that we would use the spear in a more ethical sense than we would a .50 BMG? The spear is a much less efficient weapon of war compared to a high caliber rifle, but efficiency is not the issue at hand: it is the desire to cause harm in the first place. This desire is no different now in 2024 than it was in 2024BC; people still desire to kill one another.
One spearman cannot kill nearly as efficiently as a rifleman can, but it is not the bodycount that makes either of these men more or less guilty of evil. Consider now: if we had only spears in our current time, would that make any difference at this fundamental level? Would we be more ethical making war with spears than we would with rifles? The technology is irrelevant to the matter; the human heart is shown to be the problem, because it desires violence.
(Do not misunderstand this as a pacifist rant. People need to defend themselves from those who would harm them, either personally or militarily. Many good men have had to kill other men to defend themselves and their nations; it is the bloodthirsty, those who truly desire death and destruction, who we are here indicting. The efficiency of their weaponry makes no difference in this matter.)
Morals? From Materialists?
Materialists moralizing is always a funny contradiction in itself, and the idea of which we speak is displayed mostly by materialists. If there is no reality beside what can be squeezed in one’s hands, I fail to see how anything that may be described as moral or immoral could possibly exist; these things are too ethereal for the materialist. In order to be an honest materialist who stays completely consistent in his ideas, let us demonstrate the necessary consistency in an elementary example.
Suppose we are sitting at a table with some rocks on the table. You, a realist, get two rocks in each of your hands. You then put your hands together, and then ask me, a materialist, how many rocks you are holding. I of course say, “Four rocks.” “Does, therefore, two rocks plus two rocks equal four rocks?” you ask. “Yes,” I respond. You then ask, “What if there were no rocks? Would just two and two equal four?” In order to be consistent, I must ask, “What twos and what four?”
Two and four, the plain numbers, cannot exist for the true materialist, because they have no physical substance. One must become a nominalist, avoiding the very thought of universals. Upon admitting of any universals, even as simple generic numbers, Plato and Aristotle gain all the foothold they need to conquer pure materialism, and can demonstrate that there is more to the world than what can just be squeezed in one’s hands. We find, instead, that the material is participant in the ideas of two and four, and that two and four maintain an independent existence from the material. It does not matter whether we speak of rocks or of dollars.
This example has been given to demonstrate the very difficult position that a true materialist is in when it comes to simple arithmetic; if he cannot handle a matter like this, how on earth can we expect him to handle ethics, a science more ethereal and more obscure than addition? Since he supposedly lacks a sense of morality, on what grounds may he indict all of humanity saying, “Humans aren’t evolved enough for their technology?” By saying this, he admits of some granted moral standard against which he is comparing, and shows that he is not a true materialist at all. He disqualifies himself from this discussion or, as I suspect, he is an inconsistent materialist: he will be a pseudo-realist in some matters like arithmetic, and play dumb in other matters like the existence of God.
Like From Like
The idea that human morality has evolved or will evolve is extraordinarily suspect, especially as we showed with the spear and .50 BMG above. We all know the oversimplified human evolution story, that man came from some sort of ape, then another sort of ape, then some sort of ape using hand tools, and eventually to modern man; whatever his technological advancements may be, wherein will we find his mental evolution outside of mere toolmaking, for surely his advancements in art and science and philosophy stand taller than toolmaking? There is this insidious idea that somehow, man’s art, science, and philosophy find their lineage in his toolmaking and animalistic tribalism, as if all these higher things were just flashing lights in a confused ape’s head, delusions of grandeur even. To put it simpler, this attitude reads or listens to men who talk of these nobler things and then accuses them of being delusional because they are not speaking of something physical like toolmaking.
(What makes the latter point even more absurd is that it would invalidate the usefulness of logic, claiming that logic was just primitive brain hallucinations. Such a claim would defeat human thought altogether which, of course, would then defeat itself as a viable position.)
Dog begets dog, man begets man, and man begets those ideas which are seemingly a part of himself. In short, like comes from like. I see no way in which technological advancement could possibly inform the moral mind; as we saw with the spear and .50 BMG, that is a matter of efficiency only. If we thought this were the case, we should expect great scientists and inventors to be the best philosophers and moralists. Human morality never did evolve, it always was and is; just because we did not realize certain aspects of it in a given past, it does not follow that we “created” or “evolved” those particular aspects in the present; it would be more accurate to say that they were discovered or revealed, much like bacteria were discovered with powerful enough microscopes; no fool would say they did not exist before the microscope, and only fools say we “created” morality.
Even if we grant that somehow morality came of a primitive human past, there really is no reason to believe that it would “evolve.” This idea could only be held by a complete progressive who believes everything is always “getting better and better” or at least should be. This individual can be refuted with the disappearance of user friendly controls in cars or kitchen appliances; I for one, have a stove with touch controls that stop working if they get the slightest amount of moisture on them. My old stove with knobs had no troubles like this. Cars and computers are increasingly irreparable, sometimes purposefully, sometimes due to over complexity. Things are not always “getting better and better,” and this includes morality. It simply is; if it at all seems like it is evolving, it is not, we are only discovering that which already is.
Technophiles
What we are speaking of here is not directed at average people; most people either do not think of these things at all, or only parrot what they have heard from the technophilic class. Only a technophile would have the arrogance to say that humans are not evolved enough for their technology. Does this statement not imply that technology is a granted good, or at least that technology is a power of good? Just because we can weave clothing faster than ever with machines than we can by hand does not mean that the technological investment is inherently good. Fulfilling the need of clothing is good, the efficiency is irrelevant.
Consider the hammer: it can be used to build a house or destroy your neighbor. Or the computer: it can complete the monotonous repetitive tasks in life, or it can be one’s escapist paradise, or worse, thought to be the “real” world (I of course mean social media). To be clear: whatever his technological stature, man is not “better” or “worse” ethically because of it, but rather in what he intends to accomplish with his technology. Man’s intention is quite separate from his technology, for he can accomplish quite a lot with his bare hands alone, both good things and bad things. Technology can only make him more or less efficient.
Everyone’s Least Favorite Three-Letter Word
Now that we have disconnected man’s actions from his technology, that is, his technology is not a cause but only a more efficient way to effect his intentions, we find that man’s intentions must come from within him. This is not to say the outer world cannot persuade him, but fundamentally his agency is within. No one or thing (like technology) can force or coerce man’s actions. They can only attempt persuasion.
Therefore, we arrive at everyone’s least favorite three-letter word: sin. Since technology only makes man’s intentions more or less efficient, it is not that man is not evolved or mature enough to handle his technology, it is that his intentions are fundamentally corrupt, that is, sinful. Whether he intends murder with a spear or a .50 BMG makes no difference; the problem is that he intends murder in the first place. The means to the ends do not much matter when the ends themselves are corrupt.
New Technologies and Reactions
This short polemic was brought about by the end rant of this video; he speaks of “tribalism” and being afraid of new technologies. He is speaking of the two idiotic groups: the no-electric-cars group, and the electric-cars-are-better-than-everything-else group. Yes, these groups that irrationally hate Tesla or irrationally love Tesla are imbeciles and should not be taken seriously in the slightest; they are indeed acting “tribalistic.” But he pushes the idea that if only we were more “evolved” we could handle new technolgies better instead of reacting like savages. This does not make a lot of sense because, in effect, this position implies that man has created goodness, that is, his advanced technology is considered a granted good, yet man himself is not good enough for it.
Man cannot create something better or more impressive than himself; for all his achievements such as the beautiful music of Dietrich Buxtehude, the philosophy of Plato, or magnificent works of architecture, man himself, being the reasonable creature, is still more impressive, despite his many flaws. His reason is above the items listed, that is, those items are not possible without man’s mind. Yet I have no doubt that there are some who think that things like AI and other technologies trump men, but these thinkers do not yet realize that AI does not think nor reason. AI trumps men only in the same sense in which a digital calculator trumps long division with pen and paper. The word, efficiency suggests itself.
As for AI, it will be a similar case to the hammer. It can be used for many good things, like help programming, but it will also be used for the highest quality deep-fakes ever. Imagine getting thrown in prison because an AI created realistic security camera footage of you robbing a store.
When new technologies come about, we should be very cautious: not to the point of close-mindedness or irrational hatred, but we should not be neomaniacs who think all new things are good either. In Tesla’s case, there are very few who take a middling opinion between those two extremes. Perhaps we should view it this way: electric cars may be the future so we should give them the time of day and consider them as possible replacements for internal combustion engines, but we must also consider the tried-and-true technology of internal combustion being quite a bit more mature than electric vehicles, with an infrastructure in place to support them far better than electrics. Also, the notion that electric vehicles are “zero-emissions” vehicles is entirely misleading: just because a Tesla does not belch exhaust out like a BMW does not mean it is not powered by a coal burning plant which does.
Transhumanists and Other Weirdos
In general, there is this idea across many human cultures of transcending the world, that is, being above it or overcoming it. Even the Savior says,
- In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." – John 16:33 RSV
Whether it is the Christian or a meditating Buddhist, it only makes sense that we would want to transcend from our current mean existence. The Christian, for instance, sees that the world is a complete wreck in one sense, but is also grateful for the existence granted him in another; he believes that in the resurrection of Christ, there is hope for a world set right, without sin.
Indeed, what a low thing it would be to be entirely of the world, never considering ourselves outside of our physical bodies. Many are swallowed up by the world, seeking pleasures constantly, or other indulgences. This class has been overcome by the world; as long as they have their bread and circuses, they are satisfied in a very base sense. There is little hope for this class, and we do not here consider them.
Transhumanists are quite the abberrant case: they are not the “overcome” as aforesaid, but their idea of transcendance is rooted in materialism, as if the material world can solve the problems of the heart. They believe that through technology they can make earth into paradise. All we need is “better and better” technology, and that will fix everything. Therefore, if you dare stand against any perceived advance in technology, you are immoral and a luddite, because you are holding back mankind from building heaven on earth. They will say that you are not “evolved” enough for this technology.
Conclusion
At bottom, technology has nothing to do with man’s morality; as I have repeated many times over now, technology simply makes things more efficient: generally speaking, man wants to accomplish the same things now as he did three thousand years ago, but improved technology allows him to do so faster. For instance, it is more efficient to bomb a city than to raid it with spearmen, but morally speaking they are the same thing: men wanting to kill other men. These things have not changed, and will not change as long as our world continues on its course. Evolution will not somehow make us more moral or responsible; that is a pipe dream, and reading a little ancient history then comparing it to what goes on now would make that quite clear. There really is nothing new under the sun.
We are evolved for our technology; just because we continue to do evil more efficiently does not mean that we are not evolved enough for it. In fact, this is exactly the outcome that we should expect, because men in the past dreamed of leveling a city in a single flash but only had spears in their time, and now that we can level a city in a single flash, that is exactly what we do. Our methods may have changed but our hearts have not. If we want to see men handle their technology more ethically, we must appeal to the heart for that is where the intention comes from.