It might be useful to have some ideas as to how societies can preserve essencial values long term.
This is a very taxing question. On the one hand, we can look to past historical attempts and empires or Rome, Greece, China, Russia, Egypt, etc. and learn from their mistakes. On the other hand, the advent of modernism, and now postmodernism places us in a very distinct and different time period where the outcome is very difficult to predict. In the past, the general populace has been mired in ignorance and supersition, creating the need for institutionalized religion, government, ethical rules and laws in general. Now, little has changed, except that those limits and boundaries are being challenged and eroded as cultures come in contact and try to perceive the world from a relativistic viewpoint.
How does this translate in possible future trends in our current milieu? I think that since "we have killed God", we need to resurrect God. The traditional approach involving faith had merit and was functional. Scientism has been hailed as the solution but I think people are beginning to realize that a purely materialistic perspective ultimately cannot answer questions of meaning. I think this will lead to a return to some sort of faith, although of this I remain doubtful given the current consumptionistic culture and the power of western business. I think you adressed this earlier, MB in stating that the real question is whether of not humankind can experience ego-death.
But back to the topic, how can values be preserved long term? Practically, the only way that we may hope to accomplish this on a societal scale is by slowly altering the education of progeny. Wait. No I keep thinking in terms of altering this society and making it better.
i think the structure of western society is fundamentally flawed. The philosophical ideas and religious balderdash influence people to believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with them. That no matter what they do, they are still inadequate. To correct this, or at least eliminate it from dominant thought, a better structure should meet the needs of the people. The basic need human beings have is security. If people have security, they are not very likely to want much of anything else. Why does violence occur? No mechanism for coping with stressors involving security and attachement. Why are people "lazy"? Because they have no reason to contribute to the system. they look at the universe and the universe stares back in cold indifference, "however, replied the universe, that does not instill in me a sense of obligation". To change all that, we need to create some meaningful activity.
Meaningful activity is best created in work. "faith without work is dead" and so the people must find meaningful employment. But is this best done in a capitalistic system? The argument is yes since anything else creates a sense of security and produces a lull and I tend to agree with that. Competition is a force of nature and trying to work against it, as was the idea of communism, is senseless. However, competition can be detached and attached. It can take place everywhere without taking over the competitor. It doesn't need to be "dog eat dog" where fellow competitors are killed. Where am i going?.... oh yes, to provide meaningful work, media and big business must be replaced with what i consider a family. the traditional idea of a family is people working together for a common goal. that is what a business should be; people all working together, as equals, to reach a common goal. The strengths of each member should be used to compete, and this creates security in knowing that the rules of competition are such that it does not destroy creativity. The idea of a family has origins in the original tribal societies such as the !Kung and the !Xoxa in Africa (yes, I love that clicking sound as well). The enforced humility enables people to function in a balanced manner where there is no excess, and no waste. But to do that, current people will have to realize the futility of buracratic rules and really begin to practice mindfullness.
If this occurs, all the rules, programs, etc should not be necessary since people will enforce the rules that work with threats to take away security and membership.
Is this better? Japan seems to think so and it has an incredibly low crime rate. Will this destroy human progress? I ask you the value of human progress. Certainly, we can live longer, eat better, have all the toys we want, but if we are insecure, disrespectful, full of malice and hatred, is the price of progress worth it? Yes, but can it be done differently and better? Of course.
So what's my point in all of this? Eh, just random thoughts going through my head. I think to preserve values, the idea of making money and commerce have to be re-evaluated to enable us to function truly as human BEings rather that human DOings. I think if that would be accomplished, the values would remain since that balance would constantly keep needed forced in check.
In short, people should think they have all the answers and be humble enough to turn around and say, "look this doesn't work. we work 18 hour days and still die poor. we need a different system and we need to work together in order to make this happen". After that, if they choose the path that works, and if the entire world recalls that one way is really not that much better than another, then long-term sustainment seems likely.
Cheers ! 🙂
