Doodle Dee. Snickers wrote:Well, because the premise of the argument inherently hinges on the idea that the data and things we've learned today would effectively end or fight back against prejudice, and I don't think *looks at Charlottesville* that's where we're at right now. In fact, one could--correctly I think--argue that prejudice has been increasing, not decreasing.
This seems to contradict the notion that we've made progress on these issues. Now you're arguing that we've actually gone backwards since, say, the 1800s. Which is it?
Marcuse wrote:To respond to Crimson re the mind control thing, I'll direct us all to this:
Say that in some point in time, we develop a machine that can beam the information of today of milestones that happened later into the heads of people from the past would it be ethical?
That's from the OP, and it's all of why I think what is being proposed is mind control. We're not talking about educating people here. That's just saying what if we could overwrite people's minds to support the attitudes of today.
So what's the difference between "beaming" the knowledge of modern day scientific texts on race into people's heads as Eric suggests and, say, reading all that information to them? Other than speed and efficiency, naturally.
Do you remember how, in The Matrix, they could have information uploaded into their brains almost instantaneously, like when Tank runs a program that teaches Trinity how to pilot a helicopter in a fraction of a second? Was that "mind control" or just super-efficient teaching?
To my mind, "mind control" would involve more than just imparting information, regardless of the method. For instance, if Eric had suggested using a device that would give an electrical shock to the recipient every time they think a racist thought, or rewire their limbic system so they have a terror response every time they encounter racism, I would agree that would be coercive. However, what he appears to be suggesting is transferring information directly into a person's brain, rather like Tank did in The Matrix.
Moreover, he's pretty specific about what information would be imparted: namely, the knowledge of future social developments and modern scientific knowledge regarding race. I don't see him suggesting anywhere that all information available today would be transferred, including on subjects that are irrelevant to the goal of social comity like nuclear physics.
Finally, bringing up the physics of time travel isn't relevant. It's a hypothetical. You might as well answer the trolley problem by questioning why the track switch would be mechanical and accessible to the public in this day and age, or answer the alternate version by questioning whether throwing a fat person in front of a light train would actually stop it. The point of the question was not to debate physics, and given that you have a philosophy degree I kinda think you know that.
"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn