Which is worse: the State or Religion

[August1991]

Technology

1a) The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.

1b) The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective.

2) Electronic or digital products and systems considered as a group: a store specializing in office technology.

The state is not a technology as it depends upon no scientific discovery to exist. It is not an application of science because the science it uses varies enormously or may not exist at all. It is not a scientific method either.

IMV, the State - an institution if you will, like religious organizations - is another form of technology that allows people to convert one resource into another. In this, it is wrong to blame "technology" for something that we humans happen to use it for.

Does a machine gun or an atom bomb lead to more death and destruction than, say, a pen? Good question methinks.

Does the State make it easier to kill? That is, does the State make it more profitable for individual members of the State to kill? (My Gawd, what a thought?) Now, what about Religious organizations?

IOW, was murder less costly a solution for Stalin than for members of the Spanish Inquisition?

Stalin feared for his life. The Inquisition members had God and redemption on their side.

So, as technology goes, and on balance, I'd say the State was more of a positive in protecting life than religion. (Technological advances in military defense seem more lethal than such advances in military offense. Or am I wrong?)

[Michael Hardner]

IMV, the State - an institution if you will, like religious organizations - is another form of technology that allows people to convert one resource into another. In this, it is wrong to blame "technology" for something that we humans happen to use it for.

Marshall MacLuhan wrote about this topic in the sixties. I think he would say something along the line that human organization arises from technological change. This means that technology produces a result that we can't really predict, and is separate from it's intended "use". I'm simplifying his theses to a gross degree but hopefully you'll get the point.

Does a machine gun or an atom bomb lead to more death and destruction than, say, a pen? Good question methinks.

Does the State make it easier to kill? That is, does the State make it more profitable for individual members of the State to kill? (My Gawd, what a thought?) Now, what about Religious organizations?

IOW, was murder less costly a solution for Stalin or for members of the Spanish Inquisition?

Stalin feared for his life. On balance, I'd say the State was a positive in protecting life.

State imposed order from above arises from a heirarchy of some sort. And the "word" of law, which was originally an oral word, eventually had to be written down... but only after writing was invented, which necessitated law and order in the first place.

Go read "Understanding Media". It should only take a few years to get though.

[August1991]

Marshall MacLuhan wrote about this topic in the sixties. I think he would say something along the line that human organization arises from technological change.

... ZZZZ.

Sorry, I dislike McLuhan. Radio=Cold, TV=Hot. Wow! Cool!

No, really, all social theories must start from the individual but McLuhan generalized - it seems to me.

What I said is what I meant - in concrete terms. And from the perspective of one individual, me.

Technology means I can achieve an end in an easier way. (For example, I can communicate with many people by computer instead of shouting.)

The State (and trade) is an example of the same thing - call this "social" technology. In all cases, technology means individuals can achieve more with less.

[Hugo]

IMV, the State... is another form of technology that allows people to convert one resource into another.

I believe this is a fallacy. Humans are social and political creatures, as Aristotle said. Humans organise themselves into groups and will create political structures for those groups that vary according to the complexity of their society. The state cannot be a technology because it needs no science, only language, and language is an inherent part of humanity. There is no culture in the world that has failed to develop a sophisticated language capable of expressing the abstract concepts needed for politics. In the 19th Century, linguists and anthropologists theorised that, as there were technologically primitive peoples in the world, there would also be primitive languages not yet capable of a full range of expression. As we explored and researched further, we failed to find any of these languages.

Both language and politics are inherent intellectual characteristics of Man, just as bipedality and opposable thumbs are physical characteristics. All cultures have some form of politics, even tribal councils and elders. There is always structure since it is human nature to create structure and order from chaos.

The state, like language, grows in complexity as we develop. It would be possible to use a less developed language in place of English but far more cumbersome and inefficient. English has 400,000 words, more than any other language. When technical and scientific terms are added, the vocabulary expands to 900,000. This vast complexity of English gives us great ability of expression and supports vast Western technological, scientific and artistic development.

Similarly, we could use tribal councils and so forth as government. It would be terribly inefficient and wasteful, however, for a state such as the USA with over 290,000,000 inhabitants and an economy sporting an annual GDP of $10,450,000,000,000 to use such a government. Instead we have developed a similarly complex and advanced system that better suits the needs of the nation. Like English with it's 900,000 words, the US government is huge, highly complex and impossible for one person to fully understand or know, but it serves a similarly huge culture.

The point, then, is that state and politics are not technologies. They are universal characteristics of human intellect and society. If the state is a technology, then so is existential thought or opposable thumbs. There is no appliance of science to any of these examples, only appliance of intellect.

Does a machine gun or an atom bomb lead to more death and destruction than, say, a pen? Good question methinks.

Yes, they do lead to more death and destruction, assuming they were used for those roles. A pen can't do much damage. You could stab somebody in the neck with it but they'd have to be pretty co-operative. You couldn't kill a few million people with a pen, but you could with a Soviet 50Mt SS-18 warhead detonated over New York City.

So, as technology goes, and on balance, I'd say the State was more of a positive in protecting life than religion.

On what grounds? Both religion and state have been with us since the dawn of humankind. In that time, religion has claimed a little over 3,000,000 lives, many of which could in fact be attributed to non-religious causes if I wanted to argue this more stringently. In the 20th Century alone, governments have been responsible for perhaps 170,000,000 deaths.

Not that this is a new thing. Over the five centuries of the mercantilist, statist African slave trade somewhere between 17,000,000 and 65,000,000 Africans were killed. The Mongols murdered about 30,000,000 people in their 13th Century campaigns, mostly civilians, women and children. In the turmoil in China between the Han dynasty and the Three Kingdoms period, 43 million Chinese were killed. That represented a staggering 86% of the population of China. By the time of the Sui Dynasty, over three centuries later, the population had recovered to the Han level, but in the transition to the Tang 2/3 of that population was butchered.

In summary, we have about 303,000,000 mass murders in history. This is a conservative estimate. Of these, about 3,178,500 can be attributed to religion. This includes events such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, European Witch-Hunts, Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican religious sacrifice and so forth.

I don't believe the case that the state is a greater protector of life than religion has any strength at all. Certainly it is irrefutable that states have murdered about 100 times as many people as religions.

Now, August, let's hear some evidence and logic. Your feelings are not good evidence.

Once again, all statistics from the works of Prof. R.J. Rummel. He has a website here which summarises a lot of the information available in his books.

[Michael Hardner]

language is an inherent part of humanity.

Uh... if this is the linchpin of your argument, it's not exactly true. Language developed as humans evolved. Unless you're a creationist...

[Hugo]

Language developed as humans evolved.

Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter. Language is inherent to homo sapiens. What I am stating is that all members of homo sapiens possess language as an innate capacity. They will form social groups, as a rule, and will organise those social groups. This, too, is innate. There are so few human individuals who refuse to become part of a larger group that it can be written off as an anomaly, like human individuals who fail to develop language.

[Michael Hardner]

But I'm saying that homo sapiens didn't always have language. And social organization takes many different forms. Nations didn't always exist, nor did democracy, institutions of justice and so forth...

Each institution developed as a reaction to new technology that forced a human reorganization.

In this way, technology affects us in far deeper ways than we understand. It's not just a matter of us "using" the technology - it "uses" us too in a sense.

The proposed application of a new invention called the telegraph was to allow people in different cities to play chess with each other. The inventor couldn't have anticipated its use in the civil war, its contribution to the rise of mass media, weather prediction etc.

[Hugo]

But I'm saying that homo sapiens didn't always have language.

Speculation. Furthermore, one does not evolve technology, one develops technology. There is a difference. Humankind did not evolve to include fire, the wheel or quantum mechanics. Humankind did evolve, however, the ability to communicate using language and abstract ideas. If language is technology, so are opposable thumbs and upright perambulation.

Social organisation and government would have been introduced when humans first began collecting into groups and, archeologically, it seems that that was always the case. So, as humans have always moved in groups, humans have always had some social order and government. As our society has developed and grown more complex, so has that government.

Nations didn't always exist, nor did democracy, institutions of justice and so forth

None of these are inherent to statehood, government or social order. Nomads don't recognise nations. Democracy is historically rare, but states existed without it. As to institutions of justice, that depends on your viewpoint. If you mean codified law, that began with Hammurabi, but there were states in existence long before his reign, so that's the end of that point. If you mean any dispensation of justice, then the judgements of chieftains and tribal elders qualifies so once again, we have had this since human prehistory.

[Michael Hardner]

Hugo:

Speculation.

Hmmm. I guess it depends on whether you consider ape squawks as "language".

Furthermore, one does not evolve technology, one develops technology.

There is a difference. Humankind did not evolve to include fire, the wheel or quantum mechanics. Humankind did evolve, however, the ability to communicate using language and abstract ideas. If language is technology, so are opposable thumbs and upright perambulation.

This seems like a semantic argument. In either case, something called "language" developed and shaped the social intercourse of humans. Ok.

Social organisation and government would have been introduced when humans first began collecting into groups and, archeologically, it seems that that was always the case. So, as humans have always moved in groups, humans have always had some social order and government. As our society has developed and grown more complex, so has that government.

Sort of, but not exactly. It hasn't simply been a case of things gradually growing and changing over time. Jarring changes in social organization have occurred due to technology. It's not so simple as someone starts using a new tool and it gradually improves lives. All technological changes upset the social order.

This is an important distinction from thinking that we simply "use" tools, and that human interaction generally doesn't change significantly over time.

None of these are inherent to statehood, government or social order. Nomads don't recognise nations. Democracy is historically rare, but states existed without it. As to institutions of justice, that depends on your viewpoint. If you mean codified law, that began with Hammurabi, but there were states in existence long before his reign, so that's the end of that point. If you mean any dispensation of justice, then the judgements of chieftains and tribal elders qualifies so once again, we have had this since human prehistory.

All of what you say is true. But this harkens back to another discussion on this board regarding the differences between corporations today and those of 75 years ago. The changes that have occurred since then are not simply quantitative but qualitative as well. Democracy in the television age is not simply faster and more succinct than that of the newspaper age. It's more emotive, more reactive, and less rational.

This isn't something that anyone would have anticipated when television was invented. Yet, our democracy was "developed" hundreds of years before television took hold of democracy.

It would be nice to think that our institutions and our technology are completely under our control, but they're not. Our institutions (ie. American style democracy) were developed in the 18th century, largely as a reaction to philosophical writings of that era. At this point, television has wormed its way into our society, eating holes in the device called constitutional democracy.

It seems to me that we agree on much, except possibly the degree to which we control and understand our institutions and our technologies.

[Hugo]

It seems to me that we agree on much, except possibly the degree to which we control and understand our institutions and our technologies.

Yes, we do. I don't agree, however, that in the 18th Century everything was peaches-and-cream for democracy and it is only now under assault.

Democracy is a high ideal and liberal democratic capitalism is the best social-political-economic system we have yet found for attaining liberty, freedom and prosperity. It's a hard-won prize and it needs maintenance.

Back in the 18th Century, democracy was still under assault, from within and without. For example, 18th Century American democracy allowed slavery and did not grant blacks or women the right to self-government. For more than half of the people in America, democracy was still a pipe-dream. In Britain at the same time, perhaps one man in seven had the vote and once again, no women. These were not the glory days of democracy. I think since then, democracy has vastly improved.

Perhaps we have television now. But we also have universal suffrage for all over the age of 18, regardless of gender, colour or creed. This gets us a more representative democracy. Since only landowners in 18th Century Britain could vote, British government would tend to represent the interests of landowners, for instance.

I do agree that democracy needs maintenance and vigilance. I don't agree that democracy is in decline, if anything, it is in ascent.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, we do. I don't agree, however, that in the 18th Century everything was peaches-and-cream for democracy and it is only now under assault.

Nor do I.

Democracy is a high ideal and liberal democratic capitalism is the best social-political-economic system we have yet found for attaining liberty, freedom and prosperity. It's a hard-won prize and it needs maintenance.

Back in the 18th Century, democracy was still under assault, from within and without. For example, 18th Century American democracy allowed slavery and did not grant blacks or women the right to self-government. For more than half of the people in America, democracy was still a pipe-dream. In Britain at the same time, perhaps one man in seven had the vote and once again, no women. These were not the glory days of democracy. I think since then, democracy has vastly improved.

Certainly there were things that were imperfect, especially when viewed in the light of today's egalitarian beliefs.

But the system was born of that era, and proved the best suited to govern in that era.

Perhaps we have television now. But we also have universal suffrage for all over the age of 18, regardless of gender, colour or creed. This gets us a more representative democracy. Since only landowners in 18th Century Britain could vote, British government would tend to represent the interests of landowners, for instance.

I do agree that democracy needs maintenance and vigilance. I don't agree that democracy is in decline, if anything, it is in ascent.

We definitely have a more inclusive system, but the system we have wasn't meant to have issues decided in soundbytes. This isn't the same as saying democracy is in decline, rather that we're using an old engine that needs to be reworked.

[August1991]

I've read through this thread and I hope I've chosen the quotes that do justice to your essential arguments:

Hugo:

Humans organise themselves into groups and will create political structures for those groups that vary according to the complexity of their society. The state cannot be a technology because it needs no science, only language, and language is an inherent part of humanity.

Hardner:

In this way, technology affects us in far deeper ways than we understand. It's not just a matter of us "using" the technology - it "uses" us too in a sense.

Hugo, I'm just asking you to change your definition of technology. Newton moved ahead our understanding of the laws of physics. Smith moved ahead our understanding of social relations. In both cases, we can develop better technology. What better example than an auction of the radio spectrum. Informed State bureaucrats make this possible.

Surely a State requires more than language. (But here's an idea: Do you think people speak better since they discovered grammar? Hint: It's a trick question. Do birds communicate better now than birds, say, one million years ago?)

Hardner, McLuhan's grotesque generalizations led to that kind of conclusion: "Man is the machine" or "Man is determined by the machine" or "The machine is the message". Yadda, yadda, yadda.

IME, individuals are so much faster than such generalizations.

Since we're having this conversation, I prefer the existential approach. Each is born into this world alone - and while self-obsessed, each feels powerless. Each of us feels outside forces shape us.

True, we face constraints. But technology allows us to move those constraints - if we choose. History is filled with useless inventions, ideas, concepts. Communism wound up on the dust heap of history. So did the 8-track cassette.

Individuals choose the technology they like. (Cell phones are all the rage now.)

If McLuhan meant that individuals are forced to choose inside the constraints that current technology allows them, then I agree with McLuhan. But somehow, I don't think that's what he meant.

[August1991]

Another specific point about the State and Religion:

Organized Religion had its hey-day up to the 16th century. As an institution, Religion has since been in decline. Christianity and Luther make my point but the same applies (with perhaps differing dates) for all religions (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism - even Confucianism). The Renaissance started what the Enlightenment intellectualized and the 1960s popularized: the individual. "I am no longer a member of a family. I am me."

I don't mean that people query less their existence, what conciousness is, what motivates us. I mean simply that people increasingly seek their own answers, and question the answers given by authority.

The State is in its hey-day. Or, it just peaked. What happens next? I dunno.

BUT.

It strikes me as facetious to blame the State for mass carnage and find innocent Religion. The State in its hey-day has had access to technology - nuclear weapons, machine guns - that Religion in its hey-day never had.

Who is more dangerous, a child or an adult? How about a child with a gun and an adult with a knife?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

"I am no longer a member of a family. I am me."

This would be the slogan of the Anarchy Party, which is and would always will be a party of one. Yet it is the message and the dogma of the US and of the right wing.

Shows like survivor,et al,put individual greed on the highest pedestal. It is heavily funded and encouraged. It will been as long as technology is used to espouse it's views.

Does technology have a 'self defense mechanism'? Does that make it alive?

[Hugo]

We definitely have a more inclusive system, but the system we have wasn't meant to have issues decided in soundbytes. This isn't the same as saying democracy is in decline, rather that we're using an old engine that needs to be reworked.

Well, Michael, you haven't left me with anything to argue with! I agree with your idea that democratic institutions are outdated and have failed to keep up, and I, too, would be in favour of reform to build better democracy in a manner more in tune with the free markets of the information age and modern culture.

Hugo, I'm just asking you to change your definition of technology. Newton moved ahead our understanding of the laws of physics.

Yes he did, but he didn't change the meaning of the word "physics". You are asking me to ignore dictionaries and to ascribe a false meaning to a word. Since I believe in precision of language and communication I won't do that. You can proceed if you want to, but you'll find it difficult to debate because everybody else will be using different terminology. You are building a language barrier where none exists.

Surely a State requires more than language.

Yes, it requires abstract thought (human intellect) and the ability to communicate that abstract thought (human language).

Do you think people speak better since they discovered grammar?

You mean since they invented, or rather, developed, grammar. Yes, they do. Think about music. In the middle ages, musical scores were not sophisticated enough to include information about the duration of notes and pacing. Songs had to be learned by repetition and it was impossible to sing or play a piece of music with just the score - you had to hear it and learn it. Since those times, musical scores have been developed to include all the information you would need to play the song. I am a pianist. You could give me a sheet of music I've never seen before and send that same sheet to a pianist in New York or Paris who had never seen it before, and the songs we played would be virtually identical.

Apply that to language. Language with a predefined structure provides a standard by which all speakers of the language can communicate. Because we both understand English grammar, we can communicate, even though we are separate individuals and grew up thousands of miles apart (I assume you are Canadian-born). Grammar is an essential part of language. If it has no grammar, it is not language. Therefore, what you are comparing is non-linguistic communication (higher animals) to linguistic communication. A cat can express fear, hunger, pleasure and so forth, but it can't express anything beyond basic emotion and feeling, it can't express anything abstract, and it can't express anything in the past or future tenses.

Organized Religion had its hey-day up to the 16th century.

Islam seems to be making quite the comeback. It's the fastest-growing religion right now and may become the world's largest religion in a few decades. I think also Muslims tend to take their faith a lot more seriously than Christians or Jews, especially in the Middle East and Africa.

I mean simply that people increasingly seek their own answers, and question the answers given by authority.

This is a half-truth. The average man is not a spiritual athlete, never has been, never will be. If you look at the new-age movement, increased interest in wicca and the occult and so forth you'll see that nobody is forging new spiritual ground. Funnily enough, the orthodox churches (Catholic and so forth) are seeing growing attendance in the West, larger congregations, particularly amongst the young. Conversely, the more permissive faiths (Anglican etc) are in decline.

The State in its hey-day has had access to technology - nuclear weapons, machine guns - that Religion in its hey-day never had.

True, but the premise doesn't work. By the 3rd Century BC, the Chinese state alone had murdered about 15 times as many people as all religions in the world were to murder in the entirety of history. Technology has nothing to do with it. Religion has the accumulation of power as a secondary motive. To overtly seek power undermines the faith, so when religious authorities seek power they generally do so covertly. Churches wished to influence the king, not become the king.

States, historically, have overtly sought power and, in order to concentrate power, you have to kill people. The more power you want to concentrate, the more you have to kill. Totalitarian states are history's biggest murderers.

It strikes me as facetious to blame the State for mass carnage and find innocent Religion.

But you won't put up any evidence or logic in support of this argument - why?

[Michael Hardner]

Aug91:

Hardner, McLuhan's grotesque generalizations led to that kind of conclusion: "Man is the machine" or "Man is determined by the machine" or "The machine is the message". Yadda, yadda, yadda.

IME, individuals are so much faster than such generalizations.

Since we're having this conversation, I prefer the existential approach. Each is born into this world alone - and while self-obsessed, each feels powerless. Each of us feels outside forces shape us.

True, we face constraints. But technology allows us to move those constraints - if we choose. History is filled with useless inventions, ideas, concepts. Communism wound up on the dust heap of history. So did the 8-track cassette.

Individuals choose the technology they like. (Cell phones are all the rage now.)

If McLuhan meant that individuals are forced to choose inside the constraints that current technology allows them, then I agree with McLuhan. But somehow, I don't think that's what he meant.

Well, MacLuhan was definitely more about probing and encouraging speculation than drawing pat conclusions about technology.

And individuals may choose whatever technology they like, but they must live within a larger society that is outside their control. Unless you're a Unabomber type, living alone in the wilderness, you're affected by the trends of society and the world as a whole.

[Michael Hardner]

Aug91:

The State is in its hey-day. Or, it just peaked.

MacLuhan also speculated that the state would be changed beyond recognition in the electric age. I think you can say that the state peaked with the fall of the Berlin wall.

With global trade, immigration and decentralized electronic commerce, the state matters less and less with each passing day.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, Michael, you haven't left me with anything to argue with! I agree with your idea that democratic institutions are outdated and have failed to keep up, and I, too, would be in favour of reform to build better democracy in a manner more in tune with the free markets of the information age and modern culture.

Ok.

[August1991]

Well, MacLuhan was definitely more about probing and encouraging speculation than drawing pat conclusions about technology.

You make a good point. There is MacLuhan and then the interpretation of MacLuhan. I generally found MacLuhan to be flakey. Too imprecise: one interpret his words in many ways. But I agree he was an intellectually curious person.

MacLuhan also speculated that the state would be changed beyond recognition in the electric age. I think you can say that the state peaked with the fall of the Berlin wall.

The State as we know it started under Bismarck at the end of the 19th century. It really grew under the impetus of Keynes. It may well have miles to go yet - the collapse of the Soviet Union was an extreme case, but a harbinger in my view.