Great Ape Genocides are a good measure of moral progress. If no amount of technology prevents humans from wiping out their helpless nearest cousins, it's fair to say that no amount of it will prevent them from wiping out anything else. Then, of course, humans must turn on themselves, as there will be nothing else left to consume. Just like a virus. Thank you Agent Smith ("The Matrix").

Since all species have their greatest competitors in each other, the amount of inter-species conflict is always less than intra-species. That makes this Great Ape Genocide issue the single best indicator of what is maximum human empathy.

Talk to aboriginal peoples about this. They were victims of it all over the world.

Here are some organizing technologies that may save us, though. They may even make up for print.

As a counterweight to my own opinion, I quote this bizarre optimism regarding safely building a nice Bible type Gardener God!

Sheesh! Would that really improve our morality? Hasn't worked so far!

If your moral character came from Heinlein, I am not sure it would be a very desirable character – it depends on the book! >8-p Personally, I am sexist enough to think a mother's influence is decisive and essential, and that 'fatherhood' is a purely social invention. I doubt one can substitute for the other, and I'm *sure* books can't. But read Neal Stephenson's "Diamond Age" for another opinion. And about these cultures you seem to think are non-creative. Caring for 18 kids seems to me to require lots of creativity especially if you're poor!

In fact, I believe most of the specifics of my own moral character came from my readings of Robert Heinlein. Certainly my parents did what I consider a good job of laying the groundwork, but intensive reading throughout my life has shaped the way I think about the world in general, and my morality in particular.

is the best example for an technological ahievment causing moral good; the ability to mass-distribute ideas, though often abused, is the basis of modern society, of journalism and wide-spread criticism, and wide-spread discussion as a whole.

I would like to know if this statement is true, or not true. It would explain why humanity is in such a pickle right now — people just aren't that creative in general (there are a few exceptions, but not as many as there claim to be!), and the creative females are simply being outbred by the noncreative females. In which case we get an armageddon scenario. Exciting, but depressing, too. "Armageddon. Wow. Oh well." Are you quite certain that morally avanced people _cannot_ develop _without_ this kind of maternal nurture? From a creative father, for instance (just to perversely argue for sexual equality.), or from a good teacher, or perhaps even from integrating a fortunate life experience?

Quantitative gains. Qualitative loss. Same shit.

Moral superiors can only be raised by creative mothers. Read this by Lee Kent.