future of mankind essay summary

• _Basic Guide
• __Classical Drama
• __Classical Poetry
• __Classical Novel
• __American Literature
• __Literary Essays
• __Modern Drama
• __Modern Novel
• __Modern Poetry
• __Literary Criticism
• English for BA
• Acknowledgements

Critical Analysis - The Future of Mankind by Bertrand Russell

Who is bertrand russell.

Mr. Russell is the most quoted name in the world of politics. He opened his eyes on 18 May 1872 in Trellech. Russell was proficient in mathematics, philosophy, logic, history and in social criticism. His collection of essays, known as "Unpopular Essays" is a mark of his accurate foresight. The essay Future of Mankind pretty much represents what its title says. The essay foretells how the mankind of the earth may perceive its future? [This is what we will discuss in the later lines]

Russell gives three major possibilities when he starts this essay. The first possibility is if a third world war gets ignited, it will wipe out all the human population from the surface of the planet earth. The second possibility is after the third world war, only a small number of people will be left who will recolour the human life once again after the cruel barbarism. And the third possibility is about the formation of a world government which might be established after peaceful negotiations and war if necessary. Russell suggests mankind to avoid the first two possibilities and to focus on the third one for the globalization of peace.

Russell openly hints that the establishment of a single world government through force as Soviet Russia may retaliate against the concept of a world government. All the military force in the leadership of the USA has to fight against the [communist] Soviet Russia and to defeat it to retain the worldly peace.

Russell says that the U.S.A. respects and grants its masses the freedom of inquiry, thought, discussion and human feelings. On the other hand, Russia idolizes a specific agenda through narrowing the science, art and literature. The freedom which a person enjoys is absent in Russia. But Russell also advocates that the freedom must be limited by the law so that the freedom should have its value.

Is Russell a Prophet?

In this essay, Russell shows his political insight at its best. His words truly imply with today's situation (but rather differently) and most of his prophecies went true by the time when he was writing this essay. He signalled at a possible war between Russia and the USA which did happen indirectly. So Russell is partially a prophet.

Russell Advocates Democratic System

Russell's admiration of the democratic freedom found in the U.S.A. and in the Great Britain significantly holds water against the totalitarian influence which persisted Russia and China. According to Russell, the USA and the UK are champions of democracy but Russia is a looser and China does not also leg behind the race of communism in this regard. So, Russell is a true advocator of democracy.

The War Between Russia and the USA could Destroy the Whole World

Russell directly asserts that if democracy has to survive against the communism, then the democratic powers (the UK and the USA) have to wage a war against Russia and China. This is a severe miscalculation of Bertrand Russell who forgets that Russia is the owner of the largest reserves of nuclear bombs. If a war is inflamed between the two, it will prove the final knell (a bell of death) to the existence of mankind on the planet earth. But both are aware of this fact of great danger so they have decided not to create an infernal planet. A balance of powers between the two has terminated the anxiety of any possible war in future.

The Idea of a World Government will Remain a Dream

The concept of a world government sounds utopian and impractical but valid at its point. Russell is himself aware of the fact that the giant Russia and even the small countries will not accept the idea of a world government. Nationalism and ego of the small countries like Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan etc. have risen to a sky-like height and they launch challenges against other nations as if they were the owner of the world. Such independent behaviour will minimize the sense of a single government.

Even if we may not agree with Russell's prophecies about the future, we still have to admit that the main motive behind his essay is the protection of mankind from a possible extinction through a nuclear war. This essay of Russell is marked with vivid clarity and transparent lucidity while retaining his superb command in the English Prose.

Sources, References and Suggested Readings

• Notes provided by Sir Saffi
• https://englishhelplineforall.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-future-ofmankind-by-bertrand.html
• https://neoenglishsystem.blogspot.com/2010/09/analyze-and-comment-on-ideas-expressed.html
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell?oldformat=true

It's time to pen down your opinions!

love it, being a writer from the mesmerising places of mianwali/ the land of i-khan, just love your words.

thanks, respected sir.

Contact Form

The Future of Man

Bertrand Russell calmly examines three foreseeable possibilities for the human race.

B efore the end of the present century, unless something quite unforeseeable occurs, one of three possibilities will have been realized. These three are: —

1. The end of human life, perhaps of all life on our planet.

2. A reversion to barbarism after a catastrophic diminution of the population of the globe.

3. A unification of the world under a single government, possessing a monopoly of all the major weapons of war.

I do not pretend to know which of these will happen, or even which is the most likely. What I do contend is that the kind of system to which we have been accustomed cannot possibly continue.

The first possibility, the extinction of the human race, is not to be expected in the next world war, unless that war is postponed for a longer time than now seems probable. But if the next world war is indecisive, or if the victors are unwise, and if organized states survive it, a period of feverish technical development may be expected to follow its conclusion. With vastly more powerful means of utilizing atomic energy than those now available, it is thought by many sober men of science that radioactive clouds, drifting round the world, may disintegrate living tissue everywhere. Although the last survivor may proclaim himself universal Emperor, his reign will be brief and his subjects will all be corpses. With his death the uneasy episode of life will end, and the peaceful rocks will revolve unchanged until the sun explodes.

Perhaps a disinterested spectator would consider this the most desirable consummation, in view of man’s long record of folly and cruelty. But we who are actors in the drama, who are entangled in the net of private affections and public hopes, can hardly take this attitude with any sincerity. True, I have heard men say that they would prefer the end of man to submission to the Soviet government, and doubtless in Russia there are those who would say the same about submission to Western capitalism. But this is rhetoric with a bogus air of heroism. Although it must be regarded as unimaginative humbug, it is dangerous, because it makes men less energetic in seeking ways of avoiding the catastrophe that they pretend not to dread.

The second possibility, that of a reversion to barbarism, would leave open the likelihood of a gradual return to civilization, as after the fall of Rome. The sudden transition will, if it occurs, be infinitely painful to those who experience it, and for some centuries afterwards life will be hard and drab. But at any rate there will still be a future for mankind, and the possibility of rational hope.

I think such an outcome of a really scientific world war is by no means improbable. Imagine each side in a position to destroy the chief cities and centers of industry of the enemy; imagine an almost complete obliteration of laboratories and libraries, accompanied by a heavy casualty rate among men of science; imagine famine due to radioactive spray, and pestilence caused by bacteriological warfare: Would social cohesion survive such strains? Would not prophets tell the maddened populations that their ills were wholly due to science, and that the extermination of all educated men would bring the millennium? Extreme hopes are born of extreme misery, and in such a world hopes could only be irrational. I think the great states to which we are accustomed would break up, and the sparse survivors would revert to a primitive village economy.

The third possibility, that of the establishment of a single government for the whole world, might be realized in various ways: by the victory of the United States in the next world war, or by the victory of the U.S.S.R., or, theoretically, by agreement. Or—and I think this is the most hopeful of the issues that are in any degree probable—by an alliance of the nations that desire an international government, becoming, in the end, so strong that Russia would no longer dare to stand out. This might conceivably be achieved without another world war, but it would require courageous and imaginative statesmanship in a number of countries.

There are various arguments that are used against the project of a single government of the whole world. The commonest is that the project is utopian and impossible. Those who use this argument, like most of those who advocate a world government, are thinking of a world government brought about by agreement. I think it is plain that the mutual suspicions between Russia and the West make it futile to hope, in any near future, for any genuine agreement. Any pretended universal authority to which both sides can agree, as things stand, is bound to be a sham, like UN. Consider the difficulties that have been encountered in the much more modest project of an international control over atomic energy, to which Russia will consent only if inspection is subject to the veto, and therefore a farce. I think we should admit that a world government will have to be imposed by force.

But—many people will say—why all this talk about a world government? Wars have occurred ever since men were organized into units larger than the family, but the human race has survived. Why should it not continue to survive even if wars go on occurring from time to time? Moreover, people like war, and will feel frustrated without it. And without war there will be no adequate opportunity for heroism or self-sacrifice.

This point of view—which is that of innumerable elderly gentlemen, including the rulers of Soviet Russia—fails to take account of modern technical possibilities. I think civilization could probably survive one more world war, provided it occurs fairly soon and does not last long. But if there is no slowing up in the rate of discovery and invention, and if great wars continue to recur, the destruction to be expected, even if it fails to exterminate the human race, is pretty certain to produce the kind of reversion to a primitive social system that I spoke of a moment ago. And this will entail such an enormous diminution of population, not only by war, but by subsequent starvation and disease, that the survivors are bound to be fierce and, at least for a considerable time, destitute of the qualities required for rebuilding civilization.

Nor is it reasonable to hope that, if nothing drastic is done, wars will nevertheless not occur. They always have occurred from time to time, and obviously will break out again sooner or later unless mankind adopts some system that makes them impossible. But the only such system is a single government with a monopoly of armed force.

If things are allowed to drift, it is obvious that the bickering between Russia and the Western democracies will continue until Russia has a considerable store of atomic bombs, and that when that time comes there will be an atomic war. In such a war, even if the worst consequences are avoided, Western Europe, including Great Britain, will be virtually exterminated. If America and the U.S.S.R. survive as organized states, they will presently fight again. If one side is victorious, it will rule the world, and a unitary government of mankind will have come into existence; if not, either mankind or, at least, civilization will perish. This is what must happen if nations and their rulers are lacking in constructive vision.

When I speak of “constructive vision,” I do not mean merely the theoretical realization that a world government is desirable. More than half the American nation, according to the Gallup poll, holds this opinion. But most of its advocates think of it as something to be established by friendly negotiation, and shrink from any suggestion of the use of force. In this I think they are mistaken. I am sure that force, or the threat of force, will be necessary. I hope the threat of force may suffice, but, if not, actual force should be employed.

Assuming a monopoly of armed force established by the victory of one side in a war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., what sort of world will result?

In either case, it will be a world in which successful rebellion will be impossible. Although, of course, sporadic assassination will still be liable to occur, the concentration of all important weapons in the hands of the victors will make them irresistible, and there will therefore be secure peace. Even if the dominant nation is completely devoid of altruism, its leading inhabitants, at least, will achieve a very high level of material comfort, and will be freed from the tyranny of fear. They are likely, therefore, to become gradually more good-natured and less inclined to persecute. Like the Romans, they will, in the course of time, extend citizenship to the vanquished. There will then be a true world state, and it will be possible to forget that it will have owed its origin to conquest. Which of us, during the reign of Lloyd George, felt humiliated by the contrast with the days of Edward I?

A world empire of either the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. is therefore preferable to the results of a continuation of the present international anarchy.

T here are, however, important reasons for preferring a victory of America. I am not contending that capitalism is better than communism; I think it not impossible that, if America were communist and Russia were capitalist, I should still be on the side of America. My reason for siding with America is that there is in that country more respect than in Russia for the things that I value in a civilized way of life. The things I have in mind are such as: freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry, freedom of discussion, and humane feeling. What a victory of Russia would mean is easily to be seen in Poland. There were flourishing universities in Poland, containing men of great intellectual eminence. Some of these men, fortunately, escaped; the rest disappeared. Education is now reduced to learning the formulae of Stalinist orthodoxy; it is only open (beyond the elementary stage) to young people whose parents are politically irreproachable, and it does not aim at producing any mental faculty except that of glib repetition of correct shibboleths and quick apprehension of the side that is winning official favor. From such an educational system nothing of intellectual value can result.

Meanwhile the middle class was annihilated by mass deportations, first in 1940, and again after the expulsion of the Germans. Politicians of majority parties were liquidated, imprisoned, or compelled to fly. Betraying friends to the police, or perjury when they are brought to trial, is often the only means of survival for those who have incurred governmental suspicions.

I do not doubt that, if this regime continues for a generation, it will succeed in its objects. Polish hostility to Russia will die out and be replaced by communist orthodoxy. Science and philosophy, art and literature, will become sycophantic adjuncts of government, jejune, narrow, and stupid. No individual will think, or even feel, for himself, but each will be contentedly a mere unit in the mass. A victory of Russia would, in time, make such a mentality world-wide. No doubt the complacency induced by success would ultimately lead to a relaxation of control, but the process would be slow and the revival of respect for the individual would be doubtful. For such reasons I should view a Russian victory as an appalling disaster.

A victory by the United States would have far less drastic consequences. In the first place, it would not be a victory of the United States in isolation, but of an alliance in which the other members would be able to insist upon retaining a large part of their traditional independence. One can hardly imagine the American army seizing the dons at Oxford and Cambridge and sending them to hard labor in Alaska. Nor do I think that they would accuse Mr. Attlee of plotting and compel him to fly to Moscow. Yet these are strict analogues of the things the Russians have done in Poland. After a victory of an alliance led by the United States there would still be British culture, French culture, Italian culture, and (I hope) German culture; there would not, therefore, be the same dead uniformity as would result from Soviet domination.

There is another important difference, and that is that Moscow’s orthodoxy is much more pervasive than that of Washington. In America, if you are a geneticist, you may hold whatever view of Mendelism the evidence makes you regard as the most probable; in Russia, if you are a geneticist who disagrees with Lysenko, you are liable to disappear mysteriously. In America, you may write a book debunking Lincoln if you feel so disposed; in Russia, if you should write a book debunking Lenin, it would not be published and you would be liquidated. If you are an American economist, you may hold, or not hold, that America is heading for a slump; in Russia, no economist dare question that an American slump is imminent. In America, if you are a professor of philosophy, you may be an idealist, a materialist, a pragmatist, a logical positivist, or whatever else may take your fancy; at congresses you can argue with men whose opinions differ from yours, and listeners can form a judgment as to who has the best of it. In Russia, you must be a dialectical materialist, but at one time the element of materialism outweighs the element of dialectic, and at other times it is the other way round. If you fail to follow the developments of official metaphysics with sufficient nimbleness, it will be the worse for you. Stalin at all times knows the truth about metaphysics, but you must not suppose that the truth this year is the same as it was last year. In such a world, intellect must stagnate, and even technological progress must soon come to an end.

Liberty, of the sort that communists despise, is important not only to intellectuals or to the more fortunate sections of society. Owing to its absence in Russia, the Soviet government has been able to establish a greater degree of economic inequality than exists in Great Britain or even in America. An oligarchy which controls all the means of publicity can perpetrate injustices and cruelties which would be scarcely possible if they were widely known. Only democracy and free publicity can prevent the holders of power from establishing a servile state, with luxury for the few and overworked poverty for the many. This is what is being done by the Soviet government wherever it is in secure control. There are, of course, economic inequalities everywhere, but in a democratic regime they tend to diminish, whereas under an oligarchy they tend to increase. And wherever an oligarchy has power, economic inequalities threaten to become permanent owing to the modern impossibility of successful rebellion.

I come now to the question, What should be our policy, in view of the various dangers to which mankind is exposed? To summarize the above arguments: we have to guard against three dangers—the extinction of the human race, a reversion to barbarism, and the establishment of a universal slave state involving misery for the vast majority and the disappearance of all progress in knowledge and thought. Either the first or second of these disasters is almost certain unless great wars can soon be brought to an end. Great wars can be brought to an end only by the concentration of armed force under a single authority. Such a concentration cannot be brought about by agreement, because of the opposition of Soviet Russia, but it must be brought about somehow.

The first step—and it is one which is now not very difficult—is to persuade the United States and the British Commonwealth of the absolute necessity for a military unification of the world. The governments of the English-speaking nations should then offer to all other nations the option of entering into a firm alliance, involving a pooling of military resources and mutual defense against aggression. In the case of hesitant nations, such as Italy, great inducements, economic and military, should be held out to produce their cooperation.

At a certain stage, when the alliance had acquired sufficient strength, any great power still refusing to join should be threatened with outlawry and, if recalcitrant, should be regarded as a public enemy. The resulting war, if it occurred fairly soon, would probably leave the economic and political structure of the United States intact, and would enable the victorious alliance to establish a monopoly of armed force, and therefore to make peace secure. But perhaps, if the alliance were sufficiently powerful, war would not be necessary, and the reluctant powers would prefer to enter it as equals rather than, after a terrible war, submit to it as vanquished enemies. If this were to happen, the world might emerge from its present dangers without another great war. I do not see any hope of such a happy issue by any other method. But whether Russia would yield when threatened with war is a question as to which I do not venture an opinion.

I have been dealing mainly with the gloomy aspects of the present situation of mankind. It is necessary to do so, in order to persuade the world to adopt measures running counter to traditional habits of thought and ingrained prejudices. But beyond the difficulties and probable tragedies of the near future there is the possibility of immeasurable good, and of greater well-being than has ever before fallen to the lot of man. This is not merely a possibility, but, if the Western democracies are firm and prompt, a probability. From the breakup of the Roman Empire to the present day, states have almost continuously increased in size. There are now only two fully independent states, America and Russia. The next step in this long historical process should reduce the two to one, and thus put an end to the period of organized wars, which began in Egypt some six thousand years ago. If war can be prevented without the establishment of a grinding tyranny, a weight will be lifted from the human spirit, deep collective fears will be exorcised, and as fear diminishes we may hope that cruelty also will grow less.

The uses to which men have put their increased control over natural forces are curious. In the nineteenth century they devoted themselves chiefly to increasing the numbers of Homo sapiens, particularly of the white variety. In the twentieth century they have, so far, pursued the exactly opposite aim. Owing to the increased productivity of labor, it has become possible to devote a larger percentage of the population to war. If atomic energy were to make production easier, the only effect, as things are, would be to make wars worse, since fewer people would be needed for producing necessaries. Unless we can cope with the problem of abolishing war, there is no reason whatever to rejoice in laborsaving technique, but quite the reverse. On the other hand, if the danger of war were removed, scientific technique could at last be used to promote human happiness. There is no longer any technical reason for the persistence of poverty, even in such densely populated countries as India and China. If war no longer occupied men’s thoughts and energies, we could, within a generation, put an end to all serious poverty throughout the world.

I have spoken of liberty as a good, but it is not an absolute good. We all recognize the need to restrain murderers, and it is even more important to restrain murderous states. Liberty must be limited by law, and its most valuable forms can only exist within a framework of law. What the world most needs is effective laws to control international relations. The first and most difficult step in the creation of such law is the establishment of adequate sanctions, and this is possible only through the creation of a single armed force in control of the whole world. But such an armed force, like a municipal police force, is not an end in itself; it is a means to the growth of a social system governed by law, where force is not the prerogative of private individuals or nations, but is exercised only by a neutral authority in accordance with rules laid down in advance. There is hope that law, rather than private force, may come to govern the relations of nations within the present century. If this hope is not realized we face utter disaster; if it is realized, the world will be far better than at any previous period in the history of man.

Russell’s View on World Government in his Essay The Future of Mankind

Russell’s View on World Government

Bertrand Russell  surely disproves the common established notion about philosophers, that, they are absent-minded and always engage their heads in making speculations, when he meditates on the possibilities regarding “ The Future of Mankind “. He has done so, because of his high sensitivity and deep concern towards human beings. He was called as a traitor to his country because of his anti-war stand during the First World War. But his only concern was towards ‘humanity’. Later he was awarded a Noble Prize for contribution towards peace. In the words of Erich From:

“Bertrand Russell fights against threatening slaughter. because he is a who loves life.”

Russell discuses three possibilities about “The Future of Mankind.” According to him, one is the com extinction of human life on earth, the second is that human life will be reduced to barbarism and the final is that there will be a world government that will control all nations and countries. Among these the first possibility, describes, is the complete extinction of all human beings. This might happen after the Second World War in atomic weapons will be used. Russell deals it logically, for he says, if still there will be some life after the end of that war, there would soon be another war, for there would such “die-hard” in the super powers, who would prefer the extermination of life, than surrendering to the victory of the other power.

And if any man would miraculously be able to escape from death, he may consider himself to be the emperor of the whole world, but his reign would not be long and his subjects would be only dead bodies and Russell says:

“With his death the uneasy episode of life will end, and the peaceful rocks will revolve unchanged, until the sun explodes.”

The second possibility, which Russell discusses, is the reversal of civilization to its primitive conditions. Russell suggests if the Second World War fails to eliminate all signs of life, still that destruction would take world to the age of “barbarism”. For in the war, the major cities and industrial areas would be destroyed and the bacteriological warfare would destroy crops and cause famine. Russell says there may be a few libraries and laboratories and scientists. But the people, might kill the remaining few scientists, in hope of some “Golden Age”, for:

“Extreme hopes are born of extreme misery and in such a world hopes could only be irrational.”

The third possibility, according to Russell, is the establishment of a universal government all over the world. He discusses this idea in more than one ways in which it could occur. The one is the victory of America, in the Second World War. Other is the victory of Russia, or the world government, would emerge as a result of mutual agreement. The best among these ways is the idea of mutual agreement.

Russell’s view of the world government has been criticized greatly. People have raised arguments considering it as a “Utopian ideal”. Most of the people think that such an alliance cannot be brought peacefully, for no nation would surrender her liberty. Russell also admits that the chances of government in a formal ways are extremely remote. He thinks that a  world government , would not be for voluntarily, but it would have to be brought about by force.

Russell prefers America to control the government and he has given many reasons for his preference to America but his preference has no political and ideological basis, but it totally depends on the probable condition of people under these states. The major reason to prefer America is that, she respects the values of civilized life like freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry and humanness. But on the other hand, in communistic countries like Russia there is not liberty for individuals and the government has a strict hold on the common masses.

Moreover, there is considerably less orthodoxy in America than in Russia. There, scientist, authors and philosophers can choose any subject regardless of state interest. While in Russia such things are also influenced by official views.

Russell suggests yet another way to prevent a horrible war. In his opinion, America would make an alliance with the British common wealth nations and with other European nations who want to join them. All the military power, of these countries, and weapons should be united and then they should declare war on the nation. In this way Russia might also be agreed to join the alliance just by the threat of war. But still he does not leave the possibility of Russian refusal.

In such an alliance, there should also be a legal check on the power of the leader, by other nations, so there would not be a “chance of corruption”.

Among the many advantages, of a single world government, is that the defense expenditures of every nation a diminish and by this way human beings would be more happy than before.

But a little earlier than this, Russell’s suggestions did not seem to be implemented to the world. For, China has emerged as a world power with nuclear weapons and it would certainly not like America as the only dominant on to control both, East and West.

• Summary of Russell’s Essay, Knowledge and Wisdom

However, Russell’s chief concern in all this discussion was his good will and sincere concern towards peace and survival of mankind. We can surely conclude that he was a true optimist, pacifist and humanist.

Related posts:

• Shooting an Elephant Analysis | Orwell’s View on Imperialism in Shooting an Elephant
• What according to Arnold are the Essential Features of a Modern Age? How far did ancient Greece exhibit them?
• On the Modern Element in Literature by Mathew Arnold | Full Text
• Character Analysis of Sir Roger de Coverley in Addison’s Essay

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

January 1, 2009

12 min read

The Future of Man—How Will Evolution Change Humans?

Contrary to popular belief, humans continue to evolve. Our bodies and brains are not the same as our ancestors' were—or as our descendants' will be

By Peter Ward

When you ask for opinions about what future humans might look like, you typically get one of two answers. Some people trot out the old science-fiction vision of a big-brained human with a high forehead and higher intellect. Others say humans are no longer evolving physically—that technology has put an end to the brutal logic of natural selection and that evolution is now purely cultural.

The big-brain vision has no real scientific basis. The fossil record of skull sizes over the past several thousand generations shows that our days of rapid increase in brain size are long over. Accordingly, most scientists a few years ago would have taken the view that human physical evolution has ceased. But DNA techniques, which probe genomes both present and past, have unleashed a revolution in studying evolution; they tell a different story. Not only has Homo sapiens been doing some major genetic reshuffling since our species formed, but the rate of human evolution may, if anything, have increased. In common with other organisms, we underwent the most dramatic changes to our body shape when our species first appeared, but we continue to show genetically induced changes to our physiology and perhaps to our behavior as well. Until fairly recently in our history, human races in various parts of the world were becoming more rather than less distinct. Even today the conditions of modern life could be driving changes to genes for certain behavioral traits.

If giant brains are not in store for us, then what is? Will we become larger or smaller, smarter or dumber? How will the emergence of new diseases and the rise in global temperature shape us? Will a new human species arise one day? Or does the future evolution of humanity lie not within our genes but within our technology, as we augment our brains and bodies with silicon and steel? Are we but the builders of the next dominant intelligence on the earth—the machines?

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The Far and Recent Past Tracking human evolution used to be the province solely of paleontologists, those of us who study fossil bones from the ancient past. The human family, called the Hominidae, goes back at least seven million years to the appearance of a small proto-human called Sahelanthropus tchadensis .

Since then, our family has had a still disputed, but rather diverse, number of new species in it—as many as nine that we know of and others surely still hidden in the notoriously poor hominid fossil record. Because early human skeletons rarely made it into sedimentary rocks before they were scavenged, this estimate changes from year to year as new discoveries and new interpretations of past bones make their way into print [see “Once We Were Not Alone,” by Ian Tattersall; Scientific American , January 2000, and “ An Ancestor to Call Our Own ,” by Kate Wong; Scientific American , January 2003].

Each new species evolved when a small group of hominids somehow became separated from the larger population for many generations and then found itself in novel environmental conditions favoring a different set of adaptations. Cut off from kin, the small population went its own genetic route and eventually its members could no longer successfully reproduce with the parent population.

The fossil record tells us that the oldest member of our own species lived 195,000 years ago in what is now Ethiopia. From there it spread out across the globe. By 10,000 years ago modern humans had successfully colonized each of the continents save Antarctica, and adaptations to these many locales (among other evolutionary forces) led to what we loosely call races. Groups living in different places evidently retained just enough connections with one another to avoid evolving into separate species. With the globe fairly well covered, one might expect that the time for evolving was pretty much finished.

But that turns out not to be the case. In a study published a year ago Henry C. Harpending of the University of Utah, John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin–Madison and their colleagues analyzed data from the international haplotype map of the human genome [see “ Traces of a Distant Past ,” by Gary Stix; Scientific American, July 2008]. They focused on genetic markers in 270 people from four groups: Han Chinese, Japanese, Yoruba and northern Europeans. They found that at least 7 percent of human genes underwent evolution as recently as 5,000 years ago. Much of the change involved adaptations to particular environments, both natural and human-shaped. For example, few people in China and Africa can digest fresh milk into adulthood, whereas almost everyone in Sweden and Denmark can. This ability presumably arose as an adaptation to dairy farming.

Another study by Pardis C. Sabeti of Harvard University and her colleagues used huge data sets of genetic variation to look for signs of natural selection across the human genome. More than 300 regions on the genome showed evidence of recent changes that improved people’s chance of surviving and reproducing. Examples included resistance to one of Africa’s great scourges, the virus causing Lassa fever; partial resistance to other diseases, such as malaria, among some African populations; changes in skin pigmentation and development of hair follicles among Asians; and the evolution of lighter skin and blue eyes in northern Europe.

Harpending and Hawks’s team estimated that over the past 10,000 years humans have evolved as much as 100 times faster than at any other time since the split of the earliest hominid from the ancestors of modern chimpanzees. The team attributed the quickening pace to the variety of environments humans moved into and the changes in living conditions brought about by agriculture and cities. It was not farming per se or the changes in the landscape that conversion of wild habitat to tamed fields brought about but the often lethal combination of poor sanitation, novel diet and emerging diseases (from other humans as well as domesticated animals). Although some researchers have expressed reservations about these estimates, the basic point seems clear: humans are first-class evolvers.

Unnatural Selection During the past century, our species’ circumstances have again changed. The geographic isolation of different groups has been broached by the ease of transportation and the dismantling of social barriers that once kept racial groups apart. Never before has the human gene pool had such widespread mixing of what were heretofore entirely separated local populations of our species. In fact, the mobility of humanity might be bringing about the homogenization of our species. At the same time, natural selection in our species is being thwarted by our technology and our medicines. In most parts of the globe, babies no longer die in large numbers. People with genetic damage that was once fatal now live and have children. Natural predators no longer affect the rules of survival.

Steve Jones of University College London has argued that human evolution has essentially ceased. At a Royal Society of Edinburgh debate in 2002 entitled “Is Evolution Over?” he said: “Things have simply stopped getting better, or worse, for our species. If you want to know what Utopia is like, just look around—this is it.” Jones suggested that, at least in the developed world, almost everyone has the opportunity to reach reproductive age, and the poor and rich have an equal chance of having children. Inherited disease resistance—say, to HIV—may still confer a survival advantage, but culture, rather than genetic inheritance, is now the deciding factor in whether people live or die. In short, evolution may now be memetic—involving ideas—rather than genetic [see “The Power of Memes,” by Susan Blackmore; Scientific American, October 2000].

Another point of view is that genetic evolution continues to occur even today, but in reverse. Certain characteristics of modern life may drive evolutionary change that does not make us fitter for survival—or that even makes us less fit. Innumerable college students have noticed one potential way that such “inadaptive” evolution could happen: they put off reproduction while many of their high school classmates who did not make the grade started having babies right away. If less intelligent parents have more kids, then intelligence is a Darwinian liability in today’s world, and average intelligence might evolve downward.

Such arguments have a long and contentious history. One of the many counterarguments is that human intelligence is made up of many different abilities encoded by a large number of genes. It thus has a low degree of heritability, the rate at which one generation passes the trait to the next. Natural selection acts only on heritable traits. Researchers actively debate just how heritable intelligence is [see “ The Search for Intelligence ,” by Carl Zimmer; Scientific American, October 2008], but they have found no sign that average intelligence is in fact decreasing.

Even if intelligence is not at risk, some scientists speculate that other, more heritable traits could be accumulating in the human species and that these traits are anything but good for us. For instance, behavior disorders such as Tourette’s syndrome and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may, unlike intelligence, be encoded by but a few genes, in which case their heritability could be very high. If these disorders increase one’s chance of having children, they could become ever more prevalent with each generation. David Comings, a specialist in these two diseases, has argued in scientific papers and a 1996 book that these conditions are more common than they used to be and that evolution might be one reason: women with these syndromes are less likely to attend college and thus tend to have more children than those who do not. But other researchers have brought forward serious concerns about Comings’s methodology. It is not clear whether the incidence of Tourette’s and ADHD is, in fact, increasing at all. Research into these areas is also made more difficult because of the perceived social stigma that many of these afflictions attach to their carriers.

Although these particular examples do not pass scientific muster, the basic line of reasoning is plausible. We tend to think of evolution as something involving structural modification, yet it can and does affect things invisible from the outside—behavior. Many people carry the genes making them susceptible to alcoholism, drug addiction and other problems. Most do not succumb, because genes are not destiny; their effect depends on our environment. But others do succumb, and their problems may affect whether they survive and how many children they have. These changes in fertility are enough for natural selection to act on. Much of humanity’s future evolution may involve new sets of behaviors that spread in response to changing social and environmental conditions. Of course, humans differ from other species in that we do not have to accept this Darwinian logic passively.

Directed Evolution We have directed the evolution of so many animal and plant species. Why not direct our own? Why wait for natural selection to do the job when we can do it faster and in ways beneficial to ourselves? In the area of human behavior, for example, geneticists are tracking down the genetic components not just of problems and disorders but also of overall disposition and various aspects of sexuality and competitiveness, many of which may be at least partially heritable. Over time, elaborate screening for genetic makeup may become commonplace, and people will be offered drugs based on the results.

The next step will be to actually change people’s genes. That could conceivably be done in two ways: by changing genes in the relevant organ only (gene therapy) or by altering the entire genome of an individual (what is known as germ-line therapy). Researchers are still struggling with the limited goal of gene therapy to cure disease. But if they can ever pull off germ-line therapy, it will help not only the individual in question but also his or her children. The major obstacle to genetic engineering in humans will be the sheer complexity of the genome. Genes usually perform more than one function; conversely, functions are usually encoded by more than one gene. Because of this property, known as pleiotropy, tinkering with one gene can have unintended consequences.

Why try at all, then? The pressure to change genes will probably come from parents wanting to guarantee their child is a boy or a girl; to endow their children with beauty, intelligence, musical talent or a sweet nature; or to try to ensure that they are not helplessly disposed to become mean-spirited, depressed, hyperactive or even criminal. The motives are there, and they are very strong. Just as the push by parents to genetically enhance their children could be socially irresistible, so, too, would be an assault on human aging. Many recent studies suggest that aging is not so much a simple wearing down of body parts as it is a programmed decay, much of it genetically controlled. If so, the next century of genetic research could unlock numerous genes controlling many aspects of aging. Those genes could be manipulated.

Assuming that it does become practical to change our genes, how will that affect the future evolution of humanity? Probably a great deal. Suppose parents alter their unborn children to enhance their intelligence, looks and longevity. If the kids are as smart as they are long-lived—an IQ of 150 and a lifespan of 150 years—they could have more children and accumulate more wealth than the rest of us. Socially they will probably be drawn to others of their kind. With some kind of self-imposed geographic or social segregation, their genes might drift and eventually differentiate as a new species. One day, then, we will have it in our power to bring a new human species into this world. Whether we choose to follow such a path is for our descendants to decide.

The Borg Route Even less predictable than our use of genetic manipulation is our manipulation of machines—or they of us. Is the ultimate evolution of our species one of symbiosis with machines, a human-machine synthesis? Many writers have predicted that we might link our bodies with robots or upload our minds into computers. In fact, we are already dependent on machines. As much as we build them to meet human needs, we have structured our own lives and behavior to meet theirs. As machines become ever more complex and interconnected, we will be forced to try to accommodate them. This view was starkly enunciated by George Dyson in his 1998 book Darwin among the Machines : “Everything that human beings are doing to make it easier to operate computer networks is at the same time, but for different reasons, making it easier for computer networks to operate human beings.... Darwinian evolution, in one of those paradoxes with which life abounds, may be a victim of its own success, unable to keep up with non-Darwinian processes that it has spawned.”

Our technological prowess threatens to swamp the old ways that evolution works. Consider two different views of the future taken from an essay in 2004 by evolutionary philosopher Nick Bostrom of the University of Oxford. On the optimistic side, he wrote: “The big picture shows an overarching trend towards increasing levels of complexity, knowledge, consciousness, and coordinated goal-directed organization, a trend which, not to put too fine a point on it, we may label ‘progress.’ What we shall call the Panglossian view maintains that this past record of success gives us good grounds for thinking that evolution (whether biological, memetic or technological) will continue to lead in desirable directions.”

Although the reference to “progress” surely causes the late evolutionary biologist Steven Jay Gould to spin in his grave, the point can be made. As Gould argued, fossils, including those from our own ancestors, tell us that evolutionary change is not a continuous thing; rather it occurs in fits and starts, and it is certainly not “progressive” or directional. Organisms get smaller as well as larger. But evolution has indeed shown at least one vector: toward increasing complexity. Perhaps that is the fate of future human evolution: greater complexity through some combination of anatomy, physiology or behavior. If we continue to adapt (and undertake some deft planetary engineering), there is no genetic or evolutionary reason that we could not still be around to watch the sun die. Unlike aging, extinction does not appear to be genetically programmed into any species.

The darker side is all too familiar. Bostrom (who must be a very unsettled man) offered a vision of how uploading our brains into computers could spell our doom. Advanced artificial intelligence could encapsulate the various components of human cognition and reassemble those components into something that is no longer human—and that would render us obsolete. Bostrom predicted the following course of events: “Some human individuals upload and make many copies of themselves. Meanwhile, there is gradual progress in neuroscience and artificial intelligence, and eventually it becomes possible to isolate individual cognitive modules and connect them up to modules from other uploaded minds.... Modules that conform to a common standard would be better able to communicate and cooperate with other modules and would therefore be economically more productive, creating a pressure for standardization.... There might be no niche for mental architectures of a human kind.”

As if technological obsolescence were not disturbing enough, Bostrom concluded with an even more dreary possibility: if machine efficiency became the new measure of evolutionary fitness, much of what we regard as quintessentially human would be weeded out of our lineage. He wrote: “The extravagancies and fun that arguably give human life much of its meaning—humor, love, game-playing, art, sex, dancing, social conversation, philosophy, literature, scientific discovery, food and drink, friendship, parenting, sport—we have preferences and capabilities that make us engage in such activities, and these predispositions were adaptive in our species’ evolutionary past; but what ground do we have for being confident that these or similar activities will continue to be adaptive in the future? Perhaps what will maximize fitness in the future will be nothing but nonstop high-intensity drudgery, work of a drab and repetitive nature, aimed at improving the eighth decimal of some economic output measure.”

In short, humanity’s future could take one of several routes, assuming we do not go extinct:

Stasis. We largely stay as we are now, with minor tweaks, mainly as races merge.

Speciation. A new human species evolves on either this planet or another.

Symbiosis with machines. Integration of machines and human brains produces a collective intelligence that may or may not retain the qualities we now recognize as human.

Quo vadis Homo futuris?

Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "What Will Become of Homo Sapiens ?"

Question and Answer forum for K12 Students

The Future Of Mankind Paragraph: Challenges And Opportunities

The Future Of Mankind Paragraph: The future of mankind is a topic of great interest and concern for many people around the world. With the rapid pace of technological advances and social changes, along with environmental and economic challenges, it is difficult to predict what lies ahead for humanity. In this article, we will explore some of the key areas that are shaping the future of mankind.

The Future Of Mankind Paragraph

In this blog The Future Of Mankind Paragraph, we include The Future Of Mankind Paragraph, in 100, 200, 250, and 300 words. Also, cover A House On Fire belonging to classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and up to the 12th class and also for kids, children, and students.

You can read more  Essay writing in 10 lines, and about sports, events, occasions, festivals, etc… The Future Of Mankind Paragraph is also available in different languages. In The Future Of Mankind Paragraph, the following features are explained in the given manner.

Technological Advances

One of the most significant drivers of change in the future of mankind is technology. Artificial intelligence, robotics and automation, biotechnology, and nanotechnology are all advancing at an incredible pace. These innovations are likely to transform every aspect of our lives, from the way we work and communicate to the way we live and interact with the world.

Social Changes

Along with technological advances, social changes are also having a major impact on the future of mankind. Increasing globalization, aging populations, migration and urbanization, and growing inequality are just some of the issues that are shaping our society. These changes are likely to have profound effects on the way we live, work, and interact with one another.

Environmental Concerns

Environmental concerns are another key area that will have a major impact on the future of mankind. Climate change, biodiversity loss, water scarcity, and resource depletion are all issues that will need to be addressed in the coming years. Failure to do so could have devastating consequences for our planet and for future generations.

Economic Challenges

The global economy is facing many challenges, including a rapidly changing job market, rising debt and economic inequality, growing automation and job losses, and an increasing need for new skills. These challenges are likely to have significant impacts on the way we work and live, and will require creative solutions to address them.

Opportunities For The Future

Despite the challenges facing humanity, there are also many opportunities for the future of mankind. Advancements in healthcare, renewable energy and sustainable living, improved education and lifelong learning, and greater cooperation and collaboration are just some of the areas where positive change is possible.

As we have discussed in the previous information, the future of mankind is filled with both challenges and opportunities. In this section, we will explore some of the possible ways that we can address these challenges and capitalize on the opportunities to create a better future for ourselves and future generations.

• Sustainability: One of the biggest challenges facing mankind is achieving sustainability. We need to find ways to meet our needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. This requires changes in our current systems of production and consumption, including increased use of renewable energy, sustainable agriculture practices, and reduced waste.
• Technological advancements: Technology has the potential to revolutionize many aspects of human life, from healthcare to transportation. Advances in fields such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and nanotechnology could bring about transformative changes that could help us solve some of the world’s most pressing problems.
• Global cooperation: In an increasingly interconnected world, global cooperation is crucial for addressing global challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and poverty. We need to work together across national boundaries to find solutions that benefit everyone.
• Education: Education is key to creating a better future for mankind. It provides the knowledge and skills necessary to tackle the challenges we face and seize the opportunities that lie ahead. We need to invest in education and ensure that it is accessible to all.

Empowering individuals: Finally, we need to empower individuals to take action and create positive change. This includes providing people with the tools and resources they need to make a difference in their own lives and communities. By empowering individuals, we can create a bottom-up approach to problem-solving and ensure that everyone has a stake in creating a better future.

In conclusion, The future of mankind presents both challenges and opportunities. While technological advancements may improve our lives, social and environmental concerns require immediate attention. Economic challenges and inequality must be addressed to ensure a sustainable future. However, opportunities such as advancements in healthcare, sustainable living, and increased cooperation provide hope for a better tomorrow. It is up to us to seize these opportunities and overcome the challenges to create a brighter future for all of mankind.

Also Read: Ideas That Have Helped Mankind Summary

FAQ’s On The Future Of Mankind Paragraph

Question 1. What will life be like in the future paragraph?

Answer: Life in the future is likely to be significantly different from what we know now. With technological advancements and innovations, we may see changes in transportation, communication, and the job market. Environmental concerns such as climate change and resource depletion may also impact our daily lives. However, there are also opportunities for a better future through advancements in healthcare, sustainable living, and increased collaboration.

Question 2. Who I will be in the future paragraph?

Answer: You have the power to determine your future by setting goals, working hard towards them, and making positive changes in your life. With determination and perseverance, you can achieve great things and become the best version of yourself. Remember, the future is not set in stone, but rather an opportunity for you to create the life you want.

Question 3. What is the critical summary of the future of mankind by Bertrand Russell?

Answer: Bertrand Russell’s “The Future of Mankind” outlines the potential advancements and challenges that humanity will face in the future. He discusses the importance of scientific progress, technological advancements, and social changes for a positive future. He also highlights the potential dangers of environmental concerns and economic challenges that could hinder progress. Ultimately, Russell argues that collaboration and a focus on human values are crucial for a successful future.

Question 4. What to write about future world?

Answer: In the future world, we may see advanced technologies, rapid globalization, increased environmental concerns, and economic challenges. The future world may also bring opportunities for advancements in healthcare, renewable energy, improved education, and greater cooperation and collaboration among individuals and nations. Overall, the future world will be shaped by the choices we make in the present.

Question 5. What is the future of our world?

Answer: The future of our world is uncertain and depends on how we address pressing issues such as climate change, resource depletion, and inequality. Advances in technology and science hold promise for positive change, but only if used ethically and responsibly. The world will likely become more interconnected, but also face challenges related to population growth, migration, and urbanization. Ultimately, the future of our world will be shaped by the actions we take today.

Read More Essays:

• Cost of Capital – Financial Management MCQ
• Introduction to Management – Strategic Management MCQ
• Mother’s Day Paragraph
• Nobel Prize Presentation Speech of Dr. C.V. Raman
• Woman Work Analysis
• Song of Myself Summary
• Strategic Implementation and Control Strategic Management MCQ
• Management Reporting Corporate and Management Accounting MCQ
• Nelson Mandela Long Walk to Freedom Extra Questions and Answers
• Management Information Systems and Accounting Information System

ASK LITERATURE

THROWING LIGHT ON LITERATURE

Home / Prose / Bertrand Russell / Ideas That Have Helped Mankind Summary and Analysis

Ideas That Have Helped Mankind Summary and Analysis

Bertrand Arthur William Russell was a Nobel laureate British philosopher. In addition, he was a writer, logician, mathematician, historian, social critic and political activist. His genius mind had the capacity to write articles and essays on formal topics such as “Ideas That Have Helped Mankind”. In most of his essays, he presented a philosophy of his own. In this essay too, he talks about philosophical ideas very impressively. He refers to those goals which are not only helpful for his own nation but also for other nations of the world. 

His philosophy is not limited to any religion. In fact, he ignores every religion and raised his voice for the welfare of whole humanity. Thus, there is an element of universality in his work. Many of his essays are suggestive in nature. In his essays, he gives the best piece of advice and compels the world through reasonable arguments to follow it for the sake of peace.

Table of contents

Summary and critical analysis of ideas that have helped mankind, ideas related to knowledge and technique, ideas related to morals, politics and science that have helped mankind, bertrand russell’s criticism, russell’s suggestions, russell’s idea of international government.

This essay is not different from other essays of the writer. Bertrand Russell thinks that there are some ideas that have helped mankind and they are worth mentioning. He does not only talk about their benefits but also appreciates their importance. These ideas have helped humanity and are still helping.

Bertrand Russell knows that the people of the Greeks were educated. He remembers their hard work. He is of the view that their efforts did not go to waste. At the time of the Renaissance, it was the literature of the Greeks and their ideas that helped not only writers but the whole of mankind. Some ideas are scientific, some are related to politics whereas the remaining are based on math, philosophy and logic.

Prehistoric Ideas that have Helped Mankind

Pre-historic age was the age of knowledge and technique. In those days, technical ideas have come into the minds of people, which helped mankind and increased their knowledge. Those ideas were not only helpful for them but also for the upcoming generations. It is not wrong to say that those ideas are the need of the hour. Those innovative ideas are much helpful for the modern world.

Bertrand Russell creates a list of those ideas that are related to knowledge and technique. These ideas changed the lifestyle of humankind. 

Evolution of Language

Language helped humanity in many ways. Strong communication is only possible through language whether it is verbal or physical. It is the only language, through which people are transmitting information, gaining knowledge, and expressing their feelings and emotions. It is also a cultural identity for many nations. Thus, the idea of the evolution of language has definitely helped mankind.

Discovery of Fire and its Use

Fire is, indeed, one of the best innovations in the world. It is helping people in many ways. Though it has many drawbacks as nations are using it as weapons, it is helpful, if used for positive purposes. It is a source of warmth and comfort. Moreover, cooking, electricity and all type of machines are dependent on fire. So, in one way or the other, the ideas of fire and its uses have helped mankind and are still helping them.

Art of Writing

Writing was the first way of distant communication. The idea of writing helped people in communicating, learning and gaining knowledge. It has also helped people store information related to history. If Greek literature is read even today then it is possible only because of “writing invention”.

Domestication of Animals

Animals were not the source of pleasure before taming. They were harming people and the only way to survive along with animals was to domesticate them. No doubt, the ideas related to taming of animals have also helped mankind.

Agricultural Inventions

With the passage of time, people realized that hard work was not enough; therefore, smart work was necessary. Many agricultural inventions helped people in producing more crops while doing less hard work.

Historical Ideas

In historic times, people made progress in the field of mathematics, astronomy and science. Although the term “astronomy” appeared in historic times yet Bertrand Russell is of the view that Greeks predefined astronomy and mathematics; therefore, their role in defining important scientific terms helped humankind; especially during the period of the Renaissance. Hence, these ideas belonged to pre-historic times but they were enhanced in historic times; therefore, they are included in the second category.

In addition, Bertrand Russell talks about morality, politics and science in this essay. He knows the importance of knowledge; therefore, he promotes ideas related to it.

Law of Inertia by Galileo

The law of inertia is the base of modern scientific inventions. Newton has presented three laws of motion but they are based on the law of inertia. In Russell’s eyes, this law is much helpful and laid the foundation of modern physics.

Laws of Motion (Newton’s)

The science of motion is the base of physics. Newton presented three laws of motion due to which, physics remembers him even today. Bertrand Russell may consider it an idea but it is a pure effort of Newton to demonstrate these laws. Obviously, these laws/ideas have helped mankind.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Darwin’s theory of evolution shocked many religious scholars. A number of scientists believe that this theory is fictional. However, Russell sees it as a greater achievement in the field of science.

Psychology (The Science of Behavior and Mind)

Science proved that there is no concept of the soul in the human body and it functions on the basis of some principles. Similarly, animals, birds and other living creatures behave under various circumstances. Bertrand Russell considers that the science of behaviour and mind is also one of the cooperative ideas that have helped mankind.

Moral Principles

Many nations created weapons for the sake of security but unfortunately, they used them against each other. Weapons destroyed first humanity and then humans. Man is a mixture of both good and evil. In order to ensure goodness and for the welfare of humanity, moral principles were created. Brotherhood and the doctrine of unity are important in this context.  These ideas were necessary to save the world from destruction.

In history, this doctrine was adopted by Alexander the Great, who forced his fellowmen to marry women of different nations so as to create a single democratic nation. It is certainly a positive step and can be included in those better ideas that have helped and led mankind towards improvements and recreation.

Besides its negative aspects, people deem democracy as the best system. “Abraham Lincoln” once said: “democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people”. It gives people liberty and freedom whether it is religious or cultural. It also provides people with the freedom of speech. In Russell’s eyes, it is also one of the best ideas that have helped people along with other ideas.

With democracy, there comes freedom. People can easily purchase properties. They can do business and can enjoy religious freedom. They are free to speak even against the government. Thus, with democracy, freedom is also important.

Personal Liberty

Freedom of the whole nation is not enough until one has the liberty to accomplish his desires. People can adopt their desired religion and culture. They can pray, worship or celebrate religious or cultural festivals. Bertrand Russell likes personal freedom along with the freedom of the nation.

Russell, on one hand, appreciates the ideas that have helped mankind but on the other hand, he criticizes the people who misuse them. For instance, he raises his voice against physical and moral corruption in democracy. He says that when a democratic country comes into power, it starts focusing on its private interests. Instead of doing something for the welfare of the motherland, people in power start promoting their private concerns. This misuse of power leads a nation towards destruction. The private interests of the people in power are fulfilled, subject to the risk and cost to the citizens. The writer considers that democracy is a safeguard against the worst abuses of power. People do not know what their selected persons are doing. 

Russell is also against war and wants peace for every nation as well as religion. He wants equality for everyone. His criticism is related to the misuse of power, and corruption of government and laws.

At the end of the essay, Russell presents his own idea. He while demonstrating his own philosophy suggests that every country should adopt the doctrine of International Government. He supports his philosophy with subtle arguments and strong examples. The main suggestion of Bertrand Russell is for creating an International Government.

The writer thinks that humanity has suffered a lot in both world wars. Despite too much destruction, people gained nothing. If counties and nations want survival then the international government is the only option.

When Russell wrote this essay, he was confident that if the idea of international government is not adopted then in upcoming years, the war would destroy everything. The United States of America and Russia were two major powers in those days.

Notwithstanding, The world had not adopted the idea of international government and fortunately, nothing happened.

In his suggestions, the writer talks about equality. He may be right but it is much more difficult to adopt his idea of International Government. Although International Government can fight against hunger and disease, yet many countries do not want equality. This idea goes in favour of poor countries, and rich countries do not want equality. They want more and more power. Moreover, in Russell’s days, only U.S.A and U.S.S.R were in power but nowadays China is also an established country. Thus, there is a boost in opposition.

Bertrand Russell in this essay first describes the benefits of useful ideas that have helped mankind and at the end demonstrates his own philosophical idea of international government. Russell’s philosophy is the philosophy of peace and equality. He supports his arguments and philosophy with historical examples. He has a vast knowledge of every field of life, which makes him a Nobel laureate.

(92) 336 3216666

[email protected]

• Ideas that have Helped Mankind

Read our complete notes on Ideas that have Helped Mankind summary & analysis.

Ideas that have Helped Mankind by Bertrand Russel Summary & Analysis

Bertrand Russell is a well-known British philosopher and a symbolic character in the  analytic movement in Anglo-American philosophy.  He is also known as a logician and social reformer, and a Nobel Prize winner for Literature in 1950. He wrote numerous books and huge numbers of articles. His subject matters include social, political and moral issues. He is preeminently known as a promoter of peace.

Ideas that have Helped mankind  is an expository essay in which Russell gives a detailed account of the ideas that have helped mankind in pre-historic time and historic time. This essay is one of Russell’s unpopular essays.

Russell begins the essay,  Ideas that have Helped Mankind,  by asking straight six questions that indispensable to outlining what would be supportive to mankind. The six questions are:

“Are mankind helped …….. friendly with one another?” (Russell)

Russell explains each one the question one after another in detail. The very first idea in pre-historic time which helped man, according to the author, is the  increase in numbers.  There is a time when men were a rare species on the planet. They were afraid of giant beasts; along with difficulty in sustenance. The increase in numbers benefited them a lot in terms of safety.

Early humans were more like animals living like beasts: cloth less, and obtaining food by killing other animals. However, with the passage of time, their way of living changes and they  become less like animals . The two factors that bring about this change are the “congenital skills” and the “forethought” (thinking about the future). The fact, nevertheless, is that it is not because of the congenital skills that human progress but because of acquired skills.

The author is not sure about the in what way  happiness  benefited the mankind. Though the foresightedness of man helped them in many ways; it has harmed them in an equal manner. The man is always in fear of upcoming disasters, and this fear of the future make them less happy, says the writer. According to Russell, facing the calamity is not that much lethal as worrying about it is.

A man is more exposed to various experiences in their life than animals. This all because of different intellect from other species of its kind. Their brainpower, consequently, empowers them to enjoy a greater  diversity of experiences.

The  increase in   knowledge  with the passage of time helped the man to progress. It is on the basis of the amount of knowledge that humans are superior to other species.

Russell, furthermore, point out toward how the  development of civilization  has helped mankind throughout evolution. To him, the civilization told the human to be more kind towards other fellow beings as compared to animals. A sense of love, care and helped aroused in the man with the development of civilization and this benefited the man in term of progress.

Apart from these above-mentioned elements, Russell points out ideas during the pre-historic time and the historic time that have helped mankind.

Pre-historic Time ideas:

Ideas that have helped mankind during pre-historic time are as follows.

• The  invention of language  is the most important as well as difficult step. The exact stage during which language developed is not known, however, without language it would be impossible for any generation to develop.
• The second step is the  utilization of fire . With the help of fire humans and other animals keep themselves warm and cook food.
• Another great step was  taming of domestic animals  which provide food and nutrition to man.
• Along with the domestication of animals, the human need for green vegetables leads to the  invention of  This invention was not easy as it involves the huge sacrifice of humans.
• The last but not the least is the  development of the art of writing.  It is, too, like writing developed gradually. First pictures and signs were used to convey a message. However, with the passage of time alphabets evolved.

Historic Time ideas:

Russell continues to contemplate the development accomplished by men in historic times. He splits the ideas into two types: ideas about knowledge and technique and the ideas that are concerned with morals and politics.

• Development In Mathematics and Astronomy:

In Babylonia, in ancient times, the important steps about mathematics and astronomy were taken by Greeks. They acquire knowledge from the civilized nations like Egyptians. Whatever were offered by Egyptians were immediately assimilated by Greeks. The Greeks used mathematics, not in the way it is used nowadays. They used it for pleasure and luxury, not for business. Greeks also made huge progress in astronomy as well but there was no practical application of astronomy until it becomes associated with astrology. Archimedes and Aristarchus of Samos are one of the greatest mathematician and astronomer of the antiquity, respectively. The Greeks developed the custom of communicating natural laws in mathematical terms.

• Beneficial Ideas Contributed during 17 th  Century by Scientists.

During the 17 th  century, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, and Leibniz are the most prominent figures who made huge developments. All modern scientific discoveries, with the exception of an atomic bomb, are based on old classical principles of Galileo and Newton. The undercurrents of Galileo and Newton rest upon two new principles and a new technique. One of the principles is the law of inertia which states that every body continues its state of rest or uniform motion unless a force is applied on it.

The science of the 17 th  century made it clear that if we wish to understand the universe; we should deal with nature without any biasness.

• The Theory of Evolution:

Geology and the Darwin theory of evolution put a real blow on the face of severe conventional religious belief about the evolution of mankind. Russell says that science proves the soul to be useless. He is not sure whether a person has a soul or not, however, if it exists it has no role.

• The Moral and Political Ideas:

According to Russell, moral and political ideas belongs to the second class of historic ideas that have helped mankind. The progress in science and technology, according to Russell, possibly will merely upsurge the extent of the calamity that an exploitation of ability can bring about. For example, the clash between Muslims and Jews for the control of Palestine, due to political bigotry, can cause the world war and by the use of an atomic weapon; they will destroy the whole world. Russell gives a sound, justified warning to the mankind. As far as knowledge and technology is concerned, humans have developed a lot in this field. However, when we speak of morality particularly political morality, no such development is made. There is unconditionally on no account any sensation in any sector of the world population of the unity of menfolk; the humans are divided into varied groups and communities, and every community thinks itself more vital as compare to others. The ideas of nationalism were not that widespread and strong as it is now and it narrows the mentality of man. The realm of the world proposes the vision of a dynasty alienated against itself. An objective of a world-government is by way of inaccessible from the thoughts of individuals as the far planets in the solar system. The mankind must dedicate some concerns towards moral and political development, if it has to survive.

• The Idea of Comradeship of Man:

Amongst the philosophies that have benefited men in the moral domain is the idea of the comradeship of humans. This idea owed its major power to a certain political progress.  This idea was invented by the Stoics. This idea was reinforced by Buddhism and Christianity, consequently. Christianity played a huge role in lessening the miseries of the slaves. They established hospitals and charity schools on a broad scale. Still, a huge figure of Christians is unsuccessful to dwell up to the principles that are promoted by their conviction.

The idea of brotherhood among humans is among the important ideas that have benefited the moral development of mankind, however, to some people this idea still doesn’t hold upon some minds. This is because of the wide diversity among people that resulted in nations. We approve Russell concept of the brotherhood that it helped a lot in development of mankind, yet is not capable of preventing world wars.

• The Idea of Democracy and Liberty:

The concepts of equality, fraternity, and liberty have helped mankind to a large extent. The roots of all these concepts lie in religion. Religious toleration provides a platform for individual liberty to enter into practical politics. John Locke is considered one of the supreme supporter of liberty in the 17 th  century. He tried his best to settle the individual liberty with constitutional control. Law and government are other extraordinary concepts in the politics that have helped mankind. The Government, of the two, is more important. The Government can be well-defined by means of the combined force of a public. It is a force which enables the control of citizens and to struggle against the pressure from overseas States. In order to maintain peace in a state of war or when there is a danger of war, the government seems to have greater control over private citizens. At the charge of citizens, governments intensify their power. In the early times, the kings had misused this political powers but nowadays, there is a complete check on government which doesn’t allow the government to misuse this power. This is achieved through democracy. In democracy, government is run on the desire of people. In addition to, in democratic states, the constitution allows freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of movement. A democratic State distinguishes from a police State where individuals are controlled by governments and there is no freedom.

• Government:

Russell has progressive views about government. The approach that he adopted to discuss government is quite pragmatic. Those who are hard-edge socialist will never agree with Russell’s ideas of liberty and democracy. According to Russell, democracy offers the freedom that is very essential for the welfare and bliss of mankind. While on the other hand, a totalitarian system of government takes all over into their hands and treat the people as their subjects. No country can develop morally and on scientific grounds in such a system.

Russell finally proposes an idea that may benefit the mankind to a great extent in the coming future. The idea is of  one single government  for the whole world. To Russell, the upcoming time for mankind would be gloomy if the idea or single government is not put into practice. According to Russell, nowadays world faces unprecedented problems, and human are left with only two substitutes: one is that man should go back ancient times as a consequence of obliteration of civilization or they should agree upon establishing a single international government. A new period of development and progress of mankind with start in case a new international government is formed. The United States and the Soviet Unions, nowadays, are considered to be truly independent states. A big step, for the welfare of mankind, on the mutual agreement, to convert two independent states to one, should be taken for establishing peace in the world.

Previously Russell seems to determine about the idea of international government. But now to him, the idea seems to be wholly impractical. The world is divided into more than one hundred and fifty states and each state have their own identity. The unity and agreement on a large scale of international government are questionable. Even if we only consider the two independent states; would they agree to form one international government?

According to Russell, when he wrote this essay, the world in coming twenty to thirty years will either abolish itself or will establish by establishing an international government. Neither of his prediction comes true. Peace still prevails in the world and in the future there would be no need of establishing world-government.

More From Bertrand Russell

• Eminent Men I have Known
• Ideas that have Harmed Mankind
• On the Value of Scepticism
• The Harm that Good Men Do

English Literature

• _American Literature
• _English Literature
• _Asian Literature
• __Short Stories
• _Books & Pdfs
• _Admissions
• _Research Papers
• _Psycholinguistics
• _Translation Studies
• _Phonetics and Phonology
• _Grammar and Syntax
• Gen. Articles
• _Test Preparation
• _Legal Help
• _Technology
• Who We Are!
• _About CEO & Founder
• _Top Contributors
• _Our Services
• _Guest Posts
• _Content Policy
• _Write for Us

Pessimism in the Essay, Future of Mankind by Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell, a British critic, writer, and philosopher is often criticized by the critics for being too pessimistic in his essay ‘The Future of Mankind', as he discussed the horrifying outcomes of the third world war. Russell in this essay also highlights his anti-war philosophy by elaborating the horrors and destructions that can be brought upon humanity in the case of the third world war. 

  Russell in his essay points out the devastating outcome that can be brought upon humanity in certain ways. Firstly, he points out the possibility of the “ End of human life ” on planet Earth. He very pessimistically points out how another world war if ‘prolonged for a longer period’ can result in the extinction of the human race. He presents this notion by asserting that if the was us prolonged for a longer period, a period of  “feverish technological development”  may soon follow which will eventually result in atomic war. He emphasizes the point that in the current situation that was may not be able to wipe out the entire human population due to a lack of resources and manpower after the two great World Wars. But if the  “war is indecisive”  and the  “victors are unwise” ; also if the powerful states survive it, the next war would surely result in the extinction of the entire human race. He also points out that if a person survives the radioactive radiations and the radioactive clouds he may proclaim himself to be an emperor but his subjects would be  “dead corpses”  and with his death,  “the uneasy episode of life will end” .

Secondly, Russell highlights a less drastic outcome of the third world war which is  “reversion to barbarism” . According to Russell, even if the world war is unable to wipe out the entire human race it would surely mark the end of civilization just like the  “Fall of Rome”  and people would return to a primitive economic system. He points out how the scientific war would result in the sporadic assassination of people, the chief cities, and the centers of industries of the enemies would be destroyed, there will be a complete  “obliteration of laboratories and libraries” , there will be a heavy casualty rate among the men of science and intellect, there will be pestilence die to bacteriological warfare and famine due to radioactive spray at the least there will be a hope for civilization. Russell in this possibility also presents a very pessimistic view regarding the end of civilization. For instance, his views about religious people and Prophets prophesizing about the ills of war and technology is too pessimistic but possible.

Lastly, Russell while explaining his third possibility for the future of mankind, that is,  “unification of the world under single government”  highlights the effects of the war between Russia and the United States. He highlights that even if the worst scenario is avoided there will be complete extermination of Great Britain and Western Europe.

Russell in his essay ‘The Future of Mankind’ highlights the devastation and horrors that will be brought upon humanity in case of a third world war. His views, although, are too pessimistic but they hold some reality to them. For instance, his first possibility that is the “extinction of mankind” may be too pessimistic but is justified. Many scientists warned the human population about the damages caused to the ecosystem i.e. the depletion of the ozone layer, the effects of population, and global warming. Similarly, the devastation brought in Nagasaki and Hiroshima also presents and justifies Russell’s possibility of extinction of mankind. Similarly, his second possibility can be justified through the fall of civilization in Rome. 

In short, Russell in his essay presents a very pessimistic view regarding the future of mankind in the case of a third world war but that view can be justified by relating it with many incidents. Russell in this essay highlights the horrors of war and warns the people about the devastating effects it can bring on the human race out of sympathy and compassion for his fellow human beings which is justified by Erich in the following words:

“Bertrand Russell is against the threatening slaughter because he is a man who loves life”.

Continue Reading

This Theme is produced by,  Syeda Areeba Fatima , a permanent contributor to the SOL Community.

You may like these posts

Post a comment, contact form, search this blog.

Our Motives

• Our Services
• Advertise with Us
• We are hiring!

Contact form

Not logged in

Page actions.

• View source

The objective of this site is to assist the mission to improve the quality of life for all Earth-humans by providing freely available English translations of FIGU articles. In order to bring peace to our world, great wisdom needs to be realised and then put into practice. Wisdom is only achievable when true knowledge is combined with honesty. Thanks to FIGU and the Plejaren Federation , previously unknown knowledge covering diverse subjects is now freely available to everyone on Earth within the Contact Reports , all of which are translated into English and hosted on this website. Many scientific and spiritual facts are explained that have long been concealed and denied to the public by those in power. Such subjects include our true origin , solutions to problems on Earth and within us , facts about the universe , the laws of Creation and much more. If you require evidence that supports the truth of this information then you will find it in this website (See The Evidence menu section on the left), such as on The Witnesses page and the Creation-energy Teaching pages.

This is not an official FIGU website.

Other Languages

Primary Website | Mirror 1 | Mirror 2 | Chinese | French | Filipino | Portuguese | Slovak | Spanish

21st April 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of Contact Report 885

16th April 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of Contact Report 884

11th April 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of Contact Report 883
• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 83

8th April 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of Contact Report 882

5th April 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 82

3rd April 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 81

1st April 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 80

27th March 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of Contact Report 881

26th March 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 79

22nd March 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of The Human Being Must in Their Life Do Everything Affirmatively and Consciously

19th March 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 78

17th March 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 77

15th March 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of Contact Report 880

14th March 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 76

13th March 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 75

7th March 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 74

5th March 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of Contact Report 879

4th March 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 73

25th February 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 72

20th February 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 71

19th February 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of Contact Report 878

17th February 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 70

14th February 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of Contact Report 877

12th February 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 69

9th February 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 68

5th February 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 66
• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 67

3rd February 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of FIGU – Sign of the Times SE 65

2nd February 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of The Human Beings Might Through Their Thoughts and Feelings

31st January 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of Contact Report 876

23rd January 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of How and Why Evil Begins in Human Beings

22nd January 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of Reverence and Honour Are the Primal Forces of All Knowledge
• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of Contact Report 875

15th January 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of We Are Not Alone in the Vastness of Space

9th January 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of Contact Report 874

4th January 2024

• Added a new DeepL preliminary English translation of The Revitalisation of Consciousness through the Teaching of the Spirit

Peace Meditation

Webmaster Contact Details

Email: James Moore

Send me an email about absolutely anything you like. I do not bite and you are my equal!

Impressum / Copyright / Disclaimer

Please note that Future Of Mankind is not an official FIGU website, however the owner and some contributors are FIGU members. Contact with FIGU can be made via the FIGU website: www.figu.org . The information on this website is freely available but remains protected by copyright [show / hide]

Navigation List

• Eduard Meier , Bio , Why him?
• Interviews , Witnesses
• Spirit Teaching , Introduction
• FIGU , SSSC
• Books , Booklets , His Work , Biog
• Contact Reports , Sfath's , Asket's
• FIGU – Bulletins
• FIGU – Open Letters , from Billy
• FIGU – Special Bulletins
• FIGU – Zeitzeichen
• Recent Changes
• Photo Gallery , Art Gallery
• Overpopulation
• Prophecies and Predictions
• Peaceful Music
• Audio Evidence
• Expert Opinions and Science
• Photographic Evidence
• Physical Evidence
• Earth Event Timeline
• Psyche , Consciousness and Ratio
• Beamships , Atlantis , Planets
• Learning German
• Downloads , Video , Audio
• FIGU terms , Other Authors
• Reincarnation , Human , Brain
• Spirit , Supernatural , Telepathy
• Evolution , Creation , Religion
• Gaiaguys Web , TJResearch
• Telekinesis , Psychotelekinesis
• Unconsciousness , Materialkinesis
• Bigfoot , Easter Island , Pyramids
• Block of Mentality , Placebo
• Contact Statistics , Book Statistics
• External Links , Rare Archives
• Articles by others , Category view
• Community , Polls , External Links
• Site Index , Categories
• WhatLinks , LinkedChanges
• Index , Meier Encyclopedia
• Website statistics
• Random page
• Special pages
• Contributing Content , Roadmap
• Upload file
• How can I help?
• External Links
• Community Portal
• Random Page
• RSS News Feeds

About The Man

• Who is Billy Meier?
• Clarification of a Defamatory Claim
• Asket & Nera Photos
• Why Billy Meier?
• Attempts on Billy's Life
• Interviews with Billy
• Articles by others
• Contact Reports
• Creation-energy Teaching
• FIGU – Advisories
• FIGU – Open Letters
• FIGU – Sign of the Times SE
• FIGU Reader's Questions Answered
• Gaiaguys Web
• Letters from Billy
• Meier Encyclopedia
• Preliminary Translations
• TJResearch Web

The Evidence

• The Witnesses
• Scientific Facts And Theories Corroborated
• Expert Opinions
• Video Evidence
• Basic Evidence
• Problem-solving (mysteries)
• Art Gallery
• Photo Gallery

Help & Support

• Contributing Content

Userpage tools

• What links here
• Related changes
• Printable version
• Permanent link
• Page information

• This page was last edited on 13 February 2024, at 12:10.
• Privacy policy
• About Future Of Mankind
• Disclaimers

receive 15% off

Finished Papers