I don't believe in ethics or morality.

[Stevil]

I kind of disagree with your whole "what is stable for society" thing. I think morals are primarily a construct made by individuals, but argued on a macro scale for the benefit of society. But your choice of examples seemed short-sighted to me. For example, you can say prostitution doesn't cause instability. Or, hard drugs don't cause instability. Or, no speed limits doesn't cause instability, etc etc. You can keep singling out a bunch of little things that, while true they may not cause mass pandemonium if implemented, many of those things interacting with each other will create entirely novel problems. Life is so heavily interconnected that I think we should really think more critically than just looking at how good or bad individual things are at a time. Macro perspective! Big picture!

Prostitution doesn't cause instability in society. Prostitution is legal in NZ and there are no issues, no riots, no upheaval. People that don't like prostitution chose not to partake of it, people that like it do partake. There are many countries surviving with legalised prostitution.

I've never said anything about hard drugs or no speed limits.
If you can make a strong case that these things lead to unstable society then I would be for laws against them.

If you want to base laws on morality, then I have to ask, "Whose morality are you going to base them on?". If people allow laws to be based on morality then they really have no recourse to complain when a leader decides to infringe on their rights because of the leader's own perceived morals. Lets say a leader makes it against the law to be gay. Well if it is based on the leader's morality then he/she is well within reason to impose the law. Since one person's morality is no more universally correct than another person's then it just comes down to what the leader wants, rather than what society demands.

[NatsuTerran]

I believe morals should come from empirical science, as strange as that sounds. In many ways, this is already the case. For example, in the past gays did not have rights like straight people (and they still don't in a way). But as science uncovers details about homosexuality and learns that these people did not choose this or are not evil in any way, it only makes sense that they have the same rights as other people. The same thing applied to women and blacks in the past. Don't you want to say that all three of these people have a moral right to be treated equally?

I agree with you on the whole "making the case" for whether one particular thing might be bad for society or not. But keep in mind that things are not going to be quite that simple. No given thing is going to make a stable society unstable, and an unstable society stable. Life isn't black and white like that. Various different laws and ideals are going to push society along a gradient of stable-unstable. This is ultimately why philosophy and politics will never die or be "solved." You can't solve it from an individual level. I think the best thing that can be done is for society to impose values based on empirical facts.

The statistics and facts that show that having no speed limits ups the amount of deaths quite a bit, the facts that show child abuse has long-term consequences on the individual...basically, the facts that show the effects of what certain laws will give us when implemented, should be our basis for morals.

The issue here, is that correlation does not equal causation. Even people who are well aware of this fact still make the mistake numerous times. As humans, we want to have a simple, cut and dry answer. "Oh look, being black is connected to higher crime, let's put a curfew on black people." No, that is a correlation, the causation is socioeconomic class.

This is why morality is a play-as-you-go kind of thing. We have to learn the facts and make mistakes in order to correct them. And many people will interpret data differently. That's where critical thinking comes into play. In essence I can see exactly where you are coming from. But the idea of abandoning morals as a concept itself is not pragmatic for the political problems we are trying to solve. Another thing to keep in mind is that, somewhere, someone can and probably is arguing any given point you can imagine. Someone is still saying the earth is flat, someone is still saying we never landed on the moon.

There's a whooooole lot of information out there, and anyone can argue any given point. The data is there, and one truth will prevail. But how that data is interpreted and argued is what ends up being used to pass laws and impose morality. That is what I believe morality fundamentally is. It's our best understanding of how to live. So ultimately I believe in an objective morality based on empiricism, but because humans are subjective beings and perform logical fallacies quite a bit, there isn't a guarantee that we will get our morals to line up with those objective morals. But I think it is still in our best interest to discuss it and try.

[Firebird]

I agree with you on the whole "making the case" for whether one particular thing might be bad for society or not. But keep in mind that things are not going to be quite that simple. No given thing is going to make a stable society unstable, and an unstable society stable. Life isn't black and white like that. Various different laws and ideals are going to push society along a gradient of stable-unstable. This is ultimately why philosophy and politics will never die or be "solved." You can't solve it from an individual level. I think the best thing that can be done is for society to impose values based on empirical facts.

While empirical facts are a good basis, I don't think it can be the only basis for it either, because people are always going to claim their "facts" trump other "facts". Let's take the issue of pedophilia, for example. I feel that pedophilia and the distribution of child pornography should not be allowed. Besides the obvious emotional reaction that it creates among most people, I can point to empirical evidence that pedophilia is harmful to the psychological health of children. However, many pedophiles respond by pointing out that pedophilia was common in the Greek and Roman Empires, which were both stables for hundreds of years, so how can you argue it causes instability in society? They also argue that denying them the "right" to sexual relationships with children is akin to pushing our version of morality onto them, much like the laws against homosexuality in previous generations.
So who's empirical evidence is ultimately correct? Should we have a debate about that before we decide which way to go on the issue?
I'm not willing to use pure empirical evidence here and wait for the results, and most people in our society would not either. Yes, it's an emotional reaction, and it is claiming our sense of morality is better than the pedophile's, because we're not willing to allow children to be legally exploited for sexual purposes. Where does that sense of morality come from? Who knows. And yes, we've gotten it wrong before, such as when most people considered homosexuality an abomination. But in a case like this, I think our sense of morality has to trump pure empirical reasoning, because we have values that protect children from harm and exploitation.
Truth be told, I don't know quite where to draw the line here between empirical evidence and emotional reaction. Society needs to constantly work on that and evolve to find that line. But there is one.

[NatsuTerran]

There's a balance between emotions and logical facts for every individual. I agree there. I also like your example with pedophilia because it can be hard to argue that it causes unstable societies. I wasn't implying that empirical facts be the only thing we use, but that it is a good starting point. Someone in a psych class wanted to do a research paper on the effects of homosexuality on child rearing with a homosexual couple. Her sources initially came from the world wide web, but was told that they aren't academic and would not count because they are not credible. After that, she said that she wanted to change the papers topic to something else because there wasn't any scientific research on this area of interest. The teacher responded "Yes there is." And she then replied "But none of it supports the side that homosexual parenting is dysfunctional to children." Well there you go. That's what the evidence shows, and you can't just ignore that.

But naturally, different facts crop up and people can interpret them to see different things.
What this ultimately seems like to me, is that we have to know how much to follow science, but not so much that we live like robots and completely ignore our own feelings. Morality wouldn't apply to a robot. Many shows and movies even depict this by making robots/computers end up with the strange goal of destroying the  planet or something along those lines. It logically makes sense, if we are to maximize happiness and minimize suffering, the best way to do that is to end all life as we know it. That way, the future generations will not have to undergo the suffering of life. Because I think we can all agree that life in itself, when considering all species and the amount of suffering that goes on as a whole far outweighs the happiness and well-being, nature is a scary place. So using pure logic, facts, and research you end up with cold, robotic logic that completely misses the point of what our goals are in the first place. All the scientific knowledge in the world is meaningless if we don't know how to apply it towards helping our own well-being. But we all have different goals in the first place. Different political parties have different visions for the world, none being inherently wrong. People we don't agree with politically aren't evil, they have the best intentions but have a different vision for society.

The opposite end of the spectrum is pure gut reactions and emotion. This is what we are used to from the theistic side of things. They tend to believe in dogmatic views on morality rather than utilitarian. Too much on this side has disastrous results just like the robot example. Two people or two groups following their hearts when they are at ends with each other is the essence of warfare. Subjective thinking is in my opinion one of the primary causes of human suffering. Who are you to use special pleading to favor yourself or your ingroup over others? It is devoid of logic and relies on pure feelings, but feelings and emotions differ from person to person, and you are left with chaos and warfare without any scientific and social common ground.

It should be obvious that there needs to be a balance. But I don't truly believe there is one "set" amount of each side that should be given weight. I tend to gravitate more towards logic; I understand my feelings are subjective. But I realize this can get out of hand on a slippery slope. This is what I fear the most about Stevil's thoughts on the subject. The irony is that he says we should strive for a stable society. But I'm not sure if he realizes that this goal of his is completely subjective in the grand scheme of things. The universe doesn't care if our society is more stable. In fact, the most stable society of all is no society, let's destroy it all, right?

Taking things to an extreme is never good. Most of us atheists side with logic, and most theists side with emotions, generally speaking. While empirical facts and science cannot tell us "homosexuality is okay," it CAN tell us "homosexuality is based on such and such factors; it was not a choice." And then it is up to *us* to take that information and correct/maintain our moral stance on the issue of whether it is okay or not. I would like to be able for everyone to see the facts and then realize "well it must be okay if it 1. doesn't cause harm, and 2. wasn't a choice." But we all know humans aren't always logical and rational about things. Emotions can and oftentimes do override the obvious answer to most situations.

Seen in this light, it's starting to make sense that morality doesn't even exist. It cannot be completely objective OR completely subjective. It is going to feel inconsistent, but that is the essence of morality to me. At this point I don't even know what to say anymore. I still think morality is a useful, although illusory, construct that allows us to move society towards where we as a group want it. Stevil expressed his concern with this kind of "tyranny of majority." But I guess in the end, someone is going to get stepped on. There really isn't an idealistic alternative in which everyone prospers freely. So as Spock would tell us, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."

Ultimately it comes down to the goals of the individual, and what they are trying to accomplish. To take abortion as an example. I and many atheists seem to use the logical side of our brains more. I realize that a fetus doesn't have a brain, central nervous system, heart, or consciousness. I realize that it is a life but not any more special of a life than any other life I would be willing to take, like spiders or plants. I believe that it is wrong to kill because we are 1. taking away something that is perceived as valuable and unique, and 2. Are going against their personal wishes for prosperity. I don't think a fetus has wishes. It will become a person, but I can't help but think "If I was aborted, I wouldn't have a mind to mourn my own death." I differentiate between living things and a fetus because a conscious thing has experienced sentience and then lost it; the fetus never got it to begin with. The first part, uniqueness, is why I think we are okay with killing animals but not people. People are perceived as "unique" to us, in a valid way. Animals are "just another cow" or just a spider. But attach a name to the animal and make it a pet, and all of a sudden it is valuable in its uniqueness. A fetus, in my opinion, does not contain any unique valuable traits, at least no more than a snowflake. Although the mother can sometimes place an emotional attachment onto it, the fact remains that there is not a tangible victim. I liken it to destroying a blank painting canvas. Destroying an actual portrait, even halfway painted, should be a crime because it is irreplacable. Destroying a blank canvas is meaningless because it's not a valuable resource. Truth be told, we can make an infinite number of canvas' and fetus'. Where is the value?

That is my logical breakdown of it, although I have emotional attachment too. My emotional attachment sides with the actual living person whose life can be disastrously impacted by an unwanted pregnancy. In some cases, I would say it's moral to abort even if the child was wanted, but had severe birth defects that would prove troublesome for it itself in the future. Now I must admit that I do understand how what I have said is "distasteful." And I think that is what most pro-life advocates place emphasis on. They care more about how they themselves feel about something than about how the world views it. As a moral relativist I can understand where they come from and why they think that. I realize that to them, their take on my abortion stance is probably akin to my take on the robot's solution to the world's troubles.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Logic and science shows us what is really true, feelings and emotions show us what really matters. The first half of the equation is set in stone. It can be interpreted differently, but there is only one objective truth for it. The subjective feelings are what cloud our judgement every step of the way. Because we cannot agree on this, I guess the only true solution is to have representative democracy and just allow majority rule, but let certain groups counterbalance each other like the government checks and balances. It's like that Winston Churchill quote: "Democracy is the worst form of government, until you consider the alternatives."

[Stevil]

But as science uncovers details about homosexuality and learns that these people did not choose this or are not evil in any way

What is the empirical test of evil? I haven't heard of that one, as far as I know evil does not exist.
With regards to whether something is a choice or not is largely beside the point, I am arguing that if a choice doesn't result in an unstable society then governments ought to but out and let the people choose their own fate.

No given thing is going to make a stable society unstable, and an unstable society stable.

If we make first degree murder legal, how long do you think it will be for society to become unstable?
Same thing goes for rape, same thing for theft or assult etc.

Just take a look at what happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The law was largely absent and society degraded into a dangerous and unstable environment.

[NatsuTerran]

Well it all depends on how you define stability. How *much* instability before it becomes wrong? And as for my post on empirical facts determining right and wrong, you misunderstood. Read my mammoth post.

[Firebird]

Natsu: Great post, and I agree with your points about empirical evidence being a good starting point for morality, but not the only one. The Churchill comment sums it up very well, and is also one of my favorite quotes.

Stevil: You talk often of basing laws only on maintaining a "stable society". However, look at countries like China, Iran, and Russia. They will suppress freedom of expression, public demonstrations, and imprison people who dare to speak out against the government in the name of "social stability". They place a higher priority on that than letting people express thoughts that might de-legitimize the government, because that could get messy. Western countries which allow for public demonstrations risk more instability, but still allow them because they consider it immoral and unethical to suppress demonstrations and imprison someone just because they disagree with the government. How do you square that with your argument? I am not, by the way, implying that you agree with China, Russia, and Iran. However, as deplorable as their human rights record is, they are currently very stable and in no danger of collapse, as far as I can tell.

[NatsuTerran]

That is a good point Firebird. Stability is a balancing act. More socialist countries will be more stabilized, and more free countries will be less. I personally value objective security and safety far more than subjective freedoms, so my dream country is along the lines of Japan, where everyone is compliant with the laws and norms. No one raises a stink about anything like most Americans. It sickens me how selfish people in this country are; I think selfishness is the ultimate evil. I just don't see how people can value their own subjective freedoms being overridden in favor of objective goods coming from it. Not everyone cares about certain freedoms, freedom is neutral. But everyone should care about well-being and suffering. This is why I tend to side with security over freedom as my starting point, and then examine how much of a fit people raise on a subjective level. But at the same time stability can go too far as seen in communism. It's all a balancing act.

A good example is public security cameras. Some people raise a fit over this for whatever reason, saying they have a right to privacy while in the public. The results of these cameras is objectively observable: crime is reduced by x amount per year. What isn't clear, is how much the citizens are bothered by this. In my Japanese mind, everyone should be logical and smart enough to realize that they could potentially be affected by said crimes that were reduced, and that privacy doesn't matter in this setting that much (ballparked amongst society) because you are already in public.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that while behavior is ultimately predictable, and not metaphysical at all, we cannot truly know the consequences of certain things. Like you say Firebird, other cultures fear a lack of stability and have more coercion to compliment their beliefs. But how are we to know objectively if this is correct, that the ends do indeed justify the means? We cannot say "well look at this western country, they are fine and they have no coercion." The problem is that the people are different, the temperatures are different, the environment and culture is different.

This is the essence of Chaos Theory. While everything is completely predictable in the end, whether we can predict what will happen or not is a whole other beast altogether. Do we err on the safe side, or glorify our subjective values and take the risk? Chaos theory is the main issue I found with Stevil's stability idea, but I didn't realize it until your last post. How are we to truly *know* if something causes stability or instability in any given situation? There are trillions of variables in life that are so interconnected that any given thing could skew results. There are two kinds of studies we use in science to deal with this, quasi data and lab research. Lab research takes place in enclosed settings with all variables evened out or accounted for. It should be able to recreate the same result every time.

Quasi data gathering is just looking at what has happened in a natural setting and trying to extrapolate the information to apply to other areas of life. As I implied above, chaos theory makes this type of data extraordinarily unreliable if taken at face value. Correlation does not imply causation. Quasi data is most often used in the field of economics. That is why most experts cannot agree in that field, they have no means of differentiating between what happened because of economic policies or what happened because of external factors that were unaccounted for. They do have scientific methods, but it is difficult to know how to apply them to reality. Some economists even go as far as to abandon all scientific methods and rely on armchair ruminations based on their own "common sense." And I hope we all know by now how reliable common sense is  

[Stevil]

Stevil: You talk often of basing laws only on maintaining a "stable society". However, look at countries like China, Iran, and Russia. They will suppress freedom of expression, public demonstrations, and imprison people who dare to speak out against the government in the name of "social stability". They place a higher priority on that than letting people express thoughts that might de-legitimize the government, because that could get messy. Western countries which allow for public demonstrations risk more instability, but still allow them because they consider it immoral and unethical to suppress demonstrations and imprison someone just because they disagree with the government. How do you square that with your argument? I am not, by the way, implying that you agree with China, Russia, and Iran. However, as deplorable as their human rights record is, they are currently very stable and in no danger of collapse, as far as I can tell.

I disagree that suppressed freedom = stability and that freedom risks more instability.
History shows that suppressed freedom = oppression = instability = conflict = war.

Under Mao's China people turned on each other, the educated, the prosperous were routed out, denounced and killed. The uneducated turned the tables, divided up the wealth and for a short time were able to feed better than they had in the past. But the country did not prosper, it struggled under Mao, huge amounts of focus was on propaganda and control, people lived in fear and publicly loved Mao through fear for their own lives. People began to starve, in their millions they died. 60 million at least died in this oppressed China.
Things are getting better in China, but people are still oppressed, people still live in fear and people are still dying for the greater good. China will implode at some stage, it is only a matter of time.

I don't believe that Western countries allow freedom of speech because it is perceived as the moral approach. I believe they do it to avoid oppressing the people and hence avoid facing a rebellion. Democratic countries have government voted into power, this means the members of society have chosen their leaders. Parties that campaign on rule rather than representation do not get voted into power.

[pytheas]

children learn right and wrong before they can explain or understand it, it is a societal prerequisite

Parents teach their children the concept of right and wrong and generally provide consequences e.g. naughty corner, grounding etc. This is a necessary survival process because with inexperience and an inability to think ahead a child cannot utilise reasoned thought.

no disagreement, we both accept that the neurologic machinery to accomodate and implement ethics is prior and separate from the growing capacity of intellect.

As children mature they start to challenge this concept of authoritative morality and instead replace it with ....authoritative morality rather than inward towards reasoned thought.

OK however the critical keyword is REPLACE and not NEGATE. I too understand that any fixed dogma is for the bin as the living space evolves and transmutates. competence is based on the alignment and stability of drives emotionally springing from within in accord to reasoned choices and secured scrutiny upon  orthologic meta-analysis

Emotionalism is a poor gauge of morality.
This is one of the reasons why many people are so opposed to homosexuality, because it feels very wrong for many people, therefore it must be wrong, therefore homosexuals are perverted and evil, therefore there needs to be laws against it. This is a dangerous and oppressive path to take.

Of course disjointed from logic emotionalism is the stuff of animals, you are spot on. However your example does not match: the only time you can support your right to oppinion and feel very wrong about homosexuality is if you are actively doing it and do not like it. The acts between consenting adults do not allow ground for "your" nosy judgement, so get a life! homophobia and insecurity are the principal motivators for negativity against homosexuals, and it is an imbalance of the observer.  public indecency is another fishy chapter and not only related to homo but to all sexuality- we can argue there as to the right and wrong. But in casting judgement for issues behind closed doors and private affairs,  many people are simply stupendously wrong and small-minded.

I believe there is moral grounds to implement an exclusion of Stupid and small minded voices from oppinions that form /infuence public policy.

[Stevil]

I believe there is moral grounds to implement an exclusion of Stupid and small minded voices from oppinions that form /infuence public policy.

All opinions based on morality are small minded.
It is wrong because it is immoral therefore I must make it against the law for everyone else.

If you oppose this based on moral grounds then you fail to recognise that your opponents morality is as justified as your own. Thus we have two small minded opponents furiously screaming at each other that their own brand of morality is better.

[NatsuTerran]

Which is why there is not going to be an easy answer, but as humans we want a simple fix. It's not possible to objectively argue that your way of life is the answer to another person. Just imagine, as being an educated atheist, trying to argue with someone about any number of things with a person from a very poor and under-developed country. There's just no way you can convince them of certain things because they don't have the basic scientific assumptions that we have.

This is why democracy is pretty much the only answer. Societies need to bounce their morals across each other and work out a compromise. Compromise is what drives progress, not dogmatic ideals. It's not going to be pretty for everyone, but the majority's needs are what really count ultimately. I know that it's not nice for me, for example, to think of a country that bans abortion due to religious beliefs. I would like to say they are objectively wrong for manufacturing more suffering in certain instances. But I can't really say that, I have no jurisdiction of their culture. All we can do is throw our hands up and have faith that science and empirical logic will eventually spread to these people so that they might be educated to our own personal beliefs. Every individual has their own point on the grid, but the concept of morality as a whole is the collection and compromise of those points. I like how Dawkins said it when he was answering a question a theist proposed about absolute morality. I can't remember exactly what he said, but it was something like "Absolute morality is listening to every word of God, including things such as slavery and killing children. I don't think we would want absolute morality, but rather we should reason and argue our morality through logic in order to reveal the best answer for all of us."

That's probably not even close to a direct quote but it was the idea I got from it. But keep in mind that Dawkins idea of morality is subjective as well. Being a moral relativist is subjective too. I guess you are correct in saying objective morality doesn't really exist. All it is is what matters to us as individuals.

[pytheas]

I believe there is moral grounds to implement an exclusion of Stupid and small minded voices from oppinions that form /infuence public policy.

All opinions based on morality are small minded.
It is wrong because it is immoral therefore I must make it against the law for everyone else.

If you oppose this based on moral grounds then you fail to recognise that your opponents morality is as justified as your own. Thus we have two small minded opponents furiously screaming at each other that their own brand of morality is better.

Wait, no not all opinions, ie personal oppinions, but all public policy decisions. I big difference. Then Natsu applies perfectly about collective compromise.

My input:
At any given frame of events, a human consensus can be reached as to the right and wrong between 2 personal small minded perspectives. It;s clear cut and its what gives the name to "common" sense which includes quasi-common morality, base human reflector animal spirit shit. if you like
And i understand that the scenario's when right is not clearly distinguishable from wrong, it' s always a matter of poor frame perception, not the clear consice picture for anyone that looks on.Its ok to accept grey areas, its part of life and temperance, moderation, compromise, understanding, empathy all have a little beneficiary  act in the grey arenas

[NatsuTerran]

I agree completely pytheas. There's a difference between public policy and just expressing personal beliefs. I like to think that empirical facts are what ultimately are capable of breaking the stalemate between any two individual's moral opinions. If left to their own devices, there will be eternal war and disagreement. But through establishing common grounds with science, we can show what applies to all of us and work out a compromise. This is why I think morals kind of exist objectively, but are still ultimately subjective. Certain factors can show us what is really there, which is objective. But it still comes down to how tasteful it is for the individual, which is subjective.

[Firebird]

Stevil: You talk often of basing laws only on maintaining a "stable society". However, look at countries like China, Iran, and Russia. They will suppress freedom of expression, public demonstrations, and imprison people who dare to speak out against the government in the name of "social stability". They place a higher priority on that than letting people express thoughts that might de-legitimize the government, because that could get messy. Western countries which allow for public demonstrations risk more instability, but still allow them because they consider it immoral and unethical to suppress demonstrations and imprison someone just because they disagree with the government. How do you square that with your argument? I am not, by the way, implying that you agree with China, Russia, and Iran. However, as deplorable as their human rights record is, they are currently very stable and in no danger of collapse, as far as I can tell.

I disagree that suppressed freedom = stability and that freedom risks more instability.
History shows that suppressed freedom = oppression = instability = conflict = war.

Under Mao's China people turned on each other, the educated, the prosperous were routed out, denounced and killed. The uneducated turned the tables, divided up the wealth and for a short time were able to feed better than they had in the past. But the country did not prosper, it struggled under Mao, huge amounts of focus was on propaganda and control, people lived in fear and publicly loved Mao through fear for their own lives. People began to starve, in their millions they died. 60 million at least died in this oppressed China.
Things are getting better in China, but people are still oppressed, people still live in fear and people are still dying for the greater good. China will implode at some stage, it is only a matter of time.

I don't believe that Western countries allow freedom of speech because it is perceived as the moral approach. I believe they do it to avoid oppressing the people and hence avoid facing a rebellion. Democratic countries have government voted into power, this means the members of society have chosen their leaders. Parties that campaign on rule rather than representation do not get voted into power.

I don't agree with your premise that governments allow freedom of speech simply to avoid rebellion. The concept had its start in philosophers such as John Locke, Voltaire, and John Milton, and governments historically resisted allowing it until pushed by the people who read such philosophers and pushed for the idea. The US Constitution was the first instance where such ideas were codified into law, and even it did not allow freedom of speech initially.  Indeed there is still resistance to it by governments around the world. And there are always attempts by governments to chip away at it in the name of stability. Much of Europe has blasphemy laws. J. Edgar Hoover investigated domestic "enemies" of the US because they were saying things he didn't like, which he perceived as a threat to stability. And so on. It lives on as an important basis of western governments precisely because people resist encroachment on said rights, considering it unethical and immoral to take away such an important right. If freedom of speech actually caused more stability, why don't more governments allow for it, then?

And as much as I hope you're right about China, it is also quite possible that they could remain stable for decades to come. They have a plethora of resources and a population willing to be exploited in order to raise their living standards above the extreme poverty they have had to endure in the rural areas of the country. Maybe at some point people will rebel, but it's not a given.