Throughout the evolution of time, and throughout every culture, humanity always had some values that it upheld. Whether these values included proper behaviors, family life, respecting the Gods, humanity never lived in a vacuum of values.
Now, if you observe closely, the word "value" indicates that it is something that is measured and may even fall or rise - just like a stock or a commodity. In this analogy, society is like the stock exchange: It facilitates the rise and fall of certain values.
For example, we know for a fact that marriage is not valued today in western societies as much as it was just half a century ago. Relationships are also "free-er" with less rigid "structures" as the values of personal freedom and women rights are on the rise, while the value of a marriage contract has gone down and can be nullified pretty fast - even for objectively insignificant reasons.
Speaking against the human values that are highly esteemed at any given point of time can be regarded as antisocial behavior. In fact collective behavior tends to conform in a pattern of direct or indirect support of the established values.
So values beget behaviors, and then those who go against either the collective values, or behaviors, seem "abnormal". In a sense, we buy our "ticket" of being perceived "normal" by supporting the existing paradigm of values and value-based behavior.
Now contemplate this scenario: 2000 years ago, when slavery, woman inequality, "eye-for-an-eye" and similar cultural values were in place, a man named Jesus was proclaiming equality, openly discussing with women who were strangers to him (a huge no-no at the time) while also promoting non-violence. While his values were "superior" - from our current perspective, the propagation of these values quickly led to his demise because they weren't perceived nicely back then.
We'd think that since we have, more or less, "fixed" the issues from 2000 years ago, we are more "advanced" and therefore justified into looking down these regressive people of the past. But are we really so different?
We may have shifted in terms of what values we consider valuable, in some aspects of life, by gradually updating our collective mind-software, but that doesn't mean that our current values will not be obsolete in another 100-200-500 years. While it may be evident in 100-200-500 years from now, for most people of our time, it isn't.
If a human came here right now, from 2116, and told us our collective mistakes in our value system, by dissecting them as clearly as humanity of 2016 can dissect those from 1800 and 1900, we would probably be in a state of denial. We would argue he is wrong... very wrong.... We might even try to "crucify" him for trying to implement a "destructive" philosophical system / value system in our society - a system that we believe will have destructive consequences to our society.
Now, imagine you are that time traveler from 2116. What you see in 2016 is absurdity everywhere: The human values and related behaviors are, for the most part, absurd.
If you oppose the system, chances are that you'll alienate everyone and then become a negative example - something to avoid. But that will have the exact opposite influence on what you desire to do. Whatever philosophical system you may try to "push" will also be negatively labeled in relation to you (because you are also negatively-labeled).
Additionally, when you write something you'll also have to factor two things:
1) How you will be perceived in the present time from current (2016) humanity which doesn't understand
2) How you will be perceived in the future - since in the future it is known that you knew about the higher values and you had a historic responsibility to do something but instead of using your knowledge to elevate the state of humanity from its relative darkness, you chose to easy way to keep silent.
So what do you do? It seems like an impossible situation to be in.
Instead of trying to "reason" through debate in a system heavily vested in favor of the current values, one can use the arts or technology as gateways for superior models to emerge.
For example, a futuristic movie can have a greater philosophical impact in the masses than any philosophical essay could ever have. By demonstrating a template of future-values, and the proper positive associations with the characters and story, the impact in society can be profound.
In a similar way, technologies can be used as a "Trojan horse" by being associated with higher values. A useful technology, which is also based in a future value, allows that future value to be illuminated and embraced for the self-evident gains that it brings. A good example would be decentralized money technologies - which are a radical departure from the classic hierarchical-based and centralized money system that promotes debt-slavery.
However, the same process can also be used (and is being used) to implement newer value models that are regressive - by overstating some element and understating another. For example, Hollywood might show us how "effective" it is to torture terrorists to extract "vital info" because "due process is too slow to prevent an impending terrorist attack". In light of this theoretic scenario, one can more readily accept abuses in basic human rights. Something similar could be done to "promote" the "benefits" of full-spectrum surveillance of the citizens.
I have been purposefully vague regarding the existing value system deficiencies, allowing the reader to keep an open mind for all those areas that our current values are considered OK but in reality are sub-optimal.
While the cognitive load to doubt existing "structures" can be pretty high, it is also the element that allows pioneers to advance humanity. Without doubting the existing paradigm, even when that involves human values which seem relatively stable, one would never be able to advance beyond it.
