Human Evolution?

Post Reply New Topic

I was just discussing human evolution, the discussion went something like this

We may have improved our lives, had major advances in technology, major advances in scientific understanding etc. but at base we are still a primitive instinctive being. Laws and restrictions by governing bodies are an attempt to ameliorate this lack of evolution. The discussion inevitable moved to the ability of society to work on a more equitable basis and whether or not the stronger more aggressive and domineering types could be prevented from taking control.

Any thoughts.

Just how would you propose the meek should inherit the earth?
...by asking for it nicely?

But, yes - it is a common myth that base, primitive instinct is no longer a part of the human psyche; or, if it is, it exists as only a minor, lesser part of the mind, beneath intelligence.
Not at all true - the more "primitive" instinctive behaviour is, in fact, the most powerful force in human psychology. Sentience and intelligence isn't this magical thing that squashes instinct beneath it's heel; rather, it's a broader extention of instinctive behaviour to achieve goals, furthering the base, "primitive" goals inherant with man.

Or, to grossly oversimplify, instead of "want food, find food", it's "want food, find food, no food, grow food, ensure more food can be grown again", all to satisfy the same base requirement - the need for sustenance.

It's a fallacy to say that all humans are this or that. There are many subgroups that have behaviors from both cultural and genetic tendencies which vary widely. That controlling subgroups have common tendencies is not surprising since particular social requirements filter out those more or less successful in particular functions. And there are hierarchies of function where one group type consciously or unconsciously develops and uses other group types. Leaders need followers and vice versa.