The Evolution of Man through the Ages

[Ian]

Modern man seems to think that we as a species are quite evolved as compared to our renaissance, medieval, dark age, and ancient counterparts.  Do you think this is really so?  We seem to be plagued with the same problems mankind has dealt with since the dawn of our existence.  Hunger, disease and war still cover the globe. 

I would put forward that the only thing we've really done is advance our technology.  Sure, we have cheap food available to a relatively privileged sample of the world's population.  We have vaccines and the ability to fight disease through tremendous advancement in medical technology.  Virtually every 1st world country on the planet is currently involved in an armed conflict somewhere, and we kill each other with amazing precision and efficiency like never before.

The underlying human condition is virtually unaltered since man became civilized.  We have more unparalleled levels of convenience in our lives today that no ancient man could have ever dreamed of, but to say we've evolved is quite an arrogant conclusion based on the state of the world we live in.  I also don't understand the presumption that our ancestors were somehow not evolved.  Every major age of man from Greek Antiquity, Roman Republic/Empire, The Middle Ages etc had quite sophisticated and complex cultures that in no way are any less evolved than ours.  What do you think?  Are we more evolved today?  Are we better people?  I personally think we have way more in common with our ancestors than we do differences.

[Sir James A]

I agree. I think the advancements in technology have actually made us less evolved in other ways. Some people can't remember basic things without a smart phone. "This is hot, that is sharp" is taught by pictures, and some people lack very basic common sense, perhaps due in part to lots of formal education, and little "real world" experience. People are living longer, but, that's not being more evolved, that's advanced medicine - which in some cases makes as many side effects and issues as it cures.

Half the time, I wonder if we'll eventually work up to nuclear war, annihilate the majority of civilization, who will be left back in the dark ages as they struggle to survive, build and advance ... and the cycle repeats.

[Sir Wolf]

i never think of man as evolved, rather he has progressed. now whether that progression is into something better or worse it's a case by case bases lol

[Sir William]

I agree with you all; I don't think we've evolved much, if at all- progress seems a better term for it.  At heart, we're a lot like our ancestors...with the capacity for acts of valor as well as perfidy; we can hate and love just as powerfully as before - although some may be blind to it in themselves.

The only thing that separates us from our ancestors is what we might term 'advanced civilization'.  Every apocalyptic-themed movie that has shown the collapse of civilization seem to have done their research.  Not that it is hard to know human nature...civilization and its mountains of laws, rules and conventions...but all of that is driven by the knowledge that their are consequences to every action.  Until the person or persons responsible for enforcing said laws are either no longer willing or able to do so, or are no longer part of this mortal coil- leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves.

I think that's one of the reasons why I like the comic book The Walking Dead so much; its less about the zombie aspect and more about the interpersonal relationships between the survivors.  I don't keep up with the show, altho I do know it is worth watching if you have the time.  These weren't all good people, but they're grouped together for a purpose and I enjoy the writing- the characters don't come off as one-dimensional archetypes, they seem very real, with realistic fears and desires and the things they've gone thru in the comic book are truly horrific.  You can almost see it happening...well, you can because its a comic but I think you all know what I mean.

[Sir Edward]

I think that's very much how it is, that human nature hasn't changed much at all since the beginning of civilization, in both its positive and negative traits. While technology progresses, cultures come and go, but humans are basically the same.

There is also a the idea that human intelligence is just one more evolutionary "experiment" on the part of Earth's biosphere, one that may eventually prove to be maladaptive and thus die out.

[Ian]

If you look at it from a hard scientific point of view, human beings are the only species on the planet that actively work to stop evolution from occurring.  Bare with me...  Through our advances in medical science, we are able to treat diseases, disorders, and various other maladies that had nature taken its course, the people afflicted by them would have never reached an age to reproduce or never been given the opportunity to reproduce.  So we're allowing problems that shouldn't be passed on through reproduction to continue.  I'm in know way saying that we should stop curing diseases or start preventing people with certain problems from reproducing, but the truth of the matter is we're reversing some aspects of natural selection! 

[Sir Ulrich]

I dont even think humanity evolves fast enough for the technology we create, some of us adapt to it better than others such as myself. I adapted quickly to use computers rather well, while my father struggles with them and always somehow BREAKS them. It's scary when you think of how our weapons are powerful enough to destroy large parts of the world and think of how a lot of humans are rather primitive in their nature. I do think with genetic engineering we could speed evolution up and perhaps even customize ourselves to the extent we really want, so no one has genetic diseases or born with a debilitated body. Only issue I have with that is so called "misfits" are often pioneers in making some breakthroughs, such as Nikola Tesla who I say is better than Edison, sure he's a mad scientist a bit but we NEED people like that who are driven by their compassion in their work to make technological breakthroughs. Thats the downside to using genetic engineering to speed up evolution or cure otherwise incurable diseases in people.

[Lord Dane]

Man evolves in the biological sense, progresses in the technological sense but always seems to resort to our beginnings that make us the very threat to our own existence. Our base emotional conditions bring out the worst in us when when we are faced with our lust, hate, jealousy, etc. and other negative emotions. It seems we never really progress in our own nature no matter how far we advance our society. The worst in man always comes out at some point making us mistreat each other in the worst possible ways.

[Sir Wolf]

but if we evolve why are there still apes and monkeys? lol
surely an evolved species would not be so frail as that of a human body.

[Sir Brian]

If you look at it from a hard scientific point of view, human beings are the only species on the planet that actively work to stop evolution from occurring.  Bare with me...  Through our advances in medical science, we are able to treat diseases, disorders, and various other maladies that had nature taken its course, the people afflicted by them would have never reached an age to reproduce or never been given the opportunity to reproduce.  So we're allowing problems that shouldn't be passed on through reproduction to continue.  I'm in know way saying that we should stop curing diseases or start preventing people with certain problems from reproducing, but the truth of the matter is we're reversing some aspects of natural selection! 

If I may offer a counterpoint to your premise Sir Ian, but isn’t the intelligence of humanity that enables it to overcome the restrictive processes of natural selection actually operating within the very confines of natural selection? – If caveman-A was able to figure out how to make a tool that would enable him to harvest the fruit at the top of the tree he would survive whereas caveman-B being less intelligent starves after consuming all the fruit within his physical reach. Yet if some descendants of caveman-B survived and eventually evolved into taller and longer humans that enabled them to reach the higher grown fruit wouldn’t that essentially be the same result as caveman-A? Ergo mankind’s intelligence would be the deciding factor for humanity’s success within the evolutionary scheme of things.

[Sir Edward]

Those are some excellent points.

But here's another way of looking at it. It's possible that as technology improves, it gradually reduces the influence of natural selection. Take my eyesight for example. With glasses, it's not much of a hindrance, but if I had only a stone-knife (and no glasses) and had to be on the lookout for wolves in the shadows, I'd be in real trouble. It would have gotten me killed several thousand years ago. Living in a village several hundred years ago, it would have been problematic, but not necessarily fatal. Today it's not a big deal. So perhaps it's not an "all or nothing" process, but a gradual removal from the environment's influences.

[Sir Wolf]

burn him!! lol your now called "wolf fodder"

[Lord Dane]

Does that make you goat droppings?? lol

[Ian]

While I agree that technology allows us to overcome certain aspects of natural selection, I think in the broader scheme it can be detrimental.  Genetic conditions and illnesses that should probably not even exist today or at least in such remote numbers as to negate their significance, do solely because we as a species ensure through our technology that people are able to reproduce. 

Technology is a compensation for our stunting of natural selection.  We as a species are not improving our collective health, we're just compensating for our collectively declining fitness with advances in technology.  Yes we achieved those technological advantages through intellect, but we're not smarter than our ancestors, we simply built on their foundation.  That's why I maintain that we as a species go against natural selection.  Compensation for problems does not make up for the fact that the problems aren't going away.  Natural selection eliminates the problems altogether, it doesn't compensate for them.  Without our medical technology, a lot more people would be dead, but the ones who are alive would undoubtedly be more 'fit' than us, more resistant to disease, etc...

[Lord Dane]

While I agree that technology allows us to overcome certain aspects of natural selection, I think in the broader scheme it can be detrimental.  Genetic conditions and illnesses that should probably not even exist today or at least in such remote numbers as to negate their significance, do solely because we as a species ensure through our technology that people are able to reproduce. 

Technology is a compensation for our stunting of natural selection.  We as a species are not improving our collective health, we're just compensating for our collectively declining fitness with advances in technology.  Yes we achieved those technological advantages through intellect, but we're not smarter than our ancestors, we simply built on their foundation.  That's why I maintain that we as a species go against natural selection.  Compensation for problems does not make up for the fact that the problems aren't going away.  Natural selection eliminates the problems altogether, it doesn't compensate for them.  Without our medical technology, a lot more people would be dead, but the ones who are alive would undoubtedly be more 'fit' than us, more resistant to disease, etc...

I'll use a precept to the expected survival of mankind for the foreseeable future ....
 
"The simpler, the better ... as the more mankind advances, the more he regresses to his primal state of being. We tend to forget many of the aspects of the ancient societies of our ancestral past that are considered advanced by some modern measure as we study our own history. And as we recall what made them advanced, we are reminded of why those civilizations are now lost to modern day recollection and why we are proned to repeat their mistakes ...

Our very nature and history, though at times filled with good intention, is marked by repeats of fall-outs that predates any current advances in technological or societal achievements. While we claim to be an advanced society, we are far from a civil one that exercises sound judgement and moral character in our everyday progression. The more we advance our intellect, the less we concern ourselves over morality and the behavior that should be good guidance for how we advance and for what purpose it serves."

As I see it, there is a definitive difference in being smarter as opposed to being wiser. Being 'smarter' means you advance in your level of knowledge but being 'wiser' means you also utilize what you know with good intention and consideration for what it may impact. We do not hold anyone accountable for their actions or the outcome. Hence we repeat the follies of the past that have become our detriment and legacy for any future. Because we do not exercise wisdom as we advance our knowledge, mankind shall be on a continuous course to extinction by his own design.