# Denying our nature?



## theletch1 (Sep 11, 2008)

Mankind has, throughout it's history, fought.  Whether it's one on one or nation against nation we have fought bloody, deadly battles for any number of reasons.  Sometimes for no reason at all.  Many believe that we can evolve out of our deadly nature.  Are we just fooling ourselves that any mindset we may put on for a time can change millions of years of nature?  What do you think?  Me, I believe we are just as prone to killing as we have ever been.  Perhaps we mask the reasons for it a little differently than we have in the past but we still kill none the less.  Should there be an apocalyptic event that limited our ability to feed ourselves or our own herd (family) I firmly believe that those of us that would survive are those that would kill for the available resources, putting aside all thought of "evolving" into higher beings.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 11, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> Mankind has, throughout it's history, fought. Whether it's one on one or nation against nation we have fought bloody, deadly battles for any number of reasons. Sometimes for no reason at all. Many believe that we can evolve out of our deadly nature. Are we just fooling ourselves that any mindset we may put on for a time can change millions of years of nature? What do you think? Me, I believe we are just as prone to killing as we have ever been. Perhaps we mask the reasons for it a little differently than we have in the past but we still kill none the less. Should there be an apocalyptic event that limited our ability to feed ourselves or our own herd (family) I firmly believe that those of us that would survive are those that would kill for the available resources, putting aside all thought of "evolving" into higher beings.


 
My $0.02:

1. We're no more "evolved" than we were thousands of years ago sitting around in a cave banging on rocks....our technology has improved, as a species we have not. 

2. All fights, wars, and blood-shed are a result of "greed." You got something I want so I'm gonna kill you for it. Underneath all the propaganda and flag waving....it's greed. 

Without a major physcial/mental/spiritual _evolution_ involved, I doubt things will ever change.


----------



## Nolerama (Sep 11, 2008)

I think that question poses an assumption that we are beyond being an animal. Some think that we're just "intelligent" animals, while others believe that the existence of a "spirit" or "soul" attaches greater responsibility (by religion, philosophy, social standing, etc.) to our existence and compels us to move beyond the hunter-gatherer sense of human existence.

I'm torn between the two, but I think that if I were to lean towards the latter (spirit, soul, social responsibility/place) I would be led to believe that although we've attempted to move beyond the territorial hunter-gatherer and established complex societies, relationships, and methods for coping with our little planet, we've devolved into a complacent, functionally useless (on a general level in terms of surviving without normal comforts) social beings more akin to ants than to thinking apes. Is this where we're headed? Probably.

I think we're in the final stages of this little outburst of "independent" thought. The concept of free communication without repercussion shows only as a tiny blip in our history. Will we go back to a feudal state? I think so. Will modern society eventually rip the last vestiges of "freedom" from the "individual"? Sooner or later. It's already happening.

The former postulation (i.e. more animal-like) sounds a little more appealing in some ways. Simplicity is the key here. Our complex relationships are still shadowed by our concept of fight or flight as simple creatures. Yes, fighting is an integral role in every day living. It's more apparent (to me at least) when I look at humanity as a species of animal, rather than a cause, or society, or beings with soul.

Maybe it's not the concept of "killing" but the overall concept of "harming" another human being that we're so prone to. We do it every day, with little inter-relationship meetings. It's always me vs. someone. It doesn't have to be a negative thing. This also includes competition... But I see that every day on the faces of people I don't even know.

Yes, we are still prone to killing. But I think a lot of modern-day society gets in the way to prevent us from killing.

But we ARE more (more than ever) prone to harming others, from the minute to the mega.


----------



## jkembry (Sep 11, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> My $0.02:
> 
> 1. We're no more "evolved" than we were thousands of years ago sitting around in a cave banging on rocks....our technology has improved, as a species we have not.



Maybe not improved...but we have adapted to those technologies quite well in some cases.



celtic_crippler said:


> 2. All fights, wars, and blood-shed are a result of "greed." You got something I want so I'm gonna kill you for it. Underneath all the propaganda and flag waving....it's greed.
> 
> Without a major physcial/mental/spiritual _evolution_ involved, I doubt things will ever change.



100 percent agree.  I do believe that greed has a lot to do with society as a whole and the way we act.  There are certain individuals that have gotten past the greed...but as a whole we do indeed have a way to go.


----------



## JBrainard (Sep 11, 2008)

As far as killing (rather than harming), yes I think we are less prone to do so. It all comes down to the society at large's overal value of human life. Back in the days when half the time women died in child birth, diseases that we can now cure with a shot wiped out villiages, when it was very cool to have a kid that lived past six years old... Back then human life was very frigile. People were used to seeing people die on a regular basis. So, the value of human life was pretty low. Not because people were more animalistic, simply because death was something very real to the average person. In present day society, with all of our advances in medicine, you don't often (relatively speaking) see a loved one or friend die until they grow old. So, seeing someone die unexpectedly, via health problems, accidents, violence, what have you, invokes a very emotional response in people. We value life more because we see it lost less often.
I hope that makes sense.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Sep 11, 2008)

Mankind will always have greed and look to harm others. No matter how much you push it back you are likely there to improve you and your families situation in society, which means even if you don't intend to you might have to push someone else "out of the way" to get to your goal. 

Our nature will likely also be our downfall. We will someday most likely do something that wipes us out and we will be the only ones to blame. Kind of glum but its what I think will happen. How long we can hold that end back is the question.


----------



## Ray (Sep 11, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> Should there be an apocalyptic event that limited our ability to feed ourselves or our own herd (family) I firmly believe that those of us that would survive are those that would kill for the available resources,


That's my daily mantra; I don't need an apocalyptic event, just a rude driver nearby.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 11, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> Without a major physcial/mental/spiritual _evolution_ involved, I doubt things will ever change.



But things _have _changed.  I don't know if we have "evolved" per se, but interpersonal violence is at a historic low.  Compared to even the murder rates in small isolated tribal societies, very few people are murdered in modern societies.  The crime rate has been on a 40 year downwards slope.  Most middle class adults can grow old and die never having been in so much as a fist fight since high school.  Even war related death rates are lower now than they have been in some time.

I don't think genetic or spiritual or any sort of advancement is behind this.  I think it is a function of a changing social contract made possible by ever increasing prosperity that has brought ever lowering deaths due to sickness and hunger.  We can see the evidence of this clearly.  Thus, I think that throwing up your hands and declaring "Man will never change!" is simply a copout, and a way to avoid the hard work of changing things even more than they already have.

Will violence vanish?  No.  But we have seen already that it can and will go down quite a bit.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 11, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> But things _have _changed. I don't know if we have "evolved" per se, but interpersonal violence is at a historic low. Compared to even the murder rates in small isolated tribal societies, very few people are murdered in modern societies. The crime rate has been on a 40 year downwards slope. Most middle class adults can grow old and die never having been in so much as a fist fight since high school. Even war related death rates are lower now than they have been in some time.
> 
> I don't think genetic or spiritual or any sort of advancement is behind this. I think it is a function of a changing social contract made possible by ever increasing prosperity that has brought ever lowering deaths due to sickness and hunger. We can see the evidence of this clearly. Thus, I think that throwing up your hands and declaring "Man will never change!" is simply a copout, and a way to avoid the hard work of changing things even more than they already have.
> 
> Will violence vanish? No. But we have seen already that it can and will go down quite a bit.


 
Take away the technology, and you'll see how much we've "changed." Just look at poorer countries around the world that don't have it.... cite their statistics on violence. 

It's not an excuse to quit trying by admitting the truth. As a matter of fact, admitting that is the first step in doing something about it. You can't correct a character flaw in yourself without recognizing it's there....and you can't correct "mans" character flaws by thinking they don't exist either.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 11, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> My $0.02:
> 
> 1. We're no more "evolved" than we were thousands of years ago sitting around in a cave banging on rocks....our technology has improved, as a species we have not.
> 
> ...


I'd have to disagree (respectfully of course  ). We HAVE evolved since our rock banging ancestors. We're faster, stronger, healthier (in most respects) and definitely smarter... though at times it doesn't seem that way but those are just individual examples. I'm of course speaking as a species on the planet. Physiological changes in a species can take thousands of years and recorded history has only been present for a couple of those thousands. We are physically different from the rock-bangers that can be certain. In breeding of different races and a better knowledge of our physique and how it works has caused improvements in our stature and overall physical development. Mentally we're giants by comparison. Ask any child if it's possible to go to the moon and they'll say "yes" and not just because the tee-vee told them so... they will intuitively know that it's possible. Ask any rock banging child and they'll probably grunt and laugh with childish glee at the prospect but not believing  you in the slightest. 
That we're still prone to our savage nature is without question and I think an important part of our psyche. Long have we been prey to the main predators of the planet until evolution brought us up and out of their jaws and put us on top of the food-chain... by and large. There are still individuals who get eaten and I consider them throwbacks or just plain unlucky. 
But we still must war upon each other. Individually or collectively. This I think is Nature acting accordingly. If we did not we would soon over populate and run out of resources faster than we can produce them. So wars are our way of culling the herd. The strongest/smartest tend to survive. 
HOWEVER! The blatant genocidal acts of some countries (Ancient Rome, Nazi Germany, Japan, Iraq, China, several African countries, Spain, Australia (think Aborigines), United States and on and on goes the list) cannot be attributed to a "natural" culling. How many potential Einstein/Newtons/Hawkings et al have been eliminated because of one individual's mad act (perpetrated by a collective group) have been lost? Those genocidal atrocities ARE from basic greed and selfishness. 
Not all wars were basically from greed either. Religion played a part in it as well. The gold and artifacts brought back from the crusades were just nothing more than "spoils of war" but *not* the main reason. Many of the soldiers (on both sides) honestly felt they had to fight/die for their respective God. 
But our nature is to be war like... but we're not the only species to do so on this planet. 

Taking away our technology and yeah we'll probably come to a screeching SLOW-DOWN but not to a full halt. Remember that we did fairly well without technology. But it's the LEVEL of technology that you might want to consider. Mastery of fire is a technological level, creation of flint tools is a technological level, the wheel, mathematics, agriculture, domestication of animals, understanding of physics and astronomy and on and on. Look at this country alone roughly 150+ years ago and compare it to today? No electric power but homes were still lit at night, no lightning fast communications (pre-telegraph) but we still were able to get our messages to one another (i.e. pony express) and so on... we still did pretty dang good compared to the Native Americans who, by the way were doing a hellva lot better than the rock-bangers prior to _them_, even prior to the Spanish introduction of horses. 
So you can go ahead and strip us of all possible technological achievements and we will STILL be better than the aforementioned rock-bangers. 
Look at the so called "lost tribes" of the Amazonian and Phillipine jungles, see how much they've advanced without outside influence as compared to their rock banging brethren/ancestors. 
But we are still a war like people. It has been the evolution of our intelligence or the age of reason that has prevented us (so far) from using our weapons of mass destruction (nukes) against one another. I'd say we've grown quite a bit.

Standing in the middle of history it is really difficult to see man's progress. Stepping WAY outside of it and looking at the forest for the trees and you'll see that undeniably we have come a long way. 

:asian:


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 11, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> I'd have to disagree (respectfully of course  ). We HAVE evolved since our rock banging ancestors. We're faster, stronger, healthier (in most respects) and definitely smarter... though at times it doesn't seem that way but those are just individual examples. I'm of course speaking as a species on the planet.


 
Of course.  LOL

Not really...most of those gains can be attributed to better neutrition and healthcare. That doesn't change our "base." That, again, is attributed to *technological* advances. 

Are we really "smarter"? The greeks invented algebra...they also didn't write a whole lot down so that meant they did it in their heads. Can you do that? 

They also calculated the circumfrence of the planet within a margin of 1%. Without the aid of a computer....and that also means they knew it wasn't flat. 



			
				MA-Caver said:
			
		

> Physiological changes in a species can take thousands of years and recorded history has only been present for a couple of those thousands. We are physically different from the rock-bangers that can be certain.


 
Yeah....we shave and wear deoderant...a lot of folks still wear animal skins though. Regardless of wheter PETA throws red paint on them or not. LOL



			
				MA-Caver said:
			
		

> In breeding of different races and a better knowledge of our physique and how it works has caused improvements in our stature and overall physical development.


 
Improvements in neutrition. Technology. 




			
				MA-Caver said:
			
		

> Mentally we're giants by comparison. Ask any child if it's possible to go to the moon and they'll say "yes" and not just because the tee-vee told them so... they will intuitively know that it's possible. Ask any rock banging child and they'll probably grunt and laugh with childish glee at the prospect but not believing you in the slightest.


 
Thats a result of education. We build off of what we learn and improve our lives. I'd say, if it was possible, you could take a cro-magnon infant at birth, raise it, and educate it in today's environment and it would be no different than any other person. 



			
				MA-Caver said:
			
		

> That we're still prone to our savage nature is without question and I think an important part of our psyche. Long have we been prey to the main predators of the planet until evolution brought us up and out of their jaws and put us on top of the food-chain... by and large. There are still individuals who get eaten and I consider them throwbacks or just plain unlucky.


 
Technology. We got tired of being eaten so we developed technology (bow and arrow, spear, gun, nuke) to kill things that would prey on us. I do not equate learning how to deal with a problem to evolving per se. 



			
				MA-Caver said:
			
		

> But we still must war upon each other. Individually or collectively. This I think is Nature acting accordingly. If we did not we would soon over populate and run out of resources faster than we can produce them. So wars are our way of culling the herd. The strongest/smartest tend to survive.


 
Wow.....

I personally don't find war "natural." I believe in natural selection, but I feel wars are a product of greed (which is another piece of evidence supporting my theory that we have not evolved.) 

If it was "natural" I think other species would probably war as well. 



			
				MA-Caver said:
			
		

> HOWEVER! The blatant genocidal acts of some countries (Ancient Rome, Nazi Germany, Japan, Iraq, China, several African countries, Spain, Australia (think Aborigines), United States and on and on goes the list) cannot be attributed to a "natural" culling. How many potential Einstein/Newtons/Hawkings et al have been eliminated because of one individual's mad act (perpetrated by a collective group) have been lost? Those genocidal atrocities ARE from basic greed and selfishness.
> Not all wars were basically from greed either. Religion played a part in it as well. The gold and artifacts brought back from the crusades were just nothing more than "spoils of war" but *not* the main reason. Many of the soldiers (on both sides) honestly felt they had to fight/die for their respective God.


 
There are many manifistations of greed, brother. Trying to force your religion on another is a form of greed. You WANT them to follow your way of thinking...that's selfish...that's greed. 

The individual soldiers doing the fighting may have felt they were doing "Gods" work...but those that had the power to start the war did if for reasons related to their greed. They "wanted" what somebody else had and used religion as a tool to bring people to their cause. 



			
				MA-Caver said:
			
		

> But our nature is to be war like... but we're not the only species to do so on this planet.


 
Evidence that we have not evolved....what other species wars other than man? 



			
				MA-Caver said:
			
		

> Taking away our technology and yeah we'll probably come to a screeching SLOW-DOWN but not to a full halt. Remember that we did fairly well without technology. But it's the LEVEL of technology that you might want to consider. Mastery of fire is a technological level, creation of flint tools is a technological level, the wheel, mathematics, agriculture, domestication of animals, understanding of physics and astronomy and on and on. Look at this country alone roughly 150+ years ago and compare it to today? No electric power but homes were still lit at night, no lightning fast communications (pre-telegraph) but we still were able to get our messages to one another (i.e. pony express) and so on... we still did pretty dang good compared to the Native Americans who, by the way were doing a hellva lot better than the rock-bangers prior to _them_, even prior to the Spanish introduction of horses.
> So you can go ahead and strip us of all possible technological achievements and we will STILL be better than the aforementioned rock-bangers.


 
How so? You cite examples of how technology has made mans life better, but haven't made the argument that we've evolved as a species. 



			
				MA-Caver said:
			
		

> Look at the so called "lost tribes" of the Amazonian and Phillipine jungles, see how much they've advanced without outside influence as compared to their rock banging brethren/ancestors.
> But we are still a war like people. It has been the evolution of our intelligence or the age of reason that has prevented us (so far) from using our weapons of mass destruction (nukes) against one another. I'd say we've grown quite a bit.
> 
> Standing in the middle of history it is really difficult to see man's progress. Stepping WAY outside of it and looking at the forest for the trees and you'll see that undeniably we have come a long way.
> ...


 
Okay...name one thing, without it being related in any way-shape-or form to technology, that separates us from early man. 

What have we done as a species to be better than they were? Other than technological advances that is.....

Slavery still exists in parts of the world....

Women's sufferage still exists in parts of the world....

People are still killing each other, still robbing each other, still warring...

People still cling to superstition...

We may be taller, faster, and know more...but what have we done outside of technological advance that separates us from our early ancestors?


----------



## teekin (Sep 12, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> Of course.  LOL
> 
> Not really...most of those gains can be attributed to better neutrition and healthcare. That doesn't change our "base." That, again, is attributed to *technological* advances.
> 
> ...


 
Charity. Common Good. 
 Up until a century or so ago the vast majority of the population was stuggling to survive. It was all about "Looking After My Genes". 
Within a hundred years we now freely give millions of dollars to complete strangers with no thought of what we can get in return. Little kids will send their piggy bank money to help refuges from a war half way around the globe. Schools will collect tinned goods for a village wiped out by natural disaster. People like Mother Theresa can command the leaders of the most powerful nations on earth, and by God they listen. ( what would happen if Mr. Bush has disrespected Mother Theresa? Why didn't the Muslims assassinate her?)
Lori  ( spelling police, please excuse, no filter on this computor)


----------



## Ray (Sep 12, 2008)

Grendel308 said:


> Charity. Common Good.
> Up until a century or so ago the vast majority of the population was stuggling to survive. It was all about "Looking After My Genes".


Buddha, Christ, Muhammed, and so many more leaders that were alive before a century ago advocated charity and common good. And I have to believe that there were many who practiced it as best the could under the circumstances.  Our ability to grow and distribute food; in fact, even the knowledge of what's going on all over the world (communication) allows us to be better at practicing our ideals.  And it's all technology.

Before we had the ability to grow mass amounts of food, the whole world was "organic" and barely getting by.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 12, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Taking away our technology and yeah we'll probably come to a screeching SLOW-DOWN but not to a full halt. Remember that we did fairly well without technology. But it's the LEVEL of technology that you might want to consider. Mastery of fire is a technological level, creation of flint tools is a technological level, the wheel, mathematics, agriculture, domestication of animals, understanding of physics and astronomy and on and on. Look at this country alone roughly 150+ years ago and compare it to today? No electric power but homes were still lit at night, no lightning fast communications (pre-telegraph) but we still were able to get our messages to one another (i.e. pony express) and so on... we still did pretty dang good compared to the Native Americans who, by the way were doing a hellva lot better than the rock-bangers prior to _them_, even prior to the Spanish introduction of horses.
> So you can go ahead and strip us of all possible technological achievements and we will STILL be better than the aforementioned rock-bangers.


 
hmmm, I don't really think so.  We have become so accustomed to the modern technologies that most of us do not know how to live without them.  If we were suddenly thrown into a world without modern technology and we needed to start fires by rubbing sticks together, flake out a spearhead from a piece of flint, and go hunt down an animal for dinner, most of us would be dead before we even got the fire lit.  That fire is important not just for cooking and warmth, but just to make water sources safe to drink.  Gotta find a good pot to boil that water in - oops, forgot, don't have an aluminim pot anymore.  How we gonna do it?  Aw hell, I'm tired of working on this fire and I haven't solved the pot problem yet, and it's hot and I'm thirsty, so I'll just take a drink of water...  Say hello to dysentery and all kinds of illnesses that you now won't get over without modern medicine.  

We have become so removed from ancient technologies that it is very rare, in developed countries, to find someone who knows how to use them.  We may be a whole lot more booksmart that the ancient rock-bangers, but we have no idea how to survive in their world.  So yes, we would come to a screetching halt.  The vast majority of people would not survive past a few weeks, and would die of thirst, starvation, disease, or eating poisonous plants.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 12, 2008)

The Myth of Violence



> In this video, Steven Pinker tackles the myth that today is a more violent era than in the past. Using historical data and information from pre-industrialized tribes, Pinker shows that violence has dramatically declined in our history.
> 
> Pinker believes that a more sensitive reporting system has led us to believe violence has increased, when it has actually dropped. Not only will it make you feel a bit better about the present times, but it gives hope that the future might be a more peaceful place.


----------



## theletch1 (Sep 13, 2008)

The average individual is living in a more peaceful time simply because he doesn't have to be violent to survive.  I submit that we have not evolved psychologically to a point where violence has become a non-option and that it wouldn't take much of a push to make most folks resort to violence to survive.  This is, after all, a martial arts discussion board and the folks that frequent it are in the business of being more proficient at the art of violence than those that don't study.  Now, you can say all you want to (general "you".  No one in particular) that you are studying the MA to become a better person.  That's great and maybe you think you are.  Aren't you really just feeding those instincts (which I believe are still very strong) that are programmed to help you survive by your studies?  Would you truly just allow someone to take the things that you needed to survive, or harm you or even kill you?  Or, would you revert to what I believe man still is and defend yourself as violently as need be.  Just because you aren't going out actively seeking to destroy someone else doesn't mean you don't have the potential for a violent nature.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Sep 13, 2008)

One fact is that most of us look upon tings only from the view point of where we live and the environment in which we live.  We forget that there are many on this planet that fight for survival every day and that killing is a way of life at this time for them.
  Have we evolved from what we where ages ago I do not think we have as a species.  We still do not love or honor our fellow man or the other inhabitants of this planet. We kill off species every day and destroy natural resources at an alarming rate.
  As for being a higher species that has a soul, who can prove that those we call animals do not poses this sole also.  We depend upon our religions and personal faith to tell us that they may not but we have no proof. For all we really know they may be higher evolved in some ways than we.


----------



## teekin (Sep 15, 2008)

Ray said:


> Buddha, Christ, Muhammed, and so many more leaders that were alive before a century ago advocated charity and common good. And I have to believe that there were many who practiced it as best the could under the circumstances. Our ability to grow and distribute food; in fact, *even the knowledge of what's going on all over the world (communication) allows us to be better at practicing our ideals*. And it's all technology.
> 
> Before we had the ability to grow mass amounts of food, the whole world was "organic" and barely getting by.


 
So now more people can practice their ideals? Did more people want to before but couldn't? Not proveable. What can be proveed is that altruism is on the rise. What was once common practice is now thought of as brutal and illegal (treatment of mental patients), abuse of animals, child labor, wife as Property. A wife can now charge her husband with rape, this was NOT the case as few as 50 years ago. 100 years ago a husband a man could beat his wife to death as she was propery to be disposed of as he saw fit, the same as his dog or his house or his horse. The change in additudes and thinking has Zippo to do with technology. It has to do with waht is inherently known in the Human Heart and Soul as Right and Wrong; and That is Evololving!
Can we be pulled back down into being repltiles, yep. It is simpler, easier, black and white. Much more direct, no ambiguities there, no delayed gratification, all Id all the time, who ever is the most violent wins. But, as I say. We have evolved.
 Lori


----------



## qwksilver61 (Sep 20, 2008)

Yeah,but think about this what in modern times starts wars? easy..... resources........decisions of a few affecting the whole......I just want a deserted Island in the middle of...........


----------



## teekin (Sep 20, 2008)

qwksilver61 said:


> Yeah,but think about this what in modern times starts wars? easy..... resources........decisions of a few affecting the whole......*I just want a deserted Island in the middle of...........[/*quote]
> 
> All alone ?


----------



## qwksilver61 (Sep 20, 2008)

no not alone..... not be taken  literally...I am being sarcastic....Sometimes when people get fed up with the news they just want to be left alone....general consensus....by normal people...with feelings....not scholarly read like books.... without feelings...please do not take this post as an insult this is a forum,I did not mean to offend....


----------



## teekin (Sep 21, 2008)

Ahhh, thats ok. In person I am pretty soft and easy going. Some days instead of sparring I get into tickle fights with my partners. It's just here, in the forum, that I have had to engage the logic circuits (due to some twit with pack mentality who mistakes kindness for weakness) that I may come across as cold or aggressive. No offence taken at all. No worries mate. My appologies.
lori m


----------



## Brian King (Sep 27, 2008)

Thanks for posting the thread theletch1 I have been thinking about the subject and the material posted by the contributors off and on since this thread first posted. My apologies for my delay in replying it has taken me awhile to get my thoughts clear on the subject. My opinion has changed back and forth the deeper I thought about the subject. I want to say that we are as a species evolving for the better but I know that we are fallen and imperfect. I had just managed to convince myself and form the argument that we have indeed evolved thanks to some of the posts but then I read an article such as this one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/world/middleeast/29marriage.html?ex=1372392000&en=7915acb07161faf6& ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Tiny Voices Defy Child Marriage in Yemen. 

The link is the story about that little brave ten year old child that asked for (and was granted) a divorce from her abusive thirty year old husband. I cannot say that as a species we are evolving when things like the above not only happen regularly but are accepted as matter of course in a large part of the world and with some of the worlds major religions. As much as I would dearly love to believe that we as a species are evolving for the better yet I cannot put that wish against the story linked to above, against the violence I have witnessed.

This brings to my mind a question. If we are not evolving as a species as many including myself in this thread seem to believe, how then does that relate to the theory of evolution or the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis as they are taught in many schools? I have always had a problem with the theories of evolution in that I have not seen evidence of one species evolving into another but readily admit that I am no expert on the matter. 

I am wondering about the opinion of some of the other posters in this thread. If you believe that we as a species are not evolving or are evolving do you then believe that the theory of evolution might have some kind of flaw? If not how do you relate the two opinions?

Thanks for your thoughts
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 28, 2008)

I think man kind as a whole has been moving forward and making gains.  However, at our base core we are still a predator.  One only needs to look at the way our eyes are set and you will see that this is true.  Knowing that it should not be surprising that violence is in our nature.  Still your average person in the US probably will not experience too much violence during the course of their life.  That is improvement but does not necessarily mean that our nature has changed.


----------



## kaizasosei (Sep 28, 2008)

just because violence is not physical does not mean that it is not violence.  im not trying to establish a niceness police or anything, but i do believe it to be true that violence can be very diverse.
in essence violence is malicious intent.  however, in many if not most violent encounters there are aspects of confusion where the offenders indignantly believe that they are doing the right thing.

that is why i believe that violence is a form of sick love.  and that physical violence is the result of emotional violence. from parents, from society or by other vortexes of good and evil.  in my book, those that are capable of physical violence are displaying a deep desire for love.  those that are incapable of or greedily sickened by human contact and the happiness of others, are the true origins of the physical violence that people can see.   much is instinctive, with fear, hatred or lack of sensitivity(=hightened sensitivity) playing active roles so that it seems that the human being is just a puppet of spirits or hormones, chemicals or magnetic fields.??

fighting is something very natural.  fight for country or for family or for the spot in line at the supermarket.  there are many levels of fighting, both objective and even more so subjective. 
i believe that the crucial ingredient to what constitutes good or evil are the intentions behind the actions.  of course, that is quite invisible and difficult to measure or observe.

i do note that in many parts of the world, society has taken a turn and even gone out of its way to avoid physical violence, to hide it, and to shun it out of fear.  however, in essence, i do believe in so doing, we are to some extent denying our true nature.  and the further the society runs away fromt the physical violence the more they seem to me to gravitate towards selfhatred and nonphysical violence- a vicious circle where cowardice and hatred play the biggest roles.

j


----------



## Ray (Sep 28, 2008)

Grendel308 said:


> So now more people can practice their ideals? Did more people want to before but couldn't? Not proveable. What can be proveed is that altruism is on the rise. What was once common practice is now thought of as brutal and illegal (treatment of mental patients), abuse of animals, child labor, wife as Property. A wife can now charge her husband with rape, this was NOT the case as few as 50 years ago. 100 years ago a husband a man could beat his wife to death as she was propery to be disposed of as he saw fit, the same as his dog or his house or his horse. The change in additudes and thinking has Zippo to do with technology. It has to do with waht is inherently known in the Human Heart and Soul as Right and Wrong; and That is Evololving!
> Can we be pulled back down into being repltiles, yep. It is simpler, easier, black and white. Much more direct, no ambiguities there, no delayed gratification, all Id all the time, who ever is the most violent wins. But, as I say. We have evolved.


You can attribute those changes to evolution if you want. You can even attribute them to a rise in altrusim. I attribute it to zeitgeist. Unless you can find some 'altruistic' gene and show evidence of it being more pronounced in today's people, I don't believe you can prove it. 

(I also don't believe anyone "proves" anything except in mathematics and other invented systems; no one brings proof to court, they bring evidence which is enough to allow a decision to be made...I've seen defense attornies use this kind of thing when they try to get a jury to believe that an otherwise reasonable decision is faulty because there may always be that "wee, little bit" of the unknown/unproven.).


----------



## teekin (Sep 28, 2008)

Ron, I am off to another class, feeding Id once again. Finding ways to become faster, more aggressive, a more formitable opponent,  But I shall reply tomorrow when I am not rushed, thanks for replying to me sir.
lori


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 6, 2008)

This quote kind of reminded me of human nature

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.
  - Jack Handey


----------



## celtic_crippler (Nov 6, 2008)

Grendel308 said:


> Charity. Common Good.
> Up until a century or so ago the vast majority of the population was stuggling to survive. It was all about "Looking After My Genes".
> Within a hundred years we now freely give millions of dollars to complete strangers with no thought of what we can get in return. Little kids will send their piggy bank money to help refuges from a war half way around the globe. Schools will collect tinned goods for a village wiped out by natural disaster. People like Mother Theresa can command the leaders of the most powerful nations on earth, and by God they listen. ( what would happen if Mr. Bush has disrespected Mother Theresa? Why didn't the Muslims assassinate her?)
> Lori ( spelling police, please excuse, no filter on this computor)


 
Not trying to play the cynic, but you're WRONG. 

There are plenty of people living today that would claim they are struggling to survive. 

Charity has existed as long as man. We may have huge Non-Profits today, but the church played the primary role in the past, and before that the villages people belonged to. 

Nothing you cited is evidence of any evolution as a species. Even if I subscribed to your assertion that charity came about in the last 100 years, it still would not explain away man's base characteristic to destroy one another, take advantage of those weaker, and basically be slaves to our greed. :snipe2:



Grendel308 said:


> So now more people can practice their ideals? Did more people want to before but couldn't? Not proveable. What can be proveed is that altruism is on the rise. What was once common practice is now thought of as brutal and illegal (treatment of mental patients), abuse of animals, child labor, wife as Property. A wife can now charge her husband with rape, this was NOT the case as few as 50 years ago. 100 years ago a husband a man could beat his wife to death as she was propery to be disposed of as he saw fit, the same as his dog or his house or his horse. The change in additudes and thinking has Zippo to do with technology. It has to do with waht is inherently known in the Human Heart and Soul as Right and Wrong; and That is Evololving!
> Can we be pulled back down into being repltiles, yep. It is simpler, easier, black and white. Much more direct, no ambiguities there, no delayed gratification, all Id all the time, who ever is the most violent wins. But, as I say. We have evolved.
> Lori


 
Behaviors have been modified due to things such as law, technological advances like surveilance (there's that darn technology again), and peer/public pressures. BUT that does not change one's BASE. 

It's like the whole idea behind redemption. If you say you're sorry, but exhibit the same behavior you're supposedly sorry for....are you _really_ sorry? 

Because I don't rob the ATM because there's a camera that would increase my chances of being caught does not make me a better person, or evolved. 

My 'nana growing up told me when I was 4 (I've always remembered it) that character is about what you do when nobody's watching. If "nobody was watching" do you honestly think the vast majority of people would still be less violent? 

I guess some of this boils down to how much "faith" we have in people. I know I tend to be cynical, while some appear to lean towards the ideal. Personally, I'll believe we've evolved once we no longer require money to get what we need, the only deaths on the planet are natural ones (or due to an accident), there's no corruption in our leadership, and prisons are practically non-existant.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Dec 4, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> My $0.02:
> 
> 1. We're no more "evolved" than we were thousands of years ago sitting around in a cave banging on rocks....our technology has improved, as a species we have not.
> 
> ...



There is evidence that the first statement is not true and I completely agree with the second one.
We have evolved greatly from "thousands" of years ago, and there is proof of this, however we're not as evolved as we'd like to believe.


----------



## Blindside (Dec 4, 2008)

SensibleManiac said:


> We have evolved greatly from "thousands" of years ago, and there is proof of this, however we're not as evolved as we'd like to believe.


 
If you are talking about 200,000 years ago and our split from the Neanderthals, we're good.  If you are talking about "evolved greatly" since that point, I'd like to see/hear/cite some evidence.

EDIT: OK, I found some interesting stuff of recent evolution, cool, but nothing that could/would indicate how those changes could impact something as nebulous as altruism.


----------

