Yes, of course it was. Tribal peoples don’t pave roads, or do much in the way of wearing clothes or modifying their environment, but I realize appearing omniscient on an internet messageboard is far more important than having your mind changed or learning anything. Please excuse my mistake.
So you’re equating “Society” to “agricultural,civilized,warrior culture”? I don’t agree with that definition. Masaai and Kombai definitely have a society - which I would define as a syntax for interaction within a group of humans. And there is no such thing as an overall “Society” that the rest of us share, that excludes them.
Your mistake is in thinking the weak are particular those that are handicapped or physical frail, however weak in a Darwinian sense has only one meaning: those which fail to reproduce. Those individuals are already being whittled out. In today’s society it mostly mean those that chose to remain childless or chose to adopt instead of having their own children. Those genes are being pruned away and the common gene pool will go on without them. All for the best I think, the future will be a better place without. But it is evolution. And it is happening right now. All the time.
Sure, this isn’t modifying your environment:rolleyes:
.JPG){kind=link}
So you’re saying that the Maasai, et al, are basically just like us, but lagging behind? I strongly disagree. There absolutely is such a thing as an overall society that the rest of us share, that excludes them. Expansion, the pursuit of technology, global trade, global education, similar religion (our “big 5” religions are extremely similar to each other compared to tribal religions), etc. Beadalin and ghardester were clearly talking about modern, dominant human culture. The indigenous peoples left in the world are not part of this. Do you think the aborigines of Australia are just slow on the uptake or something?
Someone might want to twist this around to make it look like an insult but I assure you I don’t mean it that way at all: ants build more complex structures.
The elimination of the genes of those willing to adopt children will make the future a better place ? And saying that the future will be a better place because people who prefer to be childless don’t pass on their genes is insulting too.
THAT is hardly the only definition of “society”. I’ve never heard society defined in such a narrow fashion before in fact.
And yes; all human groups, and our pre-human ancestors had societies. Chimps have societies.
Wait, do you think the Maasai live in bubbles or something? Firstly, many theories of pastoralism’s development view it as a successor lifeway to the mixed farming you seem to view as our “Society.” Maasai culture is not a relict of some earlier human folkway, it is just as evolved as your Western Society.
Secondly, the Maasai partake in Kenyan civil society, if not as wholeheartedly as other tribes. Maasai tribe members become game rangers, medics…even politicians.
Thirdly, pastoralists develop relationships with the surrounding farmers and hunter/gatherers. So the Maasai are not independent from their neighbours, and that goes for any group that has regular contact with others.
This is a question I find I always have to ask: Please define for me - What measure of complexity are you using? Just from the weaving of those palm mats, I’d say the tree house was more complex than an antheap (which is just a set of burrows).
Sigh. It’s always damn semantics on this board, no matter how well someone explains his or herself. Listen, when someone says: “paving roads and wearing clothes and participating in society,” they are clearly referring to modern, popular, dominant culture. What purpose you think you’re serving by pretending I haven’t already made that clear is completely lost on me.
You seem to be saying that, completely left to their own devices, tribal peoples would eventually be us. Meaning, they would presumably at some point in the future, be building skyscrapers and sending emails. Why do you suppose they’re lagging so far behind?
(My answer, to preempt my question from being twisted: I don’t think they’re lagging behind at all. I don’t think they would ever be like us, because they don’t live like us. They’re not part of the dominant society that has “removed” itself from nature [symbolically, in many ways - I don’t think you can literally remove yourself from nature, and in any case that’s a different discussion] and is the topic of this thread.)
I don’t know, I’m not an engineer. My point was that that hut is closer to a bird’s nest or a bee’s hive or an ant’s hill than it is to the Eiffel Tower or the Sydney Opera House or the Brooklyn Bridge. It is a purely functional shelter, built for temporary survival assistance.
Ants too are social creatures.
And regardless, society has nothing to do with artifacts. It’s about how organisms interrelate.
Are people following this thread in logical progression? The point that was made, that I responded to, was that how we live is the natural state for humans to live in. “We” being members of the “society” that paves roads and wears fashion.
Notice any similarities around the world no matter what continent you travel to?
Are you saying that’s not part of a dominant world society that is unambiguously different from the society of the Australian Aborigines and the Kombai?
Right, but my question is whether this “billions” is good for the long-term sustainability of the species in an environment of unrestricted growth. Reproduction is obviously a goal of evolution, but it’s only a intermediary goal; the real goal, as I see it, is to keep the species around for eternity. You obviously can’t do that without reproduction, but can too much reproduction slowly reduce the likelihood of the end-goal? Zebras might hate lions, but ultimately the lion is doing the zebra (species) a favor by keeping the zebra’s environment stable and in check with the ecosystem. They prevent zebra from overpopulating and eating themselves to famine.
Society doesn’t have anything to do with large buildings. They are entirely incidental, and skyscrapers don’t help your point. Aborigines, Bushmen, etc, may or may not have a substantially different society than us, but that point will not be settled by looking at pictures of bridges and well-lit architecture.
It is one thing to say our society is separate from that of the Aborigines, it is another thing entirely to assert that they have no society at all.
Do Aborigines greet each other? Do they love their families? Do they cooperate? Do they use body language? Do they raise their children? Do they use tools and build things? Do they improvise solutions to their problems? Do they use impartial intermediaries to settle disputes?
Those questions may not be the best for investigating Aboriginal society, but they are a lot more relevant than “Do they live in high rise buildings?”.
This is entirely wrong. First, there is no “goal”. Second, if there is anything like a goal in evolution, it is for genes to spread and persist, ie, reproduction.
Of course there’s a goal. How else can you explain the instinctual drive of every species to reproduce? And for your second point, point taken, but still: even if the goal is not sustaining the entire species, it is about a set of genes being sustained forever. And can’t overpopulation still threaten that potential?
So if humans are evolving, what environmental pressures are causing selection?
DrCube is correct. Evolution does not and can not have any goal. Evolution is a process by which genetic variations arrive and some are reproduced more often than others. To say that evolution has a goal would be as ridiculous as saying that erosion or planetary motion have goals. Only a thinking being can have a goal, because a goal by definition is the aim that a thinking being has decided on.
As for overpopulation threatening the survival of the human species, it does not. Overpopulation is a theoretical state in which there are too many human beings for our planet’s resources to sustain. Obviously that is the opposite state from being threatened with extinction. We would be threatened with extinction only if the number of human beings became very small. There may be a few rare cases where overpopulation drove an animal population to extinction, but it can’t happen for humans. In general a large population helps ward off famine by motivating people to research new ways of producing food. This has already happened, and yields for a fixed amount of space have increased tenfold in the last century in some cases. There’s every reason to believe that we’ll continue finding new ways to improve our food resources.
Those individuals who didn’t possess that drive failed to reproduce, and therefore left no ancestors. There was and is no goal. It is simply that genes which are good at surviving and persisting in their environment survive and persist, while those that aren’t don’t.
It isn’t even about a set of genes being sustained forever. Genes have no foresight. They are the epitome of the short term investor. If a gene controls a characteristic that is detrimental to itself in the short term, it will not survive. Any gene which says “don’t reproduce as much” will be overwhelmed by genes that say “reproduce much, often and at all costs” within one generation, no matter how many individuals of that species there are.
There are of course better ways to do things than the Natural way. What I mean is now that we are sufficiently equipped to grasp the concept, humanity can move the purpose of Life: The Process further back, from merely “surviving in order to pass along genes” to striving for “the single permutation of every controllable variable that results in the greatest net happiness experienced over the greatest length of time©”. We are still too puny in brainpower to know what this would be, but a sufficiently powerful computer, biological or electronic, would theoretically be able to calculate this. I forget who it was, but I once read somewhere a quote that said more or less that evolution has handed over the torch of progress to technology (technically I would say evolution was experimenting outward rather than progressing per say, as there was no goal, but with humanity now there is a goal, happiness). With technology we can play with genes faster and with more calculated results than evolution ever could.
The “quality” of a human being is nothing more than the net happiness they bring to the conscious beings of the world (including themselves) during their stay. I agree that that is determined by the decisions,n turn determined in part by genetics. It is impossible to pretend otherwise without some agenda.
The decisions a person makes are determined to some degree by their genes.
edit in light of the last two posts: I concur that there was no goal to evolution, it is simply the way it is (favoring those able to pass on genes) because that is only way it could be. However, with the arrival of humanity, a species that is capable of feeling and understanding happiness on a level that no other product of natural selection has, is significant because now Life has been given a goal: the maximization of happiness in amplitude, multiple, and duration.
Okay, I was being a bit loose with the terms. But I think it would be fair to say that the genes have a goal. Do you agree with that?
God damn I just have to add to my post (oh why can’t the edit window be 5 minutes and 6 seconds :D): Overpopulation will affect this (:amnt. of happiness) by definition.