# Homo sapiens: have we progressed much? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 26, 2009, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658 "2009-05-26T08:08:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/21 "2009-05-26T14:53:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Some of it is outlined nicely in the book “After the Dawn”. Is there a sequel to _ **Before the Dawn** _? Or did you mean _ **Before the Dawn** _? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/22 "2009-05-26T15:11:15Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > But the species is a lot older than that - a hundred thousand years older. And there is considerable evidence to suggest human being treated each other much better prior to the development of agriculture and animal husbandry than they did afterwards; indeed, many theorize that it was the development of those things that brought us tyranny, genocide, and suppression of individuality. I find this difficult to believe. Chimps are cannibalistic (to other tribes) and hunt other monkeys. Oetzi the ice man died in part from an arrow shot. There’s a recent suggestion that ancient humans ate Neanderthals. Some primitive tribes are headhunters. And so on. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/23 "2009-05-26T16:05:52Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > \*There is some debate about whether we were “fully modern” before that time period, and you will often here scientists refer to older populations as “anatomically modern”, implying that we don’t know whether they were as developed mentally-- especially wrt language. I seem to recall (from _ **Before the Dawn** _) the biggest (posited) evolutionary change that allows humans to live in groups larger than clans was probably toning down the testosterone - we’re the only primates where unrelated males are expected to cooperate. Well, toning down the testosterone, and a built-in predisposition for religion. Agriculture and other inventions could provide the pressure for larger group living. The book also makes convincing cases that evolutionary pressure moves rather swiftly. A thousand years in different environments is enough to see measurable differences in human behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/24 "2009-05-26T16:48:59Z")
From an Economist [article](http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10278703&source=login_payBarrier)on hunter-gatherers (subscription needed): > [@](#): > > Several archaeologists and anthropologists now argue that violence was much more pervasive in hunter-gatherer society than in more recent eras. From the > !Kung in the Kalahari to the Inuit in the Arctic and the aborigines in Australia, two-thirds of modern hunter-gatherers are in a state of almost constant tribal warfare, and nearly 90% go to war at least once a year. War is a big word for dawn raids, skirmishes and lots of posturing, but death rates are high—usually around 25-30% of adult males die from homicide. The warfare death rate of 0.5% of the population per year that Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois calculates as typical of hunter-gatherer societies would equate to 2 billion people dying during the 20th century. > > At first, anthropologists were inclined to think this a modern pathology. But it is increasingly looking as if it is the natural state. Richard Wrangham of Harvard University says that chimpanzees and human beings are the only animals in which males engage in co-operative and systematic homicidal raids. The death rate is similar in the two species. Steven LeBlanc, also of Harvard, says Rousseauian wishful thinking has led academics to overlook evidence of constant violence. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/25 "2009-05-26T20:13:46Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ve often wondered whether, as a species, homo sapiens is any better now than thousands of years ago. By better, I mean in terms of morality, compassion, decency, goodness and the like? Than a thousand years ago? Certainly we are ‘better’, as you define the term. We are ‘better’ than we were 100 years ago…or even 50 years ago for that matter. And this even includes the more fucked up parts of our world today. The difference is that our weapons technology makes it easier for a smaller number of truly evil people to do disproportionately more harm in a shorter time period. But over all I think it’s pretty easy to demonstrate that people are ‘better’ in the terms you use (I think Blake has done a good job of demonstrating this already in fact). > [@](#): > > Obviously, I only have a very sketchy idea as to what mankind was like, in terms of how they behaved towards each other, and how much we cared how we cared how we treated each other, one thousand, two thousand, ten thousand years ago, but I suspect that the current mix of good and bad has always been the norm. It’s difficult to judge what human society was like 10,000 years ago, so anthropologist attempt to draw parallels between modern hunter and gatherer societies and what they THINK human society might have been like back then. Some say that inter-tribal violence was less then based on looking at modern hunter and gatherer societies today…others speculate that there was actually more. There isn’t a lot of really good evidence (that I know of) one way or the other from that time period though. 2,000 years though is a bit easier. We even have writings and fairly good archeology from 3,000-5,000 years ago…and it was pretty brutal. As an example of this, had several of the ancient empires invaded Iraq the way the US did they most likely would have simply depopulated the entire region, either killing off or enslaving most of the men, women and children, and then moved in their own people to colonize the entire area. > [@](#): > > I would like to think that our progress in the sciences and technology has been mirrored in the humanities, but I doubt it. I had a professor in college who used to put it like this (to paraphrase): The threat of casual violence and death was much greater in ancient times due to the mind set of the various societies then, but it was limited by resources and their much more limited technology (mostly though by resources). Today, the threat of casual violence and death are less (even in the hell hole type nations like North Korea and parts of Africa), but due to resources and technology the violence and death if there is a conflict can be amplified. > [@](#): > > So, have we progressed much, or is the psyche of man locked in a persistent state? Are we becoming, or can we become better people? Man and society are definitely not locked into some kind of persistent state. Our culture is constantly in flux…and in fact I’d say that for the last few thousand years it’s been in hyper-drive, with change an almost constant state. We are certainly becoming ‘better’ people…but that’s not to say that it’s all goodness and light. While I think that in general people are much less apt to casual violence and mayhem, I think that our technology becomes such a force multiplier that even a relatively small number of nasty folks can have a disproportionate impact today. -XT ---
**Author:** ![74westy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/74westy/32/3950_2.png) [@74westy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/74westy)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/26 "2009-05-26T21:13:48Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > From an Economist [article](http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10278703&source=login_payBarrier)on hunter-gatherers (subscription needed): [Here’s a talk](http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html?wwparam=1243372195) given by Steven Pinker where he argues that violence was much more prevalent in hunter-gatherer societies than now and that we are now living in the golden age. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/27 "2009-05-26T23:58:34Z")
> [@NineToTheSky](#): > > This is the crux of what I’m discussing. I think that there \*are \*people who will go on a violent rampage at the drop of a hat, or who will hurt someone for pleasure, and there are others who, equally, will be horrified at the thought of that. > I think that is as true of people today as in the past. Plus ca change. > I think that brutal dictatorships legitimises brutal behaviour. Sure, there might be some normally non-violent people who for some reason become violent, but it also gives the violently inclined the circustances where they can be violent without repurcussions. This is exactly what I posted. So I’m not entirely sure what your point is. I’ll re-iterate my point: People haven’t changed biologically. Culture has evolved for the better however. While people are no more or less physiologically inclined to violence the culture is such that very few people actually are violent or sociopathic. Humans are better. Much better. Even the worst society on Earth no longer has the 20% plus mortality rate from homicide that was common in the past. Slavery is all but non-existent. Very few places practice mutilation as a form of punishment. I could keep listing these objective improvements all day. The species is better. Not all individuals are better. Not al individual governments are better but the species is indisputably better. > [@RickJay](#): > > And there is considerable evidence to suggest human being treated each other much better prior to the development of agriculture and animal husbandry than they did afterwards; indeed, many theorize that it was the development of those things that brought us tyranny, genocide, and suppression of individuality.. Considerable evidence? Many theorize? I’m gonna have to echo the calls for cites on this one. This is a topic that I have some interest in and where I follow the latest literature in a casual way. And these claims run counter to pretty much everything that I’ve read. HGs are for the most part incredibly violent and warlike and extremely prone to death by homicide. They are also incredibly insular and territorial and prone to killing anyone who trespasses. In contrast most of the peaceful societies have been agriculturalist. While it’s common to see claims of peaceful HGs from 30+ years ago it’s an idea that has pretty much died in recent times. A lot of the misconception of the peaceful HG seems to come from people’s idea that the Trobriand islanders or the peaceful North American Indians were HGs, which of course they weren’t. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/28 "2009-05-27T02:00:22Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I’ll re-iterate my point: People haven’t changed biologically. Culture has evolved for the better however. That is debatable at best. There is much evidence that the onset of agriculture and the rapid spread of humans has led to accelerated biological evolution, resulting in non-negligible differences between us and our ancestors. On a millenial timescale, agriculture has led towards both lactose tolerance (in a good part of the world), ability to subsist on a grain-heavy diet, and tolerance of alcohol. It has also led to more long-term thinking, (greater “future time preference,”). Modern hunter-gatherers are different from those descended from a long tradition of agriculture in this and other ways, about which more in [this book](http://the10000yearexplosion.com/), reviewed [here](http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/be_fruitful_and_multiply/). ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/29 "2009-05-27T02:02:12Z")
For a less popular-science perspective we also have this paper demonstrating strong recent selection in the human genome: [here](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/12/we-are-all-mutants-now.html) and [here](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/12/recent-natural-selection-in-humans.html). > [@](#): > > A related question is whether selection pressure remained strong after the development of civilization. Perhaps reproductive success became largely decoupled from genetic influences once humans became civilized? Not only is this implausible, but it seems to be directly contradicted by evidence. The graph below, based on English inheritance records, shows that the rich gradually out-reproduced the poor: the wealthy had more than twice as many surviving children as the poor. Thus, in this period of history wealth was a good proxy for reproductive success. Genes which were beneficial for the accrual of wealth (e.g., for intelligence, self-discipline, delayal of gratification, etc.) would have become more prevalent over time. In a simple population model, any lineage that remained consistently poor over a few hundred year period would contribute almost zero to today’s population of Britons. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/30 "2009-05-27T02:10:28Z")
Interesting athelas. While I was aware of things like the evolution of lactose tolerance it’s fairly much insignificant in terms of this discussion. Evidence for actual evolutionary changes in psychology is very interesting. It would also seem to lead to some problematic conclusions regarding race. For example if agriculture has led to the evolution of “more long-term thinking” then we are forced to conlude that groups such as Aborigines with no history of agriculture are less capable of holding down a job or getting an education because they will lack a crucial skill for doing so. IOW these peoples are failures because they are biolgically incapable of success in the modern world, and no amount of assistance will change that. I certainly don’t _want_ to believe that and it’s going to ake some strong evidence for me to accept it. I haven’t read your link but rest assured, I will. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/31 "2009-05-27T02:20:30Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > For a less popular-science perspective we also have this paper demonstrating strong recent selection in the human genome: [here](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/12/we-are-all-mutants-now.html) and [here](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/12/recent-natural-selection-in-humans.html). Be careful what you are saying here. Those links argue that selection hasn’t become any less important in recent times. They aren’t arguing that it has become stronger or taken a different direction. Intelligence, self-discipline and delayal of gratification were all essential survival traits in pre-agricultural populations too. This is why I’m always highly skeptical of claims of evolution driven by agriculture. Those sorts of traits aren’t controlled by single genes and they aren’t objectively measurable. While there’s no doubt that they have been selected for in agricultural populations I’ve seen no evidence they were selected for any more strongly than in pre-agricultural poulations. But as say, I haven’t read your links. Maybe there is evidence in there. Or maybe you could present some of the evidence for us. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/32 "2009-05-27T02:29:47Z")
You’re asking way to soon. We haven’t had time to make any meaningful progress. Shit, we were in _CAVES_ like 12,000 years ago or something! Please ask again after the first 250,000 years, willya? ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/33 "2009-05-27T02:39:22Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Intelligence, self-discipline and delayal of gratification were all essential survival traits in pre-agricultural populations too. Yes, but to a lesser extent. It is much harder to accumulate productive capital as a nomadic hunter-gatherer than as an agriculturalist, and so forward-thinking, while rewarding, is _less_ rewarding in that the best you can do is carry around some good tools and a dozen pounds of mammoth jerky. By contrast, an agriculturalist who eats his seed grain is out of luck. Cochran’s book recounts the difficulty of teaching Australian aborigines to become herders, as they often eat their breeding animals (goats, I think). Similarly studies of a hunter-gatherer tribe in Madegascar show that they devote more time to hunting than planting plantains, which has a much better caloric payoff. These are isolated examples but the data point in one direction, and there is more evidence in the links. For less controversial differences we also have definite evidence of lower immune reaction against infectious diseases, and more resistance against macroparasites (the Spanish conquest cannot have happened without it), and the greater tendency of aboriginal peoples towards alcoholism - as a fermented beverage it would only have been widespread among agricultural peoples. The nice thing about this field, of course, is that the evidence is still coming in. If we’re uncomfortable about speculations into genetic human differences we can wait for more results from [HapMap](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapmap). ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/34 "2009-05-27T03:50:54Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Yes, but to a lesser extent. It is much harder to accumulate productive capital as a nomadic hunter-gatherer than as an agriculturalist, and so forward-thinking, while rewarding, is _less_ rewarding in that the best you can do is carry around some good tools and a dozen pounds of mammoth jerky. Cite! Seriously, where is your evidence for that claim? It seems impossible to even measure, much less find evidence to suport. But since you’ve stated it as fact in GD you mut have evidence, so I’d like to see it. > [@](#): > > Cochran’s book recounts the difficulty of teaching Australian aborigines to become herders, as they often eat their breeding animals (goats, I think). Australian pioneer history is something of a hobby of mine, so I know this is true. What Cochran presumably didn’t tell you was how exasperated the Aborigines got when the Europeans would allow stock numbers to build up to huge numbers during good years only to decimate the pasture during the inevitable 7 bad years that followed. Or Aborigines being forced to go to war because Europeans would allow stock to foul a waterhole in just three days that would have lasted people and stock 5 years with careful management. What do these stories tell you? What they tell me is that any group of humans introduced to an unfamiliar lifestyle will exhibit a stupendous lack of planning ability. And unless he reported failures to plan on all sides it also tells me that Cochran is a man who cherry picks his anecdotes. > [@](#): > > Similarly studies of a hunter-gatherer tribe in Madegascar show that they devote more time to hunting than planting plantains, which has a much better caloric payoff. Biggest problem first off: Madagascans are descendants of Malays and East Africans. The first Madagascans were agriculturalists and they have remained agricultralists ever since. They have been agriculturalists far longer than western Europeans have been. So any evidence of a lack of forward planning in Madagascar is evidence _against_ this hypothesis. Secondly any group that is growing plantains can not be hunter gatherers, by definition. And finally: so what? Calories aren’t normally limiting for human beings? Very few people actually die or become ill due to a lack of calories? The single largest nutritional factor that limits human health is protein, not calories. Now I can’t be sure, but since bananas contain almost no protein I’m going to go out on limb and say that hunting returns much more protein than growing bananas. Did these studies present any actual evidence that groups that concentrated on growing plantains would be healthier? A nutritional analysis of a combined hunting/plantain diet vs a primarily plantain diet for example? Or a medical review of a control population that did less hunting? because if they didn’t this anecdote is worthless. > [@](#): > > These are isolated examples but the data point in one direction.. They point in one direstion because they seem to have been selected to point in that direction. Why can’t we also include exmaples of where agriculturalists exhibit poor long term planning? God knows there are enough of them. Has Cochran or anyone else tried to actually construct any sort of valid, teatable hypothesis formthese aexmaples? For example did they look at all the examples of lack of planning from a 70 years period in Madagascar and assign them to one group or another? I suspect that he simply cherry picked examples that he liked and ignored the rest. Unsurpising then that the examples all point in one direction. > [@](#): > > … and there is more evidence in the links. I’ve skimmed the links, and they present no evidence to suport the claim. They simply state that the rate of genetic drift within populaitons increses as the population growth rate increases, and that the diretcionof the drif differs betwen populations. I can’t even see why this is consdered news. I learned that 20+ years ago as an undergrad. I guess it’s interesting tha it has been proved to apply to humans as well, but I don’t think anyone ever doubted it would. Can you tell us what you think is the strongest evdince in suport of this proposition? Because so far the evidene you’ve presented doesn’t support it even one little bit, and isn’t even testable or scientific. > [@](#): > > For less controversial differences we also have definite evidence of lower immune reaction against infectious diseases, and more resistance against macroparasites.. Cite. Can you please show me this evidence, because it is startling news to me. > [@](#): > > … and the greater tendency of aboriginal peoples towards alcoholism - as a fermented beverage it would only have been widespread among agricultural peoples. Once again, cite! Where is your evidence that non-agricutural people aboriginal people (such as the Aborigines or Inuit) have a greater tendency towards alcoholism than agricultural aboriginal people (such as the Mohawk or Zulu)? I know that marginalised populations have a greater tendency towards substance abuse, and that aboriginals tend to be marginalised, and hence display greater substance abuse. But I would dearly love to see evidence that having non-agricultural ancestors plays any role at all. > [@](#): > > The nice thing about this field, of course, is that the evidence is still coming in. I’ve yet to see any evidence at all. All that I’ve sen so far has been on par with the unsupported or cherry picked anecdotes on this page. That’s not evidence. Most of it doesn’t even make any sense. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/35 "2009-05-27T05:09:40Z")
> [@NineToTheSky](#): > > can we become better people? No. ---
**Author:** ![NineToTheSky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@NineToTheSky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineToTheSky)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/36 "2009-05-27T09:23:03Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > No. Why not? I think we have the will, the desire, to become better. We certainly, in many societies, seem to be trying. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/37 "2009-05-27T10:37:25Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > the greater tendency of aboriginal peoples towards alcoholism - as a fermented beverage it would only have been widespread among agricultural peoples. Actually, in Southern Africa, it was the hunter-gather Bushmen who often supplied the agriculturalist Khoi & Xhosa with honey-mead. I personally think the tendency of aboriginal groups to alcoholism is a _lot_ more to do with psychological issues of colonialism, alienation, deculturalisation and poverty than any genetic factors. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/38 "2009-05-27T13:17:34Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Is there a sequel to _ **Before the Dawn** _? Or did you mean _ **Before the Dawn** _? \*After the fire The fire still burns… \* Yes, you are correct. My bad. I read it several years ago. Good book, but it’s easy to get too carried away believing that some of the hypothesis put forth are mainstream science. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/39 "2009-05-28T05:15:45Z")
> [@NineToTheSky](#): > > Why not? I think we have the will, the desire, to become better. We certainly, in many societies, seem to be trying. It seems like the wrong way of looking at the issue to me. People can make better decisions. If they exercise, they get stronger. Read a lot and maybe they are less ignorant. Their behavior can be more apt or profitable. People can become better _at_ doing this or that. But how do people actually get better? What changes in people themselves, that is measured in ‘better’ or ‘worse’? ---
**Author:** ![NineToTheSky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@NineToTheSky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NineToTheSky)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658/40 "2009-05-28T06:53:53Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > It seems like the wrong way of looking at the issue to me. > > People can make better decisions. If they exercise, they get stronger. Read a lot and maybe they are less ignorant. Their behavior can be more apt or profitable. People can become better _at_ doing this or that. But how do people actually get better? > > What changes in people themselves, that is measured in ‘better’ or ‘worse’? The ability to be more tolerant, more compassionate, more understanding. To recognise that violence and cruelty are a very blunt instrument, and that the feelings and beliefs of others should be considered and tolerated. I believe that societies, as a whole, are becoming more more considerate, but many individuals haven’t progressed at the same rate and still espouse the more negative attitudes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-sapiens-have-we-progressed-much/497658.md?page=3)