I don’t mean destined in the sense that there was some sort of universal force influencing/manipulating human events but did our evolving of intelligence guarantee a society like this or was there some luck involved?
The only reason we’re here is not just because some groups ventured out of Africa but random natural forces in the past didn’t obliterate tribes. Is this true or not?
My personal opinion is that something like modern society was inevitable. Once we developed language, we could pass around and accumulate knowledge. And that meant that each generation of humanity had more knowledge than the one before. This increasing body of information made changes in society inevitable.
We didn’t have to leave Africa to “be here”, if I understand what you mean by that phrase.
Well, of course. All species are subject to that possibility at all times. We’ll certainly be wiped out at some point in the future.
And there is some evidence that we came pretty close to being wiped out. It appears we went through a genetic bottleneck some time in the past where there may have been only a few thousand of us around. Some biologists had speculated a causal relation with the Toba volcanic eruption, but I think most now agree that was not it.
OP’s question can be interpreted in several interesting ways. As just two examples:
(1) What if modern man had gone extinct during the bottleneck about 80,000 years ago? Isn’t it likely that another hominid species would have developed into an advanced form? After all, the Neanderthals had larger brains than us, advanced weapons, tailored clothing, art, and probably religion and spoken language.
(2) How did man develop the socio-economic system that led to the Age of Technology? Farming developed independently in at least three places, and progressed in each case into towns, kingdoms and empires. But only Western Europe bloomed into a great age of science. Is this just because the Gutenberg printing press happened to be invented in Europe? Or was there something unique to Europe’s political structure?
Sociocultural, like biological, evolution is not teleological i.e. it’s not directed at a specific target result, but it is constrained by the factors and resources available including prior evolution. Failing outright extinction, you go back and restart the clock at the point when the bottleneck was overcome, and nothing guarantees that the developments in tools and culture and social organization, things like agriculture, animal domestication, propelled missile weapons, settlement, taboos, organized religions, state organizations, patriarchy, the wheel, metalwork, building and clothmaking techniques, watercraft, writing, etc. happen in the same form or on the same schedule relative to one another or in the same places. Given that a social hierarchical type of organization seems to be “natural” to humans, one would expect a development into societies that could be recognizable as such but there would be no guarantee they’d look close to like what we have.
We were destined to have some kind of society, not this one in particular. Still, many aspects of our society are heavily influenced by our basic nature like kinship and friendship, and also enmity. Art would affect our world, we aren’t simple utilitarian builders. There could be so much different, but in an alternate society we would still see it’s structure created by the same set of forces that molded our own.
septimus, Gutenberg was not even close to the first to invent a printing press.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5910249/printed-books-existed-nearly-600-years-before-gutenbergs-bible
There was also some pretty advanced technology in places like China and Babylon, before Europe had anything remotely close.
It (kinda, sorta) requires written language to do so - at least to do so efficiently. Only a few human societies managed this - but which that did not are prominent today?
My comment was a little off-topic anyway. The development of modern science may have been inevitable, but I’d still like to know why it happened when it did. Yes, there was remarkable technology in ancient Babylon, China, etc.; and yes the ancient Greeks, Hindus and Muslims advanced science but there was a sudden spurt of science in Western Europe beginning in the 16th century that soon far surpassed anything that had come earlier. Why?
Mass production of books played an important role, with Latin translations of ancient Greeks and Arab scholars being widely read. (Regardless of invention details, the mass printing of books shortly after Gutenberg’s invention was unprecedented.) I think Columbus’ discovery may have helped a little, stimulating economies and intellectual curiosity. But I also wonder if the contrast between Europe’s political organization and those of the Islamic world or China may have explanatory value.