I am proposing that as people who study science and biology, we must have a much more comprehensive interpretation of evolution. We can be informed of the evidence supporting evolutionary behavior, but we can acknowledge the dangers in relying too much on evolution to explain humans’ behavior.
I am not offended by animal species examples, even though I consider myself a feminist, because, come on. Be realistic. They are lower animals. They don’t know any better. They, according to our (humans’) classifications and criteria, are not very achieved on the evolutionary scale. And we humans do not want to look at animals as our role models, do we? Who reasonably wants to resemble an item that might show up as roadkill?
Also, you must remember that animalia do not have time to acquire their behavioral knowledge through learning. They must rely on instinct because they do not live long. Humans, on the other hand, live much longer and have the capacity to learn – formally, informally, and from their mistakes.
There is one species of lion in which a male might choose a female to mate with. But if the female already has young with a different male, this current male kills those previous young because his instinct is that she should spend her time raising his young, not that other lion’s. If humans did this, it would be disgusting and horrific.
The female black widow spider, as she and her mate are mating, eats her mate and of course in the process kills him. That is her primary source of food. It is disgusting, but it works for them because they are spiders, not humans. Don’t even get me started on plants. If humans did half the things plants did, they would be arrested, sterilized, and institutionalized.
People that put forth this theory of evolution-as-explanation-of-behavior usually do not directly mention race and ethnicity, although many times throughout human history certain ethnicities claimed their evolutionary superiority over other ethnicities, using alleged scientific evidence. I hope we all know that this superiority is simply not true and not existing. And that using any excuse to claim oneself better than others of a different race is called racism.
Science can prove that all races are of the exact same species. Okay, this might sound silly, but from a scientific viewpoint, if a male and a female, each from a different species, has one offspring, that offspring will be unable to reproduce because its two parents are of two different species. An example is the mule. One parent is a donkey and the other is a horse. The mule is unable to reproduce. Humans, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of reproducing. If a person has one black parent and one white parent, that person has no biological obstacles from having children, racially-wise, anyway.
Consider the second law of thermodynamics. This states entropy -- the universe automatically moves toward chaos, without needing any extra help or input of energy. This sounds to me as though thermodynamics seriously puts a hamper on evolution. Evolution means that the universe (or species, anyway) is moving towards organization and improvement. You have all probably heard all the allegations that religion contradicts itself, etc. If you were to study science carefully, you would probably notice that science contradicts itself as well.
Now, I am not anti-intellectual. I remember the Kansas State Board ruling against teaching evolution in public schools, and I am glad that ruling has become overturned. Evolution is essential to learn because it is a communal gathering of all the knowledge that humans have gained thus far. And much of it is true – living creatures trying to survive through survival of the fittest and such. Evolution works in mysterious ways. Witness an article in Newsweek magazine recently that reported that the reason humans do not have as many children in their lifetime as other species is precisely because they are more evolved.
But when we use evolution as an excuse for poor human judgment or behavior, that is crossing the line. Actually, I wonder if people do not realize that because of evolution, we humans need to be smarter than our Cro-Magnon ancestors. Evolution, over time, gives species and beings the capacity to problem-solve, to invent and innovate, as well as the ability to reason: Should I take this risk? What are the consequences, or rather, the price I would have to pay?
And we as humans have gone the extra crucial step. We have consciences. Or at least, we should. Perhaps that is the final frontier -- the ability to distinguish right from wrong. The ability to care about others' feelings, to sympathize with a fellow human being. Animals do many things that a great many humans would consider wrong behavior. But we as civilized, moral beings, should rightfully recognize the degenerate nature of lower animals. And we should be capable of refusing to succumb to those lower, non-conscious patterns of psychology and behavior.
Marriage and a low number of sexual partners. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is a sign of civility. It is structure, order ____. It maintains a healthy whole society.
Screwing around with no regards to the consequences, no regards to the people you are hurting, no regards to others' physical health and well-being, no regards to your own physical health and well-being, no regards to anyone's emotional health and solvency. That is a horrible environment for children to be in. And it is a horrible environment for humans to be in, period.
This is supposed to be "evolution???"
Instead of attempting to tear down and bring women down to men's degenerate levels, shouldn't we be trying to improve the human race? Shouldn't we be trying to encourage growth, personal reflection growth and advancement, and trying to encourage men to lift themselves up to women's levels?
Because, yes, if this is the case, if this is what sociobiology dictates, then this does in fact prove that women are more evolved than men. Limiting childbearing to only a few children and then subsequently investing all your time and energy into those few offspring -- is much more evolved and civilized that trying to shoot for the maximum number physically possible.
I have seen slight variations of this before, unfortunately. The negative influence always, always, always brings down the good guy. Always negatively influences the good guy. It is hardly ever the other way around. All the previous manifestations of this ___
This is the same phenomenon that is being demonstrated here. Instead of calling out the so-called male sociobiology theories on their bullshyte and how this does not apply to civilized life, the counter-argument against this is merely saying, "ohmigosh that is like so totally not true see females can like totally be whores just as much as males can."
This illogical knee-jerk drivel that i am seeing all over the place is a ridiculous juvenile reactionary response.
In essence, we are so evolved that we now have the capacity to decide whether or not we should continue letting evolution rule our thoughts, feelings, and lives. So it’s as if evolution is a victim of its own success.
Which brings me to one point Boeree made that I found very interesting, and that I had not heard before. In the section titled “Aggression in Human Beings,” he writes that one reason aggression is such a problem with humans is that we are so evolved that over time we lost our instinct of aggression, so in effect we also lost our ability to handle aggression. However, there are many animals that do display aggression regularly, and I do not know how they “handle” it or if they do at all.
Ultimately, what Boeree, psychologists, biologists, and all other sociologists, including an aunt of mine, finally decide is that humans are a combination of nurture and nature. In order to be a completely functional and rational population, we must take our cues from learned behavior and use good judgment, while not ignoring the impact evolution might have on us, good or bad.
I am not offended by animal species examples, even though I consider myself a feminist, because, come on. Be realistic. They are lower animals. They don’t know any better. They, according to our (humans’) classifications and criteria, are not very achieved on the evolutionary scale. And we humans do not want to look at animals as our role models, do we? Who reasonably wants to resemble an item that might show up as roadkill?
Also, you must remember that animalia do not have time to acquire their behavioral knowledge through learning. They must rely on instinct because they do not live long. Humans, on the other hand, live much longer and have the capacity to learn – formally, informally, and from their mistakes.
There is one species of lion in which a male might choose a female to mate with. But if the female already has young with a different male, this current male kills those previous young because his instinct is that she should spend her time raising his young, not that other lion’s. If humans did this, it would be disgusting and horrific.
The female black widow spider, as she and her mate are mating, eats her mate and of course in the process kills him. That is her primary source of food. It is disgusting, but it works for them because they are spiders, not humans. Don’t even get me started on plants. If humans did half the things plants did, they would be arrested, sterilized, and institutionalized.
People that put forth this theory of evolution-as-explanation-of-behavior usually do not directly mention race and ethnicity, although many times throughout human history certain ethnicities claimed their evolutionary superiority over other ethnicities, using alleged scientific evidence. I hope we all know that this superiority is simply not true and not existing. And that using any excuse to claim oneself better than others of a different race is called racism.
Science can prove that all races are of the exact same species. Okay, this might sound silly, but from a scientific viewpoint, if a male and a female, each from a different species, has one offspring, that offspring will be unable to reproduce because its two parents are of two different species. An example is the mule. One parent is a donkey and the other is a horse. The mule is unable to reproduce. Humans, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of reproducing. If a person has one black parent and one white parent, that person has no biological obstacles from having children, racially-wise, anyway.
Consider the second law of thermodynamics. This states entropy -- the universe automatically moves toward chaos, without needing any extra help or input of energy. This sounds to me as though thermodynamics seriously puts a hamper on evolution. Evolution means that the universe (or species, anyway) is moving towards organization and improvement. You have all probably heard all the allegations that religion contradicts itself, etc. If you were to study science carefully, you would probably notice that science contradicts itself as well.
Now, I am not anti-intellectual. I remember the Kansas State Board ruling against teaching evolution in public schools, and I am glad that ruling has become overturned. Evolution is essential to learn because it is a communal gathering of all the knowledge that humans have gained thus far. And much of it is true – living creatures trying to survive through survival of the fittest and such. Evolution works in mysterious ways. Witness an article in Newsweek magazine recently that reported that the reason humans do not have as many children in their lifetime as other species is precisely because they are more evolved.
But when we use evolution as an excuse for poor human judgment or behavior, that is crossing the line. Actually, I wonder if people do not realize that because of evolution, we humans need to be smarter than our Cro-Magnon ancestors. Evolution, over time, gives species and beings the capacity to problem-solve, to invent and innovate, as well as the ability to reason: Should I take this risk? What are the consequences, or rather, the price I would have to pay?
And we as humans have gone the extra crucial step. We have consciences. Or at least, we should. Perhaps that is the final frontier -- the ability to distinguish right from wrong. The ability to care about others' feelings, to sympathize with a fellow human being. Animals do many things that a great many humans would consider wrong behavior. But we as civilized, moral beings, should rightfully recognize the degenerate nature of lower animals. And we should be capable of refusing to succumb to those lower, non-conscious patterns of psychology and behavior.
Marriage and a low number of sexual partners. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is a sign of civility. It is structure, order ____. It maintains a healthy whole society.
Screwing around with no regards to the consequences, no regards to the people you are hurting, no regards to others' physical health and well-being, no regards to your own physical health and well-being, no regards to anyone's emotional health and solvency. That is a horrible environment for children to be in. And it is a horrible environment for humans to be in, period.
This is supposed to be "evolution???"
Instead of attempting to tear down and bring women down to men's degenerate levels, shouldn't we be trying to improve the human race? Shouldn't we be trying to encourage growth, personal reflection growth and advancement, and trying to encourage men to lift themselves up to women's levels?
Because, yes, if this is the case, if this is what sociobiology dictates, then this does in fact prove that women are more evolved than men. Limiting childbearing to only a few children and then subsequently investing all your time and energy into those few offspring -- is much more evolved and civilized that trying to shoot for the maximum number physically possible.
I have seen slight variations of this before, unfortunately. The negative influence always, always, always brings down the good guy. Always negatively influences the good guy. It is hardly ever the other way around. All the previous manifestations of this ___
This is the same phenomenon that is being demonstrated here. Instead of calling out the so-called male sociobiology theories on their bullshyte and how this does not apply to civilized life, the counter-argument against this is merely saying, "ohmigosh that is like so totally not true see females can like totally be whores just as much as males can."
This illogical knee-jerk drivel that i am seeing all over the place is a ridiculous juvenile reactionary response.
In essence, we are so evolved that we now have the capacity to decide whether or not we should continue letting evolution rule our thoughts, feelings, and lives. So it’s as if evolution is a victim of its own success.
Which brings me to one point Boeree made that I found very interesting, and that I had not heard before. In the section titled “Aggression in Human Beings,” he writes that one reason aggression is such a problem with humans is that we are so evolved that over time we lost our instinct of aggression, so in effect we also lost our ability to handle aggression. However, there are many animals that do display aggression regularly, and I do not know how they “handle” it or if they do at all.
Ultimately, what Boeree, psychologists, biologists, and all other sociologists, including an aunt of mine, finally decide is that humans are a combination of nurture and nature. In order to be a completely functional and rational population, we must take our cues from learned behavior and use good judgment, while not ignoring the impact evolution might have on us, good or bad.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment