Evolution or devolution?
In the previous post, whilst discussing whether or not we are hard-wired for bigotry, Andrew said: "There was a long-ish article about this in New Scientist in the not too
distant past. If I remember the article correctly, the idea was that
intolerance of The Other (defined however you like for the moment)
conferred advantage in terms of competition for food, mates and all the
other things that humans fight over, and that it was selected for over
and over again as humans evolved."
Which got me thinking... Again...
Is intolerance of The Other a pro-survival trait or an example of groupthink?
What I'm getting at here is, did "evolution" ensure that those groups of humans who were prepared (and/or equipped) to kill the most number of people (or be the most threatening) were the ones who got to "run the show"? Was this a good thing?
Which got me thinking... Again...
Is intolerance of The Other a pro-survival trait or an example of groupthink?
What I'm getting at here is, did "evolution" ensure that those groups of humans who were prepared (and/or equipped) to kill the most number of people (or be the most threatening) were the ones who got to "run the show"? Was this a good thing?
posted by The Editor at
7:24 AM
4 Comments:
sheesh, you make it difficult to respond with 'yes/no' answers.
Ok .. most of what you have written in this post - yes.
The last sentence - dunno; depends on the definition, or understanding, of "good".
932 irnterms?
P.S. 932 is not a word
??.We will never know.
Until we all think and look alike, and for good measure behave alike, Bigotry and indifference will be the order of things.
Bigotry is here for many generations to come. So keep your can and stirrer handy.
What are the foundations of bigotry? In my experience, bigotry arises primarily from three sources - a sense of superiority, a desire to control people or from fear.
@Gerry: intolerance of The Other has obviously been a survival trait in the past. Proof? Well, we're here discussing this topic, aren't we?
Now as to whether it is no longer relevant now that we have the Interwebs and assault rifles - I would argue we would be better off without it, and I know we can rise above bigotry, but I can't bring any proof to the party. It's just a soppy bleeding-heart leftie position, which is easier to hold than standing up for genocide.
And as to your last paragraph, in the Stone Age it made sense for the bullies to run the show (and humans are not the only animals to behave like this), but as we became more civilised it became increasingly a not so good thing.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
==========
<<<<< Home
==========