The Danellian continues:
"'Humans being what they are, there is always more evil than good, more sorrow than joy; but that makes it the more needful to protect and nourish whatever gives worth to our lives.'" (p. 434)
But what are human beings? A species that has changed its environment and changed itself in the process. Thus, not anything static. Protect, nourish and increase, I hope. By "...our lives...," he seems to include himself among mankind. Is there enough in common between us and them to legitimize such an identification?
He states that it is a fact that a civilization with knowledge and liberty is better than a theocracy or an autocracy. I want to agree that this is a fact, not merely our preference. In terms of survival alone, people with knowledge and freedom are able to prevent the decay and decline that drag down the two alternatives.
Some stars are brighter than others. Some evolutions are better than others. A random, self-destructive cosmos (see p. 435) must surely be worse. (In any case, there will be no one left in it to judge that it is better.)
5 comments:
Changing the environment doesn't change the species. My cat has a very different environment from her wild ancestors -- but they live in her, and her behaviors are shaped by them. Given the same stimulus, she'll react the same way.
Maybe. It depends where the process starts. Our ancestors manipulated, made and used tools and did this cooperatively, thus developing language. That set them apart from other species.
Kaor, Paul!
And because human beings can change the environment around them that lessens the need or likelihood for further evolutionary changes in mankind. Which strengthens my skepticism about human beings somehow becoming more benevolent, wise, reasonable, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
In fact, we probably developed most of our intellect (and linguistic ability) due to mating competition within human subgroups, and territorial/mating competition between them.
We're far smarter -- in particular, far more linguistic and far better at producing and introjecting models of each other's personalities -- than we need to be hunter-gatherers.
Cooperation enables competition. Wolves have to bite each other; chimps do politics in a primitive way.
Human beings can build tribes and fight wars.
This would be impossible without altruism and the ability to cooperate and use discourse.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Again, you clarified and sharpened what I had in mind. Which in itself was an example of people discoursing and cooperating--at least in this combox conversation!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment