evolution of society?

[maximus]

...

[jammieg]

Strange, I was wondering the same thing all morning. Here's what dreamed up so far: The theory of evolution and in particular the principle of survival of the fittest is sometimes generalized too far into things it really doesn't fit well in, it's specific application is long term genetic change over great time, which to me suggests that the hardest thing for the universe to do is produce greater and finer levels of complexity, or greater and more defined degrees of understanding within a society or a society itself growing more defined, since society is based on people and people can change and adapt then it's more like the evolving of societies concepts than one nation taking over another. "Survival of the fittest" type thinking is applicaple or analogous or related in some way to the lizard brain, it is short term reward, it is greed and selfcenterdness-the lizard brain sees only what is right in front of it. It is easy to see how dishonesty, selfishness and greed work but it's hard to see how union theory works better(Aesop's stick story). Union theory is long term reward within the time frame of an individual life or many, it is mutually beneficial to a greater degree than lizard brain thinking, it is a step above selfishness and encompasses this. I know there's probably several better names for it, I don't remember, I don't mean to sound pretentious, I don't mean to suggest one should be utterly selfless that is impossible, I'm just trying to understand karma. Put another way I believe that karma is selfishness but of greater degree and long term, or selfishness is karma but very short term and short sighted.

...After actually reading some on Karma and Buddhism it seems to fit in with instincts, that is that the 3 main sins of Buddhism are passion,hate, and ignorance... That suffering stems from ignorance makes sense. Karma is probably better learned by doing.

[Preator Fenix]

Good question.

One would automactilly answer that the two are intametly realted. But then that is only because of bias as I am both human and a member of sociaty ( however isolated )After some it appears to me that I really dont have any logical impetus to nessacrly define socaity and huamnanty as mutally dependant evoluanary systems.

As a personal rule I thumb I would say that Im suspicous. And who says that the two are DIFFERNT things. Or put in another way the question really should be read "....where does one begin and the other end?"

I'll post again after having given this question some thought. (most in these fourms seem to know their response for everything in less then 5 min)

[maximus]

Originally posted by Preator Fenix


As a personal rule I thumb I would say that Im suspicous. And who says that the two are DIFFERNT things. Or put in another way the question really should be read "....where does one begin and the other end?"



your 'rule of thumb' is the enevitable consiquence of a logical line of thought in this subject, but think on, buddy! i await your responce.

[Tiberius]

I voted that they "evolve together" as I believe them to be deeply interconnected.

We know that biology affects instinct and instinct affects the behavior of even intelligent animals. If our biology were different, our societal norms would be very different as well. Take most religious rules and you'll see that the most significant of them revolve around eating and reproduction. Why pooping was left out is beyond me, but the point is that a lot of our society is dependent on our biology.

Interestingly, it works the same in reverse. There's a type of fish that has a pretty intricate social structure and hiearchy (sorry, can't remember the species). They noticed that the fish at the top of the social order had larger brains. They assumed at first that the fish with larger brains rose to the top, but discovered after some study, that being at the top GAVE them larger brains.

It seems that for us too, that much of our biology and reproduction is determined by society. Think of how much socio-economics affects reproduction rates and who you can and can't marry, and it becomes obvious that you're affecting reproduction - and to affect reproduction is to affect evolution.

Add to that the upcoming prospect of directed evolution through genetic manipulation and the link becomes even clearer. That's why I think the third option in the poll, "related but NOT dependant on each other" is severely off base.

[nevagil]

What exactly is the "evolution of society"
If it means becoming more civilized, I wonder if there has been any evolving. When humans were hairier and more animal in appearance like cro-magnon or whatever, was there any more killings of other humans? I think there was probably the same percentage of people killing other people.
Or does "evolution of society" mean something else?
I voted that their is a related but not dependant relationship, but I think the paragraph I just wrote shows an example of our species evolving physically but not society-wise. So maybe there is not a direct dependant connection.

[Raven]

I voted related but not dependent on each other.

I have to agree with nevagil on the issue of defining "evolution of society" If we define the "evolution of society" as the growing union of groups organizing together for cultural and economic reasons as in the growing formations from say individual, to family, to tribe, to union within a town, union within a city, empire, country, etc. then I think there is a good chance of creating a link between societal growth in which our species become more dependent and cooperative among each other and the biological evolution.

I based this on comparing our species to other species such as mammals and reptiles. Over 4 million years the human species has evolved greatly from its cavemen ancestors to the people we are now. On the otherhand crocadiles have evolved very little over those years. The same can be said about certain species of sharks.

If we jump forward in our own evolution, say to about 160,000 years ago, our human species has evolved quite quickly in that short term between then and now vs. say the evolution of hippos and giraffes. The growth (evolution) of our societal connections may have triggered changes in our biological selves. We began to evolve to the standards in which we have become accustomed to living. Our appearance and the stronger challenges we face in life may have certainly caused our species to evolve to compensate with the requirements we have given our own species. I think the same could be said about other species we consider intelligent. Their rate of evolution may also depend on the challenges and differences in environment that they have made for themselves. Or they may be evolving based on the differences in environment, we as humans have made for them.

In a way I am saying that changes in general are related to the process of our evolution but to say that societal evolution is a direct cause, in my opinion would be a wrong assumption. Although the evolution of society in itself does help our species evolve, other factors also play a role in our evolution which shouldn't be ignored.

[wuliheron]

It's nature and nurture. No society, no human biology and vice versa. Some animals can lay their eggs and split, but the more complex ones like mammals just can't do that. In the case of people, we require at least small groups of around eight people or so to be viable. Like just about every other aspect of being human though, we are extremely flexible in our social organizations.

For millions of years nature as much as our social organizations drove our evolution, but many argue convincingly that this situation has now reversed. Human societies today are widely considered the single largest influence on nature. Within twenty years the oceans will no longer be commercially fishable and within fifty years every wild land animal larger than a dog will either be extinct or exist only in zoos. With the advancements in modern medicine and genetic sciences, it looks like nature is about to take a back seat.

[nevagil]

__________________________________________________ ___
I think the same could be said about other species we consider intelligent. Their rate of evolution may also depend on the challenges and differences in environment that they have made for themselves. Or they may be evolving based on the differences in environment, we as humans have made for them.
__________________________________________________ __________

I don't think we can judge an evolving of other species because we humans tend to kill off the healthiest of other species when we have hunted. Especially in the past where the sick stupid animals were killed first by other animals, humans when hunting would not want to kill and eat the sickest, stupid irrational acting animal of a pack, just as today deer hunters would want to shoot a healthy big antlered deer as opposed to killing and eating a sickly acting deer.
And I doubt if corporations want to test products on sickly monkeys.
Also no one would want a sickly pet, so we pick healthy dogs and cats, put them in a house or yard where their sense of smell is no longer necessary and presto we have dogs and cats being bred for compatibility reasons. Anyone ever consider the intelligence of a cow compared to whatever its counterpart is?
By the way, throughout my life I have come to the conclusion that domestic animals are much dumber than their wild counterparts.
Rabbits, wolves etc all seem to have a learning ability in some areas that is quicker than the domestics.
I wonder if our society is dumbing itself down in some similar ways.
Happy pondering, gil of www.surrealcity.com