Quote:
Originally Posted by OlderWiser  I would like to think that humanity is evolving, but unfortunately I've studied a lot of history, and I've yet to see any real evidence that humans have ever gotten past our basically pre-historic brains. We know a lot more stuff, some of it pretty complicated, and our knowledge does keep expanding (although as we learn new stuff, we abandon older knowledge, so there is lots of knowledge that is now lost to us), and there does appear to be some shifting consciousness in some areas, but unfortunately I'm a little too cynical when it comes to humanity to think there are any widespread leaps in evolution. I haven't seen any reason to believe it.
( |
Thanks for the input, OlderWiser, which inspires intellectual thought and consideration. I, too, have spent a great many years studying history, primarily ancient and medieval history, but also anthropology and prehistory. I was tracing the path of mankind, trying to find a point when humanity was not a destructive, arrogant species. Of course, I haven't found it yet. I have no faith in the modern world or humanity, seeking only to live as symbiotically as possible with this planet.
When I spoke of human evolution, I was viewing it from the Darwinian, biological perspective, not as some widespread leap in advancement (which only really happens in Nature when a catalyst forces the changes). Evolution is continuous and slow, no matter how little surface change can be seen. Scientists in the UK, for instance, publish a report every 100 years (the last was a year or two ago) cataloguing how humans have changed physically. The changes are generally subtle, such as changes in fitness, posture or infant mortality. Recent changes are thought to result from better nutrition and industrialisation, so scientists are speculating we may now adapt to suit long periods spent using a computer.
The human brain has evolved little physically, but only about 20% of the brain is commonly in use while almost nothing is known about the human brain's potential. It's thought we could well develop in mental capacities, such as telepathy or fine honing to keep up with technological developments.
Also, older knowledge is not lost for being abandoned or no one would be able to recreate past crafts or lifestyles. Much of that knowledge is pure instinct, genetically encoded and would be accessible again if it were needed. Most people would be able to hunt or build a home if needed, yet we once had neither structures nor tools. Admittedly, this isn't strictly abandoned knowledge, but there are many people who do not have these once universal abilities.
The main point of all that theory, then, was that these social anomolies may well be indications of the direction in which humans are evolving. Such people (like the "indigo children") will become the norm or extinct, according to how successful the adaptations are.
I'm sorry I haven't quoted sources or examples in more detail, but this isn't a thesis or book report. These are just personal opinions drawn from thousands of sources collected over a long period.