After ten or so thousand years of development, homo sapiens became the dominant species on planet Earth. Being a bisexual (in the original sense) species, like most of their mammalian cousins, procreation was divided into strict biological roles. And the survival of the species was totally predicated on the optimization of those roles.
Because of accidents of environment or genetic fortitude our species gradually became "top of the food chain". Was it was because of the male ability to fashion crude weapons to kill and secure food; their evolutionary strength to protect their chosen mates? Or was it because of the females' abilities to select those mates; to have the babies that ensured the future of the species, as early as possible after puberty before they themselves died? Whatever: the genes survive! This is all that matters to any long-lived species. The difference in this case is that the homo sapiens had an edge -- intelligence.
Gradually, as Nation-states begat Empire-states, a rather large percentage of any given population had time to breathe between the animal attacks, the viral attacks, and the various wars that their leaders felt obliged to conduct on behalf of the common good. These exceptions eventually created scholars and artisans and engineers and alchemists and experimenters. At home there arose stable domesticity and friendship and mutual support between families. Together this new race of Timmies escaped their wells, learned to cooperate, not only with their sexual partners to keep the race alive but to cooperate with neighbours for the benefit of all.
With the science of materials came the wheel and other conveniences.Whether it be by chewing rawhide to make protective covers for your baby, or by endlessly banging away at a piece of stone to make a sharper, more penetrative tool to kill and skin the most beneficial animal to feed your family. The end result was collaborative. And necessary for the future of each little tribe.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is where we are today! From small, interdependent tribes to technologically superior species. So . . . are we Civilised?
Good question. On the one hand, our species has achieved a technological progression far beyond any other species that ever existed on our planet: tools and metallurgy and huge structures to live in; guns and atom bombs to deter our more aggressive neighbours; medicines and plague-defeaters to defeat an early death; interplanetary travel to broaden our experience; harnessed energy sources such as petroleum and sunlight and chemical batteries to improve the quality of life; computers and communication devices to widen our social networks. An entire pantheon of health and comfort unsurpassed in the entire history of homo sapiens' existence.
On the other hand . . . . we so bloody much resemble the primitive, selfish, tribal, ignorant, grasping acquisitive, unbelievably moronic attributes of our monkey ancestors that it would give a careful, observant, rational man or woman cause to burst into tears. From international wars to obtain territory, resources or prestige to the everyday simple selfishness of individuals: of putting one's airplane seat back to gain a modicum of comfort while halving the available space of the hapless person behind; gaining "ownership" of a set of sunbeds at a holiday hotel then disappearing for hours so as to deny anyone else the same pleasure; of raiding the local store of new produce to "put in the freezer" thereby denying neighbours access to the same produce; of blocking the local road with one's family's vehicles with no care for the needs of their neighbours; of loud music or domestic rows late at night; of dispersal of rubbish into the local environment; of placing personal clothing on adjacent train seats; the list is endless.
Is it any wonder that the devout would rather believe they are the product of a omniscient, caring deity rather than the latest iteration of a tribe of tree-owning, bellowing baboons? It begs the question: should the human race be relieved of their illusion that they are somehow "divine"; or should every single human be forced to believe they are just "clever monkeys".
Two questions emerge:
* in a religiously-dominated civilisation does being an atheist automatically make you a sociopath? Should your life be ended because you fail their "belief" test?
* in a rationally-dominated society does being a sociopath automatically deny you the benefits of that civilisation? Should your life be ended because you fail their "belief" test?
In both societies the concept of the "common good" is paramount. The greatest good for the greatest number. The definition of "good" is mercurial, but the point is this: for all societies that have exploded past the village level there are inordinately complex population pressures that could threaten to bring down that society's "house of cards". For that reason, the human race had to develop a tool called POLITICS.
No comments:
Post a Comment