It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are humans a devolved species? (Personal thoughts)

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Ok now this is just an idea and I hope to get some interesting discussion, please read before posting your thoughts though to see where I am coming from. We as humans think of ourselves as advanced, the most intelligent and so on. However I see things differently, I feel we are measuring advancement on our own terms with an obvious bias.

I propose evolution be determined by nature itself instead of setting our own measurements which is ignorant in my opinion. The Earth and nature itself is a very dynamic entity that reacts based on certain rules and limits just like a chess board, us being the pieces(Who do not decide the rules!). So why do we measure advancement by culture or technology just because it is unique?

I feel a far superior way of measuring our advancement is by how the Earth and nature interacts with us. We look at harmony with tech and industries as advancement and forget harmony with the environment around us. We see our growing development of technology as a large step forward; however I see it as dependence.

What if we have become so primitive we are looking further and wider to compensate for weakness?

Yes we can also communicate; I am even using this wonderful invention called the internet to post this of course. Yet communication is little more than codes and improvised semiotics. If there is a connection with the world we are certainly losing it for the most part. I genuinely consider us humans to be primitive in comparison to other animals, perhaps not with the literal terminology we have created but in terms of natural order.

Nature time and time again tells how bad infectious biology causes illness. Nature tells us how something that is going off will bring decay and ultimately destruction. What if we have already peaked, now moving into the later stages of decay whether it be through self-destruction of foolishly prodding nature to strengthen viruses with our ever expanding medicines?

I do not mean to bash us as a species, I just feel we are ignorant in our understanding of advancement and perhaps have become disillusioned to the point we see our downfalls as strengths. Just like a drug addict might feed on those highs, they ultimately are deteriorating in health often taking others with them. I just feel we have so many signs in front of as an to indicator of human behaviours being insane that I feel foolish to look down upon other animals and claim ownership of any piece of this great land as my own.

Think of it this way; let’s say we humans are the 1% and other animals being the 99%. As we consider ourselves the odd one out or the most dominant, does that make us the most advanced. What if nature’s peak is in harmony and being part of an equal food chain, a state of sharing like tribes who do not take too much, who do not take too little? Modern day humans are the equivalent of loggers pulling out a chainsaw and putting it into the heart of the Earth to me unfortunatly. Maybe its if the majority that are evolved and only once that start to deminish will they form traits similar to our own. These are just my thoughts, I am not saying we should all hold hands and roll around in flowers, merely be humble and start to let nature be the teacher every now and then.

Thanks for reading especially if you read all of it, a lot of what if’s as I do not know of any certainties, just that I have questions that my subconscious mind can will attempt to answer.

edit on 22-2-2012 by OwenGP185 because: Few typos




posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by OwenGP185
 




We as humans think of ourselves as advanced, the most intelligent and so on. However I see things differently, I feel we are measuring advancement on our own terms with an obvious bias.
Well, evolution is an infinite process, there is no finite scale upon which we can measure our advancement, our idea of what is "advanced" is always going to be relative to something else.


What if we have become so primitive we are looking further and wider to compensate for weakness?
"Primitive" is also just a relative term. If you are judging our species based on our balance with the environment, then we are certainly quite primitive. If you are judging our species based on how long we've had electronic technology, we are extremely primitive, like little children learning to take their first steps. However if you are judging our species based on the technology we have when compared to the technology other Earth species have, we seem like super advanced geniuses. It's all relative, and dependant on how you decide to look at it.

Of course I can see what you are trying to say. And I would say that we aren't living in harmony with nature, not because we are primitive compared to other Earth species, but because we are extremely greedy and self serving compared to other Earth species.
edit on 22-2-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
whoever wrote the vedas surely thought so



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by OwenGP185
 




We as humans think of ourselves as advanced, the most intelligent and so on. However I see things differently, I feel we are measuring advancement on our own terms with an obvious bias.
Well, evolution is an infinite process, there is no finite scale upon which we can measure our advancement, our idea of what is "advanced" is always going to be relative to something else.


What if we have become so primitive we are looking further and wider to compensate for weakness?
"Primitive" is also just a relative term. If you are judging our species based on our balance with the environment, then we are certainly quite primitive. If you are judging our species based on how like we've had electronic technology, we are extremely primitive, like little children learning to take their first steps. However if you are judging our species based on the technology we have when compared to the technology other Earth species have, we seem like super advanced geniuses. It's all relative, and dependant on how you decide to look at it.

Of course I can see what you are trying to say. And I would say that we aren't living in harmony with nature, not because we are primitive compared to other Earth species, but because we are extremely greedy and self serving compared to other Earth species.


Yeah it is hard getting around the subjective manor of how we use certain terms. There is a clear focus on technology and communication that I feel is having a detrimental effect of the Earth and being a creation of nature I feel a good idea is basing our advancement from the source.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OwenGP185
 

I whole-heartedly agree about the technology issue. Technology is the bane of civilization (she says as she types on her computer, LoL.) But seriously, beginning with the radio, the telephone, the television, and now Internet and cell phones... it just seems like people are becoming exponentially lost to this world. Each new invention seems to make us less connected to reality-- the reality that is right next to us, spatially speaking-- and more connected to a fantasy existence. I know this is slightly off from what your (very well stated) post described, but I believe the two are intertwined. Gone are the days when folks sat on their front porches and spoke to the neighbors walking by. People may as well live in a dark cell, as long as they have their beloved gadgets and gizmos. Sad, really.

Ok, just to make sure I don't drift too far off of your topic... this did come to mind: If we humans are so evolved, how come it took until the 20th century before we could speak to someone across the Atlantic Ocean, yet whales have had the capability to do this for eons, no extra equipment required. Just their own sonar. Have you ever wondered what they're saying about us?! (I have.)

I think your topic is one of the most intriguing, and well written posts I've read in a long time. So kudos, and I enjoyed it!



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
In the evolution of modern man, there were actually several species of pre-man existing together at the same time. I'm not going to look up all of the actual names but it was explained as follows.

It was the harnessing and use of fire that evolved the species to be able to eat and digest more protein in less time. Meat is and was the greatest source of protein and eating raw meat is hard and takes a long time to do. An ancient man would have to pick at a termite hill all day to digest as much protein as a big mac.

The several species of early man were not combatants, unless it came down to survival, and capturing that protein. Why is that so important? It builds cells, and allows the ancient man more time for other discoveries, of hunting, gathering, and growing a larger body, due to the protein intake luxury of cooking meat to aid in the digestion and time of eating spans of the day.

The ones who didn't find a way for large protein intake weren't killed, they just died off through attrition. The smarter industrious species of early man that harnessed fire, a great fear overcame with purpose and reason, used more of his brain for that instead of motor functions and dexterity, and it was fed better and they found the way to survive.

With fire, early man didn't have to live in trees to avoid predators, the fear of fire kept them away and man could live grounded. Evolution goes as it does and this early man is less an ape in trees and now walks upright, spending less time eating, growing brain mass due to the amount of time in his day for discovery of tools to use to further cut his hunting and gathering portion of his day and he evolves to use more brain than brawn. He survives in a land of very large predators.

More time to grow, develop brain mass, use that expanded brain mass for discovery, and live on the ground with protection from predators. He wins. Others die off, he didn't kill them.

Just a small part of a very complex evolution process that took a very long time, but one that should not be overlooked.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by OwenGP185
 


I think your on to something here

Our Cro-Magnon and Homo Sapien ancestors interbred with Neanderthal.
To a point where it has left a stain in our genes.

According to a new DNA study, most humans have a little Neanderthal in them—at least 1 to 4 percent of a person's genetic makeup.


The results showed that Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to modern human DNA, versus, for example, 98.8 percent for modern humans and chimps, according to the study.

news.nationalgeographic.com
That must be where my mother inlaw gets her hairy knuckles from



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeLeu
reply to post by OwenGP185
 


I think your on to something here

Our Cro-Magnon and Homo Sapien ancestors interbred with Neanderthal.
To a point where it has left a stain in our genes.

According to a new DNA study, most humans have a little Neanderthal in them—at least 1 to 4 percent of a person's genetic makeup.


The results showed that Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to modern human DNA, versus, for example, 98.8 percent for modern humans and chimps, according to the study.

news.nationalgeographic.com
That must be where my mother inlaw gets her hairy knuckles from

Thanks and I have heard about the interbreeding, it is kind of ironic when we use it to put someone down yet we are all part Neanderthal.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Exactly and we are only roughly 3/4 of the evolutionary scale towards the next evolutionary step. When we take that next evolutionary step, it should be very amazing.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join