When in war, do we evolve?

[Birrii]

Many philosophers, who I admire, have often stated that creatures (which includes human beings) are at war, then the creatures are at their peak of evolution and development.

 

Somehow I can see the truth in that statement.

 

But then, a conclusion of mine bothers me in my thinking. It seems more like we are evolving our weapons, but we never evolve ourselves.

 

What do you personally believe?

[GetOutOfBox]

It's a common belief that humans aren't capable of physically evolving, that our intelligence replaces the concept of evolution. Humans do evolve, but just like all creatures our evolution occurs extremely slowly over time and evolutionary changes are only made when their is a constant need for them.

 

Our intelligence is pretty adaptable, we build shelters, make tools, etc, we no longer have any need for things like fur. Though there are some aspects of us that are evolving, for example wisdom teeth and the jaw in humans. Back in the stone age, we had much bigger jaws. Over time as we've evolved, the jaw has shrunk slightly, reducing space for the additional 4 wisdom teeth, which we have yet to evolve away from.

 

An example of a large evolutionary change is the different skin color between Caucasians and Africans. In Africa, the melanin (the pigment that causes the dark skin color) serves to protect the humans living there from the larger amount of UV radiation they are exposed to in that continent. When some humans migrated to what is now called Europe, we no longer had the need for the extra amount of melanin, and hence the amount of it was reduced over time by evolution.

[Balagor]

Philosophically speaking, I don´t think we have evolved much, or at least in a strange way. 50 mill years ago we (according to var. antrop.) lived in small groups, clans, nearly like today. If we saw somebody approaching, we would grap the nearest stick or stone and attack them.

Today we will do the same, except the stick´n stone has been exchanged with some more powerfull weapons.

Incredible intelligence, that we invented gun powder, the gun, and all that came after. Why did we not invent a way that we all could work together to enhance agriculture, make live easier, thus make wars on essential resourses unnecessary :blink:

[AliasTheory]

Human beings thousands of years ago I would say were no smarter than us to begin with. Biologically we are more or less the same. In terms of mentality and technology, although we have built upon their experience (and thus strengthening our technology as well,) its transference isn't one hundred percent efficient, unfortunately. We have obviously learned to some extent though, so in that sense I would say we have somewhat "evolved." For example, racism is definitely less prevalent today but it still exists. That's a change and I think most of us would consider it a positive one. But after all, going back to experience, those who actually fought in wars would have much more to say. Seeing is believing. I suppose the next generation of people will never truly understand until history repeats itself. Edited December 14, 2010 by AliasTheory

[GetOutOfBox]

Philosophically speaking, I don´t think we have evolved much, or at least in a strange way. 50 mill years ago we (according to var. antrop.) lived in small groups, clans, nearly like today. If we saw somebody approaching, we would grap the nearest stick or stone and attack them.

Today we will do the same, except the stick´n stone has been exchanged with some more powerfull weapons.

Incredible intelligence, that we invented gun powder, the gun, and all that came after. Why did we not invent a way that we all could work together to enhance agriculture, make live easier, thus make wars on essential resourses unnecessary :blink:

 

I don't know where you get your dates, but humans as a species have only existed for approximately 200 000 years, and only 50 000 out of those 200 000 years have we existed in the stage we are currently at now (i.e behavioral sophistication, intelligence level, etc).

 

The thing that confuses people about evolution, is that when a species undergoes a massive evolutionary change, it is no longer considered the same species. For example, the Homo Sapiens race (modern humans) originated from Homo Habilis, which would be our furthest ancestors in the "Homo" Genus. The thing is, Homo Habilis was more like modern Chimpanzee's than modern Humans, utilizing basic tools, but nothing very advanced. Sure, we (Homo Sapiens) originated from that race, but scientifically speaking modern humans are considered a different species than humans from that time.

 

Due to this oversight, most people conclude that modern Humans do not evolve, which is not the case.

[AliasTheory]

I don't know where you get your dates, but humans as a species have only existed for approximately 200 000 years, and only 50 000 out of those 200 000 years have we existed in the stage we are currently at now (i.e behavioral sophistication, intelligence level, etc).

 

The thing that confuses people about evolution, is that when a species undergoes a massive evolutionary change, it is no longer considered the same species. For example, the Homo Sapiens race (modern humans) originated from Homo Habilis, which would be our furthest ancestors in the "Homo" Genus. The thing is, Homo Habilis was more like modern Chimpanzee's than modern Humans, utilizing basic tools, but nothing very advanced. Sure, we (Homo Sapiens) originated from that race, but scientifically speaking modern humans are considered a different species than humans from that time.

 

Due to this oversight, most people conclude that modern Humans do not evolve, which is not the case.

 

The term "species" is very subjective still. An organism (in one definition) is said to be considered a new species when it can't interbreed with the older species anymore or no longer naturally does so in the wild.

 

But regardless, I know it isn't 50 million years ago. 200,000 is what I've heard. Although the number varies based on what is classified as a human being, 50 million is a long time. We are still very young. :)

[Balagor]

Sorry for the confusion. I am rather tired right now. I was of cause supposed to write 50 thousand NOT 50 mill. :thumbsup:

[HappyHerring]

The debate would seem to me to be about social & technical change thanks to the neccessary overthrow of elements of the old conservative order to ensure survival and or victory in war. I wonder if some of the conservatives who would seem to favour militarism and the established way of doing things see this dilemma? I've always thought that such evolution in times of war are purely because the constraints of social norms & finance can be to some extent thrown off.

 

Surely for physical evoloution in human beings we need to have groups left in comparative isolation, at least genetically, for further evolution? My working assumption is that 'natural evolution has hit the end of the rail track for now due to the benefits of travel, medical science & also the appeal of the 'relatively' exotic in romantic partners. The next step could be for interest groups to agree standards for humanity mk2 or mk2.1. If we gain the ability to morph the human body I can see the possibility of numerous attempts to either become mk2 or separated for reasons of exclusivity. Would we then have conflicts of what would compromise humanity? Setting aside organic forms if some chose to upload and run at sevaral times the speed of humanity might not boredom lead to experiments with different psychologies?

[Aurielius]

Philosophically speaking, I don´t think we have evolved much, or at least in a strange way. 50 mill years ago we (according to var. antrop.) lived in small groups, clans, nearly like today. If we saw somebody approaching, we would grap the nearest stick or stone and attack them.

Today we will do the same, except the stick´n stone has been exchanged with some more powerfull weapons.

Incredible intelligence, that we invented gun powder, the gun, and all that came after. Why did we not invent a way that we all could work together to enhance agriculture, make live easier, thus make wars on essential resourses unnecessary :blink:

 

Balagor my friend, I agree that philosophically we have really not changed much since the days of the 'killer apes', though you would have to admit that most of our technological advances have been spurred on by conflict. Whether that is advancement or no is surely a matter for debate of which I have mixed feelings over.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Aurielius

[Vagrant0]

Balagor my friend, I agree that philosophically we have really not changed much since the days of the 'killer apes', though you would have to admit that most of our technological advances have been spurred on by conflict. Whether that is advancement or no is surely a matter for debate of which I have mixed feelings over.

I would disagree with you somewhat about a lack of philosophical development since we crawled out of the trees. I would hardly relate some of the great Classical or Eastern Philosophers with a mere primate (although there is one which could be related to canine). I think that perhaps while we may still greet neighbors with a raised stone (or gun), this is mostly a socially constructed reaction from living in an environment where one is in conflict with neighbors. We would do harm to others because they would likely want to do harm to us. It's a cognitive decision instead of an instinctive action. In smaller, isolated areas where resources are sufficient, there is a greater tendency toward people working together to make the most of those resources, rather than kill each other for whatever scraps might remain.

 

Technologically speaking, one would point out that pretty much for the entire period of recorded history cultures have been in constant conflict for resources, land, or beliefs. To put simply, we have never had any period of sustained global peace. Meaning that while we may have certain advancements during war, there is no evidence to suggest that there wouldn't also be other, just as meaningful, advances without war, but in response to other environmental or social challenges.