I've heard this theory that sounds plausible. Early humans lived in such a way that the community came first, right? Hunters and gatherers don't have the means to own property or be selfish, because it would threaten the entire tribe. However, whether simply due to innovations of a group of people, or natural disaster, or competition, agriculture emerged and changed the way things worked. Now one could get all of their food from one stable place and not require the community to survive. This is how we as a species has lived for a long time since. It has bread selfishness, competition, pride, wealth, and all of that stuff that tends to be looked on negatively. It has also, however, lead to a plethora of advancements that cannot be seen as negative. But such a way cannot sustain itself forever, and somehow we are going to lose. The proposed theory suggests that when the time comes, our way of life will be destroyed and we will be thrown into a post-modern dark-ages. Not totally devoid of technology like the last one, as we have ways of preserving stuff already in place, but it will be a very tough existence. From the ashes of old civilization, bans of human survivors will have to work together in small communities for survival. Over time, this will (As it has been shown behavior could be passed down not only through example, but also biology) create a new breed of our species much like the old. Where the community comes first, where selfishness does not exist, and so on. This time around we will have the assets of the old world, and we as a species will be able to advance farther and faster than ever before, producing new forms of energy without the pressure of gaining the highest profits in the way, and so on. Think of what we would be able to do if we did not have the shadow of selfish ambition ahead of us. Of course this could all lead to a Brave New World, in which case we should all kill ourselves now.
not with everyone... the first, most driving, behavior-compelling impulse is for an individual's survival... and those cartoons featuring club-wielding cavemen dragging women off must have some basis in fact, as well... along with the need to feed comes the need to reproduce, which is as selfish as any sentient creature can get... sorry, but you're ignoring basic human nature... selfishness is inherent in the human species... triplets will instinctively compete for access to their only source of sustenance, their mother's 2 breasts, virtually from birth... it's the genetic drive to survive that trumps all learned behaviors, such as loyalty to one's community/clan... so you can't logically blame farming for all the evils committed by the supposed most 'superior' species on the planet... besides, the first farms were a communal affair... and, believe it or not, they were begun by women [in matera, italy, circa 12,500 bc], who also devised the basic farm implements that are still in use today, almost 15,000 years later.. at that time and in that location, women also ran things, with their men tending the hearth and home... ample proof is right there in the museum at matera, for those who would rather not believe this... i've been there and seen it for myself... at the level of that peaceful agricultural, women-run time frame, there were no weapons or male god figures or phallic symbols found, either... it wasn't till some time later, when men turned rambo and took over that those things were found among the farming tools... some of those women farmers fled to sicily about 9,000 bc where the same sad scenario played out, sending some of the more intrepid women to the islands of malta and gozo, where they settled at around 7,500 bc again, peacefully...for a couple of millennia, anyway, till history repeated itself yet again...i've been there, too, and seen the evidence first hand, so i'm not just going by what i've read...
This is not micro-evolution. Micro evolution is a biological thing. It revolves around things like people are taller now than they used to be, the thought process that eventually humanity will all be the same color as races interbreed. You are discussing social evolution.
i'd wondered about the poster's use/meaning of the term 'micro-evolution'... didn't seem to fit what was being asked about... thanks for the elucidation, bfg...
Those hunter-gatherers worked for the community only because working for the community worked for them.
