|
Author
|
Topic: Evolution of Human Culture and Civilization
|
mike15
Member
Member # 2002
|
posted 14. June 2006 23:22
Hello everyone. I'm having a major crisis at the moment. I'm a high school student and for my final history essay I have been assigned the prompt below. I have never talked or really even thought much about any of what I'm supposed to be writing about and would really appreciate it if some of you could give me some help. Thank you.
Prompt:
How would you critique and defend the evolution of human culture and civilization? The arguments you make should demonstrate a mastery of paragraph organization (he has mentioned the four parts of a paragraph: make a claim, explain your claim, support with examples, state the significance) and should present examples from our course curriculum (we have focused mainly on WWI and WWII).
Describe at least two elements with significant examples that represent your view regarding strengths of human culture.
Describe at least two elements with significant examples that represent your view regarding problems confronting human culture and civilization.
Present a conclusion that should consider the future of human culture in the context of the issues in your essay.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 15. June 2006 00:25
Hi Mike,
You have chosen an interesting way of working through your school project.
I think, however, that you will need to start with an understanding of this term "evolution".
In biology, the term evolution is often seen to mean the advancement of organisms, most usually adding the most recognized proposed method of advancement, that random mutation plus natural selection are the cause of that advancement.
In the context of culture and civilization, however, Darwin, natural selection and random mutation are not the points.
In your context I would higly recommend that you reenterpret your teacher's request with the simple word "advancement". (Though evolution is often just seen as "change", the way your instructor has worded his question, I think he means "advancement". Its hard to critique and defend "change".)
So read your teacher's request as "How would you critique and defend the advancement of human culture and civilization?"
Ie, defend: has the world wars made civilization a better place? In what way. Critique: is there some way that the world wars made civilization a worse place?
I hope that helps.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 15. June 2006 08:26
Mike,
I recommend the book “Evolution and Ethics” by Sir Arthur Keith. He wrote this during WWII and directly applied Darwin’s logic to human civilization concentrating on war specifically.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 15. June 2006 12:07
Mike,
I would suggest that you focus on why Darwinism fails as a theory to explain human culture evolution. Despite many books on applying Darwinism in human affairs (social Darwinism etc), the fact of the matter is few human behave according to Darwin principles. There are also many documented failure of Darwinism in human affairs. Marx and Hitler are true believers and acted as such and look what happened to their ideas today. Marx is known to want to dedicate his big book to Darwin.
You can start by thinking about the survival of fittest idea of Darwin. Do human only struggle to be the fittest? No. Creative people risk isolation to be unique. Is Van Gogh the fittest? Is Mandel the fittest? They are not but they are unique. True uniqueness survives timelessly. The fittest enjoy only short term survival.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 15. June 2006 12:38
Shi: "I would suggest that you focus on why Darwinism fails as a theory to explain human culture evolution."
It's doubtful that the instructor's use of the word "evolution" has anything to do with Darwin. Cultural evolution does not depend on natural selection, but on the propagation of ideas.
There are a wide number of possible themes for such a study based on the evolution of concepts of human rights, nationalism, or the effect of technology on human culture.
As you mentioned the world wars as central to your studies, you could write about how international institutions have been developed in response to these devastating wars, e.g. the United Nations and an intertwined network of treaties and laws, devised to find a way to resolve conflict short of outright military conflict, the successes and the failures of these institutions, and the challenges ahead.
[ 15. June 2006, 12:52: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 15. June 2006 12:53
It is impossible to imagine that future evolution can proceed free from influence by conscious observers, such as human beings. Since the arrival of humans, creation at species level has largely stopped. As far as humans can tell, evolution of today and future is mainly about creations at the mind level. If there is going to be any law that will govern future evolution, conscious observers must be an essential element of that law.
Darwinism does not include consciousness and is proven to be inadequate to describe evolution involving humans. Isn't it odd that a theroy that is supposed to explain the creation of humans suddenly becomes invalid once human is created? This oddness has a simple explanation. Darwinism is simply a partial truth. The whole truth should explain both evolution before and after human arrival.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 15. June 2006 13:13
I agree with Shi. Either humans with all of their behaviors are included in the theory of evolution or they are not. If we are, then war is part of the evolutionary process. If we are not totally included then what good is the theory?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 15. June 2006 13:19
Melvin H. Fox: "Either humans with all of their behaviors are included in the theory of evolution or they are not. If we are, then war is part of the evolutionary process. If we are not totally included then what good is the theory?"
Humans are included in the Theory of Gravity too, but it's not particularly explanatory about cultural evolution. Though common descent can indeed help explain various aspects of human social behavior, there is far more to cultural evolution than that. Large modern social organizations (such as nations that did not even exist a few centuries ago) are complex emergent structures and require more than physics or biology to explain.
And these tangents may not answer mike15's urgent appeal.
[ 15. June 2006, 13:21: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 15. June 2006 14:32
The goal of science is toward an ultimate single theory that will explain all phenomena. The principle of least action is the best we got so far that can unite Newton mechanics, relativity and quantum mechanics. As even Zach agress, NDE is a very limited theory. But somehow NDE people are blind to the idea that there exist a better and more comprehensive evolution theory than NDE.
Where to start to build a replacement theory of NDE? We can do it by finding an evolution theory that will apply to future evolution, ie, human culture evolution, which NDE clearly does not apply. After we found such a theory, we can look back and ask whether it also apply to evolion in the past. Our basic assumption is that there must exist a single universal theory that is applicable to every evolvable phenomenon of Nature, be it physical or metaphysical, be it the present, the future, or the past. The harmony and unity of Nature demands a single law. It is time for NDE to admit being only a partial law, an adaptive law of micro evo but not a creative law.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 15. June 2006 14:45
Well, Mike 15, you have caused quite a stir. How do you wieve through all of this chatter. Zachriel and I are suggesting that you not consider Darwin at all, the others seem to think that you should consider Darwin.
Let me propose a simple solution to this problem. Remember what your instructor taught you. Did he teach you about cultural evolution in terms of Darwin or did he not? If he did, then Melvin H. Fox and Shi have good advice for you. If he did not significantly discuss Darwin or Natural Selection in your classes, then I would suggest that you listen to myself and Zachriel.
Alas Melvin H. Fox's book may be worth looking up in the library. Teachers always love it when you dig a little deeper to find supporting material. You do know how to reference it in your paper, don't you?
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 16. June 2006 16:25
quote:
If he did not significantly discuss Darwin or Natural Selection in your classes, then I would suggest that you listen to ... Zachriel.
Except when he makes stupid statements like:
quote:
Cultural evolution does not depend on natural selection, but on the propagation of ideas.
And:
quote:
Humans are included in the Theory of Gravity...
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 16. June 2006 18:23
Scott: "Except when he makes stupid statements like"
Zachriel: Cultural evolution does not depend on natural selection, but on the propagation of ideas.
A true statement, and nearly all theories of cultural evolution concern the communication of ideas between populations, whether on the tribal level, or between widely disparate groups.
Zachriel: Humans are included in the Theory of Gravity.
A true statement, as well; but as noted, not particularly explanatory about cultural evolution.
[edited for clarity]
[ 16. June 2006, 22:54: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 16. June 2006 18:36
quote:
Cultural evolution does not depend on natural selection, but on the propagation of ideas.
Natural selection works in some ways in cultural evolution. For example, theories against NDE are deemed un-fit and cencered by mainstream science. Natural selection eliminates the ideas of people who disagrees with NDE from appearing in main stream journals.
But that is okay. A replacement of NDE will come soon enough. Natural selection of the fittest works to maintain the stability of NDE. But that is not the only selection force in nature. Another force is to be unique. That force will produce a creative human who will distroy NDE.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 16. June 2006 21:33
quote:
Scott: "Humans are included in the Theory of Gravity..."
A true statement, as well; but as noted, not particularly explanatory about cultural evolution.
That is precisely why we know that gravity theory is a limited theory and needs to be replaced by a more comprehensive one. The fact that NDE does not apply in human culture evolution is not somthing for NDE to be proud of. It plainly says that NDE is a theory waiting to be replaced. That replacement of NDE will apply in anything and everything that evolves over time, be it cultural or not, be it today, tomorrow, or the past.
Why NDE people fails to see the need for a replacement is beyond the public's comprehension. Self interest in terms of career, grants, worry about religion are the likely reasons.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic