Origins of Conflict: Humans socially unevolved

?Humans haven't evolved in the societies they currently live in,?

lol. I think there is always this polemic between what's best for a single individual vs. the individual collective. At what point does the welfare of the group, become more important than any of its individual members? (remember, many Western cultures have almost been founded on the belief that the individual is the most important, whereas, a many other cultures aren't premised on that). Afterall, the only moral imperative that most people can agree upon is "the greatest amount happiness for the greatest number of people". And sometimes, if we are to adhere to this doctrine, we have to sacrifice some aspect of our own happiness to look out for the happiness of others or to ensure the welfare of the collective, be it by volunteering somewhere, giving money to a non-profit, giving someone your seat on the subway..But (one of) the points made by the article is that socially humans haven't evolved for the large and complex social systems/societies most live in. As a result, it's every person for themselves. In terms of most other aspects, humans are obviously further evolved than any other species (and maybe, this is directly a result of the lack of collective social programming). And I guess, if you think about it, it makes sense. A lack of collective programming => individuals who are more competitive => survival of the fittest/forward thinking/innovation. But the end result of all of that, is that the byproduct of human innovation is compounded by the lack of social evolution to result in unthinkable conflict and war between humans. Sure, the complexity with which humans can understand social interaction, is unparalleled in other species, but is this how you define evolved?.. if there aren't mechanisms in our wiring to arrive at a peaceful coexistence amongst us?

I miss the long meaningful (and often inflammatory) discussions that used to take place on DXP. What's happenend? this place has spiraled into posts about toothpase and ketchup brands acc. to sign.

Apart from not knowing what the next 2000 years will bring in human-social evoloution, i don't think humans and society can have it all; or at least to any standard of perfection. As the oft-spoken saying goes, humans arn't perfect..'will they ever be?' Though, in-part this maybe in itself be a form creative/instinctual survival. We learn the most from our own mistakes. We think, we feel, we create.. We build, we share, we move forward.. And hopefully we give back (better) to the next generation. This in turn unites and brings us closer collectively. I think the fairest and happiest society is one which works on the premise of constructive balance. Too much of anything isn't good. I think the better part of our human race is (exactly) our social independance, autonomy, individual ambitions, and dreams. I also think the most dangerous element of any society is the lemming mentality. You see that already in small doses in cultisms and extreme religions. I think where we need to evolve the most is our own separate inner-selves. In-turn, this will create a healthier society and planet in the long run. I do think humans overall are becoming more spiritually aware, and in-tune from within. 'The veil is definately lifting.' We are curious creatures, we want to know more now. And this usually happens in either of two extremes; when we generally have too much or not enough. Our fast-paced, over-consumerized society. Even having everything (in the more mundane, tangible sense) grows old after awhile.. In the end, humans will forever continue to seek out and search. It's hard-wired within us. And looking forward a 1000 years, it's not what or how much we have built or consumed. It's how we have each evolved: heart, body, mind and soul. And in a more universal sense, how we all have shared, given back and taken care of our 'planet earth' ..

Amen

YES! What an ingenious way of emasculating a man..clipping his "wings". Forget about theater, shopping, and picnics in the park (and other things men pretend to care about to land a woman). We could learn a thing or two from our female ant counterparts. You do sort of have to feel a little sorry for the male ant though..can you imagine? Though I'm sure he doesn't entirely mind being gang raped by hundreds of female ants.

"I miss the long meaningful (and often inflammatory) discussions that used to take place on DXP. What's happenend? this place has spiraled into posts about toothpase and ketchup brands acc. to sign."

I think that was brilliantly said. Funny too LOL! Ketchup according to sign... You just need to keep an eye out for the people of meaning on here like us.

Although, after reading the article I'm not sure if we can be compared to ants but it does prove how humans aren't as resoursful as we could be with the technology we have.

with Tate I seldom come

I have found the missing link and he is us.