3 ms·
Have not the last 50,000 years of evolution primarily been of social structures and culture? Consequently, is being 'wild' necessarily a positive attribute? D
by Jd 19y ago
Have not the last 50,000 years of evolution primarily been of social structures and culture?
Consequently, is being 'wild' necessarily a positive attribute?
Doesn't this (and comparisons to animals) to some degree reflect de-evolution?
- neilk 19y agoMulticellular life is faster, smarter, and more successful than unicellular life. The corporation is usually way slower, dumber, and typically does not outlast any of its component organisms. The difference is that the components of the corporation are individually intelligent and self-aware. The corporation's "thoughts" are comparatively slow and stupid. Maybe one day there will be some Borg-like way of making humans act together, which truly makes something smarter and more nimble than any individual. But I don't think you can argue corporations represent the next step in evolution.
- CharlesEGrant 19y agoArgh! I hate these casual invocations of evolutionary biology that are really self-serving fables. By numbers of individuals, diversity, and by mass, bacteria and blue-green algae make up most of the biological world. Multi-cellular life only appears dominant to you because that's who you eat and who you mate with. Evolution cares not a whit for smart, dumb, slow, fast, it only cares who has the most babies who live to make other babies. Making arguments for the virtues of entrepreneurs is fine, just don't try to dress them up as scientific truths, unless you actually can muster the evidence.
- neilk 19y agoI do too... I thought I was arguing against one. But I see your point.