Poll: Are some of the world's cultures more evolved than others?
- Thread starter HRiscool
- Start date
Funny you should ask that. I'm here in Italy where they pride themselves on this elevated culture. But these shits are rude and they stink and even their museums suck to a shocking degree. Not the exhibits mind you, but the signage and logistical parts are a mess. They need to stop taking credit for Botticelli and start putting seats on their toilets.
Depends on what you consider evolved. We work our butts off here so we can retire near the water and fish all day. Others just do that as a way of life. Which one seems more evolved to you?
I've noticed that about most Americans, too. We take credit for the political astuteness of the founding fathers, even as we ignore, misrepresent, or degrade their experiment. We take credit for the exploration, the science, the inventions, the movies and TV (but rarely the art or literature) of earlier Americans, even though we aren't doing very many of those things any more and most of us probably couldn't.
I AM impressed that we sent men to the moon. I'm not impressed that we haven't been back or done MUCH MORE for over 40 years.
Italy isn't the only nation that is resting on its laurels. One difference, though: we are doing a better job of selling off our laurels. Eventually, when we want to sit on them, we'll have to pay rent.
I think you are taking credit for pointing out we take too much credit.
Evolved and culture can't be mentioned together when a country has as many scripted reality shows as we have.
We landed a man on the moon and split the atom. Some cultures don't have indoor plumbing or electricity. Which one seems more evolved to you?
We got some pretty pictures and killed thousands upon thousands of people in a very short time. What's so great about that? We are not the longest lived animals on this planet, we are genetically much simpler than many of not most organisms. What exactly are we so proud of. One could easily argue ants are a much more succesful species.
You just completely changed the subject. It's about human cultures. Your first post figured that out. Who are you trying to fool with this reply?
My point is that just because some cultures have more technology, it doesn't make them more or better evolved. One could actually say it's made us weaker as a species.
One way to stay poor is to be incapable of following simple instructions.
That's what happens when you stop spending on infrastructure.
I was wondering about that. But I was too lazy to look for pics of decaying Italy and sparkling new sites in Africa.
Of course not. All societies have been evolving for the same amount of time. They have just evolved differently. This type of question reveals a deep misunderstanding of the process of evolution.
"Evolved" according to some here seems to mean things like:
Incarcerating more citizens than most other nations.
Executing more citizens than most other nations.
Having educational standards lower than many (most?) developed nations.
Having health care standards lower than many (most?) developed nations.
Disbelieving evolution at a higher rate than most nations.
Having more reality TV shows than most nations.
. . .
I would say that those are measures of how civilized we are, not how evolved we are, but if you want to consider cultural values and attainment as measures of how "evolved" we are, then I would agree that many cultures are more evolved than others. And, sadly, we aren't among the most evolved.
Incarcerating more citizens than most other nations.
Executing more citizens than most other nations.
Having educational standards lower than many (most?) developed nations.
Having health care standards lower than many (most?) developed nations.
Disbelieving evolution at a higher rate than most nations.
Having more reality TV shows than most nations.
. . .
I would say that those are measures of how civilized we are, not how evolved we are, but if you want to consider cultural values and attainment as measures of how "evolved" we are, then I would agree that many cultures are more evolved than others. And, sadly, we aren't among the most evolved.
I would say it's pretty obvious the pink skins are the most intelligent. Soon to be overtaken by the yellow skins, who have a better work ethic. The brown, black and redskins seem to be the least evolved if you're using intelligence as a measuring stick.
I'd say raw intelligence is merely one of many ways a people or culture could be rated. Other factors should be considered: spirituality, art, music, humility, benevolence, compassion, courage, industriousness, and quality idols like Elvis or Buddha.
Fun factors, but too subjective to measure. Concrete technological examples of moving people away from the stone age seem to be better markers.
I've found the French to be extremely polite on the one to one level. Merci, de rien, helpful with directions for lost travelers. Curious to interact at restaurants even with the language barrier.
I also admire their long leisurely dinners with friends, food and wine.
Montreal French share some of the same attributes.
They let their pets crap everywhere.
They Irish can be a bit shy but do open up. The English are weird, keep to themselves. They que up politely.
But then right out of the blue you will see some of their young ones in splashes of weird color and strange clothing and hair styles.
e·volve
ēˈvälv/
verb
1.develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the company has evolved into a major chemical manufacturer"
There are groups of people deep in the Amazon jungle that haven't changed for centuries. Their understanding of science and medicine, to name a few areas, is very close to what they understood about science and medicine hundreds of years ago.
I don't think it can be denied the other parts of the world have come to better understand these complexities better than they have.
So yes, some humans have evolved more than others.
But some ideologies will refuse to admit that because it could suggest inequities amongst humans and we can't have that.
ēˈvälv/
verb
1.develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the company has evolved into a major chemical manufacturer"
There are groups of people deep in the Amazon jungle that haven't changed for centuries. Their understanding of science and medicine, to name a few areas, is very close to what they understood about science and medicine hundreds of years ago.
I don't think it can be denied the other parts of the world have come to better understand these complexities better than they have.
So yes, some humans have evolved more than others.
But some ideologies will refuse to admit that because it could suggest inequities amongst humans and we can't have that.
Absolutely. I was just listening to a story on NPR about honor killings in Turkey. We have our own problems in the US with violence against women, but Arab/Muslim based cultures are pathetically undeveloped when it comes to treatment of women.
Not so. You are promoting a form of Social Darwinism that has long been debunked. It presumes some preordained form of society that all societies are somehow evolving toward. Each society evolves in its own way over time, responding to selective pressures unique to that society. You can certainly make an argument about whether one society is morally superior to another, but you cannot say that one is more evolved than another.
Probably a waste of keystokes but I disagree.
At it simplest core according to the definition of evolve you are wrong.
There are groups of people on this planet who's understanding of their surroundings has stagnated for centuries while other groups have developed a better, more complex understanding of it.
I agree that we should not BLAME a group for having a lack of evolution because evolution can be driven by a need for change. If there is no need for change, there probably won't be.
Some groups my have been forced to develop a better understanding of technology or die. That will encourage that group to evolve in that area while another group doesn't face that threat and therefore doesn't need to evolve in that area.
At it simplest core according to the definition of evolve you are wrong.
There are groups of people on this planet who's understanding of their surroundings has stagnated for centuries while other groups have developed a better, more complex understanding of it.
I agree that we should not BLAME a group for having a lack of evolution because evolution can be driven by a need for change. If there is no need for change, there probably won't be.
Some groups my have been forced to develop a better understanding of technology or die. That will encourage that group to evolve in that area while another group doesn't face that threat and therefore doesn't need to evolve in that area.
Exactly...
By what measurement? Even in our own cultures we're individually evolved. It's all subjective. Exposure to other cultures humbles me and I evolve even more. Empathy helps! I'm not completely empathetic, but I'm trying.
You seem to be using "evolve" to merely mean "change" in this example.
Nobody is arguing against the fact that some (nearly all?) cultures have changed a lot from our hunter-gathering forebears. But I don't think that's what the OP was asking.
At the other end of the spectrum, some people want to use "evolve" to mean "better." That may be where the OP was going, but it's also not really correct.
Last edited:
Change for the sake of change is not at all what I'm saying.
Adaptation driven by environmental conditions is.
The different human groups thought the ages have faced different surroundings. It's delusional to think those variations didn't impact the development of those various groups in various ways.
Some groups were force to develop skills and understandings that other groups had little need for. Some of the skills then had a snowball effect.
Understanding this is just coming to grips with a human reality and shouldn't be seen as some form of measurement of human success.
After all, those humans with a more advanced understanding of technology may end up killing off life as we know it with that technology.
From an evolutionary perspective, that would be seen a massive failure, and those groups that spent their generations living in mud huts instead of splitting atoms would be considered the successful ones.
On the other hand, we know that Earth cannot sustain life forever. So developing the technology to spread the seed of life off planet, has to be considered evaluational progress.
And I doubt the knowledge comes from humans who still throw spears at passing airplanes.
Adaptation driven by environmental conditions is.
The different human groups thought the ages have faced different surroundings. It's delusional to think those variations didn't impact the development of those various groups in various ways.
Some groups were force to develop skills and understandings that other groups had little need for. Some of the skills then had a snowball effect.
Understanding this is just coming to grips with a human reality and shouldn't be seen as some form of measurement of human success.
After all, those humans with a more advanced understanding of technology may end up killing off life as we know it with that technology.
From an evolutionary perspective, that would be seen a massive failure, and those groups that spent their generations living in mud huts instead of splitting atoms would be considered the successful ones.
On the other hand, we know that Earth cannot sustain life forever. So developing the technology to spread the seed of life off planet, has to be considered evaluational progress.
And I doubt the knowledge comes from humans who still throw spears at passing airplanes.
You're turning the argument to a subjective debate on success. That's for a different thread.
Evolution is pretty simple. One tribe discovers how to harness fire. Another tribe doesn't. Of those two tribes it is clear which one is more evolved. It is also clear which one will survive when the tribes clash.
In your story you also failed to point out that those "successful" people living in mud huts couldn't do anything about a killer asteroid. People with space ships and nuclear weapons could. Again, technology is an indicator of evolutionary progress.
Well if you hate our culture, who do you think dominates it - the left or right?
Where to start?
I don't hate our culture I just think the citizens of the United States have a very skewed perspective. We want to be noticed and we really don't care what we have to do or say to do it.
As far as who dominates our culture - who ever you let set your behavior, beliefs, and values. It is not a liberal - conservative issue.
This is basically my point. You can't just look at different cultures and say "our culture is more different from some recently discovered tribe in the 3rd world" and say "we are more evolved." Well maybe if you really believe they are more similar to our primitive ancestors you could say that. But could you say that another modern culture - say in China or Mexico or Lichtenstein, is more or less evolved? On what grounds? Who has the most toys? Who executes more people? Who raises their children better?
None of that is an indication of being more or less evolved.
You might make the argument that the larger culture or the faster growing culture is more evolved. But only in the crude sense that the point of evolution - if evolution is said to have any point at all - is survival. Those groups that are larger and growing faster seem to be getting that part right. Whereas cultures like Europe that are having fewer children are arguably getting that part wrong. Which may explain why they are adding breeding stock from more successful cultures (immigrants and refugees).
U really think the left hasn't won the culture war? So in your mind there is no difference between 1955 and 2015? You really need to get out more
