So one of my friends in the U.K. posted a link to this on facebook, and seeing as how tolerance is one of the big issues--if not the single big issue--we talk about in this class, I thought I might post it here for others in class to see. Anyway, here's the URL:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7103354/Grumpiness-is-a-sign-of-advanced-civilisation.html
What do you all think? Is intolerance/aggressiveness/short-temperedness truly a sign of a more advanced society/person? Also, how much of the moral are we willing to give up in order to achieve the advanced (this is assuming that intolerance et al. are immoral)? And assuming that tolerance is moral and that this article is correct, are these things necessary for having an advanced society? Do we have to be intolerant/aggressive/short-tempered in order to learn to do "the tasks fast[er] and to [our] better advantage," so to speak? Or can we be moral and advanced?
Monday, February 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHaving just finished an evolutionary biology class at BYU and listening to a fascinating lecture by Dr. Duane Jeffery, I find it interesting that the article tries discuss the differences between bonobos and chimpanzees to illustrate whether humans are more or less civilized based upon which species they act more like. While the article says that bonobos are less evolved than chimpanzees, in reality, bonobos are evolutionarily the closest to humans, according to Dr. Jeffery. They walk upright more than other species and carry more characteristics common to human behaviors. However, I think trying to decide whether chimps or bonobos best explain human civilization is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of what species humans may be closest to, the fact of the matter is that humans have inherited some assortment of behavioral tendencies that naturally make them aggressive or pleasant. Within the context of the LDS gospel and as we discussed in the evolution class, humans must overcome the "natural man" in order to reach exaltation and overcome the more primal instincts from the baggage they carry from evolution. I personally think that refinement and self control are better indicators of sophistication in human civilization because they are able to do what animals cannot. We are not bonobos nor chimps, we are humans, and our tolerance, self control, and desire to be better people sets us apart. However, I do partially agree with the author's idea that a child-like nature would be considered less civilized only when people are so passive to the point that they avoid confrontation and stress completely. A truly civilized person would be able to tactfully and coolly handle such situations instead of succumbing to the grumpiness.
So I completely disagree with this statement. Intolerance/aggressiveness/short-temperedness is not a sign of more advanced society/person. For one, I feel as if the study done on the monkeys is not as accurate as the article puts on. Yes, monkeys are similar to humans, but that doesn't mean they are just like us in every single way. I don't understand how they can make this statement fully well knowing that the professionals of the world are not all short-tempered and aggressive. Maybe the more intelligent monkeys are, but they're monkeys, not humans.
ReplyDelete