KEW Episode 103: Human Pros and Cons. We’re not as ‘evolved’ as we think.

As we conduct the great KEW acid tests I have to establish a baseline. In this episode I want to touch on a few elements of the ‘human personality’ and our ‘global value system’ that I think we can improve on. I think humans are great, but there are a few key items I want to mention:

One of the big issues is that we think linearly. We tend to look at things as either improving or getting worse – over time. For something to be ‘good’ or ‘successful’, it has to ‘get better’ through time. If things get worse over time, it is bad. This is rarely true as things are constantly changing. Getting better, getting worse, in a dynamic motion through time. Really, it depends on how much time, or how long, you are looking at a thing.

This is part of dogmatic thinking. Regardless of discipline, our doctors, scientists, philosophers, plumbers, electricians, and fast food workers suffer from the indoctrination of their bosses, managers, leaders, and careers. For whatever reasons, we identify with what we do, and seem to accept that to belong we must allow indoctrination. Or maybe it’s subconscious. I don’t know. I just know that many of the people I see doing jobs not only identify with and follow whatever rules necessary to define what they do.

Along with the dogmatic and linear modes of thinking comes a certain arrogance that we are right. As individuals and as groups. I don’t know if this is an artifact of the ‘career identify’ or the divisive nature of separateness, but there’s a certain amount of undeserved surety that goes along with identifying with a group. That group must be right, right? Becuase I am right to be a member of that group, right?

The most obvious expression of these traits is the idea that humans are the ‘best’ or ‘most’ evolved species. If you consider evolution a linear process, we are the most recent primate to evolve. Primates are the most evolved mammals. In other words, it all ends in us. So we must be the ‘best’, right?

All of this combines to produce this incredible arrogance that whatever humans do is great. Technological advances are the best example here. Obviously, dictators and racists are evidence AGAINST this theory, but we somehow blame those on other issues and this blame shifting allows us to maintain a righteous position at the top.

Yes, we have cured some diseases. We live longer. We produce more food. But if you really look at the whole system involved in these advances, there are far more consequences than the ones we consider. In short, it is also possible that our technological advances have not been ‘worth it’.

This of course, comes down to what ‘worth it’ means. What is ‘good’? What is ‘the best’? What is ‘success’? These definitions have to do with our individual values and can be subjective.

However, I will argue that there is also a ‘global value system’ that is suggested or indicated by nature herself. I think there are fundamental and underlying rules about what is ‘good’ in the world based on millions of years of evolution. This will be part of the acid tests.

In short, what does nature suggest about how humans can live instead of or in addition to the ways we are currently living? Let’s for a moment consider that we might not be ‘perfect’ or even ‘good’, and look to the natural world to shed some light on the conversation that follows.

More next week. Thank you for your attention. Please comment and subscribe to join the discourse!

Podcast stream: https://pdcn.co/e/https://chtbl.com/track/CGDA9D/www.buzzsprout.com/530563/11851159-kew-episode-103-human-pros-and-cons-we-re-not-as-evolved-as-you-think.mp3?download=true

Video stream: https://youtu.be/0DaJACHjQlQ

Please subscribe to the KEW podcast and/or YouTube channel to help spread the word.