wat i'm bout to write is based upon some of the thoughts generated by sid's blog...
but then, sid's q related more to collective action per se...on the other hand, my thoughts were more about some of the assumptions that we make before defining collective action...and hence the need for a seperate discussion....
the crux of my argument is 'humans might not be the pinnacle of evolution'....i dont have a concrete philosophy behind my argument, but i'l put in my arguments nevertheless...
1) Let me first take non-violent movement of Gandhi...all of us think that non-violence in the face of violence is the greatest achievement...but if this is so, then i think the trees around us and all the herbivorous animals are higher forms of evolution because they practice the toughest thing (as defined by us) day in and day out...might be the plants and the animals decided not to become humans bcos they saw the evil in being a human...and therefore it might be possible that most of the trees around us might have evolved from Homo Sapiens...
2) All the brain research that I have read about have the goal of finding out whether some other organism's brain is as evolved as that of a human...but has any research started off without the assumption that human brain is the most evolved...i mean, we define intelligence as grey cells in brain...but what if this is not actual intelligence...what if length of root of any plant is the actual measure of intelligence?? my point is, humans are the most intelligent bcos v has set ourselves as the perfection that every other organism should aspire for....nd v compare all other's with this scale...
It might be opportune to mention here that until about 500 years ago, we thought that everythin revolves around the earth....we conceptualised it this way to boost our ego, the argument being 'since humans inhabit earth, everything revolves around the earth'....
let the thrashing begin....turn me to pulp....
punchline - are coconut trees evolved mallu's??
3 comments:
i don't know how to react to your qustion towards the theory of evolution...
should i explain it based on social science or biological science...??
though i am not very clear about what kind of adaptations you are talking about...
whatever you r saying might be the fact......but did not we explore enough about human evolution?
Some Geneticists say that the science of biology particularly evolutionary part plays a vital role in social formation or other way round society itself governs the facts and figures of biology...
the cell structure of tree is not comparable to human cell....even not from any point of view....it also says that if one life process is evolved of another primitive creature then the latest form of life will be called higher one, beacuse of better adaptation power..i do not know much about it....still will it be worthy to say plants are more adaptive in nature than human???
did any plant of same race and ever try to grow another climate?...because this is the way we generally define adapatability...
is it not the fact that the length of root determines the size of plant, water availability etc?? it may appear merely a biolgical fact but still the logic you put in might push us to think in different way...
joe... though some of the ideas on your blog may not cut ice with atleast 99% of the people, but they sure are going to leave a smile on their faces!
but from what you are trying to say, i think i get the germ of the idea. but, a few points may be said from another perspective as well.... if you see it from the perspective of an individual, and not collectively, what the feeling of non-violence requires is a high sense of self training & discipline. these qualities, once achieved take a human to a higher level of self control & consciousness. maybe that is why they are considered high ideals. maybe this vignette woulld help. let me think about the rest though.
take care
Post a Comment