It is not clear when humanoids made the transition from brutish animal to thinking being. The adoption of language, the creation of tools, and the discovery of fire are clearly important landmark events that followed that transition; but where it began, and how it proceeded, is shrouded in mystery. It is likely that it will never be known, unless time travel becomes a reality.
Homo Sapiens were not the only thinking line of humanoid. Several branches of the humanoid family made that transition from brute to intellectual. Neanderthals had language, art, tools, fire, and clothes. Sure, Neanderthals were 'just' cavemen, but that misses the point. They were not stupid. They could solve problems.
Somehow, Homo Sapiens survived while the other branches of humanoid died out. Was it a matter of degree of intelligence or some physical advantage? That is hard to answer. There are hypotheses that masquerade as theories, but the evidence is not compelling one way or the other; as, in the main, there is very little of it.
It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that modern man is more intelligent than our ancestors. After all, we have computers to count for us while they had fingers or strings with knots. We have cars and airplanes while they were lucky to have shoes. Of course, we could take the most intelligent man of modern times, strip him naked, and throw him into the middle of the everglades swamp with absolutely nothing. He, too, would be lucky to have shoes.
The complexity of tools and sophistication of theories is not to be confused with the intellectual prowess necessary to create them. The intellect necessary to invent the brick was no less than the intellect necessary to create the silicon chip. The intellect necessary to invent bronze was no less than that necessary to invent the laser.
So much of what is considered advanced in the modern world, is simply a refinement of things that existed before. The silicon chip owes its existence to the brick. The modern digital telephone is not that far removed from jungle drums used to communicate across distances with discrete signal patterns.
The advances of the past and the advances of the present are not as far removed from one another, as our modern hubris would make us think. The collective ignorance of the world has shrunk over time, but that is because with each new idea, discovery, and invention, the body of human knowledge has increased. It has been increasing for tens of thousands of years. It gives an illusion of greater accomplishment than actually exists.
The rate at which the body of knowledge increases, isn't a good measure of the intellectual capacity of individuals within a given generation. It is a better to see it as a measure of the education and the quantity of people contributing to that body of knowledge. It has been estimated that between eighty to ninety percent of the scientists and engineers who have ever existed, are alive today. Of course, the population of the world has gone from one billion in 1800 to over six billion in 2000. That is a significant difference from the million or less that existed in 70,000 BC.
The key point, is that the intellectual capacity of a modern human being, is not that much different from that of our most primitive ancestors. One might argue that it may not have changed at all, since that early transition from brute to thinking being. Of course, there are the effects that a better diet can have on individual intellectual capacity, but it should be remembered that not all of our ancestors suffered from malnutrition.
In what might be a great surprise to modern men and women, is that the subjects of thought have not changed in at least 70,000 years. People today are just as concerned about the basics of food, shelter, clothing, mating, and death; as our ancestors ever were. Our ancestors were just as interested in art, music, history, literature, math, science, engineering, and religion; as is modern man. Getting along with others has always been an important area of thought; with trade, politics, sociology, and psychology foremost among them.
The stories told in ancient times covered the significant deeds of great men and women, love affairs gone well or tragically, wars fought: won or lost. The modern reader can listen to a story twenty centuries old, and follow themes that appear in stories written today.
Although it may be self-evident, it is a fact that there hasn't been enough physiological divergence for modern man to be classified differently from the first Homo Sapiens. It may not seem that way. The average height of Homo Sapiens has increased, throughout history, but there have been improvements in diet and nutrition also. Modern athletes appear to perform at greater limits than those of the past, but modern athletes are often specialists, now; rather than generalists, as were those of the past.
Given that there have been no physical or intellectual changes of substance between modern man and our earliest ancestors, what has changed in 70,000 years? Well ... nothing. When the pretensions of grandeur afforded us by our modern technologies are stripped away, it is discovered that we human beings are just the same as our ancient ancestors.
Modern humans suffer from the same emotions and passions that have always existed.
Man sees woman, woman sees man, and the mating dance begins. The form of the dance depends upon the current conditions, but wealth, power, beauty, personality and intelligence have always played a role. There may be social conventions put upon men and women, but tales of lovers who run to avoid parental interference, adulterers who meet despite existing mating bonds, and loves that endure in spite of external attack; tell us that the essence of love hasn't changed.
Hate, jealousy, and envy are just as much a part of being human as love and sexual desire. Strong negative emotions lead to violence, and even murder. Stories as old as time are told of vendettas, revenge, and crimes of passion. Stories that were old, then, are just as relevant, now.
Like a coin with two sides, there are two sides to every person. People attempt to put forth the side that will gain praise, adoration, and recognition from others. For each good, there is a bad. For every positive emotion there is a negative emotion. We seek out recognition and avoid humiliation. We act in the hope of achieving praise, but sometimes we slip and find ourselves subject to criticism.
That boil of good and bad within us is what makes people so complex. There are always those questions to be answered: to be or not to be, to act or stand passive, to speak or forever hold our peace. Those questions have haunted people throughout all of history. The answers may be self-evident until you are the faced with the questions. Then things get murky.
The problem is, what happens when we try to eliminate all manifestation of the negatives of being human. The short answer is that it doesn't work. It is like trying to remove the ugly side of a coin. You scrape and scrape at the one side until one day the coin disappears.
People need to shout, scream, stomp about, and raise a fist to the sky. It is necessary to bleed off the negative so that gentleness, compassion, generosity, and forgiveness can emerge. Recognition and acceptance of the need to express the negative, should not to be interpreted as condoning murder, rape, pillage, or wreaking general havoc.
In modern times, the person who yells, stomps around, slams doors, and throws things is liable to discover the police knocking upon the door. The crime – disturbing the peace, being a public nuisance, or some other such charge. Of course it is well deserved. After all, that person disturbed someone's afternoon nap, and that can't be allowed.
The rational among us will argue that we should be able to sit down and discuss things in a calm and reasoned manner. This sounds wonderful. Wouldn't it be great if all of life's conflicts are resolvable by sitting down and calmly discussing them? The result would be tranquility and peace. We would live in Utopia.
It is said that getting angry solves nothing. Implicit in that statement is that we shouldn't get angry. So how do we avoid feeling anger when things work out contrary to our desires? The only truly workable answer is not to have strong desires. In other words, we shouldn't care.
Wait! We shouldn't care about things? But caring about things is what allows the most positive of traits to emerge. Nothing great has ever been achieved, without passion. Great things require great energy to achieve.
The modern world does not trust passion or emotion. Emotional people are unpredictable. They might say nasty things; or, even turn violent. We are a rational world ruled by reason, not emotion.
There is a problem. There are only two ways to focus the kind of energy necessary to do something great: passion or the whip. If passion leads to negative behaviors when it becomes frustrated, then clearly we must avoid passion. That leaves us with the whip.
Ah! The whip! That conjures images of slave masters with bull whips shredding the backs of poor slaves tied helpless to posts. We don't use whips in modern society. Or do we? Be happy you have a job. Click it or ticket. Be nice or I'll sue. A whip does not have to be made of leather to cause misery.
The whip leads us directly to dystopia while passion prevents us from having utopia. It is a dilemma that does not seem to be easily resolved. Perhaps the real problem is the attempt to do something great. A better answer might be to strive for mediocrity. It is possible that utopia is a world filled with indifference, apathy and marginalism.
Apathy and mediocrity are not good, so instead we settle for restricting passion to specific times and places, while accepting the whip at other times and places. We construct social rules, enforced by the whip, to dictate what is allowed when, i.e.: men should not make women feel like they are being looked at as potential mates while at work.
The problem is that emotion is not like a light bulb. It can't be turned on and off by a switch. It can be dimmed, but not eliminated, unless bludgeoned out of existence. Once emotion is eliminated, it is virtually impossible to regain. Instead of the passionate romance that result when man views woman as a possible lifetime mate, we now are 'friends with benefits'. Is that what we really wanted?
The modern human being looks in the mirror, smugly confident of a superiority over our distant ancestors. Instead of feeling superior; it should be recognized that physically, intellectually, and emotionally, we are not far removed from being cavemen. We have the body of knowledge accumulated over thousands of years, and a mishmash of conflicting rules governing what is acceptable behavior.
To the contrary, if anyone has reason to gloat, it is the caveman.
An Interview With Dexter:
Reporter: You demonstrate a lack of concern for the innate dignity of people.
Dexter: Innate dignity? What's that?
Reporter: The right of a person to be treated with dignity.
Dexter: You're right. I don't believe in dignity as a right.
Reporter: So you admit you don't respect people?
Dexter: I didn't say that. There are a lot of people that I respect.
Reporter: Yes, you did.
Dexter: I don't believe in dignity as a right. That suggests people deserve dignified treatment regardless of what they've done. Some people deserve undignified treatment.
Reporter: I take it you are referring to the executives from Daimler Plastic.
Dexter: They are a good example.
Reporter: They were publicly humiliated on your advice.
Dexter: They quit before they were humiliated to the degree they deserved. I really wanted to see them in tutus.
Reporter: You say that you respect people.
Dexter: The men we are talking about abused everyone under them while thinking they were exempt from criticism. They weren't.
Reporter: You tell people to take on menial jobs.
Dexter: Yes.
Reporter: There is no dignity in menial labor.
Dexter: There is a lot more dignity in honestly earning a dollar, than in being a beggar.
Reporter: This is a rich country. No one should be a beggar.
Dexter: A handout is a handout. I'd rather give my five dollar bill to a man for polishing my shoes, than to a man standing hat in hand and begging.
Reporter: You'd humiliate a man by making him polish your shoes rather than treat him with dignity?
Dexter: Hmm. I hadn't thought about it that way. You're telling me that earning money is humiliating.
Reporter: Yes.
Dexter: You're getting paid to interview me, right?
Reporter: Uhhh, yes.
Dexter: Based on the job you're doing, you should feel humiliated.
Edited By TeNderLoin