Why not postulate the success of modern humans as being attributable to the emergence of the concept of evil, rather than, or in concert with, the development of innovation and adaptability?
Endogamy, which had been endemic in many populations and subpopulations, indicates, to some extent, a pattern of rough territorial integrity, and some accomodation, between groups.
Ardrey wrote a book called The Territorial Imperative, after all.
What if that very concept had been superceded, or overridden may be a better term, by modern humans? The archaelogical record for interactions between modern humans and neanderthals and denisovans gives some credence to this proposition.
It seems that modern humans ran them to ground, seldom intermixing, over many hundreds of years, and in many places, to extinction.
Why shouldn't that be an expression of an emerging concept of evil, societal populational evil, rather than merely of such things as inventiveness and adaptability?
Evil, even, may be too loaded a term here.
Something less than evil, but more primordial, is what I am getting at. Aggressive territoriality, or more aggressive territoriality.
I believe that racial distinctions and discrimination, between prehistoric populations was endemic and inherent.
So, modern humans brought something, or some things, new to the table, besides racial populational discrimination expressed in part by Reich's term endogamy.
Why not Hobbes, rather than Locke or Rousseau?
No comments:
Post a Comment