11.10.08 - Thought of the day...

What exactly is evolution from a cultural perspective? How do we measure evolution? Is it based on interpretation or does evolution have some methodological, scientific value and definition? I think that evolution is a very deep topic at every level, and there are so many elements that effect true evolution. I do not want a dictionary definition of evolution, or a scientific one, I would prefer to think openly about it and adjust my position as the topic of evolution changes forum. For example social evolution differs greatly from technological evolution. I see evolution as adaption and growth. Again the problem here is how do we define growth? What measuring apparatus do we refer to; numerical or abstract notions such as wisdom? Intelligence (another complex issue, various cultures measure intelligence in different ways, what western culture consider important for intelligence to be present, a tribe in east Africa wouldn’t) it becomes problematic when so many factors come in to play, there is such difference in this world, socially, culturally, emotionally, the way we function, eat, sleep, practices, the way we conduct ourselves relationally, various religions and spiritual beliefs, the list goes on...
The major point that must be taken away is that diversity breeds adaptive qualities for that specific environment. Specificity plays a large part within the context of evolution. Comments were thrown; “why haven’t the Aboriginal people ‘evolved’ or developed, like the English”. This is ignorant, but by no means am I attacking the person who stated this comment, it is by no fault of theirs that they repeated this comment, they, as we all are, are products of our environments, history, families, media, dominant views within society, the list goes on. Many a time as I still do put my foot in my mouth, it is good to do so, ONLY if we learn, in the sense that we reflect upon what we believe, think, say and feel, that is our responsibility, once we have that knowledge or awareness, it is then our duty, our moral obligation to ourselves foremost then those around us, to change, adapt and ‘evolve’ our position. Interesting, back to the comment, based on this, which I acknowledge is my own personal belief based on many before me, from that line of thought, I believe that is the colonizers which could not adapt to their environment successfully or have the capacity to understand diverse cultures and integrate ‘civilly’. Civilization is part of evolution and quite frankly any colonization throughout history really hasn’t been done civilly, where is the evolution here? It seems that Indigenous tribes and Native tribes seem to be far more evolved socially, morally and spiritually than Western civilization. These attributions are an integral part to human existence; technological evolution seems minute compared to the above. Not to misplace the importance of technology, as it is important, and if we trace back through history we can see how evolution on various levels has affected the human race both positively and negatively. This is standard, this is how the human person evolves, through trial, application, then learning and adapting the new more improved skill, but if there is no need for change, why reinvent the wheel? Does this indicate that because there is no tender, no infrastructure and no alphabet, that the Indigenous people are primitive? I somehow doubt so, technology has provided us with much greatness, astronomy, accommodating population growth for survival purposes, cosmology, oceanography, and much, much more, but it has also caused disease, pollution, death, the list again goes on. Because of this more technology is required to fix the past technology, and so the cycle continues? Is that progress? Truly is that evolution? Its adaption, its intelligent, because we are adapting to our evolving and ever changing environment. But Indigenous tribes never required such radical advancements in technology. Indigenous tribes adapted without destruction, isn’t that intelligent, to gain and continue life without the chaos, without draining recourses from the land at a rapid rate? I am well aware that population density amongst Indigenous tribes compared to Western civilization differs dramatically, and that this could have a grand effect on how both civilizations function, but to state that Indigenous tribes are not civilized, advanced as a society or have become ‘evolved’ I feel is ill informed. Because evolution is adaption, Indigenous tribes have adapted marvellously, taking from the land in regards to recourses yet maintaining a harmony and balance where they do not deplete and pollute, or harm the land. Whereas Western civilization struggles to find balance between survival and allowing adequate space for others in the future, we then have foresight, respect, resourcefulness, understanding of habitat and environment, in depth knowledge of the land that is lived on, health, vitality, immunity to harsh external environmental conditions, strength of physical body, deep culture, mythology and history and respect for all living beings. This and more is what Indigenous tribes have, to me this seems extremely civilized.

SS