The thoughts about human evolution

Darwin evolution tells us organisms evolve because of natural selection as to better adapt the living environment. That explains why giraffe has long neck, lion has sharp teeth, and white peppered moth turned black under soot pollution in the industrial England. However, the evolution of our intelligence does not really comply with the Darwin evolution theory. Contrary to the evolution principle, the evolution of humans (since the early hominid species) has always been driven to dissociate ourselves from the nature. The emergence and development of our intelligence allows us to walk out of the forest and create an artificial environment that would fit our own nature. Looking backwards into the development of human civilization, the use of tools for hunting, the invention of animal husbandry, agriculture, the emergence of the urbanized settlement, the structure of polity, industrial revolution, electronics etc, are the indisputable footsteps we left along this human evolution path. Following this logic, I dare to hypothesize that the ultimate objective of human civilization would be one abstract sentence: to dissociate ourselves from the given nature.

Thinking a step further, this seems also to be observed in the modern social mentality as well. I have always said that leftism, an appendix of modern surplus productivity, stem from the very idea that humans ought to be and act god-alike. Thou shalt love others just as much as yourself. Despite the myth about the origin of leftism (with several disputing theories), it is unanimously agreed that leftism tends to associate more with the intelligentsia with extremely high intelligence. While leftism itself has lots of incurable defects and I am sure there are noticed by the smart leftists, its core supporters (really smart people) appear to be rather stubborn in believing there are no other alternatives that would keep up with the advancement of our civilization.

What accounts for the advancement of the civilization anyway? Science and technology? As if the answer is that simple as all science and technology are neutral to our social beings… In my opinion, egalitarianism, that’s what the left intellectuals are really aiming for. Leftists think our achievement in science and technology has reached a milestone where the pursuit of a pure egalitarian artificial world starts possible. You see there are lots of facts that need numerous tests to confirm their existence in our realm. But it wouldn’t make any sense to look for even a slight degree of egalitarianism in this sensory world. In fact the pursuit of egalitarianism, a specious claptrap, has been destined to fail since the very beginning when this idea was nurtured 200 years ago, for it just simply goes against literally every empirical axioms we witness in the nature. Ignore the natural diversity, bell curves, and individual variations to guide our actions, and the only result is failure, for we don’t have the science and technology yet to make all individuals, all races, all species the same. This is THE perfect example of mankind’s desire to dissociate ourselves from the given universe.

Burrowing into deeper analysis and specific illustrations, egalitarian perspectives regarding the environment and the nature is best interpreted as gaiaism. For instance, terms such as preservation, conservation, and mitigation etc. have deluged the mass media in recent years. The hegemonic tone has never ebbed since the day they were created in the show business. But why do we want to preserve the nature? Why do we want to mitigate the climate change? Why do we want to protect the endangered species? Of course, there are so many conspicuous explanations that emphasize on the importance of “co-existence” , “ sustainability”, “rights to live” etc. Modern gaiaism has long jumped out of the spectrum of mere environmental problem control. In most western countries people’s livelihood are no longer susceptible under the compromising environmental conditions. Modern gaiaism is all about “value” and “lifestyle”. Beyond all those eloquent apologies, the true interpretation of this recent environmental fad is rather embedded in our own brains: the desire to dissociate from the nature. “We are transcended creatures with our artificial realms and thus we shall do everything we could to leave the old place the way it was, undisturbed and absolutely harmonious.” Therefore some advocates to stop slaughtering animals, some advocates stop pumping the fossil fuels, and some advocates even stop the modern technology for it disrupts the rhythm of the earth…

Western elites came up with the ideas and ensure that most people are well drilled to feel the same way. This luxurious emotion would be magnified manifold before a kid even learns to see the real cruelty of the world. That you think you care about African starving babies is nothing more than a sheer result of repetitious drills from the hypnosis organ. Nevertheless, this all may have worked perfectly fine, if our science and technology drive didn’t stagnate for the past half century. I have no problem with leaving in a real Brave New World where people just fool ourselves to death. At least that’d be a system that works. But once again our reality could not be offset by our intelligence yet, and worst of all, we are still insolently blind to the dire consequences that are about to ravage our incoherent civilization.

As far as I concern our human evolution has entered a dead end. The only way out would be a regrouping after the collapse of what has been built up for the past 50 or even 100 years and consciously refrain us from turning the divine thirst of mankind into a dead cult of leftism. For all I know, that window of opportunity is accumulating its momentum as we speak.


  1. The Left in my opinion has always been blind to the Nature is says it protects. It feels that the human imprint is the worst thing that can be imposed. The Left looks at Nature and says behold, don’t disturb. The Right looks at Nature and farms it, hunts it, drills it, mines it, etc — all crimes in the eyes of the Left. Yes, the Left does disassociate even though it professes to be for Nature and disassociation is an error. Complete disassociation wil cede all power to Nature, and if we treat it in such a manner, it will overrun us. Nature takes care of itself.

    A million years ago, lightening may have struck a giant pine forest, creating a massive forest fire. After the fire, it rained. The ashes turned to lye and the runoff ran into the streams and rivers turning the water too caustic for life. This is the lifecycle of nature, always cleansing itself. I am not saying that drilling for oil is cleansing nature but that the Left over estimates our ability to destroy the Earth through our everyday functioning. The amount of oil BP leaked into the Gulf is about the volume of the New Orleans Superdome. While it is an enormous structure, placing enough oil to fill the Superdome in the Gulf is a miniscule in relation to the volume of the Gulf. And whether or not the Left likes it, oil is an organic substance.

    As for egalitarianism ….. it means mediocrity. There can never be great and equal. I think the Left has done more than enough to prove this through programs such as Affirmative Action.

  2. As not all nations have arrived at the juncture where they can afford this sort of things, the ones that collapse may serve as a warning for the ones to come. Perhapse in a different country (China, Russia) where being a developing country kept them from joining the suicide pack, the pheonix will rise from the ashes.

    1. I hold pretty dim vision about Eastern Europe right now back from my trip. I don’t Russia is anywhere better than their western ex-pals…. As for China, I really need to be more convinced as the current trend is quite disheartening there too.

  3. Some speculative but very interesting ideas here. Some questions that popped into head after reading this (really some just re-state some of your arguments (I think)):

    Is there a threshold at which pulling away from nature becomes progressively more difficult (elasticity?)?

    Have we become dependent on moving further and further away from nature when our ability to do so is declining?

    At some hypothetical higher tech level does leftism become “sane” or at least do the desires expressed by leftism become moot?

    Is leftism self-defeating in that it retards the technological development that would make itself tenable?

    1. As I explained in the post, I think the current stage the threshold is approaching in terms of technology and productivity. The stagnation of technological advancement and the diversion of intelligence into self-restraint financial and self-entertaining business makes it impossible to attain the goal to fully dissociate mankind from the given nature to reach god-alike status. Meanwhile, I think the focus of intellectuals appear on the social/philosophical level of nature-dissociation. There I speculated to be somewhat the ground for the birth of leftism. Our ability hasn’t declined, at least among the highly intelligent people, but rather pay less attention to the technological drive. And yes, we are becoming more and more dependent on moving further away from the nature. Think of the lifestyle 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, and 10000years ago. But as far as I concern, 100 years later the life wouldn’t be essentially different from what we have today, given the fact that current trend persists and no major changes occur in our social system.

      “At some hypothetical higher tech level does leftism become “sane” or at least do the desires expressed by leftism become moot?”
      First that kind of tech level is unattainable. I would describe the idea of leftism as the extreme philosophical interpretation of human’s urge to dissociate themselves from the given nature. The desire expressed by leftism has already been moot since its very beginning. Their state of mind is simply Utopian. Perhaps it’d make more sense when we could clone humans perfectly to defy the last given natural ground.

      “Is leftism self-defeating in that it retards the technological development that would make itself tenable?”
      I don’t think leftism is against technological advancement. But evidently leftism unintentionally impairs this progress. There are far stronger hindrances that stall our technological development anyway. Leftism makes itself tenable not because it retards the technological development. Instead, it is because, in my opinion, that we don’t have the kind of technology to match with the mentality, the societal status expounded by leftism. So there is always going to be a discrepancy between leftism and the reality. Here comes the ultimate conflict that makes leftism self-defeating.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s