The Perfect Human

I was thinking this week about humanity. We, as humans, are an interesting breed. On the one hand you see the most loving, humble and compassionate acts lived daily. On the other hand, you can find the most despicable, abusive, and harmful act carried out with a certain amount of disdain, that it sickens the soul. And that is just the social/psycho aspect of humanity. The human body is an amazing, awesome instrument, but when it breaks down or becomes addicted it is difficult to watch the results. Humanity is a paradox. From these premises, I started to think about what humans have thought or are thinking about ourselves.

In the past, it was thought that the first humans, the Golden Humans, were perfect. Their perfection was biological, sociological and psychological. It was not only the perfect human form, but the perfect human society, government and philosophy. But the perfection was lost with each seceding generation; the corruption broke down the society, the mind and the body. Perfection was lost and the result was a decaying human species becoming less and less with each passing generation. Even those who strive for perfection in one or more of the humanly characteristics could never fully recover what once was.

This is easy to see today. Genetic diseases are carried on and compounded with each new generation. Dysfunctional mental and social problems breeding even further dysfunctionality.

But then again: the fields of psychology, sociology, genetics are all new fields, even science as we understand it today is new in the grand scheme of human history. So maybe all of the ills which plague us today have always plagued us; it is just that no one mentioned it in the past in the scientific terms we look for today. Silence can tell us nothing. We do know that war, greed, corruption, love, compassion and sacrifice have always existed. But are the negatives on the increase and the positives on the decrease? Does the perfect human have yet to exist? In modern evolutionary terms humanity must always be striving forward. Modern science, psychology and sociology can now point to what may be, in some possible future, a perfect human living in a perfect society. Under the guidance of science, humanity can become greater and greater with each coming generation.

But then again: it seems things don't really change, only the accessories in which we dress ourselves.

Human Evolution

The theory of evolution is something that I think about from time to time. In no way am I an expert in the scientific components of evolution. And I must admit that I am a bit sceptical about it as a provable theory, but it seems to work for the time being. Now that I have given that disclaimer, let me tell you what I have been thinking about.

It seems that when it comes to humans that evolution has runs its course. I am not saying that we have reached the pinnacle of evolutionary traits, I can think of many things that I would like to have as part of my body that would make life easier. What I am saying is that we are sabotaging the possibility of further evolutionary growth. We adapt the environment to fit our life, not the other way around. We have compassion on the weak and infirmed. But here is the clincher and the reason why evolution is at an end:

If we put evolution in terms of survival of the fittest and then compare that to society at large, what do we get. In America we have a general understanding of what is expected of our children: go to school, get an education at college, find a good job, get married and have two kids. That seems to be the media's view of the norm. And by and large we accept that norm. The assumption that the most capable will make it the furthest in life: make the most money, have the largest house, wield the most influence... have two children, or one, or none and sometimes maybe three. Do you see it yet?

And the other side of the coin: those we assume to be the least capable, the least likely to survive as the fittest. The drop outs, the uneducated, those prone to drug addicts, those on welfare, the poor, also tend to have three, four, five or even more kids.

If survival is dependent upon being able to pass along the most healthy, capable genes to the next generation then which segment of the population is fulfilling that evolutionary mandate (who is having the most children). The fastest, strongest, most capable lion is the most probably to pass long his genes making the next generation the fastest, strongest, most capable generation possible; but with humans? It seems that those who have the greatest influence on the next generation are not necessarily the ones we would call the most capable. The gene pool of the humans is negatively effected.

Yes, I know that this whole chain of thoughts is loaded and based on generalities and stereotyping. But there seems to be something here. Maybe our perspective is off. Maybe the most capable are not the most wealthy, but rather those who can survive and thrive on the fringes. Or maybe the wealthy need to start having more kids. Or maybe all of this social structure is completely independent of biological evolution.