R H
  • R H
  • Chicago, IL
  • United States

This conversation is closed.

If it's true that there is a single origin of humanity out ot E Africa apx.150,000 years ago, then we are all family.

Paleoanthropologists hold the 'single origin' theory - where anatomicallly modern humans originated solely in Sub-saharan Africa from a single origin point - as the most widely accepted. That would mean we all have the same ancestors. If we all have the same ancestors, are we not all related? If we're all related, then we're all family. If we are all family, then we are more than just 'community'. We are the same. Everyone. It is done. It's time now to put aside our histories, our angers, our revenge, our murderousness, our exploitiveness, and 'reach across the table' and become the strong and unitfied humans we are (obviously now) created to be.The divisions amongst us are over and need to be 'torn down'. Indira Gandhi is credited with saying: "Forgiveness is a virtue of the brave." Think what 7 - soon to be 9 - billion people working in harmony could accomplish. The rich think they're rich now, just imagine the wealth if 'the whole family' participated in the economy - not nearly half of us unable to participate realistically. What if our security forces were small and the funds were devoted to education and economic deveiopment because we knew we were a 'good family'? We've learned to be selfish, protective, afraid, and 'enmitized' towards each other. It's a now a new day, and new skills are required.

  • Jun 26 2012: Do I dare be the first one to talk about incest...

    It's a nice idea about working as one but realistically, it'll never happen.

    Just because we are a "family" or have the same connections, it doesn't mean we can't be different and have arguments and things like that.

    I mean, sometimes good comes out of bad. I think if we were all happy together and none of us fought or had disagreements or war or debates, then nothing in the end would progress. Disagreement can spark change a lot of the time for the better, because then we can see the real root of a problem rather than just blindly accepting something to be gospel without fully exploring all the pros and cons with different people with different perspectives to view them.
  • thumb
    Jun 1 2012: Mankind from a single couple ? I'm sure I read that somewhere before. Well anyway, that makes it unanimous; all we have to do now is Love one Another. That's the tricky part.

    :-)
    • thumb

      R H

      • 0
      Jun 2 2012: Thanks Peter for responding. It is the tricky part. It's even hard to love everyone in our 'families' now. But it's seems like we've become so good at recognizing our differences and self-righteousness, that we've forgotten (or are just now finding the evidence and realizing) how much the same we are - everywhere. Every culture. Everybody. Our immediate evaluation (again, it seems to me) of someone is 'them', not 'one of us'. And we procede from there.
  • thumb
    Jun 1 2012: the same could be said about humans and bacteria. We share a common ancestor. We're family.
    Everything on this planet is related to everything else.

    However, we're not evolutionnally designed to consider every human being as part of our family. We're tribal and it takes restless efforts from institution to ensure that we remain at peace in a global society.
    • thumb
      Jun 1 2012: Well Gerald! You rained on my parade, cousin!
      • thumb
        Jun 1 2012: I should've slept over and read your parade for breakfast.
        • thumb
          Jun 1 2012: they say that the truth set you free. If so , why do I often want to respond with: OH POOP!?
    • thumb
      Jun 1 2012: probably everything with dna is related - distantly
    • thumb
      Jun 2 2012: What on Earth is, "evolutionnally designed"? Are you going all anthropomorphic Gerald and assigning the role of Intelligent Designer to evolution? Also, will you please remind me what the name of that common ancestor "EVERYTHING [my emphasis] on this planet" is related to? Thank you!
      • thumb
        Jun 2 2012: hydrogen is one of our common ancestors, dear Edward. We have names for some of the stuff that was lucky enough to reproduce among of ascendents, but I don't know how to name the first cell, or the first amino acid, or whatever. I'm guessing you want me to name the first replicating mollecule. Otherwise, everything came from nuclear transmutation.
        Evolutionnally designed, sure. As opposed to randomness, as opposed to chance.
        • thumb
          Jun 2 2012: Webster's Dictionary defines "ancestor" as: "An early type of animal from which later kinds have evolved." Hydrogen is neither an Animal; a Eucaryota; nor a Living Thing. Why do you not know the name of the common ancestor? I think it is because no living thing has been scientifically identified as such. In other words there is no one single living, or once living, ancestor of everything on this planet. If I am wrong please name the ancestor.
          So, on your own, you are coining the phrase "Evoltionnally Designed" as the new, more precise name to replace what is now called "Intelligent Design"? You are saying the process of evolution is driven by an intelligent force? I am hoping for two precise resposes. Thank you Gerald for your provocative perspective
      • thumb
        Jun 2 2012: "An early type of animal from which later kinds have evolved"

        If you know anything about biology, you know that atoms didn't suddenly come together to shape the first animal. There is always a continuum. There was a continuum between energy and atoms, between atoms and mollecules, mollecules and the first replicating mollecules. So much so that there is no such thing as "THE FIRST" in either case. There is no first homo sapiens, for that matter.

        I don't think I coined "evolutionnally designed". I must've heard it in a pub. Anyway I like it. Creationnists always oppose Intelligent design to Chance, as in the famous watchmaker explanation, or the more recent 747 boeing nonsense. The opponents to evolution are not opponents to evolution, it turns out.
        1) Pure luck
        2) Intelligent Design (everything comes from a creator, except the creator)
        3) Evolution

        1) and 3) are opposites. NO ONE ON EARTH supports 1)!!!

        "You are saying the process of evolution is driven by an intelligent force?"
        No, but driven by a process that fools us into thinking it's intelligent. Just like a computer chess game, where the moves are a result of an evolutionnary process of trial and error, and where the resulting move seems to be a clever one.
        With evolution, however, every possible move is lived out. The "clever" one is the one that's survived the trial and error process.

        I will explain things in more detail, if you want me to.
        Regards
        • thumb
          Jun 2 2012: I appreciate your offer for more detail Gerald. What I would really profit from is less detail and more clarity. You have departed from my two simple questions (name of common ancestor? and, is evolution driven by an intelligent force?) and left them unanswered. I think you are unable to answer my first question because you profess to believe that life (the mysterious common ancestor) spontaneously sprang from non-life. Your theory of evolution offers no name for, or valid scientific explanation of, that FIRST life form. You even go so far as to say there was no first life form!? I think you are reluctant to answer my second question because you refuse to support the idea of blind luck driving everything, AND you refuse to support the only other explanation available which has been popularly labeled "Intelligent Design" (to which I do not subscribe). So you dodge my questions and go after straw men and red herrings. Please condescend to indulge a non-biologist by answering these two questions : 1) What is the name of the first life form? 2) Is the process of evolution "driven" in such a way that its effects always "appear to be clever"?
          Thank you!
      • thumb
        Jun 2 2012: Clarity! Fine, fine!

        1) What is the name of the first life form?

        I have to dodge this question, Edward, because as I said ; there was no FIRST life form. The process that took basic chemical reactions to something like a bacterium takes millions and millions of years. There are countless stages, evolution is a gradual phenomenum. Let's see the implications of your assumptions that there should be a FIRST LIFE FORM. What would its parent be?
        The way we name things is usually related to what we're lucky enough to dig up. We make categories up where they don't exist. Species don't exist, for that matter, as Darwin noted. (I can explain this point).
        So I hold my position on this one : This question is nonsense. " I think you are unable to answer my first question because you profess to believe that life (the mysterious common ancestor) spontaneously sprang from non-life" This is not what I meant. I think that what we call non-life gradually evolved into what we call life, SPRANG, you say. I don't think that the verb "to spring" fits a progressive change spreading over a billion years. Perhaps this is the source of your skepticism.

        2) Is the process of evolution "driven" in such a way that its effects always "appear to be clever"?

        The systematic dispatching of its errors and the systematic selecting of whatever works is called cleverness when it's virtually carried out. But stupidity when it's Actually carried out.
        Let's just say that it's very easy to forget how much time was in effect required for evolution to lead to something like a vertebrate, or like the human eye. The steps are so small and so numerous, we often can't imagine they were there at all. It's very human to think evolution is clever, since its waste basket is hidden to us, hidden to our very imagination.

        Cheers.
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2012: Thanks Gerald, but the source of my skepticism is not faulty conjugation of verbs. I must question a theory that says there ABSOLUTELY was a prototype life form from which EVERYTHING on Earth is descended ( let's call that "A"). The theory also says there was ABSOLUTELY no prototype (first) life form (let's call that "Not A"). The Law of Non-contradiction does not allow something to be both "A" and "Not A". Uh oh!The word "we" in the topic post refers to Homo Sapiens. We are all Family, in both senses of the word (genaeological and taxonomic). We do all have a common ancestor pair who were the first male Hominidae and the first female Hominidae. They begat more Hominidaes and here we are, brother and sister Hominidaes begetting more Hominidaes. Black, brown, red, white, and yellow Hominidaes are one big Family.
      • Jun 3 2012: Edward,

        The name of that common ancestor is Trichituercas. I know, I know. But you shall now understand why Gerald would not give you a name. Not a very nice one this name. I blushed when I wrote it.

        Evolutionary design. Well. the designer is natural processes themselves. The distinction from human designs is that there is no thinking in the process, but designs are attained by how nature works. I know, design implies purpose. But that is a very narrow definition of design. Since you like some pretty struck definitions of terms, think about the word design here as a metaphor for lack of a more appropriate word. Feel free to suggest a word though. Maybe we went for the metaphor because our vocabularies are too limited.

        Best!
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2012: I guess the Esoteric Brotherhood of Arcane Scientists have kept the Trichituercas life-form to themselves. The editor of The American Heritage Dictionary of Science is unaware of this progenitor of all life on Earth. Even internet search engines don't recognize it. I did extract something about "nuts" in the name. Is this another PIltdown Man, Gabo?
          "there is no thinking in the process"-- May I immortalize those words in a bumper sticker?: EVOLUTION IS THOUGHTLESS!. Design implies non-chaotic. Is evolution chaotic?
          We Homo Sapiens are all one big family.
      • Jun 3 2012: Edward,

        I have to correct you on a few things:

        1. The hypothesis of universal common ancestry (I dot think it is a theory) is that all life comes from a single ancestral form. It does not say anywhere that there was "ABSOLUTELY" a prototype life form from which everything on Earth is descended. It is obvious that what we would say is that the boundaries between life and no-life are not clear today, would have been even less clear back when life was just starting. Regardless again, all life forms today might be descendants of a single life form in the past. However, what is incontrovertible, is that we share ancestry with many other life forms. Example, we can't deny common ancestry with the rest of the apes, nor with the rest of primotes, nor with ... perhaps quite clearly and undeniable up to all vertebrates. Further back it's quite possible and reasonable, but not as clear cut undeniable for technical and philosophical details that I don't have time to talk about.

        2. Nowhere have I read that there was ABSOLUTELY no prototype (first) life form. Actually, it was most probably a mess of "prototypes."

        3. Your breaking the law of non-contradiction is nothing but your own fabrication. Kind of a straw man. You can notice that if you read your own words then try and find them in any scientific explanation about life, common ancestry, and origin of life. I doubt you will find the word "ABSOLUTELY" there. Also, you are missing and matching ideas such as universal common ancestry, and first life form. Universal common ancestry might lead to one life form long ago in the past. But not necessarily to the first life forms ever to exist. Thus, origin of life and universal common ancestry are separate magisteria.

        I hope that helps. remember, if you want to know about science, read science, not creationist propaganda.
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2012: 1) Thank you for clarifying that the facts about the transition from non-living to living are not clear today. Scientists sometimes tend to represent theory as fact. 2) Mr. O'brian said earlier in this conversation:QUOTE: " there is no such thing as "THE FIRST" in either case. There is no first homo sapiens, for that matter." I refer your rebuttal to him.3) If all life shares a common ancestor, yet there is no common ancestor, then there is a contradiction in Logic. You guys really need a name for the "Mother of all the living".If I want to know about Baseball should I only read books written by baseball players? I can learn about science by reading History. Also, Creationist and propaganda are two words, you do not have to link the two constantly, it seems like propaganda when you do. Thrive and learn.
      • thumb
        Jun 3 2012: But there is no contradiction.
        The statement that every living thing is descended from a common ancestor is true.
        AND the statement that there is no such thing as a "first" living organism is true as well.

        THe word "life" is not helpfull sometimes. We tend to forget that there is nothing chemically unusual about animals. There was no moment in history when life suddenly arose from chemistry.
        There is a continuum between the big bang and mole-rats.
        So the contradiction comes from the words, really. "Life" is not something with special properties.

        "a common ancestor pair who were the first male Hominidae and the first female Hominidae"

        I agree that we should have names for things around us, for the sake of understand each other. But names are just names. And "the first hominidae" doesn't mean anything. This is not how evolution works.
        Go back in time and try to pinpoint the "first hominidae". You'll have a hard time doing so, because you'll always find that the "first hominidae" looked very much like its mom and dad, and was definitely part of the same species as them.
        On a rainbow, where does orange become yellow, exactly?
        Names are just names.
      • thumb
        Jun 3 2012: And what did you mean "a common ancestor pair who were the first male Hominidae and the first female Hominidae"

        Brother and sister? Or did the couple evolve separately?

        Warning, trick question.
        • Jun 4 2012: Gerald,

          As much as for those who understand science would find your question obviously flawed, the little and completely misinformed understanding of evolution, as propagated by creationist propaganda, makes many creationists actually think that this question you make is a valid question.
      • Jun 4 2012: Hi Edward,

        No contradiction again. The first life form is not necessarily the common ancestor. If there is universal common ancestor for all life (Trichituercas-but keep the secret), it does not follow that such universal common ancestor is the first life form (Uh-kuk-baram-balam). As I said too, first life form will be an elusive concept because the "boundaries" between life-non-life must have been looser back in the day than today.

        There is no first Homo sapiens in the sense that it should be hard to pinpoint an exact individual that we could clearly say this is the first. Why? Because the changes from one generation to another are imperceptible. It would be as if we started with English of several centuries ago and wanted to know where exactly did the first person start talking nowadays English. It's blurred, and thus the boundary would be somewhat diffuse. (Oh, I see that Gerald already answered.)

        Of course there's no thinking in evolution. But if you are interested, people have put together something called "genetic algorithms" which can solve problems, and "design" things such as circuits that people have been unable to solve/design, by using rounds of random mutations, selection, and reproduction often with recombination. The end products are often hard to understand. They solve the problems in non-obvious ways. But they work. So, that's how evolved stuff looks "designed:" rounds of random events combined with selection, and reproduction often with recombination. As you might notice now, that a component or event in a process is somewhat random does not mean that the whole process is chaotic.

        When I talk about creationist propaganda, I mean creationist propaganda. I don't think that all creationism is propaganda. It might be all false, but propaganda is distinguished by the intention to mislead. Such is the case for those creationist quacks who misteach you evolution and science.

        Be well.
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2012: The first life form would be the starting point of all life. How is that not the common ancestor?
          Oh, I couldn't agree more Gabo, that evolution is blurred and diffused.
          I apologize for accusing you of generalizing that all of Creationism is propaganda. Which parts of it do you consider to be simply false, but not propaganda?
          There are TWO possible truths regarding cosmogony, not just one. One includes God, the other denies God. Nothing Science has discovered is at variance with the Biblical statement, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth." Allow for Faith Gabo.
      • Jun 5 2012: The first life form may or may not be the common ancestor because there might have been other life forms after the first one which did not arise as descendants of such first life form. Also, it is quite improbable that if all life is related to Trichituercas, it is thus Trichituercas the first life form. Poor Trichituercas might have had lots of friends, and ancestors herself. This is why there is a concept called "LUCA" for "last" universal common ancestor. That this is the point where all existing life forms find each other, does not mean there was no life before. Clear?

        Creationism is false in that, not only it proposes that the whole enchilada is the creation of some god(s), but adjudicates the creation to particular myths. Most of these myths are evidently nonsensical, thus false.

        As for possibilities, there are many. Not just two. You have to count the many many myths, plus the many possibilities for natural origins to the universe and everything (42). While today the prevalent theory goes to a Big Bang, it might not be so. This is still a hot debate among physicists. I don't know what version of your preferred myth you hold to. Thus, I can't start to tell you how science contradicts such version. But it is evidently false that there are only two possibilities for cosmology. For myths the Aztec one is pretty cool.
        • thumb
          Jun 6 2012: Abiogenesis is the specific part of your theory I wish to understand. But, alas it has nothing to do with RH's question, so I will depart now having spent my two-cents. Thanks for the lucid explanation of LUCA. Adieu.
      • Jun 6 2012: Hasta luego mi buen amigo.
    • thumb

      R H

      • 0
      Jun 2 2012: Thanks Gerald for responding. Taking the concept further as you have, it has been shown (and believed for millenia) that all matter on the earth (and the universe?) is related. But your comment of the 'evolution' of social structure is precisely what I'm shooting for. From what did the 'tribal' structure develop from? Ignorance and basic survival. Kill or be killed, and we're better off banding together to survive. I think we're past that now - as I'm sure you agree with - but we still seem to have this as our (sub?) concious modus operandi. Our technology advances with absolute miracles and lightning speed, but we, as people, languish in our relations to each other. We count on our 'systems' to save us, but those 'systems' were developed from a now archaic incentives. I see so much potential in TED to help us to get to the next stage, the 'breaking down' of barriers, the open exchange between the various 'tribes' to demonstrate to each other that we no longer have need to fear. We are the human clan.
      • thumb
        Jun 2 2012: "the human clan" is an artifact. We should keep this is mind!
    • Jun 2 2012: I love the goodwill and harmony that everyone strives for in this conversation, but i'm not convinced that these differences are the causes of big problems like poverty and war. Wars aren't fought for the sole reason of other people being different. Why does being a family change the game? Some people in the family thieve and murder. And because some realize that a sudden chemical rush in the brain of someone in Siberia does not affect their own happiness in any discernible way, they see no reason to help them out. The pursuit of happiness is not overridden unless you mistakenly believe that family members are all good regardless their individual attributes (and therefore see reciprocation in your future for every act of benevloence aimed at whomever).
      • thumb

        R H

        • 0
        Jun 3 2012: Thanks for responding, radu. I see your point. Let me offer this: the basic tenet of this idea is how we regard one another. The fact that we have all come from the same ancestral background shows that we are closer to each other than we've previously been willing to admit. I made the arguement that we are truly 'family'. Most every culture I've been exposed to regard family members with (generally) the greatest consideration and protection. If there are members of the family that stray, or become deviant, or destructive, beneath our anger and dissappointment lies love, and we seek to assist them or help them in some way, not destroy them. If we are unsuccessful in helping, we are broken hearted, not victorious. If they come back 'home' we forgive. We want the best education, the best health care, the best living conditions, the best opportunities, for our family. Look at the strong, wise, and dedicated families you know. Yes, there still are animosities and jealousies and anger, but they are more tempered and are the exception rather an a way of life. There is a higher standard of acceptable conduct and respect. We have learned much in our histories. We have now learned that we are not innately different, just have tried to become different because of fear and violence. Let's take the next step. The vision of a strong, inclusive, considerate, and protective human family of 9 billion all knowing they belong and are welcome. The facts support it. I think war would be a much diminished industry. Hope that helps.
  • Jun 1 2012: It is true, and we are all family either way.
    • thumb

      R H

      • 0
      Jun 2 2012: Thanks Gabo for your supporting comment
  • thumb
    May 31 2012: Even if we were not all family through a common ancestor, why couldn't we in any case "reach across the table?" The idea of caring about and working for the well-being of others with whom we share the Earth does not need to depend on how closely related we are genetically, does it?
    • thumb

      R H

      • 0
      Jun 2 2012: Thanks Fritzie. No. It does not matter. But it's merely 'evidence' to demonstrate the futility of separation. Even though we often quarrel with 'family' now, only the most heinous and disfunctional would consider complete disregard and muderousness for an estranged member. It is because we don't believe that 'they' are 'us', that we're able to treat others around the globe the way we do - in my opinion.
  • May 31 2012: Enjoy R.H. http://youtu.be/f0vlrTVC2tQ
    • thumb

      R H

      • 0
      Jun 2 2012: Beautiful and phenomenal. Thank you Mary. Looks like we're on the right track.
  • thumb
    Jun 3 2012: Yeah, I see what you're saying, I think I was just making a general statement about the relatedness of people.
    Just because we look the same doesn't mean we are the same, and just because the technology we've adopted to carry out tasks and functions in the world has legs feet and arms, it doesn't necessarily follow that we shouldn't knock each other over if one process is interfering with the potential to develop in another process.

    Like Iranians and Israelis, you look at one on TV, speaking a different language, denouncing the other, because they have fundamental differences of opinion about the future of democratic, theological and imperial development.

    At the very least if no one else forces you to take sides, they might.
    • thumb

      R H

      • 0
      Jun 4 2012: Oh yea. Thanks again for participating.
  • thumb
    Jun 3 2012: I agree with this in principle and find it sad that the wealth is not distributed more evenly in a time of crisis, and even more, that we as human beings are not geared towards the distribution of wealth towards those who need it most.
    But one thing i would say is that looking at things from a purely biological level (i.e. single origin theory as applied by paleoanthropologists) is just a single way of evaluating our development.

    You could (for example) hold a de-centralised network view of interdependent arising. That would be modular. Different processes adopting different biological technologies and platforms in order to achieve their end-goals. Humanity as platform. Religions as Opertating Systems, Languages as operating environments. States as apps etc.

    My point is that there is more than one way of slicing your existence, more than one way of creating meaning. We're family, for now, temporarily, the way all laptops are laptops. But different brands are still different, and different businesses will have to compete for more market share, more energy, more capital.

    Think Different Strokes
    • thumb

      R H

      • +1
      Jun 3 2012: Absolutely. And just like within families, there are many divergent ways of approaching life. Some are carpenters, some scientists, some Buddhists, some learn Italian.. But, to me, this concept is more 'fundamental' than these expressions. More of a 'root' realization. Freedom and diversity are the key to successful survival and prosperity, in my opinion, and the added knowledge of our relatedness enhances the experience and the synergies and synchronicities that this type of 'familial' membership naturally provides. I base my observation on socio-paleoanthropological evidence. We killed to survive. We became 'tribes' because it worked better than being alone. We then killed each other because that was what we did - killed to survive. We haven't changed a whole lot, fundamentally, since. But we've learned a lot about our world and have made significant adaptions as a result of this knowledge. The realization that we truly decended from single common ancestry has the potential to make obsolete our view of each other as 'killable', as 'expendable', as 'exploitable', and as an enemy to be feared. We can express our living in any way we choose, just like current 'family' members, but in the end we know we're stronger if we take care of each other - in my opinion.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          R H

          • 0
          Jun 4 2012: Oh boy, yes I am familiar with 'sibling rivalry' (!), and I definitely agree that there has been much progress since the first worker's industrial riots of the 19th century, Women's suffrage, and then, the civil rights & ecology movements. But, please excuse me for belaboring the point, this seems so much 'more' to me. I feel we are truly on the verge of a 'transformation' of humanity. Like the industrial age is 'transforming' into the 'information/sci/tech age', we are possibly heading towards 'transforming' from the exploitive and devastative effects of 'industrial progress' into the wholistic inclusiveness of enlightened unity and exponential growth. The quantum research, the social connectivity, the new powerful technological abilities, the common outcry across all languages and cultures for recognition, and yes, this paleoanthropological fact of commons ancestry are all, to me, building blocks of a new consciousness and acceptance of our true meaning to each other. And where does it all start? I would say accepting (as you said) and valuing diversity, that we all have our own expressions and accentuations of life to offer, yet knowing that we are all fundamentally the same, love the same, have the same misgivings and fears, and (really) want the same successes. We have learned the value of 'teamwork', of collaberation, because of the multi-faceted opinions, visions, and 'buy-in' that are available in such a structure. And just like we've learned that unabashed industrial pollution is a poor use of resources, the old animosities and jealousies and predjudices is a poor use of us. Thanks so much Adriaan, for responding.
  • thumb
    Jun 2 2012: I want to be part of this family!!
    • thumb

      R H

      • +1
      Jun 3 2012: You already are. But the family is scattered and have just realized who they are, after a forever of ignorance, fear, and bitterness. We are no longer fools. Let's take what is truly ours to have. We are humanity, and we are the greatest 'family' in the world.
      • thumb
        Jun 4 2012: You are the best RH!!

        I certainly believe that will go stronger, if we take care of each other. In the same time, the liberty of choice that we have, should aloud us to decide what rights from wrong. Killing is wrong (not food), you know what I mean.

        Greed, manipulation, intimidation...all these personalities from within, this is what killing our world since the beginning of time. Abel and Cain, the first murder ever existed. In my opinion, is more about searching our soul and spirit to find and create a better world to live in.

        The rich are getting richer, the poor, poorer....why, some people want to be in a tribe of their own, a select tribe...and they don't care about the countries that are dying of hunger etc.

        Learning to become one world, one family, one humanity...I'm doing it. I can only pray and hope that more people can adhere to it.
        • thumb

          R H

          • +1
          Jun 4 2012: I believe the wealthy and powerful people of the world are beginning to realize that by exploitation,not only will their current customers no longer accept this, but they are leaving behind nearly half of the world's population who are unable to purchase their products. That's 3 billion (today's count) potential customers ignored. The relatively small investment in clean living conditions, basic education and healthcare, and some level of infrastructure will generate additional trillions of economic benefit and make them really rich. This is fine by me so long as everyone has opportunity, has a voice, and is considered a member of the family.
          All the best - and thanx for your kind words.
  • thumb
    Jun 1 2012: Distant relatives in the most part, but very tribal
    • thumb

      R H

      • 0
      Jun 2 2012: Thanks Obey. Yes. Still very tribal. Can we get to the next stage of development?
      • thumb
        Jun 3 2012: Probably not in a biological or evolutionary sense any time soon. Suspect we are stuck with our current brains - caught between instinct and reason for quite some time. Need to work with what we have biologically for the time being.

        But perhaps in a social sense we can improve.

        We have come a long way.

        At least we know we are all related now.

        Tribalism operates at many levels. From a sports team supporter. Political parties. Religious communities. Religious sects. To the national state. Many have social tribes linked with social medic etc.

        There is also selfishness and selflessness.

        Human rights - not accepting racism or sexism etc is a good state.

        Not sure how things will go across nation states, but a lot of progress the last 300 years. The enlightenment values. Moving away from the rule of monarchs and religions.

        Continuing learnings from rationale thought. Building and learning from the past. I am a little optimistic. Maybe we can even harness our emotional and intuitive for the common good.

        The most Free and fairest time ever - today. Especially in the the secular west. Best time ever to be alive where I live at least in the big view, economic bump at the moment. A long way to go still, but we've been heading in the right direction since the enlightenment, dropping superstition from science. We can face up to our problems with a clearer view than ever before.
        • thumb

          R H

          • +1
          Jun 3 2012: Yes! Absolutely. As we have learned about industrial pollution, chemical additives, personal hygiene, we are learning that our current regard for one another is as dangerous and wasteful. and doesn't our economic, political, and 'tribal' adherence come from that? Let's use 'selfishness' to our advantage. As I selfishly demand to be healthy, to be free, to be prosperous, i now know that the sages have been right. We truly are 'brother and sister'. And because successful families take care of their own so they can ALL be successful and greater still, I selfishly demand this in my world. And just like the adjustments we required regarding Indus pol, chem adds, and pers hyg, I require we eliminate this waste and danger. Their are many new skills, and the exercise of of certain restraints, that I must learn just like before, but the benefits, again, far outweigh the costs in my opinion.