TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Evolutionary Mistakes, Human Predicament and Reverse Approach to Global Challenges

We do not have a definite answer to the question, why our ancestors abandoned their arboreal habitat. But it can be listed as the first evolutionary mistake, which today has precipitated the global challenges that stare back at us.
Introduction of money (as defined in modern economics) qualifies as the second in the list of evolutionary mistakes (social). Ironically man as a species has forgone wealth to become rich.
Perhaps it is too late to undo the natural evolutionary mistake. However despite multiple failures in attempts to eradicate poverty, we still harbor hope.
A reverse approach may throw open better prospects. Does it make more sense, if we try to eradicate richness?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 20 2013: I am re-posting it because, apparently many of you would have missed the clarification that was provided yesterday.

    Overwhelming majority of scientific studies and publications articulate the view that evolution has no goals. Closing arguments in these studies are never universally convincing. Hence why do we need to believe it?

    Nothing in the world happens without a purpose. It would be difficult (with our present, limited understanding) to prove this statement beyond doubts. However, from a physical perspective; living organisms can be considered as entropy pumps. There is a constant effort to distribute entropy equally among the three spheres (atmo, hydro and litho) on the planet.

    Life or living organisms could have emerged to facilitate the entropy transfer. Those organisms, who could manage their thermal regimes better, dominate (natural selection) and established themselves far and wide (species distribution). Left to itself, nature can best be termed an eternal pump. Evolution has an objective - create an ideal entropy pump.

    Perhaps the phrase ‘evolutionary mistake’ can be rephrased ‘evolutionary deviation’ (deviation from what would have been a better course). The better course is to be decided by a hypothetical state of environment of the planet today, if a different trajectory of evolutionary development had occurred. By eradicating richness, I meant, eradicating money (which is disproportionately stacked with 20%).

    Imagine if there were nothing called money, what would be the motive for the scale of planetary excavations that we witness today? The counter argument that is flashed is, without motive, we would not have reached where we are today. This statement is made under the false premise that we are better off today? Is that truly so?
    • thumb
      Jun 22 2013: This would make more sense if the living organisms where one celled. They would follow the path you've described. When the organism is a capable human who can make conscious choices that are contrary to evolution, the whole process seems to fall apart.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.