Science Forums 2

[charles brough]

CraigD, thanks for your response.
You did misread some things. Of course "we" are primates, but I use "we" only in reference to our Home Sapiens species. We are not Neanderthals, gorillas, etc. Also, I have no idea how you gained the impression I think the other great apes evolved biologically more than we! I don't even think there is a way to judge.

During the last seventy thousand years, social evolution among us has developed so fast that we ceased to need any further biological evolution. Instead, we, at an accelerating rate, "culturally" evolved so fast that we are now crowding out the other primates---including, if you will, Neanderthalis and Forenseis.

I would say that the problem with social theory is not a lack of good data but of being unable/unwilling to deal with it objectively and, even claiming that it is impossible to be objective. It is impossible to be objective for anyone who is influenced, and hence biased towards, either our secular ideology or our old religious one--or both.

"XENOPHOBIA" is a word I have never used. Social science cannot solve the growing world affairs problem by ranting against what is clearly instinctive social behavior. We are social primates evolved to live in thirty to fifty individual sized groups. The only way we can function well is for us to have common ideological system that enable the individual to still feel he belongs. There is no way he can have that feeling and hence that sense of security and well-being when his ideologically extended group (society) is rapidly dividing and is telling him his society is no better than the others!

The only "solution" is the eventual replacement of the world's ideological systems with a single one. In my web page, I propose one . . .