As the natural resources get scarcer and number of enemies gets more abundant the need for companionships arises. From this need arises society as we know it. A society as expected has many loopholes and faults due to the number of cheaters in that society. Since unification of the members is necessary (to defend from enemies and protect resources) in order for the society to survive, laws, religions or traditions are created to fit the needs of that society and its distinct members. Classical Liberalism and conservatism are just one of these systems that humans came up with as an ideal order of society.
They are governed by animal laws which urge them blindly forward upon tracks they scarce can choose for themselves. … when we think of the agile forms that once held dominion over these widely forested lands; when we see them vanishing with terrible speed to be but a memory of the past, the contrast affects our feelings, even though our intellects refuse to be moved, recognising the working of a law above that which man makes for himself (ed Stone 1974, pp. 100-101). A Darwinist perspective on the ‘survival of the fittest’ was frequently appealed to in vindication of the colonialist policies of white settlers. There are many such justifications in the literature of the day (Stone 1974, p. 46).
Darwinism and Natural Selection, this is a more difficult topic to defend, because these people or beings have to be created in order to survive by adaptation. Since evolution is simply the change in population based on the surroundings and changing lifestyles in order to stay alive, this could very well be a credible argument to follow. Success in evolution can lead into new varieties and new species, on the other hand, failure may lead to extinction of the certain species. There are four main points of evidence when it comes to evolution. The change in fossil record in earlier species.
Conservationists, geneticists, and biotechnologists support this idea because of the technological and scientific challenges involved. However, I believe that de-extinction is ethically wrong for many reasons and by reviving dead species, we might be do more harm to our already damaged ecosystems. First of all, as we already know it, the human population continues to increase at a significant rate thus creating the need of habitat expansion. Humans have been actively pushing animals out of their natural habitat and now many animals are currently endangered and in the brink of extinction – many have already gone extinct. It is therefore said that it is upon us to resurrect extinct species as part of our moral obligations.
3. What observations led Wallace to the idea of a “struggle for existence”? How were Wallace’s observations similar or different from those driving Darwin’s idea about natural selection? -That animals had to use all of their faculties and all of their energy is required to preserve their own existence and provide for their offspring. They have to find food and escape danger.
Therefore, the role differences we observe are more of a product of our biological inheritance than acquired through socialisation. As the evolutionary approach is a biological one, it suggests that aspects of human behaviour have been coded by our genes because they were or are adaptive. However, a debate of this approach is the nature vs. nurture approach, nature supporting the evolutionary approach being that we have evolved through survival value and its ability to increase an individual’s opportunities to pass on their genes, an example showing this was Bowlby’s theory of attachment – concerning the role of evolution is the explanation of stress as an adaptive response to environmental pressures. Animals born without such responses die quickly. Nurture, on the other hand, is a view proposed by the social approach suggesting behaviour is affected by experience and environment.
However the unreliability of the results makes the claim an ongoing discussion and an open debate. The theory of evolution, first proposed by Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882) implies that all species are derived from common ancestors through natural selection (Phoenix, 2007 p.118-121). Natural selection is thought to be the main factor resulting in the diversity of species: it has been defined as a natural process, whereby only the variants best adapted to their environment develop the ability of a longer survival and pass on the best characteristics to future generations. Natural selection in species leads to 'adaptation' which is a change in behaviour as a consequence of surrounding modification. Within humans many adaptations have happened through Darwin’s theory of natural selection, one of these adaptations is called Theory of Mind.
For the purposes of this essay, modern American society will be taken to mean society within the United States following the industrial revolution. Human beings are social animals, and while this realization is often invoked informally to relate the fact that human beings (mostly) have an innate need to socialize and to view themselves as well esteemed within their peer groups, the implications extend to the biological evolution of Homo sapiens. This is to say that the fact that all human beings
Human society relies heavily on a combination of both nature and nurture. Some people believe that the way we are is strongly linked to genetics and another large part of the population is adamant that this is totally determined by the individuals that raised us, and the ways in which they did this. Foulcher explores in depth this controversial debate, as an observer of nature and humanity. His emotive and intriguing poems such as, “Martin and the Hand Grenade” and “For the Fire” both explore how we live and function in the world. We see Foulcher’s concern explored more specifically in this nature versus nurture debate, where he highlights the concepts of savagery of nature and the naivety of humans through the effective use of oxymoron, stressed position and metaphors.
Evolutionary theorists have long recognized that the domestication of animals represented a major change in human life, providing not just a close-at-hand food source, but also non-human muscle power and a host of other advantages. Penn State anthropologist Prof. Pat Shipman argues that animal domestication is one manifestation of a larger distinctive trait of our species, the ‘animal connection,’ which unites and underwrites a number of the most important evolutionary advances of our hominin ancestors. Shipman’s proposal is discussed in a recent forum paper in Current Anthropology and is the subject of her forthcoming book, The Animal Connection. The paper is interesting to us here at Neuroanthropology.net because Shipman indirectly poses fascinating questions about the evolutionary significance of human-animal relationships, including the cognitive abilities of both and how they interact. As Shipman puts it in the Penn State press release about the research, if we only think about what domesticated animals do for us as a species, we miss the truly curious thing about our relationship to them: No other mammal routinely adopts other species in the wild — no gazelles take in baby cheetahs, no mountain lions raise baby deer….