Log in

View Full Version : The Role of Labour, Extensions of Our Senses, and The History of Mankind



rezider
29th July 2015, 11:49
Hello,

I was reading Dialectics of Nature by Engels recently and his article on evolution, The Part Played by Labour in the Transition From Ape to Man, got my attention.

He proposes a very interesting mechanism behind human evolution. His idea does, in fact, have a solid foundation to have played a crucial role in our development. We even witness the importance of labour today. And it does, without a doubt, shape the way society works and cooperates. Example: capitalism mostly promotes individualism; socialism promotes collectivism. Both systems provide different benefits but in the end 'history, as Hegel puts it, is the progress of the consciousness of freedom.' So human history will progress in a certain direction.

Like Hegel, Marx believed that there is a kind of logic to history - a way that it is determined to unfold - greater freedom and a society free of conflict, a state when dialectics will no longer be needed... in a sense. Well, of course if we press the 'Nuclear Bomb Button'... we won't be going anywhere. Nevertheless, as Marx said, 'Philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways; the point is to change it.' This brings me back to the question I want to ask. What are your thoughts on humanity's ability to extend its senses with tools: telescopes, hammer, radio, cars etc.? (Putting aside the fact that our brains had to evolve before we were able to even ask questions.)

As I view it, because of our consciousness that separates us from other animals we were able to make the first tools and, ultimately, they (as a representation of our labour) became an indivisible part of natural selection, thus allowing us to extend our senses to the point where we no longer had disadvantages compared to other animals. Of course, without our tools we are still fragile little humans. But imagine the future: we don't feel the need for our weak bodies, so we replace them with technology and only our brain remains (Arthur Clark talks about this in his book 2001: A Space Odyssey), we can control weather and terraform planets - masters of the universe. Or so we would think. Just as we can't deal with natural disasters now, maybe in the future there will be something else we might not be able to deal with. But let's not get carried away...

Decolonize The Left
29th July 2015, 19:21
You should read Marshall McLuhan's Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man.

ckaihatsu
2nd August 2015, 07:47
The ability to labor has certainly been of critical importance in the evolution of homo sapiens, but there would most likely not have been *any* development of labor, and tool usage, if it wasn't for the social group.

Here's from a web search:





Optimal Foraging and Hominid Evolution: Labor and Reciprocity

Authors
Jeffrey A. Kurland,
Stephen J. Beckerman
First published: March 1985Full publication history
DOI: 10.1525/aa.1985.87.1.02a00070View/save citation
Cited by: 23 articlesRefresh citation countCiting literature

Abstract

We argue that cooperative foraging incorporating information exchange may have preceded tool use during the course of hominid evolution. In moving to the savanna, early hominids must have faced increasingly dispersed but sometimes more profitable food sources. The problem is finding such foods. Search costs can be reduced for each individual if a number of foragers cooperate by ranging over different parts of the habitat and by exchanging information about encountered food items. Given the probability of encountering a given food item and the return per individual for that item, it is possible to specify the optimal group size. Thus, in the patchy savanna environment, selection would have favored increased gregariousness and cooperation on the part of early hominids, setting the stage for the emergence of reciprocal exchanges of information and resources. However, such a system of reciprocity is open to manipulation. Outside the foraging context, the tension between reciprocity and manipulation would shape other social interactions. Communication and information exchange may have been more critical than labor and technology in evolving hominids from hominoids. Human sociality may find its origins in a shift in primate foraging tactics.




http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1985.87.1.02a00070/abstract

ComradeAllende
2nd August 2015, 08:43
Like Hegel, Marx believed that there is a kind of logic to history - a way that it is determined to unfold - greater freedom and a society free of conflict, a state when dialectics will no longer be needed... in a sense.

I assume you're talking about a linear interpretation of history. Seems straightforward and correct: humans have gotten more tolerant and prosperous (at least if you abstract away racial, class, and gender inequities) over the past few millennia. I never really thought the history was completely linear, though; there are ups and downs that, in the long run, provide a statistically linear progression (how you measure that is beyond my ability) towards a more ideal society.

[/QUOTE]What are your thoughts on humanity's ability to extend its senses with tools: telescopes, hammer, radio, cars etc.?[/QUOTE]

To paraphrase Churchill (or the bastard that ascribed it to him): "You can always count on humanity to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."

[/QUOTE]...imagine the future: we don't feel the need for our weak bodies, so we replace them with technology and only our brain remains (Arthur Clark talks about this in his book 2001: A Space Odyssey), we can control weather and terraform planets - masters of the universe. Or so we would think. Just as we can't deal with natural disasters now, maybe in the future there will be something else we might not be able to deal with. But let's not get carried away...[/QUOTE]

I don't know about the future. We humans are pretty stubborn when it comes to the status quo (or we are not stubborn enough when it comes to changing it), even thought the status quo could destabilize the collective mess that we call civilization. I'm not nearly as optimistic as some starry-eyed socialists when it comes to the revolution (or with futuristic libertarians when it comes to posthumanism); even after establishing the foundations for a communist society, we still have big problems to face, among them global warming, environmental devastation, public health risks, and a chunk of space-rock wiping us out. And this is assuming that the revolution goes smoothly without significantly harming the environment, a promise that the bourgeoisie's arsenals might not be willing to keep. Plus a socialized society, with democratic participation and planning, is no guarantee against catastrophe. Socialism just equips us with the tools for our liberation; we still has to use them.

Tim Redd
2nd August 2015, 19:39
You should read Marshall McLuhan's Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man.

Looks interesting so I ordered it.