|
#redirect [[Talk:Sociocultural evolution]]
Shortened the first paragraph:
<i>
A society is a group of individuals belonging to the same species, and it doesn´t care for the happiness of the individuum but for the reproduction of common information (which is genes and culture). During the history of mankind, societies have been struggling against each other, using weapons, economic power and ideology, and have often influenced each other or merged. See [[:social_dynamics|social_dynamics]].
</i>
For example the American societies cares to set the guidelines that an individual may persue it's happiness.
It would be nice to have some more information about the easter island case.
And before having an article on '''Evolution of societies''' which is not an easy topic we should have some definition(s) of [[:society|society]] first.
--HJH
----
In revising the article I deleted much of the previous version, because I found it unhelpful and poorly written. I know others may disagree and want to reincorporate parts of it back into the article, so here it is (SR):
: During the history of mankind, societies have been struggling against each other, using weapons, economic power and ideology, and have often influenced each other or merged. See [[:social_dynamics|social_dynamics]].
: Societies have been developed by [[:life|life]], further enlarging information and stability, but after a while a society can turn against its origin: For a society can´t reproduct itself, it has no other option than to strive to live on for forever. In the end it could push the envelope until 5 past 12, still waiting for the wonder to come which would prevent its death and teleport it out of the dead end. Such catastrophes have often occured, see Hitler´s "total war", or the ancient societies of Malta, Kreta and the easter islands.
----
I see the mistakes I made, but I would like to see you correcting them rather than just cutting it all. You have cut out all content, it is absolutly dead now.
There might be persons who would enhance my texts, but they won´t find them likely buried in /talk. I think you miss the right balance - this encyclopedia is in progress, and mistakes are made all the time anywhere. Your rigidness kills it.
: Sorry, the previous article was DOA. I couldn't "correct" them because I simply do not understand what the previous version was trying to say. "Societies have been struggling against each other?" Well, yes, many societies are often at war or in competition with other socieites, but this begs the question of what a social system is; also, societies have many ways of relating to one another. Also, I do not see how this process accounts for the evolution of societies. Do societies "enlarge their information and stability?" Maybe, in some sense, but what that sense is is highly variable, and it cetrtainly is not a "law" of societies or a trend. "After a while a societiy can turn against its origin" suggests a linear model of social development that was rejected as both bad science and dangerous Western myth by the 1920s.
: Do you want to just vent your personal opinions about life? Join a list-serve. But if you want to contribute to an encyclopedia, an article has to be about something outside of yourself, something that you have researched. I am not being rigid, I am expressing what I believe are reasonable and still very flexible standards of Wikipedia.
: The revised article at least educates readers about important discussions that serious and informed people have been having. I am sure that my revision has left out a lot, and I hope you will add to it. But I simply could not see anything in the earlier version that said anything clear or meaningful to include in the article. SR
----
I didn't see anything here about societies deliberately started by individuals or pioneering groups. The premise seems to be that societies simply coalesce out of chaos. I'd like to see some other theories. [[Ed Poor]]
----
obviously this is still going to need work, including edition for style. I made two changes for now.
First, I got rid of "most intelligent" since there is a danger of ethnocentric or even species-centric notions of intelligence. I also got rid of the phrase "in the wild" for hominidae, since the very notion of "wild" is probelmatic when talking about genus Homo, it reflects tha nature/culture myth of the European enlightenment which is not scientific, SR
| 