From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Sat Dec 30 2006 - 13:30:19 EST
Gerry wrote Consider the implications of the above which are expressed below as questions: 1. If the "distinguishing characteristic" of humans is the state of their tool-making and "artificial organs", then doesn't it necessarily follow that humans of our century are more "human" than humans in previous epochs in our history? I think that Plekhanov is just referring to Engles' argument in the Role of Labour in the transition from Ape to Man. It seems plausible that Australopithecus was less competent in tool production than Homo Sapiens and that there existed evolutionary pressure arising from tool use that improved manual dexterity. 2. If the most essential criteria for how human we are is the state of our development of the forces of production, then doesn't it necessarily follow that humans in contemporary social formations in which there is a less advanced development of artificial organs are less human than humans who have access to and utilize more sophisticated artificial organs? No
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 00:00:04 EST