From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Sun Dec 31 2006 - 10:29:40 EST
> 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. Paul C: Plekhanov was not referring to hominids. He was claiming that it is the tool-making ability of human beings which is the distinguishing characteristic of our species. The problem with his claim is the clear implication that as the forces of production develop there is improvement of the "artificial organs" of human beings which causes an _evolutionary_ advance in humans. If we were thus to compare humans from ten thousand years ago years ago to humans today using this criteria then we would have to say that humans today are "superior" -- from an evolutionary perspective! -- to humans of yesteryear. I don't know of any reputable scientist today who would make such a claim, do you? Isn't there agreement by anthropologists and others that humans today are the same physiologically and they have the same DNA as humans in that earlier period when the "artificial organs" were less developed? I don't think that Engels made quite the same claim as Plekhanov although the latter may have thought that his perspectives were based on the former. > > 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 Why not? It's implied by Plekhanov's claim. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 02 2007 - 00:00:05 EST