Добавить в цитаты Настройки чтения

Страница 2 из 5

The banished ones moved to the new places, adapted to the new environment, reproduced and again banished the asocial and cleverer individuals from their society. Those individuals were always banished who due to the highly-developed domain intellect were individualists and badly submitted to the social management. Thus, the cleverest and indestructible ones were banished which were clever enough to unite with the same ones and that was the danger for the “leaders” of the pack. The domain experts were always tried to be banished and they constantly moved looking for the places of the Earth worldwide.

S. Saveliev supposes that human brain was growing while human being had a place to migrate and until the socialization has become the main branch of the development of humanity. At once as the main problems of surviving acquired the social character (it was about 100 thousand years ago), the brain started to lose weight.

Here is the opinion of the professor S. Saveliev, recorded by A

“Millions and even more years ago the social structure of society thanks to the fiercest internal selection developed frontal lobe of the brain. In humans this area is huge: the rest of mammals have it much smaller relative to the whole brain. The formed frontal area was not designed to think, but to make an individual share food with a neighbour. No animal is able to share food, because food is a source of energy. And people who did not share food in a social group were simply eliminated”.

Brain was growing until there was a place for people to migrate and while they had to deal with only biological tasks. When humanity faced the social problems, the brain began to lose weight. This process began about 100 thousand years ago. About 30 thousand years ago that has led to the destruction of the Neanderthals. They were smarter, stronger than our ancestors, the Cro-Magnons; they creatively solved all the problems, they came up with tools, means of making fire, etc. But due to the fact that they lived in small populations, their social selection was less expressed. The Cro-Magnon benefited from large populations. As a result of the long-term negative social selection their groups were integrated well enough. Due to their population Cro-Magnons unity destroyed the Neanderthals. Against the mass of mediocrity even the strongest genius can not do anything. In the end, we left on this planet alone. As this story shows, for the socialization the large brain is not needed. Well socialized stupid individual is integrated into any community much better than any individualist. During the evolution the personal talents and characteristics were sacrificed for biological advantages: food, breeding, dominance. This is the price paid by humanity!”.

And further: “The negative social selection that started 10 million years ago acts till now. Not only are the asocial elements banished from the society, but also the cleverest ones. Look at the destinies of the great scientists, thinkers, philosophers – less of them had good life. It is explained through the fact that we keep on competing like monkeys. If there is a dominant person among us, he or she has to be immediately eliminated because this person threatens each individual personally. And because mediocrities prevail, any talent has to be whether banished or eliminated. That is why the excellent students are insulted, offended and treated badly at school, and it lasts for a lifetime. And who remains? The mediocrity. Nevertheless well socialized one”.

In its sense these ideas are about the fact that persons with domain intelligence were struck by persons with more developed social intelligence. Let us provide the data from S. Saveliev about the change of the volume of the skull of our ancestors (11, page 209).





As we can see about 70 thousand years ago the skull volume of our ancestors started decreasing. Let us provide the statements of the author on this matter.

“In sufficiently large groups of sapiens constant hard artificial selection for the "sociality" was taking place: reproductive benefits were received by the best adapted individuals to the existence of a group of individuals. The most socialized individuals had the reduced aggressiveness, the developed communicative and food tolerance to neighbors”.

In such conditions the primary surplus arising in brain volume was not popular, and the optimal combination of qualities was achieved in much smaller amounts. Probably a regular solution of super tasks necessary for basic survive has been replaced by the group training. In fact, there was an external method of storage and transmission of biologically important information, which has reduced the role of the individual abilities. This gradually reduced the average volume of the brain to 1330 cubic cm. Socialization and development of primary cultural traditions was not the stimulus, but the reason for the prosperity of individuals with a minimum of individual differences. The support of the existing forms of relationship and behavioral skills in a group provides benefits for individuals with mediocre abilities. Extreme individualization of behavior in the family, or the mixed flock group reduces the likelihood of reproductive success at a low dominance. In co

If you take the labour tools of that period, arrange them in time, it can be clearly seen that a decrease in brain size and their improvement seems to be frozen. But what had been achieved was handed down from generation to generation for thousands of years. Public consciousness through the socialization remembered what ancestors made. The social motivators are able to maintain and transfer knowledge and experience from generation to generation. And we must agree with S. Saveliev: “The situation looks quite anecdotal. Very capable people with big brains create a complex and effective system of training and retention of knowledge for the entire population. Having taught the less capable relatives the lessons of survivals, they doom themselves to destruction. Humanity faces such situation now.” [11, page 292].

He continues: "In large but relatively closed populations, even with the obvious benefits, non-standard people are usually sacrificed in order to preserve the stability of relations. In this regard, the probability of survival and reproductive success especially in these individuals is always very low. But more socially adapted representatives of community have the opportunity to reproductive success that is much higher. There is no secret that social adaptation is often accompanied by significant intellectual limitations. These differences between individuals have become the hidden driving forces for the artificial selection". [11, page 294].

And at present time the relations between the domain experts and social motivators are the hidden force of the social and economic development. This force is hidden and powerful due to the misunderstanding of its sense, misunderstanding of its dependence from the definite system of determinants that have the property to accumulate and reveal its effect cumulatively.