Is modern man advanced over man of the past?

I like to measure advancement by the volume of things we understand or phenomena we can explain. Our technology, longevity, standard of living, etc are all offshoots or results of our ability to understand and harness natural processes.

I suppose we could also consider the (biological) evolutionary adaptation of species to their environment as a sort of advancement though not the way people usually mean the word. There is a tendency to think of evolution by natural selection as a sort of progression along a path from bad to good, low to high, least to most, but this is an illusion. Every species is only adequate for survival in its own particular environment as long as the environment is stable. We may see ourselves at the top of the food chain today but if a cataclysmic change occurs in the environment a completely new and different set of parameters could dictate a completely new and different order of living things. The abilities and qualities acquired over millennia that gave us the advantages we had may cease to be advantageous or even become weaknesses.

But our ability to communicate, to share ideas and build on each others' ideas, is a positive feedback system. The more we share information the more able we become to develop and share more information. We may only be a mote of dust in the cosmic scope of things but our level of scientific advancement may be the only thing that gets us through what the universe throws at us.

Originally Posted by Ken Coumerilh

And is it even possible to pick which viewpoint is most valid? Maybe all of them in some sense.

I would disagree. There is always a correct answer to every question, which means all the rest are wrong. In the same way there is a best worldview which makes all the rest inferior. I don't like when people say things such as "well, everybody's view is equal". No, everybody has a right to be wrong if they choose, but wrong is still wrong and is not comparable to what is correct. That said, I don't necessarily think my personal worldview is the best I simply try to get as close as possible given what I know and have experienced, same as everyone else.

The last post on this thread is now a one-month old. Still interesting one for me, maybe we can dig deeper into the human nature during the argument (whether we agree or not) and, perhaps, all we gain some grains of understanding on the dynamics of present-day human society.

The first question I got troubles with, when confronting this theme, was asking myself: How past is the past? How far is the present man from the past one?

Human society, culture, human intellect (whatever we may call it), the humanity of the human being, the human biology like all forms of life… are all them historical processes. It means –in my opinion-, something like this: the status of these processes (characteristic, properties, degree of development, etc.) at each moment of time depends on the status at each moment before. The status at any moment depends on the “trajectory.” It means that the circumstances which determine these processes include their history. Or, maybe less accurate, a historical process is one which drags its past.

The historicity of the human being makes the past a part of the present. Then, the “distance” from the past is not a linear function. But… wait, why did you get so far? Relax… take a breath: Nobody asked something so impersonal like “distance” or “non-linear function.” The theme is about “advancement.”

I think there is no such a thing as an abstract concept of man (supporting a reality) outside a concrete human society. A human society which its structure and dynamics are the human cultural means. So I have no way to understand the advancement of man outside the advancement of determined human society (e.g. a human society at some historical concrete moment)… the advancement of man makes sense only under the advancement of many people. So, how I measure advancement? –I measure it socially. Yes, I think modern man is advanced over man of the past. That’s why the past social structures are vanished (are they?).

But, it’s that social advancement a conscious process? I signify -no doubt, man is the protagonist of his social advancement… but, he knows it, he decided it? I like Blondin’s point applied here (“I like to measure advancement by the volume of things we understand or phenomena we can explain. Our technology, longevity, standard of living, etc. are all offshoots or results of our ability to understand and harness natural processes.”). I understand the human mind (and therefore, human society), as the critical natural weapon in the surviving of our species. And that weapon plays its catalytic role on social advancement throughout our learned ability to understand and harness natural processes.