"Human nature would have more to do with how people respond to such ideas."
"The reason I am asking is because you used "emotional, mental, psychological, and moral" as referents. Now if you merely meant that people always had some feelings and some intellect and some rules of behaviour, then, of course your assertion that "human nature" had not changed would be true--although devoid of any import or meaning. But if you meant that the quality of intellectual, emotional, and moral activity and interrelationship and socialization had not changed, then I certainly do not understand what could possibly make a difference to you in terms of evidencing such changes. What would you consider a mental change? an emotional change? A moral difference in human nature??"
_________________________________
So if human nature is how "people respond to such ideas", on what basis have you assessed that "how we respond to such ideas" has not changed in 5000 years?
It is a scientific fact that the nature of most creatures has dramatically changed: Take domestication...the horse, the cat, the dog; take various adaptive mechanisms for survival or relationship throughout phyla. Is there some particular reason why you appear to resist the idea that human beings are evolving in their nature in the manner of all other creatures? |
