English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I have attempted to sum up all of the world's ills into a neat concise answer and it seems to me the problems may have began when humans became so populous a creature that we all became too specialized in tasks; this giving rise to deemphasis of our common traits and started placing more emphasis on our differences.

Any opinions?

2007-02-14 07:23:43 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Other - Social Science

I guess noone really understood the gist of my question - DUH I know specialization has made it easier to become specialized in a field and become therefore more skilled within that field - the QUESTION was: does that leave us BETTER OFF now or when we were less specialized.

nevermind

2007-02-15 04:07:13 · update #1

4 answers

True, but specialisation also allowed great advances in science and medicine, which would otherwise have been impossible in a multi-skilled society. Could Newton have excelled in mathematics if he also had to milk cows? That being said, Einstein developed some of his theories while working as a clerk in a patent office.

2007-02-14 07:57:12 · answer #1 · answered by Terracinese 3 · 0 0

Oh, your search for the renaissance man has to end. DaVanci did it all, huh? But the thing is...we have come a long way since then.
There are two parts to your question:
the first part: on the deemphasizing on our common traits:
As long as we have people, we will always have our differences. Even in a small community, the prettiest people would get more attention, separating them from the uglier ones.

the second part: Specializing allows us to explore our field more in-depth than we would be able to if we had to do everything. If I am a medical researcher, I will make more advances to the field If I focus on (hips and joints) than if I tried to study the entire human body. So as each of us specializes, we are able to explore that bit at a great length, and contribute more to the growing frontier of our knowledge.

2007-02-14 20:12:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

In a sense, yes. That is, the only way we COULD live in smaller social groups would be if there was more space / more resources to begin with, therefore we would be better off.

In a larger sense, no, because small groups are less efficient and tend to use resources more rapidly than larger groups.

2007-02-14 07:34:06 · answer #3 · answered by Eclectic_N 4 · 0 0

human beings are observed as social as they stay at the same time and help eachother.Social habbit in guy began as a ability of safety to safeguard from wild animals whilst he used to stay in jungles.apart from number of nutrition became additionally a significant project so different responsibilities are perfomed via residing at the same time.Rearing of childrens additionally grew to grow to be very secure.yet interior the popular cases via opposition the social atmosphere is being effected in on a daily basis existence as nicely as in different international places with the intention to win capability.

2016-12-17 10:00:24 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers