Evolution Question?

Question

Keeping in mind the state of the planet.
Who would you say is more 'evolved' those dependant on machines or those that can still live primal.
Example the average american in suburbia or a south american tribes man.

Cowboy. in case nobody told you.
Sir! , thank you for your service. And WELCOME HOME!

Answer 1

definitely the tribesman. if you take an example of a tibetan farmer, they will have more haemoglobin in their blood, larger lung capacities, etc because they are more sustainable in evolutionary terms. they have adapted further to their environment, whereas the couch potato has adapted their environment to themself with air conditioning and clothes (no need for fur) and cars (less exercise for us) so we no longer need to adapt for any reason.

Answer 2

hello mr two cows......
hmmmmmmmmmmmm I would say we are as evolved as each other .. BUT the difference between ourselves is the technology in our lives ....BUT place a child of a South American Tribe into school at the same time a western nation child would be and they would learn just as well .. ( allowing of course for the intellectual differences that occur in ANY CHILDREN )

Another interesting question would be .. Which group of people would survive a world wide catastrophe .. MY answer is.. They perhaps would ( ie those who live without less technology) .. because they are not dependant as we are on our technology ... and would not suffer it's loss as we would,

Answer 3

South American tribesmen, I think. There are some tribes completely self-sufficient relying only on their knowledge of current surrounding natural resources. If the supermarket closed down I'd probably have to steal food from the community garden.

Answer 4

Technology and machines.....we don't know how long these things will last....people of this society depend on them too much.....but with the way the Earth is being treated....these things may one day just disappear.....People who are use to these technology and machines would not know how to survive.....because of their dependencies on them.....however I think that the south American tribes man would adapt because they have not been influenced with these things.....and so their survival would continue......the ones dependent could not survive.....just think people in this techno society they depend on these machines....from the most powerful to small ones such as a hair dryer even.......Good Question TwoCrows!

Answer 5

After 'Nam, I was sore at the world for taking my life away. I moved to the Northern border of Minnesota/ Canada. My nearest neighbor was 38 miles away, there was an old guy on the lake but, he died the first winter (froze to death) they didn't find him 'till spring.

Everything we raised was for our living, 48 cases of canning, we lived off the land and the lakes, trapping. I think we went to town three or four times the first year.
We lived up there for almost thirty years.

MY brother is a hermit, if he's still alive, lives in the Cascades of the Northwest, does not like the city or people.
I haven't seen him in many years.

Answer 6

I wouldn't say it is a matter of anyone being "more" evolved than another, it is a matter of being best adapted to their environment. If you were to have the average american in suburbia switch places with the south american tribes man, niether would fare well, as neither would be suited to that environment.

Answer 7

I don't agree that we are destroying our earth. I realize it is popular in modern media and based on your question, supported by you. Those in the "civilized" world have enjoyed a huge increase in birth rate, decreased infant mortality, much increased life span, etc. Those tribes men of South America have suffered severe population decreases after contact with Eurasian diseases. Prior to that, the environment held back their population. Now much of the best land is taken for modern cities and agriculture leaving the less desirable land for the "uncivilized". We are equally evolved, but those in the civilized world will prevail and it is kind of sad that the primal way of life is rapidly becoming extinct.

Answer 8

It all depends upon the environment they live in. A South American Indian would be just as lost in a big city as we would be in the jungle.

Answer 9

Everything living today has been eveolving exactly as long as everything else. If it has survived to this point, we can assume it is well adapted to its environment. As to which is more likely to survive in the future, the rapid destruction of the rain forest must sadly give the edge to the suburban American, but I see this as no cause for celebration.

Answer 10

Technological advancement and culture are not related to evolution per se. Strictly speaking, two members of the same species are of equal evolution.

Now, if you are asking which culture is more likely to be successful, I would have to go with the subsistence-living tribesman for a very simple reason: such a culture is sustainable. We of the "industrialized" nations are consuming resources faster than they can be replenished. In nature (and we are ALWAYS in nature), any species which does this dies out. The tribal subsistence way has been successful for about 100,000 years--agricultural (and later industrial) for only about 5000, and we can already see the end coming. The Earth People will outlive us, if we don't wipe them out before we're done.

Answer 11

We'll find out in about forty years. That's when the latest British Petroleum report (the de facto standard in the industry) says the world will run out of oil.