Gery Seidl
It always fascinates me to see how man has evolved over the last forty or fifty thousand years. What started with not being afraid of the fire has meanwhile taken us to the point of being able to clone or regrow defective organs accurately. Whether that is morally justifiable is another matter. How far does man still make it? Not only does he want to extend his habitat to other planets, I'm sure there is no corrective that could ever stop our exploratory urge.
On closer examination of our species outside the laboratory, however, we recognize again and again trains and patterns of behavior, which invite us to remain in the present state briefly and to perfect it until further development step.
One possible point would be living together. If a peaceful coexistence on our habitable planet is not possible for us, the question arises whether it actually makes sense to burden new planets with these ideas of coexistence. Furthermore, to send the consideration of all not rotting debris into space. Should not we put all the energy into the idea of not producing any garbage or at least be able to remove it without leaving any residue? Should not it be the task of the first degree to stop our global warming and cleanse the oceans? Sharing the dividing between our peoples? To bring respect and decency into everyday life? Is not it such development steps that need at least as much attention as the flight to Mars, or is both possible?
"Disrespect in people living together makes you believe that human beings have not developed since their upright walk."
The development of the economy, the exploitation of those who can not defend themselves and the sometimes complete disrespect in the coexistence of people often make one believe that man has not developed since his upright walk. Of course we have cell phones and cars and the like, thank you, that has not left me untouched, but in this case I mean the defense of the area. The obviously innate craving. The elbows.
Where is the difference if I threaten my neighbor with a nuclear weapon or pull one over his head with his oak club? The difference can be seen immediately: The nuclear weapon is more sustainable and extinguishes every life. That would be proof of the development of man in the opposite direction. The club was harmless against that.
So how far have we come in our evolution? Morally, we stand on the stand. Technically, we have come far. However, the person who steers a car, for example, often has no idea how it came to the compilation of this working part. Often the end user does not even know how to make the metal that has been formed into a key to make a spark with it, which then explodes in ... you know what I mean.
I think it depends on how you do something and with what goal you approach it. The developers of the atomic bomb had known what to do with it, but it must ignite the president and not the physicist. So we should be careful who we make president, because he is often in power, as the driver with the ignition key.
An Indian proverb says, "We did not inherit the earth from our parents, we borrowed it from our children." So, with this approach, we should work hard not to destroy this gem. From today, human evolution could mean that we treat each other fairly, respect and respect each other, treat our resources with care, and recognize each other as a whole. At the same time on the same planet.
I am well aware that this approach is completely unrealistic and realistic in terms of reality, but I think we will need it to be able to meet our children on an equal footing.
Photo / Video: Gary Milano.
