Evolution Of Society by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.

| Civilization Book | Contents | Index |

| Next — I, Pencil by Leonard E. Reed |

A Locrian who proposed any new law stood forth in the assembly of the people with a cord around his neck, and if the law was rejected, the innovator was instantly strangled.

Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Every society depends upon the quality of the individuals it produces. If you over-organize humans, over-legalize them, suppress their urge to greatness — they cannot work and their civilization collapses.

Frank Herbert in Children of Dune

The things that will destroy us are:

• Politics without principle;

• Pleasure without conscience;

• Wealth without work;

• Knowledge without character;

• Business without morality;

• Science without humanity; and

• Worship without sacrifice.

Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi

Introduction

Top

I first wrote this essay some years ago even though I make no claim to have all the answers and readily admit I don't even know all the questions. However, for reasons that are not obvious to me, as of 2012 Marquis has for more than a decade listed me in Who's Who in the World among the 50,000 or so most talented and accomplished individuals they can identify on the planet. I've also been listed in Who's Who in America, along with about 120,000 others, for the same period. As I have made some small contributions to science I can probably justify my listing in Who's Who in Science and Engineering since 1997. I suppose this gives me some justification for pontificating on the origins and evolution of our society. And as an earth scientist one certainly becomes involved in anthropology, archeology, and paleontology at least peripherally. And such background is essential to establish a basis for what we seek in the name of equal justice. It is also necessary to briefly examine how society initially evolved the concept of justice as best I am able.

Early societies somehow recognized that human males would go to extraordinary efforts to defend and care for children whom they knew they were the biological father of, as well as protect the mothers of their children. That process of nuclear families forming the cornerstones of a society appears to have begun independently in three areas in what are now China, India, and Iraq (Mesopotamia) about 10,000 years ago.

Primitive societies that developed codes or commandments to preserve and foster such families flourished. And from these early standards humanity developed the concept of justice under law based on these ancient commandments typically underlain by religious beliefs.

We thus have thousands of years of experimentation that show human children develop most completely when raised by their biological father and mother in a family environment that is protected and encouraged by societal strictures.

Patriarchal societies built upon such families tended to thrive in terms of living standards and material wealth, as well as basic survival. Other societies, notably matriarchal ones such as can be found today in any urban ghetto, tended to stagnate or regress, and were soon, in historical terms, overwhelmed by patriarchies.

Prior to the development of birth control and DNA testing within the past few decades, the means society had evolved to establish the identity of the biological father of a child was a patriarchal marriage.

In today's world many women find, or claim marriage is confining. Further, life spans have more than doubled since patriarchy evolved. Thus, most parents now live many years after the children are grown and child rearing is no longer a lifetime occupation past the parent's teenage years. Women also tend to bear children much later in life now than in the past. These, and other factors have brought the patriarchal methods into question. Unfortunately, the concept of “family” is also challenged, and it is “family” on which civilization ultimately rests .

While technology has superseded the need for a patriarchal marriage to determine paternity, the mores of society have not kept pace. Thus, we are in a period of experimentation as to family relations.

At this point in human history one might reasonably be skeptical that a better way of raising children will be found than the patriarchal family. Human societies have in the past tried every possible permutation.

But one might say that to experiment is human.

It should also be accepted that most experiments will fail and lives will be damaged or destroyed in the process. For example, the current “politically correct” radical feminist movement is merely Marxism in drag. And Marxism is clearly a failed social model of the previous century. However, any attempts by government to control such experimentation are likely to be more damaging than the problem.

As Erin Pizzey, who started the shelters for battered women movement in 1971, stated “ Any country that has tried to create a political solution to human problems has ended up with concentration camps and gulags.” Thus, while some societal controls are necessary we should be extremely careful when invoking government controls or laws in human relations.

There is also an instinctive distrust or hatred of those who are “different” from the group.

For example, throughout history somewhere between 5% and 10% of human males have either been homosexual or don't engage in sexual congress with females, and a lesser percentage of human females exhibit the reverse characteristics, though that number is more difficult to determine. In response, societies have adopted many ways of dealing with homosexuality, from the Greek Hoplites to ostracism and shunning.

From our perspective, homosexuality is a human condition comparable to skin color, sex, or where one lives and eats. As an analogy, simply because one likes broccoli doesn't mean the person is subhuman. Thus, a person should not be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. The same arguments can be made for tolerance of religion, race, political persuasion, tribal allegiances, and other human groupings.

Conversely, while ideas should be widely debated in a democracy, it does not help the human condition for homosexuals to promote their lifestyles and preferences as being preferable to the more numerous heterosexuals who continue the species in practice. Both groups have much to learn, each from the other.

Logic, not feelings and emotions, control destiny in the long term.

What tends to happen in all places and times is that people with particular sets of beliefs or preferences tend to cluster in their own communities. For example, Maoris in New Zealand still mostly live separately, as do blacks and Indians in the United States. Mormon pioneers were driven out of three states by religious persecution until they found refuge in the Valley of the Salt Lake in the present state of Utah. We also have clusters of Amish and Mennonites scattered throughout North America. In a sense these groups form extended “families” if they are stable.

Perhaps what we need to examine once again are means where all people of whatever beliefs and persuasions can form their own communities without persecution while enjoying the benefits and protections of a uniform rule of law. But such communities must allow for individual freedom and equal rights, and preserve families wherein the children are reared by their biological parents if the society is to survive.

The Constitution of the United States embodies these ideas but we are a long way yet from that ideal. In such societies as the Constitution envisions, people are free to move in or out of communities at will and their ideas compete openly with others in a democratic society. We have seen much of that in practice in the United States. Unfortunately, our government has generally not made a positive contribution when they've attempted to control the process.

The Internet has recently made the open competition of ideas a reality without governmental interference and control. Conversely, the concept of a single world government is to envision a disaster for human rights and progress.

Regrettably, at least in the United States, there is a near universal belief that the way to solve a problem is to pass a law. However, the law of unintended consequences always supersedes.

For example, slavery largely disappeared because the technology developed in patriarchal societies obviated the necessity. However, matriarchal radical feminists have reintroduced it in the guise of “child support” under colour of law.

Where the experimentation that seems so basic to human nature will lead is lost in the fog of the future. It seems clear, however, that in the long term attempts to destroy families and distance biological fathers from their children are almost certain to fail. But to give government the power to control such experimentation is a frightening and deadly concept. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union tried just that in the mid-Twentieth Century with tens of millions killed as an end result.

“It is significant to note that one of the first things V.I. Lenin did when he came to power in the Soviet Union, after the revolution in nineteen seventeen was to have passed what amounts to our no-fault divorce statutes.

Lenin, and later Stalin determined that in order to maintain control of the people it would be necessary to completely destroy the family and restructure it.

Thus, on September sixteen nineteen eighteen, a law was passed whereby one could obtain a divorce by simply mailing or delivering a postcard to the local register without the necessity of even notifying the spouse being divorced.[Compare that practice to the current use of restraining orders.]

This statute, along with the communist encouragement of sexual immorality during marriage, approval of abortion, and forcing women out of the home into the workforce accomplished its purpose of destroying the Russian family.” (see Mikhail Heller, Cogs In The Wheel, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1988, p. 168-179)

The Equal Justice Foundation is committed to fighting the rebirth of such horrifying practices as “racial cleansing” under the guise of “for the good of the children” or destroying families and driving fathers from their children under a neo-Marxist banner of “domestic violence.”

Thus, while we may all find some human experiments and characteristics personally abhorrent and repulsive, e.g., eating broccoli, that is not a basis to condemn those who practice such among themselves freely and without coercion. For example, if parents who eat broccoli want their children to eat it as well, that is none of our business, and is most definitely not child abuse whatever their progeny claim.

Our opposition then is to those who would impose their beliefs and practices on others through the unlawful and unjust use of the power of government or by force of arms. And it is by these standards that we define equal justice.

Top

| Civilization Book | Contents | Index |

| Next — I, Pencil by Leonard E. Reed |

Last modified 3/27/22