Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,009)
Recent Questions
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
- Do people with Down syndrome understand that they have abnormalities? How do they see the world? Are they self-conscious about their illness?
The ability to make tools-definitely not, because it is known in many animals. Tools are used by corvids, octopuses and, of course, monkeys. In the latter, two independently invented methods of chopping nuts were found in different regions of Africa. One method is easier, but more labor-intensive, but more monkeys can learn it. The other one is harder to learn, but more effective. Archaeologically traced, both are at least several millennia old.
Labor itself could not be the cause of human evolution, because evolution does not work that way. Engels was influenced by Lamarck's ideas, so he made statements that the human hand “adapted” to the tools of labor. If only it were that simple.
Evolution is a random, undirected process, not necessarily “ascending”. It's just an accumulation of”copy errors”.
But labor has had a huge impact. After all, we are different from other animals in that we produce and transform nature for ourselves. (Birds build nests, beavers build huts, monkeys use tools, but we are not limited in the ways we can influence our environment)