It insists that ‘more developed’ is not ‘better’
- Joe Perez on the integral worldview in Infant Research….
Take an earth worm and a giraffe, or helium and carbon.
One is clearly more evolved than the other. There is increased complexity, it occurs later in the evolutionary process.
Also, one is clearly not inherently better or worse than the other. Without helium, no carbon (helium is required for stars to produce carbon). Earth worms and giraffes both serve important ecological functions.
They may be better or worse for a specific purpose, or if we take a specific angle, and yet that switches as soon as we look at a different purpose or take another angle. Helium is better than carbon for party balloons. Carbon is better for creating humans. Giraffes are better as food for lions. Earth worms serve a vital role in a wider range of ecosystems.
It’s pretty obvious. We all know it. And yet, there are some odd ideas floating around in our culture.
More evolved is better. Is that really true? What do I find when I look at specific cases? Is a giraffe inherently better than an earth worm? Can I find examples of where an earth worm is genuinely better?
Note: This also goes for humans. Adults are more developed than babies, yet babies are necessary for there to be adults, and they are really good at being babies. They are also good at exploring the world and learn languages quickly, and helping adults open their heart and find a sense of responsibility and care.
- earth worm and giraffe, helium and carbon
- one clearly more evolved than the other (increased complexity, later in the evolutionary process)
- and also clearly not (inherently) better or worse than the other
- for a specific purpose, may be better or worse, but only in that context