Do you believe that mankind is moving backwards in evolution rather than forward? Are we not suppose to be moving towards being more loving, kinder, compassionate human beings? I feel as though people have become more agressive, selfish and immoral.

What are your thoughts?

Man has always been kind, compassionate, and giving when it suits his needs.

He has also always been selfish, spiteful, and cruel when it suited his needs.

Technology has just made it easier for him to fulfill his
wants.

Yes, but don't you think that we should be moving forward now from this kind of behavior?

The answer is clearly seen at Christmas. Rudeness and aggressiveness abounds.

I feel that technology has made it tons easier to inform us of all the bad stuff that is happening. Look at your local news. Most of the time the stories they cover are about death, robbery, assault, thievery, fights, arguments, etc. Back in the old days you may get a few stories like that, but then you'd have the hot weather girl and the quirky sports caster to lighten things up.

Fact is, I see kindness and rudeness every day. Some days the bad outweighs the good and on other days it is vice versa. I believe people care more selfishly for their own needs because we have learned that it isn't a bad thing to be selfish (Thanks to Oprah, Dr. Phil, The Kardashians, etc). Bad things happen to good people. The reasons why that is are beyond me. Our world is a scary place but I believe there is still a ton of good in it.

We still have a hot weather girl on one of our local stations.

Proof positive that the world is still good.

I agree that there is still alot of good people..otherwise this world would be in total chaos. The media definitely has an effect on how we view the world and sadly alot of it is misinformation and embellishment.

I suppose if we see this kind of news repeatedly day after day then eventually our mind is being programed to believe that there is nothing but chaos out there.

But I still believe that we don't seem to be evolving in the way I think we should lol...but then again who gave me that decision.

I heard this once from a teacher of "Law Of Attraction" she said that realistically, if the media reported all the GOOD in the world rather than the bad, in comparison..the bad news would be a bleep on the screen :)

You have a misunderstanding about the meaning of evolution. The word is just a fancy synonym for change. The in itself does not imply "forward" or "backward" movement.

Also, when you use the word immoral, you are using a religious term. So, if you want people to be more loving, kinder and compassionate, what do you think it will take for people to become that?

Mankind is moving too fast to oblivion.

The Definition of Morality
First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Mar 14, 2011
The term “morality” can be used either

descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
What “morality” is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. This descriptive use of “morality”is the one used by anthropologists when they report on the morality of the societies that they study. Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them. “Morality” has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group takes as most important.

Among those who use “morality” normatively, all hold that “morality” refers to a code of conduct that applies to all who can understand it and can govern their behavior by it. In the normative sense, morality should never be overridden, that is, no one should ever violate a moral prohibition or requirement for non-moral considerations. All of those who use “morality” normatively also hold that, under plausible specified conditions, all rational persons would endorse that code. Moral theories differ in their accounts of the essential characteristics of rational persons and in their specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code. These differences result in different kinds of moral theories. Related to these differences, moral theories differ with regard to those to whom morality applies, that is, those whose behavior is subject to moral judgment. Some hold that morality applies only to those rational beings that have those features of human beings that make it rational for all of them to endorse morality, viz., fallibility and vulnerability. Other moral theories claim to put forward an account of morality that provides a guide to all rational beings, even if these beings do not have these human characteristics, e.g., God.

Dictionary definitions of referring terms are usually just descriptions of the important features of the referents of those terms. Insofar as the referents of a term share the features that account for why that term refers to those referents, the term is not regarded as ambiguous. Referring terms are ambiguous when the referents of the term differ from each other in sufficiently important ways. The original descriptive definition of “morality” refers to the most important code of conduct put forward by a society and accepted by the members of that society. When the examination of large diverse societies raised problems for this original descriptive definition, different descriptive definitions were offered in which “morality” refers to the most important code of conduct put forward and accepted by any group, or even by an individual. Apart from containing some prohibitions on harming some others, different moralities can differ from each other quite extensively.

“Morality”when used in a descriptive sense has an essential feature that “morality” in the normative sense does not have, namely, that it refers to codes of conduct that are actually put forward and accepted by some society, group, or individual. If one is not a member of that society or group, and is not that individual, accepting a descriptive definition of “morality” has no implications for how one should behave. If one accepts a moral theory's account of rational persons and the specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code, then one accepts that moral theory's normative definition of “morality. ” Accepting a normative definition of “morality” commits a person to regarding some behavior as immoral, perhaps even behavior that one is tempted to perform. Because accepting a normative definition of “morality” involves this commitment it is not surprising that philosophers seriously disagree about what normative definition to accept.



Definition of EVOLUTION

1
: one of a set of prescribed movements
2
a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding
b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission
c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
d : something evolved
3
: the process of working out or developing
4
a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5
: the extraction of a mathematical root
6
: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

You don't call yourself Dodo for nothing I see
So much for intelligence from outter or inner space

Moving forward "in Evolution" what are your thoughts people?

Something may "evolve" from a state that you do not like to a state that you do like, but your likes and dislikes could easily be subjective.

What "evolve" means in biology is a different subject.

For example, if an environment goes from being watery to being dry, a genetic population might evolve from having gills to having lungs, in response to the change in the environment. The evolution isn't a movement "forward", but rather is a movement of adaptation.

If an environment goes from being dry to being watery, then a genetic population might evolve from having lungs to having gills, in response to the change in the environment. The evolution isn't a movement "backwards", but is rather a movement of adaptation.

Regarding intangible characteristics such as love and kindness, they are characteristics that pertain to a person's soul or spirit. So, if you want people to display love and kindness, what then do you believe must happen in order for people to display more love and kindness?

OMG!! do we really have to get THAT technical? Shall I say "moving back from evolution" to suit you?

Biology is just ONE meaning

I did not say that I had the answers. I am looking for opinions and thoughts.

Well, I gave you mine, and you responded by belittling my intelligence.

LOL

I agree with you it does seem we are moving backwards, however I'm a optimist so goofballs thoughts are what I hope are true.Having lived all over the USA I have met a ton of really bad people but also have seen extreme acts of kindness.

I'll repeat what I said earlier.

Regarding intangible characteristics such as love and kindness, they are characteristics that pertain to a person's soul or spirit. So, if you want people to display more love and kindness, what then do you believe must happen in order for that to occur?