We are animals. Everything we do is part of the process of evolution.

We believe that our culture is more real than an expression of animalism, but it isn't. It's the map of the world, on a scale of 1:1, that's been pulled over our eyes.


When does human history start? That is, distinctly human history? Well, the last ancestor humans shared with another still-present species was shared with chimpanzees and bonobo, and this was about 5 to 7 million years ago! So think about our point in history being part of not only the history of "culture," which is only several thousand years old, but part of all the risks we've taken as a species to better advance our chances of survival. Even in species that don't diverge, evolution is always occurring- this is the principle education works on, the education of ideas. Or consider what we call the "races" of humans. Clearly there are differences between groups that evolved in isolation. This dialectic process is present not only in groups of populations, however; it is the essence of every individual. Every individual seeks the optimal chances for its procreation, treating its genetic material like a vessel it is transporting. Some people can be said to obviously have interests contrary to this- namely, those who do not want to have children. But in such cases, maybe the individual has another group that it prefers and dedicates its time to protecting, or that individual could just be seen as a failure of its parents. Each person's perspective is worth no more than anyone else's, because they're all just methods of survival, and since they're both clearly alive, they've worked so far and are thus scientifically equally valid. Bickering about beliefs is basically just arguing about whether the other's ideas will lead to extinction in the end. All life strives away from death but is simultaneously perpetually conscious of it. Life is thesis, death anti-thesis. Theses present themselves as the only truth. Culture allows ideas to be passed on from generation to generation despite the deaths of the people who originally have them. Anyway, as these improve, antitheses become less frequent (longer lifespans), until some ideal is reached where there are no more contradictions. Life strives to become one immortal organism that comprises the whole universe. Each of us is a failure for life, because we die. But life, what we all carry within the vessel of our bodies, uses us to advance itself anyway, through our interactions with others. Just as a movement can go forward despite the death of one of its members, so can we individually push others closer to the ideal lifeform despite thehopelessness of our ever attaining it.

We see the dialectic process at work that is part not only of life, in the form of evolution, but also in the non-living (technology, communication), as witnessed by the living.

If an animal species dies out, do we say it was its fault? No. We realize that for animals, the environment is very sensitive, and if, say, an oil spill wipes out an animal's habitat, there was nothing the animal could have done (or reasonably have been expected to do) to prevent it's fate. The invasive force is seen as negative here.

Between humans, populations that don't survive are labeled inferior because the worth of its species is inherently how well it survives. So that what is can be called what should be, because there is something that makes things that are make sense, that justify what is. Values. Culture. Common worldview. Modes of consciousness.

Clearly there is animosity among humans. This occurs between parties that originated from a common ancestor and believe the other made a mistake in leaving the clan. Each of them having taken risks in diverging, the one group can't imagine risking what the other risked, and the other can't imagine not having made a change. The funny thing is both can see things from both perspectives. It is this fundamental separation from one's place in the process of evolution, of the dialectic, that I believe should be called "false consciousness."