Recently I came across a response to a post about the origins of human life that went, "Actually most life on earth has two eyes, arms, legs etc.," (Joy S) - which, of course, is NOT true. Insects outnumber all other forms of life on earth and many insects have far more than 4 limbs. Sea life also outnumbers land-based life forms on earth and most aquatic life have two fins (limbs). Many deep-sea life forms have no eyes, many insects have a single eye. Even most four-limbed land-based life forms with four legs/limbs, lack arms. Horses, dogs, cats, pigs, etc. have 4 legs. ONLY primates (a very small percentage of the life forms on earth) have 2 eyes, 2 arms and 2 legs.
A big part of the problem today is that we've all been mis-educated. I was very mis-educated and because the apparently "well-meaning" Nuns were so obvious about it, that helped me view everything a lot more skeptically and because of that, I've gotten a much better education reading on my own AFTER College than I ever did in ANY "educational institution."
For that reason, I don't blame people for believing things that aren't true. After all, we've all been taught a lot of things that aren't true. Climate change has been constant and ongoing throughout the earth's entire existence. Reid Bryson (known as "The Father of Climatology") and many other scientists are probably right that "Man's contribution to climate change is probably so small as to be insignificant." That doesn't mean that human industrialization is without impact, but that the impact is probably smaller than that of nature, itself AND that the primary problem with human advancement (industrialization, GMO's, etc.) is most likely on our health.
The problem is that science has been used, or, in many cases, "bought and paid for," in order to advance specific agendas. "Climate Change," or "Anthropogenic Global Warming," has often been used to lobby for restricting the energy supply (specifically of oil and gas) in many instances to create artificial shortages and thus HUGE profits for energy companies.
Real science is agnostic ("I DON'T know")...about everything - always open to new information and new ideas. Dogma is faith-based (it makes PRONOUNCEMENTS) and today, we've replaced a lot of science with dogma and true scientists are often hounded and abused by professional dogmatists depending upon government grants.
A BIG part of this seems to be our current "Age of Ego," in which humility is seen as not believing in yourself and pompous, bluster often wins the day., or at least the government grant.
Same with the "Out-of-Africa" theory on human development. The truth is, like in virtually everything, we just don't know. It is an educated guess, or hypothesis. In fact, if homo sapiens first appeared in Africa, why did the first known human civilizations appear in another continent (Asia) between the Tigris and Euphrates river valley? Did the “smarter,” more curious homo sapiens leave the less evolved humans behind? There’s a lot that’s troubling about that theory.
Moreover, did other hominids (Neanderthals, and others) develop elsewhere, independently? If not, why weren't they "out-competed" in Africa and eradicated there? In fact, Neanderthals were the first tool-makers. In the northern environs, their interaction with humans probably aided human development.
Again, the problem with the “out-of-Africa” theory is that it’s being pushed by so-called “global elites” to fit their own selfish agenda, which seems to be to eradicate our “old, outdated human heritages and cultures to make way for a “new world” that makes global trade and human cooperation and ultimately global union, much more possible.” That is BOTH self-centered, because the primary beneficiaries are these same self-proclaimed “global elites,” AND bigoted, since it essentially seeks to remake the world over in the Anglo-Saxon mold, under the ridiculous notion that, “Everyone on earth is capable of being a ‘good Anglo-Saxon’ and should be brought into that fold.”
Well, that notion is wrong. NOT only are the races distinctly different (not necessarily “better” or “worse” but different), so are individual members within each group. ALL humans CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be “good, or proper Anglo-Saxons.”
This forced (mostly via mis-education) mass conformity is hideous and misanthropic to its core. It's most extreme form is seen in "Marxism" (alternately called "Communism" or "Socialism").
That’s why those who’ve known (lived under) Communism/socialism revile it and feel much the way the fictional character Tony Montana of “Scarface” did, “I kill communists for fun...” Marxism is predicated on the inane view that we are all equal and therefor equally valuable, when in fact, we DON’T value intrinsic human worth, but the skill-sets various humans possess. An orthopedic surgeon’s skills, for instance, are much more rare and hard to master than a janitor’s, and so there is always (given the rarity of high skilled humans) a glut of janitors and a shortage of orthopedic surgeons. That bit of supply and demand is why some skills are valued more highly and paid more than others.
In that regard, Marxism (socialism/communism) is de-evolutionary (it hinders human advancement by de-incentivizing innovation and advancement) and misanthropic (rooted in a deep and abiding hatred of humanity). It is, in essence, an expression of rage by “the rabble,” or “loser-class”. Out of a thousand people, there are probably no more than a half dozen (if that) who possess both the creativity and high skill level necessary for innovation. Actually, there are probably more, but few of those with the requisite skills and creativity have that nurtured...at any rate, the result is the same. The rest of the group moves through varying layers of productivity from very high-achievers and producers, to the unproductive. In many ways the “genetic lottery” is grossly unfair, but it is unfair in every way (looks, sociability, artistic expression, etc.), so why wouldn’t it be unfair in this case, as well?
So, while the great innovator and the high-earning artist may not have more intrinsic value as humans (all life being sacred/valuable and all that), their skills are NOT valued the same as those of the less productive. Marxism, rages against this very basic fact of life. The varying skill levels and resultant disparity in wealth among humans is as ineluctable as is gravity. Karl Marx gave voice to the rage of the unskilled, untalented and unproductive and humanity has suffered greatly for it ever since.
The thing that makes Marxism more vile than most other misinformation is that it is embraced by the non-productive because it fits their own selfish agenda; exalting the lower-skilled humans as “victims,” somehow worthy of compensation from those who are somehow more talented, diligent and productive. It is, in its most basic form, a rationalization for enslaving the most talented and productive for the benefit of the many, less talented and unproductive. While the selfishness of the “elite” may be misguided, the selfishness of the non-productive is obscene and it would inevitably lead to a return to mankind’s stone age!
At any rate, that’s why we shouldn’t revile people who seem to believe things that aren’t so, we should acknowledge that they’ve been mis-educated. The poster I mentioned above, was merely “grasping at straws” by which to defend the accepted dogma, in this case, the “out-of-Africa” view. The fault is NOT primarily that poster’s, but that of an “education system” that deliberately mis-educates all of us for the benefit of a nebulous few.