"Our ancestors were brutish, immoral, uncivilized idiots who knew nothing of the

world. We are vastly superior than any other time in history!"

A common sentiment you hear today is that humanity has "progressed" beyond the
ignorance and ethics of generations before us. Many people have this strange belief
that after they were born the world changed for the better -- that they were somehow
gifted with an ethos and intelligence that rivals the collective IQ of everyone who
has since died. Because we now have the Internet, iPhones, and modern medicine we are
somehow "better" than the entirety of humanity prior to our existence.

But this is such a deluded view of reality.

Sure, our technology and science have become more advanced; but is this how we define
human existence? Does all of this really make us the best example of human
achievement and behavior? I beg to differ.

Send most anyone out into the wilderness without modern tech and they would end up
dying in a matter of days. Most children of the past would outperform most
contemporary adults in basic modes of survival. Yet, despite such incompetence we
call ourselves superior? Even with our technology and medicines we have created a
system where superficial and unhealthy foods are easier to access than organics --
yet, we are superior? Despite having a wealth of information at our fingertips,
literacy and comprehension have declined drastically across the world; people know
more about their favorite reality TV shows and musicians than they do basic history
and science -- yet, we are superior? Despite our claims to civility, we still murder
each other in horrific ways and wars are waged in such a manner that the vast
majority of casualties are civilians -- yet, we are superior? At least out ancestors
had the excuse of lacking so many of the privileges we claim to possess.

However, what is most egregious about this this myth is not the fact that our
technological advancements don't necessarily correspond with our ethical or rational
decision making, but that it is such a slander of those who came before us. How would
civilization have gotten to this point had it not been for the functioning of
humanity prior? How could such "brutish" , "immoral", and "uncivilized idiocy"
possibly bring us to this period? Would we not have ceased to exist by this point?

Certainly. But those who favor such a myth are not interested in the details; the
nuances of human civilization and the sacrifices our ancestors had
-Asadullah Ali
Of course, generalizing the state of humanity before the modern age is a problematic assertion, however,
the claim that has been made is referring to the intellectual, moral and scientific progress of humanity
over time. Yes, there was an age when our morals were primitive, our ideas about the world and our
existence were rudimentary and superstitious and our living conditions were extremely precarious. We
have come a long way from such conditions and we reserve the right to be proud of that. Again, that does
not insinuate that we are at the apogee of human development, we’re still ameliorating ourselves and we
still have a long way to go.

While Mr. Asadullah thinks that our developments in science and technology are the only basis for
existence and acclaimed superiority, that is most certainly not the case. I shall explain why as I move along
and refute his claims, which he uses to back up why we’re not better than our primitive ancestors.

First, He brings up the example of survival in the wilderness, stating that the modern man will be unable
to adapt to the harsh living conditions. Is that really something worth relegating the position of the
modern man relative to the developments he’s made? Not in the least. Survival in the wild, in the modern
day and age is irrelevant. Asadullah’s example is anachronistic at best. The modern man with his
exceptional intellect and skills has transformed the harshest of environments into regions capable of
sustaining human populations. It is most certainly not our incompetence when really, we don’t need the
skills required to survive in the wilderness.

After that, he moves on to claim that even with out developments in medicine, organic food is not as
accessible as it’s unhealthy counterparts. How strange that he chooses to use a modern-day issue related
to dietary choices to justify the inferiority of the modern man relative to his primitive ancestors who had
high rates of mortality due to the prevalence of food Bourne epidemics such as Cholera and Hepatitis, no
knowledge of microbes, hygienic practices while consuming food, and ate on the basis of trial and error
I.e. did not consider the dangers imparted by eating certain substances e.g. food poisoning. Also has Mr.
Asadullah failed to consider the decrease in global pandemics and overall mortality due to the prevalence
of drugs and developed medical care which was absent in those times?

Illiteracy and comprehension have most certainly not decreased. Such an assertion has no statistical basis
to it and is unsupported at best. He claims we still murder each other in horrific ways and warfare has not
subsided when in reality the number of wars fought and the barbarity with which they are carried out has
declined steeply. Yes, we have our modern-day political predicaments however, that is most certainly not
equivalent in magnitude to the warfare our ancestors carried out and that also for the most insignificant
reasons. Muhammad in his own lifetime ordered around 8 to 10 major wars and expeditions. The
expansion of Islam was completely dependent on the warfare carried out by the Islamic rulers who took
over after Muhammad’s death.