Does history progress? Is an elephant really "better" than a mammoth?
History is a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account (dictionary.com). I do think history progresses in a numerous amount of different ways. If history didn't progress, everything would be the same as it was in the 1600's. For instance, the people today have changed from the people just 100 years ago very much. We dress differently, we have different laws, we eat differently, the economy is more advanced, and the world is more technically advanced. Also, people have learned a lot from the past. Today we have better medical care then 100 years ago because people have developed more cures, medicines, and machinery to help the medical field. Another reason why we progress is that even though this would be very short history (and it isn't really history because it is not a event), if I was playing a game and I tried one strategy and it didn't work, I wouldn't continually try the strategy that doesn't work because I have learned from my past results. Also, animals have progressed because over time, they have developed better traits and more efficient ways to survive in their climates/habitats. I don't think an elephant is really better than a mammoth, but I don't think the mammoth is better than the elephant either. I would say that both animals have traits better than and weaker than the other equally. Mammoths had a good quality of being very hairy to survive in colder climates. Elephants don't have much hair so they can live better in hot temperatures. Both animals have tusks, but the mammoths were a little bit bigger. Elephants have bigger ears than mammoths though, so they might be able to hear their predator sooner and they wouldn't have to have as big of tusks. Also, both animals are a very large size. I believe that the elephant and mammoth are pretty equal animals.
No comments:
Post a Comment