Although I have always felt that there is such a big difference between earth heroes and ordinary people (in this case those who are neither heroes nor criminals), it seems that "heroes are the result of human evolution" still cannot cover all heroes. Even if people on earth can be magicians or speed runners, they would generally not identify themselves as Kryptonians, Martians, Amazons... Sure enough, it depends on the relative distance. The evolution here and the evolution mentioned in sandwiches both refer to human abilities. The question then is: What is the scope of "human abilities"? What abilities should people have? Or what ability should a person have?
Just as technology has mechanical technology, physical technology, and social technology, in addition to physical abilities (body technology), human abilities should also include the ability to make and use tools, including mechanical tools and institutional tools. The term "human being" is general. If you talk about a specific person, you may not have certain mechanical and technical capabilities that "human beings" have. But even if it only talks about physical ability/physical technology, isn't it possible that a particular person does not possess certain abilities of a "human"? For example, running can’t reach the average speed of a certain group of people, lack of vital capacity, and lack of grip strength. Such and other deficiencies are all judged as insufficient under certain standards, but this standard does not prevent people from taking corrective measures, such as Wear glasses to test your eyesight, the purpose is to get your eyesight corrected-if you can see the words on the test table clearly, then you can see clearly, no matter what you use to see it.
People-including certain persons and human beings-want to achieve their goals, and what their goals are depends on the shaping of the life world. Regardless of whether the purpose is illegal or not (there are social technology/social system restrictions anyway), to achieve a specific purpose that cannot be achieved by physical ability, mechanical technology/social technology must be used. The purpose remains the same, and the demands on the capabilities of both sides naturally ebb and flow. This is one of the common arguments for questioning heroes and modern technology: the more developed the external force, the more incompetent a person is. Regardless of what external force is and what is not external force, what should a person do to be capable? Does the ability to use technology count as a person's "ability"? What kind of essentialist viewpoint does a person “should be” an answer to “what is a person”? What is the basis for "should be"? Is "to achieve its purpose" regarded as a person's "should have" ability?
No one understands the evolutionary trajectory of humans better than the sandwiches that lived from prehistoric to modern times. Looking at what he means, he thinks that humans are evolving, but how does the physical fitness of modern people compare to that of ancient times? Speed endurance, these physical techniques have been disciplined to adapt to the current environment (social techniques), as is the brain power, and so is the manufacturing ability. Is this evolution? Is this degradation?
Worrying about mechanical technology weakening people's (physical technology) is nothing more than worrying about the former's non-constant or uncommon. A certain person may enter an environment without the specific technology from an environment with a specific technology. At this time, he is incompetent, just like a hero. Nor can it protect every corner. Of course, it takes time for people to train physical skills to adapt to different environments, but training physical skills is one way, isn't it also a way to develop new mechanical skills? (The premise or the purpose remains unchanged)
The social ban on heroes has framed heroes as volunteers, but heroes must be different from ordinary people. The so-called rich rely on technology, the poor rely on mutation, and Hal rely on the ring, Billy, rely on spells (no). The difference between volunteers and onlookers. The reason why a hero becomes a hero, whether it is genetic equipment or attitude, is due to the discipline of his life world-social technology regulates physical technology and mechanical technology. And since heroes are also part of the life world of others, they have also become part of the technology that shapes others. As a part of ordinary people's means to their ends, the role of heroes makes ordinary people's physical skills be disciplined to adapt to them, and the ability to use technology is still human ability. But isn't the hero's own technology also being disciplined by his life world with the element of ordinary people? If ordinary people can solve all the problems, there is no need for heroes. This is not a chicken-and-egg problem. The thieves come first, the saints come second, chaos comes first, and order comes second. As far as the three-dimensional element is concerned, there is no need to create a character like Superman. As far as the two-dimensional element is concerned, Superman does not need to show superpowers in order to smoothly pass the daily routine of being a reporter and volunteering. Or a world with heroes may even slow down the development of mechanical technology, but unless all heroes are mutants, because the technology department itself also depends on machinery.
The ability to use technology is also the viewpoint of human ability. For the same purpose, is it more advanced by physical technology than by mechanical technology/social technology? For example, if I want your peaches, I can beat you to grab them, or I can buy them. At least in contemporary civilized society, the latter is more advanced. Social technology stipulates this way of buying and selling, and I don't need to beat you to achieve the goal of getting peaches. Is this human evolution or degradation?
As with the previous analogy, from a specific person, those who invent new technologies (mechanical technology/social technology) are more evolved, heroes are also more evolved, and other people (including the aforementioned two types of people) are where these powers lie. What can be developed by the discipline of the world of life is the ability to use technology. If this is evolution being hindered, then I would like to know how to make each "specified person" evolve together.
Of course, there is indeed an incomparable problem: in order to achieve the goal, you can use the machine yourself, but you can't use the hero as a machine at any time. It depends on the availability of others. But for certain people, there are also times when they just don't have tools at hand, and when they can't buy them. Then think of other means.
View more about Young Justice reviews
