Water is one of our planet’s most precious resources, yet it faces immense challenges worldwide. Extinction Rebellion (XR) organized a global photo competition to raise awareness about these issues, inviting photographers to capture the beauty, struggles, and importance of water. The competition highlighted stories from all corners of the world, showcasing everything from drought-stricken landscapes to communities working to protect this vital resource.

In the end of 2024, XR announced the winners of the competition. While my photo wasn’t among the three winners, it was shortlisted and became part of the final selection for the public vote. The shortlisted photos have since been featured in a traveling exhibition across Europe, visiting cities like Madrid and London, where they continue to inspire and educate audiences.

The photo I submitted was taken in the Wakatobi Islands, Indonesia, depicting a fisherman and his child in a small boat, gliding over crystal-clear blue waters during a net fishing trip inside the Wakatobi National Park. It reflects the deep connection between the Sama Dilaut people and the ocean, celebrating their potential sustainable and harmonious way of life.

You can see the winning and all shortlisted photos here: XR Global Photography Contest – Water Gallery

Below are some of the other photos submitted to the competition:

Karl Marx’s insights into human nature and alienation remain profoundly relevant today. His early writings described a human nature fundamentally at odds with the capitalistic system because their creative ability came into the possession of others. Marx’s ideas highlighted the disconnection individuals felt from their labor, their products, and ultimately themselves.

The new understanding of human development, as discussed in my previous articles, sheds new light on creativity and alienation. Throughout evolution, tools and technology helped humans establish themselves in environments where they were not biologically adapted. Intertwined with our evolution, tools and technology have significantly shaped our creative ability. This adaptation led to significant brain development, enabling us to imitate and reproduce behaviors; and in situations of big changes make us able to invent. Tools changed our hands, particularly the thumb grip, and enhanced qualities such as increased working memory, spatial cognition, and improved coordination and dexterity.

Additionally, it spurred the development of language, which originally was structured behavior and what we can describe as embodied culture. In this text, I will explore the foundations of human creation and see what we can learn about alienation from a modern perspective. How does our evolutionary journey illuminate the causes of alienation in today’s world?

Creation as a Mental Process

Creation is fundamentally a mental process where an image or idea from the mind is projected onto external reality. When humans create, we transfer a mental image onto reality, projecting a part of ourselves onto the material world. This process of creation is not only about material production but also about expressing and shaping human identity, culture, and mind. Creation is inherently a spiritual act, where the materialization of mental images connects us deeply with our inner selves and the universe around us.

This understanding is central to comprehending how humans have historically used language and tools in a way that does not distinguish between body and mind. This unity reflects a state where language and tool use were inseparable, representing a holistic way of interacting with the world. Early Homo sapiens were remarkably stable and conservative in their tools and material culture, with no evidence of art or symbolic representation for more than half of their existence. This suggests that their interaction with the world was primarily practical and utilitarian, rather than expressive or decorative.

This unity is also reflected in nearly all mythologies that describe an original undifferentiated state where humans and nature were inseparable. In other words, the human brain fostered a sense of connectivity enabled through our mind-tool relationship with the world. This holistic interaction with our environment highlights the deep-rooted integration of cognitive and physical processes in human development.

The neuroscientist Michael Arbib and the paleoanthropologist André Leroi-Gourhan have both contributed to our understanding of this connection. Arbib has explored how grasping for material objects and the role of mirror neurons laid the foundation for what later became language as we know it today (Arbib, 2012). Arbib also claims that human language arose in a different part of the brain than the so-called primate calls. Leroi-Gourhan, on the other hand, has highlighted the role of technology as a kind of “membrane” that mediates the relationship between humans and their surroundings, demonstrating the deeply integrated role of technology in human culture and cognitive development (Leroi-Gourhan, 1993).

Marx’s Philosophy of Creation and Alienation

Karl Marx saw humans as creative beings who actively reshaped the world around them, constantly interacting with their environment. Our new understanding of evolution and creation provides a fresh and solid foundation for Marx’s thinking about human nature and alienation. The insight that language and tool use were intertwined from the beginning reveals the profound nature of creation—it is not just a reflection of the inner world but also a way to physically and actively shape our environment. There is an intricate interplay between human creation and the environment, each influencing and transforming the other, which in turn contributes to societal change and change of mind.

Marx recognized that when humans’ creative power is taken from them and transformed into something alien and unknown, it leads to deep alienation (Marx, 1959). It is not just that everything becomes a commodity in capitalism; it is that we lose a part of ourselves when our work—our materialized self—is taken from us. According to Marx, when we create, a part of our soul is materialized in the product. When this product, this piece of our soul, does not belong to us but to someone else through private property regulations and monetary transactions, something in us is lost. Marx originally philosophized about this, describing how this deprivation makes the individual feel alienated from the products of their own labor and ultimately from themselves. This separation is deeply harmful to both individual well-being and the health of society at large. In this stage, people function only in their most basic physiological capacities, devoid of soul, creativity, and happiness.

Originally, this creation involved monotonous repetitive movements that did not include symbols. However, during the cognitive revolution, which occurred between 50,000 and 75,000 years ago, language became unrestrained and started to incorporate symbols, transforming the way humans thought and created. Despite this transformation, creation has always remained fundamentally a spiritual practice. It has always been a way to reconnect with the original sense of connectivity and unity of body and soul.

The Body as Master of the Brain

Recent research offers new insights into Karl Marx’s ideas on alienation. Guy Claxton, a psychologist and cognitive scientist, has challenged the conventional view of the brain as the primary controller of human activity. He posits that the brain should be seen as a servant to the body, emphasizing the crucial role of physical interaction in cognitive processes (Claxton, 2015). This perspective highlights the importance of bodily experiences and actions in our cognitive development and creative expression, a concept that is increasingly acknowledged in the field of embodied cognition.

Claxton also argues that a significant part of our thinking resides in our hands. Monotonous creation, such as crafting or art, can calm and focus the mind. This process involves a dialogue between mind and matter, where mental concepts are projected and transformed through physical actions. This idea supports Marx’s view that labor, when aligned with one’s essence, becomes a source of fulfillment.

Living with Material Technology

The influential anthropologists Marshall Sahlins has posited that traditional and indigenous peoples often lead lives of relative abundance and satisfaction through their deep integration with their material environment (Sahlins, 1972). This idea challenges modern assumptions about material wealth and fulfillment, suggesting that human well-being is closely tied to a harmonious relationship with one’s surroundings. All traditional peoples have more or less created their own material world, embodying a symbiotic relationship with their environment that fosters both sustainability and contentment.

The Bajau Laut people are a modern example of a group that still lives this way today. They exemplify how deeply satisfying it can be to live in harmony with one’s material technology. By directly creating their world through interactions with their environment, they demonstrate a way of life where technology and the environment are not foreign or separate from daily human life but rather an integrated part of it. Much of what they use in their daily lives, such as boats, fishing gear, goggles, and even their houses, are created with their own hands.

This form of direct engagement in creating and shaping one’s world is reflected in various indigenous and traditional societies worldwide and is central to human fulfillment. The practice of crafting and using tools that are intimately connected to their environment not only meets practical needs but also reinforces a profound sense of identity and purpose. By examining the lifestyles of the Bajau Laut and other indigenous groups, we gain insight into the essential human drive to create and the deep satisfaction derived from living in harmony with the material world.

The Abundance of Soul in Capitalism

Marx also briefly touched on the alienation that capitalists themselves experience, who, despite accumulating wealth, lose touch with their human nature. In a capitalist framework, everything, including creativity and human interactions, becomes a means to an end, breaking the fundamental connections with the natural world, community, and oneself. The purpose of existence, which once involved meaningful engagement and fulfilment, is overshadowed by the relentless pursuit of wealth. This detachment creates an insatiable state of lack, revealing a profound societal alienation.

In such a society, our lives become tools for accumulation. The primary role is to accumulate money, which can be transformed into anything, giving it a powerful allure. This drive shifts our existence towards the relentless pursuit of wealth, energy, and material gains, transforming our very essence into different forms of capital. This can lead to an overwhelming abundance of ‘soul’—the materialized product of others’ hard work and alienation. However, this influx of material wealth and success does not satisfy; instead, it exacerbates the sense of emptiness and detachment.

As we become overwhelmed by this materialized soul, alienation also arises among the privileged, leading to an insatiable desire for more. This craving for more is starkly visible in Silicon Valley, where many tech entrepreneurs are now pursuing projects to unlock eternal life. This illustrates the complex and pervasive nature of alienation in modern capitalist society, where life becomes a tool for accumulation, and an abundance of material wealth fuels a deeper void.

Conclusion

Our exploration into the foundations of human creation, drawing from the perspectives of early Homo sapiens, Karl Marx, and indigenous peoples, reveals that reconnecting with our creative and spiritual essence is essential for overcoming alienation. The capitalist system’s relentless pursuit of wealth and commodification of life leads to a profound sense of disconnection and emptiness. This alienation affects not only workers but also capitalists, who remain estranged from their human nature despite their material success.

The earliest Homo sapiens were guided by their bodily experiences, which formed a kind of embodied culture and a deeply spiritual experience, where doing and thinking were inseparable from both hand and mind. This historical perspective shows that human creation and physical interaction have always been intertwined, providing a sense of unity and fulfillment that is often missing in modern capitalist societies.

We see this clearly in Silicon Valley, where the quest for more inventions and transcending human limits seems insatiable. Here, people are even pursuing projects to unlock eternal life, which is a profound sign of alienation. To counteract this, we must embrace the inherent satisfaction found in simplicity and monotonous creative expression. Indigenous peoples exemplify living in harmony with their material environment, fostering both sustainability and contentment.

Through the act of creation—whether through art or crafting—we engage in a meaningful dialogue with the world, connecting the spiritual and physical realms and allowing for genuine self-expression. Indigenous cultures, in particular, demonstrate the deep fulfillment that comes from integrating creative practices with everyday life, highlighting the importance of this balance.

Ultimately, we must recognize the limits of our needs and the futility of overindulgence. The constant striving for more only deepens the void within us. By choosing to be satisfied with less and focusing on reconnecting with our creative and spiritual roots, we can find true fulfillment and mitigate the alienation pervasive in modern society. Embracing a simpler, more connected way of living, as seen in indigenous cultures, offers a path to overcoming the deep-seated disconnection that capitalism perpetuates.

The ultimate alienation will not lead to the end of death; rather, it will lead to our dissolution.

References

Arbib, Michael. “How the Brain Got Language: The Mirror System Hypothesis.” Oxford University Press, 2012.

Leroi-Gourhan, André. “Gesture and Speech.” MIT Press, 1993.

Claxton, Guy. “Intelligence in the Flesh: Why Your Mind Needs Your Body Much More Than It Thinks.” Yale University Press, 2015.

Sahlins, Marshall. “Stone Age Economics.” Aldine-Atherton, 1972.

The prevailing paradigm in paleoanthropology asserts that we developed larger brains to manage and adapt to a wide range of environments and challenges. Our cognitive flexibility is thought to have evolved so that we could think abstractly, plan ahead, solve complex problems, and adjust our behavior to changing circumstances. This paradigm places the human brain and language at the center of evolution, suggesting that these capabilities enabled survival in a mosaic of environments (Klein, 2009; Tattersall, 2012).

However, the fossil record contradicts this perspective. Homo erectus lived from approximately 1.9 million years ago to around 110,000 years ago (Anton, 2003). During this extensive period, their brain volume nearly doubled, from about 600 cubic centimeters to approximately 1,000 cubic centimeters (Rightmire, 2004). Despite this significant increase in brain size over more than a million years, they continued to produce Acheulean hand axes with only minor variations and lived in warmer climates (Lycett & von Cramon-Taubadel, 2008). Tools can be seen as fossilized behavior – if the tools remained stable, it is likely that the behavior was also stable. Even early Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, and our common ancestor Homo heidelbergensis exhibited extreme conservatism in their behavior.

This raises the question: if the brain evolved to be flexible, why is this not reflected in the fossil record? One might also wonder why humans would evolve in constantly changing environments while other animals evolved to thrive in specific niches with stable survival strategies, sometimes displaying complex behaviors. Mammals such as bears and orcas live in relatively stable environments and exhibit intricate behaviors, contrasting with the portrayal of human evolution as being driven by constant environmental changes. Perhaps the idea of a perpetually changing environment is a misconception – a projection of modern man’s idolized flexible nature onto the process of evolution.

The Necessity of Stability for Evolutionary Change

Evolution requires stability. If a body part evolves, it signifies consistent behavior and selection pressure over generations. If the brain evolved to enhance flexibility and creativity, it implies that these humans lived in constantly changing environments and had to be inventive day after day. This contradicts the evolution of other body parts, which require stability over generations, as consistent selection pressure is necessary for body parts to be selected and changed. During the same period that Homo erectus developed a gradually larger brain over millennia, they also grew taller, became more robust, appeared to lose body hair, and developed a wider pelvis, among other changes (Tattersall, 2012).

Within the paleoanthropological paradigm, several of the human body’s physical characteristics have been considered of secondary importance. Anthropologists have primarily focused on how and why we stood on two legs and freed our hands, as well as explaining why we became hairless, which is considered important for thermoregulation—both traits seen as prerequisites for living in various environments (Klein, 2009).

Specific traits that were not considered to have direct survival value, such as women’s round breasts, lips, and body aesthetics, have often been explained by male attraction. This has led to a sexualization of human evolution, as Elaine Morgan insightfully demonstrated (Morgan, 1997).

Thus, anthropologists have been predominantly interested in brain development and have primarily focused on physical traits that enabled flexible behavior. This, in essence, encapsulates the current paradigm.

An Anomaly Foretelling a Paradigm Shift: The Aquatic Ape Theory

The Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) cannot be accepted under the current paradigm of human evolution. The more arguments presented in its favor, the more it is ridiculed and marginalized. It has been likened to a hydra; when one head is cut off, two more grow back. As an anomaly, it has been treated with anger, ridicule, and denial, as I discussed in my Bachelor thesis from 2008. The Aquatic Ape Theory contradicts our current framework, where human development is viewed through the lens of adaptability and thriving in various environments. The prevailing paradigm focuses on understanding human evolution by studying when we became bipedal and freed our hands, as well as how we adapted to new dietary and climatic challenges.

The Aquatic Ape Theory helps explain a range of physical characteristics in humans that have previously been of little interest in anthropology. It explains why we have prominent lips, round breasts, hairlessness, streamlined hair growth, the diving response, sensitive fingertips, and the phenomenon of surfer’s ear. (Morgan, 1997; Verhaegen, 2013).

Our prominent lips can be seen as an adaptation for creating a seal while sucking liquids and food in a watery environment. Women’s round breasts may have developed to facilitate nursing in water, where the child may need to grasp the breast differently than on land. Human hairlessness could be an adaptation to reduce drag while swimming. The remaining body hair, such as on the head, is directed backward, which reduces water resistance.

The human diving response, which includes a reduced heart rate and decreased blood circulation to the extremities when submerged in water, is similar to that of marine mammals and supports the hypothesis of a water-based adaptation. Our sensitive fingertips may have developed to better feel and handle food and objects in a wet environment. The phenomenon of surfer’s ear, or exostoses in the ear canal, occurs more frequently in people who are regularly exposed to cold water, which could indicate an evolutionary adaptation to aquatic life.

These physical traits, previously seen as irrelevant or difficult to explain within the traditional paradigm of paleoanthropology, find a logical explanation through the Aquatic Ape Theory. This theory suggests that our ancestors spent a significant part of their lives in or near aquatic environments, which has shaped many of our unique physical characteristics (Morgan, 1997; Hardy, 1960; Verhaegen, 2013).

Both the fossil record, with its extremely conservative behavior observed in Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Neanderthals, and early Homo sapiens, and several of our physical traits receive a more plausible explanation when we envision a semi-aquatic past. As anomalies continue to accumulate within the current paradigm, in line with Kuhn’s theory, it becomes increasingly evident that a paradigm shift is imminent.

The Paradigm Shift

The copernican revolution, which I have previously written about, paves the way for the Aquatic Ape Theory by emphasizing bodily adaptations through evolution and highlighting the brain as an assistant to the body rather than a constant innovator. It is only through this fundamental shift that we can explain the fossil record over the past millions of years and fully understand our physical characteristics.

Our brains did not primarily evolve to make us continuously smarter and more innovative. On the contrary, their primary function was to stabilize our behavior, cement routines, and enhance our ability to imitate and emulate. This stability in behavior and technology enabled survival and adaptation over generations, rather than driving constant innovation.

The Role of Tools in Human Evolution: From Stability to Innovation

Tools have played a central role in human evolution. A hand axe, for example, represents an extension of the hand, equipped with a sharp cutting edge of stone. Tools can be considered exosomatic (external) organs that allow us to extract energy from environments that would otherwise be inaccessible. Tools enable us to adapt to environments where our bodies alone would fall short. Essentially, tools served as a bridge between our biological capabilities and the demands of new environments, acting like a lifeline that enabled adaptations which would otherwise be biologically impossible.

Once humans began using tools to survive in environments they were not biologically adapted to, evolution quickly and selectively adapted our bodies to these new surroundings. Throughout human history, this process involved adapting our bodies, behaviors, and the transmission of knowledge to new environments to become as efficient as possible in copying and imitating survival strategies. Working memory, perception, and especially language evolved and were refined to effectively replicate these behaviors. However, language should not be understood in the same way we relate to it today; rather, it was a stabilizing structure that linked humans to both their environment and each other. One could say that language functioned as if it were a biological trait due to its conservative nature. This explains the co-evolution of both brain and bodily adaptations, something the current paradigm struggles to comprehend.

The creative potential and power of language developed as latent abilities—they were the other side of the coin, the hidden force. During events of climate change, when the previously well-established survival strategy was no longer effective, language was reprogrammed, awakened, and became free and untamed. This led to technological innovations and adaptations. However, these innovations were only temporary until a new adaptive strategy emerged—since changes in nature do not occur indefinitely—after which stability and consistency were restored. This pattern applies to the transition from one human species to another.

For instance, Homo heidelbergensis appeared quite suddenly in the fossil record, with no clear intermediate forms linking them to their predecessors, suggesting a rapid evolution from earlier hominins (Rightmire, 1996). Similarly, Homo erectus emerged without evident transitional fossils, indicating a swift development from earlier species (Antón, 2003). This rapid emergence of new species can be explained by selective adaptation to specific environments, driven by the rapid explosion of creativity and intelligence. We developed new techniques that allowed us to adapt to new environments and find stable survival strategies. This stability, in turn, created strong selection pressure and led to evolution in a particular direction.                   

Final Reflections: The Hubris of Man

Homo erectus lived on earth for nearly 1.9 million years. Throughout this entire period, one tool was their most constant companion: the Acheulean hand axe.

With this tool, a seemingly simple yet enduringly effective invention, humans were able to survive in environments they were not biologically adapted to. Most likely, the stone axe was used to open shellfish, such as mussels and clams, which would otherwise have been inaccessible to humans (Morgan 2019). As Marc Verhaegen has suggested, Homo erectus became increasingly adept at exploiting the resources of the sea and lakes over time, refining and perfecting this survival strategy.

This insight sheds new light on who we are today. During the cognitive revolution, our language came alive, and we immediately sought new survival strategies. This also helps explain Alfred Wallace’s conundrum, as he argued that humans are mentally over-equipped for the kind of life they lead. Here we are, dreaming of moving to Mars and creating artificial general intelligence (AGI) and striving to reach a singularity, when what we should be striving for is to find and reproduce a long-term adaptive strategy, just as our ancestors did.

Before colonialism, there were groups of people who had lived stably for tens of thousands of years without actively reshaping nature through the domestication of plants and animals, such as the Kung people and Australian Aboriginals. Unfortunately, rationality and intelligence have taken over and led us astray. This is the hubris of man: to believe that endless innovation is the key to survival, when in reality, we might just end up being the species that perfected the art of self-destruction.

Literature

Antón, S. C. (2003). “Natural History of Homo erectus”. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 122(S37), 126-170.

Hardy, A. (1960). “Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?”. New Scientist, 7(1), 642-645.

Klein, R. G. (2009). The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins. University of Chicago Press.

Lycett, S. J., & von Cramon-Taubadel, N. (2008). “Acheulean variability and hominin dispersals: a model-bound approach”. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35(3), 553-562.

Morgan, E. (1997). The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Souvenir Press.

Morgan, G. F. (2019). The Acheulean Hand Axe: A Toolmaker’s Perspective. Academia.edu.

Rightmire, G. P. (1996). “The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins”. University of Chicago Press.

Rightmire, G. P. (2004). “Brain size and encephalization in early to Mid-Pleistocene Homo”. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 124(2), 109-123.

Tattersall, I. (2012). Masters of the Planet: The Search for Our Human Origins. Macmillan.

Verhaegen, M. (2013). “The Aquatic Ape Evolves: Common Misconceptions and Unproven Assumptions about the so-called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis”. Human Evolution, 28(3), 237-266.

Verhaegen, M. (2013). “The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis: Ten Years After”. Anthropological Review, 76(1), 1-17.