The Caveman Principle is a theory or concept first thought of by Michio Kaku. This theory states that we homo sapiens still think, act and desire like our caveman ancestors. The theory uses interesting examples throughout the article, even though I disagree with many of these theories. Many of them still have a valid point and are very interesting to think about. But I do disagree with much of it and I find incomparable.


What is the caveman principle, and how does Michio Kaku draw parallel to it in today’s modern world? The caveman principle, using an example, is why people always wanted material evidence of something. Such as why caveman always wanted proof of the kill, rather than stories of grandeur or the one that got away. And this is true at the time, people in very hard times would rather hear that you caught food for the table, instead of hearing that you missed the chance for a meal. But nowadays most of the time that’s just not the case.


Because if we think the same way that our ancient ancestor did then we would probably have similar values. For instance, clothing would be a sign of status. Someone who has a nice suit in modern society would be assumed he would be of a higher status. Whereas in comparison to someone with ragged ripped genes and a tattered shirt would be of a lower class. It would be the exact same back then according to the article. whoever has the nicest pelt tunic or loincloth would probably have higher status than someone wearing a just a leaf. You will see a similar answer with stories of the kill or of the one that got away.


But in modern day society, it’s uncommon to see people with such dire consequences and stories such as that, tend to be exciting and entertaining. Modern movies, for example, people nowadays rally to see the next big and exciting movie. And people would enjoy tales back then too, for the same reason that modern day people love movies. Whereas back then even tales of grandeur back then were valued for their entertainment purpose. And a lot of the time they didn’t really care about how the story ended, they only cared about if the story was exciting. And if it allowed them to detach from life for a while.


Michio Kaku’s article was very interesting, but I disagree with it. Because people are usually in a very comfortable position when it comes to stuff like food, and what they need is detach from their life. And if people think the same way they did then stories would be very valuable. Entertainment can be more valuable to people then proof, and how people can react to new movies is an example. With how people look at status will also lend credence my point.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email