My Conclusion on the Natural State

This semester I am taking a class on Political economics. As a result, the past three readings describe the transition of man from a state of nature to a civil state. Being the amazing student that I am, I will completely digress from the topics that actually matter in relation to the arguments of these renowned philosophers to pose a question that no one has yet been able to answer me.

How did the savage man learn to make fire, let alone how to harness it for his own benefits?

As I see it, it is more than likely that even some primitive men had at some point become familiarized with the element of fire as a natural phenomenon; whether it was a result of lightning striking a tree or a volcano erupting even a brush fire resulting from unusually dry circumstances (I say unusually because the opportunity for dryness during the ICE AGE just doesn't seem to likely). At any rate, fire is an element of nature, and therefore naturally occurring in the environment.

However, in all the examples above, fire acts as a destructive force. While there is no denying that fire has its positive attributes even without being harnessed, the span of time necessary for its benefits to become noticeable is too great for a primitive man to correlate. As such, fire should have struck fear to all men who had in fact experienced its wrath and never crossed the minds of those who didn't.

With this in mind, why would any man want to recreate something he can only identify with destruction? Why would we present day humans want to recreate the plague even if it would benefit us in the long run in terms of population control and, by association, increased standard of living? We wouldn't for the simple fact that, like our less intelligent counter part, the benefits of this action are too far removed for consideration.

Now let's assume for argument sake the the first query was resolved and that man now wanted to create fire. How would he conclude the path to be taken? It is common knowledge as of today that slapping to rocks together results in the sparks necessary to start it. However, even in present times, only few can actually start and maintain a fire using such methods. So how is it that primitive man, whose only experience with fire came in the form of volcanic explosions or lightning strikes, could apply the same principles to something as common place as two rocks? Given the importance of fire as foundation for human development, even if early man took a trial and error approach, the amount of time it would take to discover such a trivial action as the almighty steps to success would deter our growth too immensely to be where we are today.

Once again, even if a solution is found, there is yet another obstacle; how did man learn the benefits of fire. Warmth and light are obvious, yet why the sudden idea to cook their food? What immediate benefit could these men have seen in spending the extra time in making a fire and preparing their food over it when every iota of energy in their settings could have made the difference between life and death? Taste was unlikely to be a primary concern, and it is unlikely that primitive man could associate cooked food to better health for two reasons. First, early man moved in a small nuclear unit, generally consisting of families. As such, he did not have a large enough group to observe a clear change in health and food preparation. Secondly, given the hazard of everyday life, food preparation could easily be overshadowed by other health risks. 

Fire--so simple and so accepted. Yet, its origin is so marred. Who would have guessed? Thanks Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau for distracting me so.