|
|
| Page 2 of 4 |
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
 Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 04:04 Post subject: |
|
 |
| Nhiumewyn wrote: | | Frant wrote: | | Radicalus wrote: | Your view of history regarding this topic is simplistic at best, you are straight out wrong. There is ample literature on many subjects regarding both how the dark ages were not so dark and sexualism throughout the ages as well.
My main point though the family as the central building block was conceptualized much later than when it actually evolved. Sexual behavior followed the former and both were followed by the latter.
There are researches by probablt the thousands by now, why the family works. Why children who were raised in well functioning marriages grew up to be more educated, more stable ... etc. Sexual fidelity and the need for it was a consequence of emotional bonds.
Vast majority of people will feel jealous for their partner if something is off, males get to be more jealous and more dominant because of evolutionary reasons (and I'm talking many thousands of years ago). You see, if a female cheated, there was no telling if the offspring the "father" was caring for, putting energy and resources into was really their biological child. There is no such conflict for women: the children are hers for sure.
I don't want to sound arrogant, but you really have to read up on a lot of topics in order to formulate an opinion about this, and frankly, what you're doing is just anti-establishment, without realizing why these are the norms to begin with. You make it sound like it was the evil of the church and the darkness of the dark ages, but you couldn't be more wrong about the origins of monogamy.
Sorry if this response was rash, I just had this discussion with someone today  |
The evolutionary process says males want to spread their seed as much as possible while females want to keep the male around to protect and feed the family. We're still at that stage but have built huge social and cultural structures around that. There's no better example than African tribes where tribal leaders have 20 wives, the old days of harems, why mormons can have many wives, why certain muslim countries have a law that says a man can have 4 wives. Nowhere is 1 wife having 4 husbands the norm or accepted.
Everything else is hyperbole and social constructs. And we see the failure of it, the amount of cheating, the number of divorces etc... it's not really natural, it's part of a socio-cultural structure. |
That's one interpretation of it. But in reality things are never as black and white, male polygamist cultures have more to do with sexual oppression and women dehumanization than with the evolutionary process. |
If you look at most species of mammals in the world you'll see combinations of both for evolutionary reasons. When it comes to humans it seems to be more arbitrary. Genetically we're based on the great apes where Alpha males get to seed the females until the Alpha is beaten by a younger and stronger Alpha in that particular tribe. In our human evolution things have just become more convoluted under the guise of "civilisation", "culture", "traditions", "religion" and whatever else social construct you can bring up.
At least that's my belief based on what I see, know and can logically draw conclusions about.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 07:50 Post subject: |
|
|
I kinda think sexual norms are getting broader. Open marriages and career driven women choosing to be single parents are becoming very common these days. In Japan more and more women are choosing not to marry at all. I myself chose not to have children. In the quest of fulfillment and happiness more and more people these days are becoming self realized and making decisions for themselves that fit who they are.
I know quite a few men that have moved on from fucking anything that shows interest in them because they find it boring. Just getting off? or the delusions that someone else is going to fulfill them like nothing else. At some point you realize what bullshit is driving you and you move on from the game. You rise above it. It doesn't happen to everyone.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 11:36 Post subject: |
|
|
I don't understand why people give the animal kingdom and/or our heritage as a reference when it comes to sex. How is that even relevant? Does that mean we should be ruled by our animal urges in all areas? If not. why not? Why are the norms in the sexual area "forced" (i.e. not "natural"), while it's fine we don't bash each other's head in whenever we want something? The "logic // animal instinct" relation in this debate seems to be very skewed. We have grown past the animal kingdom and our basic primal instincts. Look how teh monkeys do it our shit is forced man, does not make much sense to me.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 16:36 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mister_s wrote: | | I don't understand why people give the animal kingdom and/or our heritage as a reference when it comes to sex. How is that even relevant? Does that mean we should be ruled by our animal urges in all areas? If not. why not? Why are the norms in the sexual area "forced" (i.e. not "natural"), while it's fine we don't bash each other's head in whenever we want something? The "logic // animal instinct" relation in this debate seems to be very skewed. We have grown past the animal kingdom and our basic primal instincts. Look how teh monkeys do it our shit is forced man, does not make much sense to me. |
I agree with the above.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 16:50 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mister_s wrote: | | I don't understand why people give the animal kingdom and/or our heritage as a reference when it comes to sex. How is that even relevant? Does that mean we should be ruled by our animal urges in all areas? If not. why not? Why are the norms in the sexual area "forced" (i.e. not "natural"), while it's fine we don't bash each other's head in whenever we want something? The "logic // animal instinct" relation in this debate seems to be very skewed. We have grown past the animal kingdom and our basic primal instincts. Look how teh monkeys do it our shit is forced man, does not make much sense to me. |
Have we?
As a whole, we're nothing but mildly rational apes using complex linguistic skills to mask our primal urges as refined and glamorous. Wrapping our animal instincts under the guise of rationality doesn't make our primal urges any less primal.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 17:31 Post subject: |
|
|
| Nhiumewyn wrote: | | Mister_s wrote: | | I don't understand why people give the animal kingdom and/or our heritage as a reference when it comes to sex. How is that even relevant? Does that mean we should be ruled by our animal urges in all areas? If not. why not? Why are the norms in the sexual area "forced" (i.e. not "natural"), while it's fine we don't bash each other's head in whenever we want something? The "logic // animal instinct" relation in this debate seems to be very skewed. We have grown past the animal kingdom and our basic primal instincts. Look how teh monkeys do it our shit is forced man, does not make much sense to me. |
Have we?
As a whole, we're nothing but mildly rational apes using complex linguistic skills to mask our primal urges as refined and glamorous. Wrapping our animal instincts under the guise of rationality doesn't make our primal urges any less primal. |
Who cares about how "primal" they are?
The difference is that we can control them - and that we have a brain. Have you noticed that we're at the top of the food chain? You know why? Because we don't let our urges dominate. We have the capacity to go beyond them.
I know some think urges SHOULD dominate - and they're the ones who belong in the animal kingdom.
Even if we do resemble animals in many ways - that's hardly a guide to life. It's something we can realise and then we can go the other way, because we decide it's better. Not just for ourselves but for everyone.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 18:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| Casus wrote: | | Nhiumewyn wrote: | | Mister_s wrote: | | I don't understand why people give the animal kingdom and/or our heritage as a reference when it comes to sex. How is that even relevant? Does that mean we should be ruled by our animal urges in all areas? If not. why not? Why are the norms in the sexual area "forced" (i.e. not "natural"), while it's fine we don't bash each other's head in whenever we want something? The "logic // animal instinct" relation in this debate seems to be very skewed. We have grown past the animal kingdom and our basic primal instincts. Look how teh monkeys do it our shit is forced man, does not make much sense to me. |
Have we?
As a whole, we're nothing but mildly rational apes using complex linguistic skills to mask our primal urges as refined and glamorous. Wrapping our animal instincts under the guise of rationality doesn't make our primal urges any less primal. |
Who cares about how "primal" they are?
The difference is that we can control them - and that we have a brain. Have you noticed that we're at the top of the food chain? You know why? Because we don't let our urges dominate. We have the capacity to go beyond them.
I know some think urges SHOULD dominate - and they're the ones who belong in the animal kingdom.
Even if we do resemble animals in many ways - that's hardly a guide to life. It's something we can realise and then we can go the other way, because we decide it's better. Not just for ourselves but for everyone. |
We can control them? To which extent?
We have a brain, as opposed to....?
How can we decide what's better for other people? Do you have access to their minds?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 19:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| Nhiumewyn wrote: | | Casus wrote: | | Nhiumewyn wrote: |
Have we?
As a whole, we're nothing but mildly rational apes using complex linguistic skills to mask our primal urges as refined and glamorous. Wrapping our animal instincts under the guise of rationality doesn't make our primal urges any less primal. |
Who cares about how "primal" they are?
The difference is that we can control them - and that we have a brain. Have you noticed that we're at the top of the food chain? You know why? Because we don't let our urges dominate. We have the capacity to go beyond them.
I know some think urges SHOULD dominate - and they're the ones who belong in the animal kingdom.
Even if we do resemble animals in many ways - that's hardly a guide to life. It's something we can realise and then we can go the other way, because we decide it's better. Not just for ourselves but for everyone. |
We can control them? To which extent?
We have a brain, as opposed to....?
How can we decide what's better for other people? Do you have access to their minds? |
We can control our urges FAR better than animals, wouldn't you agree?
We have a brain as opposed to not having one. By brain - I mean the ability to think, memorise, reflect, control, philosophize and so on.
We have access to our own minds. Since I know that I would like to be treated fairly - I can use that as an assumption about how other people would like to be treated.
I can even ask them, because we've invented language as well.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 20:11 Post subject: |
|
|
| Casus wrote: | | Nhiumewyn wrote: | | Casus wrote: |
Who cares about how "primal" they are?
The difference is that we can control them - and that we have a brain. Have you noticed that we're at the top of the food chain? You know why? Because we don't let our urges dominate. We have the capacity to go beyond them.
I know some think urges SHOULD dominate - and they're the ones who belong in the animal kingdom.
Even if we do resemble animals in many ways - that's hardly a guide to life. It's something we can realise and then we can go the other way, because we decide it's better. Not just for ourselves but for everyone. |
We can control them? To which extent?
We have a brain, as opposed to....?
How can we decide what's better for other people? Do you have access to their minds? |
We can control our urges FAR better than animals, wouldn't you agree?
We have a brain as opposed to not having one. By brain - I mean the ability to think, memorise, reflect, control, philosophize and so on.
We have access to our own minds. Since I know that I would like to be treated fairly - I can use that as an assumption about how other people would like to be treated.
I can even ask them, because we've invented language as well. |
Yes we can control them better than animals, but that doesn't mean we aren't influenced by them to a large degree.
And the treated fairly bit is just pure bullshit.
I think with start of psychoanalysis we just started to uncover how not in control we really are.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 20:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| xxax wrote: | Yes we can control them better than animals, but that doesn't mean we aren't influenced by them to a large degree.
And the treated fairly bit is just pure bullshit.
I think with start of psychoanalysis we just started to uncover how not in control we really are. |
I never said we weren't being influenced by our urges.
We need our urges.
But we don't need to follow them like animals - and we don't.
I'm not sure why wanting to treat and be treated fairly is bullshit. Maybe you can explain that to me?
So, through our capacity to analyse ourselves - we're learning about our limitations?
Yeah, that sounds like something apes would be doing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 20:24 Post subject: |
|
|
| Casus wrote: | | xxax wrote: | Yes we can control them better than animals, but that doesn't mean we aren't influenced by them to a large degree.
And the treated fairly bit is just pure bullshit.
I think with start of psychoanalysis we just started to uncover how not in control we really are. |
We need our urges.
|
Now, that is a strong statement to be made.
Why?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 20:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| Casus wrote: | | But we don't need to follow them like animals - and we don't. |
First of all animals don't have urges, they have instincts. An automatic, irresistible action/reaction. We do not have irresistible actions. But our drives, urges whatever shape the way we think and act in a big way. If someone is scared of dogs, the feeling of being scared bypasses any logical/rational thought and just happens.
| Casus wrote: | | I'm not sure why wanting to treat and be treated fairly is bullshit. Maybe you can explain that to me? |
Because we project what we want onto others. Countless examples through history show how one group of people thought another wants to be treated.
| Casus wrote: | | So, through our capacity to analyze ourselves - we're learning about our limitations? |
Yes. We are learning we are not the rational beings we think we are.
| Casus wrote: | | Yeah, that sounds like something apes would be doing. |
What this has to do with anything i don't know.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 21:14 Post subject: |
|
|
| Nhiumewyn wrote: | | Casus wrote: | | xxax wrote: | Yes we can control them better than animals, but that doesn't mean we aren't influenced by them to a large degree.
And the treated fairly bit is just pure bullshit.
I think with start of psychoanalysis we just started to uncover how not in control we really are. |
We need our urges.
|
Now, that is a strong statement to be made.
Why? |
Because without feeling the urge to eat - we'd die of hunger. Without feeling the urge to propagate, we'd die out.
Etc.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 21:20 Post subject: |
|
|
Moronic Norms. Gotta love thread starters choice of words and all this mamby, pamby prattling about explanations of the where norms came from and why.....Sounds like justification for those who still want those basic urges and who says there is anything wrong with that to begin with.
The only thing I disagree with is that relationships are getting more complicated. Define you relationship anyway you want. No one is holding a gun to your head if you don't conform. In the western world anyway.
Whats the point in all of this? I'd be a little more interested to hear who people are personally going against the grain.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 21:31 Post subject: |
|
|
| Casus wrote: | | No they aren't. In the context we are speaking fine, but each of those has a place and definition in psychology and various social sciences. |
I'm not sure what you're getting at. What matters beyond the context of our discussion?
| Casus wrote: | | Yes i am saying they don't have a decent idea what it means to treat each other fairly. Yes you can ask someone how to treat them fairly (although that sounds patronizing), but how often do we do it and have done it? |
Ok, then we disagree.
I think we have a very qualified idea of how to treat each other fairly - and I think we're improving in terms of following up on that as time goes by.
We're still tragically ignorant, corrupt, greedy and so on - but we're improving all the same.
| Casus wrote: | | Of course we're rational. That was never in question. But we are not nearly as rational as we think. |
Are you saying you're the only one on the planet who has figured out exactly how rational we are?
Because I don't believe I've given any details on the matter.
I think we're extremely irrational for the most part. Even so, we're FAR more rational than an animal.
That's my point, basically.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonizito
VIP Member
Posts: 51463
Location: Portugal, the shithole of Europe.
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 21:37 Post subject: |
|
|
| boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote: | | i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 21:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| Casus wrote: |
I'm not sure what you're getting at. What matters beyond the context of our discussion? |
Because its much easier to actually know what you are talking about. Urges to you means something to you, maybe something different to me.
| Casus wrote: |
Ok, then we disagree.
I think we have a very qualified idea of how to treat each other fairly - and I think we're improving in terms of following up on that as time goes by.
We're still tragically ignorant, corrupt, greedy and so on - but we're improving all the same. |
I wouldn't say we are improving, things are changing thats true...
| Casus wrote: |
Are you saying you're the only one on the planet who has figured out exactly how rational we are? |
Is this some attempt at humor?
| Casus wrote: | Because I don't believe I've given any details on the matter.
I think we're extremely irrational for the most part. Even so, we're FAR more rational than an animal.
That's my point, basically. |
Oh we were talking about that... Well for one thing animals aren't rational since they are instinctive... So we are rational they aren't.
EDIT: this was rather pointless...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 22:50 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2013 02:18 Post subject: |
|
|
| Casus wrote: | | Nhiumewyn wrote: | | Mister_s wrote: | | I don't understand why people give the animal kingdom and/or our heritage as a reference when it comes to sex. How is that even relevant? Does that mean we should be ruled by our animal urges in all areas? If not. why not? Why are the norms in the sexual area "forced" (i.e. not "natural"), while it's fine we don't bash each other's head in whenever we want something? The "logic // animal instinct" relation in this debate seems to be very skewed. We have grown past the animal kingdom and our basic primal instincts. Look how teh monkeys do it our shit is forced man, does not make much sense to me. |
Have we?
As a whole, we're nothing but mildly rational apes using complex linguistic skills to mask our primal urges as refined and glamorous. Wrapping our animal instincts under the guise of rationality doesn't make our primal urges any less primal. |
Who cares about how "primal" they are?
The difference is that we can control them - and that we have a brain. Have you noticed that we're at the top of the food chain? You know why? Because we don't let our urges dominate. We have the capacity to go beyond them.
I know some think urges SHOULD dominate - and they're the ones who belong in the animal kingdom.
Even if we do resemble animals in many ways - that's hardly a guide to life. It's something we can realise and then we can go the other way, because we decide it's better. Not just for ourselves but for everyone. |
You should separate instincts and urges. We as a species are still highly controlled by instincts. Urges come second in that hierarchy and we're using social constructs to control our own behaviour, yet sex and relationships are still messy, illogical and chaotic since it's a constant fight between social, cultural and religious norms and our instincts and urges. That's where jealousy, domestic violence, insecurities, dating sates ffs etc. comes from. We have instincts and urges that are forced to go through social and cultural norms, becoming sub-natural on the way.
Maslows Ladder is simply a model of basic human needs which is then messed up by the very civilised, social and cultural definitions and practices we've created. But then the apes have social structures as well as a lot of other mammals. So that doesn't separate us from the rest of the animals either. We just happen to have big brains and have self conscience (something we gain when we're around 4. Experiments have shown certain intelligent chimpanzees have become self aware by mirror experiments where they realise they're looking at themselves. That means we as a species aren't the only one that are self aware. Same thing goes for certain dolphins).
Evolution gave tigers muscles, speed, fangs, low-frequency growls that paralyse prey, claws and hunting instincts that makes them successful in their environment. Every species on the planet have through evolution developed tools best fitted for their environment whether defensive or offensive. Some species spend time on leisure and fun (penguins, seals and innumerable other species) while having social structures.
Our tool that evolution "gave" us (or rather promoted brain growth) was our big brains due to becoming better hunters, cooking/grilling the meat to absorb more proteins and having to survive in many different kinds of climates. That's why we as a species are more versatile, it's our spot. Unfortunately that has had a devastating effect on the rest of the animal kingdom and for ourselves. We're not yet smart enough to use our mental facilities correctly. Hence pollution, wars, hate, mental illnesses on the rise in a world where we're bombarded with information 24/7 (over-stimuli) that we haven't properly adapted to. Our science and technical knowledge has far surpassed our ability to use it responsibly and see the complexity in chain-effects, instead scoffing at it and sit down and watch the telly instead of thinking about all the faults with the human part of the equation and doing something about it. Too few are involved to make a dent since we've become complacent, comfortable and lazy living in a world where we no longer have to think about consequences or how to survive. If anything people are MORE inclined to follow their urges (power, money, sex, domination, pleasure etc.) than better themselves and the world they live in.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sausje
Banned
Posts: 17716
Location: Limboland, Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2013 03:47 Post subject: |
|
|
| Nhiumewyn wrote: | | Casus wrote: | | xxax wrote: | Yes we can control them better than animals, but that doesn't mean we aren't influenced by them to a large degree.
And the treated fairly bit is just pure bullshit.
I think with start of psychoanalysis we just started to uncover how not in control we really are. |
We need our urges.
|
Now, that is a strong statement to be made.
Why? |
Proud member of Frustrated Association of International Losers Failing Against the Gifted and Superior (F.A.I.L.F.A.G.S)
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2013 04:17 Post subject: |
|
|
It IS a strange statement though. Our urges and instincts are the driving forces behind our existence. It's not so much that we need them as that they're the foundation on which the rest of our being rests on .
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sausje
Banned
Posts: 17716
Location: Limboland, Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2013 04:27 Post subject: |
|
|
Without the urge to improve thyself, humanity would had never evolved into what we are today.
Without the instinct to reproduce and protect thyself, humanity would had never lived as long as it did now.
So yes, they are our foundations, yet we only need very little of those to actually be alive these days/
Proud member of Frustrated Association of International Losers Failing Against the Gifted and Superior (F.A.I.L.F.A.G.S)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2013 10:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You should separate instincts and urges. We as a species are still highly controlled by instincts. Urges come second in that hierarchy and we're using social constructs to control our own behaviour, yet sex and relationships are still messy, illogical and chaotic since it's a constant fight between social, cultural and religious norms and our instincts and urges. That's where jealousy, domestic violence, insecurities, dating sates ffs etc. comes from. We have instincts and urges that are forced to go through social and cultural norms, becoming sub-natural on the way. |
I'm not unwilling to separate them. I'm just waiting for a distinction that makes sense.
To me, they blend together and they're interchangeable.
My urges are based on instinct - and they go hand in hand.
| Quote: | | Maslows Ladder is simply a model of basic human needs which is then messed up by the very civilised, social and cultural definitions and practices we've created. But then the apes have social structures as well as a lot of other mammals. So that doesn't separate us from the rest of the animals either. We just happen to have big brains and have self conscience (something we gain when we're around 4. Experiments have shown certain intelligent chimpanzees have become self aware by mirror experiments where they realise they're looking at themselves. That means we as a species aren't the only one that are self aware. Same thing goes for certain dolphins). |
If you don't think we stand out because apes have "social structures" and dolphins are smart animals, then we disagree - severely.
I think we're very, very different - and we have capacities that go far beyond any animal. For better or for worse.
To deny that or be blind to that - I'd consider to be denial.
| Quote: | | Evolution gave tigers muscles, speed, fangs, low-frequency growls that paralyse prey, claws and hunting instincts that makes them successful in their environment. Every species on the planet have through evolution developed tools best fitted for their environment whether defensive or offensive. Some species spend time on leisure and fun (penguins, seals and innumerable other species) while having social structures. |
I'm not sure what your point is. Evolution is a theory - nothing more. It is a sound theory, to my mind, but it's not a guide to life.
Lots of animals have died out and we have a food chain. Great for us - not so great for the animals.
| Quote: | | Our tool that evolution "gave" us (or rather promoted brain growth) was our big brains due to becoming better hunters, cooking/grilling the meat to absorb more proteins and having to survive in many different kinds of climates. That's why we as a species are more versatile, it's our spot. Unfortunately that has had a devastating effect on the rest of the animal kingdom and for ourselves. We're not yet smart enough to use our mental facilities correctly. Hence pollution, wars, hate, mental illnesses on the rise in a world where we're bombarded with information 24/7 (over-stimuli) that we haven't properly adapted to. Our science and technical knowledge has far surpassed our ability to use it responsibly and see the complexity in chain-effects, instead scoffing at it and sit down and watch the telly instead of thinking about all the faults with the human part of the equation and doing something about it. Too few are involved to make a dent since we've become complacent, comfortable and lazy living in a world where we no longer have to think about consequences or how to survive. If anything people are MORE inclined to follow their urges (power, money, sex, domination, pleasure etc.) than better themselves and the world they live in. |
Oh, I completely agree with all of that.
But, I don't think the wise response is to pretend we're just animals - and that nothing can be done.
To ignore all our accomplishments and focus entirely on the negative - is not going to give you a fair perspective.
No, collectively - we're FAR from being smart enough. But individually - lots of people are smart enough. That's how changes happen - and have happened. If you think life in the Dark Ages was better - then that's your position. Not mine.
I think we have the potential to improve - and I don't think the race is necessarily doomed.
Again, focusing on the negative will not help.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2013 11:31 Post subject: |
|
|
| Casus wrote: | | Quote: | | Maslows Ladder is simply a model of basic human needs which is then messed up by the very civilised, social and cultural definitions and practices we've created. But then the apes have social structures as well as a lot of other mammals. So that doesn't separate us from the rest of the animals either. We just happen to have big brains and have self conscience (something we gain when we're around 4. Experiments have shown certain intelligent chimpanzees have become self aware by mirror experiments where they realise they're looking at themselves. That means we as a species aren't the only one that are self aware. Same thing goes for certain dolphins). |
If you don't think we stand out because apes have "social structures" and dolphins are smart animals, then we disagree - severely.
I think we're very, very different - and we have capacities that go far beyond any animal. For better or for worse.
To deny that or be blind to that - I'd consider to be denial. |
If you think we are a separate entity from animals, I'd LOVE to hear your biological, physiological, evolutionary and logical reasoning about that. You talking from an anthropocentric point of view, that we aren't part of the world of animals but are enlightened or something different. I disagree, we just increased our development thanks to the rapid development of our brains from necessity and diet. There are species that have been around for millions of years since they've reached their potential and are perfectly developed for their environment. No need for them to evolve further unless changes force them to.
Example: evolution isn't always a slow eon-sized event, certain changes can happen during half a century. A butterfly in England that usually had bright colourful wings that only lived in a certain area changed after a coal mine started and black coal dust and coal ore was stored in their habitat. It took a couple of decades and a new butterfly had suddenly been found. It was basically the same butterfly as the bright colourful butterfly but with pitch black wings. It adapted through fast evolution. If I could be arsed I'd look up the scientific papers and results, but I can't remember the name of the butterfly species or where in England this happened.
| Casus wrote: | | Quote: | | Evolution gave tigers muscles, speed, fangs, low-frequency growls that paralyse prey, claws and hunting instincts that makes them successful in their environment. Every species on the planet have through evolution developed tools best fitted for their environment whether defensive or offensive. Some species spend time on leisure and fun (penguins, seals and innumerable other species) while having social structures. |
I'm not sure what your point is. Evolution is a theory - nothing more. It is a sound theory, to my mind, but it's not a guide to life.
Lots of animals have died out and we have a food chain. Great for us - not so great for the animals. |
Then you can just ignore all science since most of it is still based on theories (physics is based on basic theories of the 4 forces, relativity etc..) as well as anything based on any theory.
The difference here is that we have millions of years of evidence behind evolution that support it, making it a very strong theory that only religious zealots would deny. It's as close to fact that any theoretical framework could get before becoming fact.
Anyway, it seems you didn't really understand what I said about why humans got big brains as it's primary survival tool while other species got other tools to survive in their particular environments.
| casus wrote: | | Quote: | | Our tool that evolution "gave" us (or rather promoted brain growth) was our big brains due to becoming better hunters, cooking/grilling the meat to absorb more proteins and having to survive in many different kinds of climates. That's why we as a species are more versatile, it's our spot. Unfortunately that has had a devastating effect on the rest of the animal kingdom and for ourselves. We're not yet smart enough to use our mental facilities correctly. Hence pollution, wars, hate, mental illnesses on the rise in a world where we're bombarded with information 24/7 (over-stimuli) that we haven't properly adapted to. Our science and technical knowledge has far surpassed our ability to use it responsibly and see the complexity in chain-effects, instead scoffing at it and sit down and watch the telly instead of thinking about all the faults with the human part of the equation and doing something about it. Too few are involved to make a dent since we've become complacent, comfortable and lazy living in a world where we no longer have to think about consequences or how to survive. If anything people are MORE inclined to follow their urges (power, money, sex, domination, pleasure etc.) than better themselves and the world they live in. |
Oh, I completely agree with all of that.
But, I don't think the wise response is to pretend we're just animals - and that nothing can be done. |
That's not what I said. I said our technological and scientific development have long ago surpassed our community-based abilities to handle it all correctly. As individuals we have many smart people, but big groups tend to become rather stupid even if they include a few very smart individuals. A social context must be selected to speak on the same terms.
| Casus wrote: | | To ignore all our accomplishments and focus entirely on the negative - is not going to give you a fair perspective. |
I've never ignored our positive accomplishments, but this is the bitching thread which already started with a discussion on human fallibilities, something I expanded on and posed some possible explanations for.
[quote="Casus]No, collectively - we're FAR from being smart enough. But individually - lots of people are smart enough. That's how changes happen - and have happened. If you think life in the Dark Ages was better - then that's your position. Not mine.
I think we have the potential to improve - and I don't think the race is necessarily doomed.
Again, focusing on the negative will not help.[/quote]
If there are problems, they are negative, and then we have to focus on improving the negative aspects.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2013 11:49 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | | If you think we are a separate entity from animals, I'd LOVE to hear your biological, physiological, evolutionary and logical reasoning about that. You talking from an anthropocentric point of view, that we aren't part of the world of animals but are enlightened or something different. I disagree, we just increased our development thanks to the rapid development of our brains from necessity and diet. There are species that have been around for millions of years since they've reached their potential and are perfectly developed for their environment. No need for them to evolve further unless changes force them to. |
I honestly don't care if we call ourselves animals - except that it would be extremely confusing.
We stand apart from animals through our mental capacities. I already made that clear. I don't think it's a very hard concept to grasp.
As for evolution stagnating for some animals - that's hardly very useful for them, since we could eliminate them all at will, and we're very much a part of the environment. Evolution wouldn't do shit for them there.
| Quote: | | Example: evolution isn't always a slow eon-sized event, certain changes can happen during half a century. A butterfly in England that usually had bright colourful wings that only lived in a certain area changed after a coal mine started and black coal dust and coal ore was stored in their habitat. It took a couple of decades and a new butterfly had suddenly been found. It was basically the same butterfly as the bright colourful butterfly but with pitch black wings. It adapted through fast evolution. If I could be arsed I'd look up the scientific papers and results, but I can't remember the name of the butterfly species or where in England this happened. |
Very interesting, but I don't see how it relates to anything in our discussion.
| Casus wrote: | | Then you can just ignore all science since most of it is still based on theories (physics is based on basic theories of the 4 forces, relativity etc..) as well as anything based on any theory. |
I'm not ignoring anything. YOU are ignoring that it's a theory by considering the theory of evolution a factual and objective truth.
| Quote: | | The difference here is that we have millions of years of evidence behind evolution that support it, making it a very strong theory that only religious zealots would deny. It's as close to fact that any theoretical framework could get before becoming fact. |
Yes, evidence that is subject to our interpretation - which is subject to our capacity to perceive and analyse.
I'm sure you think we're infallible - but I don't. No wait, actually, don't you find it ironic that you're defending a human construct so admirably as infallible - all the while denying how different we are from animals - and how we're all basically messed up morons?
I find that slightly amusing, really.
| Quote: | | Anyway, it seems you didn't really understand what I said about why humans got big brains as it's primary survival tool while other species got other tools to survive in their particular environments. |
Why don't you think I understand? What makes you say that?
What does it matter where we got our brains from? I really don't see why that matters.
What matters is that we have them - and that's why we stand apart from animals.
We could both be the product of evolution - and yet stand apart, or don't you think so?
| Quote: | | That's not what I said. I said our technological and scientific development have long ago surpassed our community-based abilities to handle it all correctly. As individuals we have many smart people, but big groups tend to become rather stupid even if they include a few very smart individuals. A social context must be selected to speak on the same terms. |
I agree with that. So, are these individuals exactly like animals - or do you think it's reasonable to separate them?
| Quote: | | I've never ignored our positive accomplishments, but this is the bitching thread which already started with a discussion on human fallibilities, something I expanded on and posed some possible explanations for. |
Yeah, this is the thread where you consider the theory of evolution infallible - a theory constructed by humans.
Something doesn't quite fit here 
| Quote: | | If there are problems, they are negative, and then we have to focus on improving the negative aspects. |
Yes, when we're trying to solve them. Here, we're talking about how human beings potentially stand apart from animals. As such, we need to consider all the ways in which that might be the case - which would include the positive aspects.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2013 14:47 Post subject: |
|
|
Public nudity is a crime.
Murder is a crime.
I fuck every day.
I never killed or harmed anyone.
And yet fucking is taboo even tho everyone looks the same , does the same etc
3080 | ps5 pro
Sin317-"im 31 years old and still surprised at how much shit comes out of my ass actually ..."
SteamDRM-"Call of Duty is the symbol of the true perfection in every aspect. Call of Duty games are like Mozart's/Beethoven's symphonies"
deadpoetic-"are you new to the cyberspace?"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 2 of 4 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
