48 replies to this topic

[Ash]

What would you say if I said that everything humanity had done to the planet was as natural as shitting or having sex?

I say this because what we have actually done is adapt to our environment, by changing the environment we live in. This has happened countless times throughout the history of Earth, and also even in our current time.

Many weeds secrete toxins lethal to other plants in order to get room to grow and survive. Many animals build safe homes for themselves away from predators and the elements. Hell, way back when in Earth's existence, the first photosynthetic life forms utterly annihilated the majority of the anaerobic respiring creatures by pumping oxygen into the oceans...only a small few were able to survive and develop, and from them all current life is derived.

You see, humankind isn't the only species to have altered their environment. Hell, elephants will smash trees down if they're in the way.

Let's look at the anatomy. The human body is nothing special. It has no armour plating to survive attack by predators, it's not particularly fast to evade them, its senses are not that highly tuned when compared with, say, dogs or mantis shrimps (their eyes see blends of eight colours as opposed to our three), we have no natural weaponry (claws, teeth) with which to kill food, our teeth and digestive systems cannot cope with raw meat well (well, it can just about survive...but it really has never liked it), it isn't camouflaged at all, it can't survive the cold very well (because of lack of thick fur coats), it can't swim or fly, jump or climb particularly well, either.

In fact, the only particularly special thing about our forms is what's in our heads. The brain. It is the only thing that has allowed us to survive and become dominant. And the only way we were able to do that is by fashioning tools, weapons, means of faster transportation, shelters, means of getting more/enough food to sustain ourselves and our families and so preserve our genetic makeup and the survival of our families and our race.
Which is all we have really done. Our advancements have only served to make us better at what we are deficient, and therefore allow our race to thrive in conditions normally inhospitable. We use furs and insulation to protect against the arctic sun, we use cotton and other materials to weave into what is essentially our coat of fur, since our own is severely lacking. Cars and planes allow us to traverse much faster, and get to inaccessible places. Because of our weapons and advancements, we've overcome all our natural predators, putting us overall top of the food chain where otherwise we would not have been, instead pretty much near the bottom.

By all this logic, I'm even able to justify (even though I still dislike the fact) the extinctions of animals and plants, and even of subraces of our own species (the native Americans, aborigines, etc). How? Because of our ability to just take hold of our environment and adapt it to our own needs. This is basic instinct we're talking about here. An area where any animal needs to live has to facilitate its needs. If we can make an area facilitate our own needs, we can live there. That's why creatures that can do this are most successful. Not enough food? Plant some crops and use them. Not enough water? Simply alter the course of a river to come close by you. Even beavers do that!
If other creatures in the area are unable to adapt themselves to cope, or the environment to facilitate them as well, then they will not survive. It's called competition. The native Americans were unable to compete with the white man upon his arrival...and as a result they became more or less extinct. Same with the Dodo and everything else. The introduction of the new species altered the balance and made a species extinct, with the new species taking up its niche in the foodweb due to out-competition.

See where I'm coming from here?

Wonder what everyone's thoughts on this are...

BTW: NO I don't agree with killing animals for fur, horns etc...or for polluting the environment (as said, billions of years ago OXYGEN was the pollutant, and it damn near rendered the Earth lifeless)...I'm just saying it's possible that it's fairly natural for us to do it.

[Sari]

Wow, that's quite eye-opening. And it makes perfect sense!

As you say, other animals will alter their environment or find ways of eliminating competition if it means aiding their own survival. I know elephants knocking down trees might not be on quite the same level as us waving nuclear weapons around, but the essence is the same!

However, if what we're doing is adapting to the environment (as a natural part of evolution), then won't we eventually be adapting to what we've created? I mean there's the whole thing about the ozone layer causing the ice caps to melt and thereby flooding most land masses (which I have to say I'm not entirely convinced by). If that was so, then we'd have to adapt to be more or less amphibious (as well as having to cope with the UV rays coming through the atmosphere). Basically what I'm trying to say is how weird it would be to adapt to ourselves. Maybe not very philosophical, but there we have it.

...natural weaponry (claws, teeth) with which to kill food, our teeth and digestive systems cannot cope with raw meat well (well, it can just about survive...but it really has never liked it), it isn't camouflaged at all, it can't survive the cold very well (because of lack of thick fur coats)...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's true - frankly, I think we were much more efficient at survival back when we were monkeys!

[Silent_Killa]

Something I've thought often, I think this is really what seperates us from other animals though. We can restrain ourselves, decide not to wipe out a species, that sort of thing.

[duke_Qa]

its all pretty darwinistic. survival for the fittest. either through brawns or brains. basically brains snuck up on the rest of the species around which focused on brawns and other physical means of survival.

hehe, just look at macgyver, now thats a weird example of human evolution. a guy with a mullet and a multitool knife

Something I've thought often, I think this is really what seperates us from other animals though. We can restrain ourselves, decide not to wipe out a species, that sort of thing.

can we? you probably could, but the mob probably wouldnt. i can't really say that we have saved any species from extinction. we might have put them into a zoo for people's viewing pleasure, but its gonna take alot of work to get a threatened species back into large enough numbers to survive for a few hundred years. especially with all the poachers and people who don't bother much about taking the lives of such critters.


if you took the entire human population and looked upon it as one sentient being, there wouldnt be much to be proud about. rainforests being chopped down, oil being burned, nuclear materials accidentally released into nature, etc etc.


what intrigues me is that the next step on human evolution most likely won't be naturally, but man-made. either mahines are gonna be able to emulate the human "soul", or hosting it somehow, or we are gonna make a genetic manipulated human with increased physical and mental abilities within all that would be important in the future. basic instinct to survive could be exchanged for the instinct to preserve and enlighten, or some of that stuff. it would be a very utopian scientist in charge for that to happen. most likely things would only go from bad to worse.

Edited by duke_Qa, 23 June 2005 - 11:50 PM.

[MSpencer]

So it's in our nature to develop chemicals that can kill nearly any small animal in the world? Really?
Also, oxygen normally does not kill anaerobic bacteria, in fact, in theory, it should have no effect on them. Anaerobic respiration can take place in a medium with or without oxygen.
We are not adapted to be anything but intelligent long distance runners that are able to only survive through intelligence and the ability to run slow, but a long distance away from anything.
We can definitely survive without being destructive, but if you look at most people, they really don't want to. It is not human nature to be destructive, but some people prefer it because they profit from it. For example, there are plenty of sources of wood or materials that have nearly the same properties as far as construction uses go, but we do not use them because wood is readily available in the rainforest, regardless of the life that lives there. No preservation efforts are undertaken by these companies either. There's a line between requirements for survival and reckless destruction, don't try to justify it.

[Ash]

So it's in our nature to develop chemicals that can kill nearly any small animal in the world? Really?
Also, oxygen normally does not kill anaerobic bacteria, in fact, in theory, it should have no effect on them. Anaerobic respiration can take place in a medium with or without oxygen.
We are not adapted to be anything but intelligent long distance runners that are able to only survive through intelligence and the ability to run slow, but a long distance away from anything.
We can definitely survive without being destructive, but if you look at most people, they really don't want to. It is not human nature to be destructive, but some people prefer it because they profit from it. For example, there are plenty of sources of wood or materials that have nearly the same properties as far as construction uses go, but we do not use them because wood is readily available in the rainforest, regardless of the life that lives there. No preservation efforts are undertaken by these companies either. There's a line between requirements for survival and reckless destruction, don't try to justify it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I may be wrong about it being anaerobic ones that died...but way back when it was a different gas dissolved in water that the little microbes 'breathed'...then one group came along, turned the place to oxygen which was poison. This is known fact.

And yes, what was said about the zoos is true. We did the same to the Native Americans and Aborigines...so yeah. They're basically in zoos too.

Also, yes it is in our nature to generate those chemicals. Same as it's in the nature of the cobra and the black mamba. Just the means by which we develop the chemicals is different. We've used chemicals since tribal times (poison-arrow frog, anyone?) to allow us to hunt and kill things which would normally be impossible.

And I never once said that it was right. I just said it was natural for us to be as we are, otherwise we would not be as we are, but some other way.
We are adapted to be more than that, Spence. We're adapted to make untold use of what is around us, and to augment our own physical forms through the use of tools. Through this, we've also learned to shape our environment. The gift of an unusually complex brain system has brought us a great amount of power.

By nature itself, if an animal is better adapted to survive and take up lots of ecological niches, it will be successful. And I can't think of any animal better equipped to take up lots of ecological niches than humans. Through specialised clothing and tools and weapons, we've been able to live almost anywhere, kill more or less everything and therefore establish footholds on every corner of the globe. It's allowed us to eradicate possible competitors or threats (eg, sabre-tooth cat), and to hunt down prey at an alarming rate (eg, the dodo). We overpopulate the world due to our success, and because we have no natural threats, and can eat a very wide variety of plants and animals, we are the top of the food chain, and here we will remain until nature dictates otherwise. Yes, we've shaped our planet, as many biotic and abiotic things have before us, but only because we were more or less built to do that.

As I said, I don't think what we've done to the earth is right, necessarily, just that it's natural.

By the way...about the 'needs for survival' thing? Honey bees produce at least 10 times as much honey as the colony actually needs for survival. Lots of animals take more than they need. The only reason it's so apparent with us is because we're so diverse, have touched every corner of the globe and there are so damn many of us.

[Silent_Killa]

can we? you probably could, but the mob probably wouldnt. i can't really say that we have saved any species from extinction. we might have put them into a zoo for people's viewing pleasure, but its gonna take alot of work to get a threatened species back into large enough numbers to survive for a few hundred years. especially with all the poachers and people who don't bother much about taking the lives of such critters.

Tell me then... why is it that people aren't allowed to burn the weeds off of levies because of a rare beatle... a fucking beatle... damn tree hugging, liberal pieces of... nevermind

what intrigues me is that the next step on human evolution most likely won't be naturally, but man-made. either mahines are gonna be able to emulate the human "soul", or hosting it somehow, or we are gonna make a genetic manipulated human with increased physical and mental abilities within all that would be important in the future. basic instinct to survive could be exchanged for the instinct to preserve and enlighten, or some of that stuff. it would be a very utopian scientist in charge for that to happen. most likely things would only go from bad to worse.

AI could very well be the end of humanity, once you give it the ability to learn, it can do everything we can. I see the future being more along the lines of nanobots completely changing our ideas of what life is, we could live forever, or close to it anyways. We could very well be around untill the universe implodes, that is, if we figure out how to get off this rock before the sun consumes it.

So it's in our nature to develop chemicals that can kill nearly any small animal in the world? Really?

Just as much as it is a beavers nature to damn up a river

We can definitely survive without being destructive, but if you look at most people, they really don't want to. It is not human nature to be destructive, but some people prefer it because they profit from it. For example, there are plenty of sources of wood or materials that have nearly the same properties as far as construction uses go, but we do not use them because wood is readily available in the rainforest, regardless of the life that lives there. No preservation efforts are undertaken by these companies either. There's a line between requirements for survival and reckless destruction, don't try to justify it.

Actually, they have to plant some three trees for every one they cut down. And what other building material should we use? Plastic, steel, all of them aren't exactly good for the environment.

It's natural to do what we do, because we are natural. We're animals, just more advanced ones... a lot more advanced. We're really not that special, other animals use tools, build shelters, we're just better than them at it.

[Allied General]

where not "better" we have only realised now that our explotation of the enviroment and others has lead to pollution, mass extinction and a obeses ridden, disenchanted youth

I would say we just more stupid

[Ash]

But we are supposed to exploit the environment. We are probably supposed to pollute it.
If ever there were a theory that actually backed up the existence of some sort of purpose, this is it.

I agree, though, AG, we have become victims of our own success. Though I don't know quite what you mean by 'disenchanted'...'undisciplined' might be a better word.

Edited by Comrade Jerkov, 27 June 2005 - 11:47 AM.

[Allied General]

But we are supposed to exploit the environment. We are probably supposed to pollute it.
If ever there were a theory that actually backed up the existence of some sort of purpose, this is it.

I agree, though, AG, we have become victims of our own success. Though I don't know quite what you mean by 'disenchanted'...'undisciplined' might be a better word.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so our purpose is to f*cked ourselves and every biological organism on the planet in the process?

Last time i checked nature was about balance and order, there are never too many wolves to kill too many deer or whatever, cos nature controls overpopulation via death.

We however have prevented this natural process.

[cr@zyiv@n]

My idea is that humans will have to leave the Earth much earlier, even long before it's destruction by the Sun, because there'll just be too many people on the planet. See the situation in Africa and other Third World Countries atm. Earth's resources might get close to being depleted, or pollution/radiation caused by men might render large areas unhabitable, or that fertile land changes into deserts (greenhouse effect gasses, the hole in the ozone layer, sour rain, exhausts of factories/cars, warming up the Earth, and the chopping down of the rainforests, even if replanted, it'd take years before only a fraction of the lifeforms that lived there returned, trees produce oxigen and consume carbondioxide, and you can't replace a whole forest...).

I'm no treehugger, none at all, but I don't want to have to stay inside later during the day because there'd be too much smog/ozone/other stuff that shouldn't be there if we only had been a little more attentive...

[Tom]

LOL forget that tree hugging crap CI, it just comes from idiots who don't see the direct threat and problems we can cause if we don't hug those trees Don't ever stop hugging those trees, it might be the last tree you hug. At least then when everyone is about to die you can say: I told you so, but its too late, because theres no more trees to hug *middle finger*

I myself believe humans really need to focus on the future than now. Problem is, and always has been short term profit or empire expanding. Currently we have both American and British Corporate Imperialism with much else that is seriously causing the threats.

Problem with humans is we are no longer is balance with nature. E.g. Animals shit on the earth, the shit then acts as a fertiliser and helps the grass grow for the next lot of animals to eat and shit. Circle of life as the lion king calls it. Humans however, shit in toilets, flush it down the drains so it gets pumped into the ocean or some other place, result, we pollute our water with shit. Solution: When you need a toilet, go shit on the grass j/k

Seriously now, my firm belief is we could live on earth for centuries if we just looked after it. We know what we are doing to it, we know how to change it, we know how to buy ourselves more time, so why aren't we?

[Ash]

Because we are, as all animals, too preoccupied with our own species' survival than caring about any other.

Take the lion. Do you think he or his pride give a stuff whether the hyenas become extinct? Of course not. All he cares about is that his pride give birth and pass on his genes.

Our success on this planet has been because we're so advanced, and have subjugated or destroyed animals in order to do it. We are able to adapt so massively that some animals can't keep up with us. Which is what's happening all over the rainforests...those animals can't adapt to our invasion, and so they die out. Pigeons, on the other hand...

Human beings don't need to hunt. We learned to keep our 'prey', if you like, alive and breed them in order to provide us food ready-to-kill. We don't have to go looking for grain, as we learned to sow it in massive fields to harvest. THAT is true intelligence, being able to exploit lesser species in order that our own survive even easier.

And AG, don't you see? What we're doing is more natural than we think. Many many times animals (and plants) have reached a new area and utterly dominated over other species that had been there for ages. Over the past few weeks I've watched this razorweed plant spread like a fucking veinhole over half my garden...no other plant could compete with it so they all died, and the plant took over. OK the scale is different, but the principle is the same. We have adapted to live all over the world. We've evolved into the many races of people...those that did not advance were out-competed by the advanced ones, and so we dominated.

As much as I'd like to see natural balance restored, and global warming halted, I doubt it will.
However, no matter what happens, something will survive. The world will recover. The Earth has survived for over 3 billion years, against a zillion obstacles...it will certainly survive anything we can throw at it.

[Silent_Killa]

Exactly

One thing is we, as animals, are a part of nature. Therefor, we can't do anything unatural.

It is strange though, that we've developed so much further than any other species. But then again, what has this really done for our survival, are we really that further evolved? If you think about it, insects, one of the most basic animals on the planet, outnumber us by the millions. Viruses kill humans daily, they also outnumber us, and they are simpler still.

[MSpencer]

So DDT, a chemical that causes deaths of 95% of insects and also causes long term biodegradation of other species is natural?
Driving whales insane with active sonar is natural?
Splitting the atom is natural?
Playing turkey shoot with guided missiles that can hit a postage stamp is natural?
Going out and shooting deer with something they could never hope to comprehend is natural?
Killing 200 people in a trench with a gas they cannot smell or taste is natural?
Paving over a once thriving environment with an oil based compound is natural?
Blowing a rabbit to pieces with 155-mm HESH artillery shells is natural?
Boiling piss and making it into a yellow, jelly like substance then putting it all across your back yard to make phosphorous is natural?
Creating a nerve agent that blocks pheromone receptors and kills within seconds is natural?
Firebombing population centers with napalm-like substances is natural?
Detonating nuclear bombs on islands with thriving ecosystems is natural?
Please, open up your eyes. Nothing we do is natural, it is all a product of our technology which is decaying and destroying the earth.

[Silent_Killa]

It depends what your definition of natural is. We, human beings, are natural. The materials we use are natural. Therefor, it's natural

By your definition a beaver building a damn is not natural. A bee building a hive is not natural. A monkey using a stick for a tool is not natural.

The world is dying, it has been since it's beggining, just like you and me. Life in general has accelerated the process. Humans, the most advanced lifeform, are accelerating it the most. Makes sense doesn't it?

Edited by Silent_Killa, 29 June 2005 - 05:53 AM.

[Tom]

So DDT, a chemical that causes deaths of 95% of insects and also causes long term biodegradation of other species is natural?
Driving whales insane with active sonar is natural?
Splitting the atom is natural?
Playing turkey shoot with guided missiles that can hit a postage stamp is natural?
Going out and shooting deer with something they could never hope to comprehend is natural?
Killing 200 people in a trench with a gas they cannot smell or taste is natural?
Paving over a once thriving environment with an oil based compound is natural?
Blowing a rabbit to pieces with 155-mm HESH artillery shells is natural?
Boiling piss and making it into a yellow, jelly like substance then putting it all across your back yard to make phosphorous is natural?
Creating a nerve agent that blocks pheromone receptors and kills within seconds is natural?
Firebombing population centers with napalm-like substances is natural?
Detonating nuclear bombs on islands with thriving ecosystems is natural?
Please, open up your eyes. Nothing we do is natural, it is all a product of our technology which is decaying and destroying the earth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Better watch out Matt, your beginning to sound like a "tree-hugging hippy" yourself

What we are is natural, what actions we take is a result of our "superiority"

[Allied General]

its not hippish its common sense, we made stuff which never existed on this planet or in the universe at ANY time.

Our superior grasp of technology is what makes us unique we have secondary and tertiary production.

If anything the "its all natural thingy", you remind me of the shi**y 80's when we were screwing over the world cos we could for $/£ etc

Also no offence MSpencer but your countries policies towards climate control leave a lot to be desired as do all those 4WD obession

However greed = destruction and that applies to every country

Also ComradeJerkov, nature would stop the plant in the 1st place by restricting its growth or scorching it.

On the other hand if we remove the atmosphere with some good old a-bomb testing (luckily banned) then i'm "sure" the planet will survive.

Edited by Allied General, 29 June 2005 - 11:03 AM.

[Ash]

A-bomb testing won't wipe out our entire atmosphere. That's impossible without removing Earth's gravitational pull.

We could indeed alter the atmosphere (ie, pollute it). All that'll happen is it'll knock evolution back a few millennia, but life will find a way.
If we burn through the ozone layer big-time, all that'll happen is there'll be more skin cancer. It'll mean more mutation and whole new species and evolution take a leap forward.

And yes, MSpencer. Surprisingly, it's natural. Think about it. We can't do shit without our brains.
Also, I don't believe war is a coincidence either. Humans, like wolves, are territorial animals. We're out for ourselves and for our genes, which we are driven to pass onto the next generation.
How better to do that than to subjugate or destroy possible competition? Even better if you yourself don't do the fighting, but you get half a million other unlucky fucks in uniforms to do it for you.
And if you're going to send half a million of your servants into a battle, you want to make sure they're going to win, and so you create the better weapons for them to fight with. Similarly, the toughest and strongest wolves will come off best, and wasps will (in most cases) defeat bees and steal their hives (exception: Japan, where the bees raise the temperature and kill off the wasps). They're better equipped, as they don't die whenever they sting, or can take more bites, or whatever.

And did I mention the weed that pollutes the ground around itself to kill all other plants so it can grow? I'm sure I did.

Eliminate the competition and your species/family will survive. The form is different, the spirit is the same.

And that is essentially that for today's behaviourology lesson

[Allied General]

looks like you've been smoking too much pot.

Lets drop a few nukes cos of the competition

i agree with you that the human race has a extremely competitve streak but i also believe we have the common sense to survive in the long term

Edited by Allied General, 30 June 2005 - 12:07 PM.