walrusman

Is this why you have to have a prescription? To control it better?

Yeah, it's not like they're counting one, two, three... What's interesting to me is it appears they have a way of dealing with these calculations that rival the average human's grasp of such things. If we could understand exactly how they interpret a "number" and their process of deduction, we might find that humans go the long way around, so to speak, with our math. Also, I wonder if rhythm could be considered. It would explain why slowing them down would still produce the correct route home. You have to count to get rhythm, but maybe that's how they think of math???? Just a thought...

You know that's an interesting model because I've always wondered if perhaps the human design is to be just smart enough to dominate, but just stupid enough to stay in conflict with one group or another, aiding population control. If we're at the top of the food chain, who else is really going to eat us except for us? Sorry, don't mean to spoil your post, but it sounded interesting to me...

Can I still fling poop at AzurePhoenix?

Oh my AP, you are completely ridiculous. How old are you? You don't seem to have much life experience or they're not teaching very well in schools nowadays. Those are FACTS dear. I'm not giving you some reason to feel sorry or understand or empathize with germans for slaughtering jews. I'm simply stating that they saw the jews as a threat. You can take away from that sentence whatever you want to, but that's YOU, not ME. I'm just stating the fact. No judgements are being made in these statements. Perception IS reality whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter if you think it's childish, or what you or I think at all whatsoever. It exists regardless. Islamic terrorists hate us and perceive us as the great satan. That's even more insane than your interpretations of my posts. But they perceive it and act on it. Let's try another..shall we? The Bonobo sees a banana dangling from a string and goes for it. He "perceives" there is a banana hanging from a string from god. In reality, it's a plastic toy banana. But since he "perceives" it is an actual banana, he goes for it. See how that works? Hey, maybe you can explain to him the whole "reality is reality" thing...

Damn that was good...

I'm just completely stunned at the thick headedness in here. I don't know how many more ways someone can explain something so simple. You add theology into my arguments because I use the word "destiny"? That's even more insane. Nevermind... I don't have the energy to go all through that post and respond to everything and you're not going to get it anyway. I've simplified it, I've blown it up and detailed it, I've summarized...I don't know what else to tell you..I give up. I sincerely think that all of you are offended because you believe I'm irreverent to nature and am glorifying its destruction. All of this because I simply state a logical fact without adding emotion behind it. The fact that extinction of species by man isn't necessarily a bad thing. The fact that everybody is getting friggin sick and tired of listening to spoiled, hypocritical, pin-headed science brats crying about how humanity is soooooo aweful. ESPECIALLY when they make their own freaking mess of it trying their little experiments with a system that's WAY over their heads. Yes I KNOW man should quit pouring parking lots...Yes I KNOW man should quit cutting into wild habitat... Believe me, we all frigging know this by now - try to get past that to the OTHER side of the point, which is that not EVERY damn species of animal SHOULD - DESERVE - OUGHT TO, whatever the hell word you like best - be spared extermination. Period. Now I'm going to smoke a joint and write music about sawing down trees and murdering innocent little squirrels....AND PANDAS!!

Per the Skulls Unlimited website: Hmm...so what does that say about me?

Is this true everybody? Am I making garbage about issues you care about? Does it appear as if I don't care about these issues? Would I spend all of this time on here if I didn't? Am I offending anyone? Seriously, I would like to know. I don't agree with many folks on here, but no one has offended me except for Silkworm.

Not exactly. I don't think we should sport hunt at all, nor hunt without some kind of wildlife management in place. I don't think we should go out of our way to kill everything. I also don't think we should interfere by saving animals that are destined to become extinct. As far as destruction of habitats in the course of human advancement...that's where I'm sitting on the fence. I'm not sure we shouldn't advance and enjoy "guilt-free" economics. I'm also not sure we "need" oil and should have shaken that bad habit decades ago.

Some people just don't get it. There is nothing positive about calling someone an idiot. Maybe you should crack open a different kind of book...say a dictionary. I dismissed what you said because you began everything you said with some remark about how stupid I am. Have you tried reading any psychology books? You're not going to persuade folks when you insult them. They will concentrate on your insults and skip over the subject matter. Which is exactly what I did and exactly what you deserve. The fact that you make a point to insult when it is entirely unnecessary and childish, tells me you are conceited and convinced. You're unproductive and just use forums like this to flaunt your book smarts. I don't believe you "share" knowledge at all. I think you enjoy crushing people intellectually, hoping to shrink their self esteem for some twisted, self theraputic motivation. My equivocaton comes from the fact that I'm not sure what my final thoughts really are. There are a lot of things that I believe firmly and things I'm sick of hearing without any meat and potatoes. There is a LOT of rhetoric surrounding this subject and I always hold that kind of thing suspect. I'm honest about my approach here and have conducted myself as an adult. Alot of folks on here show a lot of emotion in their posts to me. Just flat out pissed. I figure it's probably because this means alot to them. I've always been the kind of person to push against the grain or the norm - that's how you flush out the truth. If you allow people to sit on rhetoric for too long, they begin to take it for granted and it becomes a paradigm of thoughtlessness. But I'm not malevolent nor do I mean to insult anyone. I love to debate and I have NO problem admitting I'm wrong or that I don't know something. And these forums are for this kind of thing. Not just for "super smart" science dudes, but also enthusiasts who DO have something to offer the debate. Look how many people have cared enough to argue with me. I've learned alot already, even if it doesn't appear to have changed my overall views. So, I'm sorry you have to wade through such "unqualified, contradictary, nonsensical, and assanine" statements. You won't, however, have to deal with any more responses to your posts from me.

The difference is WE built the city block in the first place. But WE didn't invent or build this earth and the ecosystem - we are a product of it, or a player in it. So we don't understand what our interference will cause in the long run. I know you think we do, but I absolutely do not. I'm not advocating we should just occupy, destroy and wipeout everything in some murderous orgy of natural propogation. We can be responsible and take more care, and still wipe out species in the process. How many animals died in the process of making that computer you're typing with? I was really asking you in terms of your attitude. You said you don't like humanity and I think that's insane. You're obviously highly intelligent and your views are well thought out and articulated, but geez, what a depressing attitude. Was just curious how far back in time we had to go to find humanity that you might actually like. And then my follow up question would be why should we waste our higher level intelligence by restricting ourselves to that lifestyle.

What is the benefit? I'm still waiting on the answer about what there is to learn from a throw back version of ourselves that has any relevance to my survival. I know, as scientists, you all want to poke and study for gee wiz info, but that's not a good enough reason to disrupt their destined extinction. Let's put it using your logic. Look at humans. We coddle along the stupid ones rather then letting them be "eaten" and see what they do? They destory the environment allowing ALL of these species to become extinct and then totally wipe out man kind. That's what happens when animals that are weak are allowed to live anyway. When a species is about to go extinct, not only is the individual animal unfit, but the whole freaking species is weak. You can even use me as an example. I should have been eaten a long time ago.

But species extinction is necessary. The blanket statement of species extinction doesn't really put any specific value on anything. Certain species can go extinct and no one will know the difference - like the "supposed" unknown species extinctions. Then other species extinctions can be vital to our own lives. Well, I'm just not sure. I'm not ready to stake a claim yet, but I'm strongly leaning towards letting evolution take it's course because not everybody believes this will result in humans wiping themselves out. It most certainly means the extinction of alot of species however, which also feels wrong. But that's my moral side speaking, not the pragmatic institution of survival of the fittest - and ONLY the fittest. It's hard for me to accept stepping in or halting our own advancement as if it's all unnatural. Our occupation and habitat invasion is natural or else we wouldn't be doing it all over the globe. That's noble, caring and with good intent. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm just not so sure that environmental preservation isn't really just environmental recession.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my point at all whatsoever. The fact is they DID get killed unfairly. They did not defeat their attacker. In the proverbial eyes of nature, they are unfit to survive. And, it may not be survival to you, but it was to them. They believed the jews were an inferior race and that white anglo saxxons were the gift of the earth. In their perspective it was a survivalist act. Do you also think war is unnatural? That would be silly to think that. Countless numbers of humans have been slaughtered over time - not to eat - but still for survival. Perception is reality. If humans believe something to be a threat, it's perfectly natural to attempt to eliminate it. The thing is, our perceptions have always been way screwed up. As in the case with the jews, witches, racism...

Admittedly, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer...and I have no idea what you're saying here. By status quo, I mean the current arrangement and players of the ecosystem. Changes here and there can drastically change this system, meaning it's "fragile" or sensitive to change. But it's not fragile in terms of the very existence of an ecosystem. I'm probably mincing words. I just reject the idea that nature is all fragile, like life on earth is teetering on the verge of TOTAL ANNIHILATION - AHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Apparently not. This is not a moral issue, this is a logical issue. Does the sick and injured antelope deserve to be a lion's meal? From a moral standpoint, absolutely not. That's insensitive to take advantage like that. But if nature was "sensitive" and "fair", evolution would not be possible. Propogation of the species and natural selection takes precedence over everything. I'm pretty much done re-explaining this point. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

See, I used think the same thing about humanity from a youngster to early adulthood. But there's a major problem with that logic. For some reason, we feel so compelled to apply our man-made moral code in the context of the laws of nature. Our morality is just a product of empathy and pity which is NOT a trait found in the natural laws of survival. Just how far back in history do we have to go to get to a time when humans lived "with" nature rather than running all over it? Could humans be advanced with today's technologies WITHOUT harming the environment? (That's a genuine question because it's too big for me to answer.) Your economics argument is very potent and really got me thinking. So, are humans really just supposed to be relegated to simple survival mode for the rest of the time this big ole rock will support us? Seems like a huge waste of such an intelligent, impressive muscle. Economics takes advanced, cooperative lifeforms to be present...doesn't it? And SkepticLance has made some excellent points about ecosystems being altered and changed rather than destroyed. It's looking more and more, to me, like our grouping and creation of cooperative societies, leading to awesome advancements is completely natural and to be expected. And the grand ecosystem will change and adjust around this progress, meaning species get wiped out while others adapt and grow. Again, I really think it's all happening way too fast for it to keep up, but I'm still holding out.

Anyone who has to insult and lower the debate to name calling and belittling, obviously has little substance to offer. You have lost all credibility with me. You're the A-typical scientist I simply cannot stand. Completely full of himself, with your nose up in the air so you don't have to smell the fodder of those beneath your "superior intelligence". Rather than take an opportunity to teach, you took the opportunity to attack. Negative rather than positive. Which is quite natural actually. That's the same thing mankind does with nature. Rather than take a positive approach, they take a negative one. I guess you and those hillbilly hunters and the rest of us rotten resource hogging humans have something in common after all? Oh, and if you need us to google OTHER people's insights to look smart, like your approach, we can do that for you.

If you live in America and you're typing on a computer, then you're spoiled and rich. I'm not talking about America's idea of poor, I mean actually poor and living rather primitively. I don't know many poor Americans hunting for their food...just hunting for their food stamps. It's silly to think that some starving african tribe should worry about the fate of their prey. That's not in the design for humans that have NOT mastered survival and are NOT bored not having to try to survive. I'm curious as to what the hell you're trying to say right here. I'm being sarcastic and saying that environmentalists can't wait to start tampering with the ecosystem - as if they're qualified to do so.

I don't like the word "theology" as it implies some kind of god at it's center and I'm just not into it. But I also shouldn't really use the word 'deserving' either, as that implies some kind of moral code. My original point was, and still is, if it's going extinct then it probably should be. If anything "deserves" to live, then it will be alive. Because apparently the environment is changing so that there is not a place for that living thing anymore. Keeping it around anyway, just seems odd to me. I simply trust nature more than man. Man is a product of nature that sniffs around and tries to figure out the world around him. I don't believe that humans should be messing with the design. If we understand it 100%, that would be different. But we don't. Scientists have experimented with moving species from one part of the world to another only to get results they didn't expect - including negative ones. To me, that's just one example that proves we don't understand enough about this whole thing to be tampering with it. I realize saving a particular species may seem all heart felt and done with good intentions, but I'm not convinced it's the right thing to do. If there's anything I've learned from observing nature, it's that our moral values and natures laws of survival don't mix. But I also don't believe we should be the reason a species finally goes over the edge either. Whether it may seem apparent or not, I agree with what most people are saying in here, about man taking more responsibility for his actions, especially in areas of the world where we really have mastered survival to the point we're bored not having to try to survive so much, and therefore plunder the resources. But man is a part of nature too. Perhaps if humans are changing the environment and species are going extinct, then maybe they should. Other animals cause extinction too, albeit a fraction of what we're doing. The resulting lifeforms are those that could adapt to the changes we've caused - they are fit to survive in this new age. I'm not saying I believe that necessarily, because I'm afraid it's too much change too fast. But I have to kick it around and think it all out. This forum is a great place to do that.

It may be ravenous exploitation in north america, europe, southeast asia...but what about Afghanistan? Most of Africa? These people are in the very arms race you speak of. You say that humans have mastered survival, but that's too broad a generalization because not ALL humans have mastered survival. For half the world, it's still a survival challenge out there. War and famine make it tough to live and Africa is infamous for it. Poachers aren't usually rich guys murdering for fun - they're poor people trying to live. Not that I condone it, but it's the truth. And alot of those animals on your list are mainly in Africa are they not? You're looking at things from a spoiled rich american's point of view rather than people who really have to earn their right to live. We don't understand that over here in America. Oh believe me, I know a true environmentalist's goal is to maintain the entire ecosystem - maintain it right out of existence. Man still doesn't know how leave things alone that he doesn't FULLY understand...yes a very ignorant public. Anyway, I actually completely agree that most of the true environmentalists out there are not exclusive about the wildlife they fight for, but I still see more fuss over more common creatures. And I don't watch corporate news, so I don't know what fuzzy creatures they're pimping you. The thing is, it all comes down to my original point whether you all like or not. If what you all say is true, about us destroying the ecosystem to the point of our own demise, then we don't deserve to live, do we?

Ok, so how is "tech" unnatural? I've always wondered if humans are really on a course to recreate themselves. You can see the foundation of the human brain and the individual processes in the microprocessors we've invented. And to understand evolution as much as we seem to already, I can only imagine how a couple hundred years of research and study will advance us.

You're reaching for anything you can make up now... Ok, since deer are experiencing the population burst, name the 12 that are being wiped out right now. They should be on the endangered list obviously... I wasn't replying to your arguments necessarily. But in all my life of listening to this rhetoric I've never heard anyone speak a word, not once, about protecting endangered insects or any other unnattractive icky animal. They always ramble on about how much we can learn from the fluffy cute animal that isn't fit to survive in this world any longer. Go ahead and keep building yourself up on your hypocritical soap box.