s1eep Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 To begin I would like to announce that I do not believe in God, but I believe that Nature is more significant than myself, and I worship our bond. I am all the small things, I prefer to be alone, I tend to associate with one or maybe to people; I like to see how things interrelate, and often find cool representations like fire, it's effects, being related to anger and it's effects. Did humans inherit what relatives left behind? Can I be angry because fire is possible, do these two states connect? Reality, to me, is evil-- if I had my way a lot of things would change; for instance, I would be kinder to nature and prioritise it; being wise, I don't want future humanity to perish due to global pollution. Everything in our world created by us is unnatural (i.e. not created by nature); these inventions are not only different to nature, but they are against nature-- in the light of humans being greater. Most unnatural things plunder nature and harm the environment either by waste or poison (and a lot more I'm sure). Are humans progressing in a different direction to nature, and could we be more natural for our own prosperity? If this is the case, then I would like to assert that the entirety of nature existent is one thing and life is experience orientated, a part of the meta-consciousness that is nature. Where nature comes first, there should be no unnatural. Humans are egotistical to deny their natural roots, and the respect it deserves, and continue to build an unnatural world, that kills them. Are humans educated stupid? Are humans evil (in accordance to what is wise)?
Acme Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 You set up a false dichotomy. Humans came from and remain a part of nature, so what they do must needs be natural. Moreover, long before we arrived on the scene, asteroids, fires, supervolcanoes, and other such natural disasters were destroying countless other natural ...well...things. I think, therefore I naturally argue. Que sera sera. 2
s1eep Posted March 4, 2014 Author Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) You set up a false dichotomy. Humans came from and remain a part of nature, so what they do must needs be natural. Moreover, long before we arrived on the scene, asteroids, fires, supervolcanoes, and other such natural disasters were destroying countless other natural ...well...things. I think, therefore I naturally argue. Que sera sera.s No we don't, that is what makes us pseudo-unique. We are more entwined with our own ego than we are nature, I guess to simplify it for you I would need to call it illness. We are anti-nature by worshipping natures anti-side, individuality, 'oneness', singularity. We have names, and this is not a tactical decision, this is to categorize us like cattle. We use words which are unnatural-- everything we do is unnatural but we have natural roots, we are still nature, but we deny it in so many ways, and are ultimately anti-nature. To nature, we are anti, and if it is all nature and nothing to do with any singularity then we are aligned to natures justice, we are an abomination. Edited March 4, 2014 by s1eep
Acme Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 No we don't, that is what makes us pseudo-unique. We are more entwined with our own ego than we are nature, I guess to simplify it for you I would need to call it illness. We are anti-nature by worshipping natures anti-side, individuality, 'oneness', singularity. We have names, and this is not a tactical decision, this is to categorize us like cattle. We use words which are unnatural-- everything we do is unnatural but we have natural roots, we are still nature, but we deny it in so many ways, and are ultimately anti-nature. To nature, we are anti, and if it is all nature and nothing to do with any singularity then we are aligned to natures justice, we are an abomination. No; you are mistaken. Nothing is more natural than variation among or between individuals. Your fixation on illness is just one such variation. Good luck with that. 1
Moontanman Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 We are a part of nature, not apart from it. I don't understand your assertion that anything we do is unnatural, that makes no sense. It's like asserting that organic is somehow better than non organic but the dichotomy is false, organic has no meaning in that context... neither does natural...
EdEarl Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Thus far, this thread seems to be focused on semantics. S1eep has defined unnatural to be some things man-made, and perhaps all. Moontanman and Acme argue that the Universe is natural, and nothing is unnatural. Perhaps the discussion can begin anew.
Phi for All Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Can I be angry because fire is possible, do these two states connect? Reality, to me, is evil-- if I had my way a lot of things would change; for instance, I would be kinder to nature and prioritise it; being wise, I don't want future humanity to perish due to global pollution. It sounds like you're holding a grudge about something. If you're angry about pollution, you should know that it used to be ever so much worse. It's still not where it should be, we can always do better, but the point is we're improving. A great deal of improvement can be directly related to the internet, by bringing these subjects into public discussion. It's easy to say people are evil and unnatural. Try looking at the extraordinary way we can cooperate for mutual good, communicating over vast distances to learn and improve ourselves and our societies. And realize that we were hunter/gatherers a mere 12,000 years ago. That's not evil. I think a lot of people think it's modern society that isn't natural. They look at where we were just before the industrial revolution and think it was a simpler time, and somehow more natural. I think we've done very well in the last two hundred years. We've made mistakes like we do, and we've fixed what we could. And the fact that we're now capable of leaving the planet, capable of spreading Earth's lifeforms across the galaxy, is something no other natural animal but us could do. 1
s1eep Posted March 5, 2014 Author Posted March 5, 2014 It sounds like you're holding a grudge about something. If you're angry about pollution, you should know that it used to be ever so much worse. It's still not where it should be, we can always do better, but the point is we're improving. A great deal of improvement can be directly related to the internet, by bringing these subjects into public discussion. It's easy to say people are evil and unnatural. Try looking at the extraordinary way we can cooperate for mutual good, communicating over vast distances to learn and improve ourselves and our societies. And realize that we were hunter/gatherers a mere 12,000 years ago. That's not evil. I think a lot of people think it's modern society that isn't natural. They look at where we were just before the industrial revolution and think it was a simpler time, and somehow more natural. I think we've done very well in the last two hundred years. We've made mistakes like we do, and we've fixed what we could. And the fact that we're now capable of leaving the planet, capable of spreading Earth's lifeforms across the galaxy, is something no other natural animal but us could do. I'm passionate about nature, not angry, but my dedication to voice relatively similar concepts can make me come across as angry, or wrathful. The difference between human reality and natural reality is great; if we were like other animals, if we didn't talk and create pseudo-reality, nature would have been at optimal health, and we would have been in the perfect conditions for our own evolution. Because we don't hunt like other mammals, we don't have the capacity to evolve in special ways-- we halt our evolution with our less natural lifestyles. What is evolution to somebody? Why would we value evolution? Is it through what we could become, or is it just a insignificant natural process? What I'm suggesting is that there is a life long lost with the presence of human reality. The lives we lead are an abstraction; they are not natural, we do not live how we should live for the betterment of ourselves. It doesn't matter if we have improved, and the improvements themselves are not enough to counter our waste output. The only way to truly perfect planet Earth would be to destroy modern civilization and remove the human ego that separates us from nature-- give no aid to anyone, remove money and close down all shops, and allow humans to slowly return to natural living.
Acme Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 ... The lives we lead are an abstraction; they are not natural, we do not live how we should live for the betterment of ourselves. It doesn't matter if we have improved, and the improvements themselves are not enough to counter our waste output. The only way to truly perfect planet Earth would be to destroy modern civilization and remove the human ego that separates us from nature-- give no aid to anyone, remove money and close down all shops, and allow humans to slowly return to natural living. And yet here you are fully engaged in technology and enjoying all manner of the comforts you despise. Sounds rather hypocritical to me. Shouldn't you be living naked in a wild somewhere and chewing on a cold pinecone? The arguments you give are as weak as the will you exhibit. 2
Phi for All Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 I'm passionate about nature, not angry, but my dedication to voice relatively similar concepts can make me come across as angry, or wrathful. The difference between human reality and natural reality is great; if we were like other animals, if we didn't talk and create pseudo-reality, nature would have been at optimal health, and we would have been in the perfect conditions for our own evolution. Because we don't hunt like other mammals, we don't have the capacity to evolve in special ways-- we halt our evolution with our less natural lifestyles. What is evolution to somebody? Why would we value evolution? Is it through what we could become, or is it just a insignificant natural process? What I'm suggesting is that there is a life long lost with the presence of human reality. The lives we lead are an abstraction; they are not natural, we do not live how we should live for the betterment of ourselves. It doesn't matter if we have improved, and the improvements themselves are not enough to counter our waste output. The only way to truly perfect planet Earth would be to destroy modern civilization and remove the human ego that separates us from nature-- give no aid to anyone, remove money and close down all shops, and allow humans to slowly return to natural living. I think your perspective on humans needs to mature. You're comparing us to other animals using criteria that condemn us from the outset. "If we didn't talk and create pseudo-reality"? What the hell is that? Why is our talking different from any other animal's communication? "Nature would have been at optimal health" is speculation, but it seems to be at the very heart of your disillusionment. You can't know what nature's optimal health is, or if such a state even exists, but you're condemning all of us because you THINK you know. THINK about that. We can do better, always. That's one of the reasons I like science, it's always improving because it's not looking for rock solid answers, but rather the best explanations. And I happen to think you're wrong about destroying modern civilization. Imo, we're the only species capable of leaving this planet, which we know will eventually be consumed by our own sun going red giant. Where will your "natural living" humans be then? They'll be naturally gone. They certainly won't be with me, seeding Earth's biodiversity across the stars in our most important evolutionary leap to date. 3
Ringer Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Were the volcanoes unnatural at the end of the Permian? They certainly fill the criteria the same as our technology does.
s1eep Posted March 6, 2014 Author Posted March 6, 2014 I think your perspective on humans needs to mature. You're comparing us to other animals using criteria that condemn us from the outset. "If we didn't talk and create pseudo-reality"? What the hell is that? Why is our talking different from any other animal's communication? "Nature would have been at optimal health" is speculation, but it seems to be at the very heart of your disillusionment. You can't know what nature's optimal health is, or if such a state even exists, but you're condemning all of us because you THINK you know. THINK about that. We can do better, always. That's one of the reasons I like science, it's always improving because it's not looking for rock solid answers, but rather the best explanations. And I happen to think you're wrong about destroying modern civilization. Imo, we're the only species capable of leaving this planet, which we know will eventually be consumed by our own sun going red giant. Where will your "natural living" humans be then? They'll be naturally gone. They certainly won't be with me, seeding Earth's biodiversity across the stars in our most important evolutionary leap to date. Other animals don't use words, humans are the only animal to be classed as a word-animal. We hold the word in higher regard than we do the labelled subjects, we are pseudo-animals, and the science you speak so highly of is pseudo-science (to do with the word-reality we created and not the labelled nature). I'm not asserting that we must know things, I don't need to know what nature's optimal health is, but I'm sure it was healthier before we polluted the air and spread waste across the environment. We should live in the wild, not in advanced houses filled with technology to help us accomplish things that were accomplished in more challenging ways back before civilization. We are docile, we have reached the end of our evolution, in our opinions, but life could go so much further, it's potentially infinite. Why be creators when a great enough life was already created for us? -1
Phi for All Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 Other animals don't use words, humans are the only animal to be classed as a word-animal. We hold the word in higher regard than we do the labelled subjects, we are pseudo-animals, and the science you speak so highly of is pseudo-science (to do with the word-reality we created and not the labelled nature). You don't like science, but you grab onto a classification that calls us "word animals"? I googled for this classification and all I got was animals drawn using words. I think you're basing much of your stance on some really tenuous "classifications". It's easy to see you're disillusioned with humans. I think you realize there is absolutely no way society would voluntarily go back to living like savages, so you've set up a scenario where you can never approve of human civilization. It will never get any better because you keep making up more reasons to hate them. I'm not asserting that we must know things, I don't need to know what nature's optimal health is, but I'm sure it was healthier before we polluted the air and spread waste across the environment. We should live in the wild, not in advanced houses filled with technology to help us accomplish things that were accomplished in more challenging ways back before civilization. We are docile, we have reached the end of our evolution, in our opinions, but life could go so much further, it's potentially infinite. Why be creators when a great enough life was already created for us? You're sure it was healthier? This is why we try to look for evidence in science, and not get caught up in emotional guesswork. Ringer mentioned the volcanoes in the Permian, and that's a great example of what everyone would call a natural occurrence, yet it was more destructive to life than anything we've ever done, including nuclear weapons. I'll never understand the prejudice that tells people it's perfectly fine for beavers to build houses unlike most other animals, but not OK for humans. You seem to infer here that we were meant to stop evolving, at a point of your choosing because you romanticize living off the land as the ideal condition for all animals. Can I ask you a question? What would be your reaction if we started observing great apes building houses in the trees? Should we stop them? Should we blow up that evolutionary bridge? Should we assume that's not natural or do apes automatically get a pass because... well, they aren't human?
s1eep Posted March 6, 2014 Author Posted March 6, 2014 I like science, but I don't like modern science, or how conformed the "pseudo-scientists" are to people's theories about life, rather than the structure and behaviour. I think you restrict people's imaginations, which doesn't allow them to understand more comprehensive theories, theories that allow them to see beyond the theory. I think it's egotistical to name your ancestors savages when that lifestyle brought about the likes of every animal and thing in the universe. I suppose it's how you see stupidity, you believe in yourself that you are not stupid and you think you can prove it; but I see it as your weakness-- you don't want to be stupid. You never know, I believe you are stupid a good percentage of your life; people are not perfect, yet. Yeah I'm sure it was healthier, you create a much worse environment, have you not seen the effects of pollution? How you think is let's march on blindly leaving behind death and destruction, not caring about the damage you cause is stupid, and this one you have come to terms with. And I said to evolve in special ways; we do not have people pursue evolution like they would a sport. It's something which should be valued by the self, like the healthy habitat; these things are not evident physically, you cannot scientifically be wise, but by being wise you can see that humans breed and future generations need a healthy habitat to survive. You do not know the self well enough to unbind yourself from the egotistical pseudo-science illusion. If apes began to use words, I would say that we should stop them, as I am saying to you, you should stop using them, or use them for a greater good. You can build a house without words, it's not so bad, it's a wise creation, little waste comes from a house alone. Give it some thought will you, come off your high horse and understand the universes greatness above you. -3
s1eep Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 How can you say that words, a human creation, are not dominant over our lives more than the natural world?
Arete Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 I'll bite: Plenty of animals use verbal means of communication, some with extensive vocabularies: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/vocal.html http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/abstract/S1364-6613(09)00228-9 An extraordinary example is seen in prairie dogs, whose vocalizations regarding predators carry information regarding the predator's species, color, speed of approach and direction. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376635700001054 Or dolphins, who have unique vocal signatures (i.e. names) for each other, in addition to distinct "words" to convey detailed information regarding predators and prey to other members of a pod. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=fYUJ7jKhTkgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA271&dq=communication+in+dolphins&ots=t-t_gMKh4G&sig=TyZKYWU2RJ6GuZCx5nPxB4Tw3Go#v=onepage&q=communication%20in%20dolphins&f=false Oh and apes already use "words" (i.e. specific sounds to communicate specific instrcutions or warnings to other members of a group) to communicate: http://colinallen.dnsalias.org/Secure/TCA/tomasello-final.pdf So, animals aren't simply grunting and growling to each other, and many examples of complex, rich vocabularies exist in animals other than humans. Ergo, vocal communication and "words" are not a uniquely human invention. I would say that we should stop them, as I am saying to you, you should stop using them, or use them for a greater good. I'm kind of intrigued, you do understand that by typing on a message board, you are using words, right? If words are so harmful, why are you using them?
Sato Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) I think what s1eep is describing is linguistic relativity which proposes that how we comprehend the external world is shaped by our language, a form of which states that language determines and potentially limits our thought, but this hypothesis certainly doesn't have enough evidence to be taken as anything more than a consideration with some very particular success. An example is languages that allocate genders to objects (most European languages) causing a clear distinction between most of these objects in the speaker's abstraction of them, contrary to an English speaker who would see such things as almost homogeneous in this sense with exception to ideas that have a direct connection and connotation to gender (bra, mustache, pink, dumbbells). There is also the case of some languages that don't describe locations relative to the speaker like left, right, backwards, forwards, etc, but rather only absolute locations such as east, west, north, and south which seems to cause a fundamentally different idea of spatial location than that may be held by someone who speaks a more common language. Despite this, I find the communication medium of spoken and especially written language to be an advantage, as though most simple ideas can be automatically abstracted and understood by the human brain without much difficulty ('jump', 'walk', 'remove', 'put', 'colour', 'ground', 'sky', 'circle', 'square'), in order to have a greater understanding of the world we must be able to develop much more complex ideas, and this is limited by most of our less-than-ideal intellectual abilities and short term memories. But, because of our linguistic abilities, we are able to develop chains of composite ideas like those used by science to understand the processes of nature (climate/weather or our digestive systems) which could not be understood otherwise, and even if our memories were capable of storing and abstracting such systems of simple ideas after direct observation of such processes over time, a task very inefficient for the pure purpose of learning itself and likely only to be done by a few individuals who take interest in that specific system, there are some basic ideas which are themselves so complicated that not many individuals could discover them with exceptions like Euler, Euclid, and Newton; the only reason that much of humanity understands many of these basic concepts of nature is because they were preserved and clearly communicated through language by their discoverers. With all of this, I would concede that language and words actually allow humans to have a significantly greater understanding of the world than naught. Also, as for your other point, much of the natural disasters that occurred before humans even came into play, like volcanoes and asteroid strikes as some earlier posters stated, polluted the environment with much more gas and dust and killed off many more species of plant and animal than we have ever even come close to doing, but now we are ourselves developing technology, allowed by language, to prevent these disasters and protect the animals, as we have naturally evolved to do in response to a natural sense of threat and danger in ourselves. Though, we have gone much farther than any other known animal, most likely due to our development of language among other factors, so it may be difficult to connect but it is all, again, natural. Edited March 9, 2014 by Sato
s1eep Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) I'll bite: Plenty of animals use verbal means of communication, some with extensive vocabularies: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/vocal.html http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/abstract/S1364-6613(09)00228-9 An extraordinary example is seen in prairie dogs, whose vocalizations regarding predators carry information regarding the predator's species, color, speed of approach and direction. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376635700001054 Or dolphins, who have unique vocal signatures (i.e. names) for each other, in addition to distinct "words" to convey detailed information regarding predators and prey to other members of a pod. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=fYUJ7jKhTkgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA271&dq=communication+in+dolphins&ots=t-t_gMKh4G&sig=TyZKYWU2RJ6GuZCx5nPxB4Tw3Go#v=onepage&q=communication%20in%20dolphins&f=false Oh and apes already use "words" (i.e. specific sounds to communicate specific instrcutions or warnings to other members of a group) to communicate: http://colinallen.dnsalias.org/Secure/TCA/tomasello-final.pdf So, animals aren't simply grunting and growling to each other, and many examples of complex, rich vocabularies exist in animals other than humans. Ergo, vocal communication and "words" are not a uniquely human invention. I'm kind of intrigued, you do understand that by typing on a message board, you are using words, right? If words are so harmful, why are you using them? But they use these things tactically and make use of their tactical minds. No animal uses words to the extent of humans. I think what s1eep is describing is linguistic relativity which proposes that how we comprehend the external world is shaped by our language, a form of which states that language determines and potentially limits our thought, but this hypothesis certainly doesn't have enough evidence to be taken as anything more than a consideration with some very particular success. An example is languages that allocate genders to objects (most European languages) causing a clear distinction between most of these objects in the speaker's abstraction of them, contrary to an English speaker who would see such things as almost homogeneous in this sense with exception to ideas that have a direct connection and connotation to gender (bra, mustache, pink, dumbbells). There is also the case of some languages that don't describe locations relative to the speaker like left, right, backwards, forwards, etc, but rather only absolute locations such as east, west, north, and south which seems to cause a fundamentally different idea of spatial location than that may be held by someone who speaks a more common language. Despite this, I find the communication medium of spoken and especially written language to be an advantage, as though most simple ideas can be automatically abstracted and understood by the human brain without much difficulty ('jump', 'walk', 'remove', 'put', 'colour', 'ground', 'sky', 'circle', 'square'), in order to have a greater understanding of the world we must be able to develop much more complex ideas, and this is limited by most of our less-than-ideal intellectual abilities and short term memories. But, because of our linguistic abilities, we are able to develop chains of composite ideas like those used by science to understand the processes of nature (climate/weather or our digestive systems) which could not be understood otherwise, and even if our memories were capable of storing and abstracting such systems of simple ideas after direct observation of such processes over time, a task very inefficient for the pure purpose of learning itself and likely only to be done by a few individuals who take interest in that specific system, there are some basic ideas which are themselves so complicated that not many individuals could discover them with exceptions like Euler, Euclid, and Newton; the only reason that much of humanity understands many of these basic concepts of nature is because they were preserved and clearly communicated through language by their discoverers. With all of this, I would concede that language and words actually allow humans to have a significantly greater understanding of the world than naught. Also, as for your other point, much of the natural disasters that occurred before humans even came into play, like volcanoes and asteroid strikes as some earlier posters stated, polluted the environment with much more gas and dust and killed off many more species of plant and animal than we have ever even come close to doing, but now we are ourselves developing technology, allowed by language, to prevent these disasters and protect the animals, as we have naturally evolved to do in response to a natural sense of threat and danger in ourselves. Though, we have gone much farther than any other known animal, most likely due to our development of language among other factors, so it may be difficult to connect but it is all, again, natural. You don't mention any of humanity's downsides; there are a lot of things wrong with the word, especially if you take into account it's beginning and end. Edited March 9, 2014 by s1eep -1
Sato Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 You don't mention any of humanity's downsides; there are a lot of things wrong with the word, especially if you take into account it's beginning and end. Yes I do; I mention how insignificant they are relative to all the damage natural disasters have caused, and how significant the upsides are in preventing damage from the natural disasters. Your second statement signifies that you've yourself conceded that my (and everyone else's) points have overturned all of yours as you aren't able to actually counter anything I contended but send an ambiguous and empty "there are a lot of things wrong with the word, especially if... [meaningless nonsense]". All of the counters brought up in my post and everyone else's clearly show how every single statement you've made is logically invalid, and it pisses me off that you're completely ignoring that and persisting in your fantasy and neglecting all coherent opposition, completely against the point of a debate.
s1eep Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 Yes I do; I mention how insignificant they are relative to all the damage natural disasters have caused, and how significant the upsides are in preventing damage from the natural disasters. Your second statement signifies that you've yourself conceded that my (and everyone else's) points have overturned all of yours as you aren't able to actually counter anything I contended but send an ambiguous and empty "there are a lot of things wrong with the word, especially if... [meaningless nonsense]". All of the counters brought up in my post and everyone else's clearly show how every single statement you've made is logically invalid, and it pisses me off that you're completely ignoring that and persisting in your fantasy and neglecting all coherent opposition, completely against the point of a debate. You don't mention waste output, something which spurred from the pseudo-intelligence that comes from the word. That is a but one of the downsides. The downsides are so numerous for the future of Earth that it's stupid to use the word.
Arete Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) But they use these things tactically and make use of their tactical minds. No animal uses words to the extent of humans. I'm interested to know how you know what a Chimpanzee is thinking when using a pant-grunt to communicate the expectancy of food to other members of a troop? http://womeninthewild.org/chimpanzee-calls.html How is a pant-grunt different to the chimp saying "I'm looking forward to dinner guys" ? both use auditory ques to convey precisely the same information. The downsides are so numerous for the future of Earth that it's stupid to use the word. Could you address the fact that you are currently using words to convey your idea, and potentially give an example of how you would communicate it using another form of communication? Edited March 9, 2014 by Arete
s1eep Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 It's obviously nothing like "I'm looking forward to dinner guys", be accurate. And I wouldn't convey this idea, I would be doing other things like surviving in a competitive world. -2
Arete Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) It's obviously nothing like "I'm looking forward to dinner guys", be accurate. And I wouldn't convey this idea, I would be doing other things like surviving in a competitive world. Apologies, but it's not obvious to me. Could you bear with me and explain? Also, is that a statement conceding that you would be unable to communicate your contention that words are negative, without the use of words? Finally, there's significant empirical evidence that suggests a positive correlation between the ability to communicate and evolutionary potential. In fact, there;s evidence that language evolved in response to increasing group size in early hominids. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2743982?uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103624569977 http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution//retrieve/pii/S0169534706002096?cc=y Therefore, the ability to communicate in words improves your ability to survive in a competitive world - that's rather unequivocal. Edited March 10, 2014 by Arete
arc Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Volcanoes are a good example of a "natural" devastation of the environment to put our own scale of influence on this planet into perspective, but I prefer a glacial period. You could call it cryogenic pollution. Before that last glacial started some 125,000 years ago, the Northern Hemisphere of the Ermian interglacial had vast forests reaching the Arctic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian The Eemian climate is believed to have been about as stable as that of the Holocene. . . . . although global annual mean temperatures were probably similar to those of the Holocene. The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape, Norway (which is now tundra) well above the Arctic Circle at 71°10′21″N 25°47′40″E. Hardwood trees such as hazel and oak grew as far north as Oulu, Finland. And then it started snowing. Image by HannesGrobe/AWI who has no connection to me or this work. And then it became colder and stayed there. The snow didn't melt in the summer temperatures and just kept getting deeper and deeper, killing off vast forests and the ecosystems they contained. How many little valleys and hollows with unique flora and fauna were eliminated as the snow buried it and then crushed it under what would be a mile of glacial ice grinding and scouring the soil down to bedrock. This of coarse was concurrent with vast areas in Asia that dried out and became wind blown desert. It will repeat this cycle again in the near future, 120,000 +/- years of ice will come after the environments have reestablish again during maybe 20 +/- thousand years of warmer temperatures, like they have done so for the last 2.58 million years as this cycle was, and is, repeated. What blinds someone to the scale of what the natural world can produce in environmental change? Can we even say it is destructive if it naturally occurs. s1eep, you have been misled by our our popular culture to view mankind as a parasite on this planet, as something so detrimental you would erase mankind if it was within your powers. Ted Kaczynski shared this view as does vast numbers of environmentalist/anarchists. It is not a healthy position to subject yourself to, I have not seen anyone with this point of view that has any satisfaction in life, professional or private. It devours your happiness, it robs you of your outlook. It wants and needs others to share its misery.
swansont Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 But they use these things tactically and make use of their tactical minds. No animal uses words to the extent of humans. How does that make it unnatural? Giraffes uses a long neck to a greater extent than any other animal. Is that unnatural? Is our development of tool use unnatural, even if we ignore the fact that other animals use tools? Was tool use bestowed upon us by some unnatural means? (magic? aliens?). When did Homo sapiens (or our ancestors) cease to be natural? This arbitrary distinction seems disingenuous.
Recommended Posts