Why have Only Humans..... - Page 4

hitch1978 · #31 09-19-2007, 06:37 PM

Yes, my symantice were a bit off in my last post, but not the one before.

It is not unlucky that the way things are is, well, the way things are.

However, we were not lucky enough that they are different. I.E. we are not lucky enough to evolve into a state of equilibrium with the Earths natural enviorenment. I think that is pretty much word for word my original thought.

I never said we were unlucky about it.

vhawk01 · #32 09-19-2007, 06:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, my symantice were a bit off in my last post, but not the one before.

It is not unlucky that the way things are is, well, the way things are.

However, we were not lucky enough that they are different. I.E. we are not lucky enough to evolve into a state of equilibrium with the Earths natural enviorenment. I think that is pretty much word for word my original thought.

I never said we were unlucky about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not lucky enough to have a [censored] machine either.

ALawPoker · #33 09-19-2007, 06:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree.

And that IS unlucky as I said.

Glad we have the same point of view. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Its really not that unlucky. At least, not from my perspective. If it existed we'd all be bacteria.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, the discord is the fun part. I'm glad I can masturbate or ride a roller coaster and really enjoy it. That's the other side of the coin. Though, if I was bacteria, I'd probably have a different perspective.

tame_deuces · #34 09-19-2007, 06:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Such a ridiculous myth that there even IS a natural state of equilibrium in nature, much less that any animals "evolved" to fit nicely into it. Every animal species is bent on manipulating its environment to its own benefit. This "equilibrium" you talk about does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh these words ring so true. The day people stop using those inane 'balance' ideals the better. It is sad that they got such a strong foothold back in the early 70s/late 60s even in many academic branches. To this day they are behind so many stupid 'scientific myths'

SBR · #35 09-19-2007, 06:56 PM

There isn't a really good reason for a high level intelligence. It really isn't as useful for survival as you might think. We are sort of a fluke. I've read that a lot of biologists believe that if you went backwards 40 million years and ran the whole thing over and over again there is a very good chance we wouldn't even show up. Brains require a lot of energy to keep going and aren't as useful to most species as they are to us.

Insp. Clue!So? · #36 09-19-2007, 07:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There isn't a really good reason for a high level intelligence. It really isn't as useful for survival as you might think. We are sort of a fluke. I've read that a lot of biologists believe that if you went backwards 40 million years and ran the whole thing over and over again there is a very good chance we wouldn't even show up. Brains require a lot of energy to keep going and aren't as useful to most species as they are to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is just almost incomprehensibly wrong. Science, our latest, best way of understanding nature and our environment and a direct result of our intelligence, is realistically just a few hundred years old. We are practically a new species with its invention. We are the first to even recoginze that there are consequences to specific actions we take, and the first to be able to change those actions or mitigate the damage mid-stream. For a large, high-maintenance creature we are wildly successful. We will be very, very hard to kill, and should we live a few more centuries and enjoy technical progress even remotely similar to that enjoyed these last few, most of what some view as intractable problems today will vanish. If not sooner.

Talk about your poverty of imagination...

DougShrapnel · #37 09-20-2007, 02:19 AM

Well one possibility is that "controlling" the rest of the world is bad for the continued existence of a species. Or you and I could just be lucky to be part of the paradigm shift.

SBR · #38 09-20-2007, 02:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There isn't a really good reason for a high level intelligence. It really isn't as useful for survival as you might think. We are sort of a fluke. I've read that a lot of biologists believe that if you went backwards 40 million years and ran the whole thing over and over again there is a very good chance we wouldn't even show up. Brains require a lot of energy to keep going and aren't as useful to most species as they are to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is just almost incomprehensibly wrong. Science, our latest, best way of understanding nature and our environment and a direct result of our intelligence, is realistically just a few hundred years old. We are practically a new species with its invention. We are the first to even recoginze that there are consequences to specific actions we take, and the first to be able to change those actions or mitigate the damage mid-stream. For a large, high-maintenance creature we are wildly successful. We will be very, very hard to kill, and should we live a few more centuries and enjoy technical progress even remotely similar to that enjoyed these last few, most of what some view as intractable problems today will vanish. If not sooner.

Talk about your poverty of imagination...

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh thats great and all but you are misunderstanding my point. Yes our intelligence at this point provides a huge advantage and yes at some point clearly evolving intelligence helped our species but in the general case intelligence is not the be all end all of evolution. Our ancestors were weaker and slower than their contemporaries who didn't have a high level of intelligence. Obviously in this case intelligence won out but there is no reason to think it would win out in the general case.

Insp. Clue!So? · #39 09-20-2007, 03:46 AM

There is no "be all and end all of evolution". What we call evolution is just the fringe, crackling embers of a big explosion that took place 14 billion years ago. Of course you right that it need not necessarily have developed, or at least in our own narrow understanding of it.

Roland32 · #40 09-20-2007, 08:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no "be all and end all of evolution". What we call evolution is just the fringe, crackling embers of a big explosion that took place 14 billion years ago. Of course you right that it need not necessarily have developed, or at least in our own narrow understanding of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. While your right that but-for the BigBang life never would have evolved on Earth, but the BigBang was not an evolutionary process.