1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Question about mankind.

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by Metalbasspro, Apr 8, 2014.

  1. Metalbasspro


    Feb 9, 2009
    Inspired by the climate damage thread.....

    Why can't mankind live within nature. Why does he harm the environment unlike any other creature on the planet? I know some will correctly say it's our intelligence but then why has nature spawned a being that can do what we do in the first place?

    Was this an accident of nature? Is it just un natural? Is there a larger plan by mother nature? What are your feelings and insights into this topic?
  2. Some say black holes are civilisations getting too clever and playing about with dark matter, poof, gone.
  3. nukes_da_bass

    nukes_da_bass Banned

    Feb 19, 2006
    west suburban boston
    Picture yourself in pre neolithic times, sometimes a cave for shelter and sometimes nothing.
    Dudes come along with an invention "this will keep you warm! Safe! Fed!".
    MBP, pre neolithic history was all about being cold, hungry, and early death.
    With our active forebrain and tool using hands it's actually natural to keep trying to make life more comfortable. For humans we are reacting out of instinct.
    That being said, we are nature's most homicidal species and what one might refer to as a 'holy goof'.
    More coffee need more coffee.
  4. Gorn

    Gorn Supporting Member

    Dec 15, 2011
    Queens, NY
    There is no purpose behind nature or why we evolved the way we have. There's no plan. To ask why we've adapted our environment to suit our needs rather than adapting to our environment is a nonsensical question. "How" is a question worth asking. "Why" implies purpose where there is none. This species has been around for an insignificant fraction of this planets existence. We're not that special.

    But generally, it's easier to cultivate livestock and crops and build permanent shelters than it is to live nomadic lifestyles, hunt and gather, and evade predators. That's a "why" answer if you really have to have one.
  5. Hobobob

    Hobobob Don't feed the troll, folks.

    Jan 25, 2011
    Camarillo, CA
    I don't understand why nature has to be some kind of sentient being.
    We evolved the way we did for the same reasons that any other living thing did - our ancestors managed to reproduce before they died. The adaptations that happened to help that process along for us were things like bipedal locomotion, increasing intelligence, tool making, etc. until you get to where we are today. The Earth doesn't resent creating us, it's just a ball of rock and water moving through space. We, however, may very well be helping to turn that ball into a place that will eventually no longer be able to support our existence here. Maybe we'll adapt, and maybe some other species will too. A lot of them won't, though. This isn't malice on the part of the Earth, it's simply changing circumstances.
  6. Jazz Ad

    Jazz Ad Mi la ré sol Supporting Member

    Yes, people want to live in nature. As long as they get antibiotics, emergency heliported rescue units, modern guns and waterproof tents with polar wool sleeping bags.
  7. Joe Nerve

    Joe Nerve Supporting Member

    Oct 7, 2000
    New York City
    Endorsing artist: Musicman basses, Hipshot products
    Because man can be selfish, and greedy. Those 2 characteristics often bring money with them, and money has more power here on earth than anything else (cept tornatos, hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, sharknados, and few other things) . We elect the most powerful person in the world (or United States at least), based mostly upon how much money he/she has to campaign, and nobody even bats an eye at that. It's not important. Sprinkle a litte more inherent human stupidity on top of all that, and well... there ya go. :)
  8. Factor88


    Jun 21, 2011
    Your very premise is incorrect. All living things degrade their environment. It is just that man has figured out to avoid the consequences (so far).
  9. SirMjac28

    SirMjac28 Patiently Waiting For The Next British Invasion

    Aug 25, 2010
    The Great Midwest
    Man is the most destructive organism to ever inhabit this planet and is on a collision course with an extinction level event. I think nature is definitely going to defend itself as it has for billions of years and if there is any other intelligent life out there you won't see it until we start trying to colonize other planets.
  10. f.c.geil


    May 12, 2011
    Why do certain people continue to insist that man is somehow outside of nature? Man is an integral part of nature, and all our works are natural. To claim otherwise is ignorant, at best. Are we bad for the world? Not really, we simply haven't found stasis yet.
  11. With our ability to adapt and adapt our environment, coupled with the lack of any real predators, we are quite weed-like :p
  12. The definition of nature is everything minus the things that people do.

    All our works, our actions, are artificial - by definition.

    This doesn't mean it's bad, it's simply the definitions, people tend to make the terms more ambiguous than they really are.
  13. Why is a human-built dam less a part of "nature" than a beaver-built dam?
  14. SirMjac28

    SirMjac28 Patiently Waiting For The Next British Invasion

    Aug 25, 2010
    The Great Midwest
    I somewhat disagree the Amazon which is around fifty-five million years old has witnessed its most destruction the last forty plus years due to rapid deforestation and I'm pretty sure that there isn't any animal species besides man that could have done that much irrevocable damage and look at all of the lakes and rivers in and around major cities that were pristine for thousands upon thousands of years before humans contaminated most of them. I think the world is a lot worse for wear because of its human population.
  15. Because of how we define the word "nature" / "natural" and "artificial".

    The issue is that the terms have become loaded so people assume natural = good and artificial = bad.
  16. dougjwray


    Jul 20, 2005
    I think this goes back to the Adam and Eve myth and our attempt to explain why we humans are "different." We consider "animals" any living things which are not us or plants, when, of course, we are animals too. It is a language game.
    The thing is that we are an outrageously successful species. Too successful, if you ask me. We are just doing what we can to survive (food, shelter, etc.) but it's starting to go too far. No, the Earth isn't a sentient being, and it will go on past our demise (and so will cockroaches, bacteria, etc.)... but I'm sickened by the thought of losing elephants, rhinos, gorillas, etc., etc. The oceans are even being depleted of fish.
  17. dougjwray


    Jul 20, 2005
    BTW, I'm sincerely encouraged that there has been no mention of God, His divine plan, etc., etc. so far in this thread.
  18. 96tbird

    96tbird PLEASE STAND BY Supporting Member

    Once we evolved far enough to say to ourselves "hey, what will happen if I smack A with B?" It was game over.
  19. citation needed.
  20. 96tbird

    96tbird PLEASE STAND BY Supporting Member

    Until you brought it up, like seventeen posts in. Passive aggressive much?