Question about mankind.

[Darth Handsome]

Couple of acid nerds.

 

[Unrepresented]

I was objecting to the OP's statement "Why does he [man] harm the environment unlike any other creature on the planet?" However, I am interpreting that statement as "Man harms the environment, other creatures do not", when possibly what the OP meant was "Man harms the environment, other creatures less so". To be clear, I would generally agree with the latter statement.

Agreed. Man is doing nothing unique other than in scale. We're overpopulated and overdue for a population correction to restrain our excess.

 

[BayStateBass]

It's interesting if you look at in the broader sense. As an animal species, "modern man" has been around for what might equate to a hiccup in the lifespan of this planet, so far anyway. So viewing it as if we are somehow the one continuous, successful, and unique living organism is viewing our longevity and importance with a little too much reverence. Logically speaking, anyway.

Man is not the only living thing that destroys it's environment, returns nothing, and eventually becomes a victim of it's own work. Simply, look at many bacteria and viruses. Who can explain the reason a virus exists, only to occupy a host, deplete it of it's resources, and eventually destroy that which sustains it? People will say things like "well, it balances things out, you need disease to control population, it's natures way of keeping things in check". Now let's consider scale; would it be fair to say that a virus is to our body what we may be to a galaxy? Or many galaxies? Or maybe even just our planet? Each thing in existence lives in a microcosm of a type, defined by it's own comprehension, ability to move within that microcosm, or understand that which goes beyond it's ability to truly comprehend. Can you truly comprehend just how large the galaxy is? Or the universe? No way. You just know it's wicked big.

In essence, we are just a larger, more complex version of many types of life forms that exist doing the same thing but in a smaller environment. From a what I would consider a logical perspective, anyway.

Now, from a philosophical perspective, I have much different feelings but I will refrain from those.

 

[tangentmusic]

Now, from a philosophical perspective, I have much different feelings but I will refrain from those.

I love Mankind. It's the people I can't stand...

 

[FilterFunk]

Agreed. Man is doing nothing unique other than in scale. We're overpopulated and overdue for a population correction to restrain our excess.

I think it's our self-indulgence that differentiates us.

On the subject of "natural" vs. "un-natural" - putting the dictionary definition aside for a moment, if you buy the premise that everything that occurs is natural, i.e., not affected by anything above or beyond the physical universe as we know it, then how can anything that humans do or make be un-natural? I realize that this is an argument I made in another thread, but if we're natural, and every material we manipulate is also part of an all-natural universe, then how can anything we create be un-natural? The question has been asked in this thread, and I've asked it before as well - how is a beaver dam any more natural than Hoover Dam? We manipulate nature in a more technological manner; how does that make our creations any less natural? How can the most sophisticated man-made (or alien-made) fusion reactor be any less natural than the fusion reactor that is our sun?

 

[ZenG]

Because power, money and ego are more important than anything else.

Mankind could be an evolutionary mistake.

An out-of-control infestation that blanketed the planet.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Man is not the only living thing that destroys it's environment, returns nothing, and eventually becomes a victim of it's own work. Simply, look at many bacteria and viruses. Who can explain the reason a virus exists, only to occupy a host, deplete it of it's resources, and eventually destroy that which sustains it?

Wasps . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Na9-jV_OJI

(non-wasp video, but in response to the rest of the virus comparison)

 

[nukes_da_bass]

Pure pls.
Not that I've done it in 30 years mind you.
I should just order the straight jacket in advance

 

[Unrepresented]

I think it's our self-indulgence that differentiates us.

On the subject of "natural" vs. "un-natural" - putting the dictionary definition aside for a moment, if you buy the premise that everything that occurs is natural, i.e., not affected by anything above or beyond the physical universe as we know it, then how can anything that humans do or make be un-natural? I realize that this is an argument I made in another thread, but if we're natural, and every material we manipulate is also part of an all-natural universe, then how can anything we create be un-natural? The question has been asked in this thread, and I've asked it before as well - how is a beaver dam any more natural than Hoover Dam? We manipulate nature in a more technological manner; how does that make our creations any less natural? How can the most sophisticated man-made (or alien-made) fusion reactor be any less natural than the fusion reactor that is our sun?

There's natural, supernatural, and by definition there'd have to be something that's subnatural (oooh! New thread idea).

We aren't any more gluttonous than any other group becomes when underpredated. Rabbits, deer, whatever fall into the same cycle of eating themselves into famine until their predator population comes back into balence.

 

[DwaynieAD]

I think it's our self-indulgence that differentiates us.

On the subject of "natural" vs. "un-natural" - putting the dictionary definition aside for a moment, if you buy the premise that everything that occurs is natural, i.e., not affected by anything above or beyond the physical universe as we know it, then how can anything that humans do or make be un-natural? I realize that this is an argument I made in another thread, but if we're natural, and every material we manipulate is also part of an all-natural universe, then how can anything we create be un-natural? The question has been asked in this thread, and I've asked it before as well - how is a beaver dam any more natural than Hoover Dam? We manipulate nature in a more technological manner; how does that make our creations any less natural? How can the most sophisticated man-made (or alien-made) fusion reactor be any less natural than the fusion reactor that is our sun?

TL;DR: there's no such thing as fake titties

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

However, there are subnatural and supernatural titties.

 

[Afc70]

There is no plan or grand design. Everything happens based on Newton's law of action and reaction. Forces build up, you have the big bang. The big bang goes off, the Universe starts to grow. The conditions get right, chemical elements start to form life. Life wants to survive so it evolves because its chemical composition pushes it to. It eventually evolves into humans. Humans need to survive so they grow larger brains. Larger brains mean better solution solving: fire, domestication of animals, the wheel, electricity, etc. Here's the interesting question: Why does man pervert everything? Inventing money was a good idea but it led to corruption, crime and unjustice. Inventing weapons was a good idea for hunting and protection, but they became used for other purposes as well. Why does man take from nature more than he needs? The answer is simple: survival instinct. The more rich powerful a person is, the better chances he and his family has. This happens in all hierarchical animal groups, take wolves for example. So everything that happens is natural, "artifical" is just a concept we made up. This is all my personal opinion, of course.

Funny you should mention "no plan or grand design" and Newton in the same sentence , seeing how Newton believed in a God, a supreme being who created the universe.

 

[michael_atw]

- We like housing other than caves
- We like food that isn't raw and diseased
- We like traveling as fast and as much as far as we can
- We like communicating with as many people as much as we can
- We like shiny things and toys
- We like wasting anything we can
- We like consumption

Those are a few reasons people have a hard time collaborating with nature.

 

[experimental bassist]

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?

We're talking monkeys scurrying about on a spinning rock hurtling 67,000 mph around a star.

That's life. Gotta keep it in context.

 

[DwaynieAD]

- We like housing other than caves
- We like food that isn't raw and diseased
- We like traveling as fast and as much as far as we can
- We like communicating with as many people as much as we can
- We like shiny things and toys
- We like wasting anything we can
- We like consumption

Those are a few reasons people have a hard time collaborating with nature.

had me until the last two

 

[bassinplace]

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?

The universe clearly has a sense of humor. We are the punch line.

 

[Metalbasspro]

I was objecting to the OP's statement "Why does he [man] harm the environment unlike any other creature on the planet?" However, I am interpreting that statement as "Man harms the environment, other creatures do not", when possibly what the OP meant was "Man harms the environment, other creatures less so". To be clear, I would generally agree with the latter statement.

I don't really plan to take part much in this thread. I am just reading the discussion.But I knew people would take it as I saying Man damages the environment while animals do not. They do, but they do it in a less permanent way. Beavers build dams but they are built with natural means and I believe that eventually a big rain storm comes along and washes them away. When animals out feed on their food sources natural creates a die off that their intelligence does not over come. They succumb to nature's plan for lack of a better word. We don't, we come up with new tech to keep everything going longer.

Clearly we are different when it comes to our environment then the rest of the animals.

 

[Unrepresented]

I don't really plan to take part much in this thread. I am just reading the discussion.But I knew people would take it as I saying Man damages the environment while animals do not. They do, but they do it in a less permanent way. Beavers build dams but they are built with natural means and I believe that eventually a big rain storm comes along and washes them away. When animals out feed on their food sources natural creates a die off that their intelligence does not over come. They succumb to nature's plan for lack of a better word. We don't, we come up with new tech to keep everything going longer.

Clearly we are different when it comes to our environment then the rest of the animals.

We're building things that are more durable than our animal equivalents, but "more durable" in geological time still doesn't mean much. Every dam, whether by man or beaver, will break. If it takes a century more in our case, that's just a drop in the bucket for the eons that have passed and are yet to come.

 

[Stewie26]

We're building things that are more durable than our animal equivalents, but "more durable" in geological time still doesn't mean much. Every dam, whether by man or beaver, will break. If it takes a century more in our case, that's just a drop in the bucket for the eons that have passed and are yet to come.

+1
I once heard that the Hover Dam will destruct in a few thousands years. Even steel reinforced hardened concrete has a life span.

 

[Scott1]

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.

The most destructive organism the planet has seen was the blue-green algae that excreted the then poisonous gas, Oxygen. They changed the entire ecosystem by killing the other existing life forms.

Also, nature is not sentient. It doesn't defend itself or make any conscience decisions.