Nature of Humans

CleanClarity · Post by **CleanClarity** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:31 am

This is coming from a personal feeling I've been having for quite some time now. Does anyone ever feel slightly uncomfortable knowing that humans are advanced animals? That we are mearly beings of this earth as a toad or gazelle is? Of course we are smarter than most beings of this earth but that is just our specialty as other animals have theirs. But the point is we came from animals and so we will always be an 'animal'. I don't know about anyone else but that is like attributing my self-worth to mold on a damp rock.

It's hard for me to get the words to explain how I truely feel without generating flaws in my reader's comprehension of my intentions.. SO.. I think you need some background info on me.

I'm a university student, I'm in my twenties, and all around me are animals. Mindless, gung-ho animals. So, I can't get away from seeing the everyday fellow human being as an animal. The people that walk around downtown with their fancy buisness clothing and coy attitudes are also animals in my mind, slightly more 'successful' and a little harder to see animals but nevertheless they have their daily rhythms and behaviours, all stemming from very visceral origins, like an animal.

If I'm not making any sense at all maybe one fact will help. Has anyone ever heard of william james sidis? He was on of those child prodigies that never did a whole lot with his life, some animals would argue. He did have an IQ that was beyond measure though and he absolutely could not fathom sex. To him it was also too animalistic and he died a virgin. I don't share his thoughts that much but I can see how he was kinda freaked out about it. Does anyone else have this problem?

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:29 am

Yes, I sometimes find it strange that we are just animals. But my response to that is usually to look at the assumptions that underlie that thought. What are animals? What does it mean to be one? And most importantly, why does it feel "not quite right?"

I think it's because we're heading toward another state of being. I don't think consciousness will remain confined to the animal world for much longer.

ExpectantlyIronic · Post by **ExpectantlyIronic** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:37 am

I imagine that all animals fancy themselves as greater then the other beasts. At least, whatever animals are capable of entertaining such thoughts. Nevertheless, it would seem, that nothing is greater to anything else in the uncaring eyes of God. I find it difficult to understand what it would mean for us to have "another state of being" as Unidian suggested. We live and die as any other beast, with no coherent hope of transcendence. There simply is nothing to transcend. No man is or ought to be greater then a chirping robin.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:27 am

I'm referring to the technological transference of consciousness to media other than the biological. This should become a realistic possibility within the next century or so.

ChochemV2 · Post by **ChochemV2** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 1:54 pm

I can't say as I've ever felt odd about us being descended from animals because I don't see humans as anything really "special" because I don't see as we've really accomplished much of anything with our vaunted intelligence.

Though I do confess to rarely understand most people and why they do what they do (especially at college). I barely survived a year because I couldn't stand the BS.

brokenhead · Post by **brokenhead** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:48 am

I'm a university student, I'm in my twenties, and all around me are animals. Mindless, gung-ho animals. So, I can't get away from seeing the everyday fellow human being as an animal.

The word mindless is disturbing in this context. Especially after the VTech massacre. It's one thing to be depressed, it's another to consciously ignore the fairly obvious differences between man and beast.

brokenhead · Post by **brokenhead** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:53 am

I imagine that all animals fancy themselves as greater then the other beasts. At least, whatever animals are capable of entertaining such thoughts. Nevertheless, it would seem, that nothing is greater to anything else in the uncaring eyes of God. I find it difficult to understand what it would mean for us to have "another state of being" as Unidian suggested. We live and die as any other beast, with no coherent hope of transcendence. There simply is nothing to transcend. No man is or ought to be greater then a chirping robin.

ExpectantlyIronic, you can't be serious.
You can imagine all you want, but I doubt animals have "fant'sies." And please, either believe in God or don't. There is little point in postulating a Deity and then attributing "uncaringness" to It. No man is or ought to be greater than a chirping robin? How about a squawking chicken? If not, I'm going to feel guilty eating what I'm defrosting at the moment.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:50 am

This thread reminds me of an editorial I wrote way back when:

Evolution

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am

It's a good essay, although I carefully avoid the term "enlightenment" because it's such a misunderstood, potentially misleading term. But yes, we do need to know ourselves. If we don't, we lack any means to successfully cope with life's larger challenges. Other animals have claws and teeth as survival tools. We have conscious minds, and we need to use them.

brokenhead · Post by **brokenhead** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:14 am

I'm referring to the technological transference of consciousness to media other than the biological. This should become a realistic possibility within the next century or so.

Unidian, I wish we could live a hundred more years so I could bet you on this.
That's like being in the late 1960's, viewing the success of the space program, and predicting colonies on Mars by the year 2000.
Even allowing the possibility of such a transference is a stretch. It would not reflect a refinement of any technology currently extant; it would be a whole new thing.

But then, if I lost that bet, it would mean I could exit my 150-year-old body and find a new home in some media other than biological, so I would win either way.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:57 pm

Let's say 500 years, then. It's still no time at all on the calendar of the Universe.

I don't know whether humanity will survive that long, though. It's a race against ignorance, and I think we're behind.

ChochemV2 · Post by **ChochemV2** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:37 pm

I don't think you're wrong in saying it's possible just like I don't think someone from the 60's would have been wrong in saying it was possible we could have had colonies on Mars by now. It's all theory anyway and assuming the effort we put into putting someone on the Moon had continued we'd be much farther in our understanding.

The problem has never been finding the upper limit of humanity's potential but actually tapping it consciously instead of waiting for the next genius to hand us the answers unasked (which seems to be the typical method for human advancement). All our considerable efforts are put into frivolous and self-destructive (or just plain destructive) ventures and I doubt that will change any time soon.

ExpectantlyIronic · Post by **ExpectantlyIronic** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:26 pm

Broken,

You can imagine all you want, but I doubt animals have "fant'sies." And please, either believe in God or don't. There is little point in postulating a Deity and then attributing "uncaringness" to It.

I use "God" as a term of art. I'm an atheist.

No man is or ought to be greater than a chirping robin? How about a squawking chicken? If not, I'm going to feel guilty eating what I'm defrosting at the moment.

You don't feel guilty about eating meat because you think you're fundamentally better then animals? Huh.

brokenhead · Post by **brokenhead** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:53 am

Yes, I think I'm fundamentally better than a chicken. I'll just bet you are fundamentally better than a chicken, too.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:20 am

brokenhead wrote:Yes, I think I'm fundamentally better than a chicken. I'll just bet you are fundamentally better than a chicken, too.

I don't know. Either of you might be alright with barbecue sauce, but I think chicken would be superior prepared in just about any way.
.

ChochemV2 · Post by **ChochemV2** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:20 am

I don't feel humans are fundamentally better than chickens...

For all our technology, our governments, our countries, ethnicities, and everything else which supposedly makes us "better" none of these things accomplish anything. More than any other species on this Earth we control our own destinies, however, the city I live in is on the path to have a record number of murders this year, we have and are continuing to destroy every single natural resource (including those which keep us alive) almost indiscriminately and even though we have the ability to feed and shelter every person on this planet millions go hungry and exposed to the elements every year.

As far as I'm concerned we are no better than animals and in many instances we are quite a bit worse.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:20 am

Chickens don't have nuclear bombs.

ChochemV2 · Post by **ChochemV2** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:59 am

Do you consider nuclear bombs to be something which makes us advanced? They are a symbol of violence, a method of maintaining our fragile territoriality which exists in beasts. Fundamentally nuclear weapons are simply a method of enforcing our animal instincts which say, as sedentary creatures "This land is ours and no one else is allowed on it".

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:24 am

Nope, nuclear bombs are one way in which I think animals are better than humans.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:53 am

I think that "better than" is kind of inapplicable and a pointless debate. As the Zen types might say, "the question is wrongly put." There is no "better than" in Nature. Evolution is about adaptability and survival within certain environmental conditions. Change those conditions and you change the life forms evolving within them.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:03 am

I think that "better than" is an incomplete statement, and that was my point of the earlier joke. Chicken is better than human for human food, regardless of the taste, due to various possible diseases and other pollutants of the meat. Humans are better than chickens for writing books. The question becomes "Better than for what?"
.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:14 am

okok I made a bad joke and it fell flat.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:20 am

Oh, I wasn't singling out your comment. The whole thread has been about "better than," directly or indirectly.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:23 am

Katy wrote:okok I made a bad joke and it fell flat.

Actually, the joke element was fine; it was the logic element that fell a little flat, inasmuch as we could only say that about animals if and when they had the capacity to build nuclear bombs - and didn't. I'm not sure we can say something is better because it doesn't do something it actually cannot do to begin with.

Still, the joke was ok. Made me smile, anyway.

ChochemV2 · Post by **ChochemV2** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:14 pm

I admit, I missed the joke in a fit of literal...ness? I'm addled by staring at plans, foamcore, and my xacto knife all day.

I do, however, think there is a distinction to be made between "better than" and "more advanced". In my mind "better than" is a useless argument because it's dependent on a person's point of view, however, advancement depends on some set criteria which we can establish.

In this instance I think it can be applied because we are trying to establish humanity's growth through application of it's evolutionarily granted tools. We create things which are singular to humanity, however, those things haven't advanced us past our animal ancestors they just gave us Game Boy's and the internal combustion engine. All things which give us an edge over every living species on this planet but we still react with our animal instincts.