Okami Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Are you serious or just trolling? But let's say I am serious. I'm totally serious. I think it's dumb that you value your technology that much. Really dumb. we should all go live in the woods Then what is stooping you? If you seriously think that it would be better to live in the woods you could easily trow away all your stuff go into a woods and live as an animal. And as what is so terrible about living as an animal I don't even know where to start explaining it, if you live as an animal you could as well not live at all as that life doesn't have any worth, you just live in order to not die yet, what's the point in living just to survive? You have nothing in that life, it would be better to to die then to live that kind of life. No knowledge, no entertainment, simply nothing, not to mention that you wouldn't even live as long as you do now. Technology is what gives live a worth, a purpose. True I can't really see your post as anything else but trolling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insania Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Then what is stooping you? If you seriously think that it would be better to live in the woods you could easily trow away all your stuff go into a woods and live as an animal. And as what is so terrible about living as an animal I don't even know where to start explaining it, if you live as an animal you could as well not live at all as that life doesn't have any worth, you just live in order to not die yet, what's the point in living just to survive? You have nothing in that life, it would be better to to die then to live that kind of life. No knowledge, no entertainment, simply nothing, not to mention that you wouldn't even live as long as you do now. Technology is what gives live a worth, a purpose. True I can't really see your post as anything else but trolling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okami Posted October 11, 2014 Author Share Posted October 11, 2014 Living to survive is a purpose and is the very reason any species, even humans, have survived as they have. It is a key element in our lives and the reason humans even cared to make technology. You don't give the survival instinct enough credit. "Technology is what gives live a worth, a purpose." I disagree with that statement. I see technology as a fruit of labour, the culmination of humanity's inkling to survive. It is not a purpose, but merely a result of our fundamental survival instinct. I do not think that animal life as you perceive is so meaningless. Meaning is merely a word that our fragile human minds require to survive. Animals are stronger in some areas due to their simplicity. Is something so wrong with basic animalistic simplicity? I think animals have better lives because of it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with living as an animal, it is merely different from our specific, unique condition: being human. Also in a technical sense we live as animals...because we are animals...so there's that. I disagree completely, if living to survive was a purpose for living then we would all be better of dead is as I see it as it is pointless. You say that only humans need purpose to live but because we need purpose to live is that lives are worth living, if you don't need a purpose for living and are satisfied with living just to survive then that life is worthless and better not be lived at all. And as technology is what gives human life purpose it is also what gives it worth. And what is wrong with living as a animal is that that live has no worth or purpose and is better not be lived at all. Living only not to die because your instincts tell you to could hardly even be called living. And while there are indeed many humans who do live as animals only for their instincts those humans are hardly worth being called humans as they live life of an animal and are definitely below humans who's lives have purpose and worth as lives without purpose are worthless therefore they themselves are worthless livestock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosebleed Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 I disagree completely, if living to survive was a purpose for living then we would all be better of dead is as I see it as it is pointless. You say that only humans need purpose to live but because we need purpose to live is that lives are worth living, if you don't need a purpose for living and are satisfied with living just to survive then that life is worthless and better not be lived at all. And as technology is what gives human life purpose it is also what gives it worth. And what is wrong with living as a animal is that that live has no worth or purpose and is better not be lived at all. Living only not to die because your instincts tell you to could hardly even be called living. And while there are indeed many humans who do live as animals only for their instincts those humans are hardly worth being called humans as they live life of an animal and are definitely below humans who's lives have purpose and worth as lives without purpose are worthless therefore they themselves are worthless livestock. So.. there's no purpose to life in ancient Greece for example? You know the civilization that's part of Europe's very own foundation. I'm sure they led meaningless lives and should have all died. Did you even read what you just typed? You basically said no society except for the post industry one has meaning and anything we do besides praise technology is pointless. From my understanding it seems that you're so dependant on technology you can't find meaning in anything else and assume everyone that does is living a worthless live. That technology is everything that matters in life, period. That's a rather narrow prespective. But do as you like, who am I to stop you. But I seriously think you shouldn't say people who don't like the same things you do are living worthless lives and are better off dead. I'm like Kendjin, I gave up on Game Theorists, his theories aren't really that good anymore and just go on ridiculously big scales for no reason, he tries to shock you by over exaggerating everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insania Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 I disagree completely, if living to survive was a purpose for living then we would all be better of dead is as I see it as it is pointless. You say that only humans need purpose to live but because we need purpose to live is that lives are worth living, if you don't need a purpose for living and are satisfied with living just to survive then that life is worthless and better not be lived at all. And as technology is what gives human life purpose it is also what gives it worth. And what is wrong with living as a animal is that that live has no worth or purpose and is better not be lived at all. Living only not to die because your instincts tell you to could hardly even be called living. And while there are indeed many humans who do live as animals only for their instincts those humans are hardly worth being called humans as they live life of an animal and are definitely below humans who's lives have purpose and worth as lives without purpose are worthless therefore they themselves are worthless livestock. Humans who aren't your acceptable view as humans are considered worthless. That is possibly the worst kind of narrow thinking I have heard. Why is your life so purposeful? Why are you worth so much? Because you grew up on the achievements of others and at a time and standing that some don't? Hell to the no. I admit we are a dominant species in the world. I admit technology have made us into animals who have a significant edge over every other animal. I admit that with the choice I probably would save a human over an animal. But I have never perceived animal life or someone of less intelligence as worthless. You seem to attach this silly stigma of some sort of wrong in animal life in comparison to human life. Instinct is animalistic...instinct is human; humans are bloody animals. We live to live. Meaning is important for humans because our brains are as weak as they are strong. It is merely another necessity in our struggle to live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okami Posted October 11, 2014 Author Share Posted October 11, 2014 Humans who aren't your acceptable view as humans are considered worthless. That is possibly the worst kind of narrow thinking I have heard. Why is your life so purposeful? Why are you worth so much? Because you grew up on the achievements of others and at a time and standing that some don't? Hell to the no. I admit we are a dominant species in the world. I admit technology have made us into animals who have a significant edge over every other animal. I admit that with the choice I probably would save a human over an animal. But I have never perceived animal life or someone of less intelligence as worthless. You seem to attach this silly stigma of some sort of wrong in animal life in comparison to human life. Instinct is animalistic...instinct is human; humans are bloody animals. We live to live. Meaning is important for humans because our brains are as weak as they are strong. It is merely another necessity in our struggle to live. Not humans who aren't my acceptable view but humans who live as animals by living only to survive and to fallow their instincts. So.. there's no purpose to life in ancient Greece for example? You know the civilization that's part of Europe's very own foundation. I'm sure they led meaningless lives and should have all died. Did you even read what you just typed? You basically said no society except for the post industry one has meaning and anything we do besides praise technology is pointless. From my understanding it seems that you're so dependant on technology you can't find meaning in anything else and assume everyone that does is living a worthless live. That technology is everything that matters in life, period. That's a rather narrow prespective. But do as you like, who am I to stop you. But I seriously think you shouldn't say people who don't like the same things you do are living worthless lives and are better off dead. I'm like Kendjin, I gave up on Game Theorists, his theories aren't really that good anymore and just go on ridiculously big scales for no reason, he tries to shock you by over exaggerating everything. There is no anything else there are only 2 ways in this case, living by technology as advanced race using that technology and your intelligence to live your life, or living as an animal by only fallowing your instincts, and second one is a worthless life. But I think you are misunderstanding something, by technology I don't mean only newest technology but all technology that was ever made by humans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solidbatman Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Not humans who aren't my acceptable view but humans who live as animals by living only to survive and to fallow their instincts. There is no anything else there are only 2 ways in this case, living by technology as advanced race using that technology and your intelligence to live your life, or living as an animal by only fallowing your instincts, and second one is a worthless life. But I think you are misunderstanding something, by technology I don't mean only newest technology but all technology that was ever made by humans. You realize animals utilize technology? Certain spiders will wear disguises or set decoys, various primates use tools, as do birds, and evolution itself can be seen as a technology as living beings are provided specific tool sets to aid them. Stray Cat and krill 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solidbatman Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Hey, because the other thread got a little off topic, and was removed, I made this to talk about Okami's opinion of technology. Continuing from here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaguya Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Since you're making a new thread for it, I moved the posts related to it here and opened up the other thread again. Please remember to keep any discussion civil and polite, people. It's fine to discuss ideas, but it's not ok to attack people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewycool Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Fire!!! #technology solidbatman and krill 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solidbatman Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Since you're making a new thread for it, I moved the posts related to it here and opened up the other thread again. Please remember to keep any discussion civil and polite, people. It's fine to discuss ideas, but it's not ok to attack people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funyarinpa Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Living for the sake of living might be empty (and that's too subjective a matter to discuss IMO), but the role of survival instinct and the will to live on and see another day is undeniably critical in evolution and survival of all organisms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arakura Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 I'd like to add to these comments that if you're actually living for the sake of living, then I'm sure it doesnt feel as empty as you imagine it would while sitting at your computer in comfort. It's a perspective issue. And Okami, if you read more of my posts, you will realize that I was making a joke with the 'we should all go live in the woods' but that my stance is a little more complex than my joking response to you was. I dont know why Kaguya didnt move my other one in here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Cat Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 You realize animals utilize technology? Certain spiders will wear disguises or set decoys, various primates use tools, as do birds, and evolution itself can be seen as a technology as living beings are provided specific tool sets to aid them. Not to mention the tribe of chimpanzees who make and use spears. Addressing the original topic (or at least what I think it is), it was basically a combination of insight and sheer luck that allowed Homo sapiens to get where we were today. We had no superior hunting skills, no defenses against the cold, no fangs, claws, or other tools for killing. What we had was slightly larger brains and a whole lot of luck. However, while technology is what allowed us to culturally develop up to this point,I don't think it's how we could truly define being a human being. Technology is the tool that allows us to survive, but also to appreciate life in a multitude of different ways. Sure there's things like the internet and television that are for the sole purpose of pleasure, but there's been an equal amount of money put into things such as artists tools, cameras, camping gear; all the things that help us to enjoy the natural world. People can find meaning in life in a variety of different ways, but I personally believe that losing touch with your natural roots and the enjoyment of nature is a very sad thing, and just as much purpose can be found in that as can be found in technology. krill 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katatsumuri Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Addressing the original topic (or at least what I think it is), it was basically a combination of insight and sheer luck that allowed Homo sapiens to get where we were today. We had no superior hunting skills, no defenses against the cold, no fangs, claws, or other tools for killing. What we had was slightly larger brains and a whole lot of luck. However, while technology is what allowed us to culturally develop up to this point,I don't think it's how we could truly define being a human being. Technology is the tool that allows us to survive, but also to appreciate life in a multitude of different ways. Sure there's things like the internet and television that are for the sole purpose of pleasure, but there's been an equal amount of money put into things such as artists tools, cameras, camping gear; all the things that help us to enjoy the natural world. People can find meaning in life in a variety of different ways, but I personally believe that losing touch with your natural roots and the enjoyment of nature is a very sad thing, and just as much purpose can be found in that as can be found in technology. Stray Cat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Cat Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 That is a half-truth. Most animals rely on short bursts of speed to get away from their pursuers, or to close in on a prey. The early humans, didn't. Still, You cannot underestimate the significance that technology has in making us the most "leading" Animal in the word. And to add something to this thread; We humans have utilized our so-called "intelligence" to make things easier for us through technology. Technology has enabled us to do many things that we in the past have thought to be impossible. But we don't need it to live. With the exception of our teeth (which cannot really tolerate uncooked food anymore), the human body of today, is the same as that of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. We are merely apes (with a superiority complex) who are a bit better at making our lives easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nohman Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Popcorn aside, there's a lot that gives life meaning. Technology adds value to our lives (and in other ways, takes away), but its not the be all end all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arakura Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Not to mention the tribe of chimpanzees who make and use spears. Addressing the original topic (or at least what I think it is), it was basically a combination of insight and sheer luck that allowed Homo sapiens to get where we were today. We had no superior hunting skills, no defenses against the cold, no fangs, claws, or other tools for killing. What we had was slightly larger brains and a whole lot of luck. However, while technology is what allowed us to culturally develop up to this point,I don't think it's how we could truly define being a human being. Technology is the tool that allows us to survive, but also to appreciate life in a multitude of different ways. Sure there's things like the internet and television that are for the sole purpose of pleasure, but there's been an equal amount of money put into things such as artists tools, cameras, camping gear; all the things that help us to enjoy the natural world. People can find meaning in life in a variety of different ways, but I personally believe that losing touch with your natural roots and the enjoyment of nature is a very sad thing, and just as much purpose can be found in that as can be found in technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Cat Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Actually, humans were persistence hunters (at least in certain locations). We made us of our energy-efficient build, ability to vent heat (because we had no fur), and tracking skills to chase down large four-legged animals in Africa, back in the day. When you take luck and plot it against a vast time frame and large number of individuals, you can't call the results (weapons, basic technology) 'luck', I think. But that's mostly me just nitpicking Katatsumuri 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arakura Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Oh I should have read a little more. I was just so excited to nitpick! I'm sorry about that u.u But it's not actually that small of a detail. As for the question of luck in evolutionary development... I feel like I've heard somewhere that you can't call it luck because it's the result of certain environmental pressures. Even though probability plays into it on the small scale, in the long run it's not a luck thing, but the expected result of a variety of pressures. Now if this was a development based on a bottleneck/founder event/etc that would be luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Cat Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Oh I should have read a little more. I was just so excited to nitpick! I'm sorry about that u.u But it's not actually that small of a detail. As for the question of luck in evolutionary development... I feel like I've heard somewhere that you can't call it luck because it's the result of certain environmental pressures. Even though probability plays into it on the small scale, in the long run it's not a luck thing, but the expected result of a variety of pressures. Now if this was a development based on a bottleneck/founder event/etc that would be luck I would disagree with this (I'll change the word to chance since it's probably more accurate). There are 4 sources of evolution, mutation, gene flow, natural selection, and drift. It is true you can't call natural selection chance, because it's a certain trait, factor, etc. that there are selective pressures for. As you stated, all forms of genetic drift (bottleneck and founders) are solely based on chance. Gene flow deals with evolution between populations but not as a species. But when you think about it, where does all the change come from in the first place? The answer is it comes from the last choice, mutation (which is the ultimate source of all new genetic information). All the other factors just deal with how it moves around, but the only thing that can actually create new genetic information is a mutation no? I personally view mutations as chance events (I guess this could be debated) and since the source of all genetic variation is chance, it means that who inherited them is chance as well. Why was it not one of our other unrelated hominid ancestors (such as Neanderthals) that developed the traits that made us so successful? Natural selection selected for these traits which were generated by luck chance mutations in our genome, and not the Neanderthal's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoom909 Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 "A fish won't do anything but swim in a brook, He can't write his name or read a book. To fool all the people is his only thought, And though he's slippery, he still gets caught. But then, if that sort of life is what you wish, You may grow up to be a fish." krill 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arakura Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 I would disagree with this (I'll change the word to chance since it's probably more accurate). There are 4 sources of evolution, mutation, gene flow, natural selection, and drift. It is true you can't call natural selection chance, because it's a certain trait, factor, etc. that there are selective pressures for. As you stated, all forms of genetic drift (bottleneck and founders) are solely based on chance. Gene flow deals with evolution between populations but not as a species. But when you think about it, where does all the change come from in the first place? The answer is it comes from the last choice, mutation (which is the ultimate source of all new genetic information). All the other factors just deal with how it moves around, but the only thing that can actually create new genetic information is a mutation no? I personally view mutations as chance events (I guess this could be debated) and since the source of all genetic variation is chance, it means that who inherited them is chance as well. Why was it not one of our other unrelated hominid ancestors (such as Neanderthals) that developed the traits that made us so successful? Natural selection selected for these traits which were generated by luck chance mutations in our genome, and not the Neanderthal's. While it's not arguable that mutation isn't a chance occurrence, my point was that the integration of mutations into the core essence of a species is not a chance situation, but rather the result of the fact that certain pressures existed, causing some mutations to allow the individual to live longer and reproduce, spreading that genotype. There have and will continue to be vast quantities of mutations occurring across a species, but the real meat of the mutation-evolution discussion is which mutations 'make the cut'. That isn't chance at all. Again, the scale is large and the probabilities are skewed to favour a certain path, so it's not so much chance as the natural progression of things, given the circumstances. It's not chance that white mice get caught more often than their black fur mutation companions on a black rock habitat, and that as a result black mice become the standard for the species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Cat Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 While it's not arguable that mutation isn't a chance occurrence, my point was that the integration of mutations into the core essence of a species is not a chance situation, but rather the result of the fact that certain pressures existed, causing some mutations to allow the individual to live longer and reproduce, spreading that genotype. There have and will continue to be vast quantities of mutations occurring across a species, but the real meat of the mutation-evolution discussion is which mutations 'make the cut'. That isn't chance at all. Again, the scale is large and the probabilities are skewed to favour a certain path, so it's not so much chance as the natural progression of things, given the circumstances. It's not chance that white mice get caught more often than their black fur mutation companions on a black rock habitat, and that as a result black mice become the standard for the species. Your point is taken, natural selection is not a chance event (which I stated above). You kinda just keep defining that term in a variety of different ways. Also, you are aware that most mutations are in fact neutral mutations that really aren't favored either which way. But what you're referring to, "directional selection," is not a chance event. HOWEVER, as I said above, natural selection does nothing to physically create genetic differences in a population, that is only accomplished through mutations. To follow your example, can you tell me it's not solely due to chance that that first black mouse in that population received the mutation that makes it's skin a darker color than the rest? I don't see how you could. THEN, this change increased it's fitness and allowed it's genes to be passed on in a greater proportion of the population in the next generation (though the process you outlined above). To simplify, I'm not saying the process of how evolution occurs is chance, but that the origin of evolution in a population is, since it's based on mutations and there is no way (at lest to with our current population) to predict which organism will mutate at what point in time and therefore go through the process of natural selection. It's all luck, good fortune, chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arakura Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 The more important part of what I was saying is that lots of mutations happen. I'm sure you'll find all sorts of flora and fauna who have individually mutated something that gives them a bigger brain or whatever, but natural selection is the process by which those come into effect (we're at least agreedon this point). You seem to think that mutations are rare or something? That it's lucky to find individuals in a species with them? They happen by chance, but they also happen all the time, so it's not 'luck' that we eventually happened by one that was predisposed to stick. It indeed happened by chance, but it was more or less bound to happen given our circumstances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.