|
The furthest picture we have ever taken in to space, absolutely mind bending! (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ania_xox
I find that these kinds of topics always turn men into emotional sucks.
Honestly, talking about space and the sheer mind-blowing vastness of the universe and all that is unknown to us always seems to make men marvel and get all gay in wonder.
I suppose they feel belittled and insignificant.
Also, I think men (to a certain degree) are more inclined to reason with themselves and imagine more clearly the ratio of things in the universe. Hence, they feel small and get emotional.
This is by no means a thought-out theory - just something I have noticed. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sykonee
And this is why you don't hear about many famous discoveries made by women.:o |
Sometimes I really think there is something to the stereotype that men tend to be interested in "things" while women tend to be interested in people. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sykonee
Way to ruin a battle of the sexes with semantics. |
It's kind of what I do for a living, sorry about that :p |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Okay, so you corrected yourself by saying: "primitive is probably the wrong word to use. I meant to say specialized to a specific environment." In this sense, human beings are the most impressive species. We live near the North Pole, Antarctica, and can even survive in outer space for short periods of time. Even without advanced technology our species have been able to persist in tough areas (Inuit et cetera). Cockroaches are not nearly as versatile in this sense.
|
my computer crashed so this is the second time i'm writing this reply. Damn and i had some good points.. ok i'll be more brief writing this time.
Ok tongue tied now i bloched up big and i applogize. Let me make it clear to what i am saying Species that have to be specialized to an environment are more likley to go extinct then species that are versatile and can live and reproduce in any environment. Bugs are a perfect example of species that are NOT specialized to a certain environment and can survive in almost any surrounding. Humans must always rely on their tools or devices to manage different environments and thus are specialized (without the aid of devices) to warm climates and easy to access vegetation. Human babies are the only babies (as far as i know) that cannot instantly walk on their own and must be dependent on their parent for quite some time. This is obviously an evolutionary trait that has instilled dependency on our species.
| quote: |
I don't think we are subject to a very specific environment. As I just outlined, human beings survive in a geographical area larger than the cockroach, and have been doing so for many centuries without 'manufactured devices'. Roaches can better survive nuclear radiation and will eat anything, but they do not have the intelligence we do. Also, what makes you think that at some point in the future we will be devoid of technological means? A catastrophe/mass force of nature perhaps? This is only one scenario that I proposed, but it may never happen, with humanity continuing to rely on advanced technology for survival. Our technology may also be the key to avoidance or aversion of natural disasters that stupider species cannot implement.
|
you are defining intelligence as simply the ability to think, devise and create tools. Albeit thats an estute assumption but really what do most animals require this sort of intelligence for? Aren't they more successful at dealing with nature in their own way. Do they need to rely on tools to hunt? Some of them can even hunt blindly or have developed sonar and rapid reflexes that our eyes can't even catch. To me this is also a form of "intelligence" that is not dependent and thus is a longer lasting trait.
I do not know what the future holds. But as i see it its only been a couple of hudnred years and we've almost reached peak oil, 90 percent of us are living in below grade standards in poverty. ETC ETC ETC
| quote: |
How are we 'bypassing' nature? And how are we no longer evolving? There are many documented changes of human evolution in just the past two centuries, the most obvious being our marked increase in height and the disappearance of ear lobes. Also, I thought you said that the most successful species were those who didn't change over time, like the Tyrannosaurus Rex? If you don't think we're evolving, then surely we should qualify for this too?
|
I was making reference to the point where we have become an extremely social species and there are no laws of "natural selection that govern us" Anyone marries anyone not dependent on phenotypic traits. Instead mate selection is based on much more then physical attributes and perhaps more along the lines of acquired intelligence and wealth or materialism (the genetic aspect is lost).
| quote: |
This was a very simplistic example which I had expected you would understand through common sense, but obviously not. My point is that single humans have been able to survive on their own in desolate areas with no technology or other help. Were some kind of disaster to befall humanity, small groups (say hundreds or a few thousand) living in fertile areas would quickly adapt and learn to live without technology.
|
obviously you dont understand the difference between a couple of hundred years (or thousands) and several million years. Thats 3 or more zeros my friend.
| quote: |
Really? So the people in Africa who have subsisted on nothing but rice and water for their whole lives don't count? You're confusing human wants with human needs. Should it be required, a small proportion of the population could easily survive and recover society consisting on a non-manufactured and non-diverse food source.
|
for how long? millions of years? through another ice age? would we have to go through another selection pressure and evolve? who knows. If we do experience a collapse of society and tribalism i can see natural selection playing a role again and thus evolution would lead to the extinction of homo sapiens sapiens.
| quote: |
I don't know what the hell this has to do with the discussion. What do gay people and hermaphrodites have to do with humanity's chances of survival? |
do you really need to ask yourself that question?
what happens if you have a tribe of 5 humans left 4 girls and 1 guy. The guy is gay or hermaphrodite. What happens to the species?
Cmon i thought you were smarter than this :p |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
my computer crashed so this is the second time i'm writing this reply. Damn and i had some good points.. ok i'll be more brief writing this time.
Ok tongue tied now i bloched up big and i applogize. Let me make it clear to what i am saying Species that have to be specialized to an environment are more likley to go extinct then species that are versatile and can live and reproduce in any environment. Bugs are a perfect example of species that are NOT specialized to a certain environment and can survive in almost any surrounding. Humans must always rely on their tools or devices to manage different environments and thus are specialized (without the aid of devices) to warm climates and easy to access vegetation. Human babies are the only babies (as far as i know) that cannot instantly walk on their own and must be dependent on their parent for quite some time. This is obviously an evolutionary trait that has instilled dependency on our species. |
I outlined the ways in which humanity is more readily adaptable to climate than bugs, and you totally ignored it.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
you are defining intelligence as simply the ability to think, devise and create tools. Albeit thats an estute assumption but really what do most animals require this sort of intelligence for? Aren't they more successful at dealing with nature in their own way. Do they need to rely on tools to hunt? Some of them can even hunt blindly or have developed sonar and rapid reflexes that our eyes can't even catch. To me this is also a form of "intelligence" that is not dependent and thus is a longer lasting trait. |
Our 'reliance' on tools is what has made us the dominant species. There are no other species that will use turtle shells for shields, timber for spears or wear pelts to keep warm. It is this weakness which is our greatest strength.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
I do not know what the future holds. But as i see it its only been a couple of hudnred years and we've almost reached peak oil, 90 percent of us are living in below grade standards in poverty. ETC ETC ETC |
Again, you're thinking in terms of human wants rather than human needs. Do you really think humans would become extinct if we run out of oil or other forms of fuelling our vehicles? There would be mass riots and a great amount of death, but thousands of people would persist and repopulate the world.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
I was making reference to the point where we have become an extremely social species and there are no laws of "natural selection that govern us" Anyone marries anyone not dependent on phenotypic traits. Instead mate selection is based on much more then physical attributes and perhaps more along the lines of acquired intelligence and wealth or materialism (the genetic aspect is lost). |
Physical attributes and the accumulation of wealth ARE a form of natural selection. We are still attracted to the most successful members of our species, it's just that the measure of what is successful has changed. The wealthiest people are usually the most skilled/ruthless/clever, which are all still desirable attributes in nature.
As for 'physical attributes', how do you think animals pick their partners? It's not by knowing that their genes are good. Physical attributes are a reliable indicator of genes, and thus why most animals choose their mates based on pheromones, aesthetics or calling capability.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
do you really need to ask yourself that question?
what happens if you have a tribe of 5 humans left 4 girls and 1 guy. The guy is gay or hermaphrodite. What happens to the species?
Cmon i thought you were smarter than this :p |
I thought you were smart too, but then you said 'what about gays and hermaphrodites, LOL?' Genetic defects are an important part of evolution, and not one that is confined to humanity. In a non-civilised society without healthcare and medical treatment, the people with 'defective' genes would quickly be bred out of the system, or die. Humans would persist. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Homosexuality is only a "defect" under very specific conditions anyway, like if there is only one surviving gay male in a group. At other times gayness can be quite useful for survival, such as when resources are getting scarce and make it difficult to support many children, or just in general to have people whose time can be devoted more to resource production and not taken up as much with family life. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Physical attributes and the accumulation of wealth ARE a form of natural selection. We are still attracted to the most successful members of our species, it's just that the measure of what is successful has changed. The wealthiest people are usually the most skilled/ruthless/clever, which are all still desirable attributes in nature. |
i disagree with the bold. humans are unique in that they are the only species that have a very real effect on their "natural" environment. wealth etc is NOT a natural phenomenon, it is a construct, therefore i have always found it problematic when people have equated wealth or success (or indeed economics) with evolution, since evolution is a theory that explains biology.
society and its constructs make traditional evolutionary theory moot imo. indeed it completely muddies the water of what we might think of when we say "survival of the fittest". |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| If evolution can explain the behaviors and social organizations of animals, why could it not do the same for those of humans? |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i disagree with the bold. humans are unique in that they are the only species that have a very real effect on their "natural" environment. wealth etc is NOT a natural phenomenon, it is a construct, therefore i have always found it problematic when people have equated wealth or success (or indeed economics) with evolution, since evolution is a theory that explains biology.
society and its constructs make traditional evolutionary theory moot imo. indeed it completely muddies the water of what we might think of when we say "survival of the fittest". |
Past lottery winners, and other possesors of conferred funds, you don't become wealthy by being an inferior member of the species. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| The wealthy are mostly inferior in terms of reproductive success, if our metric is the number of viable offspring who go on to reproduce themselves. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Or to put a snarkier spin on it, intelligence (and whatever other characteristics allow people to earn lots of wealth) stops being evolutionarily beneficial once it leads you to start having fewer viable kids.
:D |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
The wealthy are mostly inferior in terms of reproductive success, if our metric is the number of viable offspring who go on to reproduce themselves. |
It seems useless to measure success as a human by the amount of offspring you produce, because as pkc said, society renders this accessible to anyone. Thus I'm measuring using physical or mental attributes.
However, we are speaking with the western world in mind. For those living in poverty-stricken countries, there is arguably a process at work far more akin to 'selection' or 'survival of the fittest' than we experience in OECD countries. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Evolution does not care about your modern values. It goes on increasing the genotype frequency of those who reproduce the most regardless of whether you think those people are stupid, uneducated, uncultivated, or simply dirty and poor. Biological success has little to do with our cultural notions of what "success" means.
Sure, the rich could produce even more kids and support them all if they really wanted to. But, they don't, so by evolution's metric they fail.
;) |
|
|
|
|
