The Nature of Man in the World

[beautiful_death]

We humans are more evolved than animals; we walk upright, we can express and process complex emotions, our brains have the capacity to process information faster than a computer, and so on and so forth.

Unlike the animals, we alter our environments in order for them to adapt to us rather than us adapting to the environment. Not only are we creators, but we are destroyers as well. Look how much devastation is caused when mankind is at war--everything is affected in profound ways.

So I present the following questions:

Is mankind intrinsically evil?
Do we destroy faster than we can create?
Can the earth live without us?
What can we do on our part to make things right?

[stark espada]

Ah good thread first off ill answer every one right now.

1st. Evil in some cases humans are evil if not the most evil of all creatures for we destroy and cause problems to the world without so much of a thought as to what it will do to any one or any thing around them if you were to show what the human race is to the world for all the trouble we cause we would be the equivalent of 1000 Aldof's to the world.

In the idea if we destroy faster then we create yes with out a doughty we do. As I have said we take one step forward but at that time we take two steps back. The only reason I say two rather then more is recently a few people have figured out much of the trouble we are causing so they have made some things to protect but after all is said and done we still destroy faster then we can create.

The earth would and will do much better with out man man is the main reason pollution occurs. With out us much of the trouble that we have created slowly but surely will start to disapade. The earth will go back to the way it was before we evolved and started to create things to suit us and thus The earth will do much better.

Right now I see it is to little to late to really make much a difference now the earth is a ticking time bomb just waiting to go off. The only thing we can really do to help would be if humans went dormant or just disappeared for a few thousand years to fix some things up. in truth that is really the only thing we can do to fix the world.

Now I most say I do not see the human race as some form of virus that needs to be wiped out but i would like to see some changes and fast in order to truly fix the world.

[Shdo]

1) evil does not exist its a human fiction, one of many.
2)did the ice age destroyed more then it created? we are simply another disaster for many lifeforms, adapt or die, this is the rule. as of now many races fail. but the world keep on turning, its just natural for races to die.
3)the planet will live no matter how many races die, we are no diffrent.
4)things are right, as long as we dont extinct ourselves everything good, at least as natural selection goes.


as for the ideas behind those answers, natural selection have a clear rules, as long as you are alive\on top you are okay, and when you are dead...you are dead.
the natural thing for races who are flawed is to die, many races die before humanity arrived and many races will die after humanity die\leave\evolve\ascend\mechanaized\become hippie.
its the natural order of things and just like the ice age killed many races and that meteor, so what?! races die and other races take their place, humanity wouldnt be here if 65 million years ago the most gigantic cretures ever got extinct and as much as we know our cities will give raise to the rat empire one day.

but i do think we should start breeding slower...actually 1-2 children is more the number...we need to drop our number below 5 billion as long as we are stuck on the same planet.

[Rain]

Is mankind intrinsically evil?
No, mankind in generally is made up of people who may only look out for themselves only, but thats not evil:D People, in general are good.


Do we destroy faster than we can create?
In a sense yes. We use up more resources without providing any back to the planet, but this doesn't mean we can't create, but rather, just don't:p


Can the earth live without us?
Yes


What can we do on our part to make things right?
I don't think we are necesarily doing anythign wrong:p People need to care for the planet more, but there is no guarentee that would help, although it probably would

[LUV]

Is mankind intrinsically evil?
No, mankind in generally is made up of people who may only look out for themselves only, but thats not evil:D People, in general are good.


Do we destroy faster than we can create?
In a sense yes. We use up more resources without providing any back to the planet, but this doesn't mean we can't create, but rather, just don't:p


Can the earth live without us?
Yes


What can we do on our part to make things right?
I don't think we are necesarily doing anythign wrong:p People need to care for the planet more, but there is no guarentee that would help, although it probably would

..............QFT...........

I agree Rain

But I think that if everyone took some time to recycle, plant a tree, or clean stream, it would benefit Mother Earth. We should all stop and think about where we want our children to live in the future... in a beautiful green planet with plenty of water, or a desert like planet with hardly any water.......

[speedphantom]

We humans are more evolved than animals; we walk upright, we can express and process complex emotions, our brains have the capacity to process information faster than a computer, and so on and so forth.

Unlike the animals, we alter our environments in order for them to adapt to us rather than us adapting to the environment. Not only are we creators, but we are destroyers as well. Look how much devastation is caused when mankind is at war--everything is affected in profound ways.

So I present the following questions:

Is mankind intrinsically evil?
Do we destroy faster than we can create?
Can the earth live without us?
What can we do on our part to make things right?What I REALLY REALLY HATE is people not calling humans animals. The notion that humans are somehow superior because we are able to ruin the environment and do more complex things. How are we not animals? Just because we have a superiority complex and must think we rule this earth?

Intrinsically evil, I'd say no. Misdirected yes but not evil, not completely evil anyway.

We definitely destroy faster than we create. There's no such regeneration of oil, minerals, forests etc. Humans only create for humans, they don't do anything for the environment.

The earth can ONLY live without us. If we left mother nature to her business, the world would regenerate and become much better for all of the other creatures here. I think no humans would be the best thing for the world honestly.

What we can do, I'm not a pessimistic, just a realist who sees things critically. What we can do to change this is to simplify our lifestyles to have the least impact on the environment which means winding back the technological clock hence reducing our environmental foot print. It's not going to happen since people like their computers and airconditioning.

The best thing we can do is to reduce consumption of excess which everyone does. To eventually convert to using as close to 100% renewable energy as possible.

[Shdo]

but we are supirior, by the laws of nature we are the mega predator. even other super predators fall before us. if adaptability and succses is the name of the natural world game then we are a freaking prodigy, never a race spreaded so fast and so wide, never a race acted like an element of nature, we are more like an ice age then a living creture, our arrivel bring the extinction of so many races, much like other natural disasters.

[Babbo]

What I REALLY REALLY HATE is people not calling humans animals. The notion that humans are somehow superior because we are able to ruin the environment and do more complex things. How are we not animals? Just because we have a superiority complex and must think we rule this earth?

Intrinsically evil, I'd say no. Misdirected yes but not evil, not completely evil anyway.

We definitely destroy faster than we create. There's no such regeneration of oil, minerals, forests etc. Humans only create for humans, they don't do anything for the environment.

The earth can ONLY live without us. If we left mother nature to her business, the world would regenerate and become much better for all of the other creatures here. I think no humans would be the best thing for the world honestly.

What we can do, I'm not a pessimistic, just a realist who sees things critically. What we can do to change this is to simplify our lifestyles to have the least impact on the environment which means winding back the technological clock hence reducing our environmental foot print. It's not going to happen since people like their computers and airconditioning.

The best thing we can do is to reduce consumption of excess which everyone does. To eventually convert to using as close to 100% renewable energy as possible.

Bah screw the world ;p

God gave us dominion of the plants and animals and what not ;D

*feels like chicken tonight*

*unnatural chicken cooked with an unnatural sauce with unnatural sweeteners that destroy the earth and make Babbo wake up in the middle of the night. They also happen to taste unnaturally good*

Seriously though. Fuck the whales. Babbo will live the way he wants. So will plenty of other people. And they all probably think it's intrinsically evil too. But boy does it feel good.

Hmmmm... Nature is calling. Time to go and do some creatin'

;D

Babbo apologizes in advance. Felt like having a bit o' fun. Been too serious in this here debate section lately. It's also 5 am without sleep >.>

[speedphantom]

So, with that mindset, the earth will be screwed in no time. There'll be no oxygen because we've killed off all the trees and there won't be any air left and everyone will die.

People who think like you, no point trying to convince them to save the environment. Best to leave them be.

[Babbo]

So, with that mindset, the earth will be screwed in no time. There'll be no oxygen because we've killed off all the trees and there won't be any air left and everyone will die.

People who think like you, no point trying to convince them to save the environment. Best to leave them be.

Babbo will dead by then anyways ;D

Probably from some kind of unnatural man made disease. Or baby sea otters. Nasty little devils. Take your pick <.<

You're not taking Babbo seriously here are you o,o?

[speedphantom]

Perhaps. I don't like to joke on serious issues. There's nothing to be made light of for me. It's all serious shit that people have to start taking seriously.

[Babbo]

Perhaps. I don't like to joke on serious issues. There's nothing to be made light of for me. It's all serious shit that people have to start taking seriously.

You chose sea otters didn't you ;D? Just admit it. They're cute, it's not unmanly to like that <.<

But just so you know they are viscous little critters. You see them getting killed in oil spills but you know they must've had something to do with it >.>

Meh. Seems mighty hypocrital what with nature and what not that you have to destroy to have a computer let alone use the interweb and have the ability to pay for it, be able to have the free time and environment that we can use it . Hell the education to be able to even write like this cost a god awful amount of trees and that's not even counting all the govt documents resources and paper work that went into documenting and paying for that. Babbo could go on and on. You could just sit in a chair and do nothing and you'd technically be destroying the world one way or another >.>

[speedphantom]

That's rather black and white. Even the most green people don't go completely green. Jack Johnson who's a great environmental activist, he still drives and uses a computer, because he needs to.

Yes, I may be damaging the environment by sitting here, I will say yes I am too selfish to give up on using my computer. However, I do try and reduce consumption such as not turning on the water in the shower for the whole duration and collecting it with the bucket. We collect the laundry water to water the plants, we take our own bags to the supermarket to use.

Blame me for not being a 100% absolute greeny but I think its better to care a little and do a little than nothing wouldn't you say so?

[Shdo]

the only problem i have with ecologist people is that they act all saintly when it comes to animels and such, like in nature creture dont go extinct. on the contrary, its very natural for creture to get extinct, AOD, Adapt Or Die.

btw, anyone heard about earth hour?

[speedphantom]

Humans don't make it very easy when we destroy their natural habitat and do everything to suit us.

Yep, its a good intiative. I heard it'll save 10% of the regular power consumption which is amazing!

[Shdo]

its shouldnt be easy, and its not our job to make it easy on any creture. take for example the rat, when it reached new zealand it started to eradicate the local counterpart to the rat role, the giant weta, this is how nature works, and many cretures got extinct in the ice ages and in that meteorite 65 million years ago and right now in the human era.


as for the earth hour, its pathetic, for example those 10% reduction were = to over 40000 cars off the road for one hour...impressive? not really because its also = to getting 6 cars off the roads for a year.
car accidents actually protect the enviorment more then the whole earth hour program.

the only way to truly save something is by researching new power sources.

[speedphantom]

The rat was an introduced species which humans brought there. As if you can blame the native wildlife. Nature doesn't work by putting animals where they don't belong.

Say there was a certain species of mosquitoes with some type of disease was introduced to your country by some human and it spread and killed everyone. Natural isn't it?

Those animals 65 million years ago weren't killed because one species thought they should dominate the whole world.

Better to save some power than not isn't it?

Only way so says you. Reducing excess perhaps?

[Shdo]

actually it is, all lifes on those islands were brought there by chance, drifting away in some catastrophy or an ice age. in nature you either there or you dont, you either live or die.

the second example is biologic warfare and will dealt with raining steel.

no race think he should rule, they either rule or dont, if the dinosaurs had the chance they would have taken everything.

in nature there is a thin balance between pray and predator, humans disturb that balance which seems destructive but this balance was achived by countless years of struggle where many races perished by failing to adapt to the situation, maybe in a thousen years there will be only humans dogs cats rats and cows in the world, then for nature it still reached some kind of system, you might say that its less impressive then the current one but nature isnt here to impress you! life exist out of the constant struggle to live and survive and nature is by far more brutal then anything humans do, nature call for extinction where we try not to extinct something else.

[speedphantom]

Its not like humans are struggling to survive, we're just killing everything in the world off. I don't think anything in nature doesn't anything as brutal as what humans do. No other creatures destroy habitat of other animals.

So you're basically saying nature is destined for humans to be the last surviving thing on earth with the domesticated animals? Well perhaps it will if more people thought like that.

Is it what you want? A world with just that?

[Shdo]

they dont do that because they got extinct in the long run.

for example there are ant eaters who destroy ant colonies, the whole colony.
elephants take down trees, outbrakes of diseases take out entire races, orcas play vollyball with baby seals. there is plenty of mindless cruelty in nature. its only natural.


what i want is to consume as long as possiable, i dont want to protect nature because its moraly right but because its good for the great destroyer, man.
every race in this world is ours, they are tools, its stupid to throw away tools before you used them. who knows what cures and wonders we will find in the tiger claw or in the rain forest? mindless slaughter will only humper our chances to find profitable slaughter later, paper vs cure to cancer. that is what it comes down to.

[Unicorn]

Is mankind intrinsically evil?
Evil? no. Greedy? yes.

Do we destroy faster than we can create?
Yes. Partially because we live longer and are encouraged to have larger families. Partially because material wealth is to show off that you can afford bigger and better houses, cars, etc etc. Whatever we're currently mining (metals, gems, gas, oil) is not replaceable. There's also an increasingly limited amount of land to farm.

Can the earth live without us?
Maybe. I don't know enough about this to offer a yes or no. Preferably a smaller group of us.

What can we do on our part to make things right?
- Recycling
- Respect the environment - don't litter or buy animal / plant products that aren't sustainably-grown.
- Don't waste food (I shudder to think of overlarge food serving, that result in large bins of uneaten and thrown-out food at the end of the evening),
- Don't show off... a moderate yet functional size of car or house will do.

...

in nature there is a thin balance between pray and predator, humans disturb that balance which seems destructive but this balance was achived by countless years of struggle where many races perished by failing to adapt to the situation.

I agree that things have to evolve over thousands of years, or perish.

However, speedy mentioned 'introduced species'. In these cases, the natural selection process became messed around, as the local fauna and flora didn't have time to adapt and became victimised.

eg. A fully-grown adult tiger or shark isn't quite a match for several humans with long-range guns... so is it the animals fault if they didn't develop similar long-range technology?

life exist out of the constant struggle to live and survive and nature is by far more brutal then anything humans do, nature call for extinction where we try not to extinct something else.
I don't quite understand this statement, can you please clarify?

[Rain]

Unicorn- what i think shdo means by that statement is darwinism (more or less)

i think he's saying that life is just a series of challenges to test whether we can adapt, survive and evolve, and the actions of people to try to prevent that is whats unnatural

shdo- if i was wrong in that reading im sorry

my response to it- I disagree, i think that people in general are evolved enough to both protect themselves and save animals/the planet if they choose too

in a sense, i feel that humans have evolved beyond the basic ideas of darwinism (simple survival of the fittest)

[speedphantom]

they dont do that because they got extinct in the long run.

for example there are ant eaters who destroy ant colonies, the whole colony.
elephants take down trees, outbrakes of diseases take out entire races, orcas play vollyball with baby seals. there is plenty of mindless cruelty in nature. its only natural.


what i want is to consume as long as possiable, i dont want to protect nature because its moraly right but because its good for the great destroyer, man.
every race in this world is ours, they are tools, its stupid to throw away tools before you used them. who knows what cures and wonders we will find in the tiger claw or in the rain forest? mindless slaughter will only humper our chances to find profitable slaughter later, paper vs cure to cancer. that is what it comes down to.Ok then. So you want to kill everything on earth for the benefit of humans?

Those nature examples you spoke of, they do that because its survival. Humans aren't struggling to survive one bit. Good luck in your attempt to rid the world of nature. See how you survive then.

Profitable, you must be a business man, wanting to make money out of everything? Must make you happy killing all of nature for your benefit.

Thankfully most people don't think like that. If they did, this world would die and your precious human race would be gone shortly after.

[Shdo]

actually as nature see it then yes its their fault.
when the first human got off the tree he was eaten by a lion, did he complained about how he dont have big teeth to handle the lion? when a chimp use a stick to eat thousends of ants does the ants protest that they dont have counter masuares to the stick? when the chimp take a naught and brake it with a stone does the trees cry that this is unfair? its simply happens.
there is no right or wrong in nature, things just happen and you try to do your best and deal with that. for example australia, its the only place in the world that pocket mamals thrive, in otehr places they went extinct, in the past there was even a predator kengaroo (scary...) but its replaced by something new, the dingo. the dingo is now feeding on the land and wipe out other races, and there is that toad thing.
now you might say that those toads and dingos reached there by man, but how do you think races reach all the islands and contenants around? some evolve there and some reach from outside, drifting...and when they arrive...they devastate the natural order, things go extinct and things adapt and in the end you got a new exosystem.


the only alarming thing in humans is that they do everything much faster, naturallly a new species reach the islands around australia every 150,000 years but humans screwed that estimation. but so did the iceage, and the meteor, humans are simply another disaster on a global scale and nature will deal with it the only way it know, adapt or die.


every race replaced another race, every exosystem is made on the bones of the previous ecosystem, its natural for cretures to go extinct, just look at the past cretures of this world, amazing creatures that replaced other amazing creatures only to be replaced by another amazing creature. extinction is more natural then you think it is.


mymy...who will i respond first? i think ill let you talk among yourselves and return later to give a mega answer to your posts.

[speedphantom]

Given all that you've said so far, you would be delighted if some kind of new species came along and destroyed humans since they're the strongest. Would you feel somewhat suppressed and helpless because they're so much stronger and can kill us faster than we multiply?

Sure extinction is natural, humans just happen to speed it up like hell with unecessary practices. Do you really want the world to end up being soley inhabited by humans because we can take over everything?

The majority isn't always correct but I think in this case it is. If you go out on the street and poll everyone who thinks everything in nature are our tools to dominate life on this earth, I'm sure you'd get thousands of people to support your cause:uhuh

The people on this earth are finally waking up to the fact that we need to save the environment and they are putting in place governments which are pandering to these demands.

[Shdo]

how i knew some1 will bring that thing.

lets assume that mighty lizards from space comes with massive fleets of bio engenered cows and warships and put all humans in cages, then a lone child come to the head lizard and say, 'mister lizard...you wouldnt want a giant shark to come and eat you, right? then why are you doing that to us?"
the giant lizard thinks and say, "the giant shark wont mind what i want, he will just eat me and all my morals are irrelevent to him." he then proceed to eat the child.


i fear you really didnt understood my points, first is that there is no right or wrong, it dosnt matter to nature if we kill everything, keep everything, or die ourselves. second point, everything around us came to be on the backs of other cretures who lost the race before. and third point is that i said i want to consume AS LONG AS POSSIABLE. read that post again and hopefully you will understand what i meant.

as for the few thousends who do support me, then they support me with words and thoughts but the rest of humanity support me with actions, the already use nature as a tool, look at your house, how much wood is there in it? your food, how much of it was grown at the expense of natural habitat? your computer, how much smoke is coming from the power plant? your car, how many seals died in oil spills? even if humanity isnt aware of it, they do it.

[speedphantom]

Of course we use things from nature, its just that using excess and trying to use excess is needless. We consume more than we use and we have far too much waste. Environmental attitudes will change in our time, just you wait.

Just because humanity take from the environment doesn't mean they think we should be some kind of all dominating force which goes out of its way to eat up everything on earth for our own benefit. That is untrue.

[Shdo]

yet we do it, without even knowing, the seas are getting empty and the natural habitat is destroyed, you dont even know it but it happen all around you. just by buying a pearl neckless you had thousends of clams removed from their homes and you have harmed the natural order, we already dominate this world. the diffrance is that most of humanity isnt aware of it, they dont see that every action they do have effect on this world. does the rat aware it killing the giant weta? its the same, we simply do our thing, sadly we are too big for this one world.

[speedphantom]

I'm well aware of what we're doing to this earth. People are changing their attitudes to the environment and its all kicked off by climate change whether people choose to believe it or not. There's a push to be more environmentally friendly and there hasn't been such a strong action for change before.

They're starting with little things but eventually they'll grow so people would realise their pearl necklace is damaging the environment.

[Shdo]

they will get over it faster if they will look at it in my eyes, every creture we eradicate we wont be able to learn from later, who knows what cures there are in a chamilion skin or in a butterfly wing? as i said, i want to consume as long as possiable and that mean that as a race we need to keep our tools safe, make sure that one day we will find a use to them, learn from them whatever we can because we can never know what there is around the corner, the more tools we have the more our survival chances are.

[speedphantom]

You really are concerned with humans surviving? We are the least endangered species at the moment. Is it really a tragedy if we miraculously vanished?

Not saying you're wrong even if I disagree with you strongly, but of course they would because those are your views. If they had mine then same deal, vica versa.

[Shdo]

the problem with your ideals is taht there are always rich greedy people who would not abide to those rules while in my way i use their greed, the amount of papers brought from the rainforests is nothing compared to the medications.

we wont get extinct now but in 200 years we might suffer from an illness and the creture that hold the key for a cure will be already dead.

[speedphantom]

You talk about only the strongest surviving and Darwinism yet this notion of medicine defies that paradigm. True Darwinism is letting all the sick people die off since the fact is they're sick and that is a weakness of sorts.

I'm an optimist and I see there being no problem with trying to bring about change and being positive about it. Yes the world is messed up but it can be improved and if no one thinks it can nothing will happen.

[Shdo]

you think that darwinisem is about strength? who is weak and who is strong? then you are wrong, darwinisem is about who is alive and who is dead, for example look at the cretures that lived 50000 years ago, they were stronger and bigger then the cretures that replaced them but they died, sickness isnt a problem of weakness but of luck cna chances.
besides lets say that the world is affected with a desease that kill 95%, does that mean that the remaining 5% are better? they are only better when it comes to that desease. a strong indevidual can die from a spider bite...
fighting desease is the same as a colony of bees fighting off hornets.

[speedphantom]

Strength as in not being sick......yes.

The medicine created is going against the process of natural selection to keep alive those people with illnesses. Not saying that I think this is bad, but you seem to be a strong advocate of natural selection yet you want to find medicine from endangered species?

[cheez]

Is mankind intrinsically evil?

No evil is something created by humans, nothing is naturally evil, something has to be labeled evil, and even then evil is only relative to the labeler's moral view. Evil is neither natural or absolute.

Humans are mealy a species that has become too successful for the world. We are no longer limited by natural forces like weather and geography to define our living ranges. Natural population controls like disease, starvation, and predation no longer happen to significantly affect human populations.


Do we destroy faster than we can create?

Yes, but mainly because we have never had a real interest in recreating the natural enviornment. Humans like all other animals are simply concerned with our own survival. We've just been so successful that were changing enviornments across the world, which hasn't been done by another organism since cyanobacteria changed the atmosphere from anoxic to oxygen rich.

However we have to ability to limit our impact, we just have to make serious efforts to do so.


Can the earth live without us?

Of course we are simply one species. The earth worked naturally before we came and it will keep on working after we go extinct. We are a part of the earth so in a sense everything that we are doing can be looked at as natural, I don't prefer to see it that way but you can argue it. If we all suddenly vanish today, the earth would go on like nothing happened. The only species that would die are the ones that are dependent on us because we have drove them to near extension. Forests and grass lands will over time reclaim the cities and paved roads we've put in. Large structures like dams and steel buildings will last for a while but over time they will disappear.


What can we do on our part to make things right?

We have to change our view that the world is for us, to we are a part of this world. Realize that we can not just measure success just by how many humans there are, but we have to include all organisms even the ones that do not directly benefit us. Coming to some hard conclusions like there are some areas of the world where humans are overpopulating. There are areas specially like deserts and seasonal grass lands in America and Africa where humans have exceeded the caring capacity of the environment. These areas have only so much water, and the soil can only support so many plants. Many of these deserts and grass lands are not suited for large sedentary populations of humans, and continuing to have large populations of humans there will only cause more problems.

[Shdo]

then you have a flaw in your understanding, a man might be atlethic and smart and still die from sars where an complete retard with physical fitness of a noodle will have natural immunity, the only think that idiot is better then the first one is immunity to sars, a day later he died from a flew.
desease dont really show who is better or even a better survivor, it only shows who is more immune to that desease only, a completly useless ability once the epidemic especially when a cure might be found and negate the immunity ability.

keep in mind that if some1 is immune to a certain desease that dosnt mean that he have better immunity system overall, only that he is immune to that desease.

[Luhy]

the nature of "man"? to be right and sexual gratification ;o

hmmm, I've always thought of the human race as a virus on the Earth... we had the potential to be the shepards of the planet and live with animals, but as we modernized, we built a sense of entitlement and started to mass-control the land and animals... now it's just the way things are and activists and such are the weird people who don't make sense to us while we're irreversably damaged the only planet we'll ever live comfortably on

[fly]

Arent we uhm....off topic?

Sure diseases are something that could happen, and humanity could be wiped out because of that, but what does that have to do with nature of man? Humans are a species of animals, and yes, for some unforseen circumstances we may be exterminated.

However, disease is not the only method, though it may be the most inevitable one. Astrological phenomenon, inner combustion, alien invasion, war......basically everything that was explored by Hollywood. Elimination of humanity is tragic, as would the extinction of dodo birds, and other species. However, do we have to resort to killing for the sake of reestablishment?

There are some good in this world, and there are redeeming features of humanity, we just have to celebrate the right things.

[Babbo]

That's rather black and white. Even the most green people don't go completely green. Jack Johnson who's a great environmental activist, he still drives and uses a computer, because he needs to.

Yes, I may be damaging the environment by sitting here, I will say yes I am too selfish to give up on using my computer. However, I do try and reduce consumption such as not turning on the water in the shower for the whole duration and collecting it with the bucket. We collect the laundry water to water the plants, we take our own bags to the supermarket to use.

Blame me for not being a 100% absolute greeny but I think its better to care a little and do a little than nothing wouldn't you say so?

what's it matter when it's all cancelled out by your necessities anyways? Saving a bit of water from your shower and your laundry won't change the fact that you're using electricity (which generally produced through exceedingly non green methods) and you're heating up your water through some other form of non green energy (whether it be oil,natural gas, or electricity) or that you used soap to clean your laundry. Even those bags, while they may reduce the consumption of supermarket bags (though in point of fact a lot of supermarkets have recycling depositories for plastic bags and paper bags already are recyclable). It just comes to the point where even doing a little has minimum to no impact compared to your own negative contributions <.<

You talk about only the strongest surviving and Darwinism yet this notion of medicine defies that paradigm. True Darwinism is letting all the sick people die off since the fact is they're sick and that is a weakness of sorts.

I'm an optimist and I see there being no problem with trying to bring about change and being positive about it. Yes the world is messed up but it can be improved and if no one thinks it can nothing will happen.

Weird. Babbo had been under the impression that survival theory was all about adapting to the environment and passing on traits. Doesn't mans' ability to use tools on a different scale from other animals (a result of genetic traits undoubtedly) such as in the case of medicine, fit pretty well to that idea o,o?

[Shdo]

you are correct Babbo, our tool using is what makes us so advanced and many times a culture with its designs survive more then the people who made it. as for sickness, as i said, fighting sickness is the same as fighting a flood or a bear or hornets, its a challange that you need to punch through it and if you cant then you are dead.

[WarriorsRest]

Is mankind originally evil?

No, though many people become evil through choice. Good vs Evil is a concept born from a belief of a supreme being or one of intelligent creation. God is a being of absolute Good and perfect Love. God created us in his image and we being his children have the potential to become like him and recieve all that he has. Romans 8:16 states we are sons of God, and if sons than heirs, and if heirs than we are joint heirs with Jesus Christ. He created us in spirit form and following gave us a body to fulfill a plan to help us develop and gain characteristics and traits just like our Father in Heaven that we may return to live in His kingdom. Humans are born to innately be good and kind, but our environment and our own desires can mold or define us to be evil. One of the gifts given to us is choice, and our choice to obey the laws of God enable us to become good, and those choices which we make against His laws (namely murder) bind us to an evil purpose.

[speedphantom]

then you have a flaw in your understanding, a man might be atlethic and smart and still die from sars where an complete retard with physical fitness of a noodle will have natural immunity, the only think that idiot is better then the first one is immunity to sars, a day later he died from a flew.
desease dont really show who is better or even a better survivor, it only shows who is more immune to that desease only, a completly useless ability once the epidemic especially when a cure might be found and negate the immunity ability.

keep in mind that if some1 is immune to a certain desease that dosnt mean that he have better immunity system overall, only that he is immune to that desease.If you're talking about Darwinism then sickness is all about biology. Adapting (non-biologically) isn't Darwinism per-se but I see what you're saying.what's it matter when it's all cancelled out by your necessities anyways? Saving a bit of water from your shower and your laundry won't change the fact that you're using electricity (which generally produced through exceedingly non green methods) and you're heating up your water through some other form of non green energy (whether it be oil,natural gas, or electricity) or that you used soap to clean your laundry. Even those bags, while they may reduce the consumption of supermarket bags (though in point of fact a lot of supermarkets have recycling depositories for plastic bags and paper bags already are recyclable). It just comes to the point where even doing a little has minimum to no impact compared to your own negative contributions <.<

Weird. Babbo had been under the impression that survival theory was all about adapting to the environment and passing on traits. Doesn't mans' ability to use tools on a different scale from other animals (a result of genetic traits undoubtedly) such as in the case of medicine, fit pretty well to that idea o,o?Trait biologically yes. Not like behaviour and atttiudes to the environment are passed down. Like some families are against the use of using some rare animal for medicine and some support it. That isn't a trait. Its all about attitudes, whether people think they should do this or that. Not everyone shares the same views as you guys.

You got to start from somewhere. Blame me and the other green minded people out there why don't you? If you blame me for trying to reduce even though it still might be a negative impact, I'm still lessening that. You do what makes you happy and I'll do what makes me happy.

[Babbo]

If you're talking about Darwinism then sickness is all about biology. Adapting (non-biologically) isn't Darwinism per-se but I see what you're saying.Trait biologically yes. Not like behaviour and atttiudes to the environment are passed down. Like some families are against the use of using some rare animal for medicine and some support it. That isn't a trait. Its all about attitudes, whether people think they should do this or that. Not everyone shares the same views as you guys.

You got to start from somewhere. Blame me and the other green minded people out there why don't you? If you blame me for trying to reduce even though it still might be a negative impact, I'm still lessening that. You do what makes you happy and I'll do what makes me happy.


All behavior has it's base in instinct (which is unarguably genetic) and our traits shape our behavior, it's the whole nature vs. nuture argument man. It's not an absolute but there is some truth to it <.<

There's no might about it. As green as you are you're still going to be creating somewhere in the area of 620 kg of trash a year; even taking off 100kg doesn't it make things all that much better <.<

[speedphantom]

If you were brought up by hippies you can't deny you'd think like them. You wouldn't have some kind of genetic trigger inside saying "NO! BAD! IT'S ALL A BUNCH OF TREE HUGGIN' HIPPIE CRAP!". This and the nature vs nurture thing is just one of those debates which will go back and forth aimlessly. Everyone thinks what they want and nothing will change that.

Saving 100kg is better than nothing.

[Babbo]

If you were brought up by hippies you can't deny you'd think like them. You wouldn't have some kind of genetic trigger inside saying "NO! BAD! IT'S ALL A BUNCH OF TREE HUGGIN' HIPPIE CRAP!". This and the nature vs nurture thing is just one of those debates which will go back and forth aimlessly. Everyone thinks what they want and nothing will change that.

Saving 100kg is better than nothing.
Babbo would like to point out that he's been playing casual devils advocate from the beginning >.>


Babbo's not seeing how that's relevant to the human use of tools as a trait with genetic origins. It's a pretty damn definitive behavior, not many other species out there can really compare, and it's kind of hard to say that such a behavior isn't a result of certain traits that humans as a species have <.<

And in point of fact survival instinct in and of itself goes against the idea of conserving resources for the betterment of the earth as a whole. It's the "tree hugging hippe crap" that most likely has no basis in genetics <.<

In the end people generally do admit that both sides do have a point to a degree >.>

And no, it's not much better than nothing. You'd still be making 520 kg of trash a year <.<

[cheez]

what's it matter when it's all cancelled out by your necessities anyways? Saving a bit of water from your shower and your laundry won't change the fact that you're using electricity (which generally produced through exceedingly non green methods) and you're heating up your water through some other form of non green energy (whether it be oil,natural gas, or electricity) or that you used soap to clean your laundry. Even those bags, while they may reduce the consumption of supermarket bags (though in point of fact a lot of supermarkets have recycling depositories for plastic bags and paper bags already are recyclable). It just comes to the point where even doing a little has minimum to no impact compared to your own negative contributions <.<

Like Speedphantom said you have to start from somewhere. Saying that individual contributions don't matter is a rather pessimistic approach. If countries and populations as a whole change their attitudes towards the environment and embrace conservations we might be able to make significant progress.

We got into these environmental problems through apathetic concerns about the environment and the view that the world is for us.
Whales weren't hunted to near extension because of one whaling vessel, it was because most people viewed them as swimming money waiting to be hunted, which lead to the massive hunting of whales, which lead to near extension for many species. The reverse thinking has lead to mostly world wide efforts to rebuild these populations.

Humans have shown our ability to greatly reduce pollution before, like with world wide reduction of aerosols after it was proven that they were the main cause of the ozone layer depletion. The world governments made a collective effort to replace most aerosols and so the the overall consumption dropped 300,000 tons in 1986 to 180,000 tons in 1989.

There are many places in the world that can not substain their current human populations, however that are also many water shortage problems that can be greatly helped through water conservation and other conservation practices.

[speedphantom]

Little things make big differences. It's about changing attitudes. Small things on large scale as cheez says, makes a world of difference.

Pessimistic attitudes don't achieve anything but depression.

[beautiful_death]

Little things make big differences. It's about changing attitudes. Small things on large scale as cheez says, makes a world of difference.

Pessimistic attitudes don't achieve anything but depression.
QFT
Speed's right. The little things we do can make a difference. If we mobilize and educate the people about the environment, then that's a step forward. In world politics....that's a different story.

[Luhy]

Is mankind originally evil?

No, though many people become evil through choice. Good vs Evil is a concept born from a belief of a supreme being or one of intelligent creation. God is a being of absolute Good and perfect Love. God created us in his image and we being his children have the potential to become like him and recieve all that he has. Romans 8:16 states we are sons of God, and if sons than heirs, and if heirs than we are joint heirs with Jesus Christ. He created us in spirit form and following gave us a body to fulfill a plan to help us develop and gain characteristics and traits just like our Father in Heaven that we may return to live in His kingdom. Humans are born to innately be good and kind, but our environment and our own desires can mold or define us to be evil. One of the gifts given to us is choice, and our choice to obey the laws of God enable us to become good, and those choices which we make against His laws (namely murder) bind us to an evil purpose.

that's not really true... humans like all creatures were born with the instincts of greed, murder, manipulation, and hunger (metaphorically and literally)~ playing with dolls, being taught certain behavior is bad, are all ways that humans domesticate their own children. Kindness and such is learned, morality is learned, etc~ religious stuff is a guideline you learn too and teaches you kindness etc and stories that give you a sense of morality to support and believe in~

back to what beautiful_death said... every little bit does definitely help... Al Gore was inspired origionally by a single poem written by a single man, and now he won a Nobel Peace Prize for educating the globe on an imminent global climate shift of which is now inevitable from human actions~

[Shdo]

actully babbo is mostly right, for example earth hour.

in the some, the whole power reduction to sydny was about the level of taking out 6 cars in the WHOLE year, only six! its amazing that car crushes do more to help the enviorments then the whole earth hour project.
if you want to help then plant a tree or something, but most of your actions are futile.

[Babbo]

Little things make big differences. It's about changing attitudes. Small things on large scale as cheez says, makes a world of difference.



Pessimistic attitudes don't achieve anything but


The irony of that statement is killing Babbo XD



Like Speedphantom said you have to start from somewhere. Saying that individual contributions don't matter is a rather pessimistic approach. If countries and populations as a whole change their attitudes towards the environment and embrace conservations we might be able to make significant progress.

We got into these environmental problems through apathetic concerns about the environment and the view that the world is for us.
Whales weren't hunted to near extension because of one whaling vessel, it was because most people viewed them as swimming money waiting to be hunted, which lead to the massive hunting of whales, which lead to near extension for many species. The reverse thinking has lead to mostly world wide efforts to rebuild these populations.

Humans have shown our ability to greatly reduce pollution before, like with world wide reduction of aerosols after it was proven that they were the main cause of the ozone layer depletion. The world governments made a collective effort to replace most aerosols and so the the overall consumption dropped 300,000 tons in 1986 to 180,000 tons in 1989.

There are many places in the world that can not substain their current human populations, however that are also many water shortage problems that can be greatly helped through water conservation and other conservation practices.
Getting into a situation and getting out of it, are two radically different things.

In the mean time we're still producing trillions of tons of garbage that by themselves create plenty of pollutants just by sitting around. You want to stop polluting? Reduce the earth to a pre industrial state, hell even when we were limited to natural and animal power we still managed to mess things up pretty damn well. But in a world where people persist in all sorts of pollutant activities as a part of their daily lives throughout the whole of society? You're fooling yourself if you actually think that it's possible for the entire human race to make a turn around >.>

Little things make big differences. It's about changing attitudes. Small things on large scale as cheez says, makes a world of difference.

Pessimistic attitudes don't achieve anything but depression.

There's a fine line between cynicism and realism <.<

[Shdo]

well said babbo.
i think the first step is to stop kidding yourself that turning the light for an hour help or that eating your water with fire do any diffrance, you want to do a change? go for the big things, make patitions against polluting factories, for research cleaner energy sources and plant a tree.

after you did that still keep in mind that the world will become hotter, there is no point in kiddingourselves that we can turn the wheel around, we can only slow it a little hoping that in a century or so we will find cold fusion.

[speedphantom]

They all add up. Earth hour wasn't meant to be about saving power just for those hours. It was more about promoting awareness. If there's more awareness then you can move on to the bigger things. I don't know about you but I walked before I ran.

Funny now isn't it? I consider myself a realist yet you consider yourself a realist too. Clearly for some realists, cynicism goes hand in hand.

[Shdo]

you see it as cynicism, i see your point of view as naive if not idealist, either way i dont think that you are realist.

[speedphantom]

It's all subjective:pI am a bit idealist I suppose.

Anyways, I've said all I want to here, I'll take my leave before my inner idealist explodes:lmao

[Inevitable.Exit]

I don't share the same optimistic views of humanity as some others. Humans have to be taught what is accepted, and not accepted in society. When left alone, man has a desire to dominate others. As my ancient civilization teacher put it "Humans have done three constant things throughout history: eat, have sex and murder eachother". We are, afterall, nothing more than smart animals.

[bradc]

I don't share the same optimistic views of humanity as some others. Humans have to be taught what is accepted, and not accepted in society. When left alone, man has a desire to dominate others. As my ancient civilization teacher put it "Humans have done three constant things throughout history: eat, have sex and murder eachother". We are, afterall, nothing more than smart animals.


I agree with this... Nothing has changed really...

[Adam]

I'm late but whatever.

Is mankind intrinsically evil?

No, since good and evil are illusions constructed by man.

Do we destroy faster than we can create?

Well, we destroy things in order to create our oh-so important stuff like cellular phones with video display. But, yeah, the consequences of our lifestyles is definitely catching up with us.

Can the earth live without us?

It did fine without us for over four billion years. Question is whether we can live without the Earth. And until we start colonizing Mars and find a way to live off of space dust, the answer to that is no.

What can we do on our part to make things right?

A lot. Probably one of the best things we could do is stop pretending that we're doing nothing wrong, and admitting that there is a problem.

True Darwinism is letting all the sick people die off since the fact is they're sick and that is a weakness of sorts.

Not so. True Darwinism is about who is most able to reproduce. It doesn't matter if a gene is "negative," if it gives an individual a better chance to survive and find a mate. Take a look in Africa, which has a far higher population of people with sickle cell anemia than anywhere else in the world. Shouldn't the people with that disease be dying out and the gene that causes it with it? No, because the disease sickle cell anemia helps fight malaria, and having one recessive gene with sicle cell anemia actually boosts survival and the ability to reproduce.

Now that is Darwinism. It's got nothing to do with this weakest dying out bullshit.

[Shdo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jmP-Z2KSnM&feature=related

how come people can reach this level of cruelty? what the hell is wrong with them and how this come to be?

what can be done to uproot cruelty as a whole in the modern society? and even more importantly, what is its source?



and on a side note, what does this criminal should get? i am angry that such a man is allowed to walk the earth.

[Kolbertt]

Merged as both threads dealt with Human Nature.

Also, keep in mind this kind of topics bring up heated conversations, at the slightest sign of disturbance, actions will be taken.

You've been warned.

Kol-

[Shdo]

the problem is that this thread is about human nature in the world as in enviorment, not really anything about the source of crimes and cruelty, read the posts and see that those are diffrent threads

[Dopesmoker]

We humans are more evolved than animals; we walk upright, we can express and process complex emotions, our brains have the capacity to process information faster than a computer, and so on and so forth.

Unlike the animals, we alter our environments in order for them to adapt to us rather than us adapting to the environment. Not only are we creators, but we are destroyers as well. Look how much devastation is caused when mankind is at war--everything is affected in profound ways.

So I present the following questions:

Is mankind intrinsically evil?
Do we destroy faster than we can create?
Can the earth live without us?
What can we do on our part to make things right?

1. no, evil is merely a construct of the human mind. there is no such thing as "evil", only what is not accepted by the majority as a normal action.

2. depends on what you mean by 'create'.

3. certainly, it has for 4 billion years.

4. we can try and get along, that would solve a lot of problems but i don't see that happening for a very very long time. we could also put less strain on our planet, but its not really a big deal, earth has been through a lot worse than some intelligent apes dumping plastic and co2 into the environment.

[♥Mad,bad & sad♥]

we can try and get along, that would solve a lot of problems but i don't see that happening for a very very long time.

That will never happen.

In the words of the late, great Richard Nixon: Peace is achieved in two places only: in the grave and at the typewriter ;)

[Dopesmoker]

now i wouldn't be that pessimistic about it.

if you look at the progress we've made, a united planet is inevitable.
it's already happening anyway, the EU, the proposed american union (granted though i don't know much about it) advent of the internet and revolution in communications etc..

[Rain]

World peace in that sense will never happen

It can be far far better than now, don't get me wrong, but because people have thoughts, and if they attain the freedom to express those thought, people will disagree, and then people will debate back, and it will cause hostility

althought that isn't really the topic

Dopesmoker- We can say the planet has been through worse, and looking at facts an figures may support that, but at the pace we're going (slow and steady;)), what we are doing will be the worst

[Fyrefox]

We humans are more evolved than animals; we walk upright, we can express and process complex emotions, our brains have the capacity to process information faster than a computer, and so on and so forth.

Unlike the animals, we alter our environments in order for them to adapt to us rather than us adapting to the environment. Not only are we creators, but we are destroyers as well. Look how much devastation is caused when mankind is at war--everything is affected in profound ways.

So I present the following questions:

Is mankind intrinsically evil?
Do we destroy faster than we can create?
Can the earth live without us?
What can we do on our part to make things right?


1: Yes, it is part of us.
2: As things stand now, yes.
3: I doubt it.
4: That depends on what is available.

But things won't ever change unless man's way of thinking changes. When we learn to live alongside the earth, rather than make it conform to us, then maybe things can take a turn for the better.

[bradc]

now i wouldn't be that pessimistic about it.

if you look at the progress we've made, a united planet is inevitable.
it's already happening anyway, the EU, the proposed american union (granted though i don't know much about it) advent of the internet and revolution in communications etc..

Peace can happen to a certain extend, but it won't stop any crimes from happening world wide; people generally having disputes and disagreement with each other. Some country needs learn to stay out of other country's business; it causes more conflict that way when one's country is being too noisy about what other PR are doing either involving with government and business relations with others.

[Dopesmoker]

World peace in that sense will never happen

It can be far far better than now, don't get me wrong, but because people have thoughts, and if they attain the freedom to express those thought, people will disagree, and then people will debate back, and it will cause hostility

althought that isn't really the topic

Dopesmoker- We can say the planet has been through worse, and looking at facts an figures may support that, but at the pace we're going (slow and steady;)), what we are doing will be the worst
well by world peace i meant more along the lines people tolerating and accepting each other, and that is eventually bound to happen. disagreements will happen, but as long as people don't start wars over it then i don't see the problem.

i doubt anything we're doing to the planet can rival the earth having been hit by a meteorite the size of a city, destroying the surface and raising the temperature to equal that of the sun's. while we do have a large impact, it's nothing that earth can't handle.

Peace can happen to a certain extend, but it won't stop any crimes from happening world wide; people generally having disputes and disagreement with each other. Some country needs learn to stay out of other country's business; it causes more conflict that way when one's country is being too noisy about what other PR are doing either involving with government and business relations with others.
if the world is united under one govt. then territorial conflicts will be pretty meaningless. and crimes and such are very minor when talking on a global scale, they're going to happen of course but that's why we have authority.

world peace doesn't mean everyone starting to suddenly love each other and hold hands, it just means they'll grow the hell up and accept/tolerate each other despite the differences. imo anyway lol.

[bradc]

if the world is united under one govt. then territorial conflicts will be pretty meaningless. and crimes and such are very minor when talking on a global scale, they're going to happen of course but that's why we have authority.

world peace doesn't mean everyone starting to suddenly love each other and hold hands, it just means they'll grow the hell up and accept/tolerate each other despite the differences. imo anyway lol.

The world cannot be ruled under one government with nearly 300 countries, including much smaller ones which you never hear about. I am still disagreeing with you, but the world I walk out I wouldn't know what will happen to me the next day when violence still exist on local news channel :p

Inner-peace, and peace must be find on your own. That's peace and of course, staying civil and diplomatic can help reduce violence. That's all you can do to prevent it; it still won't stop criminals from doing criminal and illegal things.

[Dopesmoker]

The world cannot be ruled under one government with nearly 300 countries, including much smaller ones which you never hear about. I am still disagreeing with you, but the world I walk out I wouldn't know what will happen to me the next day when violence still exist on local news channel :p

Inner-peace, and peace must be find on your own. That's peace and of course, staying civil and diplomatic can help reduce violence. That's all you can do to prevent it; it still won't stop criminals from doing criminal and illegal things.
it can, and we're slowly reaching that. like i said before, the EU, the proposed NAU and others are all examples of this. the smaller ones are going to be even easier to simply drag into a union, do you really think they could defend themselves against the most powerful nations on earth? it's going to take a long time of course, but it is inevitable. we won't be around to see it that's for sure.

you're still looking into this too much, world peace =/= crime being eliminated. they are two very very different things.

[bradc]

Not if China has anything to say about it. Every country wants to be run its own way, and it's own living style and culture without any other government from another country interfering with its foreign affairs... No one wants to be ruled by one government with one system for the whole planet. The governments are responsible for leading its own country and representing their citizens.

Doesn't matter; violence still exist whether it be domestic or anywhere across the world; no matter how much peace you want. You never hear about it because is on their local news channel on not your TV station being broadcast.

I wasn't the one asking for world peace, don't contradict yourself.

[Dopesmoker]

Not if China has anything to say about it. Every country wants to be run its own way, and it's own living style without any other government from another country interfering with its foreign affairs... No one wants to be ruled by one government with one system for the whole planet. The governments are responsible for leading its own country and representing their citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Cooperation_Dialogue

like i said before, this isn't going to happen in the near future but it's inevitable down the road. i honestly don't see how it's really that difficult to believe.

Doesn't matter; violence still exist whether it be domestic or anywhere across the world. You never hear about it because is on their local news channel on not your TV station being broadcast.
well that really has nothing to do with what i said, i know violence exists.
we were talking about world peace, not crime suddenly disappearing.

[bradc]

You were the one said the world is coming together in peace and under one government. Violence still happens every day, it can't be eliminated. :facepalm

[Dopesmoker]

You were the one said the world is coming together in peace and under one government. Violence still happens every day, it can't be eliminated. :facepalm
dude are you not reading my posts?

world government is inevitable, it's going to happen but very very very slowly. i've already pointed out the signs to this happening but you choose to ignore them so i'm not mentioning them again.

i still don't why you're pursuing the violence subject, world peace =/= elimination of violence and crime.

[bradc]

Some country aren't even part of NATO; there will still be different governments running each of their own countries, and would rather be left alone, unless it involves with business trades to keep the economic going.

War still happening on middle eastern front... Violence still there...

Because inner-peace is still peace; staying out of trouble like some country and their government choose to do and keep foreign relation and people relation running. Domestic and home violence still happens in the neighbourhood. Human nature can be both peaceful and violent...

[directX07]

Answers to questions - in my opinion.

As Anne Frank said, people are really good at heart...

BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!! There is a driving force behind us all that can make us very good or very evil. There are many things to consider. And destiny can play a lot of tricks on us as to where we are to be classified.

I believe we destroy faster than we create. Imagine a building built in 6 months, only to be destroyed by a bomb within an hour. Of course it happens! Anything's possible with a human mind that doesn't recognize boundaries and flaws, not acknowledging the fact that his brain is flawed and limited.

The world can do great without us. Not to be a discriminator but I feel so. The world can do much better without us. After all, we have wrecked so much God has created. And many environmental incidents are caused by us.

[directX07]

Oh, and what can we do to make things right??? DO NOTHING! If we do nothing, nothing can go wrong!!!

No, just kidding. Just do our best. Let's be united, that's all. :D

[directX07]

dude are you not reading my posts?

world government is inevitable, it's going to happen but very very very slowly. i've already pointed out the signs to this happening but you choose to ignore them so i'm not mentioning them again.

i still don't why you're pursuing the violence subject, world peace =/= elimination of violence and crime.

woah... this subject is getting hot... how did you get here anyway???