Machinaforce, You have essentially copy and pasted a large amount of text directly from your second link. This is a potentially a copyright violation and certainly not your own summary.
Do not do this again.
Here’s your problem. You are evaluating ideas with tools as obviously useless as the “They laughed at Galileo”-gauge of crackpot pseudoscientists.
Revolutionary theories are not laughed at more often then pure gibberish, and falsehoods hurt just as much as truths. Pain is not a valid way to evaluate the truth content of anything.
Short answer – any organism subject to evolution will at all times be playing catch-up with the environment it is living in, which is itself in constant flux owing to the nature of the universe.
The thoughts presented here seem pretty… misanthropic. I’ll give an alternate perspective to each of these assertions.
What thrive means in this context, I think, is not something that has a unique meaning, but I would say that, from an evolutionary perspective, it would mean a species being able to effectively fill it’s niche in the environment. In that regard, other than the simple fact that humanity is a relative new-comer, the simple fact that humans are one of the few species that have successfully been able to establish itself in all but the most extreme environments on Earth and that human global population is on the rise, I think it’s pretty disingenuous to assert that humans have failed to thrive, much less in a “unique, unmatched and catastrophic” way.
First, this isn’t true that suicidal behavior is limited to humans (simple Google search shows plenty of results). Second, if we run on the assumption that suicidal behavior is necessarily bad, then it could also be argued that because it’s low (using deaths per 100k, there’s 13.26 [AFSP] annually in US out of 724.6 [KFF 2014], or less than 2% of total deaths) that it’s an exception, not the rule.
However, I wouldn’t run on that assumption that it’s necessarily bad. If one’s death will reduce one’s suffering, particularly when facing a terminal condition that will only continue to deteriorate, while one may or may not agree with that choice, I don’t think it’s objectively bad. And, if anything, it shows a rare ability by humanity to have foresight, recognize one’s own mortality and the consequences of various situations and behaviors, and take action in accordance with one’s will.
So, art, music, literature, film, etc. are bad? Language, and by extension art and story telling, are one of the things that make humanity unique. This is what allowed us to share experiences and pass on complex knowledge from one generation to the next allowing us to build and improve on technology and society. This gives us shared experience and allows us to connect on initially a local level, but now on a global level.
No, this is true of most species. If anything, only humanity is even really able to recognize that there are long-term major problems facing us. Evolutionarily, it makes sense to face the most immediate risks. For example, even before humans were around, there were countless shifts in climate, locally and globally. How many other species before humans came around were able to make predictions about that and then take action? Zero. They either had the tools already, were able to adapt as it came, or they went extinct. Again, you can only even ASK this question because humans are the only species that are able to recognize long term problems, much less able to create large scale solutions to complex problems.
That’s not to say there aren’t people out there ignoring certain major looming issues like climate change, but I think the very fact that we’ve recognized it and that even some of us are taking steps to address it when no other species can predict it, much less take action, makes us uniquely evolved.
First of all, this isn’t true, animals can and do abuse substances under certain circumstances. Obviously, humans do it at much higher rates, but that’s again a consequence of our ability for forethought and planning. In fact, many (most?) long-used substances serve certain critical purposes. For example, alcohol may have been critical to human societies development. And, obviously, there’s plenty of evidence for how various herbs have certain beneficial medical effects.
To a certain extent, putting one member’s own self-value as lower than others is critical to any social animal’s survival. Even at the family level, if a parent see’s a child at risk and doesn’t take action to protect that child because they may experience some risk to themselves, they will be less likely to pass their genes on. On larger scales this includes taking actions to protect the pack/herd or clan/village, and as these social groups grow in size and complexity, some degree of organization is necessary. Primates, wolves, social cats, and plenty of other non-humans have clear social structures where some animals have authority over others. Humans only really differ in that our social structures are significantly larger and more complex.
This is painting with a broad brush. Some humans destroy the environment, some make efforts to improve it, many live in harmony with it.
I’m unsure exactly what you mean here, but really, humans are one of the few animals that even have real self-awareness, at least as we understand it. This is a consequence of human intelligence. Only humans have the ability to do such self-reflection and even ask those sorts of questions.
Again, not quite sure what this means. Humans have failed to do things over and over again, but many of the greatest achievements only arise from countless failed attempts first. For example, how many centuries did man attempt to fly before we finally succeeded? Other animals don’t fail, because they don’t even try, because they’re not able to try.
What do you mean exactly by slavery? In the most direct sense, slavery has been essentially wiped out from the developed world for a long time now. If you mean in a more indirect sense, as in slaves to our technology or to our authoritatian masters or some similar concept, I think that’s a narrow view.
Running with the first, yes, in some ways technology has reduced certain freedoms, such as freedom to privacy, but in many other ways it’s expanded our freedoms. We have global communications such that information can travel across the globe nearly instantly and we can work together in ways we couldn’t even as recently as a couple decades ago. And even as far as the freedoms lost go, there’s often trade-offs, and they’re not mandatory. No one HAS to have a smart phone, and even if one does, one doesn’t have to put all of their data online. Many people choose to forego certain levels of privacy for convenience. And, really, isn’t that what freedom is… the ability to make choices?
And running on the second, without getting into which aspects of the current political situations are good or bad, even if we see certain trends we may or may not like, we have more transparency and more ability to organize and effect change than we’ve ever had, even just a handful of years ago.
It does seem to me that we’re in a transitory period where it seems like we’re losing freedoms, but ultimately technology creates options, options mean MORE choices, and that means more freedoms. And it also means that we’re becoming more and more aware of ways in which our freedoms have been limited and so that we can address them. It seems to me that in many ways the powers that be will fight back against losing their power, as is is expected, but on the largest scale, human freedom has continually increased.
Consider, how much freer humans are today than at times far enough in the past. It was only a blink of an eye, historically speaking, that power was focused in a handful of aristocrats, kings and emperors. It wasn’t all that long ago that even in the developed world women had little or not power. Or consider the freedom from the constraints of simply existing, how not much more than a century ago, most people still had to work on farms just to have enough food our society to even exist, and now that’s a tiny fraction of the population as we’ve continued to improve quality of life for most humans on the planet and extreme poverty continues to drop substantially. Medicine has given us significant freedoms from countless afflictions, disease, child mortality, etc.
In short, only a myopic view, looking at small changes day to day might see humanity as slaves, but on any substantial timescale, the farther one steps back, the more and more free humans have become.
Furthermore, any solutions resulting from this process don’t need to be perfect, but rather merely just good enough.
Our imagination is also very closely tied to our ability to appreciate things, Even though the content of the linked article is a complete load of misanthropic bollocks, it could not have been created without making use of the very things it is criticising.
Just one response: GET HELP.
Dilute! Dilute! OK!
Are humans defective?
In the sense that we are imperfect, i.e. the dictionary definition of defective, yes.
In the sense that you mean, no. You’re viewpoint is pure nonsense unsupported by evidence.
I had a cat who developed a habit of chewing on her tail so bad it eventually had to be amputated. We tried bandaging it. That didn’t work – she managed to get the bandages off. It got to the point to where it was practically bald and the vet said it was either amputation or having her wearing one of those cones all the time. Dumbass cat. As it was, we had to cone her after the operation until it healed.
If animals don’t cause themselves pain, what’s the point of coning pets after medical prodecures?
Look. Machinaforce’s assertions are vague but there is truth here. Evolutionary processes are very slow and humans do have a lot of bugs left. We are basically a buggy, experimental effort by Nature exploring a particular avenue (extreme brainpower bolted to a mediocre primate).
In fact, a lot of what Machinaforce is quoting are specific bugs that are a side effect of our large brains. Animals tend to have very well tuned instincts that work well so long as the situation includes factors their instincts were intended for. Human inbuilt instincts are weaker and we have a much greater capacity to override those instincts - including in negative ways that are a detriment to our individual survivals. (such as humans who enjoy skydiving). But this flexibility is why we are able to have this conversation at all. Humans didn’t evolve in an environment that included keyboards, and yet we can use them.
For those with a worldview that we are reflections of God and special in some cosmic way, this may be difficult to accept.
Nevertheless, it’s probably the truth. DESPITE all these real flaws, here we are, and the chimps are still in the trees.
In addition, we are very very close to building intelligent machines that will be capable of self improvement and eventually eliminating all of the mentioned flaws, plus all the flaws that we give them due to them being created by imperfect humans. Even now, we have discovered how to make impressive tools and machines that vastly exceed our current capabilities.
Biological evolution is slow, true. The important fact about humans is that we invented culture and science, which evolve a lot faster. We don’t need to evolve wings; we invent airplanes. We don’t need to wait until we evolve eyes like a hawk - we have telescopes.
Plus, we know how to work the microwave.
Regards,
Shodan
http://mansondirect.com
He also used the above links in some comments after I back talked to him.
But I guess overalll everyone here is correct. It’s just that for some reason I doubted myself too much to let reason guide me. I feel into the trap of how past geniuses were laughed at and scorned so I thought that must be the case with him and the people he claims are seers of forbidden truth (which seems like nonsense now that I think about it).
For some reason I cannot trust my evaluation so I corroborate it with others. I can’t call something crazy right off the bat if I don’t agree with it or dismiss something because someone is crazy (that’s what college teaches you).
I mean, isn’t that ad homeniem
Machinaforce, what did you think before? That you’re just horribly defective? Who invented the internet and the comfortable house you are posting from?
Maybe not you - maybe some humans are far more capable than others - but humans did all that.
Now yeah, even human geniuses can’t out-sneak a cat, probably can’t groom another creature as well as a gorilla, or react as quick or accurately as a housefly. Doesn’t matter, we can make machines superior to everything on earth for most tasks and we’ll sooner or later be able to do it for them all.
I wasn’t really referring to that, more like the two links I posted.
Also I doesn’t matter what I thought before, isn’t the point of knowledge to change your thinking?
Plus that still doesn’t address the issue with ad hominem
What issue would that be?
truth
that just because someone is crazy doesn’t mean we can dismiss everything they say. It’s like how he links to the Manson page (first paragraph there) and his quotes.