I don’t care what happens a thousand years from now because I won’t be around to see it (probably).
Humans are not separate from whatever you think of as the natural world. We are animals within the same eco-system as all the other lifeforms you speak of.
We are just currently at the top of the system and have some clever talents that have brought us this far and will continue. We are a long, long way from ‘evolving ourselves out of the game.’
The game is just starting and humans have changed very little since modern humans, Cro Magnons, headed out of Africa a few hundred thousand years ago.
That’s the exact kind of attitude I think will become our downfall.
Not you personally ofcourse, but our apparent inabillity to care beyond our own expiration date.
We do exist under the same restrictions as other lifeforms, but we have begun to systematically remove these restrictions. And this is what I mean by evolving ourselves out of the game. It has begun, no matter the scale.
Better to start thinking about that now instead of later.
Consensus your right about this, balance does need to be found between humans and the rest of the worlds Eco system.
Just because we are lucky enough to be the dominate ones, does not mean we have to act like what nature intends all dominate species to act like.
Then again, even wolfs are aware of the balance, if you kill all the game, then it will not come back.
Letting nature completely run things would be foolish because it would never work unless we give up all our advances in technology and revert to the stone age.
Nature likes to get rid of things that don’t work and make room for the new. It treats everything equal all the time. It does not play favorites and If we blow our chance, we will be replaced by something else… eventually.
Meteors or drastic climate change can and have killed 99% of the life on this planet in the past. There are no rules. Our goal is survival, but there is no rule saying the planet can’t be fried by a gamma ray tomorrow.
Animals don’t seek balance, they seek domination. The problem is that our species is the only one to truly have it. Other species like dinosaurs have dominated, but not to the level that we do. If other species could dominate like we do, they would.
We are and largely have transcended evolution, which is good. Then again some argue that a technocratic society is just an extension of evolution. We are solving our problems, changing ourselves and altering our environment just like other species but we are doing it far faster with technology than we did with natural selection.
But natural selection is malicious and horrible. We should seek to rise above and beyond it.
No. A wolf is aware of stuff like its surroundings, its prey, its hunger, and the strong desire to pee on vertical things. Wolves are no more aware that they are a component in an astonishingly complex, dynamic system that is comprised of themselves, their prey, parasites, the weather, etc. than an ancient Sumerian farmer was aware of orbital mechanics. Probably less, insofar as one could explain gravity to a Sumerian farmer with enough time, but a wolf’s intellectual capacity is such that it will never grasp anything so abstract as the concept of over-predation.
Yes. As one famous anthropologist note: if baboons had nuclear weapons, the entire planet would be destroyed in about 15 minutes.
Some things are out of our hands, for now. So the goal is survival, and by rules I just mean science. The laws and logic behind everything, as far as we can tell. Dont know what other rules could apply.
Ok, so now that we are dominating ( 
I play QL) we have no obligation to the environment that put us there? Especially the way we are dominating. While 60-70% of our OWN population is basically starving to death the other 30% is suffering from obisitas, or atleast could be with very little effort.
I know, ridiculous right? And that’s just the start. Some many things we do are not in the realm of the dominator, but us n00bs sooo like to think we are. And that’s when it gets dangerous.
So by malicious and horrible you mean slow and random, right. It’s the technocratic society that could better fit these words if it’s not done with due dilligence. So no speeding please.
And even then we cannot deney the heritage from the old days.
Things like : aggresiveness, jealousy and the urge to compete and dominate worked good in the past, but they will not serve us well in the future.
The more able we become in our environment, the less of these things we need. And I honestly feel that this not being acknowledged, while there is a very hardcore truth in it.
@Wesley : Thank you for your post. We are on the same page I believe
-couldn’t add this to my last post- 2late
To a certain extent, success is its own punishment in an evolutionary system. When a species becomes numerous it makes it more likely that other species will adapt to preying on that species. (It’s not a targeted Lovelock-type process. It’s just that a virus that randomly mutates in a way that benefits from the presence of human hosts will do better than another virus that randomly mutated to thrive in great auks.)
So, no one contesting nor concurring our domination style? Thought I was making a decent point.
Or how about those things I mentioned that keep getting us into trouble? Can add a few more: greed, intolerance, narrowmindedness and negligence. Will these trades continue to be a part of us while we speed along the technocratic highway?
What are we doing to keep ourselves from using and stimulating these trades? We create this environment not taking into account that the environment is giving the wrong incentives. This is not going to change, let alone for the good.
Well, I’m good with that; it’s the rest of you #$%^&*(@#$s that are the problem!
What?
I said WHAT?
Perhaps no one is contesting or concurring because you haven’t defined it very well.
It is unlikely that human nature will change in the foreseeable future.
I assume you mean “traits” even though you typed “trades” twice. I think you are overestimating how much of any given culture is under the conscious control of the people in that culture. Cultures tend to grow organically, and attempts to “manage” them haven’t turned out so well (witness the various communist country’s attempts to weed out some of the traits you are decrying). OTOH, some cultures have seemed to organically become less violent and hostile (witness the Vikings vs the present day Scandinavians).
You talkin’ to me? You talkin’ to me? You talkin’ to me? Then who the hell else are you talkin’ to? You talkin’ to me? Well I’m the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you’re talking to?"
We are the dominant species on this planet yet we struggle to get along with each other in the first place. Sure, other species compete amongst themselves too, but they can’t do it on the same level as we do. And they’re always doing it as a part of nature. We are no longer just a part of nature anymore, we are to some degree rising above it. But we are not doing a good job of being aware of this, yet we continue to evolve in this semi selfcreated environment.
This is what I mean by our style of being the dominate species.
I understand that when you read this it is very easy to put a label on it and move on. Just a bunch of nature loving hippy crap, right? But I try to approach this as unbiased as possible. I think that advanced technology is the way forward, but it shouldn’t be the only way. These technologies have such a huge and profound impact. But for now all we seem to be doing with this technology is exploiting. Damn I hate that word.
This is a problem right? You agree?
That was indeed the word I was looking for. Sorry, english is not my first language and I’m doing my very best not to sound like total idiot.
As far as attempting to weed some of those traits out, it’s more of a ‘being it’ than it is a ‘doing it’.
Guess that is one of the important reasons communism failed in practice. Because when you look at communism as it was meant to be in theory by Engels and Marx it’s not all that bad. It just requires a different view on things. But it turned out idealistic only looked good on paper to most.
I agree that some things do change for the better. Think it’s great I can talk about these things with random ppl across the globe. Don’t think we’ll accomplish anything yet but it’s the first step to a greater understanding.
Does anyone know what a “Great Debate” is? Or a great idea? I am dismayed that a truly good idea (e.g. “why can’t we get along”) that can be improved and worked on and perhaps lead to a better idea, and maybe more revelations, is treated as something that is not by people who have no idea how to argue logically. It’s not about what “you” believe or what you “infer” and react to that matters! Just the idea itself! To throw it out the window because you “believe” something that in itself is probably based on fallacy and other argumentative flaws is to just show how little you “think,” just like the people who are the “problem” out there.
So can’t we have a place for REAL debate that follows the rules of logic so that people with ideas can get together and identify flaws and improve the line of reasoning, and help each other on a strictly logic-based criterion??? It would not interfere with the other discussions. I can critique an idea without saying anything abut the idea itself. Try that on CNN!
To think a debate on the idea “why can’t we all just get along” turns into a discussion on global warming and evolution of domination. But I guess if CNN’s discussion on Presidential Candidates’ opinions on the current Wars turns into chatter about how we’ve had no “terrorist” attack in the US on over 10 years, then perhaps I shouldn’t expect sanity anywhere. But strangely I do. How illogical! 
Oh and it’s good to be here!
youbetyourwrasse
There is something special about us: We’re the only species that worries about the future or about its own effect on the rest of the world as a whole. (Not that we always do do this, but no other species even tries.)
Which other species, having almost wiped out another species, took steps to ensure that it survived? You can choose to look at the destructive impact our species has had or you can choose to look at the restorative impact we’ve had. But in the end, we are no less a product of nature than any other species.
And keep in mind that when we take steps to conserve, it’s not out of some abstract sense of “maintaining balance in nature”, it’s because we, selfishly, value the diversity of life that exists and want to maintain it. For our pleasure. Nature doesn’t “care” one way or another how many species there are.
So, let me ask the OP: What is the “proper” number of species that should exist, and how do you determine what that number is?
It’s not about maintaining the balance in nature by means of manipulation. There is no ‘proper’ number of species.
All I’m trying to say is that there is conflict bewteen us being a part and a product of nature vs. us operating outside of nature. Or; we have trouble getting along(operating outside of nature) because we’re hard-wired as part and product of nature.