- 新 我们现在用支付宝付款接受, 查看付款方式
Forums > Social Discussion > humans too smart??
Login/Join to ParticipatePosted:so, ive been thinking about this for some time, the notion that humans are too smart for this planet, that we have outwitted nature
take this example of natural selection.. normally in nature if an animal is born with a limp, blind, or disabled in any other way, that creature is bound to be one of the first to die because it has a harder time protecting itself.. if that animal were to live and pass on its genes, and in the end result in a genetic mutation in that species, that would mean that that gene (or lack of perhaps) is better for that species in terms of survival..
we humans however have found ways of keeping the blind, the disabled and aged people alive and healthy and allow them to lead a relatively normal life, through aid of medicine, guide dogs,etc..
to what extent do people think that humans have outsmarted nature??
take this example of natural selection.. normally in nature if an animal is born with a limp, blind, or disabled in any other way, that creature is bound to be one of the first to die because it has a harder time protecting itself.. if that animal were to live and pass on its genes, and in the end result in a genetic mutation in that species, that would mean that that gene (or lack of perhaps) is better for that species in terms of survival..
we humans however have found ways of keeping the blind, the disabled and aged people alive and healthy and allow them to lead a relatively normal life, through aid of medicine, guide dogs,etc..
to what extent do people think that humans have outsmarted nature??
Delete Topic
Posted:ok mig i'm missing something here frm you. understable sence its 5am were you are and 2pm were i am..........the way it sounds is that you have a problem with humans mixing interracialy (for lack of a better term) so if you could please specify..........my point that you say is your point doesn't seem to be waht you belive.......
You can't avoid pain by fencing yourself from it.
Some times you need the help of others more than anything else
But you have to let them close enough to help......
People want to be needed, I found that out too
grasshoppah
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003
![grasshoppah]()
HoP is teh suxor.
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Total posts: 425
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003
HoP is teh suxor.
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Total posts: 425
Posted:pretty soon, we are all going to be robots in one way or another.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
MiG
GOLD Member since Apr 2004
![MiG]()
Self-Flagellation Expert
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Total posts: 3415
GOLD Member since Apr 2004
Self-Flagellation Expert
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Total posts: 3415
Posted:i have no problem with it. i wouldnt be here were it not for mixing.
I just dont think that mother nature intended for everybody to be able to mix with everybody. I think that nature intended for everyone to stay in their own little box. Us developing methods where it is now feasible for someone to go to the other side of the planet and have kids with someone when they get there wasnt in the master plan when evolution kicked off.
I just dont think that mother nature intended for everybody to be able to mix with everybody. I think that nature intended for everyone to stay in their own little box. Us developing methods where it is now feasible for someone to go to the other side of the planet and have kids with someone when they get there wasnt in the master plan when evolution kicked off.
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
Posted:a plan?
thats not what evolution is.
there are plenty of animals that disprove your point, us included.
some of them really get around you know. migration and all that sort of stuff.
thats not what evolution is.
there are plenty of animals that disprove your point, us included.
some of them really get around you know. migration and all that sort of stuff.
Love is the law.
DeleteMiG
GOLD Member since Apr 2004
![MiG]()
Self-Flagellation Expert
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Total posts: 3415
GOLD Member since Apr 2004
Self-Flagellation Expert
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Total posts: 3415
Posted:most migratory animals have wings. or fins. or some other device that enables them to travel the thousands of miles they migrate. we lack those. well, we did until people invented ways of travelling thousands of miles. thats my point
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
Posted:OK now i get waht your saying..........i still disagree 
refering back to my comment about the human brain and the percentage used past and present.........i think we can all agree the evolution is natural, and part of natures paln right? right........now humans ability to get to other parts of the world, came from our mind evolving and going "hey, there may be something more out there" and sure enough there was.........as we mix, those pionering thoughts and desires were passed down (on a gecetic level) and eventually we got to were we are today as a whole.....if nature had intended us to "stay in our little box" as you put it, why did our brain come up with ways for us to get of said box?................
refering back to my comment about the human brain and the percentage used past and present.........i think we can all agree the evolution is natural, and part of natures paln right? right........now humans ability to get to other parts of the world, came from our mind evolving and going "hey, there may be something more out there" and sure enough there was.........as we mix, those pionering thoughts and desires were passed down (on a gecetic level) and eventually we got to were we are today as a whole.....if nature had intended us to "stay in our little box" as you put it, why did our brain come up with ways for us to get of said box?................You can't avoid pain by fencing yourself from it.
Some times you need the help of others more than anything else
But you have to let them close enough to help......
People want to be needed, I found that out too
oli
SILVER Member since Jul 2003
not with cactus
Location: bristol/ southern eastern devo...
Total posts: 2052
SILVER Member since Jul 2003
not with cactus
Location: bristol/ southern eastern devo...
Total posts: 2052
Posted:we cant outsmart nature because we are nature. we are intelligent enough to want to control pretty much everything else though. and in doing so weve messed somethings up. destroyed forests, and polluted rivers.
you dont see snails inventing new ways to kill other snails. but they cant spin poi either?
you dont see snails inventing new ways to kill other snails. but they cant spin poi either?
Me train running low on soul coal
They push+pull tactics are driving me loco
They shouldn't do that no no no
Posted:ado-p i LOVE friendly debates like this, it realy helps your brain evolve 
Oli i agree 100%, humans are the only species on the planet, that want to control more than what they need to survive, hence all the land wars and such, its a scary thought, but some day mother nature will have had enough and might just hit that evolutinary reset button and POOF we start over.......
Oli i agree 100%, humans are the only species on the planet, that want to control more than what they need to survive, hence all the land wars and such, its a scary thought, but some day mother nature will have had enough and might just hit that evolutinary reset button and POOF we start over.......
You can't avoid pain by fencing yourself from it.
Some times you need the help of others more than anything else
But you have to let them close enough to help......
People want to be needed, I found that out too
MiG
GOLD Member since Apr 2004
![MiG]()
Self-Flagellation Expert
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Total posts: 3415
GOLD Member since Apr 2004
Self-Flagellation Expert
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Total posts: 3415
Posted:fair point there.
*wanders off to ponder stuff*
*wanders off to ponder stuff*
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
Posted:hey mig, i completely understand your point (after much confusion similar to what fryed fish went through) about the (for lack of better term) interracial breeding..
but let me put it to you this way..
early man made massive migrations out of africa, the australian aboriginals (so it is theorised) came from south east asia when malaysia, indonesia, and australia were all connected, when the sea level was lower.. biologists think native americans came from asia via the baring straight.. so in history humans have made massive migrations, and have evolved to suit their surroundings.. in europe and n. america people lost a lot of the pigment in their skin because the sun was much less harsh there than in africa and there was no need for it.. nowadays nobody will walk from amsterdam to hongkong just to see what hong kong is like.. theyd take a plane (its probly cheaper too taking into account food and shelter have to be paid for) so i dont really see why 'nature didnt intend' for caucasians to breed with negroes to breed with (whats the correct word for asians??)... besides, we might all look different from the outside, but we all have the same biological (meaning skeletal and cranial) structure and are thus all homo sapiens.. so why cant we interbreed??
just for the record, i completely agree that we are a part of nature and can therefore never surpass it, but in some fields we have (outsmarted might not be the best word) defied (??) nature with gene manipulation..
of course global warming is natures way of saying we have f***ed up bad and She is now teaching us a lesson.. but until that lesson really comes into action, i think we will just continue to turn a cold shoulder and live our lives in this greedy capitalistic culture we call life..
but let me put it to you this way..
early man made massive migrations out of africa, the australian aboriginals (so it is theorised) came from south east asia when malaysia, indonesia, and australia were all connected, when the sea level was lower.. biologists think native americans came from asia via the baring straight.. so in history humans have made massive migrations, and have evolved to suit their surroundings.. in europe and n. america people lost a lot of the pigment in their skin because the sun was much less harsh there than in africa and there was no need for it.. nowadays nobody will walk from amsterdam to hongkong just to see what hong kong is like.. theyd take a plane (its probly cheaper too taking into account food and shelter have to be paid for) so i dont really see why 'nature didnt intend' for caucasians to breed with negroes to breed with (whats the correct word for asians??)... besides, we might all look different from the outside, but we all have the same biological (meaning skeletal and cranial) structure and are thus all homo sapiens.. so why cant we interbreed??
just for the record, i completely agree that we are a part of nature and can therefore never surpass it, but in some fields we have (outsmarted might not be the best word) defied (??) nature with gene manipulation..
of course global warming is natures way of saying we have f***ed up bad and She is now teaching us a lesson.. but until that lesson really comes into action, i think we will just continue to turn a cold shoulder and live our lives in this greedy capitalistic culture we call life..
Delete
Posted:AHAAAA!!!
and what about this?? IVF. In Vitro Fertilization.. the scientific method of planting an embryo inside a woman's womb (with her consent of course)
does this not defy nature?? fertilizing an egg in a test tube, and then planting it inside a woman.. one of the most natural things on this planet is reproduction.. and if humans are capable of producing offspring without any form of sexual intercourse, i think we are too smart for this planet.. i think its time nature taught humanity a lesson and put us back in our place..
btw, just a side note..
how come the australian aboriginals were capable of living in harmony with nature for tens of thousands of years, but in other cultures such as western europe and east asia the people had to exploit not only nature but also fellow humans? ie slavery
and what about this?? IVF. In Vitro Fertilization.. the scientific method of planting an embryo inside a woman's womb (with her consent of course
)does this not defy nature?? fertilizing an egg in a test tube, and then planting it inside a woman.. one of the most natural things on this planet is reproduction.. and if humans are capable of producing offspring without any form of sexual intercourse, i think we are too smart for this planet.. i think its time nature taught humanity a lesson and put us back in our place..
btw, just a side note..
how come the australian aboriginals were capable of living in harmony with nature for tens of thousands of years, but in other cultures such as western europe and east asia the people had to exploit not only nature but also fellow humans? ie slaveryDelete
Posted:I'm all for Tomm's view.
and for fish's opinion, you can get this in The Celestine Prophecy,
As for if we are too smart, nah... we're way of the mark... could we stop a meteor.. V. doubtful... even if Bruce Willis is still alive. We just think we're intelligent, and mother nature will make us repents our sins one day (maybe not our life time), unless The C.P comes true... then everyone will be sorted....
and for fish's opinion, you can get this in The Celestine Prophecy,
As for if we are too smart, nah... we're way of the mark... could we stop a meteor.. V. doubtful... even if Bruce Willis is still alive. We just think we're intelligent, and mother nature will make us repents our sins one day (maybe not our life time), unless The C.P comes true... then everyone will be sorted....
I used to be indecisive, but I'm not so sure now.....
Eera
BRONZE Member since May 2003
old hand
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Austral...
Total posts: 1107
BRONZE Member since May 2003
old hand
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Austral...
Total posts: 1107
Posted:We don't live naturally; we've spent the last 35000 years desperately trying to get away from it.
I've been on boards that have the impression that nature is a wonderful fluffy thing that will help us out if only we'd get rid of those nasty cars and air conditioning and packaged food etc, but the fact is that we'd have a hell of a trouble if we did: there are simply too many of us to live the way nature intended.
During my university days I'd sped a couple of week a year living in a bush shelter eating nothing but foraged food. In that time I'd lose maybe 10% of my bodyweight and denude the local area of edible plants, and I consider myself good at survival compared to the general population.
Have we outsmarted nature? If you consider "nature" as being the set confines in which a population can exist without competing, then yes.
Have we tamed it? No, and we never will. Eventually we'll be put back in our places, and because I know what to look for to survive I will rule you all.
Mwahahahahaha.
I've been on boards that have the impression that nature is a wonderful fluffy thing that will help us out if only we'd get rid of those nasty cars and air conditioning and packaged food etc, but the fact is that we'd have a hell of a trouble if we did: there are simply too many of us to live the way nature intended.
During my university days I'd sped a couple of week a year living in a bush shelter eating nothing but foraged food. In that time I'd lose maybe 10% of my bodyweight and denude the local area of edible plants, and I consider myself good at survival compared to the general population.
Have we outsmarted nature? If you consider "nature" as being the set confines in which a population can exist without competing, then yes.
Have we tamed it? No, and we never will. Eventually we'll be put back in our places, and because I know what to look for to survive I will rule you all.
Mwahahahahaha.
There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.
Delete
Posted:natures intentions? if the scientific laws of nature can not be broken then how is the present anything but what nature intended. For some reason you guys think that our brian is not part of our body. If i think of a more efficient way to do something then imma do it. i could say tht esame about a shark's preditory skills. what? it wont play nice so its not in harmony with nature.
ok sharks use them to get food but so do we. and if you want to say that humans also use our brians to kills animals then i can say that it is natural to play. dogs play. sure one is a bit more harsh but it's still a form of play.
ok sharks use them to get food but so do we. and if you want to say that humans also use our brians to kills animals then i can say that it is natural to play. dogs play. sure one is a bit more harsh but it's still a form of play.
If I could be granted one wish I would ask for all the questions of the universe.
DeletePosted:My post touches on things mentioned rather than answering the question- hope thats ok.
I have myriad issues with what we are doing- [censored] up our gene pool like hell, for one. But if we ever need strong genes, everyone else will just die, and until then c'est la vie.
(I'm thinking people who will die because of bad wisdom teeth and stuff- bad genes, but not important at this moment).
However, I'm way against artificial reproductive practices. There's lots of babies out there needing adopting. It may not be the same thing, but its a much better way of putting things. And said artifiical practices often produce twins and such... just contributing to overpopulation and often loweinrg the children's quality of life.
Young children- well- its the parents choice as long as its not obvious neglect in my mind. ( I mean, ya gots to feed it and change it and stuff). But they get to decide whether or not they are going to be insanely overprotective or let the kid take chance from a young age. Many babies are very adept at not killing themselves when allowed the chance and its not like i'd withhold all medical attention- I just don't have a heartattack when baby climbs onto a chair. I would be less inclined to put a baby through a lot of medical procedues at a young age- this may not be fair, but i don't live where its afordable, and unless it was, i'd be more inclined to make do as i can.
but about actually disabled or "not there" kids- if mine was bad enough i'd have someone else raise it- i just wouldn't do a good job. I still have this huge belief its not good for us as a species- but i know too many people who've contributed too much to say it shuldn't happen, or that i wouldn't help it do so.
less rambling later.... i'll edit this some if i messed up. i don't think i did tho.
I have myriad issues with what we are doing- [censored] up our gene pool like hell, for one. But if we ever need strong genes, everyone else will just die, and until then c'est la vie.
(I'm thinking people who will die because of bad wisdom teeth and stuff- bad genes, but not important at this moment).
However, I'm way against artificial reproductive practices. There's lots of babies out there needing adopting. It may not be the same thing, but its a much better way of putting things. And said artifiical practices often produce twins and such... just contributing to overpopulation and often loweinrg the children's quality of life.
Young children- well- its the parents choice as long as its not obvious neglect in my mind. ( I mean, ya gots to feed it and change it and stuff). But they get to decide whether or not they are going to be insanely overprotective or let the kid take chance from a young age. Many babies are very adept at not killing themselves when allowed the chance and its not like i'd withhold all medical attention- I just don't have a heartattack when baby climbs onto a chair. I would be less inclined to put a baby through a lot of medical procedues at a young age- this may not be fair, but i don't live where its afordable, and unless it was, i'd be more inclined to make do as i can.
but about actually disabled or "not there" kids- if mine was bad enough i'd have someone else raise it- i just wouldn't do a good job. I still have this huge belief its not good for us as a species- but i know too many people who've contributed too much to say it shuldn't happen, or that i wouldn't help it do so.
less rambling later.... i'll edit this some if i messed up. i don't think i did tho.
Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive
Shalom VeAhavah
New Hampshire has a point....
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
Posted:are humans smart? depends on your definition of smart really. the way i see it is that if we are 'smart' then why are we:
1. overpopulationg the world
2. destroying the environment
3. still waring
4. still hating
5. still greedy
6. still envyous
7. still act the same as we did 2000 year ago?
bull**** humans are smart
1. overpopulationg the world
2. destroying the environment
3. still waring
4. still hating
5. still greedy
6. still envyous
7. still act the same as we did 2000 year ago?
bull**** humans are smart
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Posted:in that sense i agree with you mr majestic.. i dont think humans are smart for exactly the reasons you pointed out.. basically because we cannot develop (or have destroyed) an equilibrium with nature, which all other species can..
dont get me wrong about all the things i pointed out... i mentioned gene manipulation and IVF, but that doesnt mean i agree with those methods.. on the contrary.. im very against them.. however, since we are able to think and develop those kinds of things i think we are getting too smart for our own good.. in fact you could say were getting so smart that well eventually get dumb through it.. think of internet and mobile phones.. or the combination.. within a couple of years everybody will have a mobile phone that can log onto the internet at alltimes.. and all the information youll ever need will be in your pocket.. kids at school already dont know how to research using books, they go to google and bang, its all there..
but anyways.. i havent really gotten any reactions on the ivf point.. unnaturally producing offspring in labs.. i dont agree with it, but isnt it a sign that weve bent if not broken some of natures rules? or what about cloning??
dont get me wrong about all the things i pointed out... i mentioned gene manipulation and IVF, but that doesnt mean i agree with those methods.. on the contrary.. im very against them.. however, since we are able to think and develop those kinds of things i think we are getting too smart for our own good.. in fact you could say were getting so smart that well eventually get dumb through it.. think of internet and mobile phones.. or the combination.. within a couple of years everybody will have a mobile phone that can log onto the internet at alltimes.. and all the information youll ever need will be in your pocket.. kids at school already dont know how to research using books, they go to google and bang, its all there..
but anyways.. i havent really gotten any reactions on the ivf point.. unnaturally producing offspring in labs.. i dont agree with it, but isnt it a sign that weve bent if not broken some of natures rules? or what about cloning??
Delete
Posted:Written by:
and all the information youll ever need will be in your pocket.. kids at school already dont know how to research using books, they go to google and bang, its all there..
thats not necessary bad
i had the same conversation with olli before he left for london.
i think that the more information we can access from relatively cheap and mobile pdas, the better we get at processing information quickly, the smarter we get.
olli thought that we wont have to think about anything and well get dumber, i think well get smarter....
and all the information youll ever need will be in your pocket.. kids at school already dont know how to research using books, they go to google and bang, its all there..
thats not necessary bad
i had the same conversation with olli before he left for london.
i think that the more information we can access from relatively cheap and mobile pdas, the better we get at processing information quickly, the smarter we get.
olli thought that we wont have to think about anything and well get dumber, i think well get smarter....
"is optimism in austria just a lack of information?"
-Alfred Dorfer
Eera
BRONZE Member since May 2003
old hand
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Austral...
Total posts: 1107
BRONZE Member since May 2003
old hand
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Austral...
Total posts: 1107
Posted:Laws of Nature are not rules of science: Ask "what are the Laws of Nature" and you'll get philosophers - not scientists - discussing it.
The conditions for a law of nature have been put forward by Norman Swartz (among others) and:
are factual truths, not logical ones; are true for every time and every place in the universe; contain no proper names; are universal or statistical claims; and are conditional claims, not categorical ones.
Anthropomorphising nature clearly goes against these.
On a side note about the perception of indiginous man living in nature with his surroundings; both the megafauna of Australia and New Zealand were drivin to extinction not long after the arrival of man. Mass graves of animals driven over cliffs have been found in North America, most of the meat would have gone to waste due to sheer volume. Mankind has always been destructive, it's simply there were less of them back then.
The conditions for a law of nature have been put forward by Norman Swartz (among others) and:
are factual truths, not logical ones; are true for every time and every place in the universe; contain no proper names; are universal or statistical claims; and are conditional claims, not categorical ones.
Anthropomorphising nature clearly goes against these.
On a side note about the perception of indiginous man living in nature with his surroundings; both the megafauna of Australia and New Zealand were drivin to extinction not long after the arrival of man. Mass graves of animals driven over cliffs have been found in North America, most of the meat would have gone to waste due to sheer volume. Mankind has always been destructive, it's simply there were less of them back then.
There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.
DeletePosted:Written by: Eera
On a side note about the perception of indiginous man living in nature with his surroundings; both the megafauna of Australia and New Zealand were drivin to extinction not long after the arrival of man. Mass graves of animals driven over cliffs have been found in North America
do you know if this was before or after the europeans arrived? cuz as far as i know both the native americans as well as the aboriginals in oz and maori in NZ were in much better harmony with nature than the euros were at that time.
On a side note about the perception of indiginous man living in nature with his surroundings; both the megafauna of Australia and New Zealand were drivin to extinction not long after the arrival of man. Mass graves of animals driven over cliffs have been found in North America
do you know if this was before or after the europeans arrived? cuz as far as i know both the native americans as well as the aboriginals in oz and maori in NZ were in much better harmony with nature than the euros were at that time.
Delete
Posted:Written by: stickman
i think we are getting too smart for our own good.. in fact you could say were getting so smart that well eventually get dumb through it.. think of internet and mobile phones.. or the combination.. within a couple of years everybody will have a mobile phone that can log onto the internet at alltimes.. and all the information youll ever need will be in your pocket..
well its not really that we are getting stupider just that specialization has made it so that a person can know everything there is to know about quantum mechanics but is unable to write a good essay (my best friend is on his way to becoming one of these guys). besides someone has to know how to make the cell phones.
i think we are getting too smart for our own good.. in fact you could say were getting so smart that well eventually get dumb through it.. think of internet and mobile phones.. or the combination.. within a couple of years everybody will have a mobile phone that can log onto the internet at alltimes.. and all the information youll ever need will be in your pocket..
well its not really that we are getting stupider just that specialization has made it so that a person can know everything there is to know about quantum mechanics but is unable to write a good essay (my best friend is on his way to becoming one of these guys). besides someone has to know how to make the cell phones.
If I could be granted one wish I would ask for all the questions of the universe.
DeletePosted:Written by: Eera
Laws of Nature are not rules of science: Ask "what are the Laws of Nature" and you'll get philosophers - not scientists - discussing it.
so your saying that there are two sets of laws that define our lives. somehow we are governed by scientific law while we are awake and natural law when we are asleep.
they are both laws man if you want to group them in seperate categories what the govern must also be in the seperate category.
now if you are saying that they are man made laws then this discusion can be stopped right now. i break a man made law all the time. and at some point humans will probably break those laws if they have not already done so.
as for this discusion why doesnt someone start saying what laws they think we are talking about and we'll go from there. in detail please...dont say just 'natures laws that we have made' because thats not sayin much.
Laws of Nature are not rules of science: Ask "what are the Laws of Nature" and you'll get philosophers - not scientists - discussing it.
so your saying that there are two sets of laws that define our lives. somehow we are governed by scientific law while we are awake and natural law when we are asleep.
they are both laws man if you want to group them in seperate categories what the govern must also be in the seperate category.
now if you are saying that they are man made laws then this discusion can be stopped right now. i break a man made law all the time. and at some point humans will probably break those laws if they have not already done so.
as for this discusion why doesnt someone start saying what laws they think we are talking about and we'll go from there. in detail please...dont say just 'natures laws that we have made' because thats not sayin much.
If I could be granted one wish I would ask for all the questions of the universe.
DeleteEera
BRONZE Member since May 2003
old hand
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Austral...
Total posts: 1107
BRONZE Member since May 2003
old hand
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Austral...
Total posts: 1107
Posted:Written by:
so your saying that there are two sets of laws that define our lives. somehow we are governed by scientific law while we are awake and natural law when we are asleep
Nope, I'm not saying that at all.
The point I was trying to make is the same as your last paragraph: there's very little point talking about what does or does not break the laws of nature if they aren't defined in the first place.
Written by:
do you know if this was before or after the europeans arrived?
Before. From memory of sharing an office with a palaentologist and an palaeoanthropologist for 6 years, animals like the gaint wombat Diprotodon and the Australian moa-like Genyornis among others (3 metre long goannas, the "flesh eating kangaroo") died out between 60000 - 40000 years ago, the same time as the arrival of man. The Maoris mass colonised New Zealand about 1000 years before Europeans and eradicated the megafauna in that time. The most widespread theory about the extinction of the mammoth and other American megafauna holds with the locals mass hunting (can't remember the references for that one, sorry.)
I'll stress that they are theories, but on the face of it they really don't seem to be that coincidental. Anyway, back to topic.
so your saying that there are two sets of laws that define our lives. somehow we are governed by scientific law while we are awake and natural law when we are asleep
Nope, I'm not saying that at all.
The point I was trying to make is the same as your last paragraph: there's very little point talking about what does or does not break the laws of nature if they aren't defined in the first place.
Written by:
do you know if this was before or after the europeans arrived?
Before. From memory of sharing an office with a palaentologist and an palaeoanthropologist for 6 years, animals like the gaint wombat Diprotodon and the Australian moa-like Genyornis among others (3 metre long goannas, the "flesh eating kangaroo") died out between 60000 - 40000 years ago, the same time as the arrival of man. The Maoris mass colonised New Zealand about 1000 years before Europeans and eradicated the megafauna in that time. The most widespread theory about the extinction of the mammoth and other American megafauna holds with the locals mass hunting (can't remember the references for that one, sorry.)
I'll stress that they are theories, but on the face of it they really don't seem to be that coincidental. Anyway, back to topic.
There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.
DeleteMr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...
Total posts: 4693
Posted:i liked your reply stickman.
basically i think the term smart in itself is ok, but it cant really be applied execpt in specific circumstances such as:
that scientist is smarter than the other scientist because they both study the same time but that guy knows more.
and i think thats about as far as you can use the term. humans are amazing in their potential for survival but unfortunatly if we continue to survive so well we may destroy ourselves, find the smartness in that
basically i think the term smart in itself is ok, but it cant really be applied execpt in specific circumstances such as:
that scientist is smarter than the other scientist because they both study the same time but that guy knows more.
and i think thats about as far as you can use the term. humans are amazing in their potential for survival but unfortunatly if we continue to survive so well we may destroy ourselves, find the smartness in that
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Posted:but eera, i think thats exactly on topic.. since we are part of nature, is it not also possible that those species you just mentioned became extinct because of natural selection? that at that point humans were invading the niche of a diprotodon and it became survival of the fittest? or the smartest?
oh, and as for the "flesh eating roo" dying out when man arrived in oz.. there are theories that the aborigines lived there for more than 100,000 years.. yes i know its only a theory, but one that might be 40,000 years off according to another theory
mr. majestik, good point.. smart is relative
oh, and as for the "flesh eating roo" dying out when man arrived in oz.. there are theories that the aborigines lived there for more than 100,000 years.. yes i know its only a theory, but one that might be 40,000 years off according to another theory
mr. majestik, good point.. smart is relative
Delete
Posted:Written by: Mr Majestik
that scientist is smarter than the other scientist because they both study the same time but that guy knows more.
how about, smartness is the amount of knowledge...intelegence is how we use this knowledge.
Written by: Mr Majestik
and i think thats about as far as you can use the term. humans are amazing in their potential for survival but unfortunatly if we continue to survive so well we may destroy ourselves, find the smartness in that
so your saying that humans are not smart because some are becoming smarter than other, and in a way kill those other but not the smarter ones...sort of how stronger lions can kill a bigger animal and therefore can live longer than smaller loins.
that scientist is smarter than the other scientist because they both study the same time but that guy knows more.
how about, smartness is the amount of knowledge...intelegence is how we use this knowledge.
Written by: Mr Majestik
and i think thats about as far as you can use the term. humans are amazing in their potential for survival but unfortunatly if we continue to survive so well we may destroy ourselves, find the smartness in that
so your saying that humans are not smart because some are becoming smarter than other, and in a way kill those other but not the smarter ones...sort of how stronger lions can kill a bigger animal and therefore can live longer than smaller loins.
If I could be granted one wish I would ask for all the questions of the universe.
DeletePosted:ok brain, could you clearify that a little, im not sure what point you are trying to make........please 
You can't avoid pain by fencing yourself from it.
Some times you need the help of others more than anything else
But you have to let them close enough to help......
People want to be needed, I found that out too
Posted:what if destroying your environment is just makes us evolve faster. it could be said that we are the most eveloved species right? Then maybe this is the answer to why we are the most evolved species. think about it. What does someone do if they want to become strongerphysically. we make it harder to on our muscles. stickman says that humans have been destroying their envoronment sense our exsistance. maybe we are making it harder for ourselves to live so we become stronger faster.
If I could be granted one wish I would ask for all the questions of the universe.
DeletePosted:well thats kind of genocidel but i see you point. however i dont agree with it. i cant think of one species, sub-species or other wise that has eveolved thru destruction of their environment or
habitat. then theres always the theory that the simpilist organisms are the ones that survive the harshest evnironments.
something that i have not seen brought up (if it has i over looked it and apologize) what if the "laws of nature" are not as simple as we think? sure it may seem that we can defy gravity, but only fo certin amounts of time........so immagine that there is more to nature that we have not yet discovered. were then might our evolution be heading?
habitat. then theres always the theory that the simpilist organisms are the ones that survive the harshest evnironments.
something that i have not seen brought up (if it has i over looked it and apologize) what if the "laws of nature" are not as simple as we think? sure it may seem that we can defy gravity, but only fo certin amounts of time........so immagine that there is more to nature that we have not yet discovered. were then might our evolution be heading?
You can't avoid pain by fencing yourself from it.
Some times you need the help of others more than anything else
But you have to let them close enough to help......
People want to be needed, I found that out too
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [human* smart] we found the following similar topics.1. Learn > Fire Training > Fire training and safety > Firebreather's Lung or ARDS *help/resource
2. Learn > Looking after you > Healthy Excercise > Physiotherapy for poi and skill toys *help/resource
3. Forums > The voluntary human extinction movement [66 replies]
4. Forums > human right abuse [5 replies]
5. Forums > humans too smart?? [182 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2018 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*所有價格透過 XE.com 轉換為United States dollars