We mar the Earth with countless miles of roads, which kill countless innocent animals. Remove countless acres of native vegetation to plant mono crops for our consumption. Never ending construction of new cell phone towers. Damn rives, spew toxic gas from rockets, cars, and planes. Etc., etc. The species Homo sapiens is one screwed up animal.

Jacko Mo Mo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We mar the Earth with countless miles of roads,
> which kill countless innocent animals. Remove
> countless acres of native vegetation to plant mono
> crops for our consumption. Never ending
> construction of new cell phone towers. Damn
> rives, spew toxic gas from rockets, cars, and
> planes. Etc., etc. The species Homo sapiens is
> one screwed up animal.

Another self-losthing pessimistic product of social engineering.

We humans are not a cancer of the Earth, we are her children.

Be the solution, not the complaint.

Mormonism is a trivial nothingness in comparison.

Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm you are not.

Starting a Doomsday Cult, are you?

Or don't even bother. Just sit back and let it all self-destruct.

You don't need to do a thing. Be a spectator. It's easier that way when your world ends.

But I bet dollars to cents it isn't going to end that way, and humans are not the recipe to disaster.

We will endure as we always have. There will be overcomers to beat the odds and find cures to cancers and other diseases you and me can only opine about.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2019 09:09PM by Amyjo.

Sometimes nihilism gets the best of me too.

Our bus driving home from a Colorado Rockies game we obliterated two innocent helpless animals so that we could be entertained by multi-millionaires playing a made up contrived game. The last time I'll ever pay for such a thing.

Have you been screened for depression recently?

Vultures gotta eat too.

We are good, bad, and wonderful beings.

Do what you can in your own way to help each other and the earth.

Some more so than others...

Jacko Mo Mo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We mar the Earth with countless miles of roads,
> which kill countless innocent animals.

you seem to have a very one-sided understanding of nature.

'innocent' animals are constantly killing humans.

various viral and bacterial infections kill millions each year. smallpox, ebola, HIV/AIDS, strep, tuberculosis, salmonella, e-coli...

mosquitoes and ticks carry disease and have killed hundreds of millions of innocent humans throughout history. even today with modern medicine, they kill half a million innocent people or more each year.

venomous snakes kill a hundred thousand or more innocent people per year.

tapeworms and parasites kill tens of thousands of innocent humans each year.

snails carrying schistosomiasis kill tens of thousands of innocent humans each year.

dogs carrying rabies kill tens of thousands of innocent humans each year.

elephants and hippos and crocodiles kill thousands of innocent animals each year

We are mammals....a sub-set among other mammals, within the animal kingdom.

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We are mammals....a sub-set among other mammals,
> within the animal kingdom.

We are mammals but not animals.

Trying to retrofit language to science is a form of revisionism, I'm afraid.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trying to retrofit language to science is a form
> of revisionism, I'm afraid.

This is actually a political comment from you.

["revisionism," in the way you are using it, is a political/politicized term.]

If you cannot accept straightforward scientific FACTS ("the Earth is round, NOT flat"), then you should not be posting on these topics, because your posts along these lines will be deleted.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2019 10:03PM by Tevai.

There is a difference between language and science. I am well aware of the science of which you speak. In one sense I agree, but I have tried to explain why I have said this.

We should not lower our status, but instead transcend our origins. We can do great things, not just destroying rhe Earth, but repairing our environment and maybe one day, making other worlds habitable.

We are animals but we are also something else. We play up the something else part because we like to kill and eat animals.

It’s kind of like the slave days. We made a narrative to fit the situation. See Mormonism.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We are animals but we are also something else. We
> play up the something else part because we like to
> kill and eat animals.

Killing and eating animals is ironically part of our biological component, and predates us (no pun intended) as a species. Even farming isn't unique to humans.

I do not consider us animals anymore than I consider us the rat-like creatures, newt-like creatures, sponges or bilateral worms that all appear to have been part of our ancestry. We have moved on.

Where we differ from these animals is how we choose to engage with our environment. The danger of looking at humans purely in animal terms is that it weakens our ability to so anything about our problems. The aim of such thinking may be to create empathy with other species, but it also lowers us away from our potential.

And as I have said elsewhere, humans show signs of beginning to become post-biological, so any animal component may become less and less relevant. Some people's bodies are already merged with technology - a friend has just had a machine inserted into her heart recently for example. That is just the beginning.

> It’s kind of like the slave days. We made a
> narrative to fit the situation. See Mormonism.

There are no "narratives" outside literature and the arts. I wish people would stop thinking in such unsuitable post-modern jargon. Post-modernism - an oxymoron if ever there was one - is one of the biggest underminers of human progress around today.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tevai Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We are mammals....a sub-set among other
> mammals,
> > within the animal kingdom.
>
> We are mammals but not animals.

Mammals ARE animals.

This is a scientific FACT.

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jordan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Tevai Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > We are mammals....a sub-set among other
> > mammals,
> > > within the animal kingdom.
> >
> > We are mammals but not animals.
>
> Mammals ARE animals.
>
> This is a scientific FACT.

Humans descend from animals. They are closely related to us. We even share much of our DNA with slugs and jellyfish.

However the word "animal" predates modern science, and does not have the modern meaning that we would redefine it with. We are indeed mammals - that word was coined in the scientific age.

Either way, us humans have the potential to TRANSCEND our animal-like natures, and to undo a lot of the damage we have done. I think that is a positive thing. We should not brand ourselves animals, we are post-animal.

Every so often animals create environmental destruction when they reach new territories, or a natural imbalance occurs. However, they also don't have the abilities to repair that damage. We do. Or at least much of it.

> Either way, us humans have the potential to
> TRANSCEND our animal-like natures, and to undo a
> lot of the damage we have done. I think that is a
> positive thing. We should not brand ourselves
> animals, we are post-animal.

"Us humans" aren't going to be able to achieve much unless we are capable of accurately differentiating between "us" and "we." Otherwise, "us" are regressing, in your terms, towards animal intelligence.


-----------
> Every so often animals create environmental
> destruction when they reach new territories, or a
> natural imbalance occurs. However, they also don't
> have the abilities to repair that damage. We do.
> Or at least much of it.

Hah! So the standard for whether an organic being is human or animal is its ability to protect its environment?

That quite effectively establishes Tevai's point.

"Us" and "we" are the same pronoun in different grammatical cases. There is no difference between them otherwise.

However, I don't think we have caught up culturally with the level of technology we have, and our society is being maintained by it, despite showing decline in some areas. I think we are technologically advanced barbarians.

I sincerely believe the answer to a lot of this lies in space exploration. Satellites already inform us of changes. And developing technology to inhabit hostile environments and to recycle, will not only increase our chances of survival out there, but on Earth too where that same technology can be used to process waste, clean up water/air etc.

>> "Either way, us humans have the potential to TRANSCEND our animal-like natures, and to undo a lot of the damage we have done."

Doing that IS our animal-like nature. We're not "transcending" anything. We're doing what human animals do.

>> "We should not brand ourselves animals, we are post-animal."

Now that makes sense! Don't "brand" yourself animals! Brand yourselves "post-animals!" Just like on the Island of Dr. Moreau!!

And how does one become post-animal? By imagining you're transcending yourself? Or is there a shot for that?

We are mammals but not animals. And he pretends to understand Hegel!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We are mammals but not animals. And he pretends
> to understand Hegel!

It is semantics. But if it is failing to make posters see this problem from a slightly different angle then I'm not interested in pursuing it much further.

However, do you agree that:
a) We have already reached a greater level of consciousness than chimpanzees and bonobos (our closest living relatives)?
b) We can progress even further than our current status?
c) We can achieve positive things upon this world instead of just desruction of it?

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is semantics. But if it is failing to make
> posters see this problem from a slightly different
> angle then I'm not interested in pursuing it much
> further.
>
> However, do you agree that:
> a) We have already reached a greater level of
> consciousness than chimpanzees and bonobos (our
> closest living relatives)?

There is increasing scientific research and discovery which indicates that many species of animals have far greater intelligence than we previously suspected, and have far greater emotional range and depth than we have previously suspected.

The main problem with (for example) primates is that they cannot vocalize as we do, but they CAN communicate--and there have been famous instances of primates taught American Sign Language who can communicate quite well with us, IN "ENGLISH," using the same sign language taught to deaf people and their families.

Other animals are increasingly being known for showing real intelligence (how to count, how to calculate, how to plan an escape--or free a member of their group from some kind of "trap," either a human trap, or a natural "trap" like a pit-- or how to spring a human-made trap, rendering it no longer a danger to them).

Emotionally, many primates show a full spectrum of emotions comparable to ours, with elephants close behind.


> b) We can progress even further than our current
> status?

I absolutely agree with this.


> c) We can achieve positive things upon this world
> instead of just desruction of it?

I absolutely agree with this as well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2019 10:57PM by Tevai.

“The main problem with (for example) primates is that they cannot vocalize as we do, but they CAN communicate--and there have been famous instances of primates taught American Sign Language who can communicate quite well with us, IN "ENGLISH."”

I think TSCC found its next prophet.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “The main problem with (for example) primates is
> that they cannot vocalize as we do, but they CAN
> communicate--and there have been famous instances
> of primates taught American Sign Language who can
> communicate quite well with us, IN "ENGLISH."”

Google: primates learning American Sign Language (I just learned that they can learn to communicate via keyboards, too.)


> I think TSCC found its next prophet.

??



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2019 11:08PM by Tevai.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “The main problem with (for example) primates is
> that they cannot vocalize as we do, but they CAN
> communicate--and there have been famous instances
> of primates taught American Sign Language who can
> communicate quite well with us, IN "ENGLISH."”
>
> I think TSCC found its next prophet.

Primates have NOWHERE NEAR the vocabulary level of adult humans, vocally or in sign. The average adult can use at least ten thousand words minimum, often tens of thousands of words (which is the case for me - like most people I can also understand a great deal of words that I wouldn't use on a regular basis myself).

Instead you have to go dolphins and cetaceans to get anything approaching human language in sophistication.

The most primitive human tribes have extremely sophisticated languages, at least in terms of grammar. Much more so than any non-humans, so it is not even a technological issue. The vast majority of humans are also bilingual to some degree.

With that in mind, humans have the solution to many of their problems. I'm often a pessimist about the human future, but our ability to communicate is the ability to warn and help others, so long as the language doesn't end up being twisted or misused.

'Google the question "Are humans animals"?'

Firstly, I don't use Google. Other decent search engines are available which don't spy on every single thing you do or bias searches.

Secondly, I consider us "post-animal". Our origins may lie with animals, but this is going to become less and less relevant - we show signs of beginning to integrate with machinery already. It's not an entirely savory idea, but human intelligence in the next few centuries (if it survives) will probably rely less and less on the biological component. And I'm sure creepy organizations like Google are just itching to get into the neural net and invade yet more of our private space.

We are indeed animals. Consult your local biologist.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We are indeed animals. Consult your local
> biologist.

Humans already have primitive interfaces with technology, and that includes the beginnings of neural link ups. Whatever the biological make up of humans is right now, it is becoming less and less relevant. People are already mutilating themselves with artificial implants of various kinds... And it is obviously that one of the goals of the near future is to have people electronically tagged so their expenditure is entirely trackable. If and when human brains are linked up electronically, I suspect it shall lead to the biological mind becoming less and less significant.

The fact that someone even invokes Google here is ironic. Apart from the fact people shouldn't feed the creepy beast Google for a number of reasons, search engines are already a primary source for many people. The thinking is being done there for them, so they are relying on a non-biological component right there. (And since we started writing books, we had already begun on that journey).

Right Dave. I'm not following why scientific classification is not relevant here.

It looks like everyone is making up their own classifications.

In biology, we are classified under the Kingdom Animalia (domain Eukaryota).

I share some of the thoughts with the OP. I'm not all that impressed with what humans are doing (or the way life kills and overtakes anything it can in our flying petri dish). Imagine those giant wasp nests taking over everything. Now picture the wasps as humans.

Humans thinking they are so special compared to other life does not mean we are not acting exactly like the animals we are. We have not been great "stewards" of the earth so far. Frankly, because we are just animals doing our thing, I'm not sure we will ever do better.


As the saying goes, it is what it is.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We are mammals but not animals. And he pretends
> to understand Hegel!


We are this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasein

George Carlin explains saving the planet: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

I think we're more like yeast. We breed and consume and create toxins until we reach the point of no return and poison ourself to death. The earth will go on in some form.

That strikes me as quite possible. Humans may be unique in the ironic sense of understanding that they are destroying their environment even as they remain incapable of preventing that outcome.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2019 03:54AM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That strikes me as quite possible. Humans may be
> unique in the ironic sense of understanding that
> they are destroying their environment even as they
> remain incapable of preventing that outcome.

We aren't incapable of it though. But the more authoritarian a society becomes and the less influence people has over government, and certain big corporations too friendly to government (Google, cough), then the less likely it is that issues can be addressed and resolved. And those societies which claim to represent "the people" are often furthest from them, as are those which create new problems to deflect from ones they refuse to resolve. The PRC is the part of China which is producing by far the most waste and pollution, yet it is way behind on resolving these issues. At least the USA, for all its faults, has the possibility of class action law suits.

Don’t worry, Jesus will come and fix everything.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think we're more like yeast. We breed and
> consume and create toxins until we reach the point
> of no return and poison ourself to death. The
> earth will go on in some form.

The Earth has been wiped clean a number of times before. There is an assumption implicit in some of the messages here that advanced multicellular life is an integral part of the Earth. Well, it seems from the fossil record that this has not been the case for most of her existence. So much for Gaia Theory, "Gaia" didn't need animals for millions of years.

One thing that separates humans from the animal kingdom is that (some of us anyway) are born with an innate or a learned moral conscience to go with our intellect. We are capable of inventing, creating, producing works of art, scientific inventions, music, etc. And know right from wrong.

Although there are some humans that are more depraved without a conscience or moral fiber, and there are plenty of species in the animal kingdom that are loyal, devoted to each other as family units, and even some that are monogamous for life.

Humans aspire to ideas, ideals, creative purposes, causes, goals, and purposes to achieve great things in life. Or to simply exist and be content with whatever their lot is. But we do toil and labor in order to survive. We experience suffering and sorrow, which I'm pretty sure animals do too. Our days are numbered, like the animals are. Though typically our life spans are longer if we are able to live out our days in relative health and security to maybe 70 or 80 years, possibly more.

Our domesticated animals depend on us for their survival. Without humans there would be no "pets."

The way we treat animals is disgusting. Hopefully we’re more evolved in the future, but I have my doubts.

When are you going to volunteer to be eliminated ?

Jacko Mo Mo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We mar the Earth with countless miles of roads,
> which kill countless innocent animals. Remove
> countless acres of native vegetation to plant mono
> crops for our consumption. Never ending
> construction of new cell phone towers. Damn
> rives, spew toxic gas from rockets, cars, and
> planes. Etc., etc. The species Homo sapiens is
> one screwed up animal.

So? Big meteor hits every few million years or so and resets everything anyway. The cycle of life!

I like your use of “we”. It recognizes what a comedian said about being stuck in a traffic jam, ‘you’ are as much a part of the jam as the next guy. No one in the jam can say, “why are all these idiots driving at the same time and place today, damn it!” There isn’t an ‘outsider view’ to be taken.

Yet, when it comes to many of the world’s problems, too many exercise an outsider view, falsely.

Human, alas

Well stated.

This post reminds of the episode of the Sopranos when Meadow's roommate (totally sheltered, never been in a city, naive to the max) is exposed to NYC for the first time.

She absolutely loses it.

You are like Meadow's roommate. You need perspective. We are an amazing species.

99.99% of species on this planet have gone extinct with no help from us whatsoever, yet we've allocated billions of dollars to preserving endangered species, preserving wild lands, etc.

On average we're a net good for the planet, not because we can save it (we can't). But because we're the most likely species to get off the planet and spread life from earth elsewhere in the galaxy.

The earth has a time stamp. This will all end. Humans, however, the children of the earth, who came from the earth, will survive.

Also, grow up.

honklermaga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On average we're a net good for the planet, not
> because we can save it (we can't). But because
> we're the most likely species to get off the
> planet and spread life from earth elsewhere in the
> galaxy.

I have my doubts. And I'm not doubting them. No Kolobian spaceships yet.

Meaning is clear if we read a passage. Sometimes humans can be referred to as part of the animal kingdom.

"Humans are closely related to other apes in the animal kingdom."


Other times someone means to separate humans from animals.

"Treating humans as animals is insensitive and cruel."

I can't see anything wrong with word usage in either sentence. There's no need to limit the usage to only one of these or the other.

It is a possibility that there are humans who have not felt animal urges.

I suggest that many of us would feel sorry for them.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is a possibility that there are humans who have
> not felt animal urges.
>
> I suggest that many of us would feel sorry for
> them.

Being human isn't about having animal urges, it is about the ability to discern when it is appropriate to give into them or when not. We have that over animals to some degree. Most of the time it is inappropriate, with the exception of hunger, thirst etc which are regular necessities. Many people feel the urge to assault someone or have sex with someone, but there are times when neither of these natural responses are appropriate - most of the time perhaps. Some people do exist on that level but even they have the power not to.

> Being human isn't about
> having animal urges...

What is 'being human' about?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Being human isn't about
> > having animal urges...
>
> What is 'being human' about?

Read the next clause... And remainder of the paragraph.

What I read after the quote I isolated features an interesting word:

"Appropriate"

Which is why I am quibbling. "Appropriate" requires a judgmental call, and I am of the opinion that judgment calls are loosey-goosey in their origins.

The minute 'appropriate' appears, there is virtually no chance that consensus will be reached.

And in that regard, maybe animals and humans have more than in common than some people want to deal with?

Discussions are probably more interesting when one party doesn't assume that every collection of words that proceedeth from his keyboard are absolute truth.

Of course not, but we don't reach total consensus because we are not a hive species.

"I am of the opinion that judgment calls are loosey-goosey in their origins."

So if you get very angry with someone or find someone sexually attractive do you give in every time? How do you judge it? Are you loosey-goosey (whatever that means) in your judgement?

"maybe animals and humans have more than in common than some people want to deal with?"

Some humans function more on that level than others. Some by circumstance and some by design.

I suggest civilization exists because most humans can channel their violent urges to some degree.

“Discussions are probably more interesting when one party doesn’t assume that every collection of words that proceedeth from his keyboard is absolute truth.”

This.

Can I read one thread without 15 pontifications from Jordan?

Jordan, you say you value being exposed to other points of view. Is that because you like to argue or because you might alter your opinion?

Well, at least its just a matter of time before we inevitably self destruct, given the fact we decided to hand off the nuclear football to our village idiot.

I'm surprised it hasn't happened already, decades ago. But the urge for American politicians to try and face down Russia and China is not unique to one party.

Thank you for

> Some humans function more
> on that level than others.
> Some by circumstance and
> some by design.

I am wont to interpret this to mean that 'being human' doesn't have an absolute standard. I'm okay with this.

How about "SOME humans are like a cancer on Earth" ??

The correlative would be that some people are like a blessing on Earth.