Ain't mother nature grand?

I dunno Portal...I know where you are going, but if you are restricting your opinion to the animal kingdom, the use of the word 'rape' is moot, it's just 'nature.'

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

You are correct. Except in assuming that evolution requires advanced moral code and socialization. Evolution is adaptation of a species to it's environment over time, sometimes forming a new species. Nothing about morals in there unless morals serve the purpose of good gene perpetuation. I know what you mean about not wanting rapists to survive.

Evolution does not 'require' anything. It is inert; it is a description of how things work; it is not interactive.
Species adapt to their environment over time, not evolution, or individuals.
As i said before, the only 'testing system' is survival; that's one of the major problems with it.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Portal Star wrote:

If competition for survival isn't an issue, the people get lazy and aren't ready when trouble comes. Think about politics. Aren't we competing for survival, just within our own species, everyday? Making money and getting food, having relationships, are all part of survival. So are diplomatic affairs between countries.

That's the point, all this is based upon playing 'the game' and has nothing to do with advancing the culture.
Much of the great work of history, be it art, literature, research, etc.
has been done by people who are independently endowed to the point of not being 'survival challenged', and they don't seem to be very 'lazy'.

yes, much of the high renaissance and baroque art owes it's self to times of peace. This is because there is more surplus money and spare time for art and science, etc to flourish when the civilization isn't preoccupied. Note that other kinds of art: cave paintings, tribal decoration (not regarded as art by tribes), stela, victory paintings, etc. are done in times of war. Also, war can advance the sciences, note the atom bomb, tanks, napalm.
So sure, secondary needs can be attended to once primary needs (survival) are fulfilled. But I wouldn't call us "survivally challenged." The arts and sciences are doing quite well right now, and I doubt primary needs are somthing humans can ever permanently secure for themselves.

Not lazy? I'd like to see a team of artists fight of Alien invaders.

0 Replies

see below

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

I dunno Portal...I know where you are going, but if you are restricting your opinion to the animal kingdom, the use of the word 'rape' is moot, it's just 'nature.'

In nature/biology talk it is also called rape. Any unwilling animal being sexed by another animal.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Evolution does not 'require' anything. It is inert; it is a description of how things work; it is not interactive.
Species adapt to their environment over time, not evolution, or individuals.
As i said before, the only 'testing system' is survival; that's one of the major problems with it.

yes, it is a description. A description of how species adapt to their environment over time. That particular part of evolution is called "genetic drift."

Please elaborate on why this system of survival is a major problem. Do you mean to imply that it is a problem because it doesn't automatically encourage American Biblio-Christian morals? I don't see what's wrong with somthing that is a description of selecting what works. What works, works, right?

0 Replies

Portal: "About your example: the fact that the people who were stupid enough to go into a bank that kept killing people would be the feedback control: either the entire population would die, or the people stupid enough to enter the bank would die, not passing on their wanting to go into death bank genes to offspring. Then the bank would cease to exist, having no more customers."

My point is there are feedback systems in place in society to prevent such abuses, but no such protections exist in 'nature'

Do you really think "the atom bomb, napalm, and tanks are "advances"? Shocked

And "I'd like to see a team of artists" 'communicate' with Aliens who, being advanced well beyond our technological level, will have no reason to be "invaders".

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

I'm being realistic. I don't advocate rape, and the members of a society shouldn't advocate rape as rape is anti-society.

Rape is a crime against an individual; and 'nature' has no 'individuals'.

It has no place in 'civilization'!

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Portal: "About your example: the fact that the people who were stupid enough to go into a bank that kept killing people would be the feedback control: either the entire population would die, or the people stupid enough to enter the bank would die, not passing on their wanting to go into death bank genes to offspring. Then the bank would cease to exist, having no more customers."

My point is there are feedback systems in place in society to prevent such abuses, but no such protections exist in 'nature'

Do you really think "the atom bomb, napalm, and tanks are "advances"?

And "I'd like to see a team of artists" 'communicate' with Aliens who, being advanced well beyond our technological level, will have no reason to be "invaders".

you think advancement in civilization causes peace? As you stated, the primary requirements for life are what come first. As such, if someone, a country, or aliens don't have food, water, (heh. oil,) etc. It is their perogative to get it any way they can.

Yes, scientifically, they were huge advances. Maybe not so much napalm. But the atom bomb, definately. We have gotten so much science out of that.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

What works, works, right?

Well Portal, watching victim being torn about by sharks, i strangely ask myself is this something to be applauded? It works, because the sharks are fed and able to survive another day for other prey, and i do not blame the sharks for the hideous death i have just witnessed, and for millions of similar scenes around the world on a constant basis.

I blame the system.
And i don't think that truly defines "works".

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Portal Star wrote:
I'm being realistic. I don't advocate rape, and the members of a society shouldn't advocate rape as rape is anti-society.

Rape is a crime against an individual; and 'nature' has no 'individuals'.

It has no place in 'civilization'!

sure, nature has individuals. I don't know what you mean by this statement. Maybe that it's not the individual that matters, in the grand scheme of nature.
Being anti-rape is part of American/European culture, we have a hierarchy in which a woman has freedom to select who she wants. This is good genetically because mating for love can help to ensure long beneficial partnerships, and also long educational periods for offspring (humans are in the record books for how long they hang on to and educate their children) which make the offspring more productive, well prepared memebers of their species. Especially important in a species where intelligence plays a role in survival. This selection can be beneficial for men, and is definately beneficial for women. Not all human cultures have this attitude about rape, or about monogamy. As a human being, I agree with monogamy once one reproduces, and disagree with rape- it is definately not beneficial to me. I wouldn't love or get taken care of by someone who raped me, I certainly wouldn't want to hang around and raise a kid with them, and it would be emotionally and physically damaging.

Take a species, like the frog. They leave their offspring behind (I think... not researched.). They have no reason to form partnerships- they don't benefit from hunting in groups, they are cold blooded so they don't need to snuggle together, they don't raise their young etc.. Rape could play a factor in this species, and may be genetically beneficial. Let's assume only a strong, healthy frog would have the skill to rape unwilling female frog. It would pass on strong healthy frog genes.

0 Replies

"Yes, scientifically, they were huge advances.
Maybe not so much napalm. But the atom bomb, definately. We have gotten so much science out of that."

We got the 'science' from the atom, and the theories developed to explain it; not from the bomb!

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

"Yes, scientifically, they were huge advances.
Maybe not so much napalm. But the atom bomb, definately. We have gotten so much science out of that."

We got the 'science' from the atom, and the theories developed to explain it; not from the bomb!

Clearly, you don't know much about the development of the atom bomb. It was a landmark development, funded hugely by the American governemnt (and allies), worked on by the best scientists possible (Including Einstein). Their findings were revolutionary, despite the intended use of those findings. The successful testing confirmed the research.
Note: The government would most likely not have spent all the time, money, effort, and testing on this research, now used in other fields, were it not for the bomb's essentiality in winning the war.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Portal Star wrote:
What works, works, right?

Well Portal, watching victim being torn about by sharks, i strangely ask myself is this something to be applauded? It works, because the sharks are fed and able to survive another day for other prey, and i do not blame the sharks for the hideous death i have just witnessed, and for millions of similar scenes around the world on a constant basis.

I blame the system.
And i don't think that truly defines "works".

sure, it works. That victim didn't avoid/escape the shark- that could be percieved as a flaw. It will not pass on it's genes. The shark gets fed (yum) so it had a success, more likely to pass on it's genes.

You are supposed to be grossed out by this, it is your natural instincts telling you to stay the hell away from the shark. (Maybe this is because your ancestors were afraid of predatory looking things with big teeth, and stayed away from them, and lived Wink

)

This has been a very interesting discussion, thank you. I'm off to bed. Will post tomorrow. Goodnight!

0 Replies

Happy Birthday, Bo

Here's a song for you:

Nature Boy

There was a boy
A very strange enchanted boy
They say he wandered very far, very far
Over land and sea
A little shy and sad of eye
But very wise was he

And then one day
A magic day he passed my way
And while we spoke of many things
Fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn
Is just to love and be loved in return"

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn
Is just to love and be loved in return"

Very Happy

0 Replies

Thanks Letty;

I was surprized that you would choose to celebrate with a song! Laughing

0 Replies

hmm...
While I agree it is wrong to destroy everything around us, nature doesn't support that at all. When we destroy everything around us there is no nature or home or food or friends. Nature just wants us to compete with other creatures for food. (I think we should keep competing so someday we'll have a perfect species... but yeah) It is more humans who destroy everything around tehm through carelessness. Mad

0 Replies

reply to all others
Rape- rape is somewhat part of nature it happens with animals and with cavemen and stuff (you guys know clan of the cave bears) but not part of society...

Atom Bomb- Einstein didn't work on the bomb but he thought of the theories that the scientists used when they created the bomb. Einstein said that he was extremely sad adn dissappointed with how they used his knowledge for war and pain not for medicine etc.

Shark- The humans are supposed to be afraid of sharks to survive adn the sharks are supposed to evolv e to be able to sneak past our fear... (sharks are one of the oldest species ever)

0 Replies

Re: hmm...

Tabernacle wrote:

While I agree it is wrong to destroy everything around us, nature doesn't support that at all. When we destroy everything around us there is no nature or home or food or friends. Nature just wants us to compete with other creatures for food. (I think we should keep competing so someday we'll have a perfect species... but yeah) It is more humans who destroy everything around tehm through carelessness.

I'm unsure as to why people keep separating 'nature'/'environment' from 'humanity' ?? Logically it makes no sense as nature IS WHAT WE ARE. WE ARE THAT WHICH SURROUNDS US. .

Humans big brain is a mere side effect of natural selection acting on some other phenotype. Consciousness is an emergent property of complexity.

We--humans--have become gene vehicles, and meme vehicles. The difference between memes and genes is that memes can be controlled by their vehicles. Unfortunately, it takes an awareness to do this-- expecting people to see this (and accept it) is akin to asking Dolly the Sheep to see her genetic makeup as the same as her clones.

I believe that thinking about something can effect some change.

Don't know how, don't know a thing. The mind is a quantum device [meaningless], and somehow this can reduce to action in our little Newtonian world that has context [meaningful].

Sounds hokey and all buggered with dung, but in there, beyond those clunky chunky words there is something Godelian.

0 Replies

wenchy;
i would dearly like to dissagree with your premise:

"I believe that thinking about something can effect some change."

But there is too much evidence around that alludes to some such conclusion;
i think this has to be relegated to being one of the many areas of scientific enquiry that has not yet 'broken' to the onslought of examination.

There has been talk in quantum physics of dificulties in research because of results being skewed by the actual act of 'viewing' the 'subject'.

And, it only makes sense (Newton would agree) that every action, regardless of how remote, would have an 'effect', regardless of how slight, on everything else.

0 Replies

Ain't mother nature grand?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know