Effects of behavior on evolution of mankind. [Archive]

willowtooth

3rd December 2016, 22:25

That is one of the things we are discussing now, that its trivially easy to give your child blue eyes and blonde hair. When i bring up the fact that there are families with congenital cancer where 1/2 members of the family get cancer in their gut, and that i think we should help these people by "fixing" the gene which causes this. My fellow students keep using slippery slope arguments boiling down to: if we help people with the fixing of disease-causing genes what is stopping us from making blue eyed blonde hair babies?

I get really frustrated with this line of argument because they are not really against genetic manipulation, just as long as we do not use a certain method they are fine with it. I was just wondering what everyone's stance is here and where they think the line should be. A dilemma i struggle with is if we should activate or implement genes in people if we know they contribute to intelligence.

Btw HIV wouldn't be fixed with this, because HIV is not heritable via DNA but rather via the virus getting into the fetus or newborn child.
What kind of fucked up school do you go too? I'm pretty sure all this technology involves in-vitro fertilization and is dangerous for the mother each time, and expensive (about $15k per try), most insurance wont cover it and its not even legal in every country. So using it too change your childs race or eye color is just silly. In regard too intelligence we would probably figure out a way to make house cats that can talk, before we even begin making human babies smarter from an embryo. If that could even be done in the first place.

We will probably have to figure out how to best colonize pluto before we are able to pick and choose favorable traits in babies. Like you could just inject genes into the mother's arm too make the baby a certain height and weight and have certain facial features not even in your family's DNA's history.

Eugenics usually means forced sterilizations, castrations and euthanasia.

IbelieveInanarchy

3rd December 2016, 22:37

What kind of fucked up school do you go too? I'm pretty sure all this technology involves in-vitro fertilization and is dangerous for the mother each time, and expensive (about $15k per try), most insurance wont cover it and its not even legal in every country. So using it too change your childs race or eye color is just silly. In regard too intelligence we would probably figure out a way to make house cats that can talk, before we even begin making human babies smarter from an embryo. If that could even be done in the first place.

We will probably have to figure out how to best colonize pluto before we are able to pick and choose favorable traits in babies. Like you could just inject genes into the mother's arm too make the baby a certain height and weight and have certain facial features not even in your family's DNA's history.

Eugenics usually means forced sterilizations, castrations and euthanasia. Sorry if i wasn't clear i know very well that we don't know what to do to increase intelligence, i mean what IF we could program anything, where should the line be? And my school isn't fucked up, some of the students are just ridiculous. Of course i'm not alone in my stance that congenital diseases should be fixed, but some students just seem to have some fetish to be against anything that they deem "unnatural" which is the most anti-scientific stance one can take.
And in the future i will certainly point to the forced sterilizations etc. I didn't really think of using that argument against their "hurr durr ALL genetic manipulation is for nazis" stance.

willowtooth

3rd December 2016, 23:27

Sorry if i wasn't clear i know very well that we don't know what to do to increase intelligence, i mean what IF we could program anything, where should the line be? And my school isn't fucked up, some of the students are just ridiculous. Of course i'm not alone in my stance that congenital diseases should be fixed, but some students just seem to have some fetish to be against anything that they deem "unnatural" which is the most anti-scientific stance one can take.
And in the future i will certainly point to the forced sterilizations etc. I didn't really think of using that argument against their "hurr durr ALL genetic manipulation is for nazis" stance.Now your getting into questions like "Is anything really unnatural?" or "are human beings outside of nature?" and that might be a more interesting debate, but the whole customized smart babies in the future thing certainly would make a great sci fi movie

IbelieveInanarchy

4th December 2016, 08:43

Well are human beings outside of nature? :D

ckaihatsu

4th December 2016, 12:58

Now your getting into questions like "Is anything really unnatural?" or "are human beings outside of nature?" and that might be a more interesting debate, but the whole customized smart babies in the future thing certainly would make a great sci fi movie

They'll be available in vending machines. (grin)

Well are human beings outside of nature? :D

Yes, absolutely, because we're the only species with the socialization and the physical means (brain, hands) to *change* nature.

Really I think this is the summary of politics itself, since no one is inherently that much more or less able to make use of natural resources and past-labor-derived machinery, if they wanted to do so. Politics is about the social criteria for *accessing* such processes and materials, and the question is an ever-present one: Why shouldn't *workers* be in control of social production?

(We might also examine how much we continue to 'ape' the animal world despite having already developed technologies that would allow us to collectively think-outside-the-box and proactively *pre-plan* how to go about things, like the raising of new generations, in our own socially *conscious* way.)

(A)

4th December 2016, 17:05

Yes, absolutely, because we're the only species with the socialization and the physical means (brain, hands) to *change* nature.

Categorically untrue. All Animals "Change nature" is some matter as a matter of facilitating life. What do you think of as nature? Do you think us building a dam is unnatural yet a beaver doing it is?
Many animals are intelligent enough to use tools (and possess hands) to manipulate the world around them in ways that they would not be able to without "changing nature".

Also socialization is a matter of evolution. We can see extremely complex social relations in other animal species. Even *puts on shades...
Mutual aid as a factor in evolution.

ckaihatsu

4th December 2016, 17:30

Categorically untrue. All Animals "Change nature" is some matter as a matter of facilitating life. What do you think of as nature? Do you think us building a dam is unnatural yet a beaver doing it is?
Many animals are intelligent enough to use tools (and possess hands) to manipulate the world around them in ways that they would not be able to without "changing nature".

Also socialization is a matter of evolution. We can see extremely complex social relations in other animal species. Even *puts on shades...
Mutual aid as a factor in evolution.

Yeah, I was going to mention the beaver thing, but it's woefully mundane next to our cumulative gloriousness (heh).

'Many animals are intelligent enough to possess hands', huh -- ? (grin)

As usual I don't disagree with you *empirically*, but where you choose to place your *emphasis* is decidedly off-course, as far as I'm concerned.

philosophical abstractions

http://s6.postimg.org/cw2jljmgh/120404_philosophical_abstractions_RENDER_sc_12_1.j pg (http://postimg.org/image/i7hg698j1/full/)

Scientists have theorized that our *sweat glands* gave our ancestors the ability to run down prey over extended distances, depriving them of sleep and causing them to overheat and finally collapse as a result. It's possibly *this* biological advantage, along with our capacity for reflective (self-aware / conscious) thought, that propelled us into greater and greater tool usage, as for agriculture and so on.

Here's about *sentience*, at another thread, which very few animals are shown to possess:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/193073-Ex-Machina?p=2877590#post2877590

(A)

4th December 2016, 18:42

Why i used ().

Do you believe that humans manipulate the world around us intentionally or "Change Nature" as you put it; Yet other animals dont?

Basically to hold the above view that the acts of human animals "Change nature" where as the act of other animals are "natural" you must believe that humans are either unnatural or supernatural.
That we are somehow divinely created and not a product of natural evolution. That our acts are not based in the natural world but are divine or sacred. The whole idea that humans are not animals is WHOLLY reactionary. Literally the desire to return to a pre-sience world where humans where made in gods image and had a divine right to dominate the world that god gave to us.

ckaihatsu

4th December 2016, 19:03

Why i used ().

Do you believe that humans manipulate the world around us intentionally or "Change Nature" as you put it; Yet other animals dont?

You're really glossing over a lot if you're going to seriously compare the impact of human beings on the planet to that of beavers, or any other animal.

If you haven't yet noticed all animals except for people are overwhelmingly stuck 'in the moment', without much, if any, time- and resource-consuming *reflectivity*, as for making larger plans than what they inherited from their DNA, for instinctual responses. This means that animals are dependent on nature's immediate bounty and do not plan beyond needs for immediate basic survival, much less construct from pre-conceived plans like blueprints.

Basically to hold the above view that the acts of human animals "Change nature" where as the act of other animals are "natural" you must believe that humans are either unnatural or supernatural.
That we are somehow divinely created and not a product of natural evolution. That our acts are not based in the natural world but are divine or sacred. The whole idea that humans are not animals is WHOLLY reactionary. Literally the desire to return to a pre-sience world where humans where made in gods image and had a divine right to dominate the world that god gave to us.

You're merely *imputing* all of this -- I've said nothing that would indicate or imply the conclusions you're spuriously jumping-to.

What *cognitively* differentiates us from the rest of the animal world is our ability to think abstractly and to use detailed mental models towards the aim of doing something effectively on the first try without having to go through real-world trial-and-error processes -- not to mention writing, drawing, etc.

And what *empirically* differentiates us from the rest of the animal world is our demonstrated capacity for wide-ranging cooperation in complex *meta-natural* tasks, as through the use of verbal languages, etc.

(A)

4th December 2016, 19:20

You're really glossing over a lot if you're going to seriously compare the impact of human beings on the planet to that of beavers, or any other animal.

I am not glossing over anything. Regardless of effect you implied the acts of humans where not natural. Saying that we where outside of nature where as other animals are inside nature.
Why is what we do "unnatural" but what other animals do "natural"?

Do you think because we evolved and started farming that we have left nature behind and now our acts are that; less of animals and more of gods?

Because we are the most intelligent animal that we are somehow not animals anymore or a part of nature?

Is not the act of planning an act of nature as we are a part of nature?
Just because we are able to understand our universe does not mean that we are no longer a part of it.

Besides us what is to prevent other animals from evolving to be as intelligent as us?
An Animal on another planet could be more intelligent then us... would that make us again a part of nature or would they just be super-super-natural.

I mean we are either a species of animal that evolved a greater intelligence or... what?
What are we if not a product of natural evolution?

ckaihatsu

4th December 2016, 19:40

I am not glossing over anything. Regardless of effect you implied the acts of humans where not natural. Saying that we where outside of nature where as other animals are inside nature.
Why is what we do "unnatural" but what other animals do "natural"?

I prefer the term 'meta-natural', meaning that we have *transcended* base natural abilities when we're able to put metals and energy reserves to our own willed purposes, as for mechanical transportation.

Do you think because we evolved and started farming that we have left nature behind and now our acts are that; less of animals and more of gods?

I won't employ fanciful fictional analogies -- I'll cut-to-the-chase here and just point-out that it's only *our* species that has produced a *surplus* (of food)(etc.), and also caused the economic conditions for artificial drought and famine, on the flipside.

Because we are the most intelligent animal that we are somehow not animals anymore or a part of nature?

Is not the act of planning an act of nature as we are a part of nature?
Just because we are able to understand our universe does not mean that we are no longer a part of it.

Besides us what is to prevent other animals from evolving to be as intelligent as us?
An Animal on another planet could be more intelligent then us... would that make us again a part of nature or would they just be super-super-natural.

I mean we are either a species of animal that evolved a greater intelligence or... what?
What are we if not a product of natural evolution?

'Intelligence' is something of a fetish, as usually used -- we should look to our common, quasi-collective *social* conditions that allow us to build on top of past human achievements, to reach further heights. Natural (genetic) evolution has given way to *cultural* evolution, which moves at a much faster pace than natural selection.

Other animals cannot just suddenly genetically 'leapfrog' us in 'intelligence' (ability / capabilities), because natural evolution is too slow a process -- they would have to develop *lasting culture*, as we've done with oral histories, and the written word (etc.). Animal 'culture' -- if any -- is not passed-down or inherited.

(A)

4th December 2016, 20:02

I prefer the term 'meta-natural', meaning that we have *transcended*
So some bullshit. Ok.

I'll cut-to-the-chase here and just point-out that it's only *our* species that has produced a *surplus*

I am pretty sure we are not the only animals that horde food... I mean even the most
basic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoarding_(animal_behavior))search will prove that animals also gather a *surplus*. Producing threw their labor more goods then they need to prepare for future need.
This is a fancy way of describing planning; one of the things that makes you think we are supernatural.

One could easily argue that our "planning" is as instinctual as the hording or hibernation instincts of other animals.
We know that we may need a surplus in the future; so act on that knowledge; producing more then we need so that we will not go without in the future.

Our "culture" is also a fetish. If we are animals (which we are) and if we evolved (which we did) then the "culture" we create is a result of natural evolution and not some divinity. Its not outside of nature
simply because its something that we possess that other animals we know of dont in the same way.

Other Animals have traits that we dont possess; it does not make those traits supernatural. We dont possess gills; does that make fish supernatural? No its a process of evolution.

Wessex Way Monster

5th December 2016, 04:54

Yes, absolutely, because we're the only species with the socialization and the physical means (brain, hands) to *change* nature.
Are you stupid? We have no way to be outside of nature. There are real physical constraints that hold us inside of it, let alone the massive dependency on our biosphere that we exhibit.

ckaihatsu

5th December 2016, 13:33

So some bullshit. Ok.

No, you're too dismissive. I don't deny that we're animals as well, or that we're within the environment of nature, ultimately, and here's an illustration of such:

Worldview Diagram

http://s6.postimg.org/qjdaikuwh/120824_Worldview_Diagram.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/axvyymiy5/full/)

But what *you're* failing to acknowledge is that humanity has *surpassed* nature in many ways, as in building earthquake-proof buildings, for one example.

I am pretty sure we are not the only animals that horde food... I mean even the most
basic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoarding_(animal_behavior))search will prove that animals also gather a *surplus*. Producing threw their labor more goods then they need to prepare for future need.
This is a fancy way of describing planning; one of the things that makes you think we are supernatural.

One could easily argue that our "planning" is as instinctual as the hording or hibernation instincts of other animals.
We know that we may need a surplus in the future; so act on that knowledge; producing more then we need so that we will not go without in the future.

Animals *don't* produce a surplus in the sense of 'more than they need', while human society *does*, through its system of capitalist economics, not that I'm defending such.

The other aspect here is that animals never 'invented' storing food for a winter hibernation -- that's from their DNA, from their instincts, while humanity developed a particular social *culture* over time that now enables us to participate in global economics for the provision of this-or-that good or service on an individual, customized basis.

Our "culture" is also a fetish. If we are animals (which we are) and if we evolved (which we did) then the "culture" we create is a result of natural evolution and not some divinity. Its not outside of nature
simply because its something that we possess that other animals we know of dont in the same way.

Other Animals have traits that we dont possess; it does not make those traits supernatural. We dont possess gills; does that make fish supernatural? No its a process of evolution.

Just for the record I'm not *claiming* any kind of divinity or supernaturalism -- you're simply not-recognizing the paradigm shift that happens when human society produces its own system of impersonal economics that allows for incredible flexibility and versatility, far beyond anything prescribed by our biological makeup as animals. Nature didn't evolve the use of *currency* -- human society did.

Are you stupid? We have no way to be outside of nature. There are real physical constraints that hold us inside of it, let alone the massive dependency on our biosphere that we exhibit.

No, not stupid -- we might look to any exploration of *outer space* to see real-world instances where people decisively *transcended* nature and went *outside* of it, physically and literally.

Sure I appreciate that such isn't a *regular* option, but we also 'transcend' nature any time that we use chemistry, as in the smelting of metal ores to produce metals of various kinds. Steel isn't a *natural* product, exactly.

IbelieveInanarchy

5th December 2016, 18:55

ckaihatsu

5th December 2016, 19:11

Chaihatsu i have to disagree with you on almost everything you wrote here.

"Yes, absolutely, because we're the only species with the socialization and the physical means (brain, hands) to *change* nature."
To think that we are the only species that change nature... Do you honestly think our impact on this earth is bigger than even simple bacteria? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event)
I am not sure if i correctly understand what you are saying, but do you mean because we have a complex brain we are outside of nature? How exactly are we outside of needing nutrients and oxygen? Or do you mean that we are more capable of changing our environment compared to other species? There are species of ants which cut down vegetation many times their own biomass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%E2%80%93fungus_mutualism

I don't see why making metal or creating other complex stuff somehow takes you out of nature. Just because you influence your environment is a very bad criteria to be "outside of nature" there are numeral organisms which influence their environment more than humans do. What is your definition of nature even?

It's 'ckaihatsu' -- thanks.

The point here is whether other animals are able / inclined to *consciously* / sentiently change nature, as in socially mass-organized ways, the way people / humans do.

I'm arguing from the standpoint of fact that, no, animals *don't* create unique intentions for the sake of realizing imaginative intentions, as people do with playing sports, for example.

Of course we're organic beings, like all flora and fauna, but we've also *transcended* the regular bounds of nature just by using clothing, for example.

Nature is the atmosphere and grounds of the planet earth.

My original critique at post #8 was to say that we as humanity need to collectively *free ourselves* from any inherited, traditional-type ways of living that we may observe in the animal kingdom. We have already developed the means to re-think how we do things, like the raising of incoming generations, and to fully realize this new kind of liberation we *definitely* have to wean ourselves off of capitalist, market-based material economics, in favor of a material economics that *doesn't* rely on any system of abstract exchange-values.

I'd be glad to elaborate, of course.

IbelieveInanarchy

5th December 2016, 19:16

It's 'ckaihatsu' -- thanks.

The point here is whether other animals are able / inclined to *consciously* / sentiently change nature, as in socially mass-organized ways, the way people / humans do.

I'm arguing from the standpoint of fact that, no, animals *don't* create unique intentions for the sake of realizing imaginative intentions, as people do with playing sports, for example.

Of course we're organic beings, like all flora and fauna, but we've also *transcended* the regular bounds of nature just by using clothing, for example.

Nature is the atmosphere and grounds of the planet earth.

My original critique at post #8 was to say that we as humanity need to collectively *free ourselves* from any inherited, traditional-type ways of living that we may observe in the animal kingdom. We have already developed the means to re-think how we do things, like the raising of incoming generations, and to fully realize this new kind of liberation we *definitely* have to wean ourselves off of capitalist, market-based material economics, in favor of a material economics that *doesn't* rely on any system of abstract exchange-values.

I'd be glad to elaborate, of course. Oh, i see you are less extreme than i thought you were. I thought you were saying we were magical creatures. Of course we have special characteristics and we should not focus on the animal kingdom to base our own society on principles of other organisms. Of course we can modify certain aspects of nature, but saying "im outside of nature" to me is false and distracts very much from the sensible point you just made here. Just say we are highly intelligent organism which have a means to liberate ourselves from current problems but stop saying you're outside of nature is my honest suggestion.

ckaihatsu

5th December 2016, 19:31

Oh, i see you are less extreme than i thought you were. I thought you were saying we were magical creatures. Of course we have special characteristics and we should not focus on the animal kingdom to base our own society on principles of other organisms. Of course we can modify certain aspects of nature, but saying "im outside of nature" to me is false and distracts very much from the sensible point you just made here. Just say we are highly intelligent organism which have a means to liberate ourselves from current problems but stop saying you're outside of nature is my honest suggestion.

Okay, I appreciate your patience here.

None of this is *personal*, of course, since biologically we're all the same as human beings -- anything that would go for 'me' would be valid for everyone else, too, as well.

So 'I'm' not 'outside of nature', but consider that some people have traveled outside of earth's atmosphere ('nature'), into outer space, and also that some people have developed weapons so powerful that the use of them would readily wipe out most, if not all, organic life from the face of the earth.

IbelieveInanarchy

5th December 2016, 19:39

Okay, I appreciate your patience here.

None of this is *personal*, of course, since biologically we're all the same as human beings -- anything that would go for 'me' would be valid for everyone else, too, as well.

So 'I'm' not 'outside of nature', but consider that some people have traveled outside of earth's atmosphere ('nature'), into outer space, and also that some people have developed weapons so powerful that the use of them would readily wipe out most, if not all, organic life from the face of the earth. You see space as not being nature? That's new, in my country they always mean with nature all of the natural laws etc etc. So for you nature is just the earth, atmhosphere plants animals bacteria fungi and other organism?
I don't agree that nuclear weapons would wipe out all organic life, but thats beside the point. I get that you think that we are capable of very organized efforts to achieve great things. But why the out of nature rhetoric, i really do not get that. Why do you feel you have to exclude yourself from nature and somehow be something special? I do get we are something special, but only in one sense. Compared to other animals we have inferior eye sight, speed etc etc. In a lot of characteristic we would fail miserably, we have a very special brain of course. But i see this as part of nature and a direct product of nature. Please elaborate why the outside of nature rhetoric. :)

ckaihatsu

5th December 2016, 19:57

You see space as not being nature? That's new, in my country they always mean with nature all of the natural laws etc etc. So for you nature is just the earth, atmhosphere plants animals bacteria fungi and other organism?

Well, of course -- until we have evidence of other kinds of life, outside of planet earth, the only forms of life we know are that of planet earth, or 'nature'.

I don't agree that nuclear weapons would wipe out all organic life, but thats beside the point.

A nuclear holocaust or nuclear apocalypse is a theoretical scenario involving widespread destruction and radioactive fallout causing the collapse of civilization, through the use of nuclear weapons. Under such a scenario, some of the Earth is made uninhabitable by nuclear warfare in future world wars.

Besides the obvious direct destruction of cities by nuclear blasts, the potential aftermath of a nuclear war could involve firestorms, a nuclear winter, widespread radiation sickness from fallout, and/or the temporary loss of much modern technology due to electromagnetic pulses. Some scientists, such as Alan Robock, have speculated that a thermonuclear war could result in the end of modern civilization on Earth, in part due to a long-lasting nuclear winter.[1]

Early Cold War-era studies suggested that billions of humans would nonetheless survive the immediate effects of nuclear blasts and radiation following a global thermonuclear war.[2][3][4][5] Some scholars argue that nuclear war could indirectly contribute to human extinction via secondary effects, including environmental consequences, societal breakdown, and economic collapse. Additionally, it has been argued[by whom?] that even a relatively small-scale nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan involving 100 Hiroshima yield weapons, could cause a nuclear winter and kill more than a billion people.[6]

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

---

I get that you think that we are capable of very organized efforts to achieve great things.

Yup.

But why the out of nature rhetoric, i really do not get that. Why do you feel you have to exclude yourself from nature and somehow be something special?

None of this is *personal*, of course, since biologically we're all the same as human beings -- anything that would go for 'me' would be valid for everyone else, too, as well.

So 'I'm' not 'outside of nature', but consider that some people have traveled outside of earth's atmosphere ('nature'), into outer space, and also that some people have developed weapons so powerful that the use of them would readily wipe out most, if not all, organic life from the face of the earth.

---

I do get we are something special, but only in one sense. Compared to other animals we have inferior eye sight, speed etc etc. In a lot of characteristic we would fail miserably, we have a very special brain of course. But i see this as part of nature and a direct product of nature. Please elaborate why the outside of nature rhetoric. :)

Again, nothing that nature on planet earth has produced has traveled off the planet, except for human beings -- that means that we're not *strictly confined* to nature if we've demonstrated that we can *leave* nature, albeit under very limited conditions. (There's nothing natural about leaving nature.)

IbelieveInanarchy

5th December 2016, 20:43

Well, of course -- until we have evidence of other kinds of life, outside of planet earth, the only forms of life we know are that of planet earth, or 'nature'.

---

Yup.

---

Again, nothing that nature on planet earth has produced has traveled off the planet, except for human beings -- that means that we're not *strictly confined* to nature if we've demonstrated that we can *leave* nature, albeit under very limited conditions. (There's nothing natural about leaving nature.)
You said all organic life would be extinct, your wikipedia describes nothing of the sort. Taken from your link "Many scholars have posited that a global thermonuclear war may lead to human extinction, and this became scientifically plausible after nuclear winter was first conceptualized and modelled in 1983. However, models from the past decade consider total extinction very unlikely, and suggest parts of the world would remain habitable." that is human life, humans which have wayyyy more needs compared to bacteria(which are organic life). So no, nuclear war would not end organic life, but this is besides the point i get what you mean that we made weapons which could significantly alter nature as you define it.

I don't get your point of traveling off the planet, you are not leaving nature if you travel into space. Unless you just define nature as only earth but then you should say: we humans are outside of earth. Not "we are outside of nature" because in the most common definition of the world people mean with nature. "The material world and its phenomena: scientists analyzing nature."

Nope

5th December 2016, 22:01

Racist garbage

(A)

6th December 2016, 03:30

Oh, i see you are less extreme than i thought you were. I thought you were saying we were magical creatures.

Not magical; Meta-natural; like the villains in a bad CW superhero show.

No, you're too dismissive. I don't deny that we're animals as well, or that we're within the environment of nature, ultimately,
But what *you're* failing to acknowledge is that humanity has *surpassed* nature in many ways, as in building earthquake-proof buildings, for one example.

The ability to construct buildings that provide shelter against weather and natural disasters is not "Surpassing" nature. It is a direct result of natural evolution. We evolved an intelligence that gives us the ability to do such things; therefor that is natural itself. Other animals "surpass" nature in other ways. Avoiding danger and preparing for cold weather.

The idea that Humans are exterior to nature is reactionary and needs to be combated as such. Returning to a Pre-science understanding of the world and a belief in the divinity of man is backwards and Anti-communist. Any "scientific" socialist should ensure their views match scientific fact; not ignoring scientific fact to match their view.

Making shit up like we are "Meta" is just as bad as saying we are divine. It is a fallacy meant to cover reactionary ideas that have yet to be challenged by the individual. Race-realism is an example of this. Warping scientific fact to meet the demands of reactionary thought.

ckaihatsu

6th December 2016, 12:41

You said all organic life would be extinct, your wikipedia describes nothing of the sort. Taken from your link "Many scholars have posited that a global thermonuclear war may lead to human extinction, and this became scientifically plausible after nuclear winter was first conceptualized and modelled in 1983. However, models from the past decade consider total extinction very unlikely, and suggest parts of the world would remain habitable." that is human life, humans which have wayyyy more needs compared to bacteria(which are organic life). So no, nuclear war would not end organic life, but this is besides the point i get what you mean that we made weapons which could significantly alter nature as you define it.

I don't get your point of traveling off the planet, you are not leaving nature if you travel into space. Unless you just define nature as only earth but then you should say: we humans are outside of earth. Not "we are outside of nature" because in the most common definition of the world people mean with nature. "The material world and its phenomena: scientists analyzing nature."

You seem to want to nit-pick instead of dealing with the main topic, which is 'Are human beings *beyond* nature in some way?', to which the answer is definitively 'yes', considering the examples I've given like *leaving* nature to go into outer space, which is definitely *not* a result from nature itself.

I'll insist that 'nature' should have to include *life*, since that's what we think of when we think 'Mother Nature', etc.

Racist garbage

If you're directing this characterization at *my* content, that's a serious charge, and I dispute it.

IbelieveInanarchy

6th December 2016, 12:47

You seem to want to nit-pick instead of dealing with the main topic, which is 'Are human beings *beyond* nature in some way?', to which the answer is definitively 'yes', considering the examples I've given like *leaving* nature to go into outer space, which is definitely *not* a result from nature itself.

I'll insist that 'nature' should have to include *life*, since that's what we think of when we think 'Mother Nature', etc.

If you're directing this characterization at *my* content, that's a serious charge, and I dispute it. You are not leaving nature when you go into space.... you are leaving earth. This just boils down to semantics, you define nature as the earth and the organisms living on it. Which is a definition not used in any sense. What does it add to say that you are outside of nature? What is the point of this anti-scientific distinction?

ckaihatsu

6th December 2016, 12:59

Not magical; Meta-natural; like the villains in a bad CW superhero show.

This is actually a *good* example, since 'villainy' implies some kind of exchange-value economy, which is *not* a natural phenomenon -- can you really argue that 'currency' is strictly a natural outgrowth -- ?

The ability to construct buildings that provide shelter against weather and natural disasters is not "Surpassing" nature. It is a direct result of natural evolution. We evolved an intelligence that gives us the ability to do such things; therefor that is natural itself. Other animals "surpass" nature in other ways. Avoiding danger and preparing for cold weather.

We would have to look at human beings *without* commodity production, versus those human beings (aboriginals, indigenous practices) who do *not* engage in commodity production. Sure people would change nature, similarly to the way other animals do, to protect from the elements, but it's only as recent as the ancient world that there's been *concrete* in usage -- a product of chemistry, which requires non-natural planning and production.

Perhaps we could say that the 'line' is crossed once natural resources are transformed into *new materials*.

The idea that Humans are exterior to nature is reactionary and needs to be combated as such. Returning to a Pre-science understanding of the world and a belief in the divinity of man is backwards and Anti-communist. Any "scientific" socialist should ensure their views match scientific fact; not ignoring scientific fact to match their view.

Making shit up like we are "Meta" is just as bad as saying we are divine. It is a fallacy meant to cover reactionary ideas that have yet to be challenged by the individual. Race-realism is an example of this. Warping scientific fact to meet the demands of reactionary thought.

Okay, but I don't see how anything I've said (my position), is 'pre-scientific', relies on religious formulations, or is reactionary. Here's from a previous post:

Just for the record I'm not *claiming* any kind of divinity or supernaturalism

As usual, A, if you're just going to make accusations without providing supporting evidence you're not really in a discussion -- you're just facilely *imputing* and/or *ranting*.

- - - Updated - - -

You are not leaving nature when you go into space.... you are leaving earth. This just boils down to semantics, you define nature as the earth and the organisms living on it. Which is a definition not used in any sense. What does it add to say that you are outside of nature? What is the point of this anti-scientific distinction?

You're not understanding the *premise* -- I'm not saying that 'I', or anyone else, is 'outside' of nature, but rather that humanity is the only species that has *transcended* natural processes, as in the use of chemistry, to do things that would never happen in the context of nature itself.

If you want 'nature' to mean 'the physical universe', I wouldn't agree with this definition, but it would be an irrelevant distinction, anyway -- there's nothing elsewhere outside of humanity, as far as we know, that *wears clothes* or *writes literature* (etc.).

---

Update:

Here's a *structured* view of society of mine, and you can note how significant in magnitude *technology* (and technique) is to social production:

[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://s6.postimg.org/nmlxvtqlt/1_History_Macro_Micro_Precision.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/zbpxjshkd/full/)

IbelieveInanarchy

6th December 2016, 13:03

This is actually a *good* example, since 'villainy' implies some kind of exchange-value economy, which is *not* a natural phenomenon -- can you really argue that 'currency' is strictly a natural outgrowth -- ?

We would have to look at human beings *without* commodity production, versus those human beings (aboriginals, indigenous practices) who do *not* engage in commodity production. Sure people would change nature, similarly to the way other animals do, to protect from the elements, but it's only as recent as the ancient world that there's been *concrete* in usage -- a product of chemistry, which requires non-natural planning and production.

Perhaps we could say that the 'line' is crossed once natural resources are transformed into *new materials*.

Okay, but I don't see how anything I've said (my position), is 'pre-scientific', relies on religious formulations, or is reactionary. Here's from a previous post:

As usual, A, if you're just going to make accusations without providing supporting evidence you're not really in a discussion -- you're just facilely *imputing* and/or *ranting*. Now you use the word natural in a way other form, using chemistry is unnatural? It is a sophisticated business of course, but i don't see what your definition of natural is here. IF your definition is that we do stuff other organisms don't, then it would be easy to show you stuff other organisms do which other organisms can not do. Most of your not-natural wording seems to me to be completely pointless and it seems to often be used to defend reactionary or unscientific positions. I am not saying you are reactionary but your rhetoric is applied for reactionary points very often.

- - - Updated - - -

You're not understanding the *premise* -- I'm not saying that 'I', or anyone else, is 'outside' of nature, but rather that humanity is the only species that has *transcended* natural processes, as in the use of chemistry, to do things that would never happen in the context of nature itself.

If you want 'nature' to mean 'the physical universe', I wouldn't agree with this definition, but it would be an irrelevant distinction, anyway -- there's nothing elsewhere outside of humanity, as far as we know, that *wears clothes* or *writes literature* (etc.). again you say wearing clothes or writing literature is somehow transcending nature, but this behavior seems more likely to be explained by our brains working to creature literature than to say "we are transcending nature". Youre using your brain, a product of evolution, to do certain biological tasks. I don't see why you would want to explain this in the way more illogical stance you are holding.

ckaihatsu

6th December 2016, 13:13

Now you use the word natural in a way other form, using chemistry is unnatural? It is a sophisticated business of course, but i don't see what your definition of natural is here. IF your definition is that we do stuff other organisms don't, then it would be easy to show you stuff other organisms do which other organisms can not do.

That's fine, but in so doing you're glossing over *qualitative* matters -- if people produce a water-bottle-drip and place it in a forest somewhere, that could possibly aid other animals there by providing a source of water to them, something constructive that they could not have done themselves.

So, to generalize, humanity's ability to generate material production is 'meta-natural' since it all *derives* from natural resources, but the end goods are *qualitatively* beyond anything any other animals have produced, or *could* produce on their own.

Most of your not-natural wording seems to me to be completely pointless and it seems to often be used to defend reactionary or unscientific positions. I am not saying you are reactionary but your rhetoric is applied for reactionary points very often.

Well, I can't speak for what others do, of course, but my line here is meant to show that applied science can, and has been, *beneficial* in many ways.

again you say wearing clothes or writing literature is somehow transcending nature, but this behavior seems more likely to be explained by our brains working to creature literature than to say "we are transcending nature". Youre using your brain, a product of evolution, to do certain biological tasks. I don't see why you would want to explain this in the way more illogical stance you are holding.

Writing literature, playing sports, and wearing clothes are all *not* biological tasks -- that's the point. Such activities are *social* and transcend any bare-minimum tasks that would be necessary for a basic survival. (People could always stay in warmer climes, as long as food is available from nature, without *having* to wear clothes.)

IbelieveInanarchy

6th December 2016, 14:14

That's fine, but in so doing you're glossing over *qualitative* matters -- if people produce a water-bottle-drip and place it in a forest somewhere, that could possibly aid other animals there by providing a source of water to them, something constructive that they could not have done themselves.

So, to generalize, humanity's ability to generate material production is 'meta-natural' since it all *derives* from natural resources, but the end goods are *qualitatively* beyond anything any other animals have produced, or *could* produce on their own.

Well, I can't speak for what others do, of course, but my line here is meant to show that applied science can, and has been, *beneficial* in many ways.

Writing literature, playing sports, and wearing clothes are all *not* biological tasks -- that's the point. Such activities are *social* and transcend any bare-minimum tasks that would be necessary for a basic survival. (People could always stay in warmer climes, as long as food is available from nature, without *having* to wear clothes.) I'm gonna stop discussing this now. I feel like we keep talking in circles. I get that humans produce things which are not produced by other stuff in nature, to call this meta-natural, to me is senseless. However i don't want to devolve in an endless circle-discussion on this topic so i am looking forward to other people contributions and opinions. Thanks for explaining your point so eloquently without resorting to personal attacks or stuff like that. It's good to have serious discourse on this site for once. :)

ckaihatsu

6th December 2016, 14:26

I'm gonna stop discussing this now. I feel like we keep talking in circles. I get that humans produce things which are not produced by other stuff in nature, to call this meta-natural, to me is senseless. However i don't want to devolve in an endless circle-discussion on this topic so i am looking forward to other people contributions and opinions. Thanks for explaining your point so eloquently without resorting to personal attacks or stuff like that. It's good to have serious discourse on this site for once. :)

Yeah, it's been awhile.

If you change your mind, there's still the standing point of 'quality' -- human and animal activity can't be seen as *comparable*, since human activity has 'upped the ante', creating both skyscrapers and world wars, while animal activity in the wild can be comprehensively described as being wholly 'natural'.

(A)

6th December 2016, 17:21

'Are human beings *beyond* nature in some way?', to which the answer is definitively 'yes',
Except no not at all.
Your argument is that since we can build shit that monkeys or lions cant that we are above them; superior to them.
That is such a shit argument it has literal been used to try and justify slavery.
White Supremacists used to (and still) say that because they had a more developed country (Ability to build skyscrapers for instance) and that undeveloped nations did not; that the white man was better then those who did not build. You are >LITERALLY< arguing for the justification for white suppression and colonization.

"That those peoples that are "above nature" (White people according to white people) have the right to subjugate those who are not because they are categorically above them"

This is like a whole fucking argument for slavery and supremacy. White people built shit so they thought they where above colored people who didn't.

Thinking you are somehow above another set of animals is called supremacy; making the person who thinks that a supremacist.

ckaihatsu

6th December 2016, 19:11

Except no not at all.
Your argument is that since we can build shit that monkeys or lions cant that we are above them; superior to them.

Only in the sense of 'building shit' -- shit which can be really good, like industrial agriculture that provides food for millions and billions while freeing-up peoples' time to do other things besides farming.

That is such a shit argument it has literal been used to try and justify slavery.

Okay, I'm sure you're *historically* correct, but slavery would actually be in the *wrong direction* for 'building shit', because we now have *machines* to do that kind of thing which is even *better* than pressing people into slavery just for their labor.

White Supremacists used to (and still) say that because they had a more developed country (Ability to build skyscrapers for instance) and that undeveloped nations did not; that the white man was better then those who did not build. You are >LITERALLY< arguing for the justification for white suppression and colonization.

No, I'm not because I've said *none* of these things -- you're going off on a tangent of your own, which is fine, but just please don't ascribe that particular political sentiment to *me*.

"That those peoples that are "above nature" (White people according to white people) have the right to subjugate those who are not because they are categorically above them"

This is like a whole fucking argument for slavery and supremacy. White people built shit so they thought they where above colored people who didn't.

Thinking you are somehow above another set of animals is called supremacy; making the person who thinks that a supremacist.

You and IBIA have blinders on if you can't see that technology has the potential for human and animal *liberation* -- what needs to be addressed by everyone in the whole world is the *relations* of production (not so much the *means* of production), which is the *class divide*.

Are human beings *technologically* superior to animals -- I don't see why anyone should pretend we're not, and deny this particular, substantial empirical fact. Also no one should get racialist, nationalist, or speciesist about it, because such divisive conclusions are arbitrary, and incorrect.

IbelieveInanarchy

6th December 2016, 19:19

Only in the sense of 'building shit' -- shit which can be really good, like industrial agriculture that provides food for millions and billions while freeing-up peoples' time to do other things besides farming.

Okay, I'm sure you're *historically* correct, but slavery would actually be in the *wrong direction* for 'building shit', because we now have *machines* to do that kind of thing which is even *better* than pressing people into slavery just for their labor.

No, I'm not because I've said *none* of these things -- you're going off on a tangent of your own, which is fine, but just please don't ascribe that particular political sentiment to *me*.

You and IBIA have blinders on if you can't see that technology has the potential for human and animal *liberation* -- what needs to be addressed by everyone in the whole world is the *relations* of production (not so much the *means* of production), which is the *class divide*.

Are human beings *technologically* superior to animals -- I don't see why anyone should pretend we're not, and deny this particular, substantial empirical fact. Also no one should get racialist, nationalist, or speciesist about it, because such divisive conclusions are arbitrary, and incorrect. Don't frame me as some anti-technologist. I know very well that the extension of the means of production by applying chemistry, biology and technology in general paves the way for human and animal liberation. Of course we are technologically superior, something i never denied. The only thing i disagree with is your transcending nature rhetoric. I disagree with your conclusion but i don't think our premises are actually different.

ckaihatsu

6th December 2016, 19:24

Don't frame me as some anti-technologist.

No, I don't mean to, and I know better for a fact.

I know very well that the extension of the means of production by applying chemistry, biology and technology in general paves the way for human and animal liberation. Of course we are technologically superior, something i never denied. The only thing i disagree with is your transcending nature rhetoric. I disagree with your conclusion but i don't think our premises are actually different.

Well, what *is* technology, if not 'transcending nature' -- ?

Nature doesn't provide technology, and neither do animals, so -- it must be us humans, then.

IbelieveInanarchy

6th December 2016, 19:29

No, I don't mean to, and I know better for a fact.

Well, what *is* technology, if not 'transcending nature' -- ?

Nature doesn't provide technology, and neither do animals, so -- it must be us humans, then. I see it as a way of manipulating nature to do what you want to a certain extent. You can not break nature's laws, if you could you would transcend them. You can use nature's laws to achieve a certain goal, but you are still limited by nature. We are not masters over nature, we can manipulate certain aspects of nature but never can we truly change nature itself.

ckaihatsu

6th December 2016, 19:32

I see it as a way of manipulating nature to do what you want to a certain extent. You can not break nature's laws, if you could you would transcend them. You can use nature's laws to achieve a certain goal, but you are still limited by nature. We are not masters over nature, we can manipulate certain aspects of nature but never can we truly change nature itself.

Okay, that's fine, of course, and I never claimed that people are able 'to break nature's laws', or laws of physics, basically.

As a matter of position I'd say we're 'transcending' nature by living in ways that are non-natural, meaning not in the ways that animals or plants do.

IbelieveInanarchy

6th December 2016, 19:36

Okay, that's fine, of course, and I never claimed that people are able 'to break nature's laws', or laws of physics, basically.

As a matter of position I'd say we're 'transcending' nature by living in ways that are non-natural, meaning not in the ways that animals or plants do. Okay so we established that we don't really disagree haha. Its just a discussion of how to say it it seems.

ckaihatsu

6th December 2016, 19:48

Okay so we established that we don't really disagree haha. Its just a discussion of how to say it it seems.

I suppose so, if you say-so / concur.

I think *many* discussions at RevLeft are like this -- comrades should take the time and effort to *define terms*, for the sake of clarity.

(A)

6th December 2016, 21:00

As a matter of position I'd say we're 'transcending' nature by living in ways that are non-natural, meaning not in the ways that animals or plants do.

Except for the fact that we live like animals.......... because we are animals.

You are arbitrarily separating humans as a part of the world we live in. If humans someday live in space we would still be animals in space. DID Laika the Russian Cosmonaut dog transcend being an animal or being a part of nature when she was sent to space? Because apparently physically leaving the planet transcends an animal species to Meta-natural status.

We are not transcending nature as we are a part of the ecology of earth If we leave earth and colonize it will be earths eco-systems that we take with us. We will be forced by the fact that we are simply animals reliant on our eco-systerm; without it we die. We still have to breath earths air in space. Eat earths food.
We will drag nature with us because we are a part of it. Without it we can not survive. The cow is a much as part of the working class; exploited by its owner; as you and I.
We rely on nature to survive as we are a part of it.
Until we transcend the need for an ecosystem; becoming a new form of life all together; we are no more superior to any other animal in our eco-system, because when our eco-system is gone; so will we be.

IbelieveInanarchy

6th December 2016, 21:09

Except for the fact that we live like animals.......... because we are animals.

You are arbitrarily separating humans as a part of the world we live in. If humans someday live in space we would still be animals in space. DID Laika the Russian Cosmonaut dog transcend being an animal or being a part of nature when she was sent to space? Because apparently physically leaving the planet transcends an animal species to Meta-natural status.

We are not transcending nature as we are a part of the ecology of earth If we leave earth and colonize it will be earths eco-systems that we take with us. We will be forced by the fact that we are simply animals reliant on our eco-systerm; without it we die. We still have to breath earths air in space. Eat earths food.
We will drag nature with us because we are a part of it. Without it we can not survive. The cow is a much as part of the working class; exploited by its owner; as you and I.
We rely on nature to survive as we are a part of it.
Until we transcend the need for an ecosystem; becoming a new form of life all together; we are no more superior to any other animal in our eco-system, because when our eco-system is gone; so will we be. Very well explained. Love the dog analogy haha.

ckaihatsu

7th December 2016, 12:43

Except for the fact that we live like animals.......... because we are animals.

No, we don't. Animals are dependent on food sources directly from nature, while humanity has almost completely taken up farming, pastoralism, and beyond for its food supply.

You are arbitrarily separating humans as a part of the world we live in. If humans someday live in space we would still be animals in space. DID Laika the Russian Cosmonaut dog transcend being an animal or being a part of nature when she was sent to space? Because apparently physically leaving the planet transcends an animal species to Meta-natural status.

Laika was not part of *initiating* the process of getting into space -- she was entirely along-for-the-ride, because of *human* intentions and actions.

We are not transcending nature as we are a part of the ecology of earth If we leave earth and colonize it will be earths eco-systems that we take with us. We will be forced by the fact that we are simply animals reliant on our eco-systerm; without it we die. We still have to breath earths air in space. Eat earths food.

I *generally* agree, except that people might produce organic materials for ingesting / nutrition from chemistry alone.

We will drag nature with us because we are a part of it. Without it we can not survive. The cow is a much as part of the working class; exploited by its owner; as you and I.

A cow or other animal is *not* working class because there's no wage being paid for any conceivable labor being done. Yes, it's being exploited for food as livestock, but no, it's not a worker.

We rely on nature to survive as we are a part of it.
Until we transcend the need for an ecosystem; becoming a new form of life all together; we are no more superior to any other animal in our eco-system, because when our eco-system is gone; so will we be.

We're *technologically* superior to animals, for both good and ill.

IbelieveInanarchy

7th December 2016, 13:33

A cow or other animal is *not* working class because there's no wage being paid for any conceivable labor being done. Yes, it's being exploited for food as livestock, but no, it's not a worker.

I dont think cows are working class, but do you think slaves are/were not a working class even though they did not get wages?

Full Metal Bolshevik

7th December 2016, 13:50

Until we transcend the need for an ecosystem; becoming a new form of life all together; we are no more superior to any other animal in our eco-system, because when our eco-system is gone; so will we be.
If you are the same as a cockroach maybe you should be crushed like one.

ckaihatsu

7th December 2016, 14:13

I dont think cows are working class, but do you think slaves are/were not a working class even though they did not get wages?

Slavery / serfdom was a different mode of production (see the framework at post #28), so they *were* the oppressed and exploited class, compared to slaveowners. Slaves / serfs had an interest in escaping from the estate they were bound to, and ultimately in collectively overthrowing the institution and practice of slavery. See the U.S. Civil War, which was a *schism* in the institution of property ownership between the North and South, which objectively *had* to be resolved somehow (since property / slaves were escaping to the North, while the North shifted to the use of machinery and *wage labor* -- work-for-some-boss-or-starve, as compared to paternalistic slavery in the South where the slave / property *had* to be maintained -- or not -- like any other property).

IbelieveInanarchy

7th December 2016, 15:20

Slavery / serfdom was a different mode of production (see the framework at post #28), so they *were* the oppressed and exploited class, compared to slaveowners. Slaves / serfs had an interest in escaping from the estate they were bound to, and ultimately in collectively overthrowing the institution and practice of slavery. See the U.S. Civil War, which was a *schism* in the institution of property ownership between the North and South, which objectively *had* to be resolved somehow (since property / slaves were escaping to the North, while the North shifted to the use of machinery and *wage labor* -- work-for-some-boss-or-starve, as compared to paternalistic slavery in the South where the slave / property *had* to be maintained -- or not -- like any other property). I know its a different mode of production, but the slaves were the working class in this mode of production. They were however not proletarians of course.

- - - Updated - - -

If you are the same as a cockroach maybe you should be crushed like one. He never said we are the same as a cockroach?

ckaihatsu

7th December 2016, 15:39

I know its a different mode of production, but the slaves were the working class in this mode of production. They were however not proletarians of course.

Well, 'working class' is pretty-much *synonymous* with 'proletarian' -- that's why the terms 'slavery' and 'slaves' suffice for what you're indicating.

IbelieveInanarchy

7th December 2016, 16:11

Well, 'working class' is pretty-much *synonymous* with 'proletarian' -- that's why the terms 'slavery' and 'slaves' suffice for what you're indicating. "Question 8: Then there have not always been proletarians?

Answer: No. There have always been poor and working classes; and those who worked were almost always the poor. But there have not always been proletarians, just as competition has not always been free." - The Communist Confession Of Faith

ckaihatsu

7th December 2016, 19:12

"Question 8: Then there have not always been proletarians?

Answer: No. There have always been poor and working classes; and those who worked were almost always the poor. But there have not always been proletarians, just as competition has not always been free." - The Communist Confession Of Faith

That isn't legitimate and can't be valid because before the class divide there was 'primitive communism' (which could also be called 'primitive fascism', by my estimation, since there was no alternative to the world's status quo of whatever society one was born into while the oceans could not be crossed and material availability was only from nature):

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

IbelieveInanarchy

7th December 2016, 20:41

That isn't legitimate and can't be valid because before the class divide there was 'primitive communism' (which could also be called 'primitive fascism', by my estimation, since there was no alternative to the world's status quo of whatever society one was born into while the oceans could not be crossed and material availability was only from nature):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism So.... you don't think serfs where working class? What class were they?

(A)

7th December 2016, 21:45

If you are the same as a cockroach maybe you should be crushed like one.

"Oh no we are not animals at all" Proceeds to threaten to violently attack someone for challenging their beliefs. The fact is tho that you are right; your life is no more valuable then a cockroaches. You are small and insignificant and your life has no greater meaning. You are just an animal that will one day die and be broken down into the bits a pieces of nature that you are made of.

Chris we are not technically superior to animals because we are animals. We are the most technically superior form of animal. Shit how hard is it for "scientific" socialists to accept scientific fact.
Farming is a part of nature as so are we. We evolved an intelligence that allowed us to create agriculture. Farming is a result of natural evolution therefor is a part of nature. You have this very specific idea of what nature is. Like nature can only mean plants or something. Animals like us interact with vegetation; that does not make eating or growing food unnatural. Like according to that logic a Otter using a rock as a tool is unnatural because that is not what the rock would naturally be doing. According to that logic otters are also not animals because they use the tools to harvest food that they would otherwise not be able to eat.

Full Metal Bolshevik

8th December 2016, 08:32

"Oh no we are not animals at all" Proceeds to threaten to violently attack someone for challenging their beliefs. The fact is tho that you are right; your life is no more valuable then a cockroaches. You are small and insignificant and your life has no greater meaning. You are just an animal that will one day die and be broken down into the bits a pieces of nature that you are made of.

Then I shouldn't think much about killing humans as I do when killing pests. And you're infesting this forum.

The way you talk like what you're saying is a big revelation is disgusting, tell me what other animal talks about death? We can discuss philosophy, which other animal does that? Which animal knows that they "are just an animal that will one day die and be broken down into the bits a pieces of nature that you are made of"?
If we are part of nature, if we are the same as animals why should we even bother trying to achieve a classless society if we can just let nature take its course?

Heck, you will possibly be wrong in the future, just because historically what you said is true, it doesn't mean it will be forever, have you never seen sci-fi where humans dump their human bodies for mechanical ones? or uploading consciousness to the internet? or achieve immortality? We have been conquering nature little by little, I don't see why we should stop as long as it benefits us.

ckaihatsu

8th December 2016, 12:37

So.... you don't think serfs where working class? What class were they?

Well, again it comes down to definitions -- yes they were 'working class' in the sense of being the exploited and oppressed class of that era, but, no, they're weren't working class in the sense of being 'free-labor' that's paid a wage and is in the objective position to overthrow capitalism and seize production.

IbelieveInanarchy

8th December 2016, 12:47

Well, again it comes down to definitions -- yes they were 'working class' in the sense of being the exploited and oppressed class of that era, but, no, they're weren't working class in the sense of being 'free-labor' that's paid a wage and is in the objective position to overthrow capitalism and seize production. Oh yeah sure, i agree on that. Only the proletariat is capable of overthrowing capitalism and building communism.

ckaihatsu

8th December 2016, 12:53

Chris we are not technically superior to animals because we are animals. We are the most technically superior form of animal.

You just contradicted yourself. I'll stand with the latter statement, that we are the most technically superior form of animal. (Thus transcending nature in some ways.)

Shit how hard is it for "scientific" socialists to accept scientific fact.

Farming is a part of nature as so are we.

The overwhelming majority of time spent by human beings on earth was done not-farming. (The agricultural revolution was only about 12,000 years ago.)

We evolved an intelligence that allowed us to create agriculture. Farming is a result of natural evolution therefor is a part of nature.

It wasn't our *intelligence* that brought us to cultivate crops, it was the world's changing climate, the ice age:

The neolithic ‘revolution’

The first big changes in people’s lives and ideas began to occur only about 10,000 years ago. People took up a new way of making a livelihood in certain parts of the world, notably the ‘Fertile Crescent’ region of the Middle East. 25 They learned to cultivate crops instead of relying upon nature to provide them with vegetable foodstuffs, and to domesticate animals instead of simply hunting them. It was an innovation which was to transform their whole way of living.

The transformation did not necessarily lead these people to have an easier life than their forebears. But climatic changes gave some of them a very limited choice. 26 They had grown accustomed, over two or three millennia, to life in areas where conditions had been such as to provide bountiful supplies of wild plant food and animals to hunt—in one area in south east Turkey, for instance, a ‘family group’ could, ‘without working very hard’, gather enough grain from wild cereals in three weeks to keep them alive for a year. They did not need to be continually on the move like other peoples. 27 They had been able to live in the same places year after year, transforming their former rough camps into permanent village settlements numbering hundreds rather than dozens of people, storing foodstuffs in stone or baked clay pots, and accumulating a range of sophisticated stone tools. For a period of time greater than from the foundation of ancient Rome to the present day, they had been able to combine the low workloads typical of foraging societies with the advantages of fixed village life. But then changes in the global climate prevented people obtaining an adequate livelihood in this way. As conditions in the Fertile Crescent region became drier and cooler, there was a decline in the availability of naturally occurring wild grains and a fall in the size of the antelope and deer herds. The hunter-gatherer villages faced a crisis. They could no longer live as they had been living. If they were not to starve they either had to break up into small groups and return to a long-forgotten nomadic way of life, or find some way to make up for the deficiencies of nature by their own labour.

This path led to agriculture. People had accumulated immense amounts of knowledge about plant life over hundreds of generations of living off wild vegetation. Now some groups began to use this knowledge to guarantee food supplies by planting the seeds of wild plants. Observation taught them that the seeds of certain plants were much more fruitful than others and, by selecting such seeds, they began to breed new, domesticated varieties which were much more useful to them than wild plants could ever be. The regular harvests they obtained enabled them to tether and feed the more tame varieties of wild sheep, goats, cattle and donkeys, and to breed animals that were tamer still.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 10-11

---

You have this very specific idea of what nature is. Like nature can only mean plants or something. Animals like us interact with vegetation; that does not make eating or growing food unnatural. Like according to that logic a Otter using a rock as a tool is unnatural because that is not what the rock would naturally be doing. According to that logic otters are also not animals because they use the tools to harvest food that they would otherwise not be able to eat.

That's fine, but otters don't use metals and gasoline, which are *not* natural products in any sense of the term.

We're not just 'fancy animals', we're re-shaping the world (as with climate change) on a *massive* scale, which is also not 'natural'.

(A)

13th December 2016, 23:19

How is that a contradiction?

We are "Superior to" VS we are "Superior of".

You said in post #44
"We're *technologically* superior to animals, for both good and ill."

That is a factually incorrect statement as we are animals. I was correcting you when I said.
Chris we are not technically superior to animals because we are animals. We are the most technically superior form of animal.
---

The overwhelming majority of time spent by human beings on earth was done not-farming. (The agricultural revolution was only about 12,000 years ago.)

This is not in question nor is it connected to the statement quoted. I dont know what you are trying to say here. What does this have to do with farming being a result of evolution?

-----

Are you trying to say that the process of evolution stopped at some point and that our "accumulated immense amounts of knowledge about plant life over hundreds of generations of living off wild vegetation" was not somehow connected to the overall evolution of the human race. That our collective experience is not tied to our evolution.

The process of us interacting with the material world (Dialectical materialism? I am still kinda wobbly on that term) is not a factor in evolution and the other way around?

Because I thought that what you and I are doing right now is still in some way a part of human evolution. That despite our knowledge we are still animals evolving our way into the future.
I dont see us being connected to the earths ecosystem and living acknowledging our existence as animal life as being a bad thing.

Please tell me what is incorrect or bad about acknowledging that we are intelligent animals and that we are evolving as a part of the earths ecosystem?

----

That's fine, but otters don't use metals and gasoline, which are *not* natural products in any sense of the term.

We're not just 'fancy animals', we're re-shaping the world (as with climate change) on a *massive* scale, which is also not 'natural'.

I think we have different definitions of what is and is not natural. You think natural is anything that happens in the wild. They call it the wild because it is the uncontrolled part of our natural world.
What humans do is a process of natural evolution. We can manipulate chemicals and forge metals only because it is able to be manipulated and forged. The act of human labor and the creation of our society, culture and all the things we build is a natural result of animal life. Our city's and our life's are not unnatural; they are result of our nature.

19584

ckaihatsu

14th December 2016, 13:32

Chris we are not technically superior to animals because we are animals. We are the most technically superior form of animal.

How is that a contradiction?

Okay, I'm seeing that there may be a different way to read your statement.... Are you saying that just by being animals, that doesn't make us technically superior to all other animals -- ? If this is your intended meaning, it's correct but it's not saying much -- of course any technology we use is *external* to us. We're not *born* with our technological implements.

We are "Superior to" VS we are "Superior of".

The distinction you're trying to make isn't clear.

You said in post #44

We're *technologically* superior to animals, for both good and ill.

That is a factually incorrect statement as we are animals.

But it's *not* a factually incorrect statement -- yes, we're animals, but we're also technologically superior to animals because we use technology while they don't.

I was correcting you when I said.

Chris we are not technically superior to animals because we are animals. We are the most technically superior form of animal.

But I haven't *been* incorrect -- I *agree* with the latter part of your statement, since my line on this topic has been:

We're *technologically* superior to animals, for both good and ill.

---

Shit how hard is it for "scientific" socialists to accept scientific fact.

Farming is a part of nature as so are we.

The overwhelming majority of time spent by human beings on earth was done not-farming. (The agricultural revolution was only about 12,000 years ago.)

This is not in question nor is it connected to the statement quoted. I dont know what you are trying to say here. What does this have to do with farming being a result of evolution?

We should consider farming / agriculture to be *technological*, and not-natural nor a genetic thing.

This is an instance where your implied 'everything human is natural' line *trips you up*, because with that flawed premise you now have to describe farming as being a 'natural-evolutionary' phenomenon, which it isn't. (The proof is that humanity did *not* do farming for the overwhelming bulk of its time on earth, so if farming is so "natural" why didn't it happen *sooner* -- ?)

Are you trying to say that the process of evolution stopped at some point and that our "accumulated immense amounts of knowledge about plant life over hundreds of generations of living off wild vegetation" was not somehow connected to the overall evolution of the human race. That our collective experience is not tied to our evolution.

No, the genetic-biological process of evolution and natural selection *never stops*, but what's of more relevance and importance to us as sentient beings is *human-cultural* evolution, which is *not* the same thing as genetic evolution. *Cultural* evolution happens within any person's lifetime, while *genetic* evolution does not.

This again shows that your 'everything human is natural' line is incorrect, because you can't reasonably *splice* human-cultural evolution, like the development of organized farming, onto the tail of genetic-natural evolution. There's nothing in our genetic makeup that suggests, or predisposes, us to implementing farming techniques instead of living off the land as it is from nature.

The process of us interacting with the material world (Dialectical materialism? I am still kinda wobbly on that term) is not a factor in evolution and the other way around?

Your problematic is that you're conflating natural-genetic processes with human-cultural ones.

Dialectical materialism has to do with resolving the continuous with the discrete, so as to determine starting-points and ending-points for whatever period can be described as discrete and coherent over a particular span of time.

Because I thought that what you and I are doing right now is still in some way a part of human evolution.

Sure -- if you like, you can think of it that way, as long as you don't think of it as being a *genetic-natural* process, because it isn't.

That despite our knowledge we are still animals evolving our way into the future.

Well, such genetic-type processes are still going on, mechanically speaking, but such are no longer really *relevant* to us as human beings because we're no longer *bound* to the strictly-organismic process of natural selection. As soon as various human cultures produced a material (food) *surplus* they *removed* themselves from existential *dependence* on nature -- thus farming, once again, being *non-natural*.

All of our 'evolution' at the point of civilization onward is entirely human-cultural because our species composition is no longer directly determined by how we do in the overall natural environment. People in civilizations have *options* beyond living off the natural land, as with farming (etc.) for producing the necessities of life and living.

This development is relevant to our revolutionary politics because such technological developments are being *artificially constrained* by an elite subset of humanity that claims an arbitrary, baseless 'ownership' over such implements only for their own benefit, the rest of humanity be damned. Just as we wouldn't recognize 'the divine right of kings' to be a legitimate claim to special status, we shouldn't recognize 'wealth ownership' as being a legitimate / valid reason for the hoarding of productive assets and natural resources.

I dont see us being connected to the earths ecosystem and living acknowledging our existence as animal life as being a bad thing.

Well, as I just described, we're really *not* connected to the earth's ecosystem, because we use the technology of *farming* (industrially) to produce what we need for food, etc. If you want to acknowledge your existence as being that of animal life, no one's stopping you, but very few people are still really *living* like regular animals in the strict sense of the term.

Please tell me what is incorrect or bad about acknowledging that we are intelligent animals and that we are evolving as a part of the earths ecosystem?

Again, nothing wrong with acknowledging that we're intelligent animals -- but, as I've described in this post, we're *no longer* evolving in direct correlation to the earth's ecosystem because we're no longer *at the mercy* of it. (Also consider humanity's use of fire, clothing, custom-built structures, external energy sources for producing 'work', etc.)

I think we have different definitions of what is and is not natural. You think natural is anything that happens in the wild. They call it the wild because it is the uncontrolled part of our natural world.
What humans do is a process of natural evolution. We can manipulate chemicals and forge metals only because it is able to be manipulated and forged. The act of human labor and the creation of our society, culture and all the things we build is a natural result of animal life. Our city's and our life's are not unnatural; they are result of our nature.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19584[ATTACH]

You're using *two different* meanings of 'nature' here: 'the wild', and 'human nature'.

Yes, I take 'nature' to mean 'the wild', or 'mother nature', or 'the ground and the atmosphere as it existed before human activity'.

What humans do is *not* a process of natural evolution because what we do societally does *not* feed back into a process of natural selection. If famines occur these days it's because of accidents in *farming*, or rather accidents in the *organization* of the social farming technique. Once we take over a segment of natural land for the use of farming it becomes entirely *our responsibility* as human-social organizers of production to do farming *well*. Unfortunately the human-cultural history of social organization is *not* optimal, and accidents have occurred (the USSR comes to mind here). As a human culture we need to disperse control and responsibility for all human / non-natural production to those who actually do the work -- the workers.

Regarding 'our nature' it could be argued that it's in 'our nature' to *complexify* things -- that we were inherently predisposed (socially) to *transcend* nature's natural parameters at *some* point on the timeline or other, due to our common *collective* abilities, as in use of language, coordination of work efforts, etc.

(A)

14th December 2016, 20:49

Wow... we are not superior to animals because we are animals; how can you be superior then what you are? You never used the qualifier "other".

We're *technologically* superior to animals, for both good and ill.

This implyes we are not animals becuase we are superior to them.
It should read "superior to >other< animals.

(The proof is that humanity did *not* do farming for the overwhelming bulk of its time on earth, so if farming is so "natural" why didn't it happen *sooner* -- ?)

In what world is that proof?

we're *no longer* evolving in direct correlation to the earth's ecosystem because we're no longer *at the mercy* of it.

How did you stop breathing air? I would like to learn how to survive without food; water and air. Please tell me how you are no longer at the mercy of earths Eco-system. What do you breath if not air? drink if not water; eat if not plant and other animals?

I am sorry to tell you but until you can survive in space without a space suit; you are still at the mercy of earths ecosystem. Honestly that really should be self-evident; I should not have to explain that.

"
You're using *two different* meanings of 'nature' here: 'the wild', and 'human nature'.

Yes, I take 'nature' to mean 'the wild', or 'mother nature', or 'the ground and the atmosphere as it existed before human activity'."

The wild is called the wild because it is the wild half of nature; The use of the word wild implyes that their is a non-wild half of nature; the part we have created.
Human nature is a part of nature as we are animals. Is beaver nature a part of nature? What about ape nature?

What humans do is *not* a process of natural evolution because what we do societally does *not* feed back into a process of natural selection.

This has to be in the top 10 most incorrect things you have written to me.

What humans do IS a process of natural evolution because what we do societally DIRECTLY feeds back into THE process of natural selection.

Our social existence is not only a part of our nature and can be found in almost every other animal species; but it directly influences the process of natural selection.
Who we breed with is HUGELY influenced by our social norms and that changes as society does. Do you really not understand that? Like have you ever thought about the effect your choice in mate will have on your offspring? Ever heard of eugenics? We have fought wars over the process of natural selection. Which human traits will be carried on and how will we evolve as a species is still an ongoing process.

You could even argue that the divide between left and right is a part of the human process of evolution. There is scientific evidence that shows there are differences between progressive and reactionary brain functions. That reactionary's possess a more fearful "reactionary" instinct where progressives do not. The victory of one side over the other very well could change the shape of human evolution.

- - - Updated - - -

Question. If Apes evolved an intelligence equal to ours would they still be considered animals?

an·i·mal

/ˈanəməl/

noun

1. a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Are you not a living organism that feeds on organic matter; possessing specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli?

ckaihatsu

15th December 2016, 13:30

Wow... we are not superior to animals because we are animals; how can you be superior then what you are? You never used the qualifier "other".

Yes, I *did* use a qualifier -- again:

We're *technologically* superior to animals, for both good and ill.

This implyes we are not animals becuase we are superior to them.
It should read "superior to >other< animals.

No, it *doesn't* necessarily imply that -- you're jumping to that particular conclusion of your own volition.

---

(The proof is that humanity did *not* do farming for the overwhelming bulk of its time on earth, so if farming is so "natural" why didn't it happen *sooner* -- ?)

In what world is that proof?

'Natural dialectics' / dialectical materialism operates consistently over time so your premise of 'farming is natural' just can't be supported with any empirical evidence.

Early hominins—particularly the australopithecines, whose brains and anatomy are in many ways more similar to ancestral non-human apes—are less often referred to as "human" than hominins of the genus Homo.[5] Several of these hominins used fire, occupied much of Eurasia, and gave rise to anatomically modern Homo sapiens in Africa about 200,000 years ago.[6][7] They began to exhibit evidence of behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago. In several waves of migration, anatomically modern humans ventured out of Africa and populated most of the world.[8]

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

So from 200,000 years ago to 50,000 there was *zero* development of farming -- it didn't happen until about 15,000 years ago.

If the development of farming is supposed to be a 'natural evolutionary' thing, it would have to have followed soon after the use of fire.

---

Please tell me what is incorrect or bad about acknowledging that we are intelligent animals and that we are evolving as a part of the earths ecosystem?

[W]e're *no longer* evolving in direct correlation to the earth's ecosystem because we're no longer *at the mercy* of it.

How did you stop breathing air? I would like to learn how to survive without food; water and air. Please tell me how you are no longer at the mercy of earths Eco-system. What do you breath if not air? drink if not water; eat if not plant and other animals?

I am sorry to tell you but until you can survive in space without a space suit; you are still at the mercy of earths ecosystem. Honestly that really should be self-evident; I should not have to explain that.

You're going off on a tangent -- initially your concern was with how we're currently evolving (biologically) as a part of the earth's ecosystem, and I answered.

The wild is called the wild because it is the wild half of nature; The use of the word wild implyes that their is a non-wild half of nature; the part we have created.

No, there *was no* 'non-wild half of nature' while human beings were still living directly off the land, from what was supplied by nature itself, without farming -- again this was for the overwhelming bulk of humanity's time on the planet (91.6%, by my calculations, based on the numbers at the Wikipedia entry above).

And for you to use the term 'non-wild half' -- meaning post-agricultural-revolution -- means that you're implicitly *acknowledging* a distinction between humanity-in-the-wild and humanity-producing-for-itself. ('Natural-vs.-non-natural', 'wild-vs.-non-wild', or whatever terms you want to use.)

Human nature is a part of nature as we are animals. Is beaver nature a part of nature? What about ape nature?

I never said that we *weren't* biologically animals -- I was referring to human *technology* in past statements.

---

What humans do is *not* a process of natural evolution because what we do societally does *not* feed back into a process of natural selection.

This has to be in the top 10 most incorrect things you have written to me.

What humans do IS a process of natural evolution because what we do societally DIRECTLY feeds back into THE process of natural selection.

Our social existence is not only a part of our nature and can be found in almost every other animal species; but it directly influences the process of natural selection.
Who we breed with is HUGELY influenced by our social norms and that changes as society does. Do you really not understand that? Like have you ever thought about the effect your choice in mate will have on your offspring? Ever heard of eugenics? We have fought wars over the process of natural selection. Which human traits will be carried on and how will we evolve as a species is still an ongoing process.

You could even argue that the divide between left and right is a part of the human process of evolution. There is scientific evidence that shows there are differences between progressive and reactionary brain functions. That reactionary's possess a more fearful "reactionary" instinct where progressives do not. The victory of one side over the other very well could change the shape of human evolution.

Eugenics and brain scans are only relatively *short-term* historical and biological data, respectively, without any inherent conclusions about *long-term* genetic evolution -- I'll deal with your overall material *point*....

What you're describing in terms of mating is *human-cultural*, and *not* natural-selection, because there are no *consequences* from the natural ecosystem in regards to choosing this-mate or that-mate. People generally benefit everyday from industrial agriculture so those in developed countries will basically have a guarantee of life and living no matter *who* they choose as mates, and whatever genes they happen to pass along as a result. (No particular offspring will be 'fitter' for survival because we're not *dependent* on the natural, wild ecosystem -- we have farming and steady food supplies of our own that depend little, if at all, on their location within the larger scope of the natural environment, due to the use of irrigation, fertilizers, and pest control.)

The Green Revolution refers to a set of research and development of technology transfer initiatives occurring between the 1930s and the late 1960s (with prequels in the work of the agrarian geneticist Nazareno Strampelli in the 1920s and 1930s), that increased agricultural production worldwide, particularly in the developing world, beginning most markedly in the late 1960s.[1] The initiatives resulted in the adoption of new technologies, including:

...new, high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of cereals, especially dwarf wheats and rices, in association with chemical fertilizers and agro-chemicals, and with controlled water-supply (usually involving irrigation) and new methods of cultivation, including mechanization. All of these together were seen as a 'package of practices' to supersede 'traditional' technology and to be adopted as a whole.[2]

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

- - - Updated - - -

Question. If Apes evolved an intelligence equal to ours would they still be considered animals?

Yes, biologically all animals are considered to be animals. All *particular* animals, like apes or humans, are a *subset* of the group of 'animals'.

Are you not a living organism that feeds on organic matter; possessing specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli?

I'm not disputing that human beings are animals.

(A)

15th December 2016, 17:29

"We're *technologically* superior to animals, for both good and ill."

Please point out the qualifier. Hint its not *technologically* because it still says we are not animals.

If the development of farming is supposed to be a 'natural evolutionary' thing, it would have to have followed soon after the use of fire.

Clearly not. This is in no way proof or evidence that we are not animals nor that agriculture is not a logical step in the evolution of an intelligent primate species.
If we where better hunters; like intelligent lions; I am sure we would still be using our claws and teeth but since we are not we logicly would use farming.

Also if this is the new basis for your argument I have another killing blow.

Agricultural animals

If there's one trait that distinguishes humans from animals, it's the ability to grow food.
But you might be surprised to learn that humans were not the first farmers. A number of astonishing animals discovered agriculture long before humans evolved as a species. There are insects that practice husbandry, fish that farm, and even a jellyfish horticulturalist.
Farming was once believed to be a feat reserved only for big-brained hairless apes, but it turns out that animals don't need a central nervous system to tend crops. Here's our list of seven amazing animal agriculturalists. (Text: Bryan Nelson)

Leaf-cutter ants

Because they have such a propensity to cut and gather leaves, it was long believed that these ants from Central and South America also ate the leaves they collected.
That all changed in 1874, when a mining engineer by the name of Thomas Belt (whose hobby was natural history) published "A Naturalist in Nicaragua." In the book, he wrote: (http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2004/4/antfarmers.cfm) "I believe the real use they make of them is as a manure, on which grows a minute species of fungus, on which they feed — that they are, in reality, mushroom growers and eaters."
Belt was correct. Leaf-cutter ants don't actually eat leaves. Instead, they gather leaves to cultivate a fungus that grows on them, and then they eat the fungus.

Termites

Though considered household pests, termites form some of the most complex societies in the animal kingdom.
Much like leaf-cutter ants, many termite species are fungus gardeners. In fact, the gigantic mounds built by some termite colonies are complex, temperature-controlled structures essential for maintaining the ideal growing environment for their food source: fungus (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080111221340.htm). A column of hot air rises above the mounds, driving air circulation currents inside the subterranean network. (Is the science behind your garden so intricate?)

Damselfish

These feisty farmers are the only fish known to engage in agriculture (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/185/abstract). Damselfish are algae-growers, and they are so protective of their crops that they have been known to attack other creatures that swim too close — even human divers.
The algae they prefer is a species that is competitively weak, compared to other species. If it wasn't for such loyal tillers, the algae would be difficult to find. In fact, it tends to survive only within the protective territories of the damselfish.

Ambrosia beetles

Named after the fungus they cultivate, ambrosia beetles are bark borers that grow their crops within decaying trees.
A common misconception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrosia_beetle#The_symbiotic_relationship) is that these beetles eat the wood, but in reality they remove all the sawdust from their living areas. Once a chamber has been built, the beetles carefully tend to their crop, which feeds both adults and larvae.

Farmer ants

Several ant species herd aphids (http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2004/4/antfarmers.cfm) in much the same way that humans herd cattle and take their milk. Instead of milk, however, aphids excrete a sugary honeydew that the ants devour.
Ants go to great lengths to care for their aphids (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071009212548.htm), often training them to defecate in a way that makes it easier for the ants to gather and eat the honeydew. In fact, the well-trained aphids will often withhold their honeydew until they are stroked and "milked" by ants.
Even more fascinating, ants will typically carry their aphids to new pasture lands and protect them from predators. In extreme cases, ants will clip off the wings of their "domesticated" aphids to prevent them from flying away when they mature.

Marsh snails

At least one type of mollusk is among nature's many fungiculturalists. Marsh snails (Littoraria irrorata), typically found throughout the Southeastern United States, prefer to feast on a fungus that grows on dead cordgrass leaves.
These clever snails use their rough, tongue-like radula to cut grooves into cordgrass leaves, creating the perfect growing environment for their favorite fungus. (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Salt+marsh+snails+plow+leaves,+fertilize+fungus.-a0111850336)
The snails have been observed fertilizing their fields by defecating in the grooves, further helping the fungus grow.

Spotted jellyfish

It may sound unbelievable, but even jellyfish can be farmers. These incredible medusae, also known as lagoon jellyfish, grow algal food inside their own tissues (http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/animals/AnimalDetails.aspx?legacyid=451).
During the day, spotted jellyfish typically orient themselves to get maximum sunlight to ensure their photosynthetic crop will flourish. They spend most of their time chasing the sunlight and tending their internal gardens.

Humans (I added this one just for you)

While some might not consider humans animals it is a scientific fact that humans are a species of animals that evolved right next to all of the other animal life on the planet. It may have taken them thousands of years to learn how to farm but eventually they managed to pass their animal kin in the ability to grow food; A skill it took the stupid animals an unbelievably sad about of time to figure out. However eventually they managed to figure out that plants are edible and if you plant seeds food would grow out of the seeds. The fact it took us so long to figure out really goes to show that the process of intellectual evolution is a slow process and that even so called intelegent animals like the humans still require thousands of years to understand the basics of how the world works around them.

You're going off on a tangent -- initially your concern was with how we're currently evolving (biologically) as a part of the earth's ecosystem, and I answered.

No you said you where no longer at the mercy of the earths eco-system. This is 100% bullshit and I am calling you out on it. Until you can survive >without the earths Eco-system< you are very fucking simply at its mercy. Let me know when you can survive the vacuum of space without food or water and.... well you will no longer be clasified as an animal if you dont eat organic matter so yah... then you will have evolved past the classification of animal.

Until then you are just another animal. Sorry.

(No particular offspring will be 'fitter' for survival because we're not *dependent* on the natural, wild ecosystem

When did Humans stop needing to breath and eat and drink water? Shit I am out of the fucking loop here. I am still breaking, eating and drinking water to survive. I am completely at the mercy of the eco-system. If earth where to be polluted I could very well find myself dead. I marvel at your ability to survive without an eco-system to provide you with clean breathable air; clean drinkable water; and food filled with nutrients able to sustain you.

I'm not disputing that human beings are animals.

Exept for all the things you say that try and fail to contradict that we are animals and just like them are at the mercy of the earths eco-system. Without it we could not survive. We would not be able to breath or eat and drink. Because you know... animals need food, water and air and the only place to get those things is the earth. Without the earths eco-system we would be dead... I mean did I even need to say that? When we leave this earth we will still need to take the eco-system with us because like the animals we are we rely on it competently. Even if we could produce air; water and food without the earth itself; we are just re,creating earths eco-system. We will still be at the mercy of it untill we no longer need the things it provides. Even if we can make them ourselfs we are still REQUIRED to have them.

ckaihatsu

16th December 2016, 13:02

"We're *technologically* superior to animals, for both good and ill."

Please point out the qualifier. Hint its not *technologically* because it still says we are not animals.

No, nothing I've said denies that biologically we're animals. You missed this part from the last post:

I never said that we *weren't* biologically animals -- I was referring to human *technology* in past statements.

---

If the development of farming is supposed to be a 'natural evolutionary' thing, it would have to have followed soon after the use of fire.

Clearly not. This is in no way proof or evidence that we are not animals nor that agriculture is not a logical step in the evolution of an intelligent primate species.
If we where better hunters; like intelligent lions; I am sure we would still be using our claws and teeth but since we are not we logicly would use farming.

Well farming is a *competitive advantage*, so if it confers a better generic ability to survive and reproduce (which it does), then it should have "evolutionarily" emerged early-on. You're just denying my line of argumentation, and continuing to tout your own 'all human culture is 100% natural' line.

Also if this is the new basis for your argument I have another killing blow.

[quote]

Agricultural animals

You're seeming to insinuate that I said other animals *can't* be farmers of fungus or algae, etc. -- this is spurious argumentation on your part and seems really defensive, for whatever reason. It doesn't change the fact that human beings are the most *technologically superior* species, which seems to rankle you for some reason.

You're going off on a tangent -- initially your concern was with how we're currently evolving (biologically) as a part of the earth's ecosystem, and I answered.

No you said you where no longer at the mercy of the earths eco-system. This is 100% bullshit and I am calling you out on it. Until you can survive >without the earths Eco-system< you are very fucking simply at its mercy. Let me know when you can survive the vacuum of space without food or water and.... well you will no longer be clasified as an animal if you dont eat organic matter so yah... then you will have evolved past the classification of animal.

Until then you are just another animal. Sorry.

There's no need to be aggressive, and I don't appreciate it.

I laid-out a whole line of argumentation on-topic, which you're ignoring just so that you can rant on your own interpretation, and line of argumentation, on 'ecosystem'.

---

(No particular offspring will be 'fitter' for survival because we're not *dependent* on the natural, wild ecosystem -- we have farming and steady food supplies of our own that depend little, if at all, on their location within the larger scope of the natural environment, due to the use of irrigation, fertilizers, and pest control.)

When did Humans stop needing to breath and eat and drink water? Shit I am out of the fucking loop here. I am still breaking, eating and drinking water to survive. I am completely at the mercy of the eco-system. If earth where to be polluted I could very well find myself dead. I marvel at your ability to survive without an eco-system to provide you with clean breathable air; clean drinkable water; and food filled with nutrients able to sustain you.

You're missing the point -- 'not fitting' nature's ecosystem no longer means death and the inability to pass along one's genes to future generations, so natural selection is now moot for modern human society onwards.

---

I'm not disputing that human beings are animals.

Exept for all the things you say that try and fail to contradict that we are animals and just like them are at the mercy of the earths eco-system. Without it we could not survive. We would not be able to breath or eat and drink. Because you know... animals need food, water and air and the only place to get those things is the earth. Without the earths eco-system we would be dead... I mean did I even need to say that? When we leave this earth we will still need to take the eco-system with us because like the animals we are we rely on it competently. Even if we could produce air; water and food without the earth itself; we are just re,creating earths eco-system. We will still be at the mercy of it untill we no longer need the things it provides. Even if we can make them ourselfs we are still REQUIRED to have them.

(See my previous point.)

IbelieveInanarchy

16th December 2016, 22:15

interesting video relating to subjects here discussed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vuI34zyjqU

- - - Updated - - -

pastradamus

6th January 2017, 00:19

Staying out of the general debate here but to put my foot in the door and to reply to the OP. Human behavior has had a pretty big impact into human evolution. Human hands evolved to punch. We can do this more accurately and effectively than our relatives. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-human-fist-punching-evolution-males--20151021-story.html

ckaihatsu

10th February 2017, 13:31

AFFILIATE ACTION ALERT: Labor Convergence on Climate

https://can2-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/data/000/073/475/original/greentransition.jpg

All,

The climate change issue and our militarized foreign policy are inextricably linked. The Pentagon is the largest single consumer of fossil fuels, contributing 5% of the world’s global warming emissions. Few entire countries use more oil than the Pentagon does. As Michael Eisenscher has said, there is not such thing as a sustainable planet run by the military-industrial complex.

A new organization, The Labor Convergence on Climate, is being launched to bring together labor activists to fight the devastating effects of climate change and to ensure that the transition to a sustainable economy is not done at the expense of workers.

At last week’s USLAW Steering Committee conference call, we voted to endorse the Mission Statement of the Labor Convergence on Climate (attached.) (http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/2AA/ni0YAA/t.24p/2bI0GNwTQBKKUV2OLNlQTw/h2/WQ-2BlIwq7W2eCmkkcwbDiBbRqdXavHGxrFsLDlLdhol6ZhYn5agD HTvsx99YoKxhXDWBHOXgvwVrQKyeFwBPtJeEZf3bf1GB-2BbGJcqB2eKGeFi4tRPPxmgTQpI7v1IWAiS52BWHxwyi3vM0o5 oR4gsnpQhSPd2n90WvsUku1YHOvmI4iBL-2F8V2-2Bpl6r1KLOn0KmoY2ghkVe4oVf44-2Blw0bhDO7nd7witVq0awgdpTuZJsX-2Fki1PXbIAro9bck4OCkE5F0RnH37uHuuOcfX1eozixn7-2FS4ZbFdkKDPz8AfXH-2FiQinIdB3r65m139g3xApg7NgEP31zUC-2BbaZ48TzNNIUBogp7kbaJeCqUlCxgF0DN4boWcoMslKdYqN73 b7wlq0cpI-2Bgp7WqsyLrlAXs0luaeiGyDo98iWHQGjy4dKvS76-2BPa-2BHvSb7fpd7a6a2v39s6dJ2KfBCYCAnikCBR8BUTfImeKnwxW6 8QSW9MDrp-2BLjCeTiQxtp556uTLD57lGtPCycyLfOHYfa6ECjVbxiRg-3D-3D) Just as USLAW was formed to be the voice of labor within the peace movement and the voice for peace movement, we believe that the Labor Convergence on Climate can be the voice for workers within the climate justice movement and the voice for climate justice within the labor movement.

Our Steering Committee is asking all USLAW affiliates to do two things:

(1) Ask your union to endorse the Mission Statement of the Labor Convergence on Climate; and

(2) Join the conference call on Wednesday, February 15 that will launch the organizing plan for the Labor Convergence on Climate. See the link below this message.

USLAW Co-Convener John Braxton and I are both on the Steering Committee of the Labor Convergence on Climate. John will be taking the lead on the climate change work within USLAW. If you have questions or comments, please contact John at [email protected] or at 215/796-4933.

In Solidarity,
Reece Chenault
National Coordinator, USLAW

Your contribution will be greatly appreciated.

Donate (http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/2AA/ni0YAA/t.24p/2bI0GNwTQBKKUV2OLNlQTw/h3/WQ-2BlIwq7W2eCmkkcwbDiBSD9p4T6xn7Ql1kXw4yNstd5rKk1g5N jqGm8iXWobioI7EgYsisGwpKiGBTwN66yILfsWMRLCjlZYkEYn BSGFJ1lEmp9omMAvlykArEyZ0CSBnmCh7Vw32qxGJVyNUYbSpT AE-2FMAxModyPIcWG2r-2B9JuydQNlfuXQivPI48KSpkm-2B-2FFTilBFRTDbtoKZKC4Nm836Raf7GXl-2FMZG0jNEoJh3wqNSxvQgzoCdiJeTSDeICqYrDlb3e99qdyDnO zGff-2FpgA5dY6tveV7CknGxOm0yYnoijJh0CS3oNsjc-2FZfRtb2-2B1rFwRTi5OOPgCqkdavKxfv8lSFgbgWA9W8-2F-2FkiQVsnQtktbj4ptcVGWav4VOdCda7MNzo2DbKd7juZRQvObk pjVvQafshMe15KKuXwjxA-3D)

This is a low-volume email list operated by US Labor Against the War (http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/2AA/ni0YAA/t.24p/2bI0GNwTQBKKUV2OLNlQTw/h4/ZcQUeioteD4kF6Kj0IabgSykMhxVId6NZMGTcqd7mERfxC8Aft Ed2iDLuFCrnkjqtWDt02mQqfN31QwZEsOr5M55yl6-2Bq6DTcL22UdY46Y-2Bre7OVCYTFdDseLxAfSQbPgkP6BuSXYctVB4AeMPBKP4rh5WT gZ1k-2BEbdnLDgLjYMuKxIhNPrWzgJDHuuqwI7Qqju9-2FBu0m5jtWOe-2FvVUkciUvXVh-2BCVEAxAaSy0xOSwGzOjUPWd1VshGBJ9mWBduz1lhsIlbnQ4mo lsPf3fc-2B7EV0jNUhu2nIsLAivkPXB-2F8cSXdQNH-2Fjdu1IjaZYXoRNCHHmmJ6EPkPyNCS1pL2Rn1YoXxwBQ0vYhx3 TX3tkdsIeYvOT60Jrs25rt6xbElBH)

1718 M St, NW #153 | Washington DC 20036 | 202-521-5265 | Contact USLAW (http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/2AA/ni0YAA/t.24p/2bI0GNwTQBKKUV2OLNlQTw/h5/ZcQUeioteD4kF6Kj0IabgfHZ3h4LSZyNTMWUfhHLuaztoOqzEh TvEIXPiQb5XIpoFWgi8kaAvNrku1qQvnLMLXhM81-2BIlGKkbGEC-2FKG5-2BEjbF7uVB3RJxvN9LyjM6bOnARB-2BKd7sTTDzNeJyYyG8aYdS8kkgxIbV9YrjNlAelmVwX1-2F0-2FT2AHIN-2FK9me9wMmAL4hzgCXXpdTPabmgt1gZehCF9jsU6mePievhNAX 1hZzO-2BNAyYPv592w2gD389YMNReWMiujGH-2BJxS8CcKCJ1cdSmHWWMqbYv3-2FNVyE1t3sCSeqC7FuHJKjKyP2lkgNhPPJeOJ-2FM7exi-2BgepgPqPUeqsnHrMbdaMgVZONFeFfbkGZdNbIAm91JCIehUze rNsTZVaBdWXwM6HaUCuCFLrRQ-3D-3D)

Sent via ActionNetwork.org (http://click.actionnetwork.org/mpss/c/2AA/ni0YAA/t.24p/2bI0GNwTQBKKUV2OLNlQTw/h6/55uI0ZjpoLA9-2FYhqE-2F4Eitwb7nFGaBM-2BttuyqSTdMS4-3D). To update your email address or to stop receiving emails from U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW), please click here.