The Human Anomaly

[MKS]

It is a opinion of mine that the existence of modern humanity is a scientific anomaly. The evolution of man has created an animal that does not fit into any natural law or structre, due to the adnmormal amount of intellegence and reasoning the modern human is now a parasite of nature rather than a contributing member.

It is the scientific anomaly that has allowed such a growth and created an animal or being that works towards earths destruction, and there own destruction. Which contradicts other models of natural structre. All animals fit into a system that when left "untouched" acts in equilibrium, however man, does not fit into such systems, voluntarily they act outside such systems.

Is this theory incorrect?

[enigma2517]

A.) Humans were not always destructive to the Earth

B.) They might not always be (lets hope comrade :) )

We contribute the balance of the earth too, even right now (believe it or not). For instance, overpopulation of animals like deer and uhhhh white rhinos. Haha just kidding. But no I don't think things are so black and white as you state them.

[enigma2517]

Nice avatar by the way ;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is a opinion of mine that the existence of modern humanity is a scientific anomaly. The evolution of man has created an animal that does not fit into any natural law or structre, due to the adnmormal amount of intellegence and reasoning the modern human is now a parasite of nature rather than a contributing member.

What's wrong with being a parasite? The negative connotation is simply by virtue of the fact that humans themselves are subject to parasites, and as such we have contempt for them. Parasitism is a great way to live, so long as you aren't living off your fellow species.

Humans have always been 'destructive' of the planet. Even when we were hunter-gatherers, we picked clean the ares we passed through and overhunted many animals. Then in the iron age up to the present we have been engaging in extensive deforestation. We have already significantly changed the character of the Earth and life on it.

Besides, the term 'destruction' is misleading and dishonest, to say the least. It's how primitivists guilt you into joining their cult, and how wackos like Greenpeace get their funding. We never destroy nature, since we ourselves are a part of it, but are constantly changing it, usually for our own benefit.

We will always change nature. One day Siberia will be a breadbasket, thanks to either genetic engineering or the construction of vast orbital mirrors that reflect sunlight onto the area. That's if the eco-freaks don't guilt us into starving to death.

[MKS]

Besides, the term 'destruction' is misleading and dishonest, to say the least. It's how primitivists guilt you into joining their cult, and how wackos like Greenpeace get their funding. We never destroy nature, since we ourselves are a part of it, but are constantly changing it, usually for our own benefit.

Who says nature should be changed? My argument is that the development of the human; its capacity for reasoning, mathematics, science, logic etc. is a scientfifc anomaly, an anomaly that has created an animal capable of destruction, and through many examples, is living up to that capability.

My reasoining for this argument stems from an understanding of the equality of nature; that is to say, that most animal groups or ecosystems exist in a fine balance that allows for the survival of the natural system. Becuase of humans zealotry of comsumption whole species have been either wiped out, or dramaticaly reduced, as well as, some natural levels of population have been disrupted. (for example White taled deer in N.America)

The anomaly of the human condition is not nessecarily a bad thing, as stated before humans have an incredible capacity to reason and use logic, therfore it is totaly within the realm of possibilty for humans to act responsibly in regards to ecological decisions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Who says nature should be changed? My argument is that the development of the human; its capacity for reasoning, mathematics, science, logic etc. is a scientfifc anomaly, an anomaly that has created an animal capable of destruction, and through many examples, is living up to that capability.

Agreed. But just an anomaly.


My reasoining for this argument stems from an understanding of the equality of nature; that is to say, that most animal groups or ecosystems exist in a fine balance that allows for the survival of the natural system. Becuase of humans zealotry of comsumption whole species have been either wiped out, or dramaticaly reduced, as well as, some natural levels of population have been disrupted. (for example White taled deer in N.America)

Evolution in action.



The anomaly of the human condition is not nessecarily a bad thing, as stated before humans have an incredible capacity to reason and use logic, therfore it is totaly within the realm of possibilty for humans to act responsibly in regards to ecological decisions.

Agreed.

[Nirvus System]

I was reading an article yesterday discussing a professor, I can't remember his name, but he has a theory on AI.

He believes that it is human destiny to create artificial intelligence, a almost god-like being, to overthrow the human race. He sees it as our duty to fall to this technology - or in your case the 'anomaly'.

[Che NJ]

It is wrong to say that humans go against nature or desrtoy the natural system, after all we are products of the system. All species strive to do what we do, but we just have the evolutionary advantages to do it. Our large brain has given us the mental power to make things best for our selves and eliminate all of our major competitors(every hominid that wasn't us). What we are doing is natural, it just isn't healthy for the rest of our enviornment.

[MKS]

Our large brain has given us the mental power to make things best for our selves and eliminate all of our major competitors(every hominid that wasn't us). What we are doing is natural, it just isn't healthy for the rest of our enviornment

Our growth or evolution is an anomaly, what we are doing is natural, just like parasites are natural.

Again the anomaly is neither good nor bad, its effects are though.

[The Apathetic Atheist]

I think about this all of the time, how humans are so different from other species. How is it that humans have risen from humble beginning to this? Communicating with people all over the globe instantly with a diverse and useful language. Poetry? Art? Nations? There goes not one day that I marvel at it. With such significant and unique abilities, it is hard to convince people that we really do not have an ultimate or meaningful purpose.

[MKS]

With such significant and unique abilities, it is hard to convince people that we really do not have an ultimate or meaningful purpose.

We dont have a meaniingful purpose, we are beings who dont belong in natue anymore, so much so we have begun to destroy it.

[socialistfuture]

we never had a meaningful purpose just that which different people created and other accepted. myths and legens became religions and cultures.
we havent always been hunters, the gathering and nuture side has been there as well. it is christianity which really tippied the balance in terms of us thinking we have a mandate to rule and mold the planet to our liking with 'god's' consent. personally i never seen the dude.
in pagan times there were spirits that guarded trees and lakes and so on. that bond was broken when priests destroyed it

[encephalon]

It is a opinion of mine that the existence of modern humanity is a scientific anomaly. The evolution of man has created an animal that does not fit into any natural law or structre, due to the adnmormal amount of intellegence and reasoning the modern human is now a parasite of nature rather than a contributing member.

It is the scientific anomaly that has allowed such a growth and created an animal or being that works towards earths destruction, and there own destruction. Which contradicts other models of natural structre. All animals fit into a system that when left "untouched" acts in equilibrium, however man, does not fit into such systems, voluntarily they act outside such systems.

Is this theory incorrect?

It is incorrect. All animals do not fit into a system of equilibrium.. in fact, most animals destroy the very environment they depend upon. Rabbits, for instance: without predators, they breed.. well, like rabbits, and soon expend their entire food source. Then a bunch of rabbits die. Soon, there's enough food for the survivors, and the process repeats. Almost every animal has followed this pattern of overconsumption/underconsumption, humanity included.. especially since we no longer have any natural predators. We arethe natural predators.

We aren't so unlike the rest of the animal kingdom as people tend to believe.. it's almost impossible to really say what makes us uniquely human without ignoring facts about some other animals. The scientific community once regarded the ability to cultivate crops and herd animals as uniquely human, but as it turns out even ants do this. Colonies cultivate a certain mold as a food source, and take care of a particular kind of Aphid (that is, feed it and make sure it isn't killed), the droppings of which promote the growth of the mold. It really boils down to no more than a symbiotic relationship. We aren't any different.

We create houses, so do insects. We manufacture chemicals, so do bees. Most primates have compassion (and probably most mammals), as well, although perhaps only for their own species. The only thing I can think of that really separates humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom is the complexity of our communication, which is how we're able to coordinate large scale efforts other animals seem to have been unable to accomplish. And I'm sure that if we wait long enough, we'll find that our language isn't as special as we believe it to be now.

[Commie Rat]

or maybe we fit into the equribillum, the animals we kill are made up by our numbers, there are always dominate preadtory species

we may be all part of it whilst thinking we are not - chaos is order that is unseen

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 11:38 PM
For instance, overpopulation of animals like deer and uhhhh white rhinos. Haha just kidding. But no I don't think things are so black and white as you state them.
:D Just to point out, deers are largely overpopulated because we have killed their predators, like wolves for example.

[socialistfuture]

it could be argued that the equilibrium for man is either the weapons he creates to kill himself with or nature who does it to curb his numbers (eg the tsunami). while the second is a rather bleak view it is possible. depends wether u believe in the gaia theory and so on.

does fate exist? is their gods? in what form would they take. or is everything part of chaos.

does a law exist as long as u will it to?

man certainly is a strange creature. he is very physical and likes to think also interlectual. but he still hasnt worked out a lot of things.

[Commie Rat]

fate is the 'random' but enevitable pattern of molecular movements

Chaos is Order that Cannot be seen

what we think is a random occurence is really some thing that was set into motion years ago by a sneeze a kick a footstep a laugh

[Rural_Communalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 08:34 AM

It is a opinion of mine that the existence of modern humanity is a scientific anomaly. The evolution of man has created an animal that does not fit into any natural law or structre, due to the adnmormal amount of intellegence and reasoning the modern human is now a parasite of nature rather than a contributing member.

What's wrong with being a parasite? The negative connotation is simply by virtue of the fact that humans themselves are subject to parasites, and as such we have contempt for them. Parasitism is a great way to live, so long as you aren't living off your fellow species.
How is it different being a parasite off another species as opposed to being a parasite off the same species? How is the connotation any different?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Isn't it obvious? Living off your own kind tends to make you unpopular with your own kind.

[A_True_Anarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 12:39 PM
Isn't it obvious? Living off your own kind tends to make you unpopular with your own kind.
So life is a popularity contest? Parasites are unpopular with us. If that is all you have to back up that argument, I suggest you re-evaluate it. If you're alive who cares if your popular provided you have a mate. That's all most people want out of life.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So life is a popularity contest?

Well yes. Obviously it's hard to get things done when people are trying to kill you for being a parasite.


Parasites are unpopular with us. If that is all you have to back up that argument, I suggest you re-evaluate it.

Why? It's true isn't it? If you disagree, share a night in with a pond full of mosquitoes.


If you're alive who cares if your popular provided you have a mate. That's all most people want out of life.

Parasitic behaviour does not tend to engender friendship.

[Vallegrande]

From a parasitical point of view, I think there will be human dominance until there is no more resources to suck off of. Like the dinosaurs, they sucked everything dry as well.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 05:24 AM
From a parasitical point of view, I think there will be human dominance until there is no more resources to suck off of. Like the dinosaurs, they sucked everything dry as well.
While there is no evidence to suggest so, there is no evidence to rule out there was a dinosauroid civilisation, limiting it to speculation.

Mother nature has killed more species than we can ever dream of. Some mother.