Living beyond our means: second earth needed

[DeepIron]

Originally Posted by August

My response to Clarke would be to ask just how long we as a species would have survived without that intelligence, and while I opposed the bailout, I don't really get the connection between that and an oil company's quarterly profit.

In answering your first observation, consider the shark. A fish that has existed for millions of years virtually unchanged. How much intelligence does a shark have? I would say enough to survive the "natural conditions" with.
Now one might argue about the "quality of life" that a shark enjoys, or how many technological achievements the shark family has created, or that it's "Not Intelligent" when compared to Homo Sapiens. But that's moot. The shark is a survivor none the less because it is well suited to it's environment...

The only animal that seeks to change it's environment is Man... And by the looks of things, it's not going along too well...

As for the second: The connection is that I feel I've been screwed in both instances. Concerning Exxon, I've paid much higher prices at the pump while their percentage of profit skyrocketed. In the second, while perhaps not technically a "percentage" figure, I see the bailout as a vehicle whereby someone else will profit by screwing me, and I'm sure a huge number of Americans, over for their personal gain...

[August]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

In answering your first observation, consider the shark. A fish that has existed for millions of years virtually unchanged. How much intelligence does a shark have? I would say enough to survive the "natural conditions" with.
Now one might argue about the "quality of life" that a shark enjoys, or how many technological achievements the shark family has created, or that it's "Not Intelligent" when compared to Homo Sapiens. But that's moot. The shark is a survivor none the less because it is well suited to it's environment...

You are correct of course but we aren't sharks. Our bodies aren't nearly as suited to our environment as theirs are to their environment. We rely on our intelligence to make up for the specialization that our bodies lack, to clothe, feed and shelter ourselves, not to mention defend ourselves against large predators. Had we not we'd quickly have gone the way of the dodo bird.

[DeepIron]

Originally Posted by August

You are correct of course but we aren't sharks. Our bodies aren't nearly as suited to our environment as theirs are to their environment. We rely on our intelligence to make up for the specialization that our bodies lack, to clothe, feed and shelter ourselves, not to mention defend ourselves against large predators. Had we not we'd quickly have gone the way of the dodo bird.

And I agree, we have relied upon our intelligence to make up to the lack of "natural ablility" we would have needed to survive otherwise. Thinking in Darwinistic terms, our intelligence has made us the dominant species on the planet by dint of our evolution of the brain... We subjugate everything that confronts or opposes us by sheer intellect and willpower.

Here's the catch, where has this application of intelligence led us to? Certainly, Man's ability to make fire, flint tools and stone weapons and engaging in primitive agriculture would have little effect on the earth in millenia past. Man's early populations would have been a trifle to support in a natural ecosystem. But, it just wasn't enough... Man wanted more...

So, in the long run, has Man's "superior intellect" saved him from inevitable extinction? Taking the current state of affairs (social, political, ecological) at face value (for there are many arguments one might raise for and against) my position is no. We're merely prolonging the inevitable.

I love reading Douglas Adams: "Human beings, who are unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."

[baggygreen]

You know what you 2 are forgetting during the whole discussion is that sharks have had literally millions of years to perfect themselves.

Homo Sapiens has had what, 150,000 at the outside?

Now, if we had not, for example, learnt to dress warmly or control fire, we would've stayed in the warmer areas. The regions which suited us, comparable to a shark staying in water which is the 'region' which suits it. We'd probably be still around without "intelligence", but we'd be simply another type of great ape.

There is no proof on the other hand that "intelligence" will be our demise. Sure, we've created weapons that can do this, etc, but we haven't done it. There is every possibility that we have attained in Homo Sapiens the pinnacle of evolutionary development, and that we as a species will continue indefinately.

Pragmatically speaking, Homo Sapiens must eventually die out. Almost every single species has. Perhaps a new genus (is that the right word, I can't remember) of human will emerge, perhaps not. but nothing is eternal! (please don't open the religion can of worms there)

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

You know what you 2 are forgetting during the whole discussion is that sharks have had literally millions of years to perfect themselves.

Not really. Their design has not changed since millions of years. It reached perfection relatively early on. They are one of the most well-adapted to their environment lifeforms on this planet.

[August]

Well given the fact that our sun will eventually burn out it's pretty safe to say that any earth bound species will not survive it. Man however, thanks to his intelligence, does have a chance. A chance that say the shark just doesn't have.

[Skybird]

I cannot share your optimism, Baggy. We are are a test run of a blueprint very young in age, and despite our young age we managed to manouver ourselves already into a dead end. That does not sound very promising. Also, evolution is not a strictly linear process so that at any given time there is always the best of all designs so far created on display. Evolution does not have a goal, it just adds new stuff and deletes other stuff, and sometimes it is good stuff getting deleted and bad stuff added, and you certainly have samples of design studies from very different eons of earth'S history of life living simultaneously on this planet, like sharks and crocodiles and dragonflies and jellyfish living together with youngster like maritime mammals, and talking apes on land.

Man should really stop thinking of hoimself as a "crown of evolution". We are one sample amongst others. If we would understand that, maybe we would learn the modesty to save ourselves from extinction and stop messing up our life's environmental basis. Last but not least we are raping the planet becasue we think we have the right to do so: the right of the master of the house, the crown of evolution, the superior. If we are that superior I am wondering why we have so many existentially threatening problems now, all self-made. Is that a sign of intelligence? Or more a sign of a certain mental deadlock, a mental handicap that prevents true intelligence?

[DeepIron]

You know what you 2 are forgetting during the whole discussion is that sharks have had literally millions of years to perfect themselves. Homo Sapiens has had what, 150,000 at the outside?

As a rejoiner to your observation, I must point out as well that sharks didn't try and manipulate their environment either during any of their evolution. So, was the further evolution of brain capacity, hence the development of "higher intelligence" in sharks effectively halted because they were able to strike a harmonious balance with their natural surroundings and did not require more intelligence? Something Man has not been able to do thus far...

Well given the fact that our sun will eventually burn out it's pretty safe to say that any earth bound species will not survive it. Man however, thanks to his intelligence, does have a chance. A chance that say the shark just doesn't have.

Again, true enough IF Mankind can survive his own folly...

[Skybird]

Who said that higher intelligence is a goal of evolution? Homo Sapiens' current status gives the opposite argument: that tool-based intelligence prevents ongoing evolutionary developement due to premature exitus. Sharks are not thta intelligent, but have an excellent sensor suit to react to chnages in their environment automatically (by reflex). 400 million years of history are a strong aergument that sharks are the more successful design. they did not get wiped out before man starting to wipe out himself by destroying his living basis (a symptom of it being that he wipes out the sharks).

[August]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

As a rejoiner to your observation, I must point out as well that sharks didn't try and manipulate their environment either during any of their evolution. So, was the further evolution of brain capacity, hence the development of "higher intelligence" in sharks effectively halted because they were able to strike a harmonious balance with their natural surroundings and did not require more intelligence? Something Man has not been able to do thus far...

Again, true enough IF Mankind can survive his own folly...

Of course. But the chance still exists nonetheless in spite of Clarkes negative attitude...

[baggygreen]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

As a rejoiner to your observation, I must point out as well that sharks didn't try and manipulate their environment either during any of their evolution. So, was the further evolution of brain capacity, hence the development of "higher intelligence" in sharks effectively halted because they were able to strike a harmonious balance with their natural surroundings and did not require more intelligence? Something Man has not been able to do thus far...

Its interesting to speculate

Suppose man had stayed in africa rather than migrate to Europe and Asia. When the European and Asian explorers started visiting africa, they found things primitive. However, this primitive lifestyle worked. It worked wonderfully well, according to the study I've done.

We can argue that had man stayed in Africa then the development of higher intelligence would have stopped just as the shark's has. In which case, if humans were to wipe themselves out, we need to blame whatever it was that caused the earliest people to migrate!

On a similar but different note, I wish I knew just what made our brains work differently to those of the great apes.. just to see where the difference lies!

[kiwi_2005]

Just last night i watch on NZ 20/20 current affairs of groups in NZ who believe survival of the fitness is just around the corner, in a few years according to them. They went out and spent a few days with these people filming them acting out mock battles in the bush, living off the land getting ready for the 'End of Days' drama etc., Their were two grps in different parts of NZ with the same motive - survival. The more camo wearing gun toting with a bit of right wing beliefs to go with it totally failed in the survival code in my books.

1. When hunting a pig they missed 3 times before they got it and when they did kill it, it fell down a gully where they couldn't reach it as it was to difficult for them, so that night they went without dinner .
2. Next day they're all hungry so they go off to retrieve the pig by the time they reached it they were all huffing and puffing their lungs out even though the hill they climbed didn't look all that to difficult.
3. They were all overweight. Well that might help them not starve to sooner.
4. If they had it there way they would round up all the politians and give them a trial if found guilty they would hang them all!
5. They had no form of proper shelter, tents was the answer.


The 2nd grp looked like the kind i would want to side with if had too.
They weren't gun toting idiots but they owned guns and only would use them as a last resort. They weren't out to behead the politicians or point the finger at anyone who wasn't on their side. Their livestyle was on farming the land way out in the bush, they had their own animals/veges good shelter and far away from cities as they believe city folks will bear the burden with innocents mudered over food. When a major disaster hits, cities have only 3 days food after that its an eye for an eye. The leader of this group came to New Zealand from Sweden with his family has a good education a professor in science head pretty much screw on, with the purpose to set up a survival kind of livestyle here and any other who wanted to joinup and just live of the land. Pretty simple but most likely the ones that will survive.

[DeepIron]

Suppose man had stayed in Africa rather than migrate to Europe and Asia. When the European and Asian explorers started visiting Africa, they found things primitive. However, this primitive lifestyle worked. It worked wonderfully well, according to the study I've done.

Precisely, the system worked. AND, we could say it was working fairly well as those groups in Africa had potentially longer to "perfect" their cohabitation with nature. As well, the "higher" achievements of intelligence, say of writing (of a sort), art and music were in fact evident with these "primitive' people. I say this because Man would have needed the leisure time to develop non-essential skills, those skills unrelated to surviving day to day. Intelligence, in proper application and balance to nature worked... I guess the point I'm trying to convey is that these people didn't have to "over think" their lifestyles and could live full lives in harmony with the natural world.

We can argue that had man stayed in Africa then the development of higher intelligence would have stopped just as the shark's has.

That really is a tough question. Personally, I think one of the strongest urges in Mankind is that of population. It seems to me that eventually the pressures of an over-populated area would drive men to seek other lands. Devastating climatic changes, famines and disease would also figure in. So, movement is inevitable. Movement would have necessitated an application of more intelligence to cope and survive in areas that were not part of their normal surroundings.

An interesting question to consider as we still find "primitive" people around the planet who have satisfactorily survived the ages. What they seem to have trouble with is the encroachment of modern, enlightened men!

I love these kinds of predictions, where 'if we continue on the current trend then in a minimum of 20 years, all is doomed'. Nonsense. Absolutely, and utter nonsense. How many people can predict 2012 accurately, let alone 2030. Technology and the free market assure you that there will never let the world, or at least the west, go completely to hell.

To quote Cheney "there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

The only concern I have about the future of the world is the final category. It's the stuff no one seems coming that will spell doom for humans, none of this, oh blah blah on current trends impending doom stock up on survival gear blah blah.


(And if the **** REALLY goes downhill, as long as they don't nuke where I live, I can't imagine ever going hungry or without shelter. You'd have to have lived in the city all your life, and become so grossly deformed through weight or injury as to be unable to do much for yourself in the first place to die here.)

[Rockstar]

Why waste your breath talking about evolutionary trends. Humanity is over, mankind is on the way out. Have you forgot there is nothing we can do to stop global warming. Go rob a bank it doesn't matter anymore. The planets surface temperatures are rising, polar ice caps are melting, forest fires, sea levels rising, lands disappearing.

Don't you know nobody can stop global warming now. The consensus has long been known, we are all doomed! Doomed I say HAHAHAHAHA. yes doomed HEHEHEHEHE HAHAHAHAHHA POO POO