Has Nature simply finally pushed life too far?

[Angstrom]

What makes you think we have won?

Well we haven't yet, that I'm not denying. But I think the potential too is definitely there.

 

[Ludlow]

So maybe things are exactly how they should be, and things are the way they are for a good reason, one that we don't always fully realize. And this ultra progressiveness is just a little bit of silliness by people who haven't got a understanding of the full picture.

In my opinion the fact that we have profited by conflicts isn't necessarily an indication that conflicts area positive thing. More so probably an indication of our immaturity as a species. I've often thought that it wasn't always this way. Perhaps tens of thousands of years ago before religion, philosophy, weapons of war, ways of commerce and trade and many other things, peace was the norm and tribal skirmishes were rare. But who knows unless you have a time machine.

 

[Angstrom]

In my opinion the fact that we have profited by conflicts isn't necessarily an indication that conflicts area positive thing. More so probably an indication of our immaturity as a species. I've often thought that it wasn't always this way. Perhaps tens of thousands of years ago before religion, philosophy, weapons of war, ways of commerce and trade and many other things, peace was the norm and tribal skirmishes were rare. But who knows unless you have a time machine.

Well when resources were so abundant, Why would we need to fight for anything?
I feel like your not looking at the relativity of those times.


Animals are shown to be very territorial. The same way humans are with our country's.

 

[petros]

If the univers is constantly killing the weak. And only the strong continue. Is it not natural that eventually something will become to strong for the univers? It's the only posible conclusion is it not?

Darwin's theory is flawed. It's not the strongest who thrive and weak that die off, it is the most adaptable of both the strong and the weak who carry a species forward.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Darwin's theory is flawed. It's not the strongest who thrive and weak that die off, it is the most adaptable of both the strong and the weak who carry a species forward.

So, how do you define "strong" or "weak" in that context? Aren't the survivors inherently the strong by definition? Our subjective biases of what we consider to be weak or strong are quite irrelevant.

 

[Ludlow]

Well when resources were so abundant, Why would we need to fight for anything?
I feel like your not looking at the relativity of those times.


Animals are shown to be very territorial. The same way humans are with our country's.

Have you ever wondered what the world would have been like, if everyone would have just stayed where they were and not felt the need to divide and conquer?

 

[Angstrom]

Darwin's theory is flawed. It's not the strongest who thrive and weak that die off, it is the most adaptable of both the strong and the weak who carry a species forward.

Ok, and even if it is. The result is still growth towards being stronger against the harshness of the environment.

Have you ever wondered what the world would have been like, if everyone would have just stayed where they were and not felt the need to divide and conquer?

Such a static world doesn't exist, your not factoring the relitive natural population growth against our limited space on earth.

So, how do you define "strong" or "weak" in that context? Aren't the survivors inherently the strong by definition? Our subjective biases of what we consider to be weak or strong are quite irrelevant.

Strong as in, able to cope and survive our environment, and have many offspring.
Weak as in, unable to cope, and survive our environment and doesn't have any offspring.

 

[MHz]

There are reasons Nature is called Mother

Father would be a falling stars then. Mother earth is the full term.

 

[Ron in Regina]

...Strong as in, able to cope and survive our environment, and have many offspring.
Weak as in, unable to cope, and survive our environment and doesn't have any offspring.

I believe the word you're looking for is "adaptable."

Believe it or not; you, Petros, & myself might be on the
same page here. The biggest and strongest aren't
always the most adaptable, but there is strength
in adaptability.

In a windstorm the oak falls where the willow bends.
Is the willow bigger or stronger than the oak?

 

[Angstrom]

I believe the word you're looking for is "adaptable."

Believe it or not; you, Petros, & myself might be on the
same page here. The biggest and strongest aren't
always the most adaptable, but there is strength
in adaptability.

In a windstorm the oak falls where the willow bends.
Is the willow bigger or stronger than the oak?

Yes, we are on the same page.

Adaptability is a strength .

 

[Ludlow]

I was recalling the documentary I watched on Public television years ago. It was about the effect of stress on society and individuals. The biologist conducting the study went to Africa to observe Baboon colonies. In the colonies you had this hierarchy where the alpha males pretty much dictated everything that happened in the colony. You had the alpha males, the weaker males and the females. The intimidation factor of the alpha males was enormous and tests were done on the docile weaker males and the females. Heart disease, hypertension, diabetes and cancer were prevalent in much of the colonies docile males and females. But what happened and was interesting was that there was a human settlement near by that had closed shop and moved on but left food supplies that the baboons soon found. Tuberculosis from the settlement infected primarily the Alpha males and they died. It wasn't long after that the docile males and females began to start feeling better. Tests were soon done and they were recovering from the diseases that the stress they were under was causing. It wasn't long that the remaining colony was healthy and doing well without the bastard alpha males making their lives miserable. The documentary was called "Stress the silent killer". It was a PBS production if anyone is interested I'm sure it can be found on the net. Interesting study and for me a telling lesson on society as we know it.

 

[Angstrom]

I was recalling the documentary I watched on Public television years ago. It was about the effect of stress on society and individuals. The biologist conducting the study went to Africa to observe Baboon colonies. In the colonies you had this hierarchy where the alpha males pretty much dictated everything that happened in the colony. You had the alpha males, the weaker males and the females. The intimidation factor of the alpha males was enormous and tests were done on the docile weaker males and the females. Heart disease, hypertension, diabetes and cancer were prevalent in much of the colonies docile males and females. But what happened and was interesting was that there was a human settlement near by that had closed shop and moved on but left food supplies that the baboons soon found. Tuberculosis from the settlement infected primarily the Alpha males and they died. It wasn't long after that the docile males and females began to start feeling better. Tests were soon done and they were recovering from the diseases that the stress they were under was causing. It wasn't long that the remaining colony was healthy and doing well without the bastard alpha males making their lives miserable. The documentary was called "Stress the silent killer". It was a PBS production if anyone is interested I'm sure it can be found on the net. Interesting study and for me a telling lesson on society as we know it.

Sure, but if a predator shows up and kills the whole group because there is no Alpha male to defend the tribe are they better off? Your trying to single out one fact to back up your belief, but ignoring all other relative factors in the equation. Life doesn't live in a vacuum in space like that, of a single possibility. You can't cherry pick because life is more dynamic then that. There are many layers.

It's like saying fluoride in tooth past is bad for your teeth and your health. I'd say, yes I agree with you, but then I'd reply, bacteria that cause gingivitis are worst for your oral health then the 2% fluoride in tooth past that makes your mouth a unfriendly environment to those bacteria.

See how I just used critical thinking to establish relativity.

So meanwhile many tin foil hatters on the Internet have made fluoride part of this massive conspiracy theory, saying it's very bad for you. And in some sense they are right. It's a fact, fluoride is not good, it's a pesticide. But what they don't seem to understand is that everything is relative. In every case, bacteria in your mouth is worst then 2% fluoride.

Try to think in a more relative way. I notice you have a hard time with that.

 

[Ludlow]

Sure, but if a predator shows up and kills the whole group because there is no Alpha male to defend the tribe are they better off? Your trying to single out one fact to back up your belief, but ignoring all other relative factors in the equation. Life doesn't live in a vacuum in space like that, of a single possibility. You can't cherry pick because life is more dynamic then that. There are many layers.

It's like saying fluoride in tooth past is bad for your teeth and your health. I'd say, yes I agree with you, but then I'd reply, bacteria that cause gingivitis are worst for your oral health then the 2% fluoride in tooth past that makes your mouth a unfriendly environment to those bacteria.

See how I just used critical thinking to establish relativity.

So meanwhile many tin foil hatters on the Internet have made fluoride part of this massive conspiracy theory, saying it's very bad for you. And in some sense they are right. It's a fact, fluoride is not good, it's a pesticide. But what they don't seem to understand is that everything is relative. In every case, bacteria in your mouth is worst then 2% fluoride.

Try to think in a more relative way. I notice you have a hard time with that.

We live in a society, a fukked up society, dominated by males. That is the way I think and it is relative to the way things have always been since the Axial age. You see things through a tunnel and disregard what is outside of that tunnel. You cannot see past your perspective. I notice you have a hard time with that. But you're a mule headed wood worker so I understand.

 

[Angstrom]

We live in a society, a fukked up society, dominated by males. That is the way I think and it is relative to the way things have always been since the Axial age. You see things through a tunnel and disregard what is outside of that tunnel. You cannot see past your perspective. I notice you have a hard time with that. But you're a mule headed wood worker so I understand.

Well I saw your perspective and replied a silent slow killers is irrelevant if you have no protection from a predator that can wipe out the whole clan.

When you come up with a good perspective I'll be the first to admit it. I'll say. That's smart. I had not thought about that.

That's why the society is dominated by males. The evil brought by the males is a of lesser consequences then the instant death from predators the males are protecting you from.

 

[Ludlow]

Well I saw your perspective and replied a silent slow killers is irrelevant if you have no protection from a predator that can wipe out the whole clan.

When you come up with a good perspective I'll be the first to admit it. I'll say. That's smart. I had not thought about that.

That's why the society is dominated by males. The evil brought by the males is a of lesser consequences then the instant death from predators the males are protecting you from.

You all speak of adaptation. The first adaptation of that particular colony was to heal. I'm sure the docile males and the females will also adapt to anything else they need to including the threat of predators. The alternative is to continue to live under stress and die of multiple diseases cause by stress. The elimination of that stress is a quantum leap toward evolving into the next phase of existence.

 

[Angstrom]

That's like saying sociaty would be better without police. Yes maybe. Until everyone starts killing each other and running people over with their cars.

 

[Ludlow]

That's like saying sociaty would be better without police. Yes maybe. Until everyone starts killing each other and running people over with their cars.

Maybe one day the hopes of many will be realized and the need for protection from each other will be obsolete. Realistic ? No, not today. But little by little eyes are being opened to the things that plague us. We start with "each other".

 

[Angstrom]

You all speak of adaptation. The first adaptation of that particular colony was to heal. I'm sure the docile males and the females will also adapt to anything else they need to including the threat of predators. The alternative is to continue to live under stress and die of multiple diseases cause by stress. The elimination of that stress is a quantum leap toward evolving into the next phase of existence.

Billions of years of evolution doesn't agree with you. Why would we evolve to naturally have a Alpha male, if that didn't give our tribes the best chance at survival?

 

[Ludlow]

Hate to be the one to tell you but humanity is not that old. And the existence of alpha males is far from natural unless you consider fear, intimidation , war and disease to be natural.

 

[Angstrom]

Maybe one day the hopes of many will be realized and the need for protection from each other will be obsolete. Realistic ? No, not today. But little by little eyes are being opened to the things that plague us. We start with "each other".

We are very very far away from such a accomplishment. There is no more then 1% of the world population who has achieved that in the present.

Hate to be the one to tell you but humanity is not that old. And the existence of alpha males is far from natural unless you consider fear, intimidation , war and disease to be natural.

Yes I do.