"Let nature take it course" Mentality is completely bullshit (Class Discussion)

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Natural selection brought humanity to a point, then it stopped and no longer applies. We trivialized the survival problem and shattered homeostasis. I'm not saying God set us apart, I'm saying we set us apart.

Of course natural selection applies, and just as much as it always has. The mentally ill who struggle with daily life are being selected against. The capacity for a country to not destroy itself is being selected against. The person who is simply more handsome and has children versus the poor sap who everyone knows won't reproduce is being selected against.

Just because the selection process now includes doctors and industrial farmers doesn't mean it doesn't apply anymore but rather it exists now with new selectors in addition to those made by nature. In some regards natural selection is unnaturally more selective today than it was millions of years ago.

Edit: An example of why natural selection is more selective now than in the past. Prior to mass civilization a person only had to succeed within the confines of the laws of nature to prosper but today a person not only has to meet the basic standards of natural health but also be able to succeed in the context of the meritocracy that civilization has imposed. Meaning if a person is unwilling or able to succeed within the context of their society it won't matter if they are healthy by nature's standards they will be selected against.

"

SpanishMonarch wrote:

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

Total loss of thermodynamic free energy does not imply non-existence of the universe. It will just get really really boring by that point.


Viruses simply reproduce their genetic code like all other instances of self propagating genetic code, although they typically do so in a parasitic fashion. I don't see how that has any relationship to the heat death of the universe.


I don't think sol is trolling here actually, just getting emotions mixed up with morality.

The heat death of the universe is contrary to Boem's claim that nature is in some sort of harmony and neutrality. His statement as I read it was implying that viruses are just part of the ecosystem and will naturally come and go because nature will adjust, as if nature is a monolithic and eternal force. I am suggesting that this isn't the case. How is this unrelated?

"Heat death" implies there is no new source of energy, when we know that the universe is not only expanding, but that expansion is accelerating. We have no clue yet what over 90% of the universe is comprised of - we just have the labels "dark matter" (1/4+) and "dark energy" (2/3+).

As for the scenario in the opening post - since society has decided it will no longer accept a single source of moral governing, then everything depends on personal whimsy. As we sow, so shall we reap.

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Natural selection brought humanity to a point, then it stopped and no longer applies. We trivialized the survival problem and shattered homeostasis. I'm not saying God set us apart, I'm saying we set us apart.

Of course natural selection applies, and just as much as it always has. The mentally ill who struggle with daily life are being selected against. The capacity for a country to not destroy itself is being selected against. The person who is simply more handsome and has children versus the poor sap who everyone knows won't reproduce is being selected against.

Is it?

Syria is a country currently destroying itself. Is civilization working to destroy its citizens, or rescue them?

The successful people versus the trailer trash - which group do you think breeds more? Remember, every unplanned pregnancy which lives long enough to reproduce is a Darwinian success.

My son has autism. If we were living in Roman times he'd probably already be dead. But we're more civilized than that - he might even have kids someday.

I'm not trying to say that natural selection isn't trying. It doesn't know how to stop trying, really. But make no mistake about what side civilization is on.

Oh, and thinking that life is more difficult in modern society than it was in times gone by... bitch please.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

bitch please.

lol


Fair points but yeah it's more complex. There are more forces acting as selectors thn back when all we had to do was not get eaten and remember where/when food was. There's a reason why gorillas or other intelligent species might never get integrated into our society but thrive in it's absence.

It's easier to use a stick to dig for termites and figure out how to use a log to get to your favorite nut if you're a chimp then it is to be a human child having to learn a language, it's role in society then work for a living while following all the rules and advances in technology etc. At each stage in that humans life a selection occurs, winners/losers and in betweeners are picked. The human animal, if you will, did not have those additional unnatural selectors acting against their development.

Edit: It is a bit counter intuitive to think life has actually become harder the more humans have progressed but I think you're confusing the ease of accessing resources with the ability to understand and use them, the later two things acting as additional selector forces artificial and specific to human society. For example if a human is simply incapable of understanding or performing the actions necessary to feed themselves by gaining currency and purchasing/cooking food they will be completely reliant on someone who does know and is willing to share with them.

Edit 2: I'm not talking about a person with a disability in the above edit example but rather if someone were to be dropped in the middle of tokyo for example and had no idea how to use/get currency or how to get food/shelter etc.

Some of these comments fucking hilarious... Alright yes HBIC (head butch in charge) Now here's my argument after reading:


Dolphins have been known to help or attack sharks to protect humans. So have orcas... However could it be territorial? In any case the answer to this question is simple. Intelligence... Is or intelligence capable of better distinguishing right from wrong to complex situations such as this when morality is involved. So here I go...

All creatures big or small regardless of I.Q should be respected. Regardless if an animal gives two shits whether we saved it or not; or for that matter would that species do the same to us IS NOT THE POINT. The point is if you can help another creature live a little longer do it... Whether the latter has offspring we just don't know... THE UNKNOWN should not be a basis to not act, rather save another animal.

If it was your cat or dog being attached by something that's hungry I'm sure you try to save it... So ownership doesn't give an excuse as well that argument has no validity. The argument of "let nature take its course." So...

Regardless if we help or not I'm going to consider anyone that doesn't help another animal a psychopath. Think about it...


EDIT: One more thing YES BUILD A FUCKING BRIDGE OVER THE NILE RIVER SO THE ANTELOPE DONT GET EATEN BY Nile Crocodiles.

"

solwitch wrote:

Regardless if we help or not I'm going to consider anyone that doesn't help another animal a psychopath. Think about it...

So your a psychopath?

Irrelevant of your choice, your making one of the two suffer and helping the other.

Cmon sol... this should be common sense.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit :

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Oh, and thinking that life is more difficult in modern society than it was in times gone by... bitch please.

You know that depends entirely on your definition of difficult. It's without a doubt more complex and thus taxing on an individual, just not physically.

I wonder what the suicide rates where a few 1000 years ago.

"

Boem wrote:

"

solwitch wrote:

Regardless if we help or not I'm going to consider anyone that doesn't help another animal a psychopath. Think about it...

So your a psychopath?

Irrelevant of your choice, your making one of the two suffer and helping the other.

Cmon sol... this should be common sense.

Peace,

-Boem-

It's time for the crocodile to evolve LOL :P

Of course I would feed the crocs...

They should start eating veggies...

"

solwitch wrote:

It's time for the crocodile to evolve LOL :P

It's obviously far superior, it can swim and chill in the sun going all "fear me puny organisms"


Peace,

-Boem-

edit : now i got this image of a soon to be death Solwitch going

"come little crocodile" while holding out a carrot.

It's about maintaining ecosystems. Wich is actually more important than catering to your emotions, solwitch. And it doesn't make one a psychopath either; it makes one sensible.

"

solwitch wrote:

Regardless if we help or not I'm going to consider anyone that doesn't help another animal a psychopath. Think about it...

You didn't answer my question. You're an operator filming the African wilderness and suddenly you see a pack of hyenas jumping an animal giving birth. What are you going to do?

Another question: there are countless animals being eaten alive every day, not to mention the terrible conditions of farm animals. Why aren't you trying to help them? Or you're only a psyhopath if it happens right before your eyes, if you just know about it as an abstract concept it's fine? Or maybe you think vaguely writing about it in a gaming forum helps and you have done your duty?