Mankind is the only animal for which its own existence is a problem

[Little_Sticks]

[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION]

Why is it only existential? We also have a great capacity to over-complicate our lives and our existence with expectations and demands that are implicitly defined by society and ourselves. Even when people share similar problems, they will ignorantly agree to disagree on doing anything about it because they each demand/expect different solutions.

I mean it's rather funny when I realize that humans are the only animal that has the problem of living to work, whereas other animals seem to be able to live first. Other predators of the animal kingdom may exploit other animals, but they don't nurture their existence purely for their own gain; they end their existence to sustain their own out of necessity.

Human beings create logic as a means to measure and compare the weight of different aspects of reality against each other, and yet assign completely oppositional weight to the same phenomena; your bad ends up being my good and my good ends up as your bad. Other animals don't have all these higher order problems that we needlessly create between each other.

Really, why? It's kind of weird that you would start a thread with the intention of having the answer...what were you seeking then? To judge who would be right and wrong?

 

[Mole]

It is not only our own existence which is a problem, but our non-existence as well.

Our existence only lasts for three score and ten while our non-existence has already lasted for 13.7 thousand million years.

And worse we can only tell we exist by knowing of our non-existence. So our non-existence is essential for our existence.

Now this is a problem.

 

[NotOfTwo]

I do agree. Our existence may not be a problem for long though.

 

[King sns]

yeah, statement makes an obvious point, honestly. More complications= more tendency towards difficulty and ultimately destruction.. Was this a trick question?



Though, I suppose you could look at it the other way as well. We have a greater chance of survival if say, the world ends.... You don't see dogs or birds building ships in hopes to start over on other planets and such.

 

[Mole]

Long enough?

I do agree. Our existence may not be a problem for long though.

Well, our non-existence has already been a problem for 13.7 thousand million years, and will be a problem into the far distant future. Is that long enough?

 

[Little_Sticks]

Though, I suppose you could look at it the other way as well. We have a greater chance of survival if say, the world ends.... You don't see dogs or birds building ships in hopes to start over on other planets and such.

That's true. Humanity has a lot of intellectual capability; but we seem to have poor awareness of each other, maybe even because of it. I don't usually ever fully agree with quotes, but this reminds me of one by Jung that I have very little reason to doubt:

"We need more understanding of the human nature, because the only real danger that exists is man himself. He is the great danger, and we are pitifully unaware of it. We know nothing of man, far too little. His psyche should be studied, because we are the origin of all coming evil."