• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

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

Aquarelle

Starcrossed Seafarer
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
3,144
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Yeah, probably true, because we have the higher cognitive function to question our own existence.

But, we're also the only animal that drinks milk beyond infancy, and from another species at that, so there you go. :tongue:
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Yes.

When it comes to other animals, they tend to create healthy balance in the nature. Naturally there will be moments of unbalance at some points, like some new predator eating all the food they can catch, but after that the predator tends to die or only have some prey that they can barely catch, so that the amount of those predators lower to great extend and it comes more balanced environment again.

Humans on the other hand are destroying the whole planet(or too large parts of it), soon leaving an apprpriate habitat for cockroaches and jellyfish only..
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
I don't think so. I think all individuals of a species tend to compete for the same resources, which puts other individuals in jeopardy if supplies aren't met. I understand the point though - humans are the only animal that's made a spirit for its own destruction, that sings hymns about the deaths of its rivals, that turns violence into a sacred ideal, and that calculates genocide. Sometimes- genocide isn't even done self-servingly, which means that we're probably the only ones who destroy large numbers of our own for higher causes.
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
Absolutely untrue. Any animal, if allowed, would exploit its environment to the largest available degree. Of course, for animals whose technology isn't as advanced as ours, the available degree is much lower, and thus negative feedback cycles are easier for us to see at a micro-scale. However, we're subject to exactly the same laws i.e. when one kind of resource becomes depleted, we cannot afford its extraction and usage, eventually famies spread and millions of humans die etc.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Absolutely untrue. Any animal, if allowed, would exploit its environment to the largest available degree. Of course, for animals whose technology isn't as advanced as ours, the available degree is much lower, and thus negative feedback cycles are easier for us to see at a micro-scale. However, we're subject to exactly the same laws i.e. when one kind of resource becomes depleted, we cannot afford its extraction and usage, eventually famies spread and millions of humans die etc.

But the problem occurs because humans dont really have limitations on exploiting the environment they live in
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
But the problem occurs because humans dont really have limitations on exploiting the environment they live in

They definitely do, on a macro (well, let's just say larger) scale. Deaths from pollution, energy depletion, famine etc. are an example of negative feedback mechanism at play
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
They definitely do, on a macro (well, let's just say larger) scale. Deaths from pollution, energy depletion, famine etc. are an example of negative feedback mechanism at play

Well i dont see whats happening in small scale is a problem, its just the normal course of life and most imporant the balance is restored without there being any significant problems occuring outside the small scale changes since other animals only has an effect on one of few species. Also other animals dont really cause other species to get extincted, unless they are introduced to totally new environment, like people taking cats to new zealand to freely much on stupid slow animals amd having no natural enemies. But even in that case it doesent destroy the whole system and damage remains in micro-scale. Humans on the other hand destroy so many micro-scale systems that they start to have effect on larger scale. But humans dont only stop to that, they also destroy habitat from multiple species, destroy ozone layer that destroys habitat from many species etc etc. This is what i consider a problem. You disagreed with op because you saw an alteration of a single micro-scale system as a problem?
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
Absolutely untrue. Any animal, if allowed, would exploit its environment to the largest available degree. Of course, for animals whose technology isn't as advanced as ours, the available degree is much lower, and thus negative feedback cycles are easier for us to see at a micro-scale. However, we're subject to exactly the same laws i.e. when one kind of resource becomes depleted, we cannot afford its extraction and usage, eventually famies spread and millions of humans die etc.

Agreed.

OP, I interpreted your post as more metaphysical than naturalistic. So in that vein I'd agree with [MENTION=10315]Aquarelle[/MENTION].
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Agreed.

OP, I interpreted your post as more metaphysical than naturalistic. So in that vein I'd agree with [MENTION=10315]Aquarelle[/MENTION].

The lack of clarity in the OP makes me wonder if people are wasting their time in this thread.
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
Well i dont see whats happening in small scale is a problem, its just the normal course of life and most imporant the balance is restored without there being any significant problems occuring outside the small scale changes since other animals only has an effect on one of few species. Also other animals dont really cause other species to get extincted, unless they are introduced to totally new environment, like people taking cats to new zealand to freely much on stupid slow animals amd having no natural enemies. But even in that case it doesent destroy the whole system and damage remains in micro-scale. Humans on the other hand destroy so many micro-scale systems that they start to have effect on larger scale. But humans dont only stop to that, they also destroy habitat from multiple species, destroy ozone layer that destroys habitat from many species etc etc. This is what i consider a problem. You disagreed with op because you saw an alteration of a single micro-scale system as a problem?

Well I do agree that it's a problem for the planet earth, but I think that humans are subject to the same kind of negative feedback loop cycles...I'm not sure if we actually disagree?
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Absolutely untrue. Any animal, if allowed, would exploit its environment to the largest available degree. Of course, for animals whose technology isn't as advanced as ours, the available degree is much lower, and thus negative feedback cycles are easier for us to see at a micro-scale. However, we're subject to exactly the same laws i.e. when one kind of resource becomes depleted, we cannot afford its extraction and usage, eventually famies spread and millions of humans die etc.
+1. Didn't you take ecology in school? You know the classic problem of deer and wolves with oscilllating populations that are only relatively stable due to the predator/prey relationship? Without the wolves killing them, the deer literally eat everything in the forest and starve to death....and that actually happened, it wasn't just a theory, unless they lied to me in school.

The real problem is not that we're "selfish" or whatever, it's that we don't have predators or anything else to keep our population in check.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Well I do agree that it's a problem for the planet earth, but I think that humans are subject to the same kind of negative feedback loop cycles...I'm not sure if we actually disagree?

Well i thinks its just that we have different definition on whats problem with this case.
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
Or maybe you just feel like disagreeing :troll:
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
Or maybe [MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION] is an idiot, considering that's the conclusion after reading nearly every single one of his posts.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
+1. Didn't you take ecology in school? You know the classic problem of deer and wolves with oscilllating populations that are only relatively stable due to the predator/prey relationship? Without the wolves killing them, the deer literally eat everything in the forest and starve to death....and that actually happened, it wasn't just a theory, unless they lied to me in school.

The real problem is not that we're "selfish" or whatever, it's that we don't have predators or anything else to keep our population in check.

I didnt take ecology in school, but i have watched quite alot of documentaries on wild life. Also its pretty obvious that nature needs both predators and pray to maintain the balance.

What comes to predators and humans. Its true that we dont have any animals that hunt us, but there are other stuff.
First of all bacteria and viruses keep evolving as we try to find cures for them and i dont really see some major epidemies that would kill big part of the population as impossible, since we are kinda making the viruses and bacteria stronger by misusing antibiotics and what ever the virus medicines are called, making them immune to drugs.
Then there is the weakening of our genes which comes with us being now able to pass on malfunctioning genes, this rarerily happen with other animals(except with some diseases).
Also plenty of other stuff, like us recycling water that has estrogen from birth control pills, which raises the estrogen in males, making them to produce malcunctioning sperm, thus infertile(or lowering the chances of being able to make babies). Eating fatty and other foods that are unhealthy too much, which causes heart problems and obesiety(which makes those obese males and females less attractive to opposite sex, thus making it harder for them to reproduce). Computers create nerds that have harder time finding a partner and make babies and possibly die sooner due to health problems that come with lack of physical excercise. Etc etc, could go on all day.
But still human population keeps growing, at least for now, dunno if we manage to create more problems on reproducing in the future that would make the population go down before we destroy the whole place and the population goes down due to lack of food.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Or maybe you just feel like disagreeing :troll:

I dont disagree with you on this, we just work with different definitions. By your definition of what counts as a problem you are right.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Or maybe [MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION] is an idiot, considering that's the conclusion after reading nearly every single one of his posts.

Or maybe you are just projecting :---DDDD
 

Kaizer

sophiloist
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
795
MBTI Type
INTp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Yeah, probably true, because we have the higher cognitive function to question our own existence.

But, we're also the only animal that drinks milk beyond infancy, and from another species at that, so there you go. :tongue:

Absolutely untrue. Any animal, if allowed, would exploit its environment to the largest available degree. Of course, for animals whose technology isn't as advanced as ours, the available degree is much lower, and thus negative feedback cycles are easier for us to see at a micro-scale. However, we're subject to exactly the same laws i.e. when one kind of resource becomes depleted, we cannot afford its extraction and usage, eventually famies spread and millions of humans die etc.

Well i dont see whats happening in small scale is a problem, its just the normal course of life and most imporant the balance is restored without there being any significant problems occuring outside the small scale changes since other animals only has an effect on one of few species. Also other animals dont really cause other species to get extincted, unless they are introduced to totally new environment, like people taking cats to new zealand to freely much on stupid slow animals amd having no natural enemies. But even in that case it doesent destroy the whole system and damage remains in micro-scale. Humans on the other hand destroy so many micro-scale systems that they start to have effect on larger scale. But humans dont only stop to that, they also destroy habitat from multiple species, destroy ozone layer that destroys habitat from many species etc etc. This is what i consider a problem. You disagreed with op because you saw an alteration of a single micro-scale system as a problem?

Agreed.

OP, I interpreted your post as more metaphysical than naturalistic. So in that vein I'd agree with [MENTION=10315]Aquarelle[/MENTION].
agree with all of the above
& was going to state something similar...

the proverbial lion's share has a limit
the greed in humanity means and manifests itself with larger claws & jaws accompanied by the insatiable appetite seemingly limited to human beings
on the political structures & systems level, the same gets manifested where its a pyramid
and on a global scale, the same thing gets manifested again where its a perpetuation of it and it looks like history has had pretty much the same thing happen even when there was a, relatively at least, extreme level of isolation of regions

EDIT: Page 2 seemed to have appeared out of nowhere
 
Last edited:

Such Irony

Honor Thy Inferior
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
5,059
MBTI Type
INtp
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I interpreted the statement to mean that mankind has an awareness of their own existence and thus can question the point of their existence and can experience existential anxiety (why do I exist? Does my existence really matter in the whole scheme of things?). Tied into this, I think is being aware of your own mortality and thus the termination of your existence.
 
Top