This thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=33592) made me start typing and go off on a little rant.

Ignore the typos as it was written in a mad dash of typing, and I haven't gotten around to proof-reading it yet.

what makes man truly human

There is no distinction in classification of human vs animal.

The only thing that makes human human is our uncanny ability to drastically alter our environment intentionally on a rapid and wide scale.
I think that we have that ability because we evolved out of necessity to address our mulitude of vulnerabilities that became more of a detriment when we came down from the trees and out of our natural element.

We do not have the ability to survive in a wide range of climates, so we had to make clothes and housing.
We do not have an exoskeleton, natural camoflague, built-in weapons, exceptional speed and agility or any number of other traits that make good natural hunters.
We can not survive in many enviroments that other animals can, and without our (whatever you want to call it; intelligence, cleverness, abstract thought, etc) we are a highly specialized species with severly limited adaptability.

Our minds developed to counter all these limiting vulnerabilites intrinsic in being human.
This allowed us to relocate, which caused us to develop further.
The result is a species that is a parasite of nature herself, rather than a particular species or family.
We, who were perhaps the weakest and least threatening animal of the animal kingdom have become the dominant species on earth and a threat to the very survival of nature herself.

Agent Smith had it dead on.
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I've realized that you are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same
pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague.

So, what is "Nature" as opposed to "Human"?
I have heard the argument many times that humans are a part of nature, not seperate from it.
Some people *gives a sideways glance in Erin's general direction* have even argued that there should not even be a distinction between "natural" and "man-made" since man is a part of nature.

I wonder, though...
Is man (modern man, that is) still a part of nature, or have we evolved to a point that we are no longer a part of nature?
Many humans would argue that we aren't "animals" because we are above them.
I don't know about above, but I certainly do lean towards seperate from.

Look at who we are (again, modern man, not tribal cultures that have stood basically unchanged for centuries) and what we have become.
How many people do you know that could truly survive in the wilderness for an extended period of time armed with nothing but their wits?
How many people do you know that could survive for an extended period of time without the majority of modern "conveniences" that would have been viewed as superfluous at best a hundred years ago?
What would you life be without: Hosptals, Medicine, Doctors, Telephones, the Internet, Electricity, Mass produced clothing, Laundry machines, Conveneince stores (stores at all, for that matter) etc etc?
Could YOU survive as a "natural animal"?
The more we indulge in man-made "conveniences" the more reliant we become on them.
Eventually we depend on them on a regular basis, then we take them for granted, then we become addicted, in a sense, finally, we our lives become dependent upon what was once considered a luxury "convenience" and we can't live without it.
We have central air conditioning, central heat, we close our windows, pave our streets and driveways, uproot nature and replace it with symetrical landscape art??
Most people don't spend much more time outdoors than it takes to get from the building door to the car door (and maybe a few hours on the weekend).
We are no longer a part of nature.
We don't live in nature anymore, we live off of nature.

Yes, I keep putting "convenience" in quotes because I disagree that they are convenient.
In addition to making us less self-reliant, they actually make our lives much more complicated and difficult.
Computers are an ideal example of this.
People talk of the "conveniences" of communication, although, to be sure, they are a helluva lot more complicated, expensive, tempermental and time-consuming than telephones (which, of course, are less "convenient" than letters.
Oh yeah, they are irreplaceable in medical science, right? Exactly! They are irreplaceable, indispensable even, although they were unheard of 50 years ago.
And don't talk about the medical advancements made due to computers.
Were things really THAT bad 50 years ago 100 years ago?
Sure, people died more often of diseases, but, you know what? They are SUPPOSED TO. That is what diseases are for.
Besides, I really don't think that quality of life has vastly improved over the past 50 years at all, let alone as a result of medical advancements.
With all the stress and loss of personal/family time that inevitably comes along with unchecked industrial development and "progress" I think the quality of life has dropped.
How many times have your heard, or said yourself, "It was a simpler time back then" and meant it as a compliment ot times gone by?
I have heard it countless times from countless people, but people still embrace technology, progress and our seperation justifying it as "conveniences" to make life easier, when as more "conveniences" come out life invaraibly gets more complicated.
I just don't get it.
How many times have you fantasized about living in a "Gilligan's Island" type deserted island paradise far from modern "conveniences" and the stress of living in a modern society?
Maybe you haven't, maybe I am just weird, but I have dreamed about a life like that for as long as I can remember.
If I am not the exception, then why does everyone embrace modern technology like it is mother's tit?
Why do people strive to create entirely new industries that have no real purpose other than its own survival?
The industries we create are a lot like the human race itself, except we design them to feed on us.
It boggles my mind, it really does.
We create industries that survive by and have no purpose other than feeding off us.
Then we create other entire industries that have no purpose other than feeding those OTHER industries!
What the fuck am I missing?
Or is it that everyone else is missing something.

The other excuse we tell ourselves is that we are working to make a difference.
We take these jobs because society tells us that everyone has to do their noble part for society to make it productive and efficient.
I don't buy it.
I'd rather live in Walden Woods.

Let me just ask one most important question that I constantly ask myself to keep myself in check.
Would you rather live to 50 years old in a free state of living off the land and your own wits alone (like Gilligan's Island), or live to 70 or 80 in a modern society that is full of crime, danger, stress, false ideals, pollution etc and likely live the last 20 - 30 years of your life in poor health and dependent (to at least some level) on medical care?
I think my answer is pretty clear by now.
What's yours?

I think it is a bit too 'gaiaistic' to believe that every other species on this planet is in a healthy equilibrium with its surroundings. We might be extreme, but not alone.

Viruses are also in an equilibrium with their hosts. If they wouldn't they would go extinct.


Entire landscapes are the result of the actions of animals. for instance, some plains didn't happen to be plains because they are plains. They are plains because of grazers. It looks all very natural because we often see the end state of the interactions between species and enviroment.


I think that humans are at the moment transforming the planet because of new developments (cultural mainly). I would call it a transitional phase in our interaction with the enviromnet. It is moving towards a new equilibrium. This could mean extinction of the human species of course, or it could mean a new environment, with new species interactions and new distribution of species. It certainly isn't going to be what it is now. The scale of the changes is enormous, but the process itself seems quite natural to me.

I think it is a bit too 'gaiaistic' to believe that every other species on this planet is in a healthy equilibrium with its surroundings. We might be extreme, but not alone.
Possibly.
Who else shares this "gift"?

Viruses are also in an equilibrium with their hosts. If they wouldn't they would go extinct.
So, you are saying that we are less than viruses? :D


Entire landscapes are the result of the actions of animals. for instance, some plains didn't happen to be plains because they are plains. They are plains because of grazers. It looks all very natural because we often see the end state of the interactions between species and enviroment.
Of course, but that took a great deal of time as was a result of natural evolution.
We do that in a weekend with bulldozers.
There is a significant difference.


I think that humans are at the moment transforming the planet because of new developments (cultural mainly). I would call it a transitional phase in our interaction with the enviromnet. It is moving towards a new equilibrium. This could mean extinction of the human species of course, or it could mean a new environment, with new species interactions and new distribution of species. It certainly isn't going to be what it is now. The scale of the changes is enormous, but the process itself seems quite natural to me.
See, that sounds awfully "gaiaistic" to me. ;)
I agree, however.
I do think that nature is stronger and more resilient than man, and man will eventually (in no small part to his distancing himself from nature herself) become extinct unless some truly drastic changes (either through direct intentional intervention of man, or nature's "retaliation") take place first.

Possibly.
Who else shares this "gift"?

Everything that is new to a system (rabbits in australia, snakes introduced on islands, SARS).


So, you are saying that we are less than viruses? :D
Of course, everybody knows that viruses are the most highly evolved lifeforms on earth! ;)



Of course, but that took a great deal of time as was a result of natural evolution.
We do that in a weekend with bulldozers.
There is a significant difference.


Sorry, let me try to explain again what I mean. The point is not about the speed of natural evolution. The point is that there have been events that have disturbed the equilibrium we had with nature (during most of the history of the human species our impact on the environment was considerably less than it is now). This events probably have their origin in cultural evolution such as the move to agriculture which made a population explostion possible and the invention of certain technologies (bulldozer).

We are not in a equilibrium anymore with the environment. The interactions between all participants in these environments we influence are now under certain pressures (panda) and sometimes new possibilites open for certain species (for instance rats).

I don't think it is gaian because i don't believe that there is something as a natural equilibrium. Everything always changes. But the nature of life is interactions with each other and the environment. Naturally nothing can be truly independent of each other if they move into each others sphere of influence. And certain events in one enviroment might lead to a cascade effect that effect other (usually isolated) enviroments.

So, i think life is based on interactions, and often certain equilibriums are reached. They don't have to be permanent though although sometimes they might exist for a long time. Mass extinctions would be an example of when things really fall apart.

We are just as well part of nature as a termite. What we are doing is not unnatural as such. That would make us unnatural. What we are doing is unprecedented. We change the enviroment on a scale that never has been 'accomplished' by a single species.

But we will reach some kind of conclusion to this transitional stage. I would call it an equilibrium. I am not saying that the world will look the same. It won't. We could well end up with a species-poor biosphere. We create uniform enviroments and hence it seems most likely that this might cause a decrease in diversity.

Maybe we will kill our own species. And our existence will mark the geological boundary of another mass extinction event. Some intelligent creature will dig around in the geological deposites representing this era and find some remarkable findings. An incredible mass extinction event. They will wonder how an enormously common monkey could suddenly disappear from the face of the earth. They might even speculate that it must have been a smart monkey. However it remains a mystery how it could have disappeared leaving no progeny.

na ja...i doubt i made myself clear...again....it was a rant again

I am used to arguing that "yes humans are indeed animals:rolleyes:" to absolute morons.
But I agree with one raven, that todays civilised populations of human beings are no longer living as animals.
There is a significant fundamental difference in the lifestyle of the animal and the lifestyle of modern civilised man.
Tribal cultures are still very much animals in every sense of the word, particularly those who don't have the non-animal-humans trying to "correct" their natural way of life.
The difference between modern man and animals is not the usual differences that people point out. Intelligence, consciousness, bla bla bla are all completely irrelevent and are not traits un-animal like in their essence. In fact thats all those traits could ever be classified as, animal traits.

To a certain extent, every social species has tampered with the concept of the traditional animal. The pack of wild dogs is the traditional animal, a single wild dog is kind of a piece of an animal.
The pack as a whole is subject to the demands of nature. The single wild dog is only subject to the demands of the pack.

There are variations on this concept, lion prides being a little more complex, similar, but the idea of the social unit being a subject of evolution with the individual being a piece of the unit is more apparent here with the male lion.
Because he is clearly not designed to be an independent organism. His task is visible within his anatomy. In truth that mane is a hinderence to living as an animal, it makes him a poor hunter because it is like a neon light contrasting with the dry grass of the savahnah, making the element of surprise escape him, which is very important for a feline due to their inherit lack of stamina.
It doesn't matter, he is a piece of a unit and has a specific task within that unit, the unit needs to be a successful hunter, not him.

More complex still and we have ant colonies. These are truely strange, because most of the individuals have no desire to breed, the colony as a whole breeds. The individuals all have their tasks that assist in ensuring the unit is successful. The individuals aren't even concerned with their own well being. They will protect themselves because they want to continue assisting the colony, but if their death assists the colony, or even might assist the colony, they will gladly die.
The individual isn't an element of the eco-system, the colony is, and many scientists will say the ant colony is the animal. The ant is one of its cells.

Then we have humans, who have excelled even past the ant. The human colony is fast becoming a global colony, the ant colony is an element of the ecosystem it exists in, the human colony is not, in the way the ant colony is the equivalent of an animal, the human colony is the equivalent of an eco-system. It competes with other eco-systems. I've always considered an ecosystem as a living thing, and the human species is similarly a living thing.
I would not say this is unnatural, its almost an expected latter step for a social animal to make. As you can see how the concept of the colony differs from the concept of the animal, the concept of the civilisation differs from the colony in the same way essentially.

What is bizarre, is how the human species did not change biologically throughout this whole ordeal of transitioning from a basic tribal animal to a super colony.
There are still basic tribal populations of humans around, some people even insist there is no such thing as race and that a human is a human.
And yet there is this stunning contrast in behaviour within the one species. not just slight behavioural changes like a change in diet but a change in the very structure in which these animals operate. You wouldn't even expect 2 closely related species to be this dissimilar, let alone different populations of the same species.

Anyway, i would say civilised humans are outside of nature, I would say we are the hyena to natures lion. We are a competing organism.
Its interesting to note that we are subconsciously trying to drag the humans still on natures side onto our side, with varying success.
I mean, you'll notice america getting involved in third world countries trying to turn them into western style societies or, if you will, a part of the global colony. Educating children in africa and feeding them, giving people in haiti business suits and paved roads.
Their intentions are good, they look at these animal humans and consider a natural life to be "living in poverty", and they want to try to "correct" them.
They aren't necessarrily aware of the nature vs human war that is going on, in fact they definately are not, its *almost like its their instinct(*ha "almost", yeah right, more like blatantly).
You pitying the eyes of starving children in africa is the instincts of your global colony wiring you to expand on the colony.
Tribes in africa probably missed out on the instincts to become a global colony.
It seems to be most exagerrated in the caucasian, but also prevelent in the asiatic populations of japan and china.
The caucasian is rather "in your face" though, I mean look at the history of colonising of the world, if you have the naturalist view you have to try and make sense of this with animal instinct. After really thinking about it I believe i've figured it out.
It made no sense when looking at the traditional animal's urges and instinct, we can just brush it off as "humans are just cool" but that has no basis in the reality of life on earth, we have reached a new realm of cooperation and we are a "pack" on a whole new level.
Nature is our competition, nature is the animal we are living alongside. We are on its savahnah. And I don't think its happy, but more alarmingly we are 'not happy'. And we are quite a formiddable beast.

(excuse my use of the word nature, as far as I know there is no word for the multi-organismular organism that the human organism has recently muscled in on, so nature will do, unless you can come up with a better word)

What is bizarre, is how the human species did not change biologically throughout this whole ordeal of transitioning from a basic tribal animal to a super colony.

This might be attributed to the tendency to live in a smaller tribal sphere of family and friends. Therefore we could consider the notion that we are still very much living in small groups. The small groups just happen to be part of a larger anonymous group.


There are still basic tribal populations of humans around, some people even insist there is no such thing as race and that a human is a human.
And yet there is this stunning contrast in behaviour within the one species. not just slight behavioural changes like a change in diet but a change in the very structure in which these animals operate. You wouldn't even expect 2 closely related species to be this dissimilar, let alone different populations of the same species.

Ever heard of culture?

Yes, I have heard of culture.
Its the word we use to describe the variation I mentioned.
..... and...???

This might be attributed to the tendency to live in a smaller tribal sphere of family and friends. Therefore we could consider the notion that we are still very much living in small groups. The small groups just happen to be part of a larger anonymous group.
Yes, of course even the civilised people are still tribal animals at the core, but its like they also developed a new set of instincts to accompany the biological ones, this set driven by the niche that opened up. That niche being natures rival in the quest for territorial rights of the earth.

Yes, I have heard of culture.
Its the word we use to describe the variation I mentioned.
..... and...???

Culture causes differences. It doesn't describe differences.

How does culture work? Is it just there waiting for people?
I don't understand what you are trying to say spurious, culture doesn't do anything, populations of organisms adapt a lifestyle, we call that lifestyle their culture.
I do anyway.
it almost seems like you are saying culture is an independent active force. I assume thats not the case, if it is its very out of character.

I think it is both.
Culture is a collection of common ideas.
An idea has to be created in the first place, but once it is, it gains a life and an influential force of its own.

How does culture work? Is it just there waiting for people?
I don't understand what you are trying to say spurious, culture doesn't do anything, populations of organisms adapt a lifestyle, we call that lifestyle their culture.
I do anyway.
it almost seems like you are saying culture is an independent active force. I assume thats not the case, if it is its very out of character.

You never heard of things such as cultural evolution and the evolution of memes?

I think that there are quite a lot of ideas out there on how powerful cultural evolution can be and how strongly it influences different societies and groups.

But let's go back then to the 'natural' world.

You are aware of the fact that different chimp groups have different habits. One group uses sticks to gather termites, others don't. It is part of their culture.

The killer whales are subdivided in at least two groups based on culture.

Are they also suddely two species? Is their life not dictated by culture? Or do you think it is all in their genes?

Can chimps put a stick in a termite hole because they are different? No, they learned it from their mother, or other members in the group. It is part of the culture of the group. Culture doesn't describe their behaviour. Their collection of habits and behavioural patterns are their culture.

Is the common dog still an animal or is it just along for the free ride? Realy wished I was a dog eat, sleep, be happy (My dog never seems to be sad), doesnt work 40 hr work weeks, or live like it used to. There are exceptions such as wild, strays, and hunting dogs but what about bear bait (poodles other dogs that have no chance in the wild)

Why do we have all these contraptions and complexities around us? Padding.

When we do undergo a breakdown, we have something to fall back on. If there was a drought in Australia and local game was hunted out, an aboriginal tribesman would find somewhere else to go or hunt or he would die. (there may be nowhere else to hunt as surrounding locations are already occupied) If there was a massive crop failure in fudalist England everybody died. Now, they siphon off food from the better off parts of the world. Even if there was massive destruction all over the world, enough of mankind would survive that it would build itself back up in a couple of years.

There is little chance that a modern human would have to resort to animal existence for very long. Even if every city were destroyed, enough would remain to build back up from. Someone finds ruined car and makes a genorator out of it. Someone finds something sharp and pointy and they have an instant spear. All those stray dogs and pigeons in central park are just a reserve food supply.

You think of man as 6 billion different individuals. Don't. Think of man as a handfull. Each society rigs itself so it won't die easily or will at least have some piece of itself survive somewhere. They evolve and reproduce in a semi-Darwinian fashion.

The domestic dog, no matter how competent, is a part of the human, and so yes is also outside of the traditional natural world.

Spurious, I have heard of cultural evolution and am interested in it and have gone out of my way to study it.
I'm aware of the cultural differences in chimp clans, and aware of the many different cultures of killer whales around the world.
I never said humans were divided into different species.
I'm saying the civilised human is different than the tribal human in a fundamental aspect of behaviour. The tribal human is not different in the essence of its behaviour than the killer whales, chimps, baboons, mountain hyrax or dragonfly.
Civilised humans have become something outside of the natural world. Its not because they "drive cars" or anything like that. Its because they are not part of an ecosystem, they are their own super-organism. And are competing with the super-organisms that are eco-systems.
My point about tribal humans is they are still very much part of eco-systems, and so there is that divide within the human species that seems so vast and yet the species itself is still indeed one species.
But from an ecological point of view tribal humans have more in common with earth worms than they do civilised people.

Please note: there is most definately no insulting of tribal people going on here, if anything there is insulting of civilised people, but I'm trying my hardest to not even do that because when I really think about there is no reason to, civilised humans didn't consciously become what they are, it was a natural occurence, just unusual and original, a first on the planet earth.

The domestic dog, no matter how competent, is a part of the human, and so yes is also outside of the traditional natural world.

Spurious, I have heard of cultural evolution and am interested in it and have gone out of my way to study it.
I'm aware of the cultural differences in chimp clans, and aware of the many different cultures of killer whales around the world.
I never said humans were divided into different species.
I'm saying the civilised human is different than the tribal human in a fundamental aspect of behaviour. The tribal human is not different in the essence of its behaviour than the killer whales, chimps, baboons, mountain hyrax or dragonfly.
Civilised humans have become something outside of the natural world. Its not because they "drive cars" or anything like that. Its because they are not part of an ecosystem, they are their own super-organism. And are competing with the super-organisms that are eco-systems.
My point about tribal humans is they are still very much part of eco-systems, and so there is that divide within the human species that seems so vast and yet the species itself is still indeed one species.
But from an ecological point of view tribal humans have more in common with earth worms than they do civilised people.

Please note: there is most definately no insulting of tribal people going on here, if anything there is insulting of civilised people, but I'm trying my hardest to not even do that because when I really think about there is no reason to, civilised humans didn't consciously become what they are, it was a natural occurence, just unusual and original, a first on the planet earth.


Ok. Do you think that maybe it is possible that the ecosystem is now adjusting to this 'new' human?

Let me just ask one most important question that I constantly ask myself to keep myself in check.
Would you rather live to 50 years old in a free state of living off the land and your own wits alone (like Gilligan's Island), or live to 70 or 80 in a modern society that is full of crime, danger, stress, false ideals, pollution etc and likely live the last 20 - 30 years of your life in poor health and dependent (to at least some level) on medical care?
I think my answer is pretty clear by now.
What's yours?
I love the concept, and in some ways it would be better, you'd definately feel better and more alive.
But I've been having lots of black outs lately and its just freaking terrible :p
Now that I've lived this "life of sin" for so long, going back to nature would be really tough. I'm very much a part of the pathetic humans you mention, thats the reason I understand how pathetic they are so well.
I wish i was born into a tribe on a planet with only tribes of humans.
I'd feel a 50 year life as the wild primal human animal would be alot more rewarding than a 100 years of living as the domestic human.
I'd love to be used to living as a hardcore tribal warrior fighting other clans of humans for territorial rights, and I'd much prefer to die by being killed(rather than on a death bed as a deteriorating organism, thats unnatural to the point of being cruel and unusual punishment IMO), either by a predator or a rival human and then scavenged upon by hyenas, i don't know why but that is just so romantic to me.
But right now I could not go back to living as a wild animal, I could survive, but I'd be pretty damn irritated all the time.
Don't forget the mosquitoes OR;)

Dr Lou, I just wanted to say that I like how you broke it down as the global human colony, in effect, being its own ecosystem competing with the other global ecosystem being the animal kingdom.

However, I can see how people would have problems with the semantics of it all.
Just as they have trouble with the semantic revolving around the words "nature" and "natural".

An ecosystem is defined as: An ecological community together with its environment, functioning as a unit.

An ecospecies is defined as: A taxonomic species considered in terms of its ecological characteristics and usually including several interbreeding ecotypes.

Maybe we can coin a new word...
Perhaps mankind is a parasitic and scavenging global ecocommunity that feeds upon the natural ecosystems of earth?

Man was once a member of the ecosystem, but one ecotype (Euroman) at some point, seceded from the global ecosystem and formed its own faction- an ecocommunity- that subsists by conquering and defeating different localized ecosystems and forcing the inhabitants to succumb and adapt, flee or die (fits neatly with other Euroman behavioral traits, doesn't it?).

As the Euroman ecocommunity spread and gained footholds within different localized ecosystems, its strength grew in pockets.
When those pockets learned to effectively communicate with each other, they came to the realization that with their power united, they are a much more formidable force and can further ensure the ecocommunity's survival (fitting in with Darwinian survival of the species instinct) by joining forces.
Once joined, these different factions became a single global ecocommunity.
As an attempt to further its reach and solidify its footing, this global ecocommunity attempts to persuade and sucker other human ecotypes (Asiaman, Afriman, Latinoman etc) to join their global ecocommunity offering them promises of a life of greater security, ease and, of course, "convenience".
The stronger the ecocommunity (slowly beginning to encompass all of mankind) grows, the more it destroys the ecosystem it seceded from due to insecurity because of cultural memes (borne of knowledge of its own adaptabilty limitations and vulnerabilities) which act as a collective instinct to conquer and destroy all else.
This collective instinct overrides the individual instinct to live in harmony with nature in the weak, stupid, lazy, megalomaniacal, warriors and those that get suckered by shiny things (I got suckered by shiny things).
This global ecocommunity can now be referred to as "Mankind".
The humans that do not agree with the common goal of the Mankind ecocommunity must either be assimilated (which most of us have been already) or join together to form their own ecocommunity (Naturman) and fight alongside the global and localized ecosystems in an effort to overthrow the Mankind ecocommunity, or else the individual rebel ecotypes will suffer the same fate as the rest of the ecotypes in the ecosystem... Be destroyed or tamed, controlled and domesticated by Mankind.
Mankind may have the sheer numbers, but I am willing to bet that Naturman will be made up of the best and brightest that humankind has to offer.
Besides, Naturman will, by definition, be much more adaptable and resilient.

Who wants to be a member of Naturman?
First we destroy Mankind.
Then we live like the Cherokees!

Let's see a show of hands.
(edited to fix typos and other stupid shit)

Ok. Do you think that maybe it is possible that the ecosystem is now adjusting to this 'new' human?
Hmm, no not really.
I think some animals are adjusting to the new human, like rats, raccoons and pigeons etc etc.
In some(many) places the natural eco-system has been outcompeted by the 'human', defeated as it were, or the human has gained the territorial rights of that part of the globe, and some of the animals are able to survive and make a transition into the human world.
But as a whole i don't see the situation in that context, as the eco-systems adjusting to the new human, not in a way that will ever envelope the human as part of itself again, it may adjust to live alongside us.
Its almost as though the ecosystem has branched out into a new "species" of ecosystem. Its evolution. Wow I just noticed that. Can't you see the similarities? it might be hard, but if you can imagine the eco-system is a species that populates the world, it was the only species for a long time, but a "species" branched off of it, and it is modern artificial civilisations, lead by humans.
Now, predictably, as natural organisms behave, the 2 "species" are competing in their "environment" that is the globe.
(I know they don't fit the bill of "species" but they behave like them ecologically and I don't have a better word)

Yeah thats definately evolution on another level, its wierd how its just everywhere, the fact it naturally occurs in so many ways leads me to think the universe probably in some way evolved off of something else. Evolution seems to be the tune of existence.

Its almost as though the ecosystem has branched out into a new "species" of ecosystem. Its evolution. Wow I just noticed that. Can't you see the similarities? it might be hard, but if you can imagine the eco-system is a species that populates the world, it was the only species for a long time, but a "species" branched off of it, and it is modern artificial civilisations, lead by humans.
Now, predictably, as natural organisms behave, the 2 "species" are competing in their "environment" that is the globe.
Looks like we came to similar conclusions at the same time. (look up) :D

Yes, it is quite interesting. We all are reaching similar thoughts although of course with some minor differences.

I am just wondering then if this quite tremendous change in our current ecosystem is then truly 'unnatural' if the nature of everything is evolution?

Looks like we came to similar conclusions at the same time. (look up)
Radical :highfive: :D

Can I just donate my seed to the naturman cause? And maybe my flesh to the canines of naturman?
I definately want naturman and associates to win the battle, to win back dominance of the earth, no question, but god damn those mosquito bites!
Perhaps I should bring down 'mankind' from the inside.... I'd make a comment about helping in the spread of aids right now but for some reason it still seems like that would be an innappropriate thing to say, obviously the evil mankind has instilled anti-nature propoganda deeply into my psyche:(

"Imagine: stalking elk past department store windows and stinking racks of beautiful rotting dresses and tuxedos on hangers. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life, and you'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. Like Jack and the Beanstalk, you'll climb up through the dripping forest canopy and the air will be so clean you'll see tiny figures pounding corn and laying strips of venison to dry in the empty car pool lane of an abandoned superhighway stretching eight-lanes and August-hot for a thousand miles. You'll hunt elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center, and dig clams next to the skeleton of the Space Needle leaning at a forty-five degree angle. We'll paint the skyscrapers with huge totem faces and goblin tikis, and every evening what's left of mankind will retreat to empty zoos and lock itself in cages as protection against bears and big cats and wolves that pace and watch us from outside the cage bars at night."

~Tyler Durden

I am just wondering then if this quite tremendous change in our current ecosystem is then truly 'unnatural' if the nature of everything is evolution?
No you are correct, it is not unnatural, but man is not nature... if that makes sense?
No, obviously the human vocabulary is not adequate.
But i think we're all on the same page here, for once;)

Of course we will need internal operatives.
They will likely play a greater role than the warriors and blatant terrorists.
How would you like to be the Minister of Disinformation? :D

Yes, it is quite interesting. We all are reaching similar thoughts although of course with some minor differences.

I am just wondering then if this quite tremendous change in our current ecosystem is then truly 'unnatural' if the nature of everything is evolution?
I think this evolution is inevitable.
If not by compliance, then forced by nature's hand.

I am just trying to give it a shove in the right direction.

And maybe my flesh to the canines of naturman?
Can I have your flesh?
I have seriously ALWAYS wanted a human flesh leather jacket!

Make sure you are generous with the cocoa butter, I want a nice soft jacket with limited scar tissue and stretch marks.

Just glad to be a part of the team:D

Actually, if I underwent some hypnotherapy I'm sure I could assimilate into naturman culture, I'm physically a fairly competent animal. I just need to forget the comfort and convenience of mankind culture, and hold living in higher regard.
This is not a conscious decision I can make, my thoughts are allready well and truely with naturman, but my instincts don't like unneccesarry hardship. I'm the kind of person that naturally finds the easiest way to do everything.
This would be helpful in a natural setting, I'd find crafty ways to get things done, but now I've experienced the epitome of easy, and it makes my instincts feel like they have finally reached what they have been striving for for thousands of generations.
I've always wanted to start a thread on what we can tell about our ancestral history from examining ourselves, I think for some reason it was encouraged in the evolution of me to not waste time doing things in any other way than the easiest way. At some stage it was probably vital. Now i'm just some guy with a half assed attitude:D
this is off topic, just offering excuses for why I'd be reluctant to go back to nature.

I think spurious should be the tribal Bruja and healer.
What do you say, monkey?

I think spurious should be the tribal Bruja and healer.
What do you say, monkey?

I only am capable of bringing evil and applying vile potions made of human excrement.

I have been running this debate on another forum I go to.
I made some points there that I would like to convey here and see what you think.
The quotes are from one of the people in that debate, not from this site.
I left them in because it makes more sense to read my comments in context.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As usual, Ishtara, we basically agree on the overall concept, but widely differ on a few fundamental points.

Our greatest boon is that we somehow manage to help unfit people to survive.
See, I don't see that as a "boon".
I see it as irresponsible and short sighted.
I am not about to jump up to a microphone and start condoning the sterilization or slaughter of people who are retarted, infirmed, diseased or otherwise unfit to prosper on their own.
Believe it or not, even a misnthrope like me DOES have compassion... Especially for those suffering.
Regardless, the fact remains, that by "helping unfit people to survive" and breed we are weakening the gene pool, making future generations less fit and more suseptible to disease and genetic affliction.
We are irresponsibly attempting to circumvent the basic fundamental object of natural selection in evolution.
In the "natural" world, weak animals will die.
Stronger, faster, smarter, more adaptable ones will survive and pass those positive genes down to their offspring, thereby ensuring the future survival and prosperity of the species.
You seem to see this as the responsibility of a compassionate human.
A compassionate being will work to ensure the survival and happiness of each member of the species.
I think that is an aspect of the comassionate, yet short-sighted being.
Ensuring the fitness of the species as a whole (rather than focusing on the individuals) is an act of compassion with foresight.

As far as I believe (and the majority of biologists, psychologists and animal behaviorists I have read and spoken to agree with me) every living organism has two core basic instincts in common.

The first one is hardly contested and many people (mistakenly, in my opinion) assume that it is the root instinct.
Survival of the individual.
It is easy to make that assumption, just watching any animal (including humans) it is pretty clear that we are driven by a desire to survive and prosper.
However, that instinct of personal preservation derrives from the true base instinct.
It is created by, driven by and controlled by the greater instinct.
Survival of the species.
You can see this in all species.
Animals routinely sacrifice their own lives for the betterment of the pack/colony/family/species.
Even humans do this.
The big difference between Mankind and the rest of nature is that humans, due to their highly developed brains (again, this being a resut of our evolution and the survival necessity to adapt our environments rather than adapting to our environments) and the resulting ability of reason and creative abstract thought, they have developed an exaggerated sense of self-importance and an ego that has over-developed to the point of being a detriment to the species.
We reason that if survival and personal protection is so important to US, it must be just as important to other individuals and in order to live in a properly functioning communal unit, we must be compassionate and place others' needs and desires at the same equal level of our own.
What we can't conceive is the concept that compassion for others includes the "others" that have not come yet, and, in fact, the needs of those that have not come yet are actually MORE important than our own.
"What is it about our egos that does not allow us to see that the lives and survivability of future generations is more important than our own?"?
I think it is two things.
Our ego and exaagerated sense of self fights to not accept the notion that the individual is of little importance and significance, as a result we have little to no concept of what of true selflessness is.
The knowledge of our own mortality and realization that we really ARE insignificant in the grand scheme of things triggers a desperate desire for immortality and forces us to reason that the individual and current generation is more important than it actually is.

It's about giving people the opportunity to survive. As many of them as possible. Would you deprive them of such an opportunity?
Yes.
Yes, I absolutley would.
As I said earlier in the thread, I think it is the lesser of two evils.
What I really think this all comes down to is this:
oh yeah i will(die). but i haven't yet. and that's more important than anything else, to me at least.
An unnatural and selfish fear of death.
Is the death of an individual such a horrible thing that should be fought off and defeated at all cost?
Even at the cost of the survival of the species??
I don't think it is.
And I don't think it is very selfless or compassionate either.

I agree with ALL of that.

This was a good thread, short and sweet.
And it feels like all involved were winners, BUT whats annoying is, I just know if we ever try to argue a point using this unanimously(in this thread) accepted theory as a basis, they'll be like "hold up, humans are a part of nature.." etc.

So...
Anyone who disagrees with this thread, speak now, or forever hold your piece