Humanity is not a virus.

[Sinue_v2]

I really wish these people would just shut the fuck up. Yeah, I saw the Matrix too. It was good, but it wasn't anything new and profound. Just because it blew your mind with centuries old philosophy you've been too much of an illiterate fuck up to this point to read, doesn't mean Agent Smith was right when he said that.

This meme has really gotten to me lately. Bunch of buttholes sitting around on the net or at a party that think they know what humanity is and is not. I'll tell you what we are. We're a fucking species of primate, and our behaviors are molded by our early primate ancestors as well as our tribal hunter-gatherer forefathers.

Show me... come on... show me ONE fucking iota of intelligence by at least correctly identifying what our species is. No shit we don't live in balance with nature - NOTHING does. It only appears that way because we're seeing the results of competition - but cannot somehow recognize that competition for resources itself as the mechanism for that balance. We're not a virus... we're a invasive species. We're no different than the Brown Tree Snake in Guam, the Cane Toad in Australia, or the Kudzu vine in the southern US. These species aren't instinctively finding equilibrium - because that's not an instinct. The instinct is to use up any available resources, because that means survival and prorogation of your species. Those listed above don't have natural predation, food shortages, or climate barriers to the spreading of their population... and by virtue of our intelligence, neither do we, because if an environment doesn't suit us - we can change it. We wear thick clothes and build well insulated houses in cold climates.. we farm and domesticate livestock to overcome food problems.

Yeah yeah... we use up all the resources we have, like oil, and then go to war and watch society go down the crapper. We would be stupid to allow that to happen, but that's not a consequence of being outside of nature - that IS NATURE. If we outstrip our resources then war, famine, and a loss of basic infrastructure we call society will depopulate humanity to a level that is more sustainable by those resources. THERE'S your god-damned balance.

We have another evolutionary behavior that we've picked up. It's called altruism. A need to help those in trouble, even outside of our own species. We have taken conscious and fully rationalized steps to at least -TRY- to reduce our impact on the environments. We can do a helluva lot better, but we're the only species on this planet that CAN predict the consequences of it's actions... that can understand and modify it's own behavior... so let's start fucking doing it instead of sitting around whining about how evil humanity is to some Captain Planet inspired anthropomorphizing Earth goddess Gaia bullshit.

And we can start by putting that "Humanity is a Virus" meme to fucking rest and realize who and what we really are.

Grrrr!

[Mysterious-G]

What is the point of this topic, anyway?
Matrix is a movie. A movie. You just stated the obvious.

[Zyrusticae]

You're right. Humanity isn't a virus.

The proper analogy would be a bacterial infection, and the body of the Earth contains many thousands of immune system devices designed to keep the population of the infection in check. Sadly, as those systems (which include such lovely things as natural predators and deadly viruses) are failing to contain the growth of the population, the planet is now in a state of decline and will eventually wither and die, taking the human race with it.

Being a parasite can only get you so far...

[Sinue_v2]

Smug fuckholes who boost their ego by kicking the human species for merely acting in accordance to it's nature. People that think humanity is outside of nature, rather than still an active component - both affecting and affected by. Anyone who actually thinks that movie was right when Smith says humanity is a virus, and don't miss a single opportunity (or force an opportunity) to point that quote out as if it actually had some kind of bearing on reality.

Sorry, I deal with a lot hippies in the crowds I run with. Most are good people, if a bit stinky, they just need to have their heads pulled out of their asses once in a while. I have no problems with someone who has an opposing view on the matter - as Hypatia said "Cherish your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than to not think at all". Problem is, some of these people aren't thinking - rightly or wrongly - they're just parroting Hollywood tripe and think it gives them some kind of moral fucking highground.




You're right. Humanity isn't a virus.

The proper analogy would be a bacterial infection, and the body of the Earth contains many thousands of immune system devices designed to keep the population of the infection in check. Sadly, as those systems (which include such lovely things as natural predators and deadly viruses) are failing to contain the growth of the population, the planet is now in a state of decline and will eventually wither and die, taking the human race with it.

Being a parasite can only get you so far...

We're not bacteria, and we're not parasites. There's no need to make analogies. We are an invasive species. Our original environment was sub-Saharan Africa as it was about 200,000 years ago. Some of us (whities) aren't optimally suited for that environment anymore due to the lack of melatonin, but it is the closest we have to a natural environment. We used our intelligence to conquer environments humanity normally cannot live in.... such as the northern climes. Get rid of all tools, all clothes, fire, all everything which our intelligence has us to develop as a means to cope... and try to live through a Canadian winter.


the planet is now in a state of decline and will eventually wither and die, taking the human race with it.

You know, forest fires are a necessary disaster. It cleans out the old growth and debris, and some species have come to depend on it for their germination. The problem is, we build our houses in the paths of these fires - and up until recently didn't have any protocol for pre-emptive burning. We had a strict policy of fire supression, and still do in some places. This causes the debris on the ground to build up - and when it finally does catch fire, it burns far hotter and more ferociously. It steralizes the soil, rather than replenishing it. Analogy.

It could also be possible that the time of mammals is at an end, and humanity is the cause of the extinction. There's been several of them in the past, some of which far more devastatin than anything we're thought to be bringing about. For instance, the oxygen catastrophy. As photosynthesis improved and modified, it started putting off oxygen as a waste product. At the time, life on Earth was adapted for a Carbon rich atmosphere. The oxygen waste was highly toxic, and it lead to a massive extinction event - leaving only those animals who could incorporate oxygen to survive. Oxygen, of course, then served as a booster for metabolism - which is one of the proposed causes of the Cambrian Explosion. Even after which, though, oxygen still plauged many animals which ahd since made the transition to land. High concentrations of oxygen in the atmosphere would ignite when lightning struck, causing explosions and frequent fires. Our current oxygen levels are far lower, but still rather high compared to the environment life first evolved in.

Humanity has killed off most of the megafauna - either directly or as a result of our actions. It makes sense too, because the predators which fed on these megafauna had a tendancy to prey on us as well. Now, it's mostly smaller creatures that survive. Indeed, it's generally the animals which have either learned to live with humanity, be domesticated by humanity, or live parasitically off of humanity that are having the best run. Seagulls, Pidgeons, Crows, Rats, Canines, Felines, Oxen, Bovine, Sheep, Roaches, Mosquitos, etc. Most of these animals which are thriving are extremely adaptable to human society, either evolving quickly to become immune to our poisons (roaches), or modifying their behavior with learned skills (crows). We've routed quite a few species from their niches, but opened up many more.

One thing I notice is that I never really see people harsh on the K/T bolide which marked the end of the Dinosaurs for "killing the Earth". Usually, because in the later body plans which evolved after that event - humanity eventually arose. We owe that asteroid our existence. Yet, we could be the forestfire which heralds in the new biosphere - this time favoring fast adaptation both genetically/behaviorally - and we're just plain evil for it. It could be argued that the asteroid was merely a natural disaster - it wasn't intelligent and didn't know what it was doing. Fair enough. Humanity evolved from nature, we are a part of nature, and therefore what we do to the environment IS natural - even if detrimental. It could also be argued that we weren't really much in the way of intelligence in regards to our actions on the environment until really just the last century or so. Perhaps even still.

I don't think we should encourage extinction, not by a long shot. I'm just saying that we're one hell of an environmental stress - and environmental attrition is a major mover of evolution. So our actions, from an outside perspective, couldn't really be seen as either right or wrong, good or evil. We're just a product of nature interacting with nature. Personally, however, that's another matter. On the personal level we incorporate altrusim, morals, and empathy. These creatures evolved from the same common ancestor as us... evolved alongside us... as the the first sapient and highly intelligent species, I think we do owe it to them to do what we can within reason to preserve and protect them - for our sake as well as theirs.

I just think people should step outside a bit, and look at the issue objectively for a bit - before forming subjective opinions and concepts.

[Zyrusticae]

I know it's needless to come up with analogies. I just felt like it because it's highly entertaining to do so. (And frankly, the analogy is very apt.)

Either way, I don't really care. What's it all matter? It only matters if you focus on such things, really, and no matter what we're rather stuck with what we've got, so why bother thinking about it?

[BlaizeYES]

Smug fuckholes who boost their ego by kicking the human species for merely acting in accordance to it's nature. People that think humanity is outside of nature, rather than still an active component - both affecting and affected by. Anyone who actually thinks that movie was right when Smith says humanity is a virus, and don't miss a single opportunity (or force an opportunity) to point that quote out as if it actually had some kind of bearing on reality.

Sorry, I deal with a lot hippies in the crowds I run with. Most are good people, if a bit stinky, they just need to have their heads pulled out of their asses once in a while. I have no problems with someone who has an opposing view on the matter - as Hypatia said "Cherish your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than to not think at all". Problem is, some of these people aren't thinking - rightly or wrongly - they're just parroting Hollywood tripe and think it gives them some kind of moral fucking highground.




lol, thats like most people's thinking. everyone's "original thoughts" are inspired by either a movie or a book or some other concept that's been around for hundreds of years. hardly anyone does any critical thinking anymore, has any genuine curiosity that wasnt first sparked by an already existing idea... and the most successful medium today is through movies with most people. thats why actors get so smug and arrogant about "how groundbreaking" they are.

and next motivational speech, please dont badmouth captain planet. seriously dude thats not even funny... that childhood memory will NOT be tainted. sure, that south african boy had a useless power of "heart," but they had an episode where a kid with AIDS gets his house burned down by an angry mob. shouldnt that mean anything?


but yea, do you think you're being a little TOO ambitious with humanity? as long as we still have our primitive instincts, we're going to shit on the world. basically every action we perform is somehow connected to those same urges to shit on everything, to survive. emotions are primitive, too, regardless of how "complex" your anger towards something may be. getting angry at these people for not thinking and just quoting movies just shows that you arent ready to lead a progressive brigade to "change the world and usher in a new generation of intelligence and understanding." we're just not ready. we're trying to push for constant adaptation, but people just really arent ready at all. and matrix isnt the only movie here, like 2/3s of movies have some philosophical idea they rape

[R3volver]

humanity is a virus. i hope you all die. thanks for reading.

[Sinue_v2]

I know it's needless to come up with analogies. I just felt like it because it's highly entertaining to do so. (And frankly, the analogy is very apt.)

Either way, I don't really care. What's it all matter? It only matters if you focus on such things, really, and no matter what we're rather stuck with what we've got, so why bother thinking about it?

I don't quite agree that your analogy is apt, but I do agree that it is fun to make analogies. I'll make another one in a moment.

As for what's it matter? Because these kinds of people vote, and they make up a part of society. A society that I have to live in. I'd rather the public thoughts on a subject be shaped by accurate information (to the best of our ability) rather than catchy slogans and misconceptions. Especially when they turn people into smug assholes. I guess I could become a teacher, if I didn't share W.C. Fields sentiments towards children... and small dogs.... and bourbon. It just tends to get under the skin after a while, and well... this IS a rants forum...

Why bother thinking about it? This is all we have? You're right, on the latter. But just because it's all we have - doesn't mean that's all it can be. Say you have a pile of legos sitting in front of you. All you have is the Legos. Change the configuration though.. and you have a helicopter, a house, a death ray, a life-sized statue of Snoop-Dog. It's a double analogy for the environment... because nothing we create is artificial or non-naturally occurring. Even plastics. We're arranging the molecules differently, sure, but they were here to begin with. They came into that configuration by the manipulation of a product of a natural system. Aside from scale and complexity, how is what we're doing any different than a Beaver building a dam, or a sparrow building a nest? Simply gathering raw materials from the surrounding environment and reconfiguring them to suit a different purpose.


everyone's "original thoughts" are inspired by either a movie or a book or some other concept that's been around for hundreds of years.

True. There is nothing new under the sun. Society doesn't generally progress through originality, but through imitation, combination, and refinement. I think it was Einstein who said, "The secret to originality is knowing how to hide your sources". This is why scientists are said to "stand on the shoulders of giants". Even those we regard as giants were standing on the shoulders of others. Discoveries and increases in our knowledge aren't usually made by a clever idea - they're usually made by accident or as a direct observation of the data.

I don't mean that I expect everyone to have completely unique views utter different from everyone else's... but rather just that they should be formed by the wanderings of a genuinely inquisitive mind, rather than just parroted with no regard to accuracy or accountability because they make you feel good.

[Solstis]

"We're killing the Earth."

How? What is with this generic anime bullshit? We definitely are killing off everything on the surface of the planet (and possibly below), but the planet itself? No.

More on topic, definitely digging the perspective you brought to the discussion (Humanity as an invasive species). Highly logical.

[Kylie]

Wow, yet another rant I was geared towards disagreeing with that turned out to be about something else. I agree with the meme in the respect that people are the cause of a lot of crap, but a movie would never be able to influence my perspective on that, especially not one I've never seen all the way through. :wacko: From my understanding of the movie though, it's just a bunch of sci-fi fantasy stuff that I hope no one seriously believes. I met a guy that claimed he did though. >_>

[Mysterious-G]

I met a guy that claimed he did though. >_>

Your Ex, Kylie? :lol:

[Kylie]

Your Ex, Kylie? :lol:No. :-P Most of my ex-boyfriends are crazy, but not that crazy.

I think it was some kid that was allowed to watch a rated R movie.

[CrimsomWolf]

While I do believe that mankind is presently on path to self-destruction, I never really believed that it's true nature of man. It's more of social effect of massive hypocrisy and staggering incompetency in raising our children.

However the whole "We're cancer to Earth" thing to me was always bullshit. Survival of species takes priority, and it's rather hard to achieve without modeling the ecosystem to suit our needs. And it's logical that lifeforms that are incapable of adapting to the new one will perish. Which is why our "domestic" animals are in abundance, and unique species are dying out.
Nature is a brutal struggle for survival. It's either them or us. And between survival of man and seals, I would choose man, being uh, a man.

[Kent]

While I do believe that mankind is presently on path to self-destruction, I never really believed that it's true nature of man. It's more of social effect of massive hypocrisy and staggering incompetency in raising our children.

However the whole "We're cancer to Earth" thing to me was always bullshit. Survival of species takes priority, and it's rather hard to achieve without modeling the ecosystem to suit our needs. And it's logical that lifeforms that are incapable of adapting to the new one will perish. Which is why our "domestic" animals are in abundance, and unique species are dying out.
Nature is a brutal struggle for survival. It's either them or us. And between survival of man and seals, I would choose man, being uh, a man.
I've always understood the "humanity as cancer" argument to not be stemmed from human nature or evolution or instinct, but rather, what we've come to doing as part of modern society. That is, things like giant corporations nor caring about the environment or welfare of people because they can make an ultimately imaginary profit from it, to feed their own greed. Preying off of the misfortune of others, with wanton environmental poisoning and destruction, and, knowing full-well of the consequences already set in motion, choosing to keep persuing such means of profit, instead of persuing means that are less-lethal, perhaps even beneficial, to the environment and those that live in it.

Then again, maybe I'm giving them too much credit.

Also humans are the Flood. :wacko:

[BlaizeYES]

well i'm about to go out to eat, but getting back to the original post, and your lego analogy, theres something i have talked to other people about... nobody talks about how someone's feelings in history books, and when they dive into someone's personal life, it's typically on their personality quirks, little things that made them eccentric.

they don't talk about how christopher columbus got into a fight with his girlfriend and then said, "fuck it, i'm not sailing across the ocean, my girl's mad at me." or just not doing ANYTHING at all because he looked like a dumbass, or a loser, for not actually being in india like he originally thought. human's primitive shortcomings are hardly mentioned in history, and for good reason. "feelings" for the past 100 years have begun dominating over everything else... blame it on the industrial revolution, or psychology being accepted immediately into the states giving people more time for "introspection" while society progressed way too fast, or whatever other reason... but it's fucking everything up. if anything, thats what i get pissed at. people that let their negative feelings stop them from doing anything, or get depressed and unreliable with a job or an assignment, or will watch movies all day to help feed their aesthetic needs rather than actively pursuing a goal or a dream... because they just want to be LOVED or be accepted. and these people are all over the place, and thats only growing. being a cog in the machine is "making it," using those retarded fucking social achievements to determine their self-worth because of their own lack of confidence. and theres far more of these types of people than there are people that are trying to improve the world, that are trying to grow and develop, that are trying to innovate. and thats just the way things are, we havent reached that point as humans and probably never will.


the only way humans will actively progress is if they are FORCED into it... because god knows they dont care, wouldnt question the decisions made by them as long as they still fit in. and the vast majority of people now are like this, even granting them freedom is worthless when they accomplish nothing. they will just try to find some weird thing to make them seem unique, as if they're different from the millions of others that are the exact same as them, and live their lives in their nice comfort bubble of never achieving anything. and people are just unhappy with themselves, more today than 50 years ago, are only going to get more depressed, and are going to accomplish less. you basically have to control those people in order to get any production out of them... which is why when people yell at them, "join the army," it's probably with good reason. if you want to wait for evolution to have everyone moving forward to one continuous goal with no one constantly trying to fuck up what should be an easy task, it's going to be a while.

the only way to get your form of idealism to work, or any for that matter, is to do it yourself by force, or other people will find a way to fuck it up. shithole people will always be around to exploit "weaknesses" in a system. and people allow these things to happen, with no repercussions to the entire society for fucking things up... so you have to take a firm hand to everyone in that society. but then when doing that, people think its immoral to treat those obsolete people like objects, and you have to have your ideas to improve society and advance mankind pass through some bureacratic system that will immediately deny the proposal for whatever reason, and every plan has a fallacy because of human emotions like "empathy" or just "anger" for suggesting an idea deemed "taboo."

nobody knows EXACTLY what happens to a human being in outer space because it's never been experimented with. grab a homeless guy and shoot him out of the atmosphere,and take notes on what is happening to the dude. and then activists can gather to how "sadistic" and "inhumane" your actions were, when 2 days ago that guy was panhandling and those same activists walked right by him, offering no support... not even making eye contact, being disgusted at his urine-stained pants. but maybe we needed that accurate information on that dude in space so we can figure out what we could do to advance mankind outside of this planet and start having wars on the moon, and he died for the country, for the sake of knowledge that could not be achieved any other way.


i'm sure i RANTed pretty long here, diverted quite a bit from the topic, and jesus i am hungry right now. but moral of the story:



IF WE WANT A BETTER TOMORROW, WE MUST ALL ADOPT CONSEQUENTIALISM IF WE DONT WANT HISTORY BOOKS FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS CENTERED ON POP CULTURE CELEBRITIES WITH TECHNOLOGY BECOMING A FOOTNOTE



AHHHHHHHHHHH I NEED A PORTERHOUSE STEAK ASAP

[Swiftstrike]

I really wish these people would just shut the fuck up. Yeah, I saw the Matrix too. It was good, but it wasn't anything new and profound. Just because it blew your mind with centuries old philosophy you've been too much of an illiterate fuck up to this point to read, doesn't mean Agent Smith was right when he said that.


Definition of Virus: "a harmful or corrupting agency" (*looks at the degrading state of the Earth*). I know why people are called a virus.



This meme has really gotten to me lately. Bunch of buttholes sitting around on the net or at a party that think they know what humanity is and is not. I'll tell you what we are. We're a fucking species of primate, and our behaviors are molded by our early primate ancestors as well as our tribal hunter-gatherer forefathers.


1) What makes you think YOU are right?
2) There is no actual conclusive evidence that the evolution THEORY is correct, no matter how well the schools brainwash people into believing so. The "logic" that provides "evidence" to the THEORY of evolution requires the same type of leaps of faith that the creationism theory does (which is why there is no actual evidence in class when evolution is taught). [there is no hard evidence for either, so its all opinion]
3) If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
4) Our behaviours are based upon how we are raised and the surrounding culture (but there is debate about this too ...).



Show me... come on... show me ONE fucking iota of intelligence by at least correctly identifying what our species is. No shit we don't live in balance with nature - NOTHING does. It only appears that way because we're seeing the results of competition - but cannot somehow recognize that competition for resources itself as the mechanism for that balance. We're not a virus... we're a invasive species. We're no different than the Brown Tree Snake in Guam, the Cane Toad in Australia, or the Kudzu vine in the southern US. These species aren't instinctively finding equilibrium - because that's not an instinct. The instinct is to use up any available resources, because that means survival and prorogation of your species. Those listed above don't have natural predation, food shortages, or climate barriers to the spreading of their population... and by virtue of our intelligence, neither do we, because if an environment doesn't suit us - we can change it. We wear thick clothes and build well insulated houses in cold climates.. we farm and domesticate livestock to overcome food problems.


1) Do the mentioned animals/plant eat and consume EVERYTHING in their path? No. They stop when their hunger/need is reached. Humans continue to eat and consume and expand, even when the need to do so does not exist.
2) Does the population of the mentioned animals/plant continue to grow at rapid rates? No. there is some sort of force that is limiting/stopping that.



Yeah yeah... we use up all the resources we have, like oil, and then go to war and watch society go down the crapper. We would be stupid to allow that to happen, but that's not a consequence of being outside of nature - that IS NATURE. If we outstrip our resources then war, famine, and a loss of basic infrastructure we call society will depopulate humanity to a level that is more sustainable by those resources. THERE'S your god-damned balance.


1) definition of nature: "the natural physical world including plants and animals and landscapes etc"
2) Are cities natural? no. Roads, tractors, ect? no. These things are not found naturally, they are made. they are artificial. Anything made by humans is artifical becuase it could not be found natuarally in the world.
3) definition of balance: "harmonious arrangement or relation of parts or elements within a whole" To be balanced, there must be equality, there must be stability. The continual degradation of the World and our environment shows that our actions do NOT provide stability, therefore must not be natural.



We have another evolutionary behavior that we've picked up. It's called altruism. A need to help those in trouble, even outside of our own species. We have taken conscious and fully rationalized steps to at least -TRY- to reduce our impact on the environments. We can do a helluva lot better, but we're the only species on this planet that CAN predict the consequences of it's actions... that can understand and modify it's own behavior... so let's start fucking doing it instead of sitting around whining about how evil humanity is to some Captain Planet inspired anthropomorphizing Earth goddess Gaia bullshit.

And we can start by putting that "Humanity is a Virus" meme to fucking rest and realize who and what we really are.

Grrrr!

1) altruism: Shown by every living thing that takes care of another living thing. Humans are not the only thing to show this characteristic.
2) sadly, humans are not ALL showing altruism or helping to conserve the environment ... only a small portion of us are.
3) Wait? Humans are the only ones that know what our actions can do? WRONG!! Every animal knows what consequences result to what actions. That is why animals won'r eat poison plants. Its why they avoid certain animals/plants/areas. it is why certain actions are done instead of another action: becuase they know what is better to do, becuase they realize that there is an effect (consequence) to every action.

[Solstis]

Swiftstrike, you've never had a pet, huh?

Not to mention that wolf populations tend (or tended to) explode, then die off, because they ate all the damn food. They didn't speak to mother Gaia and throw themselves off cliffs, or stopped eating other animals out of some driving instinct. They died of malnutrition and related issues.

Also, claiming that cities are artificial because "we made them" is similar to claiming that ant hills are artificial. Or bird's nests. Those are clearly artificial, since they are not naturally occurring. Trees don't grow nests, the earth does not arrange itself in convenient mannerisms for insects. They have to build, explore, and excavate.

Until we can spawn matter out of nothingness (theoretically impossible, I might add), everything we interact with is natural. Your concept of nature is limited.

Oh, and apes, not monkeys.

[Zarode]

Rants topics are a virus.

[Blitzkommando]

1) Do the mentioned animals/plant eat and consume EVERYTHING in their path? No. They stop when their hunger/need is reached. Humans continue to eat and consume and expand, even when the need to do so does not exist.
2) Does the population of the mentioned animals/plant continue to grow at rapid rates? No. there is some sort of force that is limiting/stopping that.


I'll take on kudzu for your questions. Kudzu is an invasive, constantly growing, vine from Asia that has ravaged the southern United States. Until drastic actions are taken, such as the usage of herbicides, it will continue to expand and grow regardless of how such growth is detrimental to other native plant species in the area. It does so because that is what it does as a creeping vine. It will keep growing and reproducing until an outside force kills it. It grows extremely rapidly in its environment and takes over due to native species not being able to combat it and that it proves to be inedible to local species.

In that, kudzu behaves like any invading species. With no natural competition it quickly overtakes its environment. If you want an example seen through more of North America, try honeysuckle. It too is invasive, fast growing, and destructive. It will take as much of the nutrients as it can to further reproduce and expand. There are plenty of other examples of invasive species that have the same behavior both plant and animal. (See: rabbits, mice, and rats in Australia or wild pigs here in the Americas)

In what these species do, humans can be seen as acting in similar measures. In order to grow and expand our species we expand our range. We grow plants and animals favorable to our survival and push out species not necessary, but especially species in competition with us. It's the same concept as kudzu choking out the nitrogen in the soil and covering the trees with giant leaves blocking out the sunlight. It's often not that we are out there to destroy a species but are out to ensure our survival. Sometimes that means we squeeze out a species because it was competing for something we want. Such as pushing out wolves in order to protect sheep or leveling trees to make room for housing.

My main thought about the concept that man is inherently evil is that, as such, that must be an incredibly depressing method of thinking and I can't help but pity those who truly believe that every person in the world would be willing to screw over others in order to get ahead in life. If anything, it's that kind of thought process that would perpetuate such thinking as I could easily see it go from that to, "Well, since everyone else screws everyone else over then it's only right for me to do so as well." Certainly I would not trust a random person off of the street to my credit card information, but at the same time I would not see them as out to stab me in the back either.

[Sinue_v2]

Swift.... that post has to be a troll. I know there really are people that uneducated out there, but it's generally not the case on PSOworld. I really don't believe that you're sincere in your ignorance. If you are, then I would kindly request that you abstain from further posting in this thread. If you don't at least have a basic understand the concepts behind the discussion, as you really have no place in it.

Edit: Not even going to bother until you present an argument that doesn't resemble what an 8 year old autistic kid plagiarized from Answers in Genesis.

[Weeaboolits]

The difference between humans and other animals is that we're too stuck up to believe we are one, we're not that special, we're just well adapted. It's not like anything we do can't happen otherwise, we've had mass extinctions, volcanoes have been producing greenhouse gasses long before we were thought of, we're not the only animals to change the landscape to better suit our needs, beavers build dams, don't they?

One of the ones that annoys me is when people get up in arms about eating meat, 'cause you know, there aren't any carnivores out there or anything; I don't think a boa gives a fuck how that rat feels about things.

Not to say we shouldn't play nice and be careful, we have to be sure to maintain a livable habitat for ourselves, after all. If we did somehow manage to fuck things over, I'd imagine the next dominant species will be cracking jokes about how we screwed ourselves over and how we had our chance too, we're not so special that nothing can replace us.

[Kent]

1) What makes you think YOU are right?
2) There is no actual conclusive evidence that the evolution THEORY is correct, no matter how well the schools brainwash people into believing so. The "logic" that provides "evidence" to the THEORY of evolution requires the same type of leaps of faith that the creationism theory does (which is why there is no actual evidence in class when evolution is taught). [there is no hard evidence for either, so its all opinion]
3) If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
4) Our behaviours are based upon how we are raised and the surrounding culture (but there is debate about this too ...).

Okay, normally, I wouldn't dignify the whole "face -> brick wall" thing with a response, but here's some special treatment, guy:

1. This argument is hilarious. Especially when you ask it of the person that first makes it.

2. I don't even know how this came up, but I'm guessing it's the fact that he said that humans are primates. Do you know why he said that? Because they are. Humans are scientifically classified as primates. Amazing, how science works, isn't it? They're so bold as to not say things such as "humans are not directly related to any animal kingdom, and are their own unique, special snowflakes and also are the only things with souls."

Also, evolution as a concept is based in empirical fact. It is something that actually does exist in the real world - in fact, it's defined as "A gradual process of development, formation, or growth, esp. one leading to a more advanced or complex form." Note use of the "esp." - it means "especially," which means that, while it generally does include that, it does not always. Therefore, evolution does not require change into a more advanced or complex form, and we know that the prior part of the definition is entirely true in its existance. I hope you're not arguing that, but instead, arguing the theory of where mankind evolved from...

3. ...Yeah. It's kinda the same reason that, say, reptiles exist, even though we have birds. Evolution isn't a singular path, nor is it linear - far more variables are taken into consideration when evolving than you seem to think. It's not "Oh, hey, I'm an ape... But crap! I need thumbs! EVOLUTION TIME!" and then, spotaneously and universally, all apes have thumbs. It's something that happens within groups that need to adapt or grow on their own, and it's something that happens gradually. Many other groups will not stray down this evolutionary path, and thus, will either remain in their much more ancient forms... Or they'll find a different evolutionary path - one that makes them much more semblant of what they used to be. Thusly, we have, for example, orangutans as well as gorillas.

4. There are many, many factors that come into how an individual behaves. It should be noted that the psychology of a single person alone will be vastly and incredibly different than that of people as a group. There's a reason that psychology and sociology are so distinct from each other.

3) Wait? Humans are the only ones that know what our actions can do? WRONG!! Every animal knows what consequences result to what actions. That is why animals won'r eat poison plants. Its why they avoid certain animals/plants/areas. it is why certain actions are done instead of another action: becuase they know what is better to do, becuase they realize that there is an effect (consequence) to every action.
This is exactly why dogs will readily drink antifreeze. Because they know of the consequences.

There's a pretty substantial difference between knowledge and instinct. I think perhaps you should look into this.

[BlaizeYES]

My main thought about the concept that man is inherently evil is that, as such, that must be an incredibly depressing method of thinking and I can't help but pity those who truly believe that every person in the world would be willing to screw over others in order to get ahead in life. If anything, it's that kind of thought process that would perpetuate such thinking as I could easily see it go from that to, "Well, since everyone else screws everyone else over then it's only right for me to do so as well." Certainly I would not trust a random person off of the street to my credit card information, but at the same time I would not see them as out to stab me in the back either.


i dont think man is EVIL, but instead they are constantly fueled by their own primitive wants. and most of the time, people don't even know what they want, they just wander aimlessly and try to find something to give them some sort of fix to entertain them.

and theres only a fraction of people screw other people over to exploit a flaw in a system, but that always fucks over things for everyone. i mean really, when dealing with people on a macro level, you have to work out every kink and weakness to make sure someone doesnt try to fuck it up. and all it takes is 1 person out of 100 thousand to break a system. i mean the internet should have been a beautiful thing, having people find the possibilities of what they can accomplish through the new technology... but instead you got pedophiles, stalkers, hackers, and losers that make computer viruses, spyware, etc. it's just sad that those few shithole people can stall progress for the entire society as a whole, and since its near impossible to weed out the few shithole people, you need to just take control over the entire society.

it'd be one thing if someone is bending the rules or manipulating the system so they can make positive advancements in something, anything. its that bending the rules for positive reasons gets negated because of the possibility of a negative outcome. i've done it in the past at jobs so i can get something done, i'm not like some sort of "rouge gunman that plays by his own rules," but ive manipulated things and people just so i can get past a typical procedure that would take 3-4 days to process and get approval when it needs to get done immediately, and then in the end my boss would understand, sometimes would get a little upset but be impressed that i got it done and no disciplinary measure would be taken. but then another retarded worker will hear about something i did one time to "the system" 2 months prior, try it themselves for the sake of being able to "push the envelope," and then use my idea for something negative, to suit them. and then i'll hear that their justification for what they did is, "well blaizeYES did the same thing 2 months ago and it goes against policy, and he wasnt fired for it." even the smartest people will use this reasoning when they just wanted to fuck around to begin with, and its like dealing with little kids. they do it for the sake of exploiting something, making something good into complete shit, to make themselves feel better or entertain themselves. and then it fucks over everything for everyone, and it proves why theres a system in place to begin with... because those few shithole people will just go and fuck it up for the sake of fucking it up. lol, thats my gripe

[Nitro Vordex]

Good and evil are relative.

Meaning, they're opinions.

[Zyrusticae]

I don't quite agree that your analogy is apt, but I do agree that it is fun to make analogies. I'll make another one in a moment.

As for what's it matter? Because these kinds of people vote, and they make up a part of society. A society that I have to live in. I'd rather the public thoughts on a subject be shaped by accurate information (to the best of our ability) rather than catchy slogans and misconceptions. Especially when they turn people into smug assholes. I guess I could become a teacher, if I didn't share W.C. Fields sentiments towards children... and small dogs.... and bourbon. It just tends to get under the skin after a while, and well... this IS a rants forum...
Oh, hahaha... I totally agree with that, but as much as I wish that people could be better-educated (44% of people in the U.S. believe in a Second Coming...?! Really...?!), I'm simply at a loss as to how you could possibly do anything about it.

But I guess that kind of thinking is exactly why this is a problem. I just can't get motivated to try to change peoples' minds about such things. Especially when they're so deeply ingrained into their respective conscioui... consciousness...? Bleh, whatever, point is, it's very difficult to change people in things like this. Once they've made up their minds, well, good luck.

So, yeah, the only way to change things would be to educate the children properly, but... again, good luck changing things there.

Ah, damnit, I sound so pointlessly defeatist here. Eh, I guess this is why I'm most definitely not picking up philosophy anytime soon...


Why bother thinking about it? This is all we have? You're right, on the latter. But just because it's all we have - doesn't mean that's all it can be. Say you have a pile of legos sitting in front of you. All you have is the Legos. Change the configuration though.. and you have a helicopter, a house, a death ray, a life-sized statue of Snoop-Dog. It's a double analogy for the environment... because nothing we create is artificial or non-naturally occurring. Even plastics. We're arranging the molecules differently, sure, but they were here to begin with. They came into that configuration by the manipulation of a product of a natural system. Aside from scale and complexity, how is what we're doing any different than a Beaver building a dam, or a sparrow building a nest? Simply gathering raw materials from the surrounding environment and reconfiguring them to suit a different purpose. Mm-hmm, this is true. (A bit odd, though, using legos to build a death-ray...)

But I guess I just don't see the point when I, personally, have no power to affect change in this area. The next great environmental solution to the problem of food and power consumption won't be coming from me, I assure you...

...But maybe if we all cared just a bit more, society would be better off as a whole. I guess that'd be the logic behind always keeping a conscious effort to make such things known. But I'm too lazy for that...


...Also, lol @ Swiftstrike's post.

[Sinue_v2]

The difference between humans and other animals is that we're too stuck up to believe we are one, we're not that special, we're just well adapted.

I'm not so sure. Certainly there seems to be a fair disconnect in many people's minds where they see animals and humans as distinctly different, when in fact we're really not. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that humanity isn't special. To the best of our knowledge, humanity is the only life form on Earth capable of not just looking up at the night sky and wondering - but to formulate a methodology for knowing. Through our intelligence, humanity has (again, to the best of our knowledge) become a spark light in the vast darkness. We are made from the dust of extinct stars, therefore - we are a way for the universe to awaken and know itself.



It's not like anything we do can't happen otherwise, we've had mass extinctions, volcanoes have been producing greenhouse gasses long before we were thought of, we're not the only animals to change the landscape to better suit our needs, beavers build dams, don't they?

Whether natural or not, there's still the question of whether it's morally right to impose our intelligent will on creatures which cannot respond accordingly. A beaver cannot protest it's rights or fight back against a human land development. So in many people's minds, it becomes almost tantamount to rape. I can understand where a person would morally find the actions of humanity as a collective wrong, but I don't think humanity can rightly be blamed for it either - since our decisions are still made using emotions, behaviors, motivations, etc, which evolved in the natural world - and predate humanity.

I really don't think any other creature, given our level of intelligence, would do any better or worse than we have. They would simply act in accordance to their nature, and their perceptions skewed by the bias of that nature.


One of the ones that annoys me is when people get up in arms about eating meat, 'cause you know, there aren't any carnivores out there or anything; I don't think a boa gives a fuck how that rat feels about things.

This is what really made me post a response. I've been following a bit of the drama between the AmazingAtheist and Onisian on Youtube, so I've been looking into the matter a bit more than usual. I can understand some vegan's moral choice to not eat meat, or even eat animal products such as eggs or milk, because of the treatment of those animals by their handlers and the food industry being... well... an industry and not a fucking humanitarian agency.

Whatever one's moral choice on the matter; it doesn't do anyone any good to spout memes and misconceptions. Humanity is not meant to eat meat, nor are we meant to subsist solely on vegetables. We are omnivores, like most of our Great Ape cousins. Our diets should typically consist of primarily vegetables and fruits, and be supplemented by meat. Even the old food pyramids show that we are supposed to eat far more fruits, vegetables, and grains than meats and dairy products. Canine teeth don't really factor into it much, but our shrinking jaw and problems with wisdom teeth (which are molars) do indicate a diet geared more towards occasional meat consumption.

There's also the intestinal tract to consider, because nutrients are extremely difficult to get out of vegetable matter. Some vegetables (such as Celery) are so hard to digest that it takes more calories to process it than our bodies can extract! Carnivores, however, typically have much shorter intestines due to the ease at which flesh is broken down and it's nutrients absorbed. Out of the "Big Four", the two top meat eater Apes are humans and chimpanzees. Both actively hunt and consume prey in addition to eating vegetation and fruits. Humans and Chimps possess smaller and sleeker abdomens due to our shorter intestinal tract indicative of a meat consuming species. Orangutans are also omnivores, however they don't hunt and kill prey. Instead, their meat consumption is generally restricted to insects, honey, and bird eggs. Their digestive tracts are a bit longer than Human and Chimp digestive tracts, and shows in their slightly distended bellies. Gorillas, however, are nearly purely herbivorous - consisting almost entirely on leaves or the occasional fruits. Any meat they consume is generally restricted to insects accidentally ingested while eating plant material. Since leaves are extremely hard to digest compared to animal products, it's no surprise that gorillas have the largest intestinal tract. They also haven't lost their canines, which are useful for cracking bamboo shoots, roots, and other hard food sources into smaller pieces.

Again, I think people who mistake humans for herbivores or carnivores are fundamentally flawed in their understanding of what humanity actually is - a reality one should accept regardless of whatever morals an individual may hold.


Not to say we shouldn't play nice and be careful, we have to be sure to maintain a livable habitat for ourselves, after all.

Agree'd. However, in my opinion, we generally should make special allowances for other creatures - simply because it's the right thing to do I think. Altruism is a cost vs. benefit analysis built into us by nature which basically says, if it isn't a detriment to your survival to help out a fellow creature - then help them out. An orangutan freeing a bird from a net may feel genuine sympathy for that bird, but that sympathy is born from an evolutionary advantage that orangutan receives from that bird who will invariably eat parasitic insects later on down the road which might otherwise infect the orangutan with some disease. I think humanity is at the point now where we can take real steps to reduce our consumption in first world nations in order to primarily spread excess resources to other less fortunate nations, as well as to our wider biosphere, without significant detrimental risks to our society's growth and properity.

One of the reasons why I'm enamored with what the theory of evolution says about life, is that many Native American tribes actually got it right (for the wrong reasons) when they stated that we are all related. Brother Wolf, Brother Bear, Father Eagle.... we are all related, if a bit more distantly from some. It really drives home a "oneness" with the world around you. I hope nobody mistakes this for romanticism getting in the way of objectivity, as I'm similarly enamored by Roman Catholic religion - yet reject the faith on the basis of finding it factually and logically inaccurate.


If we did somehow manage to fuck things over, I'd imagine the next dominant species will be cracking jokes about how we screwed ourselves over and how we had our chance too, we're not so special that nothing can replace us.

I'm not so sure about that. I think the next dominant intelligent species will likely be a subset of humanities creation, possibly technological in nature. Still, they will invariably be beset by closely held behaviors inherited by their ancestors which have clear and distinct purposes in their original environment but must be adapted, or at least understood, in the new environments which they create. Whereas humanity may be seen to be too reckless in our pursuit of technology, a species which does not have the pressure of competition or territorialism may move too slowly to react or adapt to necessary changes in the environment.

Or, perhaps, as I'm starting to suspect - intelligence may just be an evolutionary dead end. Seems absurd to say now, with humanities population edging closer to 7 billion, but we've only been around for 200,000 years roughly. Where are our contemporaries? Where is Neanderthal? Where is Florensis? Where is Habilus? Where is Idaltu? All extinct... most of their species were longer lived than ours... and they never even reached the pinnacle of technology that humanity has (or soon will have) where "Anybody will have the capability to kill everybody".

This is why I so highly support space travel and colonization (which some also disagree with, claiming that "we've fucked up earth enough, lets leave the rest of the galaxy alone"), because we're currently putting all our eggs in one basket so to speak. Of course... colonization will also mean extinction as humanity diversifies and speciates outwardly to even more radically new and unique environments. At least the latter being a slower process than the former, I would hope.

[Sinue_v2]

But I guess I just don't see the point when I, personally, have no power to affect change in this area.

But you do. Maybe not a huge change, but it's there. I haven't invented any new green technology, or championed any new legislature in congress, but I hope that by discussing things like this in topics here on PSOworld and on other forums that I'm fostering discussions and new ways of looking at things for some people. I hope that I'm getting some people to look twice at widely accepted, though erroneous, memes like "Survival of the Fittest" - and challenge them in order to stop the misinformation and misconceptions that only ever lead to confusion and obfuscation.

You never know. Maybe someone here will read this discussion and take a second look at things, and reform their opinions - whether more in line, or more opposed to my own. They may go on to carry those newly formed opinions into something greater. Maybe someone here will eventually be a governor or inventor who does have the capability to make real change. Or perhaps they'll more strongly formulate their own opinion, which will then be given to someone else who will one day have the capability to make change.

Thoreau was a simple pencil maker, but his ideals on non-violent civil disobedience helped to inspire Gandhi's views, and shaped his his protests - which freed the nation of India from British rule without a bloody struggle like the American Revolution. The important thing is that discussion and the free exchange of ideas takes place. Because ideas are what change the world, not actions. That's why they say the pen is mightier than the sword. A sword can only kill a man, but a pen can topple nations.



(44% of people in the U.S. believe in a Second Coming...?! Really...?!)

Faith is a funny thing, and the good news about faith is that you don't need evidence to support it, even if evidence can contradict it. Since science does not have much to say on the subject of god or gods, a belief in the second coming is perfectly acceptable I think... even if faith in a literal global flood and an ark full of animals saving the biosphere is not acceptable. What really concerns me is related to the below quip which I poached from The New York Times.


Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.

We live in a society where scientific progress is accelerated or impeded by a congress who (in part) represent the common people who elect them. By ignoring the problems with scientific illiteracy, we face a potentially dangerous situation. From a science perspective we have issues such as Stem Cell research being stymed in the Bush Administration which hold back and suppress basic research from being preformed, which gives other countries a head start on the technologies which will shape the future. On the public end, we have a world which is being shaped and guided by technologies which many Americans have no idea about - and decisions will have to be made concerning our futures and our children's futures. It is imperative for a free nation to stay well informed, not just in matters of politics and policy, but in science as well.

Carl Sagan argued that the burning of the Library of Alexandria circa 415 AD, ended the Hellenistic age of reasoned learning and plunged Europe into a 1,000 years of darkness. Why? Because the contents of the library were out of reach to the common man. The inventors and scholars inside did not use their knowledge to improve the world around them. They did not actively pursue the education of the unwashed masses. They were points of debate, curiosities for kings, and ultimately - when the mob came to burn the pagan edifice down, he said, nobody was there to stop them. I'd rather not see that happen again, but the rumblings of thunder are already on the horizon - be they the smug fuckwits who I initially railed against that want to see society collapse and humanity return to tribal life so as to live close to "mother earth" - or Creationist fraudsters like Kent Hovind peddling their snake oil simple answers to simple minds.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh0eM4tAISQ

I find it a bit telling, when talking to people, how quickly some are to attribute advances of the Egyptian, Mayan, Babylonian, and other great cultures to Alien or otherworldly intervention. Yet I rarely ever hear of genius of the Greeks being attributed to these supernatural sources. Perhaps a bit about Atlantis, but overall - the Greeks seemed to have earned the knowledge that so many willfully attribute to the supernatural in other cultures. Is it, perhaps, simply because we don't have detailed records of the debates, dissertations, and theorums which went into these discoveries as we do for the Greeks?

[Scejntjynahl]

Reading your rants are always educational Sinue. I doubt there is much else I can possibly add as eloquently as the you and the rest of the posters have done thus far.

The only thing I could add is personal opinions, which unfortunately are mere observations. The disheartening thing that I think upon when it comes to us humans is the bottomless capacity we can have with greed. We never seem to be satisfied with any amount of anything, we tend to always want more. We confuse "want" with "need" all too often. This in my opinion lead us to do disastrous things to ourselfs, to our neighbors, even to our planet.

I honestly don't know if we are better or worse than any other member of the animal kingdom, but what I do know, we do have a vast potential for great destruction in the shortest time ever possible. Things that took eons to be can be descimated in mere seconds by us.

It is a frightening thing to realize that we do have that potential. All it would take is a lapse in judgement, and for lack of words "poof" it is all she wrote.

Bah, I'll just get more morbid if I continue on.

Again Sinue, insightful as always.

[Nitro Vordex]

Sinues' posts are orgasms for your eyes.

[Scejntjynahl]

Perhaps for some people, yes. I just merely appreciate a well thought out rant for once in a while.

[ShinMaruku]

Virus, nay. A malignancy, perhaps.

And yes we are killing off the planet in ways sure but there is also a feed back mechanism that will strike back. Take the Hurricane in the gulf coast, that place was a swamp, dumb asses drained it and decided to live on the beach front for beauty, the storm came and made it back into a swamp.

Plus people are not apes, they are great apes, gibbons are apes and to get technical we are hominids some big differences with us and gear apes when you get into function.

And this reaction I get from the OP is amusing, people were always that stupid and will remain that stupid. The US has a chronic case of stupidity because they have been spoiled and places are still remote in the US and ignorant people are prone to exploitation.

I always said there are 7 billion people in the world and 6 billion of them are stupid.

As for are we better and worse than other living things, I'll say we have the ego to push forward.

That said, maybe we should have let the south go. The progress we would have made....

[Zorafim]

Humanity is a porcupine. It slowly scuttles around and eats random things, and pinches anything that steps on it.

See? I can do it too.


The thing people have to realize about the original quote is, Agent Smith wasn't a human. He was an outside source, observing an occurrence. His end result was "Oh hey, these guys don't know what they're doing. They're obviously evil!" What credentials do sentient computer programs have for psychology? He's just a greedy jerk that puts down everything but himself.

If humanity is a virus, earth is a dirt eating child.

[Nitro Vordex]

Perhaps for some people, yes. I just merely appreciate a well thought out rant for once in a while.
Don't deny it, you love it. ;o

[Lance813]

Ahem,



WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE! 2012 IS COMING.........AHHHHHH!


Well, now that that's out.

We are the same as anything else on this planet. We are more superior because we believe we are more superior. A plant needs carbon dioxide to survive and we need its byproduct oxygen to survive. We are all part of the world and the world is part of us.

Basically, the world is a stage for us to do whatever we want to do with it, but we need to remember what keeps us alive, which would be the world for all of you slow ones... :wacko:

[Sinue_v2]

Virus, nay. A malignancy, perhaps.

Capable of malignant behavior, in a subjective and personal perspective - but if humanity is malignant as a objective tautological statement - then all life on Earth is a malignancy.


Plus people are not apes, they are great apes, gibbons are apes and to get technical we are hominids some big differences with us and gear apes when you get into function.

Linnean Taxonomy has kinda been crushed under the weight of varied speciation. It's generally only still around because so many people are used to it, kinda like how the US doesn't convert over to metric. Clades are now used, and further with the understanding that just because we evolved from something, doesn't mean we don't still belong to that clade. So while we are Hominids, we are still great apes, just as we are still apes, and we are still monkeys, and thus still primates. Just like we are mammals, yet we are still reptilian, and we are still fish, and we are still Eukaryotes.

There actually is nothing technically wrong with saying that humans evolved from monkeys - even if it is a gross oversimplification. It's far more accurate to say we evolved from apes, as we are directly descended from them - and my only problem with someone who claims we evolved from monkeys is that they generally don't make that distinction or understand even the basic points of detail - thus turning a tautologically true statement into a strawman argument.

Excellent timing on this point too, as AronRa just put out an excellent new video on this very subject. If you are interested in this kind of stuff, I strongly recommend subscribing to his channel. He never fails to disappoint.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK1zc1mwGhg


I always said there are 7 billion people in the world and 6 billion of them are stupid.

I don't really believe that. I think most of the "stupid" people in the world aren't really that stupid... they're just too far specialized and short sighted. Someone can be an absolute genius when it comes to computer databases and website security, but utterly ignorant of economics. Sometimes the ego from professionalism in one field seeps over, and they may assert things or form opinions around things they don't really know. An economist talking to this person would label them critically stupid for their opinions, yet the same economist can be seen as critically stupid when trying to set up a computer security suite. It happens to all of us, I think, whether we know it or not.

Not to say that there really aren't critically stupid people without a shred of humility or good judgment. Quite a few. Just not in the numbers you're proposing I think.

Perhaps I do put humanity on a higher pedestal, and hold them to a higher metric than I should. Perhaps I look at humanity through the eyes of a psychiatrist rather than a sociologist - and projecting behavior patterns on the personal level to the societal level and vice-versa. I can't help being a pessimistic optimist though. Perhaps I'm a romantic, because I really do believe that the better angels of our nature, though trip and falter they may, will eventually win over when it really matters.

[Waki Miko Syamemaru!]

I hate it how people say that humanity is a cancer and weak as well. Ever hear of the tale of God Hand? No not the super awesome game but the old tale from India. It was said that a man who's right arm was massive and contained enough power to strike down gods. Apparently this guy wasn't a demon, nor a half breed, or some other type of race. He was a human. Someone like you and me. Humans aren't soft, plushy, cannon fodder. We are in fact resilient and strong. Its movies and fictional material that make us out to be stupid and weak. Remember kids, the normal human uses 10% of they're brain. The 90% is an untapped Pandora's Box that contains Grade A Whup Ass. As for the Green-Peace eco-freaks out there, take a fucking shower and shut up about the planet! I'm so sick of this eco-friendly vomit (I'm looking at you e-surance, you yuppie tree hugging pansies!). Every time a cow farts people freak. Every time a tree is cut down a group of mentally retarded hippies start bawling like they're family got torn apart by a butter knife. Ugh. Pain in my pale ass.

[Solstis]

I hate it how people say that humanity is a cancer and weak as well. Ever hear of the tale of God Hand? No not the super awesome game but the old tale from India. It was said that a man who's right arm was massive and contained enough power to strike down gods. Apparently this guy wasn't a demon, nor a half breed, or some other type of race. He was a human. Someone like you and me. Humans aren't soft, plushy, cannon fodder. We are in fact resilient and strong. Its movies and fictional material that make us out to be stupid and weak. Remember kids, the normal human uses 10% of they're brain. The 90% is an untapped Pandora's Box that contains Grade A Whup Ass. As for the Green-Peace eco-freaks out there, take a fucking shower and shut up about the planet! I'm so sick of this eco-friendly vomit (I'm looking at you e-surance, you yuppie tree hugging pansies!). Every time a cow farts people freak. Every time a tree is cut down a group of mentally retarded hippies start bawling like they're family got torn apart by a butter knife. Ugh. Pain in my pale ass.

So you're using an old tale to combat fiction. There are a lot of other old tales (Indian included) about Humans being pathetic little things. You are a fascinating individual.

[ShinMaruku]

I tend to give the doubt and not the benefit. One must earn the doubt.

People can do the greatest things and then the worst things it's why we are where and how we are.

[Rasputin]

Agent Smith says it's so, so I believe it.

[Waki Miko Syamemaru!]

So you're using an old tale to combat fiction. There are a lot of other old tales (Indian included) about Humans being pathetic little things. You are a fascinating individual.


I'm just tired of hearing about humanity being weak. We just as strong as anything else! Oh and thanks for calling me fascinating! I mean it to. No sarcasm what-so-ever.

[Nitro Vordex]

Remember kids, the normal human uses 10% of they're brain. The 90% is an untapped Pandora's Box that contains Grade A Whup Ass.
I'd like to fix this and say that we only use 10% of our brain actively, meaning the other things it does aren't done consciously by us. I.E.:Digestion, heat beat, breathing to an extent(CONGRATS YOU ARE NOW AWARE YOU ARE BREATHING! :wacko: ). The other 80 or so percent is being used for the involuntary processes. You gotta remember, a digestive tract doesn't work ALL on it's own. It's a HUGE system, and the brain is only a small part. The brain just interprets whatever your body needs into your conscious thought.

I still think that there is untapped potential in the brain, but not THAT much. Maybe eventually humans will evolve and the brain will reveal more to us.

[Rasputin]

I'd like to fix this and say that we only use 10% of our brain actively, meaning the other things it does aren't done consciously by us. I.E.:Digestion, heat beat, breathing to an extent(CONGRATS YOU ARE NOW AWARE YOU ARE BREATHING! :wacko: ). The other 80 or so percent is being used for the involuntary processes. You gotta remember, a digestive tract doesn't work ALL on it's own. It's a HUGE system, and the brain is only a small part. The brain just interprets whatever your body needs into your conscious thought.

I still think that there is untapped potential in the brain, but not THAT much. Maybe eventually humans will evolve and the brain will reveal more to us.

Maybe eventually last time I probably checked 80 plus 10 is almost 90 which is, I don't think, 100. But yeah, %80 on the involuntary, %10 active, and %10 losing the game.

[Outrider]

heat beat,

Heat Beat sounds like something out of DDR or some game like that.


breathing to an extent(CONGRATS YOU ARE NOW AWARE YOU ARE BREATHING! :wacko: ).

Goddammit.

[Nitro Vordex]

Maybe eventually last time I probably checked 80 plus 10 is almost 90 which is, I don't think, 100. But yeah, %80 on the involuntary, %10 active, and %10 losing the game.
It was an estimate, get off me back.

[Rasputin]

It was an estimate, get off me back.

Sometimes I estimate that 100-10 is 80 too. No worries.

[Solstis]

Thanks a fricken' lot Nitro. *Breathes*

Hm, yeah, I'd be delighted/horrified if actively using the rest of our brains triggered some crazy anime powers, but I imagine that there's good reasons as to why we don't.

[Kent]

Remember kids, the normal human uses 10% of they're brain. The 90% is an untapped Pandora's Box that contains Grade A Whup Ass.
False myth is false. Humans use far more than 10% of their brains - in fact, many parts of the brain are used every moment you make any sort of information process. There are several probable causes for the perpetuation of this myth, but the only universal truth between all of them is that this information is wrong.

[KodiaX987]

The human brain uses 10% of itself at any given time. This means that if you take a snapshot, you'll see 10% of it currently in use. If you take a snapshot later, you'll see 10% again, but it will not be the same 10%.

Eventually, however, you end up using all your brain for something or another. Think of it as having 100 employees who each specialize in a different task. They won't be working on your product all at the same time but they'll nonetheless put a little bit of themselves into it at some point or another.

[Waki Miko Syamemaru!]

The human brain uses 10% of itself at any given time. This means that if you take a snapshot, you'll see 10% of it currently in use. If you take a snapshot later, you'll see 10% again, but it will not be the same 10%.

Eventually, however, you end up using all your brain for something or another. Think of it as having 100 employees who each specialize in a different task. They won't be working on your product all at the same time but they'll nonetheless put a little bit of themselves into it at some point or another.

My information is wrong! I've been lied to! Someone is getting a beating of the worst kind!

[BlaizeYES]

The human brain uses 10% of itself at any given time. This means that if you take a snapshot, you'll see 10% of it currently in use. If you take a snapshot later, you'll see 10% again, but it will not be the same 10%.

Eventually, however, you end up using all your brain for something or another. Think of it as having 100 employees who each specialize in a different task. They won't be working on your product all at the same time but they'll nonetheless put a little bit of themselves into it at some point or another.


lol yes this is true, that "you only use 10% of your brain" thing isnt saying that "if you use 100%, you will be able to talk telepathically and bend time and space with your mind." the 10% isnt "how much brain power you have"...

but maybe if we DID use 100% of our brain at all times, we could FEEL EVERYTHING. it'd be like synesthesia to a whole new level of insanity... feeling, tasting, hearing, smelling everything all mixed into a single sense while being in a constant manic state of being invincible then getting in your car and driving into the panama canal, thinking that you are in an underground tunnel to easter island where theres a space station for ancient conquistadors that will guide you on the information SUPER HIGHWAY straight out of the atmosphere and INTO THE SUN.



but yea... when you're "in the zone" in a sport, brain activity decreases and just narrows in on the areas that are being used for the task.

[Vanzazikon]

My information is wrong! I've been lied to! Someone is getting a beating of the worst kind!Yes, kick wikipedia's ass.

[Sinue_v2]

Hm, yeah, I'd be delighted/horrified if actively using the rest of our brains triggered some crazy anime powers, but I imagine that there's good reasons as to why we don't.

Certain select humans do have the capability to use 100% of their brains at any given time. Unfortunately, it doesn't give you any crazy anime super-powers, unless your crazy anime power was to lay on your back frothing at the mouth as you split the back of your head open against the floor due to violent uncontrollable contortions. It's generally referred to as seizure.

Ok, so it's probably still not 100% capacity in all areas, and it's got far more to do with the irregular activity going on - regardless of electricity generated. Still, a bad scenario. Your brain isn't just a single mass of organ - it's a complex structure with multiple specialized regions that are responsible for different tasks and behaviors, like the Cerebellum, Prefrontal Cortex, Motor Cortex, etc. Think of it in terms of your car. When your driving, you're not using 100% of your car's abilities. You might say, "Wow, it'd be great if I could get on the autobahn and really use 100% of my car's potential" - but in reality, that's be a horrendous mess as go down the road with your gas and brakes both slammed into the floorboard, radio blasting while constantly flipping stations, all your turn-signals and headlights on, car alarm wailing, windshield wipers beating and spraying fluid, grinding up and down through gears, horn screeching, airbags deployed, etc.. etc..

You get the picture.

[BlaizeYES]

You might say, "Wow, it'd be great if I could get on the autobahn and really use 100% of my car's potential" - but in reality, that's be a horrendous mess as go down the road with your gas and brakes both slammed into the floorboard, radio blasting while constantly flipping stations, all your turn-signals and headlights on, car alarm wailing, windshield wipers beating and spraying fluid, grinding up and down through gears, horn screeching, airbags deployed, etc.. etc..

You get the picture.



that happens to be the only way i drive. if it isnt 100% potential then its worthless