The Most Egotistical Creature in The World

[loseyourname]

Killing members of an oppositte tribe is trying to gain a genetic advantage in an ecosystem which isn't contradictory to the laws of nature.

The thing is, they don't do it to gain reproductive access. They kill the females, too. They're basically perpetrating genocide. Oftentimes, they don't even move onto the land they just cleared of the other tribe. They don't need to because the land they already have sustains them fine. They don't even seem to be fighting for resources, either material or reproductive. They just kill whoever isn't part of their group because they aren't part of their group. In addition, they seem to genuinely enjoy doing it. They revel in inflicting pain and torturing others of their own species, and they don't eat them after killing them. They simply leave them to rot.

Just to give you an idea of where human violence came from. These are our closest relatives. At some point, I'm sure their behavior made evolutionary sense. There may even still be some kind of logic to it that is simply hard to see. But these animals are brutal. They beat their women for no apparent reason and the men form coalitions to assassinate their leaders. When Thomas Hobbes described his 'state of nature,' he was basically describing the life of a chimpanzee. Somewhere along the line, nature got a little out of hand, and humans are the culmination of that. Thankfully, unlike chimpanzees, humans do have moral sentiments, and organize into civilizations that are mostly peaceful. Even though it is estimated that there have only been 23 years in recorded human history during which there were no known wars taking place, the wars that do take place do not involve most people. The average human lives an entire life without killing or seriously injuring somebody. Still, lurking beneath the surface is a genetic code not so far off from that of a chimpanzee, a genetic code that predisposes us to violent conflict resolution, a genetic code that causes many of us to enjoy violence, to be thrilled by it and revel in it.

 

[Smasherman]

loseyourname, have you ever read the book Ishmael? It talks about "civilized" humans conquering the earth, and how that's directly contradictory to nature. For instance, when a predator kills its prey, afterwards the predator and other prey will still drink from the same water source. With "civilized" humans, we'd kill the predator, as well as any other predators that would threaten us. "Civilized" humans have been trying to conquer the planet for about 10,000 years, and so far all we've done is created more humans and threatened the global ecosystem.

Humans not considered civilized by our standards, however, haven't caused so many problems. According to Ishmael, prehistoric humans lived fairly well. Their only real enemy was humans and climate problems, as from a drought. When some humans began farming, their path altered. Instead of living off the land or using limited agriculture, humans began increasing their farmland. This required the clearing of trees, killing of crop- and cattle-eaters, and the decimation of humans in other useful areas.

This path, the path of "civilization", brings excellent short-term results and long-term destruction. This knowledge is even a part of Judaism (and thus Christianity and Islam), but it is misunderstood (someone said this in this thread already). Since the short-term results were so good, those practicing this new form of society expanded greatly, far outshadowing those of the old way.

A modern example: Companies clear-cut huge forests for lumber and farmland, leaving us with more polluted air, less oxygen, and decimated ecosystems. The price of the lumber is based on the cost to cut down the trees, process them, and ship them. The cost of replanting them is ignored (so no money is used to replant them).

I'm not saying that civilization is bad; I consider a wonderful thing. I just hope we create a civilized one before our current brand causes a new wave of extinction. If this process is repeated, however, the Sun might be gone before life spreads throughout the galaxy (assuming humans are the only lifeforms capable of space flight in the galaxy, that is).

 

[Entropy]

Yeah cats may play with a mouse before they kill it too. But they eat it when they kill it.

My cat kills stuff all the time and doesn't eat anything. You should see all the dead lizards and frogs that my cat has played with then forgot about. There was this one cat up in Ireland who killing 200+ birds a day just for the thrill of killing them. You'd wall through the woods and there would just be dead birds laying everywhere.

For instance, when a predator kills its prey, afterwards the predator and other prey will still drink from the same water source.

Probably because the prey, unlike people, doesn't have the choice or ablility to drink somewhere else or kill the predator. If prey could help it, you think it would allow itself to be eaten? Even if the predator was on the brink of extinction, you think the prey would let itself be eaten because it's the "natural" order of things? Bull, countless species have become extinct because they couldn't compete. And it's not like species haven't caused mass extinctions in the past. What do you think happened when photosynthetic bacteria first arrived on Earth? You think the "force of nature" told them to stop making oxygen so they wouldn't kill themselve's and millions of other species? Wrong.

prehistoric humans lived fairly well

So well that most humans didn't live over 30 and the human race was brought to the brink of extinction (hint: read up on the population bottle neck that occurred in prehistory, it supported by the fact that our midicondrial (sp?) DNA is very similar to one another's).

 

[Mk]

I think i prefer animals to some humans, some humans are
pure evil and don't deserve to exist, we would shoot a rabid dog without
a thought, but a rabid human has rights :yuck:

I think humans are more important that dogs. And there is a lot of thought, in the US a few years ago there were many influential court trials about rabid dogs, pit bulls especially, and whether they should be put down or not.

It seems primarily a tradition of western civilization to think the Earth belongs to us humans. It likely descends from the Abrahamic religious tradition, wherein the book of Genesis tells us that God gave man dominion over the Earth and all its creatures. Not all civilizations thought this way. At least the Native American tradition that I partially grew up in teaches that we belong to the earth, and not the other way around. According to this tradition, we should honor and live in harmony with our environment, not 'tame' and claim dominion over it.

We are currently the dominant species on planet Earth, and uncountable amounts of times has lower species succumb to superior ones, it is a law of nature.

Do we really honor the earth?

You call it honor like the Earth is an equal to us, a living being that has feelings and a personality. But if you want to say honor sure! I think we honor the Earth quite a bit. I suggest you read another post of mine at https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=696783&postcount=41 (from my 5th paragraph and on)

And I think what are we donig on the earth, shows that we're claiming dominion over it.

What are the specific things that we are doing that you think shows that we "claim dominance?"

If we're worried about environment, that's because we think it would be impossible for humans to continue living on the Earth 1 day!

And we are not worried about the environment because we think its impossible the Earth could last after us. We are worried so we can last, and the Earth can last.

And we usually don't think about other creatures.

We think about other creatures all the time! Just look at all the preservation efforts we made, I used Yellowstone as a good example in my link. In fact, we may be thinking too much about other species. The efforts we make seem to backfire a lot.

Perhaps if we would be able to live on another planet, we forget all about the Earth and environment!

The Earth is making strong efforts to find other life in the solar system and galaxy. Humans are even thinking about Earths that we don't know anything about.

What gives animals the right to live?

Nice question Entropy! What gives any of use the right to live? Is there a right to live?

Forget about shark or loin.

What!? I like my loins!

Do you value my life as a human, russ? I really want to know if humans value each other's lives!

So behind all this you just want to know if humans like each other?

Of course like wolram said, some people are completely evil awful, and shouldn't be allowed to live. I remember seeing on the news that a man had raped a child, then set him on fire. He was on the news because he had recently murdered a brother and sister. I think he also killed a number of other people.

I thought, if I saw that person on the street, and I had a concealed weapon - a pistol, would I shoot him? The pros are that he's dead and I helped society, the cons are that I'm going to jail for a few years. I'm a nice guy and all, is it worth it? If I decided I would, should I start a fight with him, to decrease my jail time? Maybe I'd just make him remember my message to him. Of course he is insane and immune to retributive and restoritive justice. He's been through them many times and comes out the same errr... guy. How would I feel if I let him go?

Good question Lisa! The answer is that no species is anymore entitled to be here than any other.

Wow you seem really smart! You seem like you know a lot about this. You seem like you are right end of discussion.

What makes you think that? Why should I believe you?

What about the protozoan Malaria parasite, Plasmodium?
Polio?
Smallpox?
Anthrax?
The hundreds of species of ticks?
Bacterium causing Lyme disease, Borrelia burgdorferi?
Bacterium causing Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Rickettsia rickettsii?

I think the world did just fine without polio and smallpox. Maybe we should annihilate a few more of these?

Even terrorists, a generalized group of people, its not quite black and white, but undoubtably gray. The radicals, namely Islamic terrorists, wake up every day and think "How can I hurt people today?"

And those endangered species we try to save, they are endangered from humans! Otherwise why are we interfering with the course of nature?

Extinction is a natural phenomenon; it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Through the laws of evolution, new species are created by speciation — where new organisms arise and thrive when they are able to find and exploit an ecological niche. Species become extinct when are no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition. Conditions on the Earth are always changing, and dramatically is not rare. It is not something new, caused by humans. Termite mounds, beaver dams, and coral reefs all change their environment dramatically, affecting many other creatures. Are they interferring with nature?

You should hit the deer and not the human. The reason is that killing a human would be quite the crime, whereas the authorities could care less if you hit the deer! That's the reason, and it's based on laws created by HUMANS! That does not mean it would be more unethical to hit the person (I think they would be equal).

Wow, you seem awfully anti-human for a human.

You have the choice of either personally pushing
A) A deer
or
B) A man
off of the observation deck of the Empire State Building, about 1,300 feet above the ground, to fall to his death. You will be given 1,000,000 USD after finishing the deed. Can you, Mental Gridlock, honestly say that you would think more than a second about whether to murder the deer or the man? I really hope not. And I really hope there is not any person in the world that would think about which one to push.

 

[loseyourname]

We are currently the dominant species on planet Earth, and uncountable amounts of times has lower species succumb to superior ones, it is a law of nature.

I'd hardly call it a law, unless you just mean that some species will always succumb by competing with more fit species. That isn't really the point, though. Sure, species that compete with us are going to go extinct because we're dominant. You know who that happened to? Neanderthals. What other species has ever been a direct competitor with homo sapiens? None; it's just that we spread too wide too fast and consume too many resources too quickly, before ecosystems have a chance to adjust. This isn't about the killing off of any particular species. It's about the way we've negatively impacted an entire biosphere. Losing all this biodiversity will come back to haunt us.

 

[Mk]

We are currently the dominant species on planet Earth, and uncountable amounts of times has lower species succumb to superior ones, it is a law of nature.

I'd hardly call it a law, unless you just mean that some species will always succumb by competing with more fit species.

uncountable amounts of times has lower species succumb to superior ones

I didn't say all, I said it happens.

We spread too wide too fast and consume too many resources too quickly, before ecosystems have a chance to adjust. This isn't about the killing off of any particular species. It's about the way we've negatively impacted an entire biosphere. Losing all this biodiversity will come back to haunt us.

I object, but don't have enough time right now to back it up. All I can say is this: Humans aren't the only ones that don't allow other species to gain, in the superior species, region of territory. Look up slow-growth forests for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow-growth_forest should be enough.

 

[loseyourname]

I object, but don't have enough time right now to back it up. All I can say is this: Humans aren't the only ones that don't allow other species to gain, in the superior species, region of territory. Look up slow-growth forests for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow-growth_forest should be enough.

MK, slow growth forests don't cover the planet in a matter of several hundred years and choke off resources everywhere. The fact is, humans have no natural competitors. They simply consume too much without giving off very many useful waste products. Even the useful waste products we do give off - like carbon dioxide - we give off too much of, far more than any ecosystem requires, throwing the system out of equilibrium more quickly than it can recover from. The only other thing that does that is a mass extinction or large natural disaster.

 

[Archon]

Wow you seem really smart! You seem like you know a lot about this. You seem like you are right end of discussion.

What makes you think that? Why should I believe you?

What about the protozoan Malaria parasite, Plasmodium?
Polio?
Smallpox?
Anthrax?
The hundreds of species of ticks?
Bacterium causing Lyme disease, Borrelia burgdorferi?
Bacterium causing Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Rickettsia rickettsii?

I think the world did just fine without polio and smallpox. Maybe we should annihilate a few more of these?

Even terrorists, a generalized group of people, its not quite black and white, but undoubtably gray. The radicals, namely Islamic terrorists, wake up every day and think "How can I hurt people today?"

So in your opinion, certain bacteria don't have a right to exist simply because they kill large numbers of humans. This brings us back to the point: why do humans have any more right to be alive than animals? Why is it ok for a human to exterminate a species of animal, but not for bacteria to kill a few thousand/million humans?

Extinction is a natural phenomenon; it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Through the laws of evolution, new species are created by speciation — where new organisms arise and thrive when they are able to find and exploit an ecological niche. Species become extinct when are no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition. Conditions on the Earth are always changing, and dramatically is not rare. It is not something new, caused by humans. Termite mounds, beaver dams, and coral reefs all change their environment dramatically, affecting many other creatures. Are they interferring with nature?

No, but that's exactly the point: these are purely natural processes, and have purely natural implications. Other animals and plants must adapt to their new environments, but this takes time. Termites, Beavers, and coral reafs don't usually spread across vast areas before other species of animals are able to adapt to their presence: the same is not true of humans. Termites, Beavers, and Coral Reefs don't exterminate millions of species of animals or radically alter the global environment. Perhaps most important of all, none of these creatures have the ability to protect "their" planet and fellow animals from destruction.
By analogy: death is a necessary part of keeping the human population at levels which resources can support. The Holocaust was not.

Wow, you seem awfully anti-human for a human.

You have the choice of either personally pushing
A) A deer
or
B) A man
off of the observation deck of the Empire State Building, about 1,300 feet above the ground, to fall to his death. You will be given 1,000,000 USD after finishing the deed. Can you, Mental Gridlock, honestly say that you would think more than a second about whether to murder the deer or the man? I really hope not. And I really hope there is not any person in the world that would think about which one to push.

Even if you disagree with this idea, the response to the scenario you describe need be no different than the original response: you push the deer because pushing the human would have legal consequences. Nowhere in the post you cited do I see the implication that the poster would push the human rather than the deer. So what's your point?

 

[Lisa!]

Wow, you seem awfully anti-human for a human.

You have the choice of either personally pushing
A) A deer
or
B) A man

You'de better to say:
A)A deer
or
B)A dear

 

[Mental Gridlock]

I think humans are more important that dogs...What makes you think that? Why should I believe you?.

Mk, why should I believe YOU?! You say humans are better than dogs. I say no. What's your point? In reality I won't push the human off the building because then I go to jail or executed! But that doesn't mean without that construct of society imposed I would care either way pushing a homo sapein or a deer off the roof that's my value that they are the same so what's your point? I never said anything about smallpox, polio aids etc. as not having a legitimate purpose. If you didn't jump to the conclusion about something I didn't even talk about I can tell you nature has a purpose for these entities, e.g. population control (like AIDS in Africa for instance). I just say maybe homo-sapiens go beyond nature's intended purpose.

thanks for the unsolicited lecture, but I know how evolution works. I believe God/nature puts every species here for a reason and most don't make the cut, but those that do survive do what they do for survival (mostly, I must bow for the sadistic chimps)for survival but humanity may be going way beyond their intended purpose with major global ramifications, and if that's such an alien point of view you can't fathom this then don't waste your time.

What are the specific things that we are doing that you think shows that we "claim dominance?"

You can't be THIS naive? (I'll get into examples like deforestation if you need me to.)

Wow, you seem awfully anti-human for a human.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Thanks. I wonder what gives you THAT impression but I believe species are EQUAL.

 

[JamesU]

Wow you seem really smart! You seem like you know a lot about this. You seem like you are right end of discussion.

What makes you think that? Why should I believe you?

What about the protozoan Malaria parasite, Plasmodium?
Polio?
Smallpox?
Anthrax?
The hundreds of species of ticks?
Bacterium causing Lyme disease, Borrelia burgdorferi?
Bacterium causing Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Rickettsia rickettsii?

I think the world did just fine without polio and smallpox. Maybe we should annihilate a few more of these?

Bacteria have no intent to harm humans. and any other animal couldn't care less if humans were gone or not. the only reason people value humans over animals is because they themselves are humans. (except for those idiots at PETA) if dogs would could think like we do, they'd think about hunting people, and things of that nature.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

yeah Archon you said the same thing while I was typing my post you're right I wasted like 15 min. makin that post and you had it covered! HAHAHA I just woulda wasted the time anyway...

 

[Skyhunter]

How very interesting.

It seems to me that the whole history and evolution of this planet has culminated in humans like myself. Rather than ask whether animals are more, less, or equal, we should ask...

What is our purpose here?

or more specifically

What is my purpose here?

Humans are unique in their ability to think abstractly and manifest those thought by manipulating the world around them. With this great power comes a great responsibility. With nuclear weapons we can destroy most life on this planet. Even without them we are causing one of the greatest mass extinctions in history.

To me the answer is obvious. Humans have no more right to live than any other life form. However because we can think and foresee the consequences of our actions we have an obligation to act in such a way as to minimize or eliminate the destructive consequences of our actions.

We have evolved a large brain. We should use it for other than self gratification, otherwise the next species to reach this level will wonder at why such an intelligent and technologically advanced species destroyed it's environment, thereby bringing about it's own extinction.

The reason humans in modern western culture are so devastating to the environment is because we have been trained to consume and discard without thought for the impact on the environment, other species, or even our own bodies.

I grew up with cigarette ads on my television that were cartoons. Predictably I started smoking when I was 13 years old. Even though they knew it was harmful to smoke, the tobacco companies marketed cigarettes to me and my government allowed it. I smoked for 20 years, I spent 16 of the 20 years quitting. Now I am healthier, I am not polluting the environment I share with my children, and others, and I don't generate extra garbage in the form of filters and cellophane.

This is just a personal example of how I have used my natural intelligence to overcome the social training and chemical addiction that was perpetrated on me as an impressionable child. We all need to start excercising that muscle between our ears to overcome the incessant propaganda in the form of advertising to make our own decisions and reflect on what is really important!

 

[JamesU]

well said.

 

[Skyhunter]

Bacteria have no intent to harm humans. and any other animal couldn't care less if humans were gone or not. the only reason people value humans over animals is because they themselves are humans. (except for those idiots at PETA) if dogs would could think like we do, they'd think about hunting people, and things of that nature.

Could you be more specific?

Most people fall into a norm for intelligence, and are considered "average". A minority are considered "above average" or "genius", and "below average" or "idiot".

Could you site an example of a spokesperson for PETA that falls into the "below average" category?

 

[JamesU]

I am just saying that PETA is wasting their time. (that's if their trying to acomplish their 'goal' not just live on profits)

 

[Skyhunter]

Maybe I don't know enough about PETA the organization, however I know some members, and they are all intelligent, compassionate, humans. They are also very healthy, have a positive outlook, and have undertaken to change their lifestyle in order to "be the change they want to see in the world."

I think that your opinion may be unduly influenced by anti-PETA propoganda. If perhaps you could provide me with some information to support your position I would be willing to look it over.

 

[loseyourname]

Come on. Don't let this thread become the eightieth PETA debate. This doesn't have to be about valuing the lives of non-humans. There are plenty of selfish reasons for humans to value biodiversity.

 

[JamesU]

can it be about humans being huge PITAs? pain in the ***es?

 

[Entropy]

I think that your opinion may be unduly influenced by anti-PETA propoganda. If perhaps you could provide me with some information to support your position I would be willing to look it over.

No PETA please.

Bacteria have no intent to harm humans. and any other animal couldn't care less if humans were gone or not

I agree. Animals are no more evil than computers or natural disasters. They simply life out their lives as their instincts dictate.

To me the answer is obvious. Humans have no more right to live than any other life form. However because we can think and foresee the consequences of our actions we have an obligation to act in such a way as to minimize or eliminate the destructive consequences of our actions.

I actually don't believe anyone has an inalienable right to life, or a right to anything. Life and all things are given to people, and animals alike, through undeserved kindness from God. Though we are certainly held above animals by God, he never intended for man to kill animals because in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve didn't eat meat and lived in harmony with all animals.

 

[motai]

I am just saying that PETA is wasting their time. (that's if their trying to acomplish their 'goal' not just live on profits)

As far as I know, PETA is a non-profit organization. Like Skyhunter, I know a few of the members in our local area who are very nice people, and their local chapter doesn't squander the money on themselves. IMO, they are also nicer and have a better worldview, compared to the food industry execs who (like any executives) think about profit alone.

I cannot speak for some of the more rabid individuals. But extremism isn't (and shouldn't be) the norm for such organizations. Its too broad a generalization, its like saying that all Republicans are right-wing gun nuts and are anti-feminist, which obviously isn't true.

 

[Skyhunter]

No PETA please..

No problem

I actually don't believe anyone has an inalienable right to life, or a right to anything. Life and all things are given to people, and animals alike, through undeserved kindness from God. Though we are certainly held above animals by God, he never intended for man to kill animals because in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve didn't eat meat and lived in harmony with all animals.

So if you believe we should live as God intended, in peace and harmony with all animals, what do you eat at the local McDonalds?

 

[Lisa!]

Persoanly I've not found enough time to read all post carefully.(I'll read them for sure)So right now I can't reply to some of you.

You know I think most of humans don't think if we're allowed to kill anamils and stuff like that. Some of us think about that but we do the same like the rest.
Somehow it seems that we have the right to do these because we're able to them and nobody is able to prevent us. We're intelligent ,we have freewill(forget about this one), we could make a better life for ourselves by taking advantages of other creatures while they can't improve anything...So it sounds pretty stupid if we stop ourselves from improving because of these creatures.
What do you think of it now?(again I want to go to a conclusion but first I prefer to have your ideas!)

 

[Skyhunter]

Come on. Don't let this thread become the eightieth PETA debate. This doesn't have to be about valuing the lives of non-humans. There are plenty of selfish reasons for humans to value biodiversity.

Absolutely, it has been my experience that most people, including myself are motivated by selfish reasons.

I volunteer in my community as well as with national and international organizations. I am socially conscious, have re-usable grocery bags, buy only green products, and eat a plant based diet. Many of my peers think I am a model citizen and live this way for altruistic reasons. At some level they might be correct, but for the most part everything I do is for selfish reasons.

The main reason is to set an example. If I would like others to lessen their impact on the world I should practice the same, or else I would just be another hypocrite. And hypocrisy is abhorrent to me.

 

[Smasherman]

So well that most humans didn't live over 30 and the human race was brought to the brink of extinction (hint: read up on the population bottle neck that occurred in prehistory, it supported by the fact that our midicondrial (sp?) DNA is very similar to one another's).

What is your evidence for humans living until only 30? I searched online for several hours and I found only 3 sites (out of dozens) that didn't assume life was rough for early humans.

Site 1) We simply don't know anything about how people lived before 1750.
Site 2) Agriculture led to nutrition deficiencies.
Site 3) The Greeks lived until about 30, but maybe only because of wars and diseases, not their diet.

As for the bottlenecking, I looked that up too. The bottlenecking of humanity is theorized to have occurred due to global environmental change. have you read on the theorized effects of global warming? Same basic principle.

 

[Mk]

So in your opinion, certain bacteria don't have a right to exist simply because they kill large numbers of humans. This brings us back to the point: why do humans have any more right to be alive than animals? Why is it ok for a human to exterminate a species of animal, but not for bacteria to kill a few thousand/million humans?

Not just they kill large numbers of humans, they kill large numbers of all sorts of things (not bacteria in general, just the evil ones), and I also said ticks (and added a few viruses if you think viruses are alive). From your general view, you think every creature is totally innocent, the bacteria have the same right to live as humans. You also say that everything is interconnected, and if something dies, that will be bad for some other animal or plant or something, and that would make it die off, and since that died off 100 other species would, and so on and so on. But if ticks died no organism would give a crap, but the bacteria they harbor. If they had the brain capacity at most they would be glad.


I used polio and lyme disease - largely human affecting diseases - to get the point across, because I thought you would care more about your fellow human - your girlfriend, your wife, your kids, your neighbor, more than you would your houseplant, or dog. I guess you don't. And once again, I am sorry for you.

No, but that's exactly the point: these are purely natural processes, and have purely natural implications. Other animals and plants must adapt to their new environments, but this takes time. Termites, Beavers, and coral reafs don't usually spread across vast areas before other species of animals are able to adapt to their presence: the same is not true of humans.

Adapt to their presence? That's how natural selection goes! If they can't adapt they'll have to die off. Survival of the fittest. Some organisms like how the humans deal. Pueria montana is also known as kudzo, a plant native to Asia, is growing in epic proportions in the southeastern states of the USA. Like many "invasive species" it was once loved and cherished. American gardeners of the late 1800s embraced its fragrant blossoms. The common dandelioin was introduced to North America from Eurasia for its medicinal and culinary properties, it is now growing out of control. The Mnemiopsis leidyi type of comb jelly, native to American waters, discovered a paradise for it. In the 1980s it ate quite literally everything in the Black Sea. Since then, even though it destroyed almost everything, the Black Sea is not a dead wasteland. Bos taurus, your everyday cow is doing very finely after being introduced to North America. Dogs and cats, are doing well because of humans.

Even if you disagree with this idea, the response to the scenario you describe need be no different than the original response: you push the deer because pushing the human would have legal consequences. Nowhere in the post you cited do I see the implication that the poster would push the human rather than the deer. So what's your point?

You push kill the deer because killing the man has legal consequences? Tell me you don't think that. I hope you are arguing just to argue.

My point is, the value of the human is much more than the value of the deer. Even the deer would agree if he could.

Why the hell do you think those laws were made? To keep the ****ing insane people that think it is perfectly ok to kill other people for not much of a reason.

While scrolling down to see who said this, I was hoping it wasn't Skyhunter, because he knows better than that, and I like him. (btw sorry if you didn't see my post)

 

[Mk]

What is your evidence for humans living until only 30? I searched online for several hours and I found only 3 sites (out of dozens) that didn't assume life was rough for early humans.

I don't know who said thirty (hope it wasn't me) but I thought it was highly exagerrated! But its not!

Life expectancy increased dramatically in the 20th century, especially in developed nations. Life expectancy at birth in the United States in 1901 was 49 years. At the end of the century it was 77 years, an increase of greater than 50%. Similar gains have been enjoyed throughout the world. Life expectancy in India and The People's Republic of China was around 40 years at midcentury. At century's close it had risen to around 63 years. These gains were due largely to the eradication and control of numerous infectious diseases and to advances in agricultural technology, mainly chemical fertilizers.

years. European socialist countries (such as the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary) were characterized by decreasing life expectancy and increasing mortality (especially among adult men) in the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Another exception is Russia and other former USSR republics after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Life expectancy of men dropped to 59.9 years (below the official retirement age), of women to 72.43 years (1999).

Homo sapiens sapiens live on average 37 years in Zambia and on average 81 years in Japan. The oldest age (legitimately) recorded for any human is 122 years, though some people in Asia are reported to have lived over 150 years. The following information is derived from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1961:
Humans by Era, Average Lifespan (in years)
Neanderthal, 20
Neolithic, 20
Classical Greece, 28
Classical Rome, 28
Medieval England, 33
End of 18th Century, 37
Early 20th Century, 50
Circa 1940, 65
Current (in the West), 77-81

As for the bottlenecking, I looked that up too. The bottlenecking of humanity is theorized to have occurred due to global environmental change. have you read on the theorized effects of global warming? Same basic principle.

The human population is NOT bottlenecking, if someone is complaining about population problems, its that there are too many people, which is also completely false.

Wikipedia also boasts two graphs that backup my claim on bottlenecking:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/World_population_history.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/World_population_increase_history.png

 

[Mk]

I don't like putting a third post in a row, but find it important to say Entropy was most certainly right about the bottlenecking. I did not read his post directly until now, but misunderstood it through Smasherman's filter.

Geneticists Lynn Jorde and Henry Harpending of the University of Utah have concluded that the variation in the total stock of human DNA is minute compared to that of other species; and that around 74,000 years ago, human population was reduced to a small number of breeding pairs, possibly as small as 1000, resulting in a very small residual gene pool. Various reasons for this bottleneck have been postulated, the most popular being the eruption of a Toba, a volcano.

Knowledge of human prehistory is largely theoretical, but based in fossil, archeological, and genetic evidence, within the last three to five million years, after human and other ape lineages diverged from the hominid stem-line, the human line produced a variety of human species. According to the "Toba catastrophe theory," a massive volcanic eruption changed the course of human history by severely reducing the human population, around 75,000 years ago when the Toba caldera in Indonesia erupted with a force three thousand times more powerful than Mount St. Helens.

According to Ambrose, this led to a decrease in the average global temperatures by 3 to 3.5 degrees Celsius for several years. This massive environmental change is believed to have created population bottlenecks in the various human species that existed at the time; this in turn accelerated differentiation of the isolated human populations, eventually leading to the end of all the other human species except for the branch that became modern humans.

Some geological evidence and computed models support the plausibility of the Toba catastrophe theory, and genetic evidence suggests that all humans alive today, despite their apparent variety, are descended from a very small population. Using the average rates of genetic mutation, some geneticists have estimated that this population lived at a time coinciding with the Toba event.

According to this theory, after Toba, and when the climate and other factors permitted, humans once again fanned out from Africa migrating first to Indochina and Australia, and later to the Fertile Crescent and the Middle East. Migration routes to Asia created population centers in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and India. Divergences in skin color appeared, due to varied melanin levels, which were adaptations to the varying UV intensities around the world. Europe became populated by migrants from the Uzbekistan region when the last ice age ended and Europe began to be more hospitable.

Most of that was from Wikipedia, not me.

Entropy is right!