Nature's deviants

[Fishteacher73]

As stated we need to get a baseline here. Are we speaking social deviance or biologic deviance? It is normal for rogue lions to kill existing cubs in a pride if they take over. The same is true with many of the great apes. This is the accepted "norm" for behavior in these species and is neither socially nor biologically deviant. If a step-father were to murder his step-children society would punish him, but this still not biologically deviant, as the results are the same in all three cases; the mother can now devote resources to his offspring, thus making them more viable.

 

The brain may well be a poor adaption in the long run..we may all nuke ourselves and that won't help produce viable offspring. Human are still a young species and we have yet to stand the test of time.

[Fishteacher73]

Darwinian evolution as a concept is wrong. Evolution is not this slow steady inclined slope. Gould's punctuated equilibrium (Evolutionary shifts are sudden, then remain static until another ecological stress is imposed. Shifts are for current stresses w/ no premonition for further situations. These shifts may be regressive, if it provides a more viable species for the immediate situation.) is the current theory. (Not to dis Darwin. He got a whole lot right)

So the brain was an adaptation that allowed proto-humans to be more successful, but in the long run it may detremental to the survival of the species. This is within the current accepted evolutionary model.

[motherengine]

i see this deviance in humans from the rest of nature as social problem caused by biological issues. it is just my personal guess that the specific construct of the human neocortex may be the cause of areas of developments such as abstract reasoning and language that over time have led to things like industry and mass murder which is a social predicament.

 

 

The brain may well be a poor adaption in the long run..we may all nuke ourselves and that won't help produce viable offspring. Human are still a young species and we have yet to stand the test of time."

 

i agree, to paraphrase musician jimi hendrix , humans may be just having a difficult time becoming something great.

 

*sorry about the quote thing. i am just getting the hang of this threading process.

 

No problem, it takes time for all of us. Thanks for posing your thoughts! ~Irish

[Turtle]

While this thread title is deviance, the original post asks if the human brain is a detriment to the world. Also since we do live in the natural world & since we do see freeways & buildings etc., then they too are part of the natural world. No more or less than a wasp nest or deer trail. We belong & mistakes notwithstanding, we are I believe doing good for the world.

[motherengine]

what good are humans doing for the world? just curious.

[Turtle]

The same good as ant &wasps of course. ;) ;)

[Queso]

hmmm. even though we are an organism, like an ant or a wasp, i don't believe we fall into their catagory.

i don't see how we do anything "good" for earth.

if anything, we're destroying this place. and what's amazing about this time period we are living in is that we're actually kind of getting the picture, as a whole. and we are trying new things like...hybrid cars for example. to supposively help out the environment.

we will probably deplete this place, and then desert it. ;)

[Fishteacher73]

Ants and wasps perfom vital roles in the ecosystem as preaditors of pest species and decomposers. Humans Do not add anything essentail to the ecosystem and in many cases a negative impact.

[Turtle]

That blinfold is a little tight Fish? ;) So it's "good" if army ants leave a swath of death & waste, but "bad" if we do? Moreover, if we do deplete it, we're not going anywhere. Do you think it's "good" for the world that we're discussing this? You express such little hope, yet the very act of making any expression shows you have it. This is why we are not a detriment to the world but rather a hope; we are ,arguably, the only species that can speak for all.

[Fishteacher73]

That blinfold is a little tight Fish? ;) So it's "good" if army ants leave a swath of death & waste, but "bad" if we do? Moreover, if we do deplete it, we're not going anywhere.

 

The actions of swarm of army ants I feel can hardly be likened to impact of a similar number of humans now (or even a fraction)? Many species need this clearing to allow normal succession of forest growth. (Just as some require a fire event).

 

I have full faith that outside of full nuclear combat that humans won't destroy the Earth. We may destroy ourselves and a decent chunk of the biodiversity, but good ol' Gaia will recover. Right now humans are just an acne outbreak that will be dealt with soon enough.

[Turtle]

Here is where I throw the curve, & that is I am merely a hopeful cynic. When I say hope I mean that because logically we can't rule out either side of this discussion, I hope the better outcome is the one that occures. To be or not to be...? We belong simply because this is where we find ourselves.

[motherengine]

one idea which is relevent to this subject as well is that although humans are a part of the natural world they are evolving socially in ways which require a kind of redefining of behavioral mores; just because something is natural does not mean it is helpful anymore and so it now becomes questionable. this is one particular area of philosophy that i share an agreement with richard dawkins in (his rather judeo-christain view of the moral seperation of the human world and the natural world) though more emotionally than intellectually.

[Turtle]

Well said. Just so, it must be natural for us to redefine mores.

[motherengine]

Well said. Just so, it must be natural for us to redefine mores.

 

touche.