evolution | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
(nobody)
...and 78 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614221
Today 3
Topics 127549
  
 
Messageboard index
evolution
 

offline Key_Secret from Sverige (Sweden) on 2003-04-28 16:37 [#00675079]
Points: 9325 Status: Regular | Followup to jupitah: #00675069



how about that adaption thingy then?
When did we get far from ideal, in your opinion?


 

offline Cheffe1979 from fuck (Austria) on 2003-04-28 16:38 [#00675084]
Points: 4630 Status: Lurker | Followup to manticore: #00674793



well, that is not my opinion. i see your point clearly i
think but i don't think that's the end of the story. there
is more to it - my point.

and to the majority who think that everything human is
'natural': no, we have a strong natural side but that's not
the important thing. you get nature right imo, but not our
place in it. We partly are outside nature

haha:)
well, i guess we can leave it at that


 

offline Cheffe1979 from fuck (Austria) on 2003-04-28 16:39 [#00675086]
Points: 4630 Status: Lurker | Followup to Cheffe1979: #00675084



i can leave it at that i should say ;)


 

offline korben dallas from nz on 2003-04-28 16:45 [#00675095]
Points: 4605 Status: Regular



We partly are outside nature

really? how did we manage to do that?


 

offline Key_Secret from Sverige (Sweden) on 2003-04-28 16:47 [#00675105]
Points: 9325 Status: Regular | Followup to korben dallas: #00675095



it seems like a lot of posts here are read in a way they
would not be interpreted if they were told, instead of
typed.


 

offline korben dallas from nz on 2003-04-28 16:52 [#00675121]
Points: 4605 Status: Regular



ehh .. ? .. mmm.. like your one?

no i'm just heinously keen to know how we are partially out
of nature ... and what the outside of nature looks
like/feels like etc.


 

offline Key_Secret from Sverige (Sweden) on 2003-04-28 16:54 [#00675125]
Points: 9325 Status: Regular | Followup to korben dallas: #00675121



Well, as I read it, he's talking about the human
behaviour.... like I was.
but maybe I'm wrong...
and if I'm wrong, I'm also curious about what he means...


 

offline korben dallas from nz on 2003-04-28 16:58 [#00675137]
Points: 4605 Status: Regular



well it seems to be in contrast with

Anythng humans do is natural, including paving the entire
planet.
BUt does sort of paint a yellow brick road type
picture .. unless ofcourse one wants to make an arbitrary
distinction between behaviour unique to humans (ie.
unnatural) and other behaviour (natural)?

Maybe i'm missing something here.


 

offline korben dallas from nz on 2003-04-28 17:00 [#00675141]
Points: 4605 Status: Regular



or is it to do with the platonic forms and the joys of
maths? the unnatural realm of numbers and perfect circles?


 

offline Safety Compass from United States on 2003-04-28 17:07 [#00675147]
Points: 3 Status: Regular



That would just be silly!


 

offline X-tomatic from ze war room on 2003-04-28 17:53 [#00675193]
Points: 2901 Status: Lurker



how are you not dependent on anything key_secret?


 

offline Key_Secret from Sverige (Sweden) on 2003-04-28 18:09 [#00675222]
Points: 9325 Status: Regular | Followup to X-tomatic: #00675193



what do you mean by that, and what post (of mine) are you
refering to?


 

offline jupitah from Minneapolis (United States) on 2003-04-28 20:23 [#00675339]
Points: 3489 Status: Lurker | Followup to Key_Secret: #00675079



"how about that adaption thingy then?"

biological organisms adapt to their environment in a manner
that allows greater reproductive success. so we can have
sex, give birth, and our offspring can do the same. ideal
living conditions do not result from this genetic level
process. if ideal living conditions are to be they would be
the result of social/cultural/political... consciousness
level processes.

"When did we get far from ideal, in your opinion?"

well, it's only opinion, but i would say that we peaked
sometime before agriculture (gatherer hunters), because
there was not such a problem with disease before then, there
was spirtual freedom.

there are things to learn from these societies, but
obviously circumstances are different now and who's to say
what "ideal" would be?


 

offline Key_Secret from Sverige (Sweden) on 2003-04-29 04:22 [#00675724]
Points: 9325 Status: Regular | Followup to jupitah: #00675339



biological organisms adapt to their environment in a
manner that allows greater reproductive success. so we can
have sex, give birth, and our offspring can do the
same.


We're all breeders. =)

if ideal living conditions are to be they would be the
result of social/cultural/political... consciousness level
processes.


Either I do not understand what you mean, or I do not agree.
Ideal living conditions are the result of what is ideal to
our organism - something that we cannot change ourselves.
Our body has preferences when it comes to everything.
Ideal conditions stays the same, you can't change what is
ideal.

well, it's only opinion, but i would say that we peaked
sometime before agriculture (gatherer hunters), because
there was not such a problem with disease before then, there
was spirtual freedom.


In my opinion we peaked way before that. But yeah, the
agriculture situation is not very ideal.

there are things to learn from these societies, but
obviously circumstances are different now and who's to say
what "ideal" would be?


What circumstances are different now?
OK, our individual freedom has been taken away by society,
but I'm not sure that's what you meant.



 

offline LuckyPsycho from a long way from home (United Kingdom) on 2003-04-29 05:17 [#00675780]
Points: 369 Status: Lurker | Followup to Key_Secret: #00675724



I'm sorry... maybe I've missed something... are you saying
that it would be better if we were to regress to an era
somewhere before the hunter/gathers? Before the development
of language?

This sounds like a cop out to me. I believe that we are
entirely natural beings in a natural world, and therefore
our development must be natural. Which means that the
situation in which we find ourselves now must be natural.

This is not to say that we should just sit back and let the
rainforests be destroyed and the tiger become extinct. We
have the NATURAL need, and hence the potential ability to
foresee mistakes in our cultural/social/environmental
development, and make changes in our behaviour accordingly.


Our current situation is not perfect, but it is never meant
to be. Nature is a DYNAMIC COMPLEX SYSTEM that is, by
definition constantly changing, and correcting its own
mistakes.


 

offline LuckyPsycho from a long way from home (United Kingdom) on 2003-04-29 05:25 [#00675788]
Points: 369 Status: Lurker



"there are things to learn from these societies, but
obviously circumstances are different now and who's to say
what "ideal" would be?"

I think you've hit 2 important points here... There is much
to be learnt from the way we have developed and progressed,
but it is entirely flawed for any of us to say that a
particular period in human evolution is/was 'ideal'. The
universe is constantly changing.



 

offline LuckyPsycho from a long way from home (United Kingdom) on 2003-04-29 05:27 [#00675792]
Points: 369 Status: Lurker



ideal for what or who?

It clearly wasn't ideal for those living in that time,
because if it was they wouldn't have changed it!


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2003-04-29 05:40 [#00675799]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag




Much debated, but interesting nonetheless...


 

offline Key_Secret from Sverige (Sweden) on 2003-04-29 08:22 [#00676029]
Points: 9325 Status: Regular | Followup to Ceri JC: #00675799



Sure is interesting.
I had read about it before, but not this article.


 

offline Key_Secret from Sverige (Sweden) on 2003-04-29 08:31 [#00676043]
Points: 9325 Status: Regular | Followup to LuckyPsycho: #00675780



I'm sorry... maybe I've missed something... are you
saying
that it would be better if we were to regress to an era
somewhere before the hunter/gathers? Before the development
of language?


Some things, like the language, is a product of our
culture.
Who saids we need to "regress to an era"?
It's not about that.
Did you not understand my post?

This sounds like a cop out to me. I believe that we are
entirely natural beings in a natural world, and therefore
our development must be natural.


well. This depends on how you define the words. If you mean
that our behaviour, no matter what we do, is natural - then
I defineatly do not agree.
I'm talking about "natural" as what our organism is designed
for. And the world we live in, and the way we live in that
world, is far from ideal to what our organism is designed
for. In this context it would mean our behaviour is very
unnatural.
What we're designed for = natural
What we do = unnatural

Which means that the situation in which we find ourselves
now must be natural.


I do not agree. And again, I think we use the word "natural"
in two different ways... please read what I've written and
if you can; come up with a better word, or use it in the
same definition as I do.


 

offline Key_Secret from Sverige (Sweden) on 2003-04-29 08:38 [#00676054]
Points: 9325 Status: Regular | Followup to LuckyPsycho: #00675792



It clearly wasn't ideal for those living in that time,
because if it was they wouldn't have changed it!


What I mean is that our organism is designed for an
environment/behvaiour. This environment/behaviour is ideal
to us.
--[behaviour = how much we're suppose to sleep/What we're
suppose to eat, etc]--
Eventhough some disaster or something happeneds this
environment is still ideal to us. It sill is today,
eventhough we live in an environment very unlike the ideal
one.
So at some point there had to be some kind of natural
disaster or something that made humans change their
behaviour - but that change was not ideal.

And this is the point I'm trying to make.


 

offline jupitah from Minneapolis (United States) on 2003-04-29 09:33 [#00676156]
Points: 3489 Status: Lurker | Followup to LuckyPsycho: #00675780



lucky psycho, how is "natural" even relevant? you don't
propose that natural = good do you? cause i'm pretty sure
right and wrong have nothing to do with natural. snake
venom is natural. i don't recomend you drink it.


 

offline jupitah from Minneapolis (United States) on 2003-04-29 09:35 [#00676160]
Points: 3489 Status: Lurker



"Either I do not understand what you mean, or I do not
agree. Ideal living conditions are the result of what is
ideal to our organism - something that we cannot change
ourselves. Our body has preferences when it comes to
everything.
Ideal conditions stays the same, you can't change what is
ideal."

i'm sorry key but you stopped making sense a while ago. it
must be the language barrier.


 

offline Cheffe1979 from fuck (Austria) on 2003-04-29 11:45 [#00676368]
Points: 4630 Status: Lurker | Followup to korben dallas: #00675095



in terms of morality, thats how we do it.
your mistake is to neglect the consequences of imagination,
that is, responsibility.


 

offline Cheffe1979 from fuck (Austria) on 2003-04-29 11:50 [#00676375]
Points: 4630 Status: Lurker | Followup to Cheffe1979: #00676368



of course everything happens within nature and i see that we
have a very strong 'nature' part, our physiognomy,
everything we have to do to stay alive - but when mrs. eva
bit into the apple of wisdom (? or knowledge? dunno exact
translation) she had to leave her natural paradise because
she knew, she gained responsibility and that is not
always funny. the story is about mankind loosing its
virginity, and i don't interpret is in a religious way, it's
just an old thought it expresses, that we are different, we
are outside the unconcious paradise of nature


 

offline LuckyPsycho from a long way from home (United Kingdom) on 2003-04-30 03:44 [#00677750]
Points: 369 Status: Lurker | Followup to Key_Secret: #00676054



"What we're designed for = natural
What we do = unnatural"

This is the fundamental problem with your arguement. "what
we're designed for"... we were not designed.

Therefore how can anything we do be unnatural? I had a
discussion about this last night, and we decided that we had
to make a distinction between,
nature = the entire universe that we can experience, and,
oldskool-nature = the world that humans hadn't yet affected.


If we have to claim a design for humans... I would say that
we are designed to adapt, and that is what has made us the
most successful speices the world has ever known
(apparently).

We are constantly striving to improve our quality of life,
and therefore extend our life and that of our offspring...
it is this that has driven us to build cities, and cars, and
nuclear weapons... and it is this drive that will
(probably/hopefully) cause us to clean up our cities, and
develop less harmful forms of transport, and dis-arm
ourselves of the horrific weapons that threaten all of us.


 

offline LuckyPsycho from a long way from home (United Kingdom) on 2003-04-30 03:47 [#00677753]
Points: 369 Status: Lurker | Followup to Key_Secret: #00676054



Sorry... got off track in the middle there!

You are talking about 'oldskool-nature' - which no longer
exists, but which people seem to want to 'get back to'. We
can learn from it, and attempt to understand it, but there
is no point in striving for it because the world is
different now, and the needs of world, and of our species
have changed.


 

offline LuckyPsycho from a long way from home (United Kingdom) on 2003-04-30 03:51 [#00677757]
Points: 369 Status: Lurker | Followup to jupitah: #00676156



No, I'm not saying natural is good! good and bad are totally
irrelavant.
I'm not sure which bit of my ramblings lead you to think
that...


 

offline Key_Secret from Sverige (Sweden) on 2003-04-30 04:59 [#00677839]
Points: 9325 Status: Regular | Followup to LuckyPsycho: #00677753



You are talking about 'oldskool-nature' - which no
longer
exists, but which people seem to want to 'get back to'. We
can learn from it, and attempt to understand it, but there
is no point in striving for it because the world is
different now, and the needs of world, and of our species
have changed.


Could you please tell me when we went from oldskool-nature
to nature, and what we have adapted to?

I still have a feeling that we haven't adapted much at all,
that many of our demands (e.g. food) are still the same...

Also it's kinda weird saying "it's no point striving for
it", because if we do not quit destroying the environment we
will get hurt aswell (like we are getting right now).


 

offline Key_Secret from Sverige (Sweden) on 2003-04-30 05:05 [#00677845]
Points: 9325 Status: Regular | Followup to LuckyPsycho: #00677750



If we have to claim a design for humans... I would say
that we are designed to adapt, and that is what has made us
the most successful speices the world has ever known
(apparently).


Aren't all species designed to adapt?
But yeah, we have a different will then other animals...
But if you do not believe in that there's already an ideal
environment in which you would feel best living in - decided
already when you were born - then that would mean that you
think we can create our own ideal environment...
And that doesn't make much sense to me.
If you can create your own "ideal" environment, therer is no
such thing as an "ideal" environment - in fact, all
environments/circumstanses are equally good; as long as you
spend some time there to adapt...


 

offline LuckyPsycho from a long way from home (United Kingdom) on 2003-04-30 08:38 [#00678176]
Points: 369 Status: Lurker | Followup to Key_Secret: #00677845



That is exactly my point... there is no ideal environment.
Its a nonesense concept. If our environment were ideal we
would all live forever in a state of eternal bliss...
anything less than that would not be ideal.

"Could you please tell me when we went from oldskool-nature

to nature, and what we have adapted to?"

my point was that 'oldskool-nature' is a concept that we
have come up with to describe the world as it would have
been without humans. A fake ideal that people seem to want
to strive for. We seem to think that we have wronged the
planet by living on it, because we have been taught to
believe that we are outside of nature.

The fact is that we are a part of this planet as much as the
tree that I'm looking at. The fact that we have evolved the
ability to analyze our behaviour, and understand the world
around us, does not separate us from that world. It gives us
the potential to work with the rest of nature to further its
(and therefore our own) existence.

That doesn't mean that we have or won't make mistakes, but
that is how nature learns... all of nature... there is no
plan... we work it out as we go along.



 

offline LuckyPsycho from a long way from home (United Kingdom) on 2003-04-30 08:40 [#00678177]
Points: 369 Status: Lurker



That doesn't mean that we HAVEN'T or won't make mistakes,
but
that is how nature learns... all of nature... there is no
plan... we work it out as we go along


 

offline plaidzebra from so long, xlt on 2003-04-30 12:18 [#00678448]
Points: 5678 Status: Lurker



designed to be self designing. we will follow the hand of
the creator back to the source and find...what we have
forgotten. the alpha and the omega.


 


Messageboard index