Isn't "man," just doing what nature demanded "He" do to survive" i.e. KILL?
If you offer an opinion, pro or con, pls back it up...ty :-)
Nature is not a thing - it is a process.
Man has evolved intelligence and with that intelligence we can see that killing is counter-productive to the continuation of our species, our children.
This is why the understanding of evolution v creationist discussion is so important - creationists believe in a cycle of events that is rooted in the old testament, a hierarchical outlook that teaches that 'our' group is supposed to win in the end, evolution tells us that there are no winners only a better or worse future depending on our actions today. Simply put, evolution demands responsibility versus the irresponsibility and hypocrisy of creationism that looks back to division and justifies the vicious campaigns of its followers.
Creationism has no credability.
I can't consider it to have anything to do with what my question entails.
So I have to ignore that aspect of your response.
Evolution is the function to consider. It is only "good" to those able to adapt.
Man's genetic programming has been so indelibly imprinted by a necessity to "think" and react to survive and "he" is such a young bestial predator, that his success as a species can only be realized if he can, sublimate his "natural' propensity for the kill.
Since Homo/sapienssapiens is a complex "organism," that genetic programming may take another 100k+ yrs to be realized.
Personally? I think he has become his own worst enemy and will most likely be the perpetrator of his own catastrophic reduction.
He will not become extinct, but will be so metamorphosed by mutation, that if he should come to power again, he certainly will not resemble the "human" of today.
That is the whole point about intelligence it takes over where biological evolution leaves off; it gives us the chance to think our way forward and accept things that appear not to be 'useful' to us because we can reason through the problem. This IS civilization - the reason why the fundies are a problem is that they are pushing us backwards, denying the next step that can take us 'above' all the crap we seem to have around us for no real reason.
And on evolution leaving us behind, we will always remain human in the way that monkeys stay monkeys in their niche in biology. If a superior being evolves from us it will not be us. I can't see it leaving us around though given the mess we make and the violence we create.
Pls point out one period of time in the history of "man" that can be referred to as a period of "civility."
The last time I checked, the English definition of "civil," is "courteous/polite.
The "hi level of technological and cultural development" I think you refer to as "civilization," has been dedicated to what? It has been profoundly involved in war, death and destruction.
Today? We have created "doomsday' weapons that could destroy most extant life on the planet.
We humans, have ALWAYS been involved in protecting ourselves from each other!
The "intelligence" you speak of is being used in a very counter productive manner.
Our ability to kill has become so sophisticated and deadly that one can kill without sympathy or compunction.
The death of millions is just a matter of the tip of an index finger pressing a button on a computer keyboard. Then sitting back and sipping on a hot cuppa coffee while the sands of continents are melted into glass and the atmosphere is polluted for centuries.
Answer my question: "Is Man Doing What Comes Naturally/"
The concept of civilization has changed, the word as we use it only came after Johnson made his first dictionary. Most sources can agree that civilization is the opposite of barbarity - what you are describing is barbarity and in this definition of the word the process of civilization is any progress against this type of behaviour. Thinking provides man with the tools to overcome problems, barbarity is just a problem.
So there are two correct answers to your question.
Yes killing etc is normal for some people, they are barbarians.
No killing is not normal for some people, they are civilized.
I like you, but I absolutely, respectfully disagree.
You may think that the word "civility" has changed in meaning, but as an educated American, my dictionary doesn't agree with you either.
Man is, by nature, an incipient, ignorant "beast." His history proves that beyond a doubt.
He is not yet an "intelligent" creature by any means.
He is groping his way down an evolutionary path that may end up with a return to the "stone age."
There is no doubt that he is the most deadly, shrewd, efficient killer evolution has produced on this planet.
The FACT that he evolved to this point in his history is proof that the anomaly "consciousness" and an unique ability to imagine and plan have brought him to this point in time when many others have disappeared forever.
The ignorant masses far outnumber the evolved "thinkers."
Monotheism has been the great fragmenter. It has been and continues to be the deadliest of concepts man has engendered in his short reign as master of this planet.
It alone will deter man from ever coming together in concert to work to guarantee the viablity of the human species.
it is much to late for that.
We exist as primitive, lethal "barbarians" who function "subrosa" in our attempts to gain power and rule.
It will end, disgustingly, with a blast as hot as the sun! Those who survive will parent a human species unlike that of any contemporary man.
I would like to think as you, but reality, not idealism rules my thoughts....
So you don't disagree actually ? This issue was taken up a long time ago - I think by Wittgenstein - and he put out the thought that what we need is a new metalanguage, a system of language where civilized people can talk to each other , the internet actually goes a long way to fulfilling his 'desired system' what he did not envisage was that a few hundred years after the 'enlightenment era' half of our people would be firmly picking up stone spears and marching off to fight some thousands of year old war.
Do you mean in the context of killing to eat or killing to dominate others?
I used to play the Age of Empires game. It amused me how quickly my ex would attack his neighbours to win territory and "protect" his settlement, whereas I worked happily on improving my society and was rarely bothered by them until quite late in the game. My body count was always significantly lower than his!
Personally, I do think killing animals to eat is natural and don't have a problem with it. I don't see why it's necessary to kill your fellow man though. In general, people do that to gain power, wealth or influence, which are not necessary to survival.
It is natural instinct to kill. Either for food or self defense or to reduce the competition for reproduction or resources. Hopefully what makes us intelligent and different from other animals is that we have some self control over our natural instincts.
You know, weirdly enough, killing may be instinctive to HALF the human race, but growing things and nurturing is much more instinctive to the OTHER HALF of the human race...
I'm not familiar with too many women who are in favor of war at all...
I don't believe the best man wins a war, I believe the WORST MAN wins, the most ruthless, and it's a real tragedy for us all.
I am - my experience is that when women get involved in these things they are far more aggressive and prepared to go to extremes more than the men.
Almost an aside - my sister visited China before I came here and told me that one of the things that left the biggest impression was all the MEN spitting. I found the reality was that both men and women spit equally - she is a sweet gentle little old lady and a raging feminist. We all see what we want to see.
You are correct.
Man is a "tragedy" heading for a place to happen.
May I ask both of you Qwark and China Man a question. It would be speculation, I realize, but both of you have said that you feel a new man or species will evolve from us. Either of you care to hazard a guess as to what the differences between it and us would be? Obviously I think smarter, but how so exactly?
Of course this is speculation, but speculation can be fun sometimes.
IF man is reduced in number by a cataclysmic nuclear holocaust, the radioactive cloud that will effect much of the earth's surface will cause genetic mutations, in surviving man, that cannot be imagined.
IF man survives and dominates life again with a "conscious" mind, one would hope that he would understand the causes of his current condition and "desire" and "seek" to create an existence which would guarantee his continuing survival.
IF man can, somehow, cure current systems and thought that so profoundly fragment him, he will genetically engineer new human species.
IF he, man, considers future travel in space, he will HAVE to create a human "species" that can withstand the deadly vagaries in conditions that will greet him beyond the protective environment of planet earth.
Good question Pandora....thanks :-)
Pandora - that IS a more interesting question.
The unknown is especially hard to consider because we tend to follow what we know to what we 'see' as a logical conclusion, one point.
There are wider possibilities, maybe we will evolve into caring people. A new type of human being who does not see anothers suffering as a chance to make a quick buck.
Maybe we will develop better social skills where others are more important than ourselves.
Maybe the prophesied natural disaster will occur, anything is possible, rebuilding governments might give us the opportunity to make better ones. In a real disaster situation money loses all its value and so different people get to take charge for a while.
Maybe people get wiped out. There are any number of intelligent species to replace us but it is hard to see dolphins developing an interest in anything outside their own environment to promote higher reasoning, dogs don't have hands to be able to make anything, monkeys would seem to be the obvious choice but this thinking may just be because they are like us.
by Paul Wingert4 years ago
Neanderthals bred with Cro Magnons to create hybrids ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/323657.stm ) which is possibly one of the many reasons why they became extincted. That is debatable and needs further...
by kirstenblog4 weeks ago
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure,...
by Person of Interest5 years ago
Agree or disagree?
by AKA Winston5 years ago
Someone else asked the question: Do Christians accept evolution, and it occured to me that whether or not evolution accepts Christians would be the more relevant question. Will natural selection eliminate those...
by jomine5 years ago
If you are religious, in the end god will sent fire and stars and all to earth to kill almost all except a selected few who will live eternally to praise him(A CD player might have served him better though, without much...
by LewSethics5 years ago
He could have done it in four or five days if He didn't insist on making most heavenly objects thirteen billion light years distant. Just showing off?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.