If a child grew up in the forest or bush without human contact, would

1. 0

   threekeysposted 7 years ago

   this person still be/act like a human without these cultural or societal influences?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No! A child growing up in the bush without ever contacting human would not act like nor be human, it would be a man seeking to understand life rather than judging life as humans do.
      
      Human/woman are not a gender but a lower form [minds unable to comprehend all things] of man ["minds able to comprehend all things"] who live not by "objectively observing, participating to discover various outcomes and reasoning with them to be able to communicate it to others" as man do but are beings who call all things according to their senses perceptions.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         threekeysposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Are you saying when humans are no longer dfferentiated into of into genders (male and female bodies) we will see the appearance of the higher mind? As the higher mind is androgynous/asexual?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Both man and human will always recognize genders - except ascended masters who are "A" sexual able to shape change into either gender - because until becoming ascended masters, man or gods we will be reproducing which require genders. But that also. What I am meaning is human's liking and disliking, good/evil, god/devil, pretty/ugly and all of those other "judgmental adjectives" human use rather than using the nomenclatures of what it is they taste, see, smell, feel or hear.

            replyreport
2. 72

   Lew Marcrumposted 7 years ago

   Not like a "human" as we perceive one in our modern society.  If the child never knew his parents he would grow up without language and would think only in instinctual concepts.  He would know fear by instinct, fear of strange happenings, noises, animals, etc., out of a desire for self-preservation, how to hide from them, and maybe rudimentary use of tools, mostly sticks and stones.  He would eat his food raw, not knowing fire, and live day to day like all other animals.  Even with his inborn intelligence, one human with one lifetime could not invent much.  He would fear weather and lightning, but not know why, and probably be in awe of the night sky, yet fear night in general. 
   
   Without the constructs of a common society and "civilization" a human is just another animal roaming the world searching for food, shelter and security.

   replyreport
3. 81

   holliesandhealthposted 7 years ago

   They'd still be human but they won't act like it. There was, I believe, offficials in France who discovered a wild child living with the animals in the forest. They acted more animal than human, crouched down like one, and made their own animal noises.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I believe they would be man and not human, see my above post. They would most likely have most of the abilities the Christ demonstrated because they would not have been directed to judge things unless they had been prior to being left in the environment.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         threekeysposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         We have a long way to go before everyone is pulled up to the way of "turning the other cheek" as Christ was purported to have done

         replyreport
         1. 59

            The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Everyone is NOT ever supposed to reach that level understanding, maximum of 10% is all at any one time. When that 10% become ascended masters evolution of that number of life-forces will ev love into the lowest of the learning positions and into the highest [on earth are man] who becomes the next 10% ascended as masters. That will never cease and 10% of the ascended masters will descend into forgetfulness in completing the circle.

            replyreport
4. 0

   threekeysposted 7 years ago

   So, cultural understandings together with societal rules are pretty huge, needed and relevant factors in progessing us, and moulding us to being human and better human beings?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Human are cultivated into being "incomplete man unable to comprehend all things" while man have never been subjected to judgment making and living by sense perceptions due to their judgments.

      replyreport
5. 72

   Lew Marcrumposted 7 years ago

   I see that as sociological gobbledegook.  On some planes this can be a very complicated situation, though hypothetical.   On another it is very simple.  Gender is a natural result of conception and birth, and sex drive is one of the most basic instincts.  Neither has anything at all to do with any supposed "higher mind of man", no more than a higher mind of aardvark.  All we can say about gender is that it exists, and is the primary means of perpetuation of a sexually reproducing species.  It doesn't take a higher or lower mind or intelligence, merely an inborn instinct.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      True "Dat", Lew.

      replyreport
6. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

   And how old is this hypothetical child when it becomes lost or whatever? A child not old enough to remember humans probably won't grow up at all.

   replyreport
7. 66

   Jessie L Watsonposted 7 years ago

   A child wouldn't survive under those conditions, period. Culture is responsible for many different aspects of personality but to define humanity as purely a social construct is wrong.  Even if a child happens to survive in isolation somehow, they still have inbred knowledge of right and wrong. This has been tested and proved. We are most definitely not "blank slates". Having said all that, when you remove the comfortable conditions and the safety net of society, people do have a tendency to regress into their lesser animal sensibilities. But I think people are much more dangerous if they've already experienced said comfortable conditions then suddenly lose them.
   
   So, it might help to think about this if I rephrased the question:
   
   "Are indigenous tribes in the rainforest less human than their "civilized" counterparts?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      threekeysposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      To me that is a different question.
      The tribes in the Amazon need to be left alone. They need to be protected from us.
      These tribes would have their own kind of culture and societal values that work for them in context of living in a jungle.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Jessie L Watsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         It is a different question - yes. But, within those tribes, there are far less complex cultural influences. And I think its all too common for people in modern societies to overestimate or underestimate how crucial the involvement of other people is in our lives.
         
         Another example might be: People in less developed countries work for 2 dollars a day. Someone from the U.S. might believe that those people deserve to live at the same standard that we do. But that 2 dollars a day is that working population's ticket to their own freedom. Who are we to impose any kind of living standard on anyone else? There's a huge bias with regard to how we view other "tribes", so to speak.
         
         Back to the original question: if a child somehow survives isolation in the woods somewhere, what type of person would they be? Other than extremely malnourished if not dead, I would say that they would be human in the context of their biology.  However, children without human contact before the age 5 results in underdeveloped brains, learning disabilities, and lower immune function. We need each other but we don't need a "specific variety" of each other.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            threekeysposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I am going to sound contradicotory. But like is full of paradoxes.
            In the western world, the so called affluent part of the global population, someone earning a maximum $2 is not right.
            Context is again needed.
            And I need to say I am not a economist or professional equipped to given a strict response here.
            I personally feel we still need help pull up others so most if not all are experiencing a dignified life within one's niche/geographical area within the world.
            PS earlier when I said one can experience growth and discipline when completing tasks one doesnt like, I refer to everyday matters within the workplace and home environment. And  doing too much of what you hate, is not the way either. Right now I have had a gutful of having to deal with things I hate dealing with. I need a break. What about Jessie?

            replyreport
            1. 66

               Jessie L Watsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Having the ability to earn 2 dollars a day is much better than the State handing someone a base rate/standard of living. South Korea was the exact same as North Korea 60 years ago. Now they're as affluent as the rest of Europe. That's because they started out on 2 dollars a day while their upstairs neighbors have remained the same - starving and undeveloped. So there's an economic context. Financial as well as spiritual freedom is often about making sacrifices now for a better future. It's the most sophisticated way to live in my opinion and if you don't let societies learn how to do that, then they will never grow. 
               
               We all need a break from time to time. Take a breath. Meditate. Eat some good food.

               replyreport
   2. 59

      The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Jessie,
      The probability is a just born human child left alone would be raised by almost any mother able to supply it what it needed until it could eat food and would influence the child to accept all manner of environmental conditions because the imbedded "likes/dislikes" by in its mother's womb would not have presented the self-reproducing environment's conditions and would become erased by them. The child would return to man's unconditioned state of being very acceptive of any and everything which couldn't be considered "cultured" into them.
      
      In saying that, I believe the child would grow up to become enlightened, although maybe not able to explain it to others. On the other hand, being enlightened it may learn the language of every life type around it and it meets allowing it to pass on its understanding. I feel more tilted toward believing the latter.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Jessie L Watsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I'm not sure what to think about that. I think there's a difference between a Buddhist monk voluntarily meditating in a cave for years and a young, vulnerable human being cast out into the chaos of nature. It's not just a simple recipe of being isolated and "one with nature". The effects of extreme isolation can be catastrophic to a person's psyche - especially without human guidance beforehand.
         
         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8PdXOOQmyc
         
         The default condition of human beings is not enlightenment. We are animals and it would be wise not to forget that. It was would be wise not to forget that the normative conditions that we have today in a civilized environment are the consequence of certain needs being met and an actual effort to cooperate. It doesn't just "happen". We actually have to work at it.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            That video is blocked by PBS in the U.S., Jessie.
            
            All beings with the power to move by their own will are animals since it means "having the power of mobility" so I realize man are animals.
            
            I don't think that would actually happen but if it did and the child questioned everything and use reasoning via comparison, which is natural in man except when bombarded with judgmental adjectives, that would lead to enlightenment without it being default.
            
            Should the child readily accept ecological living for many years then enter civilized living deeply engraved with only the need to breathe, drink, eat and sleep it would wonder about those beings looking like itself but living clothed, in buildings, working on jobs, going to school and religious services and even being taught by others. It is likely the child, after coming in contact with civilized man would observe and participate experimentally. By observing it would see babies are conditioned never to feel cold except on their faces and hands as the cause for clothes wearing, having their feet always covered prohibit their ability to remain warm in cold weather, by eating spicy foods in cold would prohibit them from surviving in cold weather, and so many other things we do not know without living exposing ourselves to the environment that we are hindering ourselves from being the FREE animals we are.  That would lead to enlightenment if he became exposed to civilized man and  "observed, participated observingly and reasoned with the outcomes.
            
            That is what the "Garden in Eden" metaphor is about, doing things without reasoning concerning the feeling, heading, smells, sights and taste caused them because they desired or rejected them. That is what prohibits enlightenment.

            replyreport
            1. 66

               Jessie L Watsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Fair enough. Thanks for sharing.

               replyreport
8. 0

   threekeysposted 7 years ago

   Interesting question.
   When I wrote up this question here I was thinking about a child who was 7 or 8 years of age. Does that help your response?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Well then he would remember human contact and would already be accustomed to using makeshift tools as well as talking and reading. This changes the entire theory of some posters on this thread IMHO.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         threekeysposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I didnt think it would...have to think about that.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            The0NatureBoyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I would agree with Randy on this, three keys, if left there at 7 and had nothing available to make tools out of nor been around using makeshift tools, dwellings and the like its survival instincts would likely cause it to survive and return to a most primitive lifestyle. All of it's prejudices would evaporate just to survive and, had it been encouraged to reason with things, it would most definitely be very enlightened.

            replyreport