• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Are Humans going against nature?

Status
Not open for further replies.

znintendotaku

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
478
Location
earth
I believe humans are going against nature like a pluague or a virus. We completely 'disobey' the laws of natural selection, and we create machines that harm our planet.
Human kind spits in the face of natural selection...Our weak individuals can still breed all though they are meant to die off. Humans throw back the small stupid fish that was supposed to die for the 14 pound lunker that didnt get a chance to breed yet. Its as though we live to ruin our surroundings until we our forced to either change our behavior or move to another habitable plant and repeat the process only faster.
We also will have machines that are rotting our lives. Pollution and such. You know the saying 'Mother Nature always fixes itself', well I believe that we will ruin this planet so bad the only way to fix it would be to destroy the world as we know it and start anew....

What are your thoughts?

(sorry about the grammar)
 

pockyD

Smash Legend
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
11,926
Location
San Francisco, CA
well, it's pretty clear to me that the advancement of technology runs opposite of that of evolution // natural selection

I wouldn't say it's necessarily a bad thing; as individuals, the development and use of technology enriches almost everyone's life... as a species, we may suffer in that our physical selves aren't adapting as well, but that is an unnecessarily far-sighted perspective
 

Kur

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
200
I believe humans are going against nature like a pluague or a virus. We completely 'disobey' the laws of natural selection, and we create machines that harm our planet.
Human kind spits in the face of natural selection...Our weak individuals can still breed all though they are meant to die off. Humans throw back the small stupid fish that was supposed to die for the 14 pound lunker that didnt get a chance to breed yet. Its as though we live to ruin our surroundings until we our forced to either change our behavior or move to another habitable plant and repeat the process only faster.
We also will have machines that are rotting our lives. Pollution and such. You know the saying 'Mother Nature always fixes itself', well I believe that we will ruin this planet so bad the only way to fix it would be to destroy the world as we know it and start anew....

What are your thoughts?

(sorry about the grammar)
I think you don't really know what natural selection is. Just because something is weaker does not mean it should not survive. Sometimes a weakness is a strength. Look at Stephen Hawking. The man can barely twitch some muscles in his face, but he has one of the most brilliant minds on the planet.

Natural selection selected our ancestors to be physically weaker, but more intelligent than other great apes. We are strong because of our brains. As long as our intelligence continues to help us survive, natural selection will continue to select for it. This doesn't mean we will get any smarter, it just means we probably won't get any dumber. If something happens where our intelligence no longer benefits us, then we either evolve to the changes or go extinct, just like every other animal on the planet.

Evolution is NOT survival of the fittest. It is survival of the most adaptable.

A fish that weighs 14 pounds is not any better suited to survive in its environment than a younger fish of the same species. The younger fish will eventually grow into a 14 pound fish itself. And if you are concerned over pulling out the large fish before it could breed, why not be concerned about pulling out the small fish before it could breed?

We humans are just another animal. We are nothing special. Sure we are the smartest animals with the most tools, but so what? Whales are the biggest animals, Falcons are the fastest and cows are the tastiest. Every animal is unique, including us. We are a part of nature. How is it any different if we catch a fish, than if a bear catches a fish? How is it different if we wipe out a species of animal than if some carnivore wipes out a species of herbivore?

And I know I am not going to convince you (there is a whole thread about it here anyway) but man made global warming is not real, we are not ruining the planet, and yes, nature always repairs itself.

Something to keep in mind, is that just because we humans like it a balmy 75 degrees with clear blue skies, does not mean that is how the planet is supposed to be. This planet will change. It will change into whatever it wants and there is little to nothing we can do to stop it. A few hundred years ago, the planet was much warmer. The vikings were farming in greenland, which is now covered by a huge sheet of ice. A few dozen million years ago, the atmosphere was twice as thick. A few billion years ago, there was almost no oxygen in the atmosphere and it was composed primarily of CO2. Even the most trashed, dirty, polluted city will one day be covered by plant life, leveled by time, and covered by layers of soil. After that it will one day be subverted into the earths interior and melted away in the giant molten rock the plates are floating around on.

If we took every drop of oil in the earth and spilled it into the oceans, the planet would be fine. Sure a lot of animals will die, but not all of them. The oil would eventually be filtered out of the oceans and the earth will still spin. The planet will eventually make more oil, just as it always has.

If we drive all our cars every day, we still don't put out as much pollution as an erupting volcano, or a giant wild fire. There is nothing we can do to this planet that this planet doesn't do to itself all the time.

The earths crust has formed super continents and split apart 15-20 times since the crust hardened. Pangea was not the first super continent and won't be the last. Who are we to say what level the oceans should be at? What if they are too low right now? There is nothing we humans can do to change any of this. These are processes so far out of our ability to manage, that it seems silly to think we can affect them.

We are not killing this planet, there is nothing to kill. The planet is a big rock floating around in space. Earth is not here to support life, life is here trying to live on earth.

The earth will be here long, long, after we are gone.


I don't want to offend you, but it seems to me you are somewhat paranoid. It seems like you are listening to all the doom and gloom stories in the media and it has disheartened you.

Cheer up, it's not that bad at all. Take comfort in the knowledge that we are simply not important to this planet. If we are a parasite, we are a single, dying flea with a broken leg, gnawing on the toenail of the largest elephant. It doesn't even know we're here and nothing we do will make it change what it is doing.



well, it's pretty clear to me that the advancement of technology runs opposite of that of evolution // natural selection
How so? Some birds EVOLVED to build intricate nests, termites EVOLVED to build towering nests over their burrows. Some apes EVOLVED to use tools to open fruits, catch insects, scratch their butts, etc. If in the far off future a chimp ties a rock to a stick and whacks a predator with it, is that evolution or the opposite of it? It is crude, but still an advancement of technology.

Humans evolved this intelligence we have and we used it to survive. Our survival depends on our ability to create complex tools and homes. It is possible we may have reached a dead end, or it is possible we are just beginning and may some day evolve to be able to understand quantum physics as if it were simple math.

The advancement of technology keeps us alive, natural selection will continue to select for intelligence that lets us advance technology.
 

Kur

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
200
Being the most adaptable can be interpreted as being the most fit.

Other than that, I agree with you.
That is true, sort of..

But when you say "survival of the fittest" most people think of physical strength, or superior size.

Most peoples idea of "survival of the fittest" would mean a faster predator would be selected over a slower one. This might be true sometimes, but the slower predator might have a unique take down technique that makes it more successful than its faster counterpart.

I usually avoid the phrase to avoid this confusion when I am discussing evolution with people.
 

GhostAnime

Smash Ace
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
939
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
We completely 'disobey' the laws of natural selection, and we create machines that harm our planet.
my question is this: what makes this unnatural? we grew smart. animals are usually self-interest. thus smart humans do things that benefit their way of living.

i'm pretty sure whatever we do as humans whether it is bad or good is usually natural.
 

MojoMan

Smash Ace
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
975
Location
Brooklyn
Well, we aren't technically going against the laws pf nature because everything and every material we have ever made has oiginated from nature, like rubber. The tools we use today just happen to be more advanced than the tools made out of nature that the cavemen used. But of course, at the rate we are using and creating these things, the human race is progressivley destroying themselves. We rae not going against the laws of nature, but we will kill ourselves in the way we are going with the laws of nature. Sorry if that sounded rather idiotic, but I couldn't figure out another way to say it.
 

Jam Stunna

Writer of Fortune
BRoomer
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
6,450
Location
Hartford, CT
3DS FC
0447-6552-1484
Other creatures use tools, communicate, adapt their surroundings to themselves (as opposed to adapting to their surroundings), and do the other things that humans do. We just have taken those skills to a higher level thanks to our intelligence. What's unnatural about that?

Let me ask you this: if you could teach a great ape to hunt with a gun, do you think he'd use it?
 

znintendotaku

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
478
Location
earth
Grrr...i wish i had a keyboard and a computer instead of "the internet channel" so i can tell you people how much i agree with you...

man, i dont belong in this room...this is harder than i thought...
 

pockyD

Smash Legend
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
11,926
Location
San Francisco, CA
the thing is, I don't really think we as a species are necessarily selecting for intelligence. It's not like the unintelligent are wiped out or are less likely to reproduce (in fact, it's possible that the opposite is true)

humans, through intelligence, act in a way that happens to benefit all of society, not just themselves. If someone invented some amazing high-tech weapon, monopolized the designs, and wiped out all incapable of using it, then that might be selecting towards intelligence, but simply having the weapon, but allowing all to use it does not further evolution IMO
 

adumbrodeus

Smash Legend
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Messages
11,321
Location
Tri-state area
We are not killing this planet, there is nothing to kill. The planet is a big rock floating around in space. Earth is not here to support life, life is here trying to live on earth.

The earth will be here long, long, after we are gone.
I think you are mistaking the hype for the substance.

Realistically speaking, we can kill the earth, but we CAN kill ourselves by making the earth change in a way that is unsuitable to us.

And the fact is, we don't know what change/changes could do that. For all our technology, we are a delicate species, many things could result in our demise.
 

Aesir

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
That's not killing the Earth, the Earth is a very resourceful planet, we can change the climate and wipe out half of the life on this planet, and it'll still be alive. KT boundary wiped out nearly all of the earths life and it's still alive today.

If anything can kill the earth, it's the earth it's self.

If Mars is any indication of a planet more a less killing it's self.
 

Eriatarka

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
229
Location
Dublin, Ireland
The whole 'survival of the fittest' thing isn't an actual 'law' of nature that's set in stone, it's just the term we've chosen to describe an aspect of the way that species evolve, based on observations we've made. Who are we to say that any kind of weaker/less intelligent species surviving over another stronger species is unnatural, just because it doesn't seem to go along with our percieved notion of which animals should tend towards survival and which ones shouldn't?
But yes, we're hardly helping the environment. It wouldn't be in any way natural if we hadn't evolved and taken over the planet in the way we have, and we didn't have to leave it as a completely green, unpaven and unspoiled paradise to avoid 'going against nature' either, but we could certainly do with cutting down on the pollution we cause.
I personally feel you're being a bit dramatic to say we're running down the road of making this planet uninhabitable, though. It would take a drastic worldwide drop in air quality, or something equally dramatic, to make leaving this planet necessary, but if such an event ever became a real threat we'd certainly put the brakes on.
But it won't get as bad as all that anyway, I don't think we pose that much of a risk to the planet.
 

DeliciousCake

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
1,969
Location
Fairfax, VA
3DS FC
4313-1513-6404
You know the saying 'Mother Nature always fixes itself', well I believe that we will ruin this planet so bad the only way to fix it would be to destroy the world as we know it and start anew....
As much as I hate to say it and know it makes me sound like a horrible person, people who are attempting to find cures for AIDS and the like are those who are going against the 'laws of nature.' Crippling epidemic is nature's way of dealing with populations that begin to overstep their boundaries, and by trying to reverse this, yes, we are running opposite of nature. Who has seen Blue Gender? If things keep going the way they are, I place my bet that something insane like that happens in the real world.
 

SuperBowser

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
1,331
Location
jolly old england. hohoho.
As much as I hate to say it and know it makes me sound like a horrible person, people who are attempting to find cures for AIDS and the like are those who are going against the 'laws of nature.'
But then the whole of medicine is against the law of nature...

What's the difference between this and taking penicillin/surgery/vitamin tablets?.
 

DeliciousCake

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
1,969
Location
Fairfax, VA
3DS FC
4313-1513-6404
But then the whole of medicine is against the law of nature...

What's the difference between this and taking penicillin/surgery/vitamin tablets?.
Easily communicable and deadly diseases that seem to be perfectly designed to cause the downfall of the human race, versus breaking a bone, heart failure, or low blood sugar. Singular, non-fatal problems are not equal in standing with the Black Plague, avian flu, and other such population-crushing epidemics.
 

SuperBowser

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
1,331
Location
jolly old england. hohoho.
Easily communicable and deadly diseases that seem to be perfectly designed to cause the downfall of the human race, versus breaking a bone, heart failure, or low blood sugar.
So what's wrong with looking for a cure for it? How is that any different to the discovery to antibiotics?

or cures for cancer (therapies based on genetics are getting some real headway now)
 

DeliciousCake

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
1,969
Location
Fairfax, VA
3DS FC
4313-1513-6404
So what's wrong with looking for a cure for it? How is that any different to the discovery to antibiotics?
Antibiotics were a first step into reversing nature's hold over us. Why do diseases become increasingly harder for us to diagnose and treat? Because it's necessary. Without maintaining a balance in the world, everything will eventually die out. An overabundance of predator's naturally leads to part of the species dying out due to a gradually declining food source. As humans, we have evolved to overcome this. Hence, it is necessary to create increasingly dangerous diseases.

I'm not saying it's WRONG to find a cure, I'm just saying that it goes against the natural order.

Edit: Also, I removed cancer from my previous post because I realized it was a poor example for this topic.
 

DeliciousCake

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
1,969
Location
Fairfax, VA
3DS FC
4313-1513-6404
HIV would have happenned regardless of medicine.
Yet can you deny that we've overstepped our boundaries and are continuing to expand beyond a point that the world will no longer be able to sustain us? HIV is just another thing that is necessary to balance out the human population, and we continue to try and prevent it.
 

pockyD

Smash Legend
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
11,926
Location
San Francisco, CA
Are certain people genetically resistant to HIV and/or its effects?

Anyways, "balancing out the human population" amounts to genocide (or some form of '-cide' that makes sense; I'm drawing a vocabulary blank right now) - sacrificing what will probably be billions of people just so that the remnant is slightly superior
 

AltF4

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
5,042
Location
2.412 – 2.462 GHz
Why are humans always excluded from "nature". We are an animal just like any other. It just so happens that we won the fight for top-of-the-food-chain.

I fail to see how things that humans do are "unnatural".

There is no "natural order". The world is what it is. And we as humans get to decide what that future will be. There are no rules, no mystic set of guidelines that tell us what is "right and wrong", or "natural and unnatural".
 

adumbrodeus

Smash Legend
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Messages
11,321
Location
Tri-state area
As much as I hate to say it and know it makes me sound like a horrible person, people who are attempting to find cures for AIDS and the like are those who are going against the 'laws of nature.' Crippling epidemic is nature's way of dealing with populations that begin to overstep their boundaries, and by trying to reverse this, yes, we are running opposite of nature. Who has seen Blue Gender? If things keep going the way they are, I place my bet that something insane like that happens in the real world.
Not really, natural selection isn't a living entity.

We mutated into having intelligence, and so far, nothing else's mutation has come close to matching that advantage. Many have tried, but intelligence is mind-numbingly useful.

So, as of right now, we're still coasting off that one mutation, many many years ago. It's not in defiance of nature, that's what natural selection does, make the fit survive. All the technology/medicine we have is the natural product of intelligence, we're just behaving how nature bred us to.

As course, we gotta use our intelligence to achieve sustainability, otherwise, WE'LL kill ourselves.
 

SuperBowser

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
1,331
Location
jolly old england. hohoho.
^Yeah, I never get people who say something humans do is ''unnatural''. If you follow that line of logic everything we do becomes unnatural because we change the course of events that would occur if we did nothing.
 

DeliciousCake

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
1,969
Location
Fairfax, VA
3DS FC
4313-1513-6404
Looking at it from the viewpoint of "anything humans do is natural," then I would have to agree that humans can't go against nature. However:
As course, we gotta use our intelligence to achieve sustainability, otherwise, WE'LL kill ourselves.
Population control is still a necessity.
 

Xsyven

And how!
BRoomer
Joined
Oct 14, 2002
Messages
14,070
Location
Las Vegas
If you're all about survival of the fittest, doesn't that mean that we deserve to live for ... living?
 

Jam Stunna

Writer of Fortune
BRoomer
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
6,450
Location
Hartford, CT
3DS FC
0447-6552-1484
Yet can you deny that we've overstepped our boundaries and are continuing to expand beyond a point that the world will no longer be able to sustain us? HIV is just another thing that is necessary to balance out the human population, and we continue to try and prevent it.
Necessary by who's standards? Who set this "population check" in motion? It sounds like you're trying to attribute some sort of intelligent design to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
 

adumbrodeus

Smash Legend
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Messages
11,321
Location
Tri-state area
Necessary by who's standards? Who set this "population check" in motion? It sounds like you're trying to attribute some sort of intelligent design to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
Don't think that's intential, but most animal's population's fluctuate based on outside conditions, because we don't, we just grow, I think the suggestion is that this brings it's own issues including the ease of communication of diseases.














BTW, your avie is Jade right? Beyond Good and Evil is an awesome game.
 

Jam Stunna

Writer of Fortune
BRoomer
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
6,450
Location
Hartford, CT
3DS FC
0447-6552-1484
Yup, it's Jade all right!

All I'm saying is that other animals try to prevent their own deaths, so why is it "unnatural" that humans do so as well? Our level of intelligence allows us to do things that other animals cannot, but we're all trying to survive.
 

pockyD

Smash Legend
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
11,926
Location
San Francisco, CA
The difference is that when animals struggle to prevent their own death, it's precisely that; attempting to survive - while one animal of species A discovered/mutated a way to kill species B (who is higher on the food chain), they don't exactly publish reports on how to kill species B; another animal of species A on the other side of the world would derive no benefit from the first animal's adaptation (unless the specific animal killed was hunting them both simultaneously)

However, with humans, it's the select few that are combating death, while everyone benefits from them

Imagine if there was no common knowledge of medicine, and it was up to anyone who contracted, say, pneumonia to find the cure for themselves. In that case, only those intelligent enough to determine the proper remedy would survive. However, as the cure for many diseases are widely known (and since the 'intelligent' people that discover these cures don't hoard them or anything), people who are both extra vulnerable to the illness yet don't have the mental capacity to determine an solution are surviving easily

I'm sure this sounds dark and all, but I personally think that evolving doesn't really matter much (the development of technology can be an effective substitute for the whole species), and it definitely won't matter in our lifetimes
 

pockyD

Smash Legend
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
11,926
Location
San Francisco, CA
what does that even mean?

the researchers create and develop the drugs (and in this line of logic, 'they' are of slightly superior intelligence)

EVERYONE uses the drugs to survive
 

arrowhead

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
723
Location
under a rock
if drugs weren't available to sick people, they would still do whatever they could to survive. it's just that a select few are successful in finding a treatment
 

manhunter098

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Orlando, Sarasota, Tampa (FL)
So what if everyone uses drugs to survive longer than they normally would. The researchers improve their chances of survival by making drugs that benefit others, after all it is their job and its how they make the money, to buy the food they need to eat and support their family. Humans are social creatures and thus by sharing the discoveries of individuals or groups we can achieve more than we can alone.
 

Blackshadow

Smash Ace
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
900
Location
Adelaide, Australia. Along with my Mad Duck.
I think people are forgetting that just because you're a researcher doesn't mean you're necessarily superior to anyone else in any way. Consider all those who excel at their chosen fields, such as in the Creative Arts. Are these people inferior to researchers just because they excel at different areas? No. The reason humanity thrives so much is because everyone works together as a community to further the human race, and we rely on everyone else doing their jobs to help us do our own. Researchers do their part by researching improvements to medicine and vaccines, which help the common factory worker that lies bedridden with serious disease to get up and go to work at the coffee factory, which the end product eventually finds its way to the researcher's coffee cups.
 

Eriatarka

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
229
Location
Dublin, Ireland
I'm sure this sounds dark and all, but I personally think that evolving doesn't really matter much (the development of technology can be an effective substitute for the whole species)
That's a very interesting point..
I get what some people are saying, that the survival of the 'weaker' members of our race because of the knowledge shared by the smarter members isn't 'natural', but the term 'natural' is frustratingly vague here.

Anyway, maybe it's better to step back from thinking 'the weakest of each species should die off for the betterment of the species' (for want of less harsh words), and instead look at every lifeform as an individual lifeform, rather than a weaker member of a race. In the context of survival of the fittest, are merely adequete humans less deserving of survival than the strongest lions or the fastest cheetahs?
 

samdaballer

Smash Ace
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
606
Location
SoCal
yes, humans are going against nature, just look at all of the Rx drugs and global warming (I know it sounds weird but we're not really working with nature on that one, are we). Though I do believe that us going against nature isn't necessarily bad, I do believe that in hundreds, maybe even thousands of years, it will come to bite us in the butt
 

manhunter098

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Orlando, Sarasota, Tampa (FL)
But is the climate of the earth necessarily part of nature or rather nature a byproduct of the earths climate. While I can definitely agree that humans are no doing biodiversity any favors at the moment, our impact on climate is not only debatable, but the idea of the climate being a part of nature is debatable as well. We dont consider a planet devoid of life to have nature, but it still has a climate. So I dont think that we can call climate change, anthropogenic or not part of nature.

As for drugs, they are simply tools, which are quite natural because they are product of human ingenuity which is natural. Our species simply has a greater understanding of the world around us than any other, not using that ability to our advantage would be denying the benefits of the superior traits we gained as we evolved as a species, and in a way be less natural than using that ability, an animal does everything it can to survive and reproduce (for the most part) and humans arent really much of an exception.


Though thinking about it, the ability for people to commit suicide when it clearly will not benefit them is somewhat unnatural, I dont know of many organisms that kill themselves because of emotional problems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom