The Afterlife... (And a little bit about human nature, too)

[Helm]

If it is the way nature intended for us to be why would we do it any other way? Im sure antelope dont enjoy being eaten by the lion but it happens anyways. You dont see them building spears to escape their destiny.

The implication being that the history of human civilization is somehow unnatural?

It's natural for ants to dig habitats in the earth and scavenge resources from the surrounding environment. It's natural for a pride of lions to live, hunt, and otherwise coexist together as a social unit. It's natural for a hornet hive to send out some hornets to massacre honeybees hives and steal their honey. But it's not natural for humans to form and develop civilizations?

What makes you think that humans are anything other than what nature has intended them to be?

Because we are the only species of anything in the known galaxy that is capable of destroying its own planet (nukes)?

If you want to make a philosophical or ethical demand, make it. But there's no natural and self-apparent distinction between us or anything else that occurs on this earth because we've made nukes.

[Nacho]

Yes shitar... Why do you pick a specific issue and determine it' s the one to make one specie unnatural? Komodo female dragons can have babies without the pressence of the male, why don' t you pick that abbility as the one to determine that specie is unnatural? Also, bats have wings, and they are mammals... the only case in nature, are they "unnatural"?

Ornitorrincos are also special, because they are mammals and they have beack... If we use your rule of three, of course.

[Babar]

Is there a point being made that humans are doing exactly what they should be doing?

I don't think the example you gave are valid, Farl. Those animals were like that naturally. I think shitar meant that some human ACTIONS are unnatural, not human traits. A person with 6 fingers isn't unnatural, but surgery to add an extra finger would be (as I consider it) unnatural.

I don't think 'unnatural' necessarily means 'wrong', but (I'd think that) natural would always mean right.

About the humans being different only because of speech, once again, I personally don't think so. It seems unfashionable to say it, but I'd think humans are separated from other animals due to their intelligence. Parrots have the ability to speak, but somehow I wouldn't put them in the same class as humans. If dolphins or whales or orangutangs suddenly developed humanly understandable speech, would they be as intelligent as us? I don't think so. It seems many animals already have great forms of communication, that serve them perfectly for what they need it.

It's funny how Raggit connected animal with "killing each other and taking what we want". To me, it seems that the very thing that makes us different as humans is what makes us kill each other and take what we want.

Perhaps I'm mistaken here, but it seems (taking the example of that site) that humans are the only creatures that inflict pain for the sake of inflicting pain. BTW, That seems a horrible way to go, considering that it's meant to keep you alive as long as possible for maximum pain effect.

Someone should take some of the +10 page threads and make graphs of them, to see how weirdly (or harmoniously? heh) topics and opinions jump around.

[evenwolf]

Language implies intelligence.  The only problem is that no one has defined that intelligence of a baby who learns how to speak.   So humans speak.

I find, for the most part, that intelligence is a social trait.   We're not talking about running around and bumping your head on a tree stump.   Because animals aren't morons.  They're instinctual entities.   But they have no langauge and likewise, do not have many of the social distinctions that humans have. 

[ManicMatt]

Why is it SO hard for people to believe that we cease to exist when we die? That there is nothing left? 

*Jumps into the middle of discussion he hasn't been involved in or really read*

The point when I found it SO hard to believe that was when my grandma died. I just cannot accept that she is gone, and there is nothing left of her except the memories in my mind. I need hope to go on. I gave myself hope that all the people who have died in my life will be there to greet me in some form of an afterlife. Prior to losing someone close to me (But not my brother Simon as I was too young to remember him) I thought that we probably just cease to exist, but I was never 100% sure. Now I WANT to believe that there is an afterlife, that my deceased loved ones are out there somewhere...

[shitar]

Yes shitar... Why do you pick a specific issue and determine it' s the one to make one specie unnatural? Komodo female dragons can have babies without the pressence of the male, why don' t you pick that abbility as the one to determine that specie is unnatural? Also, bats have wings, and they are mammals... the only case in nature, are they "unnatural"?

Ornitorrincos are also special, because they are mammals and they have beack... If we use your rule of three, of course.

Any female lizard can do it due to genetics not just a komodo dragon. Its natural. The fact that we have the capability to destroy entire planets with our own "tools" is what I think is unnatural. Bats dont have wings per-se. Structural like wings yes but not in the ways a bird is, it is not unnatural and you are clearly not understanding what I was stating about "natural and unnatural". Okay? Platypus's have beaks also? Whats your point? They were born like that? Im not understanding how your points are in any way related to my thoughts.

If it is the way nature intended for us to be why would we do it any other way? Im sure antelope dont enjoy being eaten by the lion but it happens anyways. You dont see them building spears to escape their destiny.

The implication being that the history of human civilization is somehow unnatural?

It's natural for ants to dig habitats in the earth and scavenge resources from the surrounding environment. It's natural for a pride of lions to live, hunt, and otherwise coexist together as a social unit. It's natural for a hornet hive to send out some hornets to massacre honeybees hives and steal their honey. But it's not natural for humans to form and develop civilizations?

What makes you think that humans are anything other than what nature has intended them to be?

Because we are the only species of anything in the known galaxy that is capable of destroying its own planet (nukes)?

If you want to make a philosophical or ethical demand, make it. But there's no natural and self-apparent distinction between us or anything else that occurs on this earth because we've made nukes.

So blowing up the moon with nuclear weapons and then mars and eventually earth itself, is natural?

[Nacho]

I am not understanding your point either... You say "Humans are unnature because they are the only ones which can do X" I say "Ok, but some animals are the only ones that can make Y, or Z!" And you say "No... that's  different!"

Why it' s different? Why do you pick "X"? Why is your "X" valid and my "Y" or "Z" isn' t?

Human are special in the sense that they have developed an intelligence level that it incredible higher than the second specie in the list... But they are just that, animals very specialised in an specific issue... We can find examples very specialised in other issues, the sonar system of the bat is quite impressive... (And don' t star with the game "well, whales have sonar too" Because then I' ll enter in the game of "Chimpanzes have intelligence too, like gorillas and Baboons, etc, etc...)

We are not special in the "metaphorical" sense you want to give... We are just very smart (in some cases) apes.

[vict0r]

Platypus's have beaks also?

It's the same thing...

The fact that humans can blow up planets is not any more unnatural than for example a monkey using a rock to open a nut! It's a species using a tool to accomplish a task. What you say are something like "Humans aren't animals! We use tools to do stuff."
Well, yeah, thats because we have the fucking intelligence to do so. And we are not the only species to use tools.

Monkeys:

In Tanzania, chimps construct tools from grass and twigs which they use to extract ants from their holes.  Wild chimps have also been observed using sticks to withdraw honey from beehives, dig up edible roots, and as levers to open boxes of bananas left by scientists.  Leaves are also used as tools by chimps for collecting water and for wiping mud, blood, and sticky fruit from their bodies.

Vultures:

Hungry Egyptian vultures use ingenuity in obtaining their food.  Since the shells of ostrich eggs are too hard to break open by simply pecking at them, the vultures use rocks to assist them.  According to reports by Jane Goodall from Tanzania, the vultures will search as far as 50 yards from the coveted egg in order to find a proper smashing tool.  Interestingly, the forward jerking movement of the vultures' head exhibited when breaking an egg with a stone is very similar to the movement used when the bird simply pecks to break open an egg.  Other species of birds break eggs open by throwing them down on stones.  However, this behavior is not considered tool use because the stone is not being used as an extension of the bird's body.

And more animals!

The only main difference is that humans have the intelligence to do it on a larger scale.

[Ali]

Like Maniac Matt, I'm also leaping into this debate without having read much of it. I just want to address this point:

So blowing up the moon with nuclear weapons and then mars and eventually earth itself, is natural?

This argument doesn't make sense. You note that we're a species with nuclear capabilities. I'm a human, but I couldn't build a nuclear weapon. It's not something our species has, it's something our culture has. Culture in itself is natural, many other animals have forms of culture. The fact that our culture has developed something profoundly terrifying does not make our behaviour unnatural.

So blowing up the moon with nuclear weapons and then mars and eventually earth itself, is natural?

As natural as a bird building a nest, or one gorilla grooming another. Just much, much more horrible.

[shitar]

I understand your point but I just simply can't see it that way for myself.

[evenwolf]

How is mankind with its nukes any different than a bear ripping up a tree trunk?   Its just the scale of the destruction. 

[Nacho]

I repeat my question... Why do you say that differenciation between species comes with the level of destruction they can do? Why don' t we messure it by how deep can the specie swimm, or how high can the specie fly, or how many time without drink can the specie spent?

You clap your fingers and say "Ok... the more destruction, the more different the specie is respect the others" and you want us to agree... but there is no rationality or logical in that statement... Sorry, I could even agree that we are quite special (without defining that "special" as good or bad, at the moment), but the reason you say is quite random, IMO.