M
MR.KAZ
Lurker
Starrynite said:
Starrynite,I do believe you're talking out of your ass.
Having An Interest In Gore And Violence Doesn't Make You Any Less Of A Person
Starrynite,I do believe you're talking out of your ass.
Starrynite
Yes
Whats that supposed to mean? It is only the truth that we live in this so called "sin-filled world". There is nothing of redeeming value left in this world and the life we live.
stealth toilet said:
No it isn't. It's just a lot less typing if I say it is. 1 still connects to 5, I just didn't have the time (or will) to fill in 2, 3, and 4. But, now that you bring it up, I'll gladly delve a little deeper and stop thinking in black and white.
These people live on an agriculture-based economy where fruits, vegetables, and grains are much more expedient and readily available than meat. Agriculture did not come into the picture into about 10,000 years ago (or that's where most estimates place the numbers). Before that, men were nomadic hunter-gatherers who were completely dependent upon whatever game they hunted. They could forage for some of their food, but animals provided them with a large supply of meat and clothing.
Native Americans in North America did not have the numbers to create an imbalance in the environment. They were 10 million people, some not yet having agriculture, spread across the entire continent. They did not have the resources or numbers to hyper-exploit the environment and they constantly lived on the edge of death, meaning that they had to hunt unconditionally. Only when humans settle down and begin to become largely agricultural do we see a situation where hyper-exploitation and extinction is possible.
You are right, they are quite different, and I suppose what I am proposing is nothing more than a theory. I have nothing to back it but my own reasoning, and whatever knowledge of evolution and human behavior that I have. That being said, it seems to me that someone who enjoyed the hunt, who enjoyed killing would be much more successful in it. They would not hunt only when necessary, but would do so all the time, regardless of how well they were currently doing, giving them extra food for harder times. Love of hunting for sport could easily convert to love of violence against one's species, much easier than hunting for survival could at least.
I don't think it matters which side you take, nurture, or nature, in this situation, as society evolves to fit the needs of its people in a very similar manner to evolution. Societies in which hunting was quite important would be much more likely survive, and, after a while, they would become the majority. It does not matter whether or not it's a sociological learned behavior or a gene. We still have some residue of this love of violence left over from what was necessary to survive before agriculture and civilization.
You're going to have a hell of a time backing up an absolute like that. Ignoring the fact that there is no absolute scale of what is worth redeeming, what do you consider redeeming so that I know what it is I am trying to disprove?
Starrynite
Yes
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
What would be redeeming? Redeeming in my view would be that which is the solution, or rather, the end all means of the elimination of pain and suffering for people all over as provided by social turmoil, social disorder, and social mismanagement of food and health and other resources. Being that there currently and wont ever be a solution to any of these problems, there is just nothing left to do but just kill ourselves and die, ie end all human life and let the world keep spinning.
Starrynite said:
And you don't believe that to be possible? Social turmoil can be fixed, although it is a very very long process. The biggest problem, a huge cause of poverty, is that we have 6.6 billion people to fill 4 billion jobs. The massive populations of China and India need to be reduced, and this will happen when both nations have industrialized, birth control becomes available, and population growth stops. This will need to happen across the non-industrial world. Once birth control becomes available, the population will naturally respond to economic conditions (as is demonstrated by the low or non-existent population growth of post-industrial nations) and the world can be brought to live within its means. This would eliminate an unbelievable amount of social "turmoil", "disorder", and "mismanagement".
There you go, a massive step towards doing what you ask is within the realm of possibility. Even your unbelievably ridiculous and flawed definition of "redeemable" exists within the world.
Starrynite
Yes
Unbelievably Ridiculous and Flawed?
That only addresses the problems in India and China, what about other countries like America where people are starving and hungry on the streets, or other nations where natural disasters have ravaged the entire places like Haiti, or where continual destruction of Rain Forests eliminate natural habitats of animals and indigenous peoples? Or where warming waters have caused other groups of people to migrate to less than formidable areas destroying their natural way of life, or even the many other communities in which people have their land wiped and taken directly and brutally by force and then given back in a horrific state!? They cant all be the victims with the plights of industrialization.
That only addresses the problems in India and China, what about other countries like America where people are starving and hungry on the streets, or other nations where natural disasters have ravaged the entire places like Haiti, or where continual destruction of Rain Forests eliminate natural habitats of animals and indigenous peoples? Or where warming waters have caused other groups of people to migrate to less than formidable areas destroying their natural way of life, or even the many other communities in which people have their land wiped and taken directly and brutally by force and then given back in a horrific state!? They cant all be the victims with the plights of industrialization.
Let's build Rapture. End of story.
Starrynite said:
Yes, the idea that the world is only redeemable (or worth redeeming, should only be allowed to exist, if we can remove every inkling of suffering from it is ridiculous. It is a definition based upon nothing but a personal opinion, one that is a long way from being used as an absolute, especially when you talk about the destruction of the entire world based simply upon your personal definition of a word. You have to base it upon more than just your opinion.
Industrialization is nothing but a major aspect. There are many other smaller parts, but it would take months to look at every single instance of suffering and find a solution to it outside of an end to life. It is midnight right now, and I honestly don't have the energy to go through every single instance of human suffering you list, but you said an end to social disorder, turmoil, etc. I did not think natural disasters would be included in that. Are you now saying that you believe the world to be worth redeeming only if all suffering is removed?
Starrynite
Yes
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
I dont understand how anyone can even think of the world as having some redeemable quality. If I chose to adopt an oppositie viewpoint and chose any positive thing then I could easily provide five negative things to counter it. Like I said every good deed is countered by a bad deed. Suffering is only one element of this, but if someone is suffering how can we live knowing that they suffer. How can I live with a peaceful mind if I know that there are people in the world who havent had the chance to eat a nice big meal prepared by their family today or even ever in there life? Sure there are external reasons to why this could be the case but what is the root cause? The root cause is what is driving the world, perhaps money, perhaps personal gain, perhaps the joy of seeing others suffer as a result of one gaining prestige, power, money, and control, or perhaps joy over some other reason, every cause of human plight is directly caused by another human getting some advantage or gain. As long as humans continue to exist then this cycle of one gaining while others suffer will conitnue.
I honestly dont see a glimmering light of hope in the way the world is now.
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
Some natuarl disasters can be correlated as a response to the recent rise in usage of items that are key to the growth of the industrilization movement. Even then people were driven to live in these horrific places that lack any sort of precautions or cautionary measures because of a lack of resources to live in a more comfortable and safe environment. I dont think anyone chooses to live in a rainforest that has been wiped and is prone to landslides, or chooses to live on a volcano area to farm for food to give to the local city that sales it at low prices, or even for the sake of recent times live all bundled up together in ground level houses in an area prone to monsoons and see their house flooded yearly. Please explain to me why this is the case!? Is it because we live in a world in which their is some element of good?
Maybe some natural disasters arent caused by humans but even then in the midst of people suffering they cant even receive medicine, or help with getting back on track on their lives. Corrupt leaders, corrupt people distributing goods and keeping them for the rich, and even then people who claim to help take the donations and run. It is depressing and distressing to think that people do this but it surely does happen.
I cant say it enough but there is nothing at all left to redeem humanity, it is a lost cause.
the fact that there is still people fighting to make our world a bit better makes humanity still worth living in this world, is true some people are corrupt and everyone has a bit of a shadow in their personalities, but that's how we are and always will be, but whenever there is a shadow there is light, whenever people have something that corrupts them and worries them they will fight to make it right... i know that and that is why i believe humanity is ok the way it is now because i just can't generalize everything the way you do, just because there is a few people out there that cause a lot of trouble for others doesn't mean EVERYONE is like that.... besides LOVE still exists...
as for natural disasters, that's when people get together even more, and they help each other recover from said disaster.
as for natural disasters, that's when people get together even more, and they help each other recover from said disaster.
Mai Valentine
Moderator
@ Starrynite - You need to find God, stat. I think you got lost somewhere. It must be unbearably lonely to have no faith.
M
MR.KAZ
Lurker
Mai Valentine said:
Hold his hand,He's right beside you.
Starrynite
Yes
Mai Valentine said:
Why would it be lonely and I currently do have religious beliefs in line with the Christian tradition. Unfortunately that is not an excuse to believe that humanity is not lost.
SpartanEvolved
SpartanEvolved
Mai Valentine said:
QFT.
Fr0dus Maximus said:
Also, QFT.
stealth toilet
Moderator
Starrynite said:
Yeah, if anything can be derived from your posts about your beliefs, I would say you'd fit right in with some fundamental Buddhists. Impermanence, suffering, the age of degenerative dharma, samsara, and all that other good stuff. By "in-line with the Christian tradition" I assume you mean "not in direct opposition to the principle of 'love they neighbour as thyself,'" but if you do believe in Christ then you must have some sort of faith in mankind. And if you are Buddhist at all then I'd be interested to know what sect you would consider yourself to belong to. I understand your position on "all things in this life produce suffering," but both Christianity and Buddhism provide solutions to that suffering. They provide hope. They provide something good.
I agree with you, as I stated in my post and you quoted, that many bad things do happen in this world. But I don't believe that people themselves are inherently bad, people just tend to not notice the good as much as the bad. I once heard that the average person needs 5 compliments for every complaint made about themselves to feel they are being treated fairly. 20 positive things that happen in your day can easily be ruined by 1 negative thing, if you're only looking for the negative.
I think my concern with what you are saying, and what has illicited a response from most people on this board, is whether or not you believe there is any good, either in individual people or some force of good working in this world? I'm curious: are you trying to be realistic about the current state of humanity, or are you just being pessimistic by saying we will never improve the current situation, and why do you believe one or the other to be the case?
Back to Cherry... :lol
Many civilizations have been discovered to have lived entire off of their foraging ability, making clothing out of plant life, and eating whatever grew in the wild. Additionally, scavenging carcasses for meat or clothing doesn't involve killing the animal.
I still don't see this as productive evolutionary behaviour. Greed was rarely, if ever, a central component of early humanity's survivalistic nature. People organized themselves into communities in order to survive, the whole was greater than the sum of its parts, so to speak. Everyone shared the spoils of any endeavor, and anyone who took more than their lot would have been punished accordingly. Everyone relied on everyone else for survival, again providing evolutionary theories of humanity another chance for those with violent tendencies toward each other to be rooted out. If one man killed another in anger, he was excised from the community, and exile was often as good as a death sentence.
As well we have to consider all the rituals surrounding "the hunt" that early humanity performed. In many cases rituals were done in order to ensure success on hunting expeditions, because the society's existence depended on it. But they were also often expressions of thanks, of honoring the sacrifice of the animals, of dealing with grief and remorse for killing. I think when people had to hunt and kill their food for survival they respected it a lot more, as is evidenced by how hunter-gatherer peoples ensured every bit of the animal was used. Again, I don't see blood lust, or greed, or outwardly violent behaviour, even to animals but especially to other people, as being a trait that would be rewarded by evolution.
It does, actually. If violence is a learned behaviour it can be eliminated entirely. If we don't teach our kids to be violent they won't be violent. If violence is simply learned behaviour it can be eliminated from society.
If its a gene (which I personally think is impossible) then we do have to concede that something beyond our control acts within us and can never be changed. However, I don't see this as an option, even if it is the case, because personal responsibility has to factor in somewhere. Again, going back to the idea of controlling one's personal feelings and desires, even if one is "predisposed" to act in a certain way that doesn't mean they have to act in a certain way, and so saying "part of humanity is prone to violence" does not excuse indulging in violent acts and so forth. But it is more problematic to argue someone's biology than their learned behaviour.
The difference, therefore, determines the appropriate solution, and knocks out the notion that our biological entities evolved in such a way as to encourage killing, thus negating the entire discussion you and I just had about early man's hunting tendencies. If our behaviour towards violence is what has "evolved" over time then its course can be directed and changed quickly and with relative ease (stop glorifying violence). If not, then be prepared to excuse the next bully who punches you in the hall for no reason because his biology made him do it. :lol
stealth toilet said:
Those tribes (if they were civilizations, then maybe we're looking too far forward, as civilization is almost always coupled with farming) would probably be the exception rather than the rule. I would say that any human not living right along the equator in a lush rain forest wouldn't be able to find enough food through simply scavenging. Those living far to the north or south would likely have nothing but animals to rely on, as fruits, berries, and other things that could be foraged get exceedingly more scarce as you move away from the equator. As for scavenging meat off of animals, unless it was freshly killed, there would be too great a possibility of getting diseases from it. Most rot surprisingly quickly after death.
Of course, early society was a largely collectivist affair, but one weak member of the tribe, one who was reluctant to hunt, could weaken the group as a whole, and make them far less successful and less likely to survive. It was advantageous for the tribe to have as many members who not only tolerated hunting for survival, but loved it.
But violence against another tribe who encroached upon their territory would not have brought about exile. Much of the violence in this world (although some inexplicably is) is against those who are outside of your group. You don't see gangs blowing each other to hell, but they will readily do just that to a rival gang who they don't consider to be one of them.
I will agree, again, that these people hunted out of necessity, but enjoying the necessity was still quite advantageous. To have hunting at times when it wasn't needed helped to greatly increase the extra food they had. They still knew that the hunt was their livelihood though, so they did these rituals to improve their chances of a successful hunt.
True, but it was independent from my original point, which is that most modern violent behavior can be traced back to a need of it in prehistoric times.
Agreed, except that I would not be so quick to throw away the genetic argument. I am no genealogist, but many human behaviors have been proved to be genetic, so I would say that genetic predisposition to violence is at least within the realm of possibility.
That is what western society started doing, after war became such a destructive force. War and violence are now among our chief concerns and many want to end their glorification. In fact, we have been slowly moving away from violence since the end of the dark ages, but it is not such an easy process because not everyone believes that violence should be wholly discouraged (and without such a uniform hatred of violence, violent movies and media in general will continue to be made). It is necessary in many situations.
If this were actually the case, suicides would be the chief concern of the world. If everyone's lives were as horrible as you say, they would end them. They don't, so clearly they find something redeeming about life. I suggest you take their word for it, rather than tell them that they shouldn't want to live because there is no good left in the world. Continuing to live is a choice and the fact that most continue to make it proves that they like their lives, and that the good outweighs the evil in it.
Yes. The fact that they suffer through those naturally disasters shows that life is worth living to them. They suffer through the bad luck they had (that's what natural disasters are; bad luck. People don't huddle together on the bottom floor of a house so they can get hit by a monsoon because someone industrialized) because they find something redeemable in life, something worth living for. Why aren't they just giving up and letting themselves die, if life is as horrible as you say?
I don't think I have ever seen any atheist with quite as bleak of a worldview as him.
Epic win.
stealth toilet
Moderator
Some of our points are becoming shot for shot, so I'm going to leave those be and address the other points you mentioned which I think can still progress further. This is not a concession, but as you said connecting 1 to 5 through 2, 3, and 4, takes time, and in some areas we are starting to connect 1 to 2 with decimal points. So in the interests of avoiding tedium, I will agree to disagree on some things and move on.
But again this is not excessive or unprovoked violence. Many, if not more, rituals concerning warfare and death existed in order for people to come to terms with engaging in warfare. Rationality and necessity play very important parts when tribes, clans, nations, and countries, decide to go to war. Courage, bravery, and leadership in war would have been qualities that would have benefited a tribe's survival rate, not savage bloodlust and war-mongering.
And I will agree that skilled and eager hunters would be advantages for the survival of a group of people who depended on animals for their survival. Yet again though I think moderation would have played a central role in how these people viewed hunting. Hunting excessively, not to provide extra food for the group, but out of a joy for killing, would have been detrimental to the well-being of the group. You're right, meat doesn't stay in edible condition very long after an animal is skilled, a lot of preparation and organization was involved in making the most out of any hunt. Having one maniac go off and kill a bunch of animals because he enjoyed doing so would leave less game for everyone else when it was scarce, and I highly doubt such behaviour would have been tolerated by the group.
I see the ability to hunt as an evolutionary advantage in human beings, and those as skilled in doing so as filling prominent roles in the evolutionary chain. However, I still see hunting for survival completely divorced from violence which Mr. Kaz first spoke about. I don't see one carrying over into the other. Which brings us to...
I don't agree. I might, but I would add that any connection is very loosely based, and whatever the origins may be the circumstances surrounding it now are so far removed that it may even be unnecessary to try and prove any connection.
I am no genealogist either, but I have never heard of a single one ever being conclusively proven. At the turn of the 20th century pre-modern Genealogy, what was then called Eugenics, was thought to be one of the greatest scientific fields. It predicated off of Social Darwinism, and the notion that people's genes (though they didn't call them genes) would dictate every aspect of their personality, and ridiculous amounts of money and energy were put into researching it. Everyone jumped on the Eugenics boat, very rational and intelligent people, and seemingly many breakthroughs were made concerning the relationship between people's biology and how they behave. That was, of course, until a certain German man decided to put these scientific theories into practice and create an Aryan race. After that Eugenics as a science was abolished as another alchemy, an incomplete science based mostly out of nationalistic ideologies and an eagerness to justify the genocides which made colonization possible. Soon after WWII ended the relationship between DNA and hereditary genes was established, and now we have genealogy. Just as incomplete, and just as potentially destructive.
I would throw the possibility away if it means that no one can justifiably say that you, or I, or anyone else, has genes that will make us unsuitable to continue living. It is far too slippery a slope, and we've witnessed the consequences of taking one too many steps down it.
Of course, Hitler used many "brainwashing" sociological techniques as well, indoctrinating youth from a very young age with what he considered to be ideal behaviour, so he covered his bases both ways. Still, the difference matters. Are some people born evil, or are those people taught evil? Does eliminating evil mean eliminating evil people, or does eliminating evil mean raising our young to be good? Should Mr. Kaz expose himself to overtly violent pictures, movies, and activities, or should he abstain from participating in any pro-violent activity?
Actually suicide rates reached nearly epidemic proportions during the 18th century, what most people consider to be the height of the "Age of Reason." And since then suicide rates have never really dropped off. I read about a study the other day which said that currently nearly 50% of people in America are taking some form of anti-depressants, and year after year studies are done which prove that while standards of living are increasing around the world, quality of life is deteriorating. In general people enjoy living now considerably less than people living 50 years ago. Suicides are actually a huge concern, particularly in the western, industrialized, world.
But that's an aside. A point of interest if you will.
Anyway, more food for thought. This thread rocks. :lol
But again this is not excessive or unprovoked violence. Many, if not more, rituals concerning warfare and death existed in order for people to come to terms with engaging in warfare. Rationality and necessity play very important parts when tribes, clans, nations, and countries, decide to go to war. Courage, bravery, and leadership in war would have been qualities that would have benefited a tribe's survival rate, not savage bloodlust and war-mongering.
And I will agree that skilled and eager hunters would be advantages for the survival of a group of people who depended on animals for their survival. Yet again though I think moderation would have played a central role in how these people viewed hunting. Hunting excessively, not to provide extra food for the group, but out of a joy for killing, would have been detrimental to the well-being of the group. You're right, meat doesn't stay in edible condition very long after an animal is skilled, a lot of preparation and organization was involved in making the most out of any hunt. Having one maniac go off and kill a bunch of animals because he enjoyed doing so would leave less game for everyone else when it was scarce, and I highly doubt such behaviour would have been tolerated by the group.
I see the ability to hunt as an evolutionary advantage in human beings, and those as skilled in doing so as filling prominent roles in the evolutionary chain. However, I still see hunting for survival completely divorced from violence which Mr. Kaz first spoke about. I don't see one carrying over into the other. Which brings us to...
I don't agree. I might, but I would add that any connection is very loosely based, and whatever the origins may be the circumstances surrounding it now are so far removed that it may even be unnecessary to try and prove any connection.
I am no genealogist either, but I have never heard of a single one ever being conclusively proven. At the turn of the 20th century pre-modern Genealogy, what was then called Eugenics, was thought to be one of the greatest scientific fields. It predicated off of Social Darwinism, and the notion that people's genes (though they didn't call them genes) would dictate every aspect of their personality, and ridiculous amounts of money and energy were put into researching it. Everyone jumped on the Eugenics boat, very rational and intelligent people, and seemingly many breakthroughs were made concerning the relationship between people's biology and how they behave. That was, of course, until a certain German man decided to put these scientific theories into practice and create an Aryan race. After that Eugenics as a science was abolished as another alchemy, an incomplete science based mostly out of nationalistic ideologies and an eagerness to justify the genocides which made colonization possible. Soon after WWII ended the relationship between DNA and hereditary genes was established, and now we have genealogy. Just as incomplete, and just as potentially destructive.
I would throw the possibility away if it means that no one can justifiably say that you, or I, or anyone else, has genes that will make us unsuitable to continue living. It is far too slippery a slope, and we've witnessed the consequences of taking one too many steps down it.
Of course, Hitler used many "brainwashing" sociological techniques as well, indoctrinating youth from a very young age with what he considered to be ideal behaviour, so he covered his bases both ways. Still, the difference matters. Are some people born evil, or are those people taught evil? Does eliminating evil mean eliminating evil people, or does eliminating evil mean raising our young to be good? Should Mr. Kaz expose himself to overtly violent pictures, movies, and activities, or should he abstain from participating in any pro-violent activity?
Actually suicide rates reached nearly epidemic proportions during the 18th century, what most people consider to be the height of the "Age of Reason." And since then suicide rates have never really dropped off. I read about a study the other day which said that currently nearly 50% of people in America are taking some form of anti-depressants, and year after year studies are done which prove that while standards of living are increasing around the world, quality of life is deteriorating. In general people enjoy living now considerably less than people living 50 years ago. Suicides are actually a huge concern, particularly in the western, industrialized, world.
But that's an aside. A point of interest if you will.
Anyway, more food for thought. This thread rocks. :lol
stealth toilet said:
No it doesn't. I have ten sources for a thesis due tomorrow and I have only managed to find two. :lol
I'll respond to your post when I have a couple minutes (or hours) to spare. :lol
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
Wikipedia sources = win.
And I have to agree with Stealth this thread does rock, just need to play catch up with everyone so I can partake in this...
I could have a hundred wikipedia sources, but he would lump them together and count them as one. ALL encyclopedia sources count as only one source. I need primary sources, and articles, and shizz.Fr0dus Maximus said: