If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
1) Humans are able to utilize tools in order to make even better tools, as pointed out earlier.
2) As far as I know, the human vocal cords etc. are able to "shape" a vast amount of sounds/tones, which gave the rise to the use of vocal language.
3) Written language
4) Large scale agriculture and domestication of animals. While some species surely are able to harvest and store nutrients for later usage, no other than humans have shown ability to cultivate vast areas of land and domesticate animals in order to gather food.
bit of a language barrier dontcha think?
In many ways though man is to a degree disconnected from evolution. Because he's reached a point where he has control of his environment (positively and negatively) he is in a position where minor genetic changes no longer have the same effect - as man isn't in a position where one minor genetic change can cause reproductive dominance.
Btw - I obviously don't believe man is 'special' in a religious sense, though I do believe mankind has developed in a remarkable way, and possibily in a way that will never be seen again in the universe ever else. I don't think that grants dominance though - other than like anything else in the world you are dominant because you can be (not should be).
Yes, I agree to the above argument that evolution is random. But it is nevertheless not inappropriate to regard humans as "more evolved", even if evolution is random. The (however random) evolution of the human brain were (among others) the most useful change for not one particular, but many types of environments, by giving homo sapiens sapiens the ability to find out what was needed to survive in a given environment.
yes people seem to think there's a purpose in evolutionary theory, there isn't really, there's just luck of the draw and survival technically
i think we're extremely unique, but technically to this planet we aren't more special than say invertebrates, or birds since all are on this rather beautiful planet i think
yes we can give preference to our own species in regards to testing, animals who eat eachother do the same lol but at the same time you really have to respect the biodiversity of this planet - saw a great programme on super deep sea fish etc, they looked amazing and they serve a purpose you mopping up the seabea and falling whales etc
yeh, we're pretty good at adapting to our surroundings as a species, not individuals of course
Hell, yeah. I'm still adapting to this environment (this forum)
I wouldn't even say we're very good at adapting to our surroundings, we tend to just change the things we don't like/can't live with, unless that's what you meant by adapting?
A misfiring of the childhood instinct to believe authority unquestioningly. The desire to be part of a group and socially accepted (which is the most common reason people claim to go to church). It's the same basic principle that causes moths to fly in circles around lightbulbs. The initial principle is beneficial to the creature (in the moths case, the ability to sense sunlight to guide itself is vital - in the human's case, the instinct to unquestioningly believe what your parents tell you is extemely useful when the alternative is to find out for yourself what happens when you fall off a cliff), but it also results in an effect that might not be beneficial.
Same as language. A way of communicating between people. And possibly evolved as a more effective way of communicating to large number of people. I'm only speculating in this instance, because I haven't really looked into it.
Or science in general? There's no bigger ego boost and status symbol for your "tribe" than sending a man to the moon.
Just ways of organising a way of achieving the instincts mentioned earlier (i.e. look after fellow humans). The urges to help other humans evolved millions of years ago when anyone you would've been helping would likely have been a family member (and therefore a carrier of your genes) or someone you would likely meet again. It is no longer logical to assume this, because we live in such large groups where the chances of this occuring a tiny, but human instinct isn't logical. In the same way that we still desire to have sex even if we wear a condom, we still have the instinct to be good, for want of a better word, even though it isn't logically beneficial to the passing on of your genetic code anymore.
That's because you're looking at it logically in todays terms, and these instincts evolved millions of years ago in a time when they did make sense. They may be somewhat obsolete in todays terms, but that doesn't mean that they don't still govern our every action. If they didn't, then no-one would want to have sex unless they knew there was a chance of having a baby as a result.
There's no thought process that says "Right, I want to write this to become successful" but the instinct is what drives them.
Nope, most do it to express an idea that is socially accepted (and them too as a result). Do you honestly think that people write books with the intention of being rejected or laughed at? No, they want their book to be well received by those who read it.
Self-sacrifice isn't a trait unique to humans. Unless you can show me another mammal that wouldn't defend their young to the death?
You're talking about choosing one instinct over another there. The instinct to help others, and raise your social status as a result, overrides the instinct to eat in such an occassion. Humans and other animals all have conflicting instincts and ake choices when presented with a dilemma. Does a lioness follow the instinct to defend her young, or the instinct to save her own life? It's no different. Which instinct she follows may determine whether her genes carry on.
Probably what I haven't mentioned is that there is only truely ever one instinct in animals, and that is to pass on your genes to the next generation. The remaining instincts (to eat, to fuck, to become socially accepted) merely determine how successful you are in doing this. It's the entire purpose of all forms of life.
Genetic evolution perhaps. Memetic evolution however, is still going strong.
what the hell has that got to do with anything?
We share 98 - 98% of our DNA with gorillas anyway, and talking isnt what makes us human.
There have been a few cases of certain animals using human words intelligently. There was a case in the papers last year of a parrot who rather than just mimic human language it used it in the appropriate situation, and even understood singular and plural tenses. At least one dolphin has been known to learn to say a few words in quite passable English, for instance demanding 'more!' when getting a tummy rub by its carer.
Yes, these these it's more about the ability to adapt our environment rather than _to_ the environment. But this fact justifices to state that we've evolved "further" than other species. Yes, I know there are other species that somehow adapt the environment in which they live, such as beavers adapting entire rivers and thus altering an entire ecosystem. But no other species really influence the entire biosphere.
I'm still failing to see how this is a good thing! We are the most destructive animal on the planet and are ruining Earth for everything else on it.
I'm in complete agreement with I'm with Stupid, some very valid points there :yes:
That is an incredibly odious attitude though at least there is a new kind of fundie movement emerging in which we are supposed to look after the Earth and all its creatures and treat them with respect, since they're all God's creations. Hopefully that view will spread.
At the end of the day, even if we are more intelligent we are all in the same boat and all depend on the good health and harmony of the planet and its resources. While technological advances are to be celebrated we should never forget our relationship with other species and with our planet.
It seems to me that those living a simpler live in harmony with their surroundings seem ultimately happier than those obsessed with technology and gadgets anyway.
It's not really that I think it's exlusively a good thing, far from that. That post of mine was more concerned about humans being more "special" than other species. In fact I dislike that word, it's far better to say that the properties aforementioned establish some kind of distinctiveness (compared to other species).
As to being good or not, I can agree that it also implies a great responsibility for not exhausting the planet.
Certainly an interesting view point, but it kind of misses some of the major polluters such as Soviet Russia and modern China.
All other creatures, with the exception of the Vampire Bat, live in harmony with nature, taking, but also contributing back. Humanity does not, however. We are a parastic organism, we take, but do not live in harmony with nature. Some tribes did, however, do so. So, we eradicated them from the face of the planet, and forced those who survive to live like the rest of us.
We may be more "advanced", we may have our "technology" that lets us move faster than other creatures. We may have things that let us have the power to kill all life on this planet, or an individual one, with ease. We may be able to leave the confines of this planets atmosphere.
But, by doing so, we are contributing to the planets destruction. Sure, we may be "better" if by that you mean are we able to far excede what other specieces can achieve. But not by much. It was not that long ago in terms of our races existence, that the Cheetah was still able to travel faster than us. It was not that long ago, that the Elephant was the most Fearsome weapon of war.
In the last few hundered years, that has been the REAL advancement of our race. Before that, yes, we acheived, but not much. And the REAL achievements are still come. Weather or not they are the correct ones, the ones that allow us to survive the consequences of what we have done by making these "amazing" achievements that apparently make us "better" than animals, we shall see.
That's not entirely true. Other animals don't make any sort of conscious effort to live in harmony with the rest of nature. The natural balance maintains itself through basic supply and demand of resources. So if the number of salmon goes down, the number of bears go down. The only difference with humans is that they're more capable than other species of overriding this natural balance using intelligence.
Oh and I think you overestimate humanity's ability to affect the world. When people talk about us causing the end of the world, what they really mean is the end of civilisation, and the end of humanity. Life will continue on this planet far after our species is extinct, because life has always found a way to evolve. Hell, how many ice ages and warm ages (I don't know what the opposite is called) have animals like crocodiles and sharks adapted to? Short of blowing the planet up, there will always be life of some sort on earth, even if it was only bacteria.
most animals leech to some extent, so do things like funguses
the only limit is their environment and predators really
that's why there's so many rats out there