# The Mass Extinction is YOUR Fault...



## Makalakumu (Mar 19, 2004)

Major extinction is pending, report says

BY PAUL RECER
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON - A steep decline in birds, butterflies and native plants in Britain supports the theory that humans are pushing the natural world into the Earth's sixth big extinction event and the future may see more and more animal species disappearing.

In an effort that sent more than 20,000 volunteers into every corner of England, Scotland and Wales to survey wildlife and plants, researchers found that many native populations are in big trouble and some are gone altogether.

"This is the first time, for instance, that we can answer the question, 'Have butterflies declined as badly as birds?' " said Jeremy A. Thomas, an ecologist with the National Environment Research Council in Dorchester, England, and the first author of a study appearing in the journal Science.

A survey of 58 butterfly species found that some had experienced a 71 percent population swoon since similar surveys taken from 1970 through 1982. There were 201 bird species tracked between 1968 and 1971, and then again from 1988 to 1991, with a population decline of about 54 percent.

Two surveys of 1,254 native plant species showed a decrease of about 28 percent over 40 years.

Thomas said other scientists, noting losses of mammals and other animals, have speculated about the loss of insects, but the British butterfly study is the first to actually document over decades such a steep decline.

"Population extinctions were recorded in all the main ecosystems of Britain," Thomas and his co-authors wrote. This supports the theory, they said, that "the biological world is approaching the sixth major extinction event in its history."

Thomas said some past extinctions have killed off more than 90 percent of all life forms and "nobody is suggesting we are at that point."

But, he said, "if this goes on for the foreseeable future then within a short period in geological time we will be getting toward the level of a major extinction."

Scott Miller, a biologist with the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said the British study was impressive in its thoroughness. He said, "They may not be representative of the world as a whole, but they have the best data."

The data support the idea that the rise of humans over tens of thousands of years -- along with climate changes -- is reshaping the natural world in ways that aren't thoroughly understood.

Scientists have identified five extinction events in Earth's history, with some so severe that more than 90 percent of all life forms died. The last and most famous extinction was the Cretaceous-Tertiary event about 65 million years ago that killed the dinosaurs and allowed the rise of mammals. It is thought to have been caused by an asteroid hitting Earth.

"We are in the middle of a sixth extinction event that began about 50,000 years ago" with the expanding role in the world of human beings, said Paul S. Martin, a zoologist and geochemist at the University of Arizona in Tucson. "It's happening, but it's slower and it is not clear it will be as severe as some of the others."

Stuart Pimm, an ecologist at Duke University, said in Science that the British study results "show that we have likely underestimated the magnitude of the pending extinctions."

Miller and Martin both point to the hundreds of species, mostly large animals and birds, that already are gone, some wiped out directly through human action.

Martin said the fossil records show that the disappearance of many animals in Australia, Madagascar and North America started about the time that humans arrived. Gone from the natural North American environment, for instance, are mammoths, camels, giant sloths and saber-toothed tigers.

_________________________________________________________________

With that being said, since we know about this terrible event and if we choose to do nothing about it, would it not follow to lay the blame on those who could have stopped it?  Perhaps our great grand children will texts books blaming us for this.  Perhaps all biology in the future will be paleo.  

Does anyone else think we should leave a better world then that for our ascendents?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 19, 2004)

It doesn't help that everyone is recieving antibiotics for colds and what not. The germs are better innoculated than I am. Heck germs are resistant to anti bacterial soap these days.
Sean


----------



## theletch1 (Mar 19, 2004)

I'm not sure this qualifies as "news".  Humans change the environment to suit us.  That whole survival of the fittest thing and all.  It's our brain that makes us the fittest and the survival of our species is what seems to matter way down deep inside humans as a species.  The loss of animal and plant species is lamentable but not surprising that the human species is killing them off faster than nature would otherwise do.


----------



## Andi (Mar 19, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm not sure this qualifies as "news". Humans change the environment to suit us. That whole survival of the fittest thing and all. It's our brain that makes us the fittest and the survival of our species is what seems to matter way down deep inside humans as a species. The loss of animal and plant species is lamentable but not surprising that the human species is killing them off faster than nature would otherwise do.


Funny, it just occured to me how we always seem to remove ourselves from the equation whenever we talk about nature. Like us humans are unnatural for being sentient or something. Would ET on Mars think it was unnatural that we affect our environment in this way? Could this be just as natural an extinction as the other five mass extinctions? Not that I'm excusing our locustish ways at all.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> With that being said, since we know about this terrible event and if we choose to do nothing about it, would it not follow to lay the blame on those who could have stopped it? Perhaps our great grand children will texts books blaming us for this. Perhaps all biology in the future will be paleo.
> 
> Does anyone else think we should leave a better world then that for our ascendents?


Yes, definitely. But how? OK, we can set all kinds of emissions targets and everything, recycle, use solar power and all of that and that's good. But I can't help thinking that we've messed everything up to such an extent that the best we can do is slow the extermination. Poor butterflies. Still, best to roll up our sleeves and get on with it. LPG anyone?


----------



## someguy (Mar 24, 2004)

Wanna do something about it...
http://www.vhemt.org/
THat'll take care of it.
No I'm not really advocating it but still its one solution.


----------



## Andi (Mar 24, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> Wanna do something about it...
> http://www.vhemt.org/
> THat'll take care of it.
> No I'm not really advocating it but still its one solution.


I thought for a minute that site was serious. It tries to be but then I saw this:



> We can't experience everything. Far better to regret not breeding than to regret breeding.


Can't say I've come across many people that have 'regretted breeding'. They have some strange statements on their site.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 24, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> Wanna do something about it...
> http://www.vhemt.org/
> THat'll take care of it.
> No I'm not really advocating it but still its one solution.


Can I buy guest memberships and give them out for birth days and other holidays  :rofl:


----------



## OULobo (Mar 25, 2004)

This is interesting because it is about how humans are indeed unnatural. The things we create in our infinite wizdom are unnatural by definition, they don't occur in nature. Genetic traits that would be "culled from the herd" are artificially maintained by progresses of science and tech. The progression of our race and the distruction of our environment are tied to one main thing, greed (and laziness). Most of the major environmental issues can be traced to human greed. Our corporations cut corners that kill the environment and even endanger other humans because it's cheaper and allows them to take a little more coin home in pocket; greed. It is possible to find ways to interact and progress with the environment, instead of sacrificing it for gain, but the way is costly and takes work. I personally think that the two biggest environmental problems today are careless/greedy companies and unchecked reproduction.


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Mar 25, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> This is interesting because it is about how humans are indeed unnatural. The things we create in our infinite wizdom are unnatural by definition, they don't occur in nature. Genetic traits that would be "culled from the herd" are artificially maintained by progresses of science and tech. The progression of our race and the distruction of our environment are tied to one main thing, greed (and laziness). Most of the major environmental issues can be traced to human greed. Our corporations cut corners that kill the environment and even endanger other humans because it's cheaper and allows them to take a little more coin home in pocket; greed. It is possible to find ways to interact and progress with the environment, instead of sacrificing it for gain, but the way is costly and takes work. I personally think that the two biggest environmental problems today are careless/greedy companies and unchecked reproduction.




Then I am assuming that you are living in a cave somewhere in north western ohio?  Do you still use bone, wood and stone tools?  Do you weave your own cloths?  Are you self reliant, living off the land and are in tune to nature?  If so, then preach away brother.  If not, then be careful of sounding like a hypocrit.

I do agree that greed can result in wrongful acts to people as well as the enviroment.  Greed has also spond a good number of the things that you like in this world as well.  If it wasn't for greed and the drive to prosper (to put some extra coin in your pocket) do you think we would have the level of living status that we have today?  I want people to build a better mouse trap. You are right to state at what cost though!

It might be sad to think that most of our tech advances was a result driven by conquest and war (true the motive at that / those times could of been greed).   As stated before I do agree with some of what you are saying (depending on your motives and whole line of thought)  It is hard to sense your thinking in only a very breif paragraph.   It also sounds like you had a bad day at work.   If I sound harsh I apologize.  

Here is another question??????  


What is human nature??????????????

Have a great day!
Bushigokoro


----------



## OULobo (Mar 25, 2004)

Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> Then I am assuming that you are living in a cave somewhere in north western ohio?  Do you still use bone, wood and stone tools?  Do you weave your own cloths?  Are you self reliant, living off the land and are in tune to nature?  If so, then preach away brother.  If not, then be careful of sounding like a hypocrit.



Last time I checked Cleveland was in the northeast part of OH and we don't really have any caves. Being a hypocrite involves accusing or condemning others for things that you yourself do. I go out of my way to do my best to maintain the environment and I do not cut corners that damage the environment in the interests of cost savings. Being self-relient is not the same as living in conjunction with nature. I can still live in harmony with nature and not weave my own clothes or fashion my own tools. I would be a hypocrite if I chose to buy these items from a manufacturer, that disregards its impact on the environment, instead of one that is more environmentally conscious, but more expensive. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> I do agree that greed can result in wrongful acts to people as well as the enviroment.  Greed has also spond a good number of the things that you like in this world as well.  If it wasn't for greed and the drive to prosper (to put some extra coin in your pocket) do you think we would have the level of living status that we have today?  I want people to build a better mouse trap. You are right to state at what cost though!



I can do without the things that spawn from greed if they severly damage the environment. There are options that can be built and made for most of these products that don't damage the environment or damage the envirionment less. I want people to build better environmentally friendly mousetraps, not smoke-spewing gas-guzzling irradiating mousetraps. While most things that advance in modern society are motivated by greed, some are not, so greed is not necessary for invention, need is. Right now the need is to find substitutes for current technology that doesn't damage the environment or that damages the environment less. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> It might be sad to think that most of our tech advances was a result driven by conquest and war (true the motive at that / those times could of been greed).   As stated before I do agree with some of what you are saying (depending on your motives and whole line of thought)  It is hard to sense your thinking in only a very breif paragraph.   It also sounds like you had a bad day at work.   If I sound harsh I apologize.



I appreciate the edit to tone down the reply and as always it is hard to determine a persons motives and whole thought regime from a few blurbs and some ranting soapbox stomping, but the idea I am trying to convey, is that with less profit motivation and more environmental sensitivity, it is realistic to live in balance with nature. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> Here is another question??????
> 
> 
> What is human nature??????????????
> ...




I never mentioned human nature, because recently I've decided I'm not sure it exists.


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Mar 25, 2004)

Regarding last post:  to long to break down and return replies piece by piece..  

Your right.  Cleveland is in the northeast.  My bad.  Up way to late and this damn spell check isn't working. You have me there, this time.  

Orginally from nothern PA and less than 80 miles from Cleveland, there are caves,  just have to look for them.  Note:  cave does not have to be a rock structure in the ground.  I am not using the dictionary meaning of cave. A no it is not a insult on homes in Cleveland.  I  hate all this PC...... Bones, wood and stones were meant that if we always stayed the course of not using our brains and gained knowledge to exploit our enviroment and resources would we have progressed the way we did the last 100 to 200 years???? ( sorry for the run on)  How about over human history???  Now is the way we progressed the last 100 to 200 years called progress?????  From now on I will stick with the obvious. 

Regarding hypocrite.... I said "like a" not "you are".  You stated "This is interesting because it is about how humans are indeed unnatural"  

Being human is natural.  We are here, we exist and we did not create ourselves (in the beginning at least). It does not matter whether you believe in creation or evolution.   Now it could be true (depending on certain beliefs) that we might be or have been removed from nature.  We could have removed oursevles from nature.  All of these would be another thread.  But we are natural and we all have human nature.  It's what this nature is that answers the main question.  The story of the frog and scorpion answers this question very well.    

If you read my post in reverse you might get another take,  Maybe not....   

What is human nature?  Yes, there is human nature.  It does exist.  It is wonderful as well as it is dark.  We are capable of such good as well as evil but we are always evolving.  Sometimes for the positive and some for the negative.  None the less we continue to exist.  The events that are both positive and negative happen.  The take aways from those events give us understanding and ground work to continue to progress.  How that is done is what I mean by at what cost? Take the benefit and be appreciative of the sacrifice.  Nothing ventured nothing gained.  If the cost of venture is to high then the gain is not worth it. (not speaking monetarily) 

I aslo believe that how arrogant man is to think that the world has not experienced worse things than man?  Take all the political bs out of it and the picture does change.  I do believe that we have a moral responsibility to our environment but there are always limits and conditions.


For extinction, nothing remains the same for ever.  Everything will be destroyed in time and will return again in some form or fashion.  It will happen!  When and how are the variables.    


Is I posted (privately to you) my attack was not directed at you but as a  general remark.  Being sarcastic a times and serious during others in the same letter is a bit difficult to put into words.  If you became offended then I apologize for any hurt feelings.  It's just my nature as your's is to you!

Best Regards,
Bushigokoro


----------



## OULobo (Mar 25, 2004)

Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> Regarding last post:  to long to break down and return replies piece by piece..
> 
> Your right.  Cleveland is in the northeast.  My bad.  Up way to late and this damn spell check isn't working. You have me there, this time.
> 
> ...



We have fundamental desagreements that motivate our opinions in this matter. I don't believe that humans are natural. To say something is or isn't natural is to ask, "What is the opposite of natural?" or "X is natural compared to what?" I think that humans are the epitome of unnatural in that the majority of the human race eats things only derived from that found untended in nature, many of our bodies have things inside that are never found without refining in nature and the majority of the items we interact with in daily life, and which consequently are what damages the environment, are not found in nature. Even more so as you mentioned, in the immediate future we may be creating our own lives and bodies. The natural birth of something doesn't in my opinion make something natural anyway, as it's life actions can make it less than natural. 

The second fundamental disagreement is that I don't believe that human nature does exist. The fable of Frog and Scorpion is a just that, a fable, created by a person, and the fable has all the flaws that that person has. I don't think that virtues and flaws that are incorporated in our personalities are a genetic trait of the race, only a trait of the individual due to his environment.

I know it sounds like I am just disagreeing with you all around, but that is not the case, you were right about caves in Cleveland. Hee Hee. 

I don't see the Carlinesque idea of man being arrogant in his belief of his ability to damage the environment as true either. It is not doubted that we as humans (or pseudo-locusts) have destructive ability that is greater than any of earth's other denizens or that we can damage the environment on a scale of natural disaster. Does this damage the Earth, mabey not, but it does damage the existing environment. We are in essense excelerating the extinction of various species, and in so doing destroying life before it can adapt naturally as it would in other slower and more limited natural disasters. The gist being that I again disagree in that the planet has seen worse things than man. 

Thanks for the discussion and keep up the good debate.


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Mar 25, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> We have fundamental desagreements that motivate our opinions in this matter. I don't believe that humans are natural. To say something is or isn't natural is to ask, "What is the opposite of natural?" or "X is natural compared to what?" I think that humans are the epitome of unnatural in that the majority of the human race eats things only derived from that found untended in nature, many of our bodies have things inside that are never found without refining in nature and the majority of the items we interact with in daily life, and which consequently are what damages the environment, are not found in nature. Even more so as you mentioned, in the immediate future we may be creating our own lives and bodies. The natural birth of something doesn't in my opinion make something natural anyway, as it's life actions can make it less than natural.
> 
> The second fundamental disagreement is that I don't believe that human nature does exist. The fable of Frog and Scorpion is a just that, a fable, created by a person, and the fable has all the flaws that that person has. I don't think that virtues and flaws that are incorporated in our personalities are a genetic trait of the race, only a trait of the individual due to his environment.
> 
> ...






Ok, ok, ok.... here is what the real agruement boils down to. "my football team can beat your team!  Steelers RULE over the Brownies any day."   

Seriously,  I agree that we have different fundamental ideals.  I do not believe that you do not disagree with me all the way around and that the browns do generally suck. Get it...Hee Hee 

Honestly, I do have a few questions for you that will help me understand your logic a little better.  If you would like you can answer them privately or publicly. 


"I think that humans are the epitome of unnatural in that the majority of the human race eats things only derived from that found untended in nature, many of our bodies have things inside that are never found without refining in nature and the majority of the items we interact with in daily life, and which consequently are what damages the environment, are not found in nature."


Do you mean unintended or untended?  If so what is intended in nature outside of the human race?  Could you please give examples of things that the human race eats as I do have a strange diet to start with.  Most of the world's population does not eat Big Macs and does not have plastics all throughout their house.  I am sure that will change and I am sure I will receive hate mail from McDonalds fans as well.  Are we talking about modern man (lets say 500 years ago to present) or mankind in general? 

The other question is I am assuming that what we interact with and what is found in our bodies are only man made and found nowhere else, is this assumption correct?  Are we discussing the GI interactions and pathways of the liver in humans vs other animals? Are we taking about the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetics?  

"The second fundamental disagreement is that I don't believe that human nature does exist. The fable of Frog and Scorpion is a just that, a fable, created by a person, and the fable has all the flaws that that person has. I don't think that virtues and flaws that are incorporated in our personalities are a genetic trait of the race, only a trait of the individual due to his environment."

That is partially my point.  Fables are full of faws, so is man.  So is human nature.  Why does man not have a nature? What are your fundamnetal reasons outside of nurture and environmental changes? Is nurture not forced by stress and conditions.  Are we getting at indeterminism and free will, incompatibilism, or agent-causal actions?  I am sure that can you give examples that show this? I would like to get concrete examples so that I can fully understand?  I am not trying to trap or bait you.  I know we might be getting into partial metaphysics here as well (depending on your responses) but I beleive that I need to understand certain things so that I can respond. 

(my opinion) The universe has purpose and all things are and will be balanced in my views even if I can not explain them.  I am trying to be entirely open to your comments and will reply as best I can to either agree or disagree and back it up with evidence.  I bet ya though that I will disagree, It's in my nature, my make up.   See how I contradict myself in the last pharagragh.  I am only human.

How is my spelling?  I still can not get the spell check to work and I can not find my dictionary.

Best Regards,
Bushigokoro


----------



## OULobo (Mar 26, 2004)

Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> Ok, ok, ok.... here is what the real agruement boils down to. "my football team can beat your team!  Steelers RULE over the Brownies any day."
> 
> Seriously,  I agree that we have different fundamental ideals.  I do not believe that you do not disagree with me all the way around and that the browns do generally suck. Get it...Hee Hee
> 
> Honestly, I do have a few questions for you that will help me understand your logic a little better.  If you would like you can answer them privately or publicly.



Well the Browns do suck. They pretty much always have. They have the curse of all Cleveland teams. I can't fight you there, but I will say that it would be unwise to come into a Cleveland bar and say so. Also, at least we don't have giant ketsup bottles adorning our stadium.



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> Do you mean unintended or untended?  If so what is intended in nature outside of the human race?  Could you please give examples of things that the human race eats as I do have a strange diet to start with.  Most of the world's population does not eat Big Macs and does not have plastics all throughout their house.  I am sure that will change and I am sure I will receive hate mail from McDonalds fans as well.  Are we talking about modern man (lets say 500 years ago to present) or mankind in general?



Either modern or current. My examples are things as artificial as Big Macs and Hot Pockets, and things as unnatural as bread. Making bread is a process that is not natural. Nowhere in the world do you find natually occuring bread. Even the rice in many third world and asian countries has been genetically altered to have high amounts of beta-caratine now. What about wine? This is something that doesn't occur in nature other than a, much weaker in alcohol, on the vine, fermentation process. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> The other question is I am assuming that what we interact with and what is found in our bodies are only man made and found nowhere else, is this assumption correct?  Are we discussing the GI interactions and pathways of the liver in humans vs other animals? Are we taking about the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetics?



Almost all forms of transport other than our feet, animals and carved boats are currently artificial, bicycles, cars, trucks, buses, trains, most boats. Even the most basic of cultures uses smithing to artificially form, smelt and alloy metals to create tools. On the most basic level, I personally can't thing or any other creatures that wear clothing, made form either natural or artificial materials, only man. Modern man has a body full of chemicals that are created by man from pharmasuticals to implants and even the poisons that we have sadly created and retain in our systems. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> That is partially my point.  Fables are full of faws, so is man.  So is human nature.  Why does man not have a nature? What are your fundamnetal reasons outside of nurture and environmental changes? Is nurture not forced by stress and conditions.  Are we getting at indeterminism and free will, incompatibilism, or agent-causal actions?  I am sure that can you give examples that show this? I would like to get concrete examples so that I can fully understand?  I am not trying to trap or bait you.  I know we might be getting into partial metaphysics here as well (depending on your responses) but I beleive that I need to understand certain things so that I can respond.



I believe that it takes certain common, but not always present, stresses to create the flaws or benefits of "human nature". Basically, the interaction with your environment (as opposed to the environment) is what causes and forms common human personality traits that we call, human nature, but I don't believe that there are any traits that all humans are predisposed to develop because they are humans, no matter how common those traits are. There are few, if any, societies that don't have the idea of worth or value, but if there is no competition for any material and no desire for material because all they need is present, then that society would have no greed. Therefore greed is not a part of human nature, only a part of some humans' narture.


----------



## OULobo (Mar 26, 2004)

Just as a side note this subject is breached in an article recently in National Geographic (March 2004). The article deals with the way that Rio is dealing with dynamic between it's environmental concerns and it's societal issues.


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Mar 26, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Also, at least we don't have giant ketsup bottles adorning our stadium.
> 
> Yeah, I hate the ketsup bottles myself.  Nothing screams toughness like ketchup pouring out into an end zone??????
> 
> ...


----------



## OULobo (Mar 29, 2004)

Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> OULobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Mar 31, 2004)

I am taking the word "natural" as occurring in a progression that it is logical to observe a cause and effect relationship so that the only next step that could be made was made. There could of not been any other outcome then what occurred ? An example would be a seed. It is put in the ground, "natural" sunlight and water are introduced and a progress of growth and change are implemented as a result. No man intervention to add or change was made? The seed grows, develops, reproduces and then dies. The process is then repeated with occurrences of change happening to the type of seed itself was only due to changes in the environment (natural stresses). The process and progress then repeats itself? Would we both agree on this definition of being "natural"??????

I will now attempt to correlate the natural processes and progress of a seed and human nature / existence.

  "I never mentioned human nature, because recently I've decided I'm not sure it exists."

watch closely as I will also try to pull a rabbit out of my hat.

"An example would be a seed"  First question is how was the seed created?  Either the view of creation "Bible" or evolution, the seed was created of this earth.  Such as man was either by God " made from dust" or an ape that due to stress of it's environment had to acquire the skills and tools to develop and survive. Over time the ape evolved into man.  The ape came then from where ever it evolved from.  Either view I will try to use to explain.  It would be much easier to use the view that I have but I am trying to be unbiased and focus on the question at hand.

At a time man was very much in tune and a piece in the puzzle of nature. My view is that mankind is still a natural being.  Man has a human nature that defines man.  How much man is in tune with nature is a loaded question in this particular discussion.  If you believe that man is an offspring of an advanced alien species that landed here then you have me.....except for that this life form was also carbon based like most mammals on this planet?????

Now one point I would like to interject here is that what ever view you take.  The Proverbial "Garden of Eden" can still work.  We at one time were very much a part of the garden / nature. Whether man became aware from eating the forbidden fruit or it is a metaphor for mans ability to separate himself from being sole contingent within nature, I will leave that to you. It would be easier to stick with just one view point but I will attempt to use both in my argument.  Get ready here comes the rabbit!

Regardless of which view, mankind is no longer in that garden and I think that we are always trying to get back there.  At times our quest is actually taken us further away.  Regarding these examples I can say that man has created a world of unnatural things but he himself is a natural being.  Man is still defined by his human nature.  I will explain later in the discussion what actual processes that are still confining man and driving his ability to move those factors and control what is controlling him.  It is his human nature to do so because of a variety of reasons.  Not all will be listed in this particular discussion.  As being such he is also apt to fail,  be unpredictable (that is predictable) and will some day be extinct.  Note: Trying to foreshadow a natural process of existence and mankind

As the seed" It is put in the ground, "natural" sunlight and water are introduced and a progress of growth and change are implemented as a result. "  The seed grows from natural occurrences food ( water and sunlight) , climate, predators and other organisms.  Seeds will change due to the environment over the course of it's existence.  Remember that time is a human invention to control and measure.  Time is not constant in the universe.   

The course of mankind was no different.  Granted we were not put in the ground unless we died.... but the concept is the same.  Man, as a species, surviving in nature was under certain natural stress ( predators both of the same species and not, climate, food availability, social interaction, etc.....) These natural occurrences defined man existence and set the stage for future growth and development.

All of these natural stresses forced man to develop his brain and reasoning to create and exploit the resources found in nature to eat, protect himself, develop new and better ways to grow and extend the survival of the species.  The seed does the same thing except not on a grand scale and not in different  gaps of time.  The seed has not developed the knowledge to do such things.  It response is slower to change.  Man is faster to change then the seed might be but if we do not change fast enough we to will face extinction easier.  There are other organism that have a ability to change even faster than man.  They are changing to their environment.  They have created this, it is part of their make up as an organism. Their nature! It is also a natural law all organism face in this reality.

"No man intervention to add or change was made?"  this is referring to the genetic changes that man has made to make the seed more fruitful, nutrients etc....  The seed will do these things (over time) for it's own survival (naturally)  But another species under same natural forces can exploits it environment "the seed" for it own purposes (man).  This is mans nature, using his knowledge to ensure the survival.  These benefits or traits are a derivative from natural processes that has made man what he is.  Now I do agree with you that man does not always do what we would look as the right thing in all of these processes.

"The seed grows, develops, reproduces and then dies."  Is man not born from the womb, grows (in all aspects) develops (due to either nature or nurture or both)  reproduces (passing on information to survive and extend the species through either or both, nature and nurture) and die?  It is a nature process that we all are faced with, the seed and man.  We will not live forever (at least not in this phase of our existence).  Now, I will agree with you that man is beginning to break the bonds of being confined to existing natural constraints with some of the progress we made. I also believe that this is a natural process due to our nature.   We are consistently bending the laws of existence and natural law that have defined us for so long.  I will leave this section for a later post or have Nietzche answer it with his writings for now.


"The process is then repeated with occurrences of change happening to the type of seed itself was only due to changes in the environment (natural stresses)."

You can see this with cultural norms, and the variety of acts and characteristics of mankind.  Natural stresses could be everything from natural  disasters, climate, food shortages etc......  To combat this and control our environment man will continue to develop and uses his most successful traits and skills to extend the boundaries of human existence, even create and progress things that are unnatural..  plastics, tech, etc.......  Look at the different types of natural defenses and types of seeds there are due to natural stresses that occurred.  The key for any organism is to survive and flourish and then die.  Seeds are bound by limitations.  Man too, is bound by limitations.  Different ones but limitations none the less.  Man has developed skills to always push and breakthrough those limitations, it's our nature.  Even by unnatural or innatural means shows or human nature.


Now, could the natural course that we make could have happened a different way.  Depends on if you believe in Complete Free Will vs Agent Causation, etc...........

"I am taking the word "natural" as occurring in a progression that it is logical to observe a cause and effect relationship so that the only next step that could be made was made. There could of not been any other outcome then what occurred ?"

The other outcome was extinction. The law of nature.  When something is complete and fills it's purpose it is cut down. Also if particular knowledge and skills do not work you can not survive, your stock will become extinct.  Unless you are able to adapt (natural process) which man has also done thus far.  Since we are here and having this conversation then I am assuming that we have done just that.  Now, if there is a parallel universe and there are different outcomes then I will say it is due to free will.   I can explain this point in another thread if the conversation goes that way.  Free Will is some thing that does separate us from the other creatures of this world.  Maybe that is becoming aware and we are not in the garden any longer?????/  Free will (in my opinion) is also in our nature.  It sucks but I did not make the rules.  I do however have the freedom not to follow them.  There could be punishment or circumstances that will follow but that is for another thread.

I will spare you from anymore ranting at this point.

By the way did you se the rabbit?     No.     There it is again?

Best Regards,
Bushigokoro


----------



## OULobo (Apr 1, 2004)

Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> Remember that time is a human invention to control and measure.  Time is not constant in the universe.



I disagree. While time is part of human perception, it is not for us to control. It is defined as part of the dimentional descriptive process of our environment and despite our descriptions and measurments, still effects the rest of the universe. The only place that we theorize where it doesn't hold is in a black hole, which isn't technally part of our universe. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> All of these natural stresses forced man to develop his brain and reasoning to create and exploit the resources found in nature to eat, protect himself, develop new and better ways to grow and extend the survival of the species.  The seed does the same thing except not on a grand scale and not in different  gaps of time.  The seed has not developed the knowledge to do such things.  It response is slower to change.  Man is faster to change then the seed might be but if we do not change fast enough we to will face extinction easier.  There are other organism that have a ability to change even faster than man.  They are changing to their environment.  They have created this, it is part of their make up as an organism. Their nature! It is also a natural law all organism face in this reality.



This is a point of contention. In my opinion, seeds (and all natural creatures) change not as a direct solution to stresses in the evironment, but as a result of occational (natural?) mutation that is of greater suitability to the environment that creates said stresses. This is not a choice of change like the actions of man. They are not, in fact, individually reacting to an environment like man does, while some natural creatures do (like animals that flee fire or inclimate weather), man, on an individual level, actually chooses to change himself and his environment in ways that are not seen anywhere else in nature. These are the things that are making us a peice that doesn't fit in the puzzle of the environment. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> "No man intervention to add or change was made?"  this is referring to the genetic changes that man has made to make the seed more fruitful, nutrients etc....  The seed will do these things (over time) for it's own survival (naturally)  But another species under same natural forces can exploits it environment "the seed" for it own purposes (man).



The seed will not do these things over time. There is no need or stress to motivate the seed to create things like human nutritional needs or conveniences. These things do not aid it's own survival. Take for example seedless grapes, which by definition stop the process of reproduction. In producing and continuing this species we are, essentially, directly and rudamentally opposing the most basic rule of nature, natural selection. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> This is mans nature, using his knowledge to ensure the survival.  These benefits or traits are a derivative from natural processes that has made man what he is.  Now I do agree with you that man does not always do what we would look as the right thing in all of these processes.



Using knowledge for survival is not human nature, survival is a natural instinct. The difference is that man lets his knowledge influence his actions on levels other than survival. Choices that are made by lessons learned from stresses, natural or otherwise, that are unique to the individual and not universal to the species. That uniqueness is why "human nature" isn't human, it is societal. Many include traits like greed, jealousy, the need to cover ourselves as human nature, but they are not, because they are not universally found in all humans. They are traits found in humans where specific societies encourage these traits, purposely or otherwise. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> "The seed grows, develops, reproduces and then dies."  Is man not born from the womb, grows (in all aspects) develops (due to either nature or nurture or both)  reproduces (passing on information to survive and extend the species through either or both, nature and nurture) and die?  It is a nature process that we all are faced with, the seed and man.  We will not live forever (at least not in this phase of our existence).  Now, I will agree with you that man is beginning to break the bonds of being confined to existing natural constraints with some of the progress we made. I also believe that this is a natural process due to our nature.   We are consistently bending the laws of existence and natural law that have defined us for so long.  I will leave this section for a later post or have Nietzche answer it with his writings for now.



Today man is not always born of the womb (invitro fertilization, test tube babies, future cloning), our own choices in life to use unnatural things often cause growth to be stunted (alcohol abuse, drugs, ect), many humans make the choice never to reproduce (a very unnatural behavior), and our "passing of information" is a choice and often not performed. 

Oh and Nietzche was a Nazi nutjob, strung out on absinth and incapable of understanding his own egocentricity. lol. Personal opinion. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> "The process is then repeated with occurrences of change happening to the type of seed itself was only due to changes in the environment (natural stresses)."
> 
> You can see this with cultural norms, and the variety of acts and characteristics of mankind.



That is the problem, they are cultural. They are not univeral to the whole species only each individual unique cultural regime. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> Natural stresses could be everything from natural  disasters, climate, food shortages etc......  To combat this and control our environment man will continue to develop and uses his most successful traits and skills to extend the boundaries of human existence, even create and progress things that are unnatural..  plastics, tech, etc.......  Look at the different types of natural defenses and types of seeds there are due to natural stresses that occurred.  The key for any organism is to survive and flourish and then die.  Seeds are bound by limitations.  Man too, is bound by limitations.  Different ones but limitations none the less.  Man has developed skills to always push and breakthrough those limitations, it's our nature.  Even by unnatural or innatural means shows or human nature.



Again, survival is not a human characteristic it is a natural characteristic, but I never debated that survival is unnatural even in our species, my belief is that traits like compassion, greed, sympathy, jealousy, essentially sin and virtue are not human nature, they are learned, albeit commonly, traits. Again, I restate that man is unnatural because he breaks the natural limitations you mentioned, consequently the same limitations that, in my opinion, kept us fitting in the environmental puzzle.



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> Now, could the natural course that we make could have happened a different way.  Depends on if you believe in Complete Free Will vs Agent Causation, etc...........



Ahhh. . . .now we hit the true gist of the matter of my contention that humans are no longer natural. . . .free will. This is the thing that makes us different, free from instinct, unnatural. It is the heart of most discussions between theologians, darwinists, environmentalists, industrialist, destinists, atheists, ect. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> The other outcome was extinction. The law of nature.  When something is complete and fills it's purpose it is cut down. Also if particular knowledge and skills do not work you can not survive, your stock will become extinct.



Not so, as we are something that the earth has never seen before, we have other options from just opposition or extinction. My choice would be concentual custodial cooperation with nature (I like the sound of that). The idea that we use our intelligence and knowledge to learn how to live harmoniously within the bounds of nature, and not in dominance and construction over nature. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> Unless you are able to adapt (natural process) which man has also done thus far.  Since we are here and having this conversation then I am assuming that we have done just that.  Now, if there is a parallel universe and there are different outcomes then I will say it is due to free will.   I can explain this point in another thread if the conversation goes that way.  Free Will is some thing that does separate us from the other creatures of this world.  Maybe that is becoming aware and we are not in the garden any longer?????/  Free will (in my opinion) is also in our nature.  It sucks but I did not make the rules.  I do however have the freedom not to follow them.  There could be punishment or circumstances that will follow but that is for another thread.
> 
> I will spare you from anymore ranting at this point.
> 
> ...



I like rabbits, I just try not to follow them down the rabbit hole, as much fun as it may sound. {OULobo puts on huge green top hat and sips tea.}


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Apr 1, 2004)

If the post is hard to read let me know so that I can piece it together in a different format.


Remember that time is a human invention to control and measure. Time is not constant in the universe.

"I disagree. While time is part of human perception, it is not for us to control. It is defined as part of the dimentional descriptive process of our environment and despite our descriptions and measurments, still effects the rest of the universe. The only place that we theorize where it doesn't hold is in a black hole, which isn't technally part of our universe."


my response...  The structure of time in which man invented is his attempt to control and measure a dimension in the universe.  That measure is bound here according to our perimeters that we operate in.  Man did not invent time but a system to measure time. We try to control events and actions by using time.   Time is not constant in the universe.  Time exists in the universe but it is not constant.  An example:  say you have two bars.  There is a laser dot that bounces off the two bars.  One bar is directly above the other.  The light will bounce off the bar every second.  The laser dot travels up and down every time that it travels between the bars is a second.  Now start moving the bars faster and faster in a forward direction.  No longer does the light beam travel straight, it starts to appear as if moving at an angle.  It has to cover more space to ping off of the bars.  The measure of time here on earth and that of the moving bars is different. The measure of time is mathematically dependent on other variables.   Another example is the speed of light and recording time over the distance and the space that is created between the two bars.  

"This is a point of contention. In my opinion,"

my response.....  we will never convince the other party.  We agree to disagree on fundamental  principles.  I can except this.  I, like you, feel that the other party is incorrect according to our principles.  Who is right?   We can continue the discussion but at what cost?  What will be gained?  

"This is not a choice of change like the actions of man. They are not, in fact, individually reacting to an environment like man does, while some natural creatures do (like animals that flee fire or inclimate weather), man, on an individual level, actually chooses to change himself and his environment in ways that are not seen anywhere else in nature. These are the things that are making us a peice that doesn't fit in the puzzle of the environment."

My response was that plants and animals are constantly developing and evolving to adapt to the changes in the environment.  At times it might occur during the organisms life spain in others it might take thousands of our years.    The factor that I am also stating is that time is only relative.  True it might be  unfair for a creature or organism to experience a rapid change that will not let it adapt to the environment.  The stress could of been caused by man.  How do we not know that was the intention. (joke)  The point being made is that there is the potential to change due to environment.   It is a natural process.  If the organism can change or adapt in time is another topic.

"The seed will do these things (over time) for it's own survival (naturally)"

my response..... I should of explained a little better.  The point that I was trying to is to show that seed, plants and other organism do change, not to make themselves for more nutritional for man but to aid in its survival. Change to exist with new predators or changes being implemented.  The point is the natural process of change.  I wanted to try to keep mans interference from tapering with the environment so that we can view the human nature of change. I still do not think that I am properly explaining myself.  For that I do apologize.

"That uniqueness is why "human nature" isn't human, it is societal."

My point is "societal" is part of human nature.  It is part of our human nature to be social creatures.  Being social creatures creating societies.  Now these societies do have stresses and norms that are created.  

"Many include traits like greed, jealousy, the need to cover ourselves as human nature"

In my opinion you are only listing the dark side of human tendencies.  The motives are only extensions and derivatives of the core of what human nature is and breeds.  That is why I stated too many letters ago that we are capable of such good as well as evil.

One side note:  I have never meet my Great Grandfather.  Although people that knew him told me that not only do I look exactly like him but my tendencies are the same as well.  I feel that there is a combination of tendencies that we inherit.  These tendencies are reinforced or can be ignored due to our upbringing.  I can change because I choose to?  That is what it is (in my opinion) to be Human?  That core is human nature.  I know you do not think it is nor will ever be persuaded. That's cool, again we disagree on fundamentals.


"Today man is not always born of the womb (invitro fertilization, test tube babies, future cloning), our own choices in life to use unnatural things often cause growth to be stunted (alcohol abuse, drugs, ect), many humans make the choice never to reproduce (a very unnatural behavior), and our "passing of information" is a choice and often not performed."

My point exactly.  Today man has again pushed the limits or boundaries that had confined him.  It is in his human nature. If we did not, we might be living in the stone age not having the quality of life we have day.  We would be more prone to be wiped out by occurrences that do not inflect as much damage as they do today.  I am also a believer in just because we can do something does not mean we should.  The results of our unnatural creations (in my opinion) do not lessen the fact that we have a human nature.  It is that potential (nature) that makes us human to change and control our environment.  Even creating unnatural things.

"Oh and Nietzche was a Nazi nutjob, strung out on absinth and incapable of understanding his own egocentricity. lol. Personal opinion."

I was referring to his "Death of God" and "Superman"  theories.  Did he go nuts, yeah. Think it was the stress of living with all those sisters?????  But there is a hint of prediction of human nature in those writings.  His philosophy was used and twisted by the Nazi's.  He died I believe a good 40 some years before the Nazi party was formulated.  It is like saying that the Hindus that still have the swastika in their homes are Nazi's.  (just my opinion)

"they are cultural. They are not univeral to the whole species only each individual unique cultural regime. "

That is human nature.  It is human nature to be social to form groups to progress and change.  Now those changes define that group.

An example of this in nature :
Look at the same species of monkeys in either Africa or Japan.  They are divided by geography and have different norms by which the community operates.  They are the same species.  They have some of the  same qualities and habits but their behaviors and motivations are different.  They are formed by the environment? Some of it yes, but at the heart it is the nature of the creature to change and progress and also forming social groups.  To learn and change from advances made by members of that social group.    

"Again, I restate that man is unnatural because he breaks the natural limitations you mentioned, consequently the same limitations that, in my opinion, kept us fitting in the environmental puzzle."

You know what am going to say....  He breaks those natural limitations because it is in his nature to do so.

"Ahhh. . . .now we hit the true gist of the matter of my contention that humans are no longer natural. . . .free will. This is the thing that makes us different, free from instinct, unnatural. It is the heart of most discussions between theologians, darwinists, environmentalists, industrialist, destinists, atheists, ect."

Yes Free will,  "This is the thing that makes us different, free from instinct, unnatural"

That is why I put the example of the proverbial Garden of Eden and us not being there anymore.  The greatest thing (in my opinion) about being human is Free Will.  That is part of Human Nature.  We all have it.   

I think that we can agree that the processes we see we define as a natural process.  The nature of an organism is what we do not agree on if it is unnatural or natural.

"Not so, as we are something that the earth has never seen before, we have other options from just opposition or extinction. My choice would be concentual custodial cooperation with nature (I like the sound of that). The idea that we use our intelligence and knowledge to learn how to live harmoniously within the bounds of nature, and not in dominance and construction over nature."

Everything will come to an end.  At some point and by some means things will not exist as they are now.  It could happen as a direct result of our human nature or by others means.  Time that it will occur is also dependent on how we change or progress.  The only exception that I can think of is eternal life.  That is another thread, or is it??????  We could change and evolve but things do have a completion.  Extinction is a constant.  At some time it will end.  The only thing that will not change is change itself.

The Judeo-Christian would state that the world was made for us and we were to subdue it and dominate it.  I believe it is in Chapter 1 and 2 in Genesis. God created the world and then Man (after his own image).  I have no problem living harmoniously with nature.  I believe that all life is precious and essential.  That man has a great responsibility and I can agree with you that he does not regard or understand the matters at hand.  That being stated, I do not believe that a type of bird or butterfly has greater importance than man.  With that I also do not condone wanton destruction of a species or nature at the whim of an individual.  

I really don't like rabbit holes. But I get the reference....Hee Hee  I do enjoy a good magic trick every now and then when there is a rabbit pulled from a hat.  But I will join you for that cup of tea if an offer is ever made, even if you are wearing the green hat.   

Best Regards,
Bushigokoro


----------



## OULobo (Apr 2, 2004)

Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> my response...  The structure of time in which man invented is his attempt to control and measure a dimension in the universe.  That measure is bound here according to our perimeters that we operate in.  Man did not invent time but a system to measure time. We try to control events and actions by using time.   Time is not constant in the universe.  Time exists in the universe but it is not constant.  An example:  say you have two bars.  There is a laser dot that bounces off the two bars.  One bar is directly above the other.  The light will bounce off the bar every second.  The laser dot travels up and down every time that it travels between the bars is a second.  Now start moving the bars faster and faster in a forward direction.  No longer does the light beam travel straight, it starts to appear as if moving at an angle.  It has to cover more space to ping off of the bars.  The measure of time here on earth and that of the moving bars is different. The measure of time is mathematically dependent on other variables.   Another example is the speed of light and recording time over the distance and the space that is created between the two bars.



You're debating relative theory and perspective. This boils down to unproven theory and semantics. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> My response was that plants and animals are constantly developing and evolving to adapt to the changes in the environment.  At times it might occur during the organisms life spain in others it might take thousands of our years.    The factor that I am also stating is that time is only relative.  True it might be  unfair for a creature or organism to experience a rapid change that will not let it adapt to the environment.  The stress could of been caused by man.  How do we not know that was the intention. (joke)  The point being made is that there is the potential to change due to environment.   It is a natural process.  If the organism can change or adapt in time is another topic.



Again, unlike modern man, all the "adaptations" of the rest of the earth's creatures are done by random natural mutation, not choice. While our intelligence is a mutation, it is also one that is vastly different from all other natural mutations and so defines us as unnatural, due to our ability to resist instinct, adapt extraordinarily quickly (ie by choice) and have free will. This is not a temporal issue, although it can be defined easier as such. It is a matter of choice verses random mutation. We choose to change our selves (mutate?), instead of waiting for a fortunate random mutation as the rest of the creatures on the earth. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> my response..... I should of explained a little better.  The point that I was trying to is to show that seed, plants and other organism do change, not to make themselves for more nutritional for man but to aid in its survival. Change to exist with new predators or changes being implemented.  The point is the natural process of change.  I wanted to try to keep mans interference from tapering with the environment so that we can view the human nature of change. I still do not think that I am properly explaining myself.  For that I do apologize.



They don't choose to change. They mutate and then fit better into their envirionment or they perish if the mutation is not beneficial. Again man propagates species that are unnatural in that they wouldn't exist if not for us (ie seedless grapes, hybids, ect). This is illustrated even more when we examine species that we did not only pluck from the natural order and propagate, but actually create, using the building blocks of nature (genetic engineering). We destroy the naturally well adapted species and for our own purposes, propagate other unnatural species, in the interest, not of survival, but of comfort. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> My point is "societal" is part of human nature.  It is part of our human nature to be social creatures.  Being social creatures creating societies.  Now these societies do have stresses and norms that are created.



I again disagree. The opposite of societal is solitary, and there are many people that choose to be so. Even so all societies are unique and breed different combinations of traits. None of those traits are universal to the human race, so by definition they cannot be "human nature". Besides this, being societal is again often a natural instinct of many animals, not a chosen trait or trait that is only human. Moreover, often humans use free will to deny this trait. Again it is a choice. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> In my opinion you are only listing the dark side of human tendencies.  The motives are only extensions and derivatives of the core of what human nature is and breeds.  That is why I stated too many letters ago that we are capable of such good as well as evil.



I agree some of those were negative, although they jury is still out on the clothing issue, but regardless they are still learned traits. The statement I made could be applied just the same to any positive trait, like compassion, generosity, sympathy, ect. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> One side note:  I have never meet my Great Grandfather.  Although people that knew him told me that not only do I look exactly like him but my tendencies are the same as well.  I feel that there is a combination of tendencies that we inherit.  These tendencies are reinforced or can be ignored due to our upbringing.  I can change because I choose to?  That is what it is (in my opinion) to be Human?  That core is human nature.  I know you do not think it is nor will ever be persuaded. That's cool, again we disagree on fundamentals.



It's not that I can't be persuaded, I was infact pursuaded into this mind set to begin with. It's just that I haven't been shown sufficient evidence or change my opinion back. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> My point exactly.  Today man has again pushed the limits or boundaries that had confined him.  It is in his human nature. If we did not, we might be living in the stone age not having the quality of life we have day.  We would be more prone to be wiped out by occurrences that do not inflect as much damage as they do today.  I am also a believer in just because we can do something does not mean we should.  The results of our unnatural creations (in my opinion) do not lessen the fact that we have a human nature.  It is that potential (nature) that makes us human to change and control our environment.  Even creating unnatural things.



It's not human nature to push our limits. It is the learned nature of some humans. There are tribes today that exist (in New Guinea) that never learned to form metal, never ventured out of their area, that are essentially still in the stone age. This society never chose to push its bounds and so it is the proof against that trait being human nature. These people are quite happy without the modern quality of life and often reject the trappings of modern man after the initial shock of something new wears off. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> I was referring to his "Death of God" and "Superman"  theories.  Did he go nuts, yeah. Think it was the stress of living with all those sisters?????  But there is a hint of prediction of human nature in those writings.  His philosophy was used and twisted by the Nazi's.  He died I believe a good 40 some years before the Nazi party was formulated.  It is like saying that the Hindus that still have the swastika in their homes are Nazi's.  (just my opinion)



I know, it was a joke, he pre-empted the Nazi regime, but he was quite unstable for all of his life and his theories and philosophies are the epitome of egocentricity. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> That is human nature.  It is human nature to be social to form groups to progress and change.  Now those changes define that group.



Again social behavior is a natural/instictual characheristic and it is also arguable that, in humans, it is a learned behavior. Either way human can choose to deny to live in society. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> An example of this in nature :
> Look at the same species of monkeys in either Africa or Japan.  They are divided by geography and have different norms by which the community operates.  They are the same species.  They have some of the  same qualities and habits but their behaviors and motivations are different.  They are formed by the environment? Some of it yes, but at the heart it is the nature of the creature to change and progress and also forming social groups.  To learn and change from advances made by members of that social group.



This can't be an example of human nature as human nature is supposed to be unique to humans. This is an example of instinctual behaviour tempered by environmental interaction. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> You know what am going to say....  He breaks those natural limitations because it is in his nature to do so.



Not always, as shown in certain primitive tribes, and so it is the disprover that this is an example of human nature. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> Yes Free will,  "This is the thing that makes us different, free from instinct, unnatural"
> 
> That is why I put the example of the proverbial Garden of Eden and us not being there anymore.  The greatest thing (in my opinion) about being human is Free Will.  That is part of Human Nature.  We all have it.



Here we have an agreement. In my opinion, if human nature exists, it has only one component, Free Will. In such an occurance, why bother calling it human nature, which implies less control, and just call it choice.  



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> I think that we can agree that the processes we see we define as a natural process.  The nature of an organism is what we do not agree on if it is unnatural or natural.



Just one organism, humans. 



			
				Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> The Judeo-Christian would state that the world was made for us and we were to subdue it and dominate it.  I believe it is in Chapter 1 and 2 in Genesis. God created the world and then Man (after his own image).  I have no problem living harmoniously with nature.  I believe that all life is precious and essential.  That man has a great responsibility and I can agree with you that he does not regard or understand the matters at hand.  That being stated, I do not believe that a type of bird or butterfly has greater importance than man.  With that I also do not condone wanton destruction of a species or nature at the whim of an individual.



Christian belief does not contain the intention to "subdue or dominate nature". It supports that we are custodian to nature, acting as a guide and protector, not as regent or dictator. 
[/QUOTE]

I still hold that humans are unnatural in that we exhibit free will and intelligence; intelligence to adapt by choice instead of by random mutation and free will in our ability to deny instinct and natural characteristics and tendancies. 

I will say that I can change my opinion to one of two things;

-Human nature can be described as the list of natural/instictual characteristics common to humans, though this definition is easily broken by the use of free will, and again I refuse to include things like passion, jealousy, greed, sympathy, ect. Essentially, I refute that virtue and sin are part of the natural/instinctual part of human mentality and instead say they are learned traits of some common societies, and manifestations of an individuals choices and actions, as such are not part of the universal human psyche.

-Human nature has only one ingredient, free will. This is the only trait universal to all humans as a species. 

Either way the actions of corporations that destroy the environment are products of greed and are not part of human nature. I believe that if they made the choice to overcome the learned behaviors of greed, they and the rest of the world would be able to abide by a lifestyle that allows living in concentual custodial cooperation with nature. Turning all the innovation and intelligence toward finding solutions and progress that allow the tangental and incorporated growth of nature within our societies is the key to stopping the excessive and unnatural extinction of further species.  

Turning all that back to the original topic was a bit of a rabbit from the hat wouldn't you say?


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Apr 2, 2004)

Have not had time to read your reply thoroughly.  Will do when more time allows.  Wanted to mention if you caught the Ben & Teller show.  They discussed some of what we have been bantering about.  The show "********" on Showtime.  Saw some rabbits!!!!!!!

Best Regards,
Bushigokoro


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Apr 2, 2004)

sorry for the back to back posts but wanted to respond to at least one section of your reply at this time.

"Christian belief does not contain the intention to "subdue or dominate nature". It supports that we are custodian to nature, acting as a guide and protector, not as regent or dictator."


In Genesis, Chapter One verse 26 through Chapter two.

26.  Then God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.  Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.

 (Footnote:  Man is presented here as the climax of Gods creative activity; he resembles God primarily because of the dominion God gives him over the rest of creation)

27. God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.

28. God blessed them, saying  Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.  Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.

29. God also said: See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;

30.  and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food.  And so it happened.

31. God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good.  Evening came, and morning followed  the sixth day.


If you are referring to the verse in Chapter two????:

15.  The Lord God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.

This is in reference to the Garden not the world.  What is in the garden?

The tree of knowledge and the tree of life among other things. 

Chapter Three, verse 22.

22 Then the Lord God said:  "See!  The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad!  Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take the fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever."

After this man is banished from the garden.  He is to exist in the world no longer in comfort from the garden of Eden. 

There is a difference between the garden and the rest of God's creation (referring to the world).



Best Regards,
Bushigokoro


----------



## OULobo (Apr 2, 2004)

Bushigokoro9 said:
			
		

> sorry for the back to back posts but wanted to respond to at least one section of your reply at this time.
> 
> "Christian belief does not contain the intention to "subdue or dominate nature". It supports that we are custodian to nature, acting as a guide and protector, not as regent or dictator."
> 
> ...



I am mistaken in my statement. You are correct about the biblical quote although in the Douay-Rheims Version it is ch1 : 26-31. While this is the word of the book I have yet to meet a priest that agrees with the meaning that you draw from the wording. My intention was and statement should have that my religion doesn't view it that way.


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Apr 2, 2004)

Had to edit reply.  

wording came from "The New American Bible"  

Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources.

Approved by

The Administrative Committee/Board of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference.

Have a great weekend!  Gotta go, the wife is calling.

Bushigokoro


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Apr 4, 2004)

On the Creation, Nature and Fall of man.     Cut and pasted from EWTN website.

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomf...mp;ampTest=1&remove_url=http://www.ewtn.com%2 

If you have time to read?  Being Catholic myself, the Roman Catholic view of the Creation of Man, Human Nature and the Fall of Man.  Please note that I did not include the entire Q and A but (as stated above) cut and paste what I thought might best describe my views and ideals.  




3. Why did God make us?



(c) The happiness of heaven consists in the direct vision, love, and enjoyment of God. This reward so far exceeds man's nature that without the supernatural help of God it could not possibly be attained. In heaven God gives us the light of glory, which enables us to see Him face to face. During our life on earth God gives us His grace, which enables us to live a supernatural life and to perform the actions that can earn this reward.



48. What is man?



Man is a creature composed of body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God.

(a) The soul and the body are not loosely connected parts of man, they are united in a substantial union to form one complete human nature. The soul is not located in any particular member of the body but is whole and entire in each part.



49. Is this likeness to God in the body or in the soul?



This likeness to God is chiefly in the soul.

(a) All creatures bear some resemblance to God inasmuch as they exist. Plants and animals resemble Him insofar as they have life, but none of these creatures is made to the image and likeness of God. Plants and animals do not have a rational soul, such as man has, by which they might know and love God.



50. How is the soul like God?



The soul is like God because it is a spirit having understanding and free will, and is destined to live forever.

(a) Men are especially like God when they know and love Him:

first, in a merely natural way without the aid of grace;
second, in a supernatural way here on earth, with the aid of grace;
third, in a perfect way in heaven, with the aid of the special] light God gives to the souls of the blessed.

(b) Understanding is the power of the soul to apprehend, to judge, and to reason, and thus to know right and wrong.

(c) Conscience is that judgment by which we decide here and now what we should do as good or avoid as evil.

(d) Free will is that power of the soul to choose either to act or not to act.

(e) Human souls live forever because they are spirits.

(f) The never-ending life of the soul is called immortality.



52. What was the chief gift bestowed on Adam and Eve by God?



The chief gift bestowed on Adam and Eve by God was sanctifying grace, which made them children of God and gave them the right to heaven.

(a) Sanctifying grace is a supernatural gift which is a sharing in the nature of God Himself and which raises men to the supernatural order, conferring on them powers entirely above those proper to human nature.

(b) Together with sanctifying grace God gave Adam and Eve the super natural virtues and the gifts of the Holy Ghost.


53. What other gifts were bestowed on Adam and Eve by God?



The other gifts bestowed on Adam and Eve by God were happiness in the Garden of Paradise, great knowledge, control of the passions by reason, and freedom from suffering and death.

(a) These gifts are not supernatural or above all created natures, but they are preternatural, that is, beyond the powers of human nature, though not above all created natures.

(b) If Adam had not sinned, these gifts would have been transmitted to all men as the possession of human nature.



60. What are the chief punishments of Adam which we inherit through original sin?



The chief punishments of Adam which we inherit through original sin are death, suffering, ignorance, and a strong inclination to sin.

(a) The fact of original sin explains why man is so often tempted to evil and why he so easily turns from God.

(b) Because of the ignorance resulting from original sin, the mind of man has difficulty in knowing many necessary truths, easily falls into error, and is more inclined to consider temporal than eternal things.

(c) The penalties of original sin--death, suffering, ignorance, and a strong inclination to sin--remain after Baptism, even though original sin is taken away.

(d) Although we have a strong inclination to evil as a result of original sin, our nature is not evil in itself; it can perform some good actions in the natural order without the aid of grace.


Just another view point that human nature exists.  I tend to agree with them. 

Best Regards,
Bushigokoro


----------



## OULobo (Apr 5, 2004)

I was raised Roman Catholic, and in a twisted sort of way I am still Catholic, but I have never taken the words of the Vatican or the Church in general as fact. This doen't mean I discount them, just that I don't take them on faith. While stating their opinon is both interesting and a little enlightening and I thank you for the information, it isn't the best method to convince me personally. Without getting into a full theological discussion, I don't think that the bible is to be taken literally. It is in tone and substance a sybolic book and in so being, needs a degree of translation and interpretation. There in lies the problem of opinion. Overlooking the difficulties of translation of dead languages, transposition of theory by personal motivation of translators and cultural influence in printed tone, we still have the fundamental problem of artistic interpretation. What I see in picasso is very different from what you see in Picasso. The bible is no different. While the twisted image of a bull in Guernica is generally decernable as a bull to most people, what the bull stands for, or why it is there, is different for everyone who veiws the painting.


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Apr 5, 2004)

"it isn't the best method to convince me personally"

Not trying to convince or persuade you.  If you change your opinion that is your choice based on info that you see relevant.  I was just looking for the right way of letting you know my thoughts on human Nature and it's existence.  There are three things that I need to say...

First, wanted to apologize one last time for the first email sent.  Did not want nor intend to attack you.  My post, after re-reading it, gave that impression.  For that and any hurt feelings I do apologize.

Second, enjoyed the conversations, I still don't agree with you but you gave me a hint at what your views are.

Third, wanted to thank you.  From this conversation I have re-affirmed several ideals and you made me think about stuff that I have not really looked into to.  Although we have different opinions and probably always will, I look forward to crossing paths again.  

Best of luck and regards
Bushigokoro


----------



## OULobo (Apr 5, 2004)

Ditto. . . .no hard feelings from the first post and I'm glad it was such a good conversation. Now I just have to convince my fiance' that arguing can be fun.


----------

