Are we screwing with natures course?

[Loki]

In some Eastern philosophies, they claim that we are all one. Is it so difficult to believe?

This also depends on definition. What does it mean that "we are one"?

Does it mean that we are like ants and bees, part of a hive mind? Proven to be untrue.

Does it mean that we are all different expressions of an "organizing intelligence" (or God, if you will) as my dad thinks? I don't see a reason to think so.

Does it mean that we are all simply matter with the same origin? That seems consistent with science, since with the exception of hydrogen, all the atoms that make up our bodies - the iron in our blood, the calcium in our bones, the carbon in our brains - were maufactured in red giants, thousands of lightyears away, billions of years ago. Though I doubt this is what Eastern philosophers had in mind.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

You have many assumptions throughout this post, and others, that need to be put aside to properly consider the question.

There is no 'good' genetic material. All genentic material is of equal weight.1. Random Mutuation allows traits to appear that may be beneficial to the species. If that RANDOM mutation actually is beneficial to the species and it gets passed on, then natural selection can occur.

It could be that 'naturally very skinny' - assuming this trait is genetic - does provide a benefit to the species. If it does, your offspring who have inherited this trait may be more prodigious, genetically, several generations hence, than those offspring that did not inherit this trait.

It seems you are interpreting that 'naturally very skinny' on a good or bad continuum. This is a false categorization based on your subjective view of genetics and evolution. You need to discard that good / bad paradigm, and refocus on the hypothesis.


2.The assumption that 'survival of the fittest' requires that you 'fight' for survival. Nature provides ways for species that are unable to 'fight' for survival to continue their existance.3. Off the top of my head, what about fish? the female lays eggs in the water - the mail adds milt to the water (fish don't have intercourse) - what keeps the species going when these eggs - fertilized and unfertilized are tasty treats for other fish in the ecosystem? The answer is the number of eggs. Nature allows fish to create thousands of eggs during the spawn.. Many of those eggs will hatch (some wont), many of those fry will grow (some wont), some of the parr will mature (some wont), eventually, the offspring may get to spawn (many wont). With fish, there is no fighting, as you describe it, is irrelevant. It just a matter of luck, and numbers.



We are a clever species. But is being able to examine micro biological life forms as clever as, oh, say, polar bears having white fur, fish swimming in large schools, or chameleons being able to change the pigment of their skin? I do not think so. Each of those traits are part of nature, and cannot be separated from nature. I see human existance in a similar view.

Everything we do, from filling swamps to make airport runways, (even though it is destructive to the ecosystem) to genetically modifying corn so that it is more insect resistant, is a part of nature, not apart from nature.

In some Eastern philosophies, they claim that we are all one. Is it so difficult to believe?

1. mutation is hardly random for the most part......its physical adaptation
2.how does this mean fight for survival? being fit has nothing to do with fighting.....it means having all the right stuff to get along in your environment, while the "it" next to you does not and therefore dies off or adapts.
3. the "mail" and female fish have been doing this for years........this is an example of adapting to a surrounding.

i wouldnt call this luck.....unless you believe in the whole evolution thing with a dash of God sprinkled on top.

the term "natural" is our own human creation to keep separate the things which we have screwed up from the things that occur without "human" interference.

 

[Loki]

mutation is hardly random for the most part......its physical adaptation

Mutation itself is mostly random. Physical adaptation refers to mutations that get positively naturally selected.

 

[Ray]

the term "natural" is our own human creation to keep separate the things which we have screwed up from the things that occur without "human" interference.

Although we humans have been pretty "successful" at changing our environments, there are still other creatures that also modify theirs. One example: beavers dam creeks. There there are others, but none of a certainty come to mind at present; I seem to recall something about African termites...

 

[michaeledward]

It is not now, nor never was my argument that Nature means everything. My intention is to define nature as those things that naturally occur within the biosphere of the planet Earth.

There are some items found on earth that we are reasonably certain that originated elsewhere in our solar system. These items are not part of Nature. They are 'super-natural', if you will. There are also items that exist for only brief moments in science labratories around the world. These to are not part of Nature.

If my definition is reducing to the absurd, please define for me one item, other than those I have mentioned here, that occurs on our planet that is not natural.



Oh, and thank you for correcting my spelling .. homonyms can often create that problem when typing faster than thinking.

 

[FearlessFreep]

You're defining humans as part of nature and therefore anything they do is natural.

I'm looking at creatures in general and how 'nature' keeps them in check through predators, disease, geography, etc to keep their populations under control. What I see is that humans, of all creatures, have managed to circumvent many or most of those controls, and that's why I call in un-natural, not because it's 'mankind' but because it's a singular example of a species that has made itself relatively immune to forces which affect all others.

Natural or not, the original point is that we are doing something, or capable of doing something, that no other species can. We have no predators that can keep us in check. We can move into any eco-system on earth and become the dominant life form in that eco-system. Even disease and natural disaster we can fight back against in ways that no other species is capable of.

Natural or not, it is a unique position...what are the consequences?

 

[FearlessFreep]

You have many assumptions throughout this post, and others, that need to be put aside to properly consider the question.

Well, mostly my assumption was that being caucasian american middle income does not make me more fit, or more deserving of survival and propagating

 

[michaeledward]

When you use the word Circumvent, isn't that a fancy word for adapt.

Many species have the ability to adapt. While homo sapien may be able to bring more external items to bear when adapting, to intimate that they are the only species capable of adapting is wrong. I believe.

Homo sapiens are subject to predation. War is certainly one form of predation. But in a more traditional manner of predation, look to germs and viruses.

Yes, we can cleverly adapt. But simultaneously, the germs and viruses are adapting too. If that is not a clear example of Nature in action, I don't know what isn't.

My argument is that your being a caucasion middle income american does not make you any less fit for survival and propagation.

 

[Makalakumu]

If we expand the term "nature" to mean "everything", it loses all meaning.

Perhaps the meaning one has assigned to Nature does not actually describe Nature...

I would like you, or anybody, to find something in this universe that is not part of nature.

 

[arnisador]

1. mutation is hardly random for the most part

Mutation is random. Which mutations are beneficial and which are not determines what happens next as far as their gene pool frequency.

 

[FearlessFreep]

When you use the word Circumvent, isn't that a fancy word for adapt.

Many species have the ability to adapt. While homo sapien may be able to bring more external items to bear when adapting, to intimate that they are the only species capable of adapting is wrong. I believe.

I don't think humans are merely adapting. Or if you wish to call it that then there are several differences.

First off, through aide, medicine, etc... we are the only species capable of helping each other adapt. We can use medicine to help the weak adapt to the disease, rather than die. We can help those that suffer from natural events to adapt to the events.

Second we can see a new ecosystem and decide to adapt to it. Sharks cannot adapt to land, at least not with a lot of time to evolve individually. Humans are capable of looking at at a new ecosystem and making the concious self decision to want to go into that eco-system and can build the tools to carry out that will.

But, even if you call it just an advanced form of adaption, that doesn't really matter. You're stuck on insisting that what humans doing is just the same as any other creature, for all practical purposes. But the differences are crucial because if all we do is adapt, the way we've learned to adapt is still pretty unique in the sense that it makes us possibly not subject to the same control forces as other species, and that's the important part of the question

 

[Kane]

Absolutely not. Here are a few things that could throw some major snarls in our species development...

1. An asteroid strike.
2. Global peak in oil production.
3. Supertsunamis.
4. Supervolcanoes.
5. A major solar/emp storm.
6. Overpopulation.

There is no particular order to this list and most of it is stuff we can do nothing about. Yet, it all could prune the branches so to speak. We can't outstrip or out maneuver it.

Of that list you provided there is only one global killer on it .

 

[FearlessFreep]

Of that list you provided there is only one global killer on it

Also, one thing back to the original point is that all of the above will do pruning of the brances, as he put it, but because of our ability to aide each other in need, the pruning is no longer done by strong vs weak but more by luck of who got help in time and who did not

 

[michaeledward]

Mutation is random. Which mutations are beneficial and which are not determines what happens next as far as their gene pool frequency.

Thank you.

As pointed out earlier ... America's understanding of science is woefully inadequate.

 

[Kane]

Anyways to answer the original question, are we screwing with Nature's course? I don't see why we are to be honest. I mean think about it, Nature knows all, if she knew that humans would become so destructive She wouldn't had let us evolve. Seriously! 60,000 years ago we were on the brink of extinction, so why didn't Nature do away from with us? Why didn't She kill us? Obviously She wanted us to live. Let's look back in human pre-history even more. There were so many other human species (Neanderthals, Heidelbergensis, Erectus/Ergaster, Florensis, ect.) and why didn't nature let those evolve but us? She obviously has a plan for mankind. But who knows, maybe Her plan is up with us. If She wanted to Nature could send an asteroid or comet and kill all of humanity (as that is the only global killer). But she hasn't yet! I guess she wants mankind to live many more years.

Of course in the future we might find away to protect ourselves from asteroids and comets, I wonder whether then we could truly say we have Nature in our hands and not vice versa. The only thing Nature would be able to do then is kill only a few some humans, but She wouldn't be able to kill us completely if we find out how to stop asteroids or comets.

Unless there is another global killer I did not mention yet that Nature can use to kill us all?

 

[michaeledward]

Kane, you don't think that personification of Nature is a bit overboard, do you.

• She knew ...
• She wouldn't had let us ...
• She wanted ...

But the real kick is to assume that:

• She obviously had a plan ...

Why does there have to be a plan? How is that obvious?

Could it be that 'Nature' just is? No plan, No reason, No purpose?

Nah .... that'ld be way to scary. But it is Halloween, isn't it?

 

[Kane]

Fine Mr. Micheal. If your so "worried" about personification I'll try to lesson it still doesn't make a difference . Nature hasn't killed us yet, has "it"? A biological organisms we are allowed to take advantage in any situation in order to survive. Nature also has no rules over how we should live to my knowledge. Of course that is not to say that we shouldn't preserve nature, I really admire its beauty and are very much for enviromental laws but it is really all up to humans. If Nature wanted us to do something it would have told us. I guess you can say religion might be the voice but since they are so many religions, what religion to believe? I guess Hinduism and Buddhism are religions like no other, and since they preach more on the enviroment I guess we can use those as a guide.

In any case whether Nature does have a plan or not, we are still here are we not? As biological oraganisms we are not tied to any rules (except the rules the government gives us to keep things in order).

 

[Kane]

If Nature is all random (which I do believe to a certian extent) as you say then it really doesn't make a difference. Nature has thrown that unlucky number 1, in fact we have been getting a lot lucky 6s these last thousand years! Until She (I mean "it") throws a dice that lands on unlucky 1 then we can basicly do whatever until it decides to punish us. I hope mankind doesn't destroy the enviroment but there really isn't any big force that says what we must or must not do except maybe God or spiritual reality that we know little to nothing about .

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Mutation itself is mostly random. Physical adaptation refers to mutations that get positively naturally selected.

my bad, you are correct, i should have chosen my words more carefully......but i was trying to use phraseology that would be easier to interpret.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Although we humans have been pretty "successful" at changing our environments, there are still other creatures that also modify theirs. One example: beavers dam creeks. There there are others, but none of a certainty come to mind at present; I seem to recall something about African termites...

beavers do not take iron ore and forge metal to make bulldozers to make those dams either.