|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 19, 2013 09:40 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 22:00, 19 Jul 2013.
|
JollyJoker said:
If our life is too easy, we will degenerate. Humans (beings) who do not use their brain or brawn, lose their skills, slowly, but inevitably, so what we need as a race is a constant challenge. Contentedness may be a nice feeling, but only for a time, after that it gets boring.
like Mvass, I don't think losing skills is in itself necessarily so bad. materially, we can produce all we need with little effort (even though propaganda says the contrary).
the biggest danger is tyranny. those who want the power will make the necessary efforts. and if the mass don't bother to catch up, they will be dominated, as usual.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2013 09:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As in, let's not do anything too hard to improve our situation, and life is too hard anyway, why bother?
No, the opposite - as in, life is great, we're not facing any dangers, we live in a state of peace and abundance, so the only reason to do something is if you enjoy doing it, not out of necessity.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2013 10:00 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
Earning something as a result of a hard work is WAY more satisfying than having it served to you on a plate. I'd say that there's something wrong with the people who think otherwise and who usually tend to live parasitic lives.
yeah, I do not agree, unless as Mvass said, you take pleasure in playing the game. otherwise I prefer having things served on a plate than working hard for them. when you feel more frustration because of the hard work, than satisfaction because of the outcome, there's really no point to bother.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 19, 2013 10:30 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:12, 19 Jul 2013.
|
Well, it also depends on what you do for a living a little bit, doesn't it? I mean a guy stuck in the office doing paperwork all day, won't think like "the pleasure is in finishing the insurance files before friday, hell yeah!" But think of a film director or a baseball player, a detective maybe, even a salesman who really like to sell things... These people can value what they do beyond profit. They can be in it for the challenge.
Btw, keep in mind that what JJ talks about isn't replacement of some skills with others but turning idle:
Quote:
If our life is too easy, we will degenerate. Humans (beings) who do not use their brain or brawn, lose their skills, slowly, but inevitably, so what we need as a race is a constant challenge. Contentedness may be a nice feeling, but only for a time, after that it gets boring.
You may not know how to ride a horse or pick the non-poisonous mushroom but you'll have skills required by your times. You may be good at driving a truck or computer programming. Some skills go extinct when the conditions change but not doing anything challenging is another matter of debate.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted July 19, 2013 11:21 PM |
|
|
Fauch said:
yeah, I do not agree, unless as Mvass said, you take pleasure in playing the game. otherwise I prefer having things served on a plate than working hard for them. when you feel more frustration because of the hard work, than satisfaction because of the outcome, there's really no point to bother.
That's pretty simplistic interpretation of what I said. If the effort spent in an attempt to achieve something is greater than the value of that something, then there is no way to be really satisfied in the end - but even then the negative experience can have positive results in the future (you learn not to waste time and energy for things which are not worth them and thus can dedicate more time and energy to the worthy things OR after you analyze your mistakes, you find a way how to avoid them and achieve your goal easier). If the ultimate aim however is of some importance to you for whatever reason and you successfully reach it on your own, the satisfaction is much greater than if somebody serves you the result straight away, like you're entitled to it.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2013 11:54 PM |
|
|
|
if that's so important, why would you prefer to do efforts, rather than getting what you want immediately and for nothing? wouldn't that make you suffer longer?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 20, 2013 12:00 AM |
|
|
It may sound like social-darwisnism - however, it isn't. After all, we are intelligent.
Because we can TRICK nature. We can keep muscles in good shape with electric pulses and vibrations. We can SIMULATE work and challenge.
There used to be a lot of agony - and what didn't kill us made us stronger. Now, though, it's enough to hand over the right information to the brain and the nervous system to make it react the way we want to.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 20, 2013 12:20 AM |
|
|
I was predicting Nietzsche was gonna show up eventually on this. I think this fits better though:
In peaceful conditions, a combatant soul attacks right at himself.
But does he necessarily, and have people in general "combatant souls"
Not that I fully agree with him, but I think that traitor guy in the first Matrix movie had a pretty solid case: Why fight the Matrix, if the alternative is this ****hole? Just go along with it, "and upload paradise for me please."
Now, in the movie, they had to make a rational explanation why the whole Matrix wasn't paradise (if it was there would be no movie), so they came up with a solution, similar to your claim: Humans eventually gave error when everything was perfect and the paradisical first Matrix failed. The question is though, would it in real life?
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 20, 2013 10:07 AM |
|
|
@ artu:
there was one point in "the matrix" that i found MOST accurate. agent smith's speech about the human race:
"i'd like to share a revelation that i’ve had during my time here. it came to me when i tried to classify your species, and i realized that humans are not actually mammals. every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. the only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. there is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus. human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague, and we... are the cure."
being that this fits the human race to a T, you can see "advancement" isn't really a good thing.
one thing i was wondering, as i watched an episode of "bizarre foods with andrew zimmern" yesterday. he was in africa, and tasting the delicacies of a primitive tribe there. the episode showed how the tribes people lived. everything they did, and wore, and probably ate, were as primitive as i would imagine the stone age to be. i saw how their impact on their environment was very minimal. the only damage i saw that they caused was when they killed a black mamba, to keep the tribe safe(i say "damage", because they didn't eat it, they just killed it).
this makes me think, that out of that, came us. and all of our ever-expanding technology. and look at the state of the world today. yeah, i think agent smith sums things up pretty accurately.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 20, 2013 10:33 AM |
|
|
I have a broader sense of nature, to me it's not just trees and clean rivers. Man can only destroy the natural habitat he's in, not nature. We are as insignificant as the virus when it comes to destroying the nature. But, I get what you mean, it's a common basis of criticism. Here, enjoy:
MAN
(I love In the Hall of The Mountain King, btw.)
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted July 20, 2013 10:41 AM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 10:48, 20 Jul 2013.
|
@fred
Every species has the properties of a virus. All species would expand and explode in population without natural boundaries. Rabbits in Australia are a pest.
Viruses do pretty much the same thing in a vulnerable host cell, they kill the host cell and expand to another cell with 1 million copies.
Humans dont really really do that. We expand, exploit, exterminate and build housing just like what happened in the Americas, Australia to indigenous humans and species. We dont destroy per se, we remake and transform territory to our desire.
We are as much of a cancer as the dinosaurs were. Just because we dominate nature and evolution by defeating its killing mechanisms, does not mean that it is a bad thing.
By overcoming hardships, humanity defeats evolution. We may even imagine one day about improving ourselves.
Problem is, despite all human achievements, society never developed a consciousness beyond the "Self". Its engrained in your psycology to think that we got all the answers, ridicule others, shun, ignore, hate and fear. Nobody does something for someone else without demanding something in return. (Charity is BS. Being an ass to some charity workers is 100% going to make it less likely to get charity, or being an outspoken critic of said organization.)
Obviously, humans need to overcome their natural born egocentrism to become something more.
If humanity is an organism, then an organism at war with itself will lead to its demise.
But then, this is nothing new. I am just paraphrasing stuff somebody else already said, so why bother.
@artu
Awesome video. I like it alot. Thanks +100
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted July 20, 2013 12:24 PM |
|
|
Fauch said:
if that's so important, why would you prefer to do efforts, rather than getting what you want immediately and for nothing? wouldn't that make you suffer longer?
I get what I want but I prefer to work for it than take it for free.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 20, 2013 12:45 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 12:47, 20 Jul 2013.
|
@ seraphim: well, that's the psychological side of the issue.
it is true that every species has the property of a virus. but they are all kept in check. humanity isn't. there isn't a cure for what the human race is. it will take near extinction to change the human race as a whole. and by then, it will probably be too late for the human race. of course, when we die off, natural order will come back, but then, something else will probably replace us.
i think this kind of thing happens every so many million years on earth. maybe, it is a way of keeping everything strong enough to survive, because the only things that live are those things that fight for their lives. maybe, it makes everything ELSE that much stronger because of it.
that's not saying anything for us, though. we have already reached our pinnacle, now we are just stalling, bottoming out, and mass producing.
take this as an example.
the stages of cancer:
Stage 0: carcinoma in situ.
(our birth)
Stage I: cancers are localized to one part of the body. Stage I cancer can be surgically removed if small enough.
(before we begin to multiply)
Stage II: cancers are locally advanced.
(we are multiplying in one area, before we spread out)
Stage III: cancers are also locally advanced.
(we are now destroying all resources in that area, and now, in order to survive, we must: )
Stage IV: cancers have often metastasized, or spread to other organs or throughout the body.
(spread out, and start from scratch, until everything is eaten up)
repeat. repeat. repeat.
and what is the only way to cure a cancer? to destroy it. if it is not destroyed completely, it will again multiply, and destroy everything in it's area.
yeah, just my 2 cents. i'm not going to start a movement or anything, no one listens to me. 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 20, 2013 02:11 PM |
|
|
In nature if any species go overpopulated, the multiplying simply stops because they can't feed anymore. Take the fly for example, it's a very adaptive specie with amazing surviving skills, that's why you have flies almost anywhere in the planet, I once watched a documentary about them, eggs from a mother was locked in a fridge with just a piece of butter in it. Some weeks later they opened the door and they spread out like some locust horde from a biblical Armageddon scene. Why aren't there more flies then? At least in forests or mountains where we don't spray them to death? Simple, when food is no more, reproducing stops. That's what creates the illusion of balance.
The thing about humans is, we grow our own food. You know what's the most populated bird in the planet, chicken. Because we farm them to eat. Ever heard of a guy named Malthus? He lived between the 18th and 19th century. Malthus had this idea that wars were necessary for people because while our growth rate was multiplying, our food production was not, so if there were no wars, we would starve in the end. Well, wars didn't stop but Malthus also turned out to be wrong because the technological development in agricultural production got to such a point, our food production also started to multiply. Of course there is an end to this and we can not keep it on forever. No matter how smart we are, there is a limit to the planet's resources and sooner or later we will have to change our ways. I'd say sooner would be much more rational and easier because the alternative would be actually masses starving, or at least surviving under very primitive conditions.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 20, 2013 02:42 PM |
|
|
Of course, there seems to be more progress in SOME countries than in others:
[url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/18/dubai-woman-raped-jailed-extramarital-sex/2554045/]Don't drink or be married when you are about to let yourself rape in the Emirates[/url]
"Progress" is really relative.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 20, 2013 05:49 PM |
|
|
Fred:
A cure? Why should we want one? Properly understanding the issue, the term "cure" is incorrect. A cure is something that fixes an issue and makes us better off. If something would be bad for us, it's not a cure. People like to talk about how humans are "hurting the Earth", and stuff like that. The only relevant feature of that is how humans are destroying value of parts of the Earth that belong to other humans (or are held in common). If anthropogenic global warming is causing droughts and floods, that's obviously bad. But people who talk about humanity being a virus go beyond that, and treat the Earth or Nature as some kind of end in itself, as something that deserves consideration independently of the effect it has on humans. And I see no reason to do that.
JJ:
That's an example of a place not exhibiting proper levels of progress, not of progress being relative.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 20, 2013 05:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But people who talk about humanity being a virus go beyond that, and treat the Earth or Nature as some kind of end in itself, as something that deserves consideration independently of the effect it has on humans. And I see no reason to do that.
Why do you think humans in specific deserve any consideration? What makes US so special if you're so apathetic.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 20, 2013 06:25 PM |
|
|
Humans aren't special based on some standard external to humanity. Humans are special to us because we ourselves are humans. More precisely, humans are capable of reasoning, making agreements and understanding them, and greatly benefiting from cooperating with each other, and, to take a different approach, human happiness makes us happy. Humans being special is derived from the fact that you in particular are special and should give yourself special consideration.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 21, 2013 03:01 AM |
|
|
|
That's not logically wrong but very short-sighted. Humans generally feel happier anyway when they are NOT egocentric. Perceiving the Earth we live in as a value by itself, with a deeper perspective, does not contradict with what you say.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 21, 2013 03:30 AM |
|
|
why do we always think humanity is so bad?
I don't think most people want to exploit and destroy. but they may not realize they do it, or sometimes they don't really have the choice.
today we have an economic system that relies on wasting as much resources as possible. I doubt the goal of people is to destroy the planet (except maybe a few madmen), but our system is set so that if we don't do it, companies bankrupt, people lose their jobs and revenus and can't eat anymore.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
