Human Exceptionalism

[Avatar]

No we're not. Any organism can "trash" the biosphere. Every organism consumes resources and expels waste. Just because other organisms happen to keep each other in check doesn't mean each single organism doesn't have the capability to deplete its resources or make its environment toxic. Theoretically, this is possible no matter what the species.

That's true inasfar as it goes. But the only thing that can keep a check on us is ourselves, and we're not very good at it.

If some other organism destroys or depletes whatever in its own environment, it either dies back, or has to move elsewhere, where it must re-establish. That natural check doesn't limit humans.

--A

[Zarathustra]

I think that natural check was implied in Ali's post, when she said we'd either leave the planet or go extinct. Some humans would survive a nuclear war. We'd be reduced, and then build up again. But even with smaller examples of "trashing" the environment, we'd feel the environmental pressure if we couldn't grow enough food to feed ourselves, and this would be another natural check. We're not--nor will we ever be--exempt from natural selection. I just don't see any level of our interaction with the planet as severe enough to engage natural selection pressures. Our biggest threat comes from space, not from us.

[Worm of Despite]

Thanks Zara. Good to know we aren't spiraling around the drain as some environmentalists might think us.

[Avatar]

We're not--nor will we ever be--exempt from natural selection.

I don't think I agree. By the very nature of the ideals and achievements of our society we've, if not eliminated, then severely limited, the extent to which natural selection applies to us.

Civilisation itself is devoted to protecting those unable to, or struggling to, survive on their own. Our intervention daily enables people who would otherwise not to survive, and even procreate.

Now obviously there are circumstances in which this is not only humane, but clearly beneficial to the health of the species. However, there are as many or more in which it could be actively detrimental to our health, both genetically and socially / behaviourally.

We may be actively interfering with the selection process, in which certain behaviours or traits are no longer contra-survival, or contra-procreation. Which will allow those traits to propagate, where once they would die out.

--A

[Vraith]

We may be actively interfering with the selection process, in which certain behaviours or traits are no longer contra-survival, or contra-procreation. Which will allow those traits to propagate, where once they would die out.

--A

Yea, this shows up in SF once in a while. I think the first one I read that pointed this way was some Heinlein? All I remember about it is that, for one thing, almost everyone was near-sighted from birth...a trait pretty strongly selected against in our early days.

[peter]

I've just found this thread and alas don't have time to read the prior postings - so can I be a dork and just cut to the chase of the original question best summed up as 'great' or 'poppy poo'.

GREAT!

If you take a teleological view of the Universe then our place is central to it's very existence. We are the ears through which it hears itself, the eyes through which it see's itself. Without us the Universe is a book that nobody read, it is painting that nobody ever saw, a tree that fell in a forest with no ear to hear it, the sound of one hand clapping.

[Worm of Despite]

If you take a teleological view of the Universe then our place is central to it's very existence. We are the ears through which it hears itself, the eyes through which it see's itself. Without us the Universe is a book that nobody read, it is painting that nobody ever saw, a tree that fell in a forest with no ear to hear it, the sound of one hand clapping.

Thank you.

Yeah; as I said before, we're the universe "made conscious".

[Linna Heartbooger]

I think that natural check was implied in Ali's post, when she said we'd either leave the planet or go extinct. Some humans would survive a nuclear war. We'd be reduced, and then build up again...

When you say things like that, it makes me wonder what you see as the goal(s) of humanity..

[Worm of Despite]

I think that natural check was implied in Ali's post, when she said we'd either leave the planet or go extinct. Some humans would survive a nuclear war. We'd be reduced, and then build up again...

When you say things like that, it makes me wonder what you see as the goal(s) of humanity..

I can answer for him, since we're actually a two-headed monster. But seriously:

Our goal is to outlive this universe's death, if possible. Maybe find a parallel one and cross into that?

Our more basic goal is to continue living, because everything in our biology pushes us toward that rather than dying; and because we have nice cozy things like books, fire, tasty meat and iPads. Plus kids, women and usually good men-folk. It's all worth it.

[Fist and Faith]

You have an iPad?!? Cool! I am not aware of any goals for humanity.

[Linna Heartbooger]

...and because we have nice cozy things like books, fire, tasty meat and iPads. Plus kids, women and usually good men-folk. It's all worth it.

Not saying I don't have some hedonistic leanings of my own... so then it's, "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die?"

[Avatar]

Like Foul suggests, I don't think we have a collective goal per se. Our goal as a species is to survive as long as possible. That's about it I think.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

If you take a teleological view of the Universe then our place is central to it's very existence. We are the ears through which it hears itself, the eyes through which it see's itself. Without us the Universe is a book that nobody read, it is painting that nobody ever saw, a tree that fell in a forest with no ear to hear it, the sound of one hand clapping.

Thank you.

Yeah; as I said before, we're the universe "made conscious".

Could be the universe, as a whole, is conscious. Could be it takes such a huge consciousness ten million years to say Hello, and we just haven't heard it yet. If consciousness arose because of the complexity of our physical selves, particularly our brain... Well, I suppose the universe is sufficiently complex. Heh

I do, however, love what peter is saying. Which Z has also said a few times.

[Zarathustra]

If you take a teleological view of the Universe then our place is central to it's very existence. We are the ears through which it hears itself, the eyes through which it see's itself. Without us the Universe is a book that nobody read, it is painting that nobody ever saw, a tree that fell in a forest with no ear to hear it, the sound of one hand clapping.

Thank you.

Yeah; as I said before, we're the universe "made conscious".

Could be the universe, as a whole, is conscious. Could be it takes such a huge consciousness ten million years to say Hello, and we just haven't heard it yet. If consciousness arose because of the complexity of our physical selves, particularly our brain... Well, I suppose the universe is sufficiently complex. Heh

I do, however, love what peter is saying. Which Z has also said a few times.

Yes, and which is also true without committing to any form of teleology. We'd still be the eyes/ears of the universe even if it was completely accidental. We are literally the universe waking up to itself, even if we accept our origins in random mutation and natural selection. In that case, it's even more remarkable and awe-inspiring than if we were to suppose that all this was created for our benefit, with us in mind.

Now, the fact that the universe is a kind of place where this is possible seems pretty damn fantastic. But this can be accounted for by the anthropic principle.

The only thing about existence that resists my attempts to dismiss any "mystical" interpretations is the fact that there is existence at all, rather than nonexistence. The fact that there is something rather than nothing still blows my mind. I can call the universe a giant accident all I want, but to say that there was an existential "plane" or "realm" in which such an accident was possible in the first place ... at some point we can't retreat into sheer numbers and random chance. Nonexistence doesn't accidentally turn into existence. Nothing doesn't accidentally turn into something, even if the forms which that "something" takes are entirely unplanned. Even if you assume an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of physical constants and initial conditions that may or may not suit the development of life--so that this universe having the suitable "settings" for life was merely random chance--where the hell did all those universes come from?

There is something going on here, something that sends shivers down my spine and makes my skin crawl if I think about it too much.

[Vraith]

There is something going on here, something that sends shivers down my spine and makes my skin crawl if I think about it too much.

Yea, when I'm obsessing over the beginning which happens occasionally, both the spontaneous and the created sometimes become apalling in the most literal/early senses: a bit of fading, a going pale of thought.

EDITED, cuz no one else had posted yet, to add an interesting quote of Heinlein quoted in an article at Huff Post that seems to match the topic, and somewhat the recent turn the thread has taken:

The science fiction author Robert Heinlein once said "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

It also relates to something I think I once posted somewhere around here that before I die I wish I could be at least minimally competent at everything...I actually think I'm doing ok, as long as you keep the emphasis on "at least minimally"

[Fist and Faith]

Z, although neither seems possible, either nothing did accidentally become something, or there always was something.

[Zarathustra]

Z, although neither seems possible, either nothing did accidentally become something, or there always was something.

"Always something" doesn't answer the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Nor does it imply an accident; if it was always here, then that's a fundamental, essential property or consequence of existence.

On the other hand, if nothing became something, then the possibility must have always been there (kind of like how quantum particles spontaneously form and then decay in the void of space ... a possibility due to quantum mechanics). And when I say "nothing," I'm not talking about void--which still can be said to be spatial/temporal, and which is teeming with random energies and quantum fluctuations. I'm talking about nonexistence, the opposite of the "realm" of existence in which time/space can exist. It makes no sense to think there was no Being itself, no existence, and then at some point--woops!--existence itself accidentally started. What would have changed? How could anything change when there was nothing in existence--not even existence itself--to change?

So I suppose that existence always was. Existence is some sort of necessary state which transcends any particular instance of being, even the universe itself. Time and space may have exploded into Being at the Big Bang, but existence itself couldn't have started then.

And that's where my mind starts to short-circuit. That's when this atheist starts to think that there is such a thing as Holy, even if there is no God.

[Fist and Faith]

I wasn't thinking I'd answered the question. Just taking baby steps. Everybody wants to take several steps at once. Or skip some. Which gets us in trouble. Heh

[Zarathustra]

I wasn't thinking I'd answered the question. Just taking baby steps. Everybody wants to take several steps at once. Or skip some. Which gets us in trouble. Heh

Understood. I was just taking your comment as an opportunity to expand on my own points.

[Vraith]

So I suppose that existence always was. Existence is some sort of necessary state which transcends any particular instance of being, even the universe itself. Time and space may have exploded into Being at the Big Bang, but existence itself couldn't have started then.

And that's where my mind starts to short-circuit. That's when this atheist starts to think that there is such a thing as Holy, even if there is no God.

Dammit, you have to stop saying things like that, cuz it makes me wonder why we disagree on anything at all, and if we don't it ruins half my fun.
My default answer to this kind of thing [more a balancing point] is that we don't really [yet] understand either "something" or "nothing"

OTOH, if approached carefully, your conclusion illustrates the frame of the science/religion conflict and the mess it makes. [I think I'm about to rave/rant/spew/expound].
Many peeps have many views on what makes humans different. I think, as I've said elsewhere probably, it's the extravagant extra capacity and plasticity, emergent/synergistic/non-algorhithmic/non-determinate quality of our brain functions. I've posted lots of ways this reveals itself other places so won't repeat now/here...but the end is they lead to a brain of spare capacity for analogy/metaphor, and that leads to the potential for asking "why?" This matters cuz it is qualitatively different from what/when/where/how...problems that we're better at, quantitatively, than the lesser minds, but not essentially different from in kind compared to those minds. But what happens? Our emotional part is webbed with our rational part...our why is bicameral, is both an emotional and rational question at many levels. Dolphins are sad when a mate/offspring dies...but as far as we know they don't ask why existentially, why did my child die? They feel the pain/longing/emptiness, but not the question. Only we do, so far. In a perfect universe we'd have learned all we have the capacity to know about what/when/where/how [the science questions] and THEN begun asking why? Because AFAICT religions are at war with science and each other simply, purely, at root, from the beginning, because we insist on knowing and proclaiming true answers of why irrationally, non-rationally, a-rationally, in the face of/in conflict with the material circumstance, without knowing the answers to the only foundations that can, even potentially, lead us there. And it wasn't, originally, a matter of "fault." To be social, we have to be caring. If we care, we must ask "why did x happen?" while we wail at the loss...yet the answer to most of those questions is in what/how/when/where...if there IS a why, our human understanding of it is deeply hidden in and limited by those if it exists at all. If we'd evolved reasonably, we'd have just accepted that shit happens [sympathetically/empathically, not necessarily coldly] until the point where we understood all the causes of the shit and its happening.
Every 5 year old asks why the sky is blue. But at that age they're really asking for what/how/when/where, and are literally incapable of understanding even those in most cases. That's us. Faith/religion in the general, esoteric, comforting, mystic, hoping, longing, accepting, etc., way is one thing. Religion with the answers, the rules, the judgement, the killing, the sinning, is something else entirely.
At which point I return to my previous statement...we cannot, have not, probably will not rule out god[s] or holiness. But we have, and can, and for God's sake [and our own] must rule out particular GodBeing descriptions...because they have, and will, and in extreme cases MUST kill us in the name of truth while being unalterably false.