|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 05/01/2002 : 08:24:32 [Permalink]
|
Agree entirely, Lars.
Our species is, for lack of a better word, unique in that we are strictly non-specialists. We can live almost anywhere and eat almost anything. This, rather than 'intelligence' puts us almost on an equal footing with the cockroach. Scavengers rule the Earth!
Where we, with out sapience, differ from the cockroach and the crocodile is in our consious disregard, even contempt for the world we live in. Unlike other species, what we don't directly use, we destroy. We constantly befoul our nest.
And our appetite for killing each other over the most imbecilic nonsense, mainly either religon or loot, usually both, is appaling. And then, I see a poll like the afore-mentioned one. Somewhere around 50% of our population are, not stupid, but without the desire to find out anything beyond their own, picayune existance. They find the fantasy of UFOs and pyshic power, and fundi pulpit-pounding to be more interesting and believable than the world and the cosmos it exists in.
Again, I wonder: Is there extra-terristal life? The odds say, sure, why not? Ok, then is there 'intelligent' extra-terristral life? I'd say it's a good possibility, considering the size of the Galaxy and indeed the Universe. But, is there a LOT of intelligent life, as seen on TV and big screen space operas? If we're any example, I'd not bet the morgage payment on it.
F the Trekkie
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
- Albert Einstein
|
 |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 09:02:02 [Permalink]
|
At CNN.com is another article about the NSF report:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/04/30/science.understanding.ap/index.html
They appear to make great efforts not to insult anybody. They also don't explain the significance of the 50% mark with the true/untrue questions.
The poll attached to the article also strikes me as interesting. It confirms the theory that dumb people are less likely to be able to judge their abilities correctly.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 09:32:14 [Permalink]
|
I read that one early this morning, but thanks for the link, anyway. I even voted in the poll: "Needs work."
I voted that because there's such an incredable amount that I not only don't know, but never heard of.
The whole thing got my blood pressure well above where the docs say it should be.
Ah well.
f
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 10:13:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Where we, with out sapience, differ from the cockroach and the crocodile is in our consious disregard, even contempt for the world we live in. Unlike other species, what we don't directly use, we destroy. We constantly befoul our nest.
This sentiment always troubles me when I hear it. I don't necessarily want to criticise it as much as I want to understand it. Maybe you can help me out, filthy.
Firstly this is an awfully broad statement. Do you mean we as in all the homo sapiens ever to have lived? Or just the current breed? I don't think that in the million or so years that we were hunter/gatherers, we could be said to consciously disregard, hold in contempt, and destroy what we didn't directly use in the environment. I could be wrong though.
One could say that cockroaches and crocodiles don't feel "conscious contempt" because they don't have the right kind of "consciousnous" that would make that feeling possible.
And finally, I really just think it's a matter of scale. We are so populous, and our technology makes our effects on the environment much more pronounced, that it may be easy to think that as a species, we disregard and feel contempt for our environment.
But relatively speaking, is this really unique to us? Animals can't control how much they hunt in a given area, in order to control the population to maintain a balanced food chain. Animals will eat until there is nothing left, and their whole population dies out.
Is eating a baby seal alive by a shark less cruel that beating it to death with a stick by a human? If so, why?
I guess what I'm trying to ask is, is it fair to say we are the "bad guys" by comparing us to all the other animals? I don't think so, because no other species has our cognitive ability.
Sheesh, I hope that made some sense...
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 11:55:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I guess what I'm trying to ask is, is it fair to say we are the "bad guys" by comparing us to all the other animals?
To counter "our [sic] conscious disregard, even contempt for the world" with contempt for the species is simply neurotic.
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 12:27:35 [Permalink]
|
The only standards we can hold humans accountable to are the one we made up ourselves. There is nothing to compare ourselves to, since we have a sample group of sentient species of 1. (Maybe we should not have killed all those Neandethalers?)
There are no universal moral standards to measure up to. There is no objective reason for our existence. There is nothing inherently 'wrong' in killing every other living being on this planet.
We make the rules that we constantly break ourselves.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
