489 réponses à ce sujet

[Ulous]

It's hard to blame humans as a species because most humans do not get the correct start to life that allows them to become good people, throw on top of that the poor environment created by global monetarism then we don't really have a chance as such.

Not many people realise just how catastrophic the early years of a humans life can be if they are not raised correctly, when a human being is three years old their brain is 80% the size of an adults compared to their bodies only being around 20% the size of an adults, this should highlight just how important those early years are and how many factors in today's society can have a negative effect on infants.

In today's society many parents are stressed up to their eye balls and babies pick up on this, a parent can be there physically but not emotionally, this effect is devestating on human brain development and even though the childs recall memory has not developed yet the mind still remembers and effects that person for the rest of his/her life, leading potentially to a proneness to addictions and poor behaviour.

During and leading to WW2 many doctors at that time who were practising in Jewish areas, reported a massive increase in visits from Jewish mothers who could not stop their babies from crying, the children only being weeks or months old obviously did not have any knowledge of the invasion, but what they did do is pick up on their mothers stress, many of those children who were lucky enough to survive to adulthood suffered from addictions, mental illness and bad behaviour which often lead to incarceration.

So once again we are back to environment, the environment has to allow for humans to have the best possible chance in life especially by having a healthy time during pregnancy and in early life, until this happens it will be difficult for humans to become what we truly are and that is loving and compassionate beings that create an equilibrium and work together for the greater good.

Saying "it's human nature" is one of the most abused sayings in history and people spurt it out with no thought involved at all, or because it's easy to say "hey we don't have to help that person it's in his nature, let's just throw him in the slammer and forget about him", out of site out of mind.

Modifié par Ulous, 06 septembre 2011 - 06:30 .

[Ulous]

*oops*

Modifié par Ulous, 06 septembre 2011 - 06:58 .

[KenKenpachi]

You make a fair point more so with how our cities have treated some elements of it. But you can decide to be good, I had less than a nice life growing up, and while I'm a difficult and hostile person, I strive to do the greater good when I can. It can help shape you, and there are things that you can't escape, but how you act is on you. Sure you have stress, but you can try and change things around you at the very least by example, or you can burn it down.

At times I won't lie I wouldn't mind burning it down.

But on that issue how you bring that up, friend of mine named matt, grew up in a normal family, clean home, wll fed, things are good for his folks. But he's the most insane person I ever met. So there is more to it than the development years. That or we all are ****ed up. I find the common good only happens when its easy or forced. So the natural state of humanity may be, whatever we can get away with doing.

[111987]

As a species, we are hardly a benevolent force in the world. It ultimately comes down to intelligence; it's what sets apart and above other animals. It allows us to carve out an existence that transcends that of an animal, which only lives to eat, sleep, reproduce, and die. The price of this heightened existence is that our intelligence, our thoughts and beliefs, too often pit us against each other. It also gives us justification to subjugate our environment. Unfortunately i don't think humans as a race will ever rectify this. You have to take the good with the bad, I guess.

[knightnblu]

You ask an interesting question and the answer is a complex one. I believe that because man's nature is comprised of both good and evil, man must reflect this in his behavior because he has not mastered his darker side. We have crime because some people will victimize others and we have police to protect the public at large from them. This behavior is also reflected in international relations when one nation aggresses against another. Even governments are not immune to man's nature.
 
From Marxist/Leninist communist regimes to the regime of Mao Zedong, man's nature has imprisoned his political enemies, worked them to death in gulags, starved millions, enabled rampant corruption, murdered 150 million people in the last 100 years, and have broken the spirit of their citizens. Not to mention the wholesale destruction of mother nature in order to perform the business of the State. Contrast this with the Republican form of government and rights which are inherent in the citizens because they are endowed with them in their very creation and you have the polar opposite. Therefore I say that as a species, we will always live side by side with evil.
 
Our one saving grace is that man's capacity for evil is only matched by his capacity for good. From the Battle of Marathon to the Medal of Honor awarded to the Navy SEAL who willingly sacrificed his own life to save his teammates in Afghanistan, man's nobility, self sacrifice, and courage is enough to make anyone proud to be human.
 
Colonel Joshua Chamberlain wrote something that has stuck with me ever since I became aware of it. He and his Maine unit had fought a fierce battle to protect the Union flank during the Battle of Gettysburg. The men and he were tired and low on ammunition, but they knew that if they failed to hold the flank, the Union would lose the battle and may even perish as a result. The fighting was intense as the Confederate army assaulted his position again and again and the fighting even came down to hand to hand on the final push, but Colonel Chamberlain and his men held their position. He wrote in his diary: "My God, where do we get such men?" It is a sentiment that would be echoed by American military leaders in wars to come as commanders witness the dedication and sacrifices of their men in the heat of battle. Another example of man's determination and courage would be the Battle of Britain, where few stood against many to preserve their home. If you ever doubt man's will to oppose his enemy in the face of implacable evil, listen to the words of Churchill and you shall have your faith in man renewed. But perhaps Colonel Chamberlain said it best.
 
Chamberlain was in awe of the dedication and valor of his men that he witnessed under fire earlier in the day. He wrote that they were true giants among the men of the Union. He also said, "If we were to go, but a single generation without them, we would be both damned and doomed." Put simply, if we were to lose that valor, that dedication, and that persistence, the United States would surely fall. In a sense, Mass Effect has picked up on this fact with Commander Shepard who, like Scipio before him, had to wage war against a terrible foe without the backing of his government or his government's regular forces. Just as Scipio was triumphant when he faced Hannibal at the Battle of Zama in 202 B.C.E. with a disgraced Legion, his wits, and whatever allies he could cobble together, Shepard must do likewise or all is lost.
 
As for humanity's future, I prefer Gene Roddenberry's vision to the stark and soiled vision presented in Blade Runner. A future where man has mastered his darker nature so that it is no longer his master, but his servant. Only then will humanity truly know peace. While we are a long way from that day, one must remember that we are a very young species. Man has only been around on this Earth for 5 million years. Of that, 4,970,000 of them were spent as an animal with animal instincts. We have only truly been civilized for the past 2,000 years or so. When you compare man's civilized life to his animal existence, you arrive at the conclusion that we were animals for far longer than we have allowed ourselves to be ruled by law.
 
As a matter of time, 2,000 years is nothing. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the galaxy itself is 13.4 billion years old. So 2,000 years is barely even the blink of an eye in terms of creation itself. Placed in this context, we are barely even toddlers as a species. Therefore, our foibles and excesses should surprise no one.
 
While one may become disgusted by our violence, our criminal tendencies, our disregard for the environment, our callousness to our elders and our neighbors, it is all perfectly understandable when you consider where we have come from and our relatively brief period of civilization. Man spent tens of thousands of years domesticating the dog from the wolf before he finally achieved his goal of a tamed animal. This is why I have faith in our species and in the future. Because without hope we fall prey to our darker natures and lose ground to the animal that we once were. Love, faith, hope, and steadfast courage leads us ever forward to our destiny as a race and I believe that we shall get there one day, when we are ready and prepared for it.

[marshalleck]

For a species who only relatively recently developed nascent rationality (i.e. in the last few centuries of our 50,000 year anatomically/behaviorally modern form) I think we're doing okay.

Saphra, I'd have to say that our culture doesn't select against intelligence. Although I can only speak for my perception as an American reflecting on American culture. Rather, I think what is generally disregarded in the culture is intellectualism. Intelligence, particularly the shrewd, trained, practical variety that lends itself well to engineering and business is and has always been revered for its practical value. It's the person who lives for ideas and exploring the world of the mind who is scoffed at as a daydreamer, an egghead, and sometimes outright treasonous (McCarthyism in the 50s, neoconservatives and especially Teabaggers Tea Partiers now). There is an excellent book on the subject of America's disdain for the cultivated, learned mind. Anti-intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter. It's well worth a read.

Modifié par marshalleck, 07 septembre 2011 - 05:01 .

[Weiser_Cain]

I hate humanity, but it's all we got. Maybe we'll learn. Or maybe our machines will outlive us. Either way works for me.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I must add that our only hope is to refine the media, use Fichte's Education System and creating good States/Governments. Because without governments supports, every individual striving for being good can hardly influence his family and friends and It'll be mostly in vain. Financial assistant of government through the justice is another important factor. If not then the situation won't be better than before (be worse day by day).

[knightnblu]

"(McCarthyism in the 50s, neoconservatives and especially Teabaggers Tea Partiers now)."


Showing a little bit of hate are we? And they accuse we conservatives of being its fount. I would suggest "Blacklisted By History" by M. Stanton Evans if you would care to re-examine your positions for accuracy. The author returns to the primary sources and reveals much that has been occluded regarding Senator McCarthy by those with an agenda.

[marshalleck]

knightnblu wrote...

"(McCarthyism in the 50s, neoconservatives and especially Teabaggers Tea Partiers now)."


Showing a little bit of hate are we?

Not at all, though admittedly Senator McCarthy's prime targets were not chosen for the degree of their intellect, it was more like collateral damage. And I stand by my statement that Tea Party politics in general are vociferously anti-intellectual. 

[Volus Warlord]

Bah, Intellectuals are overrated.

They are more or less pretentious liberals. Sorry, jargon does not make for effective policy.

And well the Tea Party is, well.. I dunno.

I kinda wish Palin would die in a hole somewhere. I'm so sick of that woman. She needs to go back to obscurity where she belongs.

[Gecon]

knightnblu wrote...

From Marxist/Leninist communist regimes to the regime of Mao Zedong, man's nature has imprisoned his political enemies, [....]
 
Our one saving grace is that man's capacity for evil is only matched by his capacity for good. From the Battle of Marathon to the Medal of Honor awarded to the Navy SEAL who willingly sacrificed his own life to save his teammates in Afghanistan, man's nobility, self sacrifice, and courage is enough to make anyone proud to be human.

Whow.

Just WHOW.

I find it hillarious how you manage to blame left politics to be "evil", but turn a blind eye to the obvious evil of the wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq, and do not mention the most infamous evil of rightsided politics, the **** regime in germany, which caused the damn World War II for heavens sake, at all.

What are the people in Guantanamo ? Political enemies. Nothing else. If there would be something to blame them for, they would have been put before regular courts. Instead, the only reason to keep them is obviously political propaganda.


P.s.: Now thats funny, you cant even write a historical term like that any more ?

Modifié par Gecon, 07 septembre 2011 - 11:43 .

[marshalleck]

Never mind, I'm not going to derail this thread.

Oh, and I think it's not quite correct to classify ****s as "right wing" because that's an incomplete picture. They were, in some (dangerous) ways, radically progressive. It was a syncretic movement more than anything else, drawing from both left and right to create a sort of extremified middle ground.

Modifié par marshalleck, 07 septembre 2011 - 11:55 .

[Wereparrot]

Gecon wrote...

knightnblu wrote...

From Marxist/Leninist communist regimes to the regime of Mao Zedong, man's nature has imprisoned his political enemies, [....]
 
Our one saving grace is that man's capacity for evil is only matched by his capacity for good. From the Battle of Marathon to the Medal of Honor awarded to the Navy SEAL who willingly sacrificed his own life to save his teammates in Afghanistan, man's nobility, self sacrifice, and courage is enough to make anyone proud to be human.

Whow.

Just WHOW.

I find it hillarious how you manage to blame left politics to be "evil", but turn a blind eye to the obvious evil of the wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq, and do not mention the most infamous evil of rightsided politics, the **** regime in germany, which caused the damn World War II for heavens sake, at all.

WWII could easily have been the other way around; we could've allied with Germany against Russia. Both evil regimes, and siding with Germany against Russia would no doubt have produced a similar Cold War scenario. History, nothing else, has painted Stalin as the lesser of two evils.

I think the war in Afghanistan was legal, or at least it started legally. Justice for 9/11 was a worthy goal; it's just a shame it went on to become what it did.  

[Ulous]

KenKenpachi wrote...

You make a fair point more so with how our cities have treated some elements of it. But you can decide to be good, I had less than a nice life growing up, and while I'm a difficult and hostile person, I strive to do the greater good when I can. It can help shape you, and there are things that you can't escape, but how you act is on you. Sure you have stress, but you can try and change things around you at the very least by example, or you can burn it down.

At times I won't lie I wouldn't mind burning it down.

But on that issue how you bring that up, friend of mine named matt, grew up in a normal family, clean home, wll fed, things are good for his folks. But he's the most insane person I ever met. So there is more to it than the development years. That or we all are ****ed up. I find the common good only happens when its easy or forced. So the natural state of humanity may be, whatever we can get away with doing.

I think through our lives we all know someone who had a good upbringing but turned out bad, and vice versa we know people who had a poor upbringing and turned out good, with that said there are things that happen behind closed doors that we may not know about.

My brother-in-law (who's name is also named Matt lol) would be considered by most people to be a menace to society, he is constantly abusing class A drugs and will lie and steal so he can buy them, to many people who know him they find his behaviour unnacceptable mainly because he grew up to middle class parents, lived a middle class lifestyle and never wanted for anything during childhood. Neither my partner or her sister have turned out to be anything like him, they are both good people and they would never hurt a fly, but one thing differentiates them from him, not long after Matt was born his mother had post natal depression, which basically meant that for the first part of his life she completely abandoned him and it's safe to say couldn't stand the sight of him, this meant that all his care at the start of his life come mainly from his father who was also working long hours and hence was dettached emotionally despite still loving him like anyone would love their child. Some time down the line his mother got better and raised him as best she could, but I personally still believe that early lack of emotional attachment is the driving cause behind why he's the way he is, not that it's his mothers fault per-se as post natal depression is not something a woman intentionally wants to get.

With the above said not every mother in society gets post natal depression but they can still lack the ability to bond with their child due to the ill's of our inhumane environments, parents want the best for their children and hence work all the hours god sends to provide for them, but unkowingly dettaching themselves mentally and emotionally with the end result being a somewhat troubled child.

Maybe i'm not 100% correct? But we as a species at least have to try and give every child that is born the best chance possible for ample brain development, it is all very well saying they can still choose to be good but i'm afraid it's not that easy, as you say despite your own issues you can be and are still a good person, this however does not mean everyone else can and for this reason you are well suited to help people like that as opposed to dismissing them.

And yes you are right with regard to city life, in fact just today a survey has been released that tells us that people who live in Yorkshire are the happiest people in the UK, this they believe is because they have so much open space and they feel more at home with nature, but all that reveals is what I have already said! In that environment is the driving force behind social progress, behaviour, human well being and it's counterparts.

Edit: P.S. Or we could just ban the name Matt...... that might work

Modifié par Ulous, 07 septembre 2011 - 06:28 .

[Zkyire]

I'm sick of this "Oh the Human race will destroy itself. It's inevitable".

Our species has existed for a very long time.

There are more of us alive today than have ever existed.

Our technology is more advanced today that it ever has been.

Education is more widespread today than it ever was before.

Medicine is more advanced and more widely available throughout the world than has been before.

So stop with this "Oh we're doomed" crap. Just no.

We're still here. We're fine. End.

Modifié par IEatWhatIPoo, 08 septembre 2011 - 01:09 .

[Zkyire]

Luc0s wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

No dumb animal on this Earth has any concept of "blessing" or "curse". They're just animals. I believe we have every right and reason to change this planet and its lifeforms to suit our needs as we see fit. Organisms which have no place in the new human-dominated ecosystem can die off.

Ugh , I can't believe you just said that.

I honestly agreed with 99% of your comment, but this line really disturbed me.


As you said, we are part of the planet and it's ecosystem. That means we do not OWN this planet. It ISN'T OURS.
Planet earth is as much ours as the air in your house is yours. You do not own air. You do not own the planet.


I believe we as a human species should protect the earth and cherish mother nature and the animals in it. If we don't then we might eventually end up destroying our own planet, it's nature and it's inhabitants.

Except that we do own it.

We're the dominant species on the planet.

[knightnblu]

"the most infamous evil of rightsided politics, the **** regime in germany, which caused the damn World War II for heavens sake, at all."

You are grossly misinformed. The **** party was the Nationalist SOCIALIST party. The red on the **** flag was designed to entice hard line communists into the party. There was absolutely nothing about the ****s that was of the right. Unless you are willing to argue that socialism is the new right?

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

This planet belongs to who is the most intelligent (or better to say have the ability to think and make instruments). I don't share Earth with rabbits, cockroaches and chimpanzees. But certainly species will be allowed to live unless they don't act as a risk or vermin.
The Humankind is now above the nature. It can save or destroy the nature (the Ecosystem of the Earth), though it is bounded with laws on nature.
Thousands of years will be passed until the earth's situation backs to normal and when there is no species with the ability of ration on earth, Nothing else will matter ...

[knightnblu]

The direction of this thread reminds me of a conversation that I had with a friend a few years ago. He asserted that man was a part of nature and that was why he had a responsibility towards it. I countered that if this were true and man did in fact have a duty to nature to preserve and protect it, then by definition he must be outside of nature in order to govern it because in order to govern one must elevate one's self above the governed.

However, if one asserts that man was indeed a part of nature, then whatever he does to the environment is by definition natural. Therefore trash, urban decay, abandoned structures, strip mining, and even the BP oil spill are all natural occurrences. This is because man is a part of nature and therefore everything that he does is a natural occurrence.

If one argues that sentience demands more of a responsibility towards nature, then you must fall into the first camp because "knowing better" and "finding a better way" also removes man from nature. You would not argue that an ape clean up after himself would you? I assert that there is no way that man can impose his will upon nature without extricating himself from it and elevating himself to a dominant and therefore controlling position.