News:

Look, I haven't mentioned Zeus, Buddah, or some religion.

Main Menu

Have humans lost their desire for self-preservation?

Started by brainshmain, May 31, 2007, 06:59:17 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

brainshmain

I was thinking recently about how humans have such a reckless disregard for the situation of our planet.  It's been predicted that our planet won't be able to support most forms of life in the next hundred years, however humans continue to purchase their SUVs and make convenient choices over ones that are notably more sustainable.  I was thinking that this may be because humans are subconciously killing themselves off through habitat destruction in order to reduce the population that threatens us all.  Because human populations are so high, maybe we are actually purposefully killing ourselves off by destroying our vital resources in order to dwindel the numbr of people whose existance threatens those who do make the more sustainable choices.  What do you think of this?

Squid

#1
For much of the population there is a belief (in one form or another) of some sort of afterlife - therefore there isn't much value placed on this planet.  Some of us who realize an afterlife is nothing but a fantasy do worry about such things - this planet and this life is all we have.  That isn't to say that belief in an afterlife is the only factor but I wouldn't rule it out as a major contributor.

tacoma_kyle

#2
I think the first problem is sorting out the good sciece from the bad science.

Thats a hard fuckin problem too. Not so much in most 'genres' of science, but anything that relates to politics will get butt-raped to shit and then thrown up.
Me, my projects and random pictures, haha.

http://s116.photobucket.com/albums/o22/tacoma_kyle/

"Tom you gotta come out of the closet, oh my gawd!" lol

Squid

#3
Indeed pseudoscience, bad science and others like it only perpetuate false information which the public usually and unfortunately eats up.  I still have people asking me things like "You study the brain - why is it we only use 10% of it?".  This is why I'm so big on scientific literacy.

McQ

Quote from: "brainshmain"I was thinking recently about how humans have such a reckless disregard for the situation of our planet.  It's been predicted that our planet won't be able to support most forms of life in the next hundred years, however humans continue to purchase their SUVs and make convenient choices over ones that are notably more sustainable.  I was thinking that this may be because humans are subconciously killing themselves off through habitat destruction in order to reduce the population that threatens us all.  Because human populations are so high, maybe we are actually purposefully killing ourselves off by destroying our vital resources in order to dwindel the numbr of people whose existance threatens those who do make the more sustainable choices.  What do you think of this?


I don't know how many people are actually doing it on purpose (trying to destroy our own ability to survive), but we sure are doing it well.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Tom62

#5
The whole issue reminds me about "blame-storming". The Europeans blame the Americans, Chinese and Indians; the SUV owners blame the airlines; the airlines blame the power plants, etc. etc. In the meanwhile nothing seriously happens to stop the destruction of our planet, because the attitude of "It is everyone's fault but me, that the planet gets destroyed" stands in the way of actually doing something about it.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

Kestrel

#6
While the premise of brainshmaine's question/statement is interesting, I'm unclear why a proponent of evolution would entertain it at all.

If the order of the day in ones view is adapt or perish being the natural order, the point is moot.
Everything is going as it should.

Unless I'm missing something. (?)
The thing that I call living is just being satisfied, with knowing I've got no one left to blame. - Gordon Lightfoot

donkeyhoty

#7
Kestrel, it is because, as humans, we are able to override natural selection and the need for adaptation(sort of).

Example 1:  Area A is overpopulated and cannot feed itself;  Area B has a low pop. and produces a surplus of food; Area B then sells the surplus to Area A thus negating the population culling that should occur in Area A.

Example 2:  We are destroying the environment, e.g. Brazilian Rainforest, at such a rate that NO species has a chance to adapt to the changing conditions.  

I mentioned in another thread about the oil running out.  This will be both good and bad.  Bad for the general population, but good for the species, as a whole, and other species as well.  

The decreased mobility of goods and people will lead to population collapses in hypothetical Area A's.  The thinned out, but more sustainable population will then start building back up, hopefully in a better way than we have.

Of course, this is all dependent on staying the course we're on by not fully funding research in, or committing to, sustainable development and substitutes for our petroleum based society.
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

brainshmain

#8
Here is the basis of my theory:
In high school in the various biology classes I took (mammology, animal behavior, etc) I learned how when a communal population of a species grows to high for their environment to sustain them, they often make drastic choices in order to lower the population.  For example, a mass killing of the weaker or younger members of the herd or hoarding food to kill of major numbers of their own species.  Think if it as humans are lemmings, jumping off a cliff, not only because others are doing it, but because the smarter ones will not follow and will eventually rebuild the environment they destroyed.

(and yes, I know the lemming thing is just a myth created by Disney... I'm just using it as a simile)

MommaSquid

#9
We're too busy worrying about the price of gas and the war on terrorism to worry about things that matter in the long term.  Too many people trust the government to take care of them...

Kestrel

#10
Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Kestrel, it is because, as humans, we are able to override natural selection and the need for adaptation(sort of).

I think I understand what you're getting at.
Could you please elaborate on the "sort of" aspect of overriding natural selection and the need for adaptation?

I appreciate it.
The thing that I call living is just being satisfied, with knowing I've got no one left to blame. - Gordon Lightfoot

Kestrel

#11
Quote from: "brainshmain"Here is the basis of my theory:
In high school in the various biology classes I took (mammology, animal behavior, etc) I learned how when a communal population of a species grows to high for their environment to sustain them, they often make drastic choices in order to lower the population.  For example, a mass killing of the weaker or younger members of the herd or hoarding food to kill of major numbers of their own species.
Could you please provide me with an example of a communal population that behaves in the manner you claim?
Thank you.
The thing that I call living is just being satisfied, with knowing I've got no one left to blame. - Gordon Lightfoot

Asmodean Prime

#12
Quote from: "Kestrel"
Quote from: "brainshmain"Here is the basis of my theory:
In high school in the various biology classes I took (mammology, animal behavior, etc) I learned how when a communal population of a species grows to high for their environment to sustain them, they often make drastic choices in order to lower the population.  For example, a mass killing of the weaker or younger members of the herd or hoarding food to kill of major numbers of their own species.
Could you please provide me with an example of a communal population that behaves in the manner you claim?
Thank you.

Einum, S. & Fleming, I. A. Highly fecund mothers sacrifice offspring survival to maximize fitness. Nature 405, 565 - 567 (2000).

There's one.  I don't specifically remember the species we learned about, but I remember it has been witnessed in multiple species when either eithere the quality of the environment is lowered, resources become limited, etc. (Such as earth today, the way it's going)

donkeyhoty

#13
Quote from: "Kestrel"Could you please elaborate on the "sort of" aspect of overriding natural selection and the need for adaptation?
You mean, besides the ones I already gave.

Sunscreen: We have the ability to make stuff that allows us, as humans, live and do things other species can't or wouldn't be able to do.  With sunscreen I, as a pale honky, can do stuff outside in the sun without covering up with little to no repurcussions.  Other humans have already adapted to their environment with such things as darker skin color in climates with more sun and less pigment where it is not needed. Now, anyone can live anywhere without having to adapt to the environment.  

This is where the "sort of" comes in.  Our brains give us the ability to alter our environment where needed.  Thus, evolution has brought us to a point where we can negate the need for our bodies or brains to change with environmental changes. (We alter the environment rather than the other way around on a level that no other organism is capable of.  We're so special.)

Instead of getting skin cancer because of too much sun, we wear sunscreen.   Instead of moving from an area with lots of flooding, we build levees and dams to control that flooding.  We genetically engineer crops and foods to get higher yields.  We design buildings to survive hurricanes and earthquakes.  We have central heating and air conditioning to counteract the outside temperature.  People can live anywhere on this planet; even though we probably shouldn't be living in lots of places, e.g. Venezia, Italia.  It's very pretty there, but it's going to sink sooner rather than later.

In summation, our brains enable us to do all sorts of things, but it doesn't mean we're always acting in our own best interest.  Final analogy:  Eventually a damn has to release some of the water it's holding back, or it will overflow and burst.  We can try to control nature and use technology to prop up the human race, but eventually there will be a collapse.  (not necessarily a Malthusian collapse)
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

Will

#14
I am still of the opinion that we can end war in one generation, end most pollution in one generation, and possibly end hunger in a few generations. It's about the will of people. I remember reading that only 4% of the colonists in the 13 colonies of the Americas actually fought in the Revolutionary War. I'm not 100$ sure about that, but that suggests to me that if 240m people spread across the world decided something was going to happen, it would have a great chance of happening.

When I find myself worried about universal health care in the US, clean water in southeast Asia, or the plethora of other problems in the world, I think that most people do care, but they lack direction. I'm a member of several other forums that are even more political than this one and often we discuss what direction energy should take in order to bring about positive change. It's those conversations and debates that are important.

It's threads like this one that are important. I think we do have a desire for self preservation, but between the distractions of every day life and the million directions that we can move in to bring about change, we are overwhelmed. Imagine if you decided tomorrow to end the Iraq war. That situation is so complicated that it would take more energy than most have to give in order to bring about change. I, myself, have protested and written congressmen and senators about it, but I feel as if it has done little to nothing. I know that if I were to quit my job and leave my family that I might be able to do something myself, but who's willing to do that?

The answer lies in community. The answer lies in the collective energy of many. We're reckless when we operate along because we can do little alone.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.