What are humans role in nature?

surferdude
surferdude Posts: 2,057
edited July 2006 in A Moving Train
Some serious question for you. What is our role in nature? Are we here to protect the existance of other species? Are we currently acting in any way that is unnatural for us? Can humans act unnaturally?

From what I've seen in nature every species domiates to the extent it can without a care for consequences. This is the natural order of the world from what I have learned. Humans are the only species who try to act outside this model by caring about the short and long term consequences. Is this normal in nature?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • not4u
    not4u Posts: 512
    to live, learn, build and obey its rules. If not, don't push it too far...for we are mearly its Inhabitants and not it's rulers.
    our brains are more developed and evolved, thats why we have more compassion.
    you should give animals a bit more credit. it seems your only talking about the hunters.
    we don't want war, but we still want more?
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    We are parasites

    We destroy our host planet
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    surferdude wrote:
    Some serious question for you. What is our role in nature? Are we here to protect the existance of other species? Are we currently acting in any way that is unnatural for us? Can humans act unnaturally?

    From what I've seen in nature every species domiates to the extent it can without a care for consequences. This is the natural order of the world from what I have learned. Humans are the only species who try to act outside this model by caring about the short and long term consequences. Is this normal in nature?

    Good topic! It is impossible for humans to act without damaging the environment in some way or another. Actually no organism can live without hurting another, but I think it is our job as humans who are able to comprehend and adapt, to reduce the amount of damage our species does and to protect as much as we can in order to maintain a healthy planet.
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    surferdude wrote:
    Some serious question for you. What is our role in nature? Are we here to protect the existance of other species? Are we currently acting in any way that is unnatural for us? Can humans act unnaturally?

    From what I've seen in nature every species domiates to the extent it can without a care for consequences. This is the natural order of the world from what I have learned. Humans are the only species who try to act outside this model by caring about the short and long term consequences. Is this normal in nature?

    Humans are the only species who have awareness of their own actions and of the consequences of such actions. This ability, along with our ability to reason is unique among all life on the planet. Such ability evolved for a reason, to meet our specific purposes.

    It is our mammalian brain that our compassion and empathy comes from. As the name suggests, mammals have this capacity. It is humans, however, who developed beyond emotions and have reasoning ability--we can reason about what to do with our compassion and empathy in order to create more constructively. It may not be normal in nature, yet it looks like such ability has evolved for a normal-for-humans reason.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    sourdough wrote:
    Good topic! It is impossible for humans to act without damaging the environment in some way or another. Actually no organism can live without hurting another, but I think it is our job as humans who are able to comprehend and adapt, to reduce the amount of damage our species does and to protect as much as we can in order to maintain a healthy planet.
    Agreed. The burden of caretaker is clearly on the human shoulder.
  • cubbieblue82
    cubbieblue82 Posts: 292
    Humans are 100% natural animals, and therefore it would be impossible for us to act "unnatural," as we are a part of nature. I think most human behaviour can be chalked up to basic animal instincts. War is simply territorialism, and a fight over resources, much as two tigers might fight over an area of land, or a carcass.

    Our abilities to reason are an adaptation just like adaptations of other animals. That being said, I believe that our ability to reason provides us with the opportunity to know what is best for the survival of our species.

    While most species would run rampant over the planet without the normal checks in place, we can have the foresight to realize that we need to restrict our impact on the environment to ensure the survival of the species.
    Obama/Biden '08!!!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    surferdude wrote:
    Some serious question for you. What is our role in nature?

    To live, to think, to be happy, to have children, to die.
    Are we here to protect the existance of other species?

    Not any more than we're here to destroy them.
    Are we currently acting in any way that is unnatural for us?

    No.
    Can humans act unnaturally?

    Humans can act against their better nature in the context of common human standards (life, happiness, etc), but humans cannot act unnaturally.
    From what I've seen in nature every species domiates to the extent it can without a care for consequences. This is the natural order of the world from what I have learned. Humans are the only species who try to act outside this model by caring about the short and long term consequences. Is this normal in nature?

    We differ from our natural cousins in that our lives are dictated by ourselves to a much greater extent than any other animal. With that comes great advantage and the potential for even greater disadvantage.
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    Our "role" in nature is exactly what we perceive and believe it to be. Pretty philosophical/religious really. If we believe ourselves to be caretakers, for instance, then that's what we are.

    I wouldn't say that in nature any specie dominates without care. Different plants and animals are just wired in certain ways and act it out. Those who are wired sufficiently adequate survive, those that aren't dont. And that doesnt necessitate any domination or even aggression. Things kill eachother and live off eachother, sure. But there is also equilibriums all around the place being maintained as well.

    I could diverge into a debate about humans' fear of nature and need for control that underlies our mistrust in "nature" leading us to want to control it, but I'll leave it for now.

    What our "role" is? I dont think any "role" has been assigned to us. We are part of nature too though, not outside of it. So our role in nature may be existing, doing what we do, whatever that would be at a given time. We are conscious, and know of no other creature that is, so perhaps that makes us special in some way. At least a characteristic.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    farfromglorified wrote:
    We differ from our natural cousins in that our lives are dictated by ourselves to a much greater extent than any other animal.
    Perhaps. I'll just throw out the term "second nature" here as food for thought... ;) Wiki it if you feel like it.

    (edit) wikipedia turns up blank I just found out. If you have never heard of it, I may elaborate it if you wish :)

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    I think the thing that DOES make us unnatural is that I don't believe natural selection applies for us at the present time. Our chances of survival and ability to reproduce has more to do with where we live and what social services are available rather than our ability to survive.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    Our "role" in nature is exactly what we perceive and believe it to be. Pretty philosophical/religious really. If we believe ourselves to be caretakers, for instance, then that's what we are.

    I believe that I'm a spaceship. How's that working out for me?
    I wouldn't say that in nature any specie dominates without care. Different plants and animals are just wired in certain ways and act it out. Those who are wired sufficiently adequate survive, those that aren't dont. And that doesnt necessitate any domination or even aggression. Things kill eachother and live off eachother, sure. But there is also equilibriums all around the place being maintained as well.

    Amen.
    I could diverge into a debate about humans' fear of nature and need for control that underlies our mistrust in "nature" leading us to want to control it, but I'll leave it for now.

    Amen.
    What our "role" is? I dont think any "role" has been assigned to us. We are part of nature too though, not outside of it. So our role in nature may be existing, doing what we do, whatever that would be at a given time. We are conscious, and know of no other creature that is, so perhaps that makes us special in some way. At least a characteristic.

    This sounds pretty good.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    Perhaps. I'll just throw out the term "second nature" here as food for thought... ;) Wiki it if you feel like it.

    (edit) wikipedia turns up blank I just found out. If you have never heard of it, I may elaborate it if you wish :)

    Peace
    Dan

    That's new to me.
  • VictoryGin
    VictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    farfromglorified wrote:
    To live, to think, to be happy, to have children, to die.

    So what if those 'roles' conflict, like what if living, thinking, and being happy don't go with having children? ;)
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • hailhailkc
    hailhailkc Posts: 582
    VictoryGin wrote:
    So what if those 'roles' conflict, like what if living, thinking, and being happy don't go with having children? ;)

    Then simply replace "having children" with "dusting, vaccuming, washing dishes, fixing sammiches and…washing more dishes."

    ;)
    MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
    High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
    Low Traffic CIO MIW
    Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
  • VictoryGin
    VictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    hailhailkc wrote:
    Then simply replace "having children" with "dusting, vaccuming, washing dishes, fixing sammiches and…washing more dishes."

    ;)

    I'm not sold on that one either.

    How about these as roles: living, thinking, being happy, and drinking?
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • hailhailkc
    hailhailkc Posts: 582
    VictoryGin wrote:
    I'm not sold on that one either.

    How about these as roles: living, thinking, being happy, and drinking?

    That's cool.
    MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
    High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
    Low Traffic CIO MIW
    Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    VictoryGin wrote:
    So what if those 'roles' conflict, like what if living, thinking, and being happy don't go with having children? ;)

    Then choose whichever is more important to you.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    hailhailkc wrote:
    Then simply replace "having children" with "dusting, vaccuming, washing dishes, fixing sammiches and…washing more dishes."

    ;)
    I thought women got watches and shoes to replace children.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Mookie Baylock
    Mookie Baylock Posts: 90
    As far as humans go, nature and instinct lost their importants when we developed culture. There is nothing natural about economy's, bombs, and burning oil for energy.

    Also, animals do care about thier environments more than we do. A dog won't shit where it sleeps, for example.
    "Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
    -Ashley Montagu
  • VictoryGin
    VictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    surferdude wrote:
    I thought women got watches and shoes to replace children.

    I don't see how shoes could be a replacement. Clearly, shoes are more fun.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside

Categories