Okay, so speaking of context, I took his comment and applied it to the overall context of this conversation and made it clear that when debating whether or not someone should kill themselves, that that was not be best argument to make against it. So really I was trying to progress the conversation, not digress it. But you didn't have to claw it out there, you could have just ignored it...
far more people die because of civilization than of natural causes. for example car crashes, smoking, exhaust fumes, the death penalty, alcohol poisoning, bombs, guns, drug overdose, and many diseases that come from close quarter human contact on a mass scale. If you ask me civilization is a hyper-effective form of natural selection. Usually trying to fix someone dosnt work people naturaly revert to their old ways over time. Natural selection works by killing off the ones with defects so their bloodline ends and their genes are not passed on, therefore benifiting the future of the species. we are only damning ourselves by protecting the weak. Guns make it so that physical strengths are made useless, making it possible for a weak man to kill a strong man. evelution is made ineffective by these means. This is the flaw of civilization.
Murderface, all those existed in one form or another prior to civilization. We had tons of other rubbish. Statistically, there are more people and they live much longer.
Again, if you didn't like civilization, you wouldn't be posting here...
yes tons of other rubbish that actually dealt with natural selection. the only reason we live longer is that the simple diseases that killed us off back then we have found cures for, and the wilderness no longer touches us as it used to. I think that selective breeding is the key to our evolution, is that bad?
no i have two opinions on the matter, on one hand I like tech and stuff, on the other I hate civilization.
far more people die because of civilization than of natural causes. for example car crashes, smoking, exhaust fumes, the death penalty, alcohol poisoning, bombs, guns, drug overdose, and many diseases that come from close quarter human contact on a mass scale. If you ask me civilization is a hyper-effective form of natural selection. Usually trying to fix someone dosnt work people naturaly revert to their old ways over time. Natural selection works by killing off the ones with defects so their bloodline ends and their genes are not passed on, therefore benifiting the future of the species. we are only damning ourselves by protecting the weak. Guns make it so that physical strengths are made useless, making it possible for a weak man to kill a strong man. evelution is made ineffective by these means. This is the flaw of civilization.
Well, we may have more deaths in civilization, but that's because first of all civilization is the way we record these deaths and second most people are included in civilization, but if you had five people who lived in civilization and 5 people who had no contact whatsoever with civilization who would live longer? I'd bet the civilization persons.
I think that selective breeding is the key to our evolution, is that bad?
Selective breeding means more death and suffering. And in a world like that, with the viewpoint I have now, I may have committed suicide because I see no purpose in a barbaric world, at all...
Nautral selection still works, it's only that we humans have changed the underlying factors that decide what survives. In nature, without civilization, perhaps we needed strength to defend our pack from predators such as lions. Now however, we can just shoot the lions, so strength for that problem is no longer needed. Thus natural selection no longer removes the weak from our world.
We're still part of evolution, civilization has in no way stopped natural selection. We've just changed it.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
Nautral selection still works, it's only that we humans have changed the underlying factors that decide what survives. In nature, without civilization, perhaps we needed strength to defend our pack from predators such as lions. Now however, we can just shoot the lions, so strength for that problem is no longer needed. Thus natural selection no longer removes the weak from our world.
We're still part of evolution, civilization has in no way stopped natural selection. We've just changed it.
yes but what happens when civilization falls and we are left, a race of weaklings in a harsh enviroment. Is it insensitive to castrate people who have genetic flaws in order to avoid this possible future?
Just my thoughs, what do you think of my general outline, or just about the whole thing itself?
A very good outline and one I think works for it's purpose.
Quote from "Murderface" »
yes but what happens when civilization falls and we are left, a race of weaklings in a harsh enviroment. Is it insensitive to castrate people who have genetic flaws in order to avoid this possible future?
First of all, if civilization falls, it will require a tremendous amount of chaos. Massive metoers crashing into the earth, subterran giant volcanoes covering the world in ash, a global ice-age, nuclear war etc. In every case, it doesn't matter whether or not you bench 100 lbs. or 200 lbs., have a splendid immune system or not, strong bones or weak bones etc. Because if we do survive, natural selection will once again kick in exacly the same way it did prior to the rise of civilization, and if we survive, we'll be given another shot at society. If not, then we were the unlucky target of natural disasters or our own stupidity.
It would be impossibly to predict today what will be needed in a future crisis. Prehaps the damge comes from radiation ,and only people with cells less likely to mutate survive. Or food gets scarce, and only people who are good at breaking down many types of nutrition survive. We canot hope to counter all of them, no animal can. That's why we adapt. But we adapt to the current situation, and what we can predict as plausible. Not to unlikely scenarios which cannot be predicted.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
p.s. sorry for screwing up the topic
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Again, if you didn't like civilization, you wouldn't be posting here...
no i have two opinions on the matter, on one hand I like tech and stuff, on the other I hate civilization.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Well, we may have more deaths in civilization, but that's because first of all civilization is the way we record these deaths and second most people are included in civilization, but if you had five people who lived in civilization and 5 people who had no contact whatsoever with civilization who would live longer? I'd bet the civilization persons.
Can i quote this in my signature?.. made me laugh
and if people knew how to survive they would live longer and happier lives, losing everything would make you appriciate the small things.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
We're still part of evolution, civilization has in no way stopped natural selection. We've just changed it.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
First of all, if civilization falls, it will require a tremendous amount of chaos. Massive metoers crashing into the earth, subterran giant volcanoes covering the world in ash, a global ice-age, nuclear war etc. In every case, it doesn't matter whether or not you bench 100 lbs. or 200 lbs., have a splendid immune system or not, strong bones or weak bones etc. Because if we do survive, natural selection will once again kick in exacly the same way it did prior to the rise of civilization, and if we survive, we'll be given another shot at society. If not, then we were the unlucky target of natural disasters or our own stupidity.
It would be impossibly to predict today what will be needed in a future crisis. Prehaps the damge comes from radiation ,and only people with cells less likely to mutate survive. Or food gets scarce, and only people who are good at breaking down many types of nutrition survive. We canot hope to counter all of them, no animal can. That's why we adapt. But we adapt to the current situation, and what we can predict as plausible. Not to unlikely scenarios which cannot be predicted.