Jump to content
Team Avolition
Krikilla

Human Nature

Recommended Posts

Krikilla    58

What is "human nature"?  Many would argue that it is just something that most humans do, such as use an electronic device of some sort.  Others would state that it is what evolution has brought us to do: Eat, drink, sleep, hunt/gather, think, remove waste, and/or create.

 

To really look into it, we have to go back to evolution.  We did not grow smart or strong through the use of our own creation, that is a modern "luxery" that former humans and human species did not possess.  They had to use nature and their surroundings to their ability and they did not have such surplus knowledge that we modern humans now have.  They grew smart by thinking and experimenting - whether or not it was risky.  Some say we still do this, and they're right:  It's just not the same.  They experimented using limited knowledge that they personally possessed, meanwhile we can base our estimates off of other people's minds which was based off of someone before them.  At this point it is safe to call us something other than Homo sapiens, as we are simply just a new stage of human.

 

What do you think about this?

Share this post


Link to post
117    17

Either you have been in deep philosophical thought or you have been smoking some weed.

I've been taught Human Nature is defined as characteristics that separate people from animals mostly brain functions like thoughts and emotions and behaving on the two.

and just because humans from a time ago did not have computers it means they were not smart, in one way of thinking of it we have the communications technology we have now due to a need and interest in communication technology during the early to mid 20th-century the technology that would later become integrated circuit systems. we used the knowledge and needs of the previous era is the 19th-century industrial technology where machines were created for the mass production of goods which was created by a previous age of needs and interests of an agrarian philosophical age, and that age was only spawned in from previous and so on. It may seem like it came out of nothing but it is obvious especially in recent history we have come as far as what we have only due to an interest or need (Cold War for technology I feel you are referring to.). The Romans, although could have benefited from integrated circuits, did not have a need for the previous steps to achieve said technology. It seems we simply followed a path that more or less by coincidence led us to where we are. If the Romans perhaps began a pursuit of philosophy to question their beliefs (aka Scientific method) which led to a society of philosophy and so on the Romans perhaps would if not irresponsibly ended the world with atomic weapons be having the same question, but the Romans had no need for a renaissance so to say.

If this is a bit rambly I'm sorry its late been really busy. I hope what I've said make sense haven't taken any courses on philosophy but I've thought of things similar to this and this is just my conclusion.

If Romans are too recent you can replace it with Mesopotamians same overall Outcome. you need you get if you go in the right direction. I'm sure centuries from now people will see our time as we do those of our ancestors.

Share this post


Link to post
Asp4yxiat10n    430
9 hours ago, Krikilla said:

What is "human nature"?  Many would argue that it is just something that most humans do, such as use an electronic device of some sort.  Others would state that it is what evolution has brought us to do: Eat, drink, sleep, hunt/gather, think, remove waste, and/or create.

 

To really look into it, we have to go back to evolution.  We did not grow smart or strong through the use of our own creation, that is a modern "luxery" that former humans and human species did not possess.  They had to use nature and their surroundings to their ability and they did not have such surplus knowledge that we modern humans now have.  They grew smart by thinking and experimenting - whether or not it was risky.  Some say we still do this, and they're right:  It's just not the same.  They experimented using limited knowledge that they personally possessed, meanwhile we can base our estimates off of other people's minds which was based off of someone before them.  At this point it is safe to call us something other than Homo sapiens, as we are simply just a new stage of human.

 

What do you think about this?

This is very much non-sensical.

First off, all human methodology, technology, knowledge, etc have all been a series of stepping stones, discovery leading to invention and then onto innovation or further refinement, a repeating cycle. The metaphor that is most applicable here is "Standing on the shoulders of giants". The notion that they used "limited knowledge" that was possessed by them and them alone is just wrong. Throughout the animal kingdom you see examples of learnt behaviours and methods taught, refined and executed between generations distributed over any given area.

Classic example of this is Killer Whales. Hunting behaviours and techniques are almost entirely contingent on the particular area, blood line and prey of the Orca. These hunting techniques are taught by the familial unit they are in and often require years of learning[1]. Modern humans quite simply have an astronomically expanded version of inherited knowledge which we will continue to build upon. ie quantum physics.

Humans didn't just happen upon concepts such as the spear, bow. If I mindwiped several hundred adult humans and dispersed them into varying sections of the Australian outback, odds are not many would survive. You can't experiment with a Taipan:

Oxyuranus%20microlepidotus%20(b)(J.Weige

This fucker right here is considered the most venomous land snakes in the world AND HE WILL RUIN YOUR FUCKING DAY. [2]
Some poor bastard will get bitten, very probably die and his people will figure out sooner or later to leave the surprisingly timid death machines the fuck alone.
How likely do you think it'll be that they will figure o
ut how to make spear or even how to create a fire? That shit took countless generations to discover and master.

Also taxonomy is not contingent on the average IQ, level of technology/knowledge attained by a species or your misunderstanding of how speciation works
"A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions."[3]

The source I linked is actually quite informative and goes onto elaborate on phenomena such as hybrids, speciation and the like so I'd recommend it.

There hasn't been significant and ongoing separation of human populations with the application of new and adverse environmental pressures for natural selection to do its bloody work, your wish to redefine the classification of homo sapiens is unnecessary and not to get overly flamey here but its just really stupid.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230729878_Development_of_intentional_stranding_hunting_techniques_in_killer_whale_Orcinus_orca_calves_at_Crozet_Archipelago

[2]https://australianmuseum.net.au/inland-taipan

[3]https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_41

Edited by Asp4yxiat10n
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Valkyrie    1352
17 hours ago, Krikilla said:

"luxery"

I'm currently in deep philosophical thought over this typo.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×