Were we better off in a state of nature?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • coberst
    FFR Player
    • May 2004
    • 256

    #16
    Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

    My statement says that I consider a creature is living in a total state of nature when that creature is controlled by its nature and its instincts. Humans have an ego which stands in the way of instinctive behavior for humans. Animals other than humans do not have an ego. The more effect the ego has on human behavior the more civilized we become and the further removed from nature.

    Instincts are the emotions that an animal is born with. Animals are hardwired with certain automatic control reactions. These emotions, i.e. these instincts cause the deer to run and the lion to fight.

    Ego says, HOLD IT, TIME OUT!

    The ego is our command center; it is the “internal gyroscope” and creator of time for the human. It controls the individual; especially it controls individual’s response to the external environment. It keeps the individual independent from the environment by giving the individual time to think before acting. It is the device that other animal do not have and thus they instinctively respond immediately to the world.

    The id is our animal self. It is the human without the ego control center. The id is reactive life and the ego changes that reactive life into delayed thoughtful life. The ego is also the timer that provides us with a sense of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. By doing so it makes us into philosophical beings conscious of our self as being separate from the ‘other’ and placed in a river of time with a terminal point—death. This time creation allows us to become creatures responding to symbolic reality that we alone create.

    As a result of the id there is a “me” to which everything has a focus of being. The most important job the ego has is to control anxiety that paradoxically the ego has created. With a sense of time there comes a sense of termination and with this sense of death comes anxiety that the ego embraces and gives the “me” time to consider how not to have to encounter anxiety.

    Evidence indicates that there is an “intrinsic symbolic process” is some primates. Such animals may be able to create in memory other events that are not presently going on. “But intrinsic symbolization is not enough. In order to become a social act, the symbol must be joined to some extrinsic mode; there must exist an external graphic mode to convey what the individual has to express…but it also shows how separate are the worlds we live in, unless we join our inner apprehensions to those of others by means of socially agreed symbols.”

    “What they needed for a true ego was a symbolic rallying point, a personal and social symbol—an “I”, in order to thoroughly unjumble himself from his world the animal must have a precise designation of himself. The “I”, in a word, has to take shape linguistically…the self (or ego) is largely a verbal edifice…The ego thus builds up a world in which it can act with equanimity, largely by naming names.” The primate may have a brain large enough for “me” but it must go a step further that requires linguistic ability that permits an “I” that can develop controlled symbols with “which to put some distance between him and immediate internal and external experience.”

    I conclude from this that many primates have the brain that is large enough to be human but in the process of evolution the biological apparatus that makes speech possible was the catalyst that led to the modern human species. The ability to emit more sophisticated sounds was the stepping stone to the evolution of wo/man. This ability to control the vocal sounds promoted the development of the human brain.

    Ideas and quotes from “Birth and Death of Meaning”—Ernest Becker

    Comment

    • KA0Z R4VR
      FFR Player
      • Feb 2007
      • 287

      #17
      Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

      OMFG, Coberst DOES NOT LISTEN to arguements. Many of us, like devonin, have noticed that he will never reply to what you have said, or quote you. He is a stubborn bot who attempts to enlighten us with "critical thinking" posts when he cares nothing of what is on debate.

      Originally posted by Maid
      Everything is nature, just because humans went a step ahead, doesn't mean it is not nature. If we wipe out the earth with bombs, that is also part of nature. Nature doesn't care, it just goes on.
      Secondly I agree with this quote 100%. We as humans, which are creatures, are part of nature. Anything we do is essentially part of nature. I had recognized this once I heard the "don't play with Mother Nature" quote. If "Mother Nature" is reffering to the world and its inhabitants of creatures, including humans, plants, and forces such as natural disasters then aren't we part of the nature in this "mother earth" of ours? I like to believe so.
      Originally posted by jewpinthethird
      Are you has depression? Does you worry about things that are worryful? Does you want to escape the Earths? Just remember, you has a spicy life.
      Originally posted by Zageron
      Everything is Vistas fault. If your cat dies, it's also Vistas fault.
      Originally posted by [TeRa]
      I've come to the assumption that you are either Miley Cyrus yourself being you are not a young kid trying to defend her, or you are indeed Chris Crocker, you related her to Britney Spears...If you took this paragraph seriously, just quit the internet lol

      Comment

      • coberst
        FFR Player
        • May 2004
        • 256

        #18
        Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

        Originally posted by KA0Z R4VR
        OMFG,



        We as humans, which are creatures, are part of nature. Anything we do is essentially part of nature. I had recognized this once I heard the "don't play with Mother Nature" quote. If "Mother Nature" is reffering to the world and its inhabitants of creatures, including humans, plants, and forces such as natural disasters then aren't we part of the nature in this "mother earth" of ours? I like to believe so.
        I agree

        Comment

        • devonin
          Very Grave Indeed
          Event Staff
          FFR Simfile Author
          • Apr 2004
          • 10120

          #19
          Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

          Address The Points That Have Been Raised Against Your Statements

          Originally posted by The Rules of this Forum
          1. Only post if you can contribute something to the topic/debate. This means no more: "What <insert name> Said" , or "I agree/disagree".
          Originally posted by The Rules of this Forum
          4. Since this is a Critical Thinking Forum use evidence to back up your statement if needed.

          Comment

          • KA0Z R4VR
            FFR Player
            • Feb 2007
            • 287

            #20
            Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

            That was directed at Coberst, I assume. There doesn't seem to be any flaws in my statement, but I would like to know if anyone can disprove what I said otherwise.

            And he quoted me? That was slightly unexpected >_>
            Originally posted by jewpinthethird
            Are you has depression? Does you worry about things that are worryful? Does you want to escape the Earths? Just remember, you has a spicy life.
            Originally posted by Zageron
            Everything is Vistas fault. If your cat dies, it's also Vistas fault.
            Originally posted by [TeRa]
            I've come to the assumption that you are either Miley Cyrus yourself being you are not a young kid trying to defend her, or you are indeed Chris Crocker, you related her to Britney Spears...If you took this paragraph seriously, just quit the internet lol

            Comment

            • Aleste
              stating the obvious.
              • Oct 2003
              • 337

              #21
              Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

              ...aren't we part of the nature in this "mother earth" of ours? I like to believe so.
              i agree with this, however, it seems to me that a vast majority of our species does not think this way. Nature is often viewed as everything but us.. Which is probably why our "needs" are often placed above the environment. Since we are the most intelligent species on the planet and we have the ability to alter the original course of nature, we have a greater responsibility than the lion or the deer. As for the Amish, i don't believe we need to revert to an earlier version of ourselves or even forgo many luxuries, but we should take into account nature as a whole.

              Comment

              • KA0Z R4VR
                FFR Player
                • Feb 2007
                • 287

                #22
                Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

                Originally posted by Aleste
                i agree with this, however, it seems to me that a vast majority of our species does not think this way. Nature is often viewed as everything but us.. Which is probably why our "needs" are often placed above the environment. Since we are the most intelligent species on the planet and we have the ability to alter the original course of nature, we have a greater responsibility than the lion or the deer. As for the Amish, i don't believe we need to revert to an earlier version of ourselves or even forgo many luxuries, but we should take into account nature as a whole.
                Nicely stated. I think more people should get invovled with CT Forums. Maybe the world can slolwy benefit from FFR thinkers.

                This is not just "our world"; It is everyone's, both human and non-human alike.

                You said "alter the original course of nature", but I actually believe what we do does not alter an *original* course. The course is naturally occuring, so once again I believe the course is original "as is", even with the affects it has by human - environment interaction.
                Originally posted by jewpinthethird
                Are you has depression? Does you worry about things that are worryful? Does you want to escape the Earths? Just remember, you has a spicy life.
                Originally posted by Zageron
                Everything is Vistas fault. If your cat dies, it's also Vistas fault.
                Originally posted by [TeRa]
                I've come to the assumption that you are either Miley Cyrus yourself being you are not a young kid trying to defend her, or you are indeed Chris Crocker, you related her to Britney Spears...If you took this paragraph seriously, just quit the internet lol

                Comment

                • devonin
                  Very Grave Indeed
                  Event Staff
                  FFR Simfile Author
                  • Apr 2004
                  • 10120

                  #23
                  Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

                  Here's the thing though: While we can link many of our problems to our misguided notion that the laws of nature don't apply to us any longer, many elements of our current lives and society exist in a state outside those laws.

                  I think very few people, even among those who advocate "a return to the state of nature" would have no intention of, and no ability to survive by returning to the actual state of nature.

                  Comment

                  • KA0Z R4VR
                    FFR Player
                    • Feb 2007
                    • 287

                    #24
                    Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

                    As in going back to a nomadic lifestyle- The return of no distinction between rational thinking and impulse? Yeah, I agree that even the most simplest life styles lived by the Amish is still far from natures original homosapien.

                    Many humans believe that since we are the most intelligant, we can manipulate nature around our needs, however true this may be, we are made this intelligant by nature.
                    Originally posted by jewpinthethird
                    Are you has depression? Does you worry about things that are worryful? Does you want to escape the Earths? Just remember, you has a spicy life.
                    Originally posted by Zageron
                    Everything is Vistas fault. If your cat dies, it's also Vistas fault.
                    Originally posted by [TeRa]
                    I've come to the assumption that you are either Miley Cyrus yourself being you are not a young kid trying to defend her, or you are indeed Chris Crocker, you related her to Britney Spears...If you took this paragraph seriously, just quit the internet lol

                    Comment

                    • devonin
                      Very Grave Indeed
                      Event Staff
                      FFR Simfile Author
                      • Apr 2004
                      • 10120

                      #25
                      Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

                      Well, I'll argue that the moment we gained the ability to manipulate our environment to suit ourselves instead of adapting to suit our environment, natural human evolution ceased.

                      We've become so good at adapting the environment to suit any condition (We can make people born with extreme disability live relatively functional lives, we can keep people alive who have diseases and illnesses that should have killed them years earlier) that there cannot be any natural selection, because we've taken the selection out of the process.

                      No species of animal would put remotely as much money time and effort as we do into keeping the sick, the old and the useless around and soaking up resources. From a species survival standpoint, we're making all kinds of horrible mistakes that are leading directly to the problems that we try to fix by, surprise surprise, manipulating the environment even more.

                      Comment

                      • Aleste
                        stating the obvious.
                        • Oct 2003
                        • 337

                        #26
                        Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

                        The only reason i said we can alter the original course of nature is because, as devonin said,
                        Originally posted by devonin
                        many elements of our current lives and society exist in a state outside those laws.
                        Namely, because of our technological advances there is no natural limiter to the growth of our species. Within nature, every species has a natural limiter.. i.e. The frogs in the pond grow in number exponentially until their natural predators even out the number or perhaps, the resources within said pond cannot be shared between the numbers and they die from starvation.

                        i think that eventually, resources could become a problem, but not before we've cut down every tree in an effort to make room for the thriving population. What devonin said is a good example of this.

                        Originally posted by devonin
                        We can make people born with extreme disability live relatively functional lives, we can keep people alive who have diseases and illnesses that should have killed them years earlier

                        Would this not be altering the course of nature? i don't believe nature would destroy itself in this way. Everything is normally balanced and self contained. Nature created us.. but now we are natural selection in one way or another... albeit many of these choices are questionable lol.

                        Kaoz, thanks for the compliment by the way.

                        Comment

                        • xmikeox
                          FFR Player
                          • Dec 2006
                          • 8

                          #27
                          Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

                          I see no point in posting an opinion because this can never be changed, only debated and argued over some more.

                          Comment

                          • coberst
                            FFR Player
                            • May 2004
                            • 256

                            #28
                            Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

                            Originally posted by devonin
                            Well, I'll argue that the moment we gained the ability to manipulate our environment to suit ourselves instead of adapting to suit our environment, natural human evolution ceased.

                            We've become so good at adapting the environment to suit any condition (We can make people born with extreme disability live relatively functional lives, we can keep people alive who have diseases and illnesses that should have killed them years earlier) that there cannot be any natural selection, because we've taken the selection out of the process.

                            No species of animal would put remotely as much money time and effort as we do into keeping the sick, the old and the useless around and soaking up resources. From a species survival standpoint, we're making all kinds of horrible mistakes that are leading directly to the problems that we try to fix by, surprise surprise, manipulating the environment even more.
                            Well said!

                            Comment

                            • devonin
                              Very Grave Indeed
                              Event Staff
                              FFR Simfile Author
                              • Apr 2004
                              • 10120

                              #29
                              Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

                              Originally posted by Aleste
                              Would this not be altering the course of nature?
                              Sure would be, which was my point.

                              I don't believe nature would destroy itself in this way. Everything is normally balanced and self contained. Nature created us.. but now we are natural selection in one way or another... albeit many of these choices are questionable lol.
                              Nature wouldn't destroy itself this way because nature would never make the decisions we have, or rather, anything that makes the decisions we have tends towards extinction due to predation and insufficiency of resources. Our problem is that we continue to keep things around using resources well past their ability to contribute back into the resource pool, requiring us to pull more and more resources from the world at large.

                              Originally posted by xmikeox
                              I see no point in posting an opinion because this can never be changed, only debated and argued over some more.
                              If everyone shared this attitude, it would be correct. Since not everyone shares this attitude I disagree. As a society we've already made -many- large changes towards a more environmentally conscious system. On one hand you're correct that there are many people resistant to any change that they perceive as lowering their standard of living, but there are a number of smaller sacrifices that many people are willing to make to increase the longevity of our resources and thus our existance.

                              Originally posted by Coberst
                              Well said!
                              Rule number -1- of this forum: "1. Only post if you can contribute something to the topic/debate. This means no more: "What <insert name> Said" , or "I agree/disagree"."

                              Comment

                              • aperson
                                FFR Hall of Fame
                                FFR Simfile Author
                                • Jul 2003
                                • 3431

                                #30
                                Re: Were we better off in a state of nature?

                                3 months later and everyone is still responding to a bot

                                Comment

                                Working...