Topic awaiting preservation: what if they had a War, and nobody showed up? (Page 1 of 1)

I've been wondering how long human beings will continue to do this kind of thing.
Will there always be an Us/Them? just wondering......

yup. it's ingrained in our genetics. As much as we like to pretend we're a hihgly evolved and civilized species, we're still just animals.

At the end of the day we still want to eat, fuck, sleep, and keep what's ours (and maybe get someone else's too).

Just like dogs. Or rats. Or monkeys. Or ants.

=)

Or until there is a threat from off world.

J. Stuart J.

it would still be us vs. them.

The definition of "us" would simply make yet another quantitative shift to accomodate for yet another introduction of a new "them".

You can't know how much I agree with you... Human nature is deceiving me so much...

Hey norm :

"Sometime they'll give a war and nobody will come."

-- Carl Sandburg

I also know another one that might be interesting here :

"Either war is obsolete or men are."

-- R. Buckminster Fuller

DL: Sorry I can't really agree:

quote:

---

it's ingrained in our genetics. As much as we like to pretend we're a hihgly evolved and civilized species, we're still just animals.

---

That actually casts mud on the good name of animals I'm afraid. Our nearest relatives are by and large peaceful creatures who tend to use social techniques to overcome problems and disputes. We on the other hand are particularily brutal and unpleasnt in comparison using our much vaunted intellect and 'morals' to devise new and interesting ways of inflicting pain and misery on each other - technological progress just means we can brutalise more people. I can only assume that this is due to one of two reasons (or pos. both):

1. We became more 'successful' than our primate cousins because we were more driven and brutal than them.

2. The human population density (and size) is far larger than our primate ancestry gave us powers to deal with - we moved from grooming to language to symbolism and the written word to cope but this seems to lag behind the growth and it seems like war and violence are a more basic fallback position.

I tend to favour the second explanation as it appears that certain groups of chimps display a similar violent streak and they live at much higher densities and in closer contact with other chimp groups (at least according to David Attenborough ).

So we either thin the global population down by about 95+% or we actually start making the most of our 'morals' and stop politicians forcing wars on us that we don't want and actually strive to make this a more peaceful world but if you don' make your voice heard and don't vote then we can't expect to change things.

Whats that you say? Our leaders are currently forcing such a war on us and are ignoring the vast majority of the people in the world who don't approve? Well we're fucked then.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

We are animals and animals are animals. Animals exhibit some pretty heinous behavior and that is why it is so difficult to watch nature programs when you are a child. But the narrator always explains how that is "just nature's way". So you learn to accept it but you always seem to wonder why it has to be that way.

Do non-human animals wonder why?

Are we *just* animals?

Well, that is where theology comes into play, doesn't it? I say we are more than animal. We are animal++. We have the spark of divinity in us. This allows us to be far better than animals while at the same time far far worse. I say that without tapping into the divine Spirit, we are hopelessly lost in trying to make things better for all. That is my firm belief and you all have heard that plenty of times. We disagree about it.

But I think we can agree, atheist and theist alike, that we have the *choice* to act better than our animal friends. I think we can agree that we should.

(note the complete absence of political commentary in this response I'll leave that to our other lively threads)

[edit] norm, sorry I forgot to answer you. We will always have this problem. This is another point on which atheist (DL) and theist (Bug) can agree. [/edit]

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-22-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-22-2003).]

quote:

---

...to act better than our animal friends. I think we can agree that we should.

---

yes we can agree, but actually we never will act better than we are now....

humanity just sucks...sure we can be meaningful, useful....but we always have our instinc..to sin.........I dont expect any changes from human

just like DL says:

quote:

---

At the end of the day we still want to eat, fuck, sleep, and keep what's ours

---

Emperor - I agree with you to a point.

You are right in a way that our species ascension had to do with our drive and our brutality, but it also had a great deal to do with our ability to adapt and to move.

If you study ant colonies at all, you will see that they exhibit some extremely 'human' like bad behvior, including waging war against rival colonies - to the extent that they send out scouts who report back on enemy colonies, they have some relatively advanced strategies in setting up attacks, they kill methodically and completely except for those few who can be useful to them.

If you watch chimpanzees in action rounding up unwanted monkees and killing men women and children, you are frightfully reminded of many human atrocities.

.

Bugimus - do we have a choice? Well, that is a difficult question. To an extent we do, but *only* to an extent IMO.

The human mind is avery complex things which allows us great creativity and choice, but it is also hard coded with a lot of things that our conscious choice can only moderately overcome.

You are right that this is an issue where theology comes into play, but only because we have had the arrogance to suppose that we were the purpose for the universe to exist, and thus created theology to fit that idea.

Can we choose to act better? Yes. Can we actually live up to that choice? Well, if we all made that decision together, and we all strove for that....no. Even then it wouldn't happen.

There will always be a circumstance that will demand we choose between someone else's well being and that of our families. In those cases, the vast majority of the time people will choose to look after their families first. That's not a bad thing, it simply is.

And those choices will eventually snowball into things such as war.

I don't see this as inherently negative, or without hope. It's simply the way things are. We don't need mythology to explain our place in the world anymore...

Should we strive to act better than these things? Yes. becuase life around the world could realistically be a better thing than it is.



{{edit - forgot to address this:

quote:

---

So we either thin the global population down by about 95+%

---

I'm all for this route =) Tell you what, come on by and we'll draw up a list

}}





[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-23-2003).]

Um, if it's not too much trouble, could I be in the remaining 5%?

quote:

---

I say that without tapping into the divine Spirit, we are hopelessly lost in trying to make things better for all.

---

Not surprisingly, I agree with Bugs on this. Judging by the responses in this thread so far, I think most of us would probably agree that the human heart is "deceitful above all things." I have encountered, those, however, who hold fast to a belief in the ultimate goodness of humanity. And I am always amazed at their optimism.

My view of humanity is as Biblical as it is cynical. I don't want to turn this into a religious discussion, but I do want to discuss something that I've been thinking about. While I may believe that human nature is basically evil, believers and non-believers alike do engage in acts of goodness. In some other recent threads, I have argued (as have others) that there is no such thing as altruism on the international level. Well, what I've been thinking about lately is this: is there such thing as altruism on an individual (human) level? Does altruism exist at all?

I'm struggling with this right now, perhaps because I know myself too well. I would like to think that the love I show others is altruistic, but I know deep down inside that it's not. Even when I attempt to love my neighbor as myself, I must admit that I am following the tenets of my faith because, ultimately, I expect to be rewarded. Even the apostle John (known as the disciple Christ loved) said: "We love because he first loved us" (I John 4:19).

By definition, altruism is doing something for another that is not beneficial (or may even be harmful) to oneself. Christians believe that they will be rewarded for every good deed on Earth performed in the right spirit (in other words, not just "empty" deeds), so technically we are not capable of altruism. In fact, it would appear that the only human beings capable of altruism are those who don't believe in an afterlife.

Hmm, I guess this has become a religious discussion. Sorry about that. I've just been thinking a lot about this issue lately...





www.liminality.org

I've always held to the understading that there is just about nothing that is truly altruistic. Certainly there are often situations where someone does something for someone else that they don't have to do, that they may in fact have gone to a lot of trouble to do, to help that person. But there is *always* some form of self interest involved.

And again - I am *not* saying this in a negative way. It's simply the way things work! It's not a bad thing that part of the reason you do something for others is driven by selfish motivation of some sort.

I don't think we *could* have great acts of charity without the existence of such self interest as a motivational tool - and I think these are the things that religion detracts from by trying to attach a grander purpose to our basic acts. I also think that it is the failure of religion in that you *can't* remove that motivation from people, no matter how you dress it up.

=)

Don't struggle Suho - accept that we work in that manner and that it is in fact OK.

Suho : "......I have argued (as have others) that there is no such thing as altruism on the international level. Well, what I've been thinking about lately is this: is there such thing as altruism on an individual (human) level? Does altruism exist at all?"

I don't know about (true) altruism, but I'm hoping that enlightened selfinterest will become the norm (no pun intended) in the near future. Enlightened selfinterest is the basis of community, it is what allows us potentialy dangerous animals to live with others of our kind in realitive safety.

I keep thinking that todays' world has grown so small that the same rules of 'community' that apply to a small village need to be implimented globaly, isolation is no longer an option for any group of people.

Moon Shadow: The second quote you posted-

"Either war is obsolete or men are."
-- R. Buckminster Fuller

seems so true, and this is what really has me worried.

BTW- The Sandburg quote is so close to my question, that I'm almost ready to accuse myself of plagiarism !!

Well, the title question is a very common phrase - based of course on the quote...

{[edit - oh, and suho: go ahead submit your essay. no less than 200 words, no more than 300, explaining exactly why you should be kept }}

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-23-2003).]

DL: You're right, of course, and my dilemma is born of the fact that I am both an idealist and a cynic. I have considered that the non-existence of altruism is, in fact, not a problem to be struggled with. After reading your post and thinking about it a bit more, I realized that the very idea of altruism is an affront to my beliefs. Again, not that I'm trying to get religious on you, but from where I stand, altruism is the ultimate ideal of humanism. If there is such a thing as altruism, then it means that human beings are capable of acting out of something other than self-interest, which means that human nature is not what the Bible says it is. And if human beings can actually aspire to something like altruism, then that means we don't need a God.

Sorry about that, I'm just in the process of "working out my faith," as my friend Paul would say. I do agree with you, this is the way humans are, and that is OK. I feel better now.

Well, except for the 300-word limit on the essay... I don't stand a chance.

norm: enlightened self interest--I like that. Hopefully I will be able to find enlightenment in my own way.

[Edit: speelling ]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 03-24-2003).]

quote:

---

my dilemma is born of the fact that I am both an idealist and a cynic

---

Yup, that's me too =)

I find it funny though how the same thoughts bring us to opposite conclusions...always interesting.
(regarding god that is)

You'll just have to practice writing more succinctly now suho

quote:

---

Monica: What's wrong with PBS?

Phoebe: Ugh, what's right with them?

Joey: Why don't you like PBS, Pheebs?

Phoebe: Okay, 'cause right after my mom killed herself, I was just in this really bad place, y'know personally. So, I just thought that it'd make me feel better if I wrote to Sesame Street, 'cause they were so nice when I was a little kid! No one ever wrote back.

Chandler: Well y'know a lot of those Muppets don't have thumbs.

Phoebe: All I got was a lousy key chain! And by that time I was living in a box. I didn't have keys!

Joey: I'm sorry Pheebs, I just, y'know, I just wanted to do a good deed. Like-like you did with the babies.

Phoebe: This isn't a good deed, you just wanted to get on TV! This is totally selfish.

Joey: Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! What about you, having those babies for your brother? Talk about selfish!

Phoebe: What-what are you talking about?!

Joey: Well, yeah, it was a really nice thing and all, but it made you feel really good right?

Phoebe: Yeah. So?

Joey: It made you feel good, so that makes it selfish. Look, there's no unselfish good deeds, sorry.

Phoebe: Yes there are! There are totally good deeds that are selfless.

Joey: Well, may I ask for one example?

Phoebe: Yeah, it's... Y'know there's -- no you may not!

Joey: That's because all people are selfish.

Phoebe: Are you calling me selfish?!

Joey: Are you calling you people? Yeah, well sorry to burst that bubble, Pheebs, but selfless good deeds don't exist. Okay? And you know the deal on Santa Clause right?

Phoebe: I'm gonna find a selfless good dead. I'm gonna beat you, you evil genius.

---

And there it was, all that time... the wisdom of "Friends."

DL: Learn to write more succinctly, eh? Maybe I should submit my essay in haiku...

Suho needs to live;
What would the Asylum do
without shock treatments?

I never did like Friends, and I guess I never will. Especially if the above is what they call comedy. I'd rather watch Becker.

"I'd rather watch Becker"

Wow. I never thought I'd hear those words...except maybe as a put down - 'go out with you? Pft, I'd rather watch becker!'

hehe

But anyway - don't worry suho, we'll give you extra consideration for the use of really cool words

Thanks, DL. I always knew my English major would someday come in handy, but who knew it would save my life?

Um, and what's "Becker"?

suho, its the imo sad replacement series the networks found for ted danson after cheers (my opinions of the show run in the neighborhood of DL's). i'd rather see the guy doing more film work...

chris


KAIROSinteractive

"...Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than
dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York,
wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck
about in the water having a good time. But conversely the
dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for
precisely the same reasons." ? Douglas Adams, HGTTG

Yup... we're doomed. How am I going to operate my digital watch now?


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

MindBender: But the dolphins are on the side of the Coalition in this war:
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2445238

So that has to be a good thing

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

You're going to love this!!! Save The Embedded Dolphins!

You know, PETA is so incredibly messed up it makes me want to disavow vegetarianism sometimes. They actually see no difference between a human being and a bee. It's utterly amazing that they take themselves seriously.

Do you realize they actually equated the Holocaust to eating chicken? That is obscene. Not that we don't mistreat our food animals, God only knows! But the lengths that PETA goes to make their point is really heinous.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-26-2003).]

Fig: Well, Cheers would be a pretty hard act for any show to follow...

And now this thread is about dolphins... I love this place.

Sheesh Suho, keep up - we're talking about PETA now, not dolphins....


I agree Bugs. When I was a vegetarain, some friends tried to get me into PETA. I was interested at first because it seemed they had some good intentions...but the shit they do is just ridiculous.

OK. I need to officially state that I in no way shape or form started a 'leaves & twigs' thread.
Since I have never, in this life or any of my previous lives, been an herbivore, I have to take a stand here!

No offense to those inmates who prefer to browse intended.

You guys just move way too fast for me...

So are we still talking about PETA? Or vegetarianism? Or have we moved on already?

Yup. Now we're talking about vegetarian dolphins who are activists... they should have road maps for these conversations


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

Actually, I would say that these particular dolphins are having a blast doing their job... um... scratch that blast part and replace it with ball They're just going about their lives as any animal would. They are neither suffering nor elated, they're just dolphins being dolphins and doing us a great service in the process.