Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Hasn't Mother Nature taught us anything, as we are the most intellectual of all species, that nature will run its coarse, no matter how humans try to manipulate it.
Why are humans so dead set on making our species weaker?
|
Yes, humans are the most intelligent species on earth. Physical (biological) anthropology can illuminate on that more. With the Internet a lot of information is now more accessible to us average Joes and Janes. Anthropology is the study of human beings. In doing so the field does a lot of comparison and contrasting of humans with other primates. Physical anthropology is the biological--as opposed to sociological--branch of the anthropological field of inquiry.
Due to the high intelligence level of human beings our species (a essentially a tropical species) has been able to migrate into, adapt to, and one could say in many respects conquer cold weather environments. This is impart due to our tool culture (enable house building, clothing making etc) which no other species on earth has. Some--a minority surprisingly--of liberal intellectuals would argue the Chimpanzees have a tool culture as well because they use sticks (like we use forks and spoons) to dig out, and pick, insects to eat. But I see this as stretch to suggest it is anything on level of a real tool culture.
There arguably has been some physical changes to the human species, that one could argue has been alterations for weakness (but that is debatable I think), since the dawn of civilization which required extensive settlements with large farming industries.
Though it is not proven as a fact there is evidence to suggest once human societies moved away from tribal hunting and gathering societies into farming civilizations generations later those societies had/ have reduced jaw sizes. The negative impact of this is that humans don't have enough jaw space to adequately hold their back molars known colloquially as "wisdom teeth." This is believed (hypothesis) to be due to diatary changes from a mainly fruits, vegatables, nuts, and meat diet to a large bead, dairy, and cow milk diet. The vast increase in breads and carbohydrates consumption once human civilzation began, is hypothesized to have been a root cause of diabetes developing in human societies. If I recall correctly, primitive man rarely if at all had orthodontic issues (barring a rock or something causing injuries to the mouth, jaw, or damage to the teeth) and I think had no diabetes.
The other issue are the feet and toes. You can google more up on that and how the shape of are shoes has forced our toes to grow close together, and how the arch in the shoe, especially the heel rise, weakens the natural arch in our foot/feet. There are shoes that have zero rise in heel and a wide toe box. I have a pair. I bought them for running when I get back to it. The cushion in these pair is unbelievable too. Almost like walking on pillows. I wanted shoes that had impact coushioning for running on pavement. These shoes are meant as a balance between those that are used to and want shoes but also want or more "natural run" in terms of zero heel rise and wide toe box).
There are people in a movement to run natural through bare foot running. They even have marathons.
Because of our shoe culture humans have very weak feet (without shoes on), weak arches, and some even develop flat feet. But those reared walking and running barefoot have strong and calloused feet. The muscles and tendons in their feet are constantly being exercised.
That said... the Red Queen hypothesis in the sciences acknowledges a never ending struggle against biological pathogens. But in terms of your "manipulation" comment, humans endeavoring in the sciences to reduce suffering among humans and other species (veterinarian fields), race against various diseases. I would argue this in no way weakens the human species per se.
Quote:
|
All other species on the earth, in order to not become extinct have a natural evolution where ONLY THE STRONG SURVIVE.
|
You're drawing from the principal of "survival of the fittest." This is a commonly misunderstood proposition. As you misunderstand it. And I will tell you why you are wrong but I doubt that will persuade you to acknowledge your error and change your belief. The Theory of Evolution today-among the lay masses and even some scientists--is nothing but a mere religion with a bunch of made up storytelling by liberals and conservatives to argue so-called moral principals constructed from the biases and fictions they subscribe to. Period.
Survival of the fittest is proposition about
sex and death. Really, in the most brief and reduced form that's all the
biological Theory of Evolution is. The non-biological, physical evolution of planet earth and the universe as a whole is another and different issue.
So, since humans are sexually reproducing species, and with no true self reproducing hermaphrodites among us, how genes stay in a populations genetic pool becomes about
sex. Now, this is at the point conservatives and liberals biased, wicked, deceitful, and hyped up on their socio-political beliefs will carry out their ISIS-like hijacking of the Theory of Evolution and turn it into a fanatical religion that will justify them in some moral crusade, be it the conservatives attack on the poor, weak, or vulnerable, or the liberals military sodomite crusades through bloodbaths.
Survival of the fittest is used in the biological sciences two different ways. One way is to denote the aggregate amount of genes in a population pool of a species. The other way is to denote that an organism that sires more offspring is more "fit" than an organism of the same species that sires less offspring.
So, Jesus or this current Pope, having produced no children are both per the Theory of Evolution, less fit than a womanizing American man in the inner-city that has produced 17 children with 5 different women, and he's a "dead beat dad" that does not financially nor emotionally support any of his children.
The liberals will rush in at this point and post links or sources to altruism hypotheses within the Theory of Evolution. Such hypotheses try to morally justify and explain away heterosexual men raising other men's children and why gay uncles helping raise their nephews is functional, planned out thing, within the Theory of Evilution. (Unwittingly they subscribe to an Intelligent Designer that has created and mapped out or intervenes to cause biological evolution to move in a certain direction. Christians regard an Intelligent Designer as being God. But in the academic field of philosophy Intelligent Desinger can be used to denote humans or intelligent alien life as well.)
But hypotheses are not scientific theories no matter how many scientists subscribe to a popular hypothesis. Interestingly enough, no scientist tries to explain the phenomenon of men pimping women via the Theory of Evolution, nor do they try to explain away and justify sexual sadism or sexual maschism.
Also, your statement above suggests an Intelligent Designer, possibly "Mother Nature," strategically and by intended design, having endowed non-human species with some evolutionary trait to render it extinction proof.
Who is this Intelligent Designer? By what specific mechanisms (not storytelling), that can be chemically reduced and chemically explained, is at least one of these non-extinction proof species functioning by?
Quote:
|
Why has collective mindset, altered that natural trait of all species? Where the strong are forced to carry the weak?
|
Let me take a wild guess, you regard yourself as one of those categorized as "strong"?
In Christianity we would call that pride. I'm always amazed at a lot of the wisdom that can be found in the bible and in contrast how unwise even those with the highest IQ's can be in modern day life.
If you are talking about economics, cash transfer programs, fiscal liberalism, and/or universal health care and public health care, then at minimum the economic question is more a sociological inquiry than one of the natural sciences. Economics is a branch of the social sciences anyways.
In economics there is a term economist use called "negative extranalities" (spelling?). There can be negative sociological consequences for society as a whole under certain conditions. I would argue one of those conditions would be leaving the poor in urban areas, where subsistence farming and hunting is physically impossible, without welfare programs such as cash transfer programs. And even if one was not morally persuaded that helping the poor is beneficial in society they could still reason it is beneficial in practical terms.
Public health care and universal health care cross more into the natural sciences. Travel is more frequent today and faster than it was centuries ago. Zina virus for example could easily infect a poor person in Brazil as could a rich person in the United States. Viruses and bacterial pathogens don't know about nor care about national boarders, liberals vs conservatives, what religion you are or if you're atheist, they don't care about your socio-economic status either. So, again, one could approach this from a practical standpoint.
Universal health care could reduce monetary strains on small, mid-sized, and large companies.
Quote:
This Nation was founded upon that very principal of the laws of nature, or what is called natural law.
The government collective was not to force the people to carry the weak.
Nothing in the Constitution, grants the government any authority to provide anything material for the people. Only to secure our borders from invasion, and maintain our liberties(both long gone)
By the authority of the Constitution, this would fall under the 10th amendment.
|
Natural law as I understand it is a logical, philosophical, way of reasoning grounded in what is regarded as "natural" in the world. I've never studied Natural Law so I really can't critique it or pretend to understand it well.
However, my understanding is that Natural Law can be used to argue for fiscal liberalism and using legitimate authority (the government) to protect the family. In terms of sexual activity Natural Law seems to be fairly morally conservative and understands the sexual reproductive organs for the primary purpose of reproduction, rather than the primary purpose being for sexual pleasure (this latter is a Satanic belief Satanist subscribe to).
So, I suspect you misunderstand Natural Law philosophy as much as you misunderstand the theory of biological evolution on planet earth.
Quote:
|
Until the 1900's, there was a reason this nation became the most powerful in the shortest amount of time in history.
|
The United States was not the most powerful nation in the 19th century. I don't know where you got that from. The British empire remained the most powerful empire during the 19th century.
Geographically the United States is the size of a continent and is endowed with a diversity of climates. In California alone you could skip on snow capped mountains and the same day drive far enough to surf in hot sunny skies out in the ocean. The Midwestern portion of the United States is endowed with fertile soil that can and is used for productive farming.
These things contributed to drawing Europeans over to the United States to map out a new life for themselves. The economic activities and laws allowed for some upward mobility which was hard to do in centuries old Europe. But even during the 19th century the United States remained a primarily agrarian society and most of the US population were impoverished. The rural poor lived though lives back then but had a lot of freedom and had a much better diet than the poor in Europe. But they could do a lot of hunting and farming. The urban poor in the new industrial cities of the United States lived in hellish conditions. So nightmarish that some of the Europeans regretted ever moving to the US and some successfully earned enough money to escape the United States and return to the better lives of poverty they had in the small towns of old Europe.
The United States during the 19th century and early 20th century had no passion for nor desire to run around planet earth being the world's police. Nor did it have the military power. The US spent far less on its military back then than did European countries. The US did stick its nose in Latin American business though. And in certain other areas in Asia. But the US did not become the most powerful empire on earth until after WWII at which time it decided it would use its military to establish military bases across the world and place the earth. But this has been and remains tied to US corporate ambitions and interests in other parts of the world.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
