Is hate a part of evolution?

[Silverstein]

Lions maul their prey viciously and ferociously. Spiders ensnare and then liquefy the insides of their prey. Examples like this have nothing to do with hate or "evil intent" they are parts of life. Things that will film and show small children to help them better understand their world.

I. Humans start wars..
a. Wars based on land, as if land isn't free...
b. Wars based on power, as if the leaders could not have sat and talked out a resolution without anyone dying.
c. Wars in general, are open venues for all of the worse sins of man. Rape, murder, lies, you name it..For no real reason, as there is always a more peaceful resolution possible.


II. Create positives and negatives that matter only to our species and then choose the negatives...
a. Cursing need not be explained, but, we use the ability to speak to say "offensive" words.
b. Racism, sexism, zealots:All treatments that are created and formed by the twisted teachings and reactions of others. I'm keeping this short on purpose, obviously there is more to all of the points I'm making here.


and III. Make individual crimes...

a. As individuals, we can: kill, steal, rape, torture, harass, molest, harm, etc.



So do all of these things, that make up the largest majority of our history, embody who and what we are? Or are these things actually as negative as we treat them or feel them to be?

I mean sure we could talk about how an instinctual nature has us feel negativity towards some of these things, but alternatively you could argue that the insects caught by spiders might call it "evil" if they could. Or that the gazelle mauled by a lion might petition to have equal rights if there was a animal government.

 

[SuperFerret]

"Hate" and "evil" could be built in ways to control human population. We have no natural predators, so we prey on ourselves.

 

[Silverstein]

"Hate" and "evil" could be built in ways to control human population. We have no natural predators, so we prey on ourselves.

True but their are many animals that would be the top of the food chain if not for humanity, and some of them are only even reachable through technology, not through natural means. And they don't war or prey on themselves.

So if we work outside of religion and talk strictly about nature and adaptation, why is it that we prey on ourselves if, for instance wolves could ravage us in bare naked nature, etc.?

 

[SuperFerret]

True but their are many animals that would be the top of the food chain if not for humanity, and some of them are only even reachable through technology, not through natural means. And they don't war or prey on themselves.

So if we work outside of religion and talk strictly about nature and adaptation, why is it that we prey on ourselves if, for instance wolves could ravage us in bare naked nature, etc.?

My theory is that due to our lack of predators and large numbers have resulted in our killing each other so often. Humans work better in smaller, isolated groups.

 

[Silverstein]

So then our "evils", "sins" and "failures" are in a sense, designed and natural?

 

[Hound55]

Personally, I think its a mistake to draw a line between humans and other animal species at all.

It's why I think that terms like artificial and man-made are next to meaningless.

We are animals and are a part of nature. Every species has its natural strengths and weaknesses. Humans? We're weak as piss but have the ability to rationalise (which far too many people don't use) and we've very dextrous hands. Those are our two strengths.

And we've done a lot with them.

To quote Blaise Pascal: "Man is but a reed, the weakest thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed."

Hate is not an exclusively human attribute either IMO, our dextrous hands just have the ability to create more devastating devices and our brains are more developed allowing us to cling to aggressive thoughts longer and develop a plan to get retribution...

Our insanity is part of nature, and just like every other species on this planet our biological clock is ticking down as well.

 

[SuperFerret]

So then our "evils", "sins" and "failures" are in a sense, designed and natural?

Kinda. It's more complex than that, but that is the gist of it.

 

[batsone]

which came first the chicken or the egg??

 

[SuperFerret]

The egg. Animals have been laying eggs since before they walked on land.

 

[CConn]

Hate is a side effect of other emotions, not evolution.

It's very simple; war, violence, rape, hate-based crimes all arise from natural emotions that all animals feel; Pride...a need to be the alpha male (or the alpha race); fear, of dying, of not having enough resources to live, or prosper successfully; sexual need to procreate all...all very base emotions that, really, have never evolved at all.

 

[Majic Walrus]

To quote Blaise Pascal: "Man is but a reed, the weakest thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed."

Pascal is full of ****.

There is a distinction that separates man from animals. Socially we can find similarities but that does not mean that they have the same origin or even the same purpose. Man has developed social contracts and civilization on a wide and ever sprawling scale. This is man's reason for emotion and source of emotive context.

I believe that in nature war is something that happens without man's influence, but in nature I doubt highly that wars are started when people are offended. Our basest kind of emotions may be the same as an "animal emotion" but they are very different.

We entertain trivial pursuits such as art, literature, and philosophy. We make a distinction between our thought and mind and our physical body. It is clearly evident that we are not "normal" animals. We know that we as mankind feel that we are different from animals.

Although I think Hound's point was that we are not separate from nature. Which is totally different. We aren't separate from nature we are part of nature but that doesn't mean that we aren't distinctly different than an animal. Rocks and trees and lions are all part of nature but there are obvious distinctions there.

 

[Carcharodon]

My theory is that due to our lack of predators and large numbers have resulted in our killing each other so often. Humans work better in smaller, isolated groups.

Hypothesis*

 

[SuperFerret]

Pascal is full of ****.

There is a distinction that separates man from animals. Socially we can find similarities but that does not mean that they have the same origin or even the same purpose. Man has developed social contracts and civilization on a wide and ever sprawling scale. This is man's reason for emotion and source of emotive context.

This is full of ****.

The only distinction between humans and other animals is species, nothing more. We are not the only intelligent species, nor are we the only social species, nor are we the only emotional species. We have the same origins (via evolution) and purpose (to breed and make more of ourselves) as other species. "Civilization" is merely a means to that end, we band together to raise our children, who (unlike most other species) are defenseless and essentially invalids for a very long time after birth. Human civilization is merely a very large scale social structure for a specific species, like a gigantic ant colony or wolf pack.

I believe that in nature war is something that happens without man's influence, but in nature I doubt highly that wars are started when people are offended. Our basest kind of emotions may be the same as an "animal emotion" but they are very different.

Chimps and other primates go to war from time to time, sometimes for mysterious reasons that we do not understand yet. In these instances, it's not territory or food or another obvious conflict that drives the violence, it merely seems as if the apes just don't like each other.

As for animal emotions being different, they may be, but there's no proof of that, and since our emotions, like everything else we have, came from our animal ancestors, it's much more logical to presume that they share similar emotions.

We entertain trivial pursuits such as art, literature, and philosophy. We make a distinction between our thought and mind and our physical body. It is clearly evident that we are not "normal" animals. We know that we as mankind feel that we are different from animals.

Elephants doodle in the sand, bears watch the sunrise and sunset calmly with an apparent sense of awe, gorillas enjoy being read to. Are these not aesthetic pursuits? Are these not proof that animals don't, or cannot, make a distinction between the mental and physical? You're presuming a lot there.

Also, mankind feels that it is different from (read as "superior to") other species for the same reasons that groups of humans feel that they are different from (also read as "superior to") other groups of humans. It's that ever prevalent sense of self-importance that seems to define every major struggle in human history.

Although I think Hound's point was that we are not separate from nature. Which is totally different. We aren't separate from nature we are part of nature but that doesn't mean that we aren't distinctly different than an animal. Rocks and trees and lions are all part of nature but there are obvious distinctions there.

Animals are a part of nature, and if we are also a part of nature then we can't be that distinctly different from other species, especially other species of animals. Rocks, trees, and lions have their differences, but they also have their similarities.

Hypothesis*

Same difference.

 

[Danalys]

all aspects of all life are part of evolution. you've got your hate but you got your love aswell.

 

[Majic Walrus]

This is full of ****.

The only distinction between humans and other animals is species, nothing more. We are not the only intelligent species, nor are we the only social species, nor are we the only emotional species. We have the same origins (via evolution) and purpose (to breed and make more of ourselves) as other species. "Civilization" is merely a means to that end, we band together to raise our children, who (unlike most other species) are defenseless and essentially invalids for a very long time after birth. Human civilization is merely a very large scale social structure for a specific species, like a gigantic ant colony or wolf pack.

This is a very sad and frankly underwhelming view of the purpose of mankind. I find it difficult to believe that mankind has created and formulated religions and philosophical ideas and concepts that are pointless because the entire purpose of man is ****ing.

Chimps and other primates go to war from time to time, sometimes for mysterious reasons that we do not understand yet. In these instances, it's not territory or food or another obvious conflict that drives the violence, it merely seems as if the apes just don't like each other.

As for animal emotions being different, they may be, but there's no proof of that, and since our emotions, like everything else we have, came from our animal ancestors, it's much more logical to presume that they share similar emotions.

I agree, they share similar emotions on a purely physiological level this is correct. It's why doggie anti-depressants work basically the same way that human anti-depressants work because generally mammalian brains even so far apart as a canine and human work similarly.

The dog can be depressed because he misses the company of his master. This is understandable and as a human being I can ascribe values to these emotions.

I can be depressed because of many different factors that dogs cannot relate to because human emotions are different from dogs. Not on a physiological level but on a metaphysical level.

Elephants doodle in the sand, bears watch the sunrise and sunset calmly with an apparent sense of awe, gorillas enjoy being read to. Are these not aesthetic pursuits? Are these not proof that animals don't, or cannot, make a distinction between the mental and physical? You're presuming a lot there.

No they are not. When a bear writes a poem about a sunrise or when a gorilla writes a book, call me. Until then animals really don't entertain themselves with trivial pursuits.

Also, mankind feels that it is different from (read as "superior to") other species for the same reasons that groups of humans feel that they are different from (also read as "superior to") other groups of humans. It's that ever prevalent sense of self-importance that seems to define every major struggle in human history.

There's nothing wrong with self-importance. Humans are superior to other animals.

Animals are a part of nature, and if we are also a part of nature then we can't be that distinctly different from other species, especially other species of animals. Rocks, trees, and lions have their differences, but they also have their similarities.

My point is that the difference between an animal and a human is as different as the difference between a fern and a fish.

Same difference.

Not really:

Hypothesis: 1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

Theory: 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another









I just found out the purpose of this face.

 

[Master Chief]

This is a very sad and frankly underwhelming view of the purpose of mankind. I find it difficult to believe that mankind has created and formulated religions and philosophical ideas and concepts that are pointless because the entire purpose of man is ****ing.

If you look at religion and philosophy from a neutral POV, you can see them as mere examples of how to live (an ideal in most cases) life. As for f**king: It feels good, babies are cute, let's procreate! I like how Joe Rogan put it when he said we're built up of biological tricks to keep our species going. It's a very narcissistic view but nonetheless there's some truth in it, but then again there's a little bit of truth in everything, it's all about how much you're willing to believe. Sometimes I wish I were a wolf or something, make s**t less complicated.

 

[Carcharodon]

Same difference.

 

[Carcharodon]

There was an article in the September issue of Scientific American that deals with the issue MW and SF are debating. The author asserts that the origin of the human mind is still very poorly understood, but that there is a rather large gap between our intellect and those of all other creatures on the planet, though this can be explained in terms of evolution.

He's very assertive (and pretty convincing) in arguing that the gap between our intellect and that of other animals is a significant one (brought about by unique physiological/anatomical changes), and not merely a matter of degree, but one of type (contrary to an assertion made by Darwin which has been heavily supported since).

 

[Majic Walrus]

If you look at religion and philosophy from a neutral POV, you can see them as mere examples of how to live (an ideal in most cases) life. As for f**king: It feels good, babies are cute, let's procreate! I like how Joe Rogan put it when he said we're built up of biological tricks to keep our species going. It's a very narcissistic view but nonetheless there's some truth in it, but then again there's a little bit of truth in everything, it's all about how much you're willing to believe. Sometimes I wish I were a wolf or something, make s**t less complicated.

True biologically and physiologically we're programming to eat, ****, and survive. I think that's basically true, however human beings are capable of so much more than animals are. Religion and philosophy are examples of how to live. And they are necessary examples because it becomes obvious that we do not know how to live of our own accord.

If we were nothing more than animals we would have no need for "higher pursuits" we would be limited to eating, ****ing, and surviving. We however are not. We are obviously inclined to create for ourselves a meaning that exists beyond the trivial. Some people might find solace in declaring that we are nothing but animals but in reality they further illustrate the point. If one was nothing more than an animal one would not need to make that particular concession.

 

[Master Chief]

Yeah but do we really need higher pursuits? Why are we so important that we have to have some extra meaning behind our existence other than we're here? Just because we're more capable than other less intelligent and less civilized species? I don't know, if you peel away the repression brought on by concrete jungles we're still very primitive, we just don't rely solely on instincts. We're all brought up to separate human from animal, but when it comes down to it, one in the same, just on different levels.

 

[bullets]

which came first the chicken or the egg??

creationism

 

[[A]]

creationism

Magic. I knew it..

 

[Mike_D202]

Oh god, here comes the science vs. creationism debate....

 

[Halloween]

I hate this topic.

 

[knowsbleed]

Do people really think these thoughts when they are sitting here, typing furiously away at Superherohype?