Reasons why you hate humanity

[EloquentBohemian]

Of course, my statement of use of 10% of the brain was an attempt at humour, as I said in post #14.

 

[Tyria]

Oh, I hate watching TV that talks down to the watcher too. I always laugh when commercials come on for things like herpes and everyone on the commercial is beautiful/having fun/etc.

I hate commercials probably more than TV shows.

Oh, and soap operas are about on the same level as commercials. I hate soaps >:/

 

[LucielaMinerva]

Not maximizing the usage of all of your brain is not the same as making a claim that 90% of it is unused. =/

My apologies for the lack of clarity; perhaps I should have phrased it in a more digestible manner- my bad!

IMO, there can be two ways to interpret that statement:

1) That humans are only tapping into only 10% of the brain’s resources and power at minimal effort, when there is the possibility of tapping into underdeveloped parts and/or being aware that there is a possibility of increasing brain usage at a more optimal rate, thereby increasing the overall percentage.

2) That there is only a given 10% of the brain that CAN are of cognitive or emotional functionability (thereby the notion of "utility of the brain") and the other parts are used for non-cognitive purposes, such as giving structure, or, the liquid mass (which I believe accounts to a certain percentage). This is because like other parts of the body, we have organs and we have supporting tissue that serve no direct purpose other than for giving support/structure as compared to more "active" utilization of organs in the body (e.g. bones, although the marrow produces white blood cells vs. say, the lungs, which allow oxygen to pass through into the bloodstream for distribution to the body)

I’m no neurosurgeon and I know nuts about neurology, so I really do not see how it would be logical to assume that all parts of the brain are being used/utilized because I believe the context in which we are speaking about encompasses the notion of cognitive function, as opposed to just an auxillary, secondary or supporting function (as I have described in #2)

With all that said however, I haven’t read up on the brain –yet-. Maybe I’ll take a look at it later. Right now we’ll just argue on the merits of the arguments first :P

 

[echoplex]

Oh, I hate watching TV that talks down to the watcher too. I always laugh when commercials come on for things like herpes and everyone on the commercial is beautiful/having fun/etc.

I hate commercials probably more than TV shows.

Oh, and soap operas are about on the same level as commercials. I hate soaps >:/

I couldn't agree more. Another thing is the way some movies seem to show borderline contempt for their audience. They assume we are horribly thoughtless people who will chase whatever bone they throw us. Very little on TV attempts to challenge anyone even a little. Although it may be true that very few people want to be challenged, thus making it supply and demand.

And yeah, soaps are awful. Is anyone's life really as emotional as those of the characters on those shows? They exaggerate everything.

 

[Jordan~]

We have an incredible capacity to be remarkably stupid, and I have a tendency to focus on the negatives. We're omnivores, savagery and greed is built into us at the most primal of levels: we're scavengers, we hoard resources and use our ingenuity to come up with ways to kill whatever seems to pose a threat to us. Hundreds of thousands of years of development has done very little to change this - other than that we may be discovering ways to change it ourselves.

 

[Anthile]

Another thing that annoys me is that humans tend to treat life as something one can "win" or "survive".

 

[LucielaMinerva]

Another thing that annoys me is that humans tend to treat life as something one can "win" or "survive".

You mean it's not?

 

[Hawkeye]

You mean it's not?

To win at life is to imply it is a competition.
To survive life implies there is a 'level 2' so to speak.

I suppose you could view it as survival of the fittest which is a statement I consider Humans are exempt from thanks to medicine. Weakness is maintained instead of being annihilated.


As for an 'after life', we have yet to prove an existance of one. I personally don't believe in one.

 

[LucielaMinerva]

To win at life is to imply it is a competition.
To survive life implies there is a 'level 2' so to speak.

I suppose you could view it as survival of the fittest which is a statement I consider Humans are exempt from thanks to medicine. Weakness is maintained instead of being annihilated.

As for an 'after life', we have yet to prove an existance of one. I personally don't believe in one.

Is he part of that exemption?

 

[Hawkeye]

To be blunt. Yes.

I never stated the moral implications

 

[LucielaMinerva]

To be blunt. Yes.

I never stated the moral implications

Sorry, but I do not understand. What moral implications?

He is exempt from the notion of survival of the fittest (due to advancement in medicine)... how?

Context : Advancement in medicine.
Realistic fact : Advancement does not mean everyone gets it. It just means it's gotten more sophisticated.

He is very much part of the world that still have to physically suffer to survive. In our sophisticated, globalised world, our "survival" is relegated to the office- where the vultures wear ties and shiny shoes and the hyenas, pencil skirts and crisp white blouses.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I believe survival of the fittest applies in every context available.

To view or to hold the philosophy that competition does not exist is, (correct me if I'm wrong), solipsistic in nature (if there's even such a form of the word)- you may, of course, certainly choose not to see it if you do not wish to, but to blatantly deny its existence is tantamount to ignorance.

=\

 

[snowqueen]

I agree with Hawkeye but actually on moral grounds. Survival of the fittest is not acceptable to the majority of humans which is why that photo is so shocking and was used as an emotional jolt to gain support and money. Morally we find it offensive. Which is why when we train people to kill or engage in massacres at some level we lose sight of their humanity - they are not human or they're subhuman. I don't think medicine is the cause of survival of the fittest not being so relevant to humans, I think it is a symptom.

Anyway - the Darwinian theory is not survival of the fittest, it is survival of the best adapted. It also depends on random mutations which survive because they are more suited to survival in the historical context and conditionsor are more predisposed to the kind of adaptation which would enable them to survive.

The phrase 'survival of the fittest' is a bit of a distortion of Darwin's theory and has been abused to justify all sorts of misdeeds.

'Best suited to the context and conditions' is a much more interesting evolutionary perspective'.

I personally don't hate humanity it's just that other people piss me off.

 

[severus]

@snowqueen
fittest/best adapted/best suited...

Same thing, aren't they?
The ones that fit best into their environment survive. The ones best adapted to their environment survive. The ones best suited to their environment survive.

Maybe we're interpreting this differently.

Edit: unless you're saying...
fit=physically fit
adapted=individual changes/progression (not genes)
suited=inherited traits

 

[Red Mage]

The reason "survival of the fittest" is a distortion of natural selection is because variation is the most important factor in survival, not being the fittest. While it's true that an individual with better-adapted traits will have a better chance to survive and procreate, an individual's traits who isn't as well-adapted may become important later on.

My anthropology professor used the peppered moth species as an example. This species has two different color possibilities: white and black, both with patterns that allow it to camouflage with trees. At first, the trees in its habitat were all covered with white lichen. The white moths were able to stay hidden while the black moths stuck out like sore thumbs. This allowed birds and other predators to easily spot the black moths and black moths became something like one percent of the population. Then, due to sulfur dioxide emissions, the lichen was killed off. The white moths now stuck out like sore thumbs while the black moths were more camouflaged in this change in habitat. The black moths later became representative of 90% of the population. If it weren't for variation, that species of moth would have most likely died off. Imagine if a brutal moth dictator had declared the black moths inferior and had them genocided.

Note: If it looks like this is a suspiciously great recollection on my part, it's because I googled for the exact example and found this link to refresh my memory.

 

[snowqueen]

Thanks Mage! You said it so much better. I think the same is true of skills in humans. A few years ago we had some eco-warriors living in our local forest to prevent it being cut down to make a leisure park. They lived in the trees and were incredibly resourceful, especially making things like stoves out of scrap. They were fantastic engineers - but also had a particular vision. Some local people thought they were disgusting for living in tree houses. I thought that if there ever were a cataclysm of some kind they would be the ones who would survive, not the advertising executives lol.