40 replies to this topic

[8143FF763271]

Nature seems like a fairly ugly and brutish mess of animals eating and brutalizing each other.

Thank God I am human and dwell in a human society that is much safer and civil than the 'natural' world.

Edited by kami12, 16 August 2012 - 05:00 AM.

[8143FF763271]

Civility is the accepted mannerisms pushed upon us from birth by society. Animals do not live by our versions of accepted norms. Evolution taught animals 'Eat or be eaten, fight or be killed"

Erm... That's cool. I don't know how that disproves anything I've said though.

[8143FF763271]

I wasn't trying to disprove anything. This is the debate section. I posted my thoughts on the statement.



Though, one could argue that society is neither 'safe' nor 'civil' 100% of the time. At least in the 'natural' world you'd know where you stand amongst the animals. Whereas in 'civilization' you can never know who is going to rob you, rape you, murder you and turn your skin into an outfit

Predictability does not require safety. That you can expect anyone to kill you does not negate the fact that your circumstances aren't safe.

Furthermore, we can't really expect anything in the natural world. We can observe certain animals or traits and deem them dangerous based on our observations, just like we catalog people as 'creepy' or 'aggressive'. However, we don't really know what each animal is going to do, we only try to predict their behaviour based on arbitrary observations- much like we do with humans. Dogs are safe. We can more or less expect dogs to be docile animals that will show no aggression towards human beings. Approach a dingo under that set of presumptions, get your face bit off. The level of unpredictability in nature as to whom or what will attack you is the same as in civilization, except, you know, the risk is 4,000 times higher.

You know, I've been sitting here trying to figure out how this thread/debate is even going to work.
It's not really a debatable subject. Nature is brutal. Survival of the fittest. (Which is probably why you prefer not to bother with it ).
But whether or not it's "ugly" or likeable, it's completely a matter of opinion. Not something you can try to prove with wiki links.

And again, it comes back to bad and good taste. Just because you don't like something, what right does it give you to say your taste is the one that's good, and theirs is the one that is bad? You had the same stance on that. So saying anything otherwise would just be contradicting yourself.

Obviously hasn't read Rosseau nor the romantics nor the transcendentalists nor any of the various strains of thought that claim nature to be inherently good.

Edited by kami12, 16 August 2012 - 05:26 AM.

[8143FF763271]

Because I haven't read those, I can't provide a rebuttal for that.

I just don't think this thread can really amount to anything.
It's got a poor foundation. Maybe you could specify exactly what we are supposed to be debating?

People hold that nature is inherently good and peaceful and that society corrupts man. People think that nature is good because nature is seen as moderate and ascetic, with animals/savages supposedly doing everything on a need to basis and according to a presupposed natural balance or harmony. Furthermore, people are less restricted by the common laws and norms of society and don't pollute or damage the earth with technology, which is seen as undesirable and wasteful. Some may also see the evolutionary stasis of humans as "bad" and advocate a return to natural selection. Those are the tenets of the argument in a nutshell. Maybe you should wait for the opposition to make it instead of making me present both sides of the issue.

Also, philosophy can be used in a debate. There's a formal logic to it and arguments of a philosophical variety are as based on observations and logical prepositions as arguments of any variety. Discussing something like the "nature of man" might be philosophical, but people will still use neurological aspects and anthropological research to back their claims up.

Edited by kami12, 16 August 2012 - 05:50 AM.

[Drakonid]

Nature seems like a fairly ugly and brutish mess of animals eating and brutalizing each other.

Sounds almost like a literal quote from Hobbes. Whom I kind of agree with.

Edited by MaserPhave, 16 August 2012 - 06:54 AM.

[MEGAKICK]

Society & the media have created a contrast between humanity and the world surrounding us. Humans are portrayed as being evil creatures; parasites. Nature has been painted to resemble God.

It must be a conspiracy.

By having this contrast, between good and evil, corporations are more easily able to sell us 'green' products. Corporations are evil, relentless, parasitic creatures who manipulate us like the peons we are. These corporations are all on the eco-friendly bandwagon, and have been for some time now. Advertisements for products always has some sort of green/eco reference to it. "Our product leaves behind a smaller footprint on the environment (insert comparison to competitors product and how evil they are)" "If you use our product, you're actually helping us to save the environment (insert new car model advertisement here)"

If humans are bad, and nature is good:

• Corporations that advertise an eco product will probably see greater sales when compared to a similar product that is either less eco, or eco was not advertised.
• We evil humans will seek ways to improve our eco-friendliness due to how parasitic we are. The media & society has brought us up to subconciously think 'green' any time we're thinking of doing anything. It might be more expensive for a simple 'green' tag, but hell, we'll feel good about buying & using it. And when we run out of the product, we buy more. Who knows if these products are even less harmful to our environment. We have to take their word for it. And we intuitively believe advertisements and their 'greener' impact on the environment... Why? Because we're disgusting creatures who destroy everything around us.
• Similar to the above notes, this also breeds an obedience and 'trust' in media & corporations (even though anyone with a decent sense of reasoning would not trust any company nor media program). Unfortunately, the majority of the population isn't able to see through advertisements, companies, and the media. Strength in numbers. Obedience, without questioning. We're helping the environment by buying this product... But how exactly are we helping the environment? "Our product uses less plastic than our old model/competitors model" Oh cool, I'm reducing the amount of plastic I'm using! I should buy more of this so I can become an eco-armchair activist!

I believe nature is... natural. Natural isn't always 'good'. It's not always 'bad' either. And it most certainly isn't neutral or unbiased.
Humans are what they choose to be. Not always good, not always bad. We are the one species (in the known universe) that has the capability to perform incredible acts of greatness, but at the same time, incredible acts of evil as well. Corporations are the same; they are what they choose to be. Sure, most of them are jackasses who only seem to care about their revenues.

I think that's all I have to say

[Jakerz]

Nature is one of the few things that people see that isn't changed by man (for the most part). I consider it peaceful because it takes many years to look the way it does, and can't be made in a factory unlike most things in our every day life. It takes my mind off my everyday life and kind of brings me down to earth? Or clears the mind, which is a good feeling. Most people don't see/think about the 'brutalizing animals' when we think of nature

[8143FF763271]

Society & the media have created a contrast between humanity and the world surrounding us. Humans are portrayed as being evil creatures; parasites. Nature has been painted to resemble God.

It must be a conspiracy.

By having this contrast, between good and evil, corporations are more easily able to sell us 'green' products. Corporations are evil, relentless, parasitic creatures who manipulate us like the peons we are. These corporations are all on the eco-friendly bandwagon, and have been for some time now. Advertisements for products always has some sort of green/eco reference to it. "Our product leaves behind a smaller footprint on the environment (insert comparison to competitors product and how evil they are)" "If you use our product, you're actually helping us to save the environment (insert new car model advertisement here)"

If humans are bad, and nature is good:

• Corporations that advertise an eco product will probably see greater sales when compared to a similar product that is either less eco, or eco was not advertised.
  
• We evil humans will seek ways to improve our eco-friendliness due to how parasitic we are. The media & society has brought us up to subconciously think 'green' any time we're thinking of doing anything. It might be more expensive for a simple 'green' tag, but hell, we'll feel good about buying & using it. And when we run out of the product, we buy more. Who knows if these products are even less harmful to our environment. We have to take their word for it. And we intuitively believe advertisements and their 'greener' impact on the environment... Why? Because we're disgusting creatures who destroy everything around us.
  
• Similar to the above notes, this also breeds an obedience and 'trust' in media & corporations (even though anyone with a decent sense of reasoning would not trust any company nor media program). Unfortunately, the majority of the population isn't able to see through advertisements, companies, and the media. Strength in numbers. Obedience, without questioning. We're helping the environment by buying this product... But how exactly are we helping the environment? "Our product uses less plastic than our old model/competitors model" Oh cool, I'm reducing the amount of plastic I'm using! I should buy more of this so I can become an eco-armchair activist!

I believe nature is... natural. Natural isn't always 'good'. It's not always 'bad' either. And it most certainly isn't neutral or unbiased.
Humans are what they choose to be. Not always good, not always bad. We are the one species (in the known universe) that has the capability to perform incredible acts of greatness, but at the same time, incredible acts of evil as well. Corporations are the same; they are what they choose to be. Sure, most of them are jackasses who only seem to care about their revenues.

I think that's all I have to say

I think you're giving corporations too much credit. I agree that the selling of "green" products is mostly a fallacious marketing scheme based on the erroneous concept of the natural being superior to the artificial, but it is based on something much older. Primitivism or the praise of nature goes back to romanticism, centuries ago. It was revived in the 60's and companies take advantage of it. It's a tenet of our culture, not something corporations made up. They just exploit it.

Edited by kami12, 16 August 2012 - 07:11 AM.

[tri]

Well nature such as trees cleans or breathing air. We are part of nature. Everything is nature. Human Nature. We eat animal such as chickens.

[iargue]

You do realize that almost a trillion humans have died to the hands of other humans?

Every since we started recording history, there have been thousands of wars. Some on a smaller scale, with only a few thousand dying. Others on a global scale with millions dieing. While your limited knowledge makes you think that there are just two major global wars, and then there was the revolutionary war, and maybe you heart about the crusades, you don't know about the hundreds of thousands of wars that happened in the past, or the four wars that are currently occurring in the world right now. You know about the iraq war, but not about the rest.

In 20011, the number of KNOWN and REPORTED murders (This excludes any "lawful" murders, such as war, execution, military action, etc), is 466,078. Thats almost HALF A MILLION humans dead within a single year, this excluding the hundreds of thousands that are executed by the government, the hundreds of thousands of murders that are not reported, and the hundreds of thousands of murders that occur via war/guerilla action.

Do animals kill more then that? Probably. But they ALWAYS eat the remains. They kill and they eat, to survive. Do we eat the humans that we kill? No. Do even do anything with the bodies? Nope. In fact, we waste a huge amount of resources to bury the bodies, or burn them for pollution.

I'm sorry, but the Human race is by no means "safe". We can try and justify our actions, and we can try and say that we are not as bad as the rest of the world. But the facts state that we are a brutal species just like any other species, but we are also much much more wasteful.
http://www.unodc.org...tistics2012.xls

There is a nice and handy source to prove you're wrong.

And I'm done with this thread

Edited by iargue, 16 August 2012 - 03:31 PM.

[8143FF763271]

You do realize that almost a trillion humans have died to the hands of other humans?

Every since we started recording history, there have been thousands of wars. Some on a smaller scale, with only a few thousand dying. Others on a global scale with millions dieing. While your limited knowledge makes you think that there are just two major global wars, and then there was the revolutionary war, and maybe you heart about the crusades, you don't know about the hundreds of thousands of wars that happened in the past, or the four wars that are currently occurring in the world right now. You know about the iraq war, but not about the rest.

In 20011, the number of KNOWN and REPORTED murders (This excludes any "lawful" murders, such as war, execution, military action, etc), is 466,078. Thats almost HALF A MILLION humans dead within a single year, this excluding the hundreds of thousands that are executed by the government, the hundreds of thousands of murders that are not reported, and the hundreds of thousands of murders that occur via war/guerilla action.

Do animals kill more then that? Probably. But they ALWAYS eat the remains. They kill and they eat, to survive. Do we eat the humans that we kill? No. Do even do anything with the bodies? Nope. In fact, we waste a huge amount of resources to bury the bodies, or burn them for pollution.

I'm sorry, but the Human race is by no means "safe". We can try and justify our actions, and we can try and say that we are not as bad as the rest of the world. But the facts state that we are a brutal species just like any other species, but we are also much much more wasteful.
http://www.unodc.org...tistics2012.xls

There is a nice and handy source to prove you're wrong.

And I'm done with this thread

Animals don't always eat the remains. That's false. Animals kill each other for a variety of reasons and it is not always about hunger. Gorillas, for example, walk up to other troops and kill the children of the troop. Chimpanzees kill each other all the time (they're assholes). Tasmanian devils kill each other. Betta fishes kill each other. No, animals don't always eat their victims and, no, animals don't always kill for food.

Violence rates in human beings (including wars) have consistently dropped through history. It's true we have the technology to kill a lot of people, and to do it quick but as people enter peace treatises with each other and reach agreements violence tends to go down. Mainly, humans find that they benefit the most from not killing each other so they rarely resort to it unless the circumstances are strenuous. Do you think there's any sign of animals evolving to agree not to kill each other? Nope.

You do realize that intentional injuries (that includes murder, war, and suicide) are a 2% of the death rate? That's right. 2% of people in the world these days die because of these "big wars" and this violence you speak of. 2% of deaths! 2%. More people die from diarrhea and accidents than they do from homicides. If you don't think that's a good record, you haven't been watching enough Animal Channel. Killing isn't something animals do on a strictly need to do basis, killing is something they do without remorse nor consideration. Animals don't have the qualms about killing each other that we do.

So: A) We're less brutal than other species. They kill and eat each other (even within the same species) under natural conditions and with no reservations about it. We have morals and, for the most part, have learned to treat each other rather nicely.

B) I am sorry that it bothers you that people bury corpses instead of leaving them lying around like animals do. We just think they smell really bad and also have respect to the dead. Animals don't care about either (because they're mean).

Edited by kami12, 16 August 2012 - 08:58 PM.

[ImperialOwl]

I agree that this thread sucks, but it's only because nature is a complicated topic to debate about.

Anyway, I think nature, or the world un-touched by man, is incredible.It's this perfect balance of prey to predator. (That is until the humans showed up, and started exporting animals from different continents for profit). If I need to be alone, ever, I'll just take a stroll though the woods, or near a lake or something. I find nature to be quite tranquil. Life is hard sometimes, and extreme situations call for extreme measures (i.e. - animals killing one another), but if you look at only the bad, what point is there of looking at all? Nature is a wondrous thing given to us by God (that is my opinion, don't let it retract from what I said before), and I honestly don't think it's all too-cruel. Sure, life is a b*tch sometimes, but then what kind of experience would life be if we didn't have any problems at all? (Nature included). What has to happen in nature happens, and things that aren't necessity, but still happen... Well, that's life for you.

[8143FF763271]

I agree that this thread sucks, but it's only because nature is a complicated topic to debate about.

Anyway, I think nature, or the world un-touched by man, is incredible.It's this perfect balance of prey to predator. (That is until the humans showed up, and started exporting animals from different continents for profit). If I need to be alone, ever, I'll just take a stroll though the woods, or near a lake or something. I find nature to be quite tranquil. Life is hard sometimes, and extreme situations call for extreme measures (i.e. - animals killing one another), but if you look at only the bad, what point is there of looking at all? Nature is a wondrous thing given to us by God (that is my opinion, don't let it retract from what I said before), and I honestly don't think it's all too-cruel. Sure, life is a b*tch sometimes, but then what kind of experience would life be if we didn't have any problems at all? (Nature included). What has to happen in nature happens, and things that aren't necessity, but still happen... Well, that's life for you.

What do you define as a balance? Because I fail to see one in nature. Of course woods are peaceful for you! You live in a nation where we have domesticated wild animals and eradicated the ones we couldn't tame. No bear is going to show up and maul you. That's the byproduct of human contact for you.

The way I look at it, you're sitting on a computer talking shit on a forum with not a problem in your life. A poor antelope is under the hot sun somewhere about to be eaten by a tiger. You live in perpetual comfort thanks to the things that human society has offered, and yet you're enough of an ingrate to compare your life to the dog eat dog brutality of nature? Give me a break.

Edited by kami12, 17 August 2012 - 08:44 AM.

[8143FF763271]

No bears... Lol!
Obviously you don't live, nor have been near and mountains and woodlands. Ever.

Why would I do that? I have all this society to enjoy to be getting attacked by bears.

[ImperialOwl]

What do you define as a balance? Because I fail to see one in nature. Of course woods are peaceful for you! You live in a nation where we have domesticated wild animals and eradicated the ones we couldn't tame. No bear is going to show up and maul you. That's the byproduct of human contact for you.

The way I look at it, you're sitting on a computer talking shit on a forum with not a problem in your life. A poor antelope is under the hot sun somewhere about to be eaten by a tiger. You live in perpetual comfort thanks to the things that human society has offered, and yet you're enough of an ingrate to compare your life to the dog eat dog brutality of nature? Give me a break.

Ahh, I'm an ingrate for having an opinion, and thinking things though. Also, half of the things you claim I said aren't true. Not once on this forum have I talked shit (highlighted in red). I, as all people, have problems in life. Maybe not as great in scale as others, but to each person, each problem has personal value/ disdain (lime green). Lastly, not ONCE did I compare my life to the horrors that nature can have at times. I don't know where you pulled this information out of, and I don't know why you're trying to start crap, but I forgive you.

♥

[8143FF763271]

Ahh, I'm an ingrate for having an opinion, and thinking things though. Also, half of the things you claim I said aren't true. Not once on this forum have I talked shit (highlighted in red). I, as all people, have problems in life. Maybe not as great in scale as others, but to each person, each problem has personal value/ disdain (lime green). Lastly, not ONCE did I compare my life to the horrors that nature can have at times. I don't know where you pulled this information out of, and I don't know why you're trying to start crap, but I forgive you.

♥

Talking 'shit' refers to anything, not that the content of your talk is shit. That's up for debate. All I'm saying is that you can afford the luxury of a pointless philosophical discussion because civilization gives you that gift.

You have problems in life, maybe so. These problems may be big for you, maybe so. However, you dismiss the things that are "bad" about nature and say: "That's life for you" as if we could ever compare in our petty day to day problems to life in the wild. "Sure it has problems! But what's life without problems?" It's something that beings with real problems would surely appreciate. You're an ingrate. You're so comfortable in what you've been given that you have the courage to present nature as somehow tranquil and wondrous and the bad in it something you can just ignore. Of course you can ignore the bad in nature. You've never experienced it in your life and you never will have to.

I'll thank civilization for you.
Thanks, civilization, for giving owl such an amazing life.

Edited by kami12, 17 August 2012 - 10:41 AM.

[ImperialOwl]

Talking 'shit' refers to anything, not that the content of your talk is shit. That's up for debate. All I'm saying is that you can afford the luxury of a pointless philosophical discussion because civilization gives you that gift.

You have problems in life, maybe so. These problems may be big for you, maybe so. However, you dismiss the things that are "bad" about nature and say: "That's life for you" as if we could ever compare in our petty day to day problems to life in the wild. "Sure it has problems! But what's life without problems?" It's something that beings with real problems would surely appreciate. You're an ingrate. You're so comfortable in what you've been given that you have the courage to present nature as somehow tranquil and wondrous and the bad in it something you can just ignore. Of course you can ignore the bad in nature. You've never experienced it in your life and you never will have to.

I'll thank civilization for you.
Thanks, civilization, for giving owl such an amazing life.

Thanks for thanking civilization for me. Truly, you're a gem among men.

[Dazz]

Civilisation thou art so great for letting humans have such comfy lives, especially in the council estates in London, the ghettos, the wars, the poverty... etc.
"as if we could ever compare in our petty day to day problems to life in the wild"
We might not be able to, but there certainly are a lot of people that can.

[8143FF763271]

Civilisation thou art so great for letting humans have such comfy lives, especially in the council estates in London, the ghettos, the wars, the poverty... etc.
"as if we could ever compare in our petty day to day problems to life in the wild"
We might not be able to, but there certainly are a lot of people that can.

If you think anywhere in London is worse than nature I'm just going to proceed to laugh my ass off.

There is a lot more to enjoying life than sex and being an egotistical, self-centered, and antagonizing little prick on a forum

love u too baby

[Suou]

I suppose I should try to weigh in on this since I spend a lot of my free time dicking around in forests and shit.

Gonna start by saying that I believe that both nature and humanity are neither fundamentally "good" nor fundamentally "bad." Both have their perks, both have their disadvantages. I think that a world strictly ruled by either would be totally bullshit.

Humanity and nature are neither good nor bad.

I believe that so many people idealize and romanticize nature because they've been isolated from it and they don't know much about it, or people have experienced it and have accepted it despite its perceived flaws. It's a bit like space. Space is beautiful, and we're all a part of space. But if you were to hitch a ride on a rocket and head up there, you might similarly find it very violent and barbaric as stars collapse and explode, lifeless balls of ice circle around clouds of gas, galaxies collide and eat each other, rocks slam into each other, and so-on. But even with all of this scary and dangerous activity, even though on earth we feel separated from it, space is still adored by many and we are and always have been a part of space.

I love nature. I think animals are fascinating and beautiful (yeah, even when they're dismembering each other), plants and fungi are majestic, rocks are varied and interesting, and so-on. But I also adore big cities, genetic engineering, pharmaceuticals, jewelry, and cameras in space.

I'd never take one over the other because I'm a greedy fuck who wants it both ways. I think a lot of that is reflected in my job, which often involves making compromises between nature and people or bending nature to meet the needs of people.

[iargue]

Animals don't always eat the remains. That's false. Animals kill each other for a variety of reasons and it is not always about hunger. Gorillas, for example, walk up to other troops and kill the children of the troop. Chimpanzees kill each other all the time (they're assholes). Tasmanian devils kill each other. Betta fishes kill each other. No, animals don't always eat their victims and, no, animals don't always kill for food.

Violence rates in human beings (including wars) have consistently dropped through history. It's true we have the technology to kill a lot of people, and to do it quick but as people enter peace treatises with each other and reach agreements violence tends to go down. Mainly, humans find that they benefit the most from not killing each other so they rarely resort to it unless the circumstances are strenuous. Do you think there's any sign of animals evolving to agree not to kill each other? Nope.

You do realize that intentional injuries (that includes murder, war, and suicide) are a 2% of the death rate? That's right. 2% of people in the world these days die because of these "big wars" and this violence you speak of. 2% of deaths! 2%. More people die from diarrhea and accidents than they do from homicides. If you don't think that's a good record, you haven't been watching enough Animal Channel. Killing isn't something animals do on a strictly need to do basis, killing is something they do without remorse nor consideration. Animals don't have the qualms about killing each other that we do.

So: A) We're less brutal than other species. They kill and eat each other (even within the same species) under natural conditions and with no reservations about it. We have morals and, for the most part, have learned to treat each other rather nicely.

B) I am sorry that it bothers you that people bury corpses instead of leaving them lying around like animals do. We just think they smell really bad and also have respect to the dead. Animals don't care about either (because they're mean).

Thank you for ignoring my source, which has already served to disprove your argument that murders have decreased.

Have a nice day.