Man is not an animal

[Mark Charles Compton]

"So a god put us here to kill other species to extinction, to destroy habitats and polute the earth?"

Isn't this what we do?

Not by design, or in general, if you ask me.

But we do in general permit corporations to design shady business plans. Which produce all the effects which you listed and more.

 

[Secret Chief]

Not by design, or in general, if you ask me.

But we do in general permit corporations to design shady business plans. Which produce all the effects which you listed and more.

Irrespective of any economic system in place, the fundamental cause is, as a species (and there's about 8 billion of us), we treat the planet as both a bottomless resource to do with as we please (and damn the consequences) and as a trash bin.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

@Secret Chief There are those that would see it in a similar way, but perhaps with different brush strokes and paint sets... I like to think it's a little more optimistic.

Willaru Huayta is an Incan Spiritual Messenger from Cusco, Peru. Born a Quechua Indian, he grew up in the jungles of Peru, studying with the shamans and learning to receive esoteric truth during his spiritual quests in the Amazon. He says that the native Quechua Incan prophecies predicted the white man's coming would bring 500 years of materialism and imbalance. However, this era is coming to an end and the Age of Aquarius will "signal the return of Light to the planet and the dawn of a golden era. We live in a time of the fulfilment of prophecy."

“We must return to the Ways of Nature and recognize that we are a part of the sun, moon, earth, water, and air. That Mother Nature is within us and we within her. Each of our lives are divine temples of Mother Nature and Father Creator. We must return to spiritual principles for our guidance.

“We must return to the Ways of Nature, recognizing the Earth as our sacred living mother. She knows that we are sick - victims of our egotism - and wishes to heal us with her natural medicines of pure air, clean water, fertility and solar rays.

- Excerpts taken from the following link: *Warning, I am unaware of the security of this website "Theshamanictimes.com" use at your own risk, keep yourself safe.*
The Shamanic Times | Quechua Indigenous 2012 Prophecy | The Awakening

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I'm not sure the solution, but I don't see it as either a need to return to nature, nor as a problem inherent, in nature, to the species'. I would say it's a symptom of our machinations and technologies, and can be solved through mental/psychological strengthening.

I think it's a smaller number of bad actors than presumed, that are making the public at large appear to be guilty of all this debauchery and vapid consumerism. It's surprising how often and in how many systems the Pareto Principle can be used to examine aspects of the system. 80% of the damage is caused by 20% of the population, as a general approximation. Heck, most of us are pretty darn poor.

 

[Polymath257]

Plants die yet can have seeds that produce other plants. Animals die, too.They do of course, produce offspring. Humans now die, but are the only ones that have the idea of everlasting life in their minds. Now naturally not all ideas are the same, but still -- plants do not think they can live forever -- or be resurrected when they die -- although they have seeds, neither do lions or tigers or chimpanzees have ideas about resurrections or everlasting life. Only humans have that idea. Even if I don't agree with all human ideas about death and eternal life -- humans are still the only ones who express ideas about it.

Again, irrelevant. The activity of the brain and our thoughts is not the relevant factor for determining whether humans are plants, animals, or fungi.

We are alive. Unlike most animals, we have self-consciousness. Unlike most animals, we have grammatical language. Unlike most animals, we can write poetry (although birds and whales seem to do this also).

That doesn't negate our being animals.

 

[Secret Chief]

we can write poetry

It's not all good then.

 

[Polymath257]

It's apparent to those with eyes that see. Meantime the excuse is that humans have been around for much longer than about 6000 years, but isn't it funny that only within the past few thousand years have people developed writing? Guess neither chimps nor hominoids needed to keep written records before that? It... doesn't...make...sense. according to the theory, of course.

There is a learning curve. Humans learned how to use tools and spent a lot of time early on developing the technologies associated with hunting and gathering. In those small groups that existed at the time, it was fairly easy to keep track of who deserved what just using our memory.

Then the climate shifted and grains became more abundant, so we started collecting them. Eventually, we started settling in those areas where the grains were abundant and learned how to plant and raise them. We also learned how to domesticate cows, pigs, sheep, and goats. The settlements were still small, and most people kept track of their own animals and grain stores.

But, after a while, our settlements got larger and we developed a centralized government where grains (for example) were collected together for the common good for storage. This meant that is became more difficult to keep track of who deserved what based on how much work they put in.

The first writing was associated with keeping track of food supplies in the earliest cities. We can actually see the progression from marks on the lids of containers to marks on clay associated with a person's name, to the earliest writing.

the earliest writing was used as a memory device. For small groups, such was not required. And, until about 6-10,000 years ago all groups of humans were fairly small.

 

[Polymath257]

It's not all good then.

Especially when I try to write it.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Irrespective of any economic system in place, the fundamental cause is, as a species (and there's about 8 billion of us), we treat the planet as both a bottomless resource to do with as we please (and damn the consequences) and as a trash bin.

Fair to say that we eat out of the trash can. We are the best dumpster divers ever!

 

[YoursTrue]

There is a learning curve. Humans learned how to use tools and spent a lot of time early on developing the technologies associated with hunting and gathering. In those small groups that existed at the time, it was fairly easy to keep track of who deserved what just using our memory.

Then the climate shifted and grains became more abundant, so we started collecting them. Eventually, we started settling in those areas where the grains were abundant and learned how to plant and raise them. We also learned how to domesticate cows, pigs, sheep, and goats. The settlements were still small, and most people kept track of their own animals and grain stores.

But, after a while, our settlements got larger and we developed a centralized government where grains (for example) were collected together for the common good for storage. This meant that is became more difficult to keep track of who deserved what based on how much work they put in.

The first writing was associated with keeping track of food supplies in the earliest cities. We can actually see the progression from marks on the lids of containers to marks on clay associated with a person's name, to the earliest writing.

the earliest writing was used as a memory device. For small groups, such was not required. And, until about 6-10,000 years ago all groups of humans were fairly small.

I no longer believe the idea that men and gorillas and chimps, etc., have an "Unknown Common Ancestor," per the theory of evolution. (Don't leave out natural selection especially with the "curve" you mentioned. ) I also no longer believe the conjectural concept that they all have a "Known common ancestor." Which some believers in evolution claim. Either way -- I no longer believe it (that lifeforms evolved biologically by "natural selection.") no matter how many details are brought up by scientists or believers to prove (OK, no proof maybe depending on who is defining it) evolution. The longer I review the so-called facts, the more I realize there is no proof, no reliable proof, only conjecture. Thanks anyway for your opinion.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fair to say that we eat out of the trash can. We are the best dumpster divers ever!

Although -- I suppose mold and bacteria are pretty good, too. Don't leave out ants and roaches as well. Plus!

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, irrelevant. The activity of the brain and our thoughts is not the relevant factor for determining whether humans are plants, animals, or fungi.

We are alive. Unlike most animals, we have self-consciousness. Unlike most animals, we have grammatical language. Unlike most animals, we can write poetry (although birds and whales seem to do this also).

That doesn't negate our being animals.

Well might as well say we're plants then. Why not? Because it's not in the same taxonomic category? (Oh, never mind...)

 

[Polymath257]

Well might as well say we're plants then. Why not? Because it's not in the same taxonomic category? (Oh, never mind...)

We aren't plants because our cells don't have cell walls and we are not autotrophic. That is what distinguishes plants from animals and fungi.

 

[Secret Chief]

Well might as well say we're plants then. Why not? Because it's not in the same taxonomic category? (Oh, never mind...)

Yes, because categorisation is of course done in an entirely random manner.

 

[Astrophile]

It's apparent to those with eyes that see. Meantime the excuse is that humans have been around for much longer than about 6000 years, but isn't it funny that only within the past few thousand years have people developed writing? Guess neither chimps nor hominoids needed to keep written records before that? It... doesn't...make...sense. according to the theory, of course.

This is very muddled. Xavier Graham said,

If we were to give a monkey unlimited time to evolve, they would never become conscious like us.

but you have moved the goalposts and said that we have developed writing only within the past few thousand years. It is possible to be conscious without being able to write. Would you please stick to Xavier Graham's argument about consciousness, rather than going off-topic and discussing writing.

Also, as Kfox pointed out,

Monkeys have already evolved; into what they are now.

so what reason is there to think that monkeys can never evolve beyond their present state, for example to the point of becoming conscious? Indeed, how can one tell that a monkey, or any other animal with a central nervous system, is or is not conscious?

 

[Astrophile]

Every type of animal has its own limits and fabulous qualities. Most donkeys cannot invent an airplane to fly in, can they?

This is the same faulty argument that you used in post 344. The fact that donkeys (was this a misprint for monkeys?) can't invent aeroplanes doesn't prove that they are not conscious. I couldn't invent an aeroplane, but I am certainly conscious.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is the same faulty argument that you used in post 344. The fact that donkeys (was this a misprint for monkeys?) can't invent aeroplanes doesn't prove that they are not conscious. I couldn't invent an aeroplane, but I am certainly conscious.

And donkeys OR monkeys are conscious also while they're alive. Just not the same way humans are conscious, lol. But thanks anyway for your post.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, because categorisation is of course done in an entirely random manner.

OK, so we're plants. lol...

 

[Secret Chief]

OK, so we're plants. lol...

Yes, and I believe stalactites are fungi. lol...

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Animals do not have articulate speech and poets. Man is not an animal.

Yes, the animals can communicate. But they have no articulate speech. There is difference: articulate communication, and non-articulate one. Articulate one has alphabet. Do whales have letters in alphabet order?

Many humans do use alphabet. Some humans are sick or not developed so much, so they do not.
But no bear, wolf, nor spider is using alphabet.

According to this ridiculous theory a newborn baby is an animal??
No. I repeat: "Many humans do use alphabet. Some humans are sick or not developed so much"

IF you define an animal.....
I am not defining. I am saying fact:

Only humans use alphabet.

Some humans are humans, but do not use alphabet (they are e.g. babies).

But no single bear has used alphabet. Hence, humans are not bears.

HOWEVER, there are plenty of apes who use ASL (a type of alphabet)??
Why a type of alphabet, but not actual alphabet? Can you list right here the first 10 letters of monkeys alphabet? And what words are there in their language? How they sound?

But the real thing that sets us apart from animals is the spiritual component, almost all humans understand that they are spiritual beings??
They have replied, that monkeys built primitive holy places as well.

CONCLUSION:

Animals know the Lord, unlike the atheists. Top primates are religious, and praying, and having alphabet.
But they are not human, because they have mortal soul.

John Nash was a Nobel Prize winner in economic science and a member of the Academy of Sciences. He was also highly delusional and spent considerable periods in psychiatric hospitals.
Most people are schizophrenic, because schizophrenia is a person's split. Major splits are: Faith vs. Knowledge, Religion vs. Science, State vs. Church separation.

People with schizophrenia require lifelong treatment??
Not all people. For example, the atheists have schizophrenic split between God and reality. But most of them are not in mental clinics.

Wow.