Thief
Rogue Theologian
A pack of weak animals?....such as primitive man?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To What Extent Do You Agree With This?
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
A pack of weak animals?....such as primitive man?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
And some of them have contributed immensely to the common good.
Hawking anyone?
Done the least in what respect?
Since survival isn't much of an issue in most modern societies, by what measuring stick do we call this?
Granted, but it seems to me that we benefit more, as a society, by holding even those initially thought weak up, thus turning some of them into assets.
Sure, we fail at times, but in my view, it is worth the cost.
Me Myself
Back to my username
In my book, thi sis the perfect answer:
So frubals to you whose name makes me laizy to look right in order to write right!:bow:
Disagree. If you look at the fact that those who participate in aggressive behavior tend to put themselves at more physical risk of dying, while those who try to abstain from violence have a better chance of living to pass on their genes, the idea doesn't hold as much water as you might think.
Take a look at young people. There are those who become quite aggressive and may get into fights, assaults, even gangs. This lessens their chance of survival. They may be killed in the streets or wind up in prison where they may meet the same fate. Whereas, the young person who decides to avoid aggression and those situations at all cost have the greater ability to become educated and live productive lives and mate and reproduce, passing on their genes.
Aggression does not equate with survival, nor does non-aggression equate with being "weak". If anything, non-aggression equates more to being more intelligent as those who choose not to be aggressive are choosing not to put themselves at risk, which is the smart choice.
Another great answer
Also, and if you wanna look at nature:
That bugger is strong and will fight for his own if needed, but it is a vegetarian so he kills a lot less than say this feller:
you wanna know how many lions do you need to take on a little elephant?
Being strong and being aggresive is not the same thing.
I say, don´t eat people up for living, but if a pack of lions tries to eat your little dumbo, flatten them with your strength, and may the survivors tell the rest of their peers their lesson learned.
not nom
Well-Known Member
"fitness" in evolutionary terms isn't defined like people in the gym define it. being evolutionarily "strong" has nothing to do with strength. it simply means how much offspring is produced.
and when it comes to aggression: you may say a cow is peaceful. but it eats grass, and that grass can't even run away. I say cows are cold killing machines I think you could argue for algae based on photosynthesis to not be killers.. the sunlight is there, it literally hits THEM, they use it. but otherwise, that all seems like making arbitrary distinctions based on what gets eaten, and in what way.
and when it comes to aggression: you may say a cow is peaceful. but it eats grass, and that grass can't even run away. I say cows are cold killing machines
I think you could argue for algae based on photosynthesis to not be killers.. the sunlight is there, it literally hits THEM, they use it. but otherwise, that all seems like making arbitrary distinctions based on what gets eaten, and in what way.
not nom
Well-Known Member
[youtube]LU8DDYz68kM[/youtube]
Battle at Kruger - YouTube
Battle at Kruger - YouTube
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
But you have to keep in mind that modern sheep are what we have made them through artificial selection.
And it could be argued that sheep has entered into a very successful survival strategy considering that they are doing much better than, say, Siberian Tigers, whom would by many be considered a 'strong' animal.
As long as sheep are useful to humans, they are very unlikely to become exitinct, which, after all, is the ultimate measuring stick for a species.
Thus, the argument follows, that 'strong' and 'weak' are more complex terms in this respect than one might think, and that all measurements along this axis must be seen in the context of a species' environment, of which humans play an important part.
I guess my question would be, is mankind going to evolve into a supeior species or a lessor species because we don't allow natural forces to claim the weak any more?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
What does 'superior' and 'lesser' species mean in this context?
cablescavenger
Well-Known Member
To the extent of "Not at all".
I grow tired of people who answer questions with questions.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Fittest does not really mean "strongest". The universe can hurl a monkey wrench into the kingdoms of might and strength, lol @ dinosaurs. And the counter to aggression is often superior ( WW2 for example ).
Fittest means what is most suited to get beyond any variable positive or negative instance, interaction and circumstance. Mammals obviously survived that mighty ancient monkey wrench where as the "strongest" of that day linger only in etched memory.
Fittest means at best adaptive.
Fittest means what is most suited to get beyond any variable positive or negative instance, interaction and circumstance. Mammals obviously survived that mighty ancient monkey wrench where as the "strongest" of that day linger only in etched memory.
Fittest means at best adaptive.
not nom
Well-Known Member
oh yeah, asking for clarification really sucks! so much more than statements that are nonsensical without that clarification, and asking if one agrees with them :sad:
You can ask questions no matter how something is phrased.
It comes down to intentions, do you plan on weighing in or just making an attempt to draw out something objectionable?
I have a feeling you believe there are no superior or inferior people correct?
Intelligence
longevity
Disease
strength
Are not to be considered?
not nom
Well-Known Member
and sometimes you have to, as in this case.
that would make someone "superior in that respect", not simply "superior". nice try. "quality" as a literally one-dimensional property is nonsense, as is the original statement, and there are no alterior motives needed for pointing that out, that's just paying attention.
So, do you have enough clarification to weigh in now?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
I do plan to weigh in, but I prefer to be as accurate as possible when I do.
Hence, the request for clarification.
On the contrary, the evidence is quite clear that in certain areas some people are superior to others and vise versa.
But the areas in which people are relatively superior tend to vary from person to person, and while one might claim that some people due to their behaviour and actions are inferior, i.e. they do massively more harm than good, after that it tends to get a bit more fuzzy and subjective.
Considered, absolutely.
Argued, most definitely.
Intelligence is poorly understood and while we do have some preliminary ways of measuring it (IQ and the like) they are far from conclusive and in many cases measure education more than actual intelligence.
Nor have we been able to determine precisely to what degree education affects intelligence, although most agree that it almost certainly does.
Longevity is somewhat easier to measure, but can it be said that longevity in and of itself is a superior trait?
Wouldn't it be more interesting to look at what people do with their time, rather than how long it lasted?
For instance, James Clerk Maxwell died a mere 48 years old, but his impact on theoretical and applied physics can hardly be overstated.
As for resistance against disease and illnesses, this is of course valid to a certain degree, but then we come down to which tactic is better in the long run.
Certainly, a good disease-free genetic background and a strong immune system is valuable, but the increased lifespan of humans in modern societies surely cannot be attributed to a strengthening of these factors, but rather to an increased access to healthy clean food, better sanitation and medical science?
Physical strength is perhaps even less valid than any of the above, as manual labour has taken a sharp and steady decline in the last century, and may in time be completely superfluous.
Once there might have been a need for strength to fight off wild animals, bring down prey or even fight wars, but those days are long gone, and have been replaced with technology of various kinds instead.
So it seems to me that the labels of 'superior' and 'inferior' needs some work before they can be applied in anything resembling a practical sense.
Last edited:
waitasec
Veteran Member
not necessarily.
these attributes are good in a certain type of environment
when the environment changes those that can adapt to it are fit to survive.
not nom
Well-Known Member
lolwhut? the OP still didn't clarify anything, neither did you. as for weighing in regardless, http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2683413-post15.html
OK, perhaps I was too critical. :sorry1:
This is what I am looking for.
Yes it does. :yes:
Perhaps people who are more intelligent seek higher learning. I don't believe education makes you smarter, I look at smart like memory space and education as data.
Perhaps inferior is the standard that should apply here. People who have generations of bad health for example.
This is a difficult subject. It is hard for me not to step in it.