The State of Human Existence

[Steel Shadow]

Another wikiing turned up this:

In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is a living complex adaptive system of organs that influence each other in such a way that they function as a more or less stable whole. An organism is in a non-equilibrium thermodynamic state, maintaining a homeostatic internal environment, and a continuous input of energy is required to maintain this state.

The origin of life and the relationships between its major lineages are controversial. Two main grades may be distinguished, the prokaryotes and eukaryotes. The prokaryotes are generally considered to represent two separate domains, called the Bacteria and Archaea, which are not closer to one another than to the eukaryotes. The gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is widely considered a major missing link in evolutionary history. Two eukaryotic organelles, namely mitochondria and chloroplasts, are generally considered to be derived from endosymbiotic bacteria.

The phrase complex organism describes any organism with more than one cell.


Viruses

Viruses are not typically considered to be organisms because they are not capable of independent reproduction or metabolism. However, according to the United States Code, they are considered to be microorganisms in the sense of biological weaponry and malicious use. This controversy is problematic, though, since some parasites and endosymbionts are incapable of independent life either. Although viruses do have enzymes and molecules characteristic of living organisms, they are incapable of surviving outside a host cell and most of their metabolic processes require a host and its 'genetic machinery'. The origin of such parasites is uncertain, but it appears most likely that they are derived from their host.

[Crazy Go Nuts]

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

Are you serious? Wait...before I say anything, let me ask you for clarification: are you saying language isn't an innate trait to human beings?

Sorry, should have explained that a little more, huh? I was referring to the particular language, not necessarily language itself. Although, a human isn't born knowing language or how to speak, a baby's crying could be construed as a language of sorts. The children that have been locked away from civilization in closets and huts and things never know a language, they never come up with one. The need for language seems to be fairly necessary and, in a way, instinctual.

The no instinct thing was actually a discussion in class. His suggestion is that the closest we get is feeding (ie, baby suckling) and reproduction. On the other hand, biologists seem to be fairly convinced that the suckling thing might be cloesr to nerve ending response than instinct, but that's still up for discussion, certainly. As for reproduction...given how clumsy and unsuccessful some people are, I'd say the instinct might be mostly gone now. :P As for parents, well, given the high rate of abortions and adoptions (not all, mind you, just a scary chunk of them), and the full load of work Child Services tend to have, I doubt the maternity thing is instinct. That's actually around 99% learned.

I want to also make sure everyone realizes he said that many sociologists currently think that humans have no instinct, but that it's an extremely recent development (think industrial age sort of recent). On the flip side of all that, certain cases* seem to suggest that some things, such as the preference of gender specific socialization and action, may in fact be genetic, and therefore instinct on a certain level.

Also, Lockeownzj00 has an interesting article linked in his signature suggesting viruses may have more to do with life as we know it than we originally thought.

*Note: There's a very specific case of a boy, who underwent a horrible accent during circumcision as in infant (before being socialized), who was raised as a girl, but never accepted being a girl, and immediately became a man again when he found out what had happened. If anyone knows who I'm talking about, help me out with a link about it. I can't remember his name for the life of me...

[Sanacra]

While it may not be entirely central to the topic, I'd like to bring up a possible distinction in terms of what is meant by evolution. Genetic evolution, which is responsible for the existence and nature of our brains, from which we have fashioned innumerable constructs to enable a more efficient interface with our environment (language, cities, governments, etc) is not (as I understand it) something that has any specific goal outside of the propagation of life in some form. There is no observable reason to believe that our intelligence is necessarily a sign of our being more "advanced" than other organisms. We are, of course, a very successful form of life as measured by number of us there are, our ubiquitousness, and the severity required of a potential event to eliminate our race, but that does not change the fact that we have achieved that success through one of many possible avenues. It is arguable, for instance, that various bacterial and insectoid lifeforms are as, or more, successful than we are by the same measurements. What is perhaps a more accurate distinction is that our particular method of survival and perpetuation allows us to understand the forces behind evolution, and (as Locke has been suggesting) that understanding may allow us to directly manipulate our own evolution, at which point it would necessarily acquire the driving force and intent previously lacking.

To tie this into the topic, it is possible to view inter-human violence as a component of natural selection, in that, at some level, we are testing each other for fitness of survival. In this context, violence between societies arises from the percieved cultural differences that make these societies distinct and the fact that, being distinct, there is a perception of competition between the societies for resources. Similarly to the case of competition between individuals, it may be that these distinct societies could achieve greater utility by eliminating the distinction between benefit to the one and benefit to the group. Historically, the most common method to achieve this has been for one society to subjugate another through conquest. More recently, European countries have started to unify in certain respects through more peaceful means (unless I misunderstand the purpose and nature of the European Union). One possible factor in the (historically) recent shift away from war is the degree of destruction we have become capable of, as well as the increased respect granted to a culture in and of itself. Due to these, it is no longer considered practically feasible nor morally acceptable to use force to conquer another culture.

As far as eliminating inter-human violence goes, I think that it may be possible, as Locke has said, as we achieve greater understanding, and by extension control, of our own evolution to change our nature such that violence is no longer a natural response for us. That said, I think it is difficult for us, at present, to measure what the full effects of such control over our development may be, and while such an elimination could become possible, it would not necessarily follow that it would occur, and that while we percieve the elimination of violence as a good, it may come attached to other changes that we, at present, would find less desireable - which would, of course, have relatively little impact on their possibility of occuring.

[Lockeownzj00]

There is no observable reason to believe that our intelligence is necessarily a sign of our being more "advanced" than other organisms.

It has nothing to do with a greater purpose. It is a logical and scientific observation.

To tie this into the topic, it is possible to view inter-human violence as a component of natural selection, in that, at some level, we are testing each other for fitness of survival.

I recognise the point, but this is exactly what humans have the ability to rise above. We are at the point where we can (nearly) halt and utterly reverse "natural" life processes--aging, disease, etc. The Natural Selection argument applies insofar as its subjects are aware of its existence. Meaning, once that "fourth wall" is broken, once we have constructed knowledge of the world around us and are aware of what is happening to us, we can work to stop it.

One possible factor in the (historically) recent shift away from war is the degree of destruction we have become capable of, as well as the increased respect granted to a culture in and of itself. Due to these, it is no longer considered practically feasible nor morally acceptable to use force to conquer another culture.

Quoted for truthitude.

it would not necessarily follow that it would occur, and that while we percieve the elimination of violence as a good, it may come attached to other changes that we, at present, would find less desireable - which would, of course, have relatively little impact on their possibility of occuring.

True, but think of it this way--if the downside to the abolition of money (far, far down the line, that is) is that systems which rely on money as their foundation, like Wheel of Fortune, cease to exist, then I don't really care. There are better examples; if we become less indulgent, perhaps there will be less need for psychoactives. And that might seem like it sucks, but since we won't care, wouldn't it be a non-issue?

[Sanacra]

It has nothing to do with a greater purpose. It is a logical and scientific observation.

I probably should have been clearer; yes we are more advanced than other organisms in certain areas, most notably our intelligence. What I was trying to say was that we have not evolved more fully than other organisms, only evolved along a different path than other forms of life. For instance, most predators have more advanced teeth for tearing apart meat than we do, but they are not more evolved than we are. If that makes any sense.

I recognise the point, but this is exactly what humans have the ability to rise above. We are at the point where we can (nearly) halt and utterly reverse "natural" life processes--aging, disease, etc. The Natural Selection argument applies insofar as its subjects are aware of its existence. Meaning, once that "fourth wall" is broken, once we have constructed knowledge of the world around us and are aware of what is happening to us, we can work to stop it.

Certainly. My point was that this was one way to look at past violence, before we had such awareness.

True, but think of it this way--if the downside to the abolition of money (far, far down the line, that is) is that systems which rely on money as their foundation, like Wheel of Fortune, cease to exist, then I don't really care. There are better examples; if we become less indulgent, perhaps there will be less need for psychoactives. And that might seem like it sucks, but since we won't care, wouldn't it be a non-issue?

My point was more that it is hard to predict the societal landscape produced by these and other changes between now and then, and that the values we hold now aren't necessarily consistent with the values of our descendant's society, but I suppose that is bringing more into the discussion than is specifically relevant to the topic. I have a bad habit of doing that, I think.

[Crazy Go Nuts]

Originally Posted by Sanacra

I probably should have been clearer; yes we are more advanced than other organisms in certain areas, most notably our intelligence. What I was trying to say was that we have not evolved more fully than other organisms, only evolved along a different path than other forms of life. For instance, most predators have more advanced teeth for tearing apart meat than we do, but they are not more evolved than we are. If that makes any sense.

Quoted for teh truth. We're the ones with the logic & reason, and the ones with thumbs. So, tigers get claws and teeth, we make spears and guns. Birds get wings, we make planes. Penguins get turned black and white, we have cocktail parties.

Originally Posted by Sanacra

My point was more that it is hard to predict the societal landscape produced by these and other changes between now and then, and that the values we hold now aren't necessarily consistent with the values of our descendant's society, but I suppose that is bringing more into the discussion than is specifically relevant to the topic. I have a bad habit of doing that, I think.

You have an excellent point. A couple, actually. 67 years ago, when Hitler was poised to attempt to take Europe, who would have thought that the empires of old were prepared to crumble? Or that a split atom would unleash Hell upon the world? And those were only a few years down the line, too. In the '70s, who thought that there would be entire industries based around commerce and conversation in a space that doesn't technically exist in any tangible sense, but one that we can all access by opening Firefox or Explorer? Who knows now what will happen within a decade? (Speaking of which, where the hell are my flying cars that run on magic?)

As for your second point about changing values, I actually think it's extremely relevant. A few thousand years ago, the bigger guy got to make the rules. Individual power was (and still is in some places) prized. Times changed, and it wasn't the individual, it was massive force. Whoever had the bigger army. Then, it became whoever had the smarter army. By the time we reach today, being the bigger warlord doesn't necessarily matter as much any more. Alot of value is placed on peace and peaceful negotiations, and huge amounts of respect go to people who can stop wars. Given we're talking about that very thing, I'd say you just picked up another piece of this odd puzzle.

[Lockeownzj00]

What I was trying to say was that we have not evolved more fully than other organisms, only evolved along a different path than other forms of life. For instance, most predators have more advanced teeth for tearing apart meat than we do, but they are not more evolved than we are. If that makes any sense.

But as soon as you analyze any organism or species, this falls apart. We have evolved more fully specifically because of what we lack--we lack all these ostensibly necessary survival traits and yet still manage to come out on top. We are the top of the food chain. We are by definition more advanced by how we are able to dominate.

Quoted for teh truth. We're the ones with the logic & reason, and the ones with thumbs. So, tigers get claws and teeth, we make spears and guns. Birds get wings, we make planes. Penguins get turned black and white, we have cocktail parties.

Again, it's not a balanced scale. We have upended the scale and created our own.

Lastly, obviously all we can do is extrapolate. But that's exactly what I'm doing. I don't think it's such an ambiguous future that we have to give it up to uncertainty. There are multiple paths, and I merely advocate one.

[ZAKtheGeek]

But as soon as you analyze any organism or species, this falls apart. We have evolved more fully specifically because of what we lack--we lack all these ostensibly necessary survival traits and yet still manage to come out on top. We are the top of the food chain. We are by definition more advanced by how we are able to dominate.

There are plenty of animals at the top of their own food chains, and they're just mindless supremely-adapted carnivores. Small and simple organisms also outnumber use easily and are at least as widespread as we are.

And the fact that we lack all these cool survival traits simply means that, biologically, we are LESS advanced. That's clear-cut. We are dominant because of our achievements, not because we're so advanced.

Without much relevance: it seems that the source of human power and influence on this planet is teaching. Let's face it: a single human isn't going to logically figure out a whole lot in a single lifetime. Not enough to be such a dominant creature, anyway. But through saving information, passing it down through generations, and augmenting it with new knowledge, a more useful learning arises that CAN allow dominance. Not that I'm saying other animals don't teach each other things; many mammals do. But most seem to be "content with what they have;" they teach their young the basics that have been known by the species for untold centuries, and leave their own knowledge at that.

[Althane]

The problem with being advanced, is that you loose your biological advantage, and gain a technological advantage. For example, we wipe out disease, our immune system weakens. We find ways of improving our natural strength (exosuits, bionic muscles, pick and choose futuristic methods, and steroids don't count), our natural strength weakens.

Cause and effect.

I would disagree that biologically we're less advanced. The mind is a biological factor, correct? Unless by advanced you mean "Strong and able to rip things to shreds, and assert yourselves upon others". And even then you have humans who are able to wrestle with creatures very high up on the food chain (not many, but definantly some).

Seriously, how do you define being biologically advanced? The "Ultimate life form" is... what? Strong, smart, top of the food chain?

[ZAKtheGeek]

There is no "ultimate life form." Organisms are good if they're well-adapted to their current environment, a factor that changes. To humor you, the ultimate life form could never die. Yeah, that's all... All the other things that make it as good as possible stem from its immortality.

I would disagree that biologically we're less advanced. The mind is a biological factor, correct? Unless by advanced you mean "Strong and able to rip things to shreds, and assert yourselves upon others". And even then you have humans who are able to wrestle with creatures very high up on the food chain (not many, but definantly some).

I was just going by what I quoted, which seems to indicate that we're not as generally well-adapted as other organisms.

Really, more or less advanced should be inapplicable terms. It's all about adaptability.

Also, I don't know if the mind is a biological factor, but the brain certainly is.