View Poll Results: Are we a disease?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes we are.

    22 55.00%
  • No we are not.

    14 35.00%
  • Undecided or other.

    4 10.00%

Are we a disease?

This is a discussion on Are we a disease? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; >>Humans are selfish and ultimately rather stupid animals, just like the so-called "lower" species<< We are not animals. This is ...

  1. #16
    Registered User EvenFlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    422
    >>Humans are selfish and ultimately rather stupid animals, just like the so-called "lower" species<<

    We are not animals. This is a basic fact of pyschology. The ability to think, cognitive reasoning if you will, is what seprates us from animals. Another separating factor is that animals do not have the ability to plan, nor can animals create tools.
    Ramble on...

  2. #17
    Ethereal Raccoon Procyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    189
    Originally posted by EvenFlow
    We are not animals. This is a basic fact of pyschology. The ability to think, cognitive reasoning if you will, is what seprates us from animals. Another separating factor is that animals do not have the ability to plan, nor can animals create tools.
    The definition of an animal is a multicellular life form without cell walls that obtains its food from other organisms. Humans most certainly meet that definition. Therefore, humans are animals.

    Have you paid any attention to any of the work in animal psychology in the past 50 years? Many of the higher primates have been demonstrated to have abstract reasoning skills.

    Chimpanzees use tools - for example, sticks to feed from anthills. This practice is passed down culturally from generation to generation. They also plan; in other experiments test subjects were able to stack boxes vertically in order to reach a banana placed out of reach.

    Really, do some basic research...

  3. #18
    Registered User EvenFlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    422
    >>Really, do some basic research...

    WELL OKAY THEN I'LL JUST IGNORE ALL MAJOR STUDIES EVER DONE BY PYSCHOLOGISTS REGARDING WHY HUMANS AREN'T ANIMALS . WE'LL JUST FORGET ABOUT ALL THE RESEARCH FROM EVER COGNITIVE PYSCHOLOGISTS EVER FOUND OKAY? HOW ABOUT WE JUST BELIEVE ALL THE ..........ING .......... WE SEE ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL?

    Apes do not think - they mimic what they have been taught. Those experiements you talk of in no way demonstrate independent thought. I can teach my dog to sit - hell he should be able to read as well! Maybe he'll provide better converstion that you do. Apes have no self awareness - that is the case with most animals or didn't you know that? Why don't you do some basic research?!
    Last edited by EvenFlow; 10-27-2001 at 10:13 PM.
    Ramble on...

  4. #19
    Former Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    955
    I still keep my idea, I really don't think we're gonna be here forever, and we're not going to die for lack of food, because take for instance, some japanese go=uys invented a completely synthetic foon (yuck), but if there's no more food left we're gonna have to

    but dinosaurs beleived they would rule da world 4ever, and there's not a single dinosaur alive now, I think natural evolution will move us away (it has to), and I think that the new race will be even more destructive than us

    as far as it concerns me, I don't think that wars are gonna kill us, because the world is extremely big, and I don't think you can destroy every cubic milimeter of earth, maybe most major cities would be destroyed, but you can't kill everyone, if you think about nuclear winter, or radiation, I still think the world is too big, and you can't cover everything with something that kills everyone

    Oskilian

  5. #20
    Ethereal Raccoon Procyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    189
    WELL OKAY THEN I'LL JUST IGNORE ALL MAJOR STUDIES EVER DONE BY PYSCHOLOGISTS REGARDING WHY HUMANS AREN'T ANIMALS . WE'LL JUST FORGET ABOUT ALL THE RESEARCH FROM EVER COGNITIVE PYSCHOLOGISTS EVER FOUND OKAY? HOW ABOUT WE JUST BELIEVE ALL THE ..........ING .......... WE SEE ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL?

    Apes do not think - they mimic what they have been taught. Those experiements you talk of in no way demonstrate independent thought. I can teach my dog to sit - hell he should be able to read as well! Maybe he'll provide better converstion that you do. Apes have no self awareness - that is the case with most animals or didn't you know that? Why don't you do some basic research?!
    Why does this possibility offend you so much?

    I can say for a fact that researchers did not march into the African jungle to teach chimpanzees to eat ants with sticks. If you are going to claim the box-stacking study, and others like it, are fraudlent because the researchers previously showed the animals what do to, you're really going to have to provide some serious justification. Also, you haven't even made the most minimum reference to any of these psychological studies you're talking about. I would really like some examples or citations.

    As for self-awareness, there's a well-known test for this called the mirror test: mark an animal (with prior experience with mirrors) and place it in front of a mirror to determine whether it is able to infer that it has been marked. Again, chimpanzees pass. However, human children of age less than 18 months do not.

    A good place to start your research would be http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online3.html - this site has links to quite a few good articles on the subject of animal consciousness and consciousness in general.

  6. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    106
    yes, humanity, according to evolution was far superior than any animal on earth 4 million years ago. Of course, i do not necessarily believe evolution...entirly

    apes are capable of abstract thought, so are dolphins, whales, chimpanzees.

    Does that mean apes have a capacity similar to humans, no it doesnt, we have things such as...
    most complex communication
    extremely complex social structure
    males and females are more unique in body structure
    we are hairless(very few land mamals are)
    males have exposed genitalia
    fingers can fashion tools
    ability to rapidly adapt to most situations, with intelligence
    culture(apes may teach there children how to get ants with sticks, we teach our children how to build spacecraft)



    stop watching tv... humans are truly unique, in so many ways.
    Men like me strive to be an inferior rock, rather than superior dust.
    - in response to X10

  7. #22
    Registered User EvenFlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    422
    >>Why does this possibility offend you so much?<<

    It doesn't offend me, I never said it did. Just don't talk to me as though I'm an idiot who knows nothing.

    Those tests weren't fradulent. However let me reiterate. Apes are know to be able to use a rock to break open certain types of fruit. Okay so I knows rock break fruit shell, but it does not understand why it does. The same goes for the stick and the ants. It may have happened by chance. An ape picked up a stick and used it to get ants out - so it kept repeating that behaviour which was then mimiced by the other apes and so on. This doesn't prove that it actually understands anything - simple that it can use a stick to get ants. It wouldn't know why this works, only how.

    >>As for self-awareness, there's a well-known test for this called the mirror test: mark an animal (with prior experience with mirrors) and place it in front of a mirror to determine whether it is able to infer that it has been marked. Again, chimpanzees pass. <<

    This doesn't prove anything other than that the chimp touched its mark. It would not know that the reflection is itself. I doesn't know it is a chimp. Much a like a baby does not know it is a baby. Let's not forget that a baby has poor motor and coordination skills, which must be developed over time. Clearly a chimp would have a higher level of coordination, as they can swing around from a very early age.

    >>Also, you haven't even made the most minimum reference to any of these psychological studies you're talking about. I would really like some examples or citations. <<

    Okay well I'll find some links for you.

    Getting back to what I was saying is that whilst humans and animals may share fact that they are both carbon-based, multicelluar life forms. Indeed, we are mamals, warm-blooded creaturers. But we are not, in animals by strict definition. What separates us from animals is that we are self-aware, can think in abstract terms, and we have a conscience. An animal does not base decisions upon right and wrong, merely on instict alone.
    Ramble on...

  8. #23
    _B-L-U-E_ Betazep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,412
    >>An animal does not base decisions upon right and wrong, merely on instict alone.

    I get what you are saying, and I somewhat agree with you... but you keep shooting yourself in the foot.

    Especially with the above statement. I am reminded of the studies they did with Koko and the kitten. It was determined that Koko did know right and wrong and did have cognizant feelings. Koko also used a large degree of sign language to communicate in a fashion that was not any more conditioned than our ability to communicate.

    Man vs. Animal is debated by scientists with greater minds than us. So you each will be able to find a considerable amount of facts to support each of your sides.

    This is what I think. We are animals. We are of the mammal variety of animals. We are the most advanced and cognizant mammal. We are deeply self aware and have a high degree of free will. We are the dominate species on this planet.

    Why I think this. A person that isn't patterned with our training or teaching and that doesn't have a social structure will act without noticible cognizant abilities much like our designation of an animal. Our ability to survive without our social structure and teaching is minimal. (Place a baby in the forest... or even a young child that had no human intervention)

    Although... it is possible that we are not animals... but in such a case, many of the species that we classify as animals would have to be considered not animals as well. Since I learned that these species are animals, I accept that I am one as well. Still... I am better than them!
    Blue

  9. #24
    aurė entuluva! mithrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,209
    >>Our ability to survive without our social structure and teaching is minimal. (Place a baby in the forest... or even a young child that had no human intervention)

    Actually there is a famous study regarding the whole 'Tarzan' theory/story. It was found that the child would grow up essentially the same as a normal child, and would still develop linguistic skills (albeit less advanced). I'm not sure of a link, but you could look it up.

  10. #25
    the Corvetter
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    1,584
    > Actually there is a famous study regarding the whole 'Tarzan' theory/story. It was found that the child would grow up essentially the same as a normal child, and would still develop linguistic skills (albeit less advanced). I'm not sure of a link, but you could look it up.

    Interesting. But I don't think that can be. You see, don't you hear about those stories when mothers abandon babies and then the babies die because they need love? Love and care is essential in the growing-up of a child.
    1978 Silver Anniversary Corvette

  11. #26
    Registered User Natase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    123
    I can't remember the exact study, but using sign language, scientists taught an ape the meaning of death... they then explained to this ape that it too would eventually die and, hence, cease to exist. How is this different from teaching a human child?

    The question is, do we redefine what comprises the difference between humans and other animals, or do we cave and give apes the same rights as people?... property rights etc...

    Regarding tools... I think the difference is that humans are able to create tools to aid them in their endevours... simians are only able to use tools... eg, an ape cannot fathom tying two sticks together to get to an ant further away, it would search for a longer stick or give up.

  12. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    342
    Natase
    I agree that the human race is parasitical... I don't see how anyone could think otherwise
    I'm not surprised. Other view(s):

    • A parasite does not take care of others as we humans actually do. A parasite is a primitive life that is using and possibly destroying another life to survive. A life is not a parasite just because it uses land. I don't think we're smart enough to say if the universe is alive or not.
    • We are all a part of the universe, there are no things such as 'parasites' if you think of yourself as a piece of something bigger than your own life. You are not a parasite for using the universe, the universe is using you.
    • Mankind can never be destructive or creative because the universe began being dead, mankind can only create life, and life will always cause death. We can not destroy our environment, we can only change it. Think of everything in the world as the content of a huge RAM!


    I don't want to wipe everyone out or anything... I just hope we don't find a way off this planet before we destroy it.
    You should not even have an opinion, people like you could be dangerous.

    Aran Elus
    This is because when there isn't a human left, there won't be anyone to say "humanity is gone"... it would almost be as if it never existed.
    Life could be created one more time. But it doesn't matter, why would it be untrue just because nobody could see it (and maybe someone would be able to see it after all)?

    oskilian
    and I think that the new race will be even more destructive than
    It's not possible to be destructive in a dead world.

  13. #28
    Ethereal Raccoon Procyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    189
    I think most of the earlier statements have been covered...

    Anyway, the strict definition of an animal is the one I gave before; it's the colloquial definition that excludes humans. You seem to be advocating an alternate definition which explicitly excludes creatures with higher mental functions. First of all, this would include some other species than humans, and second of all in any event definitions with explicit exclusions are not very satisfactory.

  14. #29
    Registered User Aran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,301
    you all know what?

    we are not chimps or gorrilas or whatever you want to talk about, so there is no way to tell if they actually do 'think' or if they just act upon impulse. You see, unless you are a chimp, gorrilla, etc. you shouldn't even bother yourself with thinking about it: it is just a waste of your time and mine.

  15. #30
    Registered User Natase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    123
    Originally posted by Series X4 1.0
    [B]A parasite does not take care of others as we humans actually do. A parasite is a primitive life that is using and possibly destroying another life to survive. A life is not a parasite just because it uses land. I don't think we're smart enough to say if the universe is alive or not.
    While there are a few factions that would like to give back to this planet, they pale in significance to those who refuse to give up their wants. Insignificant enough, IMO, to state that the human race does not contribute to the survival of our host.

    We are all a part of the universe, there are no things such as 'parasites' if you think of yourself as a piece of something bigger than your own life. You are not a parasite for using the universe, the universe is using you.
    I get what you're saying here... you're talking about a larger balance, one we can't even begin to understand... but in the context of the Earth, can you really say that our current course is benificial (to either party)...

    You should not even have an opinion, people like you could be dangerous.
    *yawn*

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. O/R Mapping tool like Apple has.....for .NET?!?!
    By gicio in forum C# Programming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-29-2003, 05:20 AM
  2. I think I have Parkison's Disease.
    By Cheeze-It in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-01-2003, 10:49 PM
  3. Chron's Disease
    By CumQuaT in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-18-2003, 03:35 AM
  4. A lil controversy: Cloning
    By RoD in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 02-17-2003, 11:19 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21