Evolution And Maladaptability.

A massive self directed die off would be maladaptive.

  1. Destroying our natural environment to the verge of destroying our planetary habitat is indicative of maladaption.

  2. Reproduction is not doing very well as fertility rates are plummeting in nations all across the planet which is indicative of maladaption.

  3. Concerning human societies they’ve never been as socially divided as they are now which is indicative of maladaption.

  4. Psychologically as a species we’re maladapted to this post modern civilization we’ve created. Read Civilization And It’s Discontents by Sigmund Freud for reference on that.

Yes.

All other animals live in a symbiotic relationship with other species and their environment.

Human civilization has essentially cut itself off and away from this natural symbiosis leaving us to be an anomaly all unto ourselves. With humanity there is no symbiosis with nature or our natural environment any longer.

We have pets and farm animals. I don’t see how that disproves my point that we have simply continued to adapt – but to a world we are changing.

I take your point that we need to get a symbiosis with the world. …an adaptation. But more adaptation being required, to me doesn’t equate with the need to revert to a former state or level of adaptation. Somehow we’d have to unlearn everything too. I also think that there are or will be solutions far less drastic, so why not keep the good shit?

I also can’t imagine how we could get back to nature, when there are 7 billion people on the planet. Not without a shit load of death n stuff.

Back to the 98% nature that humans have lost, because they have transfered it to human culture. Humans have merely 2% nature, so to say. :wink:

That doesn’t answer any of the points made, specifically. Said nature has been replaced with something superior, more adaptive. Its kinda still there though, don’t you think?

Back to the premise that we are maladapted, I maintain that rather we are more adapted. We can still make bows and hunt, as well as a ton of other stuff. Oh and btw our ancestors were also shit at looking after their environment, that’s why most small islands have no trees. People would rather cut down the last single remaining tree, that wait for new ones to seed.

More adaptive? What? Who? And “kinda still there though”? What do you mean exactly?

I would not use the word “maladapted”, but or because I am saying: Humans are capable of stand-off, of alienation , of dissociation from nature.

I would not be so sure, if I were you. If a sudden catastrophe happened, not all but many humans would not be able to do that well enough.

Our first ancestors were those first humans who began the transfer (see above).

=>

Combine the human’s fight against nature (exploitation of nature) with the techno-creditism, and you will get the reasons for the huge chaos in the future, regardless whether the “Olduvai Theory” is false or not.

Man adapted to new tools in increasing numbers, and along with farming you get trade and commerce and the eventual machinations of civilisation. All of which are adaptation to our environment. By ‘kinda still there’ I simply meant that the animal is still there ~ the same essential being as we were only a few thousand years ago. After all, it takes thousands of years for genes to change in all but the more superficial features, and that’s all civilisation has been around for.

That’s a ‘what-if’ scenario and pertains only to failure. I think we will have robotic exoskeletal armour long before that, and then it wont be about strength of the arm ~ of how natural we are. I take your point however, that many humans aren’t adapted to a dog eat dog scenarios, but that’s because they are like postmen or what have you. I expect 90% of people would soon switch into survival mode if required.

Surely with any negative scenario, we will in time either survive or not. If we survive how long would we be using bows and arrows for? Someone would find a lathe or whatever to bore out some guns and ammo. Really to get a catastrophic scenario et al, ‘the event’ would have to kill everyone who can read and all books on chemistry etc. again we would soon end up back where we were before but with fewer numbers [possibly not a bad thing].

if all books on biochemistry etc were destroyed, and everyone who knew stuff were killed yes.

I don’t think we are fighting nature so much as learning it, and mastering it. We will be onto a permanent society [beyond the limitedness of earth’s resources] within a few decades imho.

Why would anyone want such an end to occur?

_

It depends on if e.g. farming is still possible after a globalistic destruction, thus also the destruction of all soils of our planet. If it is not possible, then you do not get “trade and commerce and the eventual machinations of civilisation”.

No.

Do you also think that e.g. your house will always be the same after any kind of destruction?

Your optimism contradicts many evolutionary and historical facts. Such a chaos we are talking about here does not leave “90% of all people”.

What if bows and arrows are useless, because there are merely very small animals left?

Why should people do this, if it is useless to do it? (See above.)

There are many other reasons too (see above).

I know that you are an optimist, but your optimism contradicts some facts (see above).

I think we should consider both the optimistic (more idealistic) and the pessimistic (more realistic) side of all these scenarios.

That’s again merely your optimistic (idealistic) perspective (see above).

Why not?

Bingo, spot on. Throw in robotics and automation into the mix while you’re at it where we have just one huge giant clusterfuck ready to explode.

It’s so sad that civilization isn’t anything at all like Disneyland…,or is it? :laughing:

The main holocaust I am hoping to avoid is exactly that. Once you got a live 3D mapped world, such a high degree of security could manifest a more ‘Disney’ culture.

btw Arminius, all I was saying is that the holocaust would have to be vast, such to destroy all books and machinery. …don’t you play fo4? :slight_smile:

Pets and farm animals is an elaboration of captivity not symbiosis. Good shit? Please elaborate more.

There usually is a lot of death ‘n’ stuff when complex maladaptive systems collapse.

Yes, I’m sure a global international corporatocracy or plutocracy in charge of huge legions of automated robotics are going to one day magically come to the conclusion of equal economic distribution socially for all. :laughing:

Any day or minute now… Looks at watch

Oh, your first post! So welcome!

US Americans are overweight/obese. I know.

Nutritionists are part of the problem!

Psychologists are also pert of the problem!

And by the way: Food energy, nutrition, and instincts are primarily a subject of biologists. So we should refer to biology. Others are too much part of the problem.

People are influenced. This influence is part of a program, so the problem you are talking about is largely a purpose, a part of a plan, of a program.


By the way: Where is your thread with your first post, Anomaleigh?

See also: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=188393 .


By the way: Where is Anomaleigh’s thread?

Arminius, the pathological nature of civilization and human beings is part of the problem. :wink:

That’s right. Having said that I would not call it “pathological” but “erroneous” or just “old”. Maybe the human culture in general is just too much erroneous and their culures in particular are just too old, as Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) already pointed out. According to Spengler every culture becomes senile - and then it is called “civilization” ( :wink: ). Civilizations are the icy forms of cultures. When a culture is old it just wants peace - “world peace” - and does anything for it. It wants to die (note: not each person but the whole culture), and it wants it by enjoying peace. Also isms are invented by civilizations (old cultures) in order to live and rest in peace (R.I.P. :evilfun: ).