What are humans?

Post Reply New Topic

I am a scientist from my first atom to my last, so here is what I think:

Without science and technology humans would not exist.

Observing nature, and realizing that sharp rocks could be put to use, apes took the first step towards becoming humans. This was the first piece of science. The sparks that were emitted by lapping stones could be used to make fire, to cook beasts that could only be willfully killed and consumed with those sharpened rocks. Such a food supply gave more time to improve associated technology. Fur could be stripped from beasts to make clothes so new environments could be survived and explored. The surviving, evolving mind required to generate and apply such realizations was needed to make language. Language allowed skills to be passed on and improved. Everything we know, and the very fact we know anything comes from this. Science and technology made us, not the other way around. We would still be hairy animals crawling around on our knuckles without science. The greatest achievement of humans was not splitting atoms or going to the moon, it was coming to earth by splitting rocks!

The following is designed to illustrate the reliance of modern humans and society on science technology rather than some very sick real life experiment. Imagine (thought experiment only) you went to a modern first world city and took 100 people at random for a de-sciencing experiment. It would start by removing all pieces of technology from their bodies and progress to de-sciencing the environment which contained them. You would have an instant portion of casualties as you removed things like pace-makers, artificial heart valves and transplanted organs. A portion of your test population would be rendered crippled or seriously at risk of death as drugs like ventolin and synthetic insulin would not be available. Glasses and hearing aids and so forth would be removed. Tooth fillings would also be removed. Then the surviving population would have their clothes removed and be placed in an otherwise inhabitable area theoretically capable of supporting humans, where the closest piece of existing technology was 1000km away. The theoretical test subjects would be allowed to make their own new technology using what they could find in nature. In the first few days there would be many more "passive" casualties as the "weakest" died of exposure and lack of the medicines.

The thought experiment thus far has been focussed on the casualties resulting from the direct consequences of de-sciencing. Having removed science completely, what would be left of the people? How human would they be? Are you familiar with William Golding's "Lord of the Flies"? Let's face it, people would start murdering each other in no time. The voice of reason would be the first thing to go. The beast within would awake.

I am talking about what makes humans human. I am saying science and technology do a darn good job at preventing us not only from dieing, but functioning as human beings in a society.

Science takes care of people far, far, far better than most people take care of each other.

The notion of "human nature" is extremely confined. Although one tiny aspect, for example, of what is misconstrued to be "human nature", is to force social conformity and destroy those who do not comply. This behavior is prevalent in almost all social animals starting at ants and bees. Why do ants and bees have human nature, unless this nature is in fact not human?

People who excuse what is really bestial behavior by saying "it's human nature, you can't change it" are wrong wrong wrong. Simply by believing the notion it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. "Human nature" is not human to start with, and it is unnatural for us to be non-human. If science changed us from being apes on the outside (now that is a tough one to change!), it can, and has done the same from within. Even if people don't recognize it. Even if they are unaware of it, or think they can reject it, it still does its job.

So I am an Aspie scientist. Although I am clearly on the wrong planet I consider myself a human being. A human being questioning what it means to be human, yet not belonging amongst them...

Science is not just the development and use of artifacts. It also concerns the inter-relationships of social functions and conscious modification of this for maximum survival. This occurs within all life, human and non-human alike and is a basic function for survival. Although humans have proved better at this than most it has been found that non-humans are, in their own way and for their own specific needs, quite adept at discovering ways to use their environment and creating tools for survival. Humans are also adept at creating social orders and tools that are highly non-survival in potential and this has become a very dangerous skill.

Yes like many humans....

What type of scientist are you? I've never heard of anyone refer to themselves as a "scientist," since that categorization is overly broad.

The more I look around the more I get the feeling that humans are an unnatural creation. We have ape animal instinct but extreme intelligence. What a terrible combination.

Indeed.

Apes are our early ancestors after all, there is no way we can escape that in our life time. Our "animal instincts" are things that we will be stuck with for thousands of more years.
What is a human? An upright mammal with certain characteristics in its anatomy (that of which I hope you are familliar with lol).
It's not really something that is a mentally challenging thing to figure out.

As a matter of fact, apes are, in general, a good deal more congenial than humans. I imagine apes would be horrified by humans if they realized how nasty we can be.

I think that would depend entirely on which ape. Chimps are highly violent, and I seem to recall the mating strategy of non dominant male orangutans can pretty much be summed up as rape.

Chimpanzees are very nasty. Sometimes they even murder their own kind. They also deceive. And they also toss pieces of their fecal output at chimps they don't like. Bonobos are more good natured.

ruveyn

Humans are God's biggest mistake.

How do you know that? Do you know all of God's mistakes?

ruveyn

After the fifth day, (On the fifth night) God thought to himself: "Let's see...I've created light, the universe, the planet Earth, the plants, and the animals. I think I deserve a little treat." So god cracked open a twelve pack of Newcastle Brown Ale. When he was almost done with beer number twelve, he thought of a really "funny" idea. He thought: "Dude! Wouldn't it be hilarious if I create another animal with animal instinct BUT...I also give it a higher dimension of intelligence! It will be another animal but with it's higher intelligence it will be so confused as to what it is!" God giggled for a little bit and then added: "Also, what if I split them all into groups but then tell each group they are my one and only chosen group?! Then they'll all be fighting each other over me and it will be funny as hell!" Later that night (actually, early the next morning) as God was still plastered, he created this new creature and called it a "human". Then he passed out. God woke up on the seventh day. "Damn", he said. "My freakin head is killing me. And I'm so nausiated." God then puked all over his covers. "Geez, what did I do last night?", He said as he tried to remember. "I swear, I'll never drink again", he said. Since on the morning of the seventh day God was sick and scared since he couldn't remember what he did...he rested.

And what happens in Saudi Arabia legally in marrying old men to little girls can pretty much be summed up as rape. And Darfur?

Alls I'm saying is that we're just another member of the family.

All things considered we are probably no better than other animals (apes included) at being decent to each other but al lot worse in being nasty to each other.