Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #1
Ohai,
I am here to present a theory I've had recently, I am not sure if it has been recorded before but Ima put it out there anyway.
We, As a species, have no purpose. We are at the top of the food chain, and have not really had that hard time to survive. Because we as a species had no real purpose, we got bored. and started inventing purposes for individuals. Our lives weren't a constant fight for survival, that is because we invented tools to help us survive. Hammer, Spear, Etc.
We therefore created a world where we have invented problems, "Omagosh my hair is too long, I better get it cut."
We use a metal machine (which requires Refined Crude oil to be pumped out the ground) to get to massive rock-built structure (Built by Homo-Sapiens) where a trained individual (Taught by other Trained individuals) cuts your hair.
We invented those problems, and those solutions. I feel this is also why we complain about little things. "first world" problems if you will.
Because if we live in a perfect world, We would run out of problems, and therefore we would stop evolving all together.
I feel this would make alot of sense if it were true. But what do you guys think?
-
-
Our purpose is to breed and stay alive. Evolution dictates this in all species.
-
Evolutionary biology doesn't do anything in the way of ascribing purpose; nor does any science. If you take from natural selection anything to do with purpose you're using science wrong.
-
That is not a 'theory', that is barely a hypothesis.
-
A great man once said; If you are a dick, People shall mess with your title
January 2011
3,595 Posts
We are in no way at the top of the food chain, pit a man against a lion (as long as it is not Dr. McNinja, Saxton Hale or Vladmir Putin) and the lion will kick his ass. The only reason we have survived as a species and advanced is our opposable thumbs which allowed us to use tools.
-
We're also pretty good at running for extremely long distances.
-
Just like every other species out there, we are just trying to stay alive.
We aren't and we never were. That's why we must rely intelligence and technology to survive. Edit: I was wrong here.
What do you mean, like art and culture and sports etc?
It would stop us evolving? What? I'm sorry. But I don't understand what you are on about. A "perfect" world is super vague and could mean anything.
Could you sum up your "theory" in one sentence please?
-
What he's trying to say is that because we invented tools like the spear which enabled us to be at the very top of the food chain (because naturally, a human has little chance against a lion but with tools a human can take one on) is that we would suffer no adversity, so we keep on inventing things which give us new problems (like many first world problems) and then we invent the solutions to them.
So an even shorter summary would be what is the purpose of continually inventing new problems and the solutions to them when for our basic survival we don't need them?
Edited:
A hypothesis is an educated theory, what's your point?
-
Ahh.. so basically.. what being a technological species achieves? Contra what life would be if we were all totally animalistic? Interesting. That's a good question!
But isn't it really just to make our lives easier? Having a bad-hair day is a much less serious problem than finding food for example. The question is if we as a species are happier in any way.
-
You seem of written 'theory' instead of 'guess'.
-
Okay, I correct myself. A hypothesis is an educated guess. So what is his (SuperLoz's) point?
-
that it's not a theory, just like he said?
-
What difference does it make? Rather than debating about the topic, we're going off-topic with debating about a choice of words.
-
Lol why get so caught up in semantics?
-
Do you have enough evidence to make it statistically likely, is there no evidence disproving your thought and do you have any papers published in a reputable journal about this. I thought not, so it isn't a theory, it's people like you who confuse people into thinking that stuff like the theory of evolution is 'only' a theory. There is a major and important difference between your idiotic hunch and a scientific theory.
Edited:
It is massively important, if everyone used the word theory for their idiotic hunches then it confuses ordinary people when scientists talk about theories that are mostly proven.
-
thanks, exactly the problem
-
Our ability to use tools is what put us at the top of the food chain, being at the top of the food chain isn't all about brute strength.
Edited:
Breeding is a mechanism used to propagate a species and keep it going, however it is by no means a purpose.
Edited:
A hypothesis is an idea, which when supported by evidence becomes a theory.
-
Animals do not serve purposes. Nether do we. If you look at a healthy ecosystem you'll see a variety of different animals occupying a niche. When two or more animals occupy the same niche, competition is inevitable and the "better" animal wins out eventually.(Whether by killing the other animal, competing for resources, outwitting predation, or just plain old luck(asteroid killing dinosaurs allowing small mammals to take over/competition getting taken out by over hunting and other anthropogenic causes)) Evolution is a biological arms race to be better than whoever your competing with at the time. We know that the Homo genus which we are the only extant member of, evolved from other extinct Homo species and they evolved from other great apes like Chimpanzees and Gorillas.
(i'm not 100% sure on the accuracy of such a chart, anthropology is not my strong point)
We are just naked apes that figured out how to one-up the other naked apes and took over the world. Our intelligence defines us, and drives us. Our important evolutionary super-weapon was finding out that intelligence can beat brute strength.
-
Reminds me of this.
-
A great man once said; If you are a dick, People shall mess with your title
January 2011
3,595 Posts
Where did I say that?
Also, what enables us to sue tools? Our pinkies?
-
As far as technology and human culture: We started out as nomadic people following pack animals around. At some point one of those Homo species figured out that a stick with a point at the end is really helpful when you're trying to kill something. As things went along, that sharp stick evolved into a sharp stick flung by an Atlatl for greater distance. Which then evolved into a sharp stick propelled by a Bow. We owe our technology because we were in a constant fight for survival. Unlike animals where you basically used what bodily features you had to kill your opponent, we started manipulating the environment to do it for us. We got a one up. Soon, as people starting figuring the whole thing out, our technology became better and better. More and more humans were born and a culture was developed. We started scribbling depictions of the day the rock, even drawing out the stars in the sky. From there it's pretty much (pre)history.
Edited:
Our intelligence does. It tells us: "Hey, that rock thing would be good to throw at something" or "hey, if I bash this nut up against a rock, it might be easier to open." It takes a surprisingly abstract thinking ability to realize the potential that is all around you.
Dolphins, Fish, and Cephalopods have all been recorded using tools. None of them have human-like digits.
-
Yes we are. Being on top of the food chain doesn't mean you should be able to beat the shit out of a lion naked and alone. We don't have huge claws or teeth, but we rely on intelligence, ability to create tools and co-operate.
OPs "theory" has nothing to do with evolution nor science.
-
Well your point was that we weren't at the top of the food chain because when pitted against a lion with no tools we'd get ripped to shreds. I was pointing out the fact that our ability to use tools is what puts us at the top of the food chain and that mere brute strength is not the only factor that decides where a creature is on the food chain.
-
"people give DBS shit all the time but he's really a good guy and i'm glad he's my friend" -no one
March 2009
17,005 Posts
what is the point of this thread
it's not a theory or a hypothesis because it's not falsifiable and doesn't make any testable predictions
nor is it debate
Edited:
oh and a slight misconception that I see sometimes - we didn't evolve intelligence because we needed to use tools, we used tools as a byproduct of our intelligence
-
A lot of your ''theory'' seems to be about the invention of sports and other forms of culture for example, and the fact you think they've been invented due to boredom.
In some way I think you're right, but you just worded it pretty terribly.
I think that just like almost everything we've physically developed, like thumbs, it slowly developed itself to increase the next generation's chance for survival. In this case it increased the human's mental health. Reducing the chance of getting a mental disorder due to less boredomn opportunity for more self expression etc.
-
Sorry, but this argument is entirely incoherent. You claim that because we invented tools to help us survive, humans do not have a purpose anymore, because they do not have to struggle to survive. Firstly, your definition of "purpose" is needed. If you mean "purpose" like "meaning of life" then I am afraid that you have made an unfalsifiable claim, because the meaning of life can not be proven or disproven; it is impossible to prove that the meaning of life was to survive before the creation of tools, and it is impossible to prove that there was no meaning of life after tools were invented.
So... because we, as you claim, "have invented problems", we don't have any purpose (whatever your definition of it is)? And we completely stop from evolving because there are no problems to solve (which there always are)? This does not make any sense at all. I'm inclined to suspect that the reason you posted this "theory" is because you wanted to critcise or explain why we complain about trivialities. Well, I think people complaining about trivialities is a triviality to complain about.
-
it also has virtually nothing to do with evolution.
-
I think OPs point is less about biological evolution and more about society's response to idleness.
-
I wonder if there will be another theory of how humans came to be after some 1000 years...
-
Another theory besides evolution by natural selection? No, there won't be. Evolution is fact, supported by mountains of evidence. It would be like asking if we will someday have another explanation besides gravity why objects fall to the ground when dropped.
Unless of course you meant something completely different by your post.
-
Nope thats what i meant, but i'am not sure if thats true thats what the Christians said thats what the Hindu's said thats what the Ancient greeks said so on and so on
-
So basically you are saying that after all this evidence, there is still an alternative of a little invisible massless man in the sky making humans?
-
What about the other Homo Sapiens?
why do us homo sapiens sapiens get all the 'purpose'
(oh wait we fucked and killed them into extinction oh well)
-
Except Evolution is actually backed up by peer reviewed data and evidence, Not some made up fairy tale.
-
we complain about littles things because are physiologically designed (I don't mean intelligent design here, I mean the ones that didn't exhibit this trait got killed pretty quickly) to find problems with everything and attempt to improve everything
we tend to biochemically treat every day life like a constant state of survival, when for those in the first world, that's not the case at all
It's quite difficult to consciously suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary axis (and all the other structures and feedback loops associated thereof), so us Westerners stress too much about things which don't need to be stressed about
Edited:
The most probably scenario is that it will be refined further, and although there might be a few gaps of knowledge that lead to chuckles in another thousand years, that's not really our fault
- very tired post disregard most of it -
-
OP seems to think that there is no natural selection among humans anymore because there's no need to evolve. The thing is, Evolution does not have a purpose, it doesn't need one, and this whole obsession with purpose is the wrong way to go about it. Evolution only promotes the strongest individuals through natural selection to improve a species' survivability in its environment, there's no final goal for it. Evolution is not an agent, it's not a person acting with the intent to reach a goal. It doesn't even matter whether of not we humans have a purpose.
And what the OP is actually saying is that he thinks we're concerned with and measured by superficial things and values because we're at the top of the food chain, but you have to remember, Evolution doesn't pit species against each other, Evolution is natural selection in a species. And almost every aspect of modern society is a covert way of semi-controlled natural selection. Things like war, grades in school, the entire concept of nations, politics, any aspect of our world is designed to promote competition, and thus, natural selection.
-
JohnnyMo1 said it nicely.
-
I'm really tempted to post another video of a talk on this topic, but by now that'd be everything I do on this subforum,
-
We're here because we didn't die, same as every other living thing on the planet. That's it.
-
Anyone else think that this was going in the direction of existentialism (or nihilism) rather than natural science
