Since this is slightly different than the other evolution topic I didn't want to derail it so I made a new topic.

In the case of evolution I am interested to hear thoughts on why nature would allow an evolved species to reach the level man has? I am seriously only interested in social evolutionary examples that fit humans with all other species past and present.

Nature is very good at checks and balances, so why did nature go so wrong with humans?

Man is singlehandedly the most devastating being ever evolved. He is an anomaly in his own right, he thinks about things no other creature on earth does, and acts in ways counter to his environment on a massive scale. Why did nature not assign a better predator for man? Why did nature allow man to become intelligent past what was necessary to survive and counterproductive to other species survival?

Man kills more food than he needs to survive just for mental stimulation.
Man destroys his own environment with discarded wastes.
Man destroys other species to the point of extinction disrupting the food chain and unbalancing nature.
Man migrates other species to new ecosystems where they destroy the balance and cause catastrophy.
Man mutates other species creating genetically specialized and weaker useless species just to please his own whims.
Man allows the weak and infirm to live and breed into the population contrary to all other creatures in nature.
Man attempts genocide upon his own species on a regular basis.
Man curbs nature's balance by curing diseases meant to weed the population.
Man genetically manipulates his own species.
Man excludes himself (to a large extent) from the food chain by enbalming and cremation.

All because he is intelligent.

An intelligent species doesn't work very well in nature in my opinion, good thing she waited 5 billion years before evolving man into what he is, just think of the damage we could have done

What positive effects has man had on our planet from a natural point of view? I can't think of one that isn't fixing a direct result of our previous actions. Please share your views.

Nature is very good at checks and balances, so why did nature go so wrong with humans?
It didn't
it created a super predator thats capable of adapting its environment to it rather than adapting itself to its environment
unless of course you're referring specifically to yourself.

It's not that humanity is intelligent, it's that we're greedy.

Get over it. All animals do the things you accuse humans of doing.

Animals kill for pleasure as well.
Animals destroy their environment.
Animals drive others to extinction.
Animals migrate all on their own and destroy new ecosystems as well.
Animals get domesticated on their own, regardless of whether their easy meal is from humans or from other animals.
Animals don't all live by the creed "Nature: red in tooth and claw"
Animals carry out war.
Animals genetically manipulate their own species.
Animals become wormfood just like we do, regardless of embalming.

To ask where nature went wrong when it created humans is to assume ever intended to create humans. Nature intends nothing. We are simply the random result of natural evolution, and we just happen to be more successful at doing the same things all other animals, thanks in large part to our intelligence. On top of that, again, thanks to our intelligence, we are capable of doing something no other animal on Earth does. Humans can fix their mistakes.

I realize it becomes the fad on occasion to wail and woe about how wretched we humans are, but ultimately, Humans can, at worst, be considered nothing more than another animal, albeit more so, and at best, be considered the first in an evolutionary design that renoavates the environment, as opposed to destroying it and moving on.

Ok I can buy that we are our own predator, except for the fact that we aren't doing a good job of it. Our population is anything but stabilizing. Perhaps thats all about to change though




Man is most definitely greedy, yet what other creature displays this? Perhaps the hoarding creatures like squirrels that collect nuts for hibernation? Birds that like shiny objects?

Man is conniving in his greed and conspires with others to enhance his wealth. That is a product of intelligence in my opinion, and not really shared in nature.

Thanks for the responses

Interesting...

Anyhow, why would our population nedd to be stabilizing? Since adaptation is one of our biggest assets, it means that we can inhabit environments where few other animals make their homes, which is a goodly portion of the Earth. Compared to the amount of space available, humans are just a drop in the bucket.



What other creature displays greed? Practically any you care to think of. A squirrel kicking another squirrel out of its tree niche is greedy for better living quarters. Birds that steal shiny objects wish to gather objects that bring them pleasure without any particular gain. Those are both examples of greed.



Actually, it's a product of evolution. Our entire financial system is based on instinctual social sharing. A few months back, I think it was in Discover, but I am not sure, there was a description of a series of experiments that detailed this. Essentially, monkeys in isolated cages would have to cooperate in order to receive food rewards. One monkey would, by pulling on a stick, be able to bring the food closer to the other monkeys cage. The other monkey would then share the food with the first monkey. There were times when one of the two didn't cooperate, and then the system fell apart until the monkeys were re-paired and chose to cooperate with other monkeys (apparently monkeys learn that they have to earn trust).

i dont see when humans fixed their mistakes, on the contrary they rarely even learn from their mistakes.

i think nature has a sense of humor and made us inteligent so that we could see the irony of our existance

Are you joking?

How many millions of dollars do companies spend on re-forestation? How much on oil spill clean-up? How many times have human resources been used to rescue animals trapped through no cause of our own? How many times have animals been re-located prior to a construction project being undertaken?

Acres of sugar palms have been stripped by wild boars, looking for nothing more than to gorge themselves on the tree sap. None of them replanted a single one. Does a herd of wildebeast care that their roiling around a river silts it up so much that all fishes downstream for a mile are asphyxiated? Animals gathering around a creature stuck in mud are far more likely to be waiting for a free meal than out of any compassionate emotion. Beavers have never been seen posting warnings and re-locating the occupants of the 2-4 acre areas they flood virtually overnight.

you mised the point, nobody can "fix" a mistake, you can only repeat or not repeat them. animals dont fix mnistakes since their mistakes sre minor and insugnificent. re-forestation, clean-up are just trying to lessen the concequences of our mistakes, and animal rescue or relocation is just avoiding mistakes, not fixing them (thought the necesity to rescue or relocate animals usualy comes from HUMAN actions)

My point is the way we do things is different because we are intelligent. And our population needs stabilizing, the earth cannot support the amount of growth we are achieving long.

Reforestation, oilspill clean up and all that are a direct result of intelligent human beings. If we didn't need lumber or oil they wouldn't happen. If nature had made us like other animals we wouldn't use those things.


Dingos do kill for pleasure so yes that is correct.


Mostly only domesticated animals pollute their own environment, wild animals tend to follow food sources and be less stationary. Over population causes destruction of food and contaminated water and in wild animals results in starvation to curb the population however in domesticated animals such as cattle an outside food source is brought in. A direct result of humans negating checks and balances.


Animals compete for food sources, which can lead to extinctions but this process takes a long time. Humans destroy new species at an alarming rate as a byproduct of intelligence and greed. So yes point taken.

"Animals migrate all on their own and destroy new ecosystems as well."

This generally requires a natural event such as a land bridge for sufficient quantities to migrate and appears to be quite isolated. Of course birds have migrated forever true. I am talking about issues like the feral cats in Australia or starlings in the US. Those migrations don't happen naturally.

"Animals get domesticated on their own, regardless of whether their easy meal is from humans or from other animals."

Animals may become domesticated but how many animals domesticate another animal?

"Animals don't all live by the creed "Nature: red in tooth and claw"
Not sure what you mean here.

"Animals carry out war."
Animals kill competeing species such as lions kill cheetahs when they can, so I will concede that, although they don't build entire armies for the purpose of war.

"Animals genetically manipulate their own species."
Animals choose the strongest partner they can find, animals do not keep breeding records and inject flourescent glowy genes in fuzzy bunnies, but we do.

"Animals become wormfood just like we do, regardless of embalming."
If we are embalmed worms don't eat us, cause we taste ucky. That was my point, we remove ourselves from even that rudimentary point in the food chain. Thus giving nothing back.

I was under the impression that mother nature was just like on the margerine commercials.... say it ain't so....

Seriously though, I still don't see the world benefit to having humans in the eco system, and that was my question. Not looking at it from the human perspective but the nature side of it.

Perhaps as you say it's just the way it is. Likely that is the best answer anyone will ever recieve.
I wasn't trying to portray humans as evil entities, just looking for ideas to a question that just popped into my head an hour ago, and you have answered and I thank you for your responce.

Nature doesn't choose whether a species is useful or not.

The way I see it, the Earth is more or less a closed system. As a result, short of the planet being destroyed, the Earth will always self-balance itself, in one way or another.

There is no benign force called Nature that protects us all. Just Action and Reaction rippling through the system.

character "i think nature has a sense of humor and made us inteligent so that we could see the irony of our existance "
rotfl
Please close this thread dear lord before anymore like that
it's got a bit pointless anyway
here's the various wildly differing opinions so far
optomists/predators "Mankind is merely a subject of nature trying its best to survive without destroying itself in a closed system"
pessimists/prey animal "we're crap, oh lordy how useless we are.we should all be killed because we sometimes hurt other creatures and we never learn from our mistakes"


you should have just made this a poll Imaginos that way people could have voted for either
1) kill me now I'm wet
2) I want to live and I like blood


Who's for more blood ?

As I recall, there have been five known "great extinctions" when between 80% and 95% of all species then existing on Earth were destroyed . . . by natural causes, as humans hadn't appeared just yet. Extinction seems to be a quite natural process. What humans have done has been niggardly by comparison. Moreover, it is you (and a lot of eco-whackos) who are saying that this "destruction" is bad. Your opinion, not mine. Land has been cleared by humans can grow food to feed themselves . . . land has been cleared so humans can house themselves . . . land has been cleared for the purpose of highways, airports, trains, canals and the like. You may feel that this is "destruction", but I find it to be a significant improvement of nature, mostly not detrimental, but good. Iron in ore doesn't do any creature any good . . . refined to the metal it is useful. Sorry, I am not buying your view that all this is bad at all. Sure, it is more pleasant when humans neaten up the place, and pick up their various forms of trash, but, as funds are available, that is what is happening. It will never be the "primordial" world it once was, but even that is more disinformation . . . that there was some long period of time when things were the same . . . they never were. Natural forces have been changing the landscape significantly on a regular basis since the beginning of Earth. Humans have changed it a lot faster than other animals, but compared with natural forces, hardly at all. Eco-whackos have their own little view of how the earth is "supposed" to be, and it was only that for a brief moment in history, if even at all. Take a good look after hurricanes have gone through, or massive earthquakes and the like have occurred, or when a volcano has a massive eruption . . . the natural eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 destroyed two-thirds of the pre-existing island and it is estimated that more than six cubic miles of earth and stone were turned into dust and scattered all over the earth. . . or after a natural forest fire in a "natural" forest. All the destruction of the environment done by humans pales in comparison to an unchecked natural forest fire or really large volcano eruption.

The Blood of Champions.

Of course you can fix mistakes! Walking away from a mistake doesn't make the mistake go away, whether or not you learned to avoid it in the future. The only reason the mistakes of animals are 'minor and insignificant' (which I do not agree with), is because they aren't as successful as humans are, therefore the resources they use are correspondingly minimal. They don't destroy as much as we do because they haven't got the capacity, not because they feel it is a bad thing to do so.



Our intelligence is indeed our most salient feature, but, overall, the things we do are identical to the things other animals do. We are simply far more efficient at it than they are. I disagree that the Earth cannot support the amount of growth. The Earth can't support the amount of waste we currently generate, that is true, but that is why we are starting to learn about 'green' living. As long as our intelligence can give us solutions to renewable resources, we can grow as large as we need to.



I already gave examples of animals that do this without worry about the consequences. Replace oil with any other waste product, and you have the same effect.



Actually, land bridges and such usually do not equate to sudden environmental distress. The amount of time involved in migration allows the natural system to keep a balance. Animals become castaways as well as humans, and a single animal is sometimes all it takes.



Have you checked? Or are you assuming it just doesn't happen?



It was in response to the claim: "Man allows the weak and infirm to live and breed into the population contrary to all other creatures in nature." Not all animals abandon their old and infirm. Heck, even if they did, why does that mean that we would have to?



Sure, but what you said was "man manipulates his own species". No big, I suppose.



There is none. There isn't a single creature on this planet which is indispensable, or, for that matter, which is of any particular gain. We are all simply here, trying to get ahead as best we can..

Har! Marduk I think you are right!

Larry:

I am not an whacko eco nut sir, I am probably as close to the oposite as can be. I am a whacko uneco nut thank you.

It is simply a different expression of the age old question of why are we here?

Yes we make wonderful things and grow good stuff to eat and make great advances that make our lives better, but really everything we do benefits only humans to a large extent. Personally I think dayglow orange bunnies are cool.

It wasn't meant to anger people, and I didn't mean to position humans as worse or better than natural disasters in the grand scheme. I am not seeking a return to primordial times, just a sharing of ideas.

We are unique, why?

I got some great responses, and I thank you all.

Sorry if I misread you, but I am really sick and tired of the "man is evil, man is destructive" nonsense put out by eco-whackos. I don't see, BTW, all that many of them going without what they continually chastise others for doing and producing. I personally don't think there is any purpose for any species on Earth, including humans. Just various species making their way as best they can on Earth, and humans are simply a whole lot better at it, because of greater intelligence.

Oh great! Now you've done. His ego is already big e'nuff. Next time we seen him on line his head won't be able to fit through the site url. Don't encourage the man.

just for you A R
see
nothing wrong with my head at all
like most men i actually keep my ego in my pants.

Without communication between man and animal, there is no way to truly conclude that man is more intelligent. He certainly doesn't have the sight of the hawk, the ability to detect scents like a Beagle, the ability to hear sounds at far distances. He does not express a homing instinct or run like the cheetah or swim like a seal. Man is slow, does not fly or swim well, has limited sensory abilities and instincts. While all these qualities are physical, it does not eliminate the possibility that genius in more aesthetic forms does not rest within the animal world.

hahaha very nice post, but technically what we are doing doesn't go against mother nature, stay away from the philosophy bro

Sure there is!

You'll have a tough time measuring intelligence by measuring sight, scent, or sound, though. If you want to measure intelligence, then you measuring the efficiency of data transfer between two creatures. Humans have it down to an art, to the point that two completly unrelated creatures who have never seen, smelled, or heard of each other at all can carry on a conversation about measuring intelligence. Animals are barely at the stage where they can negotiate for food.

There is no doubt that man is more intelligent. Now, if you want to argue that there is some trait more relevant to human superiority, well, that's another topic altogether.

somewhere out there, maybe there is a creature that is more intelligent and better equipped to survive than man, which would probably make it worse than us, it just hasn't been found or found us yet, or maybe it has...

we have a name for the creature thats more intelligent and better equipped than man to survive
It's called Woman

"what use is an intelligent species?"

In my oppinion either there is no "use" AKA we are random and evolution does not eventually produce intelligence.

OR, we are a result of a building collective conciousness over time...
therefore our use is to protect the earth and to live in harmony with it.

Man is the smartest and yet stupidest creature to grace this planet. We create and destroy. Other species are more suited to this planet and actually present a symbotic relationship with the earth and what they take they give back. Man just takes and gives little back in return. That's why our natural resources are depleting, there's global warming, less oxygen on the planet due to forests being cut down, and every day species are disappearing from the planet.

So... that's where your head's been hiding.

{quote}we have a name for the creature thats more intelligent and better equipped than man to survive
It's called Woman


Marduk, that just show's how smart you really are!.

Why are we here, does it really matter since we are here, we should make the most out of it, Maybe that is why we are at the top of the food chain, we are the one's that can use intelligent logical reasoning, and unlike animal's we know write from wrong. or some of us do anyway.

I would like to see an example of an animal other than a human that repairs the things that he destroys, and actively limits himesels to avoid putting other species into extinction.

here ya go

took me a while but i finally got there

We must not be talking about the same ants. The one I got in my house destroy everything before moving on. I've yet to have one repair anything.

however, in clearing land we also create effects negative to our own good. everything has a balance. overfarming has stripped vast pieces of land of quality topsoil. however, on the benefit side, we altered the environment enough to avoid an iceage (in theory) because of farming. the planet is overpopulated, we are able to sustain high population levels because of agricultural advances, but if we do not plan for the future the collapse of our farm industries will leave the first world desolate.

creating roads and cannals is an improvement to the movement of man, not to nature. i assure you that animals do not find human roads all that benefitial (aside from an easy supply of salt in the spring here in canada). polution does nothing any good. the earth can abosrb a certian amount, but man has a habit of failing to plan for the future.



you are aware that the worst forest fires occur because of man's altering of the natural forest cycles, are you not?

as for volcanoes, and other such forces: indeed man is no match for that of nature, but he certianly can try at times. (and just like nature is not planning for the future, man does not plan all that well or all that often)

You know i used to have a red ants nest and an aphid problem in my yard,
one day some black ants moved in and destroyed the red ants nest
Next day
I had a black ants nest in the yard and the ants started farming the aphids
so i no longer have an aphid problem
and they're also excellent for fixing the wiring when a fuse blows
they fixed my old hoover too but they had to wait a couple of weeks for parts

hey marduk, did your ants star in a b-rate movie? i seem to remember a couple intelligent ant movies being made....

that was their uncle jim's family
they were big guys.
they grew up eating the plutonium i got in my shed

I don't know about super ant's but i would say, on the intelligent scare we would have to be on the top! Or at least some of us are anyway.

I had a colony of carpenter ants, and they built me a suit of furniture before they left.

WOW..those where smart ant's maybe they should be on the top of the food chain.