Humn beings aren't the most evil, destructive or ****cidal organisms on earth

[New England]

No, ur bluster is revoltingly idiotic, self indulgent and clearly biased. Here's another difference, what other species destroys its competitors to the brink of extinction?

Who said anything about changing the environment? Otters? Lol. Big deal, damn hermit crabs do that. To be more specific, humans are the only species that cultivate the earth to grow other communities of their same species. Sure lions or otters strive for their prides or families, but they dont look out for lions or otters as a whole.

trolls, dude
don't feed them and they'll starve

[BigStereotype]

that's actually terrific practice, as barbaric as it might sound

there are benefits for the animal


people directly feeding dogs and cats is a relatively modern phenomenon
they would either eat scraps or whatever they could hunt and kill.


go walk a sight hound around on a leash and watch what he does when a squirrel darts by. he's going to want to chase whatever runs away from him.
that's programming, baby. that thing was born to hunt stuff with it's eyes.

chasing and killing stuff when he's fed regularly might seem like excessive violence, but it's entirely natural
just like a cat blasting on a mouse.

So a cat catching a mouse, letting it go, run a little bit, catching it again, throwing it in the air, covering it up, letting it go, batting it around, tossing it again, then biting its head off is practice? And I swear, this is just the bees knees for them. They love it more than anything.

[DARKSEID]

Maybe there's another way to look at it..

What if Human Beings were created to replace nature. Nature has one purpose- it controls life. If one organism gets too dominant, nature checks it by introducing a natural disaster, a famine, or a new predator etc. Human beings are the only ones nature can't control- it's the other way around.

But nature is cold. It has no feeling, it gives and takes away life with no conscience.

What if Human beings evolved to be the earth's conscience? To take control of our environment and treat everything with human traits like Empathy, Unconditional Love, Justice, Sacrifice etc.

Nothing's perfect but I guess we're still evolving. We've only been around a couple hundred thousand years, while other specialized species like ants and bees have been evolving for millions of years- and they perform what they were created for perfectly.

[Sweet Pea 50]

I see what your saying, EM. But nature has a funny way of putting us in our place. Short example, Japan.

You start looking at some of the titanic things that are happening in the cosmic realm, you really start understanding how small we are.

[LeG00N]

Maybe there's another way to look at it..

What if Human Beings were created to replace nature. .

created by what or who?

[DARKSEID]

Nothing's for sure- sometimes evolution fails (like with the dodos) but everything has a fighting chance.

That's another trait all life shares because we were all born out of impossible odds yet we're still here.

It could have been a trillion other sperm that reached the egg first, but it turned out to be me. It could have been a thousand other nights that my dad was with my mom, but it turned out to be the right night. I only had one chance to live, and it happened.

[LeG00N]

Nothing's for sure- sometimes evolution fails (like with the dodos) but everything has a fighting chance.

That's another trait all life shares because we were all born out of impossible odds yet we're still here.

It could have been a trillion other sperm that reached the egg first, but it turned out to be me. It could have been a thousand other nights that my dad was with my mom, but it turned out to be the right night. I only had one chance to live, and it happened.

wait......didn't humans hunt the dodo's into extinction?

I don't think that was evolution failing as much as us ... killing them all

[squealpiggy]

No, ur bluster is revoltingly idiotic, self indulgent and clearly biased. Here's another difference, what other species destroys its competitors to the brink of extinction?

Rats, dogs, cane toads... any species really if they have an advantage in the environment will drive its competitors to extinction. Resources are finite, if one species is better than another at btaining those resources the other one necessarily goes extinct. The species (taxa) I mention above are ones in which this tendency has been observed.

Who said anything about changing the environment? Otters? Lol. Big deal, damn hermit crabs do that.

Beavers and otters are different animals.

To be more specific, humans are the only species that cultivate the earth to grow other communities of their same species.

Ok so you've changed from "no other animal kills more than they need to eat" through "no other animal takes more from the earth than they need" and now you're at "no other animal cultivates the earth". Where will this train of thought end? "Well humans are the only species to make movies starring Eddie Murphy is a fatsuit so obviously humans are inherently evil!"

Sure lions or otters strive for their prides or families, but they dont look out for lions or otters as a whole.

Female lions look out for other members of the pride. Social animals all tend to look out for non-related members of their groups. Large herd animals will even look after other species and protect them from predators. Bonobo chimps (who are not violent bloodthirsty monsters like common chimps) live in large extended multi-family groups and look out for nonrelated members of the group. Even komodo dragons have a strategy that maximises survival for unknown members of their species. A successful bite results in an inevitable death from septicaemia of the prey animal. This can occur a week from the time of the bite and benefit a komodo dragon completely unrelated to the one that made the kill. Animals help unrelated animals out all the time.

Your argument seems to be that you've heard some nasty things about humans, you find the argument compelling and you've decided that it must be so.

religion in humans and familial groupings among chimpanzees couldn't be less alike, dude. that's a huge stretch.
you might be able to impress some of these guys with redundant language but to me that's nothing but a load of bull****

I'm not talking about family groupings of interrelated individuals, I'm talking about large troupes of nonrelated members. Religion, like tribe or village or nationality, is a type of in-group that promotes group cohesion.

and money in excess has very little to do with neccessities (food, shelter, water,)

When you consider that one of the necessities is reproduction (indeed this is the raison d'etre of life itself) then an excess of money is a definite advantage on an evolutionary level. Fighting over money is the same as fighting over territory or fighting over mates and such behaviour is well documented among animals from arthropods to mammals. Ants go to war over territory because territory provides resources. People fight over money because money means resources.

so on the one hand, you'd have a point if we're talking about somebody being violent for a meal
but it falls apart when he's violent for anything beyond basic means
that's not natural.

Humans killing each other for money is as natural as lions killing cubs for reproductive opportunities or ants killing one another for territory.

human beings kill for conventional means
it is not natural.

"Conventional means"? I have no idea what you mean by that. I would have "conventional" would mean food, territory, mates etc. If anything money should be considered unconventional (but it isn't, see my explanation above).

This idea that humans are especially bad is simply wrong. Humans are especially good at altering their environment, and that's the only reason we have more of an impact. It means that we are not kept in check by the usual evolutionary balances. If we run out of resources we make more of them or we move somewhere else and adapt to that environment instead. Humans are especially adaptable - in fact I would say that adaptability is our species' defining feature, like speed is for cheetahs or agility is for brachiating monkeys.

[squealpiggy]

Maybe there's another way to look at it..

What if Human Beings were created to replace nature. Nature has one purpose- it controls life. If one organism gets too dominant, nature checks it by introducing a natural disaster, a famine, or a new predator etc. Human beings are the only ones nature can't control- it's the other way around.

But nature is cold. It has no feeling, it gives and takes away life with no conscience.

What if Human beings evolved to be the earth's conscience? To take control of our environment and treat everything with human traits like Empathy, Unconditional Love, Justice, Sacrifice etc.

Nothing's perfect but I guess we're still evolving. We've only been around a couple hundred thousand years, while other specialized species like ants and bees have been evolving for millions of years- and they perform what they were created for perfectly.

Humans weren't created though. There's ample evidence that humans evolved by means of natural selection, just like every other organism.

[Sweet Pea 50]

wait......didn't humans hunt the dodo's into extinction?

I don't think that was evolution failing as much as us ... killing them all

lmaaaoooo.... Again.