Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Buddha1, Dec 27, 2005.
I'll change the first post accordingly.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
And actually nurture does not only have positive influences but it is absolutely essential for basically all higher animals. Brain development for instances is dependent on stimuli which are of course environmental influences/signals.
Only organisms with either no brain or an extremely primitive alternative are already completely hard-wired by nature and do not actually need to learn to survive.
Don't you think it is more prudent to change the accusatory remarks that I am a facist leader?
hmmmm, not understanding your conflict wit what Buddha1's insights....?
nurture and nature---can we also say organism and environment?
why separate the inner and outer. dont you see that tis is exactly what patriarchal-faacism demands?
RATHER it is a two way process ---in health tis would be a UNION. real health is a union between nurture and nature. now what problem yu got wit this??
It's about this duendy. Don't think so much
it yous lot who 'think' tooo much. losing the feeling to feel
he called you hitler caus your insistance yyou are totally right
And that he decided that was the end of the discussion on his own, seeking to deprive me of a chance to speak.
Well buddha you have a reasonable point perhaps its nature to nurture. my reason for thinking this
For one mothers naturally nurture there children right? If she did not nurture the child wouldn't in most cases the child grow up void of many human charatoristics. If a mother did not punish a child, wouldn't he become a "spoiled" child
But not all mothers nurture children i suppose nurture could have been created by society.
In my own opinion it is safe to say that nurture is created by nature and the nature of the society.
If you have any ideas on how nurturing can some how be void of nature please tell me
I was totally right. This is a science forum btw. We aren't right because we feel we are right. He felt he didn't state something that I said he did, and he did. He felt I wasn't able to, and I can. He felt I am hitler incarnated, and I am not. Not by any objective means.
...by SUBJECTIVE means then?
How can I tell? I'm not a mind reader am I?
Well, you're not really hitler, but it doesn't mean that your post upon which I commented was valid.
When one starts a thread, one keeps changing as one gets new information or insights. You could have gone through the first few posts before you commented.
In any case, does it mean that we both agree here, that the role of nurture in determining human behaviour is positive only when it is in accordance with nature. But human 'nurture' today goes against the flow of nature --- which means that it is harmful and destroys human potentials and capabilities.
No we do not agree.
Because I wouldn't know what unnatural nurture is.
its the nature decides what will be the effects of nurture on a human.
some people with same bad or good experiences have completely different effect on minds of different people, so nature wins.
I think you've raised a valid point here. We use the word nurture which is actually a positive word. What we actually mean is environment --- which can be both positive and negative.
I guess we can refer to positive environment, i.e., an environment which helps nature to grow to its full potential --- nurture.
While an environment which stops nature from growing according to its potentials is negative and harmful, and cannot be referred to as 'nurture'. Scientists please note.
A mother who helps the child grow according to his natural needs is 'nurturing' the child. The same funciton can be performed by a society on its members.
But a tyrant who enslaves his subjects is not really nurturing them, even if he is keeping them alive. A society which comes in the way of the basic human nature of humans is not nurturing them, but giving them a hostile and harmful environment.
Agreed, so now the issue is really good environment (i.e. nurture) and bad environment (can anyone find a suitable name for it?).
The first is extremely useful/ essential for nature. While the second one is extremely harmful for nature.
Nurturing cannot be void of nature. But negative training/ enslavement/ environment can be void of nature --- and be anti-nature, 'unnatural' if you please.
So, there is a 'natural' nurture and an 'unnatural' nurture (I know we should find a different word for nurture here).
Or in other words,
there is a 'natural' environment (nurture) and an unnatural environment (control)
I agree with you, though I would qualify the last part --- that nature wins.
In the face of negative/ unnatural 'nurture' or environmet, Nature does win perhaps (it should!), but for a long time it seems to lose. I think like 'truth', nature would eventually win --- but it will be only in the end.
So humans can go on controlling and harming nature with their science --- and nature would seem to be the loser all the way. We can wipe out all the species from mother earth, destroy all the plant life, empty mother earth from within, But one day, humans will have to go too --- like the Dinosaurs. Only it will probably be the technology that will do their undoing.
An old person had once told me when I was a child, "When science reaches its zenith, that will be the end of mankind".
For anything that lives must die. Anything that starts must have an end.
And then nature will have all the time to recover.
Unnatural nurture, or rather unnatural environment is one which forces organisms/ individuals to go against their nature.
If you force a fish out of water and but manage to keep it alive by not letting die (by using technology) it will be a case of unnatural nurture.
Separate names with a comma.