Disappointment about our own species

[Russ_Watters]

Here's an interesting article on the subject, from a pre-historic perspective:
http://www.economist.com/node/10278703

Essentially, it describes that prior to the advent of civilization, when humans were hunter-gatherers, they were constantly at war with each other and their short lives were due mostly to this war and the scarcity of resources that caused it. Cave paintings record how humans changed the food they hunted as they exterminated the different prey (from big and slow to small and fast). Farming and civilization changed all that, enabling an explosion in population and vast reduction in violence. All due to learning how to manipulate, accentuate and preserve the environment.

 

[Write4U]

They take everything they can. Pray you never see what an army ant raid looks like.

Yes, I have seen the Hellstrom Chronicle. When those ants are done it looks like an atomic bomb exploded, except it does not leave a radio-active residue which makes life impossible, except perhaps for an ant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorylus

Nor do I see Australian rabbits advocating birth control to prevent destroying the local environment, or beavers consulting with experts before building potentially environmentally devastating dams.

There are no "Australian" rabbits. We imported them. A wise choice, or ignorance of natural law?
"Florida" Pythons (from Asia and Africa) are becoming a threat to the Everglades. "Great Lakes" Carp (from Asia) are killing all other native fish.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/07/21/invasive-pythons-threaten-florida-everglades
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/10/asian-carp-great-lakes-invasive-species

Lest we forget that magnificent animal, the American Bison which were used for target practice by passerbys from the new railroads we built and left to rot. Need or Sport?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison

Can we honestly call that responsible stewardship of our own ecosystem?

Yet usually we manage to not choke ourselves to death - unlike yeast. It's been over 50 years since Donora and the killer fogs of London, and almost 40 years since Los Angeles was so bad doctors were advising people to move. And all those places are, today, far better than they were.

Far better today than when? Better than before we built L A? We just cannot see ourselves as an invasive species, can we? Killing everything that is "inconvenient" or for "fun" (not from need such as the driver ants).

Oh, of course now we need to deal with the water shortage, the most abundant free commodity on earth.
Today we pay $1.00 for a bottle of clean water? Why is that, pollution perhaps?
http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/freshwater/panafrica/threats

Don't misunderstand, I am hopeful that my grandchildren will still have a decent place to live, but I'm really worried. Our family lived for 5 years in a log cabin in the woods, which has given me a RW look at Nature and respect for its awe inspiring beauty and the evolutionary balance of locally evolved species.
We have created concrete jungles for human habitat, and cockroaches and rats.

 

[cosmictotem]

Rabbits in Australia are destroying nature.
Zebra mussels are destroying nature.
Bark beetles are destroying nature.
Asian carp are destroying nature.
Starlings are destroying nature.

Human beings are far from unique in that respect. No species wants to "live in harmony with nature"; they want to dominate it, eat it all, have as many offspring as possible and then move on to virgin territory and do it all again. Indeed, it is what evolution drives them to do. Most species don't get a chance to do that, because other species that want to do the same thing eat THEM instead. Since fewer things eat us nowadays, we are better able to fulfill our evolutionary imperatives than most species (with the possible exception of the species listed above.)

Yes but we are the only species that really knows better.

We are engaged in a struggle between our evolutionarily instinctive side and our more conscious and deliberative side.

Yes we destroy the environment and compete with other species.

But we also take steps to protect both the environment and the other species that share the planet.

We create environmental protection laws and encourage repopulation of certain species. No other animal does that.

So we do have this more evolved side trying to override our instinctive reflexes.

And if we continue in this habit of employing our more conscious and deliberative side long enough, eventually it will become instinct and supersede the more reckless and competitive behaviors we call instinct today. Habit is ten times nature, as they say.

Our primitive competitive side is dying. It's dying in fits and starts but it's dying.

Corralling other species in a refuge in order to help preserve and encourage their numbers would have been unthinkable to our prehistoric ancestors.

50,000 or more years ago we couldn't get along with wolves. Now some of us are hugging lions and bears.

 

[cosmictotem]

Sure: humans are basically the only animal capable of more than just survival sustenance. The only ones capable of having a "standard of living" beyond sustenance. So what? Are you really trying to suggest that's a bad thing? Are you a luddite/troglodyte environmentalist? Do you literally want us to go back to living in caves (for an average of 30 years)?

I'm just not seeing it. Human lifespans have doubled over about the last hundred years. Humans are, in fact, living longer and healthier than ever. How does that equate to "choking itself to death"?

Nonsense. We've already quite adequately demonstrated that we are. That doesn't necessarily mean we can prevent our own destruction, but it does mean we can and are taking steps to do so that the yeast never could.

I think the poster meant we (humans) take more than we really need to survive comfortably. In other words, we don't really need McMansions or really need to use fossil fuels to the extent we do. But we just continue to do it anyway because, as the poster suggested, we're not much smarter than yeast.

Well, some of us, at least.

Who's a good boy? You're a good boy!

 

[Billy T]

... we're not much smarter than yeast. ...

Humans are much smarter than yeast, more capable too, but just as lacking in wisdom / self control, especially.

 

[billvon]

Yes, I have seen the Hellstrom Chronicle. When those ants are done it looks like an atomic bomb exploded, except it does not leave a radio-active residue which makes life impossible

Radioactive residue does not "make life impossible." The Red Forest in the Ukraine, where the core of the Chernobyl reactor ended up, is now one of the healthiest ecosystems in Russia. It does make life difficult for _people_ though, which serves us right.

Can we honestly call that responsible stewardship of our own ecosystem?

Nope. Since then we have learned quite a bit. We are now reintroducing bison in the American west. (And they are truly awesome animals.)

Far better today than when? Better than before we built L A? We just cannot see ourselves as an invasive species, can we? Killing everything that is "inconvenient" or for "fun" (not from need such as the driver ants).

The driver ants don't "need" to do that, any more than we "need" to build cities. They don't need to expand their numbers and split to form new colonies. They do it because they have evolved to reproduce as much as possible.

Oh, of course now we need to deal with the water shortage, the most abundant free commodity on earth.
Today we pay $1.00 for a bottle of clean water? Why is that, pollution perhaps?

I pay 3/10 of a cent per gallon for water, and I am in San Diego, one of the hardest hit places for the drought. (Naturally if you want a pretty bottle with pictures on it, refrigerated, in a convenient disposable format, you will pay more. Up to you.)

Don't misunderstand, I am hopeful that my grandchildren will still have a decent place to live, but I'm really worried. Our family lived for 5 years in a log cabin in the woods, which has given me a RW look at Nature and respect for its awe inspiring beauty and the evolutionary balance of locally evolved species.

It's an illusion, just as the "noble savage" turned out to be a media-created fantasy. Nature is as deadly and as greedy as it can be. The difference is that humans no longer have natural limitations on their greed. Fortunately we are (slowly) discovering that limiting ourselves is a good idea.

 

[sideshowbob]

I agree, do we need to be the only species on earth that are unable to live in harmony with nature, without destroying it?

As I've said before, I don't think we are capable of destroying it. We're only capable of destroying our own back yard. What we're doing is no different than a swarm of locusts destroying everything green in a certain area.

 

[Billy T]

As I've said before, I don't think we are capable of destroying it. We're only capable of destroying our own back yard. What we're doing is no different than a swarm of locusts destroying everything green in a certain area.

They don't call it GLOBAL warming without reason. For clearly understood reasons, the rise in sea levels as Antarctic ice melts will be nearly twice as large in the North Atlantic as in some other places.

Reason has to due with the current gravitational attraction of that large ice mass, keeping the North Atlantic water surface exceptionally lower than it would other wise be. That will cease.

 

[sideshowbob]

For clearly understood reasons, the rise in sea levels as Antarctic ice melts will be nearly twice as large in the North Atlantic as in some other places.

Sure, and that's only a small part of our own back yard.

 

[Billy T]

Sure, and that's only a small part of our own back yard.

If by "back yard" you really meant the earth, then you should consider altering:
"I don't think we are capable of destroying it. We're only capable of destroying our own back yard. What we're doing is no different than a swarm of locusts destroying everything green in a certain area."

 

[Write4U]

Yes but we are the only species that really knows better.

We are engaged in a struggle between our evolutionarily instinctive side and our more conscious and deliberative side.

Yes we destroy the environment and compete with other species.

But we also take steps to protect both the environment and the other species that share the planet.

We create environmental protection laws and encourage repopulation of certain species. No other animal does that.

No other animal needs to, they take only what they need and in that process a natural balanced environment forms, each confortable in their niche of the hierarchy (food chain).

So we do have this more evolved side trying to override our instinctive reflexes.

And if we continue in this habit of employing our more conscious and deliberative side long enough, eventually it will become instinct and supersede the more reckless and competitive behaviors we call instinct today. Habit is ten times nature, as they say.

Our primitive competitive side is dying. It's dying in fits and starts but it's dying.

Corralling other species in a refuge in order to help preserve and encourage their numbers would have been unthinkable to our prehistoric ancestors.

But that is not correct. Herder ants practised aphid herding long before we even existed.

Ant Farm: These Insect Cowboys Harvest, Herd and Milk
http://modernfarmer.com/2014/04/meet-earths-oldest-farmers-ants/

Other ants practised agriculture long before man existed.

Ant–fungus mutualism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Ant-fungus mutualism)
Jump to: navigation, search

Atta colombica queen
Ant–fungus mutualism is a symbiosis seen in certain ant and fungal species, in which ants actively cultivate fungus much like humans farm crops as a food source. In some species, the ants and fungi are dependent on each other for survival. The leafcutter ant is a well-known example of this symbiosis.[1] A mutualism with fungi is also noted in some species of termites in Africa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant–fungus_mutualism

50,000 or more years ago we couldn't get along with wolves. Now some of us are hugging lions and bears.

It seems to me that Wolves choose humans because there was so much waste, easy pickings.

But is true, man is able to cultivated symbiotic relationships. If only Greed was not in our way.
The picture shows a man hugging a lion, the news is reporting a dentist killing a protected lion for sport.

And this is a wonderful example of human/animal, as well as animal/animal interaction.

 

[Write4U]

If by "back yard" you really meant the earth, then you should consider altering:
"I don't think we are capable of destroying it. We're only capable of destroying our own back yard. What we're doing is no different than a swarm of locusts destroying everything green in a certain area."

Which of course would be incorrect if our back yard (that certain area) is the entire earth.

But it is true, we cannot destroy the earth itself, it has been through much worse than humans.

 

[billvon]

No other animal needs to, they take only what they need and in that process a natural balanced environment forms, each confortable in their niche of the hierarchy (food chain).

Again, incorrect. Any animal will eat all it can and reproduce as much as it can, and (if allowed) continue until it kills everything else. In nature, predation/starvation/disease prevent this from happening.

 

[sideshowbob]

If by "back yard" you really meant the earth, then you should consider altering:
"I don't think we are capable of destroying it. We're only capable of destroying our own back yard. What we're doing is no different than a swarm of locusts destroying everything green in a certain area."

I'll clarify "destroying" our own back yard: We're capable of damaging our own back yard (the earth) to the point where we can't live there any more - but it will still be there and other living things will still be there; they'll probably even be better off without us. We're only capable of "destroying" the earth for our own purposes.

 

[Write4U]

Again, incorrect. Any animal will eat all it can and reproduce as much as it can, and (if allowed) continue until it kills everything else. In nature, predation/starvation/disease prevent this from happening.

I disagree with equation "eating all you can" and "reproducing all you can" with the definition of Greed.

Greed (Latin, avaritia), also known as avarice, cupidity, or covetousness, is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed

As I mentioned earlier, decision making is always based "in the direction of greater satisfaction". Determinism.

But as far as I know, only humans possess the mental ability to find abstract satisfaction in the accumulation of wealth and power.

Most (if not all) other organisms do not contemplate future needs, except storing food for winter, drought, etc. They act from immediate need and evolved survival instincts only and in hive societies all the wealth is shared. There are but a few species that engage in sexual intercourse outside of estrus. Exceptions can be found in hive insects which need only a single mating to produce continual fertility of the queen (as in bee hives).

But insects (except for queens) have a very short lifespan and their population must be regenerated very quickly, in order to maintain stable societies.

Although basic survival skills (in the direction of greater satisfaction) are the "mother" of greed, Human Greed itself has no longer any connection to basic survival needs, because it is not shared with the greater human hive.

I am NOT advocating, going back to living in caves, but neither do I see a "need" for storing trillions of dollars in tax-free off-shore accounts at cost of raping the earth's resources and destroying the ecosystem in the process. The results of that is the current " income inequality" and disparate living standards and I am afraid, also the lowering of the value of "life" in favor of abstract wealth.

The natural balance of the earth's ecosystem was accomplished and maintained by the natural sequestration of CO2 deep underground, preventing its escape into our atmosphere. This took billions of years.
But our infinite appetite for technology, has caused us to reintroduce most of that sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere. The results of that (after just a few centuries of human activities) are slowly becoming apparent on a Global scale and maybe already be irreversible.

I hope not, but I am concerned.

 

[Billy T]

... But insects (except for queens) have a very short lifespan and their population must be regenerated very quickly, in order to maintain stable societies. ...

That quick death, sometimes after only three weeks of nectar /pollen collection in summer for "worker bees" is not true in Winter. Most live many months - until spring. Bees do not have any healing ability; lose leg and they may still get by for a while with 5, but a wing badly damaged is soon their end. They literally "work themselves to death."

Other than this minor point, I basically agree with your post.

 

[billvon]

I disagree with equation "eating all you can" and "reproducing all you can" with the definition of Greed.

It's taking more than you need. (When it comes to eating, of course, we call it gluttony.)

But as far as I know, only humans possess the mental ability to find abstract satisfaction in the accumulation of wealth and power.

A great many animals spend inordinate amounts of energy, time and health to gain power. The leader of a wolf pack must often fight the other wolves - risking injury, infection and death - to claim the top spot. Alpha apes spend a lot of time in dominance displays to achieve alpha status, thus assuring them of mates, grooming, deference etc.

Most (if not all) other organisms do not contemplate future needs, except storing food for winter, drought, etc. They act from immediate need and evolved survival instincts only and in hive societies all the wealth is shared.

In ant hives, sick ants are immediately slaughtered because they start to smell different (and smell is how ants tell each other apart.) However, it is just as much a mistake to call that cruelty as it is to call sharing of food altruistic. It is programmed behavior.

I am NOT advocating, going back to living in caves, but neither do I see a "need" for storing trillions of dollars in tax-free off-shore accounts

Heck, there is no need to live in a house; we evolved to be able to live outdoors. But most people prefer houses, even if they don't "need" them. We don't need to eat meat, or post on the Internet, or paint pictures, or help the poor. Those are all optional things we choose to do.

The natural balance of the earth's ecosystem was accomplished and maintained by the natural sequestration of CO2 deep underground, preventing its escape into our atmosphere. This took billions of years. But our infinite appetite for technology, has caused us to reintroduce most of that sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere.

We are nowhere close to releasing all the sequestered carbon; we couldn't do that if we tried. However I agree that what we are releasing is causing trouble. Keep in mind, though, that no matter how much we release, we won't do anywhere near the damage that cyanobacteria did to the Earth (as it existed then) about 2 billion years ago.

 

[Write4U]

billvon,

Reread the definition of Greed.

Also, definition of Gluttony:

Gluttony, derived from the Latin gluttire meaning to gulp down or swallow, means over-indulgence and over-consumption of food, drink, or wealth items to the point of extravagance or waste. In some Christian denominations, it is considered one of the seven deadly sins—a misplaced desire for food that may result in hunger among the needy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluttony
A python may swallow an entire animal, but then it will not need to eat for weeks, AND IT DOES NOT!
otoh, the intentional gorging and purging of huge amounts of food by humans is Gluttony.

The seven deadly sins, also known as the capital vices or cardinal sins, is a classification of vices (part of Christian ethics) that has been used since early Christian times to educate and instruct Christians concerning fallen humanity's tendency to sin. In the currently recognized version, the sins are usually given as wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. Each is a form of Idolatry-of-Self wherein the subjective reigns over the objective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins
These are human attributes. As are all the "cardinal sins" properly identified in the philosophy of various scriptures.
As atheist, I can wholly appreciate the importance of those "observations".

 

[river]

We as Human Beings don't believe in ourselves.

Above all else , we must believe in ourselves.

Otherwise other beings will dominate us. Use Humanity against us. And kill us.

Or enslave Humanity.

river

 

[Write4U]

We as Human Beings don't believe in ourselves.

On the contrary, Human Beings overestimate themselves. A sense of "special entitlement" to excess resources is an imbalancing factor in nature and by extension our culture.

Above all else , we must believe in ourselves.

Above all else we must respect our paradise.

Otherwise other beings will dominate us. Use Humanity against us. And kill us.

Of course, if our behavior causes our own extinction, you bet other beings wil dominate us. Most of them very small.

Or enslave Humanity
river

.
But River, we are inevitably slave to our environment already. The mathematical functions of the earth's eco-system is not going to adapt to out behavior. They will matematically resist ( or set up secondary results) by the natural timeless law of Cause/Effect.

Can we survive a 5 foot raise in the oceans?
Can farms be productive in 120-130 F ?
How much more water is going to be needed to insure the next crop?

How are we going to reverse our cntinueing negative impact, before it is too late, and Nature will decide out Fate.

Our actions today will determine the future of the US. How many people have changed their habits in a purposeful, deliberate action to minimize the human foot print, Which have now become as large as to affect the health and economies of entire countries.