Данный сайт активно использует технологию JavaScript.
Пожалуйста, включите JavaScript в вашем браузере.
Тема «Classic»
Тема «Thottbot»
Thou shalt not kill...
Ответить
Вернуться на главную страницу форума
Сообщение от
Orranis
Not necessarily. Homosexuality is most likely a genetic mutation, and as we know the laws of natural selection state that if it doesn't work towards the survival or rise of our species, it shall be bred out of the species. Obviously the fact that it hasn't yet means that it either will soon or has no effect on our survival.
Or because it can't be bred out, because it may be a recessive gene that's inherent to people, just like left-handedness.
Just like anger and aggression. But anyway, back to the point - killing and asserting dominant authority over others is inherent in people. Can you deny that?
If it can't be bread out, then it's not a liability to the reproduction of our race. It's logical.
Asserting dominant authority, yes. Killing, no. However, it is too often used for the former.
Сообщение от
Squishalot
Not necessarily. Homosexuality is most likely a genetic mutation, and as we know the laws of natural selection state that if it doesn't work towards the survival or rise of our species, it shall be bred out of the species. Obviously the fact that it hasn't yet means that it either will soon or has no effect on our survival.
Or because it can't be bred out, because it may be a recessive gene that's inherent to people, just like left-handedness.
Just like anger and aggression. But anyway, back to the point - killing and asserting dominant authority over others is inherent in people. Can you deny that?
If it can't be bread out, then it's not a liability to the reproduction of our race. It's logical.
Asserting dominant authority, yes. Killing, no. However, it is too often used for the former.
Killing is commonly used in the animal kingdom as a means of establishing the position of the alpha male, i.e. asserting dominant authority.
I'm not sure that the two can reasonably be set apart.
I disagree about the idea that something that can't be bred out is necessarily not a hindrance. It can be mutated out - a lack of homosexuality would, all else equal, increase the reproductive speed of the human species.
Сообщение от
Orranis
Not necessarily. Homosexuality is most likely a genetic mutation, and as we know the laws of natural selection state that if it doesn't work towards the survival or rise of our species, it shall be bred out of the species. Obviously the fact that it hasn't yet means that it either will soon or has no effect on our survival.
Or because it can't be bred out, because it may be a recessive gene that's inherent to people, just like left-handedness.
Just like anger and aggression. But anyway, back to the point - killing and asserting dominant authority over others is inherent in people. Can you deny that?
If it can't be bread out, then it's not a liability to the reproduction of our race. It's logical.
Asserting dominant authority, yes. Killing, no. However, it is too often used for the former.
Killing is commonly used in the animal kingdom as a means of establishing the position of the alpha male, i.e. asserting dominant authority.
I'm not sure that the two can reasonably be set apart.
You're opinion, I really can't argue it. Humans are different to other animals, and you can't deny that. I cannot say yes or no.
I disagree about the idea that something that can't be bred out is necessarily not a hindrance. It can be mutated out - a lack of homosexuality would, all else equal, increase the reproductive speed of the human species.
Reproductive speed does not have anything to do with survival. A common analogy for this is the hyena deer relationship. In one season, the deer can always escape the hyena, and breeds madly. Pretty soon, all the grass is eaten up, and they're population rapidly declines. In another, the hyena can always catch the deer, and the deer are pretty soon all but extinct. The grass population shoots up, and the hyena's down as well, at which point the deer will start going up, and it'll all reverse itself. Perhaps this is even a self correction method of our massive overpopulation, whether or not it will work, because nature is not used to our superior intellect.
Сообщение от
Monday
Reproductive speed does not have anything to do with survival. A common analogy for this is the hyena deer relationship. In one season, the deer can always escape the hyena, and breeds madly. Pretty soon, all the grass is eaten up, and they're population rapidly declines. In another, the hyena can always catch the deer, and the deer are pretty soon all but extinct. The grass population shoots up, and the hyena's down as well, at which point the deer will start going up, and it'll all reverse itself. Perhaps this is even a self correction method of our massive overpopulation, whether or not it will work, because nature is not used to our superior intellect.
This ^^
It's seen all the time.
Especially since humans have no need to reproduce faster, what with the large population and the way we save those who, through natural selection, would be weeded out.
Сообщение от
Squishalot
You're opinion, I really can't argue it. Humans are different to other animals, and you can't deny that. I cannot say yes or no.
But this boils down to it - your notion that killing is wrong is predicated on an opinion based on evolutionary theory that can be challenged.
Reproductive speed does not have anything to do with survival. A common analogy for this is the hyena deer relationship. In one season, the deer can always escape the hyena, and breeds madly. Pretty soon, all the grass is eaten up, and they're population rapidly declines. In another, the hyena can always catch the deer, and the deer are pretty soon all but extinct. The grass population shoots up, and the hyena's down as well, at which point the deer will start going up, and it'll all reverse itself. Perhaps this is even a self correction method of our massive overpopulation, whether or not it will work, because nature is not used to our superior intellect.
Fair enough, I'll pay that.
Сообщение от
TheMediator
Reproductive speed does not have anything to do with survival. A common analogy for this is the hyena deer relationship. In one season, the deer can always escape the hyena, and breeds madly. Pretty soon, all the grass is eaten up, and they're population rapidly declines. In another, the hyena can always catch the deer, and the deer are pretty soon all but extinct. The grass population shoots up, and the hyena's down as well, at which point the deer will start going up, and it'll all reverse itself. Perhaps this is even a self correction method of our massive overpopulation, whether or not it will work, because nature is not used to our superior intellect.
Yeah, I had thought about saying something like that. Was looking at some basic predator prey models, and say if you compare
x' = x(1-x)-xy
y'= xy-y/2
with
x' = x(1-x)-xy
y'= 1.5xy-y/2
If you look at the first model that has less reproduction, it has a much "safer" decline from its peak population to a stable population than the model that has more reproduction, and such a trait that increases the tribes overall likelihood to survive would be carried on as opposed to other tribes that might have been wiped out due to their population crashing when it was declining to its possible stable population.
Сообщение от
Squishalot
Ok, thinking about population dynamics a bit more, as a side note...
I appreciate that it may be the case in the predator/prey models. But who precisely is mankind's predator in this model, Mediator?
Сообщение от
TheMediator
Ok, thinking about population dynamics a bit more, as a side note...
I appreciate that it may be the case in the predator/prey models. But who precisely is mankind's predator in this model, Mediator?
I meant mankind IS the predator. He hunts or eats whatever he wants until there's nothing left. My point is that if you get too many people in an area too quickly the population is going to crash due to lack of food. When said population crashes, the higher the population when the crash occurs, the more likely you'll have a catastrophic failure. So, if a group of humans were to have a trait that occurred from time to time that would slow the overall population growth of the group, that group would have a higher chance of survival if overpopulation did occur.
Of course, most of this is irrelevant now since almost any trait can be passed from one generation to the next due to modern society and the safety of society, but if you look at humans before they stopped and became farmers, I'm sure there's some reasoning to support the "gay gene" as being a useful trait for the overall survival of a tribe.
Сообщение от
Squishalot
I meant mankind IS the predator. He hunts or eats whatever he wants until there's nothing left. My point is that if you get too many people in an area too quickly the population is going to crash due to lack of food.
But that presumes that the quantity of food is out of the predator's control. Food quantity is well within mankind's control, we're nowhere near the state of running out of food on the earth due to population constraints, there are just society constraints at the moment. Too many who want to be alpha males, per se.
I'll take the point though. But going back to Orranis's original point that killing isn't in our nature, therefore it's bad, it's a disputable one.
Сообщение от
Monday
But going back to Orranis's original point that killing isn't in our nature, therefore it's bad, it's a disputable one.
Aye. Killing is actually in our nature (At least I believe it is. No studies or anything like that whatsoever). However with our higher intelligence there are those who go past their instincts and hate killing.
Сообщение от
ATNICE
Jesus Christ.
Ответить
Вы не авторизованы.
Войдите
или
зарегистрируйтесь
, чтобы оставить сообщение.