6Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHumans as "top of food chain", intelligent, advanced force have failed. complete failure. These guys cannot resolve any issue without violence.
November 21st, 2013, 11:42 AM
Humans as "top of food chain", intelligent, advanced force have failed. complete failure. These guys cannot resolve any issue without violence.
Jeez dadio:
Watch out for too much self loathing.
It warps the mind.
Yes...all those immoral heterotrophs
Hmmm…A vast number of people NEVER resort to violence (I’m one of them) when seeking to resolve a problem. Can you elaborate on your OP? Maybe that will help us to better understand your assertion.
Last edited by wegs; November 21st, 2013 at 03:35 PM.
Something must be lost in the translation because I have no idea who you guys are talking about. Who are "these guys" and what is their "failure"?
Well... humanity haven't failed completely... But it neither have won completely... People, states, groups... are loosing and winning their everyday small battles, trying to reach something most of them can't even define. Yeah of course... lots of them have failed, or thought of violence as a powerful weapon.. well.. indeed it is a powerful weapon.. but you cannot judge the whole humanity according to few individuals...Originally Posted by parag29081973
I think violence is quite common in other animal species... why do you think of humans as something special?
There are many great things humanity had made/produced/is able of. Love, help for others...I think these can oppose the violent side of humanity... If you want to judge humanity, judge also for the good things.
As opposed to all those other forms of life out there which are much more likely to talk through their problems?
"Yo, lion..."
"Sup, gazelle?"
"You think you could, like, try being a vegetarian?"
"I'll think about it, bro. I'll think about it."
"Thanks, homey. That's all I'm asking."
"OK. Thought about it: no."
Yeah!
You should see us in development meetings: one person wants to use an MVC architectural pattern and another wants to use an MVVC architectural pattern.
Obviously, the last person standing gets to choose.
It is a blood-bath; claret everywhere.
To get to the top of the food chain we had to resolve a few issues with violence. You don't get there by being a Casper Milquetoast. Acquiring food that moves faster than you and is stronger than you cannot be accomplished using persuasive reasoning.
You're posting how failed the human species is via a communication medium spanning the entirety of the populated globe enabling human beings to collocate their minds and focus on issues?
Malarkey! We resolve plenty of issues without violence. Statistically speaking, Non-Violent Direct Actions are more successful in bringing about positive results than violent ones. Take, for instance, the non-violent actions taken against Pinochet in Chile. Non-violent action successfully took him out of power. There is an entire subfield of Conflict Resolution Studies dedicated to the study of Non-Violent Direct Action.
Violence begets more violence. Revolutions are less likely to succeed when they are violent for the following reasons:
1) Governments have professionally trained and well-disciplined armies
2) Armies have easier access to technologically superior, and more powerful, weaponry.
3) Violent resistance justifies violent responses - and it's a game where the government will always have the home field advantage... As long as the revolution is between civillians and government.
4) Violent revolutions alienate uninvolved civillians and civil servants: Police are more likely to comply with the government when revolutionaries are a threat to the safety and well-being of all individuals in a society, and civillians are less likely to support if there is collateral damage.
5) Violent revolutions destroy infrastructure, and cost a lot of money. Presuming a revolution is successful, the costs and damages still have to be resolved.
6) Violent revolutions set a dangerous precedent if the revolution is successful: Most revolutions are not comprised of single cohesive groups of individuals with the same ideology, motivations, and goals. Most revolutions are united fronts that are comprised of several groups with different aims that only neccessarily agree on a single thing - that current government/dictatorship must end. If the revolution is violent, what keeps the united front from splintering into off into opposing military groups when they inevitably disagree with one another?
If I can briefly summarize the strengths of non-violent direct action on a forum on the internet, surely there must be plenty of study of its effectiveness... Which clearly implies there must be a number of cases where non-violent means, instead of violent ones, were used to resolve issues... And I have just the thing to help get this point across.
Global Nonviolent Action Database
Intelligence is subjective and doesn't have to be used for good means.
Also, the food chain doesn't exist. And who says we are top? is that why humans suffer from pathogens, viruses, bacterial conditions, etc?
Are you saying that a squirrel is just as likely to eat a bear, as a bear is to eat a squirrel? Human beings are on top until we find ourselves in the wilderness without a significant defensive tool, I.E a gun.
...
McDonalds exists.
Well thank you, Eeyore.
It irritates me when people allege "failure", without clarifying what goal they think was being sought. It begs the question of whether the assumed goal was in fact ever considered to be one in the first place. For example, someone might say we have "failed" to send men to Mars. Well, er, actually we have not tried yet.
I take it you've not studied any ecology related fields.Also, the food chain doesn't exist.
| « Psychopath = Aspergers? | Tiny Spiders Are Deadly Fright » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
