Re: Could we manage without technology?
Originally Posted by Ender the Xenocide
Note one, just so you know how to actually base an argument, never insult the person you are arguing with. It just puts us both on the defensive. Why must you say that I am ignorant just because I have presented another idea that is different?
Now, I did not directly insult you. I never called you ignorant, I called your assertion ignorant. Nevertheless, even if I had called you ignorant, it doesn't translate into an insult. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge on a particular subject. You know? If you're ignoring someone you have a lack of knowledge on what they're saying? Like I'm going to ignore the fact that you're trying to teach me how to "base an argument" regardless of the fact that you have failed to present any credible, factual, or remotely convincing statements thus far?
In terms of presenting an idea that's different, that doesn't play here. You cannot have an opinion over whether or not a human is an animal. It's just a fact widely accepted by society that will likely never go away. Or, perhaps you can have an opinion, but it's just going to be wrong and there's nothing you can do about it, because this is something that cannot really be debated. I can make an opinion that two plus two equals five, and no matter how hard I debate it, I'm still wrong.
You completely contradict yourself when you say that humans are animals is not a scientific fact, and then you follow up in another paragraph saying it is a Biology term. Scientifically, humans are animals categorized as a mammal. Morally however, we look at ourselves as ABOVE animals because we have managed to develop to a more "civilized" state.
Two things here. The first is that you have missed the shift in what I said. True that I did state that the fact that humans are animals has little to do with science - and it doesn't. The point is that you don't need to have a Biology book in your hand to know that humans are animals. It's common sense. There is no scientific backing needed to prove that we're animals, because if we aren't, then what in the world are we? That's a two-pronged explanation. Because you don't appear to understand the fact that humans are animals regardless of science, then I chose to prompt you to read Chapter One of "Biology for Dummies", which proves the same thing. There is no contradiction. Those are just two different methods I used to convey the same message. But contradiction or not, that assertion is still wrong.
Now tell me. What do morals have to do with the distinction between animals and humans? Morals are related to character and ethics, and what is right or wrong with regards to them. That couldn't be more irrelevant. Please chose your vocabulary carefully and try not to become so engrossed in proving me wrong that you make your own words look silly...
Anyway, if you ripped the ability for a human to adapt and develop technology, they would not be human. They would be like a monkey, a somewhat intelligent creature, but somehow incapable of building something as of yet. You misunderstand me, I am saying that if you strip a human of his clothes and he decides to go live with the animals, he will eventually develop tools and a shelter.
Put a human in the jungle, he will take a branch and carve it into a spear. Kill the fish, build a lento. That is all done using the will to adapt, which is part of human nature.
The "will to adapt", moreover the ability to adapt, exists in so many thousands of species on this planet it's ridiculous. To characterize this trait as something uniquely specific to humans is completely wrong, because it's the central backbone that fortifies the concept of evolution - and not just with humans, but so many other animals.
Let me use a part of your example, building a shelter. I'm the first human to build a shelter for me and my young. It cannot be argued that I have become technologically advanced. And it appears that you're arguing that humans are using technology to survive by finding whatever material to hunt and make that shelter. Now call me crazy, but aren't birds doing the same thing when they find twigs to build nests for their eggs? And aren't beavers doing the same thing when they search for suitable materials to create dams that can help protect themselves from some predators and make it easier to acquire food?
Look at this. If we argue that a human is using technology by finding some wood and building some shelter, no matter how crude, then we must argue that these animals are using technology by doing the same. There are no double standards. Now bare with me.
This is the point. You have argued that the ability to use and develop technology is what makes a human, human. So by your logic, these animals, and countless more, may as well be humans too. That's the fallacy I'm getting at. And it's wrong.
Originally Posted by Ender the Xenocide
Anyway, if you ripped the ability for a human to adapt and develop technology, they would not be human
You look at what I said to critically. When I say a person is stripped of the will to adapt and develop technology, they will eventually cease to exist. No longer human, as in morally dead. No way to progress in the tech tree of life, so they will simply stay as an animal, a stupid animal in the wild.
And at this point I'm beginning to wonder whether your pulling these ideas out of a hat or talking just for the sake of talking, because this just doesn't make sense.
Re-read that definition paying close attention to the first word. Primarily. Not always. That's the core of my argument, and it's as if you're looking right through it to argue something else. You must look beyond our contemporary definitions and realize that this has not always been the commonly accepted definition of civilization. This was not it's definition a millenium ago, and last I checked, there was civilization a millenium years ago.
Originally Posted by Lusankya
Civilization = technology, science, politics, organization, urbanization. There is no species on Earth that possesses the five of these except humans. Also, there is a distinction between the term "civilized" and "civilization". The former may merely mean polite. The latter speaks of a specific form of human society. Furthermore, no one said civilization meant "wholesome". Civilization can be utterly brutal and barbaric.
And right, I never said civilization meant wholesome either. I used that term as an extension of the message I conveyed with my allusion to the Native Americans. It relates to their lifestyle as a whole, regardless of whether or not they're civilized. Once more you've scoped in on some minute detail that I provided in an example, and doesn't chiefly act as the basis of my argument. Discussing this is getting you nowhere.
...And you aren't just gonna go believe everything you see on wikipedia are you...?
Last edited by Exon Auxus; 12-20-2010 at 11:45 PM.