HOME | DD
DevilKue — Evolution Stamp
Published: 2011-10-12 19:12:05 +0000 UTC; Views: 1258; Favourites: 55; Downloads: 6
Redirect to original
Description
Some people assume that since nature gave us hands and complex brains, it wanted us to do all the unacceptable things we do.But let’s think about it. If we are that smart, we should be able to choose how to use our “privileges”, instead of saying that evolution decides everything for us. WE are the ones who chose to treat our Earth in a filthy way, and it would probably be happy to get rid of us. We only disturb the balance created by other species. I really don’t believe that it’s what nature wants from us.
--
Civilized comments, please. I’m not a person who likes to see people kill each other while commenting. ^^ You don’t have to agree with me for me not to hate you.
Related content
Comments: 58
I do agree we need to treat the earth with respect, however I don't agree with the evolution myth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Aaah well technically you can still find evolutionary roots for every single one of our behavior from rape and murder to altruism and empathy.
So technically you can blame evolution for everything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The lowest thing that mankind [has ever done] is develop a full-scale doomsday device [nuclear weapons] capable of eliminating the entire human race [and every other living creature along with it].
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh yes indeed. I didn't mean that insulting people for defending animals is the WORST thing a human might do, but rather the fact that it is one factor which makes us on the level we are now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because humans [as we know them] are the only creature capable of committing genocide and holding hatred towards our OWN species.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
We aren't destroying the planet. The planet will evolve and adapt to whatever we do to it.
All we're doing is killing ourselves.
That, by the way, is also a facet of evolution.
Nature encompasses all things.
Never forget that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If we were only killing ourselves and not the living beings surrounding us it would be solely our problem indeed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True, I suppose.
But what will be will be. We can only expedite the process by a few thousand years or so.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
But we are nature. Nature made wolves, nature made cats. How are we diffrent?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We are a PART of nature; that's why we should learn to live in harmony instead of exploiting the rest of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But many other of natures animals do not live in harmony. Wolves attack and kill people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Don't occupy a wild animal's territory and it won't touch you. Tell me that wild animals hunt human beings for entertainment and pollute the environment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ever heard of surplus killing? Humans, cats, wolves and many other animals do it. Cats kill mice for fun for example, even if the mouse is far away from the cat and the cat does not even eat it.
And yes, animals do hurt humans for fun and when the human has no threat. Wolves are common in doing it. Other times like shark attacks it is usually the humans fault or the shark misunderstood the human for a seal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
People really need to stop making up stupid exuses for their stupid actions.Blaming abstract things for our shits wont help.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, okay! ^^ Thank you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't assume that nature has anything like sentience and doesn't 'want' us to do anything, or could care even if it wanted to. We are neither the inheritors of Earth or its stewards. We just are. And make no mistake, any choice that we make to preserve the current balance of the ecosystem we do so for our benefit. Either to protect ourselves or to protect our interests. Nature doesn't care, hence why 99% of all life that ever existed on Earth was already extinct long before we got here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I like reading other people's point of view and maybe some of what you say is right, who knows. but I think we shouldn't use the word evolution to justify what we do. It's our own decision and responsibility.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think that evolution, be it social, environmental, genetic or other types of evolution, dictates what we do whether we justify with it or not. And I also think that the only responsibility we have is those we conjure for ourselves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If people are that superior and smart, they should be able to use their minds to make proper decisions. If you think people exist only to serve themselves, some decisions we make are actually harmful to ourselves as well, not only to other creatures. And don't forget, I'm a human too, so it applies to me as well, I'm not attacking anyone. ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Proper decisions" is so subjective that you can't possibly consider what you think are "proper decisions" are everyone's "proper decisions." People can and do have different motivations and outlooks on life.
I think that trying to maintain the status quo of the current ecological balance is no less 'for yourself' than people who manipulate that balance. They think what they're doing is 'good' and you think what you're doing is 'good.'
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sometimes I don't like to be a human, so not everything I do is for myself. Well, I'm not someone who only wants "I agree" comments, it's good to converse with someone who disagrees from time to time. Your opinion won't change neither will mine, but that's ok as long as we don't insult each other. I would actually like to thank you for your time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Everyone likes to say that they do things for other people. But altruism is an oft debated quality. Some think that anything we do we have agendas, even unconscious ones, to satisfy something we want. Even if it's the fuzzy feel-good feeling.
But that's a little beyond the context of this conversation.
Thanks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I didn't mean for people but for other creatures. For example, people who want to save pandas don't do that because it will benefit them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sure they are. They're doing it because they like pandas, and they think the world (meaning them and those that agree with them) would be at a loss without them. Nature, on the other hand, doesn't give a damn. And the specialized task of eating bamboo is already being covered by more general herbivores who also eat bamboo and are filling the niche panda are leaving.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, you've got a point about this one, although there are people who care about animals' feelings. If you're not one of them, it doesn't mean that they do not exist. But I would like to see how the Earth will go on if all the bees and mosquitoes were wiped out in a day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I doubt they care as much about the animals as they do themselves. My evidence is that people go first to the fuzzy cute critters, when aforementioned amphibians and insects are more important to ecological stability than pandas are. One of the most intelligent animals (capable of the most 'feeling') outside apes and dolphins are wild pigs. But nobody tries to protect endangered warty pigs or baribusa.
The Earth would go on just fine without bees and mosquitoes. Some symbiotic species would go with them, but not all of them. By the way, the greatest threat to bees that was causing the bee death wasn't us, it was a combination of a fungal infection and a bacterial infection. The bees could survive one, but both of them in tandem was too much for them. It was nature that was killing bees.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I only used pandas as an example. There are people who protect amphibians and reptiles, and as I've said, if you only care about yourself doesn't mean everyone does. It doesn't have to be a fuzzy feeling, for me I just imagine myself being born as one of the chicks packed together waiting to be slaughtered, for example.
You can't really be sure whether it survives or not. What about trees? Will everyone be alright without them too?
Besides, we're really off topic in this debate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The majority don't protect amphibians and reptiles. They protect the animals that are important to them, like cute little chicks, big cats, wolves, pandas. If people really cared about the environment, then daily usage of computers and all the problems that energy derived entertainment would be a lot more important than the method of which their food was killed. They're worried about how noble they'll appear if they become the champion of animal rights in front of their fellows. There's reputation to be had in that endeavor, something for the self.
Trees are still doing fine. Construction lumber trees from rainforests aren't so much, but nobody is interested in clear cutting deciduous forests full of aspen and Douglass fir (unless it's for new homes, which is less a case for stopping cutting down trees and more limitations on breeding. Good luck with that one. Re: China). What's more, trees are a renewable resource and profitable companies will plant their next crop.
In any case, I never said that everyone would be alright no matter what we did. What I said at the starting point of this conversation is that whether or not they'll be alright doesn't matter in some cosmic sense. The world's health isn't our responsibility. Us choosing to make it so is optional and always has ulterior motives that benefit ourselves, and so evolution is just as responsible for animal rights activists as it is gathering resources and expanding.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True, but the majority is still not everyone. There are always exceptions. Trees are fine as long as they're renewed, but if not, it will probably affect everyone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
How old are ya, Devil? If you don't mind my asking.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
20. Why, you think I'm too young to handle this debate?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't think you handled it very well, but it wasn't until you stated that your opinion wouldn't change that I supposed you were in your early to mid-teens. Such an obstinate attitude suggests the sort of naiveté that I would expect from a younger individual. Younger than yourself, that is.
I encourage you to consider changing your views if someone puts forth an argument against them that is stronger (i.e., more well-informed or logically sound) than yours is for them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Sorry for so many replies, but I do that because I think before I write.
The issues like environment, life and nature are not simple enough to agree upon. There are people with views different from 's who can come up with arguments as logical and convincing as hers. Opposite view, but both logical, what am I supposed to do then, agree with both? Besides, I agreed with on some points, but if she couldn't convince me of the rest, excuse me. I respect her and I enjoy debating with her, because she doesn't come with personal accusation, such as saying that I'm naive.
I often think that it's naive that many grown-up believe in God, but I don't go to them and say they're wrong. They have reasons for their believes and I have mine. My reasons accumulate with time, so the fact that it's hard to make me change my mind has nothing to do with my immaturity. Maybe you haven't noticed, but I've never said that I'm right and the opposite side is wrong. So as long as I'm not trying to force my view down anyone's throat, it should be okay. YES, I'm stubborn and I admit it, but it doesn't make me narrow-minded.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You needn't apologize, but thanks for doing so.
The issues like environment, life and nature are not simple enough to agree upon.
I don't think people are going to agree with each other's views on such issues, but this is largely due to the fact that many people aren't developing their arguments in observation of logic or empirical evidence.
There are people with views different from 's who can come up with arguments as logical and convincing as hers. Opposite view, but both logical, what am I supposed to do then, agree with both? Besides, I agreed with on some points, but if she couldn't convince me of the rest, excuse me.
If I ever made it seem as though I wanted you to agree with everything ~i-stamp was saying, I apologize. That was not my intention. I'll reiterate: I encourage you to consider changing your views if someone puts forth an argument against them that is stronger (i.e., more well-informed or logically sound) than yours is for them. One of the key words there is consider. I never said that you should immediately believe something because a person's argument for it seems more well-informed or logically sound than your own.
I respect her and I enjoy debating with her, because she doesn't come with personal accusation, such as saying that I'm naive. I often think that it's naive that many grown-up believe in God, but I don't go to them and say they're wrong. They have reasons for their believes and I have mine. My reasons accumulate with time, so the fact that it's hard to make me change my mind has nothing to do with my immaturity. Maybe you haven't noticed, but I've never said that I'm right and the opposite side is wrong. So as long as I'm not trying to force my view down anyone's throat, it should be okay. YES, I'm stubborn and I admit it, but it doesn't make me narrow-minded.
I did not suggest that you were naive to insult you. I said what I said in observation of what you were saying. Your words suggested to me that you were naive and I stated as much candidly. Perhaps I was wrong and I apologize for insulting you if that is what I did.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, thank you very much! 
I might sound stupid but this is what I believe: existence is either random or it's planned. I don't really believe in the randomness of existence, but I think humans were some kind of mistake made by nature, like cancer.
I know I might be totally wrong, imagining things, but this is what I sometimes feel of humans.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Besides, this person went off-topic in this debate. When I said in my stamp that nature "doesn't want" to be destroyed, I didn't suggest that nature has feelings, it's a metaphore, but that person started the debate trying to prove the opposite. Besides, I didn't say we should stop doing what we do, I just said, stop using evolution as an excuse (that was the point of my stamp in the first place). But yes, I'm not going to stop thinking that people are destroying nature and that the Earth would bloom without us.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Besides, this person went off-topic in this debate. When I said in my stamp that nature "doesn't want" to be destroyed, I didn't suggest that nature has feelings, it's a metaphore, but that person started the debate trying to prove the opposite.
I don't think ~i-stamp was off topic at all. I thought you were attributing human characteristics to all of nature as well. Your saying that she was off topic because she was responding to what you actually said instead of presuming to know what you where actually thinking when you said it. I don't think that's a fair criticism.
It doesn't seem like you believe in God, so I'll assume that you don't think we magically flickered into existence around 200,000 years ago. We are the products of natural (not unnatural or supernatural) processes. We are nature; there is nothing separating us from the natural order. If there's something you don't like about humanity, then there is something you don't like about nature. Human beings imposing their will on the ecosystem of this planet is essentially nature imposing its will on itself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's true that we're a part of nature, but I still believe that people are capable of making some decisions by themselves, because sometimes we defy our instincts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually, what we are arguing about is not an obvious fact that's why in this case I can use the word "opinion" as an excuse. This issue has even more than our two viwes about it and you cannot change every one of them. And saying that I'm naive means that you don't know me at all. I'm naturally a debator, that is all, but I respect other people points of view. You could have said that I'm immature if I started attacking the person who is debating with me and calling them names, but I take every point of view into consideration even if it doesn't change mine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, what we are arguing about is not an obvious fact that's why in this case I can use the word "opinion" as an excuse.
The facts of the matter may not be obvious, but that is not to say that there are no facts or that those facts cannot be ascertained.
This issue has even more than our two viwes about it and you cannot change every one of them.
Yes, I think most issues have numerous different views attached to them and I doubt that the majority of them will change within the lifespans of the holders of those views. However, I think that the majority of them can change given a convincing enough argument against them. An argument, for instance, that is made in observance of whatever evidence is relevant to the issue.
And saying that I'm naive means that you don't know me at all.
I certainly don't know you, but I'd have to before we could confirm your assertion that it is due me not knowing you that I think you to be naive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well, there is a purpose of things that exist. Eyes are for seeing and ears are for hearing. Everyone has their role in nature, and some people say that evolution happened so that we can do whatever we want no matter how destructive it is. Actually, many things in nature happen for a reason: for example, the epidemics that happen in the beginning of spring so that not all of the kittens in the litter survive. I didn't say that nature has feelings, but existence is not random.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Our purpose is what we make it, and things like our eyes and our ears are tools to do with as we see fit. Be that to destroy or protect. As I said, it doesn't matter to nature.
There was no reason for the five extinction events which wiped huge swaths of species off the Earth.
If we detonated every nuclear device we have, it would only equal a fraction of the destructive energy released by the KT Extinction Event comet.
Our existence is not random, in that different environmental pressures apply to different traits. Those traits are, however, randomly generated through mutation.
But, as I said, there's nothing in evolution that indicates we are, or should be, the caretakers of the Earth. It's not our purpose. That doesn't mean our purpose is to blow ourselves up either, but it's certainly an option, no less than the former.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All species exist to create balance on earth. If we take one away, balance will be disturbed. If we take people away, the earth will survive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If we stay and take another species away, the Earth will survive, too. There is no such thing as 'balance' in the way you're using it. In reality, whole families of animals go extinct, while others stay on top for millions of years. That's not balanced. That's chaotic.
The ecosystem that you're used to is not the only 'balance.' If whales or pandas or neotropical rattlesnakes were taken away, the only ones who would care is us (those of us that bother.) Meanwhile, other animals be they new specialists or generalists would take their place. Or they wouldn't and the local ecosystem would change to something new.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, the Earth will survive (although I still think some species are irreplacable and very important), but without humans it will not only survive but get better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>