The origin of mankind

[Stosh]

What has got to do with a hero for my thead?

Nothing to do with it whatsoever. It was a sidebar, a momentary lapse purely for the benefit of us discussing it. Would you try so hard to dominate the conversation that others couldnt diverge even momentarily? That would be kind of domineering. That folks respond to a question you put,,makes you indebted to the responder, not the other way around.

Hasnt your question already been answered? What need is there to keep cycling around it? And if you reject the answers put , what answer is the one you want?

Edited March 22, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

We won't be going anywhere until we do.

Or any time soon either.

[Junko]

Nothing to do with it whatsoever. It was a sidebar, a momentary lapse purely for the benefit of us discussing it. Would you try so hard to dominate the conversation that others couldnt diverge even momentarily? That would be kind of domineering. That folks respond to a question you put,,makes you indebted to the responder, not the other way around.

Hasnt your question already been answered? What need is there to keep cycling around it? And if you reject the answers put , what answer is the one you want?

No comment.I can ask.

[Marblehead]

What has got to do with a hero for my thead?

Nothing really.  It's just something they learned to do so they are doing it.

 

Your thread question is pretty straight forward:  What is the origin of mankind?

 

There are many answers.  I prefer natural evolution.  Others prefer a Prime Creator.

 

An interesting question directly associated with this would be:  What is the purpose of mankind?

 

Myself, being an evolutionist, would say that there is no purpose.  Most people can't handle this.  Therefore all sorts of purposes are created in their mind.

[Marblehead]

No comment.I can ask.

 

Yes, we need to ask our questions.

 

Not only like the one you asked above but questions in general.

 

I have said before and will say again; in most cases the properly asked question is more important than is any answer.

 

Question everything until we attain the condition where and when we no longer need ask any questions.  You will likely have found inner peace when this state is attained.

[Junko]

So step by step or let's say one by one,I want to know your answers.This is not a coffee shop.

[Marblehead]

So step by step or let's say one by one,I want to know your answers.This is not a coffee shop.

Well, I did offer two alternatives, I think.

 

One was jokingly that man is from Mars and woman is from Venus.  Everyone should have understood this as a joke.

 

The other, evolution.  This was serious.  The chemicals needed for life to originate were present in a particular area and were somehow energized to create biological life, simple, single celled organisms.  From this point life depended on mutations, or rather, evolution.  The cell first found a way to replicate itself and then not only to replicate itself but to remain physically connected to itself resulting in multi-cell organisms.  Some of these replications were mutated and this created different species.

 

It is my understanding that man began his/her mutation process about 4 million years ago from the family of Great Apes.  Many failed mutations were created until one, modern human, was mutated with the capabilities and capacities to replicate itself into the 7 billion humans now living on the planet.

 

A rather simple process, really.  Scientists are performing this process in the lab.  They are creating GMOs.

 

I've not heard anything on it recently but there are scientists who are retrofitting the chicken back to the dinosaur.  They have already created chickens with tails and teeth.

[Brian]

Im not big fan of staying on topic, things do tend to return to the origin eventually, but I dont see the connection yet, would it be detrimental tedious to reveal it?

I'll take a stab at it...

 

The question originating this thread seems to beg nailing down -- what do we mean by "mankind?" From a biological perspective? How is the concept of consciousness woven in here? What do we even mean by "origin?" The question of "the origin of mankind" is the sort of thing sophomore philosophy majors debate ad nauseum in college bars and dorm rooms.

 

There is a seemingly reasonable desire, therefore, to solidly define the question and the specific terms of which the question is comprised prior to tackling the question itself -- definitions so clear and comprehensive as to be immediately understandable in a meaningful way to anyone of normal intelligence (whatever that might mean...) and containing no ambiguity or uncertainty which could cause the subsequent analysis to veer from the path of rational resolution.

 

This approach is in error.

 

The waterfall approach of term logic, in which grammar is completed in toto prior to commencing dialectic and only after this step is complete should rhetoric begin in order to expound upon the ironclad inevitability of the conclusions drawn, is of limited scope and application. What actually happens with this system is that the logician begins with a bias and structures the definitions in the opening phase such that the logical arguments inexorably lead to the preconceived conclusions. Rhetoric then becomes an exercise in rationalization, convincing self and audience that the horse preceded the cart. This is the situation in all but the most trivial of cases ("trivial" has its origin in "trivium," BTW...) unless the logician is extremely diligent to root out this nascent bias. Hallmarks of the problem include surety while indicators of an appropriate awareness and diligence include a sincere & healthy lack of said surety.

 

Higher-level logical systems not only move increasingly away from an abject isolation to "things" into characteristics and attributes (and on to more abstract structures) but also tend to become increasingly reiterative in nature as well. This not only eliminates the need to believe one has developed an bulletproof definition of a topic which hasn't even been discussed yet (thereby allowing the discussion to begin sooner -- with just an "adequate" set of guiding principles and common understandings in place) but it also ensures definitions, assumptions and biases will be revisited for refinement and reevaluation.

 

Both the field and the net are examples in which a solid definition which satisfies everyone is not only implausible and unnecessary but can actually be detrimental to the discussion and to the problem-solving process. Instead, as with "the origin of mankind," it is more productive to "start someplace" and work from there -- but ONLY if the players remember that everything is necessarily tentative, including the conclusions reached (even if -- nay, especially if -- the confidence level which results is very high).

 

We could take another sidetrack into precision, uncertainty and error analysis at this point but...

 

Edited March 22, 2016 by Brian

[Marblehead]

Well, based on what you just said Brian, I think it is fair to state the mankind (modern humans) have existed for about 40,000 years.  That's really not a very long time.

 

And, of course, modern humans originated from pre-modern humans.

[Stosh]

Brian, you are of course certainly correct on several important points. However, since this is not a coffee shop , I dont feel free to follow any of it up. nor do I wish to try to force anyone ,with iron clad logic, into some kind of box. I try to leave ways out so one may agree on their own merit ,or escape to consider more at leisure. OR , possibly I am just too lazy to try. Yes students dwell ad nauseum on vague questions, like the Origin of Mankind. But if the answers supplied arent really the object of the exercise, Whats wrong with diverging from it altogether? rendering it all coffee shop casual chat,, rather than a grueling court case? anyway,,thats just how I look at these things. Carry on.

[dust]

Euch. I think it's probably time to call this one. One more response and then I'm done.

 

You don't think you choose to value your life ? Really. Then why are you doing anything at all ? Why are you writing your thoughts as an argument here ? It's complete and utter rubbish and you know it ;-)

 
Do you deny instinct?
I might say that I both must value it and choose to value it.
As you say later in your post, and as I have already said in this discussion: I recognize that I am an incredible being, and I recognize the wonder of being alive. If I didn't, I'd still instinctively feel that my life was precious, as it seems that most other sentient beings do. And I've met many unthinking people who hold their life dear without ever actively questioning why. Are they choosing to value their life, or do they just do it because it's in their nature?

 

I'm writing my thoughts, I engage here, because I (for some inexplicable reason) enjoy it. I enjoy discussing things (not so much right now). I don't choose to enjoy it. It's one of the many things that I simply enjoy, that is part of the experience of being alive. I can't choose to not enjoy something that I enjoy.

 

Your argument here is very silly. I'm not sure you understand that humans are animals. Nothing that we do comes purely from choice.

 

You are not understanding the incredible being that you are and yet you default to calling man a plague, as if he was just so much irrational disease.

 
Google >> "define plague"
 
plague
noun
an unusually large number of insects or animals infesting a place and causing damage
 
 
Yes, humanity is, at present, a plague. I'd be interested to see how you refute the application of this definition rather than repeatedly stating or implying that I hate life and hate people and don't care about anything.
 
 

We have more people on the planet today than we did thousands of years ago. We live far more comfortable, healthier, safer lives. We can walk into a supermarket and pick up food, clothes or medicine for a tiny fraction of what we earn. As capitalism has spread, the rest of the world is beginning to benefit in the same way. We grow more food than the entire world can eat. We live far longer. We can indulge in art, entertainment or just lazing about on a sunny beach. There are even less deaths from war and deaths from war are far less than that which we once suffered by disease, injury and starvation.

 
Yes, on average we're healthier, more comfortable, longer lived, have more opportunity to engage in enjoyable pursuits, there is greater equality, more knowledge, etc. I have not claimed that any of this is untrue. I do make the claim that most of this has been possible because of the widespread damage we have caused and are continuing to cause.
 
Animal agriculture is responsible for the slaughter of tens of billions of animals every year for food, most of them raised in cages in which they cannot move; animal agriculture combined with various other large-scale practices has led to widespread deforestation, threatening and eliminating hundreds of species of plant and animal life, drastically reducing the Earth's energy supply (less biomass = less energy), and probably contributing to global warming; we've created simple packaged foods and other goods and amazing technologies, and eventually throw most of it into massive landfills; in many places on Earth, slavery and rape and murder is rampant, women and other 'social classes' are treated like garbage, homicide rates are increasing, crazy people with no actual respect for life (unlike me, who does respect life, in case you're still thinking that I don't) are building armies and nuclear weapons, religion and other irrational belief is ubiquitous and unlikely to see a decline any time soon............
 
What you say about war is true, in relative (though not absolute) terms, but I'm not sure that we should be wholeheartedly congratulating ourselves on a gradual and tentative decrease in violence since the Middle Ages (or whichever highly violent era you choose to start from). It's better, but it's not great. We're hardly free from devastating war. And the potential for destruction now is greater than ever.

 

Frankly I find it disgusting that you throw this all away and complain that it isn't a perfect utopia.

 
I really am starting to get annoyed. I have not complained, only observed. I have said numerous times now that I'm perfectly happy, nay ecstatic, to be alive, that like Zhuangzi my days are filled with wonder and the thrill of the ephemeralness of being alive, and that I simply am not bothered either way about whether or not humanity spreads itself across the universe, but that if it does, it's not gonna be all champagne and roses; I don't see the point.

 

You've repeatedly told me that I am thinking a certain way when I have repeatedly and clearly explained how you are wrong. I think it is time that you stop to look at yourself and ask why you are so determined to see me as the bad guy. All I have done is observe things as they are.

Edited March 22, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Nungali]

I had to think about what's the origin of Kangaroo.....! A head is like a rabbit.....and so.....Nungali.

 

 

ha har !  .... 

 

but watch out little  fluffy dog !    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Karl]

@dustybejing.

 

Either you are incapable of grasping the difference between man (the rational animal) and the irrational, instinctive animal, or you are being deliberately evasive.

 

Man doesn't have an instinct for survival, he has a desire to live, but a desire is not an instinct. An instinct for survival is the automatic knowledge of survival and man doesn't have it. We are born tabula rasa with only a capacity for cognition and emotion, everything else we must learn and choose to learn.

 

The reason we have wars is that we can choose to be self destructive, we can choose mutually assured destruction because we don't have an automatic instinct not to. We farm animals because we choose to feed ourselves instead of starvation.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Karl

[Nungali]

What we need is a great big melting pot
Big enough to take
The world and all it's got 
And keep it stirring for 100. 000 years or more
And turn out genetic mixed hominids people by the score

 Naledi  and Neanderthals  

Denisovans and Floresiensis 

Well it really doesn't matter what origin you choose
No, no, no,  cause 
 We  all got together in a lovin machine
It' s only fair that you  know\, you know, you know

What we had was   a great big melting pot
Big enough to take
The world and all it's got 

And keep it stirring for 100.000  years or more
And turn out human (sorta)  people by the score 

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2016 by Nungali

[Brian]

 

What we need is a great big melting pot

Big enough to take

The world and all it's got 

And keep it stirring for 100. 000 years or more

And turn out genetic mixed hominids people by the score

 

 Naledi  and Neanderthals  

Denisovans and Floresiensis 

Well it really doesn't matter what origin you choose

No, no, no,  cause 

 We  all got together in a lovin machine

It' s only fair that you  know\, you know, you know

 

What we had was   a great big melting pot

Big enough to take

The world and all it's got 

And keep it stirring for 100.000  years or more

And turn out human (sorta)  people by the score 

 

 

 

They had one song which made it to the Billboard Hot 100 (at #64) in the US.

 

Good point, though!

 

The idea of the salad bowl -- the modern multicultural experiment -- failed over a hundred years ago. Rather than either the melting pot or salad bowl models, I think the soup tureen is most practical.

[Michael Sternbach]

Well, based on what you just said Brian, I think it is fair to state the mankind (modern humans) have existed for about 40,000 years.  That's really not a very long time.

 

And, of course, modern humans originated from pre-modern humans.

 

It looks like around that time, a sudden shift in consciousness occurred. What happened? Human DNA may have been altered at the time due to extraterrestrial influence. I consider this a possibility, at least, especially since I had some lucid dreams suggesting it.

[Karl]

It looks like around that time, a sudden shift in consciousness occurred. What happened? Human DNA may have been altered at the time due to extraterrestrial influence. I consider this a possibility, at least, especially since I had some lucid dreams suggesting it.

 

Or you watched that latest Alien film :-)

[Michael Sternbach]

Or you watched that latest Alien film :-)

 

No, it was long before I watched that film.

[Junko]

The origin of mankind.....is an alien.That could be it.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Junko

[Silent Answers]

My favourite topic, but we can only speculate.

 

Early man was a lot tougher and more capable of living as part of nature, with less individualism and imaginary roles to play. We didn't live together in such over-populated places. Life was pretty good, but our species has been scarred with memories of suffering and hardship, brought on by large scale natural disasters, prompting us to seek outside strength. That desire to have power over nature, power in numbers, and lately power through machines and computer intelligence has forced an exchange of what we can do physically, for what we can invent outside of ourselves. Needless to say, we are now weaker, smaller and more mentally chaotic than early man. That's why we seem so out of place in today's world, and can't imagine how we got here. Of course, invention and technology has many benefits, and it was inevitable we'd wind up on this path.

 

Our roots keep us grounded in the ways of old, so that we may remember a simpler existence, but we branch out to the future not quite knowing what fruits the next season will bring; and that mystery is what keeps us going...going crazy.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Silent Answers

[Nungali]

It looks like around that time, a sudden shift in consciousness occurred. What happened? Human DNA may have been altered at the time due to extraterrestrial influence. I consider this a possibility, at least, especially since I had some lucid dreams suggesting it.

 

Considering radiation can alter genes  ..... and some radiation is extraterrestrial ,  yes, it is possible  

[Nungali]

The origin of mankind.....is an alien.That could be it.

 

 

So ......   

 

" a turtle stacker eh ? "

[Junko]

Why turtle?

[Marblehead]

The origin of mankind.....is an alien.That could be it.

But then, if there really are no aliens, what then?

[Junko]

No alien in the universe? Only human? I have to meditate about it.....