Why Is Everyone So Angry?

Off Topic
61

[quote]derek wrote:
I disagree. There’s no way “we could be blobs like jellyfish” or any other form of life.

We’re human. And human survival meant the biggest, strongest, most adapted to survive combined with the most likely to reproduce.

It would seem that being the strongest and most well-adapted by definition meant that they were the ones that found mates as well.

I don’t believe one can compare one species’ survival methods with another species. When there were differences/arguements, the most bold, the most strong-willed, most powerful won. That sure seems to have been a swell recipe for survival all these thousands of years.

It’s sad to see how much “power” some total losers can wield over other people with the use of elections, positions in a company, bad cops, bad teachers, union bosses, celebrities etc.

These otherwise powerless people would most likely get thier asses kicked when survival meant something physical.

(That above was a gross generalization. I realize it’s not true in every case)[/quote]

I understand what you are saying. Yes, for humans this is our best form. What I was suggesting (apparently not well) is that for any given species the best form may not be the strongest which is why I mentioned the jellyfish.

Also, for humans, what really is the most valuable attribute? I would guess it would have to be our intelligence. Luckily we didn’t evolve to be smart blobs with stingers.

The boldest wasn’t always the biggest of the strongest or the fastest. It was someone who was unsatisfied with what they had and wanted more. They intuited there could be something better and they went for it.

62

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

I understand what you are saying. Yes, for humans this is our best form. What I was suggesting (apparently not well) is that for any given species the best form may not be the strongest which is why I mentioned the jellyfish.

Also, for humans, what really is the most valuable attribute? I would guess it would have to be our intelligence. Luckily we didn’t evolve to be smart blobs with stingers.

The boldest wasn’t always the biggest of the strongest or the fastest. It was someone who was unsatisfied with what they had and wanted more. They intuited there could be something better and they went for it.

[/quote]

Yes! That’s exactly what I meant. That’s why I included “strong-willed” along with strongest etc. Good point.

However, being stubborn and weak wouldn’t fly then like it can now.

One can sue to get what they couldn’t create for themselves. Look at all the huge lawsuit payouts to those that were so stupid as to burn themselves with hot coffee etc.

Those people would’ve been taught a valuable life lesson back then. Now it’s a means to great wealth for the lowest common denominator.

And as sensitive as I am to the morbidly obese, that condition would never have been “allowed” by evolution. Now it’s not only allowed, it’s grounds to sue if one is denied a job because of it.

See how the trends that would’ve led to an early demise are now almost celebrated?

And do we think the likes of Paris Hilton would’ve gotten very far on her own if survival meant possesing strength and cunning?

63

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

I understand what you are saying. Yes, for humans this is our best form. What I was suggesting (apparently not well) is that for any given species the best form may not be the strongest which is why I mentioned the jellyfish.

Also, for humans, what really is the most valuable attribute? I would guess it would have to be our intelligence. Luckily we didn’t evolve to be smart blobs with stingers.

The boldest wasn’t always the biggest of the strongest or the fastest. It was someone who was unsatisfied with what they had and wanted more. They intuited there could be something better and they went for it.

[/quote]

Our single most valuable attribute is not what has made us the best, most dominant animals on Earth.

Our intelligence most definitely had the most to do with it, but how well do you think we would have survived if we were just as intelligent, but could not endure long hunts in hot open plains if we didn’t have our advanced form of cooling ourselves through our sweat glands (I remember seeing a special on the Discovery Channel about it)?

We have used our strength, endurance and fighting skills to form civilizations and to dominate over other would-be predators. Those skills aren’t only based from our superior intelligence, which can be seen by other animals much less intelligent who have perfected their own styles of fighting and hunting (think sharks).

What if our limbs ended at our knees and elbows, or if we were too weak or lacked too much endurance to use weapons or run from danger? Would our superior intelligence help us much then?

Survival of the fittest would have had us leave our sickest and weakest to allow for the healthiest and most dominant, along with the best debaters to strive.

Now we try to save everyone we possibly can, and that, I believe, will be our downfall.

With our “save all” attitude, we are overpopulating the Earth with more and more mediocre people who don’t contribute to anything, and who go on to produce more of the same.

On the other hand, the same thing is what eventually produces greater and greater minds and bodies, but at the expense of having too many more mediocre people produced.

The ratio keeps getting worse, and that could make for an even lower %age of people making the rules for more and more zombie-like, ignorant people who are easily persuaded, which can lead to strength-in-numbers of the mediocre overpowering the relatively few with superior genes.

Now we have people electing crooked, stubborn, ignorant manipulators…I mean, politicians as the most powerful men in the world! :wink:

64

[quote]SWR wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Good point.

But is it really a bad thing? Should the person who is the biggest, or who is trained to fight, or has a weapon automatically be right? Should only those who can exert control over a foe be able to voice an opinion, while everyone else has to agree or face unpleasant consequences?

Yes! If survival of the fittest still ruled, not only would we all have very good genetics, we also wouldn’t have so much disease and sickness, OR a huge over-population problem.

[/quote]

I’m talking about conversations. Not fighting over food and water.

The biggest guy at the bar having the “right” to spout off his opinions with no one else being able to speak doesn’t constitute “survival of the fittest” or any other such nonsense.

65

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
SWR wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Good point.

But is it really a bad thing? Should the person who is the biggest, or who is trained to fight, or has a weapon automatically be right? Should only those who can exert control over a foe be able to voice an opinion, while everyone else has to agree or face unpleasant consequences?

Yes! If survival of the fittest still ruled, not only would we all have very good genetics, we also wouldn’t have so much disease and sickness, OR a huge over-population problem.

I’m talking about conversations. Not fighting over food and water.

The biggest guy at the bar having the “right” to spout off his opinions with no one else being able to speak doesn’t constitute “survival of the fittest” or any other such nonsense.[/quote]

No, but the person who can manipulate others, create followers, and organize others effectively will end up winning his arguments, and would get more people to support him. It would be done with more than just his pure intelligence, and he would also need more than just size or muscle.

A combination of the two, along with other communication skills would enable him to put the biggest guy in the bar in his place.

Being the biggest guy just makes it that much easier for him to get respect from others, but that’s not all he would need.

Survival of the fittest isn’t the same as survival of the strongest, or biggest, or smartest.

66

[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
It must be because it’s the summer/ contest season and everyone is cutting. When it’s winter and everyone is bulking this site is much happier.

Then whats my fucking excuse?

Where’s the professor, he’s always angry?

You’re just an asshole, no excuse needed. [/quote]

Nice.

67

[quote]SWR wrote:
Our single most valuable attribute is not what has made us the best, most dominant animals on Earth.

Our intelligence most definitely had the most to do with it, but how well do you think we would have survived if we were just as intelligent, but could not endure long hunts in hot open plains if we didn’t have our advanced form of cooling ourselves through our sweat glands (I remember seeing a special on the Discovery Channel about it)?

We have used our strength, endurance and fighting skills to form civilizations and to dominate over other would-be predators. Those skills aren’t only based from our superior intelligence, which can be seen by other animals much less intelligent who have perfected their own styles of fighting and hunting (think sharks).

What if our limbs ended at our knees and elbows, or if we were too weak or lacked too much endurance to use weapons or run from danger? Would our superior intelligence help us much then?

Survival of the fittest would have had us leave our sickest and weakest to allow for the healthiest and most dominant, along with the best debaters to strive.

Now we try to save everyone we possibly can, and that, I believe, will be our downfall.

With our “save all” attitude, we are overpopulating the Earth with more and more mediocre people who don’t contribute to anything, and who go on to produce more of the same.

On the other hand, the same thing is what eventually produces greater and greater minds and bodies, but at the expense of having too many more mediocre people produced.

The ratio keeps getting worse, and that could make for an even lower %age of people making the rules for more and more zombie-like, ignorant people who are easily persuaded, which can lead to strength-in-numbers of the mediocre overpowering the relatively few with superior genes.

Now we have people electing crooked, stubborn, ignorant manipulators…I mean, politicians as the most powerful men in the world! ;)[/quote]

Many animals sweat. I don’t really think you are saying that is what made us dominant?

I don’t know if it was the opposable thumb.

I don’t know if it is walking upright.

I do know, it has to do with our intelligence. With it we have managed to breathe underwater and fly.

I hadn’t meant to suggest that it was the only reason but I do think it is the leading attribute for our success.

Besides, look at Steven Hawking, he would have died if not for science.

TC said on another thread he had asthma as one time.

Franklin Roosevelt, he had polio.

and this is way off thread but still more interesting than the question the OP asked.

Like if you could only have one super power what would it be, kinda thing.