People like to think that they are the most successful form of life on Earth, the result of billions of years of evolution by natural selection, forever improving the individuals that it operates on. This is wrong. Evolution is not about improving anything; it’s about producing many offspring that carry copies of your genes forward into later generations. By this criterion, the most successful forms of life on Earth are the unicellular life-forms, micro-organisms which have been around for billions of years without ever having to change their basic form.
The Most Successful Form of Life
- Thread starter Jokerman
- Start date
If you think about how long people have had to perfect everything, you can get a little frustrated.
But really, go out to any city in the U.S., get yourself a lawn chair, and wait for the bars to let out. You'll understand humanity's plight then, and you'll respect what little we've been able to accomplish in the fields of medicine, astronomy, sanitation, garbage pickup, etc.
Bill Hicks said it: "I'm tired of this 'ain't-humanity-great' bullshit. We're a virus with shoes."
But really, go out to any city in the U.S., get yourself a lawn chair, and wait for the bars to let out. You'll understand humanity's plight then, and you'll respect what little we've been able to accomplish in the fields of medicine, astronomy, sanitation, garbage pickup, etc.
Bill Hicks said it: "I'm tired of this 'ain't-humanity-great' bullshit. We're a virus with shoes."
I sure do think we have been succesful for our particular form, when you look at where we started!
The form has been perfected, improved upon. With each achievement there are steps taken backward, and that is the nature of the human animal. Our imperfection is what makes us who we are.
The human animal has needs which make it greatly harder for him to adapt as well to the ecology of planet Earth as say a fish ever comfortable with itself in the water. For sure, that is where it belongs. And where do we belong? On the land? The same land, home to the same forests and pines we destroy daily? The land we pollute by our own devices, our own machinations. We can not help destroying what we have built upon; the water is there for the fish and the fish cannot gulp whole the oceans of the world in the way that we can deplete our natural resources. You can bet we have no business here. What we have aquired has been through abominable disgraces on our part to the indigenous people -- and through war-fare, colonization the world over. That has come through the animal instinct, ever present in us through the centuries. We have not evolved out of that primevil instinct, only curtailed it -- and not by a very far margin. But the fact alone that we have been able to contain our animalism is an extraordinary accomplishment. I think that is a gift within us, unlike any other creature living. There is no turtle or baboon that is not living and behaving every day in a manner so different from the first turtle or baboon in its lineage. They have no great need to change something coded within them. All our intellect is what has enabled us to come so far, and evolution has done that, and our aquired intellect should not be so dismissed.
If we were created as well as we ever needed to be, there would be no room for growth, no room for successses.
The form has been perfected, improved upon. With each achievement there are steps taken backward, and that is the nature of the human animal. Our imperfection is what makes us who we are.
The human animal has needs which make it greatly harder for him to adapt as well to the ecology of planet Earth as say a fish ever comfortable with itself in the water. For sure, that is where it belongs. And where do we belong? On the land? The same land, home to the same forests and pines we destroy daily? The land we pollute by our own devices, our own machinations. We can not help destroying what we have built upon; the water is there for the fish and the fish cannot gulp whole the oceans of the world in the way that we can deplete our natural resources. You can bet we have no business here. What we have aquired has been through abominable disgraces on our part to the indigenous people -- and through war-fare, colonization the world over. That has come through the animal instinct, ever present in us through the centuries. We have not evolved out of that primevil instinct, only curtailed it -- and not by a very far margin. But the fact alone that we have been able to contain our animalism is an extraordinary accomplishment. I think that is a gift within us, unlike any other creature living. There is no turtle or baboon that is not living and behaving every day in a manner so different from the first turtle or baboon in its lineage. They have no great need to change something coded within them. All our intellect is what has enabled us to come so far, and evolution has done that, and our aquired intellect should not be so dismissed.
If we were created as well as we ever needed to be, there would be no room for growth, no room for successses.
The idea that we have undergone improvement upon improvement to reach our current state, and the idea that our current state is indeed the "best" of the whole line, is actually evident in your response.
What you suggested is actually in line with how most people think. You just word yourself a lot better than most people.
I think what Jokerman is suggesting though, is that we think that way because of how we percieve linearity. It's got to do with how we see ourselves. We consider ourselves the most perfected human being because technologically we are at our most advanced. The price of that is that we destroy our planet and become unable to survive in the wild. Our psyche is generally weaker. You can compare it to if the giraffe's necks grew short again. If you look from outside our little box you can see that we actually took a step backwards in the big picture, so evolution actually fucked us over. If we were still apes we wouldn't be destroying the planet and wouldn't eventually die out because we have depleted all natural resources.
Your point is interesting, but I think it's that very point that Jokerman is trying to paint an opposite to.
What you suggested is actually in line with how most people think. You just word yourself a lot better than most people.
I think what Jokerman is suggesting though, is that we think that way because of how we percieve linearity. It's got to do with how we see ourselves. We consider ourselves the most perfected human being because technologically we are at our most advanced. The price of that is that we destroy our planet and become unable to survive in the wild. Our psyche is generally weaker. You can compare it to if the giraffe's necks grew short again. If you look from outside our little box you can see that we actually took a step backwards in the big picture, so evolution actually fucked us over. If we were still apes we wouldn't be destroying the planet and wouldn't eventually die out because we have depleted all natural resources.
Your point is interesting, but I think it's that very point that Jokerman is trying to paint an opposite to.
Interesting point.
The thing is that these 'creatures' had nothing that made them evolve. We all know that more or less natural problems stimulated the evolution. You can somehow say that organisms that aren't even aware of their own existence are successful and sure they are by this definition but really - are they successful?
Will we stop evolving when we stop experiencing any problems like various microorganisms do?
Or will we devolve physically then?
Sure looking from the opposite point of view creatures with the biggest amount of problems that were forced to solve them are the most successful.
Nice thing to think about you presented here though.
The thing is that these 'creatures' had nothing that made them evolve. We all know that more or less natural problems stimulated the evolution. You can somehow say that organisms that aren't even aware of their own existence are successful and sure they are by this definition but really - are they successful?
Will we stop evolving when we stop experiencing any problems like various microorganisms do?
Or will we devolve physically then?
Sure looking from the opposite point of view creatures with the biggest amount of problems that were forced to solve them are the most successful.
Nice thing to think about you presented here though.
To say one species is more 'successful' than another you must first define success, which you've defined as carrying genes forward, however the complexity (and self-righteousness) of humans make it far more difficult to accept that our purpose is to carry genes forward and we are constantly looking for deeper (or simply differing) purpose.
I think people often misconceive the "most successful form of life" with "the top of the food chain."
People think that because they are atop the proverbial ladder, they win.
It's like, a worker in a factory is there for thirty years. Stays on the bottom rung of the work ladder, but he stays. A young up-and-comer works at the factory as a machinist. Moves up to supervisor. Then assistant manager. Manager. CEO. Owner. Then he fucks up and gets fired or has to resign, all in eight years. Who is more successful? The person who maintained a job for thirty years, or the one who got to the top only to ultimately fail miserably?
Or the uni-cell lifeform that stayed in place billions of years or the human lifeform that advanced in thousands?
Or the player who slowly rolled 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3 in Monopoly to make it past go, or the one who rolled 12, 12, 12, then went to jail, only to lose all the progress?
It goes back to how you measure success, like Jon said.
People think that because they are atop the proverbial ladder, they win.
It's like, a worker in a factory is there for thirty years. Stays on the bottom rung of the work ladder, but he stays. A young up-and-comer works at the factory as a machinist. Moves up to supervisor. Then assistant manager. Manager. CEO. Owner. Then he fucks up and gets fired or has to resign, all in eight years. Who is more successful? The person who maintained a job for thirty years, or the one who got to the top only to ultimately fail miserably?
Or the uni-cell lifeform that stayed in place billions of years or the human lifeform that advanced in thousands?
Or the player who slowly rolled 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3 in Monopoly to make it past go, or the one who rolled 12, 12, 12, then went to jail, only to lose all the progress?
It goes back to how you measure success, like Jon said.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.