Live data from Hacker News

Why We Dominate the Earth

fs.blog

31–40 of 135 posts

Re: Why We Dominate the Earth

#31

I saw an interesting, related theory in an ecology book I read recently. Most native peoples were very in tune withe the earth (Pagan Europe, Native American tribes, Hindu India, Tribal Africa, Aboriginal Australia, etc). The rise of Abrahamic religion, with man as the most important creature on the planet and everything on earth created for man, is a factor for why we "dominate" the earth.

>Most native peoples were very in tune withe the earth (Pagan Europe, Native American tribes, Hindu India, Tribal Africa, Aboriginal Australia, etc).

The reason there were so many bison in the US when the settlers arrived is that the native Americans had already hunted the rest of the megafauna to extinction. While I think there is a kernel of truth to your comment, I also think the premise that primitive people's were more "in tune" with nature than their Western counterparts in some deep cultural or spiritual sense is a revisionist myth predicated on the "noble savage" archetype. The truth is more likely that being "in tune" with nature was simply a matter of survival for such people. Obviously, if your culture survives primarily on deer, you don't kill all of the deer. But primitive people were quite capable of destroying or harming their environment, as long as they could survive it, just not as capable as more advanced societies.

Re: Why We Dominate the Earth

#32
Unrelated to the article, but the headline raised the question in my mind - is intelligent life an inevitability, and is that a good or bad thing?

If the human race had not, would another species eventually rise to a similar position? And would it have caused the same destruction?

On the flip side, what purpose would natural life serve if there was no species sufficiently cognizant to recognize it?

Re: Why We Dominate the Earth

#33
post #32

Unrelated to the article, but the headline raised the question in my mind - is intelligent life an inevitability, and is that a good or bad thing? If the human race had not, would another species eventually rise to a similar position? And would it have caused the same destruction? On the flip side, what purpose would natural life serve if there was no species sufficiently cognizant to recognize it?

Why would purpose be a thing to the accidental?

Re: Why We Dominate the Earth

#34
post #24

Sorry but isn't it just because we innovate? We innovate without evolution. Does any other species innovate without evolution? Something feels wrong to me here. It almost like it's the exact opposite: shared fiction is what hold us back (though it's probably good from a survival stand point), and innovation is what makes us unique, and it specially happens when there is no fiction but a real search for the truth.

> It almost like it's the exact opposite: shared fiction is what hold us back ...

Shared fiction is nothing else than just shared knowledge. Without collecting and keeping your knowledge you can't go further, there's no basis for innovating further.

Re: Why We Dominate the Earth

#35
post #32

Unrelated to the article, but the headline raised the question in my mind - is intelligent life an inevitability, and is that a good or bad thing? If the human race had not, would another species eventually rise to a similar position? And would it have caused the same destruction? On the flip side, what purpose would natural life serve if there was no species sufficiently cognizant to recognize it?

> is intelligent life an inevitability, and is that a good or bad thing?

Without intelligence, there is no good or bad. You can't begin to overlay a moral framework on the world if there are no sentient beings to create it.

Re: Why We Dominate the Earth

#36

I've wondered if mathematics is a 'shared fiction'. Obviously money and laws are shared fictions, but I wondered if other species can't grasp math concepts (beyond counting) because there is a fictional or conceptual element that their brains can't process.

Of course not, at least in any practical sense. Even plants use the mathematical properties of fractals to make effective structures. If we encountered aliens that are as alien as possible, they would agree on the ratio of the radius to the circumference of a circle on a flat plane.

Re: Why We Dominate the Earth

#37

I think this is all nice and well and but we raised to the top of the food chain because we had pointier sticks, abstract thinking came later. Much later. > About 70,000 or so years ago [...] the cognitive revolution https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/homo/homo_4.htm > about 2.5 million years ago [...] Oldowan tools

Give a bunch of chimpanzees an unlimited supply of chainsaws and fuel, I doubt that'll take them to the top of the food chain.

Re: Why We Dominate the Earth

#38
post #32

Unrelated to the article, but the headline raised the question in my mind - is intelligent life an inevitability, and is that a good or bad thing? If the human race had not, would another species eventually rise to a similar position? And would it have caused the same destruction? On the flip side, what purpose would natural life serve if there was no species sufficiently cognizant to recognize it?

> is intelligent life an inevitability, and is that a good or bad thing? Without intelligence, there is no good or bad. You can't begin to overlay a moral framework on the world if there are no sentient beings to create it.

Without intelligence, there is no red or blue. You can't begin to overlay a color framework on the world if there are no sentient beings to create it.

Maybe universal morality does exist, we're just too simple minded to see it.

Re: Why We Dominate the Earth

#39
post #20

> Surprisingly, it’s not our shared language or even our ability to dominate other species that defines us but rather, our shared fictions. I read his book where he talks about this. It makes some sense: you can operate at varied scales if you have shared fictions. When you meet a complete stranger, you're both members of the human race, sharing a desire for a better future. Meet a fellow countryman, and there are so…

There was an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation that explored a similar concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmok

I love this episode but was surprised that wikipedia said this:

> It is often cited as one of the best episodes of the both The Next Generation series and the entire family of the several Star Trek television series.

Re: Why We Dominate the Earth

#40
post #32

Unrelated to the article, but the headline raised the question in my mind - is intelligent life an inevitability, and is that a good or bad thing? If the human race had not, would another species eventually rise to a similar position? And would it have caused the same destruction? On the flip side, what purpose would natural life serve if there was no species sufficiently cognizant to recognize it?

On Earth, it took something over half the available time for it to happen, and during that time, several events nearly rolled back complex life, so it doesn't seem inevitable. In the universe as a whole, it would seem much more likely, unless you think the Fermi Paradox indicates that there's probably at least one difficulty that takes literally astronomical odds to surmount.
Post reply on HN