We do not dominate Earth, we're just destroying it. Just as we think we are intelligent beings, we're actually incredibly stupid.
Why We Dominate the Earth
91–100 of 135 posts
Re: Why We Dominate the Earth
#92Define "dominate". IMHO bacteria dominate the Earth, but of course, they don't know. They don't even need to know to dominate.
I'd argue that domination requires agency. We want to dominate the earth and are doing it. Bacteria maybe more prevalent, but they haven't wiped us out yet. We on the other hand have wiped out several strains of bacteria.
Re: Why We Dominate the Earth
#93We do not dominate Earth, we're just destroying it. Just as we think we are intelligent beings, we're actually incredibly stupid.
This is such an easy, garbage take on the article.
Re: Why We Dominate the Earth
#94I'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.
In practical terms, math is a language, i.e. a medium of communication, which helps us model physical and real phenomena. There are certainly theories in math, but most of the "math" that matters is pretty matter of fact. It may not cover the entire spectrum but most math models do well enough to help us explain real things.
Of course I'm not really talking about the more esoteric fields of math.
Re: Why We Dominate the Earth
#95I think about how language, in a utilitarian sense, is a tool for individuals to program each other. I guess, in gaining the ability to tell convincing fictions, we've discovered more powerful primitives, and were able to spread consistent programming to wider groups of humans.
Re: Why We Dominate the Earth
#96My unscientific guess is that the mutation allowed for greater group dependence and cohesion. This article and Harari's book sort of dance around this, but I think it's some type of emotional gene that we are emotionally hard wired to NEED to connect with people. Like a tiger stalks with your back turned to it, people emotionally need to be connected to other people in a deep, meaningful way.
Humans are not only unique in their abilities like problems solving and language, but also in their 100% dedication to the tribe.
I think it is this combination that allows for us to work together in such large groups and successfully.
Harari calls it "fictions" that bind us together, but that doesn't quite seem to work for me.
The question I ask is WHY do these "fictions" work so well?
Why would a Nebraska farmer go half way across the world and climb French beaches with German guns shooting at him?
Why are we so compelled to identify with a group?
A comedian has a great joke about this. Essentially, the WORST thing you can do to a person is put them in solitary confinement. Even being surrounded by criminals and prison guards is infinity better than being forced to be alone in a room. We desperately need to connect with people. It seems hard wired genetically to me.
I think culture helps serve this purpose of binding us together.
Art, music, theatre, and even sports are all a part of the process of group cohesion.
Group cohesion and dependency is so powerful that it's often the number one factor in determining which societies/countries/groups come out victorious with intergroup conflict.
A great book called "War and Peace and War" by Peter Turchin is a fantastic book to read if this concept interests you.
Another one, "Tribe" by Sebastion Junger also explores this topic.
Re: Why We Dominate the Earth
#97Define "dominate". IMHO bacteria dominate the Earth, but of course, they don't know. They don't even need to know to dominate.
>dom·i·nate >verb >have a commanding influence on; exercise control over. >be the most important or conspicuous person or thing in. Bacteria have a huge effect on all life, but they don't "exercise control" as they are not self aware. Their influence is comprised solely of externalities. Humans by comparison exert far more control over the environment around them. We shape the world to our purpose. I think humanity w…
Humanity may win here, but you should be careful about how you define it. Individual humans don't control much more of our environment than animals do. Like animals in a zoo, we are often born into very constrained situations that wildly limit our actual control. We are usually caged by our economic situation.
What I'm saying is, the "human" does not dominate the earth. The corporation does. We shouldn't be afraid of loosing control to an AI that will rule our world, because we have already let the companies do whatever they want.
Some of us are lucky enough to participate in this world, by forming and working for world-changing corporations, but everybody else is closer to the bacteria side of the spectrum.
Re: Why We Dominate the Earth
#98My unscientific guess is that the mutation allowed for greater group dependence and cohesion. This article and Harari's book sort of dance around this, but I think it's some type of emotional gene that we are emotionally hard wired to NEED to connect with people. Like a tiger stalks with your back turned to it, people emotionally need to be connected to other people in a deep, meaningful way. Humans are not only uniq…
"A comedian has a great joke about this. Essentially, the WORST thing you can do to a person is put them in solitary confinement. Even being surrounded by criminals and prison guards is infinity better than being forced to be alone in a room. We desperately need to connect with people. It seems hard wired genetically to me."
My unscientific response to this is that it's more a personality dependency. Our personality or individuality is dependent on other individuals so when you your all alone your ego starts to disolve and all your skills and attributes that depend on ego start to fade. Most people would experience this as going insane.
Cohesion in large groups are aided by strong personalities that create and sustain larger groups(hierarchies) and than in turn enables larger groups.
Re: Why We Dominate the Earth
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Without eyes, there's no red or blue . There are wavelengths of light, but no colors. Colors are the names we give to sensations . Similarly, morality is a property of mind. It's like color, not like wavelength. And unlike light, we didn't find any objective source in the outside world, nor do we know of a process that would tune our perception of morality with fundamental laws of physics. Personally, I currently bel…
Semantics methinks. Without minds, there is light, but no wavelengths. Wavelengths are the names we give to aspects of a _shared formalism_ which is applied to light. Do wavelengths _exist_, or are they an extremely convenient system of formalism that "matches" enough to be useful? Much like Newtonian is useful, but not "real". Color, wavelength, photons, waves, all useful fictions to lesser and greater degrees for intelligent agents, but do they "exist"? When one person sees red, another person also sees red, and not instead blue. Because it is the same wavelength. Because it is the same light.
Personally, I think there's good evidence towards the truth of a universal morality as laid out by Christopher Alexander in his texts "The Nature of Order", an interpretation that looks to the order of all matter in the universe... not just consciousness. Ie it's not "on top of", it just looks to what is, and wonders how we can learn from this and apply it to "our" ends. Interestingly, if humans were more in tune with the order of nature, there would certainly be a lot less suffering on this planet, and a much much better outlook for the future. ;)
Re: Why We Dominate the Earth
#100My unscientific guess is that the mutation allowed for greater group dependence and cohesion. This article and Harari's book sort of dance around this, but I think it's some type of emotional gene that we are emotionally hard wired to NEED to connect with people. Like a tiger stalks with your back turned to it, people emotionally need to be connected to other people in a deep, meaningful way. Humans are not only uniq…
"A comedian has a great joke about this. Essentially, the WORST thing you can do to a person is put them in solitary confinement. Even being surrounded by criminals and prison guards is infinity better than being forced to be alone in a room. We desperately need to connect with people. It seems hard wired genetically to me." My unscientific response to this is that it's more a personality dependency. Our personality…
Sure, they are some people who are okay with being alone and would be okay with living on a desert island without other people around, but I think these are much fewer people than most people think.
Even people who claim to hate other people find it very difficult to work in environments where their work is unappreciated or useless.
Almost no one in the world would be happy digging a ditch and refilling it the next day and repeating it even if they were paid $1000 a day to do it.
Why is that? Why would a programmer who isn't very social want only work on stuff that is useful to other people?
It's because the vast majority of us are hard wired to be useful to society and other people. We desperately need to feel some connection to others.
The only way digging a ditch and filling it in would be satisfying is if you knew you were taking care of your family by doing it.
>Cohesion in large groups are aided by strong personalities that create and sustain larger groups(hierarchies) and than in turn enables larger groups.
I completely disagree. Cohesion is stronger in small, less hierarchal groups.
The key is grouping groups together.
Why did the American states unite and form the USA and the Greek city states before the rise of Macedonia not?
It's not an easy question to answer, but strong man personalities doesn't seem like it's an answer.