Letters to the Editor
-
what's creepy about being a predator?
healthy skeptic writes in response to my labeling of humans as 'predators:'
"...That gets the award for creepy over simplification in a Freudian slip."
and then goes on to ask:
"Does intelligence and religion serve any other purpose than being a 'predator' perhaps? Do you suppose our ape ancestors evolved intelligence to be great predators? What percentage of their diet was meat do you think?"
Guilty as charged of over-simplifying.
Of course intelligence and religion serve other purposes. Never said they didn't. And as to why our ape ancestors' intelligence evolved: hard to say for certain. But it's reasonable to posit that 'intelligence' (or a set of traits that yield 'intelligence') was useful in enabling members of the species to survive (aka: compete for resources) and then project genes with similar traits into future generations. Further, being a predator is only one of many traits that contributed to the evolution of our particular species, up until now anyway. In truth, that trait may ultimately contribute to our extinction. Who knows? Evolution serves no purpose, per se. It simply happens. And neither being intelligent, nor being a predator is required; it did happen that way for our species, though.
Yes, I simplified (and still am!)- because the main point of my post was about pattern perception. In what way is all this creepy? And - just curious - what is Freudian about it?
In good humor,
Gordon
-
On Frustration
Thanks Natural1 and J for your posts. Beyond all the baggage that's brought to this discussion, it's especially wearisome (and puzzling) to have debates about what this author is actually saying in this interview. (It doesn't help that the problem begins with Salon's own "...and why it's OK for scientists to believe in God".) It seems a lot of the frenzy could be turned into something more constructive by people simply reading the material. Obviously there will still be disagreement but at least we could have informed debate instead of Bogey Man fests.
-
Question for BocaBaconBurger
Interesting about your near-death experience. I have heard similar reports from people (tv,news,web and even a friends girlfriend).
It's nice you could take this experience and make it meaningful. It seems that most people come out of it with a sense of calm and loss of fear of death.
My question is, you use the word "soul". What do you consider your "soul"? What constitues it? Is it youre likes and dislikes?
Does your soul look like you? Talk like you? Does it like certain TV shows? Hate Peanut Butter?
This is a serious inquiry. I find it interesting when people use the term "soul".
If you think your soul will last forever, what exactly is it that lasts forever?
What makes you "you"?
-
Slow day at work...
And as to why our ape ancestors' intelligence evolved: hard to say for certain. But it's reasonable to posit that 'intelligence' (or a set of traits that yield 'intelligence') was useful in enabling members of the species to survive (aka: compete for resources) and then project genes with similar traits into future generation
The currently accepted theory on this has to do with geographic circumscription, in the form of Africa's continental divide. The theory goes that a group of apes were left on the western side, which was mostly grassland plains. They were forced to adapt outside of their original jungle habitat- they stood upright on two legs to be able to see in the distance over tall grasses, were forced to hunt and forage for decidedly less-abundant food sources, and eventually the 'smarter' ones prevailed. The simplicity of the mechanisms that make up 'evolution' is so obvious and profound; mutation, survival of those most suited to adapt and overcome, the ever-expanding drive to escape over-crowding that leads to geographic circumscription or variation, and the various traits that emerge according to those varied situations.
-
"Tell me about one of those stories from Africa"
The Pablum Award - This article wins it! Congratulations Salon for publishing a perfectly sophomoric article - high-school sophomoric.
-
uhh... ever heard of Buddhism??
This tired debate is so rooted in the Western world's centuries-old conflict between Judeo-Christianity and Science. As a Buddhist, I have no belief in a deity or in a soul. My religion is about *practice*, about cultivating compassion, joy, lovingkindness, and equanimity. I meditate on the suffering in myself and in the world, on its impermanence, and on overcoming the suffering by letting go of the attachments of the ego and by right action. I see no conflict with my practice and with scientific explanations of how the universe and my consciousness came to be. What's the problem??
-
Hmmmm...
I read this on the comments:
"They were forced to adapt outside of their original jungle habitat- they stood upright on two legs to be able to see in the distance over tall grasses, were forced to hunt and forage for decidedly less-abundant food sources, and eventually the 'smarter' ones prevailed. "
I believe it would be incorrect to say that the above is the prevailing theory of why humans evolved the way they did, and stood up on two legs. The prevailing view of some prominent evolutionary anthropologists (Bruce Lattimer at CWRU/Cleveland Museum of Natural History, for example) is that being able to see in the distance over tall grasses serves as an absurd rationale behind the evolution of our bipedal nature. Grizzlies need to stand to see in the distance over tall grasses, and they do so, but that is not a strong enough evolutionary pressure to evolve into a bipedal animal. Latimmer's thinking is that we stood up as a secondary result of strong evolutionary pressure towards increased male parental investment in their offspring after birth, which in turn led to our ancestor apes to be considerably more monogamous than other apes. This increased male parental care resulted in a division of labor that meant males had to go out and forage and hunt to help in the raising of their offspring. Those that could stand were able to bring back more food because they now had two free hands. These two free hands served as the evolutionary substrate upon which humans were able to evolve.
On a random aside, if Einstein, practically the epitome of rational thought, a man who used largely his intuition to devise the theory of relativity, believed in God, how can it be as irrational as Dawkins says?