Why are humans so self-destructive?

Dis · November 13, 2003, 05:15

Why?

You would think evolution would root out those traits. Why do humans do things that are detrimental to their well being? Or even worse- things that would kill them. Why would humans be willing to give their lives for some abstract cause- or things that don't really exist except in the minds of men- countries.

rev · November 13, 2003, 05:31

Maybe it's a built-in method of ensuring there's natural selection -- if we're destructive, then even if the rest of the world were perfect, we'd still be ensuring our own evolution?

(It's half-way a joke :P)

Skanky Burns · November 13, 2003, 05:33

Self-preservation is less important from an evolutionary viewpoint than preservation of their progeny.

Urban Ranger · November 13, 2003, 06:09

Only if you are k-strategists instead of r-strategists.

Surely enough, humans are k-strategists.

Flandrien · November 13, 2003, 07:39

Humans don't like to kill themselves.
They like to take risks.
The evolutional advantages of that should be obvious.

Berzerker · November 13, 2003, 07:47

Quote:

Humans don't like to kill themselves.
They like to take risks.
The evolutional advantages of that should be obvious.

Yup, and with greater intelligence comes more "emotion" and susceptibility to emotional (mental) trauma resulting in "mind games" or insecurities leading to self-destructive behavior. Why does a person eat themselves to death? Does that happen in the animal kingdom?

DAVOUT · November 13, 2003, 10:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
Why?

You would think evolution would root out those traits. Why do humans do things that are detrimental to their well being? Or even worse- things that would kill them. Why would humans be willing to give their lives for some abstract cause- or things that don't really exist except in the minds of men- countries.

Looking at Earth and you from Andromède, I would say that you are wrong :

- from 5000 BC to 0, the population of the human species grows tenfold to 300 millions

- from 0 to 2000 AD, the pop grows to 6 billions.

Either the self-destruction is totally ineffective, or you are referring to collateral incidents with no historical importance.

Spec · November 13, 2003, 10:27

Didn't you see the terminator movies!?!?

Spec.

Lorizael · November 13, 2003, 10:50

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT

Looking at Earth and you from Andromède, I would say that you are wrong :

- from 5000 BC to 0, the population of the human species grows tenfold to 300 millions

- from 0 to 2000 AD, the pop grows to 6 billions.

Either the self-destruction is totally ineffective, or you are referring to collateral incidents with no historical importance.

Nah, humans just **** a lot. We're still quite self-destructive. Most animals have very little intra-species conflict. If it does exist then it's non-lethal dominance competitions or killing offspring of other males. Only in mammals that approach our intelligence (primates and such) do you see anything approaching the wars that we have.

General Ludd · November 13, 2003, 10:52

All animals become self-destructive when confined or becoming obsessive over something, while Nationalism and Capitalism are prime examples of both confinement and obsession.

Az · November 13, 2003, 12:24

Quote:

We're still quite self-destructive. Most animals have very little intra-species conflict. If it does exist then it's non-lethal dominance competitions or killing offspring of other males. Only in mammals that approach our intelligence (primates and such) do you see anything approaching the wars that we have.

ants, dude. ants. It's even much more lethal, deadly, and barbaric than humans. But then again, humans aren't (completely) zombified by chemicals, etc.

BeBro · November 13, 2003, 12:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Lorizael
Most animals have very little intra-species conflict. If it does exist then it's non-lethal dominance competitions or killing offspring of other males. Only in mammals that approach our intelligence (primates and such) do you see anything approaching the wars that we have.

So most animals are too stupid to make war.

General Ludd · November 13, 2003, 12:43

Quote:

Originally posted by BeBro

So most animals are to stupid to make war.

Much like the mad genius of a serial killer, I suppose.

Jamski · November 13, 2003, 13:09

Ants make war.

-Jam

Az · November 13, 2003, 13:16

They're not too stupid. You don't have to be extra smart to wage war.

MrFun · November 13, 2003, 13:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Lorizael

Nah, humans just **** a lot. We're still quite self-destructive. Most animals have very little intra-species conflict. If it does exist then it's non-lethal dominance competitions or killing offspring of other males. Only in mammals that approach our intelligence (primates and such) do you see anything approaching the wars that we have.

Very young hyenas have been known to try to kill each other within the same litter.

There's a species of water bird in which an available female will kill a nest of hatchlings and eggs to get the male to breed with her.

Some species of rodents (squirrels, mice, rats) have been observed to get some kind of craving for more protein, so they kill and eat the young of other squirrels, mice, or rats -- but doesn't happen very often, I don't think.

Sometimes, male zebras will kill a foal that does not belong to it, even if its within the same herd -- saw this happen only once though, in a documentary, so I guess that is rare, but that has happened.

I can't think of other examples right now.

Lancer · November 13, 2003, 14:06

Boredom breeds enthusiasm...death and destruction soon follow.

Lord Merciless · November 13, 2003, 14:17

All carnivores and omnivores will cannibalize each other if resource gets tight.

The more intelligent a specie is, the more likely this specie is going to commit murders. Murders are defined as killing not out of necessity.

Male lions usually kill off any offsprings from the previous male, after winning a mating competition. In human world, it's equivalent of killing off all your stepchildren.

As for fighting wars, observe ants and bees for a prolonged period and then draw your conclusions.

Humans are just more resourceful at killing each other, to the point where we become the first specie that can wipe themselves out.

Nature is pretty good at population controls.

General Ludd · November 13, 2003, 14:49

What's all this about war? War isn't self destructive, it's enemy destructive... well, alright, it's a bit of both really. Especially in modern times, or with the advent of nation states and armies willing to kill on the whim of a handful of politicians, instead of protecting their family or tribe.

But if you want real self-destructive behaviour, you have to look at the environmental damage we do. We treat the air, soil, and water - all the things essential to our life - as toxic wastes dumps... hell, you could even argue we treat our own bodies that way, too. The only time animals crap in their den like that is when they've gone mad from confinment or some sort of obsessive behaviour - like we have with profit and capitalism. We're so obsessed with creating a 'profit' that we strive to create an endless, exponential, growth in an enviornment of limited resources. That's about as self-destructive as you can get. We're constantly increasing the needs we have from our environment while at the same time destroying it at an ever increasing rate.

Xeones · November 13, 2003, 14:50

the evolutionary drive of *ideas* exceeds that of humans. ideas use humans as so much meat in the grinder in order to spread themselves.

Lancer · November 13, 2003, 14:52

"the evolutionary drive of *ideas* exceeds that of humans. ideas use humans as so much meat in the grinder in order to spread themselves."

Hell of an idea.

Lord Merciless · November 13, 2003, 15:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld
But if you want real self-destructive behaviour, you have to look at the environmental damage we do. We treat the air, soil, and water - all the things essential to our life - as toxic wastes dumps... hell, you could even argue we treat our own bodies that way, too. The only time animals crap in their den like that is when they've gone mad from confinment or some sort of obsessive behaviour - like we have with profit and capitalism. We're so obsessed with creating a 'profit' that we strive to create an endless, exponential, growth in an enviornment of limited resources. That's about as self-destructive as you can get. We're constantly increasing the needs we have from our environment while at the same time destroying it at an ever increasing rate.

If you think communism is good for the environment then you are hopelessly wrong.

If you think feudal despotism is good for the environment then you are just another Taliban.

If you think stone age tribalism is good for the environment then you might as well starve yourself to death.

General Ludd · November 13, 2003, 15:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless

If you think communism is good for the environment then you are hopelessly wrong.

If you think feudal despotism is good for the environment then you are just another Taliban.

If you think stone age tribalism is good for the environment then you might as well starve yourself to death.

And if you think Captialism is good, you might aswell kill yourself now and get it over with.

I didn't mention communism, despotism, or tribalism. Go troll somewhere else

Lord Merciless · November 13, 2003, 15:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld

And if you think Captialism is good, you might aswell kill yourself now and get it over with.

I didn't mention communism, despotism, or tribalism. Go troll somewhere else

Just to be serious, what a system better than capitalism do you have in mind?

General Ludd · November 13, 2003, 15:50

I used the term 'captialism' because it embodies the ideals I'm talming about, not because I'm some wanna-be stalin or hitler (or taliban

).

I'm not talking about politics. I'm talking about environmentalism, and the goals we have had for the past few thousand of years. An 'environmentally friendly' society could happen under most kinds of political governemnts, it is just our priorities that need to be adjusted. We need to focus less on endless progress and profits, and more living. Soviet style communism obviously wasn't 'environmentally friendly' because it had an obsession over industry and progress rivaling that of it's capitalist conterparts.

Az · November 13, 2003, 15:52

that's not destructive to the enviroment. It's changing it.

That impact is present in the appearance of all new species. Of course, we're probably the most strong, cunning and shrewd lump of matter to walk this part of the galaxy, so it's kinda hard on the primitive animals, but we'll soon learn to live in equilibrium in certain places, and modify the equilibrium to our needs. Just as we've always been doing.

st_swithin · November 13, 2003, 15:59

Tyranny.

I think it would be a good thing to start a lemming run as an effort towards population control. Tell people that they're too fat, and that they should go on a special diet, and then they'll be too busy starving themselves to be happy and then they'll die early of lost hope and chronic insecurity!

To reinforce these negative thoughts, show only tv shows and movies starring 'perfect' people - ridiculously thin blonde women and men with capped smiles and 0% body fat - and publish glossy magazines with airbrushed and Photoshopped photos of those same 'perfect' people wearing clothes you'll never be able to afford, living in houses that exist in neighborhoods you'll never see, living lives so perfectly unattainable that you might was well die now because you will NEVER have any of these things. AND you paid for that TV service and you paid $6 for that issue of Cosmo. YEAH! GO LOGIC!!

Sandman · November 13, 2003, 16:09

Well, our existance is an uneasy marriage of mammalian pack animal instincts and social insect-style hives.
Luckily we are smart enough to be able to sustain this marriage with an unbelievable array of inventions; both material and social.

Az · November 13, 2003, 16:11

Quote:

We need to focus less on endless progress

Yeah,

.

You're forgetting that without progress, we wouldn't be able to sit and discuss enviromentalism.

General Ludd · November 13, 2003, 16:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
that's not destructive to the enviroment. It's changing it.

Yeah, changing is right. Like how the water has been changed to require extensive destirilization to be able to drink it without the threat of dying or your children having mutations. Or how the air has been changed to be barely breathable at times, with smog so thick that people can die by the thousands on a bad day. Or how lush forests and soil have been changed to desserts which aren't able to sustatin a fraction of life it used to.

It's going to take alot of ingenuity to figure out a way to live in a world where everything is toxic, or dead.