🚀 go-pugleaf

On 1 May 2004 11:59:52 -0700, apocalypse_zero@hotmail.com (Hostman
Brevis) wrote:

>> Wrong word there. "Less fit" would be more accurate. 
>> As I remarked previously, is a tiger weaker than a rabbit?
>> But which is in danger of extinction?

>True for the tiger and rabbit. But I'm talking about humans here.

So you're engaged in special pleading? No sale.
The principle applies to all species.

>> Not 'somehow'. We trained them.

>'Somehow' means we don't know how the adaptationprocess of the
>bacteria has worked in this 'training'.

Sure we do.

>No. But my point was that we can overcome disease that could be fatal
>to many by using intelligence.

Sometimes. But is that a proper criterion for judging superiority?
The bacterium, with NO intelligence, manages to kill us sometimes.
 
>> Bipedal locomotion, an opposable thumb, and a large brain.
>> Many species have evolved one or two of these. We lucked out and got
>> all three.

>Yes heard of those, good, but large brain isn't complete. Complex
>should be added: think of the fable of the 'smart dolphins'. Their
>brainsize is equal to ours, but they are probably the dumbest animals
>alive because of the homogeneous brain mass.

Dumb by whose standards?

>> >Choose between higher
>> >or lower organisms. I just don't look into the (completely absent)
>> >mind of worms.
>> 
>> Yes, but what are the criteria for determining 'superiority'?
>> You want to use dominance. But what about population size? 
>> Or longevity of the species? Or contribution to the ecology?

>No one but us decides, it is subjective,

And a matter of ego. My point sir!

>but the major thing is:
>there's no one else to object to our decisions.

And no one, so far as we know, to affirm our opinion of ourselves.

>Awareness is major riterium.

And conceit a major factor.

>> >Also, to discuss the scientific fact that 'information gain' (with a
>> >greater cerebrum) and therefore an accelerated evolutionary benefit
>> >for us, is a good thing on the long run,
>> 
>> Good thing according to who?

>"good thing on the long run"

Species usually last for tens of millions of years. We haven't
completed even half of a ten million year run, and only a few thousand
as dominant, top-of-the-food-chain 'ubermenschen'. So the long run
jury is still out.

>DNA technology will let be able to grow new organs, treat degenerative
>diseases and slow down the aging process. These aren't opinions.

At the moment, yes they are. Probably valid opinions, but still just
opinions.

>> And there are a good number of other species, including even simpler
>> single-celled life forms, on whom all life on earth depends. Yes we're
>> at the top of the food chain, but we're still dependent on what's
>> under us.

>Don't defend the theologists with the "animals serve us" theory.

That's not their intent, nor their planned purpose, but that's what
happens.

>> ## We are but a fortuitous concourse of atoms..  
>> Cicero

>Atoms are mysterious (sorry but we really dont know) balls of energy.
>What are these balls? Where do they come from? Remains a mystery.
>I wanna know!!

Try string theory.

## Tits like watermelons. Sparrows like bacon rinds.