Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. What could the world look like if dinosaurs had never gone extinct? What could alien lifeforms look like? What kinds of plants and animals might exist in the far future? These questions and more are tackled by speculative biologists, and the Speculative Evolution welcomes all relevant ideas, inquiries, and world-building projects alike. With a member base comprising users from across the world, our community is the largest and longest-running place of gathering for speculative biologists on the web.

While unregistered users are able to browse the forum on a basic level, registering an account provides additional forum access not visible to guests as well as the ability to join in discussions and contribute yourself! Registration is free and instantaneous.

Join our community today!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Naturalism vs Post-naturalism
Topic Started: Apr 11 2016, 11:13 AM (4,218 Views)
flashman63
Member Avatar
The Herr From Terre
 *  *  *  *  *  *
HangingThief
Apr 14 2016, 08:02 PM
I'm just saying that our lives aren't necessarily better than theirs were. Just because there's a lot of us, and we have all these new toys and complex political systems, doesn't mean that our civilization is better and people live fuller lives. Like I said we seem to prefer quantity over quality.
You know what the best evidence is that settled life is better? Settled societies won. If people truly preferred hunter-gatherer living, and it was truly the superior form of civilization, then everyone today would be a hunter gatherer and there would be no internet.
Travel back through time and space, to the edge of man's beggining... discover a time when man, woman and lizard roamed free, and untamed!

It is an epoch of mammoths, a time of raptors!

A tale of love in the age of tyrannosaurs!

An epic from the silver screen, brought right to your door!

Travel back to
A Million Years BC

-----------------------------------------------------

Proceedings of the Miskatonic University Department of Zoology

Cosmic Horror is but a dissertation away

-----------------------------------------------------

Some dickhead's deviantART
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kamidio
Member Avatar
The Game Master of the SSU:NC
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
That conversation thread is dead my dude. Now is the part where we veer off-topic and talk about which species we'd like to relocate or kill off.
SSU:NC - Finding a new home.
Posted Image
Quotes
WAA
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LittleLazyLass
Member Avatar
Proud quilt in a bag

Scrublord
Apr 14 2016, 04:11 PM
I suppose what I've really been trying to ask all this time is, is there ever an instance where it's acceptable to allow a species to go extinct purely in the name of human progress? Or should all species be regarded as equally worthy of preservation--even if it's something like the guinea worm?
This is an important question. If a species is actually detrimental to humans, and has no "up-side" for us, what then? Should we exterminate them?
totally not British, b-baka!
Posted Image You like me (Unlike)
I don't even really like this song that much but the title is pretty relatable sometimes, I guess.
Me
What, you want me to tell you what these mean?
Read First
Words Maybe
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kamidio
Member Avatar
The Game Master of the SSU:NC
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Those worms are detrimental to more than just humans. Kill 'em all.
SSU:NC - Finding a new home.
Posted Image
Quotes
WAA
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flashman63
Member Avatar
The Herr From Terre
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Jurassic Zebra
Apr 14 2016, 08:13 PM
Scrublord
Apr 14 2016, 04:11 PM
I suppose what I've really been trying to ask all this time is, is there ever an instance where it's acceptable to allow a species to go extinct purely in the name of human progress? Or should all species be regarded as equally worthy of preservation--even if it's something like the guinea worm?
This is an important question. If a species is actually detrimental to humans, and has no "up-side" for us, what then? Should we exterminate them?
Well yeah. Human morality is an actual thing.
Travel back through time and space, to the edge of man's beggining... discover a time when man, woman and lizard roamed free, and untamed!

It is an epoch of mammoths, a time of raptors!

A tale of love in the age of tyrannosaurs!

An epic from the silver screen, brought right to your door!

Travel back to
A Million Years BC

-----------------------------------------------------

Proceedings of the Miskatonic University Department of Zoology

Cosmic Horror is but a dissertation away

-----------------------------------------------------

Some dickhead's deviantART
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HangingThief
Member Avatar
ghoulish
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
flashman63
Apr 14 2016, 08:05 PM
HangingThief
Apr 14 2016, 08:02 PM
I'm just saying that our lives aren't necessarily better than theirs were. Just because there's a lot of us, and we have all these new toys and complex political systems, doesn't mean that our civilization is better and people live fuller lives. Like I said we seem to prefer quantity over quality.
You know what the best evidence is that settled life is better? Settled societies won. If people truly preferred hunter-gatherer living, and it was truly the superior form of civilization, then everyone today would be a hunter gatherer and there would be no internet.
Umm, different civilizations had different lifestyles... Obviously humanity "prefers" farming, because it allows us to produce large numbers of humans. That's basic evolution for ya. Farming is "better" from that standpoint, but that doesn't mean an individual human lives in a better world.
Hey.


Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flashman63
Member Avatar
The Herr From Terre
 *  *  *  *  *  *
HangingThief
Apr 14 2016, 08:17 PM
flashman63
Apr 14 2016, 08:05 PM
HangingThief
Apr 14 2016, 08:02 PM
I'm just saying that our lives aren't necessarily better than theirs were. Just because there's a lot of us, and we have all these new toys and complex political systems, doesn't mean that our civilization is better and people live fuller lives. Like I said we seem to prefer quantity over quality.
You know what the best evidence is that settled life is better? Settled societies won. If people truly preferred hunter-gatherer living, and it was truly the superior form of civilization, then everyone today would be a hunter gatherer and there would be no internet.
Umm, different civilizations had different lifestyles... Obviously humanity "prefers" farming, because it allows us to produce large numbers of humans. That's basic evolution for ya. Farming is "better" from that standpoint, but that doesn't mean an individual human lives in a better world.
Is a greater portion of the world population engaged in sedentary or hunter-gatherer living?
Travel back through time and space, to the edge of man's beggining... discover a time when man, woman and lizard roamed free, and untamed!

It is an epoch of mammoths, a time of raptors!

A tale of love in the age of tyrannosaurs!

An epic from the silver screen, brought right to your door!

Travel back to
A Million Years BC

-----------------------------------------------------

Proceedings of the Miskatonic University Department of Zoology

Cosmic Horror is but a dissertation away

-----------------------------------------------------

Some dickhead's deviantART
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kamidio
Member Avatar
The Game Master of the SSU:NC
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
HangingThief
Apr 14 2016, 08:17 PM
flashman63
Apr 14 2016, 08:05 PM
HangingThief
Apr 14 2016, 08:02 PM
I'm just saying that our lives aren't necessarily better than theirs were. Just because there's a lot of us, and we have all these new toys and complex political systems, doesn't mean that our civilization is better and people live fuller lives. Like I said we seem to prefer quantity over quality.
You know what the best evidence is that settled life is better? Settled societies won. If people truly preferred hunter-gatherer living, and it was truly the superior form of civilization, then everyone today would be a hunter gatherer and there would be no internet.
Umm, different civilizations had different lifestyles... Obviously humanity "prefers" farming, because it allows us to produce large numbers of humans. That's basic evolution for ya. Farming is "better" from that standpoint, but that doesn't mean an individual human lives in a better world.
Look, if you truly believe that system is better, sell all of your belongings, including your clothes, and move to Ethiopia. We'll see which one of us dies in the middle of nowhere from starvation/exposure/thirst/dysentery.
SSU:NC - Finding a new home.
Posted Image
Quotes
WAA
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HangingThief
Member Avatar
ghoulish
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Flisch
Apr 14 2016, 05:42 PM

HangingThief
Apr 14 2016, 03:55 PM
Farmers may have taken over because we can breed faster

I don't think the gestation period in humans differs based on lifestyle.

Hunter-gatherers also don't have less sex, it's just that the infant mortality rate is a lot higher.

HangingThief
Apr 14 2016, 03:55 PM
You won't see a stressed, diabetic hunter- gatherer

There actually is a form of diabeetus that's inherited, so yeah, that's very well possible.

HangingThief
Apr 14 2016, 03:55 PM
who works ten hours a day

True, they usually work at least 18 hours a day.

HangingThief
Apr 14 2016, 03:55 PM
nor one who's starving to death among thousands of others in a desolate, ruined landscape.

Also true, they usually starve to death somewhere in the wilderness. (Also, did I miss something? "Desolate, ruined landscape?" What dystopian future are we talking about?)
First of all, infant mortality is natural. Look at just about every other species on the planet. "Oh, the poor babies!" you might say, but it's true.
Second, early farmers had more children, in part because they work harder to produce more food than they need (basically the point of farming) but also due to strictly enforced gender roles.

18 hours a day? Do some research. Farming is much harder work, even in the modern day for someone who's not directly a farmer. Hunter gatherers had more free time than we will ever have.

Hunter gatherers did not starve to death out in the wilderness. (I'm pretty much talking about stone age hunter gatherers, nowadays true hunter gatherers are basically obsolete due to encroachment) They, umm, hunted and gathered. They were far more likely to be killed in a war with another tribe or murdered than die of disease or starvation.


Hey.


Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Niedfaru
Member Avatar
.
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Correlation /= causation. No-one is saying that being a hunter-gatherer is better. All they're saying is that it's not necessarily worse either. Better vs worse depends entirely on what metric you use. This thread seriously needs attention from an anthropologist.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HangingThief
Member Avatar
ghoulish
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Flisch
Apr 14 2016, 05:42 PM





Also true, they usually starve to death somewhere in the wilderness. (Also, did I miss something? "Desolate, ruined landscape?" What dystopian future are we talking about?)
This one:
Posted Image
Hey.


Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kamidio
Member Avatar
The Game Master of the SSU:NC
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
That is the end result of corporate and political greed, not farming.

Now seriously, get off of your computer and go live in the woods or something if you think farming is so bad.
SSU:NC - Finding a new home.
Posted Image
Quotes
WAA
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HangingThief
Member Avatar
ghoulish
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Kamineigh
Apr 14 2016, 08:37 PM
That is the end result of corporate and political greed, not farming.

Now seriously, get off of your computer and go live in the woods or something if you think farming is so bad.
Corporate and political greed is caused by farming.

Also, I would if it weren't for the fact that farming ruined the woods... I've seriously considered living in the woods before though. Not even making that up.
Edited by HangingThief, Apr 14 2016, 08:42 PM.
Hey.


Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kamidio
Member Avatar
The Game Master of the SSU:NC
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
No it isn't.
SSU:NC - Finding a new home.
Posted Image
Quotes
WAA
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LittleLazyLass
Member Avatar
Proud quilt in a bag

If it weren't for farming, human civilization as we know it wouldn't exist. We would never have gotten this far. I fail to see how it's a bad thing.
totally not British, b-baka!
Posted Image You like me (Unlike)
I don't even really like this song that much but the title is pretty relatable sometimes, I guess.
Me
What, you want me to tell you what these mean?
Read First
Words Maybe
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply