Is the Human Race a failed experament

[toasterslayer]

Your title made me laugh.

this is the best reply ever. =)

also, i don't think we're an experiment.

 

[Zersy]

SNIP

Well in my religion (Islam)
this was all predicted fince these are all the signs of the day of judgement so technically if there was no Day of Judgement then there would be none of the problems we are having right now

so what we are doing is basically a uncontrollable thing "It just happens."

 

[Cortheya]

What is this? A Douglas Adam's novel?

Do I hear you insulting the hitchhiker's guide?

 

[Crimson King]

It wouldn't suprise me if we were part of some sort of experiment.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

No, the human race is not a failed experiment.

1. If we were created by an all-knowing, all-powerful God, he could not be capable of "failing" in anything he set out to do. It would be impossible for an omnipotent God to be incapable of correcting a mistake BEFORE it became a failure. Such a being would have no need of experimentation.

2. If we were not created by anything in particular, we could not be an experiment.

3. The definition of failure at this point in subjective.

 

[Mentalgen]

SNIP

Well in my religion (Islam)
this was all predicted fince these are all the signs of the day of judgement so technically if there was no Day of Judgement then there would be none of the problems we are having right now

so what we are doing is basically a uncontrollable thing "It just happens."

Yes, yes. Your religion, and every other. Doomsaying is as old as human civilization. I'll stick with hard won empirical fact thank you kindly.

As for a failed experament... I dunno, failed by what metric? How have we failed as a whole? We're smarter than ever. Worldwide, there is a higher average standard of living than there as ever been in history. We understand more of the world around us than we did before...

Seriously, all signs point to shit getting better. So no, I don't think humans are a failure in any respect. We have a gift for evolving to survive our ever changing world. By any metric, i'd say that's a successful organism.

 

[DeathsAmbassador]

I think that humans are still in the early stages of their existence. I think that we are going to have to adapt to living on a planet without destroying it and it's inhabitants, and to stop mindlessly killing each other, or it will be inevitable that we die.

 

[dontworryaboutit]

What is this? A Douglas Adam's novel?

Do I hear you insulting the hitchhiker's guide?

God no

What is this? A Douglas Adam's novel?

It could be =O

Curious...

 

[Flunk]

Well, it's no stupider than what most religious people believe.

They do have a point though, this is basically the plot of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series by Douglas Adams.

 

[ItsAChiaotzu]

we're killing other animals just so we can live.

This one little bit confuses me.

Can you explain to me why this is a problem?

Killing above replacement.

All we've done has been pretty necessary to our own gain, maybe not collectively as a species but at least collectively within certain groups. Humanity is a whole lot of different people with different viewpoints in which way they want to better their own environment, so if these people's opinions clash then you are going to get some fuck-ups!

Of course, the OP's noting down of the most negative achievements of mankind gleefully neglects the things we have done to better our society and so obviously your going to paint a pretty grim picture. Besides, we are not causing global warming, we are just contributing to it.

Stem cell research is not designed to help people live longer, it is so people can replace defective cells that cause diseases like cancer and diabetes (I have diabetes so i feel particularly strongly about that one)

After reading your entire post, I get that this was a kind of rant about religion saying God made everything and so it should be more perfect but the fact that we've done so much good just as much takes away from your argument than the fact that we've done bad.
(I'm an Atheist by the way)

Natural cycles take WAY longer than the hundred years the world has started warming up in. Also, it'sreally very simple. Carbon dioxide SLIGHTLY increases the heat of the atmosphere which SLIGHTLY increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere which increases the worlds heat a bit. Consider that the sun is constantly shining on the earth, and a 40% increase in a greenhouse gas will cause a constant and accelerating warming effect. The amount of heat released sent back into space is first reduced by an increase in greenhouse gases. Then in moves onto the Arctic, where it reduces ice, (nature's best reflector, reflects 85% of heat back into space I think) with ocean water (nature's worst reflector, reflects 3% of heat, absorbes the rest)

Before I continue I would like to add that everything peaceful in nature is not calm, but the the colliding of collosal forces which cancel each other out, thus creating a balance. If one becomes more powerful then the other, life will gradually become more difficult for those on the one side. Think of it as a tug-of-war. Before humans started burning coal, the hot side (equater) and the cold side (poles) were equal. By releasing greenhouse gases you put more on the hot side, you add, say, one more person to the hot side, and both are, say teams of a hundred rugby players. Not a big deal. But the match doesn't end. Let's assume that both sides are simply holding and are leaning back onto the rope not exerting themselves. (because the hot and cold parts of the world don't get tired like humans do) The cold side now will barely notice the difference. However, unless the the carbon dioxide disappears, the world will increase it's temperature at a constant rate, aggravated by melting icecaps, release of more carbon sinks because of warming, release of more from ocean because warm water holds less carbon, and all sorts of fun stuff. I have to go now, I'll edit later and continue if you ask me too.

Sorry, i made one small point about Global Warming, and it was true, I'll admit that we are contributing very strongly towards it but it is a natural process.

There's nothing natural about increased greenhouse gases, unless you consider humans to just be clueless animals and thus "natural." You can say all you want about 42 000 year long cycles or whatever, but you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. You're trying to direct the attention of someone who has a crocidile behind them to a small wasp so that you don't have to help them, and can get away while they get eaten.

Sorry for the really aggresive assault on your character, but this just about that serious. They're saying the Artic could have an ice free summer as quickly as 2013. Think about how much warmer the cold currents traveling south will be when the best reflector of heat is replaced with the best absorber of heat.

Also, natural cycles are entirely irrlevant. They're going to happen anyway, so you might as well pretend they aren't their. Also, carbon dioxide is responsible for 99.99% of the warming. In addition, we would be in an ice age right now if it weren't for for Chinese terrace farmers growing rice, starting 10 000 years ago, so we've already stopped one natural cycle from taking place, so first of all I don't want to hear any more crap about natural cycles when we've already stopped a HUGE one, and second of all, "natural" cycles need to be taken with a grain of salt in a world that should be in an ice age. We've messed with most of the cycles on earth by preventing that ice age, so natural cycles since 10 000 years ago need to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. Also, we are naturally supposed to be in 30 year cooling cycle right now, the world is still warming up. That's a short term cycle that actually has relevance to the lives of those alive now, and the implications of a natural cooling cycle being offset by unnatural warming is staggering indeed. I don't care about long term cycles that take thousands of years, I really don't. I have a good website for, if you wouldn't mind viewing it and scrolling down some, the guy makes some good videos. www.bravenewclimate.com

Ok, you win on climate change.
But the rest of what I originally said is accurate.
Also oh God why do you care that much?

 

[Rickyvantof]

So first you complain about the fact that we keep ourselves alive and then you complain about the fact that we're killing eachother. Make up your mind!
Also, the people cutting down the rain forests aren't people who live in "oversised homes". It's people who struggle to make a decent living.


And yeah, 2012 is the end of the Aztek calander...nothing more nothing less.

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

Oh, not another needlessly angsty thread.

Look, whether or not God, aliens, or Godly aliens, or Area 51, or Satan, or Xenu exist, or 2012 will actually happen, it doesn't matter, because frankly, we've done a good job ruling the planet so far, haven't we? Yes, global warming IS a problem and so are the other problems the world's been having, but we're dealing with it as best we can. We're addressing those problems one by one.

Insisting that 'God is dead' and that 'we're all doomed' is a philosophy that preaches failure and as such is destined to failure, because it's so overly pessimistic that it won't accomplish anything and as such is fundamentally useless.

Yes, we have problems. We get that. Let's deal with them and move on. Whining changes nothing.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

if we are an experiment, i would say we have been a great success. Pretty soon we will start colonising space and take the war to the aliens with massive fleets of ships instead of the little one on one hit and run engagements we are having now. (you do all know we are at war with aliens right? The USAF started it by blowing up an alien spaceship for no apprent reason other than the fact it was going to blow up the earth a little bit. Hardly seems fair if you ask me.). God i hate those aliens, we should declare exterminatus on them. What an experiment we are, a bunch of genocidal maniacs, who can call that a failure. Nice work other aliens (not god) we salute you but now we must kill you and eat you because you are not human.
And 2012? the olympics are going to cause the end of the world? is that what it means because thats the only thing of any significance i can think of in 2012 and even thats not really important. We all know the earth will end in 2746 when we make the earth implode so we can get to the marshmellow centre and find the leprauchauns who inhabit it and steal their gold and socks, we must stal their socks. With them we can take over the universe

 

[OldManProdigy]

We're a virus with shoes, nothing more.

 

[Lonan]

we're killing other animals just so we can live.

This one little bit confuses me.

Can you explain to me why this is a problem?

Killing above replacement.

All we've done has been pretty necessary to our own gain, maybe not collectively as a species but at least collectively within certain groups. Humanity is a whole lot of different people with different viewpoints in which way they want to better their own environment, so if these people's opinions clash then you are going to get some fuck-ups!

Of course, the OP's noting down of the most negative achievements of mankind gleefully neglects the things we have done to better our society and so obviously your going to paint a pretty grim picture. Besides, we are not causing global warming, we are just contributing to it.

Stem cell research is not designed to help people live longer, it is so people can replace defective cells that cause diseases like cancer and diabetes (I have diabetes so i feel particularly strongly about that one)

After reading your entire post, I get that this was a kind of rant about religion saying God made everything and so it should be more perfect but the fact that we've done so much good just as much takes away from your argument than the fact that we've done bad.
(I'm an Atheist by the way)

Natural cycles take WAY longer than the hundred years the world has started warming up in. Also, it'sreally very simple. Carbon dioxide SLIGHTLY increases the heat of the atmosphere which SLIGHTLY increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere which increases the worlds heat a bit. Consider that the sun is constantly shining on the earth, and a 40% increase in a greenhouse gas will cause a constant and accelerating warming effect. The amount of heat released sent back into space is first reduced by an increase in greenhouse gases. Then in moves onto the Arctic, where it reduces ice, (nature's best reflector, reflects 85% of heat back into space I think) with ocean water (nature's worst reflector, reflects 3% of heat, absorbes the rest)

Before I continue I would like to add that everything peaceful in nature is not calm, but the the colliding of collosal forces which cancel each other out, thus creating a balance. If one becomes more powerful then the other, life will gradually become more difficult for those on the one side. Think of it as a tug-of-war. Before humans started burning coal, the hot side (equater) and the cold side (poles) were equal. By releasing greenhouse gases you put more on the hot side, you add, say, one more person to the hot side, and both are, say teams of a hundred rugby players. Not a big deal. But the match doesn't end. Let's assume that both sides are simply holding and are leaning back onto the rope not exerting themselves. (because the hot and cold parts of the world don't get tired like humans do) The cold side now will barely notice the difference. However, unless the the carbon dioxide disappears, the world will increase it's temperature at a constant rate, aggravated by melting icecaps, release of more carbon sinks because of warming, release of more from ocean because warm water holds less carbon, and all sorts of fun stuff. I have to go now, I'll edit later and continue if you ask me too.

Sorry, i made one small point about Global Warming, and it was true, I'll admit that we are contributing very strongly towards it but it is a natural process.

There's nothing natural about increased greenhouse gases, unless you consider humans to just be clueless animals and thus "natural." You can say all you want about 42 000 year long cycles or whatever, but you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. You're trying to direct the attention of someone who has a crocidile behind them to a small wasp so that you don't have to help them, and can get away while they get eaten.

Sorry for the really aggresive assault on your character, but this just about that serious. They're saying the Artic could have an ice free summer as quickly as 2013. Think about how much warmer the cold currents traveling south will be when the best reflector of heat is replaced with the best absorber of heat.

Also, natural cycles are entirely irrlevant. They're going to happen anyway, so you might as well pretend they aren't their. Also, carbon dioxide is responsible for 99.99% of the warming. In addition, we would be in an ice age right now if it weren't for for Chinese terrace farmers growing rice, starting 10 000 years ago, so we've already stopped one natural cycle from taking place, so first of all I don't want to hear any more crap about natural cycles when we've already stopped a HUGE one, and second of all, "natural" cycles need to be taken with a grain of salt in a world that should be in an ice age. We've messed with most of the cycles on earth by preventing that ice age, so natural cycles since 10 000 years ago need to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. Also, we are naturally supposed to be in 30 year cooling cycle right now, the world is still warming up. That's a short term cycle that actually has relevance to the lives of those alive now, and the implications of a natural cooling cycle being offset by unnatural warming is staggering indeed. I don't care about long term cycles that take thousands of years, I really don't. I have a good website for, if you wouldn't mind viewing it and scrolling down some, the guy makes some good videos. www.bravenewclimate.com

Ok, you win on climate change.
But the rest of what I originally said is accurate.
Also oh God why do you care that much?

Because people will run out of water, causing food supplies to run short, causing nuclear wars if emissions aren't brought WAY the hell down right now. Here's a link to Climate Wars:
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/climate-wars/index.html
This isn't just a "problem." It's the obliteration of humanity. It won't stop until we stop.

 

[Nmil-ek]

Can I make a brash statment to sum up most of these posters and there inogurious crusades against humanity, please?

No well fuck it.

Drama queens.

 

[ItsAChiaotzu]

we're killing other animals just so we can live.

This one little bit confuses me.

Can you explain to me why this is a problem?

Killing above replacement.

All we've done has been pretty necessary to our own gain, maybe not collectively as a species but at least collectively within certain groups. Humanity is a whole lot of different people with different viewpoints in which way they want to better their own environment, so if these people's opinions clash then you are going to get some fuck-ups!

Of course, the OP's noting down of the most negative achievements of mankind gleefully neglects the things we have done to better our society and so obviously your going to paint a pretty grim picture. Besides, we are not causing global warming, we are just contributing to it.

Stem cell research is not designed to help people live longer, it is so people can replace defective cells that cause diseases like cancer and diabetes (I have diabetes so i feel particularly strongly about that one)

After reading your entire post, I get that this was a kind of rant about religion saying God made everything and so it should be more perfect but the fact that we've done so much good just as much takes away from your argument than the fact that we've done bad.
(I'm an Atheist by the way)

Natural cycles take WAY longer than the hundred years the world has started warming up in. Also, it'sreally very simple. Carbon dioxide SLIGHTLY increases the heat of the atmosphere which SLIGHTLY increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere which increases the worlds heat a bit. Consider that the sun is constantly shining on the earth, and a 40% increase in a greenhouse gas will cause a constant and accelerating warming effect. The amount of heat released sent back into space is first reduced by an increase in greenhouse gases. Then in moves onto the Arctic, where it reduces ice, (nature's best reflector, reflects 85% of heat back into space I think) with ocean water (nature's worst reflector, reflects 3% of heat, absorbes the rest)

Before I continue I would like to add that everything peaceful in nature is not calm, but the the colliding of collosal forces which cancel each other out, thus creating a balance. If one becomes more powerful then the other, life will gradually become more difficult for those on the one side. Think of it as a tug-of-war. Before humans started burning coal, the hot side (equater) and the cold side (poles) were equal. By releasing greenhouse gases you put more on the hot side, you add, say, one more person to the hot side, and both are, say teams of a hundred rugby players. Not a big deal. But the match doesn't end. Let's assume that both sides are simply holding and are leaning back onto the rope not exerting themselves. (because the hot and cold parts of the world don't get tired like humans do) The cold side now will barely notice the difference. However, unless the the carbon dioxide disappears, the world will increase it's temperature at a constant rate, aggravated by melting icecaps, release of more carbon sinks because of warming, release of more from ocean because warm water holds less carbon, and all sorts of fun stuff. I have to go now, I'll edit later and continue if you ask me too.

Sorry, i made one small point about Global Warming, and it was true, I'll admit that we are contributing very strongly towards it but it is a natural process.

There's nothing natural about increased greenhouse gases, unless you consider humans to just be clueless animals and thus "natural." You can say all you want about 42 000 year long cycles or whatever, but you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. You're trying to direct the attention of someone who has a crocidile behind them to a small wasp so that you don't have to help them, and can get away while they get eaten.

Sorry for the really aggresive assault on your character, but this just about that serious. They're saying the Artic could have an ice free summer as quickly as 2013. Think about how much warmer the cold currents traveling south will be when the best reflector of heat is replaced with the best absorber of heat.

Also, natural cycles are entirely irrlevant. They're going to happen anyway, so you might as well pretend they aren't their. Also, carbon dioxide is responsible for 99.99% of the warming. In addition, we would be in an ice age right now if it weren't for for Chinese terrace farmers growing rice, starting 10 000 years ago, so we've already stopped one natural cycle from taking place, so first of all I don't want to hear any more crap about natural cycles when we've already stopped a HUGE one, and second of all, "natural" cycles need to be taken with a grain of salt in a world that should be in an ice age. We've messed with most of the cycles on earth by preventing that ice age, so natural cycles since 10 000 years ago need to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. Also, we are naturally supposed to be in 30 year cooling cycle right now, the world is still warming up. That's a short term cycle that actually has relevance to the lives of those alive now, and the implications of a natural cooling cycle being offset by unnatural warming is staggering indeed. I don't care about long term cycles that take thousands of years, I really don't. I have a good website for, if you wouldn't mind viewing it and scrolling down some, the guy makes some good videos. www.bravenewclimate.com

Ok, you win on climate change.
But the rest of what I originally said is accurate.
Also oh God why do you care that much?

Because people will run out of water, causing food supplies to run short, causing nuclear wars if emissions aren't brought WAY the hell down right now. Here's a link to Climate Wars:
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/climate-wars/index.html
This isn't just a "problem." It's the obliteration of humanity. It won't stop until we stop.

And you expect me, a 14 year old kid to do what?
And don't fucking go, oh anyone who doesn't actively try and save the environment is a villain, and you're making huge presumptions about nuclear wars and sounding like a complete idiot.