Poll: Does a Planet have a Soul?

[Reolus]

A very interesting question. I don't really have an opinion on it, just more questions.

Do all living things have souls? Or only sentient things? Do you need consciousness to have a soul?

Are souls only for humans because they are a human construct?

What would the impact of the planet having a soul, be?

Food for thought!

 

[Angryman101]

A planet with a soul you say? Now before anyone can even attempt to answer that question, we first need to know; what is a soul?

Do you know? If not, how can you even ask this question? How can you ask any of us to answer this question if we don't even know the meaning of the question itself?

It's not possible, the question as you're asking it is not properly answerable. It lacks coherent meaning.

The thing is, I think it WOULD. Once people are able to taste the fruits of their labor in more tangible, meaningful ways, they'd rather stick to that lifestyle. New generations would demand progress, though, because they don't know any better. It's proven that people that work with their hands on the fields or hunting for their livelihood are infinitely more happy than people who live in our more advanced society. Agriculture was the worst move in the history of humanity, because it allowed us to specialize and become...this. This soulless wasteland of unhappiness and massive, soulless corporations who believe they can own and control people.

Just stepping in here: those 'soulless corporations' as you call them are still just groups of people. A corporation is not a separate entity, it's just a bunch of people working together for a common goal. They're as much human as the one's 'they' believe they can control. And I doubt that 'they' actually think that. Go ask one of those CEO's, or managers, or anyone working for them.

And while it is obvious that certain big companies have rather dehumanising business practices, that isn't the problem of technology. What really is the problem, is that we're simply with so many individuals that most of us don't recognise the vast majority of other humans as actual fellow human beings. Cracked.com did, for once, a pretty interesting and well-thought out article about this monkeysphere [http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html] of ours. It provides an interesting perspective on why so many shitty things happen with humankind. And that's not the fault of technological advancement, or at least not the direct fault. All that did was enable us to breed so effectively that we're now living in such large groups that we can't deal with them anymore.

And thus, we have advanced to a certain point that we need a new kind of advancement, a greater and far more important kind of advancement, but advancement nonetheless. We as a species need to learn on how to deal with a population of this size. That's no-one's fault, it's the basic instinct for a living being to try to thrive. We happen to be very good at thriving, so good that we're now starting to choke ourselves with ourselves. To truly advance as a species, we need to learn on how to deal with ourselves, how to deal with a population so large that it goes beyond our biological limitations.

The technological advancement you apparently blame for today's rotten society were mere tools with which we could thrive better and better, and you can never blame a tool for what someone did with it. It's simply the size of our species that's to blame, and in term, no-one is to blame, it's just a natural occurrence we have to deal with. It's humanity's largest hurdle to date, because if we fail, we'll destroy ourselves.

And sadly, the way you are offering is not the way. We're simply with too many people for that, all 6 billion of us can't all just grow our own foods, we can't all go out and hunt. What you want is sadly impossible, so we'll have to find another way. We cannot drop our technological advancement, we need them to sustain the majority of our population, and even now we as a species are straining as several billion of us still live in deplorable conditions. If anything, we need more technological advancement, better agricultural technologies so that those poor people can also live good lives.

And I say the same thing about the planet having a soul as people and living things having a soul: We all have energies inside us that is constantly recycled as we live and die. Dying stars gave us life, as we die we provide phosphates and energy into the ground around us.

Just call it as it is, no need for mystical talk about 'energies', they're molecules and atoms. But I won't say 'just' molecules and atoms, because I still find that a wonderful idea. The fact that we indeed are technically made out of stardust; all the atoms inside our bodies indeed come from stars. That's amazing isn't it? And all without mystical and metaphysical nonsense.

This is a very well thought-out post. Isn't it the constant, needless advancement in technology what creates these problems, though?
A lot of what you said was covered in my original post: we need to STOP making advancement on technologies that allow the population to keep growing to a popping point and then creating more and more useless shiny things to entertain them and instead focus on the problems we already have in our society as well as in ourselves in order to make this world better for everyone that is already in it. Humans aren't meant to deal with the various stresses and massive crowds that today's world has in store for them, and that is indeed why there's so much shit going on in the world. People are naturally peaceful, as seen in hunter-gatherer groups, its the pressures and insanity of modern technology and society that push them into wide-scale violence against each other.
Lately I've become more and more disenfranchised with technology since all it seems to be doing is alienating people from each other even more than they already are, and that scares the hell out of me. So maybe I'm biased.
Corporations DO think they can control life, as is demonstrated in a documentary called "The Future of Food" and professors at my university giving the examples of these corporations having patents on types of seeds, and, in effect, the types of plants they grow into. They're putting monetary value on life, and that is incredibly unethical in my opinion, and that's not even talking about the individual genes that companies are patenting as well. I realize they don't care because of the monkeysphere, but these are gigantic, self-sustaining machines deeply rooted in human greed. They're avatars of avarice, so to speak.
And, as a response to the last part, I like putting a spiritual twist on things, because in a way, it is pretty mystical. The same thing that powers these massive celestial bodies is inside all of us, and it does fill you with a certain amount of wonder. I prefer to retain a little bit of child-like wonder in things of such an awe-inducing scale, it makes things more fun.

 

[Angryman101]

Once people are able to taste the fruits of their labor in more tangible, meaningful ways, they'd rather stick to that lifestyle. New generations would demand progress, though, because they don't know any better.

Those two statements contradict each other. Also, who does know better? You?

It's proven that people that work with their hands on the fields or hunting for their livelihood are infinitely more happy than people who live in our more advanced society.

Citation needed.

Agriculture was the worst move in the history of humanity, because it allowed us to specialize and become...this. This soulless wasteland of unhappiness and massive, soulless corporations who believe they can own and control people.

Umm.. Sorry you're so unhappy, and that you feel the need to project your unhappiness onto all of society. Perhaps you could find a hobby or cause to give your life meaning?

As for the assertion that agriculture was the worst thing ever, you're certainly welcome to hold that belief, but I'm going to back away now (slowly). I'm going to go sit with my wife, who has used soap today. I'm then going to go to sleep tonight, in a bed under a roof. While sleeping without fear of nocturnal predators, knowing I'll be able to find a meal tomorrow, I'll take comfort in the fact that she is relatively unlikely to die during childbirth in two months, and that we have a reasonable expectation that our son will live to adulthood.

1. Yeah, I wasn't very clear on that. It's in the nature of each generation to advance things in order to make the species grow and thrive, and we're a little too good at that. Do I know better? I don't know. Look around you, look at the fast majority of people and how unhappy they are, and tell me if SOMETHING is wrong with where we've gotten ourselves. That's just my theory on what's wrong.
2. The citation is a peer-reviewed scientific essay presented by an anthropologist that my archaeology teacher gave us in class that I happened to readily agree with to which the thesis was "Agriculture: Man's Greatest Mistake" or something along those lines, I don't have it with me at the moment, and I don't especially feel like looking for it to settle an internet argument.
3. Some things that technology has given us have been beneficial, admittedly, but looking at it like that is short-sighted and selfish. It honestly seems like we're heading to our own destruction with this technology allowing the swells in population and that which makes us alienated from each other even more.

 

[ultrachicken]

Define a soul.

 

[Olrod]

I can accept that a life-sustaining planet can have a soul.

I'd think of it as an emergent property of the biosphere.

 

[feather240]

First, define and prove that souls even exist before we speculate what has them.

someone said that you lose weight when you die... i don't remember how much though...

I heard about that. Apparently, some doctors weighed people with extremely sensitive equipment right before and right after they died, and they were always left with a difference of about 21 grams, so they concluded it must be a 'soul'. I don't know if it really was the soul or not, but until we have a better explanation it'll have to do.

Did they exhale/void their bowels?

 

[reg42]

Wiccans would tell you that. I actually sort of agree. It's proven that certain things like music help plants grow in different ways, and if they were completely inanimate that wouldn't happen. I wouldn't say the planet has a soul, but the planet is definitely "alive" IMO.

Prove that or I'm calling bullshit.

And no, I don't think the Earth has a soul.

i assume you're talking about the music thing? it has been proven. They even did it on mythbusters.
I can't prove that the earth has a soul.

 

[PhiMed]

Once people are able to taste the fruits of their labor in more tangible, meaningful ways, they'd rather stick to that lifestyle. New generations would demand progress, though, because they don't know any better.

Those two statements contradict each other. Also, who does know better? You?

It's proven that people that work with their hands on the fields or hunting for their livelihood are infinitely more happy than people who live in our more advanced society.

Citation needed.

Agriculture was the worst move in the history of humanity, because it allowed us to specialize and become...this. This soulless wasteland of unhappiness and massive, soulless corporations who believe they can own and control people.

Umm.. Sorry you're so unhappy, and that you feel the need to project your unhappiness onto all of society. Perhaps you could find a hobby or cause to give your life meaning?

As for the assertion that agriculture was the worst thing ever, you're certainly welcome to hold that belief, but I'm going to back away now (slowly). I'm going to go sit with my wife, who has used soap today. I'm then going to go to sleep tonight, in a bed under a roof. While sleeping without fear of nocturnal predators, knowing I'll be able to find a meal tomorrow, I'll take comfort in the fact that she is relatively unlikely to die during childbirth in two months, and that we have a reasonable expectation that our son will live to adulthood.

1. Yeah, I wasn't very clear on that. It's in the nature of each generation to advance things in order to make the species grow and thrive, and we're a little too good at that. Do I know better? I don't know. Look around you, look at the fast majority of people and how unhappy they are, and tell me if SOMETHING is wrong with where we've gotten ourselves. That's just my theory on what's wrong.
2. The citation is a peer-reviewed scientific essay presented by an anthropologist that my archaeology teacher gave us in class that I happened to readily agree with to which the thesis was "Agriculture: Man's Greatest Mistake" or something along those lines, I don't have it with me at the moment, and I don't especially feel like looking for it to settle an internet argument.
3. Some things that technology has given us have been beneficial, admittedly, but looking at it like that is short-sighted and selfish. It honestly seems like we're heading to our own destruction with this technology allowing the swells in population and that which makes us alienated from each other even more.

People have a tendency to find what they believe to exist. If you want to see everyone around you as profoundly unhappy, then that is exactly what you will find. This is what I meant by projection. If you have actually interacted with "the vast majority of people" and have basis for your assertion that "all you have to do is look around" at them to see that they are unhappy, then I apologize.
Even if we accept this as true, people have been lamenting the sorrows of man for generations. Even nomadic tribes (such as the ancient Hebrews) contemplated this and put forth possible causes, none of which were agriculture, as they had none. It is not a new development, and I doubt that gadgets were the cause of worldly problems when Buddha posited that "life is suffering".
It is the nature of man to be dissatisfied with his current condition. This is the way problems of previous generations were solved (admittedly, often creating new ones). The source of this used to be physical wants and needs, but when those are met, people internalize their discontent. This is where we find ourselves today.
All organisms (save those that exist in hive organizations) act selfishly when it comes to the preservation of themselves and their progeny, so I won't apologize for wanting my wife and son to continue to live. I don't view my wish for their continued existence as contributing to the downfall of society. Sorry.
As for the one non-opinion statement you made regarding proof, you'll forgive me if I don't view a statement equivalent to "A paper I remember reading one time" as an acceptable citation.
We all read Romantic writers. Some of their stuff is actually pretty good. But you really should expand your horizons, and not try to convince everyone online that this literary movement expresses the be-all and end-all of objective truth. Just saying...

 

[magicmonkeybars]

What is a soul ?
Define that for me.

 

[Angryman101]

Once people are able to taste the fruits of their labor in more tangible, meaningful ways, they'd rather stick to that lifestyle. New generations would demand progress, though, because they don't know any better.

Those two statements contradict each other. Also, who does know better? You?

It's proven that people that work with their hands on the fields or hunting for their livelihood are infinitely more happy than people who live in our more advanced society.

Citation needed.

Agriculture was the worst move in the history of humanity, because it allowed us to specialize and become...this. This soulless wasteland of unhappiness and massive, soulless corporations who believe they can own and control people.

Umm.. Sorry you're so unhappy, and that you feel the need to project your unhappiness onto all of society. Perhaps you could find a hobby or cause to give your life meaning?

As for the assertion that agriculture was the worst thing ever, you're certainly welcome to hold that belief, but I'm going to back away now (slowly). I'm going to go sit with my wife, who has used soap today. I'm then going to go to sleep tonight, in a bed under a roof. While sleeping without fear of nocturnal predators, knowing I'll be able to find a meal tomorrow, I'll take comfort in the fact that she is relatively unlikely to die during childbirth in two months, and that we have a reasonable expectation that our son will live to adulthood.

1. Yeah, I wasn't very clear on that. It's in the nature of each generation to advance things in order to make the species grow and thrive, and we're a little too good at that. Do I know better? I don't know. Look around you, look at the fast majority of people and how unhappy they are, and tell me if SOMETHING is wrong with where we've gotten ourselves. That's just my theory on what's wrong.
2. The citation is a peer-reviewed scientific essay presented by an anthropologist that my archaeology teacher gave us in class that I happened to readily agree with to which the thesis was "Agriculture: Man's Greatest Mistake" or something along those lines, I don't have it with me at the moment, and I don't especially feel like looking for it to settle an internet argument.
3. Some things that technology has given us have been beneficial, admittedly, but looking at it like that is short-sighted and selfish. It honestly seems like we're heading to our own destruction with this technology allowing the swells in population and that which makes us alienated from each other even more.

People have a tendency to find what they believe to exist. If you want to see everyone around you as profoundly unhappy, then that is exactly what you will find. This is what I meant by projection. If you have actually interacted with "the vast majority of people" and have basis for your assertion that "all you have to do is look around" at them to see that they are unhappy, then I apologize.
Even if we accept this as true, people have been lamenting the sorrows of man for generations. Even nomadic tribes (such as the ancient Hebrews) contemplated this and put forth possible causes, none of which were agriculture, as they had none. It is not a new development, and I doubt that gadgets were the cause of worldly problems when Buddha posited that "life is suffering".
It is the nature of man to be dissatisfied with his current condition. This is the way problems of previous generations were solved (admittedly, often creating new ones). The source of this used to be physical wants and needs, but when those are met, people internalize their discontent. This is where we find ourselves today.
All organisms (save those that exist in hive organizations) act selfishly when it comes to the preservation of themselves and their progeny, so I won't apologize for wanting my wife and son to continue to live. I don't view my wish for their continued existence as contributing to the downfall of society. Sorry.
As for the one non-opinion statement you made regarding proof, you'll forgive me if I don't view a statement equivalent to "A paper I remember reading one time" as an acceptable citation.
We all read Romantic writers. Some of their stuff is actually pretty good. But you really should expand your horizons, and not try to convince everyone online that this literary movement expresses the be-all and end-all of objective truth. Just saying...

Sorry, I don't feel like digging through my college stuff to find an article to settle an internet argument.

 

[ace_of_something]

Earth does have a Soul.... it's in korea I think.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Wiccans would tell you that. I actually sort of agree. It's proven that certain things like music help plants grow in different ways, and if they were completely inanimate that wouldn't happen. I wouldn't say the planet has a soul, but the planet is definitely "alive" IMO.

Prove that or I'm calling bullshit.

And no, I don't think the Earth has a soul.

i assume you're talking about the music thing? it has been proven. They even did it on mythbusters.

You have a link or something for me? I'm finding it hard to believe that something without ears can respond to sound as anything other than shockwaves. Perhaps if you played some very loud bass you'd vibrate it into adaptation.

 

[PhiMed]

-snip-
Sorry, I don't feel like digging through my college stuff to find an article to settle an internet argument.

That's fine. I doubt it would have "settled" it anyway.

 

[The_Graff]

if we accept (for sake of argument) the idea that humans have a soul then you can, if you want, try to extend that to other living creatures. now unless someone wants to break out some kind of gaia theory I dont think we can argue that the planet, or indeed any planet we have so far observed, would be alive. no life, no soul.

 

[Vaccine]

My wallet has a soul, don't tell anyone or he'll tell the flying spaghetti monster.

Spoiler

 

[wolfy098]

First, define and prove that souls even exist before we speculate what has them.

someone said that you lose weight when you die... i don't remember how much though...

I heard about that. Apparently, some doctors weighed people with extremely sensitive equipment right before and right after they died, and they were always left with a difference of about 21 grams, so they concluded it must be a 'soul'. I don't know if it really was the soul or not, but until we have a better explanation it'll have to do.

try picking up someone who's tense
then pick them up when they relax

notice the difference?

 

[Legendsmith]

This is pretty pointless thread, seeing as most people here are atheists. Not to mention the topic of the poll is just ridiculous.
Why?
Because if anyone wanted to know that they just could of googled it. If they wanted the opinion of people on escapist, well... Isn't it obvious as to what the response would be/is?

This thread has turned into "Do souls exist?"
I can't answer that question without dragging religion, world-views and science into it. I am reluctant to do so as the atheistic world-view is completely opposed to the very concept of a soul, dismissing it out of hand. So my answer would be completely meaningless to them and to any Christians or people of other faiths I would be preaching to the converted.

 

[The DSM]

No, its not a living thing.

Its just covered in them.