Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The most ridiculous thing about humans

Page 2 of 3 [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

JasonGone
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 124

07 Nov 2010, 2:41 pm

i liked joe's take on it
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyc12-neTjM[/youtube]


_________________
"humans make for piss poor people."


MONKEY
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,896
Location: Stoke, England (sometimes :P)

07 Nov 2010, 3:09 pm

Our arrogance and superiority complex.


_________________
What film do atheists watch on Christmas?
Coincidence on 34th street.


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

07 Nov 2010, 3:25 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
Imagine you are a member of an advanced alien species, which is studying humans. What is the thing you would find the most ridiculous about them?

I saw something like that in a satellite-view animation many years ago. Cars were perceived as being the primary lifeforms on earth and we were believed to be parasites.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

07 Nov 2010, 3:27 pm

leejosepho wrote:
we were believed to be parasites.


Not too far from the truth.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Nov 2010, 4:30 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
we were believed to be parasites.


Not too far from the truth.


All animals are parasites upon plant life. We cannot synthesize protein from non-organic substances.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

07 Nov 2010, 5:53 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
we were believed to be parasites.


Not too far from the truth.


All animals are parasites upon plant life. We cannot synthesize protein from non-organic substances.

ruveyn


Animals cannot synthesize anything from inorganic matter. But the prime problem is that we have no direct physiological energy source other than plants which store energy from the Sun.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Nov 2010, 9:32 pm

Sand wrote:

Animals cannot synthesize anything from inorganic matter. But the prime problem is that we have no direct physiological energy source other than plants which store energy from the Sun.


That is why we have technology. It is an indirect way of accomplishing the same thing. Human animals have become intelligent through evolution and have learned to store or convert solar energy directly. Think of solar to electric conversion as the human version of photosynthesis.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

07 Nov 2010, 10:55 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:

Animals cannot synthesize anything from inorganic matter. But the prime problem is that we have no direct physiological energy source other than plants which store energy from the Sun.


That is why we have technology. It is an indirect way of accomplishing the same thing. Human animals have become intelligent through evolution and have learned to store or convert solar energy directly. Think of solar to electric conversion as the human version of photosynthesis.

ruveyn


Wen people learn to run on batteries instead of eating we might be competitive with plants. Otherwise, intelligent robots will have the advantage.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Nov 2010, 7:40 am

Sand wrote:

Wen people learn to run on batteries instead of eating we might be competitive with plants. Otherwise, intelligent robots will have the advantage.


Which will be built by humans, not plants.

Like I said; technology is our version of photosynthesis.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

08 Nov 2010, 8:15 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:

Wen people learn to run on batteries instead of eating we might be competitive with plants. Otherwise, intelligent robots will have the advantage.


Which will be built by humans, not plants.

Like I said; technology is our version of photosynthesis.

ruveyn


Insofar as I have seen, nobody eats technology. We eat plants and animals that eat plants. If something disastrous happens to the plants we stop surviving.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

08 Nov 2010, 9:14 am

Quote:
Average Time to Orgasm (male)
Kinsey found that 75% of all males reach orgasm within 2 minutes of penetration.

Average Time to Orgasm (female)
Females in Kinsey's studies averaged a little less than 4 minutes to reach orgasm during masturbation, though for coitus it took anywhere from 10 to 20 minutes.

Nothing can really top that aspect of humanity. Intelligent design, yeah right.


_________________
.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Nov 2010, 9:14 am

Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:

Wen people learn to run on batteries instead of eating we might be competitive with plants. Otherwise, intelligent robots will have the advantage.


Which will be built by humans, not plants.

Like I said; technology is our version of photosynthesis.

ruveyn


Insofar as I have seen, nobody eats technology. We eat plants and animals that eat plants. If something disastrous happens to the plants we stop surviving.


Technology can transform non organic substances into consumable edible substances. We eat some of the products of technology. By the way, plants do not assimilate chlorophyl either. They use it to turn some non-organics into protein which they do assimilate. Also, plants do not eat sunshine, they use the energy of light and its interaction with chlorophyl to make the food they need.

ruveyn



wornlight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 9 Sep 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 396

08 Nov 2010, 9:27 am

their belief that the entire universe was created just for them.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

08 Nov 2010, 9:29 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:

Wen people learn to run on batteries instead of eating we might be competitive with plants. Otherwise, intelligent robots will have the advantage.


Which will be built by humans, not plants.

Like I said; technology is our version of photosynthesis.

ruveyn


Insofar as I have seen, nobody eats technology. We eat plants and animals that eat plants. If something disastrous happens to the plants we stop surviving.


Technology can transform non organic substances into consumable edible substances. We eat some of the products of technology. By the way, plants do not assimilate chlorophyl either. They use it to turn some non-organics into protein which they do assimilate. Also, plants do not eat sunshine, they use the energy of light and its interaction with chlorophyl to make the food they need.

ruveyn


Amusing how you merely rephrase a thought and repeat it to assume it is different : Also, plants do not eat sunshine, they use the energy of light and its interaction with chlorophyl to make the food they need.

The technological edible substances are not in any way comparable in quantity to the plant and animal matter consumed.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Nov 2010, 9:52 am

Sand wrote:

The technological edible substances are not in any way comparable in quantity to the plant and animal matter consumed.


True. Humans have not outdone Nature. Nature has had about 4 billion years to craft our current biota with all of its capabilities. Humans have had technology based on electromagnetic radiation for maybe three hundred years. Humans craft their technologies in a teleological manner. Nature works using Darwinian evolution which is a combination of mutation and culling. It is not as efficient per unit time, but nature has had billions of ears to do its thing.

ruveyn



wornlight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 9 Sep 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 396

08 Nov 2010, 10:11 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:

The technological edible substances are not in any way comparable in quantity to the plant and animal matter consumed.


True. Humans have not outdone Nature. Nature has had about 4 billion years to craft our current biota with all of its capabilities. Humans have had technology based on electromagnetic radiation for maybe three hundred years. Humans craft their technologies in a teleological manner. Nature works using Darwinian evolution which is a combination of mutation and culling. It is not as efficient per unit time, but nature has had billions of ears to do its thing.

ruveyn


it seems absurd to me to speak of humans as competing with nature when they consist entirely of natural process themselves. we could not step outside of nature and outdo it. if "Humans craft their technologies in a teleological manner," then so does nature, through them. so technology is not separate from nature. i am probably missing the point.