Because we've marginalized every other hostile factor. Bears and lions very much are hostile (though the word we should use is a predator) creatures and they still kill people (and many other animals of course) to this day, there's yearly cases of bear and wolf attacks even in countries bordering yours (not sure about Croatia), maybe watch the news from time to time.
And animals are not the only hostile factor of an environment, weather, relief, the ability to procure food from, etc - we are good at dealing with those now but that was not the case historically.
Did you ask yourself when did technology become less about defending from bears and more about defending from(or attacking) other people? I'll repeat again - biggest technology leaps were made during wars and in preparation for them. And what is researched during a war if not weapons - against other people, not bears?
We didn't make the world a hostile place, it was a hostile place, specifically for humans because we started out as an underdog and rose to the top. We evolved in this environment to be capable of handling it's hostility. Again you're incapable of accepting the reality of evolution.
Why do you say I can't accept that? I accept it very well. My concepts though predict that an "overthriving" species will evolve its own predator and, what do you know, humanity is now its own and only enemy. That's the hostily I'm talking about. To cut the story short you're being hostile to me. Why? Why do you get agitated and attack me? Do you wonder about that? If I'm just some retard spewing crap how does that cause you to become hostile to me? If I'm really inferior to you, how you want to potray it, why do you have to attack me? I've had people tell me my place in a manner that was not hostile, interestingly those times were pretty much the only times I've accepted being told my place.
Humans had by chance that one trait when a series of cataclysmic events happened. This was not adaptation, this was luck.
I was pointing out to this point in our historical path of evolution not evolution in general.
What are you talking about here please?
Our drive to overcome is the reason we developed later, but the two events are hundreds of thousands of years apart.
The reason we developed is that high density local populations formed giving birth to first civilisations. The most famous and root of the todays western civilisation was created by the sahara desert drying out in cca. 50-100 years causing all the people in the sahara area(which was nice fertile and green) to migrate to the banks of the river nile in a small time window - causing a "civilisational primordial soup".
Without high density populations occurring and sustaining themselves we'd still be living tribes with tribe-type technology.
You haven't, you've only cleared up that you've grown up in a very sheltered environment.
A sheltered environment. A family. A city. A country. Now a federation.
We created these constructs to protect ourselves. Because the environment we lived in was hostile.
Some hostility came from humans but most of it came from the environment.
It's bad that you make your philosophy without a historical grounding.
Does it really seem like I don't know these things? That there are bears or that people weren't always safe in their homes? Are you serious? It's just offensive man.
However, bears don't change the fact that I've grown up in an environment where I hid in the basement FROM OTHER HUMANS bombing me with fighter planes, not bears. So while I'm fully aware of bears, I think most of the hostility in this world comes from people. You claim that environment is our biggest threat and when I call you up on it, you retreat into making it a "historically important grounding" and resume to bust my balls about it as if it still matter towards the discussion.
Even among great apes - they are their own biggest predator in spite of lions, snakes and whatnot.
Nothing changed.
Sure, we can fight off or segregate bears and lions, or simply live where there are none, but we're still busting each other balls as a rule.
Why don't you simply say: you're right on that one, we are our own biggest predator and have always been. Is that so hard?
If we can change one thing I'd change human hostility rather than prolong it.
I can go on to dissect your whole post, but there really isn't a point to it.
Though the part where you go into the super egoistic tirade about your salary and then blaming me of being self centered was a good piece of comedy.
Well arent you one fun appreciating guy.
I only pointed out that we are proactive and aggressive creatures. I wasn't telling YOU TO BE like that(although you are even if you fail to accept it). I don't want to CURE humanity from anything, that's you. That's your words by the way - cure.
The word comes from the topic title.
As I dig into immortality ideas they are always dependant on other utopian schemas like the one discussed here - making old people mental states as if they were young - forever young. Old people have a different mental state because their brain has access to more experience(and is so more conditioned). One could achieve a mental state of a young person only by reverting the brain to an inexperienced(unconditioned) state. How to go about that and yet still retain your memories, your self?
I don't really understand your claim that you don't want to cure anything and yet you're advocating "curing ageing" on this topic and yet my first post was actually pointed exactly towards the use of that word, go see it.
Now, if you can say that ageing is a thing to be cured why can't I say that aggression/paranoia is a thing to be cured?
Where's the difference? You don't want to die, but you want to be aggresive? See how it pans out?
Here's a VERY intelligent and tough to read text about things that I'd like to see progress with.
http://www.thenewyog...g/use&abuse.htmWhat's bothering me the most (one of the things) about your philosophy is you're thinking your ideas are new and progressive, when religion is absolutely the same concept.
Yes it is, religion has evolved to take care of exactly such issues - how to handle life. But is an old tool, people have issues trusting it. Too many faults are discovered in the holy books, to many things don't make sense, too much religious war has been waged, too many people abused the religions for their own goals. The only on still standing relatively true is buddhism because unlike religions, it is more of a mental discipline and so is eternal in value(as long as we use our brains to think).
I don't care if my ideas are considered progressive or whatnot. Also, think about what you're saying. You're bothered by the fact that I think I have something good or true. You feel driven to subdue me and to reveal this good/true as utterly wrong and false.
We have not really had a discussion, I'm mostly busy trying to unproject your projections. You never ask me any honest subquestions, you never follow my line of thought and see does it get you anywhere. You more skip over my content than read it. So you're really just being aggressive towards me even though you pretend you're having an argument. It's just more subtle aggression form than outright kicking my butt. It definitely is NOT a two-way discussion.
I really think you're just over dramatizing this GOOD thing, yes, I can tell you right now life extension is a good thing. I'm only being an ass because your views are so extreme. Borderline religious fundamentalist if I have to be honest.
I'm just also playing the devils advocate somewhat I guess.
Go look at my thread and see for yourself. I believe my views, progressive or not, have led me closer to uncovering the mechanisms and nature and evolution of ageing than most IMO. It is just that the neccessary understanding required to explain or undo ageing also causes one to see it in a different light and feel conflicted about actually messing with it. I think all true such uncovering of knowledge should come exactly like that with a degree of caution and awe.
