Humans v Animals comparing our health and problems

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: selfharmonise
You are very wrong in this.

Please don't take offence, but I absolutely felt the same way until I lost my dogs and began to build relationships with the birds in my garden.

Species have similarities.. But individuals do have intelligence and distinct personalities.

They are pretty amazing.

a reply to: swanne

I can verify this too. The birds and animals play and they seem to work as teams sometimes. The animals all seem to have consciousness, even the bugs seem to have consciousness. We just think we are way more intelligent, but really we aren't. I used to believe animals had no personality or advanced thinking up till about ten years ago. I am embarrassed to say I had believed in something that was not true for around fifty years.

I used to think it was habits or instincts. I knew that dogs could be trained. I did not realize that other animals have advanced communication and also try to communicate with us till recently. We are just to dumb to understand them. I have never been good at foreign languages.

We are on a league or our own in the animal kingdom. technically, we are still part of the animal kingdom, we share attributes, behaviors, genetics, etc, etc. But our intelligence has surpassed ANY creature on this planet.

A good example is technology. it's simply a way of manipulating the universe around us, directly. And extension of our knowledge and intelligence. And we build upon it, starting off slow, but rapidly advancing and sometimes instantly advancing in some cases.
I guess I could say, we don't see Gibbons or elephants arc welding, and reading blue prints, because they don't have the capacity of intelligence as we do.

Humans intelligent? We are destroying our environment with unnatural chemistry. We build bombs and guns to kill each other and our nukes could make waste of the planet. We poison our own food, we disrespect and kill microbes that are actually living symbiotically with us. We build technology which shuffles the money to line the pockets of those who create it, we are technically enslaving ourselves with debt. We have people saying we need to colonize Mars since we will need a new place to live because we are trashing this place. No species in the life of this planet has ever been so destructive.

I sure hope we are living in a computer program cause if not, we are creating the most sinful thing any being can create, we will eventually destroy the ecosystem of this planet which is not common in our galaxy. Is that intelligent?

An elephant does not need to build a house, why would it need to read blueprints. It does not to run an arcwelder. Science has given us these things and we have exploited the resources of the world to create tools to further destroy it. Do we really need arc welders to survive? Do we really need electricity? Do we really need jets to fly everywhere when in essence these aircraft are speeding the distruction of our world?

I like science, I read it every day. I just observe the consequences of science. I see that it will eventually destroy us and possibly the planet. Creating big mining machinery and weapons utilizes science. It is a tool of both good and bad, but it is usually not used for good. Good is an interpretation, it is formed by ones beliefs, by ones conditioning throughout their life. What is good for one person is bad for another. But it seems like human's "intelligence" is actually bad because it is being steered by beliefs that are not sound. Beliefs that we need all we have created are not sound. Some is good, but we have gone way past that point.

Well if you really want to make a comparison of Human and Animal health and problems I'd say a good one to look at is deer on an island where humans aren't allowed to hunt them.

The deer get overpopulated, start to get underweight and many start to die of starvation and they start eating plants that they aren't supposed to eat.

As humans things are a little different because we can produce other food sources, but eventually humans will run out of these food sources and we will start dying of starvation and looking sickly because the earth itself can only sustain so many people.

a reply to: rickymouse

I understand where you are coming from. But, the bottom line is, we are far more intelligent. Whether you like it or accept it or do not, it's fundamentally true.
we harness electrons to do our bidding, we understand physics, and have (in certain individuals) the capacity to not only compute, but regurgitate large
numbers beyond adding and subtracting.

The act of arc welding isn't that an elephant cant perform the task, or read blue prints, it's that elephants have not even come close to the process, and advancements that lead us humans to arc welding in the first place.

2 issues.


1: You dont see sick animals because they dont survive. Animals dont believe in life support. The current abuse of this fact is to promote unnatural technologies as saviors, rather than dependencies of the human race.

2: Animals won't pay to make themselves sick, nor pay for temporary treatments that swap one side effects for another without solving the cause, which was inflicted by the same entity selling perpetual treatment. The current agenda is to produce an environment within ecosystems and biological bodies that do not provide the breakdown of materials into usable nutrients, so that damaging supplements can replace failed nature, while man foots the bill for both punitive and compensatory suits against him.

Sick animals get eaten or if your a predator, you starve to death. Only the fittest survive. That takes care of the weakest links and why you only saw "healthy" birds.

Those animals that live as long as humans suffer from the same problems. Depending on the species, when you get up there in age you either get eaten or starve to death . Very very few, like the blue whale, die from old age. Even then, you got to worry about humans killing you.

Such a cruel world, heh.

a reply to: multichild

One problem: neanderthal DNA is "toxic" to H. Sapiens. We are slowly working most of it out, with less and less Neanderthal in humanity as time goes on.

Beyond that, we have undergone some intense dietary changes. We, in the past, were seasonal carb eaters, eating protein more than 6 months year, and enjoying carbohydrates only during seasonal growth cycles. Then, somewhere in the 1500's sugar cane became a huge industry. Empire building. So powerful that sugar lobby's were able to politically institutionalize sugars into the daily diet of humans. Then add to this, the need for grain, year round grain, to feed the mass of humanity.

The icing on the cake: since its so easy to get food (especially high carb food) humans have taught their bodies to eat much more, while moving much less.

Our biology works against telling us that not being full is actually a pleasant feeling.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: multichild

One problem: neanderthal DNA is "toxic" to H. Sapiens. We are slowly working most of it out, with less and less Neanderthal in humanity as time goes on.

Source for this? I was under the impression that the Neanderthal contribution may actually be beneficial to us. Also, how are we "working out" Neanderthal genes? Also, I assume you're aware that some Southeast Asian groups have a high Denisovan contribution in addition to the Neanderthal, and that African populations have a high contribution from an unknown hominid species (I.e. non-human). I always laugh when people try to tout African populations as being the only "pure humans." They aren't, not by a long shot.

All in all, I seriously doubt we'll ever be fully rid of non-human elements in our genome. It's there to stay.

_______

The second part about sugars and carbs is absolutely true, though. We didn't evolve to eat like this. Humans used to have the ability to intuitively know what to eat and what was good for them, and what wasn't.

"I eat this, I feel good. I'll eat more. This makes me feel like sh*t, I won't eat it."

Now we're so dumbed-down, helpless, and numb to basic intuition that we need scientists and "experts" to tell us what to eat to be healthy.

I was looking for nootropic supplements to boost my cognition, so I started taking a cocktail of different vitamins, compounds, neurotransmitter-supporting molecules, etc. Lo and behold, physically I started feeling like an entirely different person and this effect was completely unintended. My energy levels are through the roof, my stomach problems have subsided, I've lost the constant brain fog, my moods are stabler, and I feel overall much healthier.

All of this was by a completely accidental discovery while experimenting with vitamins and supplements. No half-assed doctors recommendation could have done this for me, I had to discover it on my own.

originally posted by: Talorc
Source for this?

www.sciencenews.org...

news.harvard.edu...

www.iflscience.com...

Also, how are we "working out" Neanderthal genes?

www.newhistorian.com...

www.sci-news.com...

bostoncommons.net...

Also, I assume you're aware that some Southeast Asian groups have a high Denisovan contribution in addition to the Neanderthal, and that African populations have a high contribution from an unknown hominid species (I.e. non-human). I always laugh when people try to tout African populations as being the only "pure humans." They aren't, not by a long shot.

All in all, I seriously doubt we'll ever be fully rid of non-human elements in our genome. It's there to stay.

THere's also another population of HSS (now extinct) that contributed to Eurasian uman ancestry.

I suspect that if studies were done on Denisovan contribution to human genetics, we'd find similar to neandertal: its toxic to HSS and is being bred out slowly.

If there are other contributions that are unknown, you'd have to see what that was and do some studies on genetic impact to speak further on it. But i'd suspect that a human species that is 50k + years diverged would be difficult on humans genetically.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Very interesting.....

I've heard speculation (might be total BS but maybe not) that things like autism, solitary tendencies, and other anti-social traits might be somehow linked with Neanderthal genes.

But I've also noticed that most of the greatest thinkers and minds (at least in the European context) tend to sport the classically archaic traits of deep-set eyes, prominent brow ridge, sloped forehead, large cranial dimensions, etc. Just look at Einstein, Fleming, Tesla, Watson, busts of Descartes and Socrates. In some ways these guys look almost (morphologically) anachronistic, compared with the average guy you see on the street.

In a lot of ways I tend to see behavioural differences in hyper-modern looking people with ultra-gracile features. You'll notice increased social proficiency and fluidity, but also seemingly less capacity for independent thought and self-reliance. Also, you'll notice more dissimulation and deception in these gracile types, whereas (call it a stupid bias) I tend to trust the word of people that lean toward robust Cro-Magnon type morphology.

I probably sound like an insane person, saying things like this.... but oh well.