Humans of the top of the evolutionary ladder.  |
|
Here is something interesting which i came across while reading a book. It talks about our chauvinism is making a value judgement to place humans at the top of the evolutionary ladder based on IQ. The reason given for that is:- there are many animals which outlive us like the turtles, there are more animals and microbes which out number us . Further we are poor when compared to other living organisms when it comes to our sense of smell, hearing, eyesight, swimming... So what do you think about this and have to say?
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alokn99 (1900) | 5 months ago | Yes we are a a part of nature and are like other species interdependent and live together in this wonderful experience called Life. Thanks for sharing your views.
| |
|
|
|
|
customer knowledge management Utilize Our Proven Methodology for Building Brand Equity. www.EMMGroup.net | add comment |
|
|
|
| 2. spongin (42) | 5 months ago | What book did you read this bit in? Anyway, if you think of life as a branching tree where humans are just one little sidebranch on another sidebranch on another sidebranch (and so on), and not a straight line where we're an inevitable result... perhaps that would help. We do live in an anthropocentric world, though...
| |
| |
|
|
alokn99 (1900) | 5 months ago | The tree concept seems like the right way to describe it. The anthropocentric part is true as well, especially if you take it from the part of interpreting it as being in some way resposible directly/indirectly for causing or bringing to near extinction someof the other species of life. This is where the IQ and awareness of humans stands out though, that we are able to see, comprehend and so something about are actions.
| |
|
|
|
alokn99 (1900) | 5 months ago | The book was on the sixth sense But the reference was to something written by an author Paul Davies. Will try and get some information on that book. Thanks for the link.
| |
|
|
alokn99 (1900) | 5 months ago | spongin, Another thing I must thank you for is introcucing me to the word "anthropocentric". I have been reading about this and have found it very interesting and is really helping me get a better understanding into this whole subject.
| |
|
|
|
Naturalization Lawyer in Los Angeles, CA Experienced and dedicated immigration attorneys. Call now. www.immigrantattorneys.com | add comment |
|
|
|
3. Latrivia (979) | 5 months ago | Humans are very self-centered. Just look at how many humans are unwilling to let go of their belief that we're some special and chosen creatures of an all-powerful super-being. That said, we do have a lot going for us with our intelligence. What we lack physically, we can usually make up for mentally. For example: Cheetah's are naturally fast - but we can be even faster with cars and planes. Aquatic animals can reach amazing depths underwater without needing air - thanks to submarines and our knowledge of utilizing gases, so can we. We have a lot of ingenuity and intelligence, and while we may not be as numerous as some animals, nor as long-lived as others, how many of those creatures can boast such an immense influence on the world around them like we can? Physically we're sub-par, but brains can easily overcome brawn.
| |
| |
|
|
alokn99 (1900) | 5 months ago | We should use this intelligence,ingenuity and our special qualities like compassion to move beyond our own limitations created due to our self-centeredness and work to enrich this tree of life. Thanks for your response.
| |
|
|
|
Sex Selection Using PGD Los Angeles Center for Fertility/Gyn has nearly 100% accuracy record. www.vermesh.com | add comment |
|
|
|
4. soooobored (568) | 4 months ago | I think that humans are specifically evolved to manipulate our environment, so it is absurd to look around at the world we've shaped and say "only we can survive here"! Cockroaches will outlive us all, because they don't rely on manufacturing liveable spaces, they are ok in almost any condition as it stands.
| |
| |
|
|
alokn99 (1900) | 4 months ago | I certainly agree with you. Thanks for the response.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|