But, keep in mind that if humankind had not actively and persistently worked to achieve improvements of a thousand different kinds, we'd still have lifespans of no more than thirty years, we'd have sky-high infant mortality, we'd be woefully undernourished, we'd be freezing in the dark in winter, we'd be eaten alive by insects while we broiled in the summer heat, and we'd be endlessly miserable nearly all the time. We may not be greatly different now from what we were from the standpoint of simple physiology, say, ten or twenty thousand years ago, but surely we can agree on one thing -- we live a hell of a lot better and longer today than any humanoid creature has ever lived on this planet before....
Yes, we do live longer, and yes, our lives are easier, no doubt about it, but I believe that if people would live more in step with Nature, they would be able to use the "advancements" to live more content lives. Considering the incredible improvements made in the ease of living, people seem incredibly out of balance. Just consider some of the stuff people put out from this forum alone! Look at what a phenomenal tool such as the smart phone has done to an entire generation. Not good.
The species does. Members within it don't. You were appealing to nature, nature dictates 20-40% of males in the species don't reproduce.
To achieve the kind of improvements which help our species to live more comfortably, answer questions our brains have developed to ask, to invent and create because we have the capacity to do so. None of which requires us to reproduce as some natural imperative. Many artists have been and are gay. Many scientists are single or have no children. And thankfully our brains have allowed women to choose the course of their lives to include children or not. Meanwhile your natural imperative is causing an overpopulated planet bigger cities, more pollution, less open space, more animals bred for killing, and most of those born for your natural imperative are merely occupiers of space, pointless and anonymous, known only by a tiny number of other pointless anonymous people. Happily we can now control nature which, if left to its own devices, would have destroyed the human race years ago via plagues, floods, fires, wars, disease and climactic famine. Of course we can overcome nature. We have been doing it for centuries.
You believe we are controlling Nature? The arrogance of man [woman] to believe this will only hasten our decline. The winners out there are the species that adapt the quickest and best. Homo sapiens have only been around for a very short while compared with many species that are well adapted. When the planet has had enough of us, I am sure it will find a convenient method to toss us into the trash heap of failed species. Btw, thank you for leaving out the anger and insults.
I didn't say we are CONTROLLING nature. We are making it work in our interests. I don't see any conflict anymore than Jenner created the first vaccine or human ingenuity defeated the plague. The first time. NATURE includes human intelligence to devise ways of controlling nature. We already have the blueprint to escape this planet and colonise another. And are working towards discovering other dimensions of time and space. I see you have diverted your original thesis that women were intended to reproduce. How quaint.
Of course females are intended to reproduce. I find it interesting that in most cases you [folks on the left] seem to latch onto the group identity thing EXCEPT when it comes to the purpose of our species. There is no other reason why we exist in Nature other than to reproduce. How many of the group happens to participate in inconsequential. If you had been paying attention in biology class, you might have learned that 99% of what takes place [physiologically] concerns survival of the species. [Although many believe we are], we are no different than any other species [and I have always suggested that it is our intelligence that is our weakest attribute].
I won't support anymore of your insulting garbage by deigning to reply. What makes you think it is only females who are intended to reproduce? Do you think it happens by osmosis? So organisms reproduce. I don't see any issue with that. I DO have a huge issue with your quaint notion that it is women who reproduce with a huge dollop of implication that this is all they are good for as if some force of nature is inviolable. Hey .. They don't do it without men. Are you a member of the Taliban?
Why do you think that orgasms are so incredibly pleasurable? It is to get people to reproduce. Mother Nature had her thinking cap on for that one. I have always suggested that if it were men who had babies, there would be no people! No guy would take such a risk [pregnancy]. Even as I approach 70, it amazes me that young women still take these risks [even with modern birth control]. The number of abortions performed are in the millions. Gut wrenching way to fix that problem. Btw, I did not infer that it was only women who are intended to reproduce. It is THE purpose of all life. Look at many species that reproduce and die soon after. It's kind of like how many [most?] women who have a baby kind of forget they have a husband. It's just the way Nature intended it. It's all about reproduction and survival [which is also why most parents are ultra-protective of their first child.
Women have more than just the role of procreating and that view is an insult to individual differences, human dignity, and personal choice. Scientifically speaking, there isn’t any purpose of life, not even reproduction. The instinct to reproduce is not a purpose. If we don’t reproduce, children aren’t born. Mother Nature doesn’t care if children are born or not. Purpose is injected via consciousness. Are the millions of women who are unable to have children useless or living in some kind of hell? For many women, not having children is the right choice for themselves. As humans, we can choose what we want to do with our lives and it doesn’t have to include having children. In terms, of the role of a female in nature, it is natural for not all women to procreate. In fact, deciding not to have children helps ensure the longevity of our species by decreasing the burden on the planet which overpopulation causes. Humans, unlike other animals, can consciously choose how the future of the species might turn out by making conscious decisions about having children or not. Reproduction and genetic survival may be the meaning of life to you, but it doesn’t have to be the meaning of everybody’s life. To suggest: is narrow-minded, short-sighted, a tad misogynistic and wildly insulting to women in general. A woman determines herself how she wants to live her life and who she wants to live it with. To suggest a woman who chooses not to have children remains a “self-absorbed teenager obsessed with all things narcissistic” which will lead to “anxiety and depression” is incredibly ignorant on so many levels. And believe it or not some of us may even take offense with being considered vessels for making and nurturing babies so our anger at you is totally justified. The purpose we have is the one we decide for ourselves Procreation is one of functions of our species but not out of purpose. It’s something we do, not something we have to do.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. It was not my intention to be disrespectful. Considering the massive emotional and physical dys-function pervasive among adult females in West, more needs to be said. You, among the majority, seem to feel that our minuscule intelligence allows our species to choose whether we go with Nature or chart our own course. Like all species that refuse to adapt, they succumb. I understand that women feel as if they can make their own choices, but how's that working for them [and for everybody else]. Since women decided to do their own thing, the family has been in shambles, kids raised by single moms are out of control, and young men want nothing to do with young women who believe that men are superfluous. I am all for women taking control of their lives but not if it means being selfish and self-indulgent. If a woman chooses not to have children, that's her business but to have a movement suggest that the most important thing in a woman's life is her job is as wrong as it is destructive. And the theme that women do not need men is just as crazy.
‘Mother Nature’ doesn’t give one **** if humans are on this planet or not. You are being very disrespectful towards women in general. You have obviously filled your role on these planet as a sperm donor and anything else you do is selfish and indulgent including making sexist and generalized comments directed at woman on this forum.
I only speak for myself whereas it appears as if you speak for the entire female population of the planet. Congratulations! The problem here is that you cannot discuss this without allowing your emotions to get in the way, so there is not point carrying on, but you might want to keep in mind that there is no such thing as Mother Nature, that we are a tiny, tiny part of Nature, and that's all [folks].
Why not ? Those ARE HUMAN traits....and men are the champs of selfish and self-indulgent And women making choices is working as well for them as it did for men .....why are you so into controlling women like cattle ? To suggest that the most important thing in a woman's life is reproduction is as wrong as it is destructive....and sexist and narrow-minded. To try and tell women what they are and what they should be is wrong and destructive.
Perhaps you would like to discuss it with all the other species out there and see what they have to say about it.
Somebody has to stand up for the family and children. Without a strong family unit, you have no society.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Then what would be the point of existing? Reproduce to reproduce ? how stupid would that be... LOL, couldn't answer my questions so had to insult women once again comparing them to animals....(and thinking animals can talk !!!
