Do human beings depend too much on themselves?

[dsavi]

This is kind of philisofical(sp?). Maybe you've read the thread 'being alone... How long could you last?'. So many people decided that suicide was the best option that it was almost scary.

 

 

 

Do human beings depend too much on themselves? This could be bad if we are eliminated on a massive scale. Even if emotions and loneliness were not problems, what if we can not depend on nature simply because we don't know how? Have we made to many natrual processes into machines so complicated that the results are perfect and we have too high of a standard of living? Do we need to know how to be more practical?

 

 

 

Discuss.

[One Too Far]

i geus that we do have a to high standar now and we need atleast about 1mil people to make al the luxarys we need... though if we would al die except one person, lets al hope its a woman cloning genuis... cause i read that womans would be able to make a new human with cloning of their own cels but men wouldn't

[Bubsa]

I'd say the majority of the world's humans already destroy the planet for their own means. Everything we have ever got, food, clothes, shelter, has come from the planet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rely too much on ourselves? Either I've completely missed the point (quite plausible) or you have.

[Mr_Putter]

I'd say the majority of the world's humans already destroy the planet for their own means. Everything we have ever got, food, clothes, shelter, has come from the planet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rely too much on ourselves? Either I've completely missed the point (quite plausible) or you have.

I think what he means (not sure), it that human beings (as a group) rely to heavily on human beings (as a group).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the answer is: of course we do. That's why were are the dominant species. If we didn't live together effectively in society, some dumber, more dangerous animal would be the dominant species.

[Bubsa]

 

I'd say the majority of the world's humans already destroy the planet for their own means. Everything we have ever got, food, clothes, shelter, has come from the planet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rely too much on ourselves? Either I've completely missed the point (quite plausible) or you have.

I think what he means (not sure), it that human beings (as a group) rely to heavily on human beings (as a group).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...What else are we meant to rely on? (Am I missing the point again? :()

[pault]

Do human beings depend too much on themselves?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you might enjoy the musings of Jean Baudrillard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Baudrillard argued that the transition from the earlier stage of competitive market capitalism to the stage of monopoly capitalism required increased attention to demand management, to augmenting and steering consumption. At this historical stage, from around 1920 to the 1960s, the need to intensify demand supplemented concern with lowering production costs and with expanding production. In this era of capitalist development, economic concentration, new production techniques, and the development of new technologies, accelerated capacity for mass production and capitalist corporations focused increased attention on managing consumption and creating needs for new prestigious goods, thus producing the regime of what Baudrillard has called sign-value.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Baudrillard's analysis, advertising, packaging, display, fashion, "emancipated" sexuality, mass media and culture, and the proliferation of commodities multiplied the quantity of signs and spectacles, and produced a proliferation of sign-value. Henceforth, Baudrillard claims, commodities are not merely to be characterized by use-value and exchange value, as in Marx's theory of the commodity, but sign-value ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[dsavi]

I'd say the majority of the world's humans already destroy the planet for their own means. Everything we have ever got, food, clothes, shelter, has come from the planet.

 

 

 

Rely too much on ourselves? Either I've completely missed the point (quite plausible) or you have.

 

 

 

What I mean is that if we don't learn to rely more on nature it (our relying on ourselves) is going to backfire on us.

[Sumpta]

 

Hyperreal and imaginary

 

Jean Baudrillard

 

 

 

 

I read one of his articles for a few courses at uni, intercultural comparatism and the semiotics of culture. Very interesting, but my god, I don't think my brains ever hurt as much as they did after reading most of the literature we had to read. Baudrillard was one of the more understandable folks. I really liked that article, thank you for reminding me of it! I think I'm going to dig up my course notes and literature list some time soon...

[rocketman089]

What I mean is that if we don't learn to rely more on nature it (our relying on ourselves) is going to backfire on us.

 

 

 

Nah, we'll be fine. Like havent you watched Survivor before?

[dsavi]

What I mean is that if we don't learn to rely more on nature it (our relying on ourselves) is going to backfire on us.

 

 

 

Nah, we'll be fine. Like havent you watched Survivor before?

 

 

 

No, I don't happen to have watched it, and anyway, how realistic is tv?

[Waterofgod]

I honestly don't think it would be that big of a deal. In the "how long could you last" topic, people are forgeting one thing. All animales, including humas though I don't think we are animals, have, not only a natural will and drive to survive, but a natural ABILITY to survive. If you were put out in the middle of no where with no food no water, just the cloths on your back, you would FIND a way to survive. I don't think we depend to much on our selves. This is how society works. We discover new knowledge and impart that knowledge on specific people so that we dont have to know everything to live.

[Spy13]

In a way, maybe. But, in a way, not.

 

 

 

We are always worried about what others think. :arrow: Peer pressure.

 

 

 

Without it, we wouldn't be afraid to learn to do that split. To jump up and down and yell with joy. To run down supermarket isles and the country roads. No one would care but us, and it would be fun.

 

 

 

With people introduced, you fear what to say, what to do. You're worried someones going to see you dancing or doing a split. It makes you go nuts over worry. :wall: :shame:

 

 

 

So, in the end, no. We don't depend on ourselves enough. We lack in that field. -.-

 

 

 

(we depend on other's thoughts)

[underu2000]

I honestly don't think it would be that big of a deal. In the "how long could you last" topic, people are forgeting one thing. All animales, including humas though I don't think we are animals, have, not only a natural will and drive to survive, but a natural ABILITY to survive. If you were put out in the middle of no where with no food no water, just the cloths on your back, you would FIND a way to survive. I don't think we depend to much on our selves. This is how society works. We discover new knowledge and impart that knowledge on specific people so that we dont have to know everything to live.

 

 

 

I couldn't agree less. Now not to be overly optimistic, it IS possible for the human race to be extinct. But im sure that humans didnt achieve more or less (almost) complete control of this planet by relying on one source too much. And much less, do we rely on other humans too much. I think we can use the movie "Castaway" as a good pointer to how it could be possible to survive living alone, with no human contact. Regardless, we do in fact rely on each other substantially. But social behaviour by no means limits our ability to survive by ourselves.

 

Now as for the "Last man alive" thread, we must remember that this is only a "what if" situation. The fact that we are social by relying and supporting each other only makes a possibility of extinction even lower.

 

 

 

In conclusion; no, i do not think we rely on ourselves too much. If anything, it is a good and not harmful thing that the human race desires cooperation and social behavior.