It seems like humans are relatively weak as species. We can't tolerate nature as well as other species without the benefit of clothes, housing, filters, etc.

Birds, and our various furry or feathered friends in nature survive just fine in freezing cold, sweltering heat and drinking mucky water and living off the land.

We need sweaters, jackets, pants, gloves, houses, filtered water to keep us alive.

I blame cavemen; if they would have just man'ed up, humans could have evolved into an environmentally hardy species too. Either that, or there'd be no humans today....

It was the challenges of staying alive that helped increase brain power. Had humans just been able to sit back and take it easy whatever the climate, probably wouldn't be able to distinguish humans from apes today. (I'm sure there're a bunch of comedy routines buried in that last statement)!

I think Agent Smith in the Matrix was correct... humans are a virus. We adapt our surroundings to fit us, instead of adapting to the surroundings. We exist where we shouldn't, and as it seems, we will eventually kill our host.

I don't know, living to the ripe old age of 28 doesn't sound very appealing

I am getting a little soft in my old age (51) I never would wear a jacket unless it got below freezing. I wore a jacket today until it got up to about 60

I also believe, physically, use it or lose it. Keep active

quote:

Originally posted by Gibb:
We exist where we shouldn't, and as it seems, we will eventually kill our host.

Highly doubtful. The planet’s been here for billions of years and has several billion more to go before the Sun wipes it out. We may kill ourselves, but the earth will do just fine without us!

Yup. The Earth will survive long after we are gone.

quote:

Originally posted by tsmccull:

quote:

Originally posted by Gibb:
We exist where we shouldn't, and as it seems, we will eventually kill our host.

Highly doubtful. The planet’s been here for billions of years and has several billion more to go before the Sun wipes it out. We may kill ourselves, but the earth will do just fine without us!

I should have specified that by "host" I don't mean the Earth as a whole, but was referring to the local areas. As a species, there is a tendency to over farm, pollute the water, over crowd the local resources.

Sure on a smaller scale we adapt, but on the large scale it seems we don't. While some may say that means humankind will kill ourselves, I think that we kill ourselves by "killing" the host (removing its ability to host our lifeforms).

Yes, the planet will survive and regenerate to balance out... but none of us would be around to see it. Just as what I say is highly unlike to happen in our kids (or even our grandkids) lifetimes.

If your premise were true, the species would have died out in the late 20th century, or at least reached growth limiting factors. Yet we, as a species, continue to find ways to get enough calories into more of us to survive. Often that is at the detriment to other species or what we believe to be the current state of the world, however, from a genetic standpoint, we seem to be doing pretty well. We continue to be able to increase in numbers, and regardless of politics and environmental changes, we will continue to adapt and use every resource available to us to continue to grow in numbers, until some force prevents that and changes the game. Of course, we have the ability now wipe ourselves (and numerous other species) out, but I don’t believe there is any likelihood that we will use those currently available crude methods that would do that (nuclear/biological weapons). THe harms to our own side prevent the use of these agents of armageddon. When we are able to target mass murder to more localized populations or (even worse) those who differ from the popular views, then we will see the wholesale destruction of vast parts of the human race, and with that lose, the decline of the species, if not extinction.

A point to consider:

Over the entire history of life on planet Earth over 99% of all species have become extinct, but there is nothing to indicate that any had any choices in the matter.

So much for the "so easy even a caveman can do it" theory.

quote:

Originally posted by Gibb:

I should have specified that by "host" I don't mean the Earth as a whole, but was referring to the local areas. As a species, there is a tendency to over farm, pollute the water, over crowd the local resources.

Sure on a smaller scale we adapt, but on the large scale it seems we don't. While some may say that means humankind will kill ourselves, I think that we kill ourselves by "killing" the host (removing its ability to host our lifeforms).

Yes, the planet will survive and regenerate to balance out... but none of us would be around to see it. Just as what I say is highly unlike to happen in our kids (or even our grandkids) lifetimes.

Maybe, but I think we're living in the first time that humans are on the cusp of being able to both defend the planet from big rocks from space as well as to move off the planet to other planetary bodies in a more or less permanent fashion. If we don't kill ourselves by doing something stupid, that bodes well for the possibility of scattering humanity to locations other than Earth where what happens here won't have the same impact to our long term survival that it used to. We're not there yet, but give it another hundred years or so, just maybe.

quote:

If we don't kill ourselves by doing something stupid, that bodes well for the possibility of scattering humanity to locations other than Earth

Just like the virus Agent Smith called us

quote:

Originally posted by tleo205:

Just like the virus Agent Smith called us

Correct. Life either expands and fills new niches, or it stagnates and eventually dies out. The American Indians maintained a static and successful relationship with the land for thousands of years, but all the while were susceptible to rocks dropping onto them from space and a large enough one could have made them extinct.

To paraphrase/butcher someone else's quote: if there's nothing out there, seems like an awful waste of space. Maybe populating other locations with humans (a.k.a virus) would improve things. If there are others already out there, you can bet they'll push back if we get too intrusive.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
I blame cavemen; if they would have just man'ed up, humans could have evolved into an environmentally hardy species too.

We'd have wound up relying on something other than our brains to survive - and Darwin would have improved whatever else it was we were using to survive out there, maybe developing water-resistant, protective fur and/or bony protection from predators, and the brain would have become like an appendix - there, but irrelevant to survival, dwindling and forgotten.

Instead, wimpy bits of protoplasm as we were, we had to use our brains to survive, and the better the brain, the more likely the survival. Thus, over time, the three phases of civilization, according to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, as characterized by the three important questions of each phase:

How do we eat?
Why do we eat?
Where should we have lunch?

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
So much for the "so easy even a caveman can do it" theory.

What's that supposed to mean?
That is really condescending.