Human help: The world would be a better place if humans never figured out what science was. - Help.com

Better is subjective. We could argue all day but its simply opinion.

survival of the fittest does not refer only to physical attributes. We survived and climbed to the top of the food chain because of our minds, not our bodies. You really think we’d progress to the top running around beating animals with our bear hands? refusing to develop science? You go live in the woods, no weapons, no tools, no ideas

with the abscence of medicine humanity because so so fragile. Our ignorance to the science of basic sanitation led to us almost being wiped out by the plague. Science cures diseases.

do you honestly believe nature removes genetic defects? in your cruel world people with genetic illnesses would die yes, but more would be born with them. Do you know how genetic illnesses develop either? because your culling of those with defects would no cease to have them exist.

oh and preventing disabled and weak people from breeding, advocating their slaughter? its called eugenics, very big with the nazis.

im afraid you’re a primitivist, very reactionary group of people, seem to all want us back up the trees

JesusMurphy! wrote:
You’re a complete moron. You critisize using science for killing, like concentration camps, then you say that crippled and weak people should be killed.Thank God SCIENCE can give women abortions…too bad your mom missed that memo, though.

You missed my point ENTIRELY. I don’t condone the killing of innocent people, but if someone would die in natural conditions WITHOUT modern medical intervention then it is what is best for humanity as a whole.

And dont call me a moron, how would you like it if someone called you a name for voicing your OPINION because thats all it is. I support your right to disagree with me but you crossed a line when you attacked my personal integrity. apologize, now.

Arnday the Imbroglio wrote:
do you honestly believe nature removes genetic defects? in your cruel world people with genetic illnesses would die yes, but more would be born with them. Do you know how genetic illnesses develop either? because your culling of those with defects would no cease to have them exist.

oh and preventing disabled and weak people from breeding, advocating their slaughter? its called eugenics, very big with the nazis.

im afraid you’re a primitivist, very reactionary group of people, seem to all want us back up the trees

Arnday the Imbroglio wrote:
survival of the fittest does not refer only to physical attributes. We survived and climbed to the top of the food chain because of our minds, not our bodies. You really think we’d progress to the top running around beating animals with our bear hands? refusing to develop science? You go live in the woods, no weapons, no tools, no ideaswith the abscence of medicine humanity because so so fragile. Our ignorance to the science of basic sanitation led to us almost being wiped out by the plague. Science cures diseases. do you honestly believe nature removes genetic defects? in your cruel world people with genetic illnesses would die yes, but more would be born with them. Do you know how genetic illnesses develop either? because your culling of those with defects would no cease to have them exist.oh and preventing disabled and weak people from breeding, advocating their slaughter? its called eugenics, very big with the nazis.im afraid you’re a primitivist, very reactionary group of people, seem to all want us back up the trees

Through time yes, I think that given enough time a perfect organism can come into existence.

yet that organism must deny its natural urges to form complex thought?

also how is dying by being eaten by a lion better than dying of cancer?

its not.

‘Perfect organism”…hm, sounds a lot like “perfect race”, doesn’t it? Also quite popular with the ol’ Nazis.
God, people like you…always trying to make people BETTER, but not better at understanding, or compassion, or intelligence; better at killing and breeding. We’ve seen how well that’s worked over history.

JesusMurphy! wrote:
‘Perfect organism”…hm, sounds a lot like “perfect race”, doesn’t it? Also quite popular with the ol’ Nazis.
God, people like you…always trying to make people BETTER, but not better at understanding, or compassion, or intelligence; better at killing and breeding. We’ve seen how well that’s worked over history.

Do I have to say it again? I DO NOT CONDONE THE KILLING OF PEOPLE. I do believe that if NATURE (Not people) were allowed to take its course then the world would be a better place.

So, by disagreeing with my view that the world would be a better place without science/technology you must like it when…

Billions of tons of pollution is spewed into the world each year.

A teenager gos on a shooting spree at his school.

A nuke is sent to blow up a city full of civilians.

Napalm burns innocent children beyond recognition.

Animals are used as test subjects to progress scientific study.

People are spied on by their own government.

People who would have died, have to live their lives as freaks.

so on and so fourth…so much hell has been brought to this planet by science, and technology.

And it seams to me that you like that fact.

“Billions of tons of pollution is spewed into the world each year.”
And it’s science, like wind, solar, battery, etc power that’s changing that.

“A teenager gos on a shooting spree at his school.”
Guns don’t kill people- people kill people.

“Animals are used as test subjects to progress scientific study.”
And it’s science like growing human tissue and stem cell research that’s changing that, and making animal testing more and more primitive.

“People are spied on by their own government.”
Again, people are responsible for their own actions.

“People who would have died, have to live their lives as freaks.”
Wow, I don’t even know what to say to that. Someone who’s blood cannot clot, or someone with a limp, is not a “freak”, they’re just people whose bodies work differently. Let’s be like the Ancient Spartans and throw every baby we don’t like the look of off a cliff into the sea. And btw, in many cultures, people born with “unique” features are often reverred as holy.

Anonymous wrote:
And it seams to me that you like that fact.

And it seems to me that you’re PAINFULLY ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:
so on and so fourth…so much hell has been brought to this planet by science, and technology.

Wrong. Fail. So much hell has been brought on by human (well, it’s always been the men who were in power and control who made these decisions, so I’ll be fair and say male) greed, aggression, and misunderstanding.
And it IS murder to allow “nature to take it’s course” if you sit back and let a baby die because of how it’s born, when you have the medicine to fix it.

JesusMurphy! wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
so on and so fourth…so much hell has been brought to this planet by science, and technology.

Wrong. Fail. So much hell has been brought on by human (well, it’s always been the men who were in power and control who made these decisions, so I’ll be fair and say male) greed, aggression, and misunderstanding.
And it IS murder to allow “nature to take it’s course” if you sit back and let a baby die because of how it’s born, when you have the medicine to fix it.

I guess I have to say it again…I DO NOT CONDONE THE KILLING OF PEOPLE!
I didn’t say that we should “sit back and let a baby die” your twisting my words. I said the world would be better off if we never discovered science…not that it would be better off if we all chucked less than perfect individuals into the wild and turned our backs, thats sick.

Anonymous wrote:
not that it would be better off if we all chucked less than perfect individuals into the wild and turned our backs, thats sick.

You seem to be omitting the human nature and cruelty factor. What do you think tribes from the ancient days would do when there was a lagger in their group, hm? Old and injured memebers would very often be abandoned in the winter wilderness to die. What do you think all the animal tribes and species of the world do? If you’re bringing down the physical effectiveness of the group; you’re getting driven out from it’s protection to die; that’s what animals do, and humans are animals.
And you’re still stuck on thie “perfect organism” stuff. To repeat:

Arnday the Imbroglio wrote:
survival of the fittest does not refer only to physical attributes. We survived and climbed to the top of the food chain because of our minds, not our bodies. You really think we’d progress to the top running around beating animals with our bear hands? refusing to develop science? You go live in the woods, no weapons, no tools, no ideas

with the abscence of medicine humanity because so so fragile. Our ignorance to the science of basic sanitation led to us almost being wiped out by the plague. Science cures diseases.

JesusMurphy! wrote:
What do you think all the animal tribes and species of the world do? If you’re bringing down the physical effectiveness of the group; you’re getting driven out from it’s protection to die; that’s what animals do, and humans are animals.

Actually wolves will help their elderly, bring them food, chew it, swallow it, and regurgitate it for them if they cant do it for themselves.

X-_-X wrote:

JesusMurphy! wrote:
What do you think all the animal tribes and species of the world do? If you’re bringing down the physical effectiveness of the group; you’re getting driven out from it’s protection to die; that’s what animals do, and humans are animals.

Actually wolves will help their elderly, bring them food, chew it, swallow it, and regurgitate it for them if they cant do it for themselves.

Ok, fine. Then that justs goes to show that Anon is still wrong in “letting nature take it’s course” and allowing our crippled and elderly to die.

technology is a step in the evolutionary process. and beyond that, spiritual evolution.

I’ve occasionally thought that the whole false dichotomy of human vs. nature (false in that humans are part of nature) might simply be a species-centric (or anthropomorphic) perspective. Perhaps the birds are chirping to each other about how the technological advances and excesses of bird-world are wiping out the poor defenseless humans, and surely this whole thing of “nests” or especially the newfangled “telephone-wires-to-perch-upon” are evolutionary advances that have set the entire bird-kingdom on a path to dystopian dissolution and decay.

i agree with u.

And yet you still use the internet, which was created from Science…

I do see your point, but Humans have evolved using technology and science rather then just ’survival of the fittest’. It’s OUR nature, which is still nature. We’re not so different to animals, we just took a different root. To turn against that is to turn against our own nature, and the very reasons why we’ve survived so long. I mean, come on, would a human being, however strong, really be able to survive much without weapons and resources? Not really.

-Also, as someone that calls themselves a Scientist, it’s very annoying to group ‘Science’ as one big evil thing… it can’t all be bad, even in the way your seeing things.-

Yes the world would be so much better without science. 14 of every 15 children born would die before their first year of life. 20 would be considered senior as far as life expectancy. Death and great pain during child-birth would be extremely common. Humans would be at the mercy of parasites and disease like so many other animals on this planet. Everyone would smell because noone invented soap. The most intellectual thing anyone would ever think would be “I wonder where my next meal will come from”. We would have no great architecture, no great art, no purpose in our lives greater than subsistence. No agriculture, no tools, no understanding of the world in which we live. We would be captive to superstition and ignorance. There would be nothing but a forest, beautiful as it is, it would be little consolation for the horrible life led by humans, if they could manage to survive without the one gift that sets them apart from every other species on the planet, as nature “takes its course” in eliminating the most unfit species on the planet. Face it humans are the slowest and weakest creatures on the planet. Our intellect and ability to understand and harness the powers of nature is what puts us at the top of the food web. Just about everything else about us is inferior to other species. Our top athletes could not run down a deer, escape a predator on plains, defend their territory against a bear, or great apes. Without our capacity for science, defined as the ability to understand the word and manipulated it with planning and intellect, our days would be numbered.

That was a little blunt, Xeno Dragon…

mariamyamou, in answer to your question I’m really not sure. I’m not sure if it’s possible to make the world a better place, or a worse place. Everything has pros and concs, and you can’t get something for nothing.

indoor plumbing is soooooooooo overrated. excuse me while i go scrape my arse with a rock.
:)

lol GC doesn’t stand for Good Charlotte in this case. It’s my nickname, Grey Cloud :P

If I were to improve the world somehow? Hmm… I guess the obvious choices would be to iradicate world hunger, stop killing, world peace etc. etc. …. but without these bad things then we would never be able to appreciate how good our lives can be. I think…. I think I’d give each person in the world one other person to look after and help and teach. We learn mostly from others, and even with just one person to talk to, the world seems better.

nah its the most alone that make the most interesting, most tragic true, but most interesting

Being alone’s good sometimes, admittedly…. but just being able to be with someone, if you wanted to, and to have that choice is good.

Have to say, when i see someone walking the streets in a wheelchair- never being able to walk their whole life, strapped to a lung support machine - because they were born without lungs, blind and walking with a white cane - they never see any of the colours of our world that makes it so special, unable to communicate with the rest of the world - because they have a mental disorder and can never fit in, a carer walking the streets leading a little boy in hand - who may never grow up, and so she will have to take care of him and stay with him and eventually go to his funeral and be so attached that she might head into severe depression and never recover… When i see all these people - and unfortunately I don’t have to look too hard to find them, I truly pity their lives. They will never really enjoy the life a ‘normal’ person has, a person who can see, understand, communicate, and be free from the consequences that comes with this input of science, and so I start to detest the modifications we, as humans, have done to ourselves. We have made anything possible - or made anything possible a possibility in our future - but, for the moment we are destroying the quality of thousands of lives with this. I cannot doubt, in any way, that the world would have been a better place without science. Then, we might be extinct, our rivers might actually flow instead of being stuck up with dams and weirs, plants might actually be able to grow and adapt, rather than being sawn down or pulled out, global warming would never have been an agenda item unlike a crisis which it is now, and not one quality of life would ever be degraded in the slightest. If science could reverse all this, sure - I take back what i say. but that looks like something that is going to be a long time coming if i ever happens. And, though it looks like that is the only direction this world is heading in, if it ever reaches a destination, it will be a long time coming.

Did i not make the point that because of science, we have let the weak live some of the most unrewarding lives, when if we had never invented science, and our bodies had to adapt to nature, we would all be living much more rewarding lives. Effectively, science, making it so we haven’t had to adapt, has caused many of these illness especially those that recur through many generations. I know science is looking for cures to all of this - which is why I said that it’s going to be a long time going when it eventually does come.

staite what about what science did cure? lets look at smallpox for example. Often causing blindness, deformity, scarring, severe pain and thats just for those that survive, the rest die horrible painful deaths. 300-500 million deaths estimated in the 20th century thanks to it and you’re saying its a bad thing that we developed the science necessary to eradicate it?

you’re getting increasingly mad here and I might add you seem to rather enjoy what science has given you, sat there using a computer, probably living in a house atop your beloved nature, given your thinking I suggest you go off to the amazon and bash snakes over the head with rocks, yknow do your little part for nature.

oh and im pretty sure you can find a hell of a lot of disabled people who are quite happy that the doctors didnt just write them off at birth. People in wheelchairs can lead good lives, as can the blind because most people have decided that its more humane to accept them into society and treat them as an equal unlike a regressive step on your modal of some primitive superhuman

I wish there was more nature that the world wasn’t destroying at this very point. You may think I’m being cynical. I’m being realistic. I’m looking at the bigger picture. This world would be 100% better off if humans had never existed. Did you know that it is going to take 10 000 years for the earth to return to how it was if humans suddenly disappeared? 10 000 years is a long time, and most of the damage we have done to this world has been in the last 100 years with advances in science- like roads and buildings made of tar and cement that take hundreds of years to erode. I looked up Stephen Hawking. His disease isn’t genetic. I know science will probably have a cure for him in a hundred years or so, and with his background, he may actually find a cure himself. That cure would be a long time coming - i know I’m repeating myself. When I said that some of these diseases wouldn’t even exist, I was talking about some of the genetic disorders that we have let pass on through generations, our weak immunities that are more susceptible to colds and illnesses, that we fight with penicillin and now other antibiotics that diseases are now be coming stronger and more immune to, these would have been prevented if we had never invented science. It would again become the survival of the fittest. We can always argue about the impact of science on humans ‘for better or worse’, and this can go on forever. We can’t argue that the environment would have been thousands of times better without the impact that human science has had on it. sometimes, i wish I had an island i could get lost on and not see any of the impacts that humans have had on the world. But that doesn’t ever seem possible in this world. I haven’t read everything else that has been posted as replies to the original post, but i think some people do get the point i am trying to make about the earth being a better place without humans and their development of science. But, because we are here, and I can see someone making the point about living in the trees and wiping our buts with stones, I think we should be doing more to help and save our planet, and that doesn’t mean removing myself from my chair at my desk and putting me in the depths of the wild to survive as the fittest member of our race (or die very easily). It means going to school, studying, going to uni and studying something that will make the world a better and more environmentally friendly and then putting it into action. (Unfortunately, i see very little of this happening, but anyway…)
So, at the present moment, yes, I believe the world (the environment) would have been better off without humans and their invention of ’science’. That humans are better or worse off is entirely debatable and I don’t want to spend the rest of my life on this site trying to prove or disprove it. That our world might not be worse off it the future, will be something I would like to witness, and I am gong to spend my time and effort inthis world doing just that - trying to make science work for the environment. And because, i’m not going to be around in thousands of years when people may have eventually done something to help the environment and work with it instead of removing all its own resources, clogging up rivers etc, I will probably never know whether or not the environment and the people of this world, will be able to work together so that science has reversed it’s negative impacts and the environment and all it’s negative impacts on people ( but keeping all the positive ones that everyone else know about). I hope that it will, and in the future, the world will not have a been a better place without the invention of science.

I know i rambled on, I know most people won’t read this cause you think I’m a cynical Nazis or something, but I was just trying to say that I understand all your points and how you got them, I was just trying to get you to really understand mine. Thanks for all the replies.

Thanx.I was just trying to get my point across how i wanted to in the first place. I hope it made sense.

Last line: “and it is the quiet after a storm” sounds better.
I actually like the poem. Its…cute.

What if we lived like they do in avatar…but we kept our medicine and ****??…serious film