chimps use rudimentary technologies- it doesn't define who they are - they are still chimps - if you took away their ' poking down holes, sticks' - they would still be chimps
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
chimps use rudimentary technologies- it doesn't define who they are - they are still chimps - if you took away their ' poking down holes, sticks' - they would still be chimps
that is debateable
chimps have a very early form of technology...as you say.
if they did not have it they would not be chimps..they would be something else.
but we're not talking about chimps
we're speaking of humans...
explain to me what a human with ZERO technology would be like.
To not accept humans beings ,never having a technology is not logical.
It cannot be any other way.
(- on the assumption we are not including biological attributes like opposable thumbs as a technology).
I grew up on a farm - and I KNOW, if the climate was congenial, and there was water - human beings could survive without technology. - I could- even today.
(And I'm sure their knowledge of their environment far outstripped anything I will ever know)
why is it not logical.
why are you not answering my question?
you could NOT survive without technology...technology is a pre requisit for your existence.
NewFlash...technology consists of EVERYTHING that you acquire after birth.
Can you speak at birth?
no?
Well then...language is a technolgy...that might explain why there are so many languages..they were invented.
That gave us a BIG boost. Writing gave us another big boost.
so tell me again...tell me how you would exist in the wild with not only no language but no understanding of the concept of language?
your definition is different that mine. ( or dictionary.com, or merriam websters)
For practical purpose - I - literally - on my own -if the weather was congenial, and there was water (plants, insects, and, animals) -could survive - 100%
If I could - I'm sure our non technologically friendly ancestors could - and a million time better than myself.
The definition of everything from birth is technology , isn't correct. ( from what i see, and from my personal understanding - maybe just a difference of definitions)
I think differently than that.
yup...I developed that as a working definition myself.
a human with no technology is a rotting chunk of meat.
we are the product of technology and it is incorporated in us. The more technolgy we assimilate the more human we become..
We have different perspectives on what being human is, I feel.
Your perspective, is nihilistic. (in my opinion).
There is no room for beauty or aesthetics - its all function. I think very differently than that, and getting back to Tolkien, why he perfectly sums up the human v the non human.
Being human is appreciating of beauty, being happy (or sad) - but feeling.
Are you an Ork, deep down? lolo
who says technology is not beautiful?
I certainly didn't.
it takes technology to make art..or record beauty that already exists in nature.
you misspelled orc.
You said Your perspective, is nihilistic. (in my opinion).
Nihilism = rejecting all religious and moral principles in the belief that life is meaningless.
certainly NOT. Your opinion is wrong.
ZAP is my moral principal. Every other (so-called) moral principal is derived from that. IF they really meant it..but they do not.
You'd have to define what you mean by meaningless...
before you do it might be instructive to read about the monkeysphere, behavioral sinks, rat utopia, dunbar's number and The Iron Law of Bureaucracy