Wacky thoughts

[Big D]

There might be some errors in this, I typed it quite fast.

Fear could be some sort of natural balancing tool.

The rabbit fears the wolf and so it runs to prevent it's destruction.

If an entity is sentient, and aware that is part of a large "recycling plant" (eg the way nature works) , Then that creature using it's sentience, would transcend it's natural role, and grow a need/desire for power. Because this power would prevent the sentient entity from feeling the uncomfortableness of fear, and preventing it from feeling humiliated from being forced to flee.

A rabbit is not sentient, and is so to say "blisssfully" oblivious to the fact that it's death brings life to another being. The rabbit cannot trancend it's role, because it lacks the sentient insight to comprehend it's natural functioning.

Humans being naturally sentient (more so then any other known entity) have long since escaped their "natural role"

I wonder what we were. Were humans originally "designed" to be prey or predator?

Regardless of this. The neccesity of power, is A: an indication that the entity cannot live without it (lest it be returned to it's original role) or B: an ability to trancend it's natural role.

Leading me to the question... is warfare an innate human trait in order to escape fear, or is it (violence in general) a way for humans to trancend our innate "role"

if a rabbit would be fearless, then wolves/predators would make them extinct in no time. Then with rabbits gone, the predators that eats them too will be extinct. Leading me to believe that fear is a stabilizing tool of nature. a scared rabbit will flee, but will not neccesarily survive, even if it outruns it's predator, it will be killed from old age.

So the fear of entities is a natural balancing act.

However, fear, at least to us humans, is an uncomfortable and often humiliating state of being, so we try to be powerful in order to prevent it's occurance.

But it will happen with even the most powerful of men/women, because even if soldiers won't kill each other, old age kills us all.

So that would lead me to think that trying to get power is a futile act.

Unless!! we trancend the deathcycle by becoming (somehow) immortal.

But that wich is immortal cannot be killed, and that wich cannot be killed will not be attacked and that wich is not attacked, feels no fear, and that wich feels no fear will not run..

The immortal would be the ultimate disbalancers, their existance would threathen the universe itself.

The irony is, that fear itself "gives" power, by boosting adrenaline etc. So maybe the temporary power gained from fear, counteracts and rebalances the uncomfortable feelings of fear, creating some sort of balance.

However, for "trancended" entities like humans, this "natural" powerbooster is not enough.

Would that imply that we humans need to design our own powerbooster?

An interesting concluding thought to this is, that no matter how powerful someone is, they will also be weak at the same time, because that power is based on requirements.

Etc, we need earth to stand on, gravity to prevent us from going into orbit, air to breath, food to eat, water to drink, and respect from your lesser ones (that would allow the person to uphold his/her power).

The more things one needs to uphold his/her power, the more afraid they are of losing it.

An immortal cannot die of old age, trauma, disease or starvation, so he/she needs only the universe itself to sustain that power (and their existance.) But using the power, and killing anyone that would oppose it, will eventually result in a battle the threathens the very universe, the source of this immortal's powers.

Would that mean that powers are themselves ultimatly self-destructive?

That wich does not exist, does not exist, all that exists in the universe exist, even the dead, for small particles of their former bodies are absorbed by the earth and made into minerals wich are absorbed (for example) by plants. To be nonexistant, one would need to annihilate the universe, because the universe holds all existance together.

Heh, this will invariably start a flamewar or get some angry responses.

[Dante]

You're overcomplicating. Fear is a biological mechanism evolved to ensure survival of an individual and thus species.

Two examples:

1) Fear reduces blood flow to the skin, thus cooling it. This causes hair (or fur) to stand on end as a method of retaining heat. Not only does this make the animal appear more fearsome (to causes predators to back away), but it also diverts oxygen-carrying blood back into the centre of the body, where it will be required if the need to take flight arises.

2) Fear increases adrenaline. The 'fight or flight' hormone, as it is often known. It does many things, but at the most basic level, it makes running and fighting easier.

Fear is not a balancing act, or at least not directly. It is a means to ensure prolonged survival. Attempting to conquer it is both futile and stupid. As for immortality... Having no evidence to work from, we can't make accurate judgements on the effects of an immortal, especially given the differing uses of the word. An immortal may not grow old, but they might still die from disease or accident. Or they may grow old, and steadily more feeble, but never die. *Shrug* I don't know. But I do know that I would like to be immortal.

Humans have not 'transcended their role' because we still feel fear and on occasion are unable to overcome it. Recognising one's place in a pattern (life, death, blah) is not the same thing as understanding. Not feeling fear would not be a strength, it would be a weakness. Humiliation is hardly a consideration when survival is on the line.

We have not 'escaped our role,' but since you ask: we were predators. The human body has a greater similarity to a carnivore than a herbivore. Observe eyes at the front of the head rather than the sides, as well as tooth structure. Yes, we have molars as well, but what herbivore has such well developed canines?

Warfare is neither a method to escape fear nor a method for trancendance. It is physical conflict on a large scale that can be for any number of petty or profound reasons. It continues to occur because man is essentially a violent creature.

There is no reason for flames or anger. This is pseudo-philosophy, making mountains out of molehills and all that.

[Big D]

Thank you for your opinion. :)

[Aylene]

No angry response here, just a mild sense of bewilderment and a lot of "EH???"

I think Dante is right about the overcomplicating. Nature is pretty simple, always follows the same straight lines to get to its goals. Prey that does not run gets eaten, so an instinct to flee or fight (fear) evolves in those who are liable to be hunted. This includes ALL modern-day mammals, the rabbit and the wolf but also the elephant and the human. Our ancestors were small vole-like creatures, if I'm not mistaken, and they were much lower in the food chain than the lizards of those days.

Humans fear, even those with power. You conclude this yourself in your final paragraphs, so I'm not sure where you want to go with this post.

Also

But it will happen with even the most powerful of men/women, because even if soldiers won't kill each other, old age kills us all.

So that would lead me to think that trying to get power is a futile act.

seems a bit redundant ... if you look at it that way, is not everything we do futile? We're all going to die in the end. What matters is what we make of life, but only so long as we're alive. In the end, it all ends :)

As for transcending our role ... what do you mean by that? (I'm a bit hazy there, never studied much philosophy, so there may be something I'm missing.)

The prey or predator question ... I thought we were both?

Don't humans share most similarities with other apes, and pigs, with the eating habits, tooth structure and bowel volume of your typical omnivore?

I once read somewhere that our ape ancestors were food-gathering herbivores, getting their meager supply of protein from insects and carrion. As they moved from the forest to the plains, they started walking upright, and were able to bring down animals for meat working together and using their developing brains, which subsequently grew with the abundance of protein as their bowel volume shrunk because their diet relied less and less on fibrous plants.

I don't know if it's true - I have most of my knowledge of biology from high school and TV documentaries - but it would explain why we still like (and need) to eat both meat and a healthy amount of plants.

[Big D]

What I mean by trancending that role (at least for us humans) is that instead of that we adapt ourself to the world, we make the world adapt to us. I can hardly imagine that a chimpansee would build a factory and produce stuff etc. I think we as humans made the decision to exit real caves, and make houses (because they are more comfortable. The start of civilization was the point that we "trancended" our "role"

btw Thanks for your opinion. :)

[Dante]

If transcending a role is to shape surroundings to fit your way of life then bird's nests have suddenly become a very important phenomenon.

[Tatar Khan]

If we take our role as the goal of survival and to procreate offsprings with our sucseesful genes than the human have not exited their role. We feel that we have better chances of survival if we build that house than live in a cave. Out of fear of being destroyed in the cave we build ourself a house in which we feel we are secure.