Humans: Flawed or flawless?

[Web Rider]

So it's been bugging me and I'd like to hear some arguments on the design of a human in the context of survival of the fittest. Obviously, we have survived, so we must be pretty fit, but when you get down to it, we've got some pretty shining flaws. Lets take humans as they are now as the "base design" of humans, and leave evolutionary arguments out of it more or less.

 

So, lets begin.

 

Humans walk upright, putting greater weight and therefore strain on our two legs, and therefore make us more vulnerable to being permanently incapacitated. A dog or cat can still function on 3 legs rather well without any external support, a human however, cannot. Our balance is highly tied to our big toe(I've had them numbed to the point of not feeling them, you basically can't walk).

 

Because of our upright position, our delishus meats are put forward right on our front, as our jewels. Essentially leaving us vulnerable to a frontal attack, whereas an animal on all fours is mainly vulnerable from the sides(as humans are too) and beneath.

 

Our skin is not particularly tough or defensive, we do not have a thick covering of fur to protect or keep us warm, nor do we have scales or simply really thick skin(like an elephant or rhino) to protect us from injury. As well we lack any defensive glands, organs, or extensions to protect us in case of attack. We have no horns, no barbs, no spines, ect..

 

We lack any truly offensive capabilities, while we are intelligent enough to use tools to make up for this, we have no natural offenses. We are not explicitly good pack hunters, we lack claws, flangs or venom. We are not particularly strong in comparason to many animals of similar size.

 

Nor are we naturally as fast, agile or sensitive. The fastest humans barely match up with some of the average speeds of average predators. And while we're on what we're born with, humans have an exceedingly long gestation period. While this is somewhat made up for by a long lifespan, this did not used to be true. We also have an extremely slow growth period. By the time a child is ready to fend for itself, many animals have been doing so for years.

 

Women are at best, able to feed two children simultaneously, while men are also able to produce milk, this ability has either been bred out of us or has simply vanished from disuse. It is suggested that men once developed fully-functioning breasts in times when most women died in childbirth. Women carrying children are extra vulnerable to attack from the front and sides due to the size of the belly, whereas animals vulnerable directions during pregnancy remain either side. While we're here, women do not carry many at once, we depend on having multiple seperate births instead of one or two multiple-birth pregnancies.

 

Humans lack the ability to go long periods without food and water. On average, a human can survive 3 days without water, and 2 weeks without food. Many animals do not eat but once or twice a week, sometimes less in certain cases.

 

------------

 

Honestly, it amazes me people have survived as well as we did. Maybe people just taste bad, perhaps humans had more natural offenses and defenses in the past before we developed mental capacities to offset them. As far as the human design goes, I'd say it's pretty badly done. There's much that could have been improved in order to increase the survivability of humanity, natural defenses, natural offenses.

 

Now, I wanna know what you think, list off some pros, some cons, and what your opinion is of them. If you believe in a "Creator" or not, it's not really relevant to the discussion, we're only addressing the actual design of a human being. If you think the design is great, present some evidence as to why. If you take issue witch my thoughts, please, present some counters.

[Achilles]

Lets take humans as they are now as the "base design" of humans, and leave evolutionary arguments out of it more or less.

It's going to be very difficult to address your points with ground rules like these. Everything you raise here can be addressed with "evolutionary arguments".

[Web Rider]

It's going to be very difficult to address your points with ground rules like these. Everything you raise here can be addressed with "evolutionary arguments".

 

Yes, I am aware that people were different and probably more ape-like in the past, though our information on that does not indicate that we were truly anything other than hairier, dumber, and well, more ape-like. Even when you go WAAYY back to "Lucy", humans are much the same we are now. We were not exceptionally faster or more agile, nor were we exceptionally stronger or in possession of greater offenses and defenses.

 

If you want to address what you think we might have evolved out of, you're welcome to, but I doubt there's evidence to show we had any of the defensive or offensive capabilities of many creatures of similar size.

[Jae Onasi]

Humans walk upright, putting greater weight and therefore strain on our two legs, and therefore make us more vulnerable to being permanently incapacitated. A dog or cat can still function on 3 legs rather well without any external support, a human however, cannot.

We also can reach the top shelf in our cabinets because we're upright creatures. None of my pets could do that.

 

Our balance is highly tied to our big toe(I've had them numbed to the point of not feeling them, you basically can't walk).

Not exclusively--there are 3 different systems that contribute to balance. People without big toes have adapted to walking.

 

Because of our upright position, our delishus meats are put forward right on our front, as our jewels. Essentially leaving us vulnerable to a frontal attack, whereas an animal on all fours is mainly vulnerable from the sides(as humans are too) and beneath.

God, it's good to be a woman.

 

Being upright produces a thinner profile for attack than being on all fours.

 

Our skin is not particularly tough or defensive, we do not have a thick covering of fur to protect or keep us warm, nor do we have scales or simply really thick skin(like an elephant or rhino) to protect us from injury. As well we lack any defensive glands, organs, or extensions to protect us in case of attack. We have no horns, no barbs, no spines, ect..

Our skin protects us very well from extremes in the environment and germs, which are far more likely to attack us on a daily basis. Being bare-skinned (as opposed to having thick fur) allows the sunlight to hit our skin, and that allows the body to synthesize its own Vitamin D.

We lack any truly offensive capabilities, while we are intelligent enough to use tools to make up for this, we have no natural offenses. We are not explicitly good pack hunters, we lack claws, flangs or venom. We are not particularly strong in comparason to many animals of similar size.

Nuclear weapons. Any questions?

 

You obviously have not ever been in a nasty fight with my sister and her claws, nor have you been in the dojang where I learned taekwondo. We may not have claws, but I guarantee you that if I attacked you with a roundhouse or side kick with the correct technique and force, you'd be down for a very long time.

 

Nor are we naturally as fast, agile or sensitive. The fastest humans barely match up with some of the average speeds of average predators. And while we're on what we're born with, humans have an exceedingly long gestation period. While this is somewhat made up for by a long lifespan, this did not used to be true. We also have an extremely slow growth period. By the time a child is ready to fend for itself, many animals have been doing so for years.

So we're not cheetahs. So what. We don't run around hunting wildebeests on the African plains on a daily basis. So we have a long gestation/growth rate. It takes a long time for the brain to mature because of its incredible complexity. What we lose in terms of speed of maturation we more than make up in level of maturation compared to other creatures.

 

Women are at best, able to feed two children simultaneously,

That's incorrect unless you're meaning at the exact same time. Women can feed more than two children, but it is much more difficult. If we had litters, we probably would have evolved/been designed with more breasts.

 

while men are also able to produce milk, this ability has either been bred out of us or has simply vanished from disuse.

They don't have the ability normally because they don't typically have the estrogen required for breast tissue enlargement. Because they also don't become pregnant, they don't have the high levels of prolactin during pregnancy that contribute to mammary gland development, which is required to produce milk. In fact, if a man does produce milk, it's something that needs to be addressed by a health care professional asap because it could be caused by hormone disorders or even cancer.

 

It is suggested that men once developed fully-functioning breasts in times when most women died in childbirth.

If 'most women' died in childbirth, none of us would be here because the population would die out. In third world countries where perinatal/postnatal death is highest, men are no more likely to develop fully functioning breasts than in industrialized countries.

Women carrying children are extra vulnerable to attack from the front and sides due to the size of the belly, whereas animals vulnerable directions during pregnancy remain either side.

We also don't wallow in mud as a result, getting exposed to a variety of germs.

While we're here, women do not carry many at once, we depend on having multiple seperate births instead of one or two multiple-birth pregnancies.

I have no clue why you think this is disadvantageous. It's far easier to take care of one baby at a time than 5.

 

Humans lack the ability to go long periods without food and water. On average, a human can survive 3 days without water, and 2 weeks without food. Many animals do not eat but once or twice a week, sometimes less in certain cases.

None of the farm animals that Jimbo worked with and none of the pets I worked with could live without water for more than a couple days, too. In fact, very few animals could go without water for more than a few days. We also can go considerably longer than 2 weeks without food.

 

------------

Honestly, it amazes me people have survived as well as we did. Maybe people just taste bad, perhaps humans had more natural offenses and defenses in the past before we developed mental capacities to offset them. As far as the human design goes, I'd say it's pretty badly done. There's much that could have been improved in order to increase the survivability of humanity, natural defenses, natural offenses.

And if we developed that way, then we wouldn't be humans--we'd be cats, apes, platypi, sharks, yellow warblers, red-eyed tree frogs, or any number of other creatures instead of humans.

 

Now, I wanna know what you think, list off some pros, some cons, and what your opinion is of them. If you believe in a "Creator" or not, it's not really relevant to the discussion, we're only addressing the actual design of a human being. If you think the design is great, present some evidence as to why. If you take issue witch my thoughts, please, present some counters.

I can take issue with various supposed faults in our design, but then in about 10 years some new research will come out that helps explain why something was designed/evolved in that way. What looks like a fault to us at a cursory glance may actually be an exquisitely developed aspect of anatomy and/or physiology when evaluated more closely.

[Web Rider]

We also can reach the top shelf in our cabinets because we're upright creatures. None of my pets could do that.

Dunno, my cats can get atop my fridge pretty easy. Some dogs can walk on two legs rather well. Apes, who are somwhere between 2 and 4 legs since they use their arms for walking, could pull this off.

 

Not exclusively--there are 3 different systems that contribute to balance. People without big toes have adapted to walking.

True, but it's something that requires lots of effort and work. Something that would put you at a disadvantage for a significantly long period of time.

 

God, it's good to be a woman.

Well, save the whole "time of the month" thing, though I'm not sure what's better here, monthly cycles, or annual "heats" like animals.

 

Being upright produces a thinner profile for attack than being on all fours.

True, though it provides a taller target, tradeoffs and all that.

 

Our skin protects us very well from extremes in the environment and germs, which are far more likely to attack us on a daily basis. Being bare-skinned (as opposed to having thick fur) allows the sunlight to hit our skin, and that allows the body to synthesize its own Vitamin D.

right, though I don't know if animals can do this as well, ones with or without fur or scales.

 

Nuclear weapons. Any questions?

tools, again, and not particularly good for survival purposes.

 

You obviously have not ever been in a nasty fight with my sister and her claws, nor have you been in the dojang where I learned taekwondo. We may not have claws, but I guarantee you that if I attacked you with a roundhouse or side kick with the correct technique and force, you'd be down for a very long time.

Oh, I know, but that skill is a tool, developed from the mind. Not really an instinct-driven development.

 

So we're not cheetahs. So what. We don't run around hunting wildebeests on the African plains on a daily basis. So we have a long gestation/growth rate. It takes a long time for the brain to mature because of its incredible complexity. What we lose in terms of speed of maturation we more than make up in level of maturation compared to other creatures.

If you're saying we mature slower because we mature farther than other creatures, I may or may not disagree. Explain a little more please?

 

That's incorrect unless you're meaning at the exact same time. Women can feed more than two children, but it is much more difficult. If we had litters, we probably would have evolved/been designed with more breasts.

yup, hence the "simultaneously". And I agree.

 

They don't have the ability normally because they don't typically have the estrogen required for breast tissue enlargement. Because they also don't become pregnant, they don't have the high levels of prolactin during pregnancy that contribute to mammary gland development, which is required to produce milk. In fact, if a man does produce milk, it's something that needs to be addressed by a health care professional asap because it could be caused by hormone disorders or even cancer.

true, though both sexes produce the other's hormones to some degree, it's probable these may have been higher in the past, or not.

 

 

If 'most women' died in childbirth, none of us would be here because the population would die out. In third world countries where perinatal/postnatal death is highest, men are no more likely to develop fully functioning breasts than in industrialized countries.

Not really, the child or children would survive, and as long as the mother had more than 2, or women on average had more than 2, the population would still grow. Though I think you've got a point with the underdeveloped countries, though I feel a little bad saying so since it's essentially saying they're more primitive people.

 

We also don't wallow in mud as a result, getting exposed to a variety of germs.

I've yet to see pregnant cats wallow in the mud. And germs are healthy most of the time. You're exposed to many kinds of germs daily, without them, well, it's debatable if we'd live or not.

 

I have no clue why you think this is disadvantageous. It's far easier to take care of one baby at a time than 5.

for the way a human is designed, yeah.

 

None of the farm animals that Jimbo worked with and none of the pets I worked with could live without water for more than a couple days, too. In fact, very few animals could go without water for more than a few days. We also can go considerably longer than 2 weeks without food.

I am hesitant to address farm animals and domesticated animals because people have worked to breed very very particular traits into them. I mean, the cow has always been this big, docile food source for host of recorded history. Was it always this way? Do we have any evidence of how cows naturally used to be?

 

------------

And if we developed that way, then we wouldn't be humans--we'd be cats, apes, platypi, sharks, yellow warblers, red-eyed tree frogs, or any number of other creatures instead of humans.

What was call ourselves is a rather abstract thing, it's just a name, and what it means is simply what we want it to mean. Words are given meaning by people, we weren't called "homo sapiens" from the dawn of time, for all we know, primitive "humans" may have called themselves buffalo.

 

I can take issue with various supposed faults in our design, but then in about 10 years some new research will come out that helps explain why something was designed/evolved in that way. What looks like a fault to us at a cursory glance may actually be an exquisitely developed aspect of anatomy and/or physiology when evaluated more closely.

I generally agree that the way we developed must have been the right way or we couldn't have made it this far. All I'm really looking for is people's opinions on what they think. Science can say what it wants and how great having soft squishy skin is, but that doesn't mean we can't disagree.

[Samuel Dravis]

There's an interesting part of being human that is usually overlooked - our languages. They're extremely complex and one of the most powerful tools ever used (although tools may not be the right word - language is as much a part of us as humans as claws are for other animals). I say used because people don't usually create their own languages, and even constructed ones like Eperanto are pale imitations of the Real Thing. The capacity to use language is an incredible and wonderfully complex asset that we have, and I know that if I had to I would trade much for it. Perhaps we aren't so badly off after all.

[Ray Jones]

It's a combination of our brain capacity and anatomy of our hands. We are able to make or use tools in a way that other species can't. That enables us to survive in environments not suitable for humans, or to compensate lack of strength, generally to enhance our natural given abilities.

[Arcesious]

Yes, I agree with Ray jones. We lack physical prowess but excell at intelligence. We are 'so smart' that we don't need physical prowess- we can improvise with mroe advanced tools than any other animal can make. Just look at waht we're usign to talk to each other. If we have computers and nukes in World War I, the world woudl certianly be different. Same thing as if we were at the same evolutionary stage we are now if had computers and syuperweapons in the Jurassic period...

[Nedak]

It would be EXTREMELY narcissistic of ourselves to say that we are "flawless".

 

We clearly have many flaws, and our biggest is our intelligence. Our intelligence will eventually lead to our arrogant downfall. While the plants and the animals that have existed here for so long thrive and flourish, we will be dead and once again the animals and plants will take over our cities and live life as if we never existed. However, we will still have our legacy.

 

Nothing lasts forever.

[Ray Jones]

True, but it's something that requires lots of effort and work. Something that would put you at a disadvantage for a significantly long period of time.

That is simply not true, Reinhold Messner, you might know him as the first man who fought the Mount Everest 30 years ago without additional supply of oxygen, has only 3 little toes left, and still can climb mountains. For instance.

 

 

True, though it provides a taller target, tradeoffs and all that.

It is commonly known that taller means "bigger" means "stronger" means "superior" in the animal world. That's why many animals make themselves bigger when they face dangerous situations or have markings that imitate big eyes etc.

[mimartin]

Humans walk upright, putting greater weight and therefore strain on our two legs, and therefore make us more vulnerable to being permanently incapacitated. A dog or cat can still function on 3 legs rather well without any external support, a human however, cannot. Our balance is highly tied to our big toe(I've had them numbed to the point of not feeling them, you basically can't walk).

Watch two dogs fight and then tell me walking upright does not give humans an distant advantage. The dog's first instinct is to go for the other animal’s neck. The vantage point of standing upright gives us the ability to see danger before it is sprung upon us. This allows time to seek a solution, with our intelligence, out of the problem. Second it put the vulnerable head and neck out of reach in the initial attack from most four legged animals allowing us time to fight off the attacker. Standing upright also give us an intimidating presents. What does a bear do to scare off someone or something that has invaded its space? Stand upright?

 

Yes, without a leg we cannot walk, but our intelligence has even overcame that obstacle. Now people that have lost both legs are considered to have an unfair advantage over two legged people. At least when it comes to Olympic sprinters.

[jonathan7]

I think humans are deeply flawed, our inhumanity to one another and our ability to destroy ourselves are what I would site as evidence to that.

 

I say the above and as Ray Jones said;

 

It's a combination of our brain capacity and anatomy of our hands. We are able to make or use tools in a way that other species can't. That enables us to survive in environments not suitable for humans, or to compensate lack of strength, generally to enhance our natural given abilities.

 

It is our brain size + hands = tools = technology that have allowed us to become earths alpha predators. Also, to correct somethign Web Rider, we are excellent pack hunters; unless you can point me to a species with better planning and communication skills than us?

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Humans walk upright, putting greater weight and therefore strain on our two legs, and therefore make us more vulnerable to being permanently incapacitated. A dog or cat can still function on 3 legs rather well without any external support, a human however, cannot. Our balance is highly tied to our big toe(I've had them numbed to the point of not feeling them, you basically can't walk).

 

Because of our upright position, our delishus meats are put forward right on our front, as our jewels. Essentially leaving us vulnerable to a frontal attack, whereas an animal on all fours is mainly vulnerable from the sides(as humans are too) and beneath.

It's actually one of our greatest advantages. Because of our stance, we developed hands and our essential opposing thumbs. That allowed us to build and use tools unlike every other known being before and to this day (the exception being Neanderthal).

 

While it may leave an opening on our balance, that's covered by our tendencies of amassing on groups. Each individual covers the others.

[Eiganjo]

I think with the bigger brain, our body has lost what it needs for "wilderness survival". The human body has pretty well adapted to...sitting. Not only with the humans ability to craft tools, etc..., but also our brains call for laziness (<- which i think is a feeling unique to humans, i have never seen an animal sit around until it is too fat to move for example), comfort and pleasure.

With the human inteligence, our body has come more and more unimportant and unable to adapt. I'd almost call it a backward evolution, whenever I see a guy that seems unable to walk straight=). I guess this happens because there is no need for it anymore either. We pretty much create tools to make up for the functions our body doesn't have or has lost, just so in return we won't ever evolve that way, because we have no need to do so.

...man, i sound negative....well, i like being a lazy sitting bumm=)

[Achilles]

I just thought that I would quickly interject that humans are not the only species to use tools and as such, there is no reason to think that we were the first. No doubt that our opposable thumb and larger brain has made us the best, but we are not unique in this regard. Cheers.

[Q]

Achilles is correct.

 

Off the top of my head, I know that otters use stones to crack open shellfish, and there are other examples of primitive tool usage throughout the animal kingdom.

 

For some reason I'm reminded of 2001: A Space Odyssey where the apes are "instructed" by the monolith on how to start using tools.

 

 

OT: Humans are flawed. Very flawed.

[Arcesious]

Flawed? erhaps in our own perspective. We have various problems in our species, mostly caused by our intelligence. But what will our intellect eventualy lead to, is the question. We cannot truthfully call our intellect a flaw until what our intelligence is capable of leads us to a certain point. Be that destruction of our entire race, or perfection of it. We have many philosophies, theories, and answers to our problems, soem of the more reasonable and logical ones being held mostly by those of our race that are far more 'mentally advanced'.

Our intelligence has bred many diversities in our species, many good, and many harmful. The only true way to make our race flawless is to overcome the diversities bred by our intelligence that are harmful; a hard task, but one that is possible. The only way to that is to force our race to fix themselves- a harsh thing to d that obviously will never happen, and one that I wish we would neve rhave to coem to, but, ultimately, that will be what we have to do. The world needs a mass-revolution, IMO, one of scientific and philosophical truths. The answer of making every human happy is impossible. The only way to balance the world is, by concept, communism. But the onyl way to make all humans happy is Democracy. We cannot have balance and contentment at the same time, is the problem. The true flaws we must overcome are greed, intolerance, and superstition. But, I must admit, I don't have the answer of how to do that.

[Ravnas]

Sweet!! Anarchy FTW In all honesty, I'm not a fan of either system, we haven't evolved as a cooperative species for Communism and for that matter, Democracy is the same anyway. I still think A Constitutional Republic is better than those two, but there are better systems of government(Anarchy )

[Web Rider]

The answer of making every human happy is impossible. The only way to balance the world is, by concept, communism. But the onyl way to make all humans happy is Democracy. We cannot have balance and contentment at the same time, is the problem. The true flaws we must overcome are greed, intolerance, and superstition. But, I must admit, I don't have the answer of how to do that.

 

The irony to overcoming those things with a democratic system is that that system would inevitably lead to communism(the true ideal kinda, not to the Soviet or Chinese kind).

[Nedak]

Achilles is correct.

 

Off the top of my head, I know that otters use stones to crack open shellfish.

 

Aye, as well as various monkeys (Chimps) and Birds (Crows).

 

As well as other animals.

[Darth InSidious]

I just thought that I would quickly interject that humans are not the only species to use tools and as such, there is no reason to think that we were the first. No doubt that our opposable thumb and larger brain has made us the best, but we are not unique in this regard. Cheers.

Indeed. I would not be surprised if proto-human species in fact learned to use tools from other 'non-sentient' species.

 

I do intend to get back to you in the other two threads, btw - it's just been a rather busy week.

 

I think perhaps part of the reason we seem so vulnerable is that we don't use a lot of the hunting/survival instincts that we have. If you really want to, it is perfectly possible for a human to kill a lion with their bare hands...and some luck.

 

We're essentially a predator species that has lost the skills inherent in hunting. Quite simply, farming was a more efficient method of food-gathering (at least in the Nile valley and Mesopotamia). By being more efficient, it also allowed time to do other things than hunt, prepare to hunt, cook food etc. The development of domestication can be seen as an off-shoot of this, and so we let our hunter-gatherer-based skills weaken in favour of skills adapted to the new methods of food production.

 

It's evolution of a sort - and has happened in more recent times, too. After all, it is unlikely that today you could learn by heart an epic such as, say, the Iliad, flawlessly, from start to finish - and yet this was done for recitations in the ancient world. By the same measure, it is doubtful that any ancient thinker, no matter how brilliant, would be able to perform the same variety of complex processes as we do - even if they are perhaps able to perform fewer to a high level.

 

I should warn you that this is something of a summary, rather than a complete/entirely accurate exposition of anthropological thought on my part. Call me a hypocrite if you will.

[Pho3nix]

I agree with the OP. I've always found the human species to be pretty limited physically, intellectually however we dominate.

[Ray Jones]

I just thought that I would quickly interject that humans are not the only species to use tools and as such, there is no reason to think that we were the first. No doubt that our opposable thumb and larger brain has made us the best, but we are not unique in this regard. Cheers.

Absolute no question. I'd even argue against humans being the first species kind of creating tools or making use of them.

[Jason Skywalker]

The fact that we are flawed is what makes us humans. No human being is perfect.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

But the onyl way to make all humans happy is Democracy.

Indeed not.