New Hypothesis

If the human race began with the same morals and thought processes it has today, would it exist anymore?

Or to put it another way, if Windy was put on an Island to survive using only current "theories" on survival, would he living very long?

I say no to both.

 

yes it would survive

i'm sure windy could pontificate to melon's all day too so yes he'd survive too

 

I'd say yes to the first because (as we're in the middle of proving) our morals and thought processes are much the same as ever.

If the island's Ibiza I'll give meself a month tops.

 

Ooh me sides.

Have you heard "The times they are a changin'"?

There's a good couple of lines in there for you.

 

may be he's trying to entice you

to the Isle of Wight to see how long you survive without him dry rooting you

 

elaborate

 

I believe the human race has been close to being wiped out on many occassions and science has helped it to survive. The same kind of research that you're denying still has its use.

 

when has it come close to being wiped out?

ebola?
1918-1920 flu epidemic?

 

Ok, give us an example and I'll go along with that. Can't see the relevance though unless you're claiming that a cessation of experiments on animals would endanger the future survival of the human race.

Even if it would and, regardless of all this fudging, the question and conclusions remain the same.

 

RE: when has it come close to being wiped out?

There have been so many viruses that could have wiped us out without us understanding how they spread and knowing how to isolate them, avoid them or treat them. I guess Sars (sp) is the most recent example, but there have been many before and there will be many more to follow. Chicken flu is the latest worry in Europe, but Germany and Holland are dealing with it early. Currently the UK are up against people saying "but it's cruel and illegal to move a free range chicken indoors" Hurrah for those folk.

 

Regular

Posts: 56


(82.144.225.29) If the human race began with the same morals and thought processes it has today, would it exist anymore?

Or to put it another way, if Windy was put on an Island to survive using only current "theories" on survival, would he living very long?

I say no to both.

 

Okay then, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Sadly we cannot prove, disprove or realistically argue a hypothesis, but you keep wanting to.

The human race has created its own destiny, we generally don't know what the hell we're doing. Everything we do changes the shape of the future and changes the challenges we face. Tobacco grows naturally, so it must be fine to burn and inhale......ahh bugger.

But I'll agree with Jay 100% on the power of might thing. If I could have stopped my mum dying at the age of 48 after a long battle with cancer, I'd have killed animals to avoid it, I wouldn't have killed other people though.

 

Blimey Acky, I agree.

 

In my opinion

The human race is already too large and highly damaging to our ecosystems. We depend upon our climate and other species, both of which are at risk of drastic changes which will then have vast impacts upon ourselves.

As a result I don't necessarily think that we should continue to try and maximise human lifespans, numbers and wealth.

 

heh

DOH! Ahh ****, sorry messed that copy and paste up!

In short, humans are incredibly adaptive, social creatures who wouldnt have got us this far had they not had a moral code which meant they had to co-operate to a large extent. We're no different now although sadly society does seem to be increasingly 'every man for himself'. Still, humans these days despite living in places in the world which are full of violence, killing and starvation still retain their sense of morality and unity along with a basic understanding of what is right and wrong.

Answering your question with a yes or no is hard though!

 

RE: In my opinion

You're right but the sad thing is, quite often it can be a result of our morals. Should we stop aid and medicine to third world countries because of natural selection? Of course we shouldn't.

We're expanding quicker then we can cope, but what do you seriously suggest we do about it?

 

The solution is easy

Bum sex

 

Fine. You believe might is right. Took a bit of shaking out of you but we got there in the end.

As for "prove, disprove or realistically argue a hypothesis," I'm not sure what you're trying to say. A hypothesis exists independently of the question and, regardless of which way the deabte goes, has to remain unaltered. You're the one having trouble with that principle not me cocker.

 

Ah

The theory of the NHS engineering its own downfall.

Apparently we're begining to see the first signs.

What's tha reckon Ali?

 

BTW a hypothesis is a thoery, an idea, not a question.

You never proposed a theory, but merely asked a question, and that could never be described as a hypothesis.