- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
No. Because vyshcherbina-that from what round ideal?) Развив We are developing, we could have stayed so pre-drunk, but go on. We think, we ask questions about inferiority. This is already hoo-hoo in comparison… Just think: the Olduvai culture, according to the Wiki, originated 2.7 million years ago and disappeared about 1 million years ago. For a million and another seven hundred THOUSAND (!!) years there was the same material culture. Generation after generation, generation after generation, generation after generation… Well, nothing changed at all for “only” a million years, but then some innovations appeared… slightly and slowly.�
And here in my conscious memory, over the past 45 YEARS, what changes have taken place. This is fucking awesome. And very interesting.�
..I read a month ago in Spencer Wells ' The Genetic Odyssey of Man that RACES appeared about 30,000 years ago! Not a typo: about thirty thousand years ago. Before that, people everywhere looked about the same. – In general, the events are boiling with shit!.. What kind of inferiority is there))
To define something as “flawed”, we must have several” non-flawed ” samples of the same thing. But we don't have a few more human beings to compare.
In order to answer this question, it is necessary to imagine a humanity that would have a number of characteristics that would allow us to say that it is not flawed.
But at the same time, we do not see the inferiority of the existing humanity. We only see behavior that we interpret as flawed. Therefore, to say that humanity is flawed is somewhat short-sighted. In fact, how do we know if it's flawed or not?
On the other hand, if you still imagine a different humanity, I personally (since you are interested in personal opinion) would not be able to do this.
And it's hard to imagine the whole of humanity…
And finally, what does flawed mean? After all, this is not a universal concept – it is dictated by your attitudes, beliefs and your opinion, usually biased.
I try not to use the word flawed, because there is absolutely nothing behind this word, except for the internal conditionings of the person who uses it.
In general, I don't think anything.
I wish you success and all the best in life without any hard feelings!
There is no single ” humanity “that is somehow” flawed ” or not. Yes ,and “inferiority” – it is not clear what it is about. From whose point of view? For what purposes and tasks? Who is authorized to assess this “inferiority”? What criteria should they follow? And if someone is authorized, is he / she flawed or not?
I think that whatever criterion you take, but in the composition of humanity (i.e., on the set of all people), you can choose the part that is flawed and that is not flawed. Even if the” flawed “ones are the overwhelming majority, and the” not flawed ” ones are the overwhelming minority… They should not care about all the others, flawed and miserable, the main thing that is-they. Then humanity has a chance. Yes, even if there was at least one worthy representative of humanity… Here – as in the team competition, the result is counted according to the best.
Another question is whether humanity is organized in such a way that only the most worthy (healthy, not defective, reasonable, brilliant) representatives of humanity will receive any advantages, so that their descendants would form the basis of humanity in the future? And even if it doesn't, that is, it doesn't exist now, or it doesn't exist in this particular country, or in countries with dominant cultural traditions…Well, there are no such conditions. But will this state of affairs continue forever? That is, even if at some time in the future (not now), some negligible part of humanity will realize its mission and arrange everything in such a way that it will determine the future of human civilization… Then humanity has a chance for progressive evolution, for development. What will be this path? Introduction of scientific eugenics (artificial selection)? Or transhumanism, the fusion of man and machine? Or a combination of both? Or some other third way? Fourth, fifth, tenth… And if at least one of these paths gives a result, then this will be it.
That is, humanity has a chance to be, to become, to be – not flawed. And while this chance exists, it cannot be called definitely flawed. But. There is a chance to lose this chance:
a) to die or self-destruct as a result of a disaster: military, environmental, man-made, etc.
b) enter a stable state of inferiority, in which any spontaneous sprouts of non – existence are guaranteed to be cleared, and they have no chances (this system constantly reproduces itself and turns out to be absolutely stable)
The answer on the surface is continuous catastrophes and wars, gross mistakes and sins – the face of a” very successful ” degrading humanity. The quality and safety of life is lower than the baseboard.
HOWEVER, this degradation can and should be cured by replacing very bad rules of the game of life with good rules.
History has long given a firm answer –
civilization is on the edge of a precipice/doom and the chances of survival are microscopic –
this is all not from a great mind and high culture.
Humanity does not climb out of an endless series of systematic catastrophes and tragedies, super-mistakes and super-stupidities…. and stands on the very edge of the abyss called “the last super-catastrophe”…
Humanity is not flawed, it is what it is, as an object of nature. People are used to evaluating everything from the point of view of their own benefit. And for nature, all its parts are equivalent and equivalent
And who will we compare it with? It is easy to compare with smart concepts, but there are no real such societies, so we are the best that humanity is capable of, and then evolution will show whether this is a dead end or a new round.
Which ones were created and it is not up to us to choose and refute. But there is still a comparison. The Atlanteans ended up being removed, went against the will of the creators, they did not have such problems with their consciousnesses(restrictions), we were already limited ,as you say in inferiority, not to repeat the past, because they need artificially created things not for our sake, but for themselves, that is, the creators. Our world is artificially created and we are also bio-robots in it, which is why they hide literally everything from us. What we are being leaked is that according to the artificial world, life is movement, and the movement created in the consciousness(artificial) before is transmitted to the body of the biorobot and in the artificial environment an imitation occurs, type o in reality, which differs from the cosmos very much, that the same is carefully hidden from us, but the garbage of information in the minds is hung cooler than a Christmas tree.
If you consider everything that happens to be flawed, then it is no more flawed than a three-year-old child who has crawled into all the dirty puddles on the road.
I think the bright side is still ahead.
Humanity is more flawed than man. A person can be a saint, but humanity is not because of its diversity – there will always be both greedy and mean…
You can become kind, sympathetic, and others can't, because there will always be angry and callous ones.
Please note that we are talking about modern humanity. We don't know what it will be like in the future. Get better, and all of humanity will get better with you.
No. In addition to the absence of explicit criteria for identifying inferiority by comparison (we are the only intelligence in the known part of the universe, and we do not know what a “non — inferiority” intelligent life should look like), humanity is not deficient either in purely biological parameters (it has created an ecological niche for itself, modifies it itself, and successfully develops in it), or in parameters denoting degeneration, stagnation (neither man nor society degrades from the best models to the worst, but on the contrary — slowly, with errors, but develops). For example, you can choose any industry, for example, watch training videos on YouTube dedicated to painting. What until a few centuries ago was considered from a technical point of view the highest skill and the lot of geniuses, is now easily and easily reproduced by thousands of “ordinary” people. The same applies to engineering, music, agriculture — all things that have been freed to the proper extent from the ideas of “fate”, “chosen”, “higher forces” and have thus become directly dependent on the instrumental skills of a reasonable person. There is no doubt that the same fate awaits politics and economics, the cornerstones of human society. And in the future, if we do not allow ourselves to be destroyed by some catastrophe, humanity will certainly become a super-civilization.
Humanity cannot be flawed by definition, because the progress of humanity is obvious, both technologically and morally. The world does not stand still, humanity is developing. Besides, a flawed society simply wouldn't survive.
The possibilities of humanity are made up of the possibilities of individual people, each….. Naturally, each person is limited and dependent, so it's too early for humanity to hope for too high an assessment, but this is not all, because the more you learn,the more the horizons of opportunities expand.
I think that now people have lost a lot in physical form (relative to their ancestors), but they have gained a lot in the communication sphere, which in turn leads to interest and physical data growth again. So humanity still has a long way to go, if desired.
Would you like to read the definition of inferiority?:) compared to what to compare?
It seems to me that it is impossible to give a definite answer here, whether humanity is flawed or successful. We are just one of many biological species. We are used to putting our species on the podium, as if we are the best. But no matter how smart people are, we are still animals.
It seems to me that you call this humanity because you expected more from it and your expectations were not confirmed. The world is not all as we would like it to be. The world won't play by your rules. And if it does, then it must be achieved. But that's all, it's already a departure from the topic 🙂
You can only be flawed in comparison to someone/something.
Imho, humanity as a whole is certainly not flawed. But as in any group, there is a small number of flawed ones. As well as a small number of people who are more developed than everyone else. The majority is the middle between these extremes, the middle is called the norm
Good day to you!
Humanity cannot be flawed, because, according to the Bible, man was created by the creator in the image and likeness. How can a creator be flawed?
But people are flawed, because according to the same Bible, they were created by the Lord not in the image and likeness, but as it is not clear who, but definitely not having the characteristics of the Lord. I.e., the lord created an illiquid, flawed product.
We, who now live on earth-people (because we are descendants of Adam and Eve, those illiquid first people), we are not humanity.
Intelligent animal-these two words contradict each other and prevent you from answering the question one-sidedly.
We are characterized by sensory cognition, we are capable of strong and, indeed, beautiful emotions, we create warmth, we give warmth, we are able to understand and sacrifice.�
But then the instincts wake up and put an end to all of the above. It is enough to open history textbooks or a news feed to understand what a person does with their own hands. We will not see much good, this is the same spoonful of honey in a barrel of blood. Man, a selfish creature by nature, is not averse to exterminating his own kind from time to time, and the rest of the planet is not worth talking about.
Are we causing damage? Few people will answer “no”. Would it be worse without us? Few people will answer “yes”.
But evolution hasn't asked us whether we want to exist, either. That's such a weak excuse. Although in general and at the moment, humanity is flawed, of course. But that doesn't mean you can't try to create peace around your life.