Appolinaria

there is the attachments section below, when you're posting

I'm just stating the facts. I didn't share my opinion. Why are you assuming I find all of this "evil"? Do you, for some reason, find it evil? Strange. No one ever mentioned that. Assumptions aren't good. Also, why didn't you continue? And other organisms also kill each other, enjoy fucking, getting drunk, etc.

there's no way i'll sit through all that, but lol

The point you seem to be missing is that just because it seems significant to you doesn't mean it's significant to your partner, and a relationship is about sharing and compromising on these needs, not one side making unilateral decisions by fiat.

But there is no denying that for some reason our neural blobs allow us to bypass years of evolution in order to equip ourselves for survival. It is no longer our biological processes that solely keep us alive. There is a whole new ballpark added when a species is able to harness outside sources to take place of biological shortcomings. If the brain keeps evolving I only see our abilities in doing so becoming more effective. To assume that bacteria will have the last laugh is premature, especially when the capabilities of an organism with a more complex brain than ourselves are obviously unknown.

I'm being self centered? You will be sexually attracted to many people in your lifetime. Sexual release isn't hard to accomplish yourself. What would something so insignificant have to do with who I choose to share my entire life with? Sexual partners are dime a dozen. Partners you really respect and love, aren't. And you might not have sexual attraction to someone you love. That's fine by me. That's not important in my life.

I was preoccupied with sex but don't really care about it now and it's made me happier. If you think sex is a key part of a relationship, good for you. Whatever makes you happy.

Once, again, I am not saying we could ever live without bacteria. We couldn't ever live without a lot of things. Does that mean I feel I am not superior, more intelligent, and more complex than an oxygen molecule? Uh, no.

It is. But being able to read this book isn't an instinct, as making a hive is. So I don't see how they can be compared.

So man is no more intelligent than a bee? There is absolutely no notion of higher/lower intelligence in biology? All of our advancements are thanks to instinct, brought on by years and years of natural selection... and has nothing to do with the structure of our brains? Sounds ridiculously wrong.

I agree with you that I am possibly demonstrating an anthropocentric view and I am wrong for thinking so simply. However, I don't see how you can compare years and years of natural selection that have shaped the bees to make hives, to human intelligence. Also, on the anthropocentric thing, thanks. Last time I was another one of those responsible for perpetuating flawed perceptions of race. Something along those lines. I must be a huge idiot. Sorry. Anyway, I am not arguing that humans are the most superior things in the universe. I am arguing that organisms with brains, and intelligence, might also be able to survive a huge disaster as bacteria would.

How is there no superiority? Intelligent life is capable of developing technologies that can ensure it's survival in circumstances where it would otherwise perish. Once larger brains and intelligence are thrown into the mix, nature's scythe is no longer as sharp. How does that not qualify as being superior to other life forms that are completely influenced by the fluctuations of their environment?

In all honesty, get it out of your system. You won't be this pervert who's always wondering. Sex is great and all, but finding someone who stimulates you in other ways is much more satisfying, IMO. You'll be able to appreciate someone for all the right reasons. You won't make the mistake of being blinded by chemistry and sexual attraction. That's not what life is about. Also, the bleeding to death thing is just ridiculous. Calm down.

Why should bacteria try to kill us off? A vast amount have tried. Hence antibiotics, sterilization, septic systems, etc. We can control bacteria and develop antibiotics. I only see our methods improving. Perhaps one day we might even be able to stop mutations altogether. How is it odd to believe humans are superior to bacteria? I think your viewpoint is odd.

Well, we function only by killing other life forms. We recklessly abuse our planet. We go to war with each other. We enjoy drinking, fucking, and maintaining our obesity. At the drop of a hat Mrs. Jones next door will turn into a wild animal if enough of her basic needs are taken away.

We do clearly dominate them if even the worst kinds we've encountered can't kill us off as a species. I never proposed living without bacteria. I proposed that our species currently has enough control over bacteria to survive and our control will only become stronger as time goes on.

That isn't what I meant. What I meant was that our intelligence allows us to control bacteria and also prevent dangerous pathogens from wiping out our species. In time I think we will evolve in intelligence and be able to stop even more diseases. Also, colonize other planets, so our eggs won't all be in one basket, so to speak. So if Earth is wiped out, we can quarantine other planets were on and develop a cure. It is my opinion that we are superior to bacteria.

Bacteria might be able to survive asteroid impacts, but so can species with large brains. They can also overcome bacteria.

Brains > brawn though. Humans ftw.

I would not call reptilian species dominant if they are unable to survive an asteroid impact, which on a grander scale, might be considered a common occurrence on planets with life. Although, I may be wrong. But let's say a planet is more susceptible to asteroids, occurring quite often, then smaller species who don't require as much food or sunlight may survive through each impact and continue to evolve.

Birds don't die because they squawk when attacked. They die perhaps because they have faulty ears and can't hear a predator behind them. I personally don't believe there is much merit to the argument that squawking attracts more predators and therefore, death, as opposed to survival. Let's say a bird does not have the reflex to make a sound, and is able to escape from his single enemy, I'd say it is very likely that; A. He will die shortly after from his wounds. B. His wounds will heal but I.E., make him limp, and an easy target to predators. C. He will heal, with some damage, and be unable to find a mate for his I.E. lack of feathers and sickly appearance. So his genes will not be spread anyway. D. His response of not making a noise when attacked, may also carry into a lack of overall communication when alerting other birds of a predator in the vicinity. He may be excluded from the flock, or die from lack of awareness. This actually may be a disadvantageous trait in the big picture. I think the squawking is completely irrelevant to natural selection, but rather, what got the bird attacked in the first place is what's key. Therefore, it is important to remember that we have vestigial organs. If a trait is not particularly disadvantageous, it may take evolution an extremely long time to weed it out.

Maybe "aerospace medicine" would interest you? Not sure where that would be provided. The reason I bring up "space medicine", or whatever you'd like to call it, is because as of now we are having astronauts return to Earth with unpredicted side-affects... just after a short amount of time in space. I think colonization is a little far-fetched at this moment. I wonder if there are degrees involving this, though. I have no clue.