Originally posted by WoodgieYes, you're wrong in thinking that. But more to the point, the problem lies in what I think you mean by "evolved".
My apologies for the delay in asking the question 😉
Am I wrong in thinking our behaviour as humans should have evolved as exponentially as our technical ability?
Originally posted by Woodgie"Should" implies a subjective moral judgement. On my personal moral yardstick though, I certainly agree with you.
My apologies for the delay in asking the question 😉
Am I wrong in thinking our behaviour as humans should have evolved as exponentially as our technical ability?
My point goes even further than that, though. Even before our technical ability was developed we were already a different species and, therefore, had already a different genetical conditionment for our behaviour. Add on top of this cultural elements and the case for comparisons with behaviours of other species can be seen to be very weak indeed.
Now, you see how the question "Did you ever stop to think about the implications of us being a different SPECIES from rabbits?" arises naturally.
One should not entertain lines of thought that link animal behaviour to expected human behaviour. This was my point. I know you were arguing for differentiation of behaviour, yet you were arguing on the grounds of the same mistake.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyGranny's Not human, and she kills for amusement all the time.
Interesting that all members of the animal kingdom (species without
a soul/its life is in its blood) kill for food and to protect their turf...
never driven by hatred or for the sake of amusement or sport. -gb
F.GRANNY.
Originally posted by WoodgieSonny, I can tell you that at least 99% of the forummers here wouldn't know a neuron if they ever saw one.
I have no argument with your response to my question.
And your comment to the previous poster above is the point I am trying to make but struggling to find the right words.
And that, my friend, is a FACT.