Shopping & Style4 mins ago
Why Are Humans So Fallible?
29 Answers
Humans are the bull in every china shop, the off-center bubble on every level, the mystery behind every hidden agenda, and the blunt instrument whenever a precision tool is called for.
We are both our greatest heroes and our most feared enemies. We are praised for our accomplishments and castigated for our failures.
Of all species on planet earth, humans are the least predictable, most destructive, require the longest nurturing period, and consume the most food. At the same time, we are also the most curious, most aware, most innovative, and the most likely to waste countless hours in pursuit of entertainment. We may have better developed brains than all the other animals, but that doesn’t explain why we are so unbelievable fallible?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by xenoblast. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Consume the most food ? Not individually. Ought not be criticised for being successful.
Humans evolved in a constantly changing environment, rather than were designed for a stable environment, so little expectation of fitting your definition of infallible. And given they evolve by introduction of errors and the fact that some turn out to be improvements; lack of perfection is part of the system.
Then consider how complicated a living creature is, how can one not expect flaws as the norm ?
Then there is the changing dominant view on what is right/acceptable and what not. And the differing views that exist at the same time.
Plus why should one accept your claims anyway. How do you know that humans are least predictable, most destructive, most curious, most aware, most innovative from your humancentric viewpoint ? One knows we have a higher intelligence level than most, but we have little knowledge of other species and no real idea how they see/understand the world using their senses.
Humans evolved in a constantly changing environment, rather than were designed for a stable environment, so little expectation of fitting your definition of infallible. And given they evolve by introduction of errors and the fact that some turn out to be improvements; lack of perfection is part of the system.
Then consider how complicated a living creature is, how can one not expect flaws as the norm ?
Then there is the changing dominant view on what is right/acceptable and what not. And the differing views that exist at the same time.
Plus why should one accept your claims anyway. How do you know that humans are least predictable, most destructive, most curious, most aware, most innovative from your humancentric viewpoint ? One knows we have a higher intelligence level than most, but we have little knowledge of other species and no real idea how they see/understand the world using their senses.
Bodyweight for body weight, I believe that birds consume more food than people (also I think shrews?) and I am sure a human doesn't eat as much food by weight as an elephant does. What makes you say that humans are "unbelievably" fallible? "We are both our greatest heroes and our most feared enemies" Well some of us may be but I am neither a hero not an enemy...and of course we are praised for achievement and castigated for failure! In fact I have NO idea what you are banging on about.
My comment is coloured by my failure to control. My weight, therefore fallible in the face of Mrs T's cooking.
But one aspect to throw into the mix, is our readiness to follow the party line, in science, religion, politics, medicine, to name just a few.
We put too much trust in so called experts, and so often swallow everything they say hook line and sinker.
So a failure to think for ourselves makes us fallible.
Here is an example. Evolution. Get down and dirty and rip the subject to bits, disregarding the experts, and see what happens when you shrug off your fallibility, and refuse to accept the authorised versions of the scientific establishment.
But one aspect to throw into the mix, is our readiness to follow the party line, in science, religion, politics, medicine, to name just a few.
We put too much trust in so called experts, and so often swallow everything they say hook line and sinker.
So a failure to think for ourselves makes us fallible.
Here is an example. Evolution. Get down and dirty and rip the subject to bits, disregarding the experts, and see what happens when you shrug off your fallibility, and refuse to accept the authorised versions of the scientific establishment.
Apologies. My question was not based on my personal conclusions. The words were taken from a publication by Thomas Frey, Epiphany Z. I should have acknowledged the author. The question was aimed at providing different viewpoints for discussion. I was under the misguided impression (based on some juvenile answers) this was a serious adult Q&A site.
xenoblast, This from Amazon:
//"Epiphany Z" is Futurist Thomas Frey’s dynamic approach to envisioning, comprehending, and ultimately thriving in the radically different futures emerging around us at the speed of light.
Frey’s unparalleled ability to detect emerging trends from the smallest of clues gives him an edge on other futurists. Now he’s sharing that edge with you.//
Having read that I'm not sure what your question is - or where you're going with it.
//"Epiphany Z" is Futurist Thomas Frey’s dynamic approach to envisioning, comprehending, and ultimately thriving in the radically different futures emerging around us at the speed of light.
Frey’s unparalleled ability to detect emerging trends from the smallest of clues gives him an edge on other futurists. Now he’s sharing that edge with you.//
Having read that I'm not sure what your question is - or where you're going with it.
Thomas Frey is a controversial character.
https:/
I’ll leave others to promote his works – if that’s what they want to do.
https:/
I’ll leave others to promote his works – if that’s what they want to do.
Naomi, Indeed Frey is controversial, though how you conclude this, using 'Amazon' and a 'gutter press' link, is disappointing. I prefer more academic publications to evaluate the integrity, or not, of a published author and their opinions.
You conclude that to question someones opinion is to promote it. None of my posts were promoting the opinions of Frey, merely quoting his assumptions to encourage both negative and positive replies.
The replies of 'can fat people answer this?' and ' I have no idea what are you banging on about?' are not particularly helpful and I would hope not encouraged on what is supposed to be a Q&A site.
You conclude that to question someones opinion is to promote it. None of my posts were promoting the opinions of Frey, merely quoting his assumptions to encourage both negative and positive replies.
The replies of 'can fat people answer this?' and ' I have no idea what are you banging on about?' are not particularly helpful and I would hope not encouraged on what is supposed to be a Q&A site.
Latest Posts
Crosswords6 mins ago
Crosswords15 mins ago
ChatterBank28 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.