What if the last woman is a lesbian?magma wrote:There's a big difference between killing and out-surviving.rickyarbino wrote:I see what you're saying but if we won't ever stop being able to die, and since there's always going to be cause for someone to die, what would be the point of us being the animals that continued to exist?magma wrote:Pretty sure it's all opinion when you're trying to predict a hypothetical future.
All I'm saying is that humans have been through an awful lot. I think people mistake the end of civilisation for extinction, tbh... civilisation is always a precarious thing. Civilisation has only been here for less than 5% of the human species, though - and our species has been through almost everything the Earth's climate can throw at it. It is far stronger and more intelligent than a lot of people give it credit for. That's why we're here and all the other bipedal primates are extinct.
We're pretty fucking neat, man.
It's a bit peak if you think about it, "we're special because we killed everyone else"? Like I'm just a killing machine, I don't really see it.
Extinction's just a part of it all.
For example, there's no real evidence that we exterminated Neanderthal man (a larger and more intelligent animal than us) - it's just as likely that they died out because they needed more nutrition than they could gather in an ice age. We were more efficient and banded together in larger groups, so we survived.
There isn't any "point" to any species evolving, surviving or going extinct, but that's a very different conversation.
Individuals can some ten million ways to die... but as I said, survival of the species only takes TWO to find a reason to live.
More seriously, I don't think the distinction you're making is appropriate because, as their main competitors, our survival came at their cost. Also doesn't make sense that we survived by increasing nutritional needs as a whole.