Has modern man advanced too much?
Debate Rounds (3)
I would have loved it if we were simple creatures (like deer or rabbits... Or cows even) just walking around and eating. We wouldn't have to worry about the big matters that we have brought amongst ourselves.
Just want to know your opinions :)
I accept this challenge, and I will be arguing the side that the modern man has not advanced too much. I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic and look forward to his arguments in the next round.
I would like to remind my opponent that as Pro, he holds the burden of proof for this debate. As for his 'arguments', I will refute them here.
What would you rather be, a butterfly flying about with nothing to care about or a Human that is scared about leaving their home or being brainwashed by other evil people?
How does this question even hold relevance to the proposition? If anything, it is only a red herring and deviates from the question at hand. I honestly have no answer to this question, as I am not a big fan of metaphysical nonsense. Addressing the question itself, however, I can state with certainty that the claim that 'humans are afraid of leaving their homes' is utterly absurd. Consider Times Square in New York City for example. Times Square sees a pedestrian count of approximately 460,000 people every day (1). Clearly this shows that humans are anything but afraid of leaving their homes, as a great many number of people leave their homes every day.
Despite lacking the burden of proof, I will provide one argument of my own.
My argument is that there is no limit to the amount the modern man can advance and therefore has not advanced too much. I would like to begin by defining advance (2):
: to move forward
However, these are just the unfortunate byproducts of our achieving higher levels of intelligence and development, not an indicator of too much development. As my opponent references evolution in his statement, I will address it with the assumption that my opponent is a believer in the concept of evolution. One of the main tenets of evolution is that species evolve and adapt to fulfill a certain niche in society. As a result of our evolution (be it genetically or simply intellectually), we (as a species) have accumulated greater intellect in order to support our species and ourselves. We can inevitably expect this higher state of intellectual development to be misused by certain people, such as the terrorists my opponent mentioned. My opponent also stated that he would prefer if
we were simple creatures, such as cows, that spend their time walking around and eating
However, animals such as cows are subject to the same vicissitudes of nature as humans are, and are even known to attack and kill humans (no joke; cows kill an average of 22 Americans per year (5)). Simply stating that cows are less advanced than humans does not justify that statement, and the statistics of cow attacks show that other animals aside from humans are indeed capable of misusing the fruits of their advancement, yet this does not undermine the advancement itself.
I have in sources or anything, this is just my opinion - I'm a newb to Debate.org btw.
My opponent stated in his argument that he "would rather be a simple life form which hasn't got anything to Care about".
First off, I would like to point out that the term 'simple life form' is a bit of a misnomer, as it is in the definition of life that life is complex . The only thing perhaps simple enough to be called a 'simple life form' would be microorganisms, and I assure you all that being a single-celled bacterium cannot be a very pleasurable existence. Beyond this, however, who are we to relegate another species as a "[lower] life form which hasn't got anything to care about"? Who defines the strata between various species? Are animals really less 'complex' than human beings are?
Animal societies are in fact very complex, as studies show . For example, all animals perform cost-benefit analysis, a primary tenet of human nature. This is what drives group living and leads to the formation of insect colonies with hundreds to millions of workers surrounding a central breeding female. These colonies are considered eusocial groups, and are defined with a few key tenets, such as:
1. Cooperative care of young
2. Overlapping generations (i.e. coexistence of parents and offspring)
3. Reproductive division of labor (often resulting in caste development)
Sound familiar? These tenets, which are perfectly applicable to our own species, exist within millions of insect communities around the globe. Clearly, other life forms certainly have something to care about. From a biological standpoint, animals can be considered to be just as 'complex' as humans, if perhaps less developed technologically.
My opponent also stated that "we were once like this but then started evolving and advancing technologically and lost our real sense of animalism".
Sure, in the years since the time of the cro-magnons we may have lost our connection to nature, but I must ask, is this truly a bad thing? As I stated in the previous round, progress and development is always for the better, despite the consequences it may have. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes described the lives of humans in the seventeenth century CE as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" .
Is this really what we want to lead a regression to? I concede that technological development can be detrimental to society, but one cannot help but agree that life quality is far superior today than it was five hundred years ago. Development can never be inmical in nature, it can only lead to some negative consequences (which, as I proved last round, are negligible compared to the benefits).
As my opponent did not attack my previous arguments, I extend them all. I would like to thank my opponent for an excellent and invigorating debate, and wish him best of luck during the voting period and in his future debating career on DDO. VOTE CON!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Well, the debate seemed quite one-sided. Pro--makes sure you answer all of Con's points, or else they count for Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.