Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

blakeserene

Rank #23217 on Comments
no avatar Level 0 Comments: Untouched account
Online
Send mail to blakeserene Block blakeserene Invite blakeserene to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 22
Date Signed Up:3/27/2011
Last Login:12/21/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#23217
Highest Comment Rank:#21803
Comment Thumbs: 8 total,  98 ,  90
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 7.27% (4/55)
Level 0 Comments: Untouched account → Level 1 Comments: New Here
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:106
FJ Points:1

latest user's comments

#8 - its a tv show. you can watch the first four seasons on Netflix.  [+] (3 new replies) 12/15/2014 on Heh Archer 0
User avatar #9 - lathyrusvii (12/16/2014) [-]
Are there more than four seasons? << I'm so freaking deprived, bruh.
#10 - tehflamintaco (12/16/2014) [-]
There was a fifth.
User avatar #11 - lathyrusvii (12/16/2014) [-]
D: So deprived. I need more money and power and less shit from people.
#15 - actually if you look closely, she hits him in the back of the… 12/15/2014 on Equal Rights Motherfucker 0
#20 - I never said any of it was good. Just natural. We evolved from… 12/14/2014 on Rekt 0
#17 - I'm not saying we have to ensure everything else goes extinct,…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/14/2014 on Rekt -1
User avatar #18 - hudis (12/14/2014) [-]
I just think it's all so human-centric, which I guess is what it should be in most people's eyes. I do think the grotesque aspects of nature are beautiful, personally. The Niagara Falls bore me but I can see beauty in a pack of wolves taking down a buffalo.

As for living conditions of humans in Africa, I don't care about them more than I care about animals in Africa, to be honest. Especially not when you look at primates like chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas who are so close to us in their emotional capability and understanding of their surroundings. Expanding cities so that humans can live better at the expense of an entire continent's worth of wildlife, I don't see that as more noble than doing the opposite. It's the same thing.

For me the dilemma of it all is mostly the question, "Would this have happened without humans?". No one really has an answer to that. I know a lot of people - particularly people who are proud to be human - would say that of course it would, if it wasn't us it would be another species. And maybe that's true. Or maybe it isn't. There are isolated islands where various species have lived in relative harmony for millions of years, but humans do not work like that. We are conquerors.

Thing is, ultimately I understand that humanity is what is most important. It's even what's most important to me; I know deep within me that my biggest purpose in life is to further on my genes. But that doesn't mean I think it's good. I see no goodness in it. It's a selfish ideal we practice daily at the expense of all other living things on this planet, and that's okay because that's who we are. What I take issue with is people who say it's morally right to expand cities, feed the poor or divert entire rivers for energy. It's not, because it's always at the expense of something else - but, as I said, it's who we are and who we will always be.

(Sorry if this is a bit messy, I am rather tired.)
#20 - blakeserene (12/14/2014) [-]
I never said any of it was good. Just natural. We evolved from prey to become a pack oriented predator. And hardwired into us is the notion that if we don't strike first, if something isn't done right this very instant we will be hit before we have a chance to retaliate. So we conquer everything, trample it so it never has a chance to rise up and harm us. It's almost like a biological memory of our ancestors being hunted down and killed, almost like our genes hold a grudge against everything that wronged us and swore not just vengeance but total annihilation of anything that could dare to raise it's hand against us. We put ourselves first because, in the end, we are really just prey. Prey that beat the odds and through intellect and tool making ascended to the pinnacle seat on earth.

It's it good? No. I would never say that this particular aspect of human nature is good. But it is nature.

As far as creatures go, we can be some of the most grotesque beings alive, killing each other for ideologies. But without us, the universe seems kind of pointless and dead. And maybe there would have been another species to rise up and fill our place. And I will stand by the point that sentient beings take priority. Without them to give meaning to the universe, it has no inherent meaning.

It doesn't give us free reign to senselessly slaughter for no reason than to simply kill (think big game hunting), but if humanity requires more resources or land to tide itself over until such time as we are no longer limited to the resource budget of a single planet, then other species have to take a back seat.

That being said, humanity's current top priority is to expand into space and other planets, for a lot of reasons, one of which is to reduce the strain we're putting on our home planet's ecosystem, and preserve what we can of it's biodiversity. Until then though, other species will have to hang on until then.
#14 - Hate to say it but that's how nature works. The best survive a…  [+] (4 new replies) 12/14/2014 on Rekt -1
User avatar #15 - hudis (12/14/2014) [-]
I'm well aware of that, but that doesn't mean we have to make sure lions go extinct within 25 years (which they will at current rates - they were 100,000 in 1990, under 20,000 in 2012) just because we want to keep expanding African cities. That's what makes me a bit sad, because while it's perfectly natural (I mean, what isn't? Everything is natural), there is no redeeming factor in it. It's just cold, hard expansion at the expense of all other significant species on this planet. I know that that's pretty much what will have to be done for our survival, eventually, but it doesn't make me think it's right.

Environments where predators hunt and prey are hunted, where prey become predators when their prey is smaller, etc, that's beautiful. It's beautiful when you can look at a species and then look at some bones from millions of years ago and say, "Hey, I think this is almost the same animal". An environment where humans are dominant beyond compare, utterly ruthless in our expansion and extinction of other species, though? That's not beautiful. It's natural, but I don't like it.

The reason I say it's just too multifaceted to care is that on the one hand we have our traditional view of natural nature, i.e. an eternal circle of life with very little complete extinction or complete domination of species, while on the other we have the survival of our own species, a species that does not need other predators and are well within our ability to kill them all should we want to. I don't know what to think or feel about it, because for one I don't think life is sacred or that nature is eternal, and secondly I fail to see a reason why humanity -should- bring about the extinction of so many other amazing animals, even if we can.
#17 - blakeserene (12/14/2014) [-]
I'm not saying we have to ensure everything else goes extinct, but I am saying there's no reason to try and prevent it. We tried with pandas and look what happened. The entire species can't even be bothered to continue surviving. And honestly, I think extinction might be preferable to the alternative which is life in captivity, which is what it boils down to. Call it a nature preserve, call it a national forest, call it a zoo; it's captivity. And there's nothing beautiful about that. And if the only argument is because it "looks beautiful" consider the fact that predators have been know to eat injured creatures without even killing them. Fascinating maybe, but beautiful? That's a stretch. Nature (and by nature I mean animals, plants, the "living" aspect) IS fascinating, but it's far too grotesque to be beautiful. The geographical features of earth (Niagara falls, Grand Canyon) are beautiful. Boring and unchanging but beautiful mainly because they don't eat animals starting from the guts while they're still alive.

As for their being no redeeming factor, there is; the improvement of living conditions of humans in Africa. And in my opinion, the only significant species on this planet are human beings, their domesticated crops and animals, and the handful of other species that display near sentient capabilities. Are other species elegant and will they be missed? Yes. Are they significant in any respect except in what studying them can yield to human kind? No.

About the best you can hope for is the creation of a zoo world, in which humans terraform a planet specifically to accommodate lesser species who simply can't compete with a sentient race like humans.

Also, there's another quote I always enjoyed but can't find or remember perfectly. It goes along the lines of, without humans (or another sentient species) to contemplate the universe and its place within the universe, the universe for all intents and purposes doesn't even exist.
User avatar #18 - hudis (12/14/2014) [-]
I just think it's all so human-centric, which I guess is what it should be in most people's eyes. I do think the grotesque aspects of nature are beautiful, personally. The Niagara Falls bore me but I can see beauty in a pack of wolves taking down a buffalo.

As for living conditions of humans in Africa, I don't care about them more than I care about animals in Africa, to be honest. Especially not when you look at primates like chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas who are so close to us in their emotional capability and understanding of their surroundings. Expanding cities so that humans can live better at the expense of an entire continent's worth of wildlife, I don't see that as more noble than doing the opposite. It's the same thing.

For me the dilemma of it all is mostly the question, "Would this have happened without humans?". No one really has an answer to that. I know a lot of people - particularly people who are proud to be human - would say that of course it would, if it wasn't us it would be another species. And maybe that's true. Or maybe it isn't. There are isolated islands where various species have lived in relative harmony for millions of years, but humans do not work like that. We are conquerors.

Thing is, ultimately I understand that humanity is what is most important. It's even what's most important to me; I know deep within me that my biggest purpose in life is to further on my genes. But that doesn't mean I think it's good. I see no goodness in it. It's a selfish ideal we practice daily at the expense of all other living things on this planet, and that's okay because that's who we are. What I take issue with is people who say it's morally right to expand cities, feed the poor or divert entire rivers for energy. It's not, because it's always at the expense of something else - but, as I said, it's who we are and who we will always be.

(Sorry if this is a bit messy, I am rather tired.)
#20 - blakeserene (12/14/2014) [-]
I never said any of it was good. Just natural. We evolved from prey to become a pack oriented predator. And hardwired into us is the notion that if we don't strike first, if something isn't done right this very instant we will be hit before we have a chance to retaliate. So we conquer everything, trample it so it never has a chance to rise up and harm us. It's almost like a biological memory of our ancestors being hunted down and killed, almost like our genes hold a grudge against everything that wronged us and swore not just vengeance but total annihilation of anything that could dare to raise it's hand against us. We put ourselves first because, in the end, we are really just prey. Prey that beat the odds and through intellect and tool making ascended to the pinnacle seat on earth.

It's it good? No. I would never say that this particular aspect of human nature is good. But it is nature.

As far as creatures go, we can be some of the most grotesque beings alive, killing each other for ideologies. But without us, the universe seems kind of pointless and dead. And maybe there would have been another species to rise up and fill our place. And I will stand by the point that sentient beings take priority. Without them to give meaning to the universe, it has no inherent meaning.

It doesn't give us free reign to senselessly slaughter for no reason than to simply kill (think big game hunting), but if humanity requires more resources or land to tide itself over until such time as we are no longer limited to the resource budget of a single planet, then other species have to take a back seat.

That being said, humanity's current top priority is to expand into space and other planets, for a lot of reasons, one of which is to reduce the strain we're putting on our home planet's ecosystem, and preserve what we can of it's biodiversity. Until then though, other species will have to hang on until then.
#19 - The problem with that is that genes interact with one another,… 12/14/2014 on It's a kind of Magic 0
#198 - The lungs are self cleaning. That's where phlegm comes from. I… 12/10/2014 on Facts 0
#220 - Anon, go home, you're drunk. And no one cares about your opini… 12/10/2014 on Renewable Power is the way... +1
#166 - People are always going to cut corners, especially when you co…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/10/2014 on Renewable Power is the way... +1
#172 - anonymous (12/10/2014) [-]
ok, then go and breathe your ashes. We will live in a more clean environment.

but don't you ever beg to come back with your cancer-filled kids or whatever. You chose your destiny.
#220 - blakeserene (12/10/2014) [-]
Anon, go home, you're drunk. And no one cares about your opinion. Sign in and maybe you'll get the red thumbs you want.
#150 - Coal and oil don't make vast swathes of land neigh inhabitable…  [+] (4 new replies) 12/10/2014 on Renewable Power is the way... +1
User avatar #153 - sketchysketchist (12/10/2014) [-]
True about nuclear energy, but the thing is, it hardly fucks up when the people in charge of it make sure everything is up to date and safe.
So far, every incident goes back to stupid cunts cutting corners and risking the destruction of the surrounding area.

Coal and oil do fuck shit up though. Oil spills happen and I'm not sure, but I think coal does damage to our oxygen or some shit. (I'm kinda ignorant on the subject, but I sort of know some things. Correct me if I'm wrong. )

Yes, but electricity is dangerous. And the only reason we don't mess with nuclear energy is because it's dangerous.
So we shouldn't mess with it at all.
#166 - blakeserene (12/10/2014) [-]
People are always going to cut corners, especially when you consider that the whole point of big business is to make profits, and that includes cutting corners they deem unnecessary. And yeah oil spills happen, but clean up efforts take a few years tops. Chernobyl is still being cleaned up, and it will take generations of people to fully cleanse the area. And nuclear radiation from Fukishima will be circulating in the ocean for just as long. Its not that nuclear energy isn't efficient, but even half a dozen fuck ups like Chernobyl will leave us with an eco disaster that makes oil spills and coal greenhouse gas production seem insignificant
#172 - anonymous (12/10/2014) [-]
ok, then go and breathe your ashes. We will live in a more clean environment.

but don't you ever beg to come back with your cancer-filled kids or whatever. You chose your destiny.
#220 - blakeserene (12/10/2014) [-]
Anon, go home, you're drunk. And no one cares about your opinion. Sign in and maybe you'll get the red thumbs you want.
[ 105 Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2350

Comments(0):

blakeserene has disabled anonymous comments.
 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
No comments!
 
 Friends (0)