-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Back To The Basics
- Thread starter Salty Booger
- Start date
What one needs is dependent on the goal. Needs for survival is different than needs for good health or happiness or success at a task. Even with survival, needs will be different in the short or long term and depending on various other factors. Survival either short term or long term for a healthy young person will be different than an elderly person or person who relies on medication(s).
Basically, there is no one size fits all answer tothe question, imo.
Basically, there is no one size fits all answer tothe question, imo.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Three pages in and nobody has mentioned Maslow's hierarchy of needs?
Or sex - pretty short life for a species without such.
Done that... oh...
I think it routinely escapes most of us that we're social animals. Don't know why that never seems to fully sink in, but it doesn't. Maybe it doesn't because we come from a culture that in so many ways denies some of the most profound implications of the fact we are social animals. But who really knows?
I believe you're spot on about that. I'd even take it a few steps further and point to such things as the evidence that suggests our brains evolved precisely so that we could better deal with living in ever larger groups of humans. If that evidence pans out, the implications are enormous.
Heyo
Veteran Member
I find this graphic more interesting:
- from Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia
Edit: Xenforo doesn't like to display .svg files. The graphic is here.
Last edited:
Beat me, I'd downloaded it to turn into a jpg but no need now, thanks
That's out of the question! I have never beaten a woman in my life! Not even at checkers!
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Love is also a basic and early need. Maybe you have heard of this experiment:
In the United States, 1944, an experiment was conducted on 40 newborn infants to determine whether individuals could thrive alone on basic physiological needs without affection. Twenty newborn infants were housed in a special facility where they had caregivers who would go in to feed them, bathe them and change their diapers, but they would do nothing else. The caregivers had been instructed not to look at or touch the babies more than what was necessary, never communicating with them. All their physical needs were attended to scrupulously and the environment was kept sterile, none of the babies becoming ill.
The experiment was halted after four months, by which time, at least half of the babies had died at that point. At least two more died even after being rescued and brought into a more natural familial environment. There was no physiological cause for the babies' deaths; they were all physically very healthy. Before each baby died, there was a period where they would stop verbalizing and trying to engage with their caregivers, generally stop moving, nor cry or even change expression; death would follow shortly. The babies who had "given up" before being rescued, died in the same manner, even though they had been removed from the experimental conditions.
The conclusion was that nurturing is actually a very vital need in humans. Whilst this was taking place, in a separate facility, the second group of twenty newborn infants were raised with all their basic physiological needs provided and the addition of affection from the caregivers. This time however, the outcome was as expected, no deaths encountered.
US Experiment on infants withholding affectionThe experiment was halted after four months, by which time, at least half of the babies had died at that point. At least two more died even after being rescued and brought into a more natural familial environment. There was no physiological cause for the babies' deaths; they were all physically very healthy. Before each baby died, there was a period where they would stop verbalizing and trying to engage with their caregivers, generally stop moving, nor cry or even change expression; death would follow shortly. The babies who had "given up" before being rescued, died in the same manner, even though they had been removed from the experimental conditions.
The conclusion was that nurturing is actually a very vital need in humans. Whilst this was taking place, in a separate facility, the second group of twenty newborn infants were raised with all their basic physiological needs provided and the addition of affection from the caregivers. This time however, the outcome was as expected, no deaths encountered.
Fascinating! Thanks for posting that! Very much appreciated.
Curious bit of trivia... You can induce borderline personality disorder in male children simply by neglecting them during their childhood. BPD is associated with permanent alterations in four areas of the brain and is incurable -- although in recent years, some therapies have been demonstrated to be to varying degrees effective in managing it.
You don't need to beat the boys or otherwise abuse them. You just neglect them.
Some good news for you!
I've been told that posting on RF is clothing optional. We'll still be your friends regardless.
During my first year on RF, I wore a Speedo when I posted. Since then, I've posted naked. I've seen no difference between between the two with regard to my ability to make friends here. No one can stand me either way.
While we may be social animals, and I'm not in denial of that, I think one can survive without human interaction.
I'm not saying it would by any means be a pleasant experience or that it wouldn't have an impact on one's psyche, but I think one could survive without it.
Survive? Sure. If you knew how. But what would your quality of mind be like? Forget for the moment quality of life. We all know that would be reduced to bare basics. There's a reason most 'hermits' are not even close to being true hermits, and most true hermits are nuttier than fruitcakes.
As the primotologist Alison Jolly wrote some years ago in her book on the evolution of human intelligence, the rarest living arrangement for humans is true hermitage.
I agree, but remember, we are talking about survival, not quality of life here. I said in my previous post that there would likely be an impact on the psyche.
And I'm honing my nuttiness.