Interesting thing to note is that a number of points made proving defect are actually potentially, even usually, beneficial.
Only the human being chooses to suffer and to inflict pain/harm upon himself.
An individual inflicting pain or harm upon itself is USUALLY beneficial because it's necessary to perform a huge variety of actions that are necessary to survival and reproduction.
Being charitable, we can assume the intended meaning was harm themselves more directly and with intent to harm not just acceptance of the fact. In this case, we have various species of arthropod that will sacrifice themselves to their mates or their young for their survival.
Being even more charitable, we can take the intended meaning as harm without equivalent or greater benefit. In which cases we still see examples in other species even though this behaviour is somewhat of a defect.
Only the human being tries to solve minor problems, while ignoring and pretending that other, much more major and important problems, don't exist.
Depending on what you mean by how 'major' and 'important' a problem is, major and important problems might be more evolutionarily beneficial than minor ones because evolution only favours some things we consider beneficial and favours some things we might consider not really beneficial at all.
Taking major and important with regards to evolution only, this statement will ALWAYS be false, because evolution is a fundamentally imperfect process. There is no such thing as a evolutionarily perfect organism, and there never will be.
Only the human consciously chooses to harm and destroy the environment upon which he is dependent for survival.
'Consciously' is a snag here because of lacking evidence about consciousness, but it certainly seems other animals consciously decide a lot of things and if they indeed do some of the things they do destroy their environment. Overconsumption is a real thing for animals as well as humans. It's simply a result of the beneficial desire to maximize consumption- and therefore not a defect but a limitation.
Only the human directs negative perception of Self, upon himself.
Forming negative perceptions of yourself is part of how you improve. It's beneficial to do it, as long as, of course, it's not in excess (which it is not in humans). Though, it's not surprising a person who would seriously say "as brilliantly presented by Me in this essay", has difficulty understanding the benefits of negative self perception.
The human being, alone among all other species, has experienced a singularly unique, unmatched and catastrophic, failure to thrive.
We are thriving on a level no species ever has.
I am going to say that while we are certainly thriving, and we ARE doing so in a very unique way- we aren't 'thriving on a level no species ever has'. Bacteria, fungi and insects all offer very strong competition, such that we don't come out on top in most ways of looking at 'thriving'.
Only the human negates his own Self-value, leaving it to others to control how he feels about Himself.
Also false.
We should be careful that we have very little truly concrete evidence on the nature of consciousness- including self perception- in others species. Behaviour does at least seem to indicate this is false though. And certainly, it can't be said to be known as true.
EDIT:
I'm just going to take the opportunity to express my disgust with our friend 'The Seer of Forbidden Truth'
Just
The birth defect status of humanity is such a Truth. Evidentiary proof, as brilliantly presented by Me in this essay, must be recognized as being just as valid as concrete proof.
Why?
Are we sure this person is not a troll? Because honestly, 'as brilliantly presented by Me in this essay' is something I would say as a self deprecating joke.
An individual inflicting pain or harm upon itself is USUALLY beneficial because it's necessary to perform a huge variety of actions that are necessary to survival and reproduction.
Being charitable, we can assume the intended meaning was harm themselves more directly and with intent to harm not just acceptance of the fact. In this case, we have various species of arthropod that will sacrifice themselves to their mates or their young for their survival.
Being even more charitable, we can take the intended meaning as harm without equivalent or greater benefit. In which cases we still see examples in other species even though this behaviour is somewhat of a defect.
Depending on what you mean by how 'major' and 'important' a problem is, major and important problems might be more evolutionarily beneficial than minor ones because evolution only favours some things we consider beneficial and favours some things we might consider not really beneficial at all.
Taking major and important with regards to evolution only, this statement will ALWAYS be false, because evolution is a fundamentally imperfect process. There is no such thing as a evolutionarily perfect organism, and there never will be.
'Consciously' is a snag here because of lacking evidence about consciousness, but it certainly seems other animals consciously decide a lot of things and if they indeed do some of the things they do destroy their environment. Overconsumption is a real thing for animals as well as humans. It's simply a result of the beneficial desire to maximize consumption- and therefore not a defect but a limitation.
Forming negative perceptions of yourself is part of how you improve. It's beneficial to do it, as long as, of course, it's not in excess (which it is not in humans). Though, it's not surprising a person who would seriously say "as brilliantly presented by Me in this essay", has difficulty understanding the benefits of negative self perception.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I am going to say that while we are certainly thriving, and we ARE doing so in a very unique way- we aren't 'thriving on a level no species ever has'. Bacteria, fungi and insects all offer very strong competition, such that we don't come out on top in most ways of looking at 'thriving'.
We should be careful that we have very little truly concrete evidence on the nature of consciousness- including self perception- in others species. Behaviour does at least seem to indicate this is false though. And certainly, it can't be said to be known as true.
EDIT:
I'm just going to take the opportunity to express my disgust with our friend 'The Seer of Forbidden Truth'
Just
Why?
Are we sure this person is not a troll? Because honestly, 'as brilliantly presented by Me in this essay' is something I would say as a self deprecating joke.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice