It's possible that with our grasp of technologywe are no longer evolving to adapt, but rather adapting our surroundings to suit us...If somewhere is too cold to survive, we just make it warmer...
(
Mr.Ons knows you can hear him, Earthmen.,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 12:55,
archived)
doubtfulwould you let you kids be genetically modified?
Besides, i bet its illegal.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:00,
archived)
Besides, i bet its illegal.
One daywe will have the option to genetically modify ourselves. The mind boggles what Amon and Mr. Sanity will do with this option.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:04,
archived)
Ever seen Gattaca?at some time in the future, opinions are bound to change, and with an inevitable trend to space travel and colonies, mankind will change anyway...a few generations on the moon or mars, and those that were born there will never be able to walk on Earth under our gravity...we may even change ourselves to be better adapted to other environments. try and find a book called Man After Man, it's like an interpretation of what could happen, with all the genetics and things thrown in...
( Mr.Ons knows you can hear him, Earthmen.,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:06,
archived)
That assumes we'd be genetically evolving on the moon and mars at a significant speedwhich would mean people were dying in large numbers due to the effects of different gravity. I know the life of pioneers is hard, but it seems unlikely they'd put up with that.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:10,
archived)
no, no!humans require gravity / vigoras exorcise.
Its not just the next 2 generations of people who wouldnt be able to walk, but anyone who spent a year there! Mucles and bones degenerate quickly.
A feotus developing in another gravity would never get the bone or muscle strength to walk on earth.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:15,
archived)
Its not just the next 2 generations of people who wouldnt be able to walk, but anyone who spent a year there! Mucles and bones degenerate quickly.
A feotus developing in another gravity would never get the bone or muscle strength to walk on earth.
it would be possible for someone born in a lower gravity to walk on earthjust very difficult and tiring
maybe only possible with the help of a long flight through which they can slowly change the gravity to accustom the body to the increased strain
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:18,
archived)
maybe only possible with the help of a long flight through which they can slowly change the gravity to accustom the body to the increased strain
yeah ....... it would be like us going into a 6g environment thoughI agree for people who saty there for a while,
not for people born there. Increasing bone density sufficiantly would be almost impossible, no matter how much you increase the musculature.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:21,
archived)
not for people born there. Increasing bone density sufficiantly would be almost impossible, no matter how much you increase the musculature.
hmm yeah i 'spose your rightwell i must say this thread is possibly the most intellectual debate we have ever had on b3ta
congratulations everyone
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:24,
archived)
congratulations everyone
well, no...if you'd grown up your entire life with only 1/6 of the earths gravity, it would'nt have such an effect on your bones, so they would grow longer...if you got back to earth, it'd be like carrying five of you on your back...we wouldn't evolve per se, at least not in the short term, as evolution isn't a process with a goal...species don't sit there and think, "bugger, I need a longer neck, best get started for the grandkids...", its a eliminatory process. we've only got as far as we have today because all the bad genes as it were have been weeded out. With modern medicine, more bad genes are surviving, as you don't need good eyesight to hunt a kebab.
( Mr.Ons knows you can hear him, Earthmen.,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:17,
archived)
Not that I advocateculling anyone with a limp or glasses, but a few generations back, they wouldn't have survived. If we ever do end up back at that point, they're buggered. survival of the fittest...
I'm alright though...healthy, intelligent, can make fire with sticks, can build shelters, knows how to trap, and to make and hunt with bows and arrows...I'm gonna survive!
(I'm alright though...healthy, intelligent, can make fire with sticks, can build shelters, knows how to trap, and to make and hunt with bows and arrows...I'm gonna survive!
Mr.Ons knows you can hear him, Earthmen.,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:31,
archived)
Haha. Yes.I will surive*.
My reading of books such as The stand, day of the triffids and so on will help me.
ARGH A TRIFFID
*dies.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:35,
archived)
My reading of books such as The stand, day of the triffids and so on will help me.
ARGH A TRIFFID
*dies.
An interesting point (and yes i have seen gattaca)But as for space travel etc; i really dont think mankind will do it for centuries and centuries. Theres no profit in going to the moon or mars (fuck, i wish it wasnt true).
Also, a situation like gattaca is unlikely - western society tends to leap at the first sign of descrimination to prevent it (these days anyway).
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:12,
archived)
Also, a situation like gattaca is unlikely - western society tends to leap at the first sign of descrimination to prevent it (these days anyway).
Just look at america...the far right has a massive stronghold in some parts...they don't like gays, black people, anyone who is remotely coloured...I can honestly see that turning all Gattaca
( Mr.Ons knows you can hear him, Earthmen.,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:23,
archived)
good point. very good pointyou know they stopped teaching evolution in kansas because "god told them too"?
And one of the peoples whose the desicion was said "If we evolved from monkeys, how come there are monkeys around"? (to applause).
That explains exactly why people need to be taught about evolution!
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:33,
archived)
And one of the peoples whose the desicion was said "If we evolved from monkeys, how come there are monkeys around"? (to applause).
That explains exactly why people need to be taught about evolution!
also, try to pick up The Science of Discworld...full of stuff like that...
( Mr.Ons knows you can hear him, Earthmen.,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:39,
archived)
One of my fave booksThe people who co-wrote it are supposedly from my Uni (my department, even), which is cool.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:42,
archived)
not gonna happenthats a dream from the sci-fi brains of totalitarian agriculturist mindsets, it can not work, and will not work
UNTIL we learn to live in harmony with our own planet, living as another species on it.
If we cant live down here without destroying our home, we have no chance up there on any planet whatsoever.
and a thought, if a small base does get built up there, and the planet turns to shite trying to do so, which elite few do you think will escape the burning earth?.. im guessing the elite that destroyed it in the first place.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:12,
archived)
UNTIL we learn to live in harmony with our own planet, living as another species on it.
If we cant live down here without destroying our home, we have no chance up there on any planet whatsoever.
and a thought, if a small base does get built up there, and the planet turns to shite trying to do so, which elite few do you think will escape the burning earth?.. im guessing the elite that destroyed it in the first place.
the red blue and green mars books are along a similar linethey have been said to be pretty much follow the most probable route of mankind in the future
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:14,
archived)
also, in reply to your profile rant thinga football pitch sized field can supply 1000 people with food for a year. An area the size of London could feed most of the world. It's just that we don't use it efficiently, and business doesn't want us to distribute it...
( Mr.Ons knows you can hear him, Earthmen.,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:01,
archived)
of course they can*claps sarcastically*
I for one love a diet consisting of only one thing, and healthy it is too.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:04,
archived)
I for one love a diet consisting of only one thing, and healthy it is too.
seriously though,varied diet and everything, even some animals...all the hunter gatherers in the world now add up to only a few thousand, we need to keep these skills, cos if the internet or supply routes ever go down, for whatever reason, everyones gonna be fucked with no tesco to go to...
( Mr.Ons knows you can hear him, Earthmen.,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:10,
archived)
yupim glad others are starting to see the importance of these cultures to us :)
/bow
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:14,
archived)
/bow
I was chatting to a friend the other daythat if all of a sudden, the tv, phonelines, and supermarkets all shut down, no-one would have a clue what to do...most of us wouldn't survive a week...probably all get killed by marauding bands of chavs...
( Mr.Ons knows you can hear him, Earthmen.,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:20,
archived)
me too!but I do think we need to get sorted down here as well...we spend billions on getting a space station up there, while down here millions of people are dying...lets face it though, if all 6 and a half billion of us got cars and nice houses, there wouldnt be enough room by half...either we expand, or we die, and the planet comes with us...
( Mr.Ons knows you can hear him, Earthmen.,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:27,
archived)
I make it five acres each.Quite a lot of those acres would not be very nice, mind you, due to being in antarctica. But having said that, I currently inhabit about a hundredth of an acre, and I'm sharing that with a couple of other people. Only a bit more than 1% of the planet's land surface is "urban" (according the UN, I think). So this sort of stuff is hard to figure out.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:47,
archived)
by "planets surface"are they including those bits which are infact very wet?
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:06,
archived)
i thought you said "according to the UN"so i assumed it was their calculations which they may have biased by including the oceans and seas in their "planet surface"
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:22,
archived)
..butthe point being, we dont have to manage it, that totalitarian agriculture and everythng that stems from it just makes things harder and harder for us.. to support it is to support a system that makes life exponentially worse for everything on the planet. ( and will continue to do so)
And until we release food to be freely available, mankind will continue being forced down an unnatural route of consumption until the planet is all consumed.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:19,
archived)
And until we release food to be freely available, mankind will continue being forced down an unnatural route of consumption until the planet is all consumed.
You're foolish if you really believe that "nature" is some goldne optimum that was lost and needs to be achived again.Once again, the system we have in place is the only thing letting you have, perpetuate and spread you opinions.
And the reason food isnt freely available is that most people dont want to make there own food - i would rather pay someone who knows what they are doing, however indirectly.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:27,
archived)
And the reason food isnt freely available is that most people dont want to make there own food - i would rather pay someone who knows what they are doing, however indirectly.
oh my,sigh.... but you still endorse a regieme that is not the freely flowing evolution of a species... you would rather force them into the way you are routined into.. you seem to think that your way of life 'IS' the best way to live and everyone should live that way..
ideas spread without the need for computers, im just abusing the technology to try to get people to see the illusion/lie instead of being blinkered to it.
and your reason why food isnt freely available is just so flawed, that is not the case whatsoever, go have a chat to a homeless person, or go read cain and able ( the story of man starting farming)
These are just simple changes instead of the initial blinkered' NO WE CANT CHANGE' that many people are routined into...
' Why dont we get restaurants to give leftover food away to homeless instead of locking it away in the bins behind gates behind the restaurants?
routine routine routine.. the robots way
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:43,
archived)
ideas spread without the need for computers, im just abusing the technology to try to get people to see the illusion/lie instead of being blinkered to it.
and your reason why food isnt freely available is just so flawed, that is not the case whatsoever, go have a chat to a homeless person, or go read cain and able ( the story of man starting farming)
These are just simple changes instead of the initial blinkered' NO WE CANT CHANGE' that many people are routined into...
' Why dont we get restaurants to give leftover food away to homeless instead of locking it away in the bins behind gates behind the restaurants?
routine routine routine.. the robots way
ho hoah ha.. you see , you believe the illusion too..
Mankind has survived in frozen areas without the need to adapt their surroundingsd for hundreds of thousands of years ( approx 300k years) they had no technology or anything.
We are ALWAYS evolving, to think we are no longer doing that, is to beleive the illusion that we have stepped out of nature,( conquered it ), when in fact we are always part 'OF' it, and will always be part of it, no matter what technology we create.
Technology wont save mankind if he transforms all biological matter into man and mankinds food...
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:07,
archived)
Mankind has survived in frozen areas without the need to adapt their surroundingsd for hundreds of thousands of years ( approx 300k years) they had no technology or anything.
We are ALWAYS evolving, to think we are no longer doing that, is to beleive the illusion that we have stepped out of nature,( conquered it ), when in fact we are always part 'OF' it, and will always be part of it, no matter what technology we create.
Technology wont save mankind if he transforms all biological matter into man and mankinds food...
noits a gimmik of man,
nature is something that evolves without the need to interfere whatsoever, it just 'works', and is as near to perfect as can be ( not perfect but as close as possible )
when man starts to interfere, he believes that he has the knowledge of the gods, that we know better than this natural process that created all life,, but we are blinded by the fact that some things 'we' would consider 'bad' and try to work out of what we do, are actually needed in the evolutionary process to advance, so in reality actualy works out as 'good', even tho we wont see it that way initially.
Man looks at the instant effect, nature looks at the bigger picture.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:32,
archived)
nature is something that evolves without the need to interfere whatsoever, it just 'works', and is as near to perfect as can be ( not perfect but as close as possible )
when man starts to interfere, he believes that he has the knowledge of the gods, that we know better than this natural process that created all life,, but we are blinded by the fact that some things 'we' would consider 'bad' and try to work out of what we do, are actually needed in the evolutionary process to advance, so in reality actualy works out as 'good', even tho we wont see it that way initially.
Man looks at the instant effect, nature looks at the bigger picture.
can i just add...i am a person who has an open mind to any opinion or any new ideas... you seem to think you know everything and your opinion is the only one which counts.
you sir are daft!
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:56,
archived)
you sir are daft!
hehehim not daft,i can just spot the 'illusion' from miles away ..
once you understand this 'FALSE knowledge of the gods illusion' that the majority of people in 'only' our totalitarian agriculture are blinkered by.. it becomes blazingly obvious what is wrong with the world and our leaders.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:06,
archived)
once you understand this 'FALSE knowledge of the gods illusion' that the majority of people in 'only' our totalitarian agriculture are blinkered by.. it becomes blazingly obvious what is wrong with the world and our leaders.
dont have to hug treesjust have to stop trying to conquer everything
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:46,
archived)
I dont really think mankind is evolving at the moment, at least not in the "normal" way.Mankind may have survived in frozen area before - in tiny, tiny numbers. Are you advocating the culling of vast numbers of people?
And rmember, the only reason you can have these opinions and beliefs is becasue of the system that you despise :p
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:18,
archived)
And rmember, the only reason you can have these opinions and beliefs is becasue of the system that you despise :p
wellevolution does not always throw up the next succeful step, it also throws up variations that will fail and vanish. Take a look at the obese problem in america/china and how they expect all their children to die before the adults.. evolutionary dead end...
Im not suggesting culling at all, thats a horrible thing, what i am suggesting is that we need to stop growin 'ALL' our food, as its this over production of food that is causing the biggest danger on the planet we will EVER face ( overpopulation).. if we changed it to growing 'SOME' of our food and the rest freely growing about, then we would start to see the natural population control of nature start to play its role again, and this danger much more dangerous than terrorism will be seen to start to come under control in a way that harms nothing.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:25,
archived)
Im not suggesting culling at all, thats a horrible thing, what i am suggesting is that we need to stop growin 'ALL' our food, as its this over production of food that is causing the biggest danger on the planet we will EVER face ( overpopulation).. if we changed it to growing 'SOME' of our food and the rest freely growing about, then we would start to see the natural population control of nature start to play its role again, and this danger much more dangerous than terrorism will be seen to start to come under control in a way that harms nothing.
Your all idiotsand your petty ignorance astounds me
(
Sonic 2 and Knuckles,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:28,
archived)
wellwell some people just cant see past the lie that our culture is based on...
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:34,
archived)
oh by the wayairbus's big plane will CUT DOWN on pollution because of the vastly increased efficancy.
Each flight it makes, 3 or 4 other flights dont need to be done, hence.... less pollution.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:39,
archived)
Each flight it makes, 3 or 4 other flights dont need to be done, hence.... less pollution.
hmm keep making holesoh my the titanic is sinking, maybe if we made some more holes to let the water out..
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:07,
archived)
people need to move aroundso why not do it more efficiently, releasing less CO2
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:12,
archived)
dependsif Mr Bush's family holiday to the bahamas would result in pollution that caused your kids death, would you consider it a neccesary journey?
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 15:06,
archived)
your suggestion amounts to culling! Would you volunteer to die so that someone else could live with less agriculture?And as for overpopulation - the more out of balalnce a system gets, the more happens to rebalance it. Kind of.
Besides, a lot of LEDC's will become MEDC's in the forseeable future and that will seriosuly limit population growth.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:30,
archived)
Besides, a lot of LEDC's will become MEDC's in the forseeable future and that will seriosuly limit population growth.
absolutely notabsolutley not, im astounded that you would presume such a thing...
I dont think you are comprehending the problem here, and the natural relationship that ALL species on this planet adhere to... thats
'every species population is directly related to the availability of its food supply.'
and this applies to man as well, we are just another species on this planet, to think we have stepped out of this natural process is to belive the false illusion im trying to get people to notice.
(2+2=5)
Totalitarian agriculture is terraforming all biological matter into man and mankinds food.. it is leading our population boom , to continue to do so will exponentially increase this problem.
We will very soon get to a point where food chains start to fail becuase they just dont exist anymore becuase its all become man/mans food/ food mountains.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:44,
archived)
I dont think you are comprehending the problem here, and the natural relationship that ALL species on this planet adhere to... thats
'every species population is directly related to the availability of its food supply.'
and this applies to man as well, we are just another species on this planet, to think we have stepped out of this natural process is to belive the false illusion im trying to get people to notice.
(2+2=5)
Totalitarian agriculture is terraforming all biological matter into man and mankinds food.. it is leading our population boom , to continue to do so will exponentially increase this problem.
We will very soon get to a point where food chains start to fail becuase they just dont exist anymore becuase its all become man/mans food/ food mountains.
Seems to me what you have in mindin that people will refrain from having children due to being continually hungry.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:51,
archived)
not quiteits more an invisible natural unharmful process, not a choice.
Remember that food does grow without the need to farm it, and growns in abundance if we would to let it...
the difference is that with the advent of free food, mankind would not be forced into a way of life that only the elite few benefit from, the majority of people would have the choice to live freely. To with hold food in a culture is not a free society, (no mater how many advert items you can buy)
The world would not stop either, artists would still create, scientists would still science.. etc etc... but the people that are in jobs they hate because the HAVE to do that , would be able to do something they like to make them happy and would not be forced to feed the consuming monster of our culture.
Our culture is forcing the human species down a route that is unnatural for us becuase the majority of people are forced into things they dont want to do.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:01,
archived)
Remember that food does grow without the need to farm it, and growns in abundance if we would to let it...
the difference is that with the advent of free food, mankind would not be forced into a way of life that only the elite few benefit from, the majority of people would have the choice to live freely. To with hold food in a culture is not a free society, (no mater how many advert items you can buy)
The world would not stop either, artists would still create, scientists would still science.. etc etc... but the people that are in jobs they hate because the HAVE to do that , would be able to do something they like to make them happy and would not be forced to feed the consuming monster of our culture.
Our culture is forcing the human species down a route that is unnatural for us becuase the majority of people are forced into things they dont want to do.
...And heres the thing i object to the most
" Remember that food does grow without the need to farm it, and growns in abundance if we would to let it... "
It simply not true that without agriculture enough food would grow - agriculture is sustainable, wild growth, not.
Are you saying europe would be better of completly covered in forests?
Just you try going into a wood and living of what is there.
Hunter gathering can suppost only a small poulation, a population reached 13,000 years ago.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:09,
archived)
" Remember that food does grow without the need to farm it, and growns in abundance if we would to let it... "
It simply not true that without agriculture enough food would grow - agriculture is sustainable, wild growth, not.
Are you saying europe would be better of completly covered in forests?
Just you try going into a wood and living of what is there.
Hunter gathering can suppost only a small poulation, a population reached 13,000 years ago.
If the part about "abundance" is truethen what he's proposing is not an alternative to agriculture in terms of the amount of food produced. But if the part about abundance is not true and hunter-gathering produces less food than agriculture, people will be hungry. Unless he conceives advances in hunter-gathering that allow for increased food production and population expansion...
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:14,
archived)
hmim not proposing an instant change, that would be rediculous,
BUT if people started to realise how bad this situation really is, and is going to be in 20 years, we can start to prepare ourselves for it,
make the crash more a gentle bump
if food didnt grow naturally in abundance, no life would ever have existed...
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 15:12,
archived)
BUT if people started to realise how bad this situation really is, and is going to be in 20 years, we can start to prepare ourselves for it,
make the crash more a gentle bump
if food didnt grow naturally in abundance, no life would ever have existed...
hmmyour only pointing at a forest that u recognize as one free of human food growing, one that has been terraformed.
Agricultural cultures are NOT sustainable, it require CONSTANT growth and expansion,, this is the reason it does not work, we can not expand and grow forever .. something we do not have the ability to do on a little round planet.
Your asuming that mankind HAD to start farming, we didnt, check the story of Cain and Able, when we started it...
Europe would be infinitely beter off if things were allowed to grow and move freely about...
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 15:19,
archived)
Agricultural cultures are NOT sustainable, it require CONSTANT growth and expansion,, this is the reason it does not work, we can not expand and grow forever .. something we do not have the ability to do on a little round planet.
Your asuming that mankind HAD to start farming, we didnt, check the story of Cain and Able, when we started it...
Europe would be infinitely beter off if things were allowed to grow and move freely about...
This seems to stand on its ownwithout the need for the bit about populations being limited by food supply.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:10,
archived)
so overpopulation will sort itself out.You have a warped argument
You say we need to get "back to nature"; yet you also argue that humans are not "beyond nature".
I comprehend fully what you are trying to say, and i agree with certain things, such as overpopulation could be a really big problem, but the "soultions" you are suggesting are callous and shortsighted, and based upon a false premise.
Almost all of society is based upon agriculture. Some of human kind could survive as hunter gatherers; but it is a stagnent form of living; i for one would like more knowlege, more comfort and more opportunity, and so does the vast majority, or the current set up of society would not exist. This inculdes you're ability to argue your points, a significant point that you have so far failed to answer.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:56,
archived)
You say we need to get "back to nature"; yet you also argue that humans are not "beyond nature".
I comprehend fully what you are trying to say, and i agree with certain things, such as overpopulation could be a really big problem, but the "soultions" you are suggesting are callous and shortsighted, and based upon a false premise.
Almost all of society is based upon agriculture. Some of human kind could survive as hunter gatherers; but it is a stagnent form of living; i for one would like more knowlege, more comfort and more opportunity, and so does the vast majority, or the current set up of society would not exist. This inculdes you're ability to argue your points, a significant point that you have so far failed to answer.
ok..trying to answer your question..
Agriculture is the backbone of our culture. and thats the problem.
..You are only looking at our own culture ( not just britain , but all totalitarian agriculurists) and not taking any notes from other non agricultural sources,,
ask any pshyclogist and they will tell you that there is better security, comfort, saftey and a better working society in small tribal groups of humans than we will ever appreciate or see.
You can not deny that mankind works better in small groups compared to large workforces.
'Opportunity' is only from the perspective of OUR culture, non agri cultures dont see the need to make waves in the world. but you also seem to think that if we were to give up agriculture, artists would stop arting, scientists would stop sciencing etc etc.. that the world would stop... this is not the case... if these changes would happen, mankind would have so much more time free to spend on doing things that he realy wanted to do,.. comminities would form of differnt mindsets and would not be seperated by 'patents and money making'.
I dont think im being callous or shortsighted, drawing my conclusions from 'all of time', not just 10k years of agriculture
.. which is surely more shortsighted to 'ONLY' look at 10k years of agriculture ( and only at that one culture) than millions of years, ( or 200-300k of homosapiens lifestyle ( of all culltures) while all the time knowing about agriculture but choosing not to do it ))
Do you not think then, that forcing people to live the way 'you' want is callous and shortsighted? why do you not want mankind to have this option of life style?
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:23,
archived)
Agriculture is the backbone of our culture. and thats the problem.
..You are only looking at our own culture ( not just britain , but all totalitarian agriculurists) and not taking any notes from other non agricultural sources,,
ask any pshyclogist and they will tell you that there is better security, comfort, saftey and a better working society in small tribal groups of humans than we will ever appreciate or see.
You can not deny that mankind works better in small groups compared to large workforces.
'Opportunity' is only from the perspective of OUR culture, non agri cultures dont see the need to make waves in the world. but you also seem to think that if we were to give up agriculture, artists would stop arting, scientists would stop sciencing etc etc.. that the world would stop... this is not the case... if these changes would happen, mankind would have so much more time free to spend on doing things that he realy wanted to do,.. comminities would form of differnt mindsets and would not be seperated by 'patents and money making'.
I dont think im being callous or shortsighted, drawing my conclusions from 'all of time', not just 10k years of agriculture
.. which is surely more shortsighted to 'ONLY' look at 10k years of agriculture ( and only at that one culture) than millions of years, ( or 200-300k of homosapiens lifestyle ( of all culltures) while all the time knowing about agriculture but choosing not to do it ))
Do you not think then, that forcing people to live the way 'you' want is callous and shortsighted? why do you not want mankind to have this option of life style?
i dont have to force people to live the way i want, in fact its you suggesting it, which is one of the reasons i said shrotsighted and callous.The human race hasnt been here for the whole of time;
We only have historical knowlage dating back to agriculture.
The clue is in the word
agriCULTURE
It all stems from food. And yes, i think artist would stop etc etc, because without agriculture almost everyone has to spend most of there time finding food; and ther would be nowhere near enough.
As for "You can not deny that mankind works better in small groups compared to large workforces" - i can. More poeple can achive more, its simple. Especially with science - were all standing on the shoulders of giants.
"sk any pshyclogist and they will tell you that there is better security, comfort, saftey and a better working society in small tribal groups of humans than we will ever appreciate or see. " - yes, its called a family.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:35,
archived)
We only have historical knowlage dating back to agriculture.
The clue is in the word
agriCULTURE
It all stems from food. And yes, i think artist would stop etc etc, because without agriculture almost everyone has to spend most of there time finding food; and ther would be nowhere near enough.
As for "You can not deny that mankind works better in small groups compared to large workforces" - i can. More poeple can achive more, its simple. Especially with science - were all standing on the shoulders of giants.
"sk any pshyclogist and they will tell you that there is better security, comfort, saftey and a better working society in small tribal groups of humans than we will ever appreciate or see. " - yes, its called a family.
in answerThe human race hasnt been here for the whole of time;
wrong, mankind has been here since the dawn of time, but earlier on we were just slime,, the way of life evolved with us fromt that very start of slime life, and changed with us as we changed... wehn mankind started agriculture we forgot the way the way to live that evolved with us and tried something new
an experiment.... its named ' The Great Forgetting' of mankind.
We only have historical knowlage dating back to agriculture.
WRONG again... we have historical knowledge going back 200-300k years for homosapiens, we also have knowledge going back to the first life forms on the planet.
Our culture only tells us that history only started when we started agriculture,(10k years ago) ( the start of the bible ) when mankind tried something new.. This is looking at only a small chapter of the whole history of mankind, we lived for 300k years as what we are now species wise without the need for agriculture.. Remember the nazis tried to forget/change history by burning the books, and that is in effect what the bible has done for us,,, its only the start of the experiment to control the world, and doesnt look at the time before that.
its like looking at america and saying history only started when the indians were wiped out and the land turned to farmland.
agriCULTURE
WRONG again,.. Sorry but non agricultural cul;tures still have culture.. and their culture has ben around and been more fine tuned than ours by over 300 times longer.. in fact going all the way back to the dawn of time...
Animals ALSO have culture...
It all stems from food. And yes, i think artist would stop etc etc, because without agriculture almost everyone has to spend most of there time finding food; and ther would be nowhere near enough.
WRONG again, agriculture takes more effort and time than hunting and gathering, your point is only from the perspective of food already being held away from us... non-agricultutral cultures can spend 3 hours a week to get enough food for the whole week, the rest of the time they spend on friends , family and doing things they want to do.
As for "You can not deny that mankind works better in small groups compared to large workforces" - i can. More poeple can achive more, its simple. Especially with science - were all standing on the shoulders of giants.
WRONG agin, go talk to a phsycologist, and ask does mankind 'work better' as small communites workling for each other, or does an unbalanced workforce work better?
( and i mean by 'work' how everything works together,,, your in more danger in london than in a tribe in the middle of nowhere in the jungle)
oh and your last comment just changed one of your points to suddenly agreeing with me,, you seem very confused in your points..
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 15:02,
archived)
wrong, mankind has been here since the dawn of time, but earlier on we were just slime,, the way of life evolved with us fromt that very start of slime life, and changed with us as we changed... wehn mankind started agriculture we forgot the way the way to live that evolved with us and tried something new
an experiment.... its named ' The Great Forgetting' of mankind.
We only have historical knowlage dating back to agriculture.
WRONG again... we have historical knowledge going back 200-300k years for homosapiens, we also have knowledge going back to the first life forms on the planet.
Our culture only tells us that history only started when we started agriculture,(10k years ago) ( the start of the bible ) when mankind tried something new.. This is looking at only a small chapter of the whole history of mankind, we lived for 300k years as what we are now species wise without the need for agriculture.. Remember the nazis tried to forget/change history by burning the books, and that is in effect what the bible has done for us,,, its only the start of the experiment to control the world, and doesnt look at the time before that.
its like looking at america and saying history only started when the indians were wiped out and the land turned to farmland.
agriCULTURE
WRONG again,.. Sorry but non agricultural cul;tures still have culture.. and their culture has ben around and been more fine tuned than ours by over 300 times longer.. in fact going all the way back to the dawn of time...
Animals ALSO have culture...
It all stems from food. And yes, i think artist would stop etc etc, because without agriculture almost everyone has to spend most of there time finding food; and ther would be nowhere near enough.
WRONG again, agriculture takes more effort and time than hunting and gathering, your point is only from the perspective of food already being held away from us... non-agricultutral cultures can spend 3 hours a week to get enough food for the whole week, the rest of the time they spend on friends , family and doing things they want to do.
As for "You can not deny that mankind works better in small groups compared to large workforces" - i can. More poeple can achive more, its simple. Especially with science - were all standing on the shoulders of giants.
WRONG agin, go talk to a phsycologist, and ask does mankind 'work better' as small communites workling for each other, or does an unbalanced workforce work better?
( and i mean by 'work' how everything works together,,, your in more danger in london than in a tribe in the middle of nowhere in the jungle)
oh and your last comment just changed one of your points to suddenly agreeing with me,, you seem very confused in your points..
mankind is devolving due to the quality of medicinewhich is allowing those who would have died without such medicines to live, meaning there are fatal faults in almost all of the genepools worldwide, and it will stay that way until we can genetically modify those, or their children, with such flaws so that they become healthy, that is our only option besides kulling a large amount of the human race through cutting everyone off from all these things which we take for granted so that only the best of us may survive.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:33,
archived)
but until that merry day, im rather glad the people ion charge dont agree.
which merry day?the one where we genetically modify or the one where we cut everyone off from the things they take for granted?
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:40,
archived)
either / both.We can all have a BBQ just before
"post apocalyptic situation in ...... 3...... 2.......1 ...... GO!!!"
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:41,
archived)
"post apocalyptic situation in ...... 3...... 2.......1 ...... GO!!!"
im having trouble working out if you are being sarcastic or notbecause i'm not sure where you are coming from
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:43,
archived)
I would never be sarcastic about such an important topic.I agree abouty the devolving thing, but its really nothing to worry about. So the weaker are surviving - all that means is you dont have to be so strong to survive! We will never devolve beyond a point which technology cannot cope, by the very nature of survival of the fittest.
And anything suggesting the deaths of millions of people is genocide.
So.... ready? LETS DO IT (for the good of humaity).
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:47,
archived)
And anything suggesting the deaths of millions of people is genocide.
So.... ready? LETS DO IT (for the good of humaity).
i was just stating the two directions this could go so that the human race may survivei may have exagerated both but that was just to get my point across
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:03,
archived)
sorry, not trying to insult you, i just love sarcasm*.And i agree with your points, kind of, its just that they involve death, which i can never be happy about
*not on the reciving end
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:11,
archived)
*not on the reciving end
genetically modifying those with diseases to make them healthy will not kill themas far as our current knowledge of genetics will allow us to see. this is the path i believe we must follow to ensure the survival of the human race. the one that involves all the deaths is the other possible path allowing some humans to survive, this is not the one i agree with, i just pointed it out to show how much better the first way is
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:17,
archived)
I suppose. long live genetic engineering!but i dont think it will come to that, at least not for fracking ages.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:37,
archived)
have you consideredThose flaws are what keep our immune systems healthy and most suitable for our environments?.
To remove this by genetically modifying ourselves would in effect weaken our immune systems, eventually leading to the simplest disease being able to wipe us out.?
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:51,
archived)
To remove this by genetically modifying ourselves would in effect weaken our immune systems, eventually leading to the simplest disease being able to wipe us out.?
what so having cancer improves our immune systemand stops us from getting colds?
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:24,
archived)
Only the good kind.Good cancer stops us getting the colds which nature didn't intend. The other colds are all part of nature's plan. Those are the good colds. But if we breathe in too much unnatural benzene or asbestos dust, we get bad cancer. That would stop us getting the colds which nature did intend. Unless we breathed in the asbestos dust as part of a natural process.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:30,
archived)