Must Read - EARTHLINGS

[Aulian]

**Please read, if you have seen it, please leave comment.**

I would seriously recommend this documentry to anyone who has ever eaten meat, poultry, seafood or fast food.

To often do we as humans partake in things we have little care to how it comes about, as long as it appeals to your sense of efficiency.

To often do we as humans, the most conciously aware inhabitant of this world, forget that we were placed here with an equal right to anything available on this planet. The same right every animal. insect, bird or fish has.

"Ignorance is the spieciests first line of defence, yet it is easily breached by anyone with the time and the patience to find out the truth. Ignorance has only prevailed so long only because people do not want to find out the truth.

It is not the in ability to find out what is going on as much as the desire to not to know about facts that may lie heavy on ones conscience that is reponsible for this lack of awareness. After all the victims of what goes on in all these aweful places are not the victims of ones group.

It all comes down to pain and suffering. Not intelligence, not strength, not social class or civil right. Pain and suffering are in themselves bad and should be prevented or minimised irrespective of the race, sex or species of the being that suffers.

We are all animals of this planet, we are all creatures."

I brings forward the idea that through ignorance, or the lack of ones will to amend their own ignorance, does the indifference of good men begin. Evil prevails through the indiffernce of good men.

[Kyzarius]

All creatures no matter the siz/origin/or station are indifferent to that which they consume or destroy in order to survive.

Actually, of all species on the earth MANKIND is the only one capable of caring.

[a-guitarist]

I refuse to believe that Al Gore and Hillary are humans. The simple thought of that makes my stomach rumble. so, whatever they happen to be could also, possibly, care as well.

a-g

[WagesofSin]

All creatures no matter the siz/origin/or station are indifferent to that which they consume or destroy in order to survive.

Actually, of all species on the earth MANKIND is the only one capable of caring.

Still, I don't think that justifies such behavior in humans. "hey, everything in the world is doing it, so we should to!". We got the chance to evolve enough to make making a difference possible through our consciousness, they don't.

[Kyzarius]

Still' date=' I don't think that justifies such behavior in humans. "hey, everything in the world is doing it, so we should to!". We got the chance to evolve enough to make making a difference possible through our consciousness, they don't.[/quote']

I am not justifying anything, merely stating what I see as facts.

Your talking with someone who has architecutal plans for my families next house (and final!) that incorporates solar power, wind power, cisterns for rain water and every single energy saving self sustaining technology I could afford (which is a lot since the market encourages these things financially)

[Valsgarde]

I'm a proponent of natural selection. In any given region there will be a dominant species. With the advent of global communications networks, the "region" is now the entire planet. Species and tribes have given way to nations.

Nations that are up to their eyes in suffering and disease and pain and poverty are that way because they were not up to snuff. If they were sufficient as a people, they wouldn't have been in the mess in the first place. They are just the equivelent of your run of the mill hobo begging for money on the street corner that you never give money to. And why don't you? Because it's his own fault that he is where he is - the same goes for nations/regions.

There is too much suffering in the world because there are too many people in the world. Don't treat the symptom, treat the problem.

Helping things/people survive that would otherwise go extinct on their own is cutting the legs out from under Evolution. Evolution works because superior genes propagate themselves while the inferior die. It's how nature keeps things pristine and state-of-the-art. People suffering and dying is nature culling that which needs to be culled for evolution to continue proper.

Welcome to reality. It's not the Disney Channel. No amount of Care Bears humanitarianism and idealism amounts to a hill of beans. Mommy lied - you can't be an astronaut when you grow up, you're not special, you can't make a difference. The way all lifeforms have gotten to this point is constant battle, the victors eating the fallen, screwing, and furthering their lineage.

Savage Utter Brutality: It's a tradition of us lifeforms here on Earth.

[Aulian]

I'm a proponent of natural selection. In any given region there will be a dominant species. With the advent of global communications networks, the "region" is now the entire planet. Species and tribes have given way to nations.

Nations that are up to their eyes in suffering and disease and pain and poverty are that way because they were not up to snuff. If they were sufficient as a people, they wouldn't have been in the mess in the first place. They are just the equivelent of your run of the mill hobo begging for money on the street corner that you never give money to. And why don't you? Because it's his own fault that he is where he is - the same goes for nations/regions.

There is too much suffering in the world because there are too many people in the world. Don't treat the symptom, treat the problem.

Helping things/people survive that would otherwise go extinct on their own is cutting the legs out from under Evolution. Evolution works because superior genes propagate themselves while the inferior die. It's how nature keeps things pristine and state-of-the-art. People suffering and dying is nature culling that which needs to be culled for evolution to continue proper.

Welcome to reality. It's not the Disney Channel. No amount of Care Bears humanitarianism and idealism amounts to a hill of beans. Mommy lied - you can't be an astronaut when you grow up, you're not special, you can't make a difference. The way all lifeforms have gotten to this point is constant battle, the victors eating the fallen, screwing, and furthering their lineage.

Savage Utter Brutality: It's a tradition of us lifeforms here on Earth.

So the fact we dump hundreds of millions of litres of pollution into the ocean and destroy hundreds of acres of forest daily is natural selection?

Give me a break.

[corpsestomp]

Less people=less pollution?

[Suunmar]

Population suppression, albeit it being quite possibly the worst restriction of freedoms anyone could ever have, could possibly help. I agree that there are millions of problems presenting themselves in this modern day. Famine in the 3rd world, pollution in the developed...etc...

Concern with continuing a line of genes is kind of an antiquated idea basing far back before any of us were alive. Nowadays, ideas and intelligence brought onto others is a source of continuing your own line.

Now, before I get slammed with people saying I'm believing in the idea of the one child per couple policies, I'd like to say that the human race has limits, yet we refuse to realize them. This pushes a +/- scenario. Reach for the stars! Starve humanity issues. I don't believe that breeding control is the best idea for the world, but I do note, and among this forum we can say this, the majority of the population are unaware of international situations.

Sorry Aulian, I didn't look at the link but this was all sparked from the conversation currently being had.

The sad thing is, most of the posts are right, humanity is still as parasitic to this world as every other species in this world. Is that right? No. Why? Because we know better, they don't. And we're doing more damage than they possibly could for the most part.To make a bad analogy, fastforward 500+ years of humanity's current status and we'll be like the aliens in Independence Day, parasites destroying civiliations to harvest resources cuz they kicked the **** out of their own world.

The point in this post? None, just trying to flesh out a few things and make people think.

[L-A]

The way all lifeforms have gotten to this point is constant battle, the victors eating the fallen, screwing, and furthering their lineage.

Savage Utter Brutality: It's a tradition of us lifeforms here on Earth.

So you're OK with me coming around to your house with a screwdriver and stabbing you, your Mum, Dad and siblings while you sleep?

Didn't think so.

There is a lot of good and bad in the world - but the attitude of f*** everyone else I'm out for me isn't what we (as a population) should be about. Lions don't kill each other because they realise they are stronger together - for the most part, humans don't seem to be as smart.

If you were part of an Extra-Terrestial race watching Earth from space would you want to make contact when the dominant lifeform of the planet's best trait is being able to kill and maim each other (evidenced by centuries of war and conflict which continues today). How about....no.

L-A

[L-A]

Population suppression, albeit it being quite possibly the worst restriction of freedoms anyone could ever have, could possibly help. I agree that there are millions of problems presenting themselves in this modern day. Famine in the 3rd world, pollution in the developed...etc...

Why, because tarriffs make it unprofitable to import food to where its needed or farm quota's mean its better to stockpile food so the government will pay you as you slowly hand it over for what amounts to a fixed income?

Come on - there is food to feed people. Politics and profit are the main determining factors in many, many, MANY of the bad situations in the world today.

Look at Burma FFS - they won't let people help because the military rule doesn't like the US. Hate to tell you guys, if everyone in your country dies then there won't be anyone to rule....

L-A

[J.Twendrist]

There is more than enough food to feed everyone. Problem is politicians don't give a damn about that. They want more and more power along with more and more money. How many of our own senators and represtatives sell their votes to lobbyists everyday?

[Valsgarde]

Sure, there's no doubt that there's plenty of food to feed everyone - How about people feed them damn selves, hmm? If you can't stand up, then you fall. Rule of life, why should anyone or any country be exempt from it. Even if a country is hellbent in its foreign policy to sent aid to other nations, it's treasonous to me to even consider it until all of your own country is fed and clothed.

Population suppression, albeit it being quite possibly the worst restriction of freedoms anyone could ever have, could possibly help. I agree that there are millions of problems presenting themselves in this modern day. Famine in the 3rd world, pollution in the developed...etc...

I'm not for population supression. People that are able to properly provide for as many children as they can should do so. You don't have to supress population if you just let the millions of diseased ridden dregs of Earth die off. There will be plenty of room. The world isn't filled up by functioning, progressing humans, it's filled with stone-age plagued idiots that haven't discovered the wheel....except for the Chinese.

So you're OK with me coming around to your house with a screwdriver and stabbing you, your Mum, Dad and siblings while you sleep?

Didn't think so.

There is a lot of good and bad in the world - but the attitude of f*** everyone else I'm out for me isn't what we (as a population) should be about. Lions don't kill each other because they realise they are stronger together - for the most part, humans don't seem to be as smart.

If you were part of an Extra-Terrestial race watching Earth from space would you want to make contact when the dominant lifeform of the planet's best trait is being able to kill and maim each other (evidenced by centuries of war and conflict which continues today). How about....no.

What does any of that have to do with you and a screwdriver? Remove your foot from your mouth and add context, thanks. I don't even know if that was supposed to be a rebuttle at all, because it sounds like rambling. I'm talking about survival of the fittest and natural selection, and you're talking about screwdrivers and space aliens? I'm on page 135, please turn to it, you're clearly not on it.

And it isn't what we as a population should be about according to whom? That's exactly how the world always has been, and still is. You know why? Because that's how it should be. It's how animals are.

Lions don't kill each other because they're not genetically programmed to kill one another. Animals other than humans can't reason. Acting like they can is dumb. And humans don't work together? Then please explain to me exactly what a town, a county, a state/province, a nation, and an alliance/coalition of nations is?

Not to get dragged into a discussion about aliens of all things, but let's not automatically presume if there are aliens that they're humanitarian flower-wearing pacificists? It's naive and arrogant, thanks.

Look at Burma FFS - they won't let people help because the military rule doesn't like the US. Hate to tell you guys, if everyone in your country dies then there won't be anyone to rule....

Who cares about Burma. On top of that, how do you know that's why they won't let people help, assuming that's even the case? Have you researched the problem, or did you just see it on CNN and/or read it on a website? Newsflash (pun intended) - THE MEDIA DOES NOT EQUATE TO THE TRUTH.

As far as the "if everyone in your country dies" thing, I guess whoever the ruling party is is lucky because everyone dying is not even remotely a possibility. Yeah, there wouldn't be anyone to rule if that happened - but it never will.

So the fact we dump hundreds of millions of litres of pollution into the ocean and destroy hundreds of acres of forest daily is natural selection?

My tirade was generally directed towards the spineless humanitarianist Fluffy Bunny babble I was hearing. I think wantonly destroying the environment is deplorable, and I loathe the corporations, the lobbyists, and the governments that allow things like that to go on. It is natural selection, but a perverse, gratuitous, and unneccessary form of it. I don't want to get dragged down into some environmentalist text-bog. The environment rules, crap that pwns it sucks, we're all on the same page on that.

I'm too busy crushing the naivete of the hey-everyone-let's-all-hold-hands-and-be-friends ideaology for that.

[J.Twendrist]

Whether or not you want those populations to expand is irrelavant. If there is a human child starving to death in the streets you give him/her food. If they can't stand on their own feet, help them until they can. You can't just turn down aid to millions of people and watch them die.

[Pali]

Nations that are up to their eyes in suffering and disease and pain and poverty are that way because they were not up to snuff.

Wrong. Societies in different places gained technological advantages (and then used those advantages to dominate and profit at the expense of less lucky ones) at different rates because they had different circumstances. Europe in particular benefitted from having high-yield crops and labor-capable animals brought over by people from the Fertile Crescent after it stopped being fertile that could exist in the similar climate (Europe is along nearly the same lines of latitude, granting similar day lengths and temperature/precipitation ranges... the parts of Europe that did not have these capabilities, such as the northern British Isles and Scandanavia, did not develop nearly so quickly). This allowed agriculture to progress more quickly, which allowed more people to specialize in non-agricultural roles and allowed technology to progress faster. It also gave them experience with and therefore resistance to more virulent diseases, as animal farming concentrates high populations in small areas and allows very virulent diseases like small pox to evolve and thrive (small per-square-mile animals populations means virulent diseases that kill their hosts die off fast, but higher populations allow them to survive... America would have been a LOT harder to conquer if small pox and other European diseases hadn't wiped out about 90% of the indigenous population). Technological growth and disease resistance due to agricultural capacity allowed Europe to dominate the world... people in Sudan or Iraq or Indonesia are not stupider (less educated is an entirely different matter than less intelligent) or lazier than others, they just got a worse hand of cards to work with. I highly recommend you read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. The argument I made above comes almost entirely from it, and I've yet to encounter a better explanation (both in logic and in supporting evidence) for the differing rates of development of various societies. It is by geographic lottery that Europeans ended up dominating the world instead of some other group... if New Guineans had been granted the same advantages, they'd be running the world instead.

Now, I'm not saying culture has played no part in how things turned out... Japan, for instance, spent a fair bit of time dominated by gun-wielding countries largely because of the samurai-led culture which glorified the use of the sword and first taxed and eventually outlawed gun use within Japan because it was seen as dishonorable. However, while this was a stubborn and short-sighted mistake (from a historical perspective), the idea that this is in any way genetic is dispelled by the earlier Japanese technological supremacy over Westerners and the current Japanese technological superiority over them.

Lions don't kill each other because they're not genetically programmed to kill one another.

Sure they are. If a male lion takes over a pride, one of the first things he does is kill the children of the previous pride leader so that the females can devote their time to bearing and raising HIS young. What they won't usually do is waste their health and lives in actually violent dominance fights, but instead they attempt to scare off the challenger... wolves and many other social mammals do the same.

I'm talking about survival of the fittest and natural selection

First, you're talking about Social Darwinism, not actual evolution via genetic change within a population. There's no evidence that I've seen that any ethnic, cultural, or national group is mentally superior to any other that is not better explained by the argument I gave above (another big reason is that the people in the few existing hunter/gatherer societies score higher on IQ tests, adapted for circumstances, than the average Westerner does [mostly because Western societies have social structures in place to support the less gifted, so even a retarded or otherwise disabled person can survive]... and there are other reasons too, such as the ability of people from these socieities to learn and master more scientifically advanced ideas and more advanced technology, as well as their far superior capabilities of living within their circumstances when compared to our own). While certain human groups are genetically better suited for certain climates (whites don't handle sun as well as blacks, for instance... drop me in the Sahara and I'll be sunburnt to a crisp and dehydrated to the point of exhaustion in less than a day, but drop us both in Scotland and a black guy'll die of vitamin D deficiency long before me), that does not make anyone mentally superior. I've never seen any convincing evidence that any group actually is.

Second, just because natural selection guided our evolution does not mean that we should find it an ideal rule for how WE guide our development as a global society. Science is the explanation of how things are... it does not make judgements regarding how they should be (though it is useful for determining the likely outcomes of our decisions/actions). That is the realm of philosophy... and evolution is science, not philosophy. Anyone who seriously advocates natural selection as how humans should be judged is someone who I would not turn my back on.

Savage Utter Brutality: It's a tradition of us lifeforms here on Earth.

I'm against the idea that just because something's been done a long time means it should continue to be done. Slavery is also traditional amongst life on Earth, and not just humans... but I'll never advocate it.

[Mudder]

So I skipped a couple of the last replies... I hope all of you nailed Valsagarge for being a retard.

Dude, other nations are in really bad condition BECAUSE of ...Well.. Us. Look at all the states that are having problems. Almost all of them were under colonial rule where we basically raped their country. Most of that has not changed, even to this day.

[The Professor]

ditto Pali...ditto

perhaps the reality of this world is harsh and cold, but it is the ideal of mankind to rise above the nature of the beast.....our ability to reason is what seperates us from the rest.....some people care about themselves, while others are selfless....that is the reality of it....just because we live in a dog eat dog world on a whole....does not mean we should not try to rise above all the petty rivalry....all the trivial struggles for status and control.....of all creatures......humans believe in a higher power....humans show compassion and mercy....humans have a conscience that offers those feelings of regret and quilt.....that is what makes us human.......and it says alot about a person who has become so apathetic toward the very gift of life itself.....natural selection?....is just a term created to try and explain why some life-forms/creatures survive and others do not....we are all weak and flawed in some form or fashion.....we all need the aid of others to exist....

I really do not know why I even tried to reply to this in my current state of mind....sleep deprived....and more scatter-brained than ever......

[Aulian]

The sad thing is' date=' most of the posts are right, humanity is still as parasitic to this world as every other species in this world. Is that right? No. Why? Because we know better, they don't. And we're doing more damage than they possibly could for the most part.To make a bad analogy, fastforward 500+ years of humanity's current status and we'll be like the aliens in Independence Day, parasites destroying civiliations to harvest resources cuz they kicked the **** out of their own world.[/quote']

Thats exactly the point. We are not driven by base insect alone. If not for our reasoning and deduction we would not be ANYWHERE NEAR the top of the food chain.

We should by all right be more respobsible then any other creature to what happens to this planet because with our reasoning and deduction we have the ability to make a difference and a change.

Sure, there's no doubt that there's plenty of food to feed everyone - How about people feed them damn selves, hmm? If you can't stand up, then you fall. Rule of life, why should anyone or any country be exempt from it. Even if a country is hellbent in its foreign policy to sent aid to other nations, it's treasonous to me to even consider it until all of your own country is fed and clothed.

When last was your country concerned about themselves? I dont want to add fuel to the fire but America is NOTORIOUS for making WAR with other countries. They spend BILLIONS of dollars killing other people when they could use a few of those and cloth, feed, house, educate their entire population.

Lions don't kill each other because they're not genetically programmed to kill one another. Animals other than humans can't reason. Acting like they can is dumb. And humans don't work together? Then please explain to me exactly what a town, a county, a state/province, a nation, and an alliance/coalition of nations is?

Are you kidding me? There are hundreds of experiments that show how animals pocess many similar reasoning abilities then humans including how they react to stimuli and sove problems.

Who cares about Burma. On top of that, how do you know that's why they won't let people help, assuming that's even the case? Have you researched the problem, or did you just see it on CNN and/or read it on a website? Newsflash (pun intended) - THE MEDIA DOES NOT EQUATE TO THE TRUTH.

Thats exactly the problem attitude. Again I dont want to be adding fuel to the fire but America ****s up alot of peoples lives (as well as helping MILLIONS of people too, dont get me wrong Im not anti american, just stating fact.) And its inevitable that one day some disaster will hit america that they will be not be able to cope with. And many countries will adopt the attitude of "**** america" as a result of the attitude shown to them.

My tirade was generally directed towards the spineless humanitarianist Fluffy Bunny babble I was hearing. I think wantonly destroying the environment is deplorable, and I loathe the corporations, the lobbyists, and the governments that allow things like that to go on. It is natural selection, but a perverse, gratuitous, and unneccessary form of it. I don't want to get dragged down into some environmentalist text-bog. The environment rules, crap that pwns it sucks, we're all on the same page on that.

I'm too busy crushing the naivete of the hey-everyone-let's-all-hold-hands-and-be-friends ideaology for that.

All good and well. Im in no way saying we should all hold hands and sing campfire songs. Hell after watching that movie I'd prefer a gun and a couple of grenades to teach some of those bastards a lesson.

Also people who believe animals dont show emotion, love, devotion, loyalty, courage have no idea what they are talking about. Time and time again we use animals to save lives, or they just instinctively do it because they feel some connection to us, whether it be any of the afore mentioned things.

This quote from the matrix really sums us up the best I've ever heard it put:

I'd like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realised that humans are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus.

[Quigt]

So the fact we dump hundreds of millions of litres of pollution into the ocean and destroy hundreds of acres of forest daily is natural selection?

Part of natural selection is natural succession. The world as a whole is overpopulated, and the overabundant population will eventually die out when resources are no longer plentiful enough to support an excess in capacity. I know this is true because it's been observed and studied in other populations and environments, and eventually, it will happen to humans.

[Valsgarde]

Wrong. Societies in different places gained technological advantages (and then used those advantages to dominate and profit at the expense of less lucky ones) at different rates because they had different circumstances. Europe in particular benefitted from having high-yield crops and labor-capable animals brought over by people from the Fertile Crescent after it stopped being fertile that could exist in the similar climate (Europe is along nearly the same lines of latitude, granting similar day lengths and temperature/precipitation ranges... the parts of Europe that did not have these capabilities, such as the northern British Isles and Scandanavia, did not develop nearly so quickly). This allowed agriculture to progress more quickly, which allowed more people to specialize in non-agricultural roles and allowed technology to progress faster. It also gave them experience with and therefore resistance to more virulent diseases, as animal farming concentrates high populations in small areas and allows very virulent diseases like small pox to evolve and thrive (small per-square-mile animals populations means virulent diseases that kill their hosts die off fast, but higher populations allow them to survive... America would have been a LOT harder to conquer if small pox and other European diseases hadn't wiped out about 90% of the indigenous population). Technological growth and disease resistance due to agricultural capacity allowed Europe to dominate the world... people in Sudan or Iraq or Indonesia are not stupider (less educated is an entirely different matter than less intelligent) or lazier than others, they just got a worse hand of cards to work with. I highly recommend you read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. The argument I made above comes almost entirely from it, and I've yet to encounter a better explanation (both in logic and in supporting evidence) for the differing rates of development of various societies. It is by geographic lottery that Europeans ended up dominating the world instead of some other group... if New Guineans had been granted the same advantages, they'd be running the world instead.

Now, I'm not saying culture has played no part in how things turned out... Japan, for instance, spent a fair bit of time dominated by gun-wielding countries largely because of the samurai-led culture which glorified the use of the sword and first taxed and eventually outlawed gun use within Japan because it was seen as dishonorable. However, while this was a stubborn and short-sighted mistake (from a historical perspective), the idea that this is in any way genetic is dispelled by the earlier Japanese technological supremacy over Westerners and the current Japanese technological superiority over them.

Exactly - they weren't up to snuff. They didn't do as much with their resources as other cultures that may have had less in the first place.Central/Western/Northern Europe is cold and mountainous. There are PLENTY of places that are more fertile, ore-rich, and with more forgiving climates in the world, and the inhabitants in these places have more or less stayed pre-iron age. Sub-Saharan Africa never even domesticated the elephant. Central America never developed the wheel. The Chinese and the Japanese rocked the civilization party, but aside from them and the Indo-Europeans (and to a large extent a lot of Middle Eastern ethnicities, which as you pointed got screwed not out of lack of ingenuity or intelligence but rather climate and terrain pwnage), NO one has done anything worthwhile with their resources. They have failed in developing their culture past rain dances and worshipping effagies and in developing their technology to anything past obsidian-tipped spears and hut-architecture. Now they're starving to death or being decimated by disease because their populations are too large for a culture that hasn't developed proper agricultural and medical techniques. Darwinism at its finest.

I'm searching for the Guns, Germs, and Steel e-book on Soulseek now. I suggest anyone that would begin to refute my arguments (either with sound, thought out points like this, or childish name calling) to read March of the Titans and then read Fingerprints of the Gods. FPotG is by Graham Hancock. I forget who wrote March of the Titans.

Sure they are. If a male lion takes over a pride, yada yada yada

Yes, I realize this. This however is just nitpicking what I wrote, which was a refutal of L-A saying that Lions don't kill each other because they have the capacity to reason that if they don't kill one another, they can work together for a greater benefit. I was speaking of broad and wanton and "senseless" killing, as he was.

First, you're talking about Social Darwinism, not actual evolution via genetic change within a population. There's no evidence that I've seen that any ethnic, cultural, or national group is mentally superior to any other that is not better explained by the argument I gave above

I'm not just talking about Social Darwinism, I -am- also talking about evolution within the change of a population. There's plenty of evidence, but 9 times out of 10 when people see it, despite the fact of how irrefutable it is, people throw out the trademark trite remarks. "Racist." "Ignorant." etc etc. If you want evidence and have the maturity to be able to stomach politically unmotivated facts, then again - March of the Titans.

I'm against the idea that just because something's been done a long time means it should continue to be done. Slavery is also traditional amongst life on Earth, and not just humans... but I'll never advocate it.

Generally I agree that I'm against the idea that just because something's been done a long time it means it should continue. I'm starkly anti-dogma. However, it isn't a tradition in just the normal sense. It is how all lifeforms are in existence, regardless of intelligence or lack thereof. To go against it would be to go against nature. It's hypocritical to say how wrong we're doing nature with one breath and then saying how we should go against nature in the next.

I'm against slavery, but not because I see any intrinsic value in every human life..mainly because there isn't any. It espouses laziness and dependency in the master culture, weakening in.

I hope all of you nailed Valsagarge for being a retard.

Dude, other nations are in really bad condition BECAUSE of ...Well.. Us. Look at all the states that are having problems. Almost all of them were under colonial rule where we basically raped their country. Most of that has not changed, even to this day.

Excuse me dear, adults are speaking here. If you can't handle a debate where someone has a differing opinion, the GTFO. That's the essence of a debate - multiple people expressing their points of view while citing their reasoning. You're a prime example of someone who hasn't developed the maturity to have an open debate because you're too hung up on the superiority of your own line of thought. Please exit the Word Arena, serious contenders are at work.

Other nations are bad because of us? What kind of half-wit statement is this. The nations that suck have sucked long before the 13 colonies or the Dawn of the Western empires.

Thats exactly the point. We are not driven by base insect alone. If not for our reasoning and deduction we would not be ANYWHERE NEAR the top of the food chain.

We should by all right be more respobsible then any other creature to what happens to this planet because with our reasoning and deduction we have the ability to make a difference and a change.

Well said. What do you suppose entails in this responsibility, though? I assert that it is the responsibility to retain and maintain the air, the Earth, and the water. It's senseless to destroy the very rock we live on.

When last was your country concerned about themselves? I dont want to add fuel to the fire but America is NOTORIOUS for making WAR with other countries. They spend BILLIONS of dollars killing other people when they could use a few of those and cloth, feed, house, educate their entire population.

I agree entirely. I loathe this country's government. Not the Bush administration, the government. Treat the problem, not the symptom.

Are you kidding me? There are hundreds of experiments that show how animals pocess many similar reasoning abilities then humans including how they react to stimuli and sove problems.

Sources?

Again I dont want to be adding fuel to the fire but America ****s up alot of peoples lives (as well as helping MILLIONS of people too, dont get me wrong Im not anti american, just stating fact.) And its inevitable that one day some disaster will hit america that they will be not be able to cope with. And many countries will adopt the attitude of "**** america" as a result of the attitude shown to them.

You're probably right.

Also people who believe animals dont show emotion, love, devotion, loyalty, courage have no idea what they are talking about.

Sources?

Please do some research on the brain before you say things like this. I generally agree with what you have to say (though from a different standpoint), and things like this just show a dismal naivete.

Part of natural selection is natural succession. The world as a whole is overpopulated, and the overabundant population will eventually die out when resources are no longer plentiful enough to support an excess in capacity. I know this is true because it's been observed and studied in other populations and environments, and eventually, it will happen to humans.

Exactly. Providing "humanitarian aid" just prolongs the problem.

[mya]

Hei Valsgarde, do you have an opinion on why the Africans do so badly even when they have some of the best Climates and resources ?

[Cycel]

Part of natural selection is natural succession. The world as a whole is overpopulated' date=' and the overabundant population will eventually die out when resources are no longer plentiful enough to support an excess in capacity. I know this is true because it's been observed and studied in other populations and environments, and eventually, it will happen to humans.[/quote']

Exactly. Providing "humanitarian aid" just prolongs the problem.

Only if you look at humans as a series of independent systems working against each other. I would venture that our "enlightened" nature allows us to assume a unified stance, regardless of the physical, socioeconomic or emotional differences between us. Our greatest asset as a species toward survivability is our ability to work, act and think as a team.

When it comes to discussions on Social Darwinism, I believe it fallacious to argue that one segment of humanity will/has advance(d) beyond another, without also admitting that humanity as a whole can not advance because of this.

In other words, the greatest opposition to the success of any team is refusing to admit you're on a team.

[Pali]

Exactly - they weren't up to snuff. They didn't do as much with their resources as other cultures that may have had less in the first place.Central/Western/Northern Europe is cold and mountainous. There are PLENTY of places that are more fertile' date=' ore-rich, and with more forgiving climates in the world, and the inhabitants in these places have more or less stayed pre-iron age.[/quote']

Central/Western/Northern Europe are not where civilization began and flourished. The area surrounding the Mediterranean is, and technology spread from there to the rest of Europe (after it spread out of the Fertile Crescent into the Mediterranean). This only strengthens my argument.

These places you mention lacked native animals and plants that were very useful. The Fertile Crescent had unique advantages in that it had four native grain plants that were very useful, and it had useful animals for labor and food production such as the horse. It is not just the temperature range and soil condition, it is what plants and animals were there to work with. The Americas had ONE useful grain: corn. They had one useful animal for domestication: the llama. The llama was useless for labor, and corn was not nearly as productive as Crescent grains like wheat and barley. To allow technological development, a society needs to be producing enough food so that some people can afford to NOT spend their time producing food and can spend it working in other areas (such as with metals). Animal power makes a huge difference, and what crops are naturally there makes a difference. Ironically, what ores were available is a lot less of a factor for pre-industrial societies... metal working done in small quantities, such as for tools or weapons, doesn't really require that much metal. The Empire State Building today probably has as much metal content as the city of Rome did 2000 years ago. Iron is a fairly common element, and most agricultural societies had some knowledge of how to work it and other light metals. Steel, being iron blended with carbon, is a FAR more specialized technology that required a LOT more time and development behind it.

Sub-Saharan Africa never even domesticated the elephant.

The vast majority of large mammals have never been domesticated because they lack the temperament for it, or because it's just not economical to do so. To grow an elephant to maturity takes nearly as long as growing a human to maturity, and a LOT more food is needed along the way. Elephants have been tamed plenty of times, but domesticating them and using them for regular labor is simply not practical (Sub-Saharan Africans may have never domesticated them, but neither have the Europeans that conquered the Sub-Saharan Africans).

Central America never developed the wheel.

They lacked beasts of burden. The wheel's a far more useful invention with them around.

The Chinese and the Japanese rocked the civilization party, but aside from them and the Indo-Europeans (and to a large extent a lot of Middle Eastern ethnicities, which as you pointed got screwed not out of lack of ingenuity or intelligence but rather climate and terrain pwnage), NO one has done anything worthwhile with their resources.

The point I've been making is that they didn't HAVE worthwhile resources to do things with. Moving from a hunter/gatherer lifestyle to an agricultural one is NOT the most economical choice in many situations. You need to remember that the natural versions of most of the plants we farm today are not nearly as useful as their modern versions. Natural corn is hard and has very little nutrition content, which cost the Americas greatly but STILL was enough to allow the Mayas, Aztecs and Incas to build huge civilizations. What they lacked were more useful crops (which would've allowed more people to spend their time not farming) and beasts of burden (which, again, would've let more people spend their time not farming and would be of use in other situations as well... the horse had a huge impact on warfare). The development of steel was a crucial advantage of Europeans over these peoples, and steel was a technology that required centuries of development.

They have failed in developing their culture past rain dances and worshipping effagies and in developing their technology to anything past obsidian-tipped spears and hut-architecture. Now they're starving to death or being decimated by disease because their populations are too large for a culture that hasn't developed proper agricultural and medical techniques. Darwinism at its finest.

They're also starving to death and being decimated by disease because of centuries of Western control and exploitation of them that continues to this day. Not because of their genetic differences from us. Darwinism deals with genes, not with individuals.

I -am- also talking about evolution within the change of a population.

No, you're not. Evolutionary theory deals with changing allele frequencies within a population. There is no evidence I've seen that any group is genetically predisposed to be mentally inferior to other humans. If there is no genetic basis, then it has nothing to do with evolution.

Hei Valsgarde' date=' do you have an opinion on why the Africans do so badly even when they have some of the best Climates and resources ?[/quote']

They don't though. They have a narrow strip along the Mediterranean which is fairly fertile, and then the Sahara cuts the continent in half. For most of human existence, the Sahara was incredibly difficult and dangerous to cross. Most of the foods, animals and technologies from the Fertile Crescent simply never made it south of the Sahara, and sub-Saharan Africa lacked its own abundance of useful crops/animals. The places where they did go, such as Egypt, flourished... but Egypt was highly limited by the Nile being its only real water source. Europe gets a lot more rain and has a lot more smaller rivers due to the mountainous terrain.

[mya]

"These places you mention lacked native animals and plants that were very useful. The Fertile Crescent had unique advantages in that it had four native grain plants that were very useful' date=' and it had useful animals for labor and food production such as the horse. It is not just the temperature range and soil condition, it is what plants and animals were there to work with. The Americas had ONE useful grain: corn. They had one useful animal for domestication: the llama. The llama was useless for labor, and corn was not nearly as productive as Crescent grains like wheat and barley. To allow technological development, a society needs to be producing enough food so that some people can afford to NOT spend their time producing food and can spend it working in other areas (such as with metals). Animal power makes a huge difference, and what crops are naturally there makes a difference." - Pali [/quote']

Best theory i have read. really liked your explanation.

"They don't though. They have a narrow strip along the Mediterranean which is fairly fertile' date=' and then the Sahara cuts the continent in half." - Pali [/quote']

There are lots of areas in Africa (ex: ancient Portuguese colonies), that have the resources and the Climate.

Traveling was also common, i think. Just think of the silk trade route and the rich southern African ports. For example the technologie that allowed my countrie to sail across Atlantic (around 1500 AD), a kind of Lemon juice concentrate, was African developed.

I myself think its the Temperature. To hot countries give way to a "Lazy" living mentality. Just think of Brazil...

[Pali]

There are lots of areas in Africa (ex: ancient Portuguese colonies), that have the resources and the Climate.

Traveling was also common, i think. Just think of the silk trade route and the rich southern African ports. For example the technologie that allowed my countrie to sail across Atlantic (around 1500 AD), a kind of Lemon juice concentrate, was African developed.

I myself think its the Temperature. To hot countries give way to a "Lazy" living mentality. Just think of Brazil...

Except they did not have those resources NATIVELY (it is important to distinguish exactly what resources one is referring to... I am referring to grains useful as crops and animals suitable for domestication [they had the camel, which is useful for transport but not much for labor]). They were all brought in by European conquerors much much later. For thousands of years Africa was cut in half by desert... trade across the Sahara was done in small amounts, but there were not mass migrations across it bringing crops and technologies like there were from the Fertile Crescent to India and the Mediterranean region. It was not until the last thousand years that sub-Saharan Africa had serious contact with the rest of the world, and by that time the European advantage had grown too far (and Europeans were more interested in conquest, slaves, and extorting gold than in raising native people's capabilities) for them to bridge the gap.

The explanation I have given here is a fairly simplistic version of that Diamond gives in Guns, Germs, and Steel. There are of course other factors that played parts in development of various societies around the globe (i.e. my previous reference to the samurai culture preventing acceptance of the gun in Japan), but I think the evidence is very strong that what I've been talking about were the MAIN factors.

I myself think its the Temperature. To hot countries give way to a "Lazy" living mentality. Just think of Brazil...

Except think about ancient Egypt, which also had a very hot climate yet is one of the oldest places of civilization on the planet and built the Pyramids (due to the presence of the Nile and crops/techniques brought in from the F.C.). Look at desert peoples who would spend months travelling through intense heat trading commodities from one side of the desert to the other instead of just settling on one of those sides.