continuing proofs America is wacko

Pettytyrant101 wrote: The question arises of whether humans are capabale of modelling present behaviour on the experiences of the long dead or whether humans will always react 'in the moment' and are doomed therefore to repeat mistakes.

Yes and no... .... and I'm all for the burgers, thank you very much, providing they're naturally wholesome.

I was reading through some old articles on The Onion's website and came across a particularly great one:

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over'

The best part is that it came out January 17, 2001. It's almost prescient, especially when it talks about Bush's foreign policy.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

The whole thing is great, though a little depressing.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
The question arises of whether humans are capabale of modelling present behaviour on the experiences of the long dead or whether humans will always react 'in the moment' and are doomed therefore to repeat mistakes.

I think the old mistakes are there to fall back on, but there are plenty of people capable of learning from the past and figuring out completely new mistakes to make.

For example, here on the Pacific Coast the Native American communities were stable with strong economies, not warlike, and happy to integrate with the western culture. But when floods of immigrants came looking for good free land and found Indians already here, a number of massacres followed like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Wiyot_Massacre
It's almost impossible to estimate how many Indians disappeared at this time, as there had never been a census.

To avoid further slaughters, the federal government stepped in and rounded up most of the Native Americans, registering them and driving them onto small reservations for their own protection. This was quite progressive for the time, though with limited provisions for food and medicine, the majority of the Indians died anyway. (There's evidence that this is what certain officials had in mind all along.)

Canada was evolving a parallel system to the north of us which proved to be so effective that it became the model for Australia and South Africa. And I believe for Palestine as well.
See what I mean about new mistakes?

Our family has a 200 acre farm that we've been farming since the 1930's. Three miles away there is a small reservation about the size of our farm that contains over 1000 people including families that had been farming our farmland for thousands of years before us, until they were rounded up through no fault of their own and driven to the reservation in 1866.

They're our friends and neighbors, but I have to say that it's more than a little awkward.....

Orwell wrote:
Stories of Ozhobbit psychos in the Otback are exagerated -- but I wouldn't go there wityhout plenty of back-up just the same.

Just out of curiosity, what would you consider appropriate back-up? I would like to visit sometime, and I'm not totally risk averse.

You make these Ozhobbits sound like stereotypical Usahobbits of the Deep South, Captain Dave.... mmm... yes.... very much...

That's actually probably a pretty fair comparison. There's places in the South I'd rather not hitchhike.....

Pettytyrant101 wrote: The question arises of whether humans are capabale of modelling present behaviour on the experiences of the long dead or whether humans will always react 'in the moment' and are doomed therefore to repeat mistakes.

Sometimes I find it is easiest to consider humanity in terms of just being the dominant species of animal. In other words, lay aside theology, morality, etc, for a while, and think in a bare scientific way. Current theory has it that Homo Sapiens rise to the top was mainly due to adaptability and intelligence. Contrary to earlier theories, research and discoveries are now indicating humans did not evolve in one long chain of intermediate creatures. Instead there were multiple lines and offshoots, that at times co-exsisted with the human line, which we competed with and even cross-mated with. The primary factor, early on, may not have been humans ability to destroy conpetitors so much as ability to adapt to changing environments.

Species and Populations in nature have been known to self-destruct when they over-tax/destroy the environment in which they live. The didn't have the intelligence or ability to modify their behavior to self-limit population and consumption of resources. In some species it will cause the animals to become increasingly destructive of their own kind, as a the strongest or most intelligent find ways to eliminate the weaker.

From a natural perspective, I do not think the future looks particularly good. People will use their intelligence and adaptability to survive, but the only real threat is other people and so that points to competition and conflict, not cooperation.

I like the way you've turned adaptability of the species against itself. Puts a different spin on things.

I wonder if neandertals and other species of humans didnt die out or were slaughtered but were gradually interbred with homo sapiens and gradually over millions of years effectively all human species became homo sapiens. talking out of my hat, just thinking out loud, I tend to do that.

halfwise wrote:I like the way you've turned adaptability of the species against itself. Puts a different spin on things.

I know it sounds bad, but I think the odds are against cooperation, in terms of trying to perserve all humanity. People are capable of thinking outside of natures survival mechanics, but I suspect such thinking is like a thin crust in comparison to the natural instincts that drive people to focus on their own survival.

If there was still plenty of space and resources it would not be such a problem. But we are in fact (if current studies and thinking is correct) already beginning to run up against the exhaustion of resources coincidently with soaring population.

Mrs Figg wrote:I wonder if neandertals and other species of humans didnt die out or were slaughtered but were gradually interbred with homo sapiens and gradually over millions of years effectively all human species became homo sapiens. talking out of my hat, just thinking out loud, I tend to do that.

i totally agree! that's my thought as well. I saw a documentary about them, it seemed some of them died of cancer or something, but they seemed to think they just were outnumbered and "outbread".

Mrs Figg wrote:I wonder if neandertals and other species of humans didnt die out or were slaughtered but were gradually interbred with homo sapiens and gradually over millions of years effectively all human species became homo sapiens. talking out of my hat, just thinking out loud, I tend to do that.

Well, that is what the current DNA studies are telling us happened. DNA research has opened up a whole new view of prehistory, though I think it still needs time to mature and for larger samples to be done. They have had to reverse their claims a bit already, mainly due to jumping the gun basing theories on a minute group of samples. As sampling and the science improves things will get firmer.

One of the big recent finds was that people have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA. The ammount suggests limited interbreeding, but it happened. What actually happened to the Neanderthals is still not certain and under a lot of study. We know they emerged from Africa first, and know they lived coincidental with Homo Sapiens. We aren't sure how much of there decline was due to competition with Homo Sapiens and how much was due to failure to adapt to changes.

Newer still is the beginning of identifying other Hominid species that were not in Homo Sapiens line, and that lived coincidentally. I think two other species are in early stages of identification, and their may be some DNA evidence that one may have bred with Homo Sapiens as well.

I think that in general you could say the other species ultimately did fail, but were not totally obliterated. Part of their line was incorporated into our own, which in a way means they did not go totally extinct.

Turembar wrote:
People will use their intelligence and adaptability to survive, but the only real threat is other people and so that points to competition and conflict, not cooperation.

I'm inclined to agree, but your argument is based on this assumption:

Sometimes I find it is easiest to consider humanity in terms of just being the dominant species of animal. In other words, lay aside theology, morality, etc, for a while, and think in a bare scientific way.

It gets more complicated when morality is brought back into the equation, doesn't it?

David H wrote:

Turembar wrote:
People will use their intelligence and adaptability to survive, but the only real threat is other people and so that points to competition and conflict, not cooperation.

I'm inclined to agree, but your argument is based on this assumption:

Sometimes I find it is easiest to consider humanity in terms of just being the dominant species of animal. In other words, lay aside theology, morality, etc, for a while, and think in a bare scientific way.

It gets more complicated when morality is brought back into the equation, doesn't it?

Yes, it certainly does. It is just a tool I use to simplify the problem when dealing with very complicated human issues. People could possibly alter the future by working together in a logical fashion. But the obstacles that are in the way of that happening are great. One main problem is the possesion of materials/wealth. One main necessity would be those that have willingly giving up things to provide for those that do not, and going to great lengths to do so continually. Otherwise the disparity will continually fuel conflict over the resources. Other steps, maybe drastic, would also have to occur, that would involve a level of cooperation and control on a worldwide scale.

So I look to our forebearers in a sense for clues to predicting our most likely response.

Most animals will only provide for their immediate family. Pack and social animals will work cooperatively for the group/nest/hive. Humans are social animals and the models closest to us are Primate troops like Gorillas and Baboons. We have moved beyond that to a degree, but our early nature (that is a million or so years) was closer to the primates. My suspicion is therefore that humans are still wired genetically to behave much like other primates in a crisis, that is to protect the smaller groups people are divided into.

Humans are pretty unique as far as we know intellectually, but still have one foot if not more firmly rooted in our animal nature and instinct.

If I look at a squirrel, and propose a problem, I am safe in assuming most squirrels will behave like squirrels in their response. The same for apes, dogs, etc.

How will people act? I don't really know. But I would put the greater odds for fighting over resources, which seems to be human's normal response. The study of human aggression, that is when did humanity develop that particular technique for dealing with problems is its own study of course, and how long we have been using it is unknown. The oldest probable proof goes back 30000 years, but it's likely much older then that. Individual finds, questionable, extend 30 or 50k years older.

I didnt know that info about Neandertals, so my theory isnt so far fetched then. I am glad that they are still around with us albeit only in our DNA. Its sad really they couldnt share the Earth with us, but on the other hand they would have been treated terribly, I shudder to think their terrible fate if by some chance they had survived, we dont even treat each other with respect an supposedly we are all brothers. The poor things would have ended up in zoos or worse. Its a funny old world.

Well the usual human response to something new is 1. Can I eat it? 2. Can I have sex with it? 3. Do I have to fight it?
On that basis not suprised their DNA turns up in ours.

Turembar wrote:

How will people act? I don't really know. But I would put the greater odds for fighting over resources, which seems to be human's normal response.

One significant change: for the first time in human history there is increasingly technology to wage a war entirely remotely. It seems to me that there is a huge moral implication to this, when personal risk is no longer a deterrent. What a powerful tool for genocide in the wrong hands!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Well the usual human response to something new is 1. Can I eat it? 2. Can I have sex with it? 3. Do I have to fight it?
On that basis not suprised their DNA turns up in ours.

You forgot "can I sell my old junk car to it ?"

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Well the usual human response to something new is 1. Can I eat it? 2. Can I have sex with it? 3. Do I have to fight it?
On that basis not suprised their DNA turns up in ours.

Wait, can there be multiple correct answers?

David H wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Well the usual human response to something new is 1. Can I eat it? 2. Can I have sex with it? 3. Do I have to fight it?
On that basis not suprised their DNA turns up in ours.

Wait, can there be multiple correct answers?

IDK about humans, but Black Widow spiders do 2, 3 and then 1, in that order.

Things could be worse then!

We're all descended from Adam and Eve - I think we all best remember that and be friends.

Change of topic.

http://news.yahoo.com/water-guns-banned-handguns-allowed-gop-convention-202223900--abc-news-politics.html

halfwise wrote:Change of topic.

concealed carry license-holders will be able to carry their weapons in the streets surrounding the convention.
They will not, however, be able to have "super soaker" water guns, sticks, poles, portable shields or glass bottles.

This is just wrong. However misguided the Supreme Court ruling, it's based on the 2nd amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Since the amendment states nothing specifically about firearms, you would think all arms should be covered, however silly

I think I'll go down to the courthouse tomorrow and see if I can get a concealed carry permit for a Super-Soaker water gun

So Obama has come off the fence and come out in favour of gay marriage- good for him. So why is this in the wacko Yanks thread?
A House panel on military spending and setting military policy has come out against same sex ceremonies being allowed on military bases.
But thats not why its here, its here because of this exchange which took part among the panel when discussing the issue.

'Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., questioned what would happen if a service member literally interpreted the Old Testament's Leviticus, which considers homosexuality an abomination. Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., disputed her contention that was part of the Bible, saying it was the Old Testament.'

You lot are crazy!

You gotta be really careful with the Old Testament Law, or you may end up having to get circumcised to get into Heaven.

I'm sure you'll be doing a chapter on gentiles, circumcision, and wiggle-room in the Law in the early church eventually, right?

Yeah but you can get a good price selling your daughter on as a slave.
And lucky Gods such a compassionate God so that a women who is raped should be married to her rapist. Now there's a good idea God!

But if Republicans dont view the OT as part of the Bible whats their problem with gays then? The NT doesnt bother with them at all, Jesus doesnt have a word to say about them. Only place God has a go at them is in the OT but if it doesn't count then neither does the bit about gays.
Christians treat the Bible like a pick n' mix.