Shoddy mass production crushes quality

30 posts / 0 new
Last post
contrarianna
Shoddy mass production crushes quality

 

contrarianna

Same old story just got older
"....
The big question is, what happened to humans 50,000 years ago," he says. Early modern humans and Neanderthals now appear to have had similarly big brains at birth, that grew at similar rates. But the brains of today's babies are smaller than both of them. "Are they more efficiently organised? Or did we trade a bit of intelligence for smaller, cheaper brains that meant we could reproduce faster," he says.

If so, Zollikofer speculates, we may have succeeded the Neanderthals not because we were smarter, but because we bred faster – more like rabbits."[url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14682-did-we-outbreed-slowmaturing... Scientist[/url]

Are we not Men?
We are Devo.

[ 09 September 2008: Message edited by: contrarianna ]

Jingles

[img]http://bp2.blogger.com/_AecfAsnU-ZM/SCDLwaEnPRI/AAAAAAAAAIs/Uu4qHcYVDxc/...

quote:

Or did we trade a bit of intelligence for smaller, cheaper brains that meant we could reproduce faster," he says.

I concur.

Fidel

Zecharia Sitchin said in "The 12th Planet" that Man's ancestor apes lived as far back as 25 million years ago - it took 11 million years for a manlike ape to appear - and it took 11 million more years until the first ape-man worthy of the classification Homo to appear. The first being considered truly manlike was Advanced Australopithecus about 2 million years old.

It took another million years for Homo erectus to appear and yet another million for Neanderthal man to appear. And he looked similar to Australopithecus and used similar tools. Finally about 35 thousand years ago Homo Sapiens appeared in the form of Cro-Magnon man with specialized tools, the ability to build shelters and create art depicting organized society and culture.

A few thousand years later the high civilizations of Mesopotamia appeared. And then in the blink of an eye, man is landing on the moon, discovering DNA, and building atomic bombs. It was breakneck speed in Darwinian terms.

Brian White

I think the 35 thousand year thingy was the key to what we are today. Some sneaky conniving change in brain structure perhaps? Perhaps the invention of the god concept? I think that it was the change to real consiousness that did it.
we are masters of the world but with way more power than we realize. Like chimps playing with hand granades.

quote:

Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Zecharia Sitchin said in "The 12th Planet" that Man's ancestor apes lived as far back as 25 million years ago - it took 11 million years for a manlike ape to appear - and it took 11 million more years until the first ape-man worthy of the classification Homo to appear. The first being considered truly manlike was Advanced Australopithecus about 2 million years old.

It took another million years for Homo erectus to appear and yet another million for Neanderthal man to appear. And he looked similar to Australopithecus and used similar tools. Finally about 35 thousand years ago Homo Sapiens appeared in the form of Cro-Magnon man with specialized tools, the ability to build shelters and create art depicting organized society and culture.

A few thousand years later the high civilizations of Mesopotamia appeared. And then in the blink of an eye, man is landing on the moon, discovering DNA, and building atomic bombs. It was breakneck speed in Darwinian terms.[/b]


martin dufresne

Well, I hope a few Neanderthals are sitting in caves somewhere waiting to pick up where they left off after Homo Erectus finally shoots his wad and self-destructs.

kropotkin1951

[img]MessinWithSasquatch_2-full[/img] I wish I knew how to attach pictures properly.

[ 12 September 2008: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]

Sarcastro

ha ha! I know, I hate humans too. Especially the stupid ones, oh and mothers too. How out of step from the rest of natural world these humans are with their selfish concern for creating and nuturing their offspring.

kropotkin1951

quote:


Originally posted by Sarcastro:
[b]ha ha! I know, I hate humans too. Especially the stupid ones, oh and mothers too. How out of step from the rest of natural world these humans are with their selfish concern for creating and nuturing their offspring.[/b]

Oh yes the "humans are superior" crap that has the planet on the brink of destruction.

quote:

Mosaic, Buddhist, Christian and Mussulman theologians have had recourse to divine inspiration to distinguish between good and evil. They have seen that man, be he savage or civilized, ignorant or learned, perverse or kindly and honest, always knows if he is acting well or ill, especially always knows if he is acting ill. And as they have found no explanation of this general fact, they have put it down to divine inspiration. Metaphysical philosophers, on their side, have told us of conscience, of a mystic "imperative," and, after all, have changed nothing but the phrases.

But neither have known how to estimate the very simple and very striking fact that animals living in societies are also able to distinguish between good and evil, just as man does. Moreover, their conceptions of good and evil are of the same nature as those of man. Among the best developed representatives of each separate class, - fish, insects, birds, mammals, - they are even identical.

Forel, that inimitable observer of ants, has shown by a mass of observations and facts that when an ant who has her crop well filled with honey meets other ants with empty stomachs, the latter immediately ask her for food. And amongst these little insects it is the duty of the satisfied ant to disgorge the honey that her hungry friends may also be satisfied. Ask the ants if it would be right to refuse food to other ants of the same anthill when one has had oneUs share. They will answer, by actions impossible to mistake, that it would be extremely wrong. So selfish an ant would be more harshly treated than enemies of another species. If such a thing happens during a battle between two different species, the ants would stop fighting to fall upon their selfish comrade. This fact has been proved by experiments which exclude all doubt.

Or again, ask the sparrows living in your garden if it is right not to give notice to all the little society when some crumbs are thrown out, so that all may come and share in the meal. Ask them if that hedge sparrow has done right in stealing from his neighbor's nest those straws he had picked up, straws which the thief was too lazy to go and collect himself. The sparrows will answer that he is very wrong, by flying at the robber and pecking him.

Or ask the marmots if it is right for one to refuse access to his underground storehouse to other marmots of the same colony. they will answer that it is very wrong, by quarrelling in all sorts of ways with the miser.

Finally, ask primitive man if it is right to take food in the tent of a member of the tribe during his absence. He will answer that, if the man could get his food for himself, it was very wrong. On the other hand, if he was weary or in want, he ought to take food where he finds it; but in such a case, he will do well to leave his cap or his knife, or even a bit of knotted string, so that the absent hunter may know on his return that a friend has been there, not a robber. Such a precaution will save him the anxiety caused by the possible presence of a marauder near his tent.

Thousands of similar facts might be quoted, whole books might be written, to show how identical are the conceptions of good and evil amongst men and the other animals.

The ant, the bird, the marmot, the savage have read neither Kant nor the fathers of the Church nor even Moses. And yet all have the same idea of good and evil. And if you reflect for a moment on what lies at the bottom of this idea, you will see directly that what is considered good among ants, marmots, and Christian or atheist moralists is that which is useful for the preservation of the race; and that which is considered evil is that which is hurtful for race preservation. Not for the individual, as Bentham and Mill put it, but fair and good for the whole race.


[url=http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/kropotkin/anmoral.html]Anarchist Morality[/url]

Sarcastro

in fact humans are no different than the ants or spiders that seem to be stupidly concerned every season with reproducing, along with flowers, bees, gnats, blue whales, duck billed platypuses and pretty much everything in the naural world. The only thing that truly seperates me from an ant is that I can step on it.

kropotkin1951

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Jingles

Breed, Baby! Breed!

Erik Redburn

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]I think the 35 thousand year thingy was the key to what we are today.
[/b]

Interesting speculation Brian White, but what we call modern humans first appeared one to two hundred years ago, the first traces of abstract representation have now been found back in South Africa 80,000 BCE not 30 thousand year old Europe. "Neanderthal"s' started producing similar things too before they "disappeared" from the records.

quote:

"Sarcastro"[b] ha ha! I know, I hate humans too. Especially the stupid ones, oh and mothers too. How out of step from the rest of natural world these humans are with their selfish concern for creating and nuturing their offspring. [/b]

Squandering the resources we depend on for immediate gain isn't being concerned for our kid's survival.

[ 12 September 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Sarcastro

I also believe we are squandering resources for short term profit but having children is natural and mocking it and hoping for the end of the homosapien spieces is anti-human and in fact anti-nature. We are a part of nature. Bees do it, birds do it, even human beings do it. Materialism will be the downfall of civization but the earth will keep spinning

Maysie Maysie's picture

quote:


Sarcasto: having children is natural and mocking it and hoping for the end of the homosapien spieces is anti-human and in fact anti-nature. We are a part of nature.

Things That Are Natural Also
* dying in childbirth
* living until 30, 35 years old
* dying of various diseases such as smallpox
* not brushing your teeth
* breaking a leg or arm and dying of blood loss
* I could go on

I think I've made my point. We in the West have tried our damnedest to control nature, and to a certain extent we have. We have longer lifespans, die of fewer illnesses that are still plaguing other parts of the world, and the poor here in the West of course.

I'm pro die-off myself. Only for the fat cats in the West. That is, us. I'm having recruitment problems though..... [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]I think the 35 thousand year thingy was the key to what we are today. Some sneaky conniving change in brain structure perhaps? Perhaps the invention of the god concept? [/b]

Every established culture around the world apparently has a pre and post-flood genesis story. A former NASA scientist, Maurice Chatelain, said that he believes modern man is the result of a genetic experiment which occurred somewhere around 300,000 to 100,00 years ago. There are cultural myths and legends handed down from generation to generation to support this wild theory, more or less. Whether Indian, Chinese, South American - some of the legends of myths are said to be almost as creative as modern science fiction, and yet, tend to corroborate one another around the world in respect to exogenesis. A principle of modern scientific investigation says that the least elaborate explanation for any phenomenon tends to be the most elegant.

Erik Redburn

quote:


Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]

Things That Are Natural Also
* dying in childbirth
* living until 30, 35 years old
* dying of various diseases such as smallpox
* not brushing your teeth
* breaking a leg or arm and dying of blood loss
* I could go on

I think I've made my point. We in the West have tried our damnedest to control nature, and to a certain extent we have. We have longer lifespans, die of fewer illnesses that are still plaguing other parts of the world, and the poor here in the West of course.
[/b]


Very salient point, what's "natural" isn't necessarily "good" or "inevitable" (and neither is "progress") -it just has to be accepted as is, in ways most my post-CroMagnon ancestors apparently never figured out. Euro-trash materialist philosophers then made the small but fatal mistake of believing that "God"s' plan/morality would inevitably be found in the physical structure of nature/evolution or processes therein. But it hasn't. (Do let us know if its found elsewhere tho, and just where that elsewhere is) You post-structuralist romantics are right about some things. That's the only error us post-humanists will admit. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 12 September 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Erik Redburn

quote:


Originally posted by Sarcastro:
[b]I also believe we are squandering resources for short term profit but having children is natural and mocking it and hoping for the end of the homosapien spieces is anti-human and in fact anti-nature. We are a part of nature. Bees do it, birds do it, even human beings do it. Materialism will be the downfall of civization but the earth will keep spinning[/b]

And not to put too fine a point on it. (if I haven't already) Were not really hoping for the end of...us. Thats why we on the "left" at least haven't yet given up on our equally natural ability to learn from our mistakes or consciously foresee the likely consequences of our actions or inaction. (unlike some other of nature's accidents) Some just don't like to think about them when inconvenient to them. They generally call themselves conservatives now, but I prefer "rednecks". Or potential Jerry Springer contestants.

And yes, the world will keep spinning even after we're gone but there might not be much left of evolutions other handiworks (it does hold other pleasing patterns and beings) to appreciate it then. I always find it funny how you conservative types tend to say "we" hate life then shrug off its probable imminent demise if we don't try to curtail it in less drastic fashion. Is mindlessly expressing our natural instinct to procreate so much more important than protecting the actual results future, or their right to the same? Or is it that making endless profits for a few rich fucks who hate us all the same is even more important? Nature has no respect for property either, as it's mostly just another human construct (or convenient legal fiction) beyond squabbling for temporary rights to territory and the food it provides, recognised only for as long as it can be actively defended. That my friend is the inherent contradiction in your own position.

[ 12 September 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Sarcastro

In fact my friend I thank you for the cordial tone despite the fact you assume I have a politically conservative viewpoint on this issue, it's really more to me about the chaotic and random nature of life. ... and for this reason we should try and live simply and with more humility, conserving and not raping the land for profit, I look at the syscrapers in the cities and sometimes see future parthenons and ancient ruins, rather than pesimistic I see my view as optimisitic. I grew up in a medium sized family and still enjoy the singular bond created growing up together as a family(I know that's a dirty word to some but don't crucify me, I'm no conservative christian, far from it). I just don't think children should be the first thing thrown over the edge of the Titantic.

Ken Burch

If his other posts had been like this, he probably wouldn't have been banned.

Kelly Martin

quote:


Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]

I'm pro die-off myself. [/b]


You go first....

Maysie Maysie's picture

Hardeehar you're so funny. Not.

Stick to the thread topic Kelly.

oldgoat

quote:


Originally posted by Kelly Martin:
[b]

You go first....[/b]


What the hell???

Given your posting history here, I'm not really disposed to take remarks like that in jest.

Bye.

DrConway

However, I think a salient point has been raised. Nobody really wants to be the first to kick the bucket in proof of an ideology. I rather think the challenge here is to show that all humans can and should pull together to keep this planet from becoming inhospitable to many forms of life not adapted to higher global temperatures.

To this end it is worth noting one catches more flies with honey than vinegar. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img] Convincing someone to change his or her ways works better than trying to force that someone to do so.

As for "die-offs"? I rather think the uncomfortable problem will be that [i]all[/i] humans will be at risk of this if we cannot change course soon. If population growth is the root cause of a lot of this, the simplest and most humane way to curb population growth is to simply not have children. There need be no talk of mass die-offs, killings, or any of the sort.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Jingles:
[b]Breed, Baby! Breed![/b]

Thanks, but I got enough compulsory heterosexuality growing up. Can't I just mess around? [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

Jingles

(that was a reference to the then-topical "Drill, Baby Drill!" slogan popular with the "family values" crowd. That's why one should never attempt topical humour.)


quote:

There need be no talk of mass die-offs, killings, or any of the sort.

Mass die offs are nature's way of restoring balance. We're waaay overdue.

DrConway

That is not inevitable. Species that are incapable of regulating their own reproductive cycles can fall victim to this. We humans are capable of regulating them, and can easily make it an evitable situation.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] You aren't really very good at this game are you?

Two perfectly good responses would have been: 1) Okay, I'll grant you guys a dispensation [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] , and 2) Getting a head start on that whole die-off thing aren't you [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] ?

The second is a little more risque, but worth a lot more points. Bonus points if you had left of the appropriate smilies.

Michael Hardner

quote:


The only thing that truly seperates me from an ant is that I can step on it.

Sarcastro, an ant can step on you too.

The effect, though, is likely to be less disruptive.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Sarcastro:
[b]...The only thing that truly seperates me from an ant is that I can step on it.[/b]

[quote edited, obviously]

I've been meaning to ask, are you available the next time any of us has some heavy lifting to do? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]