either i'm crazy, or...

[SobaViolence]

the world is fucking nuts.

i just can't care about economy. does anyone else have this problem? probably not.

i just see all of the world's problems and don't understand how we let them happen. how we can live with ourselves while people starve, die and fight for basic necessities while we sit in the lap of luxury.

i think we should feed the poor. i don't care about the fiscal problems. i really couldn't give a fuck. nationalize industry and feed the less fortunate. i don't understand.


i mean, there is no good excuse for people not to have clean water and basic education. there are plenty of piss poor reasons, but i'm not interested.

why can't people care? (this coming from a self-proclaimed nihilist)

[Qdrop]

why should we do it?

why must everyone be equal?

who made that a moral law?

[SobaViolence]

it's self-evident.

we're all human beings.

no one is better than another. i know that's hard for an american to grasp.

[Qdrop]

it's self-evident.

we're all human beings.

no one is better than another. i know that's hard for an american to grasp.

it's not self evident.
so what if we are all human beings.

you are dealing with tautology here.

no one is better than another?
says who?
i don't agree with that.
many don't....including non-americans.

perhaps if you grounded your arguments and sentiments in something more concrete rather than feel-good mantra and sanctimony, you might gain more followers....

[SobaViolence]

you're right.

you are better than some people, and some people are better than you.

what determines who's worth more? what makes a person valuable? what's really valuable these days?

[Qdrop]

you're right.

you are better than some people, and some people are better than you.

what determines who's worth more? what makes a person valuable? what's really valuable these days?

now we're gettin somewhere....
this how we attempt to ground this argument into something more tangible and quantative.

personally, i'm a darwinist....survival is key. being "fit" is key.
in this world, *productivity* equals fitness....

[SobaViolence]

what about stephen hawkins, as an example?


he's got huge physical problems but is a f'n genius. by your reasoning, he shouldn't survive.

edit. what happens if someone with more 'worth' than you decided you weren't fit to survive? what if they accepted you, but not your siblings or parents?

[EN[i]GMA]

the world is fucking nuts.

Yes.


i just can't care about economy. does anyone else have this problem? probably not.

The economy is inseperable from everything else.

As long as resources are finite, the economy will always rule.


i just see all of the world's problems and don't understand how we let them happen. how we can live with ourselves while people starve, die and fight for basic necessities while we sit in the lap of luxury.

How much money do you donate? How much time have you spent helping these people?

We, as humans, have the freedom to be pricks. And we excercise it.


i think we should feed the poor. i don't care about the fiscal problems. i really couldn't give a fuck. nationalize industry and feed the less fortunate. i don't understand.

Feed everyone now and starve everyone later is a stupid idea.


i mean, there is no good excuse for people not to have clean water and basic education. there are plenty of piss poor reasons, but i'm not interested.

There are plently of good reasons, you just won't listen to them.


why can't people care? (this coming from a self-proclaimed nihilist)

Because people are stupid.

[Schmeltz]

personally, i'm a darwinist....survival is key. being "fit" is key.


Sixty years ago most of the world fought a war to prove that Social Darwinism is complete and utter bullshit. It would be a gigantic leap backward for people to go back to believing in that toxic inanity.


There are plently of good reasons, you just won't listen to them.


No, there really is no good reason why people should go hungry when the world produces more food than we can all eat. You only consider them good reasons because you're not the one getting short-changed.

[zorra_chiflada]

personally, i'm a darwinist....survival is key. being "fit" is key



survival of the fittest isn't relevant anymore. maybe thousands and thousands of years ago, but not now.

[zorra_chiflada]

oh and btw, when i get depressed about the state of the world and the fact that i can't really do anything about it, my boyfriend tells me it will have to get a lot worse before it gets any better.

[SobaViolence]

out of the darkness comes the light.

power to jah people.

[zorra_chiflada]

it's not self evident.
so what if we are all human beings.

you are dealing with tautology here.

no one is better than another?
says who?
i don't agree with that.
many don't....including non-americans.

perhaps if you grounded your arguments and sentiments in something more concrete rather than feel-good mantra and sanctimony, you might gain more followers....

q, i've always noticed that you call people sanctimonious when you can't think of anything better to say to refute them.
what have you got against people that believe in doing the right thing by everyone? no-one's trying to be better than anyone here.

[yeahwho]

the world is fucking nuts.

i just can't care about economy. does anyone else have this problem? probably not.

i just see all of the world's problems and don't understand how we let them happen. how we can live with ourselves while people starve, die and fight for basic necessities while we sit in the lap of luxury.

i think we should feed the poor. i don't care about the fiscal problems. i really couldn't give a fuck. nationalize industry and feed the less fortunate. i don't understand.


i mean, there is no good excuse for people not to have clean water and basic education. there are plenty of piss poor reasons, but i'm not interested.

why can't people care? (this coming from a self-proclaimed nihilist)

(y) This post is why your one of the coolest guys on this site.

Fuck everybody else and their dysfunctional take on why some have to suffer.

You are probably more well balanced in a spiritual, mental sense than most. Fear of financial insecurity is the motivation for most of the worlds problems and ills. Madison Avenue has done a fucking number on the youth of America, I watch MTV and I just want to jam a crowbar up MTV's superficial ass.

Do something nice for somebody and don't get caught. :)

[SobaViolence]

thanks man.

i always thought i was an outcast.


and i almost gave up on the political forum... :o

[D_Raay]

thanks man.

i always thought i was an outcast.


and i almost gave up on the political forum... :o
Yeah, yeahwho is right. You are probably the sanest and most compassionate voice on this board, don't go anywhere. You may not always get replies to your comments, but that is probably because more often than not you are right and unbridled compassion for fellow human beings can't often be argued against.

That being said... Q and Enigma, your approach and mindset on this matter plays right into the Baby boomers philosophy "gimme it, it's mine!!". Their approach is clearly not working for everyone - yes the poor are human beings too- so what would be wrong with Soba's? I am not expecting an answer really for I already know what it is.

If people could actually display the type of selflessness and humility for this noble of an idea the world might actually get better.

[Ali]

i think we should feed the poor. i don't care about the fiscal problems. i really couldn't give a fuck. nationalize industry and feed the less fortunate. i don't understand.

i mean, there is no good excuse for people not to have clean water and basic education. there are plenty of piss poor reasons, but i'm not interested.Goddamn Commie!

You should be locked up for saying such things!!!

:p (as if you didn't know)

[Ali]

If people could actually display the type of selflessness and humility for this noble of an idea the world might actually get better. Big 'if'... very big.

People would if they could but they can't, so they don't.

They don't have the time/cash/energy to actually go ahead and 'do' something about all the problems they see.

We're all guilty of this, aren't we?

I am, anyway :o

[Qdrop]

what about stephen hawkins, as an example?


he's got huge physical problems but is a f'n genius. by your reasoning, he shouldn't survive. i said "productive".
i said nothing about physical ability or purity or anything resembling social darwinism.
yet, of course will immediantly leap to villify as such.


edit. what happens if someone with more 'worth' than you decided you weren't fit to survive? what if they accepted you, but not your siblings or parents? i define "worth" as a productive member of society.
now who decides what's considered productive? the people, and those they elect to be in power.
choose wisely.

[Qdrop]

Sixty years ago most of the world fought a war to prove that Social Darwinism is complete and utter bullshit. It would be a gigantic leap backward for people to go back to believing in that toxic inanity. yes, villify me as a social darwinist.
why not just call me a nazi...or "little hitler".
do a protest march around my office and throw pies at me too.

grossly distort what i say....do it.
it's awesome.

soba asked why i don't think all people are equal.
i connected it to darwinian evolution and suvival of the fittest...to show how every species in nature has the strong and the weak. the strongest are the most productive. they allocate more resources, etc.
the rest of the animal kingdom does not (and cannot) concern itself with "equality"....and it has served all of nature well.
that is, after all, why we are here....not because of equality...but because of competition.
remember that.

if you want to paint a picture of me lining up the impoverished into gas chambers...go ahead and be a (here it is again) sanctimonious asshole.



No, there really is no good reason why people should go hungry when the world produces more food than we can all eat. You only consider them good reasons because you're not the one getting short-changed. all principle, and no practicality.

let's just take one lone practical problem with giving food to impoverished nations...

there are alot of practical issues with just shipping lots of food to, say..Africa.
it's pretty well documented where the majority of the aid to third world nations go....to the dictators/war generals in control...who hoard it.
now, how do we stop that?
sanctions?
yeah...sanctions on an impoverished nation....that works.
guess we gotta send some troops to overthrow him, huh?
UH OH...there goes america "the imperialist" again....swinging thier big dick!
now what?

tell me, what is the best way to get that american cracker into a young ethiopian childs mouth?
tell me...

"who cares, just do it!! FREE FOOD NOW! FREE FOOD NOW! FREE FOOD NOW!"

and that's just the practical side...

the pragmatic problems with the principle of global socialism is a whole nother story...

see, my point is really not to point to any "action" we should take....but rather to accept that natures does not allow for "equality for all" and never has...for a reason.
it is NATURAL for some to be more productive than others. to be more "fit".
to have more.
i'm just labeling what exists...
i'm not excusing it...or advocating action to kill the "weak".

[EN[i]GMA]

Theft and coercion, even if it's for a good cause, is still theft and coercion.

It's wrong.

Taxation is always theivery.

[Qdrop]

survival of the fittest isn't relevant anymore. maybe thousands and thousands of years ago, but not now.

rather than just parroting what your boyfriend has programmed you to say...why don't YOU think for yourself?

i believe i've already had this debate with pres....

survival of the fittest is just as important and relevant as it has always been.
it may change form...but competition is still key.
to muck with nature...the nature that gave birth to us....is foolhardy.

we humans seem obsessed with out-thinking nature...out-thinking our own biology.
as if enlightenment can somehow, miraculously overcome millions of years of evolution...
just because some intellectual recently declared it "obsolete".

[Qdrop]

q, i've always noticed that you call people sanctimonious when you can't think of anything better to say to refute them. i use it because it fits...not because of a lack of vocabulary.

sanc·ti·mo·ny (sngkt-mn)
n.
-Feigned piety or righteousness; hypocritical devoutness or high-mindedness.

what have you got against people that believe in doing the right thing by everyone? there is no "right thing for everyone". one size does not fit all.

[yeahwho]

GMA']Theft and coercion, even if it's for a good cause, is still theft and coercion.

It's wrong.

Taxation is always theivery.
Your gonna make a great old bugger. you've got all the moves down...I feel like I spent a week at grandpas house every time I read your posts.

[EN[i]GMA]

Your gonna make a great old bugger. you've got all the moves down...I feel like I spent a week at grandpas house every time I read your posts.

And where the hell is my Geritol?

[sam i am]

As usual, Q said it all above. WTG, Q!
(y)

Respect....usually only reserved for D_Raay and Queen AdRock ;)

[D_Raay]

rather than just parroting what your boyfriend has programmed you to say...why don't YOU think for yourself?

i believe i've already had this debate with pres....

survival of the fittest is just as important and relevant as it has always been.
it may change form...but competition is still key.
to muck with nature...the nature that gave birth to us....is foolhardy.

we humans seem obsessed with out-thinking nature...out-thinking our own biology.
as if enlightenment can somehow, miraculously overcome millions of years of evolution...
just because some intellectual recently declared it "obsolete".
It's what separates us from the animals. You want to revert society to rolling around in the mud, or chasing down antelopes?

We CAN out think nature and biology, we already have to some extent. We should go backwards? We should revert to the dark ages maybe or maybe even further and start dragging our women around by the hair?

[D_Raay]

Most hungry people live in countries that have food surpluses rather than deficits. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), we are already producing one and a half times the amount of food needed to provide everyone in the world with an adequate and nutritious diet, yet one in seven people is suffering from hunger.

there is no "right thing for everyone". one size does not fit all.

Come on now Q, you don't really believe that do you?

There are plenty of things that we all SHOULD do... the fallibility of being human prevents it of course, but certainly we could do one thing a day to help the rest of the human beings on this planet. It doesn't even have to be anything of any serious import. Wouldn't expect anyone, especially the selfish people the world seems to be full of, to go out of their way, but even something as small as buying one of your regular grocery items in the organic form would help greatly if we all did it.

Food security will not be achieved by technical fixes, like genetic engineering (GE). People who need to eat need access to land on which to grow food or money with which to buy food. Technological 'solutions' like GE mask the real social, political, economic and environmental problems responsible for hunger.

The case of Argentina, the number two producer of GE crops in the world and the only developing country growing GE food crops on a large commercial scale, shows that GE does not lead to an increase in food security. Millions of tons of GE soya are exported every year from Argentina for cattle feed, while millions of Argentineans go hungry.

The real causes of hunger:

Poverty and lack of access to resources: Hunger and malnutrition are a direct result of a lack of access to, or exclusion from, productive resources, such as land, the forests, the seas, water, seeds, technology and credit. Seventy-five percent of the world's hungry are politically marginalised people who live in rural areas. An example of the grossly unequal distribution of land that directly contributes to hunger: in Latin America, 80 percent of agricultural land is in the hands of 20 percent of the farmers; the other 20 percent of the land is in the hands of the remaining 80 percent.

Unfair trade regimes: The current agricultural trade system puts the South in an impossible situation. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) annual state subsidies of their national agricultural sectors exceed Sub-Saharan Africa's entire Gross Domestic Product. Subsidised exports, artificially low prices and WTO legalised dumping by the rich countries characterise the current unfair model of agricultural trade faced by poor countries.

Orientation of research towards industrial agriculture rather than towards the needs of marginal farmers: Research often neglects the development of agricultural techniques that reduce the inputs needed and that are easy to control. Agricultural research at international and national levels is highly orientated towards industrial agriculture.

See, we could actually HELP ourselves by following through on Soba's idea. Just another example of free market capitalism not working under the guise of being viable.

[Qdrop]

It's what separates us from the animals. You want to revert society to rolling around in the mud, or chasing down antelopes?

We CAN out think nature and biology, we already have to some extent. We should go backwards? We should revert to the dark ages maybe or maybe even further and start dragging our women around by the hair?

who's reverting?
who said anything about reverting?

how come whenever evolution or evolutionary psychology is brought up, people start thinking about stone ages?
as if evolution stopped a long time ago...

i'm not advocating or offering....

i'm just labeling what IS.
and why it IS.
and why it shouldn't be mucked with.

[Qdrop]

it's not as if i am against altruistic goals....or seemingly altruistic goals (one could say ALL actions are selfish in some regard).

i'm just not a big proponent of hand-outs and "something for nothing".

and i do believe there will (and perhaps should) always be a disparity in wealth accumulation and standard of living.
i believe that is essential in nature...it is part of the balance....part of the mechanism.
competition must never be leveled out.


i'm not saying stop all foreign aid and disaster relief, etc (as i KNOW many of you are going to start heaping on me and building strawmen to such)....but i say set reasonable goals... as far as aid.
and examine the practicality of those goals.

[D_Raay]

who's reverting?
who said anything about reverting?

how come whenever evolution or evolutionary psychology is brought up, people start thinking about stone ages?
as if evolution stopped a long time ago...

i'm not advocating or offering....

i'm just labeling what IS.
and why it IS.
and why it shouldn't be mucked with.
I don't understand your argument... We shouldn't feed the poor because it messes with natural selection?

I was speaking metaphorically, I wouldn't actually expect that we would revert to anything, but ideologically we very well could.

[Qdrop]

I don't understand your argument... We shouldn't feed the poor because it messes with natural selection?


i'm saying altruism is certainly human, and benificial to all...sure.
tsunami relief..great...sounds good.

you never know when you may need the favor returned (which is likely the evolutionary reason behind the use of altruism).

but it's when people start spouting about "food and wealth inequalities" and how we should strive to make everyone equal...through socialist means...
that's when i shake my head.
taking from others to give to the less....to even it out.
no fucking way....that's breaking morals to enforce another moral.
that's hypocritical.

[D_Raay]

it's not as if i am against altruistic goals....or seemingly altruistic goals (one could say ALL actions are selfish in some regard).

i'm just not a big proponent of hand-outs and "something for nothing".

and i do believe there will (and perhaps should) always be a disparity in wealth accumulation and standard of living.
i believe that is essential in nature...it is part of the balance....part of the mechanism.
competition must never be leveled out.


i'm not saying stop all foreign aid and disaster relief, etc (as i KNOW many of you are going to start heaping on me and building strawmen to such)....but i say set reasonable goals... as far as aid.
and examine the practicality of those goals.

I believe you are missing the broader scope of the problem...
Do you think that starving people in the third world would not work for food?
We are not talking about some minority here in affluent America who buys "spinners" for their hooptie , spends all their money at the local urban streetwear, or spends their welfare money on the newest camera/internet/headset/ cellphone. These people have NO choice but to starve. There's quite a difference between have's claiming they have not and people who are fighting for their basic survival.

[Qdrop]

I believe you are missing the broader scope of the problem...
Do you think that starving people in the third world would not work for food?
We are not talking about some minority here in affluent America who buys "spinners" for their hooptie , spends all their money at the local urban streetwear, or spends their welfare money on the newest camera/internet/headset/ cellphone. These people have NO choice but to starve. There's quite a difference between have's claiming they have not and people who are fighting for their basic survival.

okay, now i don't think we are on the same page.

i'm talking mostly about pure aid.

"here are some boxes of food and supplies for your starving people"

now, if you are talking about helping impoverished nations become industrialized...so they can sustain themselves...
hell, i'm ALL for that.

[D_Raay]

i'm saying altruism is certainly human, and benificial to all...sure.
tsunami relief..great...sounds good.

you never know when you may need the favor returned (which is likely the evolutionary reason behind the use of altruism).

but it's when people start spouting about "food and wealth inequalities" and how we should strive to make everyone equal...through socialist means...
that's when i shake my head.
taking from others to give to the less....to even it out.
no fucking way....that's breaking morals to enforce another moral.
that's hypocritical.
*sigh* Try thinking outside the box a little Q.
"You never know when may need the favor returned"? Not exactly altruistic is it?
You can't be altruistic and advocate the philosophy you are advocating.

[D_Raay]

okay, now i don't think we are on the same page.

i'm talking mostly about pure aid.

"here are some boxes of food and supplies for your starving people"

now, if you are talking about helping impoverished nations become industrialized...so they can sustain themselves...
hell, i'm ALL for that.
I believe the original point was what Soba brought up. We spend and spend and spend when some of that money could very easily be spent feeding the world.
We have spent billions in Iraq and given billions to Israel in the name of death and destruction, I guess I would never expect our government to actually unselfishly do some good, but we CAN as individuals.

[Qdrop]

*sigh* Try thinking outside the box a little Q.
"You never know when may need the favor returned"? Not exactly altruistic is it?
You can't be altruistic and advocate the philosophy you are advocating.
well, i guess that's a side debate.
i would argue that "true altruism" doesn't really exist.
we always do something to get something in return.
even if it's an egotistical pat on the back...

[D_Raay]

well, i guess that's a side debate.
i would argue that "true altruism" doesn't really exist.
we always do something to get something in return.
even if it's an egotistical pat on the back...
Well, I would hate to disagree with you. For the most part you may be right.
I know personally I do things for people all the time, and the thought of getting something back or a pat on the back never even enters my mind.

[afronaut]

why can't people care? (this coming from a self-proclaimed nihilist)
Ok, first of all, I pretty much agree with you, though you really oversimplified shit.

Ok, but listen up. You are not a nihilist. That's all I have to say man. You are not a nihilist. Qdrop is more of a nihilist than you are. You may "not care", but it resembles more youthful teenage apathy than nihilism. Which is embarassing to people who have studied this philosophy a little bit. And it's stupid because you obviously do care and you aren't completely apathetic. Quit the act man. I know "nihilist" is a cool buzzword and all and makes you seem all badass, but. you know. quitit.

Anyhow. Qdrop, your social darwinism is lame. Look at the big big picture, how is the human race, as one big whole, supposed to survive if we leave each other out to die? I thought it was our evolutionary instinct to help the survival of the human race? Is the human race as a whole just too shortsighted to see the real big picture? So small that we can only see individual or simple national survival as opposed to total survival? Borders are temporary, and in the end aren't we all in this together? Social darwinism isn't darwinistic, it's just short sighted. The people in those unfortunate countries aren't anymore "weak" than you or I, their situation is artificially made by humans and they don't get a shot of your darwinist, capitalist, "strength". If we want to survive shouldn't we be using our "strength" to help our fellow man up, instead of leaving them out to die? Bulks of food rot every day in our grocery stores. Your view of a more isolated, individual survival will be your downfall, fag. One day our economy, nation, and borders will be no more, and famine will still exist.


Yeah I dont know, I just pulled that all out of my ass to burn qdrop.

Anyway, nihil on.

[Qdrop]

i thought i made it clear that was NOT a social darwinist.
about 20 posts ago.

nice try.

[afronaut]

i thought i made it clear that was NOT a social darwinist.
about 20 posts ago.

nice try.
just because soba calls himself a nihilist does not make it so.





the same goes to you.

[Documad]

i would argue that "true altruism" doesn't really exist.
we always do something to get something in return.
even if it's an egotistical pat on the back...
I believe that it doesn't exist for you or you wouldn't say that. It's a mistake to think that everyone has the same moral compass though.

Most of my friends do things without expecting payback, and because very few of them even believe in god, they're not getting a spiritual reward either. That's probably not true for most of the public. I am aware that I have a much better community than most people. After all, I selected my community and friends. I believe in right and wrong. Sometimes, I try to do what's right for no reason other than it's right. (Most of the time I do whatever makes me happy.)

I agree with some of what you said in that throwing money at problems isn't always the answer. Some problems are just so enormous they make my heart hurt.


I don't understand your survival of the fittest stuff and I would like to. I think that the opposite of survival of the fittest is happening. Nature isn't in charge and hasn't been in a long time. Men has perverted nature's ability (or god's if you believe in that) to work this stuff out.

I'd like to know what you think should happen in this situation: You have a low paying job and no medical insurance. Your wife is unemployed with no insurance. You have a newborn baby that weighs 1-2 pounds. Nature did not intend for your baby to survive. Doctors could make it happen but it's going to cost a whole lot more than you will ever earn. Should the rest of us pay to save your baby? Because I'm inclined to want my tax money spent elsewhere.

[EN[i]GMA]

Why can't the poor be fed out of charity?

[Documad]

GMA']Why can't the poor be fed out of charity?
What do you mean? Which poor? What is charity?

[SobaViolence]

qdrop, have you ever done anything considerate without the promise or possibility of reward?


because it is as gratifying as people say...

[Documad]

qdrop, have you ever done anything considerate without the promise or possibility of reward?


because it is as gratifying as people say...
Well, see, you're just doing nice things so you can feel good about yourself and so you do have a reward. :p


It is sad to think that there are people who don't do considerate things just to do the right thing. But then people post all the time in BF about watching nutty, mean shit happen to other human beings before their eyes in real life and I continually marvel that they sat there mute and just watched it go down.

[Qdrop]

I believe that it doesn't exist for you or you wouldn't say that. It's a mistake to think that everyone has the same moral compass though.

Most of my friends do things without expecting payback, and because very few of them even believe in god, they're not getting a spiritual reward either. That's probably not true for most of the public. I am aware that I have a much better community than most people. After all, I selected my community and friends. I believe in right and wrong. Sometimes, I try to do what's right for no reason other than it's right. (Most of the time I do whatever makes me happy.) as i said before...."egotistical slaps on the back" count too.

talking about how you do things and don't expect anything back is egotistical.

to truly be free of that vice, you would have commit altruistic acts in total anonymity and never tell anyone you did so.
interesting catch, eh?

even then, evolutionary psychologists and anthropogists have theorized that altruism has been engrained in us for social reasons (to get a favor in return in the future)- whether it's conscious or not.
meaning, we have evolved to commit acts of altruism because it promotes harmony and bonding in a social unit.
it's good for survival.
it's a tendancy that is built into us, just like sexual appetite, or jealousy. etc.



I'd like to know what you think should happen in this situation: You have a low paying job and no medical insurance. Your wife is unemployed with no insurance. You have a newborn baby that weighs 1-2 pounds. Nature did not intend for your baby to survive. Doctors could make it happen but it's going to cost a whole lot more than you will ever earn. Should the rest of us pay to save your baby? Because I'm inclined to want my tax money spent elsewhere.
hmmm....
well...again...it's not really about social darwinism here.
(which i am rarely an advocate for, again)...if altruistic behavior is used to help that baby...that is nature. that has a purpose.
if the baby dies, and the family withers away...that is nature as well.

you guys are really missing the point, and perhaps i'm not explaining it well either.

it's not necessarily about "well, qdrop..by your mantra....what should we DO?"

it's not about "DO".
i'm not really advocating any action when i talk about evolution or darwin (which tends to separate me from social darwinism)...i'm simply explaining how things work...how nature works. how what you see IS natural. and to allow it to happen.
i'm advocating, if anything, to not DO much of anything.
just understand it.

don't muck with natural law.
don't deny it, and don't try to "enforce it" by your own means.

[Documad]

i'm advocating, if anything, to not DO much of anything.
just understand it.

don't muck with natural law.
don't deny it, and don't try to "enforce it" by your own means.
Exactly. No extraordinary medical care for sick babies. Hey, we could all become Christian Scientists!

[Qdrop]

Exactly. No extraordinary medical care for sick babies. Hey, we could all become Christian Scientists!

well, yeah...
there's a line to be drawn.

what is considered challanging natural law, what isn't?

is it challenging natural law to save a sick childs life?
why?
nature has a "way", but not a "goal". it's not "destiny" for a sick baby to die.

fighting for survival seems natural...as does fighting for your babies life..with good medical treatment.

at what point are we fighting against natural law?
are we ever? or are we always within it's bounds...as everything we do is natural?

it seems natural to fight for a baby's life with medical treatment, particularly your own....
but not to try and make every human being equal with every other one.

one seems to be within the bounds of nature (as in "it can be observed in nature") while the other does not.

i guess the judge is to take conscience and self awareness out of the equation...by studying all other forms of life which have none...and operate purely on natural law, without the ability to be aware of it and alter.

[STANKY808]

as i said before...."egotistical slaps on the back" count too.

talking about how you do things and don't expect anything back is egotistical.

to truly be free of that vice, you would have commit altruistic acts in total anonymity and never tell anyone you did so.
interesting catch, eh?



It seems you have set up a way of looking at acts of selflessness which will guarantee that your view is always correct.

So in your world, one person in some anonymous way does something selfless that may actually not bring any benefit to that person. Then one day that person reads “there are no altruistic acts” on a bb and decides to de-bunk that claim with first hand knowledge of a selfless act – bang that person just got an ego boost so it is no longer altruistic?

Isn't that a Catch-22?

[sam i am]

It seems you have set up a way of looking at acts of selflessness which will guarantee that your view is always correct.

So in your world, one person in some anonymous way does something selfless that may actually not bring any benefit to that person. Then one day that person reads “there are no altruistic acts” on a bb and decides to de-bunk that claim with first hand knowledge of a selfless act – bang that person just got an ego boost so it is no longer altruistic?

Isn't that a Catch-22?

Qdrop is GOOD! What a way to argue his point. Of course it's a Catch-22... :p

[STANKY808]

Qdrop is GOOD! What a way to argue his point. Of course it's a Catch-22... :p

Ummmm alright. I was looking for some further clarification from Qdrop. But I guess since you wanted to speak for Q, it must mean I was arguing his point.

[Schmeltz]

So Qdrop - you're not a social Darwinist, you just think that Darwinian models of competition and survival of the fittest shoud be applied to human society. Thanks for clearing that up.

As I've said before, what the rest of the animal kingdom does is totally irrelevant to how human societies operate. Who cares if animals get by through competition and letting weaker members of their species die? Why should we be the same way? The fact is that our evolution ceased to be purely "natural" millennia ago and we are subject to radically different forces than those operative on other species. We're not animals, we're people.

And as D_Raay pointed out, it's not simply a matter of feeding starving Africans with American food. What, you think America produces all the food in the world?

[zorra_chiflada]

i use it because it fits...not because of a lack of vocabulary.

sanc·ti·mo·ny (sngkt-mn)
n.
-Feigned piety or righteousness; hypocritical devoutness or high-mindedness.

there is no "right thing for everyone". one size does not fit all.

well, since we're throwing adjectives around here, here's one for you (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=smug)

[zorra_chiflada]

rather than just parroting what your boyfriend has programmed you to say...why don't YOU think for yourself?

wow, q, that was really noble. no really.
so basically i'm too stupid to have my own opinions, i have to have my boyfriend's. of course, we're not allowed to agree on things. :rolleyes:
next time your girlfriend posts on here, i'm going to say "why don't you have your own opinions? huh? why don't you think for yourself?"


i believe i've already had this debate with pres....

survival of the fittest is just as important and relevant as it has always been.
it may change form...but competition is still key.
to muck with nature...the nature that gave birth to us....is foolhardy.

we humans seem obsessed with out-thinking nature...out-thinking our own biology.
as if enlightenment can somehow, miraculously overcome millions of years of evolution...
just because some intellectual recently declared it "obsolete".

biologically speaking, the only way the human race can develop is by expanding the gene pool. if we only let the strong achieve, it will keep narrowing and narrowing the gene pool, and genetic disorders will get worse. the human race wouldn't exist anymore
we as humans, don't only have the ability, but the responsibility to utilise all of the developments of modern science that we can.

again, the more you belittle me, the more i will keep posting back.

[Documad]

as i said before...."egotistical slaps on the back" count too.

talking about how you do things and don't expect anything back is egotistical.

to truly be free of that vice, you would have commit altruistic acts in total anonymity and never tell anyone you did so.
interesting catch, eh?
Yeah, I get the difference. I was talking about doing things without getting credit. I try very hard not to get credit and credit is rarely my motivator. You can't always do good deeds in complete privacy because the person you're helping often knows about it. Sometimes you get a "thank you" from the person you help, and that's not always possible to avoid.

The thing is that people do these kinds of things every day--often without thinking. If you just watch people, you can marvel at the good and bad that's just automatic. Most of what I do is completely without thought. Looking at it now, I'm thinking that it was probably something I learned from my parents. It doesn't have to involve money or be some big gesture. (Although my contributions of money to charity are certainly the easiest way.) Hopefully you do this stuff all the time and it's just slipping your mind. Like when you pick up fast food trash off a stranger's lawn while you're out for a walk, you hear someone talking trash about someone else you don't even like but you rise to that person's defense because you think it's unfair, or you slip a $10 into the museum's contribution box while you're leaving even though no one's around.

I try to do things for my elderly neighbor without him realizing they need to be done because I want him to feel self sufficient (I do lots of that kind of stuff for old people, especially cleaning things at my mom's house without her knowing). I'm not telling you this to stroke my ego. I wouldn't have mentioned it except to prove my point. It would surely be nice if there is some cosmic payback, but I don't really believe in it. I just do what I would like others to do for me and my loved ones.

I think it's very odd that you deny this. You seem to believe that you're good at assessing people, but you also seem to deny what many of us see and do all the time. I wonder whether your insistence that people never do anything good for others without expecting something back is just your way of excusing the fact that you don't extend yourself for others. It's more likely that you just need to spend more time watching people and less time reading about them.

[SobaViolence]

Doc, you sound so defensive.


don't defend being a nice guy. he's wrong. to hell with his cold, uncompassionate view of things.


keep up the good work. (y)

[Documad]

is it challenging natural law to save a sick childs life?
why?
nature has a "way", but not a "goal". it's not "destiny" for a sick baby to die.

fighting for survival seems natural...as does fighting for your babies life..with good medical treatment.
Yes, which is why in my fact scenario you cannot save your baby. Your baby will die unless a whole lot of other people spend their money to help you. And if we had a choice, we might say no. But we have a government that won't let your baby die. Even if your baby's slim chance at life is completely natural.

I agree that the problem in say Africa is vast and I have no answer. If you want to say that Americans should spend their money giving charity to people like you and your hypothetical baby instead of non citizens, that's at least honest. But those African moms love their starving babies as much as the women in American hospitals love their one pound babies. And the one pound baby is probably in trouble due to natural causes, whereas the starving babies might have a man-made cause.

[Documad]

Doc, you sound so defensive.
Sorry. :o

This discussion puzzles and surprises me. It may be where I live, or maybe I'm just really lucky, but when people are in trouble, other people tend to pitch in. Maybe there's more to "Minnesota nice" than just appearances. Whatever, I'm feeling really good about my community tonight. :)

[Ali]

GMA']Why can't the poor be fed out of charity?Because most of the funds collected by charities get spent on the charity itself, on shiny 4x4 vehicles, offices, salaries for all the staff, travel accommodation, etc.

Very little actually makes it to the people who need it...

Read Dark Star Safari (http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/travel/0,6121,823583,00.html) by Paul Theroux. He was an aid worker in Malawi for many years and this book is about his return to Africa after a couple of decades and his reaction when he sees what little all that money and effort has achieved. He refers to a book called "The Road to Hell (http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=3801)" by Michael Maren, which I haven't read but which is equally scathing about the Humanitarian Intervention business.

Don't donate another cent without finding out exactly what happens to your money... sacks of grain only serve to keep the Huddled Masses alive while multinational conglomerates rape the resources of their country. Give people seed and fertiliser and irrigation equipment and, above all LAND ferkrissake!!! Take your tea and coffee and tobacco plantations, taking up all the arable land and FUCK OFF!

There's nothing more sanctimonious and hypocrital than Western countries sending sacks of expired food and unwanted (dangerous) medicine to Africa while their multinationals make millions out of cash crops and the locals work for a pittance. Schools, hospitals, roads, etc get built while the infrastucture remains geared only the expediate the swift exit of crops and minerals. A major part of this infrastructure is the presence of a corrupt government, kept well heeled by foreign companies who want lax environmental and labour regulations.

Aid agencies are part of the global system which endeavours to keep the Third World in Economic slavery so that it can can stay rich, rich rich. Aid is a hypocritical PR excercise, designed to fleece well-intentioned, but uninformed, people of their earnings (tax deductible) and keep people in need in need.

[Qdrop]

It seems you have set up a way of looking at acts of selflessness which will guarantee that your view is always correct.

So in your world, one person in some anonymous way does something selfless that may actually not bring any benefit to that person. Then one day that person reads “there are no altruistic acts” on a bb and decides to de-bunk that claim with first hand knowledge of a selfless act – bang that person just got an ego boost so it is no longer altruistic?

Isn't that a Catch-22?

yep.
funny how reality slaps us in the face, eh?

[Qdrop]

So Qdrop - you're not a social Darwinist, you just think that Darwinian models of competition and survival of the fittest shoud be applied to human society. Thanks for clearing that up. applied? as in "enforced"?
i'm saying use darwinian evolution and natural law as a benchmark. a benchmark to measure circumstances in the world. forget good and bad, and moral and ethics (to an extent)....look at them through natural law.

now, again, i get the sense that you (intentionally?) are confusing "applied to human society" as some kind of eugenics program that i am endorsing.

i do not endorse "putting survival of the fittest in motion" through some kind of human-induced interaction.

saving sick people, care for the elderly, charity to the hungry....these are GOOD things.
these do NOT conflict with natural law OR survival of the fittest....as VIRTUALLY ALL OF YOU SEEM TO THINK (and thus, automatically villify me as a "defacto" opponent of them- very unfair).

suvival of the fittest does NOT end at the individual (check out The Global Brain by Howard Bloom), it can extend to family, kin, social group, trade partners, nations, etc.
there is real social and SURVIVAL value in caring for an elderly 80 year old...and it does not go against natural law. 20,000 years ago...caring for an elderly clan member could slow a group down. but the interesting thing....is that we did it anyway...
we often envision a prehistoric world that was very brutal (and it was!) where it was killed and or be killed ,etc (and it was!)....but people assume that this always meant that when a member of a clan hit 40, it was "fuck em', let em' die.
not the case.
certainly there were probably instances of this, and infancide....
but this was NOT the evolved norm...it could not have been...otherwise, such traits of compassionate behavior would have surely evolved out of our repitiore! but they didn't.
there is a reason for that. compassion has value. what we deem as altruism has value. emotional value....
it is necessary to establish social bonds and trust, reciprication, etc.

they do not violate natural law.

trying to make everybody equal through extreme socialistic manuevers DOES.


As I've said before, what the rest of the animal kingdom does is totally irrelevant to how human societies operate. how ignorant. Who cares if animals get by through competition and letting weaker members of their species die? Why should we be the same way? see, this is what i'm talking about. another strawman...where you paint me as a eugenics supporter.

The fact is that our evolution ceased to be purely "natural" millennia ago and we are subject to radically different forces than those operative on other species. we can and usually do abide by natural law. how have we stopped being natural? other than things like forced equality....
We're not animals, we're people. umm...primates are part of the animal kingdom. while we possess intellect and self awareness...we still are biologically animals.
god damn...when will this "ghost in the shell" mentallity end?

the really fustrating thing, though....
is that even though i've thouroughly explained my stance...and gone through great length to show i am, in no way, a supporter of eugenics....
many of you will quickly revert back to that strawman within a few posts.
as if it must be "all or nothing" with most of you.
the problem with your sentiments...is that you have painted yourselves into a corner...
you leave no room for evolutionary behavior or evolved psychology in your beliefs...and thus you MUST deem them "dead" or "obsolete".
and if science and research point that you are wrong....you must attack the science AND the messenger, by any means necessary.
so you'll call me a social darwinist, a eugenics proponent, ....hell, what else you got?
ANYTHING to avoid assimiliting what i say....

[Qdrop]

wow, q, that was really noble. no really.
so basically i'm too stupid to have my own opinions, i have to have my boyfriend's. certainly not. you seem pretty up on your feminist debate.

but do you deny that you, on numerous occasions, have verbally admited in posts to just being "not very smart" and "letting pres talk about that".
numerous times you have proffesed your lack of intelligence (which is sad and untrue) and your inability to debate, having just passed to pres "cause he's the smart one and he knows about this stuff."
i'm just following your lead, dear.


next time your girlfriend posts on here, i'm going to say "why don't you have your own opinions? huh? why don't you think for yourself?" right, cause she always parrots what i say.
yeah, your annology is airtight.


biologically speaking, the only way the human race can develop is by expanding the gene pool. if we only let the strong achieve, it will keep narrowing and narrowing the gene pool, and genetic disorders will get worse. the human race wouldn't exist anymore as if have explained, i am not a supporter of eugenics.

we as humans, don't only have the ability, but the responsibility to utilise all of the developments of modern science that we can. i'm all for it, as long as we don't shoot ourselves in the foot.

again, the more you belittle me, the more i will keep posting back. zorra, i can dance with you all day without breaking a sweat.

[afronaut]

zorra, i can dance with you all day without breaking a sweat.
He's lying. He's weak. He's lost his edge. You can beat him easily, zorra. Look, sweat beads are already forming on his forehead. I'd beat his ass right now, but I just woke up and I'm kinda hazy. You have to do it for me.

[baltogrl71]

(y) This post is why your one of the coolest guys on this site.

Fuck everybody else and their dysfunctional take on why some have to suffer.

You are probably more well balanced in a spiritual, mental sense than most. Fear of financial insecurity is the motivation for most of the worlds problems and ills. Madison Avenue has done a fucking number on the youth of America, I watch MTV and I just want to jam a crowbar up MTV's superficial ass.

Do something nice for somebody and don't get caught. :) When MTV came out I was in middle school and it was amazing I danced in my room all day everyday with my friends, it was all MUSIC and MUSIC news ,what the hell is it now ?Its horrible!

[Qdrop]

He's lying. He's weak. He's lost his edge. You can beat him easily, zorra. Look, sweat beads are already forming on his forehead. I'd beat his ass right now, but I just woke up and I'm kinda hazy. You have to do it for me.

i've taken shits bigger than you.

[STANKY808]

yep.
funny how reality slaps us in the face, eh?

That's your reality, not mine.

[Qdrop]

That's your reality, not mine.

what is this, the matrix?

[sam i am]

Because most of the funds collected by charities get spent on the charity itself, on shiny 4x4 vehicles, offices, salaries for all the staff, travel accommodation, etc.

Very little actually makes it to the people who need it...

Read Dark Star Safari (http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/travel/0,6121,823583,00.html) by Paul Theroux. He was an aid worker in Malawi for many years and this book is about his return to Africa after a couple of decades and his reaction when he sees what little all that money and effort has achieved. He refers to a book called "The Road to Hell (http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=3801)" by Michael Maren, which I haven't read but which is equally scathing about the Humanitarian Intervention business.

Don't donate another cent without finding out exactly what happens to your money... sacks of grain only serve to keep the Huddled Masses alive while multinational conglomerates rape the resources of their country. Give people seed and fertiliser and irrigation equipment and, above all LAND ferkrissake!!! Take your tea and coffee and tobacco plantations, taking up all the arable land and FUCK OFF!

There's nothing more sanctimonious and hypocrital than Western countries sending sacks of expired food and unwanted (dangerous) medicine to Africa while their multinationals make millions out of cash crops and the locals work for a pittance. Schools, hospitals, roads, etc get built while the infrastucture remains geared only the expediate the swift exit of crops and minerals. A major part of this infrastructure is the presence of a corrupt government, kept well heeled by foreign companies who want lax environmental and labour regulations.

Aid agencies are part of the global system which endeavours to keep the Third World in Economic slavery so that it can can stay rich, rich rich. Aid is a hypocritical PR excercise, designed to fleece well-intentioned, but uninformed, people of their earnings (tax deductible) and keep people in need in need.

COMPLETELY SHOCKING NEWS! Ali actually makes sense and I AGREE with him.

He'll never know, however, because he has disingenuously put me on ignore. :(

Oh, well. At least I have the satisfaction of knowing I agreed with him and he never will :p

[sam i am]

certainly not. you seem pretty up on your feminist debate.

but do you deny that you, on numerous occasions, have verbally admited in posts to just being "not very smart" and "letting pres talk about that".
numerous times you have proffesed your lack of intelligence (which is sad and untrue) and your inability to debate, having just passed to pres "cause he's the smart one and he knows about this stuff."
i'm just following your lead, dear.


right, cause she always parrots what i say.
yeah, your annology is airtight.


as if have explained, i am not a supporter of eugenics.

i'm all for it, as long as we don't shoot ourselves in the foot.

zorra, i can dance with you all day without breaking a sweat.

Go Qdrop! It's your birthday! We gonna party like it's your birthday!

What a debater... (y)

Respect.

[D_Raay]

Go Qdrop! It's your birthday! We gonna party like it's your birthday!

What a debater... (y)

Respect.
I'd have to disagree with you there sam. Q is a solid guy and a good poster, but he lost this one. See Schmeltz's post. Lost this one by talking the talk and then denying he ever said it.

[Qdrop]

I'd have to disagree with you there sam. Q is a solid guy and a good poster, but he lost this one. See Schmeltz's post. Lost this one by talking the talk and then denying he ever said it.

i explained myself fully.

what are you referring to?

[zorra_chiflada]

Go Qdrop! It's your birthday! We gonna party like it's your birthday!

What a debater... (y)

Respect.

haha! fucking hell, this place is such a fucking boys' club.

[Schmeltz]

i'm saying use darwinian evolution and natural law as a benchmark. a benchmark to measure circumstances in the world. forget good and bad, and moral and ethics (to an extent)....look at them through natural law.


Darwinian evolution and "natural law" are piss-poor benchmarks to use in defining human circumstance because human circumstance is defined so significantly in cultural terms that have precious little to do with genetics and biology. Why should we forget good and bad, and morals and ethics, when our civilizations and societies - everything that separates us from every other species - are founded essentially on those very things? The fact is that, whatever protests you make about how much you believe in the evolutionary advantages of charity and so forth, you really do sound like someone perfectly willing to abandon everything that really makes us human in favour of a backslide into animalism.


but this was NOT the evolved norm...it could not have been...otherwise, such traits of compassionate behavior would have surely evolved out of our repitiore!


Again, you simply cannot understand the spectrum of human behaviour purely on an evolutionary basis. Culture plays a much more massive role in shaping human behaviour than biological evolution does nowadays. I thought it was pretty common knowledge that our cultural choices have dramatically affected the evolution of our species: Wikipedia can help you out here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_evolution_of_humans) The point is that our species is subject to a completely different set of pressures than the rest of the animal kingdom, a set of pressures informed most significantly by our cultural development. You dwell on biology and genetics to an extent that renders your argument irrelevant, if you ask me.

Biologically we are animals still, but our cultural development makes us really human. No other species has what we have or can do what we do. Your willingness to dismiss all the achievements that really make us what we are betrays the superficiality of your opinion, irrespective of whatever science you feel backs it up.

[sam i am]

url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_evolution_of_humans]Wikipedia can help you out here.[/url]

This completely undermines you. Wikipedia is not a scholarly endeavor. Anyone can post anything and get away with it.

Try to do REAL research rather than lazy out with Wikipedia, please.

[Documad]

haha! fucking hell, this place is such a fucking boys' club.
Their mutual affection is kind of cute, and sickening, at the same time.

As I said in another thread, nothing sickens me more than a compliment I don't deserve. Seems like I'm in the minority there.

[Funkaloyd]

i'm saying use darwinian evolution and natural law as a benchmark. a benchmark to measure circumstances in the world. forget good and bad, and moral and ethics (to an extent)....look at them through natural law.
So, you consider it good to use natural law as a benchmark?

[Schmeltz]

Yes, obviously Wikipedia isn't a peer-reviewed publication or anything like that. But it is an easily accessible example of what I was talking about.

[Documad]

Yes, obviously Wikipedia isn't a peer-reviewed publication or anything like that. But it is an easily accessible example of what I was talking about.
Who cares? Your post yesterday in this thread made more sense than anything else in this thread.

[guerillaGardner]

why should we do it?

why must everyone be equal?

who made that a moral law?

Okay that's nice for a philisophical debate or some nice mental game to play. I've seen it so many times from so many people who are in their own little world. Meanwhile back here on Planet Earth we'll think about dealing with hard reality. When you've worked out why or why not we should be equal or who made that moral law, we'll be back here in the land of the living caring about the fact that people suffer and die, not because of the way of nature but because of a basic lack of human decency or concern, because of unfair trade laws which prop up a fake made up economy which lifts itself up by it's own shoelaces by encouraging us to buy crap we don't need, or by stealing what is already ours and selling it back to us, while people on the other side of the world or even the other side of the street can't even afford the basics.

I'll tell you what - it's not a moral law. It's the satisfaction of caring, of seeing people live better, happier, safer lives. It's basic humanity.

[Señor Stino]

Hi,

this is an interesting topic, I haven't posted here in 6 months or something, only reading some posts, because my english sucks and I was never captain of the debate team.

Now, I would like to ask to the people who are with SobaViolence on this one, how they see this "humanity-project" worked out. When I was a kid I was always calculating stuff like "if every person in developed world would transfer $3 per month to 3rd world ..." . I always thought there would be a solution in a "3rd world tax", now that I am somewhat older and learned about international economy and such, I know this was childish wishful thinking.

So, I ask you, how do you see a practical change in today's system that you so hate. Or this not relevant and should this toppic focus on the "filosophical" problem?

[sam i am]

Their mutual affection is kind of cute, and sickening, at the same time.

As I said in another thread, nothing sickens me more than a compliment I don't deserve. Seems like I'm in the minority there.

So. Qdrop and I like each other. I also like D_Raay and Queen AdRock and Zorra. Doesn't sound like a boys club to me if you include Documad and rancid beastie, when she used to post.

[sam i am]

Hi,

this is an interesting topic, I haven't posted here in 6 months or something, only reading some posts, because my english sucks and I was never captain of the debate team.

Now, I would like to ask to the people who are with SobaViolence on this one, how they see this "humanity-project" worked out. When I was a kid I was always calculating stuff like "if every person in developed world would transfer $3 per month to 3rd world ..." . I always thought there would be a solution in a "3rd world tax", now that I am somewhat older and learned about international economy and such, I know this was childish wishful thinking.

So, I ask you, how do you see a practical change in today's system that you so hate. Or this not relevant and should this toppic focus on the "filosophical" problem?

excellent, excellent question. Make them affirm something rather than always tearing down. What have they got to offer to build up the system they want?

[Documad]

Doesn't sound like a boys club to me if you include Documad and rancid beastie, when she used to post.
RancidBeasties is a man. ;)

I'm kind of puzzled by why you're including me because it seems like a week ago you doubted I could read English. :p Not that I'm complaining . . . .

[Humiliation]

survival of the fittest isn't relevant anymore. maybe thousands and thousands of years ago, but not now.
Survival of the "fittest" maybe but we evolved intelligence which gave us an advantage. It is still survival of the fittest. Yes people shouldn't be starving in Africa. Their are great "fit" people there but by sheer bad luck they're born into a poverty stricken country and die of starvation. Most America i consider to be "unfit".

I'm a fan of cancer and other fatal diseases. Why? Because our population is increasing at a staggering rate. Another billion people (it won't take as long as you think) and guess what? NO FOOD.

[Humiliation]

It's what separates us from the animals. You want to revert society to rolling around in the mud, or chasing down antelopes?

We CAN out think nature and biology, we already have to some extent. We should go backwards? We should revert to the dark ages maybe or maybe even further and start dragging our women around by the hair?
YOu have that much faith in humanity? Nature will eventually catch us up. We will be bettered somehow. We have destroyed many species what's stopping another species from evolving and doing the same. Likely it will be some disease which we can't cure and it will kill us. To think we can beat the very thing that created us in the first place is crazy

[Humiliation]

Darwinian evolution and "natural law" are piss-poor benchmarks to use in defining human circumstance because human circumstance is defined so significantly in cultural terms that have precious little to do with genetics and biology. Why should we forget good and bad, and morals and ethics, when our civilizations and societies - everything that separates us from every other species - are founded essentially on those very things? The fact is that, whatever protests you make about how much you believe in the evolutionary advantages of charity and so forth, you really do sound like someone perfectly willing to abandon everything that really makes us human in favour of a backslide into animalism.



Again, you simply cannot understand the spectrum of human behaviour purely on an evolutionary basis. Culture plays a much more massive role in shaping human behaviour than biological evolution does nowadays. I thought it was pretty common knowledge that our cultural choices have dramatically affected the evolution of our species: Wikipedia can help you out here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_evolution_of_humans) The point is that our species is subject to a completely different set of pressures than the rest of the animal kingdom, a set of pressures informed most significantly by our cultural development. You dwell on biology and genetics to an extent that renders your argument irrelevant, if you ask me.

Biologically we are animals still, but our cultural development makes us really human. No other species has what we have or can do what we do. Your willingness to dismiss all the achievements that really make us what we are betrays the superficiality of your opinion, irrespective of whatever science you feel backs it up.
And how can we do that? with intelligence. How did we get intelligence. NATURE. Hey have you noticed that we still get sick? People stil ldie of disease? Does disease have cultural development? No

[Qdrop]

Darwinian evolution and "natural law" are piss-poor benchmarks to use in defining human circumstance because human circumstance is defined so significantly in cultural terms that have precious little to do with genetics and biology. we obviously don't share very similar reading material.
our entire system of culture grew from biology, every aspet of our culture has a root in evolution in some way. even the mundane.
i'm not labeling you as a "blank slate" flag waiver....as i'm sure you believe that biology plays a significant role in our behavior.
but as many partaking in the Blank Slate's last stand....you now hide under the guise that, while biology may have given birth to the earliest stages of our culture, culture is now IT'S OWN ENTITY...that lives and breathes on its own....with no bearing on our biological tendancies- which is pattently absurd, irresponible, and dogmatic.

Why should we forget good and bad, and morals and ethics, when our civilizations and societies - everything that separates us from every other species - are founded essentially on those very things? i said forget them for the sake of the debate, not "cast them aside permanently".
certainly i believe in morality and ethical behavior. but i understand that these are human labels for already existing biological behaviors that evolved in us for survivalist reasons.
when analyzing certain aspect of our culture, or attempting to make decisions on social law, or just for debating human interaction....it is best to drop the labels and look at behaviors for what they are: natural. and following natural law.

The fact is that, whatever protests you make about how much you believe in the evolutionary advantages of charity and so forth, you really do sound like someone perfectly willing to abandon everything that really makes us human in favour of a backslide into animalism. if you feel you need to villify me as such to make your argument...again, knock yourself out.
you may win points with your fellow circle-jerking culture/nurture lovers...but that's about it.
maybe that's all you're after.

the really fustrating thing, though....
is that even though i've thouroughly explained my stance...and gone through great length to show i am, in no way, a supporter of eugenics....
many of you will quickly revert back to that strawman within a few posts.
as if it must be "all or nothing" with most of you.
the problem with your sentiments...is that you have painted yourselves into a corner...
you leave no room for evolutionary behavior or evolved psychology in your beliefs...and thus you MUST deem them "dead" or "obsolete".
and if science and research point that you are wrong....you must attack the science AND the messenger, by any means necessary.
so you'll call me a social darwinist, a eugenics proponent, ....hell, what else you got?
ANYTHING to avoid assimiliting what i say....


Again, you simply cannot understand the spectrum of human behaviour purely on an evolutionary basis. Culture plays a much more massive role in shaping human behaviour than biological evolution does nowadays. you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. really. I thought it was pretty common knowledge that our cultural choices have dramatically affected the evolution of our species common knowledge? according to whom? again with the "argument of intimidation" (EVERYONE knows that, didn't you? are you stupid?)

and your source IN NO WAY counters anything i'm saying. as if i once mentioned that our societies ability to better dictate brood size or better medical treatment will have no effect on our future evolution.
are you just posting sources for the fuck of it? that was barely even relavant.
... The point is that our species is subject to a completely different set of pressures than the rest of the animal kingdom, a set of pressures informed most significantly by our cultural development. You dwell on biology and genetics to an extent that renders your argument irrelevant, if you ask me. despite the complexity of our society and culture vs. the rest of the animal kingdom, that does NOT preclude that evolutionary biology now takes a backseat to what you think is a detached entity called culture.
culture and biology are so intertwined, how can you separate them?


Biologically we are animals still, but our cultural development makes us really human. No other species has what we have or can do what we do. Your willingness to dismiss all the achievements that really make us what we are betrays the superficiality of your opinion, irrespective of whatever science you feel backs it up.
empty, empty dismissive babble.
you didn't even get your grammar right...
my dismissal of human achievments (which is a strawman on your part) BETRAYS the superficiality of my opinion?
so my "dismissal" makes my opionions non-superficial?
you were trying too hard to end you post with a literary bang....knock it off.

i have not dismissed our species human achievements, nor are my views superficial.

and "irrespective of what science backs it up"?

is that your way of saying "i'm rubber and you're glue" or "i'm not listening! LALAALALALALALA!" ?

i'm not dismissing culture, schmeltzy...i'm grounding it.

[Ali]

flag waiver :p Did you do that on purpose?

[sam i am]

RancidBeasties is a man. ;)

I'm kind of puzzled by why you're including me because it seems like a week ago you doubted I could read English. :p Not that I'm complaining . . . .

I never doubted you could read english. I couldn't understand why you couldn't understand me.

I put you on my respect list because you didn't give up and stalk off like a mad little 3rd grader (unlike Ali).

Didn't know Rancid Beasties was a man. Writes lfrom a very feminine perspective on this board when he did. Sorry for the confusion.

Respect, Documad.

[Qdrop]

:p Did you do that on purpose?

dude, i'm a bad speller.

we all know.

[Schmeltz]

our entire system of culture grew from biology, every aspet of our culture has a root in evolution in some way.


That's nothing but a highly contentious opinion.


i understand that these are human labels for already existing biological behaviors that evolved in us for survivalist reasons.


So is that.


as if i once mentioned that our societies ability to better dictate brood size or better medical treatment will have no effect on our future evolution.


What you did mention was that human interaction is allegedly driven entirely by biology and what you consider purely "natural" factors. The link to the article was meant to raise a couple of questions - namely, what species besides humanity has affected its own brood size through its own deliberate, conscious choices, and on what sorts of factors have those choices been based? What other species has dramatically extended its own average life span and quality of life through the application of essentially abstract concepts that exist almost entirely on the cultural level? Human behaviour is not defined solely on the basis of natural genetic impulses, as you contend, but also (yet not exclusively) on the basis of abstract cultural choices.


culture and biology are so intertwined, how can you separate them?


I don't propose to separate them. I merely propose that culture is the more relevant to human circumstances in the modern world, that irrespective of our evolution we are more than capable of developing a world wherein purely natural impulses take second place to the qualities of our species highlighted and refined by cultural choices, and that your insistent emphasis on genetics is a nightmarish echo of the disastrous ideologies that scarcely two generations past threw the globe into the most destructive paroxysm of violence in human history.


you didn't even get your grammar right


You are nobody to be giving a lecture on grammar.

[Qdrop]

That's nothing but a highly contentious opinion.



So is that.


bullshit.
where are you getting your info from? Ghost in the Shell Monthly?




What you did mention was that human interaction is allegedly driven entirely by biology and what you consider purely "natural" factors.
BULLFUCKING SHIT I DID!
asshole, knock off the trasnparent strawmen. you're just plain lying.


The link to the article was meant to raise a couple of questions - namely, what species besides humanity has affected its own brood size through its own deliberate, conscious choices, and on what sorts of factors have those choices been based? What other species has dramatically extended its own average life span and quality of life through the application of essentially abstract concepts that exist almost entirely on the cultural level?
i was never debating this.


Human behaviour is not defined solely on the basis of natural genetic impulses, as you contend, but also (yet not exclusively) on the basis of abstract cultural choices.
you need to get slapped, man.
seriously.
so now i'm a determinist? so now i think EVERY behavioral trait is caused by a single gene? all biology, huh?
yeah, please quote where i plainly stated this?

i've debated with you numerous times in the past, and this is the first time i've ever seen you use out-and-out deciet.

shame on you.




I don't propose to separate them. I merely propose that culture is the more relevant to human circumstances in the modern world, that irrespective of our evolution we are more than capable of developing a world wherein purely natural impulses take second place to the qualities of our species highlighted and refined by cultural choices,
...ugh.
why are you doing this? all you really need to say is "i think culture and our personal free will and intellect are more important than biology"
i mean, did you really need the long winded diatribe with all the big words?
do you think people will read it and go "wow, schmeltz is smart. look at those big words."

you are still embarassingly shallow on your stance also.
you are forcing the dichotomy of biology/impulsive thinking vs. cultural, free will choice.
as if they are two separate paths.

get this through your head, there is NO GHOST IN THE SHELL.
there is no "unchained spirit" within our bodies that can make these "free" choices to dictate our culture without any connection to biology or evolutionary psychology.
again, while i am by no means a determinist (the belief that every action and behavior is determined entirely by genes), i do beleive that every action or decision we make has some connection to biology, no matter how detached.
logic and current study tends to support this as well.


and that your insistent emphasis on genetics is a nightmarish echo of the disastrous ideologies that scarcely two generations past threw the globe into the most destructive paroxysm of violence in human history.

yeah. translation: "you think like Hitler."

dude, fuck you.

learn some new tricks.




You are nobody to be giving a lecture on grammar. it's really my spelling that has issues. not my grammar.

[Documad]

qdrop, I don't think you're even a little like Hitler, but this morning I was reading about Berlin in the early 30s and I thought of this thread. A lot of the stuff those philosophers were saying have been repeated in this thread. It's probably more a function of there really being no new ideas anymore.

qdrop, do you ever pick up trash in a public place when no one is watching? I did that this morning as well, and thought of you. I think I have it figured out--I watched my mom do that kind of thing when I was little. A lot of people obviously walked by without picking it up, so I'm in the minority as usual.

I know exactly how sick it is that I'm having even fleeting thoughts about this board while going for my morning coffee. :rolleyes:

[Qdrop]

http://reason.com/0210/fe.rb.biology.shtml

some food for thought.

[Qdrop]

Schmeltz...

in rereading this thread...the best common ground i can find between us (in discussing culture, it's roots, and "free will") is that we both agree that is there is no "a gene for X".
i don't believe (nor do most any) that for every behavior, there is a biologically evolved gene that determines it.
nor is every behavior an evolutionary adaptive trait.
behaviors can also be BI-PRODUCTS of adaptive traits.
hence cultural advances that surpass our biological evolution.

this is what free will stems from, this is why we CAN deny (to a certain extent) our evolutionary tendancies.
this is why deterministic sentiments are wrong.
the "freedom" is in the bi-products.

this why, on certain levels, WE CAN tell our genes to go jump in a lake (nuture, analytical self awareness, etc)

but i think we are really arguing on where that line can realistically be drawn.

i don't think it can be drawn so far as to eliminate war, poverty, and promote univeral equality among all people.
that's a fantastical pipe dream.

[Documad]

http://reason.com/0210/fe.rb.biology.shtml

some food for thought.
I've reserved it at the library. I'm interested in the troublemakers in any field.

[Humiliation]

What you did mention was that human interaction is allegedly driven entirely by biology and what you consider purely "natural" factors. The link to the article was meant to raise a couple of questions - namely, what species besides humanity has affected its own brood size through its own deliberate, conscious choices, and on what sorts of factors have those choices been based? What other species has dramatically extended its own average life span and quality of life through the application of essentially abstract concepts that exist almost entirely on the cultural level? Human behaviour is not defined solely on the basis of natural genetic impulses, as you contend, but also (yet not exclusively) on the basis of abstract cultural choice
I explained this in my posts. Intelligence is a genetic impulse albeit a big one. We are NOT special. We're another creature created by nature. It FAR FAR FAR out does us. People need to understand this. We're intteligent so WHAT? That doesn't make us "better" than everything else. THose that can survive harsher evironments than us are better because they will survive and not die out as easy as we can. Bacteria is a prime example of this.

And I'm making another thread for this because it is irrelevant to the issue of helping third world countries. It has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. It is an artificial circumstance created by human economy

[zorra_chiflada]

And I'm making another thread for this because it is irrelevant to the issue of helping third world countries. It has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. It is an artificial circumstance created by human economy

that was what i was trying to say (y)

[Schmeltz]

Q, I think we've both managed to mutually misunderstand each other at a few crucial points in this thread. Your last post makes much more sense to me and it does seem that we disagree only on where the line is to be drawn. I would also agree that the total elimination of war and poverty, and the universal equality of all people, are utopian illusions, for reasons that have nothing to do at all with genetics or evolution.

But the real point I've been trying to make all along is that no matter how much weight you assign to genetics, it's cultural choices that make the difference in the modern world. It's easy to apply a Darwinian model to human history, to struggles between civilizations and cultures, pointing to those who survived and those who died along the way. But in the last couple of centuries things have profoundly changed: humanity has developed a new and more self-consciously analytical way of thinking, discovering how its own societies function and in what ways our genetics and cultural choices have influenced our current collective circumstances, and constructing proposals as to how those things will influence our collective future.

The Second World War showed us that our ideas and knowledge about genetics, while constituting hard truth about the way in which nature functions, are a counterproductive basis for our interactions with one another. Competition and struggle can be productive things on a certain level, but our increasing global interconnectedness means that in the modern age it is necessary to assign a greater weight to more productive models of human interaction, namely those based on culturally constructed notions of what it is to be human. Your statement that we are no more than animals, rooted though it might be in solid genetic studies, holds little promise for a better world. It's the more productive, constructive, and abstract ideas of ourselves, developed largely (but yes, not entirely) apart from our purely biological evolution that will enable us to at least partially transcend the darker aspects of our nature and create societies that value peace over struggle.

That's all I'm sayin, yo.

[Qdrop]

Q, I think we've both managed to mutually misunderstand each other at a few crucial points in this thread. Your last post makes much more sense to me and it does seem that we disagree only on where the line is to be drawn. I would also agree that the total elimination of war and poverty, and the universal equality of all people, are utopian illusions, agreed.

for reasons that have nothing to do at all with genetics or evolution. ehh...disagree. i think that's the MAIN reason actually.

But the real point I've been trying to make all along is that no matter how much weight you assign to genetics, it's cultural choices that make the difference in the modern world. It's easy to apply a Darwinian model to human history, to struggles between civilizations and cultures, pointing to those who survived and those who died along the way. But in the last couple of centuries things have profoundly changed: humanity has developed a new and more self-consciously analytical way of thinking, well, we've actually had this abililty since our homo-sapian branch off (probably longer- homo erectus)....for over 200,000 years....or for over 20,000 years if you are looking at modern man. and self-consciousness (self awareness) is a by-product of a bigger, more complex brain....used for forethought and planning, for empathic thinking and ABSTRACT THOUGHT.
a bigger brain and the ability to plan and have forethought, curiousity and drive, were adaptive traits that aided in our species survival and evolution.
self awareness, language, tool making, intellectual ideas....these were all by-products that came with a bigger brain with more complexity and more capabilities. new abilities, that also allowed for spectacular advances within in our species.
and there also some rather negative by-products....

but it is in these by-products that the conflict arrises. this is where the whole concept of "fighting with my conscience" comes from. where morals and ethics come from. our intellectual ability and our concepts of abstract thought are where we get our ideas from.
but we still are subject to our evolutionary psychology (instincts) as well: violence, group think, sexual desire, kinship, etc.
sometimes our ideas mesh well with our instincts. other times, not so well.

eg: our instinct is to mate with many females.
we also have a more recent instinct for pair bonding and family structure.
2 instincts in mid transition.
now throw in our self awareness and intellect with our cultural idea about monogomy.
now you have a mental war of which every man falls victim to.
instinct vs. intellect.

tell me, does the intellect always win? what's the rate of adultry in the US alone?

you can't always out-think your instincts (nature).

now take into account things like kinship and group mentality, violence, competition.... global equality.
if we can't, as a species, keep our dick in our pants when we're married...how does anyone expect us to end all aggression, violence and war....on ANY level? or achieve equality among the masses over instinctual kinship and competition?

discovering how its own societies function and in what ways our genetics and cultural choices have influenced our current collective circumstances, and constructing proposals as to how those things will influence our collective future. true, we have entered a rather new stage in self awareness....but will it really matter?
it is allowing us (me for example) to label and understand our actions and history better....but will it truly allow us to change our ways as we see fit?
you seem to think so.
i do not.
or...i am at least skeptical to say the least.

The Second World War showed us that our ideas and knowledge about genetics, while constituting hard truth about the way in which nature functions, are a counterproductive basis for our interactions with one another. you are taking a very extreme circumstance and using it as an example of a slippery slope.
"if we acknowledge natural law....we'll be gassing Jews again in no time."

Competition and struggle can be productive things on a certain level, but our increasing global interconnectedness means that in the modern age it is necessary to assign a greater weight to more productive models of human interaction, namely those based on culturally constructed notions of what it is to be human. Your statement that we are no more than animals, rooted though it might be in solid genetic studies, holds little promise for a better world. a promise of a better world.
see, that's what your real underlying sentiment is.
you have an emotional agenda...one which dictates what you believe and what you don't.
faith over facts.

[Schmeltz]

a bigger brain and the ability to plan and have forethought, curiousity and drive, were adaptive traits that aided in our species survival and evolution.


But the bigger brain was only one part of the equation. Once things like language and tool-making had emerged as adaptive traits or by-products of our evolution, to borrow your turns of phrase, they were established as abstract cultural entities in and of themselves, promoting our intellectual evolution and thereby profoundly affecting the direction of our biological evolution. It's a two-way street.


tell me, does the intellect always win? what's the rate of adultry in the US alone?

you can't always out-think your instincts (nature).


The intellect might not always win, but you must admit that it wields an influence over behaviour just as much as genetics does. I would wager that rates of adultery in the US (and probably everywhere in the rest of the Western world) are higher now than they were a century and a half ago when different values systems were in place. The same could be said for rates of violent crime, which vary across periods of time much more greatly than one could possibly expect from a purely biological standpoint. It is often (but not always) more than possible to out-think one's instincts, and instinct is no excuse for bad behaviour. I don't imagine you can possibly conceive of letting a rapist off if he claimed he simply couldn't resist his biological impulses. Nor do I think your girlfriend would be too impressed with a similar excuse for infidelity.


it is allowing us (me for example) to label and understand our actions and history better....but will it truly allow us to change our ways as we see fit?


I don't see why not. Indeed, it had God damn well better. We have nukes now.


you are taking a very extreme circumstance and using it as an example of a slippery slope.


No, I'm pointing to what people have historically done with your concepts and ideas. We've already been down that slippery slope, man. Now we have to make sure we don't go down it again.


a promise of a better world.
see, that's what your real underlying sentiment is.


Absolutely. Isn't yours the same? Or would you rather see your kids grow up in the same circumstances that are shitting up the planet right now? You have to believe we can do better, man. You can't just wallow in "scientific" pessimism all the time.

[Qdrop]

But the bigger brain was only one part of the equation. Once things like language and tool-making had emerged as adaptive traits or by-products of our evolution, to borrow your turns of phrase, they were established as abstract cultural entities in and of themselves, promoting our intellectual evolution and thereby profoundly affecting the direction of our biological evolution. It's a two-way street.
no.
you have nothing to base this idea on.
none.
you're just typing...




The intellect might not always win, but you must admit that it wields an influence over behaviour just as much as genetics does.
just as much? what do you base that on? how are you proving that? how do you quantify that?


I would wager that rates of adultery in the US (and probably everywhere in the rest of the Western world) are higher now than they were a century and a half ago when different values systems were in place.
you can wager all you want. just because our culture kept something better hidden in the past doesn't mean is was less prominent.
by your theory, homosexuality has risen in the past centurey too.

has it? or people just being more truthful and open about it?


The same could be said for rates of violent crime, which vary across periods of time much more greatly than one could possibly expect from a purely biological standpoint.
where are you getting this from? seriously.
you are pretty off on that one.
try something other than wilkepedia...


It is often (but not always) more than possible to out-think one's instincts,
what a sweeping statment.
i'm not even saying i totally disagree with you...
but what a bold sweeping statement.


and instinct is no excuse for bad behaviour.
i would tend to agree to a point. a small point.
dude just look around you. we act virtually the same as we did 10,000 years ago in SO many ways.
despite our advances in science, industry, arts....
we still have virtually the same brain structure, with the same genetically fixed neural networks. that is not debatable. that is fact.
look it up.
you say that simply "knowing more" can allow us to out think and counter act any innate instincts within us?
because that's really the only differance between man of today and man of say 10,000 years ago....more knowledge and more mental memes.

it's just nonsensical and illogical to say "we can create our own history now".
who is "we"?

We are "we".
and WE have genetically fixed brains that propose all of these cultural activities and advancements.
you CANNOT remove the engine from the car.
you cannot remove biology from culture.

i must say I don't imagine you can possibly conceive of letting a rapist off if he claimed he simply couldn't resist his biological impulses.
why would we let him off? rape is not a norm among all individuals.
whether the rapist was in control or not (and i'm not saying that he necessarily wasn't), who cares? remove him from society.


Nor do I think your girlfriend would be too impressed with a similar excuse for infidelity.
in that case, it's not about excuses, nor reasons.
whether it's lack of control, or poor judgement...there is no reason for her to excuse it....she would have other men to choose from who do no engage in such activity.




Absolutely. Isn't yours the same? Or would you rather see your kids grow up in the same circumstances that are shitting up the planet right now? You have to believe we can do better, man.
sure, better.
but i certainly don't advocate trying to ignore human nature and nature in general.
i don't advocate banging our heads against the wall.

[Humiliation]

agreed.

ehh...disagree. i think that's the MAIN reason actually.

I FINALLY get where you're coming from now.

White men took control of Africa in the 15-1600s with relative ease because we had the idea of making guns and moving beyond the tribal idea. This has always left them as troubled people with poverty and so forth. Whether that was more intelligence genetically or just a coincidence (for lack of a better word) that white people had thought of it and blacks hadn't is unknown.

[Qdrop]

I FINALLY get where you're coming from now.

White men took control of Africa in the 15-1600s with relative ease because we had the idea of making guns and moving beyond the tribal idea. This has always left them as troubled people with poverty and so forth. Whether that was more intelligence genetically or just a coincidence (for lack of a better word) that white people had thought of it and blacks hadn't is unknown.

no, it IS known...and it has nothing to do with race or intelligence.
Just geography.

GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL by Jared Diamond.

the reason Europeans advanced thier civilization so much faster then africa (and thus were able to dominate and subjegate them so easily) was due the effects that geography had on each regions history.

[sam i am]

no, it IS known...and it has nothing to do with race or intelligence.
Just geography.

GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL by Jared Diamond.

the reason Europeans advanced thier civilization so much faster then africa (and thus were able to dominate and subjegate them so easily) was due the effects that geography had on each regions history.

Not just geography, Q, but the absence of key natural resources, the internecine warfare that honed Western Europe and not other areas of the world (thus gunpowder's exploitation by W. Europe when it was invented in China hundreds of years earlier), and even weather/climate patterns played their roles.

Heck, you could look at the effects of the Black Plague wiping out certain "weak" genetic strains and "savinng" the stronger strains for more robust conquering of the world.

Just a bit of my two cents.

[Ali]

Africans didn't need all the sophisticated tools and techniques used in Europe to survive the cold, everything they needed was right there for them, there was never any need to grow more food than they needed to eat right now and store in for the winter or the monsoon or the dry season. If the rains failed, they simply went somewhere else. Land disputes were settled with clubs, shields and spears in highly ritualised warcraft (effectve, too, ask the British about the Anglo-Zulu war!)

They were doomed as soon as whites arrived.

[Medellia]

Not just geography, Q, but the absence of key natural resources, the internecine warfare that honed Western Europe and not other areas of the world (thus gunpowder's exploitation by W. Europe when it was invented in China hundreds of years earlier), and even weather/climate patterns played their roles.
Yes. And those natural resources and weather patterns were affected by, you guessed it, geography! :p

[Qdrop]

Africans didn't need all the sophisticated tools and techniques used in Europe to survive the cold, everything they needed was right there for them, there was never any need to grow more food than they needed to eat right now and store in for the winter or the monsoon or the dry season. If the rains failed, they simply went somewhere else. Land disputes were settled with clubs, shields and spears in highly ritualised warcraft (effectve, too, ask the British about the Anglo-Zulu war!)

They were doomed as soon as whites arrived.

you make it seem as if africans natives chose not to advance.

it really was about georgraphy...the set up of african terrain makes trade and the sharing/spreading of ideas difficult or impossible.

it is simply NOT TRUE that african natives were "content" with what they had...their geography simply did not allow them to enjoy or benifit from easy trade and technology spreading, or sufficient agriculture the way european land did.

the african natives were not content "noble savages" at peace with a humble lifestyle....they were stuck in a rut thanks to geography and climate.

[Ali]

you make it seem as if africans natives chose not to advance.

it really was about georgraphy...the set up of african terrain makes trade and the sharing/spreading of ideas difficult or impossible.

it is simply NOT TRUE that african natives were "content" with what they had...their geography simply did not allow them to enjoy or benifit from easy trade and technology spreading, or sufficient agriculture the way european land did.

the african natives were not content "noble savages" at peace with a humble lifestyle....they were stuck in a rut thanks to geography and climate.Well, I grew up in that geography and climate and that same geography and climate didn't hold the settlers back when they arrived (and, no, they didn't import all their technology). I also studied Anthropology and Sociology at the University of Cape Town, so I do know what I'm talking about (for once :p )

I'm sorry if I made it sound as if they chose not to advance, that's not what I meant. What I tried to say (using a pocket pc and graffitti hence the typos) was that they didn't need to grow extra crops and store them for the winter or the monsoon or the drought, like our European, Asian and Middle Eastern ancestors did. And if you have no need to do something, then why do you do it? Eurasians needed to grow more than they needed and store it in order to survive the winter/monsoon/dry season. They couldn't just go and pick some fruit or vegetables or shoot some game all year round, they had to grow extra and store it and it was this extra which provided the basis for trade. Africans didn't need the extra and so didn't have this economic base. The only form of wealth Africans had was cattle and children, there was no need for anything else in such a Land of Plenty.

I think your definition of 'advanced' differs to mine. To you, advanced means growing more than you and your family or clan can eat and then using it to trade for other things and so on. To me and other Africans, it is a complete waste of time to grow more than you can eat, especially when the land is teeming with wildlife you can easily hunt with tools you've made and there are plenty of good things to eat growing wild.

Africans were 'God's Children' and Africa was the garden of Eden. Africans were totally self sufficient (something 'advanced' societies are striving to become) they were never hungry, had plenty of free time and seldom fought one another... provided the rains came more or less regulary and there was plenty of space to graze cattle, grow crops, hunt and gather... only when those resources ran short, would there be trouble. People would fight over grazing and hunting and not much else.

Before Europeans arrived and claimed land for farming, Africans could spread themselves out evenly over the territory (they were very mobile, terrain was no impediment), even when the rains failed, but once those European farms appeared, there was nowhere for them to go and they began to fight and to starve.

Colonialism has brought nothing but misery to Africa. All the knowledge and technology brought by Europeans was used to make white people rich and to keep Africans ingnorant and landless.

You are right that the African climate and landscape was the reason for their 'backwardness' compared to the European settlers but you are completely wrong when you say that it was because it was too difficult for them to trade/share ideas, etc. that land climate made survival so much easier than Eurasia due to the complete lack of winter, monsoon, desert conditions, etc that they did not have to 'advance'.

You can't judge Africans by European standards, ask anybody who has lived there for a long time, Africans did not want the European lifestyle which was thrust upon them by the settlers and have suffered ever since. You cannot imagine what it is like not to have to worry about where your next meal is coming from, not having to worry about the winter the way Africans once did (before the fucking White Man came and took their land). You know the saying "Necessity is the Mother of invention", well that saying holds - both in Eurasia and in Africa. There's another saying: "If it aint broke, don't fix it". Africans were perfectly happy and prosperous before being invaded, why should they have been as selfish and greedy as the Europeans?

[Qdrop]

Well, I grew up in that geography and climate and that same geography and climate didn't hold the settlers back when they arrived (and, no, they didn't import all their technology). yes they did. Boats and great ships, steel, the list goes on.

I'm sorry if I made it sound as if they chose not to advance, that's not what I meant. What I tried to say (using a pocket pc and graffitti hence the typos) was that they didn't need to grow extra crops and store them for the winter or the monsoon or the drought, like our European, Asian and Middle Eastern ancestors did. And if you have no need to do something, then why do you do it? Eurasians needed to grow more than they needed and store it in order to survive the winter/monsoon/dry season. They couldn't just go and pick some fruit or vegetables or shoot some game all year round, they had to grow extra and store it and it was this extra which provided the basis for trade. Africans didn't need the extra and so didn't have this economic base. The only form of wealth Africans had was cattle and children, there was no need for anything else in such a Land of Plenty. africa's climate (much of it) did not allow for many crops of *variety* to grow...they were region specific crops (africa stretches north to south, across differant climate zones...europe mostly east to west).
africans could not grow large amounts of agriculture to supporst large stationary groups of people. smaller bands and tribes were the default norm because of this- hence no cities or market places (and no large scale exchange of ideas)....no chance for advances civilization.
look at the areas of Africa that DID accomplish this, like Egypt.
where was Egypt and what type of agricultural system were they able to use by the Nile?

I think your definition of 'advanced' differs to mine. To you, advanced means growing more than you and your family or clan can eat and then using it to trade for other things and so on. it means being able to stay stationary indefinetaly with a growing number of people and being able support all of them with large scale agriculture and stationary livestock.
this promotes city living, market place meeting...which in turn promotes trade or new products and ideas and the accumulation of wealth...thus a more advanced and powerful civilization.
why did Egypt "happen in Egypt" instead of, say Niger.

To me and other Africans, it is a complete waste of time to grow more than you can eat, especially when the land is teeming with wildlife you can easily hunt with tools you've made and there are plenty of good things to eat growing wild. the hunter gatherer lifestyle is infinitely more difficult and dangerous than a stationary one. your school studies must have shown you this.

Africans were 'God's Children' and Africa was the garden of Eden. Africans were totally self sufficient (something 'advanced' societies are striving to become) they were never hungry, had plenty of free time and seldom fought one another where are you getting this from? this goes against all contemporary anthropological knowledge and history, ALL of it

... provided the rains came more or less regulary and there was plenty of space to graze cattle, grow crops, hunt and gather... only when those resources ran short, would there be trouble. People would fight over grazing and hunting and nonot much else. but that WAS common...very common. thier crops were sparce and unvaried....droughts were common.
life was fucking difficult for most africans. and that wasn't by choice.

Before Europeans arrived and claimed land for farming, Africans could spread themselves out evenly over the territory (they were very mobile, terrain was no impediment) this absolutely false. again, were are you getting this info? look at the terrain, ever try and walk through desert?


Colonialism has brought nothing but misery to Africa. All the knowledge and technology brought by Europeans was used to make white people rich and to keep Africans ingnorant and landless. well, overall...i can't really argue with that.

You are right that the African climate and landscape was the reason for their 'backwardness' compared to the European settlers but you are completely wrong when you say that it was because it was too difficult for them to trade/share ideas, etc. that land climate made survival so much easier than Eurasia due to the complete lack of winter, monsoon, desert conditions, etc that they did not have to 'advance'. again, you are flying in the face of contemporary knowledge of the subject.

You can't judge Africans by European standards, ask anybody who has lived there for a long time, Africans did not want the European lifestyle which was thrust upon them by the settlers and have suffered ever since. You cannot imagine what it is like not to have to worry about where your next meal is coming from, not having to wonder where their next meal is coming from? do you know anything about the hunter gatherer lifestyle compared to that of a stationary farming society? you have it completely backwards.

You know the saying "Necessity is the Mother of invention", well that saying holds - both in Eurasia and in Africa. There's another saying: "If it aint broke, don't fix it". Africans were perfectly happy and prosperous before being invaded, prosperous? and happy is a relative term.

why should they have been as selfish and greedy as the Europeans?
if the geographic tables were turned...it is likey africa that would have conquered the rest of the world.
greed and imperialism is not a "white thing". it's a human thing.

[sam i am]

(before the fucking White Man came and took their land

Nice racism, Ali. Glad you're so "educated" and "advanced" to have arrived at this conclusion.

What about blacks who sold other blacks into slavery?

What about the Arab slave trade?

Sorry your ignorance is shining forth...

[Ali]

yes they did. Boats and great ships, steel, the list goes on.
Initially, yes, but the rest they did themselves (with slave labour and on land taken from Africans). It takes more than boats and ships to survive in Africa and there's only so much steel you can load onto an ox wagon.

africa's climate (much of it) did not allow for many crops of *variety* to grow...they were region specific crops (africa stretches north to south, across differant climate zones...europe mostly east to west).
africans could not grow large amounts of agriculture to supporst large stationary groups of people. smaller bands and tribes were the default norm because of this- hence no cities or market places (and no large scale exchange of ideas)....no chance for advances civilization.
look at the areas of Africa that DID accomplish this, like Egypt.
where was Egypt and what type of agricultural system were they able to use by the Nile?

it means being able to stay stationary indefinetaly with a growing number of people and being able support all of them with large scale agriculture and stationary livestock.
this promotes city living, market place meeting...which in turn promotes trade or new products and ideas and the accumulation of wealth...thus a more advanced and powerful civilization.
why did Egypt "happen in Egypt" instead of, say Niger.

Egyptians NEEDED to farm like Europeans, because they depended on the Nile flooding annually. When it didn't, they died in their droves. Egypt is not like the rest of Africa, it's more like the Mediterranean or Middle East.

the hunter gatherer lifestyle is infinitely more difficult and dangerous than a stationary one. your school studies must have shown you this.Not at all. Being able to gather wild fruit and vegetables and hunt game all year round beats the hell out of ploughing planting, irrigating and then hoping that the rains will come and then harvesting, storing, etc.

where are you getting this from? this goes against all contemporary anthropological knowledge and history, ALL of itfrom three years of studying Anthropology at a South African University, as well as a LOT of books and living in Africa all my life.

Where are you getting this from?

but that WAS common...very common. thier crops were sparce and unvaried....droughts were common.
life was fucking difficult for most africans. and that wasn't by choice. Where was this? When? According to whom?

this absolutely false. again, were are you getting this info? look at the terrain, ever try and walk through desert?I've walked around a lot of Africa... it's not all desert, you know? Have you been there? Do you actually know whether it's any easier to get around there than anywhere else?


well, overall...i can't really argue with that. (y)

again, you are flying in the face of contemporary knowledge of the subject.

not having to wonder where their next meal is coming from? do you know anything about the hunter gatherer lifestyle compared to that of a stationary farming society? you have it completely backwards.I wrote quite a few papers on the subject and my lecturers didn't seem to think I had it backwards.

prosperous? and happy is a relative term.yes, it is. That is EXACLY what I'm talking about. European look at an African living in a hut and think "poor thing" but is that African REALLY so badly off? There are a lot of unhappy Europeans living in nice houses with cars, etc.


if the geographic tables were turned...it is likey africa that would have conquered the rest of the world.Perhaps they would have... we'll never know, will we?
greed and imperialism is not a "white thing". it's a human thing. Ah well. I suppose Africans should forgive the Europeans for what they did... they're only human after all.

[Qdrop]

Initially, yes, but the rest they did themselves (with slave labour and on land taken from Africans). It takes more than boats and ships to survive in Africa and there's only so much steel you can load onto an ox wagon. and who brought the steel? why did they have steel and the natives did not?

Egyptians NEEDED to farm like Europeans, because they depended on the Nile flooding annually. why did they need it? why didn't then just hunt and gather instead? if argiculture is so inferior (which is really what you seem to getting at) why did Egypt choose such a culture? and how did such a "dangerous and unpredictable choice" allow they to become on of the greatest empires the world had seen to that point? did they just get lucky?

When it didn't, they died in their droves. hmm.....and what happens to hunter gathers?
see, with agriculture....you can STORE extra food. so you can outlast hard times.
how do hunter gatherers outlast hard times?

Egypt is not like the rest of Africa, it's more like the Mediterranean or Middle East. yes...that's what i was getting at. that was my point.

Not at all. Being able to gather wild fruit and vegetables and hunt game all year round beats the hell out of ploughing planting, irrigating and then hoping that the rains will come and then harvesting, storing, etc.

from three years of studying Anthropology at a South African University, as well as a LOT of books and living in Africa all my life.

Where are you getting this from?

Where was this? When? According to whom?

I've walked around a lot of Africa... it's not all desert, you know? Have you been there? Do you actually know whether it's any easier to get around there than anywhere else?

I wrote quite a few papers on the subject and my lecturers didn't seem to think I had it backwards. well, this goes against ever book, every lecture i have attended....
it's as if we live in separate universes......

yes, it is. That is EXACLY what I'm talking about. European look at an African living in a hut and think "poor thing" but is that African REALLY so badly off? There are a lot of unhappy Europeans living in nice houses with cars, etc. yeah....i think this is the root of our differant view.
you (and your books and professors) seem to be coming from the radical liberal mindset of "enforced equality"- and thus alter history to achieve it.
there is a fear in the liberal community that if it somehow shown that certain native groups did not "choose" a subsistant life...that shows they are inferior or less intelligent....which is social darwinism and evil....thus, this CANNOT be allowed.
it's a rewriting of history based on a fallacy...and a subsequent fear.



Ah well. I suppose Africans should forgive the Europeans for what they did... they're only human after all. forgiveness...?
i'm just talking about understanding....
which allows us to learn and use that knowledge in the future...

[sam i am]

Yes. And those natural resources and weather patterns were affected by, you guessed it, geography! :p

Not always. Ever heard of plate tectonics?

[Ali]

and who brought the steel? why did they have steel and the natives did not?Africans had iron long before they were colonised. Look it up.

why did they need it? why didn't then just hunt and gather instead? if argiculture is so inferior (which is really what you seem to getting at) why did Egypt choose such a culture? and how did such a "dangerous and unpredictable choice" allow they to become on of the greatest empires the world had seen to that point? did they just get lucky?I'm not saying that agriculture is inferior, it is you who is calling hunter/gatherers inferior, are you not? Egypt didn't choose agriculture, they were forced to do it, to survive. The reason Egypt became so powerful was because (as you well know) they were located at the confluence of the major trade routes between East and West, on the edge of the Mediterranean Seas. They did, indeed get lucky.

hmm.....and what happens to hunter gathers?
see, with agriculture....you can STORE extra food. so you can outlast hard times.
how do hunter gatherers outlast hard times?They move :rolleyes: and FYI Africans were not exclusively hunter-gatherers, they also grazed cattle and grew crops. The difference was that they didn't have to devise methods to survive droughts or harsh winters. They didn't NEED to.

yes...that's what i was getting at. that was my point.You can't compare Egyptians with Africans, the Egyptians benefitted from contact with other civilisations due to the fact that they were located on the Med.

well, this goes against ever book, every lecture i have attended....
it's as if we live in separate universes......What did you study and where? What books have you read upon which you base your opinion? I've asked you this before.

yeah....i think this is the root of our differant view.
you (and your books and professors) seem to be coming from the radical liberal mindset of "enforced equality"- and thus alter history to achieve it.
there is a fear in the liberal community that if it somehow shown that certain native groups did not "choose" a subsistant life...that shows they are inferior or less intelligent....which is social darwinism and evil....thus, this CANNOT be allowed.
it's a rewriting of history based on a fallacy...and a subsequent fear.
Liberal community? WTF are you babbling about? There is nothing political about Anthropology, dude. Nobody's trying to prove any point or trying to show up any lifestyle as good or bad. The first thing we were taught, for most of our first semester, was the danger of Eurocenticity. This is, basically, judging the civilisation you are trying to study on Western standards and reporting it as such. Anthropologists have to tell it like it is. This is not "enforced equality"; that is a racially-motivated term, if ever I heard one!

BTW you contradicted yourself there, saying that Africans did not choose their way of life, when before you said that Egyptians chose theirs. Which one is it? :rolleyes:

I don't know what books you've read, nor what you've studied (you won't tell me) but I can tell you that your theory that Africans somehow couldn't achieve what Europeans had and therefore got themselves colonised is totally incorrect and based on misconception and, possibly, prejudice - rooted in ignorance. Africans were happy and prosperous, before their world was shattered by Colonialism. You don't see it that way, because you don't know very much about Africa. Perhaps you've read a book or two but from what you've said in this discussion, those books were coming from a very Eurocentric angle.

forgiveness...?
i'm just talking about understanding....
which allows us to learn and use that knowledge in the future...OK, so the first thing to do, to help Africans, is give them their fucking land back.

Think that's going to happen? All those multinational companies; growing Tea, Coffee, Tobacco, cotton, sugar, etc. using impoverished Africans for cheap labour and bribing government officials to turn a blind eye to dodgy environmental and labour practices. Are they going to give that land back to its rightful owners? Fat chance. Expect more hypocritical, tax free aid donations, nothing more.

Knowledge and understanding mean nothing when Global Market Forces are at work... except maybe to find new ways to screw the Workers for more PROFIT

[Qdrop]

Africans had iron long before they were colonised. Look it up. oh i will. you're telling me african natives FOUND and manufactured steel tools ALL on thier own?
wow, if i was sitting next to you...i'd wager $1000 US dollars on the table for that one.

I'm not saying that agriculture is inferior, it is you who is calling hunter/gatherers inferior, are you not? well...inferior only in the light of inevitable human conquest and competition. and let's face it....that's the name of the game when nature is involved.
but *not* in any biological or racial context.
Egypt didn't choose agriculture, they were forced to do it, to survive. forced to? so egyptians suddenly materialized on the fertile soil of the nile in egypt....out of the fucking blue.....and said "whoa...how'd we get here? we better start farming or we're gonna die!"

or was it more along the lines of traveling hunter/gatherers coming across an OPTIMAL area for sustained, stationary living thanks to the Nile...and in a perfect location for trade for goods and ideas.

Lucky in the location in the sense of travel routing and trade, absolutely...but an obvious and benificial choice on the part of the "settlers".

The reason Egypt became so powerful was because (as you well know) they were located at the confluence of the major trade routes between East and West, on the edge of the Mediterranean Seas. They did, indeed get lucky. lucky in the sense of "hey...where are we? oh..hell lets's just stay here for a while.....what's this? lots of people coming around thanks to close Seas and traveling routes? wow! lucky us!"...eh, somewhat. intitially anyway...i agree.
but the area was inhabited due to it's geographic sustanance....it was prime living space that allowed for many people to live in a stationary location with plenty of food.

They move :rolleyes: and FYI Africans were not exclusively hunter-gatherers, they also grazed cattle and grew crops. i stated this earlier. but thier crops were few and limited...

The difference was that they didn't have to devise methods to survive droughts or harsh winters. They didn't NEED to. again...you claim that they CHOSE that lifestyle.
that was ALL THEY could choose from.
not much of a choice? eh?

You can't compare Egyptians with Africans, the Egyptians benefitted from contact with other civilisations due to the fact that they were located on the Med. jesus christ, man.
THAT'S MY FUCKING POINT!!!
LISTEN!!

when a true CHOICE is presented by the *georgraphy of the land*.....man has virtually ALWAYS PROGRESSED TO STATIONARY, AGRICULTURALLY BASED, LARGE, LIVESTOCK HOLDING, SOCIETY!

What did you study and where? What books have you read upon which you base your opinion? I've asked you this before. jesus man...most of this is junior highschool and highschool level stuff...no offense.
i guess our schooling systems are pretty differantly slanted.

recent books?
i've already mentioned Guns, Germs, and Steel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393038912/qid=1124198659/sr=2-3/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_3/002-0477989-6006461) by Jared Diamond

William Mcneill- the Rise of the West (after 25 years) and other of his writings.

The Lucifer Principle by Howard K Bloom

Ecological Imperialism : The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900 by alfred crosby...

shit, try watching the Discovery Channel, national georgraphic, history channel


Liberal community? WTF are you babbling about? There is nothing political about Anthropology, dude. you're kidding, right?
Nobody's trying to prove any point or trying to show up any lifestyle as good or bad. ah man. open your eyes.
The first thing we were taught, for most of our first semester, was the danger of Eurocenticity. This is, basically, judging the civilisation you are trying to study on Western standards and reporting it as such. Anthropologists have to tell it like it is. This is not "enforced equality"; that is a racially-motivated term, if ever I heard one!
if you really think that there is no bias or agenda alive in anthropology (as there is in ANY scientific or historical medium), then you are just too blind to continue this discussion.

that's like me saying "the bush administration has no special interests....what are you talking about?"
you wouldn't even be able to talk politics with me.

BTW you contradicted yourself there, saying that Africans did not choose their way of life, the majority did NOT HAVE A CHOICE. they had no options to evolve thier lifestyle. thanks to geography.
when before you said that Egyptians chose theirs. THEY HAD A CHOICE.

I don't know what books you've read, nor what you've studied (you won't tell me) but I can tell you that your theory that Africans somehow couldn't achieve what Europeans had and therefore got themselves colonised is totally incorrect and based on misconception and, possibly, prejudice - rooted in ignorance. says the trained radical liberal.
Africans were happy and prosperous, before their world was shattered by Colonialism. You don't see it that way, because you don't know very much about Africa. yes, yes...the Noble Savage....pure and unsoiled by the evils of the dirty colonists....yeah, no bias on your end either. none.



see, you always have a problem with me because you claim i am just too stubborn..."it's like debating a wall", you say.

i'm not arguing to argue here.
i'm not trying to be dick.

but i cannot, in good conscience, just back down or concede here.
what you are saying is FALSE and riddled with liberal revisionism....it's illogical and nothing but a feel good mantra...."natives were just peaceful, humble people who chose such a life....cause they were pure, ungreedy, and at peace with nature....until those mean, nasty colonists came and mucked it up!"
BUT WHY, ALI!? WHY DID THE EURO COLONISTS COME?
why didn't the africans come to colonize europe?
you think the african natives had such options, and just chose the simpler lifestyle...cause they're just nicer people-more in touch with nature...right?
meanwhile, the europeans, for some reason...just chose to be assholes- becoming greedy, building empires, advancing techonolgy, changing the world...become colonists just cuz...i dunno...they were mean.....right?
geography, regionality.....no effect....right?

see the problem with this ALI, is that you are, by default...supporting racist views.
didn't quite notice that, huh?


and let me explain "choice".
cause your likely retort will again be "blah...you said it wasnt' choice...it was geography....but then you say "choice"...blah blah...you're a hyprocrit" and you'l throw a bunch of :rolleyes: around..

when i say "choice"...i am relating it to the oppurtunities that the land gives you. how it limits OR allows.
if *the environment you live in*, due to climate, lay of the land, etc.... allows choices....human nature will virtually always dictate progress in the way of increased food production, larger families, invention...more and more progress...it becomes a feedback loop. HISTORY SUPPORTS THIS STATEMENT.
*IF the enviroment allows it*- meaning fertile soil, agreeable climate, myriad of agricultrual choices and livestock choices that can be supported by the climate, easy access for trade and commerce and exchange of ideas...

this has nothing to do with race or differances in biology.

civilization and social progress were dependant on innate human nature...and
what oppurtunities the environment allowed for human nature to act.
human nature is the constant (or the control)....the environemnt is the variable.

[sam i am]

oh i will. you're telling me african natives FOUND and manufactured steel tools ALL on thier own?
wow, if i was sitting next to you...i'd wager $1000 US dollars on the table for that one.

well...inferior only in the light of inevitable human conquest and competition. and let's face it....that's the name of the game when nature is involved.
but *not* in any biological or racial context.
forced to? so egyptians suddenly materialized on the fertile soil of the nile in egypt....out of the fucking blue.....and said "whoa...how'd we get here? we better start farming or we're gonna die!"

or was it more along the lines of traveling hunter/gatherers coming across an OPTIMAL area for sustained, stationary living thanks to the Nile...and in a perfect location for trade for goods and ideas.

Lucky in the location in the sense of travel routing and trade, absolutely...but an obvious and benificial choice on the part of the "settlers".

lucky in the sense of "hey...where are we? oh..hell lets's just stay here for a while.....what's this? lots of people coming around thanks to close Seas and traveling routes? wow! lucky us!"...eh, somewhat. intitially anyway...i agree.
but the area was inhabited due to it's geographic sustanance....it was prime living space that allowed for many people to live in a stationary location with plenty of food.

i stated this earlier. but thier crops were few and limited...

again...you claim that they CHOSE that lifestyle.
that was ALL THEY could choose from.
not much of a choice? eh?

jesus christ, man.
THAT'S MY FUCKING POINT!!!
LISTEN!!

when a true CHOICE is presented by the *georgraphy of the land*.....man has virtually ALWAYS PROGRESSED TO STATIONARY, AGRICULTURALLY BASED, LARGE, LIVESTOCK HOLDING, SOCIETY!

jesus man...most of this is junior highschool and highschool level stuff...no offense.
i guess our schooling systems are pretty differantly slanted.

recent books?
i've already mentioned Guns, Germs, and Steel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393038912/qid=1124198659/sr=2-3/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_3/002-0477989-6006461) by Jared Diamond

William Mcneill- the Rise of the West (after 25 years) and other of his writings.

The Lucifer Principle by Howard K Bloom

Ecological Imperialism : The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900 by alfred crosby...

shit, try watching the Discovery Channel, national georgraphic, history channel


you're kidding, right?
ah man. open your eyes.

if you really think that there is no bias or agenda alive in anthropology (as there is in ANY scientific or historical medium), then you are just too blind to continue this discussion.

that's like me saying "the bush administration has no special interests....what are you talking about?"
you wouldn't even be able to talk politics with me.

the majority did NOT HAVE A CHOICE. they had no options to evolve thier lifestyle. thanks to geography.
THEY HAD A CHOICE.

says the trained radical liberal.
yes, yes...the Noble Savage....pure and unsoiled by the evils of the dirty colonists....yeah, no bias on your end either. none.



see, you always have a problem with me because you claim i am just too stubborn..."it's like debating a wall", you say.

i'm not arguing to argue here.
i'm not trying to be dick.

but i cannot, in good conscience, just back down or concede here.
what you are saying is FALSE and riddled with liberal revisionism....it's illogical and nothing but a feel good mantra...."natives were just peaceful, humble people who chose such a life....cause they were pure, ungreedy, and at peace with nature....until those mean, nasty colonists came and mucked it up!"
BUT WHY, ALI!? WHY DID THE EURO COLONISTS COME?
why didn't the africans come to colonize europe?
you think the african natives had such options, and just chose the simpler lifestyle...cause they're just nicer people-more in touch with nature...right?
meanwhile, the europeans, for some reason...just chose to be assholes- becoming greedy, building empires, advancing techonolgy, changing the world...become colonists just cuz...i dunno...they were mean.....right?
geography, regionality.....no effect....right?

see the problem with this ALI, is that you are, by default...supporting racist views.
didn't quite notice that, huh?


and let me explain "choice".
cause your likely retort will again be "blah...you said it wasnt' choice...it was geography....but then you say "choice"...blah blah...you're a hyprocrit" and you'l throw a bunch of :rolleyes: around..

when i say "choice"...i am relating it to the oppurtunities that the land gives you. how it limits OR allows.
if *the environment you live in*, due to climate, lay of the land, etc.... allows choices....human nature will virtually always dictate progress in the way of increased food production, larger families, invention...more and more progress...it becomes a feedback loop. HISTORY SUPPORTS THIS STATEMENT.
*IF the enviroment allows it*- meaning fertile soil, agreeable climate, myriad of agricultrual choices and livestock choices that can be supported by the climate, easy access for trade and commerce and exchange of ideas...

this has nothing to do with race or differances in biology.

civilization and social progress were dependant on innate human nature...and
what oppurtunities the environment allowed for human nature to act.
human nature is the constant (or the control)....the environemnt is the variable.

WTG, Q! Insightful, reasoned, and impassioned all at once.

Even though we disagree on some subjects, Q, you are dead on here.

[Ali]

civilization and social progress were dependant on innate human nature...and
what oppurtunities the environment allowed for human nature to act.
human nature is the constant (or the control)....the environemnt is the variable.OK, so what you are saying is that universal human nature and local environment are the reasons that Africa was colonised by Europeans and not the other way round.

If the climatic conditions were reversed, then Africans would have invaded Europe?

The climate in Europe didn't allow for cultivation of cash crops on the scale that the African soil, rain and sunshine allowed and there were no minerals to be mined in Europe, hence the invasion, seizure of land, emancipation of Africans and continuing poverty there that we see today.

Subsaharan African (NOT Egyptian, A F R I C A N) people were able to live from hand to mouth, growing enough crops to feed small groups of people, raising a few cattle and moving about as and when climatic conditions changed. It was possible to do this because the African sun shines all year round (there is no long, harsh winter, as there is in Europe). This idyllic lifestyle was not possible in Europe. It was not necessary for Africans to store food, irrigate crops, make cold-resistant clothing nor build anything more robust than family-sized huts. Europeans had to do all this, in order to survive, they didn't have a choice. There was certainly no reason for Africans to build ships, cross oceans and invade other countries, because there was nothing there but shitty weather, disease and very poor conditions for growing food, compared with the lush fertility of Subsaharan Africa. Why would they want to leave such a place?
If resources ran short in an area, due to poor weather, overgrazing or overhunting, a tribe would move to another area and, yes, if there were already people there and the resources were worth it, they would fight and the strongest would prevail, possibly enslaving the weaker, but, hey, that's human nature, like you say. This didn't happen as often as it does now, because, back then, there was enough space for people to move about. It hadn't all been used to grow coffee that no African could ever afford to buy.

Africans are no better nor worse than Europeans, I agree with you totally. Both are human, both fight to survive. All that differs is the climate, and it's this difference which resulted in Colonialism and Neocolonialism, which, as you agree, is the reason for African poverty.

So, I guess we should just leave the situation as it is, because it's simply the natural product of climate and human nature. Why waste time and money on debt relief, peacekeeping missions, etc. that will only make it harder to exploit them. Keep squeezing the bastards, keep them poor, keep them ignorant keep their rulers corrupt, keep their land, don't let them grow their own food or graze their cattle, make them work for a pittance... we've got to make a P R O F I T!

It's in our nature to invade other countries, steal their assets and enslave the inhabitants. We can't help it, we're only human, they'd have done it to us, so we have every right to do it to them.

Nice Philosophy, dude. :rolleyes:

oh i will. you're telling me african natives FOUND and manufactured steel tools ALL on thier own?
wow, if i was sitting next to you...i'd wager $1000 US dollars on the table for that one.I accept cash, Credit Card and Paypal payments, in Euros, bitch. :p
IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY (http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=3432&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html)24-06-2002 10:00 pm Paris - Africa developed its own iron industry some 5,000 years ago, according to a formidable new scientific work from UNESCO Publishing that challenges a lot of conventional thinking on the subject. Iron technology did not come to Africa from western Asia via Carthage or Merowe as was long thought, concludes "Aux origines de la métallurgie du fer en Afrique, Une ancienneté méconnue: Afrique de l'Ouest et Afrique centrale". The theory that it was imported from somewhere else, which - the book points out - nicely fitted colonial prejudices, does not stand up in the face of new scientific discoveries, including the probable existence of one or more centres of iron-working in west and central Africa andthe Great Lakes area. Guess you missed that one on the Discovery Channel :p Here's some more... The authors of this joint work, which is part of the "Iron Roads in Africa" project, are distinguished archaeologists, engineers, historians, anthropologists and sociologists. As they trace the history of iron in Africa, including many technical details and discussion of the social, economic and cultural effects of the industry, they restore to the continent "this important yardstick of civilisation that it has been denied up to now," writes Doudou Diène, former head of UNESCO's Division of Intercultural Dialogue, who wrote the book's preface.

But the facts speak for themselves. Tests on material excavated since the 1980s show that iron was worked at least as long ago as 1500 BC at Termit, in eastern Niger, while iron did not appear in Tunisia or Nubia before the 6th century BC. At Egaro, west of Termit, material has been dated earlier than 2500 BC, which makes African metalworking contemporary with that of the Middle East.

...

"In fact, only in Africa do you find such a range of practices in the process of direct reduction [a method in which metal is obtained in a single operation without smelting],and metal workers who were so inventive that they could extract iron in furnaces made out of the trunks of banana trees," says Hamady Bocoum, one of the authors.

This ingenuity was praised in the early 19th century by the Tunisian scholar Mohamed el-Tounsy, who told of travelling in Chad and Sudan and coming across spears and daggers made "with the skill of the English" and iron piping with "bends and twists like some European pipes, but more elegant and graceful and shining so brightly they seem to be made of silver."1500BC, huh. The Europeans only started working iron in 800BC not that this makes Africans any better than Europeans, does it? :rolleyes:

FYI steel is an alloy, made from Iron and Carbon. You can't 'find' it :rolleyes:

[Qdrop]

OK, so what you are saying is that universal human nature and local environment are the reasons that Africa was colonised by Europeans and not the other way round. correct.

If the climatic conditions were reversed, then Africans would have invaded Europe? well, that's pure speculation. but it follows with human nature.

The climate in Europe didn't allow for cultivation of cash crops on the scale that the African soil, rain and sunshine allowed and there were no minerals to be mined in Europe, hence the invasion, seizure of land, emancipation of Africans and continuing poverty there that we see today. and just think...if African natives weren't so pre-occupied with constant hunting/gathering to survive, perhaps they could have exploited their own land and created their own great wealth and society...but alas, much of the climate, and lack of trade/knowledge did not allow for it.

Subsaharan African (NOT Egyptian, A F R I C A N) people were able to live from hand to mouth, growing enough crops to feed small groups of people, raising a few cattle and moving about as and when climatic conditions changed. It was possible to do this because the African sun shines all year round (there is no long, harsh winter, as there is in Europe). This idyllic lifestyle was not possible in Europe. idyllic? hardly. stop saying the hunter/gatherer lifestyle is a idyllic life choice. that is pure idealistic opinion on your part and is not supported by history.

It was not necessary for Africans to store food, irrigate crops, make cold-resistant clothing nor build anything more robust than family-sized huts. you mean, not possible. given the hardships they had to deal with.
again, ALI, it was not a choice on their part. they had no other options.

Europeans had to do all this, in order to survive, they didn't have a choice. There was certainly no reason for Africans to build ships, cross oceans and invade other countries, because there was nothing there but shitty weather, disease and very poor conditions for growing food, compared with the lush fertility of Subsaharan Africa. Why would they want to leave such a place? HELLOOOOOOO! where did you think Eurpopeans came from?
they came from Africa (a cradle of civilization) thousands of years earlier. They DID leave "such a place."

jesus christ. so you are saying that african natives (thousands of years earlier) left africa and traveled to europe (for no good reason, according to you)...found this "nasty, terrible land we now call Europe" and had no choice but to establish vast agriculture and livestock farms, vast empires, market/trade mecca's, superior technology....just so they could (thousands of years later) get back to Africa and steal their natural resources through colonizing?

do you see how embarrassing your logic is?

please tell me you do.

If resources ran short in an area, due to poor weather, overgrazing or overhunting, a tribe would move to another area and, yes, if there were already people there and the resources were worth it, they would fight and the strongest would prevail, possibly enslaving the weaker, but, hey, that's human nature, like you say. This didn't happen as often as it does now, because, back then, there was enough space for people to move about. do a little more UNbiased research on that...on the history of african tribal warfare.
try some less liberal, revisionist sources...challenge yourself.

Africans are no better nor worse than Europeans, I agree with you totally. Both are human, both fight to survive. All that differs is the climate, and it's this difference which resulted in Colonialism and Neocolonialism, which, as you agree, is the reason for African poverty. agreed.

So, I guess we should just leave the situation as it is, because it's simply the natural product of climate and human nature. Why waste time and money on debt relief, peacekeeping missions, etc. that will only make it harder to exploit them. Keep squeezing the bastards, keep them poor, keep them ignorant keep their rulers corrupt, keep their land, don't let them grow their own food or graze their cattle, make them work for a pittance... we've got to make a P R O F I T!

It's in our nature to invade other countries, steal their assets and enslave the inhabitants. We can't help it, we're only human, they'd have done it to us, so we have every right to do it to them.

Nice Philosophy, dude. :rolleyes: i KNEW you'd jump to a strawman.

understanding history/human nature does not precluce a nihilistic/determinist mind set for the future.

I accept cash, Credit Card and Paypal payments, in Euros, bitch. :p
Guess you missed that one on the Discovery Channel :p Here's some more... 1500BC, huh. The Europeans only started working iron in 800BC not that this makes Africans any better than Europeans, does it? :rolleyes: if these findings hold up to scrutiny (these findings are always contested and debated, as the datings can be somewhat subjective)....then i stand corrected.

the check is in the mail.

it's really fusterating though....how you can research that and have detailed knowledge of the history of african steel.....yet you can be so under-researched on far more basic anthropological findings of Africa.

it's as if you pick and choose what areas to research more and take to heart.
like you have a pre-concieved agenda.

you have this vision of the African Noble Savage: smart, yet humble. at peace with nature...socialistic...naturally rejecting euro ideals....
anything that fits that, you swallow down.
anything that doesn't....you dismiss or ignore.

that's called revisionism, ali.

FYI steel is an alloy, made from Iron and Carbon. You can't 'find' it :rolleyes: yes, this i know.

and stop using the fucking rolly eyes things... it's really childish.

[Ali]

you have this vision of the African Noble Savage: smart, yet humble. at peace with nature...socialistic...naturally rejecting euro ideals....Thanks for the Straw Man... hypocrite.

My 'vision' is based on experience, dude. I lived in Africa, I studied Africa at School and University. I have personal relationships with a lot of African people, first hand experience.

What's your vision of 'the natives' as you call them?

And upon what is it based? (other than stuff you've seen on TV).

Poor stupid fools, couldn't overcome the natural difficulties required to conquor the world (yet somehow, all humans come from Africa... Europe was colonised by Africans where the fuck did you get that gem!?)

Have you actually been to Africa or even met anybody from Africa?

Didn't think so. Please don't tell me you did African Studies at high school and I seriously doubt you took any Anthropology courses at University. Admit it. All you know about Africa is based on some books you've read and lots of TV.

Everything you say tells me that you know sweet fuck all about Africa, not that this is going to stop you... it never does :p

anything that fits that, you swallow down.
anything that doesn't....you dismiss or ignore.

that's called revisionism, ali.Thanks, mr Pot, you are the master of that :rolleyes: .

and stop using the fucking rolly eyes things... it's really childish.S :rolleyes: RRY

[Qdrop]

Thanks for the Straw Man... hypocrite. man, that's pretty much you what said yourself...word for word. read your posts.


What's your vision of 'the natives' as you call them? on a biological level, they are virtually identical to all humans.
they did the best they could with the enviromental cards they were dealt.
as did thier european desendants.

And upon what is it based? (other than stuff you've seen on TV). books too.
you forgot about books.

Poor stupid fools, couldn't overcome the natural difficulties required to conquor the world no. they did overcome as best they could...they survived, didn't they.
they adapted to thier enviroment as best they could.
it has nothing to do with intelligence, etc....


(yet somehow, all humans come from Africa... Europe was colonised by Africans where the fuck did you get that gem!?) please tell me you kidding...
please Ali.
don't do this to yourself.
don't.

you have the gun pointed at your head.
don't pull the trigger....put the gun down.

ever heard the phrase "out of Africa"?

unless you're refering to some evidence that shows a possible second "cradle of humanity" in china. but even, then....all evidence points to europeans coming from African pilgrimages....


Ali, you didn't really study this in college, did you?
you couldn't have....not if you are unfamiliar with the "out of Africa" theory and the mounds of evidence (including DNA) that support it.

Admit it. All you know about Africa is based on some books you've read and lots of TV. correct.
yet i still have a superiour edge on knowledge of the anthropological history of Africans and thier desendants.(except for that item about african steel-- good show, ali)
weird huh?

[Funkaloyd]

I like how each is now listing the things that the other didn't study at university.

[Qdrop]

I like how each is now listing the things that the other didn't study at university.

yep.

here, Ali...
some things that they apparently didn't teach you in your "university" studies in anthropology and in "your travels to Africa" :

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

and more on the possibility of mulitregional homo-sapian evolution and migration vs. pure "out of Africa" evolution and migration (either way, homo erectus evolved in Africa first, and migrated to europe and china, and australia.)

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050516/firsthuman.html

"Jianshi Man is China's oldest hominid. He may challenge the "Out of Africa" theory of modern human origins, which holds that hominids evolved in Africa, resulting in modern humans who left the continent 100,000-200,000 years ago.

The reason for the challenge is that scientists recently have found other evidence for human evolution spanning thousands of years in China, although the finds have yet to be analyzed by experts outside of the country.

If confirmed, the evidence might suggest that Homo sapiens evolved in more than one place in the world at around the same time, or that humans and other hominids left Africa earlier than thought.

[Qdrop]

I like how each is now listing the things that the other didn't study at university.

but seriously though....

he isn't aware of African evolutionary beginnings of man and "out of Africa" migration?
and he claims he studied anthropolgy?

doesn't anyone else find that suspicious?

that's like me saying i studied european history in college... but "England had a monarchy? where did you get that little gem?"

[Funkaloyd]

I'm going to wait for him to clarify. He may have been referring to the use of the word "colonised"; maybe he thinks that either its definition or connotations make it unfit to describe what happened.

[Qdrop]

I'm going to wait for him to clarify. He may have been referring to the use of the word "colonised"; maybe he thinks that either its definition or connotations make it unfit to describe what happened.
except i never said africa "colonised" europe.

where did i say that?

if i did, i meant it as in "migrated to, and lived in".


but i don't see where i said that.

[Ali]

correct.
yet i still have a superiour edge on knowledge of the anthropological history of Africans and thier desendants.(except for that item about african steel-- good show, ali)
weird huh?Fukn TV baby. No wonder you can't spell for shit!

I have so caught you out, pretending you actually studied this and now admitting that you saw it on TV.

ROFLMFAOAU

Why did you say you studied this earlier, when you hadn't? Huh? You are a snaky little LIAR, aren't you?

P.S. it's I R O N, nitwit.
:rolleyes:

[Qdrop]

I have so caught you out, pretending you actually studied this and now admitting that you saw it on TV. well, sure i took Art and Civilization, World History, World Economic History in college.
but no, i did not take any specific anthropology classes.

never said i did.
never said i had a degree in it either.

you caught nothing...

ROFLMFAOAU
what are you, 5?

Why did you say you studied this earlier, when you hadn't? Huh? You are a snaky little LIAR, aren't you? in the classes i mentioned above. yes.
and in personal study.

when did i say i majored or minored in anthropology?

where are these lies you say you trapped me in?



all this, just to deflect the fact that you're pathetically undereducated on such simple, general knowledge such as early-man migration, Out of Africa, etc.


see, the fact that you don't even have a handhold on basic anthropological tennents, and that much of your "knowledge" you claim you learned in "University" flies against much of contemporary knowledge...leads me to think it is YOU who is grossly over stating your education.

care to comment on that last part?
or do you just want to continue dodging that giant gapping hole in your stance?

[sam i am]

well, sure i took Art and Civilization, World History, World Economic History in college.
but no, i did not take any specific anthropology classes.

never said i did.
never said i had a degree in it either.

you caught nothing...


what are you, 5?

in the classes i mentioned above. yes.
and in personal study.

when did i say i majored or minored in anthropology?

where are these lies you say you trapped me in?



all this, just to deflect the fact that you're pathetically undereducated on such simple, general knowledge such as early-man migration, Out of Africa, etc.


see, the fact that you don't even have a handhold on basic anthropological tennents, and that much of your "knowledge" you claim you learned in "University" flies against much of contemporary knowledge...leads me to think it is YOU who is grossly over stating your education.

care to comment on that last part?
or do you just want to continue dodging that giant gapping hole in your stance?

Qdrop, I love it. You have effectively and conclusively called Ali out. Kudos!

Ali is a blowhard and couldn't effectively communicate his ideas if they wrote themselves without his help.

WTG, Q! You the man! :)

[D_Raay]

Qdrop, I love it. You have effectively and conclusively called Ali out. Kudos!

Ali is a blowhard and couldn't effectively communicate his ideas if they wrote themselves without his help.

WTG, Q! You the man! :)
I disagree... I understand exactly what Ali is saying, as well as Q. You are just saying that because you don't like Ali.

[sam i am]

I disagree... I understand exactly what Ali is saying, as well as Q. You are just saying that because you don't like Ali.

True, I don't like Ali.

BUT, I've been willing to admit when Ali has made points. I just think Ali's dead wrong on this issue, as on EVERY single issue Ali's posted on.

[D_Raay]

True, I don't like Ali.

BUT, I've been willing to admit when Ali has made points. I just think Ali's dead wrong on this issue, as on EVERY single issue Ali's posted on.
Nor possible for both of them to be right?

[Ali]

all this, just to deflect the fact that you're pathetically undereducated on such simple, general knowledge such as early-man migration, Out of Africa, etc.I know about the theory that Homonids originated in Africa. What I don't know is why you suddenly used this to rebuff my point that Africans didn't need to migrate to Europe because the climatic conditions in Europe were not as favourable as they were in Africa.

The emergence of Homo Erectus (not only in Africa) and the colonisation of Africa by Europeans happened at different times in history, when climatic conditions were different, you can't use the migration from Africa then to say that they could have done it later. You're trying to use migration and colonisation interchangably, they are two very different things.

It had absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing, but the way you used it implied that it did. You do that a lot. It's boring.

And now we will have a series of denials from Qtip about how he never said any such thing, a straw man and demands for me to prove it... just like in every other argument with you that I've had the misfortune of having.

[Qdrop]

I know about the theory that Homonids originated in Africa. you didn't seem to yesterday.
What I don't know is why you suddenly used this to rebuff my point that Africans didn't need to migrate to Europe because the climatic conditions in Europe were not as favourable as they were in Africa. so they didn't need to....had not reason to. but they just did it anyway?
and for "some reason", those that migrated to europe established a far more advanced and proportionately larger society...as opposed to the african natives who were forced to remain locked in time, due to climactic and geographics barriers...
yet europes geography was somehow inferior?

ALI! YOU....ARE .....WRONG....

BE A FUCKIN MAN AND ADMIT IT!


now why did some homo erectus..and later homo sapien....migrate to europe in the first place.
well, obviously, africa wasn't the "perfect heaven" you claimed it to be.
yes, african hunter gatherers WERE surviving hand to mouth, with some occasional minor farming and livestock herding. without winters, they probably had an easier run of it then euopean settlers...

none the less, anthropologists have often pointed to an apparent innate desire in man, particularly, to explore, and spread....

remember... neandertals WERE surviving in Europe during the ice ages no less- as *hunter gatherers* for thousands of years.
yes, at this time, i'm sure europes climate WAS a tougher one to deal with.
but again....the neandertal were surviving. you didn't HAVE to have agriculture and large shelter/social groups to survive in european climate.

but as climate changed....and homo sapiens now came.....a *choice* actually became possible in europe...a choice that was not available in most of africa to the homo sapiens that did not migrate.
a choice to adopt agriculture on a grand scale....and the availability of easier travel and trade....market places...exchanging of ideas....
and ADVANTAGE was found thanks to the lucky lay of the land- and homosapians brains were perfecty evolved to adapt to it and take adavantage.


The emergence of Homo Erectus (not only in Africa) as i have shown, this is still being debated and contested.
even if homo sapian DID simutaniously evolve in africa and china (and possibley australia), Homo Erectus almost undoubtedly still originated in Africa and later migrated to those other areas....
Mitichondrial DNA evidence is all put proving this beyond a doubt.

granted, it's still not "fact" yet.

and the colonisation of Africa by Europeans happened at different times in history, when climatic conditions were different, you can't use the migration from Africa then to say that they could have done it later.

yes, an ICE AGE did happen within that time period. that is what closed off Africa from Europe and eurasia...effectively blocking the return path of the migrators...

during this ice age....homo erectus of europe (that had migrated there) evolved to Neandertal...specially adapted to colder environments.
at this point, no..europe was NOT a particularly "pleasant" place to live.

but is was as the ice age ended, and the passage between africa and europe/eurasia opened again....that homo sapian (having evolved in africa from homo erectus and possibley china began migrating to europe, which was now becoming a potential geographic/climactic heaven...

it was homo sapien vs. neandertal.....
and guess who won.

from there...the homo sapien in europe had a geographic/climactic advantage for thier evolving society.
the rest is "history".

You're trying to use migration and colonisation interchangably, they are two very different things. it depends on how you use them.
and to be clear, it was YOU who interchanged those words...in an attempt to characterize what i was saying.
you put the word in my mouth....don't twist it.

but one CAN use the word "colonise" simply to mean "migrate to and establish living space".....rather then to imply a systematic gov't and economic sanction on an existing culture and area by another.

It had absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing, but the way you used it implied that it did. where did i do this? when did i interchange the word "migrate" with "colonise"? as i said, if i did...it's not wrong per say....
but i don't even see where i did that....looking back over this thread.
perhaps you can show me?

And now we will have a series of denials from Qtip about how he never said any such thing, a straw man and demands for me to prove it... yep. but guessing my next move doesn't defuse it.

now get to work and attempt to spit out a reply.
and don't forget to put lots of rolley eyes in it.

just like in every other argument with you that I've had the misfortune of having. you could walk away at anytime.
which i'm sure you will...
it's getting close to checkmate, here.....or a boring stalemate at best.

[Qdrop]

and btw...

looking back at this thread...concerning my statement about african's not having steel...

you almost had me there.....you snuck in "iron"...instead of steel.
which we established is not the same thing.

i almost didn't notice.
you sneaky fuck.

consider that "check" cancelled.

[Funkaloyd]

from there...the homo sapien in europe had a geographic/climactic advantage for thier evolving society.
the rest is "history".

I'm not going over the rest of this thread to see if this has been discussed already, but there seems to be a consensus that most prehistorical advances were made in the Middle East, before both Europe and Africa.

[Qdrop]

I'm not going over the rest of this thread to see if this has been discussed already, but there seems to be a consensus that most prehistorical advances were made in the Middle East, before both Europe and Africa.

the areas you are referring to, mesopotamia, etc...are usually lumped in with Africa geographically (northern)....

from the earlier link i provided:

"In contrast, the Out of Africa Model13 asserts that modern humans evolved relatively recently in Africa, migrated into Eurasia and replaced all populations which had descended from Homo erectus. Critical to this model are the following tenets:

* after Homo erectus migrated out of Africa the different populations became reproductively isolated, evolving independently, and in some cases like the Neanderthals, into separate species
* Homo sapiens arose in one place, probably Africa (geographically this includes the Middle East) "

[...]

[sam i am]

and btw...

looking back at this thread...concerning my statement about african's not having steel...

you almost had me there.....you snuck in "iron"...instead of steel.
which we established is not the same thing.

i almost didn't notice.
you sneaky fuck.

consider that "check" cancelled.

Cancel the check, but put the checkmate in the mail, Q. (y)

[Funkaloyd]

. :rolleyes: . (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm)

[Ali]

. :rolleyes: . (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm) :D

Which one's Big Dog?

[Qdrop]

hahaa...

i love the Flame Warriors...

[zippo]

the key is to think small and not think big.

think in relation to what youve studied and now work in and the little things you can accomplish in direct or indirect relation to 3rd world countries, at the same time you volunteer in your community´s volunteer programs. have you done any of this? its as much the disinterested peoples faults as it is yours, the complaining parties i mean, if you havent.
poverty isnt going to be magically fixed with a global big bang but with small, individual efforts (and like qdrop said, the fight will inevitably be eternal). one of the problems in considering taking action in the things i mentioned at the beggining is the difficulty we have in taking value in small, long-term, slow processes, and the fascination we have in bright lights and fireworks.

[zippo]

Because most of the funds collected by charities get spent on the charity itself, on shiny 4x4 vehicles, offices, salaries for all the staff, travel accommodation, etc.

Very little actually makes it to the people who need it...

Don't donate another cent without finding out exactly what happens to your money...



There's nothing more sanctimonious and hypocrital than Western countries sending sacks of expired food and unwanted (dangerous) medicine to Africa while their multinationals make millions out of cash crops and the locals work for a pittance. Schools, hospitals, roads, etc get built while the infrastucture remains geared only the expediate the swift exit of crops and minerals. A major part of this infrastructure is the presence of a corrupt government, kept well heeled by foreign companies who want lax environmental and labour regulations.

Aid agencies are part of the global system which endeavours to keep the Third World in Economic slavery so that it can can stay rich, rich rich. Aid is a hypocritical PR excercise, designed to fleece well-intentioned, but uninformed, people of their earnings (tax deductible) and keep people in need in need.

wait, so, charities or no charities?

the solution shouldnt be giving up on charities but fixing them. keeping control of them, a role the media can play very well. apart from the role a smart, responsible educated individual can play out just as well, like you said (i think).

the corruption you described also exists within some national aid organizations that help their own fucking people! not an unusual subject to find in a newspaper title.

[Ali]

wait, so, charities or no charities?

the solution shouldnt be giving up on charities but fixing them. keeping control of them, a role the media can play very well. apart from the role a smart, responsible educated individual can play out just as well, like you said (i think).

the corruption you described also exists within some national aid organizations that help their own fucking people! not an unusual subject to find in a newspaper title.All the grain, second hand clothing and expired medication in the world will be useless if the people in need of aid still have to live in slums on the edges of cities, trying to find low-skills, low wage jobs at factories or on commercial farms.

The problem is not just corruption and inefficiency within the aid organisations, it's rooted in the fact that African countries are exploited by European, American and Asian (First World) Multinational Corporations who buy up all the good land, put local producers and processors out of business, pay slave wages and low taxes, ignore environmental and labour laws (or have them altered by greasing the palms of politicians, the proceeds going to strengthening the armed forces and keeping the Generals well paid) and generally keep Africans poor and uneducated so that large foreign companies can make the biggest profit possible.

If you really want to help, then make sure that you look carefully on the next product you buy in the supermarket and make sure that it has the 'Fair Trade' label on it... not bloody Nestlé or some other Multinational Corporation.

Check to see that the charity you donate to has a program which involves helping aid recipients buy land and tools and seed and fertiliser and all the things which they need to feed themselves, not just handing out food. Food donations simply create a dependence on aid and keep the needy in a situation or permanent need. Food donations should ONLY be used to prevent starvation and should be very carefully monitored, to ensure that they don't fall into the wrong hands and end up being sold to the people who were supposed to get it for free!

So, yes, of course Charities, but give with your heart and with your head and make sure when you shop that you don't give any of your money to Multinationals when you could give it to a local business, even if it costs more that's all I'm saying.

[zippo]

All the grain, second hand clothing and expired medication in the world will be useless if the people in need of aid still have to live in slums on the edges of cities, trying to find low-skills, low wage jobs at factories or on commercial farms.

The problem is not just corruption and inefficiency within the aid organisations, it's rooted in the fact that African countries are exploited by European, American and Asian (First World) Multinational Corporations who buy up all the good land, put local producers and processors out of business, pay slave wages and low taxes, ignore environmental and labour laws (or have them altered by greasing the palms of politicians, the proceeds going to strengthening the armed forces and keeping the Generals well paid) and generally keep Africans poor and uneducated so that large foreign companies can make the biggest profit possible.

If you really want to help, then make sure that you look carefully on the next product you buy in the supermarket and make sure that it has the 'Fair Trade' label on it... not bloody Nestlé or some other Multinational Corporation.

Check to see that the charity you donate to has a program which involves helping aid recipients buy land and tools and seed and fertiliser and all the things which they need to feed themselves, not just handing out food. Food donations simply create a dependence on aid and keep the needy in a situation or permanent need. Food donations should ONLY be used to prevent starvation and should be very carefully monitored, to ensure that they don't fall into the wrong hands and end up being sold to the people who were supposed to get it for free!

So, yes, of course Charities, but give with your heart and with your head and make sure when you shop that you don't give any of your money to Multinationals when you could give it to a local business, even if it costs more that's all I'm saying.

i dont know about Africa, im speaking from South America... but, yes, there are always some charities that concentrate on short term goals and others that take charge of the long term ones, like you suggested. that way, they look to avoid the example in your first paragraph. and im glad you agree that it should be the individuals responsibility to inform themselves about the charity/volunteering theyre involved with.

Is this "Fair Trade" that youre talking about the Free Trade Treaty the U.S. has signed with other countries? I really hope its not the same one because if it is Id like to inform you that this treaty is being protested against becasue of its unfair settlements. it gives the 3rd world countries farmers a lesser opportunity in their own country to sell their products, and will harm their agriculture in the long run. maybe its not the same thing were talking about.

and, well, yea,buying national products instead of imported products is a wonderful way of keeping the national markets rolling. apart from that only a small percentage of the countries population can afford them since their prices are always ridiculously high anyway.

[Ali]

Is this "Fair Trade" that youre talking about the Free Trade Treaty the U.S. has signed with other countries? I really hope its not the same one because if it is Id like to inform you that this treaty is being protested against becasue of its unfair settlements. it gives the 3rd world countries farmers a lesser opportunity in their own country to sell their products, and will harm their agriculture in the long run. maybe its not the same thing were talking about.Definitely not the same as NAFTA or CEFTA. Nothing fair about those agreements.

In Europe and the UK you can look for a label on products like Coffee and Tea and such like, which indicate that the product was produced in the country of origin by a locally-owned business, instead of Nestlé or whoever.

The point is to give the smaller, less well-funded, higher tax paying, locally-owned businesses a chance against huge, foreign-owned subsidaries of foreign-owned businesses who muscle in and buy up all the local businesses and land and, etc... I have ranted on and on about this. You get the picture.

[zippo]

Definitely not the same as NAFTA or CEFTA. Nothing fair about those agreements.

In Europe and the UK you can look for a label on products like Coffee and Tea and such like, which indicate that the product was produced in the country of origin by a locally-owned business, instead of Nestlé or whoever.

The point is to give the smaller, less well-funded, higher tax paying, locally-owned businesses a chance against huge, foreign-owned subsidaries of foreign-owned businesses who muscle in and buy up all the local businesses and land and, etc... I have ranted on and on about this. You get the picture.

yea, i thought we were talking about different ones.
those labels dont exist down here but sound like a smart, easy way to help. the closest things to these labels are probably the commercials that encourage buying nationally produced products/brands over the others. but sometimes the bad quality with which some things are produced here, due to lack of money and/or non-updated machinery makes this choice difficult.

anyways...