How do you raise a child to be a Good Communist?

[PeteH]

I attach no moral weight to other species - we might as well f*ck with them as long as it's in our self-interest

Not our *your*.

If you had an interest in OUR well being, you would realize that systematically destroying OUR landbase is suicidal. It is not about any one species, it is about a whole culture which is literally killing itself and much of the community around it.

When wolves returned to Yellowstone, they started feeding on the greatly expanded elk population. This reduction in elk numbers allowed certain species of pusywillow to return, which led to many other bird and small mammal species returning, and bird species who could return to habitats they had been pushed out of.

This was only possible because the wolves had managed to maintain enough population to rejuvenate their genetic potential. The same cannot be said for many other species.

Phytoplankton levels have been dropping, coral reefs are dying, topsoil is washing away by the ton every day. These are some of the basic building blocks of the food chain, and this culture is dismantling them like a demented game of Jenga, where the only question really is whose children get to try and clean up the mess

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by PeteH
Not our *your*.

If you had an interest in OUR well being, you would realize that systematically destroying OUR landbase is suicidal. It is not about any one species, it is about a whole culture which is literally killing itself and much of the community around it.[/q]

Damaging the environment to the point where we can't sustain ourselves is a good example of f*cking with them that ISN'T in our self-interest try again

When wolves returned to Yellowstone, they started feeding on the greatly expanded elk population. This reduction in elk numbers allowed certain species of pusywillow to return, which led to many other bird and small mammal species returning, and bird species who could return to habitats they had been pushed out of.

This was only possible because the wolves had managed to maintain enough population to rejuvenate their genetic potential. The same cannot be said for many other species.

Phytoplankton levels have been dropping, coral reefs are dying, topsoil is washing away by the ton every day. These are some of the basic building blocks of the food chain, and this culture is dismantling them like a demented game of Jenga, where the only question really is whose children get to try and clean up the mess

What's the problem? Unless the Earth can't sustain agriculture anymore, and sea levels don't rise, sharply, we won't be affected.

Obviously, I support protecting the environment, but only inasmuch as it is beneficial to us. Anything else is pointless.

[General Ludd]

*sigh* It really is tiring to argue with someone who always agrees with me, but just won't admit it.

, the exception is that intelligence evolved at all, not the course that society took.

I disagree (loathe) your assertion that intelligence is technology, but that is what was said. PeteH was speaking of pre-agrarian times, and his whole point was that there was a time before we where "intelligent" (as you put it), and that us becaming what we are now was an anomaly.

Everything has a sort of "evolutionary" destiny, in that there are certain evolutionary trends.

Only in hind-sight.


Can you tell me what the trends will be over the next hundred billion years? I'd like a glimpse into the future.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I disagree (loathe) your assertion that intelligence is technology, but that is what was said. PeteH was speaking of pre-agrarian times, and his whole point was that there was a time before we where "intelligent" (as you put it), and that us becaming what we are now was an anomaly.

But it isn't! Us becoming this way is a predictable result of the evolution of intelligence! In fact, it's probably one of the biggest reason intelligence was so evolutionarily successful!

Only in hind-sight.

What's your point? From the observation of human societies and their evolution, we can tell that they tend to follow certain predictable patterns.

Can you tell me what the trends will be over the next hundred billion years? I'd like a glimpse into the future.

Well, a hundred billion years is a bit extreme, considering the sun will go nova in five and life has only been around for about three

[General Ludd]

But it isn't! Us becoming this way is a predictable result of the evolution of intelligence!

So, would you say that the african bushmen did not evolve intelligence, then?

[Kuciwalker]

1. They were tool-using.

2. They were on the way towards developing technology. Intelligence is not defined as having developed technology, but being capable of doing so. Dolphins are not. People are.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich


1. They were tool-using.

So are monkeys.

2. They were on the way towards developing technology.

Hm? They've been hunter gatherers for millions of years and they still are. They seem pretty content to be unintelligent proto-humans.

Intelligence is not defined as having developed technology, but being capable of doing so.

First of all, you can't say something is capable of developing technology untill it has. But that's a pretty pedantic definition you have.

[Imran Siddiqui]

you can't say something is capable of developing technology untill it has.

Of course you can! If others of the same species in other areas have developed X, then, of course, that group of the species has the capability of developing X.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

you can't say something is capable of developing technology untill it has.

If others of the same species in other areas have developed X, then, of course, that group of the species has the capability of developing X.

Stop agreeing with me, please!

[Ramo]

A majority of human existance has been under some form of dictatorship. So I think the point about human nature stands.

Not really. The majority of human existance has been under free, egalitarian societies. It's only with the advent of plant and animal domestication do authoritarian systems become prevalent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Stop agreeing with me, please!

I'm not... I 100% contradicted your point.. and you're dead wrong .

The majority of human existance has been under free, egalitarian societies.

It hasn't, only perhaps in pre-historical settings, but we can't be sure .

[PeteH]

Unless the Earth can't sustain agriculture anymore, and sea levels don't rise, sharply, we won't be affected.

Agriculture of the manner practiced by this culture has never been sustainable, and the earth *can't* sustain it like it is now. We are living off energy that will not be replaced on any sort of human scale. We *are* affected, every day, by the results of this lifestyle. The diseases that kill people today are mostly diseases of civilization.

I also wonder where people are finding their evidence that somehow civilized people are smarter. The idea that one day we figured out how to live in a way that would destroy us and this is our great accomplishment, as opposed to living in a way that ensured our survival in the long run, like the rest of the world, strikes me as 'odd' to say the least. In all the research I have done, I have never seen anything which points to some biological change which allowed civilization to occur.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
So are monkeys.

Not to the extent that any humans are... not to the point of making spears and stuff.

Hm? They've been hunter gatherers for millions of years and they still are. They seem pretty content to be unintelligent proto-humans.

They use spears and axes, don't they? QED.

First of all, you can't say something is capable of developing technology untill it has. But that's a pretty pedantic definition you have.

And they are! There is no biological difference between us and them, and we have, therefore they could.

[Ramo]

It hasn't, only perhaps in pre-historical settings, but we can't be sure .

Hunter-gatherers have existed in historical times, and even exist today, you know.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by PeteH
Agriculture of the manner practiced by this culture has never been sustainable, and the earth *can't* sustain it like it is now. We are living off energy that will not be replaced on any sort of human scale. We *are* affected, every day, by the results of this lifestyle. The diseases that kill people today are mostly diseases of civilization.

You haven't contradicted my point yet... if it is detrimental to us, we shouldn't do it, otherwise it's an a-OK. I'm not arguing that certain things are and certain things aren't detrimental.

I also wonder where people are finding their evidence that somehow civilized people are smarter. The idea that one day we figured out how to live in a way that would destroy us and this is our great accomplishment, as opposed to living in a way that ensured our survival in the long run, like the rest of the world, strikes me as 'odd' to say the least. In all the research I have done, I have never seen anything which points to some biological change which allowed civilization to occur.

They aren't inherently more intelligent, but they happen to have used that intelligence to create some pretty, well, intelligent devices.