# Why? (1 Viewer)



## Brock (Oct 26, 2013)

I ponder odd things of no real significance to my life every day.  I have countless questions that are always popping in and out of my head.  Some I eventually find answers for and others I never do.

Today, I was wondering why certain groups of people advanced while others did not.  I believe that all races of people are equally intelligent, but today I was wondering how long it would have taken Native Americans (if still living as they did before the white man came) or uncontacted tribes of the Amazon to land on the moon or build a computer, if ever.  Why have certain peoples advanced so rapidly while others have not?  I would imagine that environment has played the biggest factor.

There are many things that make us ask "why?"  This thread is for that purpose.  No heated debating, please.


----------



## Hunter56 (Oct 26, 2013)

This was actually something I was thinking about when I saw something on T.V. about a remote village in Africa. It was a place where electricity didn't even exist, and everyone there lived the same way as people did centuries ago. There was also that news story recently about that remote tribe in the Amazon making contact with the civilized world.

I hope no one takes this the wrong way, I'm not trying to put down entire continents of people, but it does seem like most of the world's progression came from European countries or countries founded by Europeans (U.S., Can, Aus, NZ)


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 26, 2013)

It was/is a question of need. If the population was stable, the food supply more than adequate then there was/is no need to advance then, in isolation, the status quo is a happy state in which to be. The Amazonian tribe recently discovered will probably be extinct shortly, killed by something we regard as of little account; flu, the common cold, measles, something of that sort; they will also be shown lots of sparkly things they never knew they needed, this will interfere with their previously satisfied hierarchy of needs as now the tribal leaders will be seen to have failed the tribe and will lose the respect of their people and it's downhill all the way from there - A previously contented group of people will become discontented, and in the absence of education and knowledge, resort to alcohol and/or drugs to make their life bearable...


----------



## Brock (Oct 26, 2013)

Hunter56 said:


> This was actually something I was thinking about when I saw something on T.V. about a remote village in Africa. It was a place where electricity didn't even exist, and everyone there lived the same way as people did centuries ago. There was also that news story recently about that remote tribe in the Amazon making contact with the civilized world.
> 
> I hope no one takes this the wrong way, I'm not trying to put down entire continents of people, but it does seem like most of the world's progression came from European countries or countries founded by Europeans (U.S., Can, Aus, NZ)




There must be a reason for this.  I don't believe that Europeans or people of European decent are more intelligent.  Some environmental influence must have spurred the progress.  Maybe money played a role... royalty funding exploration and such, but even still at that point they were much more advanced than some civilizations today.  If you could take some remote tribe of today and launch them back in time to 1492 to Columbus's launch, they would still be amazed and confused by many of the things they saw.


----------



## Brock (Oct 26, 2013)

Okay, now I'm really thinking about the factor of money.  Why do people normally invent things?  Yes, some actually invent things to make their lives easier or more enjoyable, but for the most part they are seeking financial reward.  Primitive peoples of yesterday and today don't place high importance on getting rich.  He who has the most livestock is usually considered the wealthiest, but that's about the extent of their monetary system.  They live off the land in a tight-knit society, have what they need and are oblivious to the outside world.  They are completely unaware of the excesses that wealth can bring them.  There has been a monetary system in place with European people since... I don't know when, but it's been a long damn time.  

Maybe this is the most influential factor in progress.


----------



## Robert_S (Oct 26, 2013)

purged


----------



## ppsage (Oct 26, 2013)

I wonder if the answer here is that the question lacks essential context. Leave aside the assumption that landing on the moon defines progress. I can grant that. But how do we define rapidly? What’s the starting point? What are the comparative degrees of progress? What are the points of parity?

Current best estimate has anatomically modern humans arising about 200k years before present and (in a much less widely shared guess) modern human behaviors (language, social organization, tool usage) arising perhaps 50k ybp. If, for the sake of argument, this is taken as the starting point, and if the Indians are, let us suppose, 1000 years behind, then they’d be in the 98[SUP]th[/SUP] percentile of comparative progressivity. Even 10,000 years behind yields the 80[SUP]th[/SUP].

In the case of Indians it’s probably only fair to stop the clock around 1500 AD as uncontrollable biological factors more or less put an end to their further progress at that point. So that puts parity a thousand years back from there at 500 AD. One might argue either way for this but it’s certainly not completely implausible.

The argument for putting the start back 50k ybp is long and difficult and not going to happen here. The real point is, the advancements of the last couple centuries are a blip on the time line of progress of humans as a species and current differences are easily nothing more than standard variation and luck. It isn’t really a question of looking for causative factors in culture or what not. In another two hundred years, in a globalized environment, this question might well elicit a look of blank incomprehension.


----------



## Brock (Oct 26, 2013)

Robert_S said:


> Wasn't there several calamities over the centuries of European history that drove advancement? The Bubonic plague to name one, but there have also been major wars, some having seen the development of new technology (jets, ICBMs, nukes in WWII, tanks and machine guns in WWI, etc). It seems like much of development has been for the purpose of dealing death or defeating it.



Yes, but most or all of this development was achieved by those who sought monetary gain.  Primitive peoples have also had war and disease.  "Jets, ICBMs, nukes in WWII, tanks and machine guns in WWI, etc." all made people rich.  Cures and vaccines have all made people rich.  Without monetary gain, very few (if any) of these things would have been developed.


----------



## ppsage (Oct 26, 2013)

Monetization existed for at least a couple thousand years before the burst of technological development which modern western people tend to think of as rapid progress. A more proximate factor is the (partial, by an intellectual elite) abandonment of religious superstition as the explanation of nature and the (partial) adoption of scientific method. The historical process by which this occurred can be traced, and I think it will show that saying it happened for profit is getting things backward. Profit motive has long existed, no reason science and technology wouldn't share in it when they came along.


----------



## Robert_S (Oct 26, 2013)

purged


----------



## Brock (Oct 26, 2013)

Look around your home.  Nearly everything you see, someone has made money off of it.  I'm willing to bet we can go back several centuries in to the average European's home and we could say the same thing.  Go to the "home" of the average primitive tribesman, now or centuries ago...  

We all lived basically the same at some point in history.  We lived off the land and basically as equals.  We advanced in our methods and tools, but it was for the good of the society and progress was slow.  A single individual could only advance his or her standard of living slightly above that of their neighbor, if any at all.  They had no choice in the matter.  At some point there came a time when a single individual was able to use his or her own brain power and hard work to advance their standard of living far beyond that of others.  I believe this was the turning point.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 26, 2013)

Part of this is cultural.  As a boy I saw a display at The Milwaukee County Museum about the Japanese.  They had examples of their matchlock rifles.  The display pointed out that when Europeans brought these early firearms to Japan they simply copied them.  When westerners returned with turnbolt rifles, the Japanese were still using the same matchlock design, it was just highly stylized.

This is because innovation is not highly regarded there.  The Japanese have a saying about the nail that sticks up must be hammered down.  They still have almost no Nobel Prizes.  The west thrives on invention.

I heard this week that middle-eastern women are still trying to get the right to drive automobiles.  The west doesn't have (nor do we permit) the church to dictate behavior.

Add this to bio-diversity.  Some countries literally inbreed their royalty to frailty.  Even I'm amazed at the size and strength differential when foreigners come to our local gyms as even our suburban guys are bigger and stronger.  The larger gene pool enhances our entire population.

Get rid of church interference, encourage free thinking and breed the best to the best and watch people flourish.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 26, 2013)

To the O.P....._Guns, Germs and Steel_ by Jared Diamond addresses those very questions: why Europe and not Africa, or the Americas? You might like it.


----------



## SarahStrange (Oct 26, 2013)

> The west doesn't have (nor do we permit) the church to dictate behavior.



This honestly made me laugh out loud. The congress is chock full of rich, white, _christian _men ruling based on their interpretation of the bible. A lot of things (gay marriage, legalization of abortion, interracial marriage) are being denied or were denied because they don't mash well with religion. I'm not pointing out those topics to debate about them. They're just examples of things that hinge[ed] on their connection to religious doctrine to be approved.

Also, I second Kevin's advice. Read Diamond's work. It really clears some things up. I'd also like to point out that some societies didn't get the chance to advance further because they were conquered by a more 'powerful' (aka vicious) society (Native Americans, anyone?). Just as there are many different sorts of intelligence, there are many different definitions of the word advanced. Where the British were more advanced in weaponry, Native Americans where more advanced concerning their understanding of their connections to the earth and their spirituality. So, it all varies on what you think is advanced, really.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 26, 2013)

SarahStrange said:


> This honestly made me laugh out loud. The congress is chock full of rich, white, _christian _men ruling based on their interpretation of the bible.



That may indeed be true, but I cannot be excommunicated for my voting record, my public statements or my trashing of shaman du jour.  In fact, if a battalion of snippy Jesuits ever tried to flex their collective muscles I would ask them if the name "George Armstrong Custer" rang a bell.

Personally I think Americans are more afraid of Wicca than white guys.


----------



## Robert_S (Oct 26, 2013)

purged


----------



## Lewdog (Oct 26, 2013)

Brock I'm just glad to hear you're still around.  :encouragement:


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 26, 2013)

Robert_S said:


> Ones they can manipulate with abandon.



We're getting too close for my comfort now.  Look at what we tell people.  _"Don't get involved."  "If you meet a mugger, just give him the money."  "What do you need that gun for?"  "I have nothing to hide from that drone, my government is here to help me."  "Healthcare is my right."_

Yikes.  Personally I'm surprised we don't all have to take loyalty oaths and then sew a little yellow star on our lapels.

At least the religious nuts call me a heretic and state their disgust openly.  It's the weasels that will probably sell me out, before a fellow weasel gets them...


----------



## Robert_S (Oct 27, 2013)

purged


----------



## Lewdog (Oct 27, 2013)

Is it "1984" where everyone is encouraged to turn in people or they get in trouble too?  And if you do something bad you go in for re-programming?  It's been so long since I read that book.  I'll post a video for you to watch that will really freak you out.  It's from Jesse Ventura's television show called "Conspiracy Theory."  This is an episode that was banned from being played on television, called "Police State."

[video=youtube;QHZPx1LDm9Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHZPx1LDm9Q[/video]


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 27, 2013)

Brock said:


> ...Today, I was wondering why certain groups of people advanced while others did not.



What do you mean by "groups of people?"



> I believe that all races of people are equally intelligent,



I know it's risky, but I have to answer to this. Not all races are equally intelligent. That is a statistically valid fact. "Intelligence" is defined, largely due to the convenience of quantifiable data, by an I.Q. test. These are statistically sound methods, as long as the appropriate I.Q. test is administered. Historically speaking, the Ashkenazi Jews have the largest representation of any genetically identifiable group in being notable in predominantly "cerebral" fields of study and occupations. There are some interesting reasons why this is so and, if you're interested, you should read the book "The 10,000 Year Explosion", by Cochran and Harpending. In a nutshell, it discusses the 10,000 year exodus during the period of human evolution where mankind went from "Genetically Modern" to "Behaviorally Modern." That is a significant difference, by the way. Genetically Modern human beings were, as the name suggests, "genetically modern", indistinguishable from modern man (Not accounting for allele differences due to generations of breeding differences). "Behaviorally Modern" human beings emerged at the beginning of this exodus period and were responsible for the first "civilizations", farming, animal domestication, government and all the other trappings we commonly see in human societies. The book outlines a very strong case for the emergence of varying degrees of intelligence. (Though, the book's primary focus is discussing the migrations of prehistoric peoples and the establishment of civilization.) I've got another book to recommend on the subject, specifically covering this period. But, it's in my car and I'm still in my bathrobe... I'll check it when I go get breakfast.  *



> ...but today I was wondering how long it would have taken Native Americans (if still living as they did before the white man came) or uncontacted tribes of the Amazon to land on the moon or build a computer, if ever.  Why have certain peoples advanced so rapidly while others have not?  I would imagine that environment has played the biggest factor...



And, this is one reason why it is important to note the difference between genetics and adopted behaviors. If there is no reason for a group of human beings to adopt complex behaviors or, for whatever reason, they do not, then they miss out on valuable behavioral feedback and evolutionarily reinforced selection. Simply put - If intelligence is not selected for (Mate Selection) and the humans do not develop systems in which intelligence can excel (Survival through Reason) , then it will not develop into its full capacity as there is no evolutionary or culturally significant forcer to allow it to do so.



> There are many things that make us ask "why?"  This thread is for that purpose.  No heated debating, please.



In my opinion, there isn't much debate on the issue. However, I will also say that "Being Human" has absolutely nothing to do with someone's intellectual capacity - NOTHING. Human beings are a fairly diverse species, but we are all human beings. All human beings, in my opinion, deserve equality protected by the Law and may not be denied basic Human Rights, which are inalienable. A human being can not be separated from their Human Rights nor can they lose or give away their Rights, no matter their intellectual capacity, race, creed, religion, action, sexual preference or any other thing that may make them seem behaviorally different than another human being. Human = Human.

This is a touchy subject. Nobody likes to hear that one ethnic group may not have the same intellectual tool-set to draw from as another. However, we can not overlook the fact that the human brain is a wondrous and quite malleable organ. No other organ has its capacity for change and growth. (Well, maybe the liver.) That being said, there is no racial bias when it comes to achievement and hard work. Any human being is equally capable of ascending to the same level of achievement. That some appear to statistically do this more often than others only speaks to their particular port-of-entry. (If they have an advantage, it's only obvious that more of them would be able to enter into a field of study than others. But, that does not mean that someone else could not also excel.)

Lastly, one must be very careful when making specific judgements of individuals while using data sets that are from large samples of a population. Nobody conforms to the "mean" of anything. An average is a statistically imagined creature - No single person is average. It's only the entire sampled population that has such an attribute and, when speaking of large sampled populations, it's only appropriate to focus on discussing large populations. Even regional populations may have not conform to values derived from large data sets and they may have significant differences as certainly individuals do as well.

It's a touchy subject, but that's what we're supposed to be dealing with, isn't it? Writers are the conscience of our culture and if we're going to be effective at that, it's best we start off on firm ground.

* Finished breakfast! The other book is titled "Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors", by Wade, if you're interested. It has a much broader brush than the "10,000 year Explosion", but it does an outstanding job of discussing the change of "Genetically Modern" man to "Behaviorally Modern" man.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 27, 2013)

The one problem with threads in a forum is that we have only a scant few paragraphs to assemble an answer.  Of course that opens to door to detractors who claim you're generalizing.  Well, of course we are, we're offering a suggestion not doing a dissertation.

First off, this has been a good, worthwhile thread.  Even our own president says that security personnel have followed him around in stores when he was younger.  The unfortunate overriding concern is that we'll never be able to fully discuss how to improve the deeper problems since so many exchanges are labeled racist for simply being mentioned.

In the northern part of my state we have a tremendous unemployment problem among Native Americans.  But you cannot get two sentences into the concern without someone saying the problem is self inflicted because of "drunken Indians."  As part of a company action team I went to this northern area in search of a nearby injection modeling facility, and the reports were correct.  One factory in the entire area, and it was the only building wired for 220 electric.

So which came first?  Was the area depressed because businesses left and everyone started drinking, or was liquor the problem and the investment money moved away?  We might never know, since we can't discuss the root causes and realistic solutions without touching on race.

Now, here's the tragedy.  My adult job was in credit, buttressing up companies on the verge of bankruptcy.  In other words, I was one of the guys with power, clout and experience to make a bad situation better.  I retired early because of the stress.  No one wants to offend anyone, so no one speaks.  No one speaks, the problem gets worse.  With the problem getting worse, tempers fray.  When tempers fray, we operate out of anger.  

I finally figured the heck with people.  If you're too stupid to realize you're on a collision course, why do I always have to be the thankless idiot to save you?  Who knows how many hundreds if not thousands of people are unemployed, never employed or under employed because I just got sick of the whining?

We have to find out how to fix this.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 27, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> The one problem with threads in a forum is that we have only a scant few paragraphs to assemble an answer.  Of course that opens to door to detractors who claim you're generalizing.  Well, of course we are, we're offering a suggestion not doing a dissertation....In the northern part of my state we have a tremendous unemployment problem among Native Americans.  But you cannot get two sentences into the concern without someone saying the problem is self inflicted because of "drunken Indians."  As part of a company action team I went to this northern area in search of a nearby injection modeling facility, and the reports were correct.  One factory in the entire area, and it was the only building wired for 220 electric.
> 
> So which came first?  Was the area depressed because businesses left and everyone started drinking, or was liquor the problem and the investment money moved away?  We might never know, since we can't discuss the root causes and realistic solutions without touching on race.
> 
> We have to find out how to fix this.



I once watched an interview with a Native American representing an Eastern NA Tribe. She made some very illuminating remarks concerning the economies of Tribal Areas. In short, like that one building wired for 220 (220 straight is too low for injection molding equipment in large volume, though I'm no 'lectrician), Tribal Areas are not developed well. Some of the reasons are peculiar to how their economies are set up, others had to do with development regulations and, yes, some had to do with cultural issues and disenfranchisement of youth.

But, it's worth noting that not one of those reasons had to do with "Intelligence." All of them were cultural issues and it's likely that alcoholism among Native Americans also stems from cultural issues.  Other factors, like depression, anxiety, violence, social pressures, etc.. could contribute to alcoholism as well.

How do we fix "this", whatever it happens to be with its multitude of possible causes? There isn't a one-fix solution. Just like financing a business, throwing money at it is never going to help. The problems that got it there in the first place have to be fixed while, at the same time, preparing the company to be able to take swift advantage of opportunities in the future. Perhaps just like saving or financing a company, a holistic approach is necessary to solve this particular problem. Such a program would encompass areas like regulatory issues, financial stewardship, development and infrastructure planning, education, social programs and advancement opportunities, to name a few. The world is never a simple place and humans never, ever, have simple problems. Whenever there are two or more of us in one place, it gets "complicated."


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 27, 2013)

Morkonan, I agree with your assessment.  What I did find in the 30 years was giving a man a job translated into hope.  Any problems he had at home started to melt as things stabilized.  You do a good job at something (anything) and you feel proud.  And how many of us refrain from drinking on a Wednesday night because "tomorrow is a work day"?

BTW, you may indeed be right about 220.  The problem was that this facility was "the best alternative."  Yikes.  During the journey we got caught in a blizzard (my boss was driving a front wheel drive only mommy minivan) and all of the locals quit work.  They ran and got their snowmobiles, which they started driving on the main streets of the town, and it was only the stop-and-robs that were open.

My guess is that locals were stocking up on potables for a rousing afternoon.

The end game?  My boss trashed the idea, we never called anyone back, and geared our future negotiations to a Madison based company that made hospital equipment.

Four men in a van determined the future of an entire little town.


----------



## Pandora (Oct 27, 2013)

I'm a believer in revelation. That gift of tidbits of knowledge that comes from beyond. It is a light within,
arousing new emotions bringing questions and answers.

Last night carving our pumpkin, who turned out to be a bit scary, it's all in the eyes, we waited as sundown brought the darkness,
sipping wine in the hot tub. I said to JB somebody invented this long ago, I probably say this every year. . . ha!
 Someone thought to take the insides out of the pumpkin, carve a face, then put a candle inside and name it
jack-o-lantern. We toasted to this person and the lovely tradition that was created. Tradition the passing on of the good things in life.

My father was an inventor, he invented because he was compelled to. Money was a side benefit. He didn't plan on being an inventor,
it happened to him. He thought he'd be a cartoonist like Walt Disney, his peer group, but my father dreamed his inventions.
Revelations came from his subconscious, where is that anyways?  ;-)  and he kept a notepad by the bed. It was a gift.

Yes, there are a whole lotta why's and with them come revelation. So I guess each civilization has had it's own traditions
to pass on, have had revelations that brought progress, change and inventions that were important to them.


----------



## Gumby (Oct 27, 2013)

I have noticed that most people who have a passion to invent are more about the challenge of creating than the money. Not saying they don't benefit from their work, they should, but it's definitely that creative process that drives them.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 27, 2013)

Gumby said:


> I have noticed that most people who have a passion to invent are more about the challenge of creating than the money. Not saying they don't benefit from their work, they should, but it's definitely that creative process that drives them.



The problem is that most people have to take the job that they are offered when they are young.  I got into credit simply because I had injured my back and needed a desk job for what I thought would be only six weeks.  I hated the work for thirty years.

I have found a strange condition since most of my friends are now of retirement age.  We all utilize the disposable income we have accumulated and do the jobs, hobbies and careers we dreamed about in college.

If I had a son (or if one of them found me and claimed me) I would tell him to starve first.  While I hated that drafty crackerbox apartment my wife and I shared during those years of struggling, the nicer home did come, but dragged the horrid job with it.

It was no trade I'd do again.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 27, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> Morkonan, I agree with your assessment.  What I did find in the 30 years was giving a man a job translated into hope.  Any problems he had at home started to melt as things stabilized.  You do a good job at something (anything) and you feel proud.  And how many of us refrain from drinking on a Wednesday night because "tomorrow is a work day"?



Absolutely. Though, having agreed with you, I also have to say that there are some people that do not have a job for a _reason_. I've met them. I've hired them. I've fired them and I have called the cops to escort them off the property. Unfortunately, I've experienced a wide variety of different types of unemployed people who have reasons they're unemployed... I've had, aside from the slackers, riders and cheats, cocaine addicts, drunks, thieves and one guy who murdered someone and came to work early to stash his clothes and get rid of his gun... /sigh (Never had anyone turn out to be a rapist, though. But, one guy on the docks did manage to get a hooker to come see him at work. No lie.)

I was idealistic, young and enthusiastic when I first started my company. It grew. The bigger it grew, the more I grew with it. I did all I could to extend my hand to people who needed work with the same outlook that you have on the experience. I'm still optimistic and I still manage to love human beings, despite all their faults. But, I'm serious - There are some people who are currently unemployed because they are just plain not _capable_ of remaining employed. 



> BTW, you may indeed be right about 220.



I'm not sure, there. We considered an injection molding machine, in order to cut certain costs. We were wired 660 with copious three-phase, everywhere. The facility we had used to house industrial laser beams. Power and transformers, everywhere!  (_Expensive_, too. We downgraded to 440 and that met our needs, barely.)



> ...The end game?  My boss trashed the idea, we never called anyone back, and geared our future negotiations to a Madison based company that made hospital equipment.
> 
> Four men in a van determined the future of an entire little town.



That's the sad part, isn't it? It's not that you didn't find a facility - You knew you'd find one, somewhere. It's that you could have made a difference, but were stopped by the very people you were going to end up helping. Been there, too. You know, there are some people in huge corporations that just don't "Get it." I see yammering cheer sessions from IT and pop-culture-company talking heads, claiming all sorts of social and cultural goodness is out there, just ripe for being elevated to its deserved status, but it's the evil, uncaring, greedy corporations that are keeping it stifled. Yeah, about that - Let one of those pencil necked, pimply-faced mama's boys wear my shoes for a week. While he's busy tripping over his silver spoon, the guy he just hired and entrusted with security codes is busy robbing the secretary's supply-closet petty-cash fund so he can go buy some coke...

Yeah, I'm bitter about that. I had those dreams, but I fought the good fight and did my darndest to make a positive difference in a community that needed the economic support. What did I get? No other fully secured, 60,000 sqr foot, 300 parking-spaces-worth-of-fenced-in-lot manufacturing facility was robbed, in one way or another, than ours in the _entire_ darn city... We even had "mercenaries" hiding on the roof during peak Summer nights, just in case. The cops? Yeah, they tried. You know what they told us? "_Shoot 'em. It'll save us the trouble, later. If they're breaking in, stealing out of your storage/backlog lot or doing other such things, they'll be doing something worse, later._"

Sorry for the mini-rant and, obviously, I'm just going overboard with Too Much Info. But, this is the situation that every single business faces, small to large, when it makes altruistic attempts on its own. The larger the concern, the more likely it will be abused by the very same people its trying to help. It's not about race, intelligence or regional culture, it's about what happens to people who are put in unstable socioeconomic positions. Those tend to force the worst out in people, along with the good. You get a dichotomy of Saints and Sinners in such situations. If you're lucky, you'll come across the Saints. If Luck isn't shining on you, it's a mixed bag.

This is why such situations desperately need support from the local government. I don't just mean "tax credits", for either building or hiring, either. I mean coordinated and intimate support of not only hiring practices, but enforcement, allowances for part-time vs full-time (Not everyone in such situations can work full-time and you don't get the credits for part-timers), Federal support in the way of export facilitation for manufacturers (Which exists, somewhat) and some sort of organized Community Head Start sort of project development so other businesses and industries can both work on running their business and coordinate their efforts within their areas of expertise to help the community. No "Chamber of Commerce" worthy of the name is going to give two wet burps about "Community Development" projects because they know the _true _costs to their business if they expose themselves.

This is why private industry has a heck of a time being any sort of significant community revitalizer... Only the largest, most successful, industries with the deepest pockets can afford to do this sort of work and they're the only ones that the government will go out of their way to help. Meanwhile, small and mid-sized businesses get little or nothing while the big guys get property tax breaks that take tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the community's pockets, money that could be used for government-directed programs to help the very same communities in which these large businesses thrive... on cheap labor.

Bah, enough of my rant. Sorry. But, as you can see, I've been there, too. It's a bitter pill, but I still love people... I'm just a heck of a lot wiser about who to demonstrate that too when there's risk involved. My neck has too many nicks on it for comfort.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 27, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> I've met them. I've hired them. I've fired them...There are some people who are currently unemployed because they are just plain not _capable_ of remaining employed...That's the sad part, isn't it? It's not that you didn't find a facility - You knew you'd find one, somewhere...It's that you could have made a difference, but were stopped by the very people you were going to end up helping...Sorry for the mini-rant.



First off, you have nothing to apologize for in the "rant."  It sounds like we had similar duties in our careers, and you know, that "disgust for easy riders" is often why I'm so hard on younger writers.  You see the seeds of perennial excuses, short-cuts and flat out laziness and it irks you.

As for finding a different facility, all I can say is that my job was to help my company not cure the ills of society.  The reason we trucked up there was that one of the elders from my church is a Native American, and he felt getting some commerce into the area would be a noble cause.  I did it for him.

But in the end I've learned that the only way to really help some folks is to let them fall full force into the concrete.  It was the only thing that got my mom off liquor, prison has changed many for the good, and being hungry and valuing a paycheck often redirects the easy rider.

I hear that "woe is me, life is so hard" tone and I tune it right out.  For all of the insults heaped upon "wealthy company owners" I've found them to be the first ones there in the morning and the last ones to leave at night.

By comparison, it was the sons of the company founders' who grew up as children of privilege and frittered away their parents' life's work.  One printing company son drove his father's company from flush to bankruptcy within five years.  I was there at the end shoveling ice off the deck of The Titanic as 300 people lost their jobs.


----------



## Brock (Oct 27, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Brock I'm just glad to hear you're still around.  :encouragement:



I tried messaging you a while back, but I think you got sent to the corner.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 27, 2013)

I get you. I've seen it, too. But, I have to say that I'm probably not so hard on those who "whine", I suppose. I also don't disdain every silver spoon, Lord knows I grew up with some small advantages, despite the hell. 

You know, it's just that some people are in such a bad socioeconomic position that the habitual "It's tough" really has a bit of merit to it. Not far from where my facility was, I was working with a contractor as a consultant. We're standing out in a cordoned-off field, examining the waste-remediation process begun by a company who was, as many would have guessed, the low bidder on the contract. So, we're checking things, crossing i's, dotting t's, since the budget wasn't going to allow for much else, and automatic weapon's fire erupts from the housing development next door. A full fusillade from a small caliber automatic, likely an Uzi, they were popular at the time, comes tearing out of that project. Next up, heavier bore weapons, a shotgun and a .45 or larger, start pounding rounds downrange. We're in an open field, what're we going to do, duck? So, we hunker down a little bit, knowing that if anyone worthy is aiming at us, they're likely going to hit us no matter what we do. (Better to hide in motionless scrub than announce your target-worthiness by running two-hundred yards over open ground to a tin shack that has "I'm Flypaper" written all over it...) 

Luckily for us, they weren't gunning for us. It was a gang thing, drugs and worse involved and it was boiling over that afternoon. When the shooting stopped, we decided it was time for lunch at 4pm, so we left. It's not the first time I've been shot at, even though we weren't _actually_ shot at, but its the first time I've ever had the distinct pleasure of having to be seriously worried about being shot at in the middle of a community neighborhood in the full light of a sunny afternoon, no matter its socioeconomic status. A few years later, I was shot at near the same area, though I was just a target picked at random amongst a lot of others and the idiot was one of those "side-shooting" types that's lucky enough to hit air, much less anything else. I hunkered down and drove blind for a couple of blocks, no problem. Yeah, the cops did ask me if I could identify him. I told them "_Yeah, it was a guy with a very large handgun. That's your man, officer!_" Gimme a break, the last thing I was interested in was getting a good look at him while trying to outrun bullets. 

Now, faced with _those_ brief experiences, what can I possibly think it is like for the people that must endure them, every day? I understand it when they say "_We've got it hard_." I see it, I get it, but that doesn't make it right. My acknowledgement of their admission is meaningless. Some of these areas don't need a hand up, they need a backhoe, a bulldozer and a few thousand gallons of bleach to sanitize the area. Then, they need to move or be moved, in order to break up the cycle of crime, violence, dependency and a culture that has had little choice but to attempt to conform to the terrible environment in order to provide some sort of semblance of continuity for those who are forced to participate in it. These sorts of communities are just plain broken.

THAT is where I think you and I are in full agreement - The problem is not going to get fixed by anyone throwing money at it or handing out gifts. It's not going to be solved by the sorts of things that some people think are in demand, like "Jobs." Sure, in the short term, those sorts of things are really a blessing, it's no lie. But, they do absolutely nothing to address the principle causes of the festering wound that is causing the sickness if they do not successfully remove people from the area. A Part-Time job at a fast-food restaurant ain't gonna do that. What's needed is Education, Heavy Law Enforcement, safe Public Transportation (So they can actually get to jobs available outside of their area), community involvement in purposeful and productive projects aimed at removing the sickness, not just throwing money at special interests. Lastly, if all else fails, and I know this is going to be controversial, we need to think about Relocation. The self-perpetuating systems that evolve in such areas can not be stopped by goodwill and industry, alone. When they're continually reinforced by the same people that participate within and create them, they have to be dismantled. Leave the wound open and it will begin to fester again.

But, that _doesn't_ address regions that are not suffering from eternal war, does it? Those suggestions don't address the situation of Native Americans very well. You know, in short, some enterprises have worked out very well for Native Americans and I think some of the sorts of programs that would work in more drastic environments could be beneficial for them. But, for instance, certain regulations prohibit Native Americans from developing their own lands. (One of the points of the lady that was interviewed.) Well, if it's their land, as we say it is, then its _theirs_. As long as its keeping good faith with environmental laws and common practices, they should be allowed to develop it as they see fit. Still, building a few sites for large businesses or small is not going to solve certain social problems. There's also certain farming regulations for certain regions that allow the "Fallow Field Paycheck" thing to sort of get out of control. 

You know, we've become enmeshed in a somewhat ironic difficulty - We've agreed to the physical and cultural segregation of Native Americans, yet complain when they're not conforming to the standards we believe are fitting for the rest of the country... Gee, anyone see any sense in that?

(Yeah, more rantish stuff, but it just plain hurts knowing that things don't have to be this way, but that they are also problems that far larger than I could ever possibly handle, even though I've tried in some small way. I should probably go take a nice nap, having risen before the Sun, today. My Posts would likely be the shorter, for it.  )


----------



## bazz cargo (Oct 27, 2013)

Modern Western economic  dominance could probably be traced to the Renaissance. Modern mathematics are based on Middle Eastern principles. 

How much of what we have today can be traced to ancient Greece? Pythagoras anyone?


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 27, 2013)

Morkonan, first off, glad you're alive.  I hate to sound like Sean Connery, but making it home alive is the main goal, isn't it?

I wasn't as lucky.  We lost a brother in a gang related shooting/war, and I went to the funeral while the FBI snapped pictures of all of us, the bikes, and the grieving family.  To this day the concept of "colors" is very dear to me, and my disgust with feds and RICO has never been stronger.

Our area is now host to wannabees and displaced second rate bangers from Chicago.  I often tell people that for a capital city we sure got the short end of the stick when it comes to criminals.  The only thing scary about them is the chance I might catch HIV from the blood cast-off.

But I go armed every day.  I have no sympathy for those, even in poverty, if they don't work or study.  Lots of people have been poor.  Many millionaires were minted during The Depression.

For example, one apologist once told me that his plight was anchored in 400 years of oppression.  I wasn't buying it, and told him it was a work ethic problem, saying, _"Gee, within three years of coming to this country my people had the Mafia..."_

Laugh if you want, but I do not see whining by the curb starving as a career path.  As I've often stated, Stephen Hawking hasn't moved in decades, and he works.

The real misery is yet to come.  The two biggest taxable engines in this country were the WWII generation and the boomers.  None of us contribute anymore.  If you're going to whine and die, do it quietly, old people need more rest.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 27, 2013)

bazz cargo said:


> How much of what we have today can be traced to ancient Greece?



Our legal and political systems, coupled with Roman innovations in Law.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 27, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> ...For example, one apologist once told me that his plight was anchored in 400 years of oppression.  I wasn't buying it, and told him it was a work ethic problem, saying, _"Gee, within three years of coming to this country my people had the Mafia..."_...



And, don't forget, many depressed regions have their own "Mafia." Criminals are industrious when the money is flowing freely.

I had a great employee, once. He had a strong work-ethic. He was retired, but came to work for us full-time. He walked to work or caught a carpool with some of the other guys, rode a bike on his off-days, and worked steadily, without fail (albeit a little slowly) every day he came to work. He was a model employee who enjoyed his off-time, but worked every day on the job. He was one of the best employees anyone could wish for - Honest, hardworking, honorable, giving and industrious.

One day, he came to me. We sat down in my office and he told me that _I_ had to cut his hours back. It was obviously painful for him, so we talked about it at length and we tried to find solutions, but none were to be found. See, it turns out he was making too much money... On the one hand, he got a small pension from his previous job and, on the other, he was making full-time pay from us. He was moving out of the poverty bracket, but he was moving into one that wouldn't afford him the money necessary to live or receive any health care or any other sort of assistance. In short, he was entering a tax bracket that would leave him with less money than he had and he couldn't survive on less... So, he did the only thing left for a retired guy to do who was in the poverty bracket, despite his love for work and his complete dedication as a responsible employee - He eventually had to stop working. We tried for a year or so to work things out for him, but we couldn't. It was a situation in which we couldn't pay him much more, even though we tried, and he couldn't work for much more, else he would be taxed back into an untenable economic situation. This was a man we had sacrificed for and he for us. When troubled times hit, we took care of him. When he had a family problem and needed a loan, we did it, no questions asked. This is a man I respected, wholeheartedly. But, in the end, the _machine_ got him. That horrible, grinding thing of circumstance...

What do you say to that? It's that sort of weird thing that is heaped upon many people. How about people that can't have a bank account because they never learned how to manage one? These are things that we take for granted, but there are people out there that can't have a bank account because they were overdrawn so often or had such bad credit that they can't get one. Heck, some of them even don't trust banks enough to use them. (Imagine that!  ) So, what do they do? They're lining up at the Cash Stores, buying Money Orders and paying an extra ten percent or, in bad times, borrowing small sums as "Paycheck Advances" and paying fees that amount to outright usury anyone would have been strung up for in the Middle Ages, but nobody cares. Then, there's the corner store that they shop at, which overcharges for everything except booze, since booze makes them spend what little money they have left. And furniture, house furnishings, the common conveniences that everyone takes for granted and culturally demands that they should have? Rental companies. They can't afford to shell out the full price for furniture, even used. So, they rent it and end up paying ten times what the stuff is worth, only to end up defaulting on it and having nothing to show for months or even years of payments. Cars? The ones lucky enough to own cars probably have paid three or four times for the same car after it has been repossessed several times. Used Car agencies cycle the same car through the same people, time after time, as they lose jobs or default on their payments. But, with no means to afford to actually buy a car, outright, yet needing to have one in order to work, they have no other choice but to throw their equity away every year. There is, believe it or not, an entire industry that feeds off of these people and that's no overstatement of the facts. I didn't believe the rhetoric until I saw it happening. I truly didn't. I'm ever grateful for not having had to experience, first-hand.

No, they're not all _victims_. But, many of them are in an environment that is alien to many people who have the power to affect change. It's a different culture, over there. I'm no bleeding heart, but I've seen it too closely to be able to claim that I am unaffected by it. My opinions have changed, in many respects, when it comes down to the whole issue of poverty, work, and the poor downtrodden dregs of society we'd rather not know about. It's a different world. Some people make it out, despite monstrous obstacles. But, they're the ones that would outlive the cockroaches after the Nuclear Holocaust, anyway. The rest are just mortal human beings, some damaged, some just struggling to survive.


----------



## Lewdog (Oct 27, 2013)

This is a little off of what you guys are saying, but anytime you ask why, usually you are just trying to be nice and don't really want to hear the answer.


----------



## escorial (Oct 27, 2013)

Humans can do amazing things or just keep doing what they know best.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 27, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> And, don't forget, many depressed regions have their own "Mafia." Criminals are industrious when the money is flowing freely.



Not that I approve of that, mind you.  You know what a straight arrow I am.  Horror of horrors if any of my cousins had mob ties, they were such good little angels as tykes.  Heck, I wouldn't have even joined the bike club if not for the volunteer work and choir practice.  We're a very law abiding ethnic demographic...



> See, it turns out he was making too much money...



Fortunately that's been adjusted, a bit.  Now I'm allowed to make X-dollars before any deductions and then it's only one dollar subtracted for every two I make over the limit.  Some months I do well with the wet rock, and it's all good.  Besides, some twenty-something has to pay his FICA for my benefits so what do I care--it's the fastest way to teach kids about voting to give away other peoples' money.  There will come a time when they are rich enough to become serious targets for social reconstruction.



> No, they're not all _victims_..



Of course not.  But half of this country either pays no tax, or gets all of their deductions back in a tax refund.  This is the apart that irks me.  The "non-paying half" always seem to be the ones eating up all the programs.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 28, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> ...Of course not.  But half of this country either pays no tax, or gets all of their deductions back in a tax refund.  This is the apart that irks me.  The "non-paying half" always seem to be the ones eating up all the programs.



Thirty-percent of nothing is still nothing... In other words, the reason those people aren't paying taxes is because they don't have enough of the medium of exchange to be able to pay taxes. It's the whole "Let them eat cake", thing - If they had the money, they'd be paying the taxes. Blood, turnips, etc. Besides, that's why we have those programs and it's why they're funded. We wouldn't have 'em if nobody used them. 

In situations like this, percentages are never equal in their effect across an entire spectrum. Sure, they're equal to themselves, but let's say someone ends up paying 15% in taxes, every year. OK, so someone making 100k ends up paying 15k. If they're making 100k, they're making around 10k a month or so, just for the sake of saving me from having to use a calculator... That's a deep hit and it's going to take one and a half months of work to pay for it. But, they can manage, since they can only eat so much, a Coke is a buck-fifty and they spend around 600 a month at the grocery store. They'll eek by without having to cut their cable bill out.

Next up, the people who only make 10k a year. They'll have to pay the same 15%, but only have to pay 1500, right? Sure, but then what? They're eating a little bit shy of the 100k budget, spending only 400 dollars a month on food, shopping frugally for their family. That's 4800 a year on food, btw. They're paying 500 a month for renting a low-end, multi-bedroom apartment. That's another 6k. Wait a sec, no that doesn't add up right. OK, they're spending 250 dollars a month on food. There, that's only 3600 a year! Much better. But, they can't cut the costs on the apartment, no matter how many Ramen Noodles they eat - It's still 500 bucks a month. Hmm, they'll just have to move. With only 400 left to spare for the year, they can't even pay the light bill. OK, so they move to a very low-end apartment, maybe 350 bucks a month. Much better! So, that's 5400 a year for rent, with 3600 a year budgeted out for food and we're under the wire.! Yay, we have a thousand left over! But, now it's time to pay 15% in taxes... and we're five-hundred short. I guess they're not going to buy many Cokes.

There comes a point when the floor is reached on the minimum amount of exchange medium necessary to survive. Once you reach that floor, you can't take any more from them without destabilizing them. If they can't hunt or farm, which most people can't or don't, and can't find a nice hole in the ground in order to keep the rain off, then there's only one thing they can do if they want to live - Take those things from someone else. The lesson here is that no civilization can remain stable if it does not do something to establish a guaranteed minimum standard of living. I'm not in favor of the public "dole" for its own sake. (Though, I don't think our nation should let its citizens die in the gutter from starvation or exposure.) There's a very practical reason why some people get assistance and are assured a minimum standard of living, set by our own culture. If we don't do it, we end up shooting ourselves in the foot...

In short - It's cheaper, more efficient and promotes the stability that's necessary for our society to provide for those who do not have the means to provide for themselves. BUT, as our culture grows and we determine that the minimum standards of living are a little bit higher, every year, THAT is when the danger arises - If we think everyone should own an X-Box and be able to pay a monthly cable bill in excess of $150 so they can have all the Netflix they want, we're paving the way for an even more permanent "Dole Population."

It's a bit off the OP, and treading into all those mucky political waters nobody likes. The problem isn't impossible to solve. But, the people who are going to have to solve it are those who have the means and the power to do so. That means... it's going to cost money and that's going to have to come from the people who have it. Danged if ya do, danged if ya don't.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 28, 2013)

Morkonan, I was as broke, angry, dangerous and desperate as anyone--and in the middle of winter, to boot.  I didn't sign up for welfare, rob a bank, mug a rich guy or demand the entire world change for me because of "fairness."  Then my boots fell apart, and I spent a Wisconsin February in old bedroom slippers.

I did, however, get a job.

My then girl friend's parents couldn't support her, the dad had been laid off.  She'd been working in a stable when a horse whirled around and broke her face.  I had to take her in.  She didn't mug anyone either.  She did get new teeth.

Then she got a job.  At F.W. Means in Madison, the company that provides those red shop rags to repair shops and service stations.  Her job was to sort out filthy rags for laundering or discarding.  Imagine that, a rookie "rag picker" with a broken face, working.

Now compare that to the statement that there is work out there that Americans won't do.  Yikes, your average welfare mother weighs more than the heavy lifters at the gym.  We even had to start mailing out dole checks because "the poor" wouldn't come down to our City County Building.   Like, what else did they have to do all day?  Miss an episode of Oprah?

There's a problem in this country and it's not "wealth."  There's plenty of wealth and every city's newspaper as job opportunities.  We have become a nation of victims, whiners and easy riders.  That's the problem we must fix first.  I could package free gold bullion for a living, and one of the whiners would claim my business was racist because I refused to deliver.


----------



## SarahStrange (Oct 28, 2013)

> Yikes, your average welfare mother weighs more than the heavy lifters at the gym.



You seem to be a fan of generalizations. 

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-types-people-welfare-nobody-talks-about/

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/14/welfare-queen-myth-must-die/



> There's plenty of wealth and every city's newspaper as job opportunities.



You also seem to think that 'wealth' is distributed in an equal and accessible way. 

http://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM

Yeah. Not so much.


----------



## Brock (Oct 28, 2013)

Another question that I'm not sure there's an answer for:  Why do humans love?  Other animals successfully procreate, raise their young and have tight knit families without this emotion.  Many will probably disagree with me, but I think love is unique to humans only.  I have religious views regarding this, but I'm leaving them out of it.  I'm pondering this question strictly from a scientific standpoint.  

Love may very well be the most powerful, influential, rewarding, painful and destructive emotion we have.
Why have humans developed the ability to love so deeply?


----------



## Robert_S (Oct 28, 2013)

purged


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 29, 2013)

Brock said:


> Another question that I'm not sure there's an answer for:  Why do humans love?  Other animals successfully procreate, raise their young and have tight knit families without this emotion.  Many will probably disagree with me, but I think love is unique to humans only.  I have religious views regarding this, but I'm leaving them out of it.  I'm pondering this question strictly from a scientific standpoint.



From a scientific standpoint, you'd be wrong.

Now, that's not to say that what we humans experience as "love" is exactly what every other mammal feels, but it's important to note the differences in cognitive ability, first, before generalizing any subjective experience. It's scientifically accurate to say that no other mammal is as intelligent as a human being, right? Well, if they experience any sort of emotion called "love", we also can't say that it likely to be exactly the same as a human's experience for them. Since we're different and other animals have trouble with multiple-choice surveys, we have to reduce it to some sort of common denominator that can be independently measured - Hormones.

When we have deep feelings of love, well-being, satisfaction with our mate and all the other overwhelming emotions that come over us when we're with our beloved, our body is responding by releasing hormones. It's no different in the animal world, but the exception is that we can't ask an animal what it is "feeling." We can, however, take blood samples to test for certain hormones known to be associated with certain behaviors that we observe. Guess what? They're there. (At least in other primates and certain other mammals.) One great study I read was in the book "Baboon Metaphysics", by Cheney and Seafarth. The did a great deal of work on baboon social interactions over a period of years. What they found, in the blood sample studies, was that when these animals displayed behavior that would easily be associated with human emotion, the very same hormones one would expect to find within a human were found within the baboons. Lacking a means to dissect a brain in order to see how much "love" or "fear" or "anxiety" or "well being" is inside it for either humans or baboons, one has to accept what known markers one can actually measure. When observing animals that appear to exhibit emotional behaviors analogous to human emotions, the hormones we'd expect to find within a human that are linked to the emotions that have strong correlations with those sorts of behaviors are also present in the animal.

That does not mean that they have the same exact thoughts associated with "love" or any other emotion that has a human equivalent. It does, however, suggest that when they are experiencing the addition of certain hormones into their system, they are physiologically responding to them in similar ways. Other animals have been studied in similar ways, searching for human equivalents of emotion. IIRC, dogs and mice, both, have analogous physiological responses to love, sadness, happiness, etc.. 

It is extremely important that we do not get confused, somehow attributing the same feelings we have when we say we are experiencing "love" to animals who happen to have the same hormonal levels as a human when they appear to exhibit that behavior. In fact, anthropomorphizing such things is one reason that very intelligent and well-meaning people get eaten by lions and squashed by elephants... It's why the "loving" purring cat bites the heck out of you or why the seemingly gentle dog mauls the family's child. They are animals and they are different from us in more ways than most people think about. But, we can not sell them short when it comes down to experiencing physiological responses which appear to cause them to exhibit the same behaviors that, in a human, we would call "emotion."

Why is it that we can say an animal appears "afraid", but are loath to say that the animal appears to "love" someone? Why can we obviously tell when an animal is "anxious", but resist in calling the very same animal "happy?" 

*Note: Since I've made claims without offering any evidence, I will be more than happy to look up and reference animal studies involving emotion, if you require it. But, I urge you to do a quick Google search, or "Google Scholar" search, to see for yourself.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 29, 2013)

SarahStrange, I politely disagree.  There's no reason at all to be poor in America.

Not only are there jobs everywhere, you can start your business here on a shoestring.  Heck, with Avery Label business cards and a library printer you can start your own company this afternoon.

Lots of my friends started their own companies cleaning houses, doing landscaping and the most successful young woman I know is making a killing coming to homes and dog grooming.  

One of the guys I ride with is like me, technically retired.  He remodeled my bathroom, he fixes cars, and even does maintenance at our gym.  Heck, if I don't sharpen for a few days I go looking for clients, and I find them.  One afternoon, I just walked around our neighborhood.

Several years ago I read a book about nation building.  The author opined that there are "developed nations" and then the "undeveloped nations."  He added that some places would become the never-to-be-developed nations.

I feel that way about individuals.  Just like in our Depression there were guys who hustled and made a living.  Then again, there were guys who turned to crime or jumped out of a window.  But like that author, I now believe we have a never-to-be-employed demographic.  I don't think millions of some Americans would work at gunpoint.


----------



## Pandora (Oct 29, 2013)

As far as love, I'm a believer in evolution. Dogs love us, truly love, not perceived only by humans that love them,
but really love. All these thousands of years with us, they get it. Theirs is the purest of love, unconditional love, 
why God gave them to us to learn. Dog . . . God spelled backward, man's best friend. 
I say 'I love you' to Lucy or MaddieLou they know, they feel.

I have read the science behind human love, how our bodies react to each other and why.
 It is some interesting stuff at face value  that can't be discounted but it doesn't explain soulmates. 
There is a spiritual side to love. Likened to what we feel in the presence of God.


----------



## Brock (Oct 29, 2013)

Pandora said:


> As far as love, I'm a believer in evolution. Dogs love us, truly love, not perceived only by humans that love them,
> but really love. All these thousands of years with us, they get it. Theirs is the purest of love, unconditional love,
> why God gave them to us to learn. Dog . . . God spelled backward, man's best friend.
> I say 'I love you' to Lucy or MaddieLou they know, they feel.
> ...



This is what I am talking about.  From an evolutionary standpoint, every emotion should be there for a reason -- crucial to our survival as a species somehow.  Why then would any human being go to such lengths for one individual among millions?  There are countless accounts throughout human history of extraordinary sacrifice, pain, bravery, etc. that people have exhibited for one individual.  Take a dog or any other animal away from their human family and it will eventually adapt and be content.  Take some humans away from their "soulmates" and it will consume every waking moment of their lives until they are reunited or die.  This cannot possibly have anything to do with the survival of our species.


----------



## SarahStrange (Oct 29, 2013)

> This cannot possibly have anything to do with the survival of our species.



I think it absolutely can. Look, we evolved because we needed to survive. How do you do that best? In groups. We became more and more intelligent and relied more and more on others to help us survive. We got to the point where everything we do didn't necessarily need to be for the sole purpose of survival. That's where we are now. Now (and by 'now' I mean currently all the way back some thousand years) we can afford to do things we _want _to do rather than what we _need _to do. As a result societies and the ideologies that they cling to got more and more complex. 

To understand this look at the fact that 'love' is not universal to all societies. Our society's (English speaking developed nations) version of love is just another ideological construct unique to our society. For example, let's think about maternal love. In our society maternal love between mothers and their children is considered (in general) an all encompassing, unconditional feeling. It is paramount in the lives of mothers that they nurture their children. Now take the Alto women of Brazil. They are detached from their children. Child mortality is not something they mourn profoundly. If a child is weak, then they do not pay as much attention to them as the strong children. Frequently, they die because of this. Now, in our society these babes would be swaddled and nourished carefully regardless of their weaknesses whether they be physical or mental. This is just one way that 'love' is not something that stretches between societies/nations.

When you (everyone) look in the mirror you do not just see yourself, you see the accumulation of every social rule, construct and idea that your society has formed and you have been raised into. What you want is not actually what _you_ want. How you act is not actually how _you_ act. This is why love is not universal or some may say, even real. 

I'm not saying love is wrong or people shouldn't feel it. I personally love my friends and family very deeply. It's a wonderful emotion that helps people to be happy and consequently helps societies to function. I think that we should just be cognizant that of the reasons why we view love to be important. Is it because the majority of literature, movies and media _everywhere_ tells you it is important? Or is it because _you_ feel it is important? Ultimately, there is no way to know.


----------



## ppsage (Oct 29, 2013)

What Morkoman says. Human love is typical mammal intra-species social recognition reactions, evolved by reproductive survival, filtered through (sensationalized by?) a greatly enlarged nervous system.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 29, 2013)

Brock said:


> This is what I am talking about. From an evolutionary standpoint, every emotion should be there for a reason -- crucial to our survival as a species somehow. Why then would any human being go to such lengths for one individual among millions? There are countless accounts throughout human history of extraordinary sacrifice, pain, bravery, etc. that people have exhibited for one individual. Take a dog or any other animal away from their human family and it will eventually adapt and be content. Take some humans away from their "soulmates" and it will consume every waking moment of their lives until they are reunited or die. This cannot possibly have anything to do with the survival of our species.



Here's a dirty little secret about Evolution - Evolution does not care about you.

Evolution only cares whether or not something survives to reproduce. It doesn't care how that is achieved, why such a critter would decide to reproduce or what happens afterwards. That's it. The only thing that Evolution cares about is whether something survives long enough to reproduce.

So, if you love your wife, you'll nurture and protect her. If she loves you, it's more likely that you're what she considers to be a fitting father to her child and your efforts will not be wasted on caring for someone else's illegitimate child. If you have a baby and both make sacrifices for it in order to assure that it reaches sexual maturity, you're done as far as Evolution is concerned. It couldn't care less if you spontaneously combust once that child has reached maturation. One might say "Oh, Evolution! Why do we explode once our child reaches sexual maturity? Can we not yet live?" Evolution will not care enough to answer.

That's it. That's Evolution's ugly little secret. Now, how do you rationalize that with all the junk that comes with love? Well, include everything up to a child reaches sexual maturity as being part of the process that helps to ensure reproduction and don't even bother asking Evolution about anything that happens after that...

There are some social considerations that bear directly on child welfare and the survival of sexual mature human beings. A large part of what we do in order to establish stable societies can be directly traced to Evolutionarily reinforced behaviors. And, why do we have those? So we can make babies and those babies can survive long enough to make other babies. That's the whole book, as far as Evolution is concerned. It's an uncaring, unthinking "process." There are a great many facets to it, "love" being one of those that we think we can easily identify. But, it's not the only one. 

Note: This speaks to Evolution, a Scientific principle, and doesn't address one's metaphysical views, if any. Just know that Science cares even less about those than Evolution does, but Science does allow for them, since they're out of its scope of inquiry.



SarahStrange said:


> ...To understand this look at the fact that 'love' is not universal to all societies. ...



"Love"  is not a societal quality. It's an individual, human behavior. What's  important in that respect is whether or not the individual has the  physiological capacity for it, not whether or not the culture supports the elicitation of the behavior, itself. Evolutionarily speaking, all human beings have the physiological  capacity that we associate with those behaviors and physiological  stimuli that are bundled together in the word "love."


----------



## Pandora (Oct 30, 2013)

ok I'm going out on a limb here, evolution takes a really long time, minuscule changes seen over thousands of years. 
So we have evolved, our dogs have evolved because of why and how we treat them. 

Animals have now taken the role of family, children and this overtime changes them. 
 Their role changes and along with that, their needs. 

As far as sex and evolution, procreation being the end all, we can now make babies in the lab. Nature will
evolve with this, as will human nature. The limb I'm hanging on is that my belief is one sex with no sex will, 
if we can last that long, rule the day. That our gay population has begun the evolution process as has our society.
Love eventually will in no way be physical but only spiritual. I believe one sex best describes God as well.
I have this feeling about Time, it plays a role we don't understand, if indeed it does exist at all. 
What has come to pass and that which has not yet passed, has indeed. 

Did the limb just break :grin:


----------



## Brock (Oct 30, 2013)

> Here's a dirty little secret about Evolution - Evolution does not care about you.
> 
> Evolution only cares whether or not something survives to reproduce. It doesn't care how that is achieved, why such a critter would decide to reproduce or what happens afterwards. That's it. The only thing that Evolution cares about is whether something survives long enough to reproduce.



We survive much longer than that, however.  The amount of time that human females live beyond their reproductive years is often more than half their lives.  Many humans also meet their "soul mates" and fall deeply in love long after their reproductive years have passed.  From an evolutionary standpoint, what is the point of any of this?  If "evolution does not care" about me -- which I agree, it does not -- why do we live so long and why, if evolution gave us love to ensure reproduction and child rearing, would we not be programmed to "shut off" after we are no longer viable to the reproduction of our species?  With females, the concoction of hormones that are said to create love is all but gone.  My Grandmother met her second husband after her reproductive years, and until his untimely death at the age of 70, it was the deepest love I've ever seen.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 30, 2013)

Hmmm.  We have a philosophical disparity.  I am very important to evolution! 

I intend to survive.  It will be my DNA that climbs to the top of the heap of apologists, easy riders, the hulks of Prius pretenders, and unisex clothing.

If you look like food you will be eaten.


----------



## Pandora (Oct 30, 2013)

Evolving includes a spiritual side, by that I mean emotions and intuition not necessarily a belief in God.
Humans are capable of so much more and that is the point of all this, that will be the outcome. 
Love an integral part of the equation for spiritual growth . . . yes?


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 30, 2013)

Pandora said:


> Evolving includes a spiritual side



And I agree 100% (I'm raising my palm and all six fingers to aver it.)

But then, Pandi, you're a better person than I am.

But I do not believe that God made me a victim.  I do not live as if open recognition of faith must be done from the shadows apologetically.  

An atheist will bore you to tears demanding to be heard.  Then deride your rebuttal.  That's not the spiritual milieu I signed onto.  I get the same freedoms.

If detractors do not want to get run over by the train, then they stay off the tracks.


----------



## Pandora (Oct 30, 2013)

I was an atheist once upon I time, I see both sides and see it doesn't matter. Discussions like this where Science and Theism
butt heads are okay by me, I focus on the hearts behind the thoughts, that's all that matters to me. Heart is where it's at.


----------



## SarahStrange (Oct 30, 2013)

> If "evolution does not care" about me -- which I agree, it does not -- why do we live so long and why, if evolution gave us love to ensure reproduction and child rearing, would we not be programmed to "shut off" after we are no longer viable to the reproduction of our species?



Because we can. Seriously. We've gotten to the point where reproduction and surviving is not the prime objective. Now we have time to love and work and have fun. We don't wake up worrying how we need to go out and hunt/gather in order to survive. We can just go to the supermarket for both of those. We have leisure time now, because we have evolved to that point. Now we can 'fall in love' for more than the sake of reproducing. However, the deep, underlying hormonal objective _is _to reproduce. That's one of the reasons that teenagers are so darned horny. They are in the prime of their life. Their bodies are at the _perfect _stageto create a new being. Your body is screaming at you, "Reproduce! Reproduce! Reproduce! Find a secure mate that can help you raise your young! Secure him/her! Fight off all other competition!" Viola, young teenage love.



> There's no reason at all to be poor in America.



There is no black and white. Everything is colored by shaded of grey. Just because something happened to you doesn't mean that's how it happens for everyone else. There are millions of people in this country. Most of their circumstances are different than yours. 

Since this is such a giant thing, here are MORE articles that discuss how it is much more complex than you seem to think. I don't think there is enough room to explain to you the complexity of the issue on my own. Plus the length of a post like that would be obnoxious. 

http://www.agjohnson.us/essays/poverty/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...illion-american-workers-are-still-in-poverty/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/why-cant-we-end-poverty-in-america.html?_r=0


----------



## ppsage (Oct 30, 2013)

> We survive much longer than that, however. The amount of time that human females live beyond their reproductive years is often more than half their lives. Many humans also meet their "soul mates" and fall deeply in love long after their reproductive years have passed. From an evolutionary standpoint, what is the point of any of this?


If we extend Morkomon's Morkonan's discussion of behavior a bit, I think the answer might be found. All animals which mate, which have a sexual selection component in their reproduction, have some form of social behavior. Social behavior is, at root, a stimulus response system, but, as the nervous system enlarges and gets more sophisticated, tracing the precise connections becomes impossible. After all, the human nervous system is capable of making responses based on taught and cross generational experience. [SUP]1[/SUP]

At some level of complication, social behavior becomes culture. Culture causes many behaviors, which are of course subject to survival selection evolution. But some behaviors are reproductive survival neutral. The same root behavior may benefit survival reproduction in the reproductive age and survival neutral longevity beyond reproductive capability. 

Non-reproductive individuals may also have survival benefits for reproductive individuals. There are obvious social ones in child care and financial assistance, not to mention feeding them to ravenous wolves. But deeper biological benefits are possible. Perhaps old people are a storehouse of antigen stimulation for untrained immune systems. There is in human survival, considerable biological _learning_ between an individual's conception and reproductive maturity. A geriatric population might have a role there, providing a chemically friendly environment.

[SUP]1 [/SUP](Although the material it controls, the body, has basically the same chemical (hormone, muscle, etc.) resources as other mammals. Among the mammals, the differentiation of humans is almost entirely a matter of nervous system development. My personal opinion is that this dichotomy, between advanced nervous development and same old _musculature,_ is the beginning of problems like _spirituality. _Humans can imagine more than they can be.)


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 30, 2013)

The concept of domesticated animal is an interesting one, there are certain physical characteristics that domesticated animals share but are not seen in the wild, variations in colouring, curly hair, hair which covers the eyes and the oldest members of a wild cohort will be younger than those of a domesticated cohort one. We are obviously domesticated animals, that interferes with the evolutionary pressures.

Cultural development appears to follow necessity in people who live in small groups, Eskimo people produce every form of tool known to primitive (In the sense of being without a written code) societies and in far more refined forms than most. When people live in larger than family groups warfare exerts an extra pressure, a tribal feud can rumble on for years with the number of people dying in single figures. Gang and tribal wars are important to the individuals involved, but when people start dying in thousands it is a different ball game. Aztec technology was getting better, they held a hostile Empire by force, but they were hampered by their lack of workable metals. Oriental power looked to be the greatest, until Europe developed fighting ships, we never looked like a land conquest of Asia, but we could rob them blind with iron guns and fast ships that could simply disappear over the horizon.


----------



## bookmasta (Oct 30, 2013)

I think asking said questions is a sign of a very active and ponderous mind.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 30, 2013)

bookmasta said:


> I think asking said questions is a sign of a very active and ponderous mind.



To some degree, yes.  But the real innovators in all of history were (simplistically stated) "tool makers."  Follow me.

Any well spoken man can gaze into his navel all day long, postulate on things he's never done and make fantastic claims.  The quintessential "book smart and street stupid" ivory tower dweller.

But making an idea become reality, that's the refinement of a culture.  For example, take the quote from Pablo Picasso, _"When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning. When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine."_ 

I've met scores of brilliant, worthless men.  But show me a guy with grease under his fingernails who can write code for a dynamometer, and I'll show you a guy who owns them all.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 30, 2013)

> But making an idea become reality, that's the refinement of a culture


very true, but the idea has to come from somewhere."brilliant, worthless men" are "book smart and street stupid" because their ideas come from books, they are other people's ideas, they are not using their own brains. Most of us are not a Stephen Hawkins or an Einstein, but most of us can take that pure science and see possibilities in it, and like you say the men who develop the technology reap the rewards, I guess we sort of agree, almost.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 30, 2013)

I don't think we're close, at all.  Books are usually a compilation of things that have already happened.  And most often not written by the guy who actually carried the water.  In the end, it's just commentary.

I'm talking about a guy who really shaped society and history with innovation.  There's is nothing more thrilling than a guy who makes history, and nothing as boring and petty as a camp-follower who bloviates about someone else's success, drawing the accolades to himself.


----------



## bookmasta (Oct 30, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> To some degree, yes. But the real innovators in all of history were (simplistically stated) "tool makers." Follow me.
> 
> Any well spoken man can gaze into his navel all day long, postulate on things he's never done and make fantastic claims. The quintessential "book smart and street stupid" ivory tower dweller.
> 
> ...



I should have put toward the Op in my comment. Really wasn't putting that much thought into it. Obviously, all great minds often start with the question why and work their way from there. But yes, speculating is easy. Doing is harder.


----------



## ppsage (Oct 30, 2013)

Men men men guy guy guy !!!!


----------



## Brock (Oct 30, 2013)

We are all speculating even though many of your theories are supported with facts.  I have my own theories as well, but like the rest of you I have no definitive answers to these riddles.  I've read every comment and find them all extremely interesting.  

What fun would this world/universe really be if we knew the exact answer to every question?


----------



## Brock (Oct 30, 2013)

Something else that makes no sense to me:  *Why *did we lose all of our hair/fur only to re-insulate ourselves with clothing?  
Any ideas?


----------



## ppsage (Oct 30, 2013)

Brock said:


> Something else that makes no sense to me:  *Why *did we lose all of our hair/fur only to re-insulate ourselves with clothing?
> Any ideas?


Human hairlessness evolution


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 31, 2013)

Brock said:


> We survive much longer than that, however.  The amount of time that human females live beyond their reproductive years is often more than half their lives.  Many humans also meet their "soul mates" and fall deeply in love long after their reproductive years have passed.  From an evolutionary standpoint, what is the point of any of this?  If "evolution does not care" about me -- which I agree, it does not -- why do we live so long and why, if evolution gave us love to ensure reproduction and child rearing, would we not be programmed to "shut off" after we are no longer viable to the reproduction of our species?  With females, the concoction of hormones that are said to create love is all but gone.  My Grandmother met her second husband after her reproductive years, and until his untimely death at the age of 70, it was the deepest love I've ever seen.



This has a lot to do with the way our social structure works. By having these elderly humans around, who are often incapable of either reproduction or critically contributing to the survival of the group, our children have a much better chance of living through to sexual maturity, our pregnant mothers are more likely to receive the help that they may need and other members of the group can more easily focus on the critical necessities of survival. How many grandparents babysit their grandchildren so the parents can have a night off to do what they want? Or, a question more easily asked - How many grandparents act as "free" babysitters, so the parents can go to work without having to pay for day-care?

There's something else that these older, more experienced, members of our society provide for us - Culture.

Culture is the continuation of knowledge from one generation to the next. If every generation had to learn everything all over again, we'd never get anywhere, would we? Older adults, past their physical and mental primes and certainly outside of the range of their reproductive years, provide instruction and knowledge to the new generation. They act as living histories, relating hard-won information so that the new generation does not have to work everything out for themselves, all over again. In humans, this sort of thing has enabled us to achieve "Civilization." Few other animals appear to have anything that resembles "Culture." A very small number of species, IIRC, notably apes, elephants and some whales (Difficult to judge, there) appear to have the rudimentary beginnings of "culture.***" (There may be a couple of monkeys that show signs of it, as well.) One could say that an animal engages in it simply by teaching its young to hunt. That's debatable, really. Culture is more of a systematic instruction and continuation of knowledge and is more group-oriented than simple, individual, instruction. "Culture" also occurs only within species that maintain large social groups.


***I'm struggling with the specific instances where rudimentary precursors of "culture" have been said to have been discovered in these species, or seemed as if it was likely. But, I do remember these species as having been cataloged in my own mind as having behaviors which could indicate a rudimentary "culture."


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 31, 2013)

Brock said:


> Something else that makes no sense to me:  *Why *did we lose all of our hair/fur only to re-insulate ourselves with clothing?
> Any ideas?



There is a suggestion that the earliest stages of evolution happened on a sea shore, hairless is good for wading through water if one has to retreat into the sea from a major predator, body hair all flows in the direction it would if walking in water, long head hair gives a floating baby something to hold on to and eyebrows, and a squinting frown is good if you are low in the water with the sun reflecting off it. There were other things which suggest the same thing, the earliest tools are pebble tools, people sought out caves for habitation, the female genitalia are moved forward compared to our closest relatives which would be handy for sitting on sandy surfaces.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 3, 2013)

Olly Buckle said:


> There is a suggestion that the earliest stages of evolution happened on a sea shore, ...



It's not a very credible one, though. Her ideas are fraught with problems.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 3, 2013)

Now how did you guess that they were 'her' ideas? 
One point I forgot to mention that has some credibility is that we always talk about the evolution of man, but it is women that carry the next generation and a heavily pregnant woman would have found the plains a very hostile environment. They postulated a site now under water, off the north east coast of Africa not too far from the Tanganyika rift valley.


----------



## Brock (Nov 4, 2013)

From what I understand, we actually have the genetic code for webbed hands and feet, which gets turned off as a fetus becomes more developed.  We still have partial webbing, however.


----------



## ppsage (Nov 4, 2013)

A sufficient reason for evolutionary hairlessness, is guys don't like hairy dames. And/or, vice versa. Would depend on who did the choosing, all those years ago. I'm thinking guys, cause look what the ladies did to peacocks. That's anything but hairless.

Additional considerations: evaporative cooling over the slight insulation advantage. Development of a fatty layer. And last but not least, lice control.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 5, 2013)

Olly Buckle said:


> Now how did you guess that they were 'her' ideas? ...



There are several that have put forth such theories in pop-sci, but the main professional proponent is a woman, IIRC, and her ideas revolve around the study of a site near what used to be a large lake, IIRC. But, she went a bit too far with much of what is just pure speculation, with little scientific merit. Her proclamations did garner quite a bit of attention in the kookier corners of the 'net, though. That doesn't speak very well for it. 

It is certain that any emerging human settlements would, however, appreciate and exploit water. But, it's very doubtful that genetically modern humans led a primarily amphibious life or that our nearest precursors were of similar origins. There's just not much evidence, anywhere, to support the idea.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 5, 2013)

ppsage said:


> A sufficient reason for evolutionary hairlessness, is guys don't like hairy dames. And/or, vice versa. Would depend on who did the choosing, all those years ago. I'm thinking guys, cause look what the ladies did to peacocks. That's anything but hairless.
> 
> Additional considerations: evaporative cooling over the slight insulation advantage. Development of a fatty layer. And last but not least, lice control.



All of these are credible reasons for hairlessness. (Also covered in one of the books I mentioned earlier, IIRC.)


----------



## escorial (Nov 5, 2013)

why are we here?..well the universe never wastes anything


----------



## Brock (Nov 6, 2013)

Excellent article about the aquatic ape theory that gives an interesting angle on the reasons behind our body fat, breathing, why we are bipedal, our brain growth, ect.

http://historyplanet.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/aquatic-ape-theory/


----------



## Kevin (Nov 6, 2013)

There are models for land dwellers returning to the water. Those without tails, Pinnipeds (seals) are both hairy and hairless. None of them have long limbs. And the swimmers with tails, otters, beaver, platypus(?) and whales could be either, hairy or hairless though the most adapted (whales/dolphins) are hairless. So...would it be that we would become hairless so quickly without first developing the more pronounced skeletal alterations that typically accompany 'hairless' aquatics? Just something to think about. 

Short limbs that propel with the splayed hips, or the overly hinged back and powerful tail...I don't see evidence of those. 

There are other primates that live in the Savanna, Baboons for one, that seem to get along fine with hair. And as far as 'sweating', well horses can sweat, a lot, though covered with hair. So...why? Don't know...


----------



## Justin Rocket (Nov 21, 2013)

Regarding clothing versus hair/fur, I think the cultural issues are a factor.  Clothing styles help to identify which social group you belong to.  You may become a member of a culture in ways other than birth (ex. through marriage).  The same thing can be said of hair styles, incidentally.


----------

