We live in a "mutual eating" society first and foremost, an ecosystem. To make changes to the system in benefit of one actor (ie., humankind) is to impose an imbalance into an already orderly system. Death and destruction, regardless of how much we try to fight them, are inherent parts of the process. From this, I'm not sure if the "casual environmentalist" is truly selfless and accepting enough to put the planets needs over those of his own, or is he?
Opinions on Corrupt.org
- Thread starter Horus
- Start date
ÎÏεβοÏ
Member
What are you talking about? We do not have extended physical capabilities . . . we have very-much-decreased physical capabilities.
I suspect this trus as well - but I cannot prove it. While we certainly live longer on average, it is not necessarily because we are stronger or of a generally healthier constitution. We simply have more access to healthcare, medical diagnostics, etc(not to mention food, shelter...).
I read a great deal about history, particularly military history and I am often amazed at the staggering degree of abuse, deprivation and merciless exposure our fighting forebears endured. The Confederate soldier of the American Civil War would subsist on starvation-level rations, march (sometimes)barefoot in snow and freezing rain - or hundred degree heat for twenty miles in a day. Yes, many would succumb to the elements...but many did not. They were of a hearty stock because they had to be. We are "soft" because we can afford to be. That is my absurdly oversimplified and non-scientific working theory.
ÎÏεβοÏ
Member
Our capabilities on that matter have decreased also, as all we've learned to do is destroy and set out of balance--that is hardly a "better" thing.
I offered no judgement for better or worse - seems hard to debate that our capabilities haven't increased (become larger) though? As to your point, I do not believe understanding should be considered bad. What we do with our increased understanding could well be.
If you can only see the poor things humans have achieved through our base desire to improve our state in the world, then I feel sorry for you, for I don't see a way it would ever be acceptable to you. Much of learning and progression involves failure and 'setting out of balance'.
If you can only see the poor things humans have achieved through our base desire to improve our state in the world, then I feel sorry for you, for I don't see a way it would ever be acceptable to you. Much of learning and progression involves failure and 'setting out of balance'.
Nile577
Member
- Jun 26, 2003
- 376
- 2
- 18
The 100m sprint world-record time has come down from 10.6 seconds in 19.12, to 9.77 in 2006. The same is true of all athletic events. Are we to account for this wholly through changing methods of training (e.g. the Lydiard technique) & the abuse of steroids, or are our high-end athletes innately improved? If so, is it likely that evolution could be noticeable in the space of a hundred years?
There was a study done in 2004 that used computer software to map the performance of an ancient Greek runner against a modern athlete by reconstructing the Greek’s muscle system based on his skeletal remains. Again, this study only covers high-end performers, but the modern athlete easily outclassed him in every event.
I think that, far more than genetics, social factors (prevalence of obesity, television lifestyle) account for our decreased physical health.
There was a study done in 2004 that used computer software to map the performance of an ancient Greek runner against a modern athlete by reconstructing the Greek’s muscle system based on his skeletal remains. Again, this study only covers high-end performers, but the modern athlete easily outclassed him in every event.
I think that, far more than genetics, social factors (prevalence of obesity, television lifestyle) account for our decreased physical health.
I think there's a subtle distinction between physical health and physical endurance here. While most people are terrible when it comes to motivating themselves to exercise, let alone remaining consistant enough to attain any significant level of physical fitness, they are none-the-less living a lot longer, having a lot more to do with societal factors as you'd mentioned, nutrition and health care. Thus, whether or not we are "stronger" would depend on what aspect you're refering to, and if health care (or any technological aid) in the most general sense, should even be considered.
That said, I personally think we're stronger because of the nutrition factor, this despite our terrible foods and habits.
That said, I personally think we're stronger because of the nutrition factor, this despite our terrible foods and habits.
There's no doubt that we as humans are strnger now than when we were centuries ago, but it seems that now, we're starting to experience a decline in physical health as far as stuff like obesity and poor nutrition are concerned. Norsemaiden said before, that it really is impossible to attain pure foods anymore, unless you're unusually wealthy. Everything is genetically mutated so that we can have bigger vegetables, and cows are mutated in one way or another to produce more milk and meat. Everything nowadays has some sort of substance in it that may provide us with more, but is still detrimental to our health in the long run. And the harm that comes to us from this genetic or any kind of mutation is cancer!
But because of the fact taht the food we eat is altered so much, it's also taking away from our health, because the only food people feel like eating nowadays is the fast food, and unhealthy foods which are chock-full of fats and cholestrol which inhibit not only our physical health, but our endurance as well. If the blood can't circulate properly because of the cholestrol, then the body runs out of energy and resources quicker, because the blood flow can't keep up with the use of energy like it did when the arteries weren't clogged with crap. Because of the fact that food like this is so massively consumed, it's causing billions of people to become less physically fit, and fitness statistics across teh world may plummit if this trend keeps up.
I feel like I screwed up somewhere here.
But because of the fact taht the food we eat is altered so much, it's also taking away from our health, because the only food people feel like eating nowadays is the fast food, and unhealthy foods which are chock-full of fats and cholestrol which inhibit not only our physical health, but our endurance as well. If the blood can't circulate properly because of the cholestrol, then the body runs out of energy and resources quicker, because the blood flow can't keep up with the use of energy like it did when the arteries weren't clogged with crap. Because of the fact that food like this is so massively consumed, it's causing billions of people to become less physically fit, and fitness statistics across teh world may plummit if this trend keeps up.
I feel like I screwed up somewhere here.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
As Conservationist just said, there are more people and so it is easier to find exceptionally good runners, etc.
Please could you give a reference on the net (if there is one) about how modern athletes outclass the ancient Greeks at the olympics? Recently I saw a TV documentary which demonstrated that ancient Greek athletes jumped further in the long jump than a modern athlete can. I have spent half an hour trying to find anything on this matter (relative performance between ancient Greek athletes and modern olympic athletes) and had no luck at all. Perhaps it can be concluded that the matter is not clear cut in academia, as there would have been references that are easily found otherwise.
For people to evolve to be stronger there would have to be genetic selection going on. We live in a situation where the weak live and pass on weakness to future generations. Natural selection would have maintained a greater level of fitness in the genes of the population in ancient times. What selective pressures could have resulted in modern people having even more strength or health? These effects can only be superficial - through assistance by drugs and by the increased availablility of food. The population is - at gene level - far weaker than ever in the past. How can it not be so?
ÎÏεβοÏ
Member
What evidence do you have for 'far weaker'? Is a few hundred years time enough to have any change of statistical validity? No need to ruin a reasonable point by exaggerating it
Actually, she didn't quite go as far as it can be brought logically: Far weaker, and rapidly getting worse.
It just takes a bit of historical studying to see it. IQ is dropping, physical/genetic ailments and disorders are increasing, natural strength and physical capability are decreasing, and fitness [due to social factors] is decreasing. As a species, we've been leveling off our progression and then regressing since the beginning of the Roman Empire, primarilly the Christian Roman Empire. It has greatly sped up with modern democracy, and extreme liberalism; that is 99% prevalent in the modern western and "westernized" world.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Just a paragraph from Darwin's "Descent of Man" as regards another source of genetic deterioration:
If people are not getting weaker genetically then why not? Plenty of factors are there to cause dysgenic effects and very few for the opposite.
People from nations that have had civilisation for a shorter time are stronger, and so are African Americans, because it is a well established fact that they were bred by slave owners to be stronger. Yet life expectancy is lower in those nations that have been least subjected to civilisation. It would be ridiculous to suggest the people there are genetically weaker, but it does show that civilisation cocoons us from the natural selection going on elsewhere.
If people are not getting weaker genetically then why not? Plenty of factors are there to cause dysgenic effects and very few for the opposite.
People from nations that have had civilisation for a shorter time are stronger, and so are African Americans, because it is a well established fact that they were bred by slave owners to be stronger. Yet life expectancy is lower in those nations that have been least subjected to civilisation. It would be ridiculous to suggest the people there are genetically weaker, but it does show that civilisation cocoons us from the natural selection going on elsewhere.
I agree. But I also think language like 'far weaker' exaggerates the matter to serve a purpose other than simple clarity I can conceive of the possibility that it would take many thousands of years for humanity to undergo measurable / noticeable 'weakening'. Who knows what science / society holds for us in the future - Gattaca? (movie with the 'designer baby' concept at it's core)
Unless shown clear evidence or rationale to the contrary, I would be inclined to believe that natural selection is not happening fast enough to cause humanity major concern in the near future. That's based only on a rudimentary understanding of the processes involved though.
I can conceive of the possibility that it would take many thousands of years for humanity to undergo measurable / noticeable 'weakening'. Who knows what science / society holds for us in the future - Gattaca? (movie with the 'designer baby' concept at it's core)Unless shown clear evidence or rationale to the contrary, I would be inclined to believe that natural selection is not happening fast enough to cause humanity major concern in the near future. That's based only on a rudimentary understanding of the processes involved though.
Armageddon's Child
New Metal Member
The massive increase in mental illness and developmental disabilities doesn't tell you we've got a fucking problem?
ÎÏεβοÏ
Member
Actually, it is a cause. People that would "otherwise die" will now pass on their weak genes to future generations, while in past times their death would mean a stronger future generation without those genetic flaws.
Tells me we've got less witches and demon possessed folk
Evidence that this is occurring, and wasn't simply misunderstood in the past? Evidence that it's related to genetic concerns as opposed to the huge numbers of chemicals floating around? I'm perfectly happy to be convinced, so far this negative view of the gene pool seems largely unsubstantiated and based more on fear and concern rather than logic.
Not getting stronger, is not necessarily getting weaker. I'm happy to acknowledge the 'possibility' of some weakening having occurred - but before deeming it a problem that needs conquering it would seem worthwhile to demonstrate that it really is a problem.
Armageddon's Child
New Metal Member
That there are genetic predispositions for autism and most mental illnesses is pretty well established at this point, even if the precise mechanisms are not well understood.
