"...What else would you call an uptake in the level of understaning of sciences in a given sociaty if not intelegence? " - Lee
Collection of analogical data? :) On Apr 15, 4:16 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Chuck, > > Yes our technology has made a great differance to the human animal. > It is now far easier for our kids to remotley bully each other, or for > house parties to become massivly gate crashed. Two examples of > technolgy makeing things worse perhaps? As I say eb and flow, good > things and bad, let us look at the whole. > > Again you seem to be speaking with authority about the past. 1000 > years ago is long time ago, how do you know these things? > > Heh that is a mouth full and I see much truth in it. Yes of coure our > opinions on what is forward progress are bound to differ and I bet if > we were to ask our dearest Gabs, and our Ornary OM they too would > produce differant yard sticks. > > Hah hah yes indeed all topics are broad, I can think of not one that > is simple. However does this mean we cannot have meaningfull discourse > on any subject? Nope I disagree, if only that after almost a week you > and I have gotten to know each other a little. I find that very > meaningfull indeed. What is a human without human interaction? > > Yes I mean some of that, but also it is possible to realise that such > feelings serve a low porpouse and erradicate them from your life. > > I can't agree that the erradication of such feelings somehow changes > what it is to be human. > > I am human, if I state that I am now-a-days rarely angry and never > jelous, am I now to be defined as being diferant from human? > > Yes I can see some forward movement on world widfe ethics, but I also > see much evidance of backwards movment on personal morality, so agian > eb and flow and taking the whole into acount. > > Heh so you have asserted without knowing then? > > No I don't belive that American gun onwers are all frighted rabbits, > only that this is the typical argument that I hear from the majority > of them. After all if you can't take a persons words as being true > then I think we are doomed. > > Guns are fun, and yes I have fired them many times. Revolvers, .22's, > SLR's, semi automatic hand guns. They sure are fun, but you know I > still can't help thinking that the only desgin use for a hand gun is > to shoot people. So not at all like basket ball IMO. > > I'll takle single indivduals in sociaty and what the PM has just said > together as they are linked. > > The uppermost thought in Mr Camerons mind is I belive the up and > coming local elections come May 5th and the referendum on AV at the > same day. Our PM is despertly trying to curry favour with the > electorate, and so this talk about cutting down immergration I am > alsmost ashamed to say mirrors the mood of the majority of the > people. Nope not for economic reasons has he now trotted this line > out. Single indviduals are angry, angry that the Poles take all the > jobs, angry at the banks, angry at the goverment, angry at the world > wide global crisis, just plain angry(I of course can only really speak > about my own sociaty on this). Anger is not condusive to social > cohesivness is it? > > On the surface it may seem that technology is not the same as > increased intelegence, but surely they are linked? Your avarage > school leaver now understands more about physics then they did say 60 > years ago. What else would you call an uptake in the level of > understaning of sciences in a given sociaty if not intelegence? > > On Apr 14, 6:04 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:05 AM, [email protected] < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hey Chuck, > > > > I think we can probaly say that better just means better in many > > > aspects, so yes it may mean more socialy aware, and yes it may also > > > mean envirmentlay aware and the rest of your list here. > > > > My point is more holistic, taking the whole. Are we more socialy > > > aware than say 100 years ago? Well perhaps, but maybe not, we'll have > > > to look long and hard at our histories to answer that. > > > Actually, I think technology and cultural influences have mediated human > > behavior quite a bit. > > > For instance, a remote village in the UK a thousand years ago might have > > welcomed a Muslim with open arms. However, if that Muslim chose to cut the > > village elders throat because he was an infidel then the village would > > probably think twice about welcoming Muslims in the future. > > > Today due to our technology and our interactions with other cultures we know > > that not all Muslims are fanatics. > > > > However this may be a step forwards but in other areas have we taken > > > steps backward? Taking the whole into account I can see little > > > evidance of forward movement. The human animal is more or less the same > > > as > > > we have always been. > > > Here, the subject of human morality and social behavior is so amorphous that > > there is no way to point to any specific facet and say "there is an example > > of forward progress". Is it forward progress for Italians or Turks or > > Europeans or forward progress for the entire human race? If so, who is it > > that defines and measures forward progress? Is my idea of forward progress > > and yours the same? > > > My point is that the topic is too broad to make any meaningful discourse on. > > > > I disagree. It is perfectly capable of humans to let go of both anger > > > and jelousy. > > > By 'letting go' I assume that you mean acquiring anger and/or jealousy over > > a certain situation and using self-control to let go. > > > I didn't say anything about letting go in that context. What I was referring > > to was the hardwired emotions that we all have. Without anger, jealousy, > > love, hate, empathy, we lose a significant portion of what defines us as > > human. > > > To quote: > > > >> As long as we are human I think we will > > >> suffer anger and jealousy. It's how we deal > > >> with it as individuals and as a society that > > >> determine the measure of growth. > > > The thing about 1000 years ago and rape is you just don't know if that > > > > is true, or if you do I would love to see any source material that has > > > brought you to this conclusion. > > > The issue isn't rape but the ethical framework that dictates behavior. While > > each culture has it's own framework in general ethics have matured over the > > centuries and that maturation has been reflected in the laws that govern. > > > Typically most cultures are and historically, have been male dominated. This > > has led to a bias in the way individuals are treated. That dichotomy has at > > times required a higher standard of proof from the victim than from the > > perpetrator. > > > I really don't want to do the research to support my assertions but I'm sure > > it shouldn't be too hard to find specific examples if you're that driven. > > > Perhaps I spoke disingenuisly if so forgive me. I have had many a > > > > debate with our American brethren on gun ownership, and what I get > > > most is protection from those who may brake into your house, mug you, > > > attempt to take your loved ones, etc.. If it looks like fear, and > > > smells like fear and sounds like fear, there is a very good chance > > > that is it fear. > > > Heh. Do you really believe that all American gun owners are frightened > > rabbits hiding away in their homes just waiting for the bogey man to burst > > through the front door? > > > Guns have multiple uses as I assumed was clear in my post. One most > > definitely is protection. There is a real possibility that someone could > > break through the front door but it's not something that consumes every > > thought for every moment of the day. > > > As to hunting as you alude to here, rifles my good man or shot guns > > > > for that, so you would agree that there is no need to own a hand gun > > > or an automatic weapon? > > > Have you ever fired a hand gun or automatic weapon? > > > Many people have hand guns and automatic weapons for the same reason that > > people own basketballs. Just as there is no good reason to fire at a target > > or a beer can, there is no good reason to shoot a basketball at a hoop - and > > yet we do. > > > > Not more intelegent but more socialy intergrated? Nope I think that > > > perhaps the opposite is true. > > > This link is a thesis on the intelligence of prehistoric man: > > >http://www.custance.org/old/earlyman/3ch1.html > > > If you read it you'll see that our intelligence over the centuries hasn't > > changed significantly. > > > As to social integration. I am not referring to tolerance of other cultures. > > I am referring to the organization and function of individuals within a > > single society. > > > Look at world wide politics at this moment in time. France have just > > > > made laws banning Muslim woman dressing in any kind of face covering. > > > Social intergration? Today our Prime Minister was on the TV telling > > > how he is planning on cutting down imergration into the UK from > > > 100,000s to 10,000's. Social intergration? Nope it seems to me that > > > we are entering into an age of misrust of those not of our own culture > > > or heritage. > > > I don't know anything about french law concerning dress but if the PM is > > cutting down on immigration I'd guess that there are other motivations > > besides cultural mistrust. Economic considerations probably being primary. > > > > On the other hand, gene therapies, real movment in nuculare fusion via > > > laser or plasma, stem cell tecnolgy, phones that are computers. More > > > intelegent? > > > Technological progress isn't the same thing as increased intelligence.
