El mi�rcoles, 4 de junio de 2014 04:01:43 UTC+1,
passer...@gmail.com escribi�:
> If I say on a forum that science does Good things,
> (or is a Good thing), people will agree with me. But if
> I say science does Evil things, all of a sudden, such
> words can't be used for That Which Can Not Be
> Questioned.
Ok, the creator of all evil and good cannot be blamed.
> Why this strange doublethink? Science does all these
> Good things, but the H-Bombs and pollution etc. all of a
> sudden, it's the fault of hairless apes, not That Whch
> Can Not Be Questioned.
I agree with you passerby. Anything right or wrong is the result
of our deeds. Why blaming god for our failures and successes?
But god is blameless so far we are able to ignore those shameless
holy books as apocryphal. But if we were tempted to say that the
holy books contain the words of god... then... we are accusing the
gods for all atrocities we had committed.
Then, this changes totally the equation. It is the thinking of
humans, and that includes the religions, all well as science, the
reason for our iniquities.
> Why is that?
I bet you are going to tell us. I love that, you do not mince words.
> I propose that it's because any country that didn't worship
> science like a religion, was conquered by those that did. A
> selection process, survival of the "fittest". And now, it's
> worldwide brainwashing, as science makes weapons beyond
> imagination, and genetic monsters that will eat the skin off
> our faces.
>
> Like monkeys, jibbering and waving our hands over our heads
> as we rush to the edge of the cliff.
Like Japanese throwing themselves over cliffs as alternative to
surrender.
Ok. There are a few problems with your argument.
First, humans have a tendency to overbreed. If your tribe had
a great success finding food, or cultivating food, or hunting,
you bred more children than other tribes that were not so lucky.
Then, your space is limited, and your tribe had bred many
children. So, as your children want to beget more children,
they would be going in search of new places with food. This
happened that the place was inhabited by other tribe. This
would result in a war. If they succeed, they would conquer
the land of other people, kill most of the males, and take
their wives to breed more children. Perhaps they had invented
some way of making more productive the available land,
perhaps not. Anyway, they needed land, and they took it
from other people by killing them, and enslaving their
children. This thing must be rather old that still exist.
Who is to blame for we are so prolific? Your blameless
god creator is, for he made us thus. He (your blameless god)
do not instilled in our brains an algorithm of "do-not-breed-
so-many-children-dumbass".
But all the experts about what was the will of god, favored
to breed as many children as possible, prohibiting also the
trick not breeding children implicit in sodomy.
So far, all I know about religions favor to breed a lot of
children, at least for the privileged classes that could marry.
For those too poor or the slaves and servants were not
allowed to breed.
Eri
> ----
> Appendix:
>
> Gotta add this. Humans lived longer, were healthier,
and better fed with larger brains and taller, before farming,
with the possible exception of the last few decades and
that's a tossup. After WWIII it won't be a tossup.
Who is to blame for this deficiency of not having enough
food for people? The blameless one. He put in the brains
of people an urgency to breed that do not took into account
that resources were limited.
> From where Farming was invented, thousands of bones
> before and after...
> "The people there were not living hand to mouth." In fact,
> they lived quite well.
Ok, they were living quite well but had to work very hard
to hunt dangerous animals. Their live was rather short, for
animals do not love to be hunted, and often counterattack.
Primitive men showed in their bones the scars and accidents
caused by their hunting. Moreover, they were living on the
verge of extinction, probably. And their rate of growth was
rather small.
Assuming as a biblical truth that humans were 10,000 some
70,000 years ago, and that in times of Roman Empire existed
already in the planet some 230 million people, that means
the human population of the planet multiplied by 23,000
For 230 millions divided by 10,000 equals 23,000.
What rate of growth is this in 68,000 years. I am going to
tell you:
Rate of growth is 10^(log 23.000/68.000)=1.0001477
Translating this... the rate of growth 147.7/1,000,000
And it is quite comparable to the last 214 years that
the population passed from being 1 billion in 1,800
to 7 billion nowadays.
Then, average growth was 10^(log7/214)=1.0091
that is 0.9%
That is this excellent people of hunter gatherers previous
to the age of farming, was living so well, that they
had almost zero growth. Including the part of farming
population of the previous 8,000 years to the Roman
Empire they were growing 6.77 times slower than now.
But I had read someone speculating that 10,000 years
ago, the population of the planet was some 8 millions.
Assuming this is believable, 8 millions divided by 10,000
equals 800
10^(log 800/60,000)=1.000111
That is 111 parts per million people a year. That is a little
lower than now.
> An analysis of the human skeletons found
> at the site, most of which were buried under the floors of the mud-
> brick houses in which the villagers lived, showed that the average
> lifespan approached 60, "not much different," says Moore,
> "from that of 19th century rural populations in Europe." But
> the village's good fortune didn't last. First, the gazelles began to
> dwindle. "We see an extraordinary change that took place within
> the span of a human lifetime,"
If they were hunting, I doubt a lot they had houses of mud bricks.
Mud bricks is associated more with sedentary farmers. Hunters had
to be constantly in the move and had not time to make bricks of mud
or houses.
19th century Europe, and Britain were breeding rather fast. Then,
they had to live mostly in squalor, considering that aristocrats were
consuming quite a bit of resources to feed armies and bureaucracies.
Eri
>
http://archives.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/94_10/agriculture.html