by New Mitanni » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:32 pm
by Tagmatium » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:35 pm
North Calaveras wrote:Tagmatium, it was never about pie...
by JuNii » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:35 pm
New Mitanni wrote:IMO physical strength is no longer the most important quality in terms of species survival, and thus it isn’t that significant that most of us can’t match the feats of primitive man.
by Kashindahar » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:35 pm
New Mitanni wrote:According to McAllister, Tutsi initiates, Australian aboriginals and Neanderthal women, among others from past ages, were far superior physically to modern men, up to and including Olympic champion sprinters and javelin throwers.
Is this important?
Does it matter that most modern men (or women) can’t run down wild animals, throw spears long distances...
Voracious Vendetta wrote:There is always some prick that comes along and ruins a thread before it goes anywhere
by Alsatian Knights » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:36 pm
by Conserative Morality » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:43 pm
by Sarkhaan » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:43 pm
New Mitanni wrote:According to Australian anthropologist Peter McAllister, modern man is a wimp:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 04&sp=true
According to McAllister, Tutsi initiates, Australian aboriginals and Neanderthal women, among others from past ages, were far superior physically to modern men, up to and including Olympic champion sprinters and javelin throwers.
Is this important?
Does it matter that most modern men (or women) can’t run down wild animals, throw spears long distances or run marathons in full armor like Roman soldiers? Are physical robustness and brute strength more important than, say, technological development? Or have we overemphasized sedentary activities and intellectual development at the expense of other abilities that we may need at some point?
IMO physical strength is no longer the most important quality in terms of species survival, and thus it isn’t that significant that most of us can’t match the feats of primitive man.
by Dumb Ideologies » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:47 pm
by EvilDarkMagicians » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:48 pm
by Flameswroth » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:54 pm
New Mitanni wrote:IMO physical strength is no longer the most important quality in terms of species survival, and thus it isn’t that significant that most of us can’t match the feats of primitive man.
Czardas wrote:Why should we bail out climate change with billions of dollars, when lesbians are starving in the streets because they can't afford an abortion?
Reagan Clone wrote:What you are proposing is glorifying God by loving, respecting, or at least tolerating, his other creations.
That is the gayest fucking shit I've ever heard, and I had Barry Manilow perform at the White House in '82.
by Pevisopolis » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:14 pm
by Dagonshire » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:28 pm
by Dashret » Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:21 pm
Tagmatium wrote:They also tended to die at ages 25-30. Hurrah for them!
by New Mitanni » Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:56 pm
Dashret wrote:Tagmatium wrote:They also tended to die at ages 25-30. Hurrah for them!
Average age is heavily influenced by infant mortality, which was significantly higher prior to the advent of modern medicine. We do live to be older than our ancestors, but not quite that much.
Anyway...the fact that we've gotten physically weaker is, I think, more evidence that we've evolved to suit our strengths. Humans are tool users. We don't NEED to be able to run a mile or throw a spear a hundred yards. We can build a cart or make a bow, or better yet, a car and a gun.
We'll probably only get physically weaker as time goes on. At least until we can hand evolution it's retirement and develop super awesome gene-modification techniques to turn every single human child into a living incarnation of Adonis. With psychic powers.
by Free Soviets » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:09 pm
Tagmatium wrote:They also tended to die at ages 25-30. Hurrah for them!
by Rigbyland » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:15 pm
by Lackadaisical2 » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:18 pm
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Proud member of the Vile Right-Wing Noodle Combat Division of the Imperialist Anti-Socialist Economic War Army Ground Force reporting in.
by Ashmoria » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:56 pm
New Mitanni wrote:According to Australian anthropologist Peter McAllister, modern man is a wimp:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 04&sp=true
According to McAllister, Tutsi initiates, Australian aboriginals and Neanderthal women, among others from past ages, were far superior physically to modern men, up to and including Olympic champion sprinters and javelin throwers.
Is this important?
Does it matter that most modern men (or women) can’t run down wild animals, throw spears long distances or run marathons in full armor like Roman soldiers? Are physical robustness and brute strength more important than, say, technological development? Or have we overemphasized sedentary activities and intellectual development at the expense of other abilities that we may need at some point?
IMO physical strength is no longer the most important quality in terms of species survival, and thus it isn’t that significant that most of us can’t match the feats of primitive man.
by Free Soviets » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:09 pm
Rigbyland wrote:
Until about age 30... scientists thing that most neanderthals didn't make it to age 45; the average life expectancy was 28-42 years, or something. And the infant/child fatality rates were pitiful...
by Call to power » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:19 pm
Ashmoria wrote:in addition to the physical dominance, primitive man had a far better memory than we do. without the ability to write things down they had to remember every important thing.
by South Lorenya » Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:32 pm
Jock vs. Nerd
(A little outdated, but still funny)
The answer to the eternal question "Is it better to be a jock or a nerd?"
Michael Jordan makes over $300,000 a game. With $40 million in endorsements, he makes $178,100 a day, working or not.
If he sleeps 7 hours a night, he makes $52,000 every night while visions of sugarplums dance in his head.
If he goes to see a movie, it'll cost him $7.00, but he'll make $18,550 while he's there.
If he wanted to save up for a new Mercedes S-Class ($90,000) it would take him a whole 12 hours.
Assuming he puts the federal maximum of 15% of his income into a tax deferred account (401k), he will hit the federal cap of $9500 at 8:30 a.m. on January 1st.
If you were given a penny for every 10 dollars he made, you'd be living comfortably at $65,000 a year.
Amazing isn't it?
However, if Jordan saves 100% of his income for the next 250 years, he'll still have less than Bill Gates has today.
Game over. Nerd wins.
by New Kereptica » Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:35 pm
Blouman Empire wrote:Natural is not nature.
KiloMikeAlpha wrote:Umm hmm.... mind if I siggy that as a reminder to those who think that it is cool to shove their bat-shit crazy atheist beliefs on those of us who actually have a clue?
Teccor wrote:You're actually arguing with Kereptica? It's like arguing with a far-Left, militantly atheist brick wall.
Bluth Corporation wrote:No. A free market literally has zero bubbles.
JJ Place wrote:I have a few more pressing matters to attend to right now; I'll be back later this evening to continue my one-man against the world struggle.
Mercator Terra wrote: Mental illness is a myth.
by UNIverseVERSE » Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:47 pm
Ashmoria wrote:in addition to the physical dominance, primitive man had a far better memory than we do. without the ability to write things down they had to remember every important thing.
by Dashret » Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:38 pm
UNIverseVERSE wrote:Ashmoria wrote:in addition to the physical dominance, primitive man had a far better memory than we do. without the ability to write things down they had to remember every important thing.
Not true. For a start, the number of important things to remember is a function of the society one lives in. Secondly, it isn't a case that one would need to remember everything that a typical person now has quick access to. There was simply less information.
I'd suspect that any typical modern person remembers about the same quantity of information as 'primitive man' would. The difference is that a) this is a far lower percentage of the total information they have access to, and b) they're remembering different things.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Britain Modern RP, Google [Bot], Khardsland, Korea Peninsula, Neu California, Pasong Tirad, The Archregimancy, The Holy Therns, Turenia
Advertisement