NATION

PASSWORD

We Are Devo?!

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
New Mitanni
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1239
Founded: Jan 22, 2006
Ex-Nation

We Are Devo?!

Postby New Mitanni » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:32 pm

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.
November 2, 2010: Judgment Day. The 2010 anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgNFNTi46R4

You can't spell "liberal" without the L, the I and the E.

Smash Socialism Now!

User avatar
Tagmatium
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16593
Founded: Dec 17, 2004
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tagmatium » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:35 pm

They also tended to die at ages 25-30. Hurrah for them!
The above post may or may not be serious.
"For too long, we have been a passive, tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone."
North Calaveras wrote:Tagmatium, it was never about pie...

User avatar
JuNii
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13517
Founded: Aug 22, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.


untill the time comes when our technology fails and we have to go back to the 'old' ways of doing things...
on the other hand... I have another set of fingers.

Unscramble these words...1) PNEIS. 2)HTIELR 3) NGGERI 4) BUTTSXE
1) SPINE. 2) LITHER 3)GINGER 4)SUBTEXT

User avatar
Kashindahar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1885
Founded: Sep 19, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby 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...


Specifically on this: No. Not in the least. We have firearms.
no matter how blunt your hammer, someone is still going to mistake it for a nail
Voracious Vendetta wrote:There is always some prick that comes along and ruins a thread before it goes anywhere

User avatar
Alsatian Knights
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1323
Founded: Dec 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Alsatian Knights » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:36 pm

The most important things a specieis worries about these days is how fast can they get their missile on target accurately and whose large bore sniper rifle can shoot the farthest and whose tank is better. So the real question is, has brute strength just evolved into a new form?
Qwendra has been resurrected and is looking for players who want to start anew and shape a government!

User avatar
Conserative Morality
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 76675
Founded: Aug 24, 2007
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Conserative Morality » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:43 pm

Actually, I think that most people could run around like Roman soldiers in full armor, assuming they went through the rather rigorous training. (Speaking of Post-Marian Legionaries) And in any case, strength isn't exactly the top skill in demand nowadays.
On the hate train. Choo choo, bitches. Bi-Polar. Proud Crypto-Fascist and Turbo Progressive. Dirty Étatist. Lowly Humanities Major. NSG's Best Liberal.
Caesar and Imperator of RWDT
Got a blog up again. || An NS Writing Discussion

User avatar
Sarkhaan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6128
Founded: Dec 14, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

Can't, or don't? I believe that most of us physically COULD do these things, given training. Most people at this second couldn't because they haven't practiced and trained. We don't go spearhunting daily. Our capabilities haven't changed much, just our utilization. The fact that Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps can still set astounding world records as modern humans demonstrates that the human body is capable of these tasks.

To add a tiny bit:
I go to the gym for the first time ever. I can bench press only the bar (45 lbs), and am not very stable with it...it sways back and forth, one side is raised faster than the other....and I can only do three sets of 6 reps, barely forcing out the last few.

Does this mean that I have devolved? I'm unable to do something because I've either never done it or haven't done it in a very long time.

Flash forward 6 months, and after going to the gym 3x a week every week for that time period, I can now benchpress 135 lbs (45 lb weights on each side plus bar). The bar is stable, and I can easily do 4 sets of 8 reps.

There was no deevolution. Just a lack of training.
Last edited by Sarkhaan on Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dumb Ideologies
Post Czar
 
Posts: 39979
Founded: Sep 30, 2007
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Dumb Ideologies » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:47 pm

I don't think we'll really know until the dinosaur aliens crash-land in 2012, just days after Emperor Obama vaporizes all the world's weaponry using spells from that renowned book of darkest magic, Das Kapital.
Last edited by Dumb Ideologies on Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tʜᴇ Sᴛʀᴀssᴇʀɪsᴛ Sᴜɴᴅᴀᴇ Cʟᴜʙ ᴏғ Dᴜᴍʙ Iᴅᴇᴏʟᴏɢɪᴇs
¸„¤*˜*¤„¸„¤*˜*¤„¸ If it's too sweet we can add some salt ¸„¤*˜*¤„¸„¤*˜*¤„¸
The thirty-something tsundere trans cryptofascist nobody warned you about
♆ P ᴀ x D I ᴀ ʙ ᴏ ʟ ɪ ᴄ ᴀ ♆

User avatar
EvilDarkMagicians
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13456
Founded: Jul 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby EvilDarkMagicians » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:48 pm

No it doesn't matter. Though good health is very important to our development as a whole.

User avatar
Flameswroth
Senator
 
Posts: 4773
Founded: Sep 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

[gruff voice] Wull that sounds lahk sissy tawk t'me, lil man![/gv]

I very much doubt their assertion that they were more physically able than our athletes today. They were probably, out of necessity, more physically able than your average Joe typing away on NSG, but their nutrition and living conditions were not conducive to the sorts of 'health', and by relation 'strength' that we can experience today.
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.



User avatar
Pevisopolis
Minister
 
Posts: 2370
Founded: Feb 22, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Pevisopolis » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:14 pm

NM, I'm astonished you never mentioned your word "Obamunist".
Jesus God almighty man, look at that lot over there! They've spotted us!

User avatar
Dagonshire
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Oct 21, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Dagonshire » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:28 pm

it's no longer as important since we dont need it to survive. but it's still good to be fit.

User avatar
Dashret
Diplomat
 
Posts: 521
Founded: Aug 13, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Dashret » Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:21 pm

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.

User avatar
New Mitanni
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1239
Founded: Jan 22, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.


I think that's more likely. Gene modification is going to happen sooner or later.
November 2, 2010: Judgment Day. The 2010 anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgNFNTi46R4

You can't spell "liberal" without the L, the I and the E.

Smash Socialism Now!

User avatar
Free Soviets
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11254
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Free Soviets » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:09 pm

Tagmatium wrote:They also tended to die at ages 25-30. Hurrah for them!

nah, they tended to die between birth and 5 years old. after that, they were solid.
Last edited by Free Soviets on Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rigbyland
Envoy
 
Posts: 279
Founded: Aug 12, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Rigbyland » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:15 pm

I wouldn't say that we're devolving. Although some of are traits aren't as great as they used to be, others are still advancing. Evolutions and adaptation are all about environment and necessity. If we need more strength than we currently have, we'll get it.
Rigbyland Factbook (Work In Progress)

Territories:
Lennon McCartney

User avatar
Rigbyland
Envoy
 
Posts: 279
Founded: Aug 12, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Rigbyland » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:16 pm

Free Soviets wrote:
Tagmatium wrote:They also tended to die at ages 25-30. Hurrah for them!

nah, they tended to die between birth and 5 years old. after that, they were solid.

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...
Rigbyland Factbook (Work In Progress)

Territories:
Lennon McCartney

User avatar
Lackadaisical2
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 50831
Founded: Mar 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Lackadaisical2 » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:18 pm

Free Soviets wrote:
Tagmatium wrote:They also tended to die at ages 25-30. Hurrah for them!

nah, they tended to die between birth and 5 years old. after that, they were solid.


thirded I suppose.

As to the OP, If its really true we have devolved, in terms of physical strength, then that would be a bit worrying, as we might then lack the necessary survival skills to continue society w/o our current tech. However, it seems more likely that theres simply more variability of physical strength, as the weak ones have managed to survive just as well as the strong.
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.

User avatar
Ashmoria
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46718
Founded: Mar 19, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby 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.

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.
whatever

User avatar
Free Soviets
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11254
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Free Soviets » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:09 pm

Rigbyland wrote:
Free Soviets wrote:
Tagmatium wrote:They also tended to die at ages 25-30. Hurrah for them!

nah, they tended to die between birth and 5 years old. after that, they were solid.

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...

sure, for the neandertals. but not for the wild-type modern humans - not even ones contemporary with the 'tals.
Last edited by Free Soviets on Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Call to power
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6908
Founded: Apr 13, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Call to power » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:19 pm

*sneezes on Roman soldiers*

and I'm sure if I had spent my entire life living in Australia I would be pretty good at running away screaming as well :)

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.


I'd like to see early man try to find the car keys
The Parkus Empire wrote:Theoretically, why would anyone put anytime into anything but tobacco, intoxicants and sex?

Vareiln wrote:My god, CtP is right...
Not that you haven't been right before, but... Aw, hell, you get what I meant.

Tubbsalot wrote:replace my opinions with CtP's.


User avatar
South Lorenya
Senator
 
Posts: 3925
Founded: Feb 14, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby South Lorenya » Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:32 pm

I have a link for Mr. McAllister...

And for those who are too lazy to click on a friggin' link:

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.
-- King DragonAtma of the Dragon Kingdom of South Lorenya.

Nagas on a plane! ^_^

User avatar
New Kereptica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6691
Founded: Apr 14, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby New Kereptica » Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:35 pm

I like Devo.
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.

User avatar
UNIverseVERSE
Minister
 
Posts: 3394
Founded: Jan 04, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby 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.


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.
Fnord.

User avatar
Dashret
Diplomat
 
Posts: 521
Founded: Aug 13, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

People 10,000 years ago didn't have to remember what the square root of pi is. Or how to spell 'shibboleth'.
...You know, I think it would be interesting to see a study on how many ancient humans were multilingual. Actually multilingual, I mean, not just well versed in foreign curse words.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Cornstar, Abaja, Andro Tabata, Andsed, Aureumterra, Cannot think of a name, Dooom35796821595, Duvniask, Eahland, Fahran, Federaciones Unidas, Feroa, Google Adsense [Bot], Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States, Ifreann, Las Palmeras, LiberNovusAmericae, Maydona, Nakena, Shrillland, The Galactic Liberal Democracy, The New California Republic, The Republic Of Cassadia, Vassenor, Washington Resistance Army

Advertisement

Remove ads