lost people

It's really quite funny, and irritating. Time and time again, we have to dispell beliefs, and thoughts. Constnatly argueing, or accepting, something as "right" and "wrong". Has it ever occured to anyone that we may be thinking too much? Our minds have proved powerful, not only in our ability to solve problems, but also in our ability to dream. Or, more accurately, to think without an end, letting our thoughts fly and, sometimes, accepting them as reality.

A slow poison, i call it. Again and again it surfaces, as one person's fantasies becomes anothers life, and reality becomes distorted in their minds, poisoning their thinking. It could almost become a sin, in my mind, to think without reaching an end, and accepting that point you came furthest to in your thinking as the end of it.

But then comes an even greater challenge. IF we had none of this, what exactly would the world be like? how would it change the human race?

What is the perfect society? working like mindless ants, getting things done when told? Or perhaps like wolves, working with others to get it done, with one commanding, but taking care of personal comforts later? Or maybe we are free spirits, like hawks, attacking those that enter our territory, even though he is of the same race, and caring only for your own survival?

OR would it be something entirely different? With greater and greater minds, societies and relations become more and more complex. So i ask again, what type of world would it be if we didnt lose control of our thoughts? What type of society would we have?

Ignorance is bliss?

Is one of the question you seem to be asking.

At that i would also bring up progress, which is the outlet for this thinking you mentioned. Progress(ie discovery, invention, invovation etc) has brought the world slowly to the point that we now are. But that wondering mind has also brought more then mere technological invovations. It has brought the world philosophy, art, music, etc.

As for the perfect way to take care of the world, the problem is still the same as it was when civilzation began. Resources are finite and the population has only been growing. Hence their isn't enough to go around for everyone. And until that problem is fixed or at least made inconqusential enough that no one cares. People will care, and the problems that are here now will continue to be here(as they have been for thousands of years).

The other interesting question to this is what is progresses natural end. If its aim is to make the world better, at what has the world been made too good(or could that point come).

WE are adaptable, probably the most adaptable creatures out there, or so they say.

But our brilliant minds do rigid thinking. We teach the value of life, yet the overpopulation of this life may kill us. Naturally then, we must choose the best to keep living and forget the rest. But we still maintain rigid thinking, and it becomes slow poison.

Slowly killing ourselves while thinking we could be no better. Peace seakers sicken me in the fact that they are near the source of this poison, if not it. Cannot kill another, let everyoe live, and be happy and keep having sex and making babies. WHen the world's low on food, water is scarce, etc, who will be the bad guy then?

Originally posted by Surprise!
WE are adaptable, probably the most adaptable creatures out there, or so they say.

But our brilliant minds do rigid thinking. We teach the value of life, yet the overpopulation of this life may kill us. Naturally then, we must choose the best to keep living and forget the rest. But we still maintain rigid thinking, and it becomes slow poison.

Slowly killing ourselves while thinking we could be no better. Peace seakers sicken me in the fact that they are near the source of this poison, if not it. Cannot kill another, let everyoe live, and be happy and keep having sex and making babies. WHen the world's low on food, water is scarce, etc, who will be the bad guy then?

Society itself is what causes ideas to become rigid. This is why debate and change is absolutely nesscary. We are social creatures to a great extent and due to this we put into place social norms. What the greatest number of people see as acceptable is allowed. What is outside of this mainstream of society is deemed wrong or not entirely alright. It is society that forms rigid standards by which to divide us.

Further through we are not perfect, and must discover the world. Both in a physical and mental way. We must work through political, philosophical systems in order to thive as a race. This is why i like mills idea of a market place of ideas. Where all ideas need to be heard in order for the best of the lot to be harnessed and the rest to be discarded to the scrap heap of time. Society is as people are. Therefore if people choose to be rigid society will be, if people choose to be free then society will be.

This is why it is essential for us as individuals to be as flexible as possible in what we think. Todays truth is tomorrows myth.

Why blame the peace seekers?

I would really like to see what 400 billion or so dollars could do if given to other efforts. How many people could that feed in the United States alone. I should note that it was 400 billion that the United States spent on defense last year.

I would propose the same question, how do you say it is the peace seekers that are the problem. When trillions are spent around the world on death and destruction. Spent on missiles that do nothing but explode. Bullets that break the sound barrier to kill. I would seriously question how you could blame the peace seekers when all war does is use resources to no end but death.

as people are fed, they breed more, then they expand over the fields where that food came from. dont deny it, they are worse than sudden death. poisonous fiends.

Originally posted by Surprise!
as people are fed, they breed more, then they expand over the fields where that food came from. dont deny it, they are worse than sudden death. poisonous fiends.

Well in this case i propose we just send a letter to the leaders of the world. Russia and the United States still have about 5000 nukes a peices. Quite a few of those must still be hydrogen bombs(ie city busters). For the betterment of the species, maybe we should just end oursevles. Sucide for the whole human race,wonder howt he advertising campaign will go for that. Give the world a hundred years or so to work out the enviromental disaster we would have caused. And let it get on to another species that might do better

The point is it doesn't matter who is here. These problems will be present. Rather then trying to blame someone(which isn't what i was trying do above) is try working out the problem. A start might be turning those funds around. Get our space program working. Lunar and Martian colonies could be up in 10 years or so. Expansion wouldn't be too hard after that point. And a great deal of the population could be moved over time. Once that avenue is open the entire solar system could become available. 6 billion humans(or 50) would be next to nothing in the space available to us at that point.

And once again the point is there is alternatives.

So, Surprise, if the powers-that-be in this scenario decided you and your family were unfit to consume our resources, would you accept that?

The problem with your assumption is that, while we're not all the same, we ARE all equals, no one of us has any more or less a right to live than the next. Culling the weak seems quite animalistic, and while someone's sure to point out that we technically fall under the scientific designation of "animal," we're also uniquely able to rise above that label and do great things.

If my family failed to achieve a reasonable level of competence, then i would abandon them. Maybe regrettably, maybe not. *shrug* I let go of people and past things alot easier than you think. (except for gals like karry)

and with the expansion into space, we will evolve space pirates and raiders. Military is far more necessary than you think. I hardly classify a pacified life as ideal. Like a horse, sitting in a pasture all day, going to work when you need to, then going back to the pasture to eat. Boring. ANd even with horses there is much violence. Violence does solve many things, easier and often more effectively and with less stress and worries than in peace.

dont just focus on the governments, lonestar2, remember the people.

Well there's several topics here let me take them in order.

Are we thinking too much?
No. The Brain is like a muscle, the more it is used the more powerful it becomes. I practice thinking all the time, routinely doing things like trying to calculate the surface area of a passing billboard or working out how many Megatons of firepower a given human being would be if they spontaneously turned into energy (I'd release 6,615 Megatons myself).

Do we need to get rid of people?
No, we need to use the space we have more effectively. Take the oceans, colonizing the Oceans and using the resources in them efficiently, rather than treating the oceans as a garbage dump and breadbasket in one, would effectively triple our total available space. Mall Cities (A concept I like to expound now and then) can fit 50,000 people into half a square mile. The problem isn't that there's too many people, it's that people are not using resources and space properly. And of course this doesn't even touch on the possibilities of space colonization.

Ultimately if you want to get rid of people the only reasonable option is birthright lotteries. Not because everybody is equal, saying such is just silly. The problem is we aren't intelligent enough to know what traits in the human body should be saved and which shouldn't. Some might say a sports star is less valuable than a genius computer nerd and some might say the reverse. There's no really rational scale to judge, even horribly flawed humans like Stephen Hawking have things to contribute, and even the Idiots are sometimes Savants.

Originally posted by Surprise!
If my family failed to achieve a reasonable level of competence, then i would abandon them. Maybe regrettably, maybe not. *shrug* I let go of people and past things alot easier than you think. (except for gals like karry)

and with the expansion into space, we will evolve space pirates and raiders. Military is far more necessary than you think. I hardly classify a pacified life as ideal. Like a horse, sitting in a pasture all day, going to work when you need to, then going back to the pasture to eat. Boring. ANd even with horses there is much violence. Violence does solve many things, easier and often more effectively and with less stress and worries than in peace.

dont just focus on the governments, lonestar2, remember the people.

Why would space raiders and the like develop?

Easier

It uses alot of resources both natural and manpower.
It takes time, wars are not finished in just a few days.

More effectively

Alot of resources, time and enegry is spent causing destruction and death. This is effective how?

Less stress

Would you like to say that to any of the veterns of pass wars.

Worries

I am sure the parents, siblings, friends, and sigificant others of those that go over have no worries..........

Government is by the people, we the people control the government.

You say time and money spent on training is waist, not easy. Yet compare it to your idea. Struggling to agree, tensions building up, and always go for the pacifist way. While wars may be horrible, to me letting weakness show is worse. It sets you up for slaughter. Always remain guarded against a stranger, and everyone is stranger unless you know him from the outside in.

Efficient. Yes, I say it is effective and efficient. Destruction and death is a natural cycle, and I have no delusions that it can be overcome. The only way to prevent such is to have a perfect society, where all minds can find ways to agree. But that is not the case now. Even if did have a perfect society, I would still think there would be many sports and martial arts and the like to at least mock fight.

Worries about a lost life, or worries about cities lost? Parents and brothers and sisters learn to give up those people, because then they have their own lives. In peacetime, heated debates over what to do can still erupt quite easily, and tear people apart. And then struggling to maintain peace would only bring up more worries and stress, and things are done. People flare up at the actions of there elected officials. Civil war courses through the veins of a nation.

Stress. I would have to say “good point” with the veteran idea, yet I still disagree on that. Lives are lost, yes it is true. The face of death is nothing pretty, I know that. I would have to say it is the fault of the soldier for worrying about the lives they banished.

Obviously your idea of it is “oh, so much pain and suffering in wars.” No, a war is fought and people die. Pain and suffering from bullet wounds while dieing I would expect to be about equal to that of a heart attack. “but a heart attack is a natural cause of death” and for a deer, so is a bullet hole. For a jackrabbit, so is claw gouges and deep bites. For a piece of grass, the muzzle of a sheep. Death is inflicted everywhere by everything, that much is certain in life. And things of the same species do fight and kill each other; genes only show they have equal traits. Oh we could de-evolve into the most basic-basic-basic form of life, just harvesting what nutrients we can from the earth and ocean, but once we go there we become prey for those higher not only in the food chain, but in the evolutionary standards.

And also tell me, what would be the purpose of genes, if there was nothing to fight, nothing to force evolution, nothing to remember? What would be the purpose of REPRODUCING?

A society is a group of people banned together in survival, and some have proven more efficient than others. Lets stay on topic here, and try to determine the most efficient form of society for homo sapiens.

You think like a predator Surprise. I can appreciate that for I often feel the same way.

I think even if macroevolution can be established scientifically (we've had the debate before so let's skip it this time) genetic evolution would cease once a sentient society forms. There's considerable archeological evidence that ancient man was bigger, stronger, and smarter than modern man. Modern man happens to be far more physically attractive which shows what people have been breeding for. . .

Evolution in the intelligent species, therefore, would not by physical but mental. Memes, or ideas which spread from mind to mind, are the new evolutionary trait. And you have hit the nail on the head in saying that we must find the most efficient society. That's why I stress oceanic development, at the moment the oceans are being used only at the hunter/gatherer level of development, very ineffective compared to it's maximum. Therefore we must find the ideas that promulgate the most efficient and powerful life-style. And ironically, it's the pack-hunting predatory one. Not the pure predator for it will fall to the group tactics of even the pack-running herbivore. But the pack-predator which accepts the advantages of group-survival while still seeking strength and superiority within the pack has the advantages of both. This meme can be summed up with the words:
"My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the world."

If death and suffering is natural why do we fight it?

We have prolonged the natural life span with modern medcine, better understanding of hygenics, and better food supply. If death is natural and acceptable why do we not just let everyone fight for themselves.

I think we are at a point as a society in general that we should be learning to work without arms. Every war has ended in what, a peace treaty. In the end the war has done what exactly. Exchanged some land and bodies? In the end it is words and the pen that settles the conflict. It is their that concessions and terms are dictated. Why must this be done at the point of gun, and do not say because it would not happen any other way. Because that is only true if you make it true. Which means its only an illiusion of your own thought, enforced by your will not to change.

Civil disobedience has been shown to work. The anti war movement in the sixties, the civil rights movements, womens sufferage etc.

The main point is that your treating these people as means to the end of what ever your goal is. Your giving no credit or due to the fact that they are individuals. People should be valued for what they have to offer beyond being cannon fodder.

There's considerable archeological evidence that ancient man was bigger, stronger, and smarter than modern man. Modern man happens to be far more physically attractive which shows what people have been breeding for. . .

That is an interesting thought. I agree about the bigger, and stronger, but smarter is something that I seem to have overlooked. The time periods you refer to must be different. While yes, we may have at one point been considerably stronger, and bigger, the time period in which we became smarter came a few thousand years after that. But, of course, we judge a time periods intelligence by their inventions (and their war strategy) so we may or may not know that. A larger brain means nothing, cuz I can think of a few good explanations right off the bat why that would not make them smarter. There has been a discovery, buried under the Mediterranean sea (or it may have been the red sea), that the Egyptians had already developed computers. The boat that was transporting the devices, unfortunately, sank. And those were built by preists, and scientists, not a working man. But then again, I get my image of them from movies, and humans might have had a different model then.

You seem to have thought upon this much, as I can see perfectly where your models and plans fit into the evolution of the world…

"My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the world."
that phrase, and the thought behind it intrigues me. While the basic concept is highly understandable and appreciable, lets push the envelope and try to push that concept a but further, and a bit more detail, shall we?

Lonestar2: How cling to your own perspective is getting annoying, but I shall fight it still with little worry.

Why DO we let everyone fight for themselves? The answer is simple. Everyone is specialized in one area, and the only way he can put his skills to use is to help others, or at least in the way medicine, and other aids go. Police are there to help others (or fight others, depending on how you look at it) because that is the area they are specialized at. What good does a crop of food do if he just hordes it and let it rot (not to mention how he’ll be run down by the starving mass of people)? You can over specialize, but the only way you can you that specialization is to get in a mass of people that will compensate for your lack in other areas, while benefiting from your skill in one. Its how it works, and I am not debating the efficiency of that idea. We do let people fight for themselves, they just choose how to do that fighting.

Peace treaties do not last. No matter how long they are meant to, they are always temporary. Not to mention that there are many other types of wars (take the one in which we liberating Iraq, for example) where a peace treaty is not the definite result. The only way I can define real peace is by letting everyone else get away with everything. Rapes, where everyone walks away smiling. Murders where the body is forgotten, and the culprit goes away happy. Candy can be bought, or swiped right off the shelf. There is no fighting, or agrivation, or arguments. Everyone’s always living happily, in a world without rules. I hope you’ll eventually get a look at what it takes to get your version of peace, that you’ll have to run the show and try to achieve that, and then not just achieve it, but to keep it. Peace might as well not exist, IMO. A fantasy, a fiction, something other than reality.

Civil disobedience is in itself its own war. Are there no fist fights, bombings, or anything else in a civil disobedience effort? The Civil Rights movement won its war by playing by the rules of the government, and is perhaps the only reason. But perhaps the more drastic contrast is the Civil War, in which the entire nation became divided. Each side was a civilian group disobeying the other, so yes that is a civil disobedience movement.

As a closing to my rebuttal to your talk, Lonestar2, I will say that smiling and being happy for the person is great while he is there. But, ultimately, he is just another face in an endless mass of faces. That is not a cold thought, that is reality. Perhaps reality itself is cold? Who knows?

Why the united states works. We are 50 individual states that solve disputes through the courts. The only time that has broken down is the civil war. And one can clearly trace that avoidance of the issue, eventually led to the war itself.

This is only cause the mentality is propetuated rather then changed. If people no longer thought in terms of us and them rather as we then wars wouldn't happen. How can you jusify the billions that have been lost for land, honor, or simply cause someone got ticked off. The slaughter of millions of indians in the 16th century by the invading spaniards. The conditons that the british instituted in south africa and india. Or the conditons that totalatarian/facist(sp) regimes have put into effect. What has violence or war done in the last 6000. Why do we have to continue with this concept when it does nothing but destroy.

I suppose the core problem here is that people believe their is motivation in struggling to surive. That is where the world revolves around and where we must die on. The point is we no longer have to struggle to surivive. We could if we put these funds into other places create new avenues and take care of the 6 billion we have now. I guess the core issue is just that, for 6000 years(and more) we knew very little other then violence. And its hard to change, because that is how we were brought up. That violence was an acceptable means to end certain problems. I suppose i will paraphase einstein here by saying that we cannot solve problems at the same level that they were created.

Originally posted by Lonestar2
Why the united states works. We are 50 individual states that solve disputes through the courts. The only time that has broken down is the civil war. And one can clearly trace that avoidance of the issue, eventually led to the war itself.I would tend to agree with this. The US is the oldest surviving country in the world due to it's easy-to-adapt government and system of checks and balances.

This is only cause the mentality is propetuated rather then changed. If people no longer thought in terms of us and them rather as we then wars wouldn't happen. How can you jusify the billions that have been lost for land, honor, or simply cause someone got ticked off. The slaughter of millions of indians in the 16th century by the invading spaniards. The conditons that the british instituted in south africa and india. Or the conditons that totalatarian/facist(sp) regimes have put into effect. What has violence or war done in the last 6000. Why do we have to continue with this concept when it does nothing but destroy.I can see your point here. It draws an interesting parallel with intelligence tests. Are you familiar with the Prisoner's Dilemma logic study? The pure predator model is one of the least effective, working only on mostly-random or fixed-behavior models. The most effective is the one that does unto others as they last did to it. However when the possibility of mistakes enters the equation, things change. Then forgiveness can increase the odds of success on multiple tests and boost prduction. And a forgiving tit-for-tat model can be beaten in production by a super-nice guy model which always does the best thing for others. Groups of them outproduce everybody.

But in that environment, the pure predator model is completely unbeatable and will wipe out masses of super-nice-guy models. The happy friendly society is prey, pure and simple.

I suppose the core problem here is that people believe their is motivation in struggling to surive. That is where the world revolves around and where we must die on. The point is we no longer have to struggle to surivive. We could if we put these funds into other places create new avenues and take care of the 6 billion we have now. I guess the core issue is just that, for 6000 years(and more) we knew very little other then violence. And its hard to change, because that is how we were brought up. That violence was an acceptable means to end certain problems. I suppose i will paraphase einstein here by saying that we cannot solve problems at the same level that they were created. [/B]I disagree that we no longer have to struggle to survive. Only somebody raised in the lap of luxury, such as the US, could really believe that. In the rest of the world, particularly the huge chunk of it labelled "3rd World," life is a struggle every day. Oh things could be a lot better if people were less greedy and operated more efficiently but ultimately everything that lives fights. . . and that which does not fight dies.

Originally posted by Moonstone Spider
I disagree that we no longer have to struggle to survive. Only somebody raised in the lap of luxury, such as the US, could really believe that. In the rest of the world, particularly the huge chunk of it labelled "3rd World," life is a struggle every day. Oh things could be a lot better if people were less greedy and operated more efficiently but ultimately everything that lives fights. . . and that which does not fight dies. [/B]


Thats not exactly what i meant. I understand that its still a struggle for people in other parts of world to try and just live(nevermind attempting any level of comfort). What i was talking about was that above it was implied or i at least i thought that war was a larger part of this struggle. And i don't think that needs to be the case any more. Their are much better ways that those assets could be spent to help fight the humantarian problems in the rest of the world without troops etc.

Originally posted by Lonestar2

Thats not exactly what i meant. I understand that its still a struggle for people in other parts of world to try and just live(nevermind attempting any level of comfort). What i was talking about was that above it was implied or i at least i thought that war was a larger part of this struggle. And i don't think that needs to be the case any more. Their are much better ways that those assets could be spent to help fight the humantarian problems in the rest of the world without troops etc. Some people on this board would say the US is invading Iraq for it's oil. In fact that's been shown to be fairly fallacious, the US has already spent more on the invasion than the value of all Iraqi oil. Nonetheless the fact that this seems a reasonable action shows that wars of conquest, to steal resources, are still a part of life, and trying to get resources is the very basis of struggling to survive.

ill make this short since i dont have much time to discuss right now, but id like to introduce a few ideas.

First off, Brinn introduced the idea of languages affecting how a society develops and evolves. If you think about it, it really is true. Certain languages put special emphasis on certain parts of a sentence, or like put nouns before verbs or something. THey say you dont truly understand a language till you think in it, and when you know a language and think it, it affects your entire thought process, points things out that you may have not thought of in a different language. IDeas can flow easier or harder in certain areas. Logical answers and thought processes depend on the language. So... which langauge would be ideal for a good society?


And to expand on what you said about Oceanic development, where would our best interests be in the evolution of tools and technology?

also another observation: military children. At Randolph AFB, it was a pretty pleasant atmosphere. Everyone is generally easygoing, a realist (even if they look optimistic, they were hardcore realists), and they actually did work in classes to make good grades. I watch for it in a civilian society, but it never shows. When ithink it does, i almost pound my fist down in frustration that they are a military child. (well cept for army, i havent seen how army kids are like yet). Your pack predator theory fits with military people, yet not with others. How can you have every person military? You cannot, so how do you develop it in a life where you stay in once place (and pretty much inbreeding, only keeping to local areas), and live under oddly degraded standards?

Originally posted by Surprise!
also another observation: military children. At Randolph AFB, it was a pretty pleasant atmosphere. Everyone is generally easygoing, a realist (even if they look optimistic, they were hardcore realists), and they actually did work in classes to make good grades. I watch for it in a civilian society, but it never shows. When ithink it does, i almost pound my fist down in frustration that they are a military child. (well cept for army, i havent seen how army kids are like yet). Your pack predator theory fits with military people, yet not with others. How can you have every person military? You cannot, so how do you develop it in a life where you stay in once place (and pretty much inbreeding, only keeping to local areas), and live under oddly degraded standards?


Are you saying i am not a realist? and what do you mean by realist?

Well, you aren't a realist :), but I think Surprise meant someone in between a pessimist and optimist.

Originally posted by tsian
Well, you aren't a realist :), but I think Surprise meant someone in between a pessimist and optimist.

I know that, i was just asking to be sure. Since my father was in the military for quite a number of years and even after he got out we moved around. I was never in one place too long. Just cause your family(ie a parent) is in the military doesn't mean your going to fit into a certain peg on the board.

i wasnt referng tp ypu, lonestar. i meant a certain group in general.

Originally posted by Surprise!
i wasnt referng tp ypu, lonestar. i meant a certain group in general.

Perhaps, but you didn't know of my past before hand. So the point still stands that generalities are just that. And thus hold little substance.

And you don’t rely on observations, just polls and surveys?

Originally posted by Surprise!
And you don’t rely on observations, just polls and surveys?

An observation is not a generality.

okay, so lets say about 99.9% of military people i have seen are like how i described it. I havent seen anything against this, but i'lll leave room for (0.1%) for any exceptions.

Well how many military children have you seen?

average class size at randolph was 100, i knew em all, plus atleast 50 others. Then in more isolated environments (like now), that would make it around 200. Plus the other families and everything. almost 300, maybe more

Well I have seen more than that. Me, being a military child myself have seen nothing but Military children, my whole life. We are not a different variety of Species from non-military people. So my question to you is, What makes us different?

Experience of a different type. When a person grows up in a community, they tend to grow soft and in love with their common surroundings. Something drastic happening at some place makes them worry, because they know that person/place and change scares them. When they move, they try to make their environment suitable to them – like the home they knew.

A military brat moves. He doesn’t become connected with any particular place as home (though one place may be more referable than another to him, he generally lives with variety). He adapts, which may be thought of as less human since it is generally thought that humans adapt the environment to them. In a limited sense they do. That image has only been enforced by settlements and farming – staying in one place for extended periods of time makes him change the environment exactly how he wants it to be. Military brats are more like the “hunter-gatherer” type, which is generally how the human race lived for millennia before the erra of civilization.

Now this is where things get interesting. Because of settlements, and extra time, man sought out ways to keep himself busy. Naturally, he liked to figure better ways to do things, and better ways to change his environment to a “more suitable” area. So he built things, great pyramids, skyscrapers… And he had more time to think, and religion, math, and science were born. All great wonders, and life got easier and easier, so he built more and more, figured more and more. Now look at where we are, with all our advanced technology.

And destroyed the very soil he built upon. He dominated more than just the food chain, all the Earth became his. As experienced hunters and foragers and trappers, they continued that urge to hunt and kill. The only thing left is man and his creations, and whatever he chooses to keep. Effectively, the human race as we know it has become a creature of legends – a god.

The past has made man a hunter, a beast who knows only hunting and foraging to survive, only limited by his surroundings. Only the game changed, and all the surroundings are understood and used by him, even the forests. Nothing escapes that he wants.

Yes there is a limit, in his mind. He grows soft, and fond of what is and what will be changed by man. They become surprised by disaster, or the unordinary. After all, all they know is what they made – not what has happened.

So… basically a human who is not in the military or any business that does not require constant flexibility and change of location, limits himself in what to expect. A person who does live a life like that, understands and responds to unexpected events more efficiently. Heck, I am not even sure if he expects anything.

2 different people – one is the inventor/farmer, one is the user/hunter.

And a third – the mix. I have only moved every 2 years until recently, whereas a true hunter/forager moves much more often. However, I do have a bit more experience from my travels I say, so it puts me right in the middle.

The thing is, we have too many damned inventors. Technology is evolving at breakneck speed, in some areas more than others. Not being used as efficiently as it should. What happens when technology is evolving so fast that it becomes unstable. To quote the ending to a Modern Marvels movie, “…for the first time, engineers can wipe out entire cities entirely by accident”

You have farmers, they build new things and use them. You have the hunters, they use the new things efficiently. The in-betweeners… they use and analyze, and figure out how to make things better while still using things efficiently. They, however do not make things better themselves. Nor do they use them quite as efficiently as the hunters (I think).

No, on second thought, I think we lack analyzers. I look around and I find deficiencies that can be changed to efficiencies. Everywhere. The hunters don’t really understand what the hell is wrong with the farmers plans, and the farmers don’t really know exactly how the hunters use their projects.

Just my musings… though I think I answered your question and more.

the anaylzers are the goverment, welll it should be. People who use their resources to culivate the hunters in certain areas while weeding out the others who they find are bringing up the worst for the society they manage, as well as weeding out those that may bring about their removal from this seat of power.

Which makes the analyzers corrupt, for then they'll just do what they can to keep their power through little work in the weeding because those hunters who being weeded will just pay off the analyziers...

How do you propose analyzers to be efficent? Hanuters allocate resources in the way they make the farmer's projects succesful bring more mangeable resources, while the anaylzers should be concerned with making sure the resources are being allocated properly as to bring the most benift. But the anaylzers can easily be corrupted by the hunters, which means the Hunters are those who are in charge with everything.

What makes military kids different is really cause your like a combination hunter/farmer class. You can bring more resources in what you create or you can manage. Everyone else is either set in one of these classes or the other.

whoa, the analyzers are not hte government. The government (since it is democratic) relies on the mixture of hunters/farmers to try and create the same effect. THe result... is ineffecient. I wonder if democracy is the best form of government.

Anyway, this is another concept i hope to address. Business and competition. With so many people of equal skill, alot of them try to compete to see who is better, yet it would often be better to allocate those analyzers to different areas - instead of wasting time and resources on the same area and determining who is better. However, an analyzer cannot really compete well because he only finds better solutions to problems and needs the help of the other two classes to impliment them. If they're good, they would often get the same solutions.

ANd an analyzer i have thought about and would most likely fit into some early European tribe/clan, or Native Americans. They work, and farm when they can, but to preserve the soil, or they wre conquered, or whatever, they move every so often. Like vikings, they work and do stuff, be creative, etc, yet when they need to they become warriors and take other regions ever so often.

So what are you saying? That we should have a viking like society?

are you saying we should not?

Originally posted by Surprise!
are you saying we should not?

The vikings lived by pillaging and taking by force what they needed. Are you saying thatshow we should live.

The vikings lived by pillaging and taking by force what they needed. Are you saying thatshow we should live.

The Vikings were also successful and adventurous traders and explorers, talented poets, skilled shipbuilders and craftsmen. Most of the Vikings spent most of their time at home, rather than on raids. They worked as farmers and hunters. Some were Merchants, Craftsmen.

The problem though is the classes of Society doesn't fit with ours.

A King or chief ruled over a community. Below him are the rich noblemen. Below them came the freemen( Farmers, merchants, and craftsmen). At the bottom were the slaves.

America would not work under a Monarchy. We are way to different. Their would be rebellions for a million different causes every day. We would not be a stable government. We would be like Greece, fighting ourselves.

And who said we were talking about America? Democracy, like every other form of government, has its errors. The main thing under consideration, however, is not government. It is rather focused on society as a whole, not government

The Viking society was in fact a peaceful farming society as a whole, but when the land went bad or others invaded, they moved and fought. Every so often. Because of unstability, it was often.

Perhaps the Native Americans were a better example. They solved problems when they came to them, and had already their own good technology for many things. Just not as advanced as farmers, but it did get the job done effectively.

Perhaps the Native Americans were a better example. They solved problems when they came to them, and had already their own good technology for many things. Just not as advanced as farmers, but it did get the job done effectively.

So what? So does every modern Country. You could basically use any country as an example too.
US:
We solve problems when they come to us.
We have good Technology for many things.
We are advanced farmers and get the job done way more effectively than the Native Americans did.

So are we a better Example?

What is the Difference from Native Americans Society from now? Besides the Technology?

Omg, have you not been listening? How hard to I need to beat you???? You ask these “what” questions without even thinking. Its annoying.

What makes them “better” is not their reliability on technology (a trait of farmers), or how they use it (a trait of hunters), but how they adapt to it. Its their attitude, how they react that makes them “better” people. They use it, and find ways to make it better for a specific purpose. Its like that commercial, “we don’t make a lot of the things you buy; we make a lot of the things you buy better.” They take it and adapt the technology with them.

The ability to adapt is what has let a lot of things among the living, and not among the dead.

They arn't no more bigger at adapting than we are.