Sexual Energy

[TimeTraveler]

Naturally? It's a basic need to have sex even if we can go to the sperm bank. Just like eating, our brains are programed for it. It comes from all those years that the spem bank wasn't available, like all of the countless years of evolution maybe?

Most humans arent good at choosing mates. So whatever you consider natural, it's not accurate.

Not true. You can love your child despite not loving their other parent, I've seen this many times just with my mom, who's had 8 kids. You can even love kids that aren't yours, but I believe this is a recent development.

I don't believe any development is recent. It's a recent discovery perhaps for you. All I can say is, what does love have to do with sex? Absolutely nothing.

First, WE ARE NOT GOING EXTINCT. We may be a very self destructive species, but we're not close to extinct. We have a more widespread, denser population than any other time in history.

Yeah, and we also cause ourselves more misery than anytime in history. When world war 3 begins, we shall see if you still think we aren't near extinction. If you look at peoples attitudes, you should be able to predict what the future will bring.

here's places where you're only allowed to have one child. Population will keep going up, unless nuclear war breaks out. And again, creating babies and protecting them into maturity is the reason for out existance, how can that be stupid? Fullfilling our purpose in life is stupid. By the way, EVERY animals has offspring just for the sake of doing it. If your theory was right, wouldn't there be no animals?

Population rising too fast will be bad, if everyone has one child thats fine, and I'd prefer it be a female child, but these are my preferences which don't matter unless the world agrees. Also, every animal goes extinct, except insects which procreate for utility, like ants, roaches and others. So yeah continue using other animals as an example and lets just go back to the jungle, get rid of all our technology, and eat a rabbit alive like the others.

But it is to procreate. I never said irresponsibly.

Why don't we all try to love each other for the next 100 years, and see how long our species survives?

Not everyone is capable of love. Stop speaking in emotional language and speak in the langauge of math and logic, something everyone can understand. Speak in the universal language.

A bear, leopard, and all other solitary animals procreate without purpose? What about a lion, surely it can't "love" every lioness, but he still protects his young from hyenas. And the lioness who's child is killed by the lion and then who is forced to have that same lion's offspring can't possibly love that lion. Yet she still protects her offspring. It has NOTHING to do with love. love exists to support procreation, not the other way around. I thought you were a sociopath who would make the perfect leader? What happened, now love is more important than sex?

I'm not arguing for why love exists. Love exists not to simply support procreation, it's also what keeps a species from going extinct from self slaughter. Lions are cats, cats are naturally deficient in love, but you have species of monkey, and ape, and mice, that do feel empathy for each other, and you have dogs which do cry and feel sad, and will die to protect their family, so these emotions exist for evolutionary reasons, but that has nothing to do with sex, because we have technology, we have sperm banks, so obviously we have evolved past sex as the method of procreation. We can now select traits from a lab.

Why wouldn't I be able to find a "purpose?" They would be my purpose.

No, I would tell them because that is the prupose of all creatures.

Sex without love is still enjoyable, and love without sex, when you die, is...nothing. Love is there to provoke us to have sex. Love is a hormonal emotion with 3 seperate stages, each with a different hormone active. Guess what the hormones are for? To make you want to have sex.

Love without sex means there will be a world in the future. Sex without love means perhaps the future will be dead. It's best to have love and sex, but chances of getting that are slim, and obviously humans arent good at it, otherwise we'd have done it.

Is it somehow less moral to have children "that way?" Why?

There is no moral way to have children. At the same time, you have to admit that most people are terrible at choosing mates, terrible at it, they select only on appearance, in the end it will create many shallow kids.

[Oniw17]

Most humans arent good at choosing mates. So whatever you consider natural, it's not accurate.

Why aren't most humans good at choosing mates? You're judging by your standards. What exactly measures how "good" a mate is? Isn't the purpose of a mate to mate? Regardless of that, it has nothing to do with the fact that we have an instinctive need for sex.

I don't believe any development is recent. It's a recent discovery perhaps for you. All I can say is, what does love have to do with sex? Absolutely nothing.

OK, recent within the entire process of evolution. Would you feel better if I said relativity recent? Look at pretty much any other animal, they don't protect a child that's not theirs and has no relation to them. Half of them will KILL it. Love has nothing to do with sex? You can say that sex doesn't necessarily mean love, but not that they have no relationship at all.

Yeah, and we also cause ourselves more misery than anytime in history.

That's because survival isn't our primary goal anymore. It's because we don't NEED to do anything to survive. You can be homeless and survive with no problems. If you're talking about 3rd world countries, it's always been that way, since the first hierarchial government was established.

When world war 3 begins, we shall see if you still think we aren't near extinction.

And I will. We're too widespread to go completely extinct without blowing up the whole planet, which is very unlikely.

If you look at peoples attitudes, you should be able to predict what the future will bring.

A life with purpose? Opportunity? Psychological strength? The chance for change. In the worst case possible, chaos brings about the chance to mold the world into what you want it to be. At least it raises the chances of doing such a thing from where they are now, where you have to be a genius and extremely lucky to make any change. Look at the state Gemany was in before Hitler came to power if you need an example.

Population rising too fast will be bad, if everyone has one child thats fine, and I'd prefer it be a female child, but these are my preferences which don't matter unless the world agrees.

It will be bad, then nature will regulate the population, because people will starve to death and kill each other for food. Not to mention how fast disease would spread. Nature is perfect in that sense.

Also, every animal goes extinct, except insects which procreate for utility, like ants, roaches and others.

Not every animal goes extinct, we evolve. The only reason that there have been so many animals going extinct recently is because of man's societal needs.

So yeah continue using other animals as an example and lets just go back to the jungle, get rid of all our technology, and eat a rabbit alive like the others.

I use other animals as an example, because that's the history of LIFE. That's how life has been preserved, and it's ingrained in our brains because of it.So again, if your theory was right, we wouldn't be here. Procreation is the opposite of causing extinction.

Not everyone is capable of love. Stop speaking in emotional language and speak in the langauge of math and logic, something everyone can understand. Speak in the universal language.

First of all, that has nothing to do with what I said. You're the one who started talking about love. You said that love was more important than sex and sex is causing our species to go extinct. Then I said:"why don't we all try loving each other for 100 years with no sex and see how long the species survives." In the "universal language" that you bring up, we would be extinct. Is that good enough? Stop changing the subject.

I'm not arguing for why love exists. Love exists not to simply support procreation, it's also what keeps a species from going extinct from self slaughter.

Do insects love each other? What makes them so immune to extinction?

Lions are cats, cats are naturally deficient in love,

How do you know what a lion feels? A male lion will protect the group from hyenas at his own risk, what's that called?

but you have species of monkey, and ape, and mice, that do feel empathy for each other,

For each other like their families? Or other members of the species that they don't know, and can't relate to? The latter is absent in many humans.

and you have dogs which do cry and feel sad, and will die to protect their family, so these emotions exist for evolutionary reasons,

Which are protecting members of your family, not the species as a whole. This comes from the need to protect your offspring and to ensure that the pack survives into the next generation.

but that has nothing to do with sex,

NOTHING?

because we have technology, we have sperm banks,

We haven't always had sperm banks. You think our instincts can just disappear?

so obviously we have evolved past sex as the method of procreation.

Do you have some problem with sex? And actually, no we haven't. If we become dependent on sperm banks, then when your predicted WWIII comes, we won't have any way to have offspring.

We can now select traits from a lab.

Actually, I've done some reading , and we can't influence all that many traits that actually affect the child's life. You can't affect body type, memory, or focus, or many other importnt traits.

Love without sex means there will be a world in the future.

Until something happens to your holy sperm bank.

Sex without love means perhaps the future will be dead.

Your opinion.

It's best to have love and sex, but chances of getting that are slim, and obviously humans arent good at it, otherwise we'd have done it.

What qualifies as "good at it?"

There is no moral way to have children. At the same time, you have to admit that most people are terrible at choosing mates, terrible at it,

That depends on your perspective.

they select only on appearance,

That can be a good thing. Most of the time it means a healthy, fit mate.

in the end it will create many shallow kids.

Your opinion again, why do you think that?

[TimeTraveler]

Why aren't most humans good at choosing mates? You're judging by your standards. What exactly measures how "good" a mate is? Isn't the purpose of a mate to mate? Regardless of that, it has nothing to do with the fact that we have an instinctive need for sex.
[BIf we were so good at choosing mates perhaps we'd have created a better world. Think about it, if the world is progressively getting worse, are we able to blame anyone but ourselves?][/B]

OK, recent within the entire process of evolution. Would you feel better if I said relativity recent? Look at pretty much any other animal, they don't protect a child that's not theirs and has no relation to them. Half of them will KILL it. Love has nothing to do with sex? You can say that sex doesn't necessarily mean love, but not that they have no relationship at all.

Stop comparing us to other animals. We are humans, we arent dogs, tigers, cats, rabbits or monkey, we are human. So whatever standards those simple animals go by, they don't have our brains so they arent us.Mice and monkeys by the way DO take care of their young and do love like we do, but still, it's not like we are mice and monkey, we just are part mouse and part monkey genetically.

That's because survival isn't our primary goal anymore. It's because we don't NEED to do anything to survive

That is the most completely ignorant statement you've ever posted. This is why humans won't survive, because so many people think that if they sit and do nothing, that somehow our species will avoid killing itself, or being wiped out by plagues. The only reason the human species survived this long is because humans fought to survive, not humans like you, the smart humans who knew how fragile existance was.

You can be homeless and survive with no problems. If you're talking about 3rd world countries, it's always been that way, since the first hierarchial government was established.

Complete utter BS. Have you ever been homeless? Third world countries have always been that way? Thats complete BS also, at one point in time Africa was the richest place on planet earth, they were building pyramids, had all the natural resources, gold, diamonds, etc and now Africa is the poorest place on earth. Its simple, whoever discovered the gun first, enslaved the rest, and thats the game thats been played over and over again since that time. Europeans discovered the gun first, thats it, it was that one discovery that changed history, and Europeans (Americans) discovered nuke first, and it was that one invention that changed history. All along we have been guided by might makes right as principle, it's really that fragile, and eventually we will test the wrong weapon and go out like Atlantis.

And I will. We're too widespread to go completely extinct without blowing up the whole planet, which is very unlikely.

Complete bullshit, biological weapons could extinct us easily right now. As could nano weapons, viruses and other new weapons we cannot imagine.There are only 6 billion of us, most in the third world starving to death and dying already, so you really only have 2-3 billion, and of those 2-3 billion, most will likely die from pollution and wars, really it does not take a lot to wipe out a few billion people, a plague could do it, the avian flu could wipe out billions.

A life with purpose? Opportunity? Psychological strength? The chance for change. In the worst case possible, chaos brings about the chance to mold the world into what you want it to be. At least it raises the chances of doing such a thing from where they are now, where you have to be a genius and extremely lucky to make any change. Look at the state Gemany was in before Hitler came to power if you need an example.

Yeah great, you use the words chaos and Hitler in the same paragraph and you expect whatever the hell you just said to make sense? It has nothing to do with Chaos, and Hitler of all people, like him or not, was all about order. You might not agree with his order, but he was all about order. If you want to mold the world, you SHOULD be a genius, why do we want fools molding the world? In specific why should someone like you be able to mold the world? What have you accomplished? Or do you just want to be the next person who invents the super weapon to enslave the world? That's not the same as molding it.

It will be bad, then nature will regulate the population, because people will starve to death and kill each other for food. Not to mention how fast disease would spread. Nature is perfect in that sense.

Complete BS again, theres endless food. If people kill each other it's because they want to, or for money, but never for food, you act like we came straight out of the caves with the stuff you post. We aren't exactly THAT stupid you know.Nature has everything to do with how we treat ourselves, if we don't treat the earth right it wont treat us right, if we don't treat our species right, it won't treat us right, it's all relative.

Not every animal goes extinct, we evolve. The only reason that there have been so many animals going extinct recently is because of man's societal needs.

Humans cannot evolve because humans are too busy killing each other. Yeah it's possible to evolve, but if millions die, or billions die, it slows evolution down to a crawl. Animals went extinct recently because of human irresponsibility, it had nothing to do with needs, there is never a need to extinct anything, thats completely irrational and unnatural.

I use other animals as an example, because that's the history of LIFE. That's how life has been preserved, and it's ingrained in our brains because of it.So again, if your theory was right, we wouldn't be here. Procreation is the opposite of causing extinction.


The history of life? The history of life says that all species which do not love and protect themselves as one, go extinct. It's a natural law that if a species primarily hunts itself, it eventually hunts itself into extinction. Humans are the best hunters around, and just like we hunted all these animals into extinction, it's just as easy to hunt ourselves into extinction the same w ay, for the same reasons, or just for the fun of it.

First of all, that has nothing to do with what I said. You're the one who started talking about love. You said that love was more important than sex and sex is causing our species to go extinct. Then I said:"why don't we all try loving each other for 100 years with no sex and see how long the species survives." In the "universal language" that you bring up, we would be extinct. Is that good enough? Stop changing the subject.

Sex for sex sake means overpopulation for the sake of overpopulation with no attention to quality. Just having a bunch of people have sex over and over a gain, like rabbits, so these people can then have wars to reduce themselves down., and then repeat the process a dozen times, until the biosphere and ecosphere melts down, how smart is that? All these wars are going to wipe the species out, maybe not in the next 10 years, but certainly within our lifetime, all because people like to have sex ALL the time, and we have to realize that each life is EXTREMELY important, not only to the family that brings them into the world. but also to the community, the country, and the world. If we just keep creating more and more people, while creating more and more advanced technology, how long will it take until the wrong person gets ahold of the wrong technology? Let's say we eventually have technology so sophisticated that at the push of a button all human life could be wiped out, and that one evil genius happens to gain control of the entire human species using this weapon? Do you see what the future will bring? If you thought the gun was bad, wait until you see gun 2.0 and what it does to billions of people when one person can enslave billions at a time.

Do insects love each other? What makes them so immune to extinction?
Bee's love the hive so much they'll all die protecting the hive. Ant's love the colony so much they'll all die to protect it. The insects survive because they cooperate really well, and they protect their young really well. Roaches are the most advanced species, they don't have wars with other roaches, they don't do much anything but clean up all the trash of the world, have babies, protect their babies, and keep multiplying, their survival strategy is so much better than ours that we will go extinct before they do. Why don't you learn something from them.
How do you know what a lion feels? A male lion will protect the group from hyenas at his own risk, what's that called?

Cat's don't love. It's a fact. Cats are not like Dogs, Lions pimp, but they don't love, a male lion will kill another male lion, even it's own.

For each other like their families? Or other members of the species that they don't know, and can't relate to? The latter is absent in many humans.

Humans have science, take a biology or genetics class if you don't know what you are, when it tells you that you are like 99% of everyone else, don't be surprised. You are human.

Which are protecting members of your family, not the species as a whole. This comes from the need to protect your offspring and to ensure that the pack survives into the next generation.

You still don't get it. Everyone in the species is your family, it's all inter-connected. You, me, and many others here, we share an ancestor somewhere. You aren't protecting your family for any logical reason other than the fact that you know them better and you love them, but face it, if my friends were in danger, I consider my friends family and would protect them just like i'd protect a biological family member. When someone defends the country, they protect not just their biological family but all their friends, and the history of the country itself that was built by their ancestors. Imagine the honor, imagine the fact that our ancestors built all this great stuff, our species did all of this, WE did this.
NOTHING?

We haven't always had sperm banks. You think our instincts can just disappear?

Evolve, you aren't controlled by your instincts, and if you are, well change that, it's 2006, it's not 1860.

Do you have some problem with sex? And actually, no we haven't. If we become dependent on sperm banks, then when your predicted WWIII comes, we won't have any way to have offspring.

Nothings wrong with sex. World war 3 might already be here, the point is, the traditional ways people have had sex have not lead to anything positive. I'm not against the old way when they work well, but we don't seem to love our children so obviously we are doing something wrong.

Actually, I've done some reading , and we can't influence all that many traits that actually affect the child's life. You can't affect body type, memory, or focus, or many other importnt traits.

Actually yes you can, there is evidence that you can influence the growth of neurons in the brain, you can influence certain traits, it's just a matter of figuring out which genes do what, and while we don't know which gene controls intelligence, we do know which genes control memory, we do know which genes control certain traits, and it's only a matter of time before we master genetics just as we have mastered everything else.

Until something happens to your holy sperm bank.

Your opinion.

What qualifies as "good at it?"

Good is what can survive, thrive, and evolve.

That depends on your perspective.

That can be a good thing. Most of the time it means a healthy, fit mate.

Your opinion again, why do you think that?

Some people search for a healthy fit mate, but I'm not a cave man, I can think, I have a brain, and my definition of fit is not just physically fit but also mentally and emotionally fit. I have a complete definition of fit, and my fit may not be your fit, and there is no universally recognized fit. Fit depends on what you have and what they have. If you have certain traits and it mixes well with their traits, theres a chance your kid could be more fit, but if you lack certain traits and they lack them too, well theres a chance your kid could be less fit. In general, you want to find someone who has what you need or what you lack, if you arent good at math, find a partner who is, if you arent too smart, find a partner whos smart, if you are smart and fat, find a partner who is smart and thin, in general, everyone has their strengths and weaknesses and you have to select a partner based on that.

If you select just on looks, you could end up selecting a really dumb yet attractive person, not going to help your child to be stupid but good looking, but if you select a partner like this, then don't be surprised if you have a child like this. At the same time, you could select the perfect partner, who is brilliant as hell, and have a kid with downs syndrome or autism, it's really a gamble in some cases, but overall, as technology becomes more advanced, autism and diseases will be filtered out, and eventually kids will be born healthy. Also the overall intelligence level will rise if we actually select more wisely, sperm banks would allow females to get sperm from Einstien over and over again. It would allow Stephen Hawking to have children, for example, and so on, so theres reasons why it would be a benefit.

[Oniw17]

If we were so good at choosing mates perhaps we'd have created a better world. Think about it, if the world is progressively getting worse, are we able to blame anyone but ourselves?]

Maybe we should be blaming the way we run society, and not the way we choose mates? Bigger societies have been fucked up since they started.

Stop comparing us to other animals. We are humans, we arent dogs, tigers, cats, rabbits or monkey, we are human. So whatever standards those simple animals go by, they don't have our brains so they arent us.Mice and monkeys by the way DO take care of their young and do love like we do, but still, it's not like we are mice and monkey, we just are part mouse and part monkey genetically.

Monkeys will adopt any young monkey that they find in the jungle, even if it has no relation to them? That's the statement I made, not that they don't take care of their own children. Taking care of children with no relation to us in a relatively new development.

That is the most completely ignorant statement you've ever posted. This is why humans won't survive, because so many people think that if they sit and do nothing, that somehow our species will avoid killing itself, or being wiped out by plagues. The only reason the human species survived this long is because humans fought to survive, not humans like you, the smart humans who knew how fragile existance was.

NO! I'm saying that that's why the world's so fucked up, we have too much leisure and other time where we can function in society without doing anything. There's people who do absolutely nothing and get a check for it, A LOT of them. THAT is why we're so fucked up. What does that have to do with the way we choose mates?

Complete utter BS. Have you ever been homeless?

Yes, actually. My mom's been homeless with no job and survived many times. I've been in foster care 3 times in my life, I've lived with my mom's friends before, her friends and their kids have lived with us, and I've lived with just about every family member I've had. You?

Third world countries have always been that way?

No, that's how the world was, when we were first starting out. You can't say that the things that go on in third world countries is something that we've invented in this time.

Thats complete BS also, at one point in time Africa was the richest place on planet earth, they were building pyramids, had all the natural resources, gold, diamonds, etc and now Africa is the poorest place on earth.

Yup. I didn't mean that the specific countries were always third world countries, just that the things that go on aren't anything new in our history.

Its simple, whoever discovered the gun first, enslaved the rest, and thats the game thats been played over and over again since that time. Europeans discovered the gun first, thats it, it was that one discovery that changed history, and Europeans (Americans) discovered nuke first, and it was that one invention that changed history. All along we have been guided by might makes right as principle, it's really that fragile, and eventually we will test the wrong weapon and go out like Atlantis.

Does that have anything to do with what we're talking about? Anyway, I agree with everything you've said here.

Complete bullshit, biological weapons could extinct us easily right now. As could nano weapons, viruses and other new weapons we cannot imagine.There are only 6 billion of us, most in the third world starving to death and dying already, so you really only have 2-3 billion, and of those 2-3 billion, most will likely die from pollution and wars, really it does not take a lot to wipe out a few billion people, a plague could do it, the avian flu could wipe out billions.

Have we gone extinct yet? Sure all those things would kill millions of people, just like the bubonic plague, but it's not going to make us go completely extinct. Nuclear war is the only thing that I could see killing everyone.

Yeah great, you use the words chaos and Hitler in the same paragraph and you expect whatever the hell you just said to make sense? It has nothing to do with Chaos, and Hitler of all people, like him or not, was all about order.

That's what I was trying to illustate. Look at Germany BEFORE Hitler came to power. He seen the government in chaos, and he seized the opportuity to gain control. Chaos gave him the opportunity, otherwise, how would he have went from a retired soldier to a dctator? What about Napoleon, when did he seize control of the government? Look at anyone who most people consider "great" in history, look at what was going on in the world or in their country at the time when they made their name. Chaos inspires people, it brings opportunities, you can't really say that it doesn't, can you?

You might not agree with his order, but he was all about order. If you want to mold the world, you SHOULD be a genius, why do we want fools molding the world?

Hitler was an economic genius. Look at what he did for Germany's economy. It's the luck part that I'm not fond of. Great leaders die everyday without making the least bit of difference.

In specific why should someone like you be able to mold the world? What have you accomplished?

Why should the people who run our governments choose what I do in my life? Why do they make every decision about me? Aside from their money, what have they accomplished that I haven't? Money makes politics, do you agree with such a materialistic policy? Wouldn't you like to see somebody change that? Why shouldn't we be like ancient China and have aptitude tests to decide who's best to run our government, or at least show results of such tests on the voting card.

Or do you just want to be the next person who invents the super weapon to enslave the world? That's not the same as molding it.

I know, where do you get these ideas from? I never said that. Actually though, having a super-weapon is being a super-power and that means you have influence on everyone else. So, in a way, that is molding the world.

Complete BS again, theres endless food. If people kill each other it's because they want to, or for money, but never for food, you act like we came straight out of the caves with the stuff you post.

So what other problems come from overpopulation? Poverty? Oppression? Great people come from poverty and oppression.

Nature has everything to do with how we treat ourselves, if we don't treat the earth right it wont treat us right, if we don't treat our species right, it won't treat us right, it's all relative.

I know all that, what's your point?

Humans cannot evolve because humans are too busy killing each other.

We'll gradually become immune to the mthods we use to kill each other. The survivors will pass their traits on to the next generation. Eventually, our traits will be more focused on surviving under those circumstances. That's how eolution works.

Yeah it's possible to evolve, but if millions die, or billions die, it slows evolution down to a crawl. Animals went extinct recently because of human irresponsibility,

If only the important traits are passed on, won't that speed the pace of evolution?

it had nothing to do with needs, there is never a need to extinct anything, thats completely irrational and unnatural.

That's what I said. There's no unnatural being to bring that fate on humans, other than ourselves. If we bring it on ourselves, in all fairness, we deserve it. Actually, to be fair, we already deserve it for what we've done to a majority of the animals we come in contact with. We either enslave them or kill them.

The history of life? The history of life says that all species which do not love and protect themselves as one, go extinct.

Do ants love each other. Even as peaceful as gorillas are, they'll sometimes engage in turf wars. It's not a love for the species, but a love for the family.

It's a natural law that if a species primarily hunts itself, it eventually hunts itself into extinction.

What species primarily hunts itself? That doesn't have to be a natural law, it's common sense.

Humans are the best hunters around, and just like we hunted all these animals into extinction, it's just as easy to hunt ourselves into extinction the same w ay, for the same reasons, or just for the fun of it.

It's possible, but the way people are today, you wouldn't last very long hunting other humans.

Sex for sex sake means overpopulation for the sake of overpopulation with no attention to quality. Just having a bunch of people have sex over and over a gain, like rabbits, so these people can then have wars to reduce themselves down., and then repeat the process a dozen times, until the biosphere and ecosphere melts down, how smart is that?

Again, our prupose is to have children and to make sure that they have the most chance of survival possible. You keep saying "just to overpopulate, with no attention to quality," and I never said to do that.

All these wars are going to wipe the species out, maybe not in the next 10 years, but certainly within our lifetime, all because people like to have sex ALL the time,

What do "all these wars" have to do with sex? Anyway, that's what people said durring the cold war, and we're still here. You overestimate our ability to agree. There will be debates over large scale(WWIII type) wars in our life time, and possibly even execution, but not the end of the species. Maybe one of us will die in the events preluding large-scale nuclear war, but the species won't.

and we have to realize that each life is EXTREMELY important, not only to the family that brings them into the world. but also to the community, the country, and the world.

I bet we'll find out who has the most potential better in war than in peace. That's why we have war afterall, because it can cause great shifts in just about everything.

If we just keep creating more and more people, while creating more and more advanced technology, how long will it take until the wrong person gets ahold of the wrong technology? Let's say we eventually have technology so sophisticated that at the push of a button all human life could be wiped out, and that one evil genius happens to gain control of the entire human species using this weapon?

Why would they have to be a genius to get such a weapon? They could just be some rich guy. In any case, why would we make such a weapon anyway? The only thing it could be used for is a threat. If you use the weapon, you die, and so does everyone else. Even if it was, for some strange reason created, one person would control the world for a while, then they would be overthrown eventally, that's what happens, nothing lasts forever. Nobody's stupid enough to use it, so there's no problem.

Do you see what the future will bring? If you thought the gun was bad, wait until you see gun 2.0 and what it does to billions of people when one person can enslave billions at a time.

Just like with the gun, people won't idly be enslaved, and that makes time for someone else to develope an equally great weapon, then we're back where we are now.

Bee's love the hive so much they'll all die protecting the hive. Ant's love the colony so much they'll all die to protect it.

Is that love? Or just the instinct to preserve the next generation of their genes?

The insects survive because they cooperate really well, and they protect their young really well. Roaches are the most advanced species, they don't have wars with other roaches, they don't do much anything but clean up all the trash of the world, have babies, protect their babies, and keep multiplying, their survival strategy is so much better than ours that we will go extinct before they do. Why don't you learn something from them.

Roaches are smaller than us. What your saying is that roached only survive, have babie, and protect their babies. You know what they do the most? Multiply. But you yourself said that overpopulation is alread happening with humans, so, humans and roaches have to live differently. We can't learn something about survival from them, because we're not the same as they are. What works for them won't work for us.

Cat's don't love. It's a fact. Cats are not like Dogs, Lions pimp, but they don't love, a male lion will kill another male lion, even it's own.

Actually, a male lion may stay with the group until it matures, and sometimes even for a while afterwards. Even after they leave the group, some still stay close. You know, hippos, a close relative to whales and dolphins do the same thing, and their fights are a lot more viscous than lions. Even chimpanzees will fight each other for dominance, it's a natural thing that a lot of animals do.

Humans have science, take a biology or genetics class if you don't know what you are, when it tells you that you are like 99% of everyone else, don't be surprised. You are human.

What does that have to do with my question? I know MANY humans that have no love for anyone outside their family and close friends. The only reason a lot of people can feel for people starving is because they relate to that. They don't actually love those people, with a few exceptions.

You still don't get it. Everyone in the species is your family, it's all inter-connected. You, me, and many others here, we share an ancestor somewhere.

We also share a common anscestor with trees, but I don't see you dying for trees.

You aren't protecting your family for any logical reason other than the fact that you know them better and you love them, but face it, if my friends were in danger, I consider my friends family and would protect them just like i'd protect a biological family member.

Exactly. That's the point that I'm making, just like dogs, the group you're associated with is the group that you have love for, nothing outside of it. That IS an instinct.

When someone defends the country, they protect not just their biological family but all their friends, and the history of the country itself that was built by their ancestors.

That last part's nonsense. "the history of the country itself that was built by their anscestors." What kind of a reason is that to die? Nobody honestly dies for that reason, unless they're stupid. They may die because they want glory, but that's stupid to die just because someone who you don't know built something that's probbly not even there anymore.

Imagine the honor, imagine the fact that our ancestors built all this great stuff, our species did all of this, WE did this.

I magine that somewhere along the line, one of our anscestors developed complex emotions. Imagine that. YOU came from something that somehow created the"love" that you are so eager to preach. Wow..

Evolve, you aren't controlled by your instincts, and if you are, well change that, it's 2006, it's not 1860.

What do you have against sex?

Nothings wrong with sex. World war 3 might already be here, the point is, the traditional ways people have had sex have not lead to anything positive. I'm not against the old way when they work well, but we don't seem to love our children so obviously we are doing something wrong.

Do you know anyone with children? Most people do love their children. The only parents who I know that don't love their children are crackheads and peple who don't know that they have children.

Actually yes you can, there is evidence that you can influence the growth of neurons in the brain, you can influence certain traits, it's just a matter of figuring out which genes do what, and while we don't know which gene controls intelligence, we do know which genes control memory, we do know which genes control certain traits, and it's only a matter of time before we master genetics just as we have mastered everything else.

Eplain to me how then, or give me a link. The articles that I read said that you can't affect memory or height, or even left-handedness from birth.

Good is what can survive, thrive, and evolve.

We have survived and evolved. Look at our appendix. We populate the entire planet, is that one hel of a success story for a species that doesn't choose mates that will promote survival or what?

Some people search for a healthy fit mate, but I'm not a cave man, I can think, I have a brain, and my definition of fit is not just physically fit but also mentally and emotionally fit.

I was addressing your statement that most people care about looks than those things. Not your personal perspective, I have a similar point of veiw, except, it's more important what "works" than any of those things. Certain people are more compatable.

I have a complete definition of fit, and my fit may not be your fit, and there is no universally recognized fit. Fit depends on what you have and what they have. If you have certain traits and it mixes well with their traits, theres a chance your kid could be more fit, but if you lack certain traits and they lack them too, well theres a chance your kid could be less fit. In general, you want to find someone who has what you need or what you lack, if you arent good at math, find a partner who is, if you arent too smart, find a partner whos smart, if you are smart and fat, find a partner who is smart and thin, in general, everyone has their strengths and weaknesses and you have to select a partner based on that.

Uh..ok.

If you select just on looks, you could end up selecting a really dumb yet attractive person, not going to help your child to be stupid but good looking, but if you select a partner like this, then don't be surprised if you have a child like this. At the same time, you could select the perfect partner, who is brilliant as hell, and have a kid with downs syndrome or autism, it's really a gamble in some cases, but overall, as technology becomes more advanced, autism and diseases will be filtered out, and eventually kids will be born healthy. Also the overall intelligence level will rise if we actually select more wisely, sperm banks would allow females to get sperm from Einstien over and over again. It would allow Stephen Hawking to have children, for example, and so on, so theres reasons why it would be a benefit.

Actually, as long as you child's a human being and born without any problems, environment determines intelligence a lot more than genetics.

[TimeTraveler]

Maybe we should be blaming the way we run society, and not the way we choose mates? Bigger societies have been fucked up since they started.

Society is made up of people who were born from sex. Society is always based on the people in it. If people arent good at choosing mates, society will collapse.

Monkeys will adopt any young monkey that they find in the jungle, even if it has no relation to them? That's the statement I made, not that they don't take care of their own children. Taking care of children with no relation to us in a relatively new development.

It's not new. In Africa and in tribal societies it's been this way for thousands of years, maybe it's new in America, but I dont' see adoption as new, it's always happened as far as you go back.

NO! I'm saying that that's why the world's so fucked up, we have too much leisure and other time where we can function in society without doing anything. There's people who do absolutely nothing and get a check for it, A LOT of them. THAT is why we're so fucked up. What does that have to do with the way we choose mates?

No one does absolutely nothing, so unless you track exactly what they do, you cannot make such a silly statement. People create and destroy, everyone is doing something, the drug dealer is doing something just like the kid drawing graffiti artwork, or making music, or the athelete, the actor, the dancer, all of these jobs are something, and the only difference between people is in how much harm they do to others and to themselves. So yeah, pushing paper can be more harmful than selling drugs in some cases.

Yes, actually. My mom's been homeless with no job and survived many times. I've been in foster care 3 times in my life, I've lived with my mom's friends before, her friends and their kids have lived with us, and I've lived with just about every family member I've had. You?

What is your point?

No, that's how the world was, when we were first starting out. You can't say that the things that go on in third world countries is something that we've invented in this time.

Poverty is invented. It's not natural because theres no such thing as poverty. The third world was not called the third world until you called it the third world, and because we are in the first world, we had to pick a certain place on the map to dump all the poverty, and all the risk. We do the same thing in America and we call them ghettos. It's not new, it's not by accident, it's deliberate, it's created, because poverty is always a result of previous actions, if I steal all your resources, all your food, all your land, and force you to live in a small closed in, inner city, thats poverty, and if I build and design the city to ensure it's impossible for you to build a community, thats poverty too, and if I spend more money to put you in jail than to education you, thats poverty too. Poverty is man made, ghettos are man made, if you want to know why people are miserable, it's because man gives misery to man, man gives pain to man, humans do this to each other, period.

Yup. I didn't mean that the specific countries were always third world countries, just that the things that go on aren't anything new in our history.
Does that have anything to do with what we're talking about? Anyway, I agree with everything you've said here.

What is an always third world country? The hell does that mean? If you look in Africa, most of these fake countries were not invented by African tribes, these countries were invented by conquerers who basically forced them to live the way they live today, they did not design their community, they did not choose to live in this way, it may go against all their history, all their nature, all their knowledge to live in the materialist superficial way, and MAYBE they had socialism already, and MAYBE they were ahead of the first world in treating the land right, and MAYBE they were ahead of the first world in many moral aspects. In the end, America had guns, Africa did not. America had bombs, Africa did not. At this point the entire world is run by Americans and Europeans, the first world, and the third world is in poverty because America and Europe while taking all the natural resources for FREE, say that African countries and South American countries OWE them debt. This has nothing to do with anything any African or South American did, debt? Yes they live in poverty now because they OWE US. How backwards is that?

Have we gone extinct yet? Sure all those things would kill millions of people, just like the bubonic plague, but it's not going to make us go completely extinct. Nuclear war is the only thing that I could see killing everyone.


Just because we barely avoided it in the last world war, it does not mean we can have another world war ever 50 years and expect to eventually not be successful. I mean damn, how many wars do you think we can have before we win ourselves out of existance?

That's what I was trying to illustate. Look at Germany BEFORE Hitler came to power. He seen the government in chaos, and he seized the opportuity to gain control. Chaos gave him the opportunity, otherwise, how would he have went from a retired soldier to a dctator? What about Napoleon, when did he seize control of the government? Look at anyone who most people consider "great" in history, look at what was going on in the world or in their country at the time when they made their name. Chaos inspires people, it brings opportunities, you can't really say that it doesn't, can you?


So you are advocating Hitler and Napoleon to make the arguement that chaos is good? How many Hitlers and Napoleons will the earth be able to handle before we get the ultimate dictator of planet earth who enslaves all living things? How long will it be before every living thing on the planet is chipped and enslaved? It could happen right now even, the technology is there.

Hitler was an economic genius. Look at what he did for Germany's economy. It's the luck part that I'm not fond of. Great leaders die everyday without making the least bit of difference.

I know you like Hitler and think he was a genius, but I would not say he was an economic genius, any world war fuels the economy.

Why should the people who run our governments choose what I do in my life? Why do they make every decision about me? Aside from their money, what have they accomplished that I haven't? Money makes politics, do you agree with such a materialistic policy? Wouldn't you like to see somebody change that? Why shouldn't we be like ancient China and have aptitude tests to decide who's best to run our government, or at least show results of such tests on the voting card.

When that one person decides to own the world, and all life on the planet, and chip every living thing in order to control every living thing, you'll volunteer to be chipped, because you seem to want this future. What you don't understand is, once everyone is chipped, everyone can be killed at the push of a button. It might not even take everyone being chipped, some of the weapons in existance or in development could kill billions of people at a time, laser based weapons from space, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nano weapons, and many other weapons we have never heard of and don't know much about, can kill or wipe everyone out. Eventually, you will get your wish, and the next ruler will get access to one of these weapons and enslave the planet with it, and if this does not happen, well, it could be a world war and that would destroy the planet itself by destroying the environment, but I guess you don't see how if all the food, water, and air is toxic that no human will be able ot survive, you don't seem to see that war while it might be good for the economy in the short term, is very bad for the long term economy.

I know, where do you get these ideas from? I never said that. Actually though, having a super-weapon is being a super-power and that means you have influence on everyone else. So, in a way, that is molding the world.

Exactly, having a super weapon is being a super power, and the way things are headed, big corporations will become super powers, not countries, which means many thousands of CEO's could gain access to super weapons. It's not the same world anymore.

So what other problems come from overpopulation? Poverty? Oppression? Great people come from poverty and oppression.

All of your problems, come from humans. Just because theres great humans, it does not mean that the bad humans don't outnumber the great, or that the great humans ultimately don't decide the fate of the world, because in the end it's not how great you are, or how talented you are, or how good you are, the fate of the world is decided usually by violence, and the only thing keeping the world stable is the economy. It's so fragile that the battle for resources could destroy the world, China, Russia, USA, these superpowers all want resources and this could destroy the world. Then you have corporations which are becoming even more powerful than countries, and they want control, and there will eventually be corporate wars, big multi-national companies with trillions of dollars going to war over billions of dollars. For enough billions of dollars, yes, many CEO's would decide to do anything to get the money, resources, power, land, or whatever else their corporation needs.

I know all that, what's your point?


We'll gradually become immune to the mthods we use to kill each other. The survivors will pass their traits on to the next generation. Eventually, our traits will be more focused on surviving under those circumstances. That's how eolution works.

I don't think you get it. The trait of aggression keeps passing on, and it's going to wipe us out. You can't just say eventually when theres no evidence in history of this happening. The most aggressive and violent people, they CAN be controlled by the people who have the most money, IF the right people have the most money. The only thing that kept us alive this long has been money and religion, otherwise we'd already be extinct due to our own violent traits and our own hatred towards each other.

If only the important traits are passed on, won't that speed the pace of evolution?

IF, IF, yeah. Very big if that right now seems unlikely.

That's what I said. There's no unnatural being to bring that fate on humans, other than ourselves. If we bring it on ourselves, in all fairness, we deserve it. Actually, to be fair, we already deserve it for what we've done to a majority of the animals we come in contact with. We either enslave them or kill them.

Yeah, we enslave and kill, so you see that it's a human problem. You are the person who says we should just mate like wild animals, thats not very intelligent, because our script is based on our genetic traits, and our future is based off this script. No one is flawless, but it's not like all of us are out to kill and enslave everyone. It's rare now to have the dominance instinct, but what you have to understand is that it's these instincts which control the fate of a species, and it's 2006, we have control over ourselves to the point where we decide our own fate. So like you said, sex feels good so people have it with little to no concern about it, but dominating and enslaving people feels good too, so people do that, and for a select few, killing stuff feels good, so they do that. When do you decide that sometimes what is right, may not feel good?

Do ants love each other. Even as peaceful as gorillas are, they'll sometimes engage in turf wars. It's not a love for the species, but a love for the family.

The species is family.

What species primarily hunts itself? That doesn't have to be a natural law, it's common sense.

Humans primarily hunt themselves, thats basically our main goal, we spend unlimited amounts of money trying to master the art of hunting each other, sometimes for no reason, sometimes for fun, sometimes for religious reasons, sometimes as human sacrifice, sometimes for money, but in general, it's always the main game humans like to play. I don't know why we do it. Do you?

It's possible, but the way people are today, you wouldn't last very long hunting other humans.

Actually, thats basically what happens in most wars. The question is, what do you gain by hunting yourself? It does not have to be done for a rational reason, once you realize that it's sometimes just a tradition, then you see that there need not be any rational reason for it other than it's just how it's always been.

Again, our prupose is to have children and to make sure that they have the most chance of survival possible. You keep saying "just to overpopulate, with no attention to quality," and I never said to do that.

So if you want your children to survive you should try to have the best children you can, meaning children who can be of benefit to the survival of the species. A lot of these humans whom you declare useless, because they are homeless, actually in some cases are more valueable than some rich people who literally just party and don't do much else. It's fine to be homeless IF you spend your life serving humanity, and a lot of the time if you spend your life in service you actually do end up poor and homeless. You have veterans who end up homeless after dedicating their lives to protecting the country. You have people who spend their lives trying to improve their community and they end up homeless because people take advantage of their compassion. You have people who live and work in the church, and these people are living off charity, and they are among the most useful people on the planet. So in general it's not like you can decide who is or isnt useful based solely on economic status, you have to judge the quality of a persons character to define them as a person. Good people are everywhere, the bad people, at least the violent bad people, they usually end up in prison, others end up rich, others end up being successful. Our society by design is not set up to reward integrity, we have lost our sense of nobility, and nobility is not simply based on birthright but it's also based on character, if you come from a good family, and your entire family is a family of good character, or of integrity, that should count for something shouldnt it? Then again if you come from a family thats filled with all sorts of criminals, yeah you can be successful as a crime family, you can even have integrity as a crime family, but most crime families lack integrity, and our current system actually rewards people who operate with no integrity, no honor, no ethics, just pure greed, lust for power, and intelligence is enough for most people to get rich, and sometimes you can just be born into the right body and not have ANY of these traits and still get rich.

What do "all these wars" have to do with sex? Anyway, that's what people said durring the cold war, and we're still here. You overestimate our ability to agree. There will be debates over large scale(WWIII type) wars in our life time, and possibly even execution, but not the end of the species. Maybe one of us will die in the events preluding large-scale nuclear war, but the species won't.

Wars happen because of peoples emotions, instincts, and thoughts. It's simple, if you have a lot of money on the table, like billions or trillions of dollars, even an ethically driven person could be convinced to get involved, the more money involved, the more people get involved. A second basis is emotion, you always have people who are so ethical no matter how much money is involved, they won't be involved in war, UNLESS it's an emotional war, once emotion gets involved then even the pacifists can become pro war. Finally you have the few who are just plain violent and who love war, these people will always be pushing for war, bloodshed, killing, etc. Some people are just sport hunters, they hunt for the thrill of it, and honestly, I cannot say I understand this. The only rational reason that can make any sense to me is economic reasons, people will make war for strategic reasons. Emotional reasons can make sense too, if you are emotional enuogh, and scared enough, like how people were feeling during world war 2, eventually it does become a big war. It was the tactics of world war 2, the tactics Hitler used, that basically either frightened the world, or disgusted the world into taking action.

I bet we'll find out who has the most potential better in war than in peace. That's why we have war afterall, because it can cause great shifts in just about everything.

I don't think it's a matter of finding out. I think most people prefer peace to war, but if you are trying to make a lot of money, or if you are living scared, or if you are filled with hate, you'll embrace war because war gives a person free reign to express hate, it also opens the doors of oppurtunity to make money, and finally it allows people to attack whoever they fear. The great shifts you talk about don't happen overnight and they don't happen on their own, they happen because people make them happen, and it takes years of work.

Why would they have to be a genius to get such a weapon? They could just be some rich guy. In any case, why would we make such a weapon anyway? The only thing it could be used for is a threat. If you use the weapon, you die, and so does everyone else. Even if it was, for some strange reason created, one person would control the world for a while, then they would be overthrown eventally, that's what happens, nothing lasts forever. Nobody's stupid enough to use it, so there's no problem.

We make such weapons to control and take over the world. The current state of the world right now, can fuel an arms race. You see countries now going after Nuke, but thats not all thats happening, countries now fear America so much that they are looking for their own "gun" to prevent the USA from dominating them. So when you ask why super weapons are made, they are made so individuals can rule the world with might, the same reason the gun was created, and eventually there may be a shift, there may be a time when the USA actually is on the defensive. This is why the USA has to do everything it can to protect it's economy, and this is also why, long wars, don't usually work out well even for countries that win, because while the USA is in the middle east, it gives other countries time to prepare and it also creates a sorta scary unity, that which we have never seen before. A lot depends on what happens in Iraq, and Iran, because the entire world is watching, the entire international communtiy, and in the end if it does not go exactly according to plan, not only could Iran get Nuke, not only does North Korea have Nuke, but they can get much more sophisticated weapons. The situation is just not looking good long term.

Just like with the gun, people won't idly be enslaved, and that makes time for someone else to develope an equally great weapon, then we're back where we are now.

Yeah, thats correct, people wont idlly be enslaved, at least not all people. Some people will, some people wont, and you are right, the time that it buys is the variable.

Is that love? Or just the instinct to preserve the next generation of their genes?

Love is a logical emotion. Loving someone else is ultimately based on loving yourself, so you are correct, you love your genes so you love your species. What you have to understand is that not everyone loves themselves, or the species, if you do then you are actually in the minority, as most people are so materialized that they view themselves as a body, as a physical object, and don't see the connection they have to the human family, the direct genetic link, the language link, the species link, it seems obvious but not everyone believes in the theory of evolution, or that humans are all the same species. Some people believe that different looking humans arent human at all, but aliens, or monsters, or just pets. Other people believe that different classes of humans are peasants, pets, beasts, etc. There are a lot of different definitions, but there is no universal definition of human.

Roaches are smaller than us. What your saying is that roached only survive, have babie, and protect their babies. You know what they do the most? Multiply. But you yourself said that overpopulation is alread happening with humans, so, humans and roaches have to live differently. We can't learn something about survival from them, because we're not the same as they are. What works for them won't work for us.

Over population is not a problem, it's not really the probem that there are too many people, it's more that there are too many people for us to organize and manage. People have to be organized and managed, and the earth has to be managed, and if people are becoming unmanageable, then theres too many people. It's not that we can't change our path, or decide to grow slower, but in general, more and more people will not increase our chances of survival unless we have unlimited space, and until we have colonies on mars, the moon and in space, we have more people than we can handle right now, we have kids that we don't care about right now, today, which means we have too many people, it's that simple. Yes I'd like to say we could have ulimited people, but we currently have more children than we have compassion for, and until we have more compassion than we have children, we are stuck.

Theres children suffering in the third world, do you care? I doubt you do. l

Actually, a male lion may stay with the group until it matures, and sometimes even for a while afterwards. Even after they leave the group, some still stay close. You know, hippos, a close relative to whales and dolphins do the same thing, and their fights are a lot more viscous than lions. Even chimpanzees will fight each other for dominance, it's a natural thing that a lot of animals do.

Fights are normal, organized violence, war, this is not normal or natural.

What does that have to do with my question? I know MANY humans that have no love for anyone outside their family and close friends. The only reason a lot of people can feel for people starving is because they relate to that. They don't actually love those people, with a few exceptions.

How do you know they love anyone? I understand some people have no love for people they don't know and never met, it's completely understandable, but once again, you have to define what their family is to them, because we all have our own definition. You can have a very large family, as large as you can handle, or you can have a very small family. When you say people can feel for people who are starving, compassion is love, it's a type of love, it's not the same kinda love you might have for your family, but seriously, a starving child is very difficult to not have compassion for or to not love, it's a child.

We also share a common anscestor with trees, but I don't see you dying for trees.
I don't understand your arguement. Show me proof we share genes with trees, a common ancestor is not the same as sharing genes. We share a lot of genes with mice, but a common ancestor is a direct lineage, you know, like a mother, or a father, we share a mother.

Exactly. That's the point that I'm making, just like dogs, the group you're associated with is the group that you have love for, nothing outside of it. That IS an instinct.

You don't understand a lot of people then. People can have love for people they've never met, just like people can have hate for people they've never met, it has nothing to do with location, it has nothing to do with dogs, it's really simple, the way love works, even if you havent met your future friends/family yet, you'll love them before you meet them, and you'll be looking for them, and eventually you'll find them. You act as if people all live in a clan like closed family, but thats not how things are in the globalized society of 2006, you have the internet, the global village, and universal human families, you have humanism, you have people who actually DO care about complete strangers, you live in the same world which had ghandi and mother teresa, the same world which had martin luther king, and many others who loved complete strangers. Now I admit, these people did not really discrminate very well, but you cannot say their emotions werent real, or that they were wrong, it's not wrong to love yourself, or to love life, or to love nature, or to love your species, or anything else, it's not harming anyone. It might be an instinct, it might also be a type of enlightenment, eventually you'll be able to see yourself in others.

That last part's nonsense. "the history of the country itself that was built by their anscestors." What kind of a reason is that to die? Nobody honestly dies for that reason, unless they're stupid. They may die because they want glory, but that's stupid to die just because someone who you don't know built something that's probbly not even there anymore.

You don't understand anything. People will die to protect what their ancestors built. People will die to protect their car, their house, sometimes even their gold chain, you cannot call it nonsense, because these people are the people who defend you, and they don't know you. So next time you call the cops, or you get bullied because someone took something and you want it back, think about the person who was willing to stand up and fight to protect you..

I magine that somewhere along the line, one of our anscestors developed complex emotions. Imagine that. YOU came from something that somehow created the"love" that you are so eager to preach. Wow..

Do you have no concept of tribal lineage?

What do you have against sex?

Do you have no concept of lineage?

Do you know anyone with children? Most people do love their children. The only parents who I know that don't love their children are crackheads and peple who don't know that they have children.


If most people love their children, why do we design a world where our children will be worked to death and live with a lower quality of life than ours? If you care about your children, save/protect the future.

Eplain to me how then, or give me a link. The articles that I read said that you can't affect memory or height, or even left-handedness from birth.

We have survived and evolved. Look at our appendix. We populate the entire planet, is that one hel of a success story for a species that doesn't choose mates that will promote survival or what?

I was addressing your statement that most people care about looks than those things. Not your personal perspective, I have a similar point of veiw, except, it's more important what "works" than any of those things. Certain people are more compatable.

I agree certain people are compatible, but what you have to understand is that looks have little to do with long term compatibility, you can have as much sex as you want, but when it comes time to have children, you should choose WISELY.

Uh..ok.

Actually, as long as you child's a human being and born without any problems, environment determines intelligence a lot more than genetics.[

That's BS too, because many people born into the worst environments still manage to get into college and come out with degrees, I'm talking about people coming from ghettos of America to go to Harvard, yes it happens.There are people who come from the third world and graduate from Harvard and Yale, with PHds, that's not environment, thats intelligence.

If it's environment, then every rich kid should have a degree from an ivy league school because if you are born rich you really have no excuse, if you went to all the best schools, was in the best environment, and did not get a college degree, what excuse can you use? It's one thing if you came from a ghetto and all the chips are stacked against you, it's another thing if you were given a free ride and still can't get a degree. If someone from the bottom 1% of the country, ends up in the top 5% of the country, thats pure genius, thats not environment, so ultimately environment does not matter at all, it's individual drive, it's individual intelligence, and the only influence the environment has is access to certain knowledge, but with the internet, I'd say theres a completely level playing field for anyone who wants it, just go online and educate yourself out of poverty.

[Oniw17]

[QUOTE=TimeTraveler;1184886]

Society is made up of people who were born from sex. Society is always based on the people in it. If people arent good at choosing mates, society will collapse.

That's not because of the way we have children, it's the way we raise them. The society was fucked up from the start. When a child is raised in a system, that's all they know, so they learn one of two things. 1. They want to change it. 2. They can't change it. It's a never ending cycle, it will keep reverbrating itself, and things will get worse and worse.

It's not new. In Africa and in tribal societies it's been this way for thousands of years, maybe it's new in America, but I dont' see adoption as new, it's always happened as far as you go back.

It is new in evolution. I've never seen a monkey do it. Some apes will, but that's still new compared to how long evolution has been going on. Most mammals wont do it, birds don't do it, and your precious insects don't so it either.
[

B]No one does absolutely nothing,

I've ha step-dads who sat on my couch and watched TV living off of my mom's check, doing absolutely nothing.

so unless you track exactly what they do, you cannot make such a silly statement.

Except...I can.

People create and destroy, everyone is doing something, the drug dealer is doing something just like the kid drawing graffiti artwork, or making music, or the athelete, the actor, the dancer, all of these jobs are something, and the only difference between people is in how much harm they do to others and to themselves. So yeah, pushing paper can be more harmful than selling drugs in some cases.[/B]

So? Are you trying to tell me something I don't know?

What is your point?

Don't ask a question if they answer has no point. You asked me, and I gave you an answer, that's my point.

Poverty is invented. It's not natural because theres no such thing as poverty.

Our generation did not invent poverty. Rome had poverty. Do you see what I'm saying yet? It's always been like that, at least as far back as I can tell. Poverty in an inescapable side effect of society.

The third world was not called the third world until you called it the third world, and because we are in the first world, we had to pick a certain place on the map to dump all the poverty, and all the risk. We do the same thing in America and we call them ghettos. It's not new,

There you go.

it's not by accident, it's deliberate, it's created, because poverty is always a result of previous actions

You can't stop poverty and still have society, show me an example of when society has existed without poverty somewhwere for it to feed off of.
,

if I steal all your resources, all your food, all your land, and force you to live in a small closed in, inner city, thats poverty, and if I build and design the city to ensure it's impossible for you to build a community, thats poverty too, and if I spend more money to put you in jail than to education you, thats poverty too. Poverty is man made, ghettos are man made, if you want to know why people are miserable, it's because man gives misery to man man gives pain to man, humans do this to each other, period.

Yeah? That's how society works.

What is an always third world country? The hell does that mean? If you look in Africa, most of these fake countries were not invented by African tribes, these countries were invented by conquerers who basically forced them to live the way they live today, they did not design their community, they did not choose to live in this way, it may go against all their history, all their nature, all their knowledge to live in the materialist superficial way, and MAYBE they had socialism already, and MAYBE they were ahead of the first world in treating the land right, and MAYBE they were ahead of the first world in many moral aspects. In the end, America had guns, Africa did not. America had bombs, Africa did not. At this point the entire world is run by Americans and Europeans, the first world, and the third world is in poverty because America and Europe while taking all the natural resources for FREE, say that African countries and South American countries OWE them debt. This has nothing to do with anything any African or South American did, debt? Yes they live in poverty now because they OWE US. How backwards is that?

That really doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I said poverty has always been there, and you start going on about all the things that are unfair in the world. The bigger society is, the more poverty there has to be for it to feed off of. Why do you keep changing the subject.

Just because we barely avoided it in the last world war, it does not mean we can have another world war ever 50 years and expect to eventually not be successful. I mean damn, how many wars do you think we can have before we win ourselves out of existance?

Except, nobody in war ver has the purpose to destroy everyone on the planet. People want control not destructon, that's where your idea of war ending the world breaks down.

So you are advocating Hitler and Napoleon to make the arguement that chaos is good?

Yes. Without chaos, we would have no progression. Without disease we wouldn't have an understanding of how disease works, so any disease could wipe us all out. Chaos is just an opportunity for the people who know what they're doing and want a change to rise to the occassion. Look at what that change has led up to in the past. look at all of the advancements in science after WWII. You have to have the bad in order for things to be good by comparison. Everything is relative.

How many Hitlers and Napoleons will the earth be able to handle before we get the ultimate dictator of planet earth who enslaves all living things? How long will it be before every living thing on the planet is chipped and enslaved? It could happen right now even, the technology is there.

But it won't. People are jut too rebelious by nature, we'll never LET it happen. If it does, I guess you can tell me you told me so, right?

I know you like Hitler and think he was a genius, but I would not say he was an economic genius, any world war fuels the economy.

Look at what he did for Germany's economy BEFORE the war. He brought them out of inflation to be the most powerful nation on earth. That doesn't take any intelligence? Ok.

When that one person decides to own the world, and all life on the planet, and chip every living thing in order to control every living thing, you'll volunteer to be chipped, because you seem to want this future.

What did I say that makes you think that? Quote something I said, becuse I don't remember saying anything like that.

What you don't understand is, once everyone is chipped, everyone can be killed at the push of a button. It might not even take everyone being chipped, some of the weapons in existance or in development could kill billions of people at a time, laser based weapons from space, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nano weapons, and many other weapons we have never heard of and don't know much about, can kill or wipe everyone out.

What makes you think I'm not aware that we have weapons that can kill a lot of people? The point is, they willl never kill everyone, and if they do, that's natural selection, the same thing happened to dinosaurs.

Eventually, you will get your wish, and the next ruler will get access to one of these weapons and enslave the planet with it, and if this does not happen, well, it could be a world war and that would destroy the planet itself by destroying the environment, but I guess you don't see how if all the food, water, and air is toxic that no human will be able ot survive, you don't seem to see that war while it might be good for the economy in the short term, is very bad for the long term economy.

Can I quote you? IF, IF, IF...

Exactly, having a super weapon is being a super power, and the way things are headed, big corporations will become super powers, not countries,

Now that is a world I would enjoy. The fall of governments, that would be great. Governments are an unconquerable foe, but big companies don't have unlimited money, they can't draft new soldiers at will, you can actually do something about it if they treat you in a way that you feel isn't right.

which means many thousands of CEO's could gain access to super weapons. It's not the same world anymore.

Nope, it's a world more capable of change. Like melting the steel before you shape it.

All of your problems, come from humans. Just because theres great humans, it does not mean that the bad humans don't outnumber the great

But great humans are the ones who make a difference.

or that the great humans ultimately don't decide the fate of the world, because in the end it's not how great you are, or how talented you are, or how good you are, the fate of the world is decided usually by violence, and the only thing keeping the world stable is the economy.

What the fuck? The only thing causing all the problems in the world is economy. Without currency, there is no poverty, there is no oppression. People get what they need to live, and there is no difference between a rich person and a poor person, because there's no such thing. There's no way to get rid of currency though, so no solution is there.

It's so fragile that the battle for resources could destroy the world, China, Russia, USA, these superpowers all want resources and this could destroy the world.

How does that make the economy what holding the world together, rather than tearing it apart?

Then you have corporations which are becoming even more powerful than countries, and they want control, and there will eventually be corporate wars, big multi-national companies with trillions of dollars going to war over billions of dollars.

I thought that's what the government was?

For enough billions of dollars, yes, many CEO's would decide to do anything to get the money

So would many congressmen.

I don't think you get it. The trait of aggression keeps passing on, and it's going to wipe us out. You can't just say eventually when theres no evidence in history of this happening.

Our appendix shrunk, and is almost useless now. If everyone got shot once a year, our skin would get harder, or we would develop some other way of coping with a bullet, that's EVOLUTION.

The most aggressive and violent people, they CAN be controlled by the people who have the most money, IF the right people have the most money. The only thing that kept us alive this long has been money and religion,

Money and religion are what is causing all these problems. Did Native Americans have poverty? Did they devlop any weapons that they didn't use for hunting as much as war? It's not because they're btter people, it's because they weren't so extremely materialistic, and they didn't have centralised governments. They didn't have they leisure to worry about developing weapons solely for war. There were disadvantages to that way of doing things, but that's the only way to escape the problems of society.

otherwise we'd already be extinct due to our own violent traits and our own hatred towards each other.

Those aren't instincts, that is greed, which comes from materialism, which comes from having too much time on our hands that we aren't spending surviving. We aren't naturally violent, any more than any other animal. It's a product of society.
If only the important traits are passed on, won't that speed the pace of evolution?

IF, IF, yeah. Very big if that right now seems unlikely.

If only survivors SURVIVE, then the traits needed for survival WILL be passed on, it's not even hard to see that.

Yeah, we enslave and kill, so you see that it's a human problem. You are the person who says we should just mate like wild animals, thats not very intelligent, because our script is based on our genetic traits, and our future is based off this script. No one is flawless, but it's not like all of us are out to kill and enslave everyone. It's rare now to have the dominance instinct

,
No it's not, why do you think everyone wants money and power? Dominance.

but what you have to understand is that it's these instincts which control the fate of a species, and it's 2006, we have control over ourselves to the point where we decide our own fate.

\
You haven't decided your own fate. You couldn't be president even if you wanted to. The people around you control your fate, not you.

o like you said, sex feels good so people have it with little to no concern about it, but dominating and enslaving people feels good too, so people do that, and for a select few, killing stuff feels good, so they do that. When do you decide that sometimes what is right, may not feel good?

Who do you hurt by having sex? Poor analogy.

The species is family.

Why do ants, lionjs, chimps have turf wars? Why do people have wars? It must not be very true.

Humans primarily hunt themselves, thats basically our main goal, we spend unlimited amounts of money trying to master the art of hunting each other, sometimes for no reason, sometimes for fun, sometimes for religious reasons, sometimes as human sacrifice, sometimes for money, but in general, it's always the main game humans like to play. I don't know why we do it. Do you?

Hunting and killing aren't the same thing. Hunting implies eating. The reason we kill each other is most of the time either power or revenge. Then, there's rarer cases where someone does it to make a point, and still rarer cases where someone kills because they are insane.

Actually, thats basically what happens in most wars. The question is, what do you gain by hunting yourself? It does not have to be done for a rational reason, once you realize that it's sometimes just a tradition, then you see that there need not be any rational reason for it other than it's just how it's always been.

Peopel do it for power.

So if you want your children to survive you should try to have the best children you can, meaning children who can be of benefit to the survival of the species.

\
Yes.

lot of these humans whom you declare useless, because they are homeless, actually in some cases are more valueable than some rich people who literally just party and don't do much else.

I never declared homeless people useless. I said that there's people who don't do anything and get paid for it, there's a difference.

It's fine to be homeless IF you spend your life serving humanity, and a lot of the time if you spend your life in service you actually do end up poor and homeless.

That's why we have something called discipline. So you know how much you can help people and still have the ability to help people in the future.You can help people more if have the means to help yourself.

You have veterans who end up homeless after dedicating their lives to protecting the country. You have people who spend their lives trying to improve their community and they end up homeless because people take advantage of their compassion.

That's because they let people tae advantage of their compassion. Actually, veterans can get A LOT of help, if they won't who's at fault. Go to any military website, and look at the list of benefits, there's no reason a veteran should be homeless, unless their country has been removed from power.

You have people who live and work in the church, and these people are living off charity, and they are among the most useful people on the planet. So in general it's not like you can decide who is or isnt useful based solely on economic status,

Did I say anything to imply that?

you have to judge the quality of a persons character to define them as a person. Good people are everywhere, the bad people, at least the violent bad people, they usually end up in prison, others end up rich, others end up being successful. Our society by design is not set up to reward integrity, we have lost our sense of nobility, and nobility is not simply based on birthright but it's also based on character, if you come from a good family, and your entire family is a family of good character, or of integrity, that should count for something shouldnt it?

No. Your entire family could be the best people in the world, that doesn't say anythiong about you. You could be a crackhead who steals everything from your family because they were nice enough to give you everything as a kid. I've seen this happen before. I've seen people go to churches and hospitals to visit people, just to make their day better, the entire time that they aren't working, and their kids turn out horrible. They end up as homless crackheads who steal everything from their families, and their families still let them sleep on the couch and eat their food.You should judge individuals by the individual, not by their family or economic status, how smart they are or any of the. If someone's a pussy, they're a pussy. That's one of their traits, you can't say it's not there just because they have other traits that are good. It's the same thing with any negative.

Then again if you come from a family thats filled with all sorts of criminals, yeah you can be successful as a crime family, you can even have integrity as a crime family, but most crime families lack integrity, and our current system actually rewards people who operate with no integrity, no honor, no ethics, just pure greed, lust for power, and intelligence is enough for most people to get rich, and sometimes you can just be born into the right body and not have ANY of these traits and still get rich.

Yeah?

Wars happen because of peoples emotions, instincts, and thoughts. It's simple, if you have a lot of money on the table, like billions or trillions of dollars, even an ethically driven person could be convinced to get involved, the more money involved, the more people get involved. A second basis is emotion, you always have people who are so ethical no matter how much money is involved, they won't be involved in war, UNLESS it's an emotional war, once emotion gets involved then even the pacifists can become pro war. Finally you have the few who are just plain violent and who love war, these people will always be pushing for war, bloodshed, killing, etc. Some people are just sport hunters, they hunt for the thrill of it,

Yeah?

and honestly, I cannot say I understand this. The only rational reason that can make any sense to me is economic reasons, people will make war for strategic reasons. Emotional reasons can make sense too, if you are emotional enuogh, and scared enough, like how people were feeling during world war 2, eventually it does become a big war. It was the tactics of world war 2, the tactics Hitler used, that basically either frightened the world, or disgusted the world into taking action.

What the hell does this have to do with how sex causes these wars?

I don't think it's a matter of finding out. I think most people prefer peace to war, but if you are trying to make a lot of money, or if you are living scared, or if you are filled with hate, you'll embrace war because war gives a person free reign to express hate, it also opens the doors of oppurtunity to make money,

War brings limitless opportunity, far beyond economis ones.

and finally it allows people to attack whoever they fear. The great shifts you talk about don't happen overnight and they don't happen on their own, they happen because people make them happen, and it takes years of work.

Do you know what gives people the will to make those things happen? The psychological ability to do so? ?All of the things that they endured durring the war. War brings change.

We make such weapons to control and take over the world. The current state of the world right now, can fuel an arms race. You see countries now going after Nuke, but thats not all thats happening, countries now fear America so much that they are looking for their own "gun" to prevent the USA from dominating them.

It's not a good thing that they dont want to be dominated? I think it is.

So when you ask why super weapons are made, they are made so individuals can rule the world with might, the same reason the gun was created,

The gun isn't a suicidal weapon though.

and eventually there may be a shift, there may be a time when the USA actually is on the defensive. This is why the USA has to do everything it can to protect it's economy, and this is also why, long wars, don't usually work out well even for countries that win,

May, no, there will be a time, just like every other empire in history

because while the USA is in the middle east, it gives other countries time to prepare and it also creates a sorta scary unity, that which we have never seen before.

Never seen before? The middle-east used to all be one united superpower, we've seen that unity before, and actually, it wasn't that bad. They didn't have a need to conquor Europe, and I'm pretty sure that they could have.

A lot depends on what happens in Iraq, and Iran, because the entire world is watching, the entire international communtiy, and in the end if it does not go exactly according to plan, not only could Iran get Nuke, not only does North Korea have Nuke, but they can get much more sophisticated weapons. The situation is just not looking good long term.

That's what happens when we invade a country for no reason. Iraq did nothing to us. You can say it was a threat, but you can also say that the US is a threat to China or the European Union in the same way, but they aren't invading us.

Love is a logical emotion. Loving someone else is ultimately based on loving yourself, so you are correct, you love your genes so you love your species. What you have to understand is that not everyone loves themselves, or the species, if you do then you are actually in the minority, as most people are so materialized that they view themselves as a body, as a physical object, and don't see the connection they have to the human family, the direct genetic link, the language link, the species link, it seems obvious but not everyone believes in the theory of evolution, or that humans are all the same species. Some people believe that different looking humans arent human at all, but aliens, or monsters, or just pets. Other people believe that different classes of humans are peasants, pets, beasts, etc. There are a lot of different definitions, but there is no universal definition of human.

Ok.

Over population is not a problem, it's not really the probem that there are too many people, it's more that there are too many people for us to organize and manage.

Roaches aren't organized or managed. Why do you insist upon using roaches as an example for humans, they're specialized to live how they do, we're not.

People have to be organized and managed

We don't HAVE to be, I would rathe be free than managed.

and the earth has to be managed, and if people are becoming unmanageable, then theres too many people. It's not that we can't change our path, or decide to grow slower, but in general, more and more people will not increase our chances of survival unless we have unlimited space, and until we have colonies on mars, the moon and in space, we have more people than we can handle right now, we have kids that we don't care about right now, today, which means we have too many people, it's that simple.

Th ocean would be a much better option than space, but don't tell anyone that, we'd probably kill off everything else there too. Have you ever thought of not poluting the universe with people? That would be a much better solution than finding more space, and needing to be managed.

Yes I'd like to say we could have ulimited people, but we currently have more children than we have compassion for, and until we have more compassion than we have children, we are stuck.

We're starting to get really off-topic, but war keeps the population in check, and it's better to have less of a population.

Theres children suffering in the third world, do you care? I doubt you do. l

Where's all of your doubt come from? I care just as much as you do, the only problem is, I have to stop the suffering that's going on with my own brothers and sisters before I help people in third world countries. I would be surprised if I could do both at 16 years old, wouldn't you?

Fights are normal, organized violence, war, this is not normal or natural.

So, if fights are natural, why does a lion not have love? What about turf wars that animals have, are those the inventions of humans too?.

How do you know they love anyone? I understand some people have no love for people they don't know and never met, it's completely understandable, but once again, you have to define what their family is to them, because we all have our own definition. You can have a very large family, as large as you can handle, or you can have a very small family. When you say people can feel for people who are starving, compassion is love, it's a type of love, it's not the same kinda love you might have for your family, but seriously, a starving child is very difficult to not have compassion for or to not love, it's a child.

If it's not the same kind of love, it's not the same emotion.

I don't understand your arguement. Show me proof we share genes with trees, a common ancestor is not the same as sharing genes. We share a lot of genes with mice, but a common ancestor is a direct lineage, you know, like a mother, or a father, we share a mother.

From my understanding, we share a lot of our DNA with bannanas. That's not usually what I hear a common anscestor refed to as.
[

B]You don't understand a lot of people then. People can have love for people they've never met, just like people can have hate for people they've never met, it has nothing to do with location, it has nothing to do with dogs, it's really simple, the way love works, even if you havent met your future friends/family yet, you'll love them before you meet them, and you'll be looking for them, and eventually you'll find them. You act as if people all live in a clan like closed family, but thats not how things are in the globalized society of 2006, you have the internet, the global village, and universal human families, you have humanism, you have people who actually DO care about complete strangers, you live in the same world which had ghandi and mother teresa, the same world which had martin luther king, and many others who loved complete strangers. Now I admit, these people did not really discrminate very well, but you cannot say their emotions werent real, or that they were wrong, it's not wrong to love yourself, or to love life, or to love nature, or to love your species, or anything else, it's not harming anyone. It might be an instinct, it might also be a type of enlightenment, eventually you'll be able to see yourself in others.

Would you kill yout brother for someone you didn't know?

You don't understand anything. People will die to protect what their ancestors built. People will die to protect their car, their house, sometimes even their gold chain, you cannot call it nonsense,

That's not the same thing as dying for something that won't affect you if you don't die for it. If somebody else takes over what your freat grandfather built, it's no different than the government that's already here.

because these people are the people who defend you, and they don't know you. So next time you call the cops, or you get bullied because someone took something and you want it back, think about the person who was willing to stand up and fight to protect you..

Except I'm willing to stand up and fight to protect myself, that's how everyone should be.

Do you have no concept of tribal lineage?

What's that have to do with my statement? Somewhere, some creature developed emotions, they haven't just been there. Since we also have emotions, it's logical to say that we descended from that creature.

Do you have no concept of lineage?

I said "What do you have against sex?" How are these things related?

If most people love their children, why do we design a world where our children will be worked to death and live with a lower quality of life than ours? If you care about your children, save/protect the future.

Worked to death? ot even close. People used to go hunt elephants with only SPEARS. That's working to death, and they only lived llike 20 years. If anything, our lives are getting easier, and better.

That's BS too, because many people born into the worst environments still manage to get into college and come out with degrees, I'm talking about people coming from ghettos of America to go to Harvard, yes it happens.

Not very often. I know there are exceptions, I mean, I'm from the ghettos of America, and I'll be done with Highschool before my 17 birthday. Seriously though, for most people it's a trap.

There are people who come from the third world and graduate from Harvard and Yale, with PHds, that's not environment, thats intelligence.

Actually, it is environment. Poverty and oppression bring people up with passion, they have the will to go get PhDs and to change their lives. Will is the most powerful thing that you can have, they even teach that in martial arts. A 90 pound women who gets raped, is probably going to be raped. Try to rape her daughter and see what happens. It's the same principle.

If it's environment, then every rich kid should have a degree from an ivy league school because if you are born rich you really have no excuse, if you went to all the best schools, was in the best environment, and did not get a college degree, what excuse can you use?

Exactly, they have no excuse, but there is a reason for them not getting a college degree. It's because they were always given everything, they weren't taught discipline, and they weren't living in the real world. They don't understand what it is to not have things, and that's their flaw. They have no reason to be dedicated to anything but their own enjoyment, there's no one who they'e trying to prove wrong, no system that they're trying to escape, they simply lack the will and the passion to make something of themselves.

It's one thing if you came from a ghetto and all the chips are stacked against you, it's another thing if you were given a free ride and still can't get a degree. If someone from the bottom 1% of the country, ends up in the top 5% of the country, thats pure genius, thats not environment, so ultimately environment does not matter at all, it's individual drive,

Individual drive is determined by the environment. If somebody suffers the most extreme hardships possible, and has just one person to mentor them and to teach them, they'll end up on top. It's psychological strength, it comes from the environment.

it's individual intelligence,

No such thing. We're not born with intelligence, we learn it. Some people learn easier, but that's the will to learn(which come from the environment), not some ingrain intelligence. My mom never finished highschool, and my dad has had 7 mental breakdowns at this point, so how on earth could I be anything but a crazy idiot? Nobody uin my family's ever been to college, and half of them haven't ever finished highschool, so somehow I'm graduating early by chance?

and the only influence the environment has is access to certain knowledge, but with the internet, I'd say theres a completely level playing field for anyone who wants it, just go online and educate yourself out of poverty.

Not everyone has the internet, and you don't need it. All you need is one person who knows SOMETHING to teach you, a will to learn, and a school that you have access to textbooks at.

[TimeTraveler]

That's not because of the way we have children, it's the way we raise them. The society was fucked up from the start. When a child is raised in a system, that's all they know, so they learn one of two things. 1. They want to change it. 2. They can't change it. It's a never ending cycle, it will keep reverbrating itself, and things will get worse and worse.

People design and create society, if a society is fucked up, it's because the people are fucked up. A society is made up of people. It's not about changing the system or adapting to it, because this has nothing to do with your shopping habits, no one forces you to buy stuff you don't need, no one forces you to be a materialist.

It is new in evolution. I've never seen a monkey do it. Some apes will, but that's still new compared to how long evolution has been going on. Most mammals wont do it, birds don't do it, and your precious insects don't so it either.

Since you believe you are a monkey, go have a bannana.

I've ha step-dads who sat on my couch and watched TV living off of my mom's check, doing absolutely nothing.

Except...I can.

So? Are you trying to tell me something I don't know?

Don't ask a question if they answer has no point. You asked me, and I gave you an answer, that's my point.

Our generation did not invent poverty. Rome had poverty. Do you see what I'm saying yet? It's always been like that, at least as far back as I can tell. Poverty in an inescapable side effect of society.

Rome had poverty because it was ROME, this was a time when we did not have the industrial age, technology, unlimited food, water, and computers. There is no reason for poverty in 2006, back 2000 years ago on the other hand, it was a completely different story.

There you go.

You can't stop poverty and still have society, show me an example of when society has existed without poverty somewhwere for it to feed off of.

Native Americans did not have a such thing as ghettos and poverty. Neither did Africans in tribes. They had no concept of it, thats why today, people from ancient tribal societies have so many problems getting out of poverty, after thousands of years living in paradise with endless food, water, fresh air, and no such thing as money, suddenly evolution was tied to money and thousands of years of evolutionary specialization went to waste, this is why many people today from ancient tribal societies are struggling, it's because a lot of tribal people lack the greed gene, the gene which makes a person crave money. It's not just tribal people who lived like this either, but many groups of Europeans were also tribal in nature and would run around taking whatever they want and living like pirates, and still, there were no concept of a job, or of crime, because it wasnt structured like this. If you were poor in the past, you'd get your sword and you'd steal what you need, there were no cops.

Yeah? That's how society works.

That really doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I said poverty has always been there, and you start going on about all the things that are unfair in the world. The bigger society is, the more poverty there has to be for it to feed off of. Why do you keep changing the subject.

Tell me how poverty existed among native americans, I mean please explain how poverty can exist in a society with no money, which functions on barter, and which has no concept of war, what exactly is poverty in tribal society?

Except, nobody in war ver has the purpose to destroy everyone on the planet. People want control not destructon, that's where your idea of war ending the world breaks down.

Depends on the type of war, religious wars are very different from economic wars. Economic wars are usually quick and last a very short period of time, religious wars however can last hundreds or thousands of years. The Isrealis and Palestinians have been at war for centuries and still want to wipe each other out.

Yes. Without chaos, we would have no progression. Without disease we wouldn't have an understanding of how disease works, so any disease could wipe us all out. Chaos is just an opportunity for the people who know what they're doing and want a change to rise to the occassion. Look at what that change has led up to in the past. look at all of the advancements in science after WWII. You have to have the bad in order for things to be good by comparison. Everything is relative.

Now you are just making excuses, chaos is simply the lack of order, if you believe in God, if you believe in intelligent design, or even if you believe in free will, then you know chaos is not going to be the answer, chaos is shuffling the deck, and sometimes the deck never ends up as good as it once was.

But it won't. People are jut too rebelious by nature, we'll never LET it happen. If it does, I guess you can tell me you told me so, right?

How are people going to rebel?

Look at what he did for Germany's economy BEFORE the war. He brought them out of inflation to be the most powerful nation on earth. That doesn't take any intelligence? Ok.

That's because he was building up for war. I'm not saying Hitler had no strengths, but look at what happened in the long term. Look at the long term results of cause and effect.

What did I say that makes you think that? Quote something I said, becuse I don't remember saying anything like that.

What makes you think I'm not aware that we have weapons that can kill a lot of people? The point is, they willl never kill everyone, and if they do, that's natural selection, the same thing happened to dinosaurs.

Natural selection? No, if we kill ourselves it's suicide.
Can I quote you? IF, IF, IF...

Now that is a world I would enjoy. The fall of governments, that would be great. Governments are an unconquerable foe, but big companies don't have unlimited money, they can't draft new soldiers at will, you can actually do something about it if they treat you in a way that you feel isn't right.


What are you talking about?

Nope, it's a world more capable of change. Like melting the steel before you shape it.

But great humans are the ones who make a difference.

What the fuck? The only thing causing all the problems in the world is economy. Without currency, there is no poverty, there is no oppression. People get what they need to live, and there is no difference between a rich person and a poor person, because there's no such thing. There's no way to get rid of currency though, so no solution is there.


Without currency there would be nothing to prevent humans from slaughting themselves out of existance.People either follow money or they follow God, but everyone has to follow something, so you can be a priest or you can be a worker, and benefit society. Money allows people to benefit each other just by doing what they are good at..

How does that make the economy what holding the world together, rather than tearing it apart?

The economy can organize hate into a constructive force.

I thought that's what the government was?

So would many congressmen.

Our appendix shrunk, and is almost useless now. If everyone got shot once a year, our skin would get harder, or we would develop some other way of coping with a bullet, that's EVOLUTION.

Money and religion are what is causing all these problems. Did Native Americans have poverty? Did they devlop any weapons that they didn't use for hunting as much as war? It's not because they're btter people, it's because they weren't so extremely materialistic, and they didn't have centralised governments.

Native Americans were enslaved because of money, but they were slaughtered because of emotion. Religion and money are the main reasons that ANY native americans are left to survive, someone had to do the work. If there were no religion and no money, what stops people from hunting native americans like how people hunt other animals, completely for sport?

They didn't have they leisure to worry about developing weapons solely for war. There were disadvantages to that way of doing things, but that's the only way to escape the problems of society.

Stop blaming society and start blaming people, I mean society did not create itself. Society is not even real, it's just a bunch of people who agree to live a certain way.

Those aren't instincts, that is greed, which comes from materialism, which comes from having too much time on our hands that we aren't spending surviving. We aren't naturally violent, any more than any other animal. It's a product of society.

Greed is a gene, so is aggression, this is why some people are better at being greedy and violent than others. You think everyone is equally good at it? Think again.

If only the important traits are passed on, won't that speed the pace of evolution?

What if the only important traits are greed and aggression? The most aggressive and greedy, are rising to the top.

If only survivors SURVIVE, then the traits needed for survival WILL be passed on, it's not even hard to see that.
,
Yeah, assuming society is organized like this forever, but greed and aggression are not the most surviveable traits outside of a civilization like this, if we end up collapsing back into tribal society, then all the native americans and africans in the third world, they'll have the advantage genetically, because the genes you have, depends on the location you are from, and the lifestyle of that location. Americans for example are some of the most competitive people on the planet, and we are competitive because we breed for competitiveness, and it's helped us win every single war, and be on top for a long period of time, but now theres no one left to compete with, what now?

No it's not, why do you think everyone wants money and power? Dominance.

You haven't decided your own fate. You couldn't be president even if you wanted to. The people around you control your fate, not you.

You actually do control your fate, you just don't know how to control it I guess. I'm not someone who WANTS to ever be president, I don't LIKE politics, it's not because I couldnt be someday, it's more that I don't want to be. Being a leader is not something everyone wants and certainly not President, in general you do have to be born into it somewhat, but not completely, Bill Clinton was not born rich and he became President.

Who do you hurt by having sex? Poor analogy.
Depends on how you have sex, many people can be hurt, sex is not a game.

Hunting and killing aren't the same thing. Hunting implies eating. The reason we kill each other is most of the time either power or revenge. Then, there's rarer cases where someone does it to make a point, and still rarer cases where someone kills because they are insane.

No one kills because they are insane, some people kill just because they want to destroy people.

Peopel do it for power.
\
Yes.

I never declared homeless people useless. I said that there's people who don't do anything and get paid for it, there's a difference.
Thats actually the majority of people. Can you say the majority of people are actually DOING something to make the world a better place?

That's why we have something called discipline. So you know how much you can help people and still have the ability to help people in the future.You can help people more if have the means to help yourself.

We agree here.

That's because they let people tae advantage of their compassion. Actually, veterans can get A LOT of help, if they won't who's at fault. Go to any military website, and look at the list of benefits, there's no reason a veteran should be homeless, unless their country has been removed from power.

I think you should talk to some veterans about that.
Did I say anything to imply that?

No. Your entire family could be the best people in the world, that doesn't say anythiong about you. You could be a crackhead who steals everything from your family because they were nice enough to give you everything as a kid. I've seen this happen before. I've seen people go to churches and hospitals to visit people, just to make their day better, the entire time that they aren't working, and their kids turn out horrible. They end up as homless crackheads who steal everything from their families, and their families still let them sleep on the couch and eat their food.You should judge individuals by the individual, not by their family or economic status, how smart they are or any of the. If someone's a pussy, they're a pussy. That's one of their traits, you can't say it's not there just because they have other traits that are good. It's the same thing with any negative.

That's not the point, say you have a family that is ruthless, greedy and aggressive, and their traits make them filthy rich, after they are FILTHY rich, their children are still filthy rich, and their childrens children, and their childrens childrens children, so if it works this way for these traits, why should it not apply to nobility, or integrity?
Yeah?



Yeah?

What the hell does this have to do with how sex causes these wars?



War brings limitless opportunity, far beyond economis ones.

Do you know what gives people the will to make those things happen? The psychological ability to do so? ?All of the things that they endured durring the war. War brings change.

It's not a good thing that they dont want to be dominated? I think it is.

The gun isn't a suicidal weapon though.

May, no, there will be a time, just like every other empire in history

Never seen before? The middle-east used to all be one united superpower, we've seen that unity before, and actually, it wasn't that bad. They didn't have a need to conquor Europe, and I'm pretty sure that they could have.

That's what happens when we invade a country for no reason. Iraq did nothing to us. You can say it was a threat, but you can also say that the US is a threat to China or the European Union in the same way, but they aren't invading us.

Ok.

Roaches aren't organized or managed. Why do you insist upon using roaches as an example for humans, they're specialized to live how they do, we're not.

We don't HAVE to be, I would rathe be free than managed.

Th ocean would be a much better option than space, but don't tell anyone that, we'd probably kill off everything else there too. Have you ever thought of not poluting the universe with people? That would be a much better solution than finding more space, and needing to be managed.

We're starting to get really off-topic, but war keeps the population in check, and it's better to have less of a population.

Where's all of your doubt come from? I care just as much as you do, the only problem is, I have to stop the suffering that's going on with my own brothers and sisters before I help people in third world countries. I would be surprised if I could do both at 16 years old, wouldn't you?


So, if fights are natural, why does a lion not have love? What about turf wars that animals have, are those the inventions of humans too?.

If it's not the same kind of love, it's not the same emotion.

From my understanding, we share a lot of our DNA with bannanas. That's not usually what I hear a common anscestor refed to as.
[
Would you kill yout brother for someone you didn't know?

That's not the same thing as dying for something that won't affect you if you don't die for it. If somebody else takes over what your freat grandfather built, it's no different than the government that's already here.

Except I'm willing to stand up and fight to protect myself, that's how everyone should be.

What's that have to do with my statement? Somewhere, some creature developed emotions, they haven't just been there. Since we also have emotions, it's logical to say that we descended from that creature.

I said "What do you have against sex?" How are these things related?

Worked to death? ot even close. People used to go hunt elephants with only SPEARS. That's working to death, and they only lived llike 20 years. If anything, our lives are getting easier, and better.

Not very often. I know there are exceptions, I mean, I'm from the ghettos of America, and I'll be done with Highschool before my 17 birthday. Seriously though, for most people it's a trap.

Actually, it is environment. Poverty and oppression bring people up with passion, they have the will to go get PhDs and to change their lives. Will is the most powerful thing that you can have, they even teach that in martial arts. A 90 pound women who gets raped, is probably going to be raped. Try to rape her daughter and see what happens. It's the same principle.

Exactly, they have no excuse, but there is a reason for them not getting a college degree. It's because they were always given everything, they weren't taught discipline, and they weren't living in the real world. They don't understand what it is to not have things, and that's their flaw. They have no reason to be dedicated to anything but their own enjoyment, there's no one who they'e trying to prove wrong, no system that they're trying to escape, they simply lack the will and the passion to make something of themselves.

Individual drive is determined by the environment. If somebody suffers the most extreme hardships possible, and has just one person to mentor them and to teach them, they'll end up on top. It's psychological strength, it comes from the environment.

No such thing. We're not born with intelligence, we learn it. Some people learn easier, but that's the will to learn(which come from the environment), not some ingrain intelligence. My mom never finished highschool, and my dad has had 7 mental breakdowns at this point, so how on earth could I be anything but a crazy idiot? Nobody uin my family's ever been to college, and half of them haven't ever finished highschool, so somehow I'm graduating early by chance?

Not everyone has the internet, and you don't need it. All you need is one person who knows SOMETHING to teach you, a will to learn, and a school that you have access to textbooks at.

The internet was enough for me, I never went to the best schoools, or to the elite schools, but the internet helped me access UNLIMITED information, from which to educate myself

[draqon]

The apocalyptical collapse of text have come... like tons of debris, sciforums, is engulfed in bullets of text...

[TimeTraveler]

Anyway, read up on climate change, you'll see for yourself how fragile the earth is. Al Gore basically says the planet is in crisis, and that Earth Is In Full-Scale Planetary Emergency.

http://www.space.com/news/061026_gore_space.html

[Oniw17]

Genetics aren't everything. That's the kind of thinking that makes people say that orientals are smarter than everyone and whites are smarter than blacks. It's pure ignorance.

Also, look up the resiliant earth theory.

[TimeTraveler]

Genetics aren't everything. That's the kind of thinking that makes people say that orientals are smarter than everyone and whites are smarter than blacks. It's pure ignorance.

Also, look up the resiliant earth theory.

Nah, racism makes people think that appearance is genetics, but it's a proven fact that some individuals are smarter than others, period. It has nothing to do with appearance. You can be ugly as hell, fat, old and a black man, and be smarter than a young fit asian man, and you see it all the time. Intelligence is genetic, period, just like everything else.

Genetics are everything, but race isnt based on genetics, it's based on appearance, and race is about as real as judging women's intelligence by their breast size, or judging a man's intelligence by the shape of his skull, or thinking people with blue eyes are more aggressive, it's all BS. If you want the truth, however, there likely is a gene that controls memory, that controls intelligence, and no, the intelligence gene is not based on race, and all sorts of inventions have come from every location and every appearance, some appearances like to dominate others but it has nothing to do with intelligence and more to do with brute force and dominance, if you can't tell the difference between dominance intelligence, and emotional intelligence, or between creative intelligence and spatial intelligence, then you don't have the knowledge of human psychology to even attempt to research intelligence.

First you have to understand the differences between personality types. Then you have to understand the different learning styles, and the different kinds of intelligence. Then you have to give up all the religious stuff you learned about root races and blondes with blue eyes being the best, or asians being the most intelligent, and literally test individuals at the top, meaning take a bunch of highly educated college students or college graduates, and do your tests on them, and basically ignore all the people at the bottom. This is how you'd learn exactly who is good at what, and from this you'll see that yes theres intelligent people in every appearance type, and that you cannot judge intelligence by appearance, you also learn that theres different types of intelligence, and maybe certain appearances have say, more of one type of intelligence than another, or more of one kind of genius than another, but thats about it.

If the tests say Asians get the best grades in school, this does not mean they are the most intelligent in school or in class, it only means they are the most competitive, and this is cultural and not really based on talent. If you look at inventions, yes Asians have invented a lot of things in the past, but so has everyone else. When it comes to entertainment or creative genius, arts, how many asian artists, musicians or actors do you know of? Sure they exist, but once again there are a lot of areas where Asian people are not in the #1 spot. At the same time you can say that European males are the best at business, and that in specific, Blonde males are the best at making money, and I'm sure you could cite statistics to prove that too, but even if you did this it does not prove that Blonde people, in specific Blonde males, are more intelligent. There is really no way to calculate intelligence without taking into account personal accomplishments, and when you take into account personal accomplishments, they don't always match up with intelligence, which means there are a lot of brilliant losers who are poor, and a lot of rich idiots, there are a lot of people who are in position of CEO who did nothing to get there, there are a lot of people who are CEO who did not even finish college, then you have people who have PHds who make less money and arent ever able to become CEO.

Genes DO matter, and when you pick a mate you should consider the genes, but you should also consider the character. Genes influence intelligence, far more than race. Race influences appearance, and one of the problems that people make is they ignore intelligence in favor of race.

If you HONESTLY believe that Asians are the most intelligent, why don't you marry an Asian? Personally, I've seen no real difference in intelligence after a certain point, when you get to college, just about everyone there is intelligent, there are Asians there, there are Blacks, Whites, whatever, but the main difference between intelligence that I've seen has never been expressed racially, theres a difference in many ways, but I've had friends of every race my entire life and never seen a difference between the races. There are dumb people of every race, always has been, and there are geniuses of every race, why don't you spend your time with the geniuses, and MAYBE if you widen your scope and you choose from among all of the best people instead of racially you'll have more choices.

There might be good women of your own race/appearance, but if you have to choose between consistency of appearance, and intelligence, go with intelligence.

[Oniw17]

period, just like everything else.

If you have the best teacher in anything, it counts for a lot more than genetics. Of course that's just my speculation, but seems to be true about everything.

Genetics are everything,

I don't agree. Are you saying that just because your dad's a scientist, if you are orphaned at a young age, somehow you'll be just as smart, and if your dad's a drug dealer, and you end up in foster care when he goes to prison, and are adopted by a physicist, you're going to end up a drug dealer? Or even that the scientist's son is going to be smarter than the drug dealer's son?

but race isnt based on genetics,

Doesn't race implya common anscestor, therefore similargenetic traits?

it's based on appearance, and race is about as real as judging women's intelligence by their breast size, or judging a man's intelligence by the shape of his skull, or thinking people with blue eyes are more aggressive, it's all BS. If you want the truth, however, there likely is a gene that controls memory, that controls intelligence,

What genes specifically?

First you have to understand the differences between personality types. Then you have to understand the different learning styles, and the different kinds of intelligence. Then you have to give up all the religious stuff you learned about root races and blondes with blue eyes being the best,

Who the fuck learns that last part? Nazis?

or asians being the most intelligent, and literally test individuals at the top, meaning take a bunch of highly educated college students or college graduates, and do your tests on them, and basically ignore all the people at the bottom. This is how you'd learn exactly who is good at what, and from this you'll see that yes theres intelligent people in every appearance type, and that you cannot judge intelligence by appearance, you also learn that theres different types of intelligence, and maybe certain appearances have say, more of one type of intelligence than another,or more of one kind of genius than another, but thats about it.

Does that have something to do with race? I thought you said race had nothing to do with genetics?

If the tests say Asians get the best grades in school, this does not mean they are the most intelligent in school or in class, it only means they are the most competitive, and this is cultural and not really based on talent.

Wouldn't that imply it has less to do with genetics than environment? If you're more competitive, won't you learn more, therefore be more intelligent?

If you look at inventions, yes Asians have invented a lot of things in the past, but so has everyone else. When it comes to entertainment or creative genius, arts, how many asian artists,

Look at kanji compared to romanji. It takes quite a bit of artistic skill to be able to write like that all the time. I've been learning off of the internet for 1 1/2 years now, and I'm just now starting to get good at it.

musicians or actors

Maybe you're right on musicians, but watch chinese theater, it's so much better than an opera.

do you know of?

Asians are such a minority in the west, that's not much to base your opinion of them on.

Sure they exist, but once again there are a lot of areas where Asian people are not in the #1 spot.

Who said they were?

At the same time you can say that European males are the best at business, and that in specific, Blonde males are the best at making money,

Making money is a rather broad category.That's like saying black people are the best at "working."

and I'm sure you could cite statistics to prove that too,

You can cite statistics to prove anything actually.

Genes DO matter, and when you pick a mate you should consider the genes, but you should also consider the character. Genes influence intelligence, far more than race. Race influences appearance, and one of the problems that people make is they ignore intelligence in favor of race.

I'm not saying genes don't matter, but will matters a lot more. If you don't have an environment where you'll learn the right things, genes are useless.

If you HONESTLY believe that Asians are the most intelligent, why don't you marry an Asian? Personally, I've seen no real difference in intelligence after a certain point, when you get to college, just about everyone there is intelligent, there are Asians there, there are Blacks, Whites, whatever, but the main difference between intelligence that I've seen has never been expressed racially, theres a difference in many ways, but I've had friends of every race my entire life and never seen a difference between the races. There are dumb people of every race,

I agee with you, I have a mongolian friend, and he's not very smart at all, but he is really good at basketball.

always has been, and there are geniuses of every race, why don't you spend your time with the geniuses, and MAYBE if you widen your scope and you choose from among all of the best people instead of racially you'll have more choices.

Are you implying that I'm somehow racist?

There might be good women of your own race/appearance, but if you have to choose between consistency of appearance, and intelligence, go with intelligence.

Again, I have no idea what you want to suggest. We've gone completely off topic.

[TimeTraveler]

If you have the best teacher in anything, it counts for a lot more than genetics. Of course that's just my speculation, but seems to be true about everything.

Yes that may be true, but even if you have a bad teacher, the best teacher is always yourself. A teacher who is good, teaches a student how to teach themselves, and makes the student a student of life.

I don't agree. Are you saying that just because your dad's a scientist, if you are orphaned at a young age, somehow you'll be just as smart, and if your dad's a drug dealer, and you end up in foster care when he goes to prison, and are adopted by a physicist, you're going to end up a drug dealer?

Yes thats what I'm saying, traits are inheritied, intelligence and talent are inherited. It does not matter what life situations you come from if you have the right genes. This is why some people can come from third world ruin and end up in American colleges like Harvard and Yale. You have people who were born with nothing, and through hard work and genius managed to make something of their lives, these are heros and they deserve all the credit for changing their life around and not becoming a victim to their environment.

Or even that the scientist's son is going to be smarter than the drug dealer's son?

If you come from a family of scientists, you'll likely be good at science and math, because math talent is a gene, and math is required for science. So yes, it's inherited.

Doesn't race implya common anscestor, therefore similargenetic traits?

No, race has nothing to do with the common ancestor, as you can be of the same race but have a different series of common ancestors. Race is only the expression of certain genes in the gene pool of ancestors, as some appearance genes are reccessive or dominant, brown eyes are becoming more popular, blue eyes less popular, perfect example of genetics, and yes we all have common ancestors from Africa according to genetics, at the same time most people in America have ancestors from Europe and Native American ancestors, making most Americans racially the same as Latino's, so there IS an American race, an American gene pool that is completely seperate from some of the gene pools of Europe. It's complicated but in general, genetically many more Americans are alike than not alike.

What genes specifically?

Which genes? Type it in google, just recently we found the gene which controls memory. We know which genes for example control certain brain functions also.

Who the fuck learns that last part? Nazis?

Don't ask me about the Nazi's, I wouldn't know.

Does that have something to do with race? I thought you said race had nothing to do with genetics?

Race is appearances, appearances are based on genetics, but they are spread out in the genepool to such a degree that we all have many many appearances in our code. You have basically all the hair colors and textures in your code, we all do, we also have all the eye colors in our code, we also have thin, fat, short, tall, smart, stupid, but the differences are in the expressions. Just because you have all the different skin types, hair types, eye types etc in your genetic code, your genes usually express that which is dominant among the male and females, the genes closest to you usually get expressed, for whatever reason, so if both of your parents are math genius, there is a higher chance that you'll adopt this trait, if both of your parents have blonde hair, there is a higher chance you'll adopt this trait, it does not mean you don't have brown hair in your genetic code, or red hair, or whatever, it just means that because your two parents had these dominant genes, it raises your odds of getting them. Genes are known to sometimes skip several generations so you could end up looking nothing like your parents, grand parents or great grand parents but usually you get at least one or two features from them.

Wouldn't that imply it has less to do with genetics than environment? If you're more competitive, won't you learn more, therefore be more intelligent?

Competitiveness is cultural, and getting good grades is not really about learning, it's about accomplishment. In competitive cultures as some Asian cultures are, it's more important to get good grades than to be happy, to the point where parents are militant about it, to the point where most Americans would consider it child abuse. So it's partly because Americans are so concerned with abusing their kids that kids don't work as hard. In Asian societies, you have children working jobs and it's just the culture, you have kids who commit suicide for getting a bad grade, thats how much pressure it is, if Americans were under that much pressure they'd get better grades too.

Look at kanji compared to romanji. It takes quite a bit of artistic skill to be able to write like that all the time. I've been learning off of the internet for 1 1/2 years now, and I'm just now starting to get good at it.

That's not really the same as the sculptures of Ancient Rome, or the Pyramids and figures of Egypt, or the Music generated by Americans. Asia has cultural beauty, but it's up to you to decide if it's more or less beautiful than other cultures, based on what it seems the world has decided, the world has chosen it's favorites based on purchasing habits, and I don't see at this time a lot of people buying music, movies and art from Asia, with the exceptions of Japanese Anime, and Martial Arts, slowly this is changing with Chinese films and stuff such as this, but it's not like China has caught up with Hollywood. It's one thing that America basically invented, we invented Hollywood, we invented the radio, and all the modern forms of music, we invented just about all the modern forms of entertainment. I'm not saying Japan is not catching up, but even the video game system was invented in America. Asia has the reputation for taking American inventions and ideas and repackaging them into something better, thats fine, thats refining a good idea, but it's not the same as inventing new things, something Americans have a natural talent at, for whatever reason.

Maybe you're right on musicians, but watch chinese theater, it's so much better than an opera.

Not just musicians but, Americans invented all the new instruments lately, the turntable wasnt used like that until Americans did it, neither was the electric guitar, or the various electronic keyboards, all which were invented in America by Americans. You have to take these things into account.

Asians are such a minority in the west, that's not much to base your opinion of them on.

I'm not the one who brought up the Asian example, it's just that everyone brings up Asians as being somehow the most intelligent, or getting the best grades, as if there ever was a "most" intelligent race. There are intelligent Asians, plenty, and there are intelligent people in all the other races also, it does not matter what they look like, intelligence is intelligence. Accomplishment is seperate from intelligence, so while Asians may be equally intelligent, accomplishment depends more on location and how you look. If you are born in the right spot and look the right way, you don't have to be intelligent to accomplish a lot, but if you are born in a third world country and look the wrong way, you'll have to be x10 as intelligent.

Who said they were?

Making money is a rather broad category.That's like saying black people are the best at "working."

At building stuff, maybe you can say they are, the same people who built the pyramids, built the white house, built America, thats an accomplishment you can trace back for generations and say yes that Black people for generations have been great builders. Black people are not the only great builders, I'm just saying that there are many people with dark skin and African appearance who throughout time have been great builders. You also have people who have been in the past, such as during Roman times and times before racial slavery, who were great builders, and you have many white great builders today. So stereotypes don't really apply very well to appearances because no stereotype is absolute, stereotypes are essentially just marketing. So people can say that for example, blacks are good at building stuff, playing sports, entertainment/music, and designing pop culture, and all of it would be true in the same context that people say white people are good at making money, good at winning wars, good at science and math, or how people can say Asians are competitive, the most intelligent, and high achievers.

None of these things can apply all the time, but people like to group people who look alike, and then choose the best among people of a certain appearance type and treat them as representitives, in reality these are human qualities, human achievements that we all should be able to take credit for, but we can't and don't, because people want to maintain racial pride, it's somethnig you should discuss with them.

You can cite statistics to prove anything actually.

Thats what I'm saying.

I'm not saying genes don't matter, but will matters a lot more. If you don't have an environment where you'll learn the right things, genes are useless.

Sometimes you have to create your own environment. Some people manage to do this, and some people go insane, actually most people lose their mind in a bad environment and get worse, or turn to drugs, a few brilliant people actually do manage to either change their environment or completely ignore their environment.

I agee with you, I have a mongolian friend, and he's not very smart at all, but he is really good at basketball.

I suggest you try and have a friend of every appearance/race. Then you'll see for yourself how different they are and you'll be able to base your opinions on facts. If you have friends of different races THEN you'll have a true basis to learn about people without the stereotypes and racism, keep an open mind, and learn by experience.

Are you implying that I'm somehow racist?

If you believe that race is real and that theres a difference between two people of a different race, yes you are racist. I'd say most people are racist and arent deliberately trying to be. But you can learn the different types of people by experiencing them for yourself, you don't have to let someone else tell you how to group people and classify people, you can do it yourself from your personal experiences.


I'm advocating that you keep an open mind, and learn from experience. Everything you need to learn about people, you'll be able to learn through your friendships, your dealings with individuals, and you should try to deal with the kinds of individuals who are smart. If you think for example that skin color has something to do with intelligence, seek out a person who has a different skin color than you that you know is equally as intelligent or even more intelligent than you and see if you can learn somethnig from them. If you think that someone who is Asian is good at math and bad at art, seek out an Asian artist and see, learn about Asian culture. In general, theres plenty more you can learn from people of different cultures yet of equal intelligence, than you can learn from someone who looks just like you and who grew up in your neighborhood and went to your school, sometimes it's good to know people from all the different perspectives just so you can have a wider view of the world.

[Oniw17]

Yes that may be true, but even if you have a bad teacher, the best teacher is always yourself. A teacher who is good, teaches a student how to teach themselves, and makes the student a student of life.

Your equation doesn't work in everything. It's a well-known fact that a self taught martial artist has a moron for a teacher. In most things, having a good teacher does a lot of good for anything. You're the one who brought up different learning styles, what about visual learners? Won't it be hard for them to teach themselves?

Yes thats what I'm saying, traits are inheritied, intelligence and talent are inherited.

Training and hard work are alot more important than genetics. Wouldn't your own example of Asians, if they truely aren't genetically more intelligent, prove that fact?

It does not matter what life situations you come from if you have the right genes.

Really? What about Tarzan? Seriously though, if someone's locked in a cellar for their whole life, you think they'll come out being a genius or a body builder? If you're not taught, you won't even learn how to talk. Why do you think animals raised in captivity can't survive in the wild? It's in their genetics, why can't a formerly captivated lion hunt in order to survive?

This is why some people can come from third world ruin and end up in American colleges like Harvard and Yale.

No it's not, their determination and the discipline their environment gave to them is.

You have people who were born with nothing, and through hard work and genius managed to make something of their lives, these are heros and they deserve all the credit for changing their life around and not becoming a victim to their environment.

Something like Napoleon? What mattered more to their success, the hard work or their genius?

If you come from a family of scientists, you'll likely be good at science and math, because math talent is a gene, and math is required for science. So yes, it's inherited.

Non-sense.

Which genes? Type it in google, just recently we found the gene which controls memory. We know which genes for example control certain brain functions also.

So everything's based on genetics? If you're born genetically inferior, there's nothing you can do, you're stuck in a trap? Isn't that what they say about people born poor?

Competitiveness is cultural, and getting good grades is not really about learning, it's about accomplishment.

How then can you possibly get good grades without learning and memorizing the material. Getting good grades has nothing to do with learning? That's impossible.

In competitive cultures as some Asian cultures are, it's more important to get good grades than to be happy, to the point where parents are militant about it, to the point where most Americans would consider it child abuse. So it's partly because Americans are so concerned with abusing their kids that kids don't work as hard. In Asian societies, you have children working jobs and it's just the culture, you have kids who commit suicide for getting a bad grade, thats how much pressure it is, if Americans were under that much pressure they'd get better grades too.

Thank you, that's what I'm trying to say. If anyone is put under that much pressure, they'll get better grades, therfore study more, and therefore be more intelligent. Think about it, if you're forced to study, you will soak in more knowledge because you study more. That has nothing to do with genetics, that's environment.

That's not really the same as the sculptures of Ancient Rome,

And what about the statues from ancient China? The art scrolls of Japan?

or the Pyramids and figures of Egypt,

The Great Wall of China?

You have to take these things into account.

America creates new things because we have access to all the different cultures, so it's easier for us to put them together.

At building stuff, maybe you can say they are, the same people who built the pyramids, built the white house, built America, thats an accomplishment you can trace back for generations and say yes that Black people for generations have been great builders.

You miss my point. You said people with blue eyes are better at making money, and I said that that's way too broad a category, like saying that black people inherently work harder. There's as many ways to make money as there is to work hard.

Black people are not the only great builders, I'm just saying that there are many people with dark skin and African appearance who throughout time have been great builders. You also have people who have been in the past, such as during Roman times and times before racial slavery, who were great builders, and you have many white great builders today. So stereotypes don't really apply very well to appearances because no stereotype is absolute, stereotypes are essentially just marketing. So people can say that for example, blacks are good at building stuff, playing sports, entertainment/music, and designing pop culture, and all of it would be true in the same context that people say white people are good at making money, good at winning wars, good at science and math, or how people can say Asians are competitive, the most intelligent, and high achievers.

I'm not the one who started using stereotypes, you are. The only thing that I said was that you remind me of people who use such stereotypes.

If you believe that race is real and that theres a difference between two people of a different race, yes you are racist. I'd say most people are racist and arent deliberately trying to be. But you can learn the different types of people by experiencing them for yourself, you don't have to let someone else tell you how to group people and classify people, you can do it yourself from your personal experiences.

Actually aknowledging race isn't racism.

rac‧ism  /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Classifying people by race however, is racial sterotyping.

I'm advocating that you keep an open mind, and learn from experience. Everything you need to learn about people, you'll be able to learn through your friendships, your dealings with individuals, and you should try to deal with the kinds of individuals who are smart.

Why not try to teach people who aren't very smart?

If you think for example that skin color has something to do with intelligence, seek out a person who has a different skin color than you that you know is equally as intelligent or even more intelligent than you and see if you can learn somethnig from them.

Well, you can learn something from everyone, even if they're not intelligent in the least bit.

If you think that someone who is Asian is good at math and bad at art, seek out an Asian artist and see, learn about Asian culture. In general, theres plenty more you can learn from people of different cultures yet of equal intelligence, than you can learn from someone who looks just like you and who grew up in your neighborhood and went to your school, sometimes it's good to know people from all the different perspectives just so you can have a wider view of the world

Anyway, this is getting REALLY off topic, can we move it to pms?

[visceral_instinct]

Sex isn't a vital need, it is a very intense one though.

[Orleander]

is it the being with someone and having contact or the release?

[Enmos]

psychology of human is unique

The psychology of frogs is unique too.

[draqon]

The psychology of frogs is unique too.

hehehe

thats why I chose buddhism..