Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25

Thread: The Damned Human Race

  1. #1
    Registered User DATo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    393

    The Damned Human Race

    The Damned Human Race

    by

    DATo


    I read somewhere that men first domesticated animals about 80,000 years ago. Then in the year 0 we find Romans building aqueducts and roads. In other words it took 80,000 years from putting cows in pens to building aqueducts. It then took a mere 1969 years from building aqueducts to putting a man on the moon. The point I am trying to make is that modern man became modern man very, very quickly. Our technology has surpassed our basic primal, animal instincts for individual greed and power by leaps and bounds.

    We are still Cro-Magnon Man. This is not meant as a pejorative but a fact. Our technologies, forms of government, economics and general lifestyles give us the illusion that we are more advanced than prehistoric man, but actually the opposite is true. Scientists believe that prehistoric man was, on average, much smarter than we are. He needed to be smarter to survive in the unsympathetic environment he found himself in. Those who were stupid did stupid things and died so the "smart" gene prospered through propagation and the "stupid" gene died off. This was part of natural selection, but smart does not necessarily mean moral as we would define morality.

    It is a sobering thought to consider that in addition to being intelligent all of our far distant ancestors were among the most murderous, thieving, rapacious and "immoral" humanoids who ever lived ... if they hadn't been we wouldn't be here because that's what it took to survive. Those genes prospered as well. Man's technology and mode of living has advanced because a very few special people over human history created technological inventions, forms of government and law, and forms of trade. The VAST majority of the estimated 100,000,000,000 (that's billion) people who have ever lived simply used what the "special" people gave us but the rest were, down at the bone, still little more than savage animals. They were then, and we are today.

    Is it any wonder then why we see so much tyranny, greed, immorality and corruption even among the world's civic leaders, religious leaders or just about anyone you'd care to name? As William Golding said in Lord Of The Flies when explaining to Simon the nature of the beast ... "I'm close. I am part of you. I am the reason it's no go."

    I did not will the fingers of my hands into existence, it took millions of years of evolutionary attrition to create them, as it took millions of years for us to psychologically become what we are and unfortunately we are not going to change any time soon. Lurking silently just below the surface of our confident pseudo sophistication lies the face of the beast.

  2. #2
    Closed
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    6,373
    Congratulations, DATo, for having the courage to look the beast in the face. What you say is so obvious that I sometimes wonder if optimism--pretending our evolved nature is something other than what it is--isn't just a trick of natural selection. Maybe it's easier to "smile as you kill" (as John Lennon said) if you pretend, hey, it's all good. Or maybe it's a necessary lie if we are to live together at all. But humans are damned by their very nature, and civilization is fragile as a baby's skull.

    There was no year zero, of course, but perhaps that was some literary device.
    Last edited by Pompey Bum; 09-09-2016 at 08:16 PM.

  3. #3
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by DATo View Post
    It then took a mere 1969 years from building aqueducts to putting a man on the moon.
    How do you know we put a man on the moon?

  4. #4
    On the road, but not! Danik 2016's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Beyond nowhere
    Posts
    11,108
    Blog Entries
    2
    You expose the wound, DATo. What worries me most is the amount of destructive technology the modern beast has at its disposal.
    "I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
    Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row

  5. #5
    Voice of Chaos & Anarchy
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    In one of the branches of the multiverse, but I don't know which one.
    Posts
    8,715
    Blog Entries
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by DATo View Post
    The Damned Human Race

    by

    DATo


    I read somewhere that men first domesticated animals about 80,000 years ago. Then in the year 0 we find Romans building aqueducts and roads. In other words it took 80,000 years from putting cows in pens to building aqueducts. It then took a mere 1969 years from building aqueducts to putting a man on the moon. The point I am trying to make is that modern man became modern man very, very quickly. Our technology has surpassed our basic primal, animal instincts for individual greed and power by leaps and bounds.
    Your information is a little off. Apparently dogs were the first animals that were domesticated, but when that was is uncertain. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...st_friend.html
    Sheep, goats, and cattle were domesticated between 10,000 BCE and 7,000 BCE. And there was no year 0.

    We are still Cro-Magnon Man. This is not meant as a pejorative but a fact. Our technologies, forms of government, economics and general lifestyles give us the illusion that we are more advanced than prehistoric man, but actually the opposite is true. Scientists believe that prehistoric man was, on average, much smarter than we are. He needed to be smarter to survive in the unsympathetic environment he found himself in. Those who were stupid did stupid things and died so the "smart" gene prospered through propagation and the "stupid" gene died off. This was part of natural selection, but smart does not necessarily mean moral as we would define morality.
    Cro-Magnons were just a small tribe that hasn't existed for thousands of years. We Neanderthals dominate, and not only do we have bigger brains, but we are smarter than the later varieties of H. sapiens.


    It is a sobering thought to consider that in addition to being intelligent all of our far distant ancestors were among the most murderous, thieving, rapacious and "immoral" humanoids who ever lived ... if they hadn't been we wouldn't be here because that's what it took to survive. Those genes prospered as well. Man's technology and mode of living has advanced because a very few special people over human history created technological inventions, forms of government and law, and forms of trade. The VAST majority of the estimated 100,000,000,000 (that's billion) people who have ever lived simply used what the "special" people gave us but the rest were, down at the bone, still little more than savage animals. They were then, and we are today.

    Is it any wonder then why we see so much tyranny, greed, immorality and corruption even among the world's civic leaders, religious leaders or just about anyone you'd care to name? As William Golding said in Lord Of The Flies when explaining to Simon the nature of the beast ... "I'm close. I am part of you. I am the reason it's no go."

    I did not will the fingers of my hands into existence, it took millions of years of evolutionary attrition to create them, as it took millions of years for us to psychologically become what we are and unfortunately we are not going to change any time soon. Lurking silently just below the surface of our confident pseudo sophistication lies the face of the beast.
    The desire to gain more o everything, especially food and women, is fundamental to being human. That's why so many people are obese.

  6. #6
    Closed
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    6,373
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterL View Post
    Cro-Magnons were just a small tribe that hasn't existed for thousands of years. We Neanderthals dominate, and not only do we have bigger brains, but we are smarter than the later varieties of H. sapiens.
    Not exactly, Peter. As usual with prehistory everything is controversial and subject to change, but Cro-Magnons are usually considered the earliest known example of (our sort of) Homo sapiens found in Europe. Even if Homo neanderthalensis turns out to be Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (an old controversy) it would still only represent a subspecies. The question of whether Neanderthals bred into the Homo sapiens population (the Absorption Hypothesis) remains controversial. The first DNA results seemed negative; then other results (reported with great authority in the media) seemed to strongly affirm it; then less widely reported analyses called those results into question. We are not Neanderthals in any case, although we may (or may not) have retain some Neanderthal DNA. And to make things more complicated "our kind" of Homo sapiens existed in Africa long before the Magdalenian (Cro-Magnon) culture in Europe.

    I'm sure you could find links challenging what I have written. And I could find links challenging those. The truth, of course, can only be provided by a missing link. (Not! I'm just making a bad pun).
    Last edited by Pompey Bum; 09-10-2016 at 12:55 PM.

  7. #7
    Voice of Chaos & Anarchy
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    In one of the branches of the multiverse, but I don't know which one.
    Posts
    8,715
    Blog Entries
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by Pompey Bum View Post
    Not exactly, Peter. As usual with prehistory everything is controversial and subject to change, but Cro-Magnons are usually considered the earliest known example of (our sort of) Homo sapiens found in Europe. Even if Homo neanderthalensis turns out to be Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (an old controversy) it would still only represent a subspecies. The question of whether Neanderthals bred into the Homo sapiens population (the Absorption Hypothesis) remains controversial. The first DNA results seemed negative; then other results (reported with great authority in the media) seemed to strongly affirm it; then less widely reported analyses called those results into question. We are not Neanderthals in any case, although we may (or may not) have retain some Neanderthal DNA. And to make things more complicated "our kind" of Homo sapiens existed in Africa long before the Magdalenian (Cro-Magnon) culture in Europe.

    I'm sure you could find links challenging what I have written. And I could find links challenging those. The truth, of course, can only be provided by a missing link. (Not! I'm just making a bad pun).
    The only controversy in regard to "whether Neanderthals bred into the Homo sapiens population" is whether the opponents of that position have bothered doing any research or thought in the matter. You may recall that the initial major problem in the analysis of DNA of Neanderthals was finding differences between them and the so-called modern humans. The subsequent finding that most of today's humans have from 3 to 5% Neanderthal genes states that Neanderthal DNA was mixed with other varieties of humans, which means that they were of the same species. A species is defined as a group of organism that can successfully reproduce and produce fertile offspring. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/species
    That 3 to 5 % of genes are Neanderthal means that some of their genes were specific, but most genes were common to both Neanderthals and other varieties or humans.

    What I am wondering is where the RH positive factor comes from, because that almost certainly was picked up from a variety that was just a hair shy of being a different species.

  8. #8
    Closed
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    6,373
    Yeah, but there was a study after that (from Cambridge?) that suggested it wasn't Neanderthal DNA at all but that of a common ancestor of both groups from Africa. I don't have a position and am not especially interested. Whichever side is right, modern humans are neither Homo neanderthalis or Homo sapiens neanderthalis, so "we Neanderthals" (as you said) is not exactly correct (as I said).
    Last edited by Pompey Bum; 09-10-2016 at 01:31 PM.

  9. #9
    Voice of Chaos & Anarchy
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    In one of the branches of the multiverse, but I don't know which one.
    Posts
    8,715
    Blog Entries
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by Pompey Bum View Post
    Yeah, but there was a study after that (from Cambridge?) that suggested it wasn't Neanderthal DNA at all but that of a common ancestor of both groups from Africa. I don't have a position and am not especially interested. Whichever side is right, modern humans are neither Homo neanderthalis or Homo sapiens neanderthalis, so "we Neanderthals" (as you said) is not exactly correct (as I said).
    Yes, the common ancestor did provide most of the genetic material, and modern humans are Homo sapiens, because the race or subspecies Homo sapiens neanderthalis collapsed into the rest of the species, so that now there are no races or subspecies of Homo sapiens.

  10. #10
    Closed
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    6,373
    Works for me.

    On another subject, I wonder how many people think there was a year zero between 1 BCE and 1 CE. I wonder how many people know that the decades don't go 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 (which would require a year zero) but 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970; and that all those dummies who partied like it was 1999 back in 1999 were not celebrating the turn of the millennium but only the turn of the penultimate to the ultimate year of the 90s decade. Not that the numbers we give years are anything but arbitrary, but I still found it amusing at the time.
    Last edited by Pompey Bum; 09-10-2016 at 02:43 PM.

  11. #11
    Voice of Chaos & Anarchy
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    In one of the branches of the multiverse, but I don't know which one.
    Posts
    8,715
    Blog Entries
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by Pompey Bum View Post

    On another subject, I wonder how many people think there was a year zero between 1 BCE and 1 CE. I wonder how many people know that the decades don't go 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 (which would require a year zero) but 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970; and that all those dummies who partied "like it was 1999" back in 1999 were not celebrating the turn of the millennium but only the turn of the penultimate to the ultimate year of the 90s decade. Not that the numbers we give years are anything but arbitrary, but I still found it amusing at the time.
    It's almost funny that people have that mistaken idea. I think it may be rooted in years being one of the few ordinal numbers that we do not use the normal ordinal ending on. Similarly, the days of the month are also ordinals. But I believe that there was a time when it was common to say the second day of the month July in the 1386th year of out lord. U winder when it started being abbreviated.

    RE decades: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    That's the way it is. on the tenth day of September in the 2016th year of their lord.

  12. #12
    Inexplicably Undiscovered
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    next door to the lady in the vinegar bottle
    Posts
    5,089
    Blog Entries
    72
    The hilarious humorist and ironically incurable pessimist Mark Twain first coined the expression" The Damned Human Race."

    One of the most inexplicable features of our species is the fact that we've undeniably evolved physically and technologically, but our moral and rational natures have failed to keep up. It may be argued that some cultures have made progress in terms of ameliorating evils such as racism, but no one can truthfully say that we've eliminated everything in that sphere. Indeed, newer forms of racism, both insidious and blatant, have arisen along with problems still extant in other areas of human rights, income inequality and so forth.

    One question to ask is why so many human beings are influenced if not motivated by fear. This makes those who have insufficient critical thinking skills susceptible to opportunists and tyrants.

    Fear also provides fertile ground for crackpot conspiracy theories. For instance, some folks adamantly believe that the 1969 moon landing was staged. Preposterous, I know.

    But I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation of how the flag which the NASA astronauts planted on the moon's surface could be "waving."

  13. #13
    Voice of Chaos & Anarchy
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    In one of the branches of the multiverse, but I don't know which one.
    Posts
    8,715
    Blog Entries
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by AuntShecky View Post

    One of the most inexplicable features of our species is the fact that we've undeniably evolved physically and technologically, but our moral and rational natures have failed to keep up. It may be argued that some cultures have made progress in terms of ameliorating evils such as racism, but no one can truthfully say that we've eliminated everything in that sphere. Indeed, newer forms of racism, both insidious and blatant, have arisen along with problems still extant in other areas of human rights, income inequality and so forth.
    The physical evolution has been to make humans better suited for their fundamental natures of greedy, self-serving creatures that are only interested in self-preservation.

    But I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation of how the flag which the NASA astronauts planted on the moon's surface could be "waving."
    The flag on the Moon had a rod running through the top hem to hold it out, and it had been shaken shortly before the photo was taken, so that there were ripples running across it.

  14. #14
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by AuntShecky View Post
    Fear also provides fertile ground for crackpot conspiracy theories. For instance, some folks adamantly believe that the 1969 moon landing was staged. Preposterous, I know.

    But I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation of how the flag which the NASA astronauts planted on the moon's surface could be "waving."
    Glad to see you posting again, AuntShecky!

    I'm also glad you picked up on my Moon landing comment.

    Whatever my personality dysfunctions, and I probably have my fair share, I don't think it is fear. That is a 1960s way to solve the problem of Persistent Opposing Viewpoints From People Who Won't Shut Up, otherwise known as POVFPWWSU. It helps explain why someone could be so irrational as to disagree with what is obviously true. They must be afraid of something. What they are afraid of is irrelevant.

    I look at it more as humor. If those Moon landings were faked, it would strengthen DATo's case. Imagine being so gullible as to believe everything we see on TV provided some authority figure (president, astronaut, scientist, advertiser) says it is true. That's even more entertaining than going to the Moon.
    Last edited by YesNo; 09-10-2016 at 03:36 PM.

  15. #15
    Closed
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    6,373
    Quote Originally Posted by AuntShecky View Post
    One of the most inexplicable features of our species is the fact that we've undeniably evolved physically and technologically, but our moral and rational natures have failed to keep up.
    Failed to keep up? They're running in the opposite direction. If you or I were drowning in a lake and someone swam from shore to save us, our instinct would be to shove his or her head underwater in an absurd attempt to save ourselves. Only by driving back our instinctive mind could we hope to be saved. It is possible, but it is not what we evolved to do. We evolved to kill even our would-be saviors.

    Quote Originally Posted by AuntShecky View Post
    One question to ask is why so many human beings are influenced if not motivated by fear.
    Fear fires the adrenaline glands beside the human heart. The boost that gives means more dead cave bears, fewer chewed up cave babies, and more quality time with the savage spouse. From an evolutionary point of view, what's not to understand? The bear wasn't there for tea and muffins.

    Quote Originally Posted by AuntShecky View Post
    Fear also provides fertile ground for crackpot conspiracy theories. For instance, some folks adamantly believe that the 1969 moon landing was staged. Preposterous, I know.
    I agree, Aunty, and you tempt me. But I'm afraid I couldn't possibly comment.
    Last edited by Pompey Bum; 09-10-2016 at 03:40 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Wolf Larsen Blesses the Human Race with Immaculate Conception
    By WolfLarsen in forum Personal Poetry
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-04-2014, 08:45 PM
  2. Does anybody else feel the human race is worthless?
    By ihavebrownhaira in forum General Chat
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 02-28-2009, 02:42 AM
  3. damned father!
    By captainamanda in forum General Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-16-2009, 02:59 PM
  4. The Damned
    By Kafka's Crow in forum Short Story Sharing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-30-2008, 04:32 AM
  5. I Damned Ford, Because I´m Jhon!!!
    By Jair in forum A Brave New World
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 06:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •