|
Grex > Agora41 > #112: Why Americans ,in general, are so dumb in geography? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 360 responses total. |
mdw
|
|
response 150 of 360:
| 
May 7 21:18 UTC 2002 |
I did some more reading: the overlap between neanderthal & modern man
seems to have been a bit shorter: modern man apparently reached europe
about 36K years ago, and the last pure neanderthal remains are about 27K
years old. There are some mixed remains about 24K years ago suggesting
that at least some interbreeding occured, but I don't think anyone has
any real evidence that neanderthal made any sigificant genetic
contribution to modern man. Neanderthal was probably as much a victim
of geology as modern man, since it looks like the last great ice age
pushed him out squarely into the path of advancing modern man.
|
md
|
|
response 151 of 360:
|
May 8 00:30 UTC 2002 |
"I don't think anyone has any real evidence that neanderthal made any
sigificant genetic contribution to modern man."
Marcus, Jamie.
Jamie, Marcus.
|
bru
|
|
response 152 of 360:
|
May 8 02:44 UTC 2002 |
"Im Proud to be a neanderthal, and so I know I'm free.
and I won't forget my ancestors, who gave their genes to me."
I AM a neanderthal!
|
other
|
|
response 153 of 360:
|
May 8 03:17 UTC 2002 |
<boggle>
|
happyboy
|
|
response 154 of 360:
|
May 8 13:26 UTC 2002 |
re152: take a bath.
|
oval
|
|
response 155 of 360:
|
May 8 22:14 UTC 2002 |
bru, you're starting to look more and more like that police sketch of the
fugitive hiding somewhere in the appalachians i kept seeing when i lived there
for one semester of hippy-redneck-fratboy hell.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 156 of 360:
|
May 9 13:17 UTC 2002 |
...and use some deoderant, PLEASE!
|
oval
|
|
response 157 of 360:
|
May 9 22:34 UTC 2002 |
DON"T LISTEN TO HAPPYBOY!
|
bru
|
|
response 158 of 360:
|
May 10 03:57 UTC 2002 |
Excuse me, but what makes you think we neanderthals are:
A. stupid
B. smelly
c. criminal
WE were smarter, stronger, and faster than you "modern Humans" think. We just
thought your gals were way cuter than our Neanderthal gals. So we decided
to seduce tham with our wealth and power, and now we only show up in recessive
genes from time to time.
You have to sacrifice to get the good looking gals.
|
mdw
|
|
response 159 of 360:
|
May 10 06:55 UTC 2002 |
I wouldn't know about B or C. A, however, seems fairly clear from the
archeological evidence: if neanderthal was smart, he was definitely
under-motivated, as his tools show little change over a long period of
time.
|
oval
|
|
response 160 of 360:
|
May 10 08:48 UTC 2002 |
yea thats why evolution gave them the middle finger, eh?
|
keesan
|
|
response 161 of 360:
|
May 10 12:25 UTC 2002 |
Better tools destroy the environment faster.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 162 of 360:
|
May 10 13:55 UTC 2002 |
so go live in a cave, stinkypits.
|
brighn
|
|
response 163 of 360:
|
May 10 14:48 UTC 2002 |
#160> Neanderthals originally only had four fingers? Homer Simpson only has
four fingers. Hmmmmm...
|
flem
|
|
response 164 of 360:
|
May 10 15:10 UTC 2002 |
Wow, things become even clearer. Sindi is a spy for the *neanderthals*, who
are trying to make a comeback by collecting secondhand gadgets from more
advanced modern humans! It was -- literally -- under our noses the whole
time. :)
|
jazz
|
|
response 165 of 360:
|
May 10 17:35 UTC 2002 |
So, in essence, a neanderthal would be trying to do things in DOS on
a '386 system?
|
scg
|
|
response 166 of 360:
|
May 10 23:40 UTC 2002 |
I'm not sure it's fair to say better tools destroy the environment faster.
If anything, it's often the opposite. Modern cars, for example, may not be
great for the environment, but their exhaust is considerably cleaner than
exhaust from cars 30 years ago. The term "the wrong side of the tracks" came
from the era of coal powered trains, which would leave everything on the
downwind side of the train tracks covered in soot and make teh air fairly
unbreathable. In the pre-industrial era there were big problems caused by
a lack of santitation technologies, which would probably have grown into a
huge disaster as the population approached its current levels (and, for that
matter, it's birth control technology -- tools of a sort -- that prevent the
population from growing even faster). Lots of poor countries with less
advanced technology have far worse air quality than the US, despite burning
a lot less fuel.
Having a choice of tools, and being able to afford the better ones, is
something that allows those who want to to limit their environmental damage.
Do people always make the most environmentally friendly choices? Of course
not. But it's thanks to a lot of modern technology, and a lot of modern
environmental knowledge, that those who care are able to make the right
choices.
|
jazz
|
|
response 167 of 360:
|
May 11 00:11 UTC 2002 |
Amen, Steve.
Some of our nonpolluting technologies, though, to be fair, are only
nonpolluting in the short term. Coal power produces obvious smoke and soot
and black lung disease, and coal mine accidents, but nuclear power is far more
insidious and long lasting in its' effects, and it's more difficult to undo
the damage done by improper use of nuclear power.
|
bru
|
|
response 168 of 360:
|
May 11 02:34 UTC 2002 |
No, see we neanderthals were well aware of where technology would lead. We
like following the herds, living off the wild fruits and grains, living in
non-permenent dwellings (we like caves, but so did the Cromags). We simply
chose not to go that route. Our technology dealt with more natural methods
of dealing with improved life styles. Who do you think taught people how to
grow improved fruits and vegetables, and how to plant and harvest better
crops. You just don't give us enough credit.
Frankly, I think it was a mistake and that you need to pay us neanderthals
reparations.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 169 of 360:
|
May 11 03:18 UTC 2002 |
Well, poor sanitation is one way to limit population, y'know.
|
mdw
|
|
response 170 of 360:
|
May 11 04:49 UTC 2002 |
Neanderthal also spent quite a bit of trouble digging up red rocks and
grinding them up.
|
scg
|
|
response 171 of 360:
|
May 11 06:23 UTC 2002 |
Yup, there are still some technologies that have some really scary effects.
I suspect those problems will be solved by more technology, however, not less.
|
oval
|
|
response 172 of 360:
|
May 11 08:33 UTC 2002 |
sure.
|
keesan
|
|
response 173 of 360:
|
May 11 12:34 UTC 2002 |
I thought agriculture was only invented about 10,000 years ago and the
Neanderthals were long gone by then. There was better hunting in Europe
during the glaciations, when grass was more common than forest. If you have
not killed off most of what you want to eat, you don't need particularly good
tools to kill enough to eat.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 174 of 360:
|
May 11 15:08 UTC 2002 |
No, but a hunting and gathering lifestyle doesn't leave time for much else.
|