cherry

cherry...RED...anarchy...hmmmm...must be a commie plot!

One interesting hypothesis is raised by Gregory Clark in his book "A Farewell to Alms". Some humans appear to have undergone genetic selective pressure (evolution) within the framework of civilization and specifically capitalistic cultures suggesting that there is some "genetic" component to the success of western culture/economies. Those "stone-age" tribes may be still better suited culturally (and emotionally) to there ancestral practices since their genetic legacy did not include exposure to capitalism.

There may be genetic pressure, but I expect that if you were born and raised in a mud hut you would not be living the same life as you are here.

I think the original poster, bless his heart, is implying that if these "cavemen" would get a clue they could lead a full productive life like we in the U.S. He would do well to save his trash for a year just to see what *he* is doing to the environment, and then compare that to what a "caveman" generates in the same time period. I suspect in a couple months he would exceed the trash output of the "caveman's" lifetime.

There's going to be a shock when "caveman" China follows the same progress that the U.S. did since WWII. All the steel, petroleum, etc is going to the highest bidder, and that is not going to be US.

Snowman: I find your comments to be offensive and narrow-minded. You are looking at the world through "ethno-centric" glasses. Quite frankly, your attitude towards 'cavemen' is why the rest of the world often views folks from the United States as arrogant, narrow-minded and just plain clueless.

I have been to some very remote parts of the world, including South Africa, Liberia West Africa, and Costa Rica. To put it plain and simple: the people who you label as "backwards cavemen" do not have the same opportunities as you and I do. Now you may say, "Then they should just move to a place where they can do better." Even THAT opportunity is not available to them. They simply cannot afford it! I am uncertain of the costs, but for a man and his family to move out of Kenya to the United States would probably cost the man his lifetime earnings. They are stuck in their lot, and do the best to survive with what means they can survive with.

These people can't afford plywood and nails, so they use what the earth has given them -- mud and straw, and thatch. Don't underestimate their ability to think -- they may not be able to code in HTML, but they know what plants and animals are good to consume, and which ones are poisonous. They know how to fend for themselves without the need to use a credit card, a gun, or the internet. I have seen this FIRST HAND.

Further - I suspect that most of the cavemen who have made a life for themselves and their family are probably happier and more content than you or I, or most of the western 'civilized' world. Riches don't always equate to happiness.

In many parts of the world, there aren't programs like 'government subsidized food programs' or welfare, or ANYTHING. Again - I have seen this first hand. Add to that the fact that there are civil wars, strife, rebel combat occurring all over -- things aren't as peaceful in this world as we ignorant Americans believe.

If you are so troubled by how much the cavemen are destroying our world :rolleyes: then instead of posting something so far from the truth and ignorant, why don't you do something about it -- go out into the world and see for yourself what's going on, and try to make a difference.

-Z-man.

American children are the unhappiest in the world. American adults are also very unhappy. Maybe living in the "stone age" is not all that bad. Living in poverty is bad. I think we get a biased opinion of what the rest of the world is like living here in the land of oppurtunity. I prefer it here and am blessed that I was born here.

My mud hut has been standing since 1905 and will still be standing when your pre-fab stucco look-a-like is being condemned for termite infestation. I use no A/C (evaporative cooling) and minimal heat, as the 24" walls are better insulation than anything you can buy.

Don't be sorry for me. Worry about your own over-bought, perpetually depreciating asset(s).

And, it's "hear", genius, not "here".

Damascus Syria is the longest consistantly inhabitied place on earth - some 7000 years. Chinese civilization is at least 5000 years old. Until 1500 or so years ago - northern Europe was covered with forest with a patchwork of hamlets connected by trails. The life of the inhabitants was short and brutish. No literacy, no organized education, no nothing. From the end of the dark ages till now it has been a pretty good run..but that could come to an end. It is an confluence of history and events - nothing to do with any "evolution" or special genes..

Wow



Just "Wow!"

snow is just bitter because his mudpies taste awful and none of the girls like him because he has cooties.

What a thing for a conservative to say. I do not draw the conclusion that my life is better than the life of someone in a small village. They have family, extended family and community. We have TV. We also have cell phones, commutes in aggravating traffic and a maximum of two hours of "quality time" with our loved ones each weekday. They have fresh air and daily exercise together. Meals together. I eat fast food at my desk.

I'm guessing they smile more than we do.

A valid issue here is that a very large number of humans don't have clean water, electricity or access to medicine.

I think one could argue that these things are generally considered "good".

2¢

I don't think anyone is implying that "racial superiority" by virtue of selection is operating here. Only that there may have been some selection that has shifted the "curve slightly" (Gaussian). These are very complex social, cultural, geographic, and political issues.
I think genetics do play a role and I think there is reasonable evidence for this. If you look at our recent human history including western civilization, you see very high reproductive mortality rates up until just this last century (and even today among certain sub-populations). This means that there has been significant selection operating via differential reproductive success even in the "civilized". However, cultural and technological co-evolution concurrent with reproductive selection makes it difficult to assign a weighted "value".
Remember, recent genetic studies show modern "stone-age" humans to be "healthier" genetically than those of us of western descent.

nature vs. nurture. I think the genetic role is trivial if even at all relevant.

If you are really interested you should take a look at this:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1210356190.jpg

Here we have these "cavemen" living a step above bees and not much past 40 and then you Have Jack looking at then in distain. I get the feeling Jack would like to see them off'd.

They ain't harm'n no one - take out your angst on the gang bangas and the frat boys who do the real damage to what we hold dear...

Was it PJ O'Rourke (Or did I hear this at PJ Clarke's???) said that "if you take and African baby from the bush and adopt him into a suburban Westchester family - in 22 years he will be applyng to dental school."

That is so true. Very, very few real differences between peoples around the world. Great cultural differences, but not much else.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1210358615.jpg

"The usual amount?"

humans share 40-50% of their DNA with cabbages.

there are some, howvever, among us even now, who share up to 90%.

liberals will force you to share that cabbage with your poor caveman neighbor even if you don't want to. Conservatives will sell that cabbage for as much as they can while underpaying the person who picked it. Libertarians will let the market sort it out.

oh wait, wrong thread.