Re: Civilized man was killed by a bullet from a pistol in the age of dinosaurs
NoNukes I don't care about your degree. I care about whether there is any reason to trust your judgments with regards to distinguishing between a rock and a skull or a bullet.
I do not mind. The more so that hundreds of millions of years ago, ancestors were able to do, steel hammer, gun, wheel, bomb and even a flying saucer that we still do not know how to do.
I showed you petrified during lifetime the remains of people, dinosaurs, other animals and plants and you continue to talk to me about only of the bones and skull of dinosaurs and monkeys in the absence of people! In that I see the difference between mine and your opinion.
I don't see why you think the traits you mentioned would not be "selected for"? Unless you know for sure that these individual examples will not reproduce (have children)?
Its not about not having children, its about having children. I'm a 30-something year old college educated dude with a high IQ that doesn't have any kids yet and has been with the same women for 7+ years. Down the road from me is State Park, IL where totally uneducated drug addicts with no jobs have multiple kids by multiple women. On an evolutionary standard, how can I compete with that? On a social standard, where's my incentive to work harder to support those people?
But your link doesn't seem to support your assertions. Your links shows a community that's predominately white, with a median age for males and females as well as overall slightly higher than the state, with median household size slightly lower than the state, annual median household income half of the median household value, about the same ratio of males to females as the state.., so no evidence of "totally uneducated drug addicts with no jobs have multiple kids by multiple women".
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
But your link doesn't seem to support your assertions.
Yeah, that's because the numbers aren't right. They're including it in Collinsville, which has the same numbers. That's really the only thing on the net I could find for State Park. But I didn't realize it was State Park Place (nobody around here adds the 'Place'). Googling that I ran across the urban dictionary entry:
quote:A small town east of St.Louis, not to be mistaken for Collinsville, IL. It is a community made up of mostly whites and hispanics, most of whom are relatively violent. You can find drug dealers, gangbangers, thieves, crackheads, racists and everything in between.
A small white ghetto near St.Louis, MO. The town consists of drug dealers, gangsters, thugs, crackheads and thieves.
State Park is actually unincorporated in Collinsville. Its just county. There's no cops besides the State Police and County Sheriff, but they hardly ever go there. Its a real shithole, I've been there. I know people who live there.
so no evidence of "totally uneducated drug addicts with no jobs have multiple kids by multiple women".
I don't know how I could evidence that. I guess you're going to have to take my word for it.
I was gonna link to some Google Maps streetviews, but it looks like the Map Car didn't go down any of the side streets:
Its a pretty small area. Since its an unincorporarted county town, it draws in the the real scumbags. But anyways, unless your doubting that areas like I mention actaully exist, its kinda beside the point if I can prove to you that this is one of them. My questions still stand.
I've heard of it but never seen it. I'll check it out.
So are you admiting there's a problem? Is Bender correct:
No, I don't think so.
I had a read through this meta-analysis from Demographic Research, which looks at trends in the relation between status and fertility. The overall picture seems to show that before about 1750 in Europe and North America, and before the 20th century in the rest of the world, high status was associated with high fertility. After this, the picture reverses, but the differentials are much less than previously.
Two points to bear in mind. Firstly, lower status groups have higher mortality and morbidity than higher status ones, so a slightly higher fertility rate (and it is only slight) will not necessarily lead to a shift in relative proportions in the population.
Secondly, not all - probably not most - of the differences in social status are genetically inheritable factors. The biggest driver of decreased fertility is higher education, and education levels have much more to do with the opportunities avaiable to you than they do with any genetically inherited intelligence.
I think the next step for man is a mental evolution.
What I see coming is part of a long process of mental development that started 40,000 years ago. We have gone through seven stages of maturation already, as were marked by the state-of-mind that warranted such identifications as the Stone Age, The Bronze Age, The Iron Age, etc.
We moved into the present Information Age at just the moment when the whole world shrunk down to one small Global Village, and the entire population is in instantaneous communication with one another.
There is an argument to be made that in each of the previous stages of advancement, one could see the growth and maturation of an archetypal development very similar to the way it can be observe in a small child who moves into different stages of development. Those stages are related to the awakening of the Freudian archetypes and their temporary dominant exercise over behavior.
It is in that frame of thinking that I believe man moved from a state of the Self, as reflected in the Age of Reason, into the collective expression of the superego during the Age of Enlightenment. We are now expressing the attributes of our archetypal Harmony, and at just the time when the ever smaller world has pushed us so closely together that we need exactly that, and right now.
Yes, it is, from the some person who brought us Office Space. However, it also presents the most accurate evolutionary explanation of its premises than any other film or TV show that I've seen. That alone should be reason to at least start to watch it, especially if the price is right (ie, you can catch it for free). Another reason would be for Starbuck's (which in that future is a ubiquitous chain of sleazy massage parlors) "full-body latte".
There was also a classic 1951 science fiction short story, The Marching Morons, that Idiocracy seemed to be based on and yet did not credit (as I recall).
I recommended watching Idiocracy because the evolutionary scenario of its premise is exactly what CS was describing.
"Those who fail to learn the lessons of science fiction are doomed to live them."
I'm not so sure that it would be a mental evolution, at least not in the sense of there being any progress.
Assuming civilization doesn't crash on us again (at least not too catastophically), I would see continued technological progress, which would entail the learning of necessary skills for working with that technology, both in developing it and in maintaining and operating it. For the latter role, it doesn't really take much mentally. By that, I mean that you can teach procedures and basic theory of operation, but those procedures can be followed successfully without really understanding the technology. For example, one senior NCO knew how to work with electronics, but didn't understand how electronics work, considering it to be FM ("fucking magic"). It's also illustrated by Asimov in Foundation where the Foundation starts exporting its technology to its barbaric neighbors, though as a religion with a technician priesthood ("To start the device, you have to say this prayer and then press that red button.").
There's also the problem of skills being lost, as well as the loss of needing to be smart. When you don't have the technology for certain tasks, then you need to come up with smarter ways of working, but when you have the technology then you can get by by being lazy and using brute force. An example is when Gauss' grade school class was being punished, so they all had to come up with the sum of all numbers from 1 to 100. While everybody else was applying the brute force method of doing all that addition, Gauss thought for a while and then wrote down the correct answer and handed it in. He had come up with a smart way to do it. Nowadays the smart way would be to implement the brute force method with a computer program. Or to Google for Gauss' method. But you couldn't look it up in your Book of Tables, because nobody has one any more, since technology has made them obsolete.
Another example of lost skills is that scene in Star Trek IV where Scotty types away very fast on a Mac keyboard to come up with the formula for transparent aluminum. Cute, but ridiculous, since typing would be a long-lost skill. In reality, Scotty would have been baffled trying to figure out what to do with that keyboard, let alone how to use the antiquated software on that Mac.
The other aspect you brought up is a good one, though. As our consciousness expands to encompass a Global Village, our social institutions and our ways of viewing that are needing to change accordingly. This, then, would be a form of social evolution.
Yeah, archetypes are both Freud and Jung contributions, and what we use today in personality psych may be a combination of both inputs.
I believe what you say about the technical advancements are essentially sourced in the emphasis and present domination of the human Superego at work.
In spite of all the benefits and risks of having made such an investment in that one collective archetypal expression of our intelligence, we still have made little advancement in understanding ourselves. This is why the Atomic Age has made the next step into a dominance in our Collective Harmony so important, (an archetype Jung said is all too under-expressed).
But what I am saying goes beyond this, in that I hypothesize an evolution that opens a door into the Unconscious mind, allowing us to re-visit past life experiences that have been genetically stored there. And, even perhaps connect us with the over all Collective Unconscious mind which is the sum of the inputs of all men living, i.e., clarvoyance.