The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

Originally posted by googlefudge
Scandinavia?

The issues seem to be;

Disease - Cured by modern medicine and hygiene

Nutrition - Cured by understanding the concept and eating a varied diet

Lack of free time - Cured by being less about profits and more about happiness as the basis for a societies success
[and given an average lifespan of 26 yrs (I

I do recognise that there have been downsides, they are outweighed by the upsides.

Actually, my post was "IF the theory is correct,


then what would be the remedy or solution?


So, I am not arguing that the theory is correct,
but if it is correct then what would be the solution?

Even if it was correct, after agriculture we had
the Industrial revolution, then technology & the
computer age; I doubt humans could make the
change; we are so bound in today's world.

I would agree with you on the advantages of
better medicines, nutrition and less global war.

However, "free time" is debatable... though
it may hold true for Europe and the USA but not for other
countries such as India... Kings are replaced by
CEOs in corporations, long hours, 6day a week is
common place, whimsical rules.

A few thoughts .... are we really eating better; or
are we just getting fat on fast-food. While there
is no third world war yet, there were/are some small
local wars/conflicts and terrorism. Is our culture /
intelligence really better, I remember some others
were arguing that we had out-crowded the Neanderthals
and others human ancestors & hominids? We have
weapons of war that are capable of wipe out all
mankind.

Some of the author's arguements/examples seem
to be self-serving. The one about the woman carrying
the load of rice. Actually, compared to the past,
women are far more free and are regarded as equals,
and have the right to vote, etc.

Extelligence, Culture, the difference between us and other species,
why we are successful, survival are vast subjects and
deserve a separate thread maybe. However, to argue that it not
possible without agriculture.... well about about the hunter-
gathers paintings that we have found in caves?

Your views?

Originally posted by shahenshah
Actually, my post was "IF the theory is correct,


then what would be the remedy or solution?


So, I am not arguing that the theory is correct,
but if it is correct then what would be the solution?

Even if it was correct, after agriculture we had
the Industrial revolution, then technology & the
computer age; I doubt humans could make the ...[text shortened]... well about about the hunter-
gathers paintings that we have found in caves?

Your views?

Don't worry about it. It isn't correct.

Originally posted by shahenshah
Actually, my post was "IF the theory is correct,


then what would be the remedy or solution?


So, I am not arguing that the theory is correct,
but if it is correct then what would be the solution?

Even if it was correct, after agriculture we had
the Industrial revolution, then technology & the
computer age; I doubt humans could make the
well about about the hunter-
gathers paintings that we have found in caves?

Your views?

Most of your description of how things have and will progress, is found in and predicted by the bible. Not that the bible is the only source that predicts it; but the way you chose your words, the way you were obviously thinking about it deeply, I can see that you understand the world is in a downward spiral. And it hasn't always seemed like this or been like this. Most of the time civilized man has been around, our race has felt like we really had a handle on things and all was well, except for some of the religious groups who were nearly made extinct during the age of enlightenment back in the 17th century. But I'm seeing a resurgence of the doom and gloom message, and have for about 35 years. It's increasing in popularity as time goes on.

I was thinking the other night. Just a theory as I don't trade stocks. But I'm guessing that if not already, very soon most people will have computers doing their trading for them. They just set the triggers and thresholds and so under certain circumstances they sell. And then one day that trigger trips, and everyone sells everything all in a day or so.

I'm thinking if the NYSE has a collapse like that, it will plunge the entire world into chaos, panic, and violence.

Am I being too alarmist? Maybe, but I still say it's possible. A little TOO possible for my taste, actually.

Originally posted by sumydid
Most of your description of how things have and will progress, is found in and predicted by the bible. Not that the bible is the only source that predicts it; but the way you chose your words, the way you were obviously thinking about it deeply, I can see that you understand the world is in a downward spiral. And it hasn't always seemed like this or been l ...[text shortened]... st? Maybe, but I still say it's possible. A little TOO possible for my taste, actually.

what you guys describe as "doom and gloom", I see as a necessary "cleansing".

How bad this thing gets is upto each and everyone of us. Period. (If you draw inspiriration from JC great, but it's still you making the life decisions, not god or jesus)

I believe there will be a cleansing and that some will survive.

(I'll leave it at that for mow)

Originally posted by shahenshah
Actually, my post was "IF the theory is correct,


then what would be the remedy or solution?


So, I am not arguing that the theory is correct,
but if it is correct then what would be the solution?

Even if it was correct, after agriculture we had
the Industrial revolution, then technology & the
computer age; I doubt humans could make the ...[text shortened]... well about about the hunter-
gathers paintings that we have found in caves?

Your views?

Yes I did appreciate your caveat IF but you asked what the solution would be and so I responded with what I think it would be.

India/third world/developing nations haven't progressed as far as western, particularly Scandinavian civilisation has.

If you are measuring the peacefulness of your civilisation it needs to be on a per capita basis.
If you have a population of 10 thousand and you have 100 murders you have more chance of being murdered than in a population
of 10 million with 1000 murders. The total number of murders is higher but the murder rate is lower, in this instance it has dropped
from 1/100 to 1/10,000.

The cave paintings and clay/ivory/bone figures our hunter gatherer ancestors made are fascinating and beautiful...
But they didn't have, and couldn't have, anything like the vast variety and complexity of art we have today.
Without agriculture, and the bigger more complex societies it enabled, we couldn't have, and didn't, develop the art, science and maths
we have today.

Remember that modern man, biologically speaking, existed for a couple of hundred thousand years, with almost no change in technology
or art sophistication until suddenly agriculture was developed and an explosion of ideas occurred and built upon each other that lead in a mear
10 thousand years to modern civilisation.

Without it we would still be living as a hunter gatherer society today.


I agree that agriculture and civilisation has had it's downsides, downsides we are discovering and endeavouring to fix.
But to claim it to be the greatest mistake in history.... is pretty unsupportable.
Now if you were to claim organised religion as the biggest mistake in history, or monotheism perhaps... then we could have a discussion.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes I did appreciate your caveat IF but you asked what the solution would be and so I responded with what I think it would be.

India/third world/developing nations haven't progressed as far as western, particularly Scandinavian civilisation has.

If you are measuring the peacefulness of your civilisation it needs to be on a per capita basis.
If you ...[text shortened]... the biggest mistake in history, or monotheism perhaps... then we could have a discussion.

There is a direct relationship between the pathological condition of a society and the complexity of the art it produces. The simpler a society is, and the more interconnected it is with the web of life around it, the simpler and less specialized its art is. A complex and specialized art is a symptom of a society that is living in a pathological state of alienation. It's art is an attempt to reconnect, in some intuitive way, to its direct, visceral and unalienated past. A healthy society will either have little need to make art at all, or it will be something simple that is accessible to each member of that society.

Originally posted by rwingett
There is a direct relationship between the pathological condition of a society and the complexity of the art it produces. The simpler a society is, and the more interconnected it is with the web of life around it, the simpler and less specialized its art is. A complex and specialized art is a symptom of a society that is living in a pathological state of al ...[text shortened]... e art at all, or it will be something simple that is accessible to each member of that society.

if that is the case, then can we state that the more primitive a society (less technologically advanced) that the art it produces takes on a merely decorative approach, will little or no intellectual content, by way of comparison?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if that is the case, then can we state that the more primitive a society (less technologically advanced) that the art it produces takes on a merely decorative approach, will little or no intellectual content, by way of comparison?

Yes, I suppose that would be so.

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, I suppose that would be so.

vewy intwesting, for the pinnacle of western art is held to be in its conceptualism (dont
know if that's a word, if not is should be), that art in its purest form is ultimately
intellectual and may be expressed conceptually, rather than visually, aurally etc. I
myself find this a deplorable state of affairs, for what it breeds is a kind of inhouse
form of art, for those in the know, which ultimately leads as you state, to specialisation
at best and intellectual snobbery at worst. Thus Yoko Ono can exhibit an apple with a
price tag on it and call it art, simply because it has some idea behind it. Or some
duffer in art school who can neither paint nor draw, nor sculpt nor produce ceramics
gets an honours degree because art is intellectual and he can justify it
intellectually. Its a pure scam man! I stopped going to degree shows for this very reason, pick any
single person from the street and they can produce similar 'art'.

Originally posted by rwingett
There is a direct relationship between the pathological condition of a society and the complexity of the art it produces. The simpler a society is, and the more interconnected it is with the web of life around it, the simpler and less specialized its art is. A complex and specialized art is a symptom of a society that is living in a pathological state of al ...[text shortened]... e art at all, or it will be something simple that is accessible to each member of that society.

total bs.
un-backed-up assertions of fact with no evidence or reasoning.
try again.

Originally posted by googlefudge
total bs.
un-backed-up assertions of fact with no evidence or reasoning.
try again.

I thought it was rather excellent myself.

Originally posted by rwingett
There is a direct relationship between the pathological condition of a society and the complexity of the art it produces. The simpler a society is, and the more interconnected it is with the web of life around it, the simpler and less specialized its art is. A complex and specialized art is a symptom of a society that is living in a pathological state of al ...[text shortened]... e art at all, or it will be something simple that is accessible to each member of that society.

Is there? I would like to see even skimpy evidence to support that - it seems counter-intuitive.

Surely a healthy society is one that appreciattes, or at least tolerates, various artistic expression ?

Would you extend your argument to cover all artistic endeavour? poetry? Lterature? Music? Architecture?

Would your "healthy society" be a barren grey place to live, with one form of art, one form of music, one style of architecture and poetry conforming to standards?

1984?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
vewy intwesting, for the pinnacle of western art is held to be in its conceptualism (dont
know if that's a word, if not is should be), that art in its purest form is ultimately
intellectual and may be expressed conceptually, rather than visually, aurally etc. I
myself find this a deplorable state of affairs, for what it breeds is a kind of inh ...[text shortened]... his very reason, pick any
single person from the street and they can produce similar 'art'.

If everyone were capable of recreating the Mona Lisa would it no longer be art?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
If everyone were capable of recreating the Mona Lisa would it no longer be art?

no it would be art, what it wouldn't be was purely conceptual art.

Even the Mona Lisa has some intellectual substance to it, the deliberate rounding of
the corner's of the eyes and the mouth to give her an ambiguous quality, intentional
and deliberate, but Da Vinci could paint the hind legs off a donkey. The Mona Lisa
speaks to everyone on different levels, to those who know something about it, to
those who simply want to see if for the sake of it.

Conceptual art is elitist, in fact, its so elitist that its inaccessible for most people.
Why should this be the case? Is it reflective of alienation as Ming the merciless
pointed out, I think he makes a valid point, in that yes, it may be the case, for
when we compare art in primitive societies we find that its almost functional,
accessible, part of life, not detached from it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no it would be art, what it wouldn't be was purely conceptual art.

Even the Mona Lisa has some intellectual substance to it, the deliberate rounding of
the corner's of the eyes and the mouth to give her an ambiguous quality, intentional
and deliberate, but Da Vinci could paint the hind legs off a donkey. The Mona Lisa
speaks to everyone o ...[text shortened]... ocieties we find that its almost functional,
accessible, part of life, not detached from it.

you seemed to be deriding some art because it was easy to produce.

I stopped going to degree shows for this very reason, pick any
single person from the street and they can produce similar 'art'.

but I'm glad to hear you don't subscribe to that.

I dont understand what you have against elitist art? There will always be books that are only fully understood by the most literary and opera and ballet are not appreciatted by the masses but still deserve recognition.

I DO DISAPPROVE of public money funding elitist art at a disproportional level (here in Dunedin the council have just coughed up $50,000 for a giant black phallus) but that does not mean I disapprove of the art itself.