Why are threads such as these not locked. If one was to post a thread with the title- "If you are wanting to devolve into African-American culture..." locked and banned for racist insinuations.
But it's ok for such insinuations to be thrown at the Japanese?
[QUOTE="Sula_face"]Actually, other advancements (such as city life) are only possible because of our sewage system. You try to put a couple hundred thousand people into a small area without a proper way to dispose of their fecal matter. Disease would be rampant. Crap doesn't stay within its own little pile, you know. It ca be spread around by the evening breeze. Make the mistake of breathing outside at the wrong time/place and you're ****ed.Many of you are focused on the development of the sewer system, while overlooking that the only reason a sewer system became necessary, was because of other advances in technology.
DeeJayInphinity
Let me make myself more clear. These advances in technology i'm referring to, are the ones responsible for city life. The transition from hunter gatherer to city life required technology. It didn't just happen. Now conisder this technology never existed, there would be no sewage system. And couple hundred thousand people? I'm not talking modern day cities, or even 500 years ago, i'm talking about the oldest cities we know about. These cities were not based on prior technology, they sprung up as technological advancements allowed people to live in a concentrated area and survive. Sewage systems were then put in place to get the crap out of the city. City life then sewage systems, not the other way around.
[QUOTE="Sula_face"] City life was made possible because of "technology". Prior to the city, people lived as hunter gatherers, or as tribes or clans with some type of leader. Human waste was not a problem at this stage, neither was clean water, as most of them were not dumb enough to take a dump in the street, or some other communal area.DeeJayInphinityThey did make the mistake of not crapping were they shouldn't.. in a river, for example. And then a poor unfortunate soul is collecting drinking water down the river.. what a shame. But yeah they didn't always get rid of their crap like they should, and humans live together so as long as one person messes up, the entire community can pay for it.
"humans live together" - Where and how they live together is dependent on the technology they have available. Technology allows more people to live in smaller spaces. At the rate we're going, developing a new technology to more thoroughly clean our drinking water in a must. People aren't drinking water contaminated with another's feces anymore, but there's plenty of other things in the water that are no good for us. Much of the medicine people take goes through their body, into the toilet and gets mixed in with drinking water. Our cleaning process does not take out all of the pharmaceuticals from tap water. And because there are so many people in the world today, producing so many pollutants, spring and well water are also being contaminated. There isn't much of a problem right now, but sooner than later we will need new technology to clean our water.
So which do we want? To chance drinking from a moving river or stream, that someone, in a wide world sparcely populated, might have crapped in. Or bank our chances on new technology being developed to fix the problems old technology created.
[QUOTE="Sula_face"]Easier said than done. Technology makes it much easier to create better living conditions. My house, for example, would not be as pleasant as it is today. I would probably be living in a crappy little shack right now, and I might have died over the winter. Insulation wasn't that great back in the day.At this point in history people had space, plenty of it.
One of you referred to the black plague, did you know that, prior to the sewer system in London, people would dump their waste into the street? The cramped living space meant that everyone smelled everyone else's feces. But, this cramped living arrangement, was a byproduct of technology.So take out technology, remove the cramped living areas of the cities.DeeJayInphinity
Yes, "Technology makes it much easier to create better living conditions." But, technology gives us many things, which is what we're discussing, the good and the bad. How many negative consequences have been developed as the cost to create a comfy cozy house for you live in during the winter. Do the negative consequences outweigh the benefit of sipping a warm drink with the heat turned on while sitting on the couch under a blanket watching the television?
[QUOTE="Sula_face"]Life expectancy can be measured in many different ways, and no matter how you look at it, life expectancy has increased. Do the research.Someone cited that because of technology life expectancy rose. When you look at life expectancy for any given time period, infant mortality is figured in. Yes, many babies died during the first few years of their lives, we didn't have the modern comforts that we have today. But for those that survived, they could expect to live well into old age.
DeeJayInphinity
I have done the research. In modern times the percentage amount given to life expectancy has risen because more people are surviving the early years of childhood to make it into old age. Technology has done very little to effect the age most people die at. Throughout human history people were not reaching the age of 35 or 40 and celebrating their achievement.
[QUOTE="Sula_face"]Health and nutrition can be a by-product of technology. We know approximately how much we need to eat, which substances we rely on, which substances benefit us the most, and the amount of those substances we have to take in order to see results. I can eat a vitamin pill everyday and--a long with the rest of my carefully planned meals--I'll be eating a diet dozens of times more beneficial to me than anyone could ever dream of a couple hundred years ago.And to the person that said health and nutrition is a by-product of technology. People didn't have desk jobs a few hundred, or even thousand years ago, we didn't have couches and a tv to waste a few hours on. We didn't have microwavable dinners, fast food or junk food.
DeeJayInphinity
Dozens of times? Completely false. Scientists are not creating any new substances for your body to intake, they are only puting into pill form what we no longer intake because of our modern life****. And if you'll bother to read into the laws that are enforced upon dietary suplements, you'll see that what they advertise is in their pill, are not actually being used by the body, much of which turns into waste.
One can't just pump our stomachs full of vitamins and nutrients and expect even half of it to be absorbed and used. Some people like to seperate their egg yolk and egg whites and only consume one. What they don't understand, is that the stomach needs the fat of the yolk to digest and use the protein of the white. If either are consumed seperately, your body cannot use it.
This applies to how our body reacts to pills and dietary supplements. Digesting what you need from the food it naturally comes from is many times better for you, than taking dietary supplements.
Take caged tigers for an example of the difference between their meals, and wild tigers. Wild tigers eat omnivores and herbivores. They not only consume their meat, but what their prey has recently consumed, anything that is in its stomach. It's quite a large range of nutrients they consume this way. Now look at the diet of a caged tiger, it requires technology to feed it the necessary nutrients to stay healthy. See the difference? Sula_faceUh, no. Caged tigers, when fed properly, will have a much better diet than a tiger in the wild. Why? Because a tiger in the wild might at some point face starvation, whereas a caged tiger would never have to worry about that. Their diets are always carefully selected, their weight is tracked, and they are looked after by vets. Caged tigers have it much better than a tiger living in the wild.
"Now look at the diet of a caged tiger, it requires technology to feed it the necessary nutrients to stay healthy. See the difference?" Apparently you did not see the difference. "it requires technology" is the point here. I never said today's tigers are not properly cared for. Yes we know that now tigers are generally very well cared for. But it requires technology to do so. It also required technology to capture and cage the tiger in the first place. If we did not have the technology to capture and cage the tiger in the first place, the technology would never have been needed to properly care for and feed a caged tiger.
The only two benefits caged tigers have over wild tigers is stress levels and the threat of humans. The reason that not just tigers, but many exotic animals, are endagered is because of technology. And the stress level comes with living in the wild. It is inherent in this life**** You've heard of the phrase, "You can take a (exotic animal) out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the (exotic animal)." These beasts aren't meant to be caged, they live for the hunt, not for the 3 p.m. handout. Even tigers that are handeled by humans from birth must be caged unless one is professionaly trained to deal with this wild animal.
If you argue that it is still better to be caged than deal with the threat of stress and death in the wild, why not create cages for humans to live in as well. You might point out some difference in that we can take care of ourselves or some such reason. But people are killed everyday, killed off by each other, by disease, by anything. Why not just fully use the technology we have to shield us from the technology we have created and safely quarantine us from each other in a cage.
[QUOTE="Sula_face"] Have you ever looked into the food you eat, even eating an organic based diet, you have to rely on technology to consume all of the necessary nutrients if you want to stay fit and healthy.Key words: when they had a successful hunt. We can have a well-rounded nutrition every single day, a nutrition far superior to theirs.Hunting and gathering was a harsh life**** people didn't always get enough to eat, but when they had a successful hunt, you can bet they got many of the nutrients needed out of their meal. DeeJayInphinity
Like I said earlier, the poeple that live today hardly eat "far superior" to the people that have lived before us. Most of your dietary supplements go in one hole and out the other.
Most of the people cannot have a well rounded nutrition every day as you claim. Have you thought about how much money it costs to have a well rounded nutrition? Try living off of foodstamps, see what kind of food you can afford.
Only the people that have the money can afford to consume exactly what they need everyday. And do you know what having money banks on? Landing that job that pays you the money to eat and live well. Not everyone has it in them to study enough and work hard enough to get the grades and do the hard work needed to get hired to a well paying job.
Just like not everyone had a successful hunt everyday... If they didn't bring home food that day, maybe they should have gotten up earlier, done a better job tracking, not have let that one animal get away. Just as welfare check bob should have studied harder in school, not slept in all day relying on his parents to feed him, until it was too late. Now he eats what the government can afford to feed him.
[QUOTE="Sula_face"]And if they had the technology to reduce the death rate from those diseases, those native americans would not have died. We also know why they were so susceptible to the disease.. as a result of technology, of course.When people learned to domesticate animals, a technological advancement, the diseases that spread around the animals came into closer and more frequent contact with humans, thus killing them. And when the native americans died off from disease, it was the europeans that brought the diseases. And they never would have if they didn't have the technology to build a ship and sale it across the ocean. Our bodies have an immune system learns to build immunities, it was the introduction of all the diseases at once that wiped out the native americans. DeeJayInphinity
Let me go through this again.
Technology allowed the Europeans to build a boat and sail across the Atlantic ocean.
Because of this technology, Europeans brought diseases with them, diseases their immune system could fight, to a group of people whose immune system had never encountered these diseases. Their immune systems could not handle it, so many of them died.
You suggest that if they had the technology to fight the disease, their death toll would be reduced... Yes, same goes for aids and cancer, if only technology would have instantly found the solution, we could have culled the number of deaths.
But technology doesn't come instantly, it takes a while to find a solution. And when the solution does come, one or two other problems might have consequently been produced.
Such as when the europeans gained the technology to sail across the Atlantic, many native americans died. We now have all of the many countries along the North and South American continents, but at the cost of many many native american tribes. And these people living in these continents, deal with the by-products of past, current and developing technology.
Many of you are focused on the development of the sewer system, while overlooking that the only reason a sewer system became necessary, was because of other advances in technology.
City life was made possible because of "technology". Prior to the city, people lived as hunter gatherers, or as tribes or clans with some type of leader. Human waste was not a problem at this stage, neither was clean water, as most of them were not dumb enough to take a dump in the street, or some other communal area. At this point in history people had space, plenty of it.
One of you referred to the black plague, did you know that, prior to the sewer system, people would dump their waste into the street? The cramped living space meant that everyone smelled everyone else's feces. But, this cramped living arrangement, was a byproduct of technology.
So take out technology, remove the cramped living areas of the cities.
Someone cited that because of technology life expectancy rose. When you look at life expectancy for any given time period, infant mortality is figured in. Yes, many babies died during the first few years of their lives, we didn't have the modern comforts that we have today. But for those that survived, they could expect to live well into old age.
And to the person that said health and nutrition is a by-product of technology. People didn't have desk jobs a few hundred, or even thousand years ago, we didn't have couches and a tv to waste a few hours on. We didn't have microwavable dinners, fast food or junk food.
Take caged tigers for an example of the difference between their meals, and wild tigers. Wild tigers eat omnivores and herbivores. They not only consume their meat, but what their prey has recently consumed, anything that is in its stomach. It's quite a range of nutrients they consume this way. Now look at the diet of a caged tiger, it requires technology to feed it the necessary nutrients to stay healthy. See the difference?
Have you ever looked into the food you eat, even eating an organic based diet, you have to rely on technology to consume all of the necessary nutrients if you want to stay fit and healthy.
Hunting and gathering was a harsh life**** people didn't always get enough to eat, but when they had a successful hunt, you can bet they got many of the nutrients needed out of their meal.
When people learned to domesticate animals, a technological advancement, the diseases that spread around the animals came into closer and more frequent contact with humans, thus killing them.
And when the native americans died off from disease, it was the europeans that brought the diseases. And they never would have if they didn't have the technology to build a ship and sale it across the ocean. Our bodies have an immune system learns to build immunities, it was the introduction of all the diseases at once that wiped out the native americans.
Log in to comment