Megachange : the world in 2050

[Atheist-Lite]

Archaically, sub-human would be the most accurate descriptive term.

Wow. Come on, let's hear it. How exactly do Australian Aborigines fit the category sub-human, archaically or otherwise?

Well easy if you are a racist, which Tyrannical is.

...and some people pick on me too. And I am the ultimate minority.

[Seth]

Archaically, sub-human would be the most accurate descriptive term.

Wow. Come on, let's hear it. How exactly do Australian Aborigines fit the category sub-human, archaically or otherwise?

Well easy if you are a racist, which Tyrannical is.

Attack the argument, not the member.

Yes, I agree, in this case Tyr's argument is racist.

Just because Australian Aborigines did not have a culture and civilization that meet his narrow perception of what is "civilized" does not mean they are or were "archaically sub-human." The status of a creature as "human" is a genetic determination, not a social or cultural one. If the organism has the DNA of a homo sapien, it's human.

And as I understand it the aboriginal Australian culture was (and is) quite complex and well organized, if substantially non-technological, and was well in tune with the harsh environment of Australia, although I doubt one could say it was totally harmonious and sustainable because like any human society it's impact on the environment is directly controlled by it's ability to control the environment. Due to the harsh conditions in Australia, the aboriginals had little control over the environment and so were forced to live "in harmony" with it (and thus be subject to environmental population control) because they had no choice. I do not think that they consciously controlled their activities so as to limit their own population and their impact. The evidence suggests that they were nomadic, which is an adaptation to over-use of the resources of a single area, and that they lived relatively short lives, which is typical of nomadic hunter-gatherer societies.

But in no way can this be characterized as "sub-human" cultural advancement.

[Tyrannical]

Archaically, sub-human would be the most accurate descriptive term.

Wow. Come on, let's hear it. How exactly do Australian Aborigines fit the category sub-human, archaically or otherwise?

Well easy if you are a racist, which Tyrannical is.

Easy if you objectively observe the evidence

You just have to differentiate between anatomically modern humans and behavioral modern humans. Except political correctness does not allow us to acknowledge that anymore.

And as Seth pointed out, a racist argument does not make it any less correct.
Racism has a scientific basis founded on evolution and natural selection. Egalitarianism is based off of the granting of equality by a deity.

[macdoc]

Why how Victorian of you..



I here racism is congenital defect in proponents - any truth in the matter

[Tyrannical]

Why how Victorian of you..



I here racism is congenital defect in proponents - any truth in the matter

Today we call that behavioral psychology, and it's sub-branch behavioral genetics.

[mistermack]

Archaically, sub-human would be the most accurate descriptive term.

Wow. Come on, let's hear it. How exactly do Australian Aborigines fit the category sub-human, archaically or otherwise?

Well easy if you are a racist, which Tyrannical is.

Easy if you objectively observe the evidence

You just have to differentiate between anatomically modern humans and behavioral modern humans. Except political correctness does not allow us to acknowledge that anymore.

And as Seth pointed out, a racist argument does not make it any less correct.
Racism has a scientific basis founded on evolution and natural selection. Egalitarianism is based off of the granting of equality by a deity.

The only problem is that you're showing that you know virtually nothing about evolution or genetics.
You write just like the most ignorant fundies, who snatch little snippets from scientific theory, and stuff them into your pathetic theories.

If you knew the tiniest thing, you would know that modern humans are incredibly close genetically, due to various bottlenecks in the population numbers, throughout history.

You look at some physical differences, such as skin colour, which require very few genes difference, and come out with your loony theories about behaviour, which requires vast numbers of genes.

Just about as dumb as it gets.

[JimC]

One of the problems that hunter-gatherers all over the world faced when agrarian cultures entered their territories was/is that their land seems to be unused. The incomers see empty land that would be ideal for crops or animals, while the hunter-gatherers have been carefully managing their use of the land so no species gets depleted from any one area.

The story of the destruction of Australia's native civilisation. Having existed for 40 to 50,000 years while maintaining a stable environment, it was basically wiped out in a matter of a few decades.

So, yeah, that was sustainable society stretching across an entire continent, and for several thousand years of time. Not that I'd want to live there, though. Life was tough. Men's roles were dominant to those of women. And no air-conditioning.

However, it's quite possible that in the early days of their arrival in Australia, they were a major factor in wiping out the megafauna of the time. After a period of substantial environmental adjustment, their various societies did indeed settle into a complex, subtle and sustainable relationship with the land.

[macdoc]

Population control by cannibalism

[Hermit]

And as I understand it the aboriginal Australian culture was (and is) quite complex and well organized, if substantially non-technological, and was well in tune with the harsh environment of Australia, although I doubt one could say it was totally harmonious and sustainable because like any human society it's impact on the environment is directly controlled by it's ability to control the environment. Due to the harsh conditions in Australia, the aboriginals had little control over the environment and so were forced to live "in harmony" with it (and thus be subject to environmental population control) because they had no choice. I do not think that they consciously controlled their activities so as to limit their own population and their impact. The evidence suggests that they were nomadic, which is an adaptation to over-use of the resources of a single area, and that they lived relatively short lives, which is typical of nomadic hunter-gatherer societies.

That is substantially so.

However, it's quite possible that in the early days of their arrival in Australia, they were a major factor in wiping out the megafauna of the time. After a period of substantial environmental adjustment, their various societies did indeed settle into a complex, subtle and sustainable relationship with the land.

It is actually quite certain that the activities of the aboriginal population fundamentally changed not only the fauna but also the flora. And then this population lived across the entire continent in a sustainable manner for 40 to 50,000 years.

Not that I would like to have lived in any of their communities. Life was short and cruel, especially so for women.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Typical New York nigger.



I wish I was half as cool as he is.

[macdoc]

Not that I would like to have lived in any of their communities. Life was short and cruel, especially so for women.

and like the Bushmen in Africa - the culture is effectively extinct.

Modern society is attempting to hold on to some of the really incredible tracking skills.

[Rum]

Archaically, sub-human would be the most accurate descriptive term.

Wow. Come on, let's hear it. How exactly do Australian Aborigines fit the category sub-human, archaically or otherwise?

Well easy if you are a racist, which Tyrannical is.

Easy if you objectively observe the evidence

You just have to differentiate between anatomically modern humans and behavioral modern humans. Except political correctness does not allow us to acknowledge that anymore.

And as Seth pointed out, a racist argument does not make it any less correct.
Racism has a scientific basis founded on evolution and natural selection. Egalitarianism is based off of the granting of equality by a deity.

What utter nonsense. Egalitarianism was at the core of the communism ideal and has taken root in many main stream secular political movements. You can't get away with attributing it to a deity.

[macdoc]

As difficult as it may be at Ratz - can we shift back on topic and leave the bigots to their fantasies.

•••••

I'm actually fairly skeptical of any rosy view of 2050 as that's a nasty bottle neck of peaking population and dwindling resources and increasingly rapid climate change as I see nothing that will prevent 4-6 degrees C by the end of the century and already the impact is substantial.

Bill Gross has called for a million Manhattan projects to solve the problems.....haven't seen one yet tho I suppose EVs are a start.

[Rum]

As difficult as it may be at Ratz - can we shift back on topic and leave the bigots to their fantasies.

•••••

I'm actually fairly skeptical of any rosy view of 2050 as that's a nasty bottle neck of peaking population and dwindling resources and increasingly rapid climate change as I see nothing that will prevent 4-6 degrees C by the end of the century and already the impact is substantial.

Bill Gross has called for a million Manhattan projects to solve the problems.....haven't seen one yet tho I suppose EVs are a start.

All I can say is that the 1960s were full of doom laden predictions, mostly around the 'population explosion' as it was called then. Some scenarios had the world in utter meltdown by the 1980s - and that wasn't if we didn't succumb to thermo-nuclear war.

I am not one to view the world through rose coloured glasses, nor do I think we have any automatic destiny to go onwards and upwards - yes we could have catastrophe - but so far human ingenuity has paid off so far and one hopes that it will continue to do so..

[Pappa]

It's funny how some people regard the Australian Aboriginies as technologically backward when they have some technological advances that show astonishing ingenuity. The overriding factor affecting their development was water (or lack of it). By necessity they needed to travel light in order to cover long distances. The concept of traveling light seems to have been deeply ingrained into their cultural make-up too, taken to the extreme. Why carry fire-making equipment, a weapon, a cup and a knife when you could put them all together (or several functions at least) in the form of a well-designed woomera? Boomerangs were also often multi-functional tools. And even putting aside the other uses, the woomera and boomerang themselves are ingenious weapons.