PDA

View Full Version : Negroid Energy Regulation Theory



Stygian Cellarius
Wednesday, May 6th, 2009, 03:58 AM
I was observing the behavior of my cat one day and noticed he has intermittent exchanges of sleep and play; sleep for an hour, play for 20 minutes, sleep for an hour, play for 20 minutes. This got me thinking about energy management in organic systems and led me to notice comparable behavior in the Negroe.

In Northern climates, food is scarce and hunting (and gathering) is an all day event. Encountering game is unpredictable; one has no idea of the time or location of its appearance. Encountering edible gatherings is infrequent; one must search longer and further to acquire a sufficient bounty. The most efficient way for a European (or Asian) to utilize energy would be to divide energy usage equally throughout the entire day. Whatever regulates our energy is timed to release it at a constant, uniform pace.

Negroes on the other hand, lived in an environment where game was available around the clock. One could decide at any given moment to hunt and the game would be there. The time and location of its appearance is highly predictable. In this situation, the most efficient energy regulation system would not be to divide energy equally throughout the day, but to reserve energy until it was time to hunt and then release it all at once. Their energy regulation mechanism is set to conserve energy until an external stimulus triggers its release and consequently, flood their system with energy. This would optimize chances of success. So here we have a long down-time when energy is put in reserve mode. Then when its time to hunt, the Will is set in motion which releases energy with explosive force.

This energy management/regulation theory explains many Negroid related phenomenon. Many of us have observed their behavior in a work environment. They exhibit a more relaxed condition than other peoples and they've gained the stereotype of being “lazy” for it. This is just because they are simply in “energy reserve-mode”. The activities of the work environment do not provide enough stimuli to set their Will in motion and consequently, does not flood their system with energy.

One thing that does set their Will into motion is sports. It’s easy to compare the activity of sports to hunting. There are many similar characteristics. This is why Negroes excel at certain sports. They have a system of energy management that complements physical activity where explosive energy release would be an advantage.

This also explains why they have a propensity to dance. No doubt, the Negroe loves to dance and will dance at any opportunity. Music is not even a requirement and the Negroe will dance like there is no tomorrow. Standing on the side of the street, waiting in line at the market or stocking shelves at work, it makes no difference, the Negroe will dance, dance, dance.

It really has nothing to do with a conscious decision to dance. Dancing is just the method of releasing energy that was stored, but never used. Very few things, within the context of Western civilization, will set the Negroes Will into motion. So naturally, he will have excessive energy reserves. If an organism stores its energy for use at a certain time, but an external stimulus fails to present itself, it will need an internally triggered mechanism for releasing energy reserves, or else it would have a very difficult time inducing sleep, etc. Dancing is this mechanism.

I have yet to research the mechanics of energy management in biological systems. This idea is just the result of armchair thinking. What is your opinion of this "theory"? Is there anything within it outside the sphere of reason or possibility? Has anyone heard or read any scientific explanations for behavioral differences between races? Has anyone had any theories them self? I'm just looking for a bit of intelligent criticism, a luxury I find non-existent in the "real world".

Thanks for reading :)

velvet
Wednesday, May 6th, 2009, 03:14 PM
There could be some true core in it, but I would explain it different.
Did you read the AspieQuiz (http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm) article? There is an interesting part about the neanderthals most likely did "hibernation" (=> energy management (it's not hibernation like bears do, really sleeping in that time, but due to the environment a forced time in the cavern only/mostly)), and since we, europeans, might have some neanderthal genes within us, this would explain lots of our behavior concerning times of light and darkness (day and night, summer and winter etc) and our ability to plan for our future needs. Now that is our behavior.

The negroes indeed have other motivations for doing things. The lack of motivation, or stimuli as you named it, is in my opinion a lack of comprehension. Negroes hunt when they are hungry, they run extremely long distances when there is a reason for it (messages for another tribe or hunting etc), indeed resulting in an energy management that would release energy when needed.
This though is a quite short sighted behavior. They hunt for their momentary feel of hunger, they do not store food. This is why you can explain them how to grow corn or how to build wells for them as long as you want, they simply dont understand the benefit of planning for their future needs.
From this point you can explain their "laziness" in work environments as well as their way of living. It is just not in their genes to form a culture, they dont understand our way of working, of structuring things etc.
There is an article here in this forum named 'Culture might be encoded in DNA' about birds, but anyway, if it is true, then it actually would explain lots of things. Negroes form only small groups, in their natural way of living they'd never form a village, let alone a city. It is a family structure where the parents only care for their children and maybe their own parents when they're not able to hunt anymore (actually I think I cant remember any really old/'retarded' people among their tribes), but as soon as the children can hunt themselves or collect some fruits, they do. There is very limited "will" to care for the rest of the family members.

When they are lead by momentary impulses, this indeed would require a complete different energy management, just like cats. But even cats plan, in limited terms due to a lack of fridges, for their future. Lions, as they live in similar family structures, not so much, but lynxes and other big cats hunt bigger animals that last for some days in which they dont need to hunt then.

Do you know that the house cat does not descend from the european wild cat? The house cat domesticated itself with the appearance of granaries in Egypt, so they are descendands from the north african wild cat, which looked quite similar to the abessinier cats today. They took advantage of the human's ability to store food, and with that there were lots of mice, for cats a heaven :D It was quite a symbiotic way of living, that is why the cats got god-like status, because they guarded the corn against the mice and thus preserved the livelihood of that early culture. Without the cats the early cities would most likely not be possible.

Cats have high ability for patience. They dont hunt 'blindly', they wait for a mouse/whatever to come along the way and when it's near enough then they jump. If by any chance possible they dont go searching for them, they know their hunting grounds, go there and wait. The energy management is an average between being able to release high, but short lasting energy on the point, but also a conscious time of waiting. You'll notice that your cat stops playing with you when it never catches the object. He'll loose the interest. Cats dont waste energy. A matured cat sleeps 2/3 of the day, the rest goes for eating, preening, playing/hunting.

Hope that was helpful and put some new aspects to your thinking ;)

Agrippa
Thursday, May 7th, 2009, 12:29 AM
Such theories were proposed in the past already and if assuming that the way of modification we can observe on individuals points to the selective pressures in most cases, like I do, we can think of this as a evolutionary trend.

Because even if putting an European in such tropical areas, he has to adapt sooner or later, or might get sick or exhausted very soon - so this is no good choice, acclimatisation in such cases means for the foreigner even more so than for the local to "fall back" to a more "lazy state", to protect the own health.

The selective pressures which worked on more Northern Eurasians in particular meant larger social units, groups, more long term oriented strategy and thinking etc., which was an important factor for a lower genetic variation and higher positive selection, including higher intelligence being favoured, among progressive Eurasians and related groups.

As things seem to be, we dont need Neandertals for that theory, because no matter which group of people would have lived in a more challenging environment of colder weather, changing weather, seasons and Ice Ages in particular, together with stronger group selection and changing conditions overall, would have been under a stronger selective pressure for more innovative, long term and group oriented behaviour so to say.

The split of Eurasians and primitive groups of Africa might have predate that out of Africa scenario actually, with East Africans being the more modern and to Eurasians related group, and the rest of Africans being probably a mixture of these East African/Eurasian and a more primitive, archaic human form. The Negrid core group could be the mixed-stabilised and somewhat more progressive Subsaharan element, Bambutids (African Pygmies) and Khoisanids (Khoisan people) are the oldest and more isolated groups with little admixture of East Africans and Eurasians back-migrants.

This seems to be another explanation for the divergence.

Also compare with:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7358868.stm

We dont know all about the migrations now, but we know for sure that there was an earlier split of East Africans/Eurasians from other Subsaharan Africans and that a back migration of Eurasians into Subsaharan Africa seems to have taken place.

Stygian Cellarius
Thursday, May 7th, 2009, 12:48 AM
Such theories were proposed in the past already and if assuming that the way of modification we can observe on individuals points to the selective pressures in most cases, like I do, we can think of this as a evolutionary trend.


I'm aware of the common theories associated with European "larger social units, groups, more long term oriented strategy and thinking etc"; theories that Rushton and many others have proposed. But an energy regulation theory, based on reserve and release modes, associated with Negriod behavior, has already been proposed? Can you please link me to them?

Hierwend
Thursday, May 7th, 2009, 12:59 AM
I think that the differences in European and African muscles back this up. I remember reading somewhere about Europeans having stronger slow twitch muscles and Africans having stronger fast twitch muscles. Which is the main reason that there are more world class sprinters of African descent and more world class distance runners of European descent.

Agrippa
Thursday, May 7th, 2009, 01:13 AM
I'm aware of the common theories associated with European "larger social units, groups, more long term oriented strategy and thinking etc"; theories that Rushton and many others have proposed. But an energy regulation theory, based on reserve and release modes, associated with Negriod behavior, has already been proposed? Can you please link me to them?

It was rather an observation made by various anthropological authors which had to travel under rather primitive circumstances and came into contact with European colonies.

Europeans working as much as the adapted locals rather died fast in those times and it was clear that a certain placidity is generally healthier and even more so in those climates...

Nobody can expect working being the same in 20° C and low or 50° C and high humidity. Its common sense for all races...

Stygian Cellarius
Thursday, May 7th, 2009, 02:45 AM
There is an article here in this forum named 'Culture might be encoded in DNA' about birds, but anyway, if it is true, then it actually would explain lots of things.

Frau V,

Culture certainly is encoded in DNA. You either have the potential or you do not. All biological potentials are genetically determined.
At the most fundamental level, culture is the psychological reconfiguration of information and projecting it into the material world. Mind projected into matter. Its function; adaptation to the environment (which includes society because the non-material manifestation of culture are social systems that govern human behavior).
A birds ability to build a nest, a beavers ability to build a dam, even a dung beetle builds a nest for its young. These abilities are similar to our culture, but obviously dramatically restricted. The most rudimentary forms of reconfiguring environmental information to the organisms interest. Exclusively limited to that one particular kind of nest/dam. The structure of the nest does not vary from Raven to Raven beyond what the variables of chance and external forces do to it. Nests are made the same way and their attributes are identical. If you didn't know any better, you'd think that if a Robin can build a Robin nest, then it should be able to build a Blue-Jays nest as well :D. Or better yet, if a beaver can build a damn than it certainly should have the ability to build a bird nest!:D No, it cannot. It can only build that one particular construction. This goes to show you how limited these organisms are with the gift of enviro/info-reconfiguration. Even if the organism is separated at birth and isolated from its kind, it will perform this ability without skipping a beat. Obviously, its programmed into their DNA (unless there is a cosmic information field that downloads the "know how" data into their brains ;)). There is no reason to think that our ability is not.

Also, remember awhile ago, in the other forum, when I was explaining what culture truly is and I said "culture is mans equivalent to physical adaptation in the animal kingdom, only different in appearance"? I say that because I try to get ppl to understand how it's a natural process. It's an attempt to get ppl to dissolve the mental divide they've erected between humans and the rest of the biological world. To show them that it is the same thing just manifest in different appearance and a matter of degree. I also say that to try to get people to understand how important it is. Reducing the quality of culture is tantamount to blunting a tigers claws.

Vindefense
Thursday, May 7th, 2009, 05:05 AM
Posted by infratetraskelion:
This energy management/regulation theory explains many Negroid related phenomenon. Many of us have observed their behavior in a work environment. They exhibit a more relaxed condition than other peoples and they've gained the stereotype of being “lazy” for it. This is just because they are simply in “energy reserve-mode”. The activities of the work environment do not provide enough stimuli to set their Will in motion and consequently, does not flood their system with energy.



This also explains why they have a propensity to dance. No doubt, the Negroe loves to dance and will dance at any opportunity. Music is not even a requirement and the Negroe will dance like there is no tomorrow. Standing on the side of the street, waiting in line at the market or stocking shelves at work, it makes no difference, the Negroe will dance, dance, dance.
It really has nothing to do with a conscious decision to dance. Dancing is just the method of releasing energy that was stored, but never used. Very few things, within the context of Western civilization, will set the Negroes Will into motion. So naturally, he will have excessive energy reserves. If an organism stores its energy for use at a certain time, but an external stimulus fails to present itself, it will need an internally triggered mechanism for releasing energy reserves, or else it would have a very difficult time inducing sleep, etc. Dancing is this mechanism.

Good theory but Disney beat you to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7cvsh2iIwQ

It became apparent to me while playing the game Civilization. If you do not keep your cultures entertained and pre-occupied with work and warfare, they would self implode in riots and uprisings. If you have a group that is not fond of work, then you must provide spirits or performers to dissolve any un-bridled energy.

To say the least, we have thrown sports, drugs and music at the Negro, in an effort to pacify them. Since they do not have the same drive to toil, that is evident in most people, they have a reserve of energy that must be compensated. As their numbers grow, the more government must cater to them and the more demand it will put on an already weak system. A system, that has assumed the role of life support.

Stygian Cellarius
Thursday, May 7th, 2009, 07:02 AM
It was rather an observation made by various anthropological authors which had to travel under rather primitive circumstances and came into contact with European colonies.

Europeans working as much as the adapted locals rather died fast in those times and it was clear that a certain placidity is generally healthier and even more so in those climates...

Nobody can expect working being the same in 20° C and low or 50° C and high humidity. Its common sense for all races...

Common sense behavior and genetically determined energy regulation are two different things, as I'm sure you're well aware of. The former losing its validity as an ultimate source for behavior, when the behavior persists in non-complimentary environments. A persistence we observe.
Unless the behavior is the result of genetically determined energy regulation. The "decision" to not exert oneself actually having its source in the genes. An adaptation brought on by "over-exerters" dying off in warm climates, leaving the lazy to populate. What would seem common sense in the context of their environment becomes apparent as a genetic adaptation in another. A different theory altogether and a valid one, but definitely a complimentary theory. Nature would have required an alternative method of avoiding over-exertion if the climate was warm, but less fruitful. It seems the luxury of laziness itself is regulated by food availability. In my opinion, the two theories fit together very nicely.

I would still like to read your source of information and see how much it mirrors my own thoughts. Even if it's just spoken of in passing as observation. You didn't happen to read it in Which Way Western Man did you? I remember multiple stories of 19th century anthropologists and their observations. Although, I don't remember reading that observation in particular, but then again, I did not read the entire book either.

velvet
Thursday, May 7th, 2009, 12:35 PM
...Obviously, its programmed into their DNA (unless there is a cosmic information field that downloads the "know how" data into their brains ;)). There is no reason to think that our ability is not.

But you would maybe agree that the 'ability to twitter' is not exactly the same like 'reproducing the common song'. This is a huge difference ;)
What I think about the cosmic data field you know, not going to reply to this :D


Also, remember awhile ago, in the other forum, when I was explaining what culture truly is and I said "culture is mans equivalent to physical adaptation in the animal kingdom, only different in appearance"? I say that because I try to get ppl to understand how it's a natural process. It's an attempt to get ppl to dissolve the mental divide they've erected between humans and the rest of the biological world. To show them that it is the same thing just manifest in different appearance and a matter of degree. I also say that to try to get people to understand how important it is. Reducing the quality of culture is tantamount to blunting a tigers claws.

Well, I'd rather say the devide was implanted into our minds, and like any other thing one is used to it is the same difficulty to get rid off that thinking again ;)

But of course I agree with you, that it is important to understand the fact as such and the mechanism, and maybe even more important to draw the right conclusions from these informations, specially regarding the preservation of our culture.


As things seem to be, we dont need Neandertals for that theory, because no matter which group of people would have lived in a more challenging environment of colder weather, changing weather, seasons and Ice Ages in particular, together with stronger group selection and changing conditions overall, would have been under a stronger selective pressure for more innovative, long term and group oriented behaviour so to say.

You know, I find it rather strange that it is widely accepted that homo erectus developed more or less indipendendly on several continents while homo sapiens is reduced to an african development. And that these population, as your linked article states, was about 2000 humans all in all and that they then, after they'd marched thousands and thousands of kilometers, mixed with indigenious people. Aha, eh, who were these indigenious people and were did they suddenly come from, when homo sapiens only developed in Africa? Homo erectus? Neanderthals? Modern humans/homo sapiens? Noone seems to ask that seriously ;)


The split of Eurasians and primitive groups of Africa might have predate that out of Africa scenario actually, with East Africans being the more modern and to Eurasians related group, and the rest of Africans being probably a mixture of these East African/Eurasian and a more primitive, archaic human form. The Negrid core group could be the mixed-stabilised and somewhat more progressive Subsaharan element, Bambutids (African Pygmies) and Khoisanids (Khoisan people) are the oldest and more isolated groups with little admixture of East Africans and Eurasians back-migrants.

This seems to be another explanation for the divergence.

Also compare with:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7358868.stm

We dont know all about the migrations now, but we know for sure that there was an earlier split of East Africans/Eurasians from other Subsaharan Africans and that a back migration of Eurasians into Subsaharan Africa seems to have taken place.

"San/Bushmen

These people's are often believed to be some of the original Africans, but many of their traits speaks against this idea. They resemble, to European eyes at least, east Asians. They have yellowish rather than black skin, epicanthic folds, shovel-shaped incisors, and many newborns have "Mongoloid spots" at the base of the spine. The Asian appearance is not just a perception of Europeans. In the !Kung language there are three kinds of mammals: !a is an edible animal like a warthog or a giraffe, !oma is an inedible animal like a jackal, hyena, black African, or European, and zhu is a person. Vietnamese in Botswana were immediately identifed as zhu by Bushmen. In other words, their perception of their similarity to Asians is the same as ours (i.e. Europeans'). Genetics group Bushmen with Asians and Bushmen lack the signal of expansion present in other African populations. Bushmen are thought to have introduced live stock into South Africa" (AspieLink above)

The San people regocnise black africans as ordinary mammal, not as some of their kind and not as persons, although they have been believed to be the oldest inhabitans of Africa for a long time.
Of course pre-split and maybe even descendends of the prehistoric men. They are certainly not, the question is, what does it say about black africans when they're not even recognised as human by their nearest(?) relatives?

There is about the same amount of findings that would support an anti- out of Africa theory, but official sources like bbc (and the very most other science channels) will present everything that supports the out of africa theory and skip the rest. Therefore I'm still sceptic about it.

Beside, what would be so dramatic about it to have neanderthal genes? The neanderthals were not so primitive and backwarded as they were presented in the past, actually by all we know today about them it would explain even our ability to form a complex culture like ours. Nowhere on earth signs of big culture arose where neanderthals havent lived, the cultural explosion occured in eurasia/middle east and from there it spread around the globe. I think the question is allowed if there might be some connection ;)

Maybe some abilities, like that for stable peace, are directly a result of their genes, as the modern human was for a very long time just another hunting animal, for around a hundred thousand years+, then suddenly, about fourty thousand years ago, as modern human and neanderthal co-existed and mixed, then the first signs of culture, from primitive cave paintings to prehistoric flutes appear on the scene. Not in Africa, but in european caves. Interesting, isnt it? ;)

Agrippa
Thursday, May 7th, 2009, 06:35 PM
Common sense behavior and genetically determined energy regulation are two different things, as I'm sure you're well aware of. The former losing its validity as an ultimate source for behavior, when the behavior persists in non-complimentary environments. A persistence we observe.

True, but I said that in the context of a certain concept in which the way of modification points, at least in most cases, to the selective pressures.

F.e. there were various populations which became reduced by periods of famine and hunger, but some of them, if it lasted long enough and was intensive enough, adapted directly to this conditions.
The first generations were only modified, f.e. Nordoid males with a body height of just 1,6 m, but the longer it lasted, the stronger became the pressure for variants being not just shorter modified, but also "genetically shorter", so that their usual growth coincides with their energy intake and growing ability.

As it was with energy saving due to a low wastage and high tendency towards storing. Now this was true individually as well, as people started to portion their food and eating as much as possible if they couldnt store it, simply for getting a reserve for the bad times. Something natural again, but this tendencies were intensified too in a low energy selective regime.

This, to a large part and together with other factors like plagues, produced Alpinisation and Baltisation of various regions.

The surviving Nordoids were affected by this environment largely in the same way, but they just modified individually, without changing genetically. So after this period was over, they became simply taller and somewhat heavier again, wheras the "storage people" became, if living under the same patterns as before, the overweight and even fat mass of today.

Genes for that being accumulated in the "bad times" of European prehistory and history, without advantage for high level selection, but for low level selection and simple survival under very bad circumstances without too much options, no matter how fast, tall, pretty etc. you were...

Tanning is another great example and we shouldnt laugh about the earlist "anthropological" assumptions which argued that Negroids are "just burned by the sun".

The individual modification points, once again, to the collective selective pressures which worked on the population.

So if analysing how individuals from foreign regions beign affected by local circumstances and how they react, can help to find out which selective pressures worked on a people for thousands of years.

From a psychological standpoint, the ability to stay alone and to deal with depressive phases in darkness is something we can assume for certain very Northern people. Others not being used to it might get an even more serious depression or problem with the circumstances. Just a thought, but you might see where I tried to go with my arguments...


You know, I find it rather strange that it is widely accepted that homo erectus developed more or less indipendendly on several continents

Who said that? It would be crap. Obviously Homo erectus came out of Africa with relatively high certainty and in any case developed from one single cradle. From this he expanded to various continents, where there happened a regional further development, one could speak of races, partly even of species.

Since the human evolution intensified and accelerated, largely the same happened once again. Homo erectus partly eliminated other large mammals and primates even probably, but when the next updates came from the biodynamic centre, his more or less isolated and widespread rests going extinct under the pressure of the new, more evolved version of Hominisation.

Whether they picked up some rests here and there, well, open to debate, no proof for it so far, but many indications against.

Homo erectus stayed very primitive, both culturally and anatomically, for a very long time, Homo sapiens in comparison represents an evolutionary revolution for Hominisation and the accelerated pace is recognisable.


And that these population, as your linked article states, was about 2000 humans all in all and that they then, after they'd marched thousands and thousands of kilometers, mixed with indigenious people. Aha, eh, who were these indigenious people and were did they suddenly come from, when homo sapiens only developed in Africa? Homo erectus? Neanderthals? Modern humans/homo sapiens? Noone seems to ask that seriously

Can you quote that part of the text?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7358868.stm
I think you confused something.


The San people regocnise black africans as ordinary mammal, not as some of their kind and not as persons, although they have been believed to be the oldest inhabitans of Africa for a long time.

Nothing special. Many groups of people considered only their own kind as humans in their language, others not. Some leftists argue how friendly people are who called themselves just "humans", but in fact, they should rather ask how they called other people, especially their enemies...

We have a long history of Negrid - Khoisanid competition and Khoisanids are the original inhabitants of the Southern parts of Africa, thats a fact.


Of course pre-split and maybe even descendends of the prehistoric men. They are certainly not, the question is, what does it say about black africans when they're not even recognised as human by their nearest(?) relatives?

I leave it to your imagination how Europeans being perceived by many foreign people and how they being called if there were longer wars...

That kind of arguments are cheap, I have to say...


There is about the same amount of findings that would support an anti- out of Africa theory, but official sources like bbc (and the very most other science channels) will present everything that supports the out of africa theory and skip the rest. Therefore I'm still sceptic about it.

Yeah, BBC produces a lot of crap, but I'm not leaving my opinion up to that of BBC, but use many other sources of knowledge and I saw no reasonable one which came up with good arguments against Out of Africa.


Maybe some abilities, like that for stable peace, are directly a result of their genes, as the modern human was for a very long time just another hunting animal, for around a hundred thousand years+, then suddenly, about fourty thousand years ago, as modern human and neanderthal co-existed and mixed, then the first signs of culture, from primitive cave paintings to prehistoric flutes appear on the scene.

Well, its like it is with wooden Germanic houses - oh how primitive they were, they lived in simple huts etc., but just look at wooden churches of the North, how elaborated they were. Wood was just a more convenient product so to say, and therefore we can't conclude from a lack of evidence, that other human variants didnt produced artistic and other high level artefacts.

In any case, if humans and Neandertals mixed, the classic Neandertals were more one sided and primitive, but might have offered a very small number of advantageous genes, which were bred into the overall superior genpool. But either way, the Neandertals as a racial form were eliminated, which was a step forward. If a larger scale influence beside single genetic loci survived, it did so of the more progressive Neandertals from the Near East, not of the "classic Neandertals" of Europe, which were far more primitive and further away from modern humans, not speaking of progressive standards.

velvet
Thursday, May 7th, 2009, 08:19 PM
Who said that? It would be crap. Obviously Homo erectus came out of Africa with relatively high certainty and in any case developed from one single cradle. From this he expanded to various continents, where there happened a regional further development, one could speak of races, partly even of species.

Since the human evolution intensified and accelerated, largely the same happened once again. Homo erectus partly eliminated other large mammals and primates even probably, but when the next updates came from the biodynamic centre, his more or less isolated and widespread rests going extinct under the pressure of the new, more evolved version of Hominisation.

Homo erectus stayed very primitive, both culturally and anatomically, for a very long time, Homo sapiens in comparison represents an evolutionary revolution for Hominisation and the accelerated pace is recognisable.

As you said, homo stayed primitive for a very very long time, without much development, if any. I was just wondering how the quite sudden acceleration came into play.

To the other part my thoughts are as follows:
Some 300 million years back there was Pangaea, right? Pre-dinosaur era this continent split up into several parts, drifted its way, formed oceans and smaller continents.
That fact though didnt change anything that on all continents dinosaurs existed, they got exstinct by a meteorite and the entire earth were for some centuries a quite uncomfortable place to live. Also this fact doesnt change anything that on all continents, after they split up, after the dinosaurs got extincted, mammals appeared on the scene of life. And on many continents you'll find mammals belonging to the same species, like cats or wolf-like animals, some sort of deer, rodents, you name it. And apes.
Now, I find it highly unlikely that the human only occured in Africa. Did the Neanderthals, independend if the modern human intermixed with them or not, also came out of africa? Why is it then that the only findings are in the area of europe / middle east?
It's just curiosity.



Whether they picked up some rests here and there, well, open to debate, no proof for it so far, but many indications against.

And what about the neanderthal mtDNA?
Obviously it is identified, as some scientists even try to track back deseases/mental processes to exactly this genes?

I wondered about that too I have to admit, because some (many) years back scientist were convinced that it was impossible for neanderthals and modern humans to interbreed. Today scientists research the results of that interbreeding, so obviously there seems to be some evidence for it.


Well, its like it is with wooden Germanic houses - oh how primitive they were, they lived in simple huts etc., but just look at wooden churches of the North, how elaborated they were. Wood was just a more convenient product so to say, and therefore we can't conclude from a lack of evidence, that other human variants didnt produced artistic and other high level artefacts.

In any case, if humans and Neandertals mixed, the classic Neandertals were more one sided and primitive, but might have offered a very small number of advantageous genes, which were bred into the overall superior genpool. But either way, the Neandertals as a racial form were eliminated, which was a step forward. If a larger scale influence beside single genetic loci survived, it did so of the more progressive Neandertals from the Near East, not of the "classic Neandertals" of Europe, which were far more primitive and further away from modern humans, not speaking of progressive standards.

You misunderstood me, I didnt critised them for being primitive, quite the opposite, because I wonder why to exactly this time the first signs of culture arose. Well, they didnt have fine peaky pencils and no paper, the more astonishing I find it, that their paintings still can be seen on the walls, that they painted 30.000 years ago onto some stone walls.
Indeed, compared to modern human beings they might have been primitive, compared to the outdated model back then they were certainly not. And maybe the "small number of advantageous genes" was exactly what was needed for the final push?

As said, just thinking about the sudden acceleration, as I tend to not believe the ufo-theory, you know ;)

Agrippa
Thursday, May 7th, 2009, 10:47 PM
I was just wondering how the quite sudden acceleration came into play.

Hominisation on a biological and even more on a cultural level almost works like a twist in which it starts slow, but becomes faster and faster if coming towards present. But usually there is always a centre or more centres and periphery.

Most centres today are those of dense populations and progressive racial forms, populations (like Europe, Near East, India, East Asia etc.).

In the end the development of sapiens was not that fast, but steadily, from more progressive Homo erectus forms to archaic Homo sapiens. But then, when a certain stage was reached, the new form, be began a dynamic expansion, almost explosion. And the new form was superior to all other Hominids which existed so far.

We dont know for sure what was the final touch, but it could very well have been a combination of crucial mutations, following cultural developments and environmental pressures.


Also this fact doesnt change anything that on all continents, after they split up, after the dinosaurs got extincted, mammals appeared on the scene of life. And on many continents you'll find mammals belonging to the same species, like cats or wolf-like animals, some sort of deer, rodents, you name it.

Thats not correct. First of all, there are different kind of mammals and again we have progressive centres and a periphery. The periphery is largely the same as it is now for primitive racial forms, with the exception of Africa.

First there were monotremes, then marsupials and at the end of the development, crucial for us humans too, came eutherians.

Usually the more advantageous form spread from a centre and eliminated the less adaptive variants. This happened when Europeans brought more effective life forms from the Old World to the new world. There were just a small number of plants and animals, which made it the other way around, one being the racoon, obviously a progressive generalist of the animal kingdom in his way.

In Australia, which was isolated, you can find quite similar life forms, but the Tasmanian wolf is no wolf, but a marsupial.

The same is true for primates. The centre of primate development was most of the time Africa. We can again see the primitive rests more often in regions, which were cut off - so that the higher evolved animals couldnt displace them.

Examples are especially the lemures on Madagascar or the monkeys of the New World which belong all to the primitive monkey category, which still have a primitive nasal form of primates (open, broad), shared with other animals, no bony auditory canal, 3 molares etc.

If comparing Lemures - New World Monkeys - Old World Apes, you clearly get a line from further away to closer to humans, no doubt about that.

And again, the centre is Africa.

Also compare with:

Early primate-like mammals do not seem to have played an important role in the general transformation of terrestrial animal life immediately following the massive global extinctions of plants and animals that occurred approximately 65,000,000 years ago. The most dramatic changes were brought about by the emergence of large grazing and browsing mammals with tough hoofs, grinding teeth, and digestive tracts specialized for the processing of grass, leaves, and other fibrous plant materials. The evolution of these herbivorous mammals provided the opportunity for the evolution of the carnivorous mammals specialized to eat them. These new hunters and scavengers included the dogs, cats, and bears. Adaptive radiation was resulting in the evolution of new species to fill expanding ecological niches, or food getting opportunities. Most of these new animals were placental mammals. With the exception of bats, none of them reached Australia and New Guinea. This explains why they did not exist there until people brought them in recent times. South America had also drifted away from Africa and was not connected to North America after 80,000,000 years ago. However, around 20,000,000 years ago, South America reconnected with North America and placental mammals streamed in for the first time, resulting in the extinction of most of the existing marsupial fauna there.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/first_primates.htm


Now, I find it highly unlikely that the human only occured in Africa.

Well, the evidence points to that.


Did the Neanderthals, independend if the modern human intermixed with them or not, also came out of africa? Why is it then that the only findings are in the area of europe / middle east?
It's just curiosity.

The first "globe trotter", at least of the Old World, was Homo erectus. Homo erectus settled in many places around the world and came out of Africa with a quite high certainty, since all earlier pre-human and human forms being found in Africa as well and the climate supports his development best.

Anyway, after Homo erectus expanded, we have to know that the population density was very low and many groups became isolated. Now the group which settled down in Europe came under strong pressure by the Ice Age and in fact, thats very much the birth date of Neandertals. They are nothing else but a further development of Homo erectus, an adaptation to the Ice Age and interglacial conditions on a relatively primitive cultural level - i.e. they had to change their body drastically to survive.

At the same time we have other Homo erectus populations, of which some developed traits in the direction of Homo sapiens, all earlier findings we have point to Africa.

As a matter of fact the Neandertals, the "classic Neandertal" of Europe in particular moved even further away from the sapiens line with his kind of adaptation, because the earlier Homo erectus findings had not some of the specialised characteristics Neandertals had, but Homo sapiens had not.

Simply put the Neandertals were an one sided adaptation to the very unfavourable European climate of that time and became largely isolated from other, especially the more progressive human forms South of them.
The isolation however and extremely one sided development might have been never as strict for the Near Eastern Neandertals and even the South Eastern European ones are less extreme in some respects.


I wondered about that too I have to admit, because some (many) years back scientist were convinced that it was impossible for neanderthals and modern humans to interbreed. Today scientists research the results of that interbreeding, so obviously there seems to be some evidence for it.

There is not just "one scientific" opinion, but often as much opinions as there are scientists working on a subject. Those who proporse larger scale mixture are those which proposed it long time before better genetic methods were available, like Wolpoff et al. I dont take them serious, they are ridiculous and some of their arguments are politically inclined even, like that they "refuse the idea of one super-race replacing all others".

But the material is still not worked through sufficiently, the only real proof for Neandertal admixture would be to find genes, which are rather rare in modern humans worldwide or probably more common in areas formerly inhabited by Neandertals which were proven in the DNA from their bones.

So far all results obtained point to Neandertals being a different branch of humans, rather a species on their own, which didnt passed genes, at least not in a significant way, to modern humans.


As said, just thinking about the sudden acceleration, as I tend to not believe the ufo-theory, you know

Simple put, modern humans were able to deal with more challenges more effectively and they were able to push aside competitors, primitive humans or animals, much more efficient than any human species before. I assume they accumulated the necessary traits in a rather smaller and isolated group under strong selective pressures, which resulted in a human generalist, not regioanl specialist, like Neandertals were.

But again, "Neandertals" is a broad term too, I'm not as sure about the Near Eastern variants, as I am about the "classic European" ones, since the latter are very one sided and primitive in all regards and I doubt anything of them survived or was accepted by the later waves of humans. Though we never know, since there were probably always humans which would have even raped a goat...

For a fast and effective adaptation, especially on a higher level, those populations have an advantage which are larger, have constant genflow of a large group of people but at the same time strong selective pressures working on them.

Because a greater effective population size means more mutations, means a higher chance for positive mutations. The constant genflow and selective pressures means advantages genetic variants will reach a selective sweep fast, negative ones will be eliminated fast.

Talking about effective population size and constantly growing-shrinking groups under pressures which might have forced Homo towards a more generalist type and cultural founder like sapiens became, Africa is just the most likely candidate. Neandertals are far off.

Things changed later insofar, as no longer Africa was the best highway for effective genes and further progressive-generalist developments, but Eurasia. But this was only possible under better climatic conditions and a higher cultural level than Neandertals had.

Centres can move. Some places which were centres for hunter gatherer progressive development might be periphery in later times of Neolithic cultures, or whats a good region during an Ice Age might become unfavourable in a warm phase etc...

Stygian Cellarius
Friday, May 8th, 2009, 07:42 AM
But you would maybe agree that the 'ability to twitter' is not exactly the same like 'reproducing the common song'. This is a huge difference ;)
What I think about the cosmic data field you know, not going to reply to this :D

I'm going to compare culture to language and "twittering" to song.

As a reminder, all these things have one purpose; to assist survival.

When breaking each down to their fundamental levels.

Culture: arranging environmental information to assist survival.
Language: arranging sound information to assist survival.

If we go back to the very first time an example of a particular piece of culture was created (like a shovel), it would be this instead: the arrangement of environmental information in a configuration never configured before. An arrangement not found in reality until that moment.

If we go back to the very first time a particular piece of language was created (a new word), it would be this instead: the arrangement of acoustic information (sound) in a configuration never configured before. An arrangement not found in reality until that moment.

Both take place in the mind before they manifest in reality. When in psychological form, they are the same thing. A rearrangement of information. Only when they manifest are they different. One reconfigures matter (or ideas), the other sound.

They are beginning to look very similar.

I guess I don't need to go through all that for nest construction and singing. The above can apply to those just the same.

The difference between the ability of man and bird being that man actually has the ability to reconfigure information on his own. He invents the configuration without any previous instruction. The bird cannot. It has its instruction encoded into it. It has no freedom. Its arrangements are determined.
So it seems the difference is just a matter of degree. Once man crossed the threshold into a being with conscious thought. This offered him freedom from the bonds of program.

While writing in this context I cannot help, but mention the most advanced degree; not just configuring pre-existent information, in an arrangement never configured before (an ability many humans possess), but creating information that never existed. The source of all high culture, true genius. An ability that only a very small minority of our race possesses. An ability I've never seen present in any other race. Even Asians, with their high documented mean IQ do not have this ability. They may have a high percentage of individuals in the upper strata of the former degree, thus achieving high average IQ scores (because an IQ test can only measure the former ability), but virtually zero in the latter degree. An IQ test cannot measure ones ability to create information, only the ability to manipulate pre-existent information.

Other than the last paragraph, I haven't given too much thought on comparing language to culture and song to nest building. So my words might not be that sound. They may be a semantic ruse. I'm going to have to think on it some more for a more accurate response, but it made me think so I figured Id think it "out loud" to you since you inspired it ;)

Oh and about the cosmic information field, where else is the data of "how to build a nest" stored? When a bird reaches maturity, there is a rite of passage when the data link is established and nest building information is downloaded into its brain. Do you really think we will find the code for nest building in its genes one day? I'M KIDDING!!! ;)

It is a mystery though. The information MUST be stored somewhere within its DNA. I'm very intrigued by this idea. I am going to ruminate on this one as well.

Agrippa
Friday, May 8th, 2009, 12:05 PM
As a reminder, all these things have one purpose; to assist survival.

Thats a crucial aspect for my worldview, because in realiy, culture should assist survival and does so, but many aspects of culture are:
positive - neutral - negative
for the practising cultural group.

Many cultural aspects are without value for survival, but they survive as neutral or negative traits which can be compensated.

F.e. the Western culture had and has many negative traits, which were however, compensated by positive ones, which resulted in the mass colonisation and expansion of their people and power in the past f.e.

Now that the negative aspects being no longer compensated, those people under the new form of Western culture, stamped by the USA and strong ideological as well as Jewish influence, go down the drain and being pushed aside by people which belong to other value systems on the long run and reproductive, biological base.

There are even many tribal customs which are highly negative for the fitness of the practising group, but they survive because the negative impact is not strong enough to be eliminated instantly - or ever if there is compensation.

So in humans I distinguish between two "o.k." cultural as well as biological traits, namely positive and neutral, and those which are "not o.k.", namely negative without signficiant positive aspects.

Its like it is with short sighted people, short sightness is definitely a very negative trait, a handicap, but as long as the individuals can compensate directly (glasses/contact lenses etc.)) and indirectly (probably better educated, more intelligent etc.), this negative trait will not be eliminated nor bringing them such a big disadvantage in a modern context.

Thats one of the reasons why bad sight is increasing and again I propose human Eugenic measures for that, being worked out prenatal - I myself have bad sight by the way, but I see no reason why negative traits should be passed on to the offspring if there is a tool to prevent that and to allow "only the good ones" to pass, which should be implemented in any case as soon as available.

In the cultural sphere its exactly the same thing, negative aspects of our culture should be isolated and eliminated, not being part of our tradition any more, no matter how they came in or how long they are into practise.

velvet
Friday, May 8th, 2009, 07:09 PM
Thanks Agrippa for the detailed post ;)


But again, "Neandertals" is a broad term too, I'm not as sure about the Near Eastern variants, as I am about the "classic European" ones, since the latter are very one sided and primitive in all regards and I doubt anything of them survived or was accepted by the later waves of humans. Though we never know, since there were probably always humans which would have even raped a goat...

Yes, but the goat wont get pregnant. An ape wont get pregnant if a human rapes it, and even among humans occasionally genetical incompatibilities prevent couples from having children.
You know, I really hate the presentation of neanderthals promoted by that so-called Neanderthal museum in Mettmann. They present them even more primitive than the homo erectus...
Just look the photo given here (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stor mfront.org%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft% 3D597299) and compare to this page (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iabr no.cz%2Fagalerie%2Fpavlova.htm), both refering to humans about 35.000 years ago in the same region.

I think in the last ten years or so there was a huge change in the dogma about neanderthals, related to us or not, I really hate that they're stigmatised as stupid apes. The forum is full of articles that claim otherwise.

Anyway, lets assume for a moment that modern human raped neanderthals and that it produced offspring. Required is a genetical similarity that makes this possible in the first place. Then there need to be further contact and interbreeding of the two species or at least with the already mixed offsprings of the rape and this in large scale to be detectable today in our genom.
Considering that I would rather think that the two species lived for some while side by side and that there have been more contact and exchange than that based on rape or a hunter/prey relation.


It is a mystery though. The information MUST be stored somewhere within its DNA. I'm very intrigued by this idea. I am going to ruminate on this one as well.

Do that, but maybe we should open a new thread for it ;)

I still find it astonishing that the birds reproduce, even only in the second generation, the exact song. Returning to your cat example, if kitten do not learn the death-bite, they kill their prey otherwise. And unless they dont find out by accident, and that only counts for individuals, also their kitten wont know about it.
Same one can say about language, there have been this movie with Jodie Foster (Nell or so) about a child found in the djungel with a complete own language. Developed alone, without others of her kind to do so and refine it maybe. So we can assume that the ability for language is stored, even the need to name things or experiences, but not the language itself. Or watch twins, the most of them develop an own language only understood by them, leaving the parents out.
Indeed, a quite interesting question to what degree culture (not only the ability) is stored in genes ;)

Agrippa
Friday, May 8th, 2009, 11:55 PM
Yes, but the goat wont get pregnant. An ape wont get pregnant if a human rapes it, and even among humans occasionally genetical incompatibilities prevent couples from having children.
You know, I really hate the presentation of neanderthals promoted by that so-called Neanderthal museum in Mettmann. They present them even more primitive than the homo erectus...
Just look the photo given here (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stor mfront.org%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft% 3D597299) and compare to this page (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iabr no.cz%2Fagalerie%2Fpavlova.htm), both refering to humans about 35.000 years ago in the same region.

I think in the last ten years or so there was a huge change in the dogma about neanderthals, related to us or not, I really hate that they're stigmatised as stupid apes. The forum is full of articles that claim otherwise.

Anyway, lets assume for a moment that modern human raped neanderthals and that it produced offspring. Required is a genetical similarity that makes this possible in the first place. Then there need to be further contact and interbreeding of the two species or at least with the already mixed offsprings of the rape and this in large scale to be detectable today in our genom.
Considering that I would rather think that the two species lived for some while side by side and that there have been more contact and exchange than that based on rape or a hunter/prey relation.


Actually what I said with "goat raping" can be meant literally, but also in a less direct way, namely that "horny humans" accept many ways of sexual satisfaction and therefore would have probably having sexual relationships with half-apes too, so that means little as for the distance to another group.

But to be precise, war was a constant in human history and shaped Homo sapiens, made it a more progressive species in parts. Therefore I can very well imagine the last Neandertal's head being put on spear as a trophy.

If humans eliminated closely related competitors if they could all the time, why should they be more careful with such a distant and, at first look at least, rather disgusting subject for more modern human eyes? Rather not.

The most likely scenario is that there was not just one way of relationship, but more than one, since the exact circumstances and group dynamics might have resulted in this or that reaction.

Most results point to an even low level or older sapiens genetic lineages in modern Europeans, with most coming in later from the Near East, therefore even if the first Proto-Europoids would have met Neandertals and mixed at a low rate, the rate of survival in modern Europids, which mostly descend from later waves, must be negligible.

The only significance such admixture could have had would be:
- large scale mixture of more progressive Neandertal forms of the Near East
- positive selection of specific genetic variants

velvet
Saturday, May 9th, 2009, 05:35 PM
Actually what I said with "goat raping" can be meant literally, but also in a less direct way, namely that "horny humans" accept many ways of sexual satisfaction and therefore would have probably having sexual relationships with half-apes too, so that means little as for the distance to another group.

The quality of the relation or how it looked like exactly doesnt change the premise that the two species must be near enough genetically to make offspring possible.
When you rape a sheep it will not get pregnant, even a chimps wont get pregnant. It is not possible, because the genetical differencies are too big. Genetic tests showed that even the mixing of modern human with homo erectus would not be possible. No matter how the relation looked liked, they were genetically not so different to prevent offspring on the pure biological basis.


But to be precise, war was a constant in human history and shaped Homo sapiens, made it a more progressive species in parts. Therefore I can very well imagine the last Neandertal's head being put on spear as a trophy.

That might be, we dont know. On a side note to praise the war attribute might not be that helpful.
People who critisise islamisation always say, that when they succeed and their 'house of peace' finally would be installed all over the world, there would still be war, and since they then lack an enemy, they're going to make war amongst themselves.
Exactly this though is what you praise as a positive trait in humans in general. If we are the crown of creation we should learn, and really fast, that war might be necessary in times, but that it in itself is not a positive trait.
We humans tend to call ourself the crown of creation, because we are able to manipulate our environment and due to our ability to form complex cultures, taking us very conscious out of the common natural world, and if people finally start to be consequent about it, then we would also take us out of the constant war for survival, otherwise we are nothing but an animal with language.


If humans eliminated closely related competitors if they could all the time, why should they be more careful with such a distant and, at first look at least, rather disgusting subject for more modern human eyes? Rather not.

Did I say they were careful with them? Most likely we rotted them out, so there is no way to call that a careful treatment.
For the perception thing, that was often dependend on the taste of the era, look at this (http://www.epochtimes.de/articles/2006/09/18/52783.html), italians love their big fat mammas and so on. Beauty might not have played such a big roll like you want to think.


The most likely scenario is that there was not just one way of relationship, but more than one, since the exact circumstances and group dynamics might have resulted in this or that reaction.

Most results point to an even low level or older sapiens genetic lineages in modern Europeans, with most coming in later from the Near East, therefore even if the first Proto-Europoids would have met Neandertals and mixed at a low rate, the rate of survival in modern Europids, which mostly descend from later waves, must be negligible.

The only significance such admixture could have had would be:
- large scale mixture of more progressive Neandertal forms of the Near East
- positive selection of specific genetic variants

Okay, you dont like the idea that neanderthals might have contributed to our genom, I understand that in so far as long as I accept their presentation throughout the last 40/50 years or so.
But when I read the neanderthal articles given here in that forum alone (along with other sources) I cant seriously stick any longer to that form of presentation. So there is good ground to re-think your own perception of them.

And once again, by all that I know so far about their social structures and their starting culture (that didnt last long, because we rotted them out) and considering our own history that brought us not much more than some primitive weapons (no culture, no social structure other than that of a lion family, with alpha males killing the offspring of the former alpha male), I still tend to think that this are traits we got or learned from them, and also the ability for peace, that was not in us for several hundred thousand years. And in the most races around the planet (to return to the negroids) it still is no strong trait, violence is their daily bread, etc.

Culture, obviously, the alternative strategy for suvival, is not in all our genes, thus I must assume that we didnt develop them on ourselves, that this is not a natural trait of modern humans.

Stygian Cellarius
Saturday, May 9th, 2009, 10:25 PM
That's a crucial aspect for my worldview, because in reality, culture should assist survival and does so, but many aspects of culture are:
positive - neutral - negative
for the practicing cultural group.

Many cultural aspects are without value for survival, but they survive as neutral or negative traits which can be compensated.

In the cultural sphere its exactly the same thing, negative aspects of our culture should be isolated and eliminated, not being part of our tradition any more, no matter how they came in or how long they are into practice.


Absolutely, tradition is the mechanism for achieving that. It is the body of positive cultural selection. It identifies and selects positive cultural elements and weaves them into the fabric of society to be nurtured through repetition and fine-tuning. Conversely, it erects barriers between society, the individual and negative cultural elements. That's traditions raison d'etre.

At the moment, I can think of two ways negative cultural elements could find their way into tradition.
1) an environmental change that requires adapted, complimentary mores & folkways. Mores & folkways that were once advantageous, becoming a liability within a new environmental (or social) context. An example of the social context being; a tradition of altruism being advantageous until the presence of non-reciprocating immigrants.
2) The artificial insertion of negative cultural elements into tradition. This is the one, as we know, we're currently under attack from.

The best way to destroy a people (indirectly) is to compromise their tradition and consequently, their ability to detect, preserve and maintain positive cultural elements. Especially people of western culture because there is no superior culture to adopt in its place, a luxury others have. Of course, we know what body of thought is compromising our tradition, our culture -- Liberalism.

The relaxation of mores, folkways and taboos. The very destruction of our collective immune system.

I was thinking one day as to how this came about. How does a civilization get to the point when it allows this to happen to it?
My thoughts where: When a civilization is in the ascending phase, a collective struggle exists. The opportunity to build something new nurtures fantasies of a Utopian ideal. At first there are negative environmental pressures to overcome, which provide the ultimate motive. After those pressures are suppressed, the momentum of an Utopian ideal will provide motive for awhile longer. Once the civilization reaches its maximum potential in isolating humans from negative environmental pressures, when Time becomes its only obstacle for further development, it plateaus. This epoch in civilization development is crucial, the greatest possibility for the beginning of decline exists when the next generation is born into it. The next generation is born into a world fully isolated from negative environmental pressures and much is taken for granted. The importance of mores, folkways and taboos becomes less apparent. Traditional behavior and thought begin being questioned. A lack of understanding their original function results in neglect or rejection of those very things which successfully brought them thus far. A collective struggle ceases to exist and motives, that were once outward, turn inward to advance self-serving interests. This weakening of cultural defense mechanisms and collective psychology initiates the decline of civilization. Thereafter, the stage is ripe for insertion of negative cultural elements, thus accelerating its decline.

Liberalism must be stopped indeed.

Question: when a thread natural evolves into something divorced from the topic, how is that handled? It's not so easy to move a response to another thread when the people and comments you are responding to are located in this thread.

Agrippa
Sunday, May 10th, 2009, 02:00 AM
Did I say they were careful with them? Most likely we rotted them out, so there is no way to call that a careful treatment.
For the perception thing, that was often dependend on the taste of the era, look at this, italians love their big fat mammas and so on. Beauty might not have played such a big roll like you want to think.

Well, thats not the most likely explanation. First, it most likely represented a female, mother deity, something like an idol, protection for the women, probably for them being fertile and surviving pregnancy. If you think about it, getting pregnant and surviving pregnancy, being a healthy and successful mother being something women wanted to achieve.
A woman which achieved that might look like those idols, but thats a successful but at the same time "exhausted", older woman. Thats not what men prefer as sexual partners usually and Europids even less so, it would be rather unnatural and contradicts the general selective pressures.

Additionally there is something else. Assuming that sexual ideals in art often represent ideals, even extreme ideals is the result of a lack of or abundance of food.

In a society with a lack of food, fat people can be seen as rich and healthy, as symbols rather than in reality though. If you have too much fat people, a skinny ideal points in the exact other direction.
The best ideal is usually in a moderate frame, the exaggerated one just "corrects" for it from the real average.

You can compare with what I wrote here:
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=733851&postcount=6

Roemertreu
Tuesday, August 10th, 2010, 02:36 PM
My personal theory is that Congoloids produce more testosterone, and thus have the same symptoms as an overdose would cause.

Stuff like fataigue and greater muscle mass, and in extreme cases, the famed 'roid rage syndrome seem to fit better than energy regulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone

CharlesMartel
Tuesday, August 10th, 2010, 06:11 PM
I believe strongly in the theory of climatic influence on the quality of human culture, and possibly even race. Having lived in both cold and hot regions throughout my life, I have personally witnessed the overall superiority of northern peoples. Equatorial societies are the most undisciplined, and hence, the most disorganized, corrupt and unproductive. It all comes down to one simple variable: in a tropical climate, one doesn't have to work hard to survive. In fact, one can be an utter bum, and still live rather comfortably.

CharlesMartel
Saturday, October 23rd, 2010, 08:17 PM
The best Western minds in natural science should dedicate themselves to solving 'The Black Dilemma'. Why is it Blacks cannot succeed? Why is it Blacks, although potentially intelligent, cannot overcome, as a people, their lower animal instincts? Why is it so? I'll always be baffled by this. There are no simple answers.

Ediruc
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 12:05 AM
The best Western minds in natural science should dedicate themselves to solving 'The Black Dilemma'. Why is it Blacks cannot succeed? Why is it Blacks, although potentially intelligent, cannot overcome, as a people, their lower animal instincts? Why is it so? I'll always be baffled by this. There are no simple answers.

Honestly, I think the answers are very simple. Negroids have barely risen out of apedom. Maybe they are the highest level of apedom. *shrugs* I heard chimpanzees use sticks sharpened at the end to poke into holes to find food. If I remember having seen some recent pictures taken by National Geographic, blacks in Africa still use spears. :D

The Negro is just fundamentally biologically inferior. Perhaps blacks are just stuck in this limbo. *shrug* ;)


I believe strongly in the theory of climatic influence on the quality of human culture, and possibly even race. Having lived in both cold and hot regions throughout my life, I have personally witnessed the overall superiority of northern peoples. Equatorial societies are the most undisciplined, and hence, the most disorganized, corrupt and unproductive. It all comes down to one simple variable: in a tropical climate, one doesn't have to work hard to survive. In fact, one can be an utter bum, and still live rather comfortably.

By that logic, as one skadi member pointed out (can't remember who), Eskimos should be a very superior people. :P