Discussion:
Of Course My Ancestors Lived In Caves, What's Wrong With That?
(too old to reply)
chillin'@home.org (Way Back Jack)
2006-08-31 23:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Waaaay Baaaaack, my ancestors broadened their horizons and left the
mother country. The necessities back then were food, clothing, and
shelter. A cave provided shelter against the cold and elements. Duh.

They could have chosen to stay in Mother Africa where the clime was
warm and caves not required, lounging around the veldt and bush, and
gnawing on melons all day. If they had done so, they would have
become negroes. Instead they moved to an environment that challeneged
their wits and intelligence to survive, and so they developed mentally
and helped establish the beginnings of civilization.
Catherine Bronte
2006-08-31 23:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by chillin'@home.org (Way Back Jack)
Waaaay Baaaaack, my ancestors broadened their horizons and left the
mother country. The necessities back then were food, clothing, and
shelter. A cave provided shelter against the cold and elements. Duh.
They could have chosen to stay in Mother Africa where the clime was
warm and caves not required, lounging around the veldt and bush, and
gnawing on melons all day. If they had done so, they would have
become negroes. Instead they moved to an environment that challeneged
their wits and intelligence to survive, and so they developed mentally
and helped establish the beginnings of civilization.
Oh yes, and I can see you have "challeneged" intelligence.

~C.B.~
http://shespillsthebeans.blogspot.com
Comm
2006-09-02 18:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Catherine Bronte
Post by chillin'@home.org (Way Back Jack)
Waaaay Baaaaack, my ancestors broadened their horizons and left the
mother country. The necessities back then were food, clothing, and
shelter. A cave provided shelter against the cold and elements. Duh.
They could have chosen to stay in Mother Africa where the clime was
warm and caves not required, lounging around the veldt and bush, and
gnawing on melons all day. If they had done so, they would have
become negroes. Instead they moved to an environment that challeneged
their wits and intelligence to survive, and so they developed mentally
and helped establish the beginnings of civilization.
Oh yes, and I can see you have "challeneged" intelligence.
Why the abuse? What he said just happens to be the truth. Those that left
became something different, very different. And yes, they did make
civilization. That's a no brainer. Those that stayed become something
else, as he put it, Negroes. So what? That's true. Where is the problem?

The problem is you are a knee jerk sensitive poof.
Post by Catherine Bronte
~C.B.~
http://shespillsthebeans.blogspot.com
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
2006-09-01 01:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by chillin'@home.org (Way Back Jack)
Waaaay Baaaaack, my ancestors broadened their horizons and left the
mother country. The necessities back then were food, clothing, and
shelter. A cave provided shelter against the cold and elements. Duh.
They could have chosen to stay in Mother Africa where the clime was
warm and caves not required, lounging around the veldt and bush, and
gnawing on melons all day. If they had done so, they would have
become negroes. Instead they moved to an environment that challeneged
their wits and intelligence to survive, and so they developed mentally
and helped establish the beginnings of civilization.
The life of a hunter-gatherer was (and still is) a lot tougher than the
agricultural life developed by those who emigrated to suitable climates.
One by-product of this 'new' lifestyle is the development of idle
classes of temple priests, administrators and other assorted
bureaucrats.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:***@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloody typical, they've gone back to metric without telling us.
I' (Way Back Jack)
2006-09-01 01:31:39 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:28:57 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by chillin'@home.org (Way Back Jack)
Waaaay Baaaaack, my ancestors broadened their horizons and left the
mother country. The necessities back then were food, clothing, and
shelter. A cave provided shelter against the cold and elements. Duh.
They could have chosen to stay in Mother Africa where the clime was
warm and caves not required, lounging around the veldt and bush, and
gnawing on melons all day. If they had done so, they would have
become negroes. Instead they moved to an environment that challeneged
their wits and intelligence to survive, and so they developed mentally
and helped establish the beginnings of civilization.
The life of a hunter-gatherer was (and still is) a lot tougher than the
agricultural life developed by those who emigrated to suitable climates.
One by-product of this 'new' lifestyle is the development of idle
classes of temple priests, administrators and other assorted
bureaucrats.
The "suitable" climates are not what emigrants found.

Dumbbell.
Gordon
2006-09-01 16:22:49 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:28:57 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by chillin'@home.org (Way Back Jack)
Waaaay Baaaaack, my ancestors broadened their horizons and left the
mother country. The necessities back then were food, clothing, and
shelter. A cave provided shelter against the cold and elements. Duh.
They could have chosen to stay in Mother Africa where the clime was
warm and caves not required, lounging around the veldt and bush, and
gnawing on melons all day. If they had done so, they would have
become negroes. Instead they moved to an environment that challeneged
their wits and intelligence to survive, and so they developed mentally
and helped establish the beginnings of civilization.
The life of a hunter-gatherer was (and still is) a lot tougher than the
agricultural life developed by those who emigrated to suitable climates.
One by-product of this 'new' lifestyle is the development of idle
classes of temple priests, administrators and other assorted
bureaucrats.
One significant point here is that the typical hunter/gatherers
didn't have to plan their strategy more than a few hours ahead.
They lived quite comfortably in the here and now.

On the other hand, those who migrated into the colder climates
and relied upon some form of agriculture for their sustenance
through the harsh winters definitely had to think ahead a few
months, and make provisions for the worst possible scenario.

Natural selection favored those with better long-range planning
and organization abilities. This natural selection, amplified
over a few thousand generations, produced a very significant net
effect, it seems.

On the other hand, the hunter-gatherers needed physical
coordination and endurance much more than they needed long range
planning abilities. Throwing a spear and hitting the target was
much more important than planning next fall's agricultural
harvest and storage.

Gordon
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
2006-09-01 18:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:28:57 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by chillin'@home.org (Way Back Jack)
Waaaay Baaaaack, my ancestors broadened their horizons and left the
mother country. The necessities back then were food, clothing, and
shelter. A cave provided shelter against the cold and elements. Duh.
They could have chosen to stay in Mother Africa where the clime was
warm and caves not required, lounging around the veldt and bush, and
gnawing on melons all day. If they had done so, they would have
become negroes. Instead they moved to an environment that challeneged
their wits and intelligence to survive, and so they developed mentally
and helped establish the beginnings of civilization.
The life of a hunter-gatherer was (and still is) a lot tougher than the
agricultural life developed by those who emigrated to suitable climates.
One by-product of this 'new' lifestyle is the development of idle
classes of temple priests, administrators and other assorted
bureaucrats.
One significant point here is that the typical hunter/gatherers
didn't have to plan their strategy more than a few hours ahead.
They lived quite comfortably in the here and now.
On the other hand, it may take more long range planning to figure out
where the herds are and which plants produce fruit, when and where.
Farmers remove complexity from the problem by planting crops and
gathering herds so they don't have to find them.

Each society placed their bet on what they believed would be the correct
strategy. The agricultural societies lucked out in that their choice
required less effort and planning, freeing them up to use their spare
time to build cities, bureaucracies and ultimately, a non-productive
elite class.

Did they know that their choice would lead them to this end? I don't
know. If they didn't, then it was just dumb luck. If they did, then it
appears that the motivation to do so was to get out of doing work.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On the other hand, those who migrated into the colder climates
and relied upon some form of agriculture for their sustenance
through the harsh winters definitely had to think ahead a few
months, and make provisions for the worst possible scenario.
The 'colder climates' were not populated until agriculture had been
developed for thousands of years. The fertile crescent was habitable all
year around by hunter gatherers.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Natural selection favored those with better long-range planning
and organization abilities. This natural selection, amplified
over a few thousand generations, produced a very significant net
effect, it seems.
On the other hand, the hunter-gatherers needed physical
coordination and endurance much more than they needed long range
planning abilities. Throwing a spear and hitting the target was
much more important than planning next fall's agricultural
harvest and storage.
You have to know where your target is going to be. That takes planning
as well.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Gordon
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:***@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tech support: Do you have any windows open right now?
Customer: Are you crazy? Its twenty below out!
Gordon
2006-09-01 21:59:20 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 11:25:50 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:28:57 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by chillin'@home.org (Way Back Jack)
Waaaay Baaaaack, my ancestors broadened their horizons and left the
mother country. The necessities back then were food, clothing, and
shelter. A cave provided shelter against the cold and elements. Duh.
They could have chosen to stay in Mother Africa where the clime was
warm and caves not required, lounging around the veldt and bush, and
gnawing on melons all day. If they had done so, they would have
become negroes. Instead they moved to an environment that challeneged
their wits and intelligence to survive, and so they developed mentally
and helped establish the beginnings of civilization.
The life of a hunter-gatherer was (and still is) a lot tougher than the
agricultural life developed by those who emigrated to suitable climates.
One by-product of this 'new' lifestyle is the development of idle
classes of temple priests, administrators and other assorted
bureaucrats.
One significant point here is that the typical hunter/gatherers
didn't have to plan their strategy more than a few hours ahead.
They lived quite comfortably in the here and now.
On the other hand, it may take more long range planning to figure out
where the herds are and which plants produce fruit, when and where.
Farmers remove complexity from the problem by planting crops and
gathering herds so they don't have to find them.
Each society placed their bet on what they believed would be the correct
strategy. The agricultural societies lucked out in that their choice
required less effort and planning, freeing them up to use their spare
time to build cities, bureaucracies and ultimately, a non-productive
elite class.
Did they know that their choice would lead them to this end? I don't
know. If they didn't, then it was just dumb luck. If they did, then it
appears that the motivation to do so was to get out of doing work.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On the other hand, those who migrated into the colder climates
and relied upon some form of agriculture for their sustenance
through the harsh winters definitely had to think ahead a few
months, and make provisions for the worst possible scenario.
The 'colder climates' were not populated until agriculture had been
developed for thousands of years. The fertile crescent was habitable all
year around by hunter gatherers.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Natural selection favored those with better long-range planning
and organization abilities. This natural selection, amplified
over a few thousand generations, produced a very significant net
effect, it seems.
On the other hand, the hunter-gatherers needed physical
coordination and endurance much more than they needed long range
planning abilities. Throwing a spear and hitting the target was
much more important than planning next fall's agricultural
harvest and storage.
You have to know where your target is going to be. That takes planning
as well.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Gordon
Paul, you make some valid and interesting points here. There is
one thing that neither of us has brought up in this discussion,
and perhaps we should.

For the most part, homo sapiens sapiens' evolution took place
during the deep ice age that ended some 20,000 years ago. During
most of this evolutionary phase, the entire northern Europe area
was not open to settlement. It was covered by permanent polar ice
and was virtually uninhabitable. The Fertile Crescent was indeed
habitable year-round, but it did not have the warm sub-rtopical
climate that we see today. There were definite winter seasons
during which the agricultural produces from the previous summer
were the primary means for survival. Long range
planning...planting, cultivating and harvesting those crops were
of vital importance.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
2006-09-02 01:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 11:25:50 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:28:57 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by chillin'@home.org (Way Back Jack)
Waaaay Baaaaack, my ancestors broadened their horizons and left the
mother country. The necessities back then were food, clothing, and
shelter. A cave provided shelter against the cold and elements. Duh.
They could have chosen to stay in Mother Africa where the clime was
warm and caves not required, lounging around the veldt and bush, and
gnawing on melons all day. If they had done so, they would have
become negroes. Instead they moved to an environment that challeneged
their wits and intelligence to survive, and so they developed mentally
and helped establish the beginnings of civilization.
The life of a hunter-gatherer was (and still is) a lot tougher than the
agricultural life developed by those who emigrated to suitable climates.
One by-product of this 'new' lifestyle is the development of idle
classes of temple priests, administrators and other assorted
bureaucrats.
One significant point here is that the typical hunter/gatherers
didn't have to plan their strategy more than a few hours ahead.
They lived quite comfortably in the here and now.
On the other hand, it may take more long range planning to figure out
where the herds are and which plants produce fruit, when and where.
Farmers remove complexity from the problem by planting crops and
gathering herds so they don't have to find them.
Each society placed their bet on what they believed would be the correct
strategy. The agricultural societies lucked out in that their choice
required less effort and planning, freeing them up to use their spare
time to build cities, bureaucracies and ultimately, a non-productive
elite class.
Did they know that their choice would lead them to this end? I don't
know. If they didn't, then it was just dumb luck. If they did, then it
appears that the motivation to do so was to get out of doing work.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On the other hand, those who migrated into the colder climates
and relied upon some form of agriculture for their sustenance
through the harsh winters definitely had to think ahead a few
months, and make provisions for the worst possible scenario.
The 'colder climates' were not populated until agriculture had been
developed for thousands of years. The fertile crescent was habitable all
year around by hunter gatherers.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Natural selection favored those with better long-range planning
and organization abilities. This natural selection, amplified
over a few thousand generations, produced a very significant net
effect, it seems.
On the other hand, the hunter-gatherers needed physical
coordination and endurance much more than they needed long range
planning abilities. Throwing a spear and hitting the target was
much more important than planning next fall's agricultural
harvest and storage.
You have to know where your target is going to be. That takes planning
as well.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Gordon
Paul, you make some valid and interesting points here. There is
one thing that neither of us has brought up in this discussion,
and perhaps we should.
For the most part, homo sapiens sapiens' evolution took place
during the deep ice age that ended some 20,000 years ago. During
most of this evolutionary phase, the entire northern Europe area
was not open to settlement. It was covered by permanent polar ice
and was virtually uninhabitable. The Fertile Crescent was indeed
habitable year-round, but it did not have the warm sub-rtopical
climate that we see today. There were definite winter seasons
during which the agricultural produces from the previous summer
were the primary means for survival. Long range
planning...planting, cultivating and harvesting those crops were
of vital importance.
Agriculture is much newer than 20,000 years. Somewhere on the order of
10 to 15 thousand years old. The people that followed the receding edge
of the glaciers were hunter-gatherers. Some, including some native
American tribes, never fully made the switch to an agrarian society. It
wasn't until the climate moderated and allowed populations to settle
down, instead of chasing migrating herds, that agriculture became
possible. Hunter gatherers are more common in hostile, colder climates
even to this day (Eskimos, for example).
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:***@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics.
-- Fletcher Knebel
Gordon
2006-09-02 14:49:32 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:34:15 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by Gordon
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 11:25:50 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:28:57 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by chillin'@home.org (Way Back Jack)
Waaaay Baaaaack, my ancestors broadened their horizons and left the
mother country. The necessities back then were food, clothing, and
shelter. A cave provided shelter against the cold and elements. Duh.
They could have chosen to stay in Mother Africa where the clime was
warm and caves not required, lounging around the veldt and bush, and
gnawing on melons all day. If they had done so, they would have
become negroes. Instead they moved to an environment that challeneged
their wits and intelligence to survive, and so they developed mentally
and helped establish the beginnings of civilization.
The life of a hunter-gatherer was (and still is) a lot tougher than the
agricultural life developed by those who emigrated to suitable climates.
One by-product of this 'new' lifestyle is the development of idle
classes of temple priests, administrators and other assorted
bureaucrats.
One significant point here is that the typical hunter/gatherers
didn't have to plan their strategy more than a few hours ahead.
They lived quite comfortably in the here and now.
On the other hand, it may take more long range planning to figure out
where the herds are and which plants produce fruit, when and where.
Farmers remove complexity from the problem by planting crops and
gathering herds so they don't have to find them.
Each society placed their bet on what they believed would be the correct
strategy. The agricultural societies lucked out in that their choice
required less effort and planning, freeing them up to use their spare
time to build cities, bureaucracies and ultimately, a non-productive
elite class.
Did they know that their choice would lead them to this end? I don't
know. If they didn't, then it was just dumb luck. If they did, then it
appears that the motivation to do so was to get out of doing work.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On the other hand, those who migrated into the colder climates
and relied upon some form of agriculture for their sustenance
through the harsh winters definitely had to think ahead a few
months, and make provisions for the worst possible scenario.
The 'colder climates' were not populated until agriculture had been
developed for thousands of years. The fertile crescent was habitable all
year around by hunter gatherers.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Natural selection favored those with better long-range planning
and organization abilities. This natural selection, amplified
over a few thousand generations, produced a very significant net
effect, it seems.
On the other hand, the hunter-gatherers needed physical
coordination and endurance much more than they needed long range
planning abilities. Throwing a spear and hitting the target was
much more important than planning next fall's agricultural
harvest and storage.
You have to know where your target is going to be. That takes planning
as well.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Gordon
Paul, you make some valid and interesting points here. There is
one thing that neither of us has brought up in this discussion,
and perhaps we should.
For the most part, homo sapiens sapiens' evolution took place
during the deep ice age that ended some 20,000 years ago. During
most of this evolutionary phase, the entire northern Europe area
was not open to settlement. It was covered by permanent polar ice
and was virtually uninhabitable. The Fertile Crescent was indeed
habitable year-round, but it did not have the warm sub-rtopical
climate that we see today. There were definite winter seasons
during which the agricultural produces from the previous summer
were the primary means for survival. Long range
planning...planting, cultivating and harvesting those crops were
of vital importance.
Agriculture is much newer than 20,000 years. Somewhere on the order of
10 to 15 thousand years old. The people that followed the receding edge
of the glaciers were hunter-gatherers. Some, including some native
American tribes, never fully made the switch to an agrarian society. It
wasn't until the climate moderated and allowed populations to settle
down, instead of chasing migrating herds, that agriculture became
possible. Hunter gatherers are more common in hostile, colder climates
even to this day (Eskimos, for example).
I don't think it has been determined just when agriculture began.
It was probably the result of the "discovery" that seeds from
some of the human's hunter-gatherers' food scraps would germinate
and grow the desired food. Once they understood this, it was
probably a very simple step on to planting and cultivating
certain food items.

The Eskimo people lived on the edge of the ocean, and subsisted
primarily on sea life. They never had much incentive to change,
since sea life was always abundant. The Pacific currents brought
warm water up from the western Pacific, and this warmer water
provided a suitable environment for the life/food chain that
supplied their needs.

The continental Native Americans were primarily hunters, but
there were isolated groups of agrarian based cultures. The Cliff
Dwellers in SW USA and the Central American cultures were
agriculture oriented.

Northern Europe offered no warm coastal waters such as the Eskimo
people had. When agriculture first started in what is now Europe,
the growing season was very short and the winters were very
harsh. Moving along, following roving animal herds meant
abandoning their comfortable caves in the dead of winter. Another
option was to harvest and store an ample supply of seeds, nuts,
roots, tubers, etc. and just wait for spring, in the comparative
comfort of their frost free caves.

It probably didn't take more than a few thousand years for these
people to figure out that they could grow most of the food items
they needed, and hunt a bit of meat from time to time, much
easier and much more reliably than they could chase after the
roving herds of meat animals.

The primary turning point was probably associated with their
discovery that certain animals could be domesticated and
controlled. These tractable animals could do the heavy
agricultural work, and also provide milk and meat for the owners.

Gordon
r***@yahoo.com
2006-09-02 21:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:34:15 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by Gordon
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 11:25:50 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:28:57 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by chillin'@home.org (Way Back Jack)
Waaaay Baaaaack, my ancestors broadened their horizons and left the
mother country. The necessities back then were food, clothing, and
shelter. A cave provided shelter against the cold and elements. Duh.
They could have chosen to stay in Mother Africa where the clime was
warm and caves not required, lounging around the veldt and bush, and
gnawing on melons all day. If they had done so, they would have
become negroes. Instead they moved to an environment that challeneged
their wits and intelligence to survive, and so they developed mentally
and helped establish the beginnings of civilization.
The life of a hunter-gatherer was (and still is) a lot tougher than the
agricultural life developed by those who emigrated to suitable climates.
One by-product of this 'new' lifestyle is the development of idle
classes of temple priests, administrators and other assorted
bureaucrats.
One significant point here is that the typical hunter/gatherers
didn't have to plan their strategy more than a few hours ahead.
They lived quite comfortably in the here and now.
On the other hand, it may take more long range planning to figure out
where the herds are and which plants produce fruit, when and where.
Farmers remove complexity from the problem by planting crops and
gathering herds so they don't have to find them.
Each society placed their bet on what they believed would be the correct
strategy. The agricultural societies lucked out in that their choice
required less effort and planning, freeing them up to use their spare
time to build cities, bureaucracies and ultimately, a non-productive
elite class.
Did they know that their choice would lead them to this end? I don't
know. If they didn't, then it was just dumb luck. If they did, then it
appears that the motivation to do so was to get out of doing work.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On the other hand, those who migrated into the colder climates
and relied upon some form of agriculture for their sustenance
through the harsh winters definitely had to think ahead a few
months, and make provisions for the worst possible scenario.
The 'colder climates' were not populated until agriculture had been
developed for thousands of years. The fertile crescent was habitable all
year around by hunter gatherers.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Natural selection favored those with better long-range planning
and organization abilities. This natural selection, amplified
over a few thousand generations, produced a very significant net
effect, it seems.
On the other hand, the hunter-gatherers needed physical
coordination and endurance much more than they needed long range
planning abilities. Throwing a spear and hitting the target was
much more important than planning next fall's agricultural
harvest and storage.
You have to know where your target is going to be. That takes planning
as well.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Gordon
Paul, you make some valid and interesting points here. There is
one thing that neither of us has brought up in this discussion,
and perhaps we should.
For the most part, homo sapiens sapiens' evolution took place
during the deep ice age that ended some 20,000 years ago. During
most of this evolutionary phase, the entire northern Europe area
was not open to settlement. It was covered by permanent polar ice
and was virtually uninhabitable. The Fertile Crescent was indeed
habitable year-round, but it did not have the warm sub-rtopical
climate that we see today. There were definite winter seasons
during which the agricultural produces from the previous summer
were the primary means for survival. Long range
planning...planting, cultivating and harvesting those crops were
of vital importance.
Agriculture is much newer than 20,000 years. Somewhere on the order of
10 to 15 thousand years old. The people that followed the receding edge
of the glaciers were hunter-gatherers. Some, including some native
American tribes, never fully made the switch to an agrarian society. It
wasn't until the climate moderated and allowed populations to settle
down, instead of chasing migrating herds, that agriculture became
possible. Hunter gatherers are more common in hostile, colder climates
even to this day (Eskimos, for example).
I don't think it has been determined just when agriculture began.
It was probably the result of the "discovery" that seeds from
some of the human's hunter-gatherers' food scraps would germinate
and grow the desired food. Once they understood this, it was
probably a very simple step on to planting and cultivating
certain food items.
The Eskimo people lived on the edge of the ocean, and subsisted
primarily on sea life. They never had much incentive to change,
since sea life was always abundant. The Pacific currents brought
warm water up from the western Pacific, and this warmer water
provided a suitable environment for the life/food chain that
supplied their needs.
The continental Native Americans were primarily hunters, but
there were isolated groups of agrarian based cultures. The Cliff
Dwellers in SW USA and the Central American cultures were
agriculture oriented.
Northern Europe offered no warm coastal waters such as the Eskimo
people had. When agriculture first started in what is now Europe,
the growing season was very short and the winters were very
harsh. Moving along, following roving animal herds meant
abandoning their comfortable caves in the dead of winter. Another
option was to harvest and store an ample supply of seeds, nuts,
roots, tubers, etc. and just wait for spring, in the comparative
comfort of their frost free caves.
It probably didn't take more than a few thousand years for these
people to figure out that they could grow most of the food items
they needed, and hunt a bit of meat from time to time, much
easier and much more reliably than they could chase after the
roving herds of meat animals.
The primary turning point was probably associated with their
discovery that certain animals could be domesticated and
controlled. These tractable animals could do the heavy
agricultural work, and also provide milk and meat for the owners.
Gordon
It's a very nice idea to think that ice-bound Europeans stored roots
and seeds in their caves and then suddenly discovered the miracle that
they might reproduce in the spring.

But they didn't.

All the evidence shows that agriculture diffused through Europe from
the Near East - specifically the 'Fertile Crescent'

The 'Fertile Crescent' was nothing of the sort until someone organised
irrigation. Before that, there were absolutely no hunter/gatherers
nearer the Tigris/Euphrates than in the foothills of the Zagros
mountains.

There is also the strange coincidence that, just before agriculture was
'invented'; wild wheat plants produced a sudden mutation that doubled
the number of their chromosomes, stopped shattering their seeds, and so
on, helping us to find our agricultural miracle.

If that little mutation hadn't happened, we wouldn't be getting so
obese, sitting over our computers.

regards

Richard
Gordon
2006-09-02 23:11:46 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by r***@yahoo.com
Post by Gordon
I don't think it has been determined just when agriculture began.
It was probably the result of the "discovery" that seeds from
some of the human's hunter-gatherers' food scraps would germinate
and grow the desired food. Once they understood this, it was
probably a very simple step on to planting and cultivating
certain food items.
The Eskimo people lived on the edge of the ocean, and subsisted
primarily on sea life. They never had much incentive to change,
since sea life was always abundant. The Pacific currents brought
warm water up from the western Pacific, and this warmer water
provided a suitable environment for the life/food chain that
supplied their needs.
The continental Native Americans were primarily hunters, but
there were isolated groups of agrarian based cultures. The Cliff
Dwellers in SW USA and the Central American cultures were
agriculture oriented.
Northern Europe offered no warm coastal waters such as the Eskimo
people had. When agriculture first started in what is now Europe,
the growing season was very short and the winters were very
harsh. Moving along, following roving animal herds meant
abandoning their comfortable caves in the dead of winter. Another
option was to harvest and store an ample supply of seeds, nuts,
roots, tubers, etc. and just wait for spring, in the comparative
comfort of their frost free caves.
It probably didn't take more than a few thousand years for these
people to figure out that they could grow most of the food items
they needed, and hunt a bit of meat from time to time, much
easier and much more reliably than they could chase after the
roving herds of meat animals.
The primary turning point was probably associated with their
discovery that certain animals could be domesticated and
controlled. These tractable animals could do the heavy
agricultural work, and also provide milk and meat for the owners.
Gordon
It's a very nice idea to think that ice-bound Europeans stored roots
and seeds in their caves and then suddenly discovered the miracle that
they might reproduce in the spring.
But they didn't.
All the evidence shows that agriculture diffused through Europe from
the Near East - specifically the 'Fertile Crescent'
The 'Fertile Crescent' was nothing of the sort until someone organised
irrigation. Before that, there were absolutely no hunter/gatherers
nearer the Tigris/Euphrates than in the foothills of the Zagros
mountains.
There is also the strange coincidence that, just before agriculture was
'invented'; wild wheat plants produced a sudden mutation that doubled
the number of their chromosomes, stopped shattering their seeds, and so
on, helping us to find our agricultural miracle.
If that little mutation hadn't happened, we wouldn't be getting so
obese, sitting over our computers.
regards
Richard
Richard, some nice information, and insights. What was the
fertile crescent like at, and shortly after the end of the last
ice age? I know it was, latitude wise, below the most southern
extremes of the polar ice sheets, but wasn't it a lot different
than we see it today?

I've read that it was probably a cold, very dry desert with
little or no water available. The situation seems to have changed
when the polar ice melt and associated rise in sea level caused
the ocean to breach the "dam" at the Strait of Gibraltar,
flooding what is now the Mediterranean Basin, and finally the
Black Sea.

Up until this time, the ice melt streams flowing into what is
now the Black Sea Basin were the most abundant source of water
and the life systems that are associated with fresh water.

Rice and wheat both were domesticated in the approximate same
regions, but wheat cultivation did pre-date rice cultivation. Did
wheat cultivation begin in the fertile crescent area or in what
is now the Black Sea basin?

Gordon
i***@yahoo.com
2006-09-05 00:12:47 UTC
Permalink
[ I know that the message below was heade with this request, but
I am going to include large parts of it, for reference purposes;
I do hope that this will not offend Gordon:
"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 4 days (Sep 9, 5:11 pm). "

<SNIP>
Gordon wrote:
<snip>
The situation seems to have changed when
the polar ice melt and associated rise in sea level
Gordon:
Melting of polar ice was a relatively minor component in
the last deglacial rise in global sea level.
The major component was the melting of ice sheets in
the temperate zones,
i.e. the Cordilleran and Laurentide Ice Sheets in North America,
and the Fennoscandian Ice Sheet in Europe.
caused the ocean to breach the "dam" at the Strait of Gibraltar,
No, the last "breaching" of the "dam" near Gibraltar was
more than 5 millions of years ago, well before any consideration
of the agricultural potential of the Fertile Crescent.
flooding what is now the Mediterranean Basin, and finally the
Black Sea.
No, there was water in the Black Sea basin continuously from
well before that "breaching, and water in the Black Sea basin at
the time of that "breaching", and continouously from then until now.
Up until this time, the ice melt streams flowing into what is
now the Black Sea Basin were the most abundant source of water
and the life systems that are associated with fresh water.
As above, that is not true, as the last "breaching" of the "dam"
near Gibraltar was well before there was any appreciable amount
of glacial ice near the Black Sea.
The last time that significant amounts of glacial meltwater might
have entered the Black Sea was more than 10,000 years ago,
when the Caspian Sea ovefrflowed into the Black Sea,
which might have been caused by an influx of glacial meltwater
down the Volga River, but the Caspian overflow was brackish,
not fresh.
The last time that significant amounts of glacial meltwater
would have entered the Black Sea directly was more than
50,000 years ago; since then, glacial ice has tended to stay
north of the Baltic Sea / Black Sea drainage divide, and that
Fennoscandian Ice Sheet meltwater flowed westward into
the Atlantic Ocean or northward into the Arctic Ocean.
Although some Alpine meltwater ran down the Danube to
the Black Sea every time the ice cap in Switzerland melted,
this meltwater influx was completely insufficient to change the
Black Sea water from brackish to fresh water.
Rice and wheat both were domesticated in the approximate same
regions, but wheat cultivation did pre-date rice cultivation. Did
wheat cultivation begin in the fertile crescent area or in what
is now the Black Sea basin?
If by "what is now the Black Sea basin" you mean
the Ukrainian continental shelf, on which William Ryan and
Walter Pitman claimed that irrigated agriculture originated
before it was catastrophically flooded about 7500 years ago,
that idea has been disproven: there was no such flood.

Hoping that this helps clarify the situation for you,
Daryl Krupa

P.S.: From what source did you get that history of Gibraltar,
the Mediterranean Sea, and the Black Sea, and polar ice",
please?
deowll
2006-09-04 01:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@yahoo.com
Post by Gordon
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:34:15 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by Gordon
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 11:25:50 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:28:57 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by chillin'@home.org (Way Back Jack)
Waaaay Baaaaack, my ancestors broadened their horizons and left the
mother country. The necessities back then were food, clothing, and
shelter. A cave provided shelter against the cold and elements.
Duh.
They could have chosen to stay in Mother Africa where the clime was
warm and caves not required, lounging around the veldt and bush, and
gnawing on melons all day. If they had done so, they would have
become negroes. Instead they moved to an environment that challeneged
their wits and intelligence to survive, and so they developed mentally
and helped establish the beginnings of civilization.
The life of a hunter-gatherer was (and still is) a lot tougher than the
agricultural life developed by those who emigrated to suitable climates.
One by-product of this 'new' lifestyle is the development of idle
classes of temple priests, administrators and other assorted
bureaucrats.
One significant point here is that the typical hunter/gatherers
didn't have to plan their strategy more than a few hours ahead.
They lived quite comfortably in the here and now.
On the other hand, it may take more long range planning to figure out
where the herds are and which plants produce fruit, when and where.
Farmers remove complexity from the problem by planting crops and
gathering herds so they don't have to find them.
Each society placed their bet on what they believed would be the correct
strategy. The agricultural societies lucked out in that their choice
required less effort and planning, freeing them up to use their spare
time to build cities, bureaucracies and ultimately, a non-productive
elite class.
Did they know that their choice would lead them to this end? I don't
know. If they didn't, then it was just dumb luck. If they did, then it
appears that the motivation to do so was to get out of doing work.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On the other hand, those who migrated into the colder climates
and relied upon some form of agriculture for their sustenance
through the harsh winters definitely had to think ahead a few
months, and make provisions for the worst possible scenario.
The 'colder climates' were not populated until agriculture had been
developed for thousands of years. The fertile crescent was habitable all
year around by hunter gatherers.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Natural selection favored those with better long-range planning
and organization abilities. This natural selection, amplified
over a few thousand generations, produced a very significant net
effect, it seems.
On the other hand, the hunter-gatherers needed physical
coordination and endurance much more than they needed long range
planning abilities. Throwing a spear and hitting the target was
much more important than planning next fall's agricultural
harvest and storage.
You have to know where your target is going to be. That takes planning
as well.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Gordon
Paul, you make some valid and interesting points here. There is
one thing that neither of us has brought up in this discussion,
and perhaps we should.
For the most part, homo sapiens sapiens' evolution took place
during the deep ice age that ended some 20,000 years ago. During
most of this evolutionary phase, the entire northern Europe area
was not open to settlement. It was covered by permanent polar ice
and was virtually uninhabitable. The Fertile Crescent was indeed
habitable year-round, but it did not have the warm sub-rtopical
climate that we see today. There were definite winter seasons
during which the agricultural produces from the previous summer
were the primary means for survival. Long range
planning...planting, cultivating and harvesting those crops were
of vital importance.
Agriculture is much newer than 20,000 years. Somewhere on the order of
10 to 15 thousand years old. The people that followed the receding edge
of the glaciers were hunter-gatherers. Some, including some native
American tribes, never fully made the switch to an agrarian society. It
wasn't until the climate moderated and allowed populations to settle
down, instead of chasing migrating herds, that agriculture became
possible. Hunter gatherers are more common in hostile, colder climates
even to this day (Eskimos, for example).
I don't think it has been determined just when agriculture began.
It was probably the result of the "discovery" that seeds from
some of the human's hunter-gatherers' food scraps would germinate
and grow the desired food. Once they understood this, it was
probably a very simple step on to planting and cultivating
certain food items.
The Eskimo people lived on the edge of the ocean, and subsisted
primarily on sea life. They never had much incentive to change,
since sea life was always abundant. The Pacific currents brought
warm water up from the western Pacific, and this warmer water
provided a suitable environment for the life/food chain that
supplied their needs.
The continental Native Americans were primarily hunters, but
there were isolated groups of agrarian based cultures. The Cliff
Dwellers in SW USA and the Central American cultures were
agriculture oriented.
Northern Europe offered no warm coastal waters such as the Eskimo
people had. When agriculture first started in what is now Europe,
the growing season was very short and the winters were very
harsh. Moving along, following roving animal herds meant
abandoning their comfortable caves in the dead of winter. Another
option was to harvest and store an ample supply of seeds, nuts,
roots, tubers, etc. and just wait for spring, in the comparative
comfort of their frost free caves.
It probably didn't take more than a few thousand years for these
people to figure out that they could grow most of the food items
they needed, and hunt a bit of meat from time to time, much
easier and much more reliably than they could chase after the
roving herds of meat animals.
The primary turning point was probably associated with their
discovery that certain animals could be domesticated and
controlled. These tractable animals could do the heavy
agricultural work, and also provide milk and meat for the owners.
Gordon
It's a very nice idea to think that ice-bound Europeans stored roots
and seeds in their caves and then suddenly discovered the miracle that
they might reproduce in the spring.
But they didn't.
All the evidence shows that agriculture diffused through Europe from
the Near East - specifically the 'Fertile Crescent'
The 'Fertile Crescent' was nothing of the sort until someone organised
irrigation. Before that, there were absolutely no hunter/gatherers
nearer the Tigris/Euphrates than in the foothills of the Zagros
mountains.
There is also the strange coincidence that, just before agriculture was
'invented'; wild wheat plants produced a sudden mutation that doubled
the number of their chromosomes, stopped shattering their seeds, and so
on, helping us to find our agricultural miracle.
If that little mutation hadn't happened, we wouldn't be getting so
obese, sitting over our computers.
The none shattering gene might have been around for a long time. It was
selected against until people started sowing wheat seeds. As soon as people
started sowing the seeds the non shattering plants started showing up best
in the harvest and got sowed the most quickly taking over the domestic
scene.

The same thing happened with oats, rye, rice, etc.
Post by r***@yahoo.com
regards
Richard
Mastic
2006-09-03 06:23:23 UTC
Permalink
All the talk about caves is actually bullshit. How many caves were
there that could be inhabited? Very few so it's clear that most of the
early humans could not have lived in caves. The majority of them must
have built shelters.
Gordon
2006-09-03 14:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mastic
All the talk about caves is actually bullshit. How many caves were
there that could be inhabited? Very few so it's clear that most of the
early humans could not have lived in caves. The majority of them must
have built shelters.
What was the population density in the area south of the Black
Sea during those times (20k to 10k years ago)? Were there
actually more humans than could have lived in the available
caves, under rock ledges, etc.?

During the time frame we are talking about the winters were
brutally cold in that area, and living outside a cave would have
been very difficult if not impossible.
Mastic
2006-09-04 14:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Mastic
All the talk about caves is actually bullshit. How many caves were
there that could be inhabited? Very few so it's clear that most of the
early humans could not have lived in caves. The majority of them must
have built shelters.
What was the population density in the area south of the Black
Sea during those times (20k to 10k years ago)? Were there
actually more humans than could have lived in the available
caves, under rock ledges, etc.?
During the time frame we are talking about the winters were
brutally cold in that area, and living outside a cave would have
been very difficult if not impossible.
Well how many caves were there to live in?
Caves are not common at all.
Anyway it's not really that important where they lived, the important
thing is that they evolved into humans while the niggers stagnated as
semi simian savages and never evolved into humans.
Gordon
2006-09-04 14:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mastic
Post by Gordon
Post by Mastic
All the talk about caves is actually bullshit. How many caves were
there that could be inhabited? Very few so it's clear that most of the
early humans could not have lived in caves. The majority of them must
have built shelters.
What was the population density in the area south of the Black
Sea during those times (20k to 10k years ago)? Were there
actually more humans than could have lived in the available
caves, under rock ledges, etc.?
During the time frame we are talking about the winters were
brutally cold in that area, and living outside a cave would have
been very difficult if not impossible.
Well how many caves were there to live in?
Caves are not common at all.
Anyway it's not really that important where they lived, the important
thing is that they evolved into humans while the niggers stagnated as
semi simian savages and never evolved into humans.
I really don't have a firm assessment as to how many caves there
are in that region, but I have read many articles such as this,
which indicate that at least some of those early hominidae lived
in caves in that region.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1723824.htm

When visiting Alpine Europe I've seen many references to caves
that are of interest to the tourist trade. However, I've never
visited the area south of the Black Sea, and that is where the
agrarian societies probably originated as the polar ice melted
and that area had an abundance of fresh water.
Mastic
2006-09-05 05:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Mastic
Post by Gordon
Post by Mastic
All the talk about caves is actually bullshit. How many caves were
there that could be inhabited? Very few so it's clear that most of the
early humans could not have lived in caves. The majority of them must
have built shelters.
What was the population density in the area south of the Black
Sea during those times (20k to 10k years ago)? Were there
actually more humans than could have lived in the available
caves, under rock ledges, etc.?
During the time frame we are talking about the winters were
brutally cold in that area, and living outside a cave would have
been very difficult if not impossible.
Well how many caves were there to live in?
Caves are not common at all.
Anyway it's not really that important where they lived, the important
thing is that they evolved into humans while the niggers stagnated as
semi simian savages and never evolved into humans.
I really don't have a firm assessment as to how many caves there
are in that region, but I have read many articles such as this,
which indicate that at least some of those early hominidae lived
in caves in that region.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1723824.htm
When visiting Alpine Europe I've seen many references to caves
that are of interest to the tourist trade. However, I've never
visited the area south of the Black Sea, and that is where the
agrarian societies probably originated as the polar ice melted
and that area had an abundance of fresh water.
Some did undoubtly use caves for at least some shelter (Seems to me a
cave would be cold and drafty) but so did the Australian abo niggers
The point is that there are not many caves anywhere.
Gordon
2006-09-05 14:43:51 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Mastic
Post by Gordon
I really don't have a firm assessment as to how many caves there
are in that region, but I have read many articles such as this,
which indicate that at least some of those early hominidae lived
in caves in that region.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1723824.htm
When visiting Alpine Europe I've seen many references to caves
that are of interest to the tourist trade. However, I've never
visited the area south of the Black Sea, and that is where the
agrarian societies probably originated as the polar ice melted
and that area had an abundance of fresh water.
Some did undoubtly use caves for at least some shelter (Seems to me a
cave would be cold and drafty) but so did the Australian abo niggers
The point is that there are not many caves anywhere.
I agree, there weren't many caves, but it seems there weren't
many people, either, so the "housing availability" may not have
been over stressed.

As I mentioned previously, I really don't have a lot of knowledge
as to the number or size of caves in the eastern Mediterranean
region. I am familiar with caves throughout the central U.S.
These caves usually don't have two openings, thus the wind
doesn't blow through them. They do "breathe" in response to
changes in local barometric pressure, but this is not severe or
long lasting. This "breathing" would tend to clear the camp fire
smoke, however.

The temperature back within the cave rarely drops below the
freezing temperature of water, and is more likely to remain in
the 50 degree range. This would be much more tolerable than a
tent or hut out in the open, during the cold winters of the ice
age.
Day Brown
2006-09-09 03:38:33 UTC
Permalink
The 10,000 BP Anatolian Cities like Chatal Hoyuk had what looked like SW
American pueblos. Adobe. Altho, a nearby volcanic ash made the world's
first plaster, and with that, the first frescoes.

With no windows and only a smoke hole in the ceiling, a small fire would
have made them tolerable in winter, but also comfortable with the cool
of the earth in summer's heat.
Mastic
2006-09-03 06:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:28:57 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by chillin'@home.org (Way Back Jack)
Waaaay Baaaaack, my ancestors broadened their horizons and left the
mother country. The necessities back then were food, clothing, and
shelter. A cave provided shelter against the cold and elements. Duh.
They could have chosen to stay in Mother Africa where the clime was
warm and caves not required, lounging around the veldt and bush, and
gnawing on melons all day. If they had done so, they would have
become negroes. Instead they moved to an environment that challeneged
their wits and intelligence to survive, and so they developed mentally
and helped establish the beginnings of civilization.
The life of a hunter-gatherer was (and still is) a lot tougher than the
agricultural life developed by those who emigrated to suitable climates.
One by-product of this 'new' lifestyle is the development of idle
classes of temple priests, administrators and other assorted
bureaucrats.
One significant point here is that the typical hunter/gatherers
didn't have to plan their strategy more than a few hours ahead.
They lived quite comfortably in the here and now.
On the other hand, it may take more long range planning to figure out
where the herds are and which plants produce fruit, when and where.
Farmers remove complexity from the problem by planting crops and
gathering herds so they don't have to find them.
Each society placed their bet on what they believed would be the correct
strategy. The agricultural societies lucked out in that their choice
required less effort and planning, freeing them up to use their spare
time to build cities, bureaucracies and ultimately, a non-productive
elite class.
Did they know that their choice would lead them to this end? I don't
know. If they didn't, then it was just dumb luck. If they did, then it
appears that the motivation to do so was to get out of doing work.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On the other hand, those who migrated into the colder climates
and relied upon some form of agriculture for their sustenance
through the harsh winters definitely had to think ahead a few
months, and make provisions for the worst possible scenario.
The 'colder climates' were not populated until agriculture had been
developed for thousands of years. The fertile crescent was habitable all
year around by hunter gatherers.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Natural selection favored those with better long-range planning
and organization abilities. This natural selection, amplified
over a few thousand generations, produced a very significant net
effect, it seems.
On the other hand, the hunter-gatherers needed physical
coordination and endurance much more than they needed long range
planning abilities. Throwing a spear and hitting the target was
much more important than planning next fall's agricultural
harvest and storage.
You have to know where your target is going to be. That takes planning
as well.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Gordon
It seems that talking about the reason is unimportant, the thing is
that the niggers are subhuman semi simian savages unable to live in
human civilized societies. Why they didn't evolve into humans is
immaterial the important point is getting rid of infestations of them
from human societies.
Gordon
2006-09-03 14:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mastic
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:28:57 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by chillin'@home.org (Way Back Jack)
Waaaay Baaaaack, my ancestors broadened their horizons and left the
mother country. The necessities back then were food, clothing, and
shelter. A cave provided shelter against the cold and elements. Duh.
They could have chosen to stay in Mother Africa where the clime was
warm and caves not required, lounging around the veldt and bush, and
gnawing on melons all day. If they had done so, they would have
become negroes. Instead they moved to an environment that challeneged
their wits and intelligence to survive, and so they developed mentally
and helped establish the beginnings of civilization.
The life of a hunter-gatherer was (and still is) a lot tougher than the
agricultural life developed by those who emigrated to suitable climates.
One by-product of this 'new' lifestyle is the development of idle
classes of temple priests, administrators and other assorted
bureaucrats.
One significant point here is that the typical hunter/gatherers
didn't have to plan their strategy more than a few hours ahead.
They lived quite comfortably in the here and now.
On the other hand, it may take more long range planning to figure out
where the herds are and which plants produce fruit, when and where.
Farmers remove complexity from the problem by planting crops and
gathering herds so they don't have to find them.
Each society placed their bet on what they believed would be the correct
strategy. The agricultural societies lucked out in that their choice
required less effort and planning, freeing them up to use their spare
time to build cities, bureaucracies and ultimately, a non-productive
elite class.
Did they know that their choice would lead them to this end? I don't
know. If they didn't, then it was just dumb luck. If they did, then it
appears that the motivation to do so was to get out of doing work.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On the other hand, those who migrated into the colder climates
and relied upon some form of agriculture for their sustenance
through the harsh winters definitely had to think ahead a few
months, and make provisions for the worst possible scenario.
The 'colder climates' were not populated until agriculture had been
developed for thousands of years. The fertile crescent was habitable all
year around by hunter gatherers.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Natural selection favored those with better long-range planning
and organization abilities. This natural selection, amplified
over a few thousand generations, produced a very significant net
effect, it seems.
On the other hand, the hunter-gatherers needed physical
coordination and endurance much more than they needed long range
planning abilities. Throwing a spear and hitting the target was
much more important than planning next fall's agricultural
harvest and storage.
You have to know where your target is going to be. That takes planning
as well.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Gordon
It seems that talking about the reason is unimportant, the thing is
that the niggers are subhuman semi simian savages unable to live in
human civilized societies. Why they didn't evolve into humans is
immaterial the important point is getting rid of infestations of them
from human societies.
Could horizontal transfer of DNA by such as retroviruses have
played an important roll in the shaping of the various breeds of
humans? Could living in close proximity to simians have promoted
human to simian and simian to human horizontal DNA transfers? It
seems possible.
Mastic
2006-09-04 14:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Mastic
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:28:57 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Post by Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Post by chillin'@home.org (Way Back Jack)
Waaaay Baaaaack, my ancestors broadened their horizons and left the
mother country. The necessities back then were food, clothing, and
shelter. A cave provided shelter against the cold and elements. Duh.
They could have chosen to stay in Mother Africa where the clime was
warm and caves not required, lounging around the veldt and bush, and
gnawing on melons all day. If they had done so, they would have
become negroes. Instead they moved to an environment that challeneged
their wits and intelligence to survive, and so they developed mentally
and helped establish the beginnings of civilization.
The life of a hunter-gatherer was (and still is) a lot tougher than the
agricultural life developed by those who emigrated to suitable climates.
One by-product of this 'new' lifestyle is the development of idle
classes of temple priests, administrators and other assorted
bureaucrats.
One significant point here is that the typical hunter/gatherers
didn't have to plan their strategy more than a few hours ahead.
They lived quite comfortably in the here and now.
On the other hand, it may take more long range planning to figure out
where the herds are and which plants produce fruit, when and where.
Farmers remove complexity from the problem by planting crops and
gathering herds so they don't have to find them.
Each society placed their bet on what they believed would be the correct
strategy. The agricultural societies lucked out in that their choice
required less effort and planning, freeing them up to use their spare
time to build cities, bureaucracies and ultimately, a non-productive
elite class.
Did they know that their choice would lead them to this end? I don't
know. If they didn't, then it was just dumb luck. If they did, then it
appears that the motivation to do so was to get out of doing work.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
On the other hand, those who migrated into the colder climates
and relied upon some form of agriculture for their sustenance
through the harsh winters definitely had to think ahead a few
months, and make provisions for the worst possible scenario.
The 'colder climates' were not populated until agriculture had been
developed for thousands of years. The fertile crescent was habitable all
year around by hunter gatherers.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Natural selection favored those with better long-range planning
and organization abilities. This natural selection, amplified
over a few thousand generations, produced a very significant net
effect, it seems.
On the other hand, the hunter-gatherers needed physical
coordination and endurance much more than they needed long range
planning abilities. Throwing a spear and hitting the target was
much more important than planning next fall's agricultural
harvest and storage.
You have to know where your target is going to be. That takes planning
as well.
Post by I' (Way Back Jack)
Gordon
It seems that talking about the reason is unimportant, the thing is
that the niggers are subhuman semi simian savages unable to live in
human civilized societies. Why they didn't evolve into humans is
immaterial the important point is getting rid of infestations of them
from human societies.
Could horizontal transfer of DNA by such as retroviruses have
played an important roll in the shaping of the various breeds of
humans? Could living in close proximity to simians have promoted
human to simian and simian to human horizontal DNA transfers? It
seems possible.
You could be on to something, niggers are a disease so they may have
crossed with germs.
Day Brown
2006-09-09 03:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mastic
You could be on to something, niggers are a disease so they may have
crossed with germs.
Ridiculous.
Granted that the bell curve for Africans peaks lower than for Native
Europeans. But the curve for whites also spreads out more in *both*
directions. Sometimes you get a genius, but sometimes you get an idiot
that is dumber than any black.

Without the social safety net white cultures have, anyone that stupid in
Africa does not survive. Go to any state hospital for the retarded and
you will see damn few blacks and almost everyone else is white.

Anyone who hasta dwell on how stupid Africans are, also lacks
intelligence. "Thou protest too much".
Mastic
2006-09-09 07:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by Mastic
You could be on to something, niggers are a disease so they may have
crossed with germs.
Ridiculous.
Granted that the bell curve for Africans peaks lower than for Native
Europeans. But the curve for whites also spreads out more in *both*
directions. Sometimes you get a genius, but sometimes you get an idiot
that is dumber than any black.
Without the social safety net white cultures have, anyone that stupid in
Africa does not survive. Go to any state hospital for the retarded and
you will see damn few blacks and almost everyone else is white.
Anyone who hasta dwell on how stupid Africans are, also lacks
intelligence. "Thou protest too much".
It seems you are a little slow yourself if you think my cranking up
the niggers was meant to be taken literally.
While we are talking about getting things wrong what the fuck has
retards in hospital got to do with niggers being stupid?
The only reason people dwell on the low IQ of the suboids is because
the suboid savages think they are the same as humans and cant
understand why they are on the bottom of the pile. In other words
niggers are so stupid they cant understand how stupid they are.
Day Brown
2006-09-12 04:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mastic
Post by Day Brown
Post by Mastic
You could be on to something, niggers are a disease so they may have
crossed with germs.
Ridiculous.
Granted that the bell curve for Africans peaks lower than for Native
Europeans. But the curve for whites also spreads out more in *both*
directions. Sometimes you get a genius, but sometimes you get an idiot
that is dumber than any black.
Without the social safety net white cultures have, anyone that stupid in
Africa does not survive. Go to any state hospital for the retarded and
you will see damn few blacks and almost everyone else is white.
Anyone who hasta dwell on how stupid Africans are, also lacks
intelligence. "Thou protest too much".
It seems you are a little slow yourself if you think my cranking up
the niggers was meant to be taken literally.
While we are talking about getting things wrong what the fuck has
retards in hospital got to do with niggers being stupid?
The only reason people dwell on the low IQ of the suboids is because
the suboid savages think they are the same as humans and cant
understand why they are on the bottom of the pile. In other words
niggers are so stupid they cant understand how stupid they are.
Blacks were adapted to ecosystems with fewer resources and could not
afford to support the seriously mentally debilitated. Thus, that part of
their bell curve is missing. Their minds were also evolved to deal with
a higher inventory of flora and fauna, with less left over for linear
logic. Unfortunately for them, the modern business world only cares
about the latter.

Not that there are not some exceptions in all races; the culture that
ignores talent where it exists, is less competitive in the global
market, but that which wastes education resources on the unteachable is
also less competitive. Race is a poor indicator when it comes to
*individuals*, altho useful when figuring out how communities develop,
or fail to.
Mastic
2006-09-12 08:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by Mastic
Post by Day Brown
Post by Mastic
You could be on to something, niggers are a disease so they may have
crossed with germs.
Ridiculous.
Granted that the bell curve for Africans peaks lower than for Native
Europeans. But the curve for whites also spreads out more in *both*
directions. Sometimes you get a genius, but sometimes you get an idiot
that is dumber than any black.
Without the social safety net white cultures have, anyone that stupid in
Africa does not survive. Go to any state hospital for the retarded and
you will see damn few blacks and almost everyone else is white.
Anyone who hasta dwell on how stupid Africans are, also lacks
intelligence. "Thou protest too much".
It seems you are a little slow yourself if you think my cranking up
the niggers was meant to be taken literally.
While we are talking about getting things wrong what the fuck has
retards in hospital got to do with niggers being stupid?
The only reason people dwell on the low IQ of the suboids is because
the suboid savages think they are the same as humans and cant
understand why they are on the bottom of the pile. In other words
niggers are so stupid they cant understand how stupid they are.
Blacks were adapted to ecosystems with fewer resources and could not
afford to support the seriously mentally debilitated. Thus, that part of
their bell curve is missing. Their minds were also evolved to deal with
a higher inventory of flora and fauna, with less left over for linear
logic. Unfortunately for them, the modern business world only cares
about the latter.
Africa has vast resources, animal, vegetable and mineral it also has
mild climatic conditions. If as you say they couldn't support the
seriously mentally debilitated (That would be most of the black race
<G>) then the morons would be removed from the gene pool.
Clearly that is not so.
Post by Day Brown
Not that there are not some exceptions in all races; the culture that
ignores talent where it exists, is less competitive in the global
market, but that which wastes education resources on the unteachable is
also less competitive. Race is a poor indicator when it comes to
*individuals*, altho useful when figuring out how communities develop,
or fail to.
Day Brown
2006-09-13 05:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mastic
Africa has vast resources, animal, vegetable and mineral it also has
mild climatic conditions. If as you say they couldn't support the
seriously mentally debilitated (That would be most of the black race
<G>) then the morons would be removed from the gene pool.
Clearly that is not so.
Morons are usually defined as 55-75 IQ, are able to learn some language
and follow direction for simple skills like picking berries. Its the
more severe conditions below 55 that are largely absent from African
gene pools, but still present until institutionalization began in the
white gene pools. In more recent times, this withdrawl of the severely
retarded has raised the average white IQ score, whereas the Black
communities were less likely to institutionalize, and thereby keep more
of their retarded in their gene pools.
Post by Mastic
Post by Day Brown
Not that there are not some exceptions in all races; the culture that
ignores talent where it exists, is less competitive in the global
market, but that which wastes education resources on the unteachable is
also less competitive. Race is a poor indicator when it comes to
*individuals*, altho useful when figuring out how communities develop,
or fail to.
sawa
2006-09-01 13:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Corrected version....

Waaaay Baaaaack, my ancestors were forced to leave the
mother country. The necessities back then were food, clothing, and
shelter. A cave provided shelter against the cold and elements. Duh.

They could have chosen to stay in Mother Africa where the clime was
warm and caves not required, lounging around the veldt and bush, and
gnawing on melons all day. If they had done so, they would have
been exterminated by the stronger blacks. Instead they moved to an
environment that challeneged
their wits and intelligence to survive.
Post by chillin'@home.org (Way Back Jack)
Waaaay Baaaaack, my ancestors broadened their horizons and left the
mother country. The necessities back then were food, clothing, and
shelter. A cave provided shelter against the cold and elements. Duh.
They could have chosen to stay in Mother Africa where the clime was
warm and caves not required, lounging around the veldt and bush, and
gnawing on melons all day. If they had done so, they would have
become negroes. Instead they moved to an environment that challeneged
their wits and intelligence to survive, and so they developed mentally
and helped establish the beginnings of civilization.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...