The future of the world?

Post Reply New Topic

I hope not. But it seems likely.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-12-03-1.html

For goodness sake that was long and dogmatic

This is a simpler explenation, the rules that govern mother nature are as follows:
Survival of the fittest only the fittest survives and get to reproduce.

In poor nations Barbarians, Goths etc lived in harder times so only the strongest and possibly the smartest, sneakiest of those nations would survive.

As the roman empire grows large, much like modern cities today, it becomes prosperous as it does the quality of life gets better, the quality of the average roman citizen also increases slowly but surely the weak have a better survival rate this equals survival of the weak, this sends rules of mother nature in reverse thus weakening the roman empire. The Barbarians following the rule of survival of the fittest better them the Romans; the roman empire is weakened by continual attacks until it is destroyed.

The American Empire could be on its way out because the good life has made the American weak.America despite its healthy capitalism that follow nature of survival of the fittest; there are many thing that put it into the survival of the weakest camp.

· Because of the god quality of living and good medication there is an aging population problem looming
· Outsourcing poorer countries can produce good more cheaply then America
· Weak babies that would have died in a poorer country are growing to adulthood and having weak babies themselves exacerbating the countries health problems.
· Wortless cheating men are having load of children growing up in single parent families growing up to only complete the cycle again. In a poor country a single parents children would not be able to survive, because they would need a stronger family unit.(put simply this equal more broken families, drugs, alcholism, more jocks, rudeboys and more trash NT behavier.

teresting acticle, to long to read all the way through, but having skimmed it, I like how he points out the pottery evidence or the lower classes. A society's success is not judged by its upper class, but by its upper-lower and lower-middle classes. In Rome those lower classes used the same higher quality pots that everyone else used. In modern days this would be equatable to the fact that just about everyone short of homeless people having a tv, refridgerator, and home heating system.

However, Aspie_Chav's suggestion that the success of Rome and our own society will bring about its own fall due to genetic stagnation, "survival of the weakest", is an incorrect view of evelution and survival of species. Survival of the fittest does not apply to individual animals and does not mean the ability of an animal to survive in any given situation. It refers instead to the ability of a species to survive and reproduce in its overall environment. At this you could say humans, and westerners in peticular, excell.

This is not to say that modern western culture has had no effect on our evolution. It is true that many people that wouldn't have "naturally" had kids now do and often have many, but this does not hurt our evolution. The survival of the weakest idea supposes that human genetics is like dog breading with pure bred lines that need to be mantain and keep from polution. But this is a misskewed view.

Evolution and genetic growth comes from mutation and number of breeding cycles. Your just as likely to get an ugly or dum baby from two smart people as you are from two ugly people as you are from a dum person and a beutiful person.


America will collapse, nothing lasts forever, and it will probly be in our lifetimes, but our genetic pool and evolutionairy progress is moving along better and faster then ever before in know history.

But, as I said, America and the Western Democratic Protesto-Catholic cuture it leads will fall and the life of relative luxury all westerners live in will be the direct casue of it. When nothing is more impotant to you then your own cushy life then you wait for others to solve the problems and then you run and run until you are cornered and then its to late.

I don’t know if you are consciously or subconsciously trying to be politically correct but this is not true. It is possible that 2 smart people can have a stupid child but generally they are less likely to then the dumb to have dumb children. If my family generally comprises of skinny smart people then more often then not my children are going to be skinny and smart. Have seen an American next to a Turk, bleeding heck the American woman are much, much heavier collectively then the Turk man; taller even.

Humans are evolving all of the time physically and mentally to adapt to there surroundings. At the moment because society can support the poor better then they use to, the poor are having children at a much faster rate then the rich, there are no environmental restrictions on the amount of poor children that can be supported.

And it isn’t just the ordinary poor but the type that sleeps around and get pregnant and just pump out children. Those poor children will inherit same behaviour genetically too until environmental barriers prevent their children from reaching adulthood, famine or a disease epidemic or the poor being sent of to war in droves. But those things don’t happen much in western society.

Evolution aside, the very lifestyle we fought to create has definitely caused us to lose the will to fight for it.

"Can't somebody else do it?"

Are you stating Rome became weak because the Barbarians had a tougher life style? If so, are you implying that humans, today, should resort back to the tougher life style? Are you taking into account the fact that people, at peace, often don't perform well under battle since they've no reason to fight and that that 'weakness' is not really a weakness, its peace and the resulting Barbarians are more 'criminal?'


Although, I do understand everything you're saying and find it tough to argue

I am most certainly not being PC. It is true that statisticly that parents with above average intelligence tend to raise above average children, but this has almost nothing to do with evelution or genetics. Intelligence is not what you know, it is your ability to learn, and from evey study I've read, a humans ability to learn is consistant across the species.

It is true that some of the differense in size between an american woman and turkish man can be attributed to genetics(but I would attribute most weight of it to diet), and the general size consistances among families can also be attributed to genetics, the "smart" attribute is more likely determined by the environment then any genetic trait.

Intelligence is your potential to learn and has no real statistical variations among different groups of humanity, those with learning disabilities aside. What you are referring to as being or not being "smart" is more accuratly defined as Knowledge, and a person is only as knowledgable as they are taught to be. In which case it is only natural that poor people would have less knowledge as they don't have as much time or money to spend on gaining knowledge.

But all else even, you take a child from any social background, with any kind of parents from genius to ret*d, and you can teach that child to be either a genius or an idiot, nurture, not nature.



I don't know where to begin with this one. Humans, or any species, is not evolving all the time and you don't evolve so you can adapt. Creatures may adapt(small 'a') in a cultural or social sense, but no creture adapts to anything on a gentic level. However, randomly creatures are born with Adaptations(capital 'A'), these are generally random mutation of the dna.

If this Adaptation gives the creature a leg up on the other animals then this creature will bred, giving a great chance, but not garonteeing, that the trait will be passed down and spread through out the species in general. If the trait does permeate the species and become a common aspect to them then they become a new species and have Evolved.

Ok, the evolution part aside. It is true that modern society supports poor people better then in most of the past, but the rest of that paragraph is all incorrect or misstrewed. While, yes, poor people have more children then rich people, this has always been true and will always be true as there are way more poor people then rich people. Unless all rich people started having dozens of kids, it is statistical garontee that most poor people will have more kids then most rich people.



Behavior, short of mental disorders like OCD and aspers, is not genetically inheritated. Take any child from any back ground, give them good role models, a healthy enviroment, and a good education and you will have yourself a good person that will raise good kids of their own.

But if you instead beat that same child, tell them they are worthless, and never give them a chance to learn otherwise and you'll have a person that will sleep around and generally pass on that same message. Genes are mearly building blocks and like any material, you only get what you make out of it.

I notice a large percent of doctors are Indian , nurses are Filipino many my college
professor were from other countries (India, ROC, Yugoslavia)
. Massive number of chinese surnames in the phone book of silicon valley.
As long as smart people can come to the US there want be a brain drain. Being
stable, low taxes and easy to start a bussiness (compared to other places) many
people want to come to America. I was reading a story of how many of
the various hi-tech start ups like HP, Apple, etc could have never started in many
place in Europe for various reasons*. I think the creativity genes are concentrated in
people of European decent(ADHD) . That creativity in the US and under conditions were a person can make money off it means we will be around alot longer than most you think.

*Oh I remember a few months ago the AFF website wanted to start a non-profit in the UK. They were require to have a physical address (not their home). I have not been to
that site in awhile but would not be surprise if they still have not found a physical address to use on the government forms.