Gloominary wrote:even if Europeans had more domesticated animals, which I'm not at all sure of,
See? You're challenging the facts. Why is it only you who is contesting this? If anyone could show that domesticated animals existed anywhere else, the theory would be gone, poof!
The only contestable point remaining is whether or not the domesticated animals made any difference. I think they did and I think you think that too, which is why you're still not accepting that domesticated animals didn't exist elsewhere.
again, we had disadvantages others didn't have, like harsher winters than Africa and many parts of the Americas and Asia.
But the cold was an advantage that selected for intelligence because one had to use wits to survive it. Overcoming cold is a surmountable challenge because clothing and shelter and food storage is possible for primitive people to pursue, but the heat is an insurmountable problem that could only be addressed with biological adaptation, such as the ability to sweat.
People in the heat cannot overcome the heat with intelligence, but are selected for the ability to run after prey or otherwise find the food that cannot be domesticated or farmed.
Essentially, all one could do in africa was run after an animal until it became heat-exhausted. None were fit for domestication, probably because migration was essential to follow the water and rains. There is no problem that intelligence could solve for them, so it wasn't selected for.
On the other hand, farming was something people could get better at by being smarter. All the food led to big communities, politics, science, philosophy.
If you want to select for intelligence, provide a problem that can be overcome with the implementation of intelligence and supply the extra nutrition to power it.
And our ancestors were still smart for settling and staying in this land, defending it, fully taking advantage of the resources available, and brining nonindigenous domesticated plants and animals over from other places.
They stumbled upon it, settled, then became stronger and smarter and more able to defend it.
I can't think of an instance where arrogance has been a property of the fit, but usually a property of the soon-to-be defeated. Pride cometh before a fall.
I can't think of an instance where undue guilt and shame has been either.
Me neither.
They pay sales tax, gas tax, property tax (if they own any), and if they filed taxes, they'd get money anyway, so they pay the same taxes as anyone in their income group. The purpose of importing them is to serve the capitalist cause of working for cheap to maximize profits so that we don't need to employ lazy, entitled, and expensive white people.
We're still citizens, we were born and raised here, or we came here legally, meeting all the requirements, illegals did not.
I guess there is merit to regulating who comes in and who doesn't, but if a few slip by, I don't see the big deal. There are always acceptable losses with any scheme.
Anyway, the thing that got this whole debate started was the woman complaining that she's told to go home when she's born in the US. Or Trump saying a judge shouldn't be a judge because he's Mexican when he was born in NJ.
I think this is less about legality and more about a war on brown people without regard to where they were born. And I think a lot of people are suspicious about it like me. I mean, they never complain about illegal Russian immigration or possible Canadians flooding the border. Even if they are illegal, no one would care because they're white.
How will capitalists make all that money with no cheap immigrants or offshoring? They won't be competitive on the global stage and will go out of business.
Good, and the American middle class will expand, invest and become globally competitive.
If we don't take advantage of cheap labor, then some other country will and because they did, they will be ahead of us. Offshoring to china was the best thing for everyone: it provided jobs to impoverished people and supplied americans with products cheaper than they could make for themselves. The problem was the republicans not distributing the profits properly.
Not defending other countries can only hurt us. Keeping the peace is in our interest.
If they can defend themselves, or we have nothing invested in them, they should.
I'd only consider defending a people we had nothing invested in, if 1, they couldn't defend themselves, 2, their neighbors weren't able or willing to, and 3, another people was indisputably attempting to genocide them.
The military industrial complex is far too corrupt and incompetent to police the world, and we have far too many sociopolitical and economic problems of our own to worry about other's problems, or think we can solve them.
I'm just saying that if korea starts beating-up japan, it is not in our best interest to let that happen. But if Russia wants to reclaim Ukraine, why should we care?
No I'm saying tax the machines and distribute to the community. I don't think I mentioned terraforming planets.
You're saying make it harder on the poor to make them go away, but you can only create more poor by doing that.
So long as society ensures wages are decent, people who can work, but refuse to, should have it extremely hard, and if they commit crimes, they should go to jail.
Why should they have it extremely hard? Because seeing them suffer makes you feel good. It's not their welfare you care about since you're making it extremely hard on them. It's not economically viable to specifically make it extremely hard on your customers. All you care about is punishing people and that was my point from the beginning. It's the "baby video" I posted often on here where the kid is more concerned that the other kid gets less, even if it means he/she also gets less. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU
Conservatives are willing to hurt themselves so long as it means they can hurt someone else more. I have yet to meet a conservative who didn't.
They even made a meme about it https://pics.esmemes.com/i-vote-republi ... 783265.png
Prohibiting things that many people want to do doesn't work. Many people do not steal, rape, kill, but many people like alcohol, drugs, sex.
Lots of people shoplift, and lots of places hire security, so I guess prohibition works sometimes.
I guess prohibiting some from economically exploiting others won't work either then.
You can ban theft because not many people want to steal.
You can't ban booze because too many people want to drink.
You can prohibit economic exploitation by simply putting the taxes back how they were for 50 years. Problem solved; go play golf. FDR had it figured out a long time ago and most of our problems are simply a result of undoing what he did.
There wouldn't be criminals and drug addicts without the imposed philosophy of suffering.
People who refuse to work impose it on themselves.
Oh hell. $10/hr is no kind of life and you may as well not bother plugging 10 holes when you have enough fingers for two. Essentially we're born into a world where we're presented with two options: go make someone rich or starve. A true independent would never support that. Talk about authoritarianism, you're proposing people participate in your system or face death as alternative. Where the hell is the free choice? You can't compel people to work and claim free-market. Actually, the "free" market is reliant upon the compulsion to work in order to feed it the profits it needs.
A true free market wouldn't have compulsions to make a profit and compulsions to avoid starvation as essential mechanisms, but would be totally voluntary and free from compulsion from any perspective. The only way to make work voluntary is to make it nonessential.
Quite a few rich are also drug addicts, and wealth doesn't stop quite a few rich from committing crimes, particularly white collar crimes.
Yes that's true. I figured you'd point that out.
That's probably because you haven't researched it.
I think it's because you're a bit confused about what creativity is.
The engineer isn't less creative than the artist.
I can see that. The engineer is creative in a different way. Athletes can also be creative. There are 9 forms of intelligence https://blog.adioma.com/9-types-of-inte ... fographic/ I suppose we can be creative with respect to each of them.
And by definition something new cannot be mimicked because there is nothing in existence to mimic since the thing to be mimicked hasn't been created yet.
Okay there Doctor Seuss.
lol
Yes, probably. They wouldn't want to be bogged down with intense focus.
And you need intense focus to compose like Beethoven, or paint like Rembrandt.
Maybe they were naturally gifted. Mozart could play song backwards while carrying on a conversation and from just one hearing of the song. They might not have had to think too hard to create that music
Jazz is gay, because it's whimsical, whereas most classical music is straight, because it's serious and orchestrated.
Maybe. Have you researched it?