war if the worlds

[jca21]

you guys ever wonder that the human race is becoming obsolete?

i mean i dont imagine us fighting against an alien race pent on destroying us...

but i mean like.. fighting with swords, spears... calvary charges... knives, daggers, hatchets, and all the other goodies that i can't think of

the reason being is that this was a passing idea....

i asked alot of my friends "how would u fight a war"???

they said grab the good ol' m4 and glock and kick down some doors =)

which makes sense too

but i think its making us too dependant on technology...

i can count on one hand the number of people who can create fire by friction... me being one of them...

also survival skills... even the most basic ones have long been forgotten...

just thought i'd toss that out there since i was bored.. LOL

what are your thoughts??? should their be a subject in highschool dubed "survival skills"?? (that would be kick ass if i was still in skool)

are we becoming dependant on technology too much then we should?

well.. yeah just thought i'd put that out there and see the responses =)

 

[bigbcustom]

Ever read the book "Dies the Fire" by S.M. Stirling? It postulates some event (maybe aliens did it maybe not) that caused the fundamental laws of physics to change. Power doesn't work any more, and burn rates are decreased for some reason to below the threshold of explosion. Compression was also effected so things like steam engines didn't work either. I am not saying that this could ever happen, but the book is a very interesting read especially about how humans adapt or not. As for a "survival skills" class in high school, I would love to see it as an elective especially in rural areas where everybody hunts. Beyond that, it would instill a sense of accompolishment and self reliance in the students taking it (assuming they paid any attention)...it could be a PE credit.

 

[the_mac]

We humans don't have sharp teeth, long claws, and we don't run very fast. What we do have is a really well develloped brain.

That enabled us to create some really great technology, like flint knives, fire-drills, and spears. The fact that people choose to use better tools to cut, burn, and kill than people did thousands of years ago is a good thing, not a bad thing. New technology is here to stay, because it's better than the old ways, and as such, it makes sense to use it.

Maybe a class in school called "survival skills" about how to drive defensively, devellop situational awareness, and perform basic functions like change a tire, or fix a faucet would be more useful to people.

 

[jca21]

haha mac i love your response =)

i agree with you... technology is good and its hear to stay... but i always wonder like... if y2k did really hit?? and we were back in the stone age (assumption)... what and how would ppl survive.


bigbcustom... havent read that book but i'll be sure to pick it up =)

 

[bigbcustom]

bigbcustom... havent read that book but i'll be sure to pick it up =)

Be careful...it has two others in the series (I had to buy the second one in hardback because I couldn't wait for the paperback, and when the third comes out...it will have to be purchased in hardback also. Then you will have to get the "island in the sea of time" and it's two companions...not the same story, but also interesting...it posits a situation where an out of control alien energy field moves a good chunk of modern us back three thousand years...everything they have still works, but.....?

 

[partridge]

Another vote for Dies the Fire. It's a spin off of previous series from Sterling.

In the first one, the entire island of nantucket gets sent back in time to the bronze age. So it's an exploration of the effect modern technological knowledge would have.

The second series (which Dies the Fire is starting) looks at the world that the first one left behind, which is now suddenly incapable of producing electricity or explosives of any sort (including internal combustion).

All very interesting alternative survival books.

 

[bigbcustom]

The nantucket series starts with "island in the sea of time" I believe...all very addicting books.

 

[huugh]

No technology - not enough food produced - people die no matter if they have "survival skills" or not
Imagine few thousands people running around in woods and hunting squirrels.

Today's world is overpeopled and without modern technology mankind wouldn't be able to survive in current numbers.
(Check out population before ndustrial revolution in European states and nowadays)

 

[Esav Benyamin]

We humans don't have sharp teeth, long claws, and we don't run very fast. What we do have is a really well develloped brain.

Look at humans. Now look at the other apes. What's the one most visually obvious difference between us and them?

Our legs. Humans are specialized among all the apes as runners. We aren't the fastest runners in the entire animal world, but we are faster than most, and our stamina is outstanding.

What type of animal are we? Hunters, grazers/browsers, loners or social? We are like the wolves, pack hunters who share child-raising responsibilities.

With or without technology, or without machine technology, we still have the innate capability to track down dinner and share it within a community that consequently furthers individual survival.

One reason anti-survival traits abound in urban conglomerates is that dissociation from the natural world leaves humans disoriented. We miss the varied vistas, the challenges of providing for an entire circle of personal needs, the tastes of unprocessed food.

People who cannot function on this whole-life level need to substitute for it psychologically, but this may not even be possible, and it leads to ineffective personalities.

 

[hwyhobo]

Look at humans. Now look at the other apes. What's the one most visually obvious difference between us and them?

Our legs. Humans are specialized among all the apes as runners.

Just because we are better runners than chimps is not saying much.

We aren't the fastest runners in the entire animal world, but we are faster than most

No, we're not. In fact, most four-legged mammals are much better runners than we are. Go ahead and try to outrun your dog some time, uphill or downhill, short distance or long.

The only thing that walking upright bought us is the ability to use our hands while walking, and that means tools, and that means technology. We are technological creatures, and we should play to our strengths, not our weaknesses.

 

[yinyang]

While I agree that technology is one of our strengths, it will also be our downfall. More food=more people. More people=more disease/tensions. Medicine and all the technology in the world can't save you from pandemics, natural disasters, decimation of resources, or each other. Alleviating population problems might. Technology is (barely) holding us up in our current numbers. It would be foolish to think it could continue to do so in the future.

 

[jca21]

kinda interesting the responses we're getting here...

i heard "rumours" that some pharmacy companies have found vacines for aids and cures for cancer but are not releasing it for the fear that the world will become overcrowded because people arent dying O_O

also i think i'll pick up ALL the books in the series and read em =)

 

[the_mac]

While I agree that technology is one of our strengths, it will also be our downfall. More food=more people. More people=more disease/tensions. Medicine and all the technology in the world can't save you from pandemics, natural disasters, decimation of resources, or each other. Alleviating population problems might. Technology is (barely) holding us up in our current numbers. It would be foolish to think it could continue to do so in the future.

You're right, it would be foolish to think that technology would support an expanding population. All the historical evidence supports the other conclusion. :jerkit:

I tell you what, if you're so steadfast in your belief that population pressure will be our downfall, you can check out and do everyone a favour.

Catastrophism is rediculous. People that believe that the end of the world is right around the corner have been around for hundreds of years, and somehow we always manage to find ways to survive. The human race are survivors, we cope with problems, and find solutions.

And besides that, look at any animal population on the planet, they grow to the point that their environment can support them, and then when the environment can't anymore, the population shrinks, but in a controlled manner. We're not going to all die anytime soon.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

Just because we are better runners than chimps is not saying much.

You just refuted an argument I didn't make. We don't compete with chimps in running. We surpassed them to take over a different niche.

In fact, most four-legged mammals are much better runners than we are. Go ahead and try to outrun your dog some time, uphill or downhill, short distance or long.

We can and do run down large four-legged mammals. Just because you can name some we can't doesn't invalidate the argument that we are specialized as runners. Again, refuting an argument I didn't make.

The only thing that walking upright bought us is the ability to use our hands while walking, ...

Walking brought us a numbe of advantages, as is common with long-term adaptations. Freeing up forelimbs was just one, a valuable one, but it didn't do the kangaroo much good.

human cerebration is more a function of intensive social interaction than empty hands.

 

[hwyhobo]

It would be foolish to think it could continue to do so in the future.

So we will be decimated. Survival of the fittest. It helps evolution and strengthens genetic pool. That is what you are advocating, right?

Please note that cultures that have the highest level of technological development also have the lowest birth rates, so in itself technology does not contribute to over-population. It is rather the do-gooders who feel obligated to apply this technology in backward areas where high infant mortality rates were the traditional way of maintaining sustainable population growth, thus contradicting nature without providing education to the locals first that create a problem of continuing dependency on the western world. Such dependency always leads to a feeling of hopelessness, resentment and conflict. But, that's a topic for another thread.

 

[hwyhobo]

You just refuted an argument I didn't make. We don't compete with chimps in running.

Your primary differentiator for humans was running ability - read this:

What's the one most visually obvious difference between us and them? Our legs. Humans are specialized among all the apes as runners. We aren't the fastest runners in the entire animal world, but we are faster than most, and our stamina is outstanding.

I refuted that. That's all. Our primary differentiator is using tools effectively. Hence birth of technology. That's our strength (along with social skills, but that is not unique in the animal kingdom).

 

[Esav Benyamin]

We will continue to differ significantly on this.

That we are unique among the apes in being runners was only one of the factors leading to our present status. It highlights the different strategies we were embarking on from the start.

We are certainly unique among any and all competitors in social complexity, as arbitrated by our unmatched communications system -- language.

We developed technology fairly slowly for a long time, since even a little gave us a noticeable advantage. But that advantage was often no more than compensation for biological weaknesses.

It's only recently that technology is answering questions that biology hasn't asked.

I think the best guess on why the collapse of urban-technological civilization would only be a glitch, and not the ultimate end of humanity, is the book, "A Canticle for Leibowitz".

 

[hwyhobo]

that advantage was often no more than compensation for biological weaknesses.

We certainly agree on that. Conflict (threat to survival) is the motor of progress.

 

[psy-ops]

While I agree that technology is one of our strengths, it will also be our downfall. More food=more people. More people=more disease/tensions. Medicine and all the technology in the world can't save you from pandemics, natural disasters, decimation of resources, or each other. Alleviating population problems might. Technology is (barely) holding us up in our current numbers. It would be foolish to think it could continue to do so in the future.

I used to think technology was our down fall until I took a college level biology and geology course. We have been saved by pandemics and natural disasters. Moderized countries have extremely low mortality rates compared to mortality rates in developing countries from both, natural disasters and disease.

That is not to say, that we have it all figured out. I am totally confident that science will find a solution for any problem that arises. The human mind is AMAZING!

 

[bigbcustom]

No technology - not enough food produced - people die no matter if they have "survival skills" or not
Imagine few thousands people running around in woods and hunting squirrels.

Today's world is overpeopled and without modern technology mankind wouldn't be able to survive in current numbers.
(Check out population before ndustrial revolution in European states and nowadays)

The ones with the survival skills get the squirrels, roots, etc., stay warm at night, sheltered from marauders....the ones without starve and get victimized. Not that I think anything like a total reversion back to pre-industrial is going to happen...it would take a huge catastrophe that I don't think we are going to see in our lifetimes...still makes a great hobby and topic for conversation though