NationStates Jolt Archive

I say cell phones, I hate the buggers. What do you think?

DRMl

Mobile phones aren't bad. Just misused. Very useful for calling in a ride etc.

DRMl
In non-techie language?

The padded bra.

I say cell phones, I hate the buggers. What do you think?

Computers. If it wasn't for that damn internet, I wouldn't be addicted to NS.

DRMl

In non-techie language?

Digitial Rights Management. - Copyright protection that gives the RIAA and the MPAA their kicks.

DRMl

Definitely

The Cyborgs.
Damn n00bs!

I don't think any technology is inherently bad, it only becomes that way when misused by stupid people. Technology is just a tool, it's not capable of doing stuff by itself.

The padded bra.
Really? I prefer padded to non-padded. :S
Digitial Rights Management. - Copyright protection that gives the RIAA and the MPAA their kicks.
Thank ye.

I love my cellphone, and I could not live without it.

I say the wheel.

Digitial Rights Management. - Copyright protection that gives the RIAA and the MPAA their kicks.
Is that the thing that gives me a black image when i try to take a screenshot of a movie i'm watching? 'Cuz i REALLY hate it.

Is that the thing that gives me a black image when i try to take a screenshot of a movie i'm watching? 'Cuz i REALLY hate it.

Yep; the player you're using has DRM in it. (That's if you use the one from Microsoft)

Crap. :mad:

speed cameras.

The Cyborgs.
Damn n00bs!

Hey do you mind? I have one artificial tooth, technically that makes me a cyborg :P

Is that the thing that gives me a black image when i try to take a screenshot of a movie i'm watching? 'Cuz i REALLY hate it.
VLC has never done that to me.

Is that the thing that gives me a black image when i try to take a screenshot of a movie i'm watching? 'Cuz i REALLY hate it.

Is your hardware acceleration turned on?

Really? I prefer padded to non-padded. :S

Thank ye.

Padded feel so bulky.

And another terrible invention of technology... teh SUV!

I love my cellphone, and I could not live without it.

I say the wheel.
*Takes IL Ruffino's cellphone*

Padded feel so bulky.

And another terrible invention of technology... teh SUV!
But I don't feel like I'm going to die running in padded.

Agreed. SUV is teh suck.

*Takes IL Ruffino's cellphone*

*dies*

Hummers. Grr.....

Is your hardware acceleration turned on?
Yes. why?

Firearms.

Is that the thing that gives me a black image when i try to take a screenshot of a movie i'm watching? 'Cuz i REALLY hate it.

Nope, DRM encrypted files in Windows Media Player will simply prompt you to get a licence. Play them in VideoLan (VLC) and htey will play but will be scrambled due to the encryption.

The black screen thing is due to the video being an overlay on the graphics system. The player is accessing the video memory directly. If you screenshot the picture using say Paint Shop Pro you can see the video still moving in PSP if the PSP window is in the right place. When you try and save the file it comes out black.

Using Video Lan's "snapshot" tool you can take a frame and save it as a JPG but it does this by reading the data from the file for the frame when you hit the snapshot key rather than trying to copy what's in the video card's memory.

Im not entirely au-fait with how it all works but what I've just said is at least "ball park" correct.

In short - you want to take frame grabs of video, use a player like VLC.

Is your hardware acceleration turned on?
I am w/o hardware accel right now, and it works fine in VLC.

On topic though, In my opinion there is no bad technology. Only the use people put it to.

A hammer is technology, fairly simple technology. It's a most wonderful tool for constructing things or applying force to stubbon objects. However it's also one of the most lethal and horrific weapons imaginable when applied say peen or claw side to someone's skull or face.

Though, I'd go with mobile phones for the most annoying technology currently in popular use and Nuclear Weapons for the most threatening.

I say the wheel.

nah, the wheel at least has redeeming qualities.

agriculture on the other hand...

Automobiles.

1 - They cause cancer. Every time a driver goes anywhere, he is causing me cancer in exactly the same way that I, as a smoker, am apparently killing people with cancer whenever I smoke. Except he's doing it more often, more prevalently, and in a more socially acceptable manner.

2 - They cause global warming.

3 and most importantly - for some reason, they have the magical ability to turn anyone who drives one into a pus-filled butt-cum. I alone among humans am immune to this effect.

Worst invention of technology?

Helmets. Our gene-pool would have been improved by letting the head-crackers eliminate themselves.

None, really. I can't think of a single technology that is inherently negative; even the ones with the most devastating potential, like the atomic bomb, have had positive effects (namely, the prevention of WWIII).

None, really. I can't think of a single technology that is inherently negative; even the ones with the most devastating potential, like the atomic bomb, have had positive effects (namely, the prevention of WWIII).

agriculture. 10,000 years of crashed life expectancies, back breaking labor, mass starvation, disease, exploitation, oppression, misery, and suffering.

The atomic bomb. It just f.cked up the whole second half of the twentieth century.

agriculture. 10,000 years of crashed life expectancies, back breaking labor, mass starvation, disease, exploitation, oppression, misery, and suffering.

Well, you could always go live in the woods, you know...but then you wouldn't have NSG.

Well, you could always go live in the woods, you know...but then you wouldn't have NSG.

due to a number of factors only tangentially related to agriculture, life now is longer and...well, not easier, but more full of video games (for the richest people on the planet anyways). however, agriculture itself was an absolute and unmitigated disaster for 99.9999999% of humanity, and only partially disastrous for the remainder.

agriculture. 10,000 years of crashed life expectancies, back breaking labor, mass starvation, disease, exploitation, oppression, misery, and suffering.

Eh, I kind of like things how they are after agriculture rather than before it. I'd rather keep my modern technology than live in some cave or hut and die at age 35.

The atomic bomb. It just f.cked up the whole second half of the twentieth century.

The second half was a hell of a lot better than the first half...no major world wars whatsoever. It was pretty much the most peaceful period in recent history.

The civilian version of the Humvee. I mean really, unless you're working in construction or have an eight person family, it's a penis replacement.

It certainly has no place as a one-person transport in major cities. You can't see around them at intersections when they are parked, they are sticking out into the lanes of traffic when they are parked -- a gas-guzzling menace.

Eh, I kind of like things how they are after agriculture rather than before it. I'd rather keep my modern technology than live in some cave or hut and die at age 35.

Oh, you wouldn't live in a hut. A cave or some kind of lean-to perhaps, some parts of the year. The rest you'd be out walking.

And you wouldn't die at age 35. You'd most likely die around childbirth. Possibly through infanticide. Which wasn't really illegal, what with there also not being any such thing as laws.

On the other hand, there weren't lawyers either. Plusses and minuses!

Oh, you wouldn't live in a hut. A cave or some kind of lean-to perhaps, some parts of the year. The rest you'd be out walking.

Walking and probably nearly starving during the winters.

And you wouldn't die at age 35. You'd most likely die around childbirth. Possibly through infanticide. Which wasn't really illegal, what with there also not being any such thing as laws.

Well, I'm a guy so I wouldn't have to worry about that one. However, I would get to have the joy of seeing probably 3 or 4 of my kids and my wife die and end up dying myself at age 35 or so from the sheer strain of living in that kind of society.

On the other hand, there weren't lawyers either. Plusses and minuses!

I guess there's a silver lining to any cloud, no matter how small and insignificant it is...

The civilian version of the Humvee. I mean really, unless you're working in construction or have an eight person family, it's a penis replacement.

Do you mean the real Humvee or the poseur H2?

It certainly has no place as a one-person transport in major cities. You can't see around them at intersections when they are parked, they are sticking out into the lanes of traffic when they are parked -- a gas-guzzling menace.

Not to mention the H2 is shitty offroad and is nothing more than a bunch of gaudy chrome piled on to a Chevy Tahoe chassis. It's nothing more than a hideous showpiece for some kind of weird ego trip.

I mean, if you want to impress, buy a 7-series BMW or something similar. It's a lot more attractive than some hideous, overpriced box on wheels.

Eh, I kind of like things how they are after agriculture rather than before it. I'd rather keep my modern technology than live in some cave or hut and die at age 35.

no, you'd like things from maybe about 1950 on in the richest countries in the world rather than how they were. in the hundred years before that, it would get a bit iffy. at any point before about 1850 the choice is obvious, and it is not in agriculture's favor by any measure you could imagine.

life expectancy before the invention of modern medicine was uniformly lower for people in agricultural societies than forgers. significantly lower in all places that didn't have sewers. even worse, it was the agriculturalists that largely died early as adults, as well as having the high infant mortality rate. the foragers have high infant and early childhood mortality rates too, but if you lived past that you almost certainly made it to 60 or 70.

You'd most likely die around childbirth.

see also: life for approximately 10,000 years of agriculture, only women in those societies risked it more often

no, you'd like things from maybe about 1950 on in the richest countries in the world rather than how they were. in the hundred years before that, it would get a bit iffy. at any point before about 1850 the choice is obvious, and it is not in agriculture's favor by any measure you could imagine.

That's true. Of course, without agriculture there wouldn't be a civilization like we have now, since hunter-gatherer societies simply lack the organization and resources to develop an urbanized civilization and the technology it entails.

life expectancy before the invention of modern medicine was uniformly lower for people in agricultural societies than forgers. significantly lower in all places that didn't have sewers and medicine. even worse, it was the agriculturalists that largely died early as adults, as well as having the high infant mortality rate. the foragers have high infant and early childhood mortality rates too, but if you lived past that you almost certainly made it to 60 or 70.

Yes, but agricultural societies had a huge advantage: They could circumvent the problem through technology. Hunter-gatherer societies never advanced beyond that level, which meant they were permanently stuck with high mortality rates and low life expectancy.

Yes, but agricultural societies had a huge advantage: They could circumvent the problem through technology. Hunter-gatherer societies never advanced beyond that level, which meant they were permanently stuck with high mortality rates and low life expectancy.

so, 10,000 years of billions of people living truly horrific lives of misery and suffering so you can eventually, indirectly, have your toys?

secondly, what do you mean 'never advanced beyond that level'? what sort of nonsense is this?

so, 10,000 years of billions of people living truly horrific lives of misery and suffering so you can eventually, indirectly, have your toys?

Well, yeah. At least agriculture and civilization offered the prospect of improvement, whereas they were stuck with things that hadn't changed significantly in 100,000 years.

secondly, what do you mean 'never advanced beyond that level'? what sort of nonsense is this?

From my perspective, their lives are a lot worse off than ours.

Well, I'm a guy so I wouldn't have to worry about that one.

No no. I meant when you were born. High rate of DOAs for prehistoric families. And infanticide. Most likely you'd be dead before learning how to walk.

so, 10,000 years of billions of people living truly horrific lives of misery and suffering so you can eventually, indirectly, have your toys?

Toys I presume you hate, hence you never use them. Like now. OOPS WAIT.

secondly, what do you mean 'never advanced beyond that level'? what sort of nonsense is this?

I assume he meant "technological level," since that's what he was just referring to....

At least agriculture and civilization offered the prospect of improvement, whereas they were stuck with things that hadn't changed significantly in 100,000 years.

ignoring the vast changes that happened during the prehistory of humanity for the moment, i want to know where you see a prospect of improvement. cause what the data says is 10,000+ fucking awful years and billions and billions of lives just to not be worse off. each and every one of those lives in each and every one of those years was worse off than they had to be.

The jolt.co.uk server.

Toys I presume you hate, hence you never use them. Like now. OOPS WAIT.

presumed incorrectly.

ignoring the vast changes that happened during the prehistory of humanity for the moment, i want to know where you see a prospect of improvement. cause what the data says is 10,000+ fucking awful years and billions and billions of lives just to not be worse off. each and every one of those lives in each and every one of those years was worse off than they had to be.

10,000+ awful years in exchange for what we have now, not to mention the future that lies ahead? I'd take it. The technology we're developing now is poised to not just control but to conquer the problems our ancestors faced, from disease to hunger to death itself, and that is worth it. I'd rather have those 10,000 years of hardship in exchange for what we have now than the same 10,000 years of hardship and no chance of improvement or a better future.

And really, the hunter-gatherers didn't have it that well off. They had most of the same problems agricultural societies did, and only avoided some of the more serious ones due to low population density, which came at the cost of high infant mortality and early death.

presumed incorrectly.

Very well, so you use those toys, and enjoy doing so - you just remind yourself to hate yourself when doing so. Because of the poor proletariats who died in all history. How about that?

10,000+ awful years in exchange for what we have now, not to mention the future that lies ahead? I'd take it. The technology we're developing now is poised to not just control but to conquer the problems our ancestors faced, from disease to hunger to death itself, and that is worth it. I'd rather have those 10,000 years of hardship in exchange for what we have now than 10,000 years of hardship and no chance of improvement.

or we might nuke ourselves tomorrow. or a giant space rock could do likewise. the future is uncertain at best, while the past is known. and right now, the awful vastly outweighs the known benefits. and really the possible future ones, unless we somehow pull a big fucking magic trick out of our asses and damn soon.

and it sure is nice of your to approve of billions and billions of people suffering in short miserable lives for your own benefit. the real question is, would you trade places with them? are the benefits so good that you would willingly and gladly take up the life you approve of all those others suffering in for some future you would never see? because that is what it means to not think agriculture to be one of the biggest mistakes in human history.

And really, the hunter-gatherers didn't have it that well off.

except for the vast amounts of leisure time, the better health, the better diets, and the longer lives. and they still beat even us in leisure time.

Very well, so you use those toys, and enjoy doing so - you just remind yourself to hate yourself when doing so. Because of the poor proletariats who died in all history. How about that?

i cannot help the era into which i was born, but i don't have to think that it was awesome for all those billions to suffer

Poison gas, tanks, flamethrowers (although the flame looks cool), land mines, nukes, and such.

Poison gas, tanks, flamethrowers (although the flame looks cool), land mines, nukes, and such.
Nothing wrong with tanks. Without them we'd probably still be stuck in ridiculous WWI-style warfare where troops charge machine guns and get slaughtered.

Poison gas, tanks, flamethrowers (although the flame looks cool), land mines, nukes, and such.

the dedicated can do equivalent amounts of damage from horseback with sharp pointy things (well, the nukes may win out there still).

Nothing wrong with tanks. Without them we'd probably still be stuck in ridiculous WWI-style warfare where troops charge machine guns and get slaughtered.

WWI did have tanks.

This (http://www.thingamababy.com/baby/2007/01/baby_patent_his.html)

WWI did have tanks.
Yes, but not reliable enough or in large numbers to make a huge difference, and most of the slaughtering took place before tanks were invented, didn't it?

or we might nuke ourselves tomorrow. or a giant space rock could do likewise. the future is uncertain at best, while the past is known. and right now, the awful vastly outweighs the known benefits. and really the possible future ones, unless we somehow pull a big fucking magic trick out of our asses and damn soon.

We might, but given that society hasn't done it yet I would say it's pretty damn unlikely. The one thing that has been the case in human history is that the optimists are overwhelmingly correct in their predictions, and I don't think that's going to change any time soon.

and it sure is nice of your to approve of billions and billions of people suffering in short miserable lives for your own benefit. the real question is, would you trade places with them? are the benefits so good that you would willingly and gladly take up the life you approve of all those others suffering in for some future you would never see? because that is what it means to not think agriculture to big one of the biggest mistakes in human history.

No, because I wouldn't take up the hunter-gatherer lifestyle either. And, for that matter, most hunter-gatherers were sedentary for at least part of the year, which means that the same conditions plaguing early agricultural societies also affected hunter-gatherers.

At the very least, our civilization offers the opportunity to live the kind of lives that people in developed nations do, while hunter-gatherers have no choice in how they live or whether things can improve. It's the same grinding hardship and poverty forever, with no chance of improvement.

The thing is, the overwhelming majority of people worldwide want what modern civilization offers; that's why countries always try to develop themselves economically, and that's why millions of people every year flee from poor nations to wealthier ones to share in the opportunities our civilization can provide them. I mean, even in the poorest, most deprived places, how many people decide to revert to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle? Apparently, it simply can't compete with agricultural societies even at their most destitute.

except for the vast amounts of leisure time, the better health, the better diets, and the longer lives. and they still beat even us in leisure time.

Leisure time overshadowed by the wonderful spectres of death, hunger, disease, and the ravages of nature. And it was even more fun if you were injured or disabled; maybe they would just let you die because you couldn't contribute anymore.

The thing is, the overwhelming majority of people worldwide want what modern civilization offers; that's why countries always try to develop themselves economically, and that's why millions of people every year flee from poor nations to wealthier ones to share in the opportunities our civilization can provide them.

Yeah... wealth within civilization is better than poverty within civilization. No one disputes this (except perhaps from an ecological sanity perspective.) So?

I mean, even in the poorest, most deprived places, how many people decide to revert to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle?

The option isn't available, usually.

Leisure time overshadowed by the wonderful spectres of death,

Everyone dies.

hunger,

Hunter-gatherers actually ate pretty well.

disease,

Much, much worse in civilization, due to population density and uncleanliness.

and the ravages of nature.

Which ones?

And it was even more fun if you were injured or disabled; maybe they would just let you die because you couldn't contribute anymore.

Would you do that? No? So why would hunter-gatherers?

Actually, we can dispense with speculation; there's archeological proof of hunter-gatherers caring for their injured and disabled members. Indeed, this is a major evolutionary justification for altruism.

We might, but given that society hasn't done it yet I would say it's pretty damn unlikely. The one thing that has been the case in human history is that the optimists are overwhelmingly correct in their predictions, and I don't think that's going to change any time soon.

when have the 'optimists' ever formed a coherent group in order to even sensibly be called overwhelmingly correct? what predictions count? that the kings of uruk would rule forever?

No, because I wouldn't take up the hunter-gatherer lifestyle either.

so you wouldn't take up the life you would condemn others to live? doesn't that strike you as the least bit problematic? "i would never chose to live that way, but it is vitally important that billions of others do."


It's the same grinding hardship and poverty forever, with no chance of improvement. not according to them, or the data.

I mean, even in the poorest, most deprived places, how many people decide to revert to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle? Apparently, it simply can't compete with agricultural societies even at their most destitute.

back when forgaing people were nearly a foot and a half taller than agriculturalists and living lives of ease that were twice as long with vastly fewer health problems and no mass starvation, agriculturalists mainly took up slaughtering them and subjugating them. when have objective facts about the world ever been able to stop mass delusions?

Leisure time overshadowed by the wonderful spectres of death, hunger, disease, and the ravages of nature. And it was even more fun if you were injured or disabled; maybe they would just let you die because you couldn't contribute anymore.

completely divorced from fact

...and most of the slaughtering took place before tanks were invented, didn't it?

Summer 1915? Not quite.

Summer 1915? Not quite.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/images/tank_image1.jpg

?

Summer 1915? Not quite.
Ehm, oops, sorry. Not so much invented, but when they were actually used properly. So probably at Cambrai, 1917, IIRC.

If the hunter/gatherer lifestyle was so much better, then why has evolution (or the mere thrust of human development) supported the rise of agriculture?

If the hunter/gatherer lifestyle was so much better, then why has evolution (or the mere thrust of human development) supported the rise of agriculture?

'cause it allows the mass production of babies. it loses the quality of life and basic human decency game, but wins the raw numbers one.

though from what we can tell, it's rather unstable, and has a tendency to collapse at any number of junctures.

This (http://www.thingamababy.com/baby/2007/01/baby_patent_his.html)

*cough*

Hello...

This (http://www.thingamababy.com/baby/2007/01/baby_patent_his.html)

Yup. I agree.

The nuclear bomb.

This (http://www.thingamababy.com/baby/2007/01/baby_patent_his.html)

That is quite frightening.

'cause it allows the mass production of babies. it loses the quality of life and basic human decency game, but wins the raw numbers one.

though from what we can tell, it's rather unstable, and has a tendency to collapse at any number of junctures.

It seems to have stabalized now, no?

I'm just skeptical since this is the first time I've seen agriculture painted as the bad guy. It definitely is an interesting concept.

With the advent of agriculture comes more of the social and cultural development. The ability to create better things, in a more beautiful fasion. This is evidenced by the Southwestern Native Americans, from their transition to an agiculture society. I see agriculture as the passage-way to cultivation of the mind. As opposed to mere survival.

Could you elaborate a bit on the loss of human decency? What do you have to support this? Though crime may occur more often in a dense population, this does not entail that the average human being is less decent.

Also, quality of life. How has that deteriorated? Through agriculture, the modern day marvels have been allowed to come about, as has been stated before. Though all change-- all progress-- is not necessarily good, it is certainly better than stagnation.

Lastly, if this mode of existence was truly better, then shouldn't there be groups of people returning to this? Shouldn't developing countries abandon their agriculture progress, and resort to the traditional methods?

Is that the thing that gives me a black image when i try to take a screenshot of a movie i'm watching? 'Cuz i REALLY hate it.
It might also be because the video is put on the screen bypassing the 'normal' graphics layer for performance's sake.

I say cell phones, I hate the buggers. What do you think?

Cell phones are truly horrid and I respect that choice.

However, I think the root of all modern evil can be traced back to something older and far more insidious: The pocketwatch and it's evil nephew the wristwatch.

Ever since wehave had the ability to keep accurate time at all times in all places, we have been slaves to the clock. No clock should ever weigh less than a thousand pounds and should never be placed in anything less important than a town hall. *nod*

There are very few inherently negative machines, but bombs are one of them.

agriculture. 10,000 years of crashed life expectancies, back breaking labor, mass starvation, disease, exploitation, oppression, misery, and suffering.
Wtf? Agriculture was invented in order to avoid starvation, was it not?

Probably not the worst, but still... (http://www.flabber.nl/archief/017859.php)

Pickup trucks and organised religion.

DRMl

Spot on!

security theater.

except for the vast amounts of leisure time, the better health, the better diets, and the longer lives. and they still beat even us in leisure time.
How do you know this?

so you wouldn't take up the life you would condemn others to live? doesn't that strike you as the least bit problematic? "i would never chose to live that way, but it is vitally important that billions of others do."
Vetalia did not say that it was vitally important that billions of others follow the hunter-gatherer lifestyle that he refuses.

not according to them, or the data.
What data?

'cause it allows the mass production of babies.
Agriculture arose because people like sex!

What came first? Population increases, or agriculture?

Microsoft in general

I wonder, whom those people who want to return to hunting and gathering would choose not to be killed, because modern agriculture is necessairy for the survival of the people.

And I doubt, that the hunterer and gatherers had less children, probably more of them have died soon after birth.

And were the last 10.000 years really only miserable for all the people? Are you sure? OK, in history lessons we learned much about wars and plagues and famines - but inbetween there were phases of peace and prosperity. (But these phases seems to be to boring to be taught.)

Microsoft in general

there is no microsoft here in NSG.

there is no microsoft here in NSG.
<.<

>.>

Um... yeah.... nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Mustard Gas.

WWI FTW

<.<

>.>

Um... yeah.... nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

what? you think there is microsoft here?

Probably not the worst, but still... (http://www.flabber.nl/archief/017859.php)

What kind of moron created that?

Probably not the worst, but still... (http://www.flabber.nl/archief/017859.php)

OMFG! Amazing! Brilliant! Pure genious!.......

Who the crap would possibly buy such a device?!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/images/tank_image1.jpg

?

If anything I'd call that an idea for an armoured car, rather than a tank. The Tsar Tank aside, I can't think of any tanks that don't have treads.

Man Thongs. Just... no...

my two favorite are the solar powered flashlight and the parachute the releases on impact.... yes, they are actually copyrighted

Who the crap would possibly buy such a device?!

i'm wearing one right now.

i'm wearing one right now.

Kinky.

I say cell phones, I hate the buggers. What do you think?

cellphones have probably saved more lives than any other non medical invention in the last 20 years.

What kind of moron created that?

I'm convinced they just invented so they could have a chance to make a commercial in which they do an extreme close-up of a dog's ass.

Germans.

Scorpions. Why the hell would you need bullets that make tiny explosions? I mean, their gonna blow a bigass hole in someone anyway...

The cat flap. I mean... really...

It seems to have stabalized now, no?

i'm not sure. we actually seem to be hitting upon much larger versions of things that have caused other collapses before. this time we've got more people pointing them out, but we are still damn fucking slow to do anything about it. and we've opened up entire new methods to destroy ourselves while we're at it.

I'm just skeptical since this is the first time I've seen agriculture painted as the bad guy. It definitely is an interesting concept.

it's actually a fairly standard reading of the archaeological evidence these days - though obviously they leave the value judgments out and merely report that, for example, the skeletons of agriculturalists are young, disease ridden, and crippled from a life of particularly hard labor, in contrast to both the skeletal evidence of ancient non-agriculturalists and the evidence from modern groups.

jared diamond (of 'collapse' and 'guns, germs, and steel' fame) wrote an article in discover magazine a number of years back expressing pretty much the same sentiment - "the worst mistake in the history of the human race" (http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html)

With the advent of agriculture comes more of the social and cultural development. The ability to create better things, in a more beautiful fasion. This is evidenced by the Southwestern Native Americans, from their transition to an agiculture society. I see agriculture as the passage-way to cultivation of the mind. As opposed to mere survival.

actually, agriculture meant that now vastly more people were forced to live lives of endless toil on the brink of starvation (and frequently falling over that brink). foragers, on the other hand, eat well on just a few hours of work a week in the utterly marginal locations they've been pushed to today.

what agriculture did do was allow the rise of god kings that demanded monumental architecture and art to glorify themselves, so there is more of that. but the creation of beautiful things had long been a major activity of non-agriculturalists - one in which most people got to participate, rather than just an elite living off the endless, literally back breaking toil of others.

Could you elaborate a bit on the loss of human decency? What do you have to support this? Though crime may occur more often in a dense population, this does not entail that the average human being is less decent.

i'm not talking about the average human being less decent. i'm talking about the creation of societies lacking in it. societies of slavery and domination and subjugation and elite rule and starvation for the masses, etc.

Also, quality of life. How has that deteriorated? Through agriculture, the modern day marvels have been allowed to come about, as has been stated before. Though all change-- all progress-- is not necessarily good, it is certainly better than stagnation.

what stagnation?

and my point isn't that we in the rich countries of today don't have it fairly good on the material goods front. my point is that for the entire 10,000+ year existence of agriculture up until very very recently, by any standard of judgment you care to look at, the quality of life for all but the absolutely richest was much much much worse than it was for their foraging ancestors and for the then contemporary groups still in existence. and usually the absolutely richest weren't actually better off either, and if they were, it wasn't by much.

Lastly, if this mode of existence was truly better, then shouldn't there be groups of people returning to this? Shouldn't developing countries abandon their agriculture progress, and resort to the traditional methods?

if only humanity worked that way. unfortunately, the way we actually work results in people actually converting to mormonism.

Pad Thai sauce (The kind they use at the stir-fry place by where I live). Or, my uncle's version of the tequila sunrise.

Wtf? Agriculture was invented in order to avoid starvation, was it not?

maybe, though i doubt it - most likely it was essentially accidental. anyway, it's terrible at it if it was. the reason is simple - agriculture creates an utter reliance on just a few crops (even today corn, rice, and wheat provide the bulk of calories for the entire population), whereas foragers are flexible. so when the crop blight comes or there is a drought or the vikings show up and set fire to the fields or whatever, agriculturalists starve. foragers, on the other hand, eat something else or move.

even worse, agriculture allows more intensive production, which means more calories per acre. and since population growth is completely linked to food availability, we always hovered right at the line of not having enough (until we give women access to education and birth control methods, apparently). which means that when the above mentioned problems hit, you are absolutely assured of it being an utter disaster, rather than just an isolated incident, just due to sheer numbers.

I say cell phones, I hate the buggers. What do you think?

I agree.

Vetalia did not say that it was vitally important that billions of others follow the hunter-gatherer lifestyle that he refuses.

the question wasn't about hunters and gatherers. it was about being a farmer in any of those 10,000+ years without sewers and medicine (and incidentally, tractors and combines and the like). his position is that it is right and just and good that they lived in unnecessary misery, but apparently it's not important enough that he would gladly trade places with them. which just screams out self-serving rather than actual good.

teh ipod, you fools. It makes music wohoo >.<:rolleyes:

cellphones have probably saved more lives than any other non medical invention in the last 20 years.

Ok......

Pro: they "save lives"

Cons: jackasses like to drive with them attach to their face, causing accidents and deaths.

Jackasses like to use them everywhere, usually loudly and near me.

The rings are irritating

I could go on, but I think its clear, cell phones are horrible. We should go back to the days of pagers. Those were the days.

I say cell phones, I hate the buggers. What do you think?

Probably Myspace. I actually considered getting one once...

The second half was a hell of a lot better than the first half...no major world wars whatsoever. It was pretty much the most peaceful period in recent history.

Because having everybody terrified out of their mind of nuclear war is a positive thing? Don't even pretend that the world saw peace during the last fifty years; do you remember Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf War, the Suez Crisis, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the crushed Hungarian Uprising, the Prague Spring, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, race riots in the US and South Africa, Rwanda, Cambodia, Gautemla, Nicaruaga, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Greece, any of the number of things that apply to Iran, and any of the number of things that apply to the Arab-Isreali conflict (including the Six-Day War, and the Yom Kippur War)?

macromedia/adobe flash.

damn you for wasting my life!! :(

Think about it.

they are the number one polluters in the city
they discourage excercise, and thus are a big contributer towards Obesity.
are involved in alot of deaths of people
locked the people in a dependace on Fossil fuels
People spend Hundreds of Thousands of dollars on those things (Insurance, Maintenance, Fuel, Registration/taxes, required addons - car seats for children, and not to mention the cost of the item itself.)
Requires more space to be used (Highways, Parking lots, Garages...)


Yep... Cars are the worst invention.