RE: Why Europe is so Contrary

From: Steve Drew (sd014a6399@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Mon 09 Dec 2002 - 22:57:30 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: evolution"

    > Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 23:08:06 +1100
    > From: Jeremy Bradley <jeremyb@nor.com.au>
    > Subject: RE: Why Europe is so Contrary
    >
    > Snip......Jeremy
    >>> possessions of others. IMO colonising Europeans were the true uncivilised
    >>> savages. The very fact that our linear cultures are still evolving is
    >>> evidence of their inferiority. (controversial stuff eh Steve)
    >>
    > Steve:
    >> Not really. We will continue to adapt or die out, even if the changes to the
    >> environment are our own doing. Inferior and superior are subjective terms.
    >> Species exist or they do not.
    >>
    >> Also, I don't buy the noble savage at one with the environment bit. As Joe
    >> has noted re the Anasazi, Easter Island etc, I would suggest that the reason
    >> they did not deplete their resources may be due to the environment itself in
    >> Australia. If I understand it correctly, pre agriculture, viable resources
    >> were not to plentiful and were widely dispersed, which would make it
    >> difficult to produce a sizable population that could cause harm to the
    >> environment. I do agree that they were very in tune with the environment
    >> they lived in (as were many other hunter gatherers throughout the world).
    >> This is slowly being recognised by your government in respect of burning the
    >> land in a controlled fashion to avoid the yearly catastrophes that seem to
    >> be occurring with respect to uncontrolled bush fires.
    >> Steve
    >
    > Jeremy:
    > Of course I am not suggesting that all HG societies were sustainable. But I
    > have lived with some impresively noble and civilised semi-nomadic
    > indigenous Australians who had their environment compleatly worked out.

    I am afraid, that though I do not doubt your experience, I do have trouble with the idea that they had their environment completely worked out, but I am quite prepared to be proven wrong.

    > BTW
    > in the area that I was in traditional fertility control was enabled by a
    > simple surgical operation - on the male. A small hole was made in the base
    > of the penis so that the semen could be either delivered to the woman or
    > bypased at will. This system was used 'primative' Australians long before
    > most of our ancestors even knew how babies were made.

    This doesn't sound too effective. As sperm is carried along the inside of the penis by muscular contraction so that it is ejected, how would a diversionary hole to one side of the main channel help. Also it would not necessarily divert all the sperm and it only takes one...

    As far as I am aware didn't most societies make the connection between male producing sperm and babies occurring?
     
    > As for the crocs Steve, their numbers were in decline but are now becoming
    > a bit of a nusence in some areas. But, as yet, there are no decernable
    > signs that they have recommenced the evolution process

    Query? Were they in decline because they were being hunted by us? And were they made a protected species by us? Ie their environment changed and they began to decline. Their environment changed again and they began to prosper again. Sounds like evolution to me :-)
    > Jeremy

    Regards

    Steve

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 09 Dec 2002 - 23:00:00 GMT