|
|||||||
| Coffee Lounge Talk amongst other community members. |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Topic Tools | Rate Topic |
Apr 16, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
sure it is.....just not strengths relating to physical aspects, but rather a measure of mental and decision making abilities as well as those the ability to network in order to improve ones own enviromental situation, and the outcome of their pursuits. how do you think those with a strong social positions got there? in most instances its quite a bit more then blind luck. Last edited by SEAN!; Apr 16, 04 at 03:54 PM. 
|
|
Apr 16, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
look at the days of kings, queens and popes where people were born into their role in society. strength or social power is not always equivalent to being smart. --Joanne :P Last edited by Joanne; Apr 16, 04 at 04:03 PM.
|
|
Apr 16, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Apr 16, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
ouch..thats bordering on racism.. historically speaking the reason why western europeans occupy the best social position is because of a mixture of cultural, political, economic and social circumstances. for example we can look at the history of western european, and chinese economic development...before the industrial revolution chinese technology, economomy and social situation was on par with if not better then the situations that existed in europe..in fact if we look deeper into the past, say in the last 200 years or so there were many epoches in whcih quality of living, social organization and technology in china was far superiour to that of western europe..however there are two significant factors which consequently lead to western european domination. the first of which is the political structure of europe. essentail europe was far more fragmented politicially then china was. this was beneficial to europeans in the long run because in china everytime a new regime took power, that particular regime could decide that it didnt want to persue certain technologies and then they would systematically earse all information about said technology and persecute any one who continued to pratice..for example in the 15th century or some shit liek that china had a sizeable navy, with huge ships capable of carrying a thousand or more passengers, with this navy chinese exploers venutred around the world and colonized/traded with other regions, even as far as the east africa(and their is some evidence which suggests they visted the west coast of north america far before europeans) however, a new emporer took power decided that china should be isolationist and then completely eradicated all naval technology and scientists. this didnt happen in eruope because if one country were to make a decision like that then the technology as well as the people who held it would simply relocate to a new area that was far more accomadating...secondly and most importantly in the 17th/ 18th century just before the emergence of industry in england, westewrn europe and china were comparable in all aspects, except for population, china's population far exceeded that of europes, and inf act had tripled in the previous 150 years with no decrease in per capita income, and no occarances of malthusian checks such as war, famine of pestilance(which idicates that the chinese economy, was acutally more advanced the most of europe's except for maybe holland which was in a least advanced form of preindustrial/post malthusian economy. i personally beleive that the main reason why china did not industrialize before europe is simply because the enlightenment culture which existed in englad in the 17th/18th century placed a great emphasis on the attainment of scienctific knowledge, ad most importantly the application fo this knowledge for pratical uses which inhance production and thus quality of life. it was this culutral value whcih was instrumental in creating the sustained technological advancement which was necessary for the establishment of an industrial economy. blah blah blah..... tho im not as heartless as you to suggest that great portions of society shoudl be elft out in the cold so to speak, i do beleive that in the future it may be a necessary eventuality....as productivity around the world increases(particulalry in developing nations) we will no longer need the excess population, in fact our current population will no longer be sustainable...a few economists have suggested that the maximum carrying capacity of earth if we were to desire a quality of life similar to north american middle class would be 2 billion people...however, i think these estimations are seriously flawed as they dont take into account two of the most fundamental aspects of economics which are the role both technological advancement and price levels play. ..if human kind is able to exist on this planet long enuff wiht out killing ourselves we will likely reahc a level of technoloical advancement which could create an almost utopian level of quality of life. but it probably won't happen, because it'll take alot of political compromise/vision...yeah so in the end our children's children are fucked and i dont really give a shit because i wont know them, and people having all those fuckin kids is part of the problem anyway. im just gonna continue my remorseless consumption, secure in the fact that ill remain in the top 5% percentile of wealth(unless i seriously fuck up) and wiht that welath i can probably buy my way out of the impending doom..hehhe P.s i hope you guys realize alot of this is sarcastic.
|
|
Apr 16, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
im sa socialogy major..i knwo this shiet *****h...i got all the statistics in the textbook sitting next to me. p.s and i said most instances..BLEEYYATCH! Last edited by SEAN!; Apr 16, 04 at 04:32 PM.
|
|
Apr 16, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
fun historical fact..whities arent the only ones who did enslaving..west coast first nations like the haida had slaves...also msot of the slaves who were brought from africa to the americas were enslaved by blakc people and then sold to the whities.
|
|
Apr 16, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
does "self-made" wealth also include sleeping your way to the top or bribery? --Joanne :P
|
|
Apr 16, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
how can you bribe someone who is a postion of authority if you dont have as much moeny as them? and sleeping your way to the top? who gives a fuck about that, people who do that usaully dont last long enoguht to attain any significant amounts of wealth. p.s the female intellect is an oxymoron..now go make me a sammich...hahahah
|
|
Apr 16, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
--Joanne :P PS. I haven't talked to you in a while Sean. why aren't you ever on msn mofo? Last edited by Joanne; Apr 16, 04 at 05:13 PM.
|
|
Apr 16, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Come on Sean, you've taken economics, and should know DAMN well that people value things differently. Old CEO's value sex, with a young secretary, a hell of alot more then the trouble promoter her will cause. You know damn well that such transactions take place through Comparative Advantages..... take another look at the books dude. and Stats don't means shit cause they are always flawed and scewed to whomevers favour. Last edited by Locky; Apr 16, 04 at 05:07 PM.
|
|
Apr 16, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
this natural selection thing is happening on some level. if someone is really incapable of working to live, they become homeless and die on the street. and if someone is really ugly, theyll never have children.
actually, some very pretty people wont have children either. fucking fags :) i think the world has changed in such a way that we should just forget about natural selection.. ..but if you really want to, you could go beat up ugly people.. or people with downs syndrome.
|
|
Apr 16, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Apr 17, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
i dont know if anyone's said this yet because i havent read through all the posts... but its moving towards social selection now, where those with money and high status improve their chances of passing passing on their genes, instead of natural selection
|
|
Apr 17, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Apr 17, 04
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Prepare to die !! It' s an important part of this thread and of life in general ;) I think about natural selection - and i think like most other things in this world it has evolved and though many people wouldn't survive if we were to live in caves now we don't live in caves so it's irrelevant Privledge taken or earned does not equal superiority or right to live Natural selaction may well be in the 911, suicide bombers and earthquakes -- right? Natural selection impies it is nature who chooses and since now we have technology that cures the ailments that formally would have meant death - now we see random selection in the chaos that technology has allowed us to inflict upon ourselves Natural selection has also sent some of the 'weaker' society to prison... I think that this thread is easily pushed into the racist argument..i have read arguments in here..ort houghts that are jsut as easily said at a KKK meeting or the same ideas were what Hitler thought of then went on his way to trying to assist god in evolution of a master race in jest or no - some of this thread made me sick to my tummy
|
