Those pesky comets

[Mike Malanaphy]

Hi Guys,

Just saw an interesting episode of "Megadisasters" on the History Channel. It was postulating that a comet struck North America about 13,000 years ago causing the extinct of most of the mega fauna and the wiping out of Clovis culture. The primary support for the theory was a uniform layer of debris and soot filled rock found at all Clovis sites in North America.

The comet exploded in the atmosphere above North America causing widespread destruction primarily by fire across the entire continent and the resulting dust storms finished off what life was left. There was little or no examination of the theory for possible flaws.

Just some thoughts about it:

If the "black mat" layer is present at all Clovis sites it should present almost anywhere you dig.

I would imagine that fires were pretty common in North America so finding ash layers should not be unusual and not indicative of comet impacts.

The "Clovis Comet" is about 3 miles in diameter and while certainly less dense than a meteor, still a huge mass of material. Moving at 15-20 miles a second, I don't think the atmosphere would slow it much or cause it to explode before impact with the Earth. The Tunguska example used only featured an object of about 160 pounds. The lack of impact evidence is telling.

13,000 years is just the blink of an eye so it is hard to believe there was enough time to repopulate it with new humans and the bidiversity of species we see here in that time.

Localized to North America, I don't see why it would explain the disappearance of mega fauna elsewhere in the Americas and the rest of the world.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Guys,

Just saw an interesting episode of "Megadisasters" on the History Channel. It was postulating that a comet struck North America about 13,000 years ago causing the extinct of most of the mega fauna and the wiping out of Clovis culture. The primary support for the theory was a uniform layer of debris and soot filled rock found at all Clovis sites in North America.

The comet exploded in the atmosphere above North America causing widespread destruction primarily by fire across the entire continent and the resulting dust storms finished off what life was left. There was little or no examination of the theory for possible flaws.

Just some thoughts about it:

If the "black mat" layer is present at all Clovis sites it should present almost anywhere you dig.

I would imagine that fires were pretty common in North America so finding ash layers should not be unusual and not indicative of comet impacts.

The "Clovis Comet" is about 3 miles in diameter and while certainly less dense than a meteor, still a huge mass of material. Moving at 15-20 miles a second, I don't think the atmosphere would slow it much or cause it to explode before impact with the Earth. The Tunguska example used only featured an object of about 160 pounds. The lack of impact evidence is telling.

13,000 years is just the blink of an eye so it is hard to believe there was enough time to repopulate it with new humans and the bidiversity of species we see here in that time.

Localized to North America, I don't see why it would explain the disappearance of mega fauna elsewhere in the Americas and the rest of the world.

Mike:

The more knowledge we gain about climate, ecology, geology etc, the more wild and not so well researched theories we get.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

The more knowledge we gain about climate, ecology, geology etc, the more wild and not so well researched theories we get.

Hi Ed,

Not as fast as Dennis, but this looked interesting.

http://swanet.org/2008_pecos_conference/related.html

[asnrobert]

Mike:

The more knowledge we gain about climate, ecology, geology etc, the more wild and not so well researched theories we get.

In other words, we have just enough knowledge to be dangerous. :rolleyes:

[Kyle Holgate]

Hi Guys,

Just saw an interesting episode of "Megadisasters" on the History Channel. It was postulating that a comet struck North America about 13,000 years ago causing the extinct of most of the mega fauna and the wiping out of Clovis culture. The primary support for the theory was a uniform layer of debris and soot filled rock found at all Clovis sites in North America.

The comet exploded in the atmosphere above North America causing widespread destruction primarily by fire across the entire continent and the resulting dust storms finished off what life was left. There was little or no examination of the theory for possible flaws.

Just some thoughts about it:

If the "black mat" layer is present at all Clovis sites it should present almost anywhere you dig.

I would imagine that fires were pretty common in North America so finding ash layers should not be unusual and not indicative of comet impacts.

The "Clovis Comet" is about 3 miles in diameter and while certainly less dense than a meteor, still a huge mass of material. Moving at 15-20 miles a second, I don't think the atmosphere would slow it much or cause it to explode before impact with the Earth. The Tunguska example used only featured an object of about 160 pounds. The lack of impact evidence is telling.

13,000 years is just the blink of an eye so it is hard to believe there was enough time to repopulate it with new humans and the biodiversity of species we see here in that time.

Localized to North America, I don't see why it would explain the disappearance of mega fauna elsewhere in the Americas and the rest of the world.

Finding ash layers that all date to the same time as well as can be measured with today's technology is key - if it's random fires it's one heck of a coincidence!
Comets aren't very substantial and our atmosphere is like a brick wall - exploding isn't too far fetched, and besides - if it blew over the ice sheet (miles thick) when it melted there wouldn't be anything left to see. No crater, all the comet pieces washed to sea (or lake).

I too wonder about the biodiversity - but can think of a way it may work. If you assume that not everything was wiped out, but rather the eco-system was badly impacted then some stuff would come back just like after a forest fire. Mt. St. Helens isn't far away from me, and totally obliterated a forest in 1980. Now only 28 years later it's amazingly diverse and new everything is growing. If some pockets of life existed after a blast from space then they'd quickly (on our terms) spread. Further if it happened in the winter, many plants would be dormant or just seeds and could come back in the next spring. Many hibernating animals may survive too.

Like you I am skeptical - and that's good to be IMO - but I also try to be open minded and think of how it 'could' work. I am following this story with interest!

[old_pop2000]

Finding ash layers that all date to the same time as well as can be measured with today's technology is key - if it's random fires it's one heck of a coincidence!
Comets aren't very substantial and our atmosphere is like a brick wall - exploding isn't too far fetched, and besides - if it blew over the ice sheet (miles thick) when it melted there wouldn't be anything left to see. No crater, all the comet pieces washed to sea (or lake).

I too wonder about the biodiversity - but can think of a way it may work. If you assume that not everything was wiped out, but rather the eco-system was badly impacted then some stuff would come back just like after a forest fire. Mt. St. Helens isn't far away from me, and totally obliterated a forest in 1980. Now only 28 years later it's amazingly diverse and new everything is growing. If some pockets of life existed after a blast from space then they'd quickly (on our terms) spread. Further if it happened in the winter, many plants would be dormant or just seeds and could come back in the next spring. Many hibernating animals may survive too.

Like you I am skeptical - and that's good to be IMO - but I also try to be open minded and think of how it 'could' work. I am following this story with interest!


I would agree that even with large scale fires from a comet strike, fire does not burn the seeds. In fact, there are many plants and trees where the seeds germinate with fire. Pinus Silvestris or scotch pines actually germinate after fires, lodge pole pine cones actually open after fires and germinate. So, even after a fire, a forest could grow back in some form, within 20-30 years.

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/range/publications/documents/fire4.htm- Article on fire and trees

Did the "Clovis" comet even strike solid ground? I believe it struck the ice sheet in the Canadian Shield, or am I thinking of another comet.

[Mike Malanaphy]

I would agree that even with large scale fires from a comet strike, fire does not burn the seeds. In fact, there are many plants and trees where the seeds germinate with fire. Pinus Silvestris or scotch pines actually germinate after fires, lodge pole pine cones actually open after fires and germinate. So, even after a fire, a forest could grow back in some form, within 20-30 years.

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/range/publications/documents/fire4.htm- Article on fire and trees

Did the "Clovis" comet even strike solid ground? I believe it struck the ice sheet in the Canadian Shield, or am I thinking of another comet.


Hi Dennis,

Nature's power to regenerate is amazing and we probably underestimate it. I've been to Mt ST Helens a number of times since 1986 or so and the regrowth is amazing. One of the explanations for no impact evidence is the comet striking the ice sheet.

However, they postulate a continent wide event with the majority of plant life destroyed followed by the animals and humans which had nothing to eat. I would imagine a few hundred years would be enough for plants to return, but animals and humans?

If it happened it would be interesting to learn if the North was repopulated by immigrants from the south or Siberia?

[Kyle Holgate]

Hi Dennis,

Nature's power to regenerate is amazing and we probably underestimate it. I've been to Mt ST Helens a number of times since 1986 or so and the regrowth is amazing. One of the explanations for no impact evidence is the comet striking the ice sheet.

However, they postulate a continent wide event with the majority of plant life destroyed followed by the animals and humans which had nothing to eat. I would imagine a few hundred years would be enough for plants to return, but animals and humans?

If it happened it would be interesting to learn if the North was repopulated by immigrants from the south or Siberia?

I'd imagine the comet or asteroid hit didn't totally devistate the entire continent, but did enough damage so that the most specialized critters couldn't make it. Wide spread animals could have quickly migrated back in from south America and parts of North America that were not as badly damaged I would think. Elk from further south move back north to take advantage of the newly cleared terrain for example. The bigger critters need more food to survive than smaller ones - it may be why the deer and elk and what not are around while mammoths are not.
I'm guessing of course. I'd bet some Clovis people and other now extinct things remained we just have not found evidence. What we have found is just a fraction of a fraction of what is out there I'm sure - stuff could be anywhere and it's typically accidently found when digging for construction or what not. How many people have dug a foundation, found something and kept quiet so that the government won't take over the site as a dig site or native burial ground? I bet a few!

[old_pop2000]

I'd imagine the comet or asteroid hit didn't totally devistate the entire continent, but did enough damage so that the most specialized critters couldn't make it. Wide spread animals could have quickly migrated back in from south America and parts of North America that were not as badly damaged I would think. Elk from further south move back north to take advantage of the newly cleared terrain for example. The bigger critters need more food to survive than smaller ones - it may be why the deer and elk and what not are around while mammoths are not.
I'm guessing of course. I'd bet some Clovis people and other now extinct things remained we just have not found evidence. What we have found is just a fraction of a fraction of what is out there I'm sure - stuff could be anywhere and it's typically accidently found when digging for construction or what not. How many people have dug a foundation, found something and kept quiet so that the government won't take over the site as a dig site or native burial ground? I bet a few!

The real issue here is that there are lots of circumstantial evidence like mammoth tusk that are peppered with tiny impact craters apparently produced by iron-rich grains traveling at an estimated 10,000 kilometers per second. Now, the comet coming from a supernova 40,000 years agao, peppering a mammoth tusk,13000 years ago, is just one possible explanation. The two men who have advanced this theory, Firestone and West, have also found magnetic metal spherules in the sediment of nine 13,000-year-old Clovis sites in Michigan, Canada, Arizona, New Mexico and the Carolinas. Low-density carbon spherules, charcoal, and excess radioactivity were also found at these sites. Again, there can be other explanations. However, one new gene study of mammoths has discovered that they were not a homogenous species as previously thought. This means there wasn't as much genetic diversity as we had supposed. They were separated into two groups, one of which died out 45,000 years ago, before humans made it to the NA continent. What this tells us is that it wasn't the humans hunting them. It still means that disease and climate change are the most likely candidates. Climate change does not have to be caused by the comet, but could be caused by other events including volcanism in other parts of the world or the suns change levels of radiation striking the earth.

The jury is still out.

[Kyle Holgate]

The real issue here is that there are lots of circumstantial evidence like mammoth tusk that are peppered with tiny impact craters apparently produced by iron-rich grains traveling at an estimated 10,000 kilometers per second. Now, the comet coming from a supernova 40,000 years agao, peppering a mammoth tusk,13000 years ago, is just one possible explanation. The two men who have advanced this theory, Firestone and West, have also found magnetic metal spherules in the sediment of nine 13,000-year-old Clovis sites in Michigan, Canada, Arizona, New Mexico and the Carolinas. Low-density carbon spherules, charcoal, and excess radioactivity were also found at these sites. Again, there can be other explanations. However, one new gene study of mammoths has discovered that they were not a homogenous species as previously thought. This means there wasn't as much genetic diversity as we had supposed. They were separated into two groups, one of which died out 45,000 years ago, before humans made it to the NA continent. What this tells us is that it wasn't the humans hunting them. It still means that disease and climate change are the most likely candidates. Climate change does not have to be caused by the comet, but could be caused by other events including volcanism in other parts of the world or the suns change levels of radiation striking the earth.

The jury is still out.

I remain skeptical, as any good (pretend) scientist should, but the evidence for the comet or asteroid strike on North America is compelling. I await more developments...

[Campy]

I read somewhere that before the coming of Europeans, something like 20-30 million acres burned from natural fires each year. That's a lot of fires.

Also this referring to Native Americans and evidence of fire:

http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/07/21/wildfire-ecology-part-2-a-native-americans-thoughts-on-forest-fire/

Frank

[Mike Malanaphy]

I read somewhere that before the coming of Europeans, something like 20-30 million acres burned from natural fires each year. That's a lot of fires.

Also this referring to Native Americans and evidence of fire:

http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/07/21/wildfire-ecology-part-2-a-native-americans-thoughts-on-forest-fire/

Frank

Hi Campy,

Is that guy serious! Wisdom from the neloithic. The continuing mythology of the paradise in pre Colombian North America. With all those millions of acres to forest to keep manicured no wonder they didn't have time to develop a written language to pass that wisdom on to us poor fools. Next, I supposed they arranged for the lghtning strikes to occur during the winter.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Campy,

Is that guy serious! Wisdom from the neloithic. The continuing mythology of the paradise in pre Colombian North America. With all those millions of acres to forest to keep manicured no wonder they didn't have time to develop a written language to pass that wisdom on to us poor fools. Next, I supposed they arranged for the lghtning strikes to occur during the winter.

Mike:

Heh Heh! Good points. Is there a reason why it is referred to as the Clovis civilization? I suppose I could look it up, but I'm being lazy due to a cold.

[old_pop2000]

Mike:

Heh Heh! Good points. Is there a reason why it is referred to as the Clovis civilization? I suppose I could look it up, but I'm being lazy due to a cold.

The name for the civilization is derived from the first archeological evidence of their existence to be found and that was a unique type of arrowhead called a clovis point. The point is a fluted, bifacial spear point. Archeologist actually cannot agree on whether the point was developed by one civilization or adopted by many separate ones.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The name for the civilization is derived from the first archeological evidence of their existence to be found and that was a unique type of arrowhead called a clovis point. The point is a fluted, bifacial spear point. Archeologist actually cannot agree on whether the point was developed by one civilization or adopted by many separate ones.

Dennis:

Thanks. Was this type of arrowhead found in Europe as well as North American? I wonder mainly because I associate Clovis with France.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Thanks. Was this type of arrowhead found in Europe as well as North American? I wonder mainly because I associate Clovis with France.

Apparently, the New World was using a different technology called blade, while Europe was using flake technology. In fact, the NW was ahead of the old. Here is something to read on this subject. It is theoretical and I am not certain it has been established as fact.

http://www.ele.net/art_folsom/preclvis.htm

[Ed Rotondaro]

Apparently, the New World was using a different technology called blade, while Europe was using flake technology. In fact, the NW was ahead of the old. Here is something to read on this subject. It is theoretical and I am not certain it has been established as fact.

http://www.ele.net/art_folsom/preclvis.htm

Dennis:

I found out that the name originated from Clovis, New Mexico where the first points were found in the 1930s. This started archeologists to studying the peoples and their civilization which got tagged as the Clovis civilization.

[john964]

Dennis:

I found out that the name originated from Clovis, New Mexico where the first points were found in the 1930s. This started archeologists to studying the peoples and their civilization which got tagged as the Clovis civilization. IIRC this is also along the lines of how the Cro-Mangon got there name. IIRC it is the name of a town near the cave where the first archeolegy site was discovered in France.

[old_pop2000]

IIRC this is also along the lines of how the Cro-Mangon got there name. IIRC it is the name of a town near the cave where the first archeolegy site was discovered in France.

Cro-magnon was given the name of the cave in Southwestern France where the initial artifacts and archeological evidence was found. I am not certain, but I believe it was in the Dordogne Region. They were first discovered in 1868 in Les Eyzies, Dordogne, if this old memory serves me correctly. You might have to research that and provide us with more detailed information. I am going on memory. The discoverers were Louis Lartet and Henry Cristy in Cro-Magnon Cave. They found 3 adult males,1 adult female and an infant, I think.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Dennis:

Thanks. Was this type of arrowhead found in Europe as well as North American? I wonder mainly because I associate Clovis with France.

Hi Ed,

I saw a History Channel presentation on the peopling of North America, "America 10,000 BC", I believe, and they addressed that issue. There is a group in SW France that makes a very a similar point to the Clovis, but has a shorter fluke in it for the handle. There are also many more Clovis sites around Cheasapeake Bay than in almost the rest of the US. One of the results of their excavations was the discovery of dust layers associated with the sites indicationg a prevalence of dust storms. The speculation being is that people using that technology had migrated west to North America along the ice shelf in the Atlantic. However, if I remember, the DNA record does not support that theory.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Ed,

I saw a History Channel presentation on the peopling of North America, "America 10,000 BC", I believe, and they addressed that issue. There is a group in SW France that makes a very a similar point to the Clovis, but has a shorter fluke in it for the handle. There are also many more Clovis sites around Cheasapeake Bay than in almost the rest of the US. One of the results of their excavations was the discovery of dust layers associated with the sites indicationg a prevalence of dust storms. The speculation being is that people using that technology had migrated west to North America along the ice shelf in the Atlantic. However, if I remember, the DNA record does not support that theory.

Here is a link to the PBS site on America's Stone Age, hope you enjoy.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/stoneage/

[Ed Rotondaro]

Cro-magnon was given the name of the cave in Southwestern France where the initial artifacts and archeological evidence was found. I am not certain, but I believe it was in the Dordogne Region. They were first discovered in 1868 in Les Eyzies, Dordogne, if this old memory serves me correctly. You might have to research that and provide us with more detailed information. I am going on memory. The discoverers were Louis Lartet and Henry Cristy in Cro-Magnon Cave. They found 3 adult males,1 adult female and an infant, I think.


Dennis:

Did those caves also have wall paintings too, or was that another set of caves unrelated to the Cro-Magnon finds?

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

I saw a History Channel presentation on the peopling of North America, "America 10,000 BC", I believe, and they addressed that issue. There is a group in SW France that makes a very a similar point to the Clovis, but has a shorter fluke in it for the handle. There are also many more Clovis sites around Cheasapeake Bay than in almost the rest of the US. One of the results of their excavations was the discovery of dust layers associated with the sites indicationg a prevalence of dust storms. The speculation being is that people using that technology had migrated west to North America along the ice shelf in the Atlantic. However, if I remember, the DNA record does not support that theory.

Mike:

It's interesting how little of human history is actually recorded per se when you study these Neolithic civilizations.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Did those caves also have wall paintings too, or was that another set of caves unrelated to the Cro-Magnon finds?


There were cave drawings, in another site. I believe it to be Lascaux, France.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

Heh Heh! Good points. Is there a reason why it is referred to as the Clovis civilization? I suppose I could look it up, but I'm being lazy due to a cold.

HI Ed,

Out here there is an amazing amount of nostalgia for pre Colombian living here. Guilty white people swooning over the loss of traditional fishing grounds due to the dams built here in the 40s and 50s here. Ready to destroy the source of clean electric power for millions of people for a dream of few people to be able to fish with a spear from a wooden platform. I can't even understand the mindset of a 21st Century human longing for the good old days where death by starvation, disease, exposure, predators (animal and human) or even a simple injury made life a constant struggle to survive. Ignorance on a colossal scale.

Did the Native Americans, actually I prefer the Canadian term of First Americans, get the shaft by Europeans. Yes, they did. But they were shafting each other before we arrived, there just wasn't anyone able to chronicle it. There was a struggle for this continent and they lost. There is nothing unique about that struggle than the thousands of social and and ethnic changes that swept Europe, Asia, and Africa.

I'm surprised some sharp lawyer hasn't found someone claiming to be a descendent of Neanderthals filing a class action suit for compensation from us Cro Magnons.

I think I need some oxygen. :)

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

It's interesting how little of human history is actually recorded per se when you study these Neolithic civilizations.

Hi Ed,

Yes, that's what fascinates me about archaeology. The struggle to people North America is a lost story of courage and a willingness to struggle and sacrifice for the future. I hope we learn more about it.

[Ed Rotondaro]

HI Ed,

Out here there is an amazing amount of nostalgia for pre Colombian living here. Guilty white people swooning over the loss of traditional fishing grounds due to the dams built here in the 40s and 50s here. Ready to destroy the source of clean electric power for millions of people for a dream of few people to be able to fish with a spear from a wooden platform. I can't even understand the mindset of a 21st Century human longing for the good old days where death by starvation, disease, exposure, predators (animal and human) or even a simple injury made life a constant struggle to survive. Ignorance on a colossal scale.

Did the Native Americans, actually I prefer the Canadian term of First Americans, get the shaft by Europeans. Yes, they did. But they were shafting each other before we arrived, there just wasn't anyone able to chronicle it. There was a struggle for this continent and they lost. There is nothing unique about that struggle than the thousands of social and and ethnic changes that swept Europe, Asia, and Africa.

I'm surprised some sharp lawyer hasn't found someone claiming to be a descendent of Neanderthals filing a class action suit for compensation from us Cro Magnons.

I think I need some oxygen. :)

Mike:

I'll attempt to avoid both politics and correctness here LOL. When I read all these attacks on Columbus and how he was the worst disaster to happen to the Americas I have to laugh. Most of this revisionist nonsense comes from Liberals who have the deluded view that every wrong no matter how far in the past can be righted. That everybody can somehow have their lives smoothed out and never have a bad thing happen to them. Utter nonsense. History is a record of stronger and more vibrant cultures overcoming either primitive ones or ones that have become decadent. How many tribes in the New World were wiped out or submerged into a more powerful culture? With a dearth of written records, we'll never know for sure. The best we can hope for these days is to recognize that destroying a culture just to seize their lands, or resources is wrong and that there are better ways to co-exist. This kind of practice can only occur if the rule of law, enforced by a strong government ready to use force, is followed. One of the future threats that the Pentagon is taking seriously is the possibility of a worldwide shortage of drinking water and the effects this would have on the entire world. First it would be people with money feeling to lands were conditions were better. Then in would swarms of refugees following to stress the infrastructure of the more fortunate nations. Finally there would be war as desperate peoples resort to desperate measures to survive. In closing I would posit if it wasn't Columbus that opened the New World up, somebody would have eventually. And the result would most likely have been the same. Humans are expansionist by nature.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

I'll attempt to avoid both politics and correctness here LOL. When I read all these attacks on Columbus and how he was the worst disaster to happen to the Americas I have to laugh. Most of this revisionist nonsense comes from Liberals who have the deluded view that every wrong no matter how far in the past can be righted. That everybody can somehow have their lives smoothed out and never have a bad thing happen to them. Utter nonsense. History is a record of stronger and more vibrant cultures overcoming either primitive ones or ones that have become decadent. How many tribes in the New World were wiped out or submerged into a more powerful culture? With a dearth of written records, we'll never know for sure. The best we can hope for these days is to recognize that destroying a culture just to seize their lands, or resources is wrong and that there are better ways to co-exist. This kind of practice can only occur if the rule of law, enforced by a strong government ready to use force, is followed. One of the future threats that the Pentagon is taking seriously is the possibility of a worldwide shortage of drinking water and the effects this would have on the entire world. First it would be people with money feeling to lands were conditions were better. Then in would swarms of refugees following to stress the infrastructure of the more fortunate nations. Finally there would be war as desperate peoples resort to desperate measures to survive. In closing I would posit if it wasn't Columbus that opened the New World up, somebody would have eventually. And the result would most likely have been the same. Humans are expansionist by nature.

Hi Ed,

I would agree without trying to rile Chris. : ). Without a doubt the collision between Old and New wasn't pretty and the Europpeans did terrible deeds here. Where the perspective is lost is regarding the state of activity already present. All of the evidence reveals that Pre Colombian Mexico was a site of constant warfare. The handfull of Spaniards defeated the two most powerful empires in the New World by enlisting the help of thousands of others oppressed and terrorized by the Aztecs and Incas that were ever so eager to help. Brutality, slavery,and the subjugation of women and others were not imports from the Old World, they were already well established here as part of routine societal development.

That's not what taught as part of the discussion, most sadly from our schools.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

I would agree without trying to rile Chris. : ). Without a doubt the collision between Old and New wasn't pretty and the Europpeans did terrible deeds here. Where the perspective is lost is regarding the state of activity already present. All of the evidence reveals that Pre Colombian Mexico was a site of constant warfare. The handfull of Spaniards defeated the two most powerful empires in the New World by enlisting the help of thousands of others oppressed and terrorized by the Aztecs and Incas that were ever so eager to help. Brutality, slavery,and the subjugation of women and others were not imports from the Old World, they were already well established here as part of routine societal development.

That's not what taught as part of the discussion, most sadly from our schools.

Mike:

I believe that Mel Gibson's movie "Apocalypto" stresses this most emphatically and of course was not well received by anthropologists who should know better.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

I believe that Mel Gibson's movie "Apocalypto" stresses this most emphatically and of course was not well received by anthropologists who should know better.

Hi Ed,

Since the 60s there has been a growing number of people who derive their self esteem from the level of victimization they have suffered at the hands of white Europeans. Their past or current behavior is not a subject for comparison. That kind of intellectual dishonesty is woven throughout our schools and the media.

[john964]

Mike:

I believe that Mel Gibson's movie "Apocalypto" stresses this most emphatically and of course was not well received by anthropologists who should know better.I Know the feeling when I took a course in Mil His a few years a go the instructor kept harping on that we should never dropped the bomb and that it was a war crime, yada, yada ,yada. Then I weighed in and hit him with several facts that contradicted his belief that the casualties for the US and Japan were not going to be very high. We had it out several times in the classroom with my fact vs his closly held beliefs and theories. This teacher retaliated by failing me. When I went to the Dean of Instruction and the Board of Academics over it. The board said they would raise my grade from an F to a D or a Pass. I said not a chance, as I wanted the real grade I would have recived for the course. I thretened a suit and they asked what I wanted and I sujested that we send my course work and tests to several other schools and have them regrade my work and I would accept what ever grade that would result. We decided on 5 schools, I picked 2 the teacher picked 2 and the board picked 1 as a tie breaker. Well I got an A out of it and the teacher was canned.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Ed,

Since the 60s there has been a growing number of people who derive their self esteem from the level of victimization they have suffered at the hands of white Europeans. Their past or current behavior is not a subject for comparison. That kind of intellectual dishonesty is woven throughout our schools and the media.


Well, I am devout social darwinist. Survival of the fittest is how nature operates and I see nothing or any one group who going to change that principle. Military history is rife with examples of it. Man's ability to adapt, and move out of Africa; to survive in harsh climates and conquer his environment is based on that evolutionary principle. Its hard to argue with success. We mourn the loss of the neaderthal's in their fight against the cro-magnon's, but nature felt the cro-magnon's were better suited for the environment, so they won the battle.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming of Clovis man and his spearheads. :D

[Saffron]

Well, I am devout social darwinist. Survival of the fittest is how nature operates and I see nothing or any one group who going to change that principle.

I can't say that I agree with the concept of social Darwinism because, unlike nature, humanity invents artificial roadblocks and barriers that have nothing to do with a person's ability to succeed or survive. Social Darwinism is essentially a fancy way of saying "might makes right" when we all know that's ridiculous. If I say the sky is red and you claim it's blue ... we go outside and fight, and I win ... does that make the sky turn red?

Unlike in the animal kingdom, human beings can be vindictive, evil, and irrational. If we leave the course of events to Social Darwinism, evil will ultimately triumph, for those who are willing to behave immorally to achieve power will almost certainly win over those who play by the rules.

Warfare is an entirely different animal, and while I can understand a measure of military Darwinism during a battle, I cannot advocate it during peacetime.

I'll leave off of this now since this is probably crossing the line into the forbidden zones of discussion.

Take care. :)

[keschofield]

...

I'll leave off of this now since this is probably crossing the line into the forbidden zones of discussion. ...

Very good post Saffron. Thank you.

[Warship NWS]

Oh boy.. the opinions on the development of the human race... ;)

I do appreciate each of you keeping the discussion within a friendly professional tone and since its in the "general off topic" section of our forums I will not intervene at this time - so long as it stays constructive and professional.

I have always believed that one art that is truely lost in the realm of general society is the ability to hold a mature, professional, and constructive debate. IMHO, this is the ultimate roadblock to learning and achieving a higher degree of understanding the world around us.

[old_pop2000]

I can't say that I agree with the concept of social Darwinism because, unlike nature, humanity invents artificial roadblocks and barriers that have nothing to do with a person's ability to succeed or survive. Social Darwinism is essentially a fancy way of saying "might makes right" when we all know that's ridiculous. If I say the sky is red and you claim it's blue ... we go outside and fight, and I win ... does that make the sky turn red?

Unlike in the animal kingdom, human beings can be vindictive, evil, and irrational. If we leave the course of events to Social Darwinism, evil will ultimately triumph, for those who are willing to behave immorally to achieve power will almost certainly win over those who play by the rules.



However we might dislike the idea, nature operates on survival of the fittest. But it does not equate to might makes right, because there are numerous example through out history against that proposition. We abhore the methods of the Romans, Moslems, Byzantines, yet society and mankind have advanced based on the knowledege they developed. The Moslem protected the knowledge of the ancients. The Roman developed engineering to a high degree and were able to supply water to cities and import large quantities of food. They kept the barbarian hordes away from civilized Europe for centuries, allowing civilization to flourish. Nature is self correcting. When it makes a mistake, it corrects it. It's methods may not always suit our idealistic sensibilities, but it does work.

The key to understanding and enlightenment, is to study the history and development of mankind and his society. To understand where mistakes were made and why, attempting to prevent those same mistakes. As long as we can study man and society with a clear vision without the blinders, we can learn.

I remember growing up with the world around me fearing we were going to have a nuclear war, and destroy civilization. Yet, somehow, clearer heads prevailed and we temporarily avoided it. Geneticist theorize that our species may have reached a crises point with only a thousand of us left, yet we survived.

[Mike Malanaphy]

I Know the feeling when I took a course in Mil His a few years a go the instructor kept harping on that we should never dropped the bomb and that it was a war crime, yada, yada ,yada. Then I weighed in and hit him with several facts that contradicted his belief that the casualties for the US and Japan were not going to be very high. We had it out several times in the classroom with my fact vs his closly held beliefs and theories. This teacher retaliated by failing me. When I went to the Dean of Instruction and the Board of Academics over it. The board said they would raise my grade from an F to a D or a Pass. I said not a chance, as I wanted the real grade I would have recived for the course. I thretened a suit and they asked what I wanted and I sujested that we send my course work and tests to several other schools and have them regrade my work and I would accept what ever grade that would result. We decided on 5 schools, I picked 2 the teacher picked 2 and the board picked 1 as a tie breaker. Well I got an A out of it and the teacher was canned.

Hi John,

My new hero. Way to go.

[old_pop2000]

Oh boy.. the opinions on the development of the human race... ;)

I do appreciate each of you keeping the discussion within a friendly professional tone and since its in the "general off topic" section of our forums I will not intervene at this time - so long as it stays constructive and professional.

I have always believed that one art that is truely lost in the realm of general society is the ability to hold a mature, professional, and constructive debate. IMHO, this is the ultimate roadblock to learning and achieving a higher degree of understanding the world around us.

Sort of scary, isn't it. Just shows you that when you get a bunch of old warhorses together, just about anything can happen, even professional, mature and constructive debate. Of course, it helps when they are all educated, enlightened and open-minded. Anyway, we press on.

[Warship NWS]

I look at it this way.. teahers should be presenting all possible facts and or plausible theories regarding a topic and not use their classroom as a soap box for their own perosnal and/or politicaly driven opinions. Education should be based on the ability for the student to develop intelligent and researched opinions of world related topics based on as much information the teacher can provide the students, not as a means for them to be brainwashed by one persons rantings. Given the power to be a teacher does not mean it should be abused so as to act like a preacher.

[old_pop2000]

I look at it this way.. teahers should be presenting all possible facts and or plausible theories regarding a topic and not use their classroom as a soap box for their own perosnal and/or politicaly driven opinions. Education should be based on the ability for the student to develop intelligent and researched opinions of world related topics based on as much information the teacher can provide the students, not as a means for them to be brainwashed by one persons rantings. Given the power to be a teacher does not mean it should be abused so as to act like a preacher.

Education should instruct humans on how to think, not what to think. We should learn about society by studying it, not by making judgements of right and wrong. I agree that it shouldn't be a forum.

I once had a similar incident, but not in college, about the same subject. When the opponent was finished ranting, I simply asked him how he would feel, if he had been one of the millions of soldiers that were going to have to assault the shores of Japan in the two planned invasions, if the bombs were not dropped. There was never any guarentees that the bombs would work or that they would convince the japanese to quit. In fact, we now know that a coup was planned, to stop the Emperors speech. Do you think you would be so self righteous about using the bomb? If you could stop the death of millions on both sides, by the death of 500000 or so, what decision would you make? The conversation ended. I would not say I won, but he was silenced. He never, ever answered me or engaged me that conversation again.

[Warship NWS]

Not to drive home the topic as my stance has always been clear about the ending of our war with Japan... not one of our military personel should have been risked to end a war needlessly if we did not have to - I think any parent of 1945 would have agreed. To me, that would have been all the reason I would have needed to keep from landing on Japan or starving them to death through blockade. I would also note, Japan could have called it quits at any time after they started the war and long before they resorted to suicidal tactics out of utter desperation. Back to our normal program. ;)

[Saffron]

However we might dislike the idea, nature operates on survival of the fittest.

I think the fundamental flaw in Social Darwinism is the belief that we can really compare the animal kingdom with the human race. While I'll admit that we have more in common with animals than we have differences, those differences are huge and renders moot most viable comparisons.

Humanity operates largely on arbitrary laws that have virtually nothing to do with nature. A very good example is the concept of generational slavery. This doesn't exist in the natural world; it is a strictly human invention. In addition, generational slavery flies in the face of social Darwinism because a person born into slavery is kept from thriving due to an artificial, not natural condition.


When it makes a mistake, it corrects it. It's methods may not always suit our idealistic sensibilities, but it does work.

Again, Social Darwinism is fraught with human-created, artificial barriers that have allowed some to thrive at the expense of others. It isn't a product of nature (i.e. slavery). While nature may have gifted us with a highly evolved brain, what we do with that brain is totally up to us. We're not bound to instinctual behavior.

While I certainly won't deny that Darwinism on many levels does exist, that doesn't mean we have to practice it. That's one of the beauties of being human -- we have that choice. We have the ability to rationalize what we should or shouldn't do. In fact, that's why practicing Social Darwinism is so dangerous, since we can use it to rationalize any number of atrocities.

[john964]

Hi John,

My new hero. Way to go.
When I took the course I hardly cracked a book and I owened 7 of the 10 books on the reading list or there near equevelents eg At Dawn we Slept vs Day of Imfamy

[Ed Rotondaro]

I Know the feeling when I took a course in Mil His a few years a go the instructor kept harping on that we should never dropped the bomb and that it was a war crime, yada, yada ,yada. Then I weighed in and hit him with several facts that contradicted his belief that the casualties for the US and Japan were not going to be very high. We had it out several times in the classroom with my fact vs his closly held beliefs and theories. This teacher retaliated by failing me. When I went to the Dean of Instruction and the Board of Academics over it. The board said they would raise my grade from an F to a D or a Pass. I said not a chance, as I wanted the real grade I would have recived for the course. I thretened a suit and they asked what I wanted and I sujested that we send my course work and tests to several other schools and have them regrade my work and I would accept what ever grade that would result. We decided on 5 schools, I picked 2 the teacher picked 2 and the board picked 1 as a tie breaker. Well I got an A out of it and the teacher was canned.

John:

WELL DONE SIR! I appreciate a person who sticks by their beliefs and will fight for them. One of my favorite daydreams is to go back to grad school for history and take on some of these self righteous professors and nail 'em to the cross. Anybody who thinks that we should not have used the bomb needs to read "Downfall" by Richard Franks. Franks uses tons of decoded signal traffic to show that Japan's ruling elite could not grasp the fact that they had to surrender. They were perfectly willing to sacrifice their nation in order to avoid the stigmata of defeat. The bomb actually gave Hirohito the perfect face saving out by demonstrating that Japan could not win against such technological superiority. By making that case he was able to persuade the maniacs that ran Japan that the war was over. Never let a "professor" make you feel that you don't know your subject. Some of the best history is written by people who don't have initials after their names. Or as one of my former bosses said "PhD stands for Piled High and Deep".

[old_pop2000]

John:

WELL DONE SIR! I appreciate a person who sticks by their beliefs and will fight for them. One of my favorite daydreams is to go back to grad school for history and take on some of these self righteous professors and nail 'em to the cross. Anybody who thinks that we should not have used the bomb needs to read "Downfall" by Richard Franks. Franks uses tons of decoded signal traffic to show that Japan's ruling elite could not grasp the fact that they had to surrender. They were perfectly willing to sacrifice their nation in order to avoid the stigmata of defeat. The bomb actually gave Hirohito the perfect face saving out by demonstrating that Japan could not win against such technological superiority. By making that case he was able to persuade the maniacs that ran Japan that the war was over. Never let a "professor" make you feel that you don't know your subject. Some of the best history is written by people who don't have initials after their names. Or as one of my former bosses said "PhD stands for Piled High and Deep".

It is hard for students to remember, that professors are human. They make the same mistakes that all of us do, they mix their belief's with what they are teaching. As you point out, the Imperial Japanese military had no desire or concept of surrendering. If we had invaded, and the Japanese had fought hard, our troops would have exterminated the Japanese people. Marine's that I have talked to say, that by the end of the island hopping, the Marines rarely took prisoners. Even on Okinawa, everything died. We would now be talking about the Japanese people and race in the past tense because they would have been exterminated.

When I was in college, just before leaving for the Air Force, I used to argue with people about the Vietnam war and pointed out that if we were going to continue this fight, we needed to go downtown and obliterate these people and invade the north. If not, leave Vietnam to their civil war, because that's what it was. Its funny how, four years later, when I came back from the service, my attitude was now the norm. I didn't change, but everyone else seems have given it a little more thought. Historical perspective is important to understanding how events unfolded. Truman, years later, always stated that his main goal was to end the war as easily and with as few casualties as possible on both sides. When he balanced the deaths on both sides due to an invasion, versus the deaths from the A-bombs, the choice was easy. Unfortunately, he did need a little help from the emperor. 20/20 hindsight is the clearest vision in the world, but this event has always stood the test of time for being the correct decision, despite the few detractors.

[john964]

John:

WELL DONE SIR! I appreciate a person who sticks by their beliefs and will fight for them. One of my favorite daydreams is to go back to grad school for history and take on some of these self righteous professors and nail 'em to the cross. Anybody who thinks that we should not have used the bomb needs to read "Downfall" by Richard Franks. Franks uses tons of decoded signal traffic to show that Japan's ruling elite could not grasp the fact that they had to surrender. They were perfectly willing to sacrifice their nation in order to avoid the stigmata of defeat. The bomb actually gave Hirohito the perfect face saving out by demonstrating that Japan could not win against such technological superiority. By making that case he was able to persuade the maniacs that ran Japan that the war was over. Never let a "professor" make you feel that you don't know your subject. Some of the best history is written by people who don't have initials after their names. Or as one of my former bosses said "PhD stands for Piled High and Deep".I am still doing it, driving college history teachers nuts, because I have the intestanal fortitude to challange them and thier sometimes nutty beliefs. Just last year I took a full professor to task and nailed her to the wall, the cross, the barn door, etc, etc. She didn't like me contradicting her closely held opiionins in class. She realy wanted to fail me but when your batting a thousand getting grades overtured (6 for 6) its realy hard to do so I have also gotten 1 assoc professer and a full professor either not rehiered or contract not renewed. In most of the classes other students are asking me to help them out with course work and what not.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I think the fundamental flaw in Social Darwinism is the belief that we can really compare the animal kingdom with the human race. While I'll admit that we have more in common with animals than we have differences, those differences are huge and renders moot most viable comparisons.

Humanity operates largely on arbitrary laws that have virtually nothing to do with nature. A very good example is the concept of generational slavery. This doesn't exist in the natural world; it is a strictly human invention. In addition, generational slavery flies in the face of social Darwinism because a person born into slavery is kept from thriving due to an artificial, not natural condition.



Again, Social Darwinism is fraught with human-created, artificial barriers that have allowed some to thrive at the expense of others. It isn't a product of nature (i.e. slavery). While nature may have gifted us with a highly evolved brain, what we do with that brain is totally up to us. We're not bound to instinctual behavior.

While I certainly won't deny that Darwinism on many levels does exist, that doesn't mean we have to practice it. That's one of the beauties of being human -- we have that choice. We have the ability to rationalize what we should or shouldn't do. In fact, that's why practicing Social Darwinism is so dangerous, since we can use it to rationalize any number of atrocities.

Saffy:

I think you are missing the point here. Social Darwinism existed since the dawn or humanity. Only now with our enlightened so-called "civilization" can we say "No to war, slavery, religious intolerance and poverty, etc." Because now we have other means to deal with the pressures of life. We can offer economic aid to a Third World nation in hopes that it will use it to raise the standard of living for its people. We can create infrastructure to increase prosperity. We can hopefully intervene to stop "ethnic cleansing". But we can't stop the basic fact that it's still a jungle out there. For all our fervent desires that "It will never happen again", it still does. As Benjamin Franklin said "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing". So was he espousing Social Darwinism or standing up for what was right? Were the fledgling colonies acting correctly or just exploiting Britain's weakness?

I've always felt that if people could just sit down and talk to each other in a common language over a meal. then perhaps we could prevent a lot of the violence that still shapes our world. Perhaps the internet will be the portal that creates the "Global Village" that Hillary Clinton spoke of. But in a world where technology becomes increasingly available to cultures that are not capable of understanding the consequences of its misuse, it would be very easy for "Techno-Barbarians" to displace mature law abiding cultures. Reverse Social Darwinism as it were. I'm no fan of G. Gordon Liddy, but he once made a comment about wishful thinking. I'm going on memory here: He said "Americans think the ocean is safe to swim in. They'll only see Charlie the Tuna. What a shock it is to find Jaws out there."

In closing, we stand a moment in history when the US is at a point of change. Will the upcoming elections be an example of Social Darwinism or the next step in the growth of our culture? (Note, I'm not backing a candidate here).

Respectfully,

[Mike Malanaphy]

I think the fundamental flaw in Social Darwinism is the belief that we can really compare the animal kingdom with the human race. While I'll admit that we have more in common with animals than we have differences, those differences are huge and renders moot most viable comparisons.

Humanity operates largely on arbitrary laws that have virtually nothing to do with nature. A very good example is the concept of generational slavery. This doesn't exist in the natural world; it is a strictly human invention. In addition, generational slavery flies in the face of social Darwinism because a person born into slavery is kept from thriving due to an artificial, not natural condition.



Again, Social Darwinism is fraught with human-created, artificial barriers that have allowed some to thrive at the expense of others. It isn't a product of nature (i.e. slavery). While nature may have gifted us with a highly evolved brain, what we do with that brain is totally up to us. We're not bound to instinctual behavior.

While I certainly won't deny that Darwinism on many levels does exist, that doesn't mean we have to practice it. That's one of the beauties of being human -- we have that choice. We have the ability to rationalize what we should or shouldn't do. In fact, that's why practicing Social Darwinism is so dangerous, since we can use it to rationalize any number of atrocities.

Hi Saffron,

If I remember correctly, Social Darwinism enjoyed relatively brief popularity in Victorian times and reinforced some nasty perceptions about certain sections of society deserving what they got for any number of reasons. In the early 20th Century, Eugenics was a popular offshoot along a similar vein as a way to improve the human species selectively. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was in favor of preventing certain people from reproducing to improve it human race and President Wilson held sinmilar views. National Socialism was certainly it's most extreme example, but Lysenko in the Soviet Union had some intersting views on genetics and communism and the new Socialist man..

I would agree witht you that as humans we have the power to act on our own volition as opposed to instinct, but Darwin's two imperatives; the will to survive and the will to reproduce are still strong in our genes and for very good reasons. The spectrum of human desicions is wide and not congruent with everyone's values and plenty of people have been "rationalized" out of existence for that as well. Until a better system is in place, Darwinism is going to dominate international relations.

At some point those values may clash and you have to decide if what you believe in is worth fighting for with all of the loss and risk involved. It's interesting to hear people speaking about how important it is for the world to view us in a positive light. I don't disagree entirely with that, but whom are you talking about when you mean the world? The 1/3 of it that spends it's days in rice paddies? The billion plus in China that get their news from the state? The millions facing genocide in Africa? How can they really have a valid picture of us if all they see is Madonna and Brittany Spears kissing at some awards show? Generally when I hear people say that, they are talking about people like themselves white, protected, and generally well to do. Those who have evloved beyond the shackles of merre national boudaries and are "Citizens of the World". That's not a put down, but a real assessment of their world view, because they have never exerienced what the world is like.

It's nice to talk and get along, but this isn't high school where your trying to be the popular kid. I don't know where you find middle ground on female circumcision, arranged marriages of teen age girls to adult men, sellling the organs of executed criminals like a commodity, child sex slavery, or the plethora of other ills that plague the world. I can tell you that there are billions of people in this world that believe those values are good and would fight to protect them. Perhaps they should be more concerned with how we view them.

I'm not a pessimist about the human situation beacuse I firmly believe in the power we have to make our lives better....and they are vastly better despite what you see on the news. Modernization and prosperity allow our modern values of freedom and individual dignity to develop and thrive and hopefully as they spread the world will be a more peaceful place. Our values exist in a bubble that we have created and need to defend is we desire to keep them.

Gee, this is like the old late night college bull sessions. : )

[keschofield]

With the exception of those on this forum, I've never heard of any defenders of "social darwinism" who didn't have a self serving program in mind.

EG - "Those people are savages/inferior/different/dangerous/etc." has always translated to "Those people have something I want and they are in the way".

Besides, Darwin's theories on evolution operate at such a high level that individual actions in support or opposition to evolution are meaningless. Human self-awareness differentiates us from the creatures that Darwin's theories apply to. That same self-awareness is the heart of our social interactions.

Until someone conclusively proves that Darwin's theories of "natural selection" are false, I will continue to believe that they are the best model of biological development yet presented. However, I do not believe that they have any application outside the realm of biology.

But then "my opinion and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee" (except at Starbucks). :D

[john964]

But then "my opinion and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee" (except at Starbucks). :D
Were in the heck are you going to get coffee for $.50. Not any place I know of that the coffee doesn't taste like Nile delta river water at low tide on wash day.:confused::rolleyes:

[old_pop2000]

With the exception of those on this forum, I've never heard of any defenders of "social darwinism" who didn't have a self serving program in mind.

EG - "Those people are savages/inferior/different/dangerous/etc." has always translated to "Those people have something I want and they are in the way".

Besides, Darwin's theories on evolution operate at such a high level that individual actions in support or opposition to evolution are meaningless. Human self-awareness differentiates us from the creatures that Darwin's theories apply to. That same self-awareness is the heart of our social interactions.

Until someone conclusively proves that Darwin's theories of "natural selection" are false, I will continue to believe that they are the best model of biological development yet presented. However, I do not believe that they have any application outside the realm of biology.

But then "my opinion and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee" (except at Starbucks). :D

Thanks, because you will never hear me defend it. It is an operating principle in society and frequently is used to justify everything including wiping out indigenous populations. I simply believe it exists, and is not just a theory developed by Malthus, Hobbes or its originator, Herbert Spencer. It is a way of describing human nature and society and it does work. I believe that if we are to change society's view of itself, we have to accept that social darwinism is a valid operating principle and investigate how it can be used to improve us, not make us worse.

When you examine many philosophy's, you find that they were not a bad idea, but just became perverted. If you read and understand communism, it was never perverted, although it went entirely against human nature and for that reason, failed. But it was perverted, by Stalin. He took the idea of the dictatorship of the Proletariat and used that to gain and maintain power. I am not a supporter of communism, but we should examine and accept how it operated.

It is interesting that many libertarians actually still subscribe to the principles of Herbert Spencer. His views of social psychology are still studied. Spencer was a strong advocate of individual freedoms and defended the individual human right. Here is a famous quote from the man who first offered the idea of Social Darwinism.

'Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man' - From Moral Statics.

Possibly our problem is our lack of understanding of what Spencer, Hobbes and Malthus were attempting to explain.

[keschofield]

Were in the heck are you going to get coffee for $.50. Not any place I know of that the coffee doesn't taste like Nile delta river water at low tide on wash day.:confused::rolleyes:

My original response must have gotten lost in the ether!

As an old systems programmer I got used to working at odd hours and became addicted to machine coffee. I think there are still a few fifty cent coffee machines around.

Or am I dating myself again? :eek:

[keschofield]

... Thanks, because you will never hear me defend it. ...
Possibly our problem is our lack of understanding of what Spencer, Hobbes and Malthus were attempting to explain.

Dennis,

Thanks for the thoughtful post (as always). You may be right about most not understanding what Spencer, Hobbes, and Malthus were trying to say. They were very intellectually advanced men --- and very obtuse writers (especially Malthus - I have never been able to finish any of Malthus' works).

Kurt

[Ed Rotondaro]

Were in the heck are you going to get coffee for $.50. Not any place I know of that the coffee doesn't taste like Nile delta river water at low tide on wash day.:confused::rolleyes:

John:

It's only that cheap if you make the coffee yourself.:D

[old_pop2000]

Dennis,

Thanks for the thoughtful post (as always). You may be right about most not understanding what Spencer, Hobbes, and Malthus were trying to say. They were very intellectually advanced men --- and very obtuse writers (especially Malthus - I have never been able to finish any of Malthus' works).

Kurt


Kurt:
One problem, and I plead guilty to it also, is not investigating what a term actually means or how it was viewed. In other words, context of the time it was written. We are living in a world of sound bites. That's how we get most of our information, so we hear the term " social darwinism" and we shuddered. The term survival of the fittest, though ascribed to Darwin, was actually coined by Spencer and adopted by Darwin. Spencer began his writings about evolution before Darwin. Survival of the fittest has always meant survival of the species or group best able to adapt to its environment. Cro-magnon man survived due to his superior ability to feed, house and cloth himself and his ability to manage his environment. Neanderthal failed because, although physically well adapted, he could not manage his environment. Survival of the fittest was never survival of the best.

I agree about reading the literature, it has been my problem also. I have tried to use the internet to find material to help me understand. Here is one such piece. I hope it is enlightening for you and assists in your understanding. I am still reading and learning myself. Google books is a good source, that is free, for many full view books like Malthus.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/spencer.htm

I will always provide links to good information sources if you are interested. Just ask. :D

[keschofield]

Dennis,

Thanks for the link. I will check out Google Books as well.

Take care,
Kurt

[old_pop2000]

Dennis,

Thanks for the link. I will check out Google Books as well.

Take care,
Kurt


Great, you will find many things, including interesting naval books from before the turn of the century and into the recent periods available.

Here is another link to the section in Spencer's writings that probably explains his and his other social darwinist theory.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/spencer-darwin.html

[keschofield]

Great, you will find many things, including interesting naval books from before the turn of the century and into the recent periods available.

Here is another link to the section in Spencer's writings that probably explains his and his other social darwinist theory.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/spencer-darwin.html

Dennis,

Its all your fault! ;) I'm supposed to be working on four appraisal reports this afternoon and you introduce me to Google books. What a great place (virtual of course)! Books for free, isn't that as close to heaven as we can get?! :D I can't stay away. Sure wish I was retired so I could have more time to play.

You tempter you. :D In all seriousness, thanks for the best link I've received in a long time.

Best wishes,
Kurt

[old_pop2000]

Dennis,

Its all your fault! ;) I'm supposed to be working on four appraisal reports this afternoon and you introduce me to Google books. What a great place (virtual of course)! Books for free, isn't that as close to heaven as we can get?! :D I can't stay away. Sure wish I was retired so I could have more time to play.

You tempter you. :D In all seriousness, thanks for the best link I've received in a long time.

Best wishes,
Kurt

I am real happy that you enjoy it. You can review books before buying them, which can save a lot of money. I enjoy it because of the turn of century naval architecture books which are the basis for many of the design principles of the dreadnoughts.

When you have time, examine Google Scholar, you might find it interesting. Have fun, but get your work done.

http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&lr=

[Ed Rotondaro]

I am real happy that you enjoy it. You can review books before buying them, which can save a lot of money. I enjoy it because of the turn of century naval architecture books which are the basis for many of the design principles of the dreadnoughts.

When you have time, examine Google Scholar, you might find it interesting. Have fun, but get your work done.

http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&lr=


Dennis:

I'm going to have to check these out when I get home tonight.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I'm going to have to check these out when I get home tonight.

Search google books for "naval design" and turn on "full view". ;)