From: Alienthe@hotmail.com   
      
   FixinDixon wrote:   
      
   >>>You can't have Love without Hate, Peace without War, and on and on like   
   >>>that.   
   >>   
   >>I have heard this argument before, have thought about it but   
   >>I still cannot buy it. Peace, to take on example, can be seen   
   >>as the abence of war. This definition replies on the knowledge   
   >>of the concept of war but it is still not necessary to actually   
   >>have an ongoing war to enjoy peace. Or so it would seem to me.   
   >   
   > Peace is the absence of conflict.  What is neccessary to have Peace is   
   > the understanding and notion of Conflict.  It's existence is not   
   > neccessary, only it's potential for existence.   
      
      
   I can agree on the wider scope of conflict rather than war but   
   I am stil unsure if you mean only "understanding" or "potential"   
   or both.   
      
   >>A great many of the early cultures were located in a relatively   
   >>narrow band of latitudes. The explanation for this was that the   
   >>environment here was not so paradisic to make work unneccesary   
   >>and not so harsh as to give no hope but rather the right mix to   
   >>make for a good life as long as people cooperated in a struggle   
   >>against the elements, resulting in a society.   
   >>   
   >>That looked vaguely plausible to me though I could never get a   
   >>working explanation on why this worked only on the northern   
   >>hemisphere. Lately it seems historians/anthropologists have   
   >>abandoned this theory of the creative struggle causing growth.   
   >   
   > That's because it's been realised that mankind's movements were based   
   > on a more chaotic "I wonder what's over that hill/past that turn in   
   > the river" than on an organised growth.  We were hunter/gatherers,   
   > nomads, not builders of towns and cities.  Yes, we may have settled   
   > down once we had found an perfect plot of land, but not before.   
      
      
   That still leaves the question of why the northern hemisphere   
   was more favourable than the southern. Symmetry always feels   
   right, if it is broken there has to be a reason for it.   
      
   Anyway, people settled everywhere (parts of Finland was   
   populated even before the last ice age) and some still   
   trekked, yet the places that showed high culture were   
   within this band of latitudes.   
      
   Also, how do you explain the rise of organised societies   
   without organised growth? I feel there are so many strange   
   factors and coincidences in the dawn of civilisation it   
   reads more like sci fi fantasy; there is plenty of material   
   left for more books like Snow Crash.   
      
   >>In Northern Europe life was hard, short and brutal in the viking   
   >>era, yet today this is today one of the most peaceful regions.   
   >   
   > One - the quote is "nasty, brutish and short"   
   > Two - The Vikings brought a fair bit to Europe (bloodshed aside).   
      
      
   To follow up in this new enumerative spirit:   
     1: no quote was intended   
     2: your quote (from Hobbes, I believe) is incomplete   
     3: the complete quote is not appropriate for what I had in mind.   
   That aside...   
      
   > They were a raiding nation, their own resources were not as good as   
   > everyone elses.  Plus they liked fighting.  BUt the Romans, the Picks,   
   > the Scots, the Irish, the Celts, the Normans, the Germainians...they   
   > were violent as hell too.  Had peaceful domestic lives though.  Now   
   > fast forward 1000 years.  We're all acting in the same way as each   
   > other.  If we're still blood thirsty, beer drinking louts who rape,   
   > pillage and murder, then fine.  I like to think things have changed a   
   > little.   
      
      
   My point was not that the vikings were more brutal than other,   
   rather that they were brutal but that life in these areas is   
   now very, very different. I too like to think that things have   
   changed but there are times when civilisation looks like a thin   
   fragile varnish over a cruder nature.   
      
   > I   
   >   
   >>have heard someone suggest the violent elements effectively joined   
   >>forces in pulling each other out of the gene pool. Perhaps Darwin   
   >>might filter the gene pool again.   
   >   
   > Darwin's DEAD.  As a dodo.  His theory is attacked constantly by   
   > American Creationists, the Catholic Church and the uneducated.  He   
   > ain't going to be doing any filtering.   
      
      
   My sarcast-o-meter is giving me unclear readings here...   
      
   > Humans ARE animals first, primates second.  We evolved to be the way   
   > we are (hairless bipedals with language and technology) because we   
   > could fill a niche.  Problem is, we've filled it a bit too well.   
      
      
   Do you mean we are no longer evolving?   
      
   >>If you want profound I offer you gene technology. Imagine the   
   >>day when little Bill can take revenge on little Bob by cooking up   
   >>a deadly virus ... and ends up with 2 million dead in collateral   
   >>damage.   
   >>   
   >   
   > I'd copyright that idea.  Hollywood might just use it as a movie idea.   
      
      
   Isn't it too obviously a future we are heading towards to be   
   patentable? Once it was thought 5 computers was all there was   
   a market for, now they are everywhere. Today gene tech is in   
   undergrad labs, guess what it will look like in 30 years time.   
      
   >>One of the things that make AIDS simulations so hard is that you   
   >>need totake into account how society changes culturally. In   
   >>addition to plain bad luck there is the factor of those who are   
   >>careless but informed. It has been suggested that is carefulness   
   >>is a trait that can be inherited society would be culturally   
   >>changed since the careless would be culled before spreading their   
   >>genes. Science can be rather cold blooded at times.   
   >   
   > Traits are not genetically passed down but are taught.  The careless   
   > would only be culled if cultures taught carefullness as a lesson at   
   > school.  And even then, humans make mistakes.   
      
      
   Perhaps instinct for carefulness is a better way of putting   
      
   it. It is more than 10 years since I heard about it, perhaps   
   someone has made a working hypothesis yet.   
      
   I do agree though that there is a cultural aspect here and   
   that will make the issue more unclear. And yes, there are   
      
   mistakes and plain bad luck.   
      
      
   ==<)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)