Nonsense. Pre industrial agriculture wasn’t very damaging in most cases…and when it was it was on a minuscule scale compared to industrial agriculture.
Pre industrial building wasn’t excessively environmentally damaging in most cases, certainly not to the point where it endangered the planet or it’s atmosphere.

It's utterly ridiculous hyperbole to say we have to be cavemen to not destroy our environment. We don't even have to revert to pre industrial methods, we just have to be responsible with our actions and lower the population massively. With minor exceptions, pre industrial farming caused little to no permanent damage, and it was almost all easily repairable damage. (With a few exceptions like Rapa Nui that may not have been over farming but cultural damage, we aren't exactly certain what happened there).

I eat berries now, don't you? I grow raspberries, blackberries, black raspberries, blueberries, strawberries, and Tay berries myself. People would be healthier if they ate berries, and they're tasty too. What?!

Yes, around 7 billion need to die (without procreating first). Better than all 9 billion.

There’s a huge difference between being occasionally deadly and so insanely toxic we destroy our own planet in under 200 years to the point where our own existence is seriously threatened.
Edit: toxicity levels matter as much as exposure levels. Cavemen impacted their environment at levels well below sustainability (mostly….the idea they killed the mammoths or mastodons off by hunting is, I believe, a myth….natural environmental changes seem much more likely to be the major influence in their extinction.). Per capita, modern humans have a much larger, more detrimental footprint than premodern humans, exponentially larger….and there’s like a hundred thousand times as many of us (or more) too. We need to reverse both those trends drastically if we are to survive long term.

Yes, progress includes risk, but risk can be managed, minimized, and not taken when it’s a risk of total destruction. We totally ignore risk if there’s profit involved.

This is a night time comedy show, not a science class. I think you expect WAY too much. It points out that there is a problem, it doesn’t have the time, or the audience to delve into the intricate chemical processes involved in the manufacture, use, and disposal of them. It touched on them, and more importantly pointed out how they’ve been flushed into the environment Willy nilly by almost everyone who manufacturers with them.

Steak is definitely optional. I choose steak.

Killing only stops if there are no cows. If there are living cows they will die one day. In the wild pretty quickly if you apply your morals to wolves also.

A cow has no abstract concept of the fear of being eaten (only a general fear and instincts) so unless you purposefully go out of your way to hurt it there is nothing philosophically wrong with eating one, unless you get all emotional and make a complicated moral choice. Which is your choice to make.

Cavemen is a pretty wide term. I am probably smarter than most cavemen. But from the time they got organized and hunted large animals until now man has not really changed much - a couple of tens of thousands of years. We probably tend to remember less and be more depressed and weaker and use our senses less well. Can type faster though.

I created an account just to weight in as well. I'm pretty sure that this is simply ironic (and therefore humorous) because it's a caveman who is not living in a cave, but instead in a house. This is what the house of a caveman would look like, get it? Larson takes ideas or concepts we have some conception of (cavemen) and ascribes relatable characteristics to them which, again, makes it funny. It's not incredibly deep, just kind of subtle.

Good parabola at the start (is it parabola.. anyway...) how to describe the levels of privacy. But the point here is, we have the right to choose what is private to us and what is not. That task is not up to security departments, it is done individually. Yes, it is a security risk. No shit sherlock. So are a lot of old social rules that we have honed during the millenias, spanning from cavemen to nerd. There would be NO crime if we would have NO privacy. And still, after tens of thousands of years, we have seemed it appropriate to allow more freedoms with small disadvantage but with a tremendous improvements on personal well being. Not to mention creativity, which often demands privacy. If you knew that someone is watching every draw of line you make, the picture turns out to be average at best, not exciting, dull, predictable. Because at those private moments, we find our selves free to take creative risks. Innovate without reprimand. You take that feeling of freedom away, force people to "behave" when at their own homes and we will live in a stagnated, boring world. We have to be allowed to break away from societal norms when private. The fact is that internet is a tool too for that inner self study.. We ask it daily questions we wont ask from our spouses. It is linked to the most private form of self. And thus, it has tremendous effect on our wellbeing and society as a whole.

Climate change deniers are cavemen

...bye bye Neanderthals, enjoy playing with your guns.

Well, as far as I know, I don't have any corporate sponsors that are financing the dissemination of my opinion for their own interests ... that I know of?

Hold on, you're twisting my words. I'm making a statement of social science, not of ethics. I'm not in the mood to argue ethics, generally have a mixed opinion, and don't like discussing it since it becomes purely an emotional argument.

On a theoretical basis, you would say in the market for labour, competition pushes labour costs down to their equilibrium demand/supply level. If there are a shortage of skilled workers for an X industry or skill set, the price or wage goes up, or vice versa. That's why you typically see union structures in less skilled or more standardised rather than specialised job types. Those, with a high quantity of people possessing said skills for the job.

But as always it's a trade-off. If firms in a particular industry or skill subset start paying too little for their workers, less people will decide to study it, and they will miss out on the talent and skill pool of those who were incentivised into other industries. On that basis unions aren't necessarily good or bad for industries.

On a personal level, I'd say that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with unions and they make perfect sense. Firms organise themselves into trade associations and it would be naive to say that they don't share information on wage levels, or for that matter that this kind of information is not freely available. Why shouldn't the counterparty in the so-called market for labour not be able to organise themselves equally?

As for your last comment on whether competing is always necessary, I tend to have a pretty cynical view of the world and believe that people are generally consciously or subconsciously acting in their own interests. You may point out altruism and I will say people are satisfying a innate biological need to help others, a characteristic that would have come about in our cavemen days when co-operating distinguished your survival ability from other tribes, but ultimately something motivated in you by the evolutionary survival advantage that it conferred to you rather than any pure form of altruism.

Economics as a theory of study is pretty much predicated on this notion. What is the extent of the truth of this in reality? Who knows. I have little ability if any to truly glance into the mind of what anyone else is thinking or what motivates them.

The difference between the WBC and more moderate christians is these people actually believe in god. Everything they're saying is quite right in a world where their magic book is true.

The bible isn't allegorical. That's a smarmy modern justification for why so many retards believe so much shit. The bible was created by cavemen to be taken literally by cavemen; the WBC are cavemen taking it literally, as intended - they're true christians.

If you have any respect for religion at all then you have no right to criticise these fuck-brained neanderthals. If you have no respect for religion then you have no right to criticise these fuck-brained neanderthals any more than the loathsome billions who share their affiliation.

>> ^jncross:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^jncross:
Sometimes I really enjoy atheist make poor points about something they don't understand. Those things being the Christian God, Chrisitianity as a whole, and pretty much anything Chrisitian. Man I'll tell you for a group that doesn't believe in something they sure spend alot of time trying to prove to others that it doesn't exsist. Wouldn't simply ignoring all of us Christians make a better point. Keep trying though...Maybe next time you'll convence everyone. =)

I'm pretty sure that I, nor anyone else can't prove God that doesn't exist any more than you can't prove to me the unicorns, leprechauns, or fairies don't exist.
This is a tired old argument that theists use over and over again. Find something new for science's sake!

The point I was making was not to prove anything, but simply show how stupid this video was. As far as I'm concerned I could careless if you believe in my God. The point is I do, and this was offensive and stupid. Someone went out of their way to make a complete joke out of Christianity. There is no point in showing ignorance other than just to be ignorant. By the way you speak of science as if they have all the answers yet I ask this question. Could what we call science infact be God's way of giving humanity a peak into the world around us so that we aren't all just walking around like cavemen still?


You knew coming in it would be offensive to you. So how about you take some of your own advice and simply walk away, and/or just not watch these types of videos at all. Then you won't be offended by them. And as far as being offended goes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tn2EhGK5ok

By the way, where in my comment did I speak of science having all the answers? Please point that out to me.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^jncross:
Sometimes I really enjoy atheist make poor points about something they don't understand. Those things being the Christian God, Chrisitianity as a whole, and pretty much anything Chrisitian. Man I'll tell you for a group that doesn't believe in something they sure spend alot of time trying to prove to others that it doesn't exsist. Wouldn't simply ignoring all of us Christians make a better point. Keep trying though...Maybe next time you'll convence everyone. =)

I'm pretty sure that I, nor anyone else can't prove God that doesn't exist any more than you can't prove to me the unicorns, leprechauns, or fairies don't exist.
This is a tired old argument that theists use over and over again. Find something new for science's sake!


The point I was making was not to prove anything, but simply show how stupid this video was. As far as I'm concerned I could careless if you believe in my God. The point is I do, and this was offensive and stupid. Someone went out of their way to make a complete joke out of Christianity. There is no point in showing ignorance other than just to be ignorant. By the way you speak of science as if they have all the answers yet I ask this question. Could what we call science infact be God's way of giving humanity a peak into the world around us so that we aren't all just walking around like cavemen still?

@residue

Athleticism as a means for health and for stress reduction is fine.

However, what's the total cost to the global economy each year of watching sports? $100 billion-$1 trillion?

I understand that cavemen think it's important that Team A beats Team B, but shouldn't human intelligence be higher in the 21st century than it was 20,000 years ago?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Animation, topography, story telling, cavemen, brain, evolution, connect, Mindshare' to 'Animation, typography, story telling, cavemen, brain, evolution, connect, Mindshare' - edited by garmachi

>> ^bmacs27:

@Lawdeedaw Really? So this sounds like the words of a guy that values the personal liberties of the mother over a zygote?
"There is something that precedes liberty, and that is life," Paul said. "If we are to defend liberty … you have to understand where that liberty, and where that life comes from. It does not come from the government, it comes from our creator."
Seems to me the "right to life" precedes liberty, and I suspect he would legislate accordingly. Not to mention his introduction of the "sanctity of life act" in 2005 which would have defined life as beginning with conception, and his votes in support of a federal ban on partial birth abortions in 2000 and 2003.
Funny, that sounds an awful lot like every other anti-choice politician's policy making. I didn't realize "choice" was such an infringement on "liberty."


Sigh---even if I am wrong on this issue it doesn't make I dumb btw. Nor would it you.

Paul also doesn't believe in the death penalty--but that's again up to states in his opinion. He doesn't like cocaine but it's not his right to take it from you to decide.

Are his policies sound or sane? No less than the other "candidates." I am not saying he is god nor am I saying that all his policies are golden (I.e., the gold standard.) I would still suspect his policies are better than liars who have no real policies...

Essentially I feel the exact same as Paul in this matter except I don't think life begins in the womb (I feel it begins when intellect starts; i.e., when stimuli can be reacted to.) And, just like Paul, I would never, ever take away a woman's choice on abortions.

Below is a conservative site blasting Paul for his decision to put his personal feelings aside and give choice...

http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/07/12/ron-paul-wrong-on-abortion-its-a-human-right/

If the cavemen-conservatives hate him, I like him.

>> ^messenger:

@Truckchase
You and I agree, I think. I especially like what (I believe) your quote is getting at, which is that we need to understand our enemy. I don't think we do. If we did, then we'd never get mad at them, nor even frustrated like a teacher at students who aren't catching on to the easy stuff. We would understand where they were coming from and why they continue to oppose us.

That's not AT ALL what Sun Tzu is getting at. He was a pragmatist. A pragmatist Chinese war strategist. If you understand yourself and you understand the enemy, then you crush the enemy under your boot like the worm he is.

In this case doubly so. The creationists started the war against evolution and they will pay sooner or later. Reason may have started the war against religion, but since it's got reason on its side (duh) it will prevail too. Unfortunately, reason can be used even when you're religious, so it may take a while.

I'm a pacifist, but this is a war that we must see through or we will never be able to live true to ourselves. The war is truly against mental slavery, and just like physical slavery religion is the first enemy we must face.

Seen on reddit:

As much as you believe you're right, they believe they're right. Honestly, neither of you KNOW. One side's has more brains than the other, the other side has more heart than the other, but no one KNOWS. 150-200 years ago modern science KNEW that blood-letting would cure your diseases. Hell, 100 years ago science KNEW that there was no reason to wash your hands before surgery. They probably have a very good idea, but who knows what we'll discover in the next 100 years that makes us look like cavemen did 6000 years ago. (intentional date troll there, calm down)

That's exactly why religion is dangerous: it evolves and adapts (like every meme), but it never gets better at reflecting the world unlike science. In fact, it doesn't want to reflect the world better. Christianity still holds the same basic worldview as a Jew born (around) 2000 years ago. I wouldn't trust what a scientist said an hour ago, let alone what a non-scientist said 2000 years ago.

Also, I must correct something. Only religious people believe they're right. Scientists KNOW they're right. At least they know they're more right than religious people. They know that because they know they don't know shit, whereas religious people believe they know shit, hence they can't know that they don't know shit.

>> ^sillma:

Amazing? Maybe for cavemen.


When i was 8-10 shit like this blew my mind If i wasn't so thick i would have gone into the sciences instead of the arts.