Rather how I have always know the process of survival and improvement to be driven. Find that which benefits the most with the least accrued losses so that we as both the individual and the greater society can prosper and grow. Something socialism has never shown to be a working point of its intent and design.

If I discover a better way of doing things I profit from it. If I then sell that new knowledge to my people I profit more while also improving the lives of those willing to work and use my process which ultimately reduces the competitions/attacks I may have to deal with for me having something they do not.
Win Win gains strategy that likely improves and extends my and everyone else's lives (who want to work) while reducing my personal workload and likelihood of being attacked, robbed and killed for my larger cache of resources by those working and capable people.

Freedom and Economic Development for those willing to protect it, when Rome fell after 400 a.d. the remnants of a Roman/Greek Garrison stayed behind to help form Switzerland with broken segments of German and French. Time marches on and in the 1000 a.d. the Romans returned but 300 years later wanted freedom again and this happened when a Roman Emperor tried to stop the stubborn Swiss.

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=31684493594

kv

 

Why do we get old and die?
Capitalism? No
Socialism? No

Exactly! but one gives you far more options and resources that could keep you alive longer and while living a better quality of life, if you're willing to work for them, than the other.

My capitalistic-ish lifestyle may not be serving me my wildest dreams yet but it certainly is giving me far more than just sitting around in over regulated and restricted misery waiting/expecting someone else to make my life better for me at their expense would.

 

Why do we get old and die?
Capitalism? No
Socialism? No

I know you're more focused on the aging aspect than on the dying aspect, but a leading cause of death in recent history has been governments, most notably socialist and communist governments.

 

Socialism is an invention of man, and not one of his better ones.

Correction: socialism is an invention of insects... and I think it's in man's best interests to keep it confined to that realm...

 

I know you're more focused on the aging aspect than on the dying aspect, but a leading cause of death in recent history has been governments, most notably socialist and communist governments.

LOL ok touche

 

but a leading cause of death in recent history has been governments, most notably socialist and communist governments.

But they 'just weren't doing it the right way', that's all. It will work perfect in the next country they try it in!

Personally I give the blame for the primary failure of civilizations to unrealistic and poorly thought out utopian idealism through government hierarchy control. Humans hate being told what to do by those who have proven they are less knowledgeable, more corrupt and more prone to catastrophic failure than themselves.

I've read in a number of sources over the years that speculate that was why early humans rarely developed huge cities but rather stayed with widely spread groups of small bands of people. Too hard to govern and coordinate a single large group with total agreement toward the direction and operation of the whole and still be gainful. Same problem we still have now.

Those who think they know what's best for everyone else rarely do and those who are willing to call them out on it are the last people they want running around in their society undermining their unrealistic control standards hence the reason any large scale socialist or communist system of governance has to have everyone on full lockdown and kept in the dark on every level all the time and everywhere without exception.

Also why the more capitalistic/open trade and free governance societies tended to run far more efficiently and prosperous. If someone let their stupidity get out of hand everyone who was dealing with them took their business and general interactions elsewhere thus taking the influence of the source of the problem out of play. T
he stupid person may not like the results but the overall society benefited and learned from the fools own self inflicted problem.

 

LOL ok touche

AND WHY ARE WE YELLING?

kv

Edit: I need a drink it's got to be 5pm somewhere in the world

 

Yet you keep replying to me as if your opinions will some how change my or anyone else's views of either of us.

You gotta be pretty self centered and arrogant to know what you claim to about me and still somehow think I or anyone else is ever going to care about your concerns or views (over their own) , beyond the opportunity to prove you wrong over and over for them.

You can say what you want but I was not the one who started this feud by playing proudly stupid to no end in order to get out of having admit to being proven wrong, by more than just myself, multiple times over. That is and will always be on your head.

And when you say things like this all that is heard is, blah, blah, blah.

 

And when you say things like this all that is heard is, blah, blah, blah.

Yet you read it and reply as if you speak for everyone just the same.

Hows that class on hypocrisy going? A++ student I would guess?

 

No way! Capitalism is a force of nature - individuals and groups acting freely in their best interests - and can be observed in other species. Socialism is an invention of man, and not one of his better ones.

I disagree. Socialism within a tribe is definitely happening. All people in the tribe be fed and all do not contribute equally.

I agree that Capitalism is likely to occur between tribes but socialism happened within tribes (extended families). Socialism certainly happens in my extended family (tribe). I think @shortbus has a valid point.

 

I disagree. Socialism within a tribe is definitely happening. All people in the tribe be fed and all do not contribute equally.

I agree that Capitalism is likely to occur between tribes but socialism happened within tribes (extended families). Socialism certainly happens in my extended family (tribe). I think @shortbus has a valid point.

For the record: I've been criticising communism, and not socialism in general.
Of course we're social beings, and therefore we have to have institutions (what are they, but social constructs?)

Socialism has a very broad spectrum. For instance, I find the German version quite respectable (though I don't entirely like it)

It's the Cuban-Venezuelan version that I utterly despise.

 

Socialism has a very broad spectrum. For instance, I find the German version quite respectable (though I don't entirely like it)

It's the Cuban-Venezuelan version that I utterly despise.

That's where most rational people sit on the issue. Mixed and rationally applied application of the postive aspects of socialistic governance (conservative socialism and likely what most early tribes worked around) has it merits plus what aspects of and why they are in play need to be factored in as well.

A typical household or tribe where children under the normal working age live off the parents and those who are disabled or elderly get assistance from the able are not negatives in the system.

It's when everyone who's too lazy or selfish to work starts taking precedence over those who truly need help to the point the working population can not see a point of themselves working either that's it becomes a problem.
Same with taking the necessary postive conservative regulations of the social unit and placing unwarranted, and too often not largely agreed to let alone realistic or honest, demands on the majority to serve the unrealistic idealisms of the few takes over.

Controlled and limited conservative socialism can work fairly well for most societies but unregulated liberal socialism screws everyone and everything over every time.
The implementation of the first is not what the majority of the world and our country is having problems with and fighting against to try and prevent possible total social structure collapse from these days.

 

It's the Cuban-Venezuelan version that I utterly despise.

That's because it's not socialism in the true and old sense of the word. Cuba and Venezuela, are modern socialism, more of an autocratic rule, Just like Russia was a Soviet state, not true communism.

 

Yet you read it and reply as if you speak for everyone just the same.

Never have even claimed that I speak for anyone but me. Never. Not here not anywhere.

 

Never have even claimed that I speak for anyone but me. Never. Not here not anywhere.

Then by that admission we both obviously agree you have reason to post replies to me that do not fit the context and topic of whatever thread may be in in play unless you're doing it to be a troll, which is a well known general view here of why you post what you do towards me and not anyone else who has posted a similar view or comment as mine.

Selective nitpicking is very much a tactic of trolls.

 

Darn. Once again we have drifted from discussion issues to discussing personalities. Chill.

 

Darn. Once again we have drifted from discussion issues to discussing personalities. Chill.

Round up the usual suspects.

 

As far as I know, trees don't die of old age. When they die, it's because they were killed... either by a pest, fungus, fire, drought, loggers, etc.

I've heard that fish, catfish in particular, will live and continue to grow as long as there is enough food to sustain their ever-increasing size. In some places like by dams where the food is so plentiful that it basically just floats straight into their mouths all day, they can get several hundred pounds and get much older than normal.

I was taught in school that our cells are always dying off and being replaced by new cells. So I am curious why we grow old and die of natural causes. I googled it and found a wide range of explanations. It seems that the scientific community is not in total agreement on the matter but the most likely explanation is that our DNA gets damaged (by what?) Over time.

There is a common theme in ancient literature that people used to live much longer than they do today. I wonder if that is true, and if so, what changed. I wonder if the "fountain of youth" is actually more attainable than previously thought. There have been experiments that caused lifespan to increase four-fold in worms. I wonder if anyone will be able to do the same for humans.

If nothing else, it would make a good plot for a sci-fi movie/show. In all the vampire movies, they are "immortal" and can't be killed except by weird methods. Imagine a story about a race of people who lived thousands of years but were still just people (who don't drink blood) who can be killed by traditional means (disease, bullets, arrows, fire, etc.). It would be more believable than current themes.

And another thought... If human lifespan could be extended to hundreds or thousands of years, how long would our memory span? Imagine being 8,000 years old and only remembering the last 200-300 years. In order to have a sense of identity you might have to keep an encyclopedia of diaries and transcribe them every few hundred years. But what if you wrote the first few tomes in a dead language that you no longer remember?

Well anyway, that's the kind of stupid stuff I think about while falling asleep.

Just thought I'd reiterate Strantor's as op since the point was drifting.

 

Round up the usual suspects.

If rounding up usual suspects would work there wouldn't be any crime no more.

 

https://thegeneticgenealogist.com/2013/10/16/identifying-otzi-the-icemans-relatives/

I'm going in for Oral Surgery to get implant this Thursday, after my knee surgeon said oh we can't to the surgery based on the Meniscus Tear while at work, it's actually genetic and age related so since I'm related to Otzi they have discovered a lot about his health related issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi

These oral pathologies may have been brought about by his grain-heavy, high carbohydrate diet.[22] DNA analysis in February 2012 revealed that Ötzi was lactose intolerant, supporting the theory that lactose intolerance was still common at that time, despite the increasing spread of agriculture and dairying.[23]

Radiological examination of Ötzi's bones showed "age-conditioned or strain-induced degeneration" corresponding to many tattooed areas, including osteochondrosis and slight spondylosis in the lumbar spine and wear-and-tear degeneration in the knee and especially in the ankle joints

By examining the proportions of Ötzi's tibia, femur and pelvis, Christopher Ruff has determined that Ötzi's lifestyle included long walks over hilly terrain. This degree of mobility is not characteristic of other Copper Age Europeans. Ruff proposes that this may indicate that Ötzi was a high-altitude shepherd.[19]

Our DNA passed down should be considered while trying to decide what foods we eat and overall exercise or the lack thereof.

kv