Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
To my teacher, this was one of the worst case of dumb intelligence. To me, it's just that we are more intelligently intelligent. We don't create dumber people by specializing them more, we simply create less autonomous individuals, something which was inevitable with the exponential growth of knowledge these last centuries. Rationnaly subdividing the given pool of intelligence across more fields allow to globally know these fields better.

So, even if we were getting individually less intelligent, we would still be part of a much more intelligent whole.

Yeah, exactly. There was the idea of the renaissance man, who was an expert across all fields of knowledge. da Vinci was meant to be such a man, but if you look at his life, for such an incredible intelligence he actually didn't produce that much in any field (in the arts Michaelangelo was contemptuous of how little Leonardo produced compared to him). By then human knowledge had reached a point that mastery of everything was not practical, and you would spend far more time learning that doing.

And since then our knowledge has grown many thousands of times, to the point where a person can't even be an expert in their overall field, but must specialise. The knee surgery thing is a good example, as we've all been bounced around from doctor to doctor, trying to find the person who has the exact specialist knowledge to fix our problem. But the point is that this is the first time in history that figuring out what was wrong with a knee and fixing it has been possible.

 dogma wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

Surprisingly, in a rainforest, there's wood around you, and it's not that hard to find dry wood, leaves or fungi.

Really? Its hard to find dry wood in Wisconsin after a smattering of rain.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

Rainforests are some of the most biodiverse areas in the world. If you've been to one, you'll hear birds, insects and wind rustling through trees. You're not going to be eating everything you see, obviously, but there's a lot you can eat. In Siberia? There may be a yak, who knows?

How do you know what you can eat, and what you can't?

1. Trust me - there's loads of dry stuff to burn.

2. The genersa rule is that if its colourful, don't eat it! Don't eaty fungi either. Finally, try to eat stuff that you know is safe - mangoes, durian, jackfruit etc. This stuff should be taught in schools.

 Orlanth wrote:
Also Sebster you have it backwards, I looked at the evidence, then drew my conclusion, not the other way around as you like to assume. This should be obvious to anyone with a fair mind because the main example I gave of this very problem came from Ancient Egypt. So yes, technology resulting in declining huiman capability is a known phenomena recorded over the millenia. So unless you are saying I predate the pharoahs then it is pretty obvious that the evidence predates the conclusion.

You picked one very specific and incredibly minor skill, out of all the capabilities of human kind. It wasn't just by accident that you picked that one.

Now, as a cultural loss I agree with you entirely, that is a real shame. I've seen a performance of part of the Bhagavad Gita that even translated to English was just an incredible experience. But as evidence of humanity losing ability overall it just doesn't work.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im confused, Why is surving in the wilderness considered necessary for our lives?
I live in the suburbs and hate the wilderness, why do i need to learn to survive in it?

what happens when a major natural disaster leaves you, your neighborhood and your whole city without power for days and weeks on end? (as we saw with Sandy in the NE) I'm not saying you need to be Baer Grylls or anything, but being able to start a fire in any conditions is actually a very useful skill.

Several weeks of propane?

Like I said, there's almost no need to go full on Baer Grylls, unless of course, you live around Edmonton but the ability to live off of non-technological sources, is pretty important. I mean, propane inevitably runs out, and I know that most people are like me, they hate being cold, and propane doesn't do as good a job keeping folks warm as a good "camp fire" style setting.

Friction usually, Some dried leaves usually help.
I remember you have to blow on it in order to get it going.

Leaves aren't the greatest thing, as they can blow away in the wind, go out, and tend to burn too fast. Many leaves on the forest floor are wet, and are going to do nothing buy create smoke and frustrate you. Bark is generally your best option, as well as fibrous vines, or if you can find it, bark from a birch tree, because that gak is shaggy and gives you places to catch sparks.

Fire by friction is EXTREMELY difficult, and there are better ways to do it. Also you don't get fire from just rubbing two sticks together, you need a good fire lay already down, followed by dried plant material (frayed rope works awesome with a little piece of charred cloth). You place that on your bark, then you find a semi-solid piece of wood that is straight, and another straight piece of wood. Tie a rope or leather thong around one of the sticks, this is now your bow. make a loop with the string, and place it over the other straight pole, creating a cross shape. Practice moving that back and forth, using your palm as a steadying point on the top of non bow (because you don't have guide). Move the bow back and forth, twisting the standing stick as it rests on the piece of cloth. Do that until you get smoke, lift the bird's nest up, blow on the little glowing piece of cloth until you get flame, set that into your fire.

That's how much work goes into fire by friction. If you think you can handle this in a survival situation, good for you... If not, time to stock up on supplies.

ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

Surprisingly, in a rainforest, there's wood around you, and it's not that hard to find dry wood, leaves or fungi.

Really? Its hard to find dry wood in Wisconsin after a smattering of rain.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

Rainforests are some of the most biodiverse areas in the world. If you've been to one, you'll hear birds, insects and wind rustling through trees. You're not going to be eating everything you see, obviously, but there's a lot you can eat. In Siberia? There may be a yak, who knows?

How do you know what you can eat, and what you can't?

1. Trust me - there's loads of dry stuff to burn.

2. The genersa rule is that if its colourful, don't eat it! Don't eaty fungi either. Finally, try to eat stuff that you know is safe - mangoes, durian, jackfruit etc. This stuff should be taught in schools.

See my reply to hotsauceman's post... leaves don't work well, and Dogma was very kind to point out that lighting a fire after a rain is a royal pain in the arse... Rainforests tend to get a lot of rain, finding dry, burnable things is going to be a pain...

And general rules like that can and probably will get you killed. You should NEVER eat anything you're not 100% sure on. It can kill you...

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Also Sebster you have it backwards, I looked at the evidence, then drew my conclusion, not the other way around as you like to assume. This should be obvious to anyone with a fair mind because the main example I gave of this very problem came from Ancient Egypt. So yes, technology resulting in declining huiman capability is a known phenomena recorded over the millenia. So unless you are saying I predate the pharoahs then it is pretty obvious that the evidence predates the conclusion.

You picked one very specific and incredibly minor skill, out of all the capabilities of human kind. It wasn't just by accident that you picked that one.

Actually I picked several interrelated skills, and for different reasons, and gave two examples, ancient and modern.

 sebster wrote:

I've seen a performance of part of the Bhagavad Gita that even translated to English was just an incredible experience. But as evidence of humanity losing ability overall it just doesn't work.

Which would argue that for all our technology we are inferior in ability to Arjuna the archer who could achieve enlightenment in two hours. (cheap shot)

More relevant is the fact that cryptic crosswords are disappearing from newspapers because a decreasing number of people can do them. Throughout history societies that descent into hedonism and instant gratification devolve and the populace becomes less than they were. You can see this in politics, in the devolvement of the Roman Games, in modern media and increased 'dumbing down'.

 Orlanth wrote:
Actually I picked several interrelated skills, and for different reasons, and gave two examples, ancient and modern.

One of which, writing, was self-evidently wrong, and the others were really obscure. The ability to communicate instantaneously with people on the other side of the world like we're doing now gaks all over any of that.

Which would argue that for all our technology we are inferior in ability to Arjuna the archer who could achieve enlightenment in two hours. (cheap shot)

Ha! I'll pay that

More relevant is the fact that cryptic crosswords are disappearing from newspapers because a decreasing number of people can do them. Throughout history societies that descent into hedonism and instant gratification devolve and the populace becomes less than they were. You can see this in politics, in the devolvement of the Roman Games, in modern media and increased 'dumbing down'.

People say this a lot... but I'm guessing they haven't seen any old media. Go watch a wrestling film from the 1930s. Go watch I Love Lucy episodes.

And yeah, the bread and circuses of the gladiatorial games was bad, but you think the Visigoths were putting on subtle musings on the emptiness of the human condition?

Our entertainment isn't getting dumber. It's almost always been dumb.

 Orlanth wrote:

More relevant is the fact that cryptic crosswords are disappearing from newspapers because a decreasing number of people can do them.

That, or print media is having to keep pace with electronic media, and so must cut costs.

 Orlanth wrote:
More relevant is the fact that cryptic crosswords are disappearing from newspapers because a decreasing number of people can do them.

Or because they are bloody boring and unappealing. Or because games trend with times. Or because papers are becoming less and less popular and have to cut down on non-essential.

Throughout history societies that descent into hedonism and instant gratification devolve and the populace becomes less than they were.

Oh yeah, everyone knows that puritanism and idealism has brought all the world's wonders to life.

You can see this in politics,

No I can't. One hundred years ago, you could make a campaing on claiming that your opponent would teach beastiality to children in school.

in the devolvement of the Roman Games

Not at all cherry-picking your examples there, are you?

in modern media and increased 'dumbing down'.

Nope, can't see it. What I can see is a population which has gained an increase of about 25 % across cognitive tests in the last 90 years.

 sebster wrote:
Fair enough, it looks like we were both reading more in to each other's answers than was there. For the record, on this forum and most every other one its a pretty common tactic for people to focus on tiny little elements of the argument out of context, when they cannot put up an argument on the greater issue.

And yeah, best not to derail the thread.

Sounds good to me

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
No I can't. One hundred years ago, you could make a campaing on claiming that your opponent would teach beastiality to children in school.

Allegedly something similar happened to Claude Pepper in 1950 when his opposite in the Congressional Election accused him of being "a known extrovert," practiced "celibacy" before marriage, practiced "nepotism" with his sister-in-law, "matriculated" with women in college, that his sister was "a thespian" and his brother "a practicing homo sapien.". This was supposed to have cost Pepper 67,000 votes and the election.