Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Human Nature Thread (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Postby gnm » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 04:45:56

There is plenty of proof - do you believe in evolution?

Why do you think males are bigger on average? Because it helped them to win fights with others. Competition -read violence- for resources is as old as time.

All creatures will take the easiest route to success. frequently that means squashing another.

-G -trying not to get squashed... :lol:
gnm
 

Postby AnnaLivia » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 05:23:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'T')here is plenty of proof


i have seen none. show me some!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '-') do you believe in evolution?


yes. and that means....what?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy do you think males are bigger on average?


do you mean bigger on average than females?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ecause it helped them to win fights with others.


you appear to be saying men were made bigger than women so they could fight women??

wait. maybe you are saying men and women have grown progressively larger in general over time. is that it? why would this be explained by the need to fight? got some proof of that? i thought it was because of better nutrition, health/medicine, etc. is there a study that says it was because of the need to fight? anybody have any information on that?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ompetition -read violence- for resources is as old as time.


is all competition violence? is all competition "to the death"? i don't think you can just interchange those two words. what if we have a contest to see which one of us can raise the most corn on an acre, and we crown one of us the winner, and then feed the corn to all in our tribe? let me get my dictionary here..."mutual contest or the striving for the same object, rivalry". the word violence doesn't appear. yes, people use resources, but how those resources are shared or not shared is not predetermined. choices are made. and we're right back to asking if those choices are affected by external pressures, or whether they are made because human nature is violent. we still have no proof of a violent human nature behind the choice.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ll creatures will take the easiest route to success.


i agree with this statement...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'f')requently that means squashing another.


, but i don't agree that the easiest route to success is violence.

people can be affected by those external forces to make "bad" choices, but if human nature was violent, it would ALWAYS choose to squash another. that doesn't happen. it doesn't happen because our deepest instinct is to associate in order to best survive. this is called cooperation, and those who see humans only as warriors or competitors have closed their eyes to a rather large part of real history that shows people cooperating in a squillion ways.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '-')G -trying not to get squashed... :lol:


the only thing i want to squash is incorrect, myopic thinking on this matter. i will gladly (or sadly, rather) change my view if the proof i asked for can be found. i don't believe it can. even einstein and freud could only exchange opinions on this subject. they had correspondence concerning this, yet neither one could offer proof from their respective fields that human nature is violent. if two of the greatest minds in their respective fields of study could not, i don't think anyone here can either.
Last edited by AnnaLivia on Fri 25 Feb 2005, 18:27:52, edited 1 time in total.
"O hell, here comes our funeral. Let us pry....for our missed understandings."
AnnaLivia
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: same as everyone
Top

Postby Scooter_Rider » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 06:09:18

AnnaLivia,

Are all humans violent? No. Some humans are violent due to their personality and genes. Some humans are violent due to a particular situation. But every person is different. Blanket statements about human behavior don't make sense.

What you are asking is impossible. One scientist's fact is another scientist's opinion. Is our reality really reality? Or are we all delusional? I see a pencil on my desk. Is it real or is it my imagination? I can pick up the pencil and stab someone with it. But the blood I see... is it real or is it my imagination? Where does reality end and fantasy begin?

Your make no sense. I honestly don't want to delve any deeper into your 'logic' or thinking.
Ride a scooter, moon a Hummer.
User avatar
Scooter_Rider
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed 16 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Scooterville, USA

Re: The Big Picture

Postby AnnaLivia » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 08:47:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
') These issues are complex and they are not easily thought-through, but I see a genuine lack of effort on the part of many to even broach some of the more obvious drawbacks to their myopic thinking.


i made an effort. i think the "fighting fellas" did, too. was that better?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s a society, we seem to be focused on the ground in front of us, rather than the path before us.


i'm saying focused on the ground is this: accepting that human nature is violent without having proof. in the case of peak oil, and especially in the case of collapse, i think it is prudent to ask ourselves to think about this question when so many seem to think we are doomed by our very nature.

i'm saying walking our path is this:

look far ahead. nobody knows that there won't be a far ahead.

and then look deep inside yourself.

are you, personally, bloodthirsty?

well, ARE you??!

no.

do you lust for violence?

well, DO you??!

no.

war is an affront to our nature as human beings.

i am saying that without the external pressures we are NOT by nature bloodthirsty lusters for violence. no such thing has been proven.

the planet has been ruled by the rich for a very long time. it is in their Nature to take care of themselves and it is in their Tactics that they do it at our and this planet's expense.

what do we have today to show for their "management"? we have savage poverty; the cruelest war of all. we have inexcusable starvation, preventable deaths in the millions per annum, the inexplicable rape of our beautiful and only blue-green sacred garden harbor. we have resource wars and the working grind that our lives are...

oh, stop me. the track record of rule by the rich is long and the results miserable. and it is these created pressures inflicted upon humanity that are the root of violence, not human nature. extreme un-equity like we have is murderous. why don't we attack that instead of just "chalking it up" to our nature?

just hypothetically, if it was possible to have peace and plenty in this world, how many people who answered just like we all did on the questions above would be bloodthirsty lusters for violence?

whether we can or will exert ourselves adequately against these forces, i don't know. but i do not believe we are doomed by our own human nature.

if anything saves us, it will be our human nature.
Last edited by AnnaLivia on Fri 25 Feb 2005, 18:37:23, edited 1 time in total.
"O hell, here comes our funeral. Let us pry....for our missed understandings."
AnnaLivia
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: same as everyone
Top

Postby AnnaLivia » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 09:06:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Scooter_Rider', 'A')nnaLivia,

Are all humans violent? No.


how is this not a statement that human nature is not violent? you just said some humans are non-violent. the original statement was that human nature is violent. isn't there a conflict here that rules out human nature being violent?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ome humans are violent due to their personality and genes.


the gene has been identified then? which one is it?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ome humans are violent due to a particular situation.


again, my point exactly.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut every person is different.


you cannot argue this and simultaneously blame a universality. "human nature is violent" is a rather all-inclusive assertion, is it not?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')lanket statements about human behavior don't make sense.

then why did you make one?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat you are asking is impossible.

or is what you are asserting impossible to prove?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ne scientist's fact is another scientist's opinion.

excuse me?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')s our reality really reality? Or are we all delusional? I see a pencil on my desk. Is it real or is it my imagination?

my guess is real.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') can pick up the pencil and stab someone with it. But the blood I see... is it real or is it my imagination?

i guess real again.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')here does reality end and fantasy begin?
Your make no sense.

where is the fantasy in what i said?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') honestly don't want to delve any deeper into your 'logic' or thinking.

as is your right.
Last edited by AnnaLivia on Fri 25 Feb 2005, 18:42:55, edited 1 time in total.
"O hell, here comes our funeral. Let us pry....for our missed understandings."
AnnaLivia
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: same as everyone
Top

Postby seahorse » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 09:55:42

Annalivia,

First, I never said people were intrinsically bad. My posts have always said, when looking at the big picture to where we are heading, that it would end in some type of Malthusian crisis. For some reason, you take that to be a statement that people are intrinsically bad. You're the one that's off topic.

This forum concerns the big picture about where all the consumerism is taking us. In fact, you claim no one here is looking at the path ahead, but at the ground in front of them, but you're looking at neither. Your walking along pondering about the essence of humans being good or evil, which doesn't have anything to do with how many resources we are using.

So, I'm not following you.

I can tell you its not very scientific to pose a question to people on this forum asking if they are evil. You don't know who you may be talking to on here, a serial killer perhaps? Point is, you don't know, so don't use these posts as any proof to argue people are intrinsically good either. I've known a lot of evil people in my life, but I'm still not ready to say all people are evil. And, bc I've known some really good people, doesn't mean there all good.

But it doesn't really matter if we are good or bad, bc if we don't all start rowing together, in the big picture posed on this forum, we're going to go over the waterfall together whether we are all good, bad, or a mix of the two.
User avatar
seahorse
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2275
Joined: Fri 15 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Arkansas

Postby MonteQuest » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 12:02:51

Let me weigh in here. First off, AnnaLivia understood my post quite well. She is "holding your feet to the fire." This thread was totally about not making statements that were not thought-through. The Big Picture.

Does man have a history of being violent. Sure. Why? The struggle for survival. Why do we struggle so? Inequity, jealousy, and greed. What causes these things to be? Is it our nature or our nurture?

While I'm not sure of the exact answer, I think a lot of the answers can be found in the disparaties that exist through-out the world. The haves and the have nots. To try to be succinct, I will let the eloquence of Henry David Thoreau remind us:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Robbing and theiving occur only in communities where some have more than is suffcient, while others have not enough."
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Postby gnm » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 12:58:31

As I said, competition for resources.

Oh, and evolution is survival of the fittest, not the nicest....

No I did not imply that males were bigger to fight females (where the heck did you get that?) They evolved to be bigger because the bigger ones won more fights agaist other males. fights over territory (resources) and mates (lineage).

If you are so sure humans are not violent, then test your theory in the nearest slum at night. (not reccommended)

-G
gnm
 

Postby ararboin » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 13:00:30

Is everyone happy now?
User avatar
ararboin
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Postby eric_b » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 13:17:20

(usenet style '>' quotes)

>i have already conceded that history happens. the question i asked is
>why? again, i ask for proof that it is because of human nature and not
>other factors. have they found a gene for violence?

?

So are you saying that genetics is not part of human nature?
And if humans are somehow genetically prone to violence
that is doesn't count?

And conceding 'history happens' is a weak runaround my
original point. Human history is very, very violent at times.

>>The very economic pressures that cause war
>>are created by yet more violence

>are you saying NOT caused by human nature? sure sounds like it.

Another disingenuous statement.

>>the notion of property,
>>ownership, 'me' and 'mine' are violent

>but still not a lick of proof violence is human nature

>> -- if they're not,
>>then why do they lead to war?

>repeat: the why is in the external factors. you have not shown
>otherwise at all.

'external factors'? What do you think brought these 'external
factors' about? I'd submit to you it's impossible to separate
'internal' and 'external' factors when it comes to human violence -
they amount to the same thing. You can't weasel out of
things by blaming human violence on external factors. Take
responsibility for your actions. After all it's not the thing itself,
but how you react to it. If people react violently in certain
situations, you must accept this fact, regardless of what brought
it about.

The way I see it, the highly developed human ego -- the sense
of 'I', 'me' and 'mine' are the root of human violence. Seeing
the world as other than oneself.

>>I'm not one of those people that thinks humans are intrinsically
>>good or evil.

>so, you agree with me. violence does not come from human nature.
>you just said so.

No. Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that every
human has the potential to do great good ... or great evil
(or not much of anything at all).

>but why do you want to pretend we live in some sort of inescapable
>violent human nature, when you can't prove it?

I'm not saying we live in a world a world of inescapable violence.
I'm saying the potential for violence certainly exists. Especially in light
of the situation we now find ourselves.

Have you ever been in a position where you thought your life
was about to end? Within seconds? If you have, you'd realize
that when push comes to shove most poeple will do anything
to survive, including killing other people if they have to

I feel like I'm arguing with a 12 year old. I refuse to take your
gambit of 'supplying the proof' - I find the concept ludicrous in
this context. The 'proof' is right in front of your face, but you
refuse to face with it.

Do some more reading on human history. It's not all roses.

Nuff said.

-Eric B
User avatar
eric_b
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri 14 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: us

Postby seahorse2 » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 13:26:09

If the "big picture" thread was really about people being violent or non violent, why was it moved?

The big picture as I understood it was referring to people getting caught up in technical solutions to PO that are not going to make a dent.
User avatar
seahorse2
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2042
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Postby Barbara » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 13:41:05

Annalivia,
let's tell it straight: MEN are violent... women aren't. ;)
**no english mothertongue**
--------
Objects in the rear view mirror
are closer than they appear.
Barbara
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Zoorope

Postby gnm » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 14:30:34

What was queen Boudicca's reaction when the roman invaded her territory?
violence.
Nah women are never violent....

-G :wink:
gnm
 

Postby Malthus » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 14:33:51

Suggesting that violence is not a part of human nature is purely delusional. Hard science (neurobiology/evolution), not some pseudsciences like sociology or psychology, clearly shows that coalitionary violence (war) is inherent to man here is a piece of evidence that also explains Bush&co incompetence.

Robert Wrangham’s presentation was less general than Wright’s, and hence,perhaps, more easily applicable to the policy arena. The first part of thepresentation was based on the ground covered in his 1996 book with DalePeterson, Demonic Males, which seeks to provide a theory explaining whychimpanzees and humans, out of 4,000 species of mammals and 10 million otherspecies, are the only species in which groups of males (and sometimes adolescent females) have been observed hunting and killing males and sometimes females from a rival group. The premise of the book and of Wrangham’s presentation is
that understanding why only these two species do this may provide a basis for thinking about what natural selection is likely to have done to humanpsychology, particularly male psychology. In the second part, focusing on the differences rather than the similarities between chimps and humans, Wrangham applied these ideas to policy with a discussion of adaptive explanations for what has been termed human “military incompetence.â€
User avatar
Malthus
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat 15 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: varies

Postby julianj » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 16:28:52

An interesting post. I'd never heard of Wrangham. Athough your post talks about male vioelnce, so it seems that you are validating Barbara's that violence (leaving out Boudicca and other rare female cases) is primarily a male thing.

But even given that, there are still very large cultural forces at work. In our societies, let's face it violence is low. Because whatever the circumstances, our own self-control, fear of the police, courts etc,we spend most of our time co-operating. I'd say pub-fights fit your description of one person or gang feeling they were going not to be hurt much.

But contrariwise I've been in some tense offices, with dominant alpha males etc, and though I can recall arguments, I cannot recall any fights - because the culture determines that you don't hit other office workers, in spite of chimp-like bravado displays, i.e throwing your clipboard down.

And surely the orchestrated violence of war has to have cultural roots: dropping bombs on Fallujah from an F16 does not remotely fit the pattern of chimplike aggression.

I was really pleased you cited Dixon, which is a classic text:
On the Psychology of Military Incompetence.

This was probably the first book about military incompetence and took a cultural/pychological view, as in its title.

If I am to summarise it rather baldy, people who rise to command in military hierarchies are authoritarian personalities, whose maladaption is enouraged by the command structure of obeying and giving orders.When confronted by the dynamic situations of warfare they make appalling decisions, because they have been promoted above their ability and are inflexible and unimaginative.

I accept your posting as valid within its compass, but still does not explain the whole reasons for warfare, especially the idiotic decisions. Here's one, from my own countries' many disasters. The Battle of Loos, WWI (6500 British dead, not one german!).

The plan: to take 2 1/2 of the 5 (known) German trench lines - actually there was a sixth hidden reserve line.

OK that's the whole of the plan. I think we can all see it is rather well, risible....how come a whole bunch of Generals made a plan so stupid and got people to try to carry it out? There has to be more to it IMO than hard-wired aggression.


Finally, I think there is a lot to be said for the fact that we spend most of our time co-operating, not fighting. And there are societies, here now, where violence is very low. Japan for a start, because of cultural norms. This is all the more startling when you consider how densely populated the place is, and their ferocious history of warfare.

Here's my anecdote, and while I know it isn't strictly scientific, it does give you an idea of how free from violence the average Japanese street is.

I was in Tokyo about 15 years ago. I was pretty drunk, and trying to find my hotel at around midnight. Tokyo streets are mad: they still are numbered from the ancient Edo prefectures, so finding your way about can be crazy.

I found myself accidentally following a small Japanese woman pushing her kid in a buggy - not deliberately this was pure coincidence. She'd walk on. I'd stand around trying to recognise the street I was on, then catch her up.

She must have been aware that a drunk foreigner - gaijin -was walking behind her. She turned down a street I recognised as being near my hotel, so I turned down too.

A Western woman would have been frightened at this point (I only realised this the next day, otherwise I would have crossed the street or something, but I was p*ssed).

She stopped at a vending machine to buy a drink for her kid! I thought "That's a good idea" and went to get one for myself. The Kid pointed and said "Gaijin!" as they do. And she gave me with a look of mild disdain, shrugged, and walked away, pushing her buggy.

The thought that I might have been a danger to her did not cross her mind for a second, because Japan is an incredibly peaceable place, and this was in the capital city after midnight!

If violence is so hardwired in, and so tribal, plus fuelled byalcohol,Tokyo Saturday night should be like something out of the old film The Warriors, but it ain't.
julianj
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 913
Joined: Thu 30 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: On one of the blades of the fan

Postby Malthus » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 17:43:24

Julian

You probably misuderstood my post I would sum up the most important points violence is infact imbeded in man s nature there was a neurolgical study of men's brain that showed that men take pleasure (biochemical) from humiliating other men. However violence can come in many forms it is not necessarily physical. What you speak of in the office is a form of social violence when a man tries to reaffirm himself as leader or/and to protect his status. If the social environement makes the physical violence very costly (he will be fired,humiliated etc) then he would not resort to it unless he has a very high level of testosterone. This is exemple of violence within the group which rarely results in death or severe injury among chimps.
Now what I tried to explain was coalitionary violence (war) and the different behaviours of men and chimps at war. As I pointed violence between chimp groups comes almost naturally and there doesnt have to be any envirnoemental pressure ( although pressures usually increases number and the intesityof the raids ) As humans wage war sometimes simply because they hate their neighbours,xenophobia or to prove themselves etc. So the raid type chimp warfare is very different from human warfare where the cost is usually high. I really dont know much about the battle of Loos but I will try to explain it to you using the concept of positive illusion. The generals unconciously deceive themselves by underestimating the German defenses and determination and overstate English resolve and power and result is devastating. They clearly believe that they are going to succeede even against overwhelming odds much like a lottery player. As I am not surprised the result is a disaster. I come to think of a battle between the English and the Scots in the XVIII century where the incomptent scotish prince chose an openfield as battleground between his virtually firearm free army and the red coats. If you happen to know the exact date you can mention it.

Now about Japan I have spent two months in Kyoto but cant say I know much about the Japaneese culture. My impression is that this is probably the country with the lowset murder rate in the world although I am not sure. This is not a problem to the theory do you notice how organised their society is organized around the concept of honor? A violent crime like attacking a mother with a baby is probably considered as the absolute disgrace for both the criminal and his family. So it so uncommon that the japaneese would not consider themselves threatened
on the street. However japaneese I assure you are very violent their violence is not permited within the groupso it is chaneled against their neghbours(WW2). Nowadays when even this type of violence is not permitted they have to substitute it with aggressivness at work and complete deidcation to the company. so they have chaneled their violence but it has not diappeared one just has to take a look on some manga or the japaneese traditonal movies (Akira Kurosava)
User avatar
Malthus
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat 15 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: varies

Postby julianj » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 18:34:23

Malthus,

Perhaps I did misunderstand your point, however your post was very long and difficult to read because it wasn't paragraph spaced.


However your latest posting seems to vindicate my point.


For cultural reasons Japanese males sublimate their aggression so there's clearly more to it than just hardwired in.

And the act of killing someone at a distance with a missile or a bomb, is totally different psychologically to hitting someone, or stabbing them with a bayonet.

And the reasons for battles aren't quite as simple as you may believe, if you are talking about Culloden, 1745; the Scots were technologically underequipped, but they chose to fight for probably nationalistic reasons, and some of their soldiers were slowed down by boggy ground, which was nothing more than an unlucky circumstance. But this is a digression.
julianj
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 913
Joined: Thu 30 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: On one of the blades of the fan

Well, maybe.

Postby EnviroEngr » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 20:12:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Barbara', 'A')nnalivia,
let's tell it straight: MEN are violent... women aren't. ;)


Is that taking into account passive-aggressive styles of conflict resolution?

Is it possible that men could be picking up on women's internalized anger and acting it out for them?
-------------------------------------------
| Whose reality is this anyway!? |
-------------------------------------------
(---------< Temet Nosce >---------)
__________________________
User avatar
EnviroEngr
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Richland Center, Wisconsin
Top

Postby threadbear » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 21:08:16

Barbara, I'm violent. When I was a kid in school, grade 6, I believe, the little boy who sat behind me would stick his feet on either side of my chair. He never changed his socks and it made me gag. After a couple of months of this, I told him I'd beat him up if he didn't start changing his socks or move his desk back a few inches. He didn't, and I did,-- beat him up at lunchtime, the following day. The same day, after school, an entire posse of boys formed to throw me into the creek. Fortunately I knew the woods and fields like the back of my hand and managed to outrun them. It was scary, but exhilerating!!

I also used to chase with sticks, the boys who kicked cats and stoned baby birds. This was immensely satisfying. Had I been able to catch and really brain them, it would have been more so.

Tribal warfare is probably kind of like that. A challenging dramatic experience, fun and scary, with the real possibility of death. I think people fight to give their lives meaning and circumvent boredom. Same reason they have kids. Can you really have one without the other?

It's only a major problem when you have advanced weapon's systems and people in charge who like to make entire planets go boom.

Yes yes yes. People are inherently violent. Oh BTW--I'm a woman.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Postby AnnaLivia » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 23:44:00

as soon as i get figured out how to operate the quote feature the way one should so my posts will be easier to read, i will be happy to continue replies to your further comments. please pardon my delay while i get this sorted, and thanks to Monte for the instructions he has sent me. i appreciate the way he himself edited some previous posts of mine in this thread, and i will try to edit those which remain unaltered myself, as well as to respond to new posts.

as a kiwi friend of mine says...to describe being very busy both mentally and physically, "i am up to my ass in alligators just now, and more of them than the ones you see".

one note now; the decision to move this thread was not mine, but i don't see that it does any harm. we are indeed talking about seeing the big picture, and as i see it this "nature of human nature thing" does relate quite easily and intimately to peak oil issues, but it also may indeed be more appropriate in open discussion than in the forum more closely dedicated to discussing peak oil itself.
"O hell, here comes our funeral. Let us pry....for our missed understandings."
AnnaLivia
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: same as everyone

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron