Protest and shootings on Big Moose Road in '74

[Huezee]

Welp, this thread went completely off the rails...

[montcalm]

I was recently asked about my favorite original Star Trek episode to which I answered "The devil in the dark". The culture clash you describe was at the forefront of this episode (albeit was significantly more than just a clash of culture but of forms of life). This episode demonstrated how understanding and empathy are the solution to the the catastrophy caused by the fear of the unknown "cultures".

Right. I don't know it well, but that series was perhaps a bit ahead of its time in a lot of ways.

Of course all of this is pretty obvious if you care to look - but if you're stuck in a certain dogma that you are somehow superior or "enlightened" then these thing kind of degradations and backlashes will happen. We see it all the time with the black Americans today. Beyond slavery we have to remember that there were another 100 years of forced poverty, a lower caste basically, based on race. A of people are still alive that can remember those times.

Welp, this thread went completely off the rails...

Not sure where you expected it to go?

As far as the shootings, this is the problem with weapons entering the picture in almost any case (one of the reasons I don't carry a gun myself, and probably never will). We are, as "Monday morning QB's", always quick to throw these people under the bus but how might have anyone reacted in these tense situations when guns are involved? But again, I don't necessarily blame guns being involved on the individuals but society and the stresses that poverty can create. We see it in every race across the modern world. And to me, the line of reversing it is raising your empathic intelligence above your individual will to survive. Basically having the shift in dogma that society is greater than the individual, and that as society becomes greater, the needs of more individuals are met.

[montcalm]

Just another wacky thought about this...

I'm spouting off about humans and empathy and all that... but really can and should extend it to everything.

I don't know what or if a tree has any capability for feeling (and that probably doesn't even matter), but I do know it likes to be alive. And I do know that given the proper environment, no matter what its genetics are, it will not only survive, but thrive.

And that's probably all you need to know...

[St.Regis]

...And I do know that given the proper environment, no matter what its genetics are, it will not only survive, but thrive.

Is this conjecture or do you have credible sources for this statement about genetics? And what is your definition of "thrive"?

[billconner]

Welp, this thread went completely off the rails...

That would put it north of Tupper Lake I guess......

[montcalm]

Is this conjecture or do you have credible sources for this statement about genetics? And what is your definition of "thrive"?

Look into any modern research into human genetics and environment and the interactions are pretty clear. It's become so clear and accepted that one can no longer talk about what a gene does without also considering the environment in which that gene is expressed. There is no "nature vs nurture." That's a fallacy. They are completely interdependent.

As for any other species, I think it's pretty common sense. Take away the environmental conditions which it fundamentally needs, and compare it to conditions which are more favorable, and on average it won't be as healthy, grow as well or live as long. There will, of course, be exceptions and over time if environmental conditions shift enough a species will either adapt or go extinct, but the outcome of that is completely random chance based on millions of years of pre-existing adaptations.

Thriving isn't a fixed, rigorous scientific definition, but rather in my mind a moving scale that we would use to assess against others.




Way, way, way on another scale from what is discussed here but one only needs to look at education and environment of people with disabilities such a cerebral palsy, autism, down syndrome, etc... where in the past the life outcome was poor and the solution was to put people like this in facilities and isolate them from the rest of society. Now, and especially with peoples with autism, we know that even small changes in environment can help them "thrive" and live what we would consider more fulfilling lives. This is a classic example of a poor environment and an incorrect assumption of genetic predisposition limiting the potential of human individuals.

[Huezee]

that would put it north of tupper lake i guess......

iswydt

[montcalm]

credible sources

https://youtu.be/e0WZx7lUOrY

https://youtu.be/RG5fN6KrDJE

Is Stanford credible enough? Those two lectures talk a lot about this, but perhaps might be a bit difficult to digest without the context of the rest. But he does reference some really big studies that were used to come to these conclusions.

[St.Regis]

I must admit that I did not watch both lectures in total. Still, he's an interesting speaker. I think he's basically rebranding adaptation or coming at it from a different angle. That's my take on it anyway

[montcalm]

I must admit that I did not watch both lectures in total. Still, he's an interesting speaker. I think he's basically rebranding adaptation or coming at it from a different angle. That's my take on it anyway

I've watched the entire course, and I'll tell you that you are wrong.

He's not rebranding anything, but the entire lecture series is a literature study of the history of the study of human behavior from a biological and psychological standpoint as well as a micro-study into a number of different sub-fields to give, at the end, the best picture of the fields of neurobiology and endocrinology at a somewhat current level of understanding.

Because so much of human behavior from the biological standpoint is compared to animal behaviors, and trying to find the lowest common denominators - you'd be surprised how far down the the evolutionary chain certain behaviors go based on some pretty clever research i.e. see ethology.

He's a great lecturer and extremely thorough. If you start at the beginning it's quite an amazing course with a HUGE breadth of different aspects to look from.

I merely linked those two lectures because they completely address what you questioned as well as providing a number of landmark studies i.e. references which were done. But if you can't be bothered to listen, then I wouldn't expect giving you information on those studies (as you asked for) would be any better. He breaks down into a few hours what would take a very studious person perhaps years to read and digest by going through all the literature.

[montcalm]

Here's a clear example from what the science currently says:

Gene X causes cancer in ??? (X is any gene, ??? is any species, could be humans).

That statement is incomplete and by itself, false.



One cannot say gene X does anything except if carefully studied in many environments and with many different stimuli:

Gene X predisposes ??? to cancer by Y% given these particular conditions, or set of conditions. (where X is the same gene as above in the same ??? species).

This statement tells you a bit more, but really only gives you a probability, and a probability that may be insignificant in terms of the entire population.

If you watch those two videos you should be able to equate that example to what I stated earlier. It's not conjecture, it's what a lot of years of research and peer reviewed debate shows.