# "Male Dominated" Society?



## habilis (Jul 28, 2003)

I heard this term a few times over the weekend and it promted this thread. I often hear that we live in a male dominated society, or a chauvinistic society. But I think it's not that. More like an aggression dominated society. If females were the more aggressive species, then we would live in a female dominated society. 

Aggression dominates by nature, that's what it does. Our world is governed by the use of both mental and physical aggression, not compassion. Dinosaurs, for example, dominated and ruled the planet for millions of years because they were aggressive and robust in every way, not compassionate, and if they were compassionate, they died. Eat, or be eaten. Fight, or flee. Dominate, or be dominated. It's evolution, and it's _still_ happening, and it's perfect, it's the universe's idea, and it's the only formula for life to become intelligent. Our ancient ancestors, Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal got us here thanks to aggressive genetics. How can evolution happen without aggression? It can't.

Unless you think you're going to remove aggressive genetics from society altogether, war will always exist. The fact is, you couldn't do that even if you tried because there would always be a mutation somewhere along the line, and it would spread and replicate. 

I don't really even know where I'm going with this, but the natural evolutionary process of weeding out stupid and non-aggressive genetics has significantly slowed with modern man. 

Did I just make an argument for the Might makes Right crowd?

Can intelliegently placed aggression(Empire) take us _all_ to a better place?

Well, I'm sure that I've fully offended some of you... thanks for the honor.

::alien::


----------



## voice- (Jul 28, 2003)

It's becoming a female dominated society rapidly right now, I guess feminists have a lot of aggression...I'm compassionate enough to agree to an equal society, I want that, but somewhere along the lines some of these feminists forgot about equality...


----------



## wiz (Jul 28, 2003)

i agree !!!


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jul 28, 2003)

I just wanted to ask one question:

When you mention "evolution" do you mean instead "natural selection"?

The reason I ask is because not only do our genetics dictate our actions but also the environment.  Given the right environment, some individuals will tend to excel with their genetic abilities.  I wonder now, if the environment is just one huge genetic chess match, where the environmnt in human terms (society), is created by our genetics, giving the false pretense of an independent environment selecting for certain genetic traits.  Hmmm......


----------



## satanicpoptart (Jul 28, 2003)

not to sound like an ass but all the women i know are far to unstable to control their own lives, much less that of a social organism.


----------



## Arden (Jul 28, 2003)

People need to treat others like people, not like men or women or blacks or whites or Hispanics or Asians or anything like that.  Unfortunately, discrimination plays a large role in our society, and many people are too nearsighted to see the effect it has on them.

Since we have only hade white male presidents in this country, and for many more reasons, I think the US of A is a white male-dominated society.  Women are gaining ground, but they don't have it yet.


----------



## habilis (Jul 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chemistry_geek _
> I just wanted to ask one question:
> 
> When you mention "evolution" do you mean instead "natural selection"?


What I mean is, nobody knows the full story yet, but all our ancestors, such as homo habilis, homo ergaster, and homo rudolfensis were in competition for the same resources, they existed at the same time, and all were far more intelligent then any primate that exists now besides us. There was a niche to be filled, and only one of the species would be smart and strong enough to fill it and destroy the other race in the process. 

Ever wonder why, if these species were so relatively intelligent, such as Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, and Homo Erectus don't still exist? Some people actually theorize that rudolfensis and habilis were hunted to extinction by ergaster. At any rate, I highly doubt it was lazyness or stupidity or compassion that allowed ergaster to over-run his competition and eventually run the 2 races into extinction. It had to be aggression, it's the only common factor still observable in primates.

This is natural selection as far as I know it.


----------



## Arden (Jul 28, 2003)

Evolution is the sequence of genetic changes made to a species in order to adapt to environmental changes.  Natural selection is the elimination of those species that are not strong enough to survive on their own.


----------



## Lyra (Jul 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by voice- _
> *It's becoming a female dominated society rapidly right now, I guess feminists have a lot of aggression...I'm compassionate enough to agree to an equal society, I want that, but somewhere along the lines some of these feminists forgot about equality... *



OK guys - go and have a look at a music video channel for a while. Notice any difference in the way women are dressed to the way men are dressed? Wonder who that's meant to appeal to most (if in doubt, check out the 'I never wanted to buy power tools more' thread, just as a single example). Next, have a look at world leaders. Notice anything? Then how about taking a look at leaders of industry and commerce. Just coincidence, you think?


----------



## habilis (Jul 29, 2003)

Lyra. You need to dig deeper. You're right, this world is, by far, owned and run by men, nobody's disputing that for a second. But why exactly? What are the roots?


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jul 29, 2003)

I think the roots are AGRESSION to obtain RESOURCES for the survival of YOUR OFFSPRING.  Primates have a deep sense of familial structure, in which political association is an extension.  "Hey, you're a lot like me and my family, let's be buddies, let's work together for our common good".


----------



## acidtuch10 (Jul 29, 2003)

I think society plays the biggest role; throughout history men have dominated, fought for food, built houses, what have you. And on top of that a culture or society if you will was formed, and this plays a big role in the future of an adolescent male or female.  Government, religion, one ethnic culture all come in to play on determining how dominate one is in there adult years  man or female.

As far as equal ---- thats debatable, I will say that women in general are looked at as the weaker. Legal courts, and the sympathetic tend to lean towards them more and help or side with them more than your typical male. 

Oh well ..and life goes on..


----------



## Azzgunther (Jul 30, 2003)

Habilis - 

That was a great opening statement!  I've had some (heated) debates with friends and family about the nature of evolution; both technologically and biologically.  I share your view that aggression breeds progress.  

The most controversial view I hold is that war, while a horrible thing on the surface, has many great by-products.  Where do you think radar, computers, rockets, and spam came from?  

Progress needs competition of some sort, and wars are the ultimate catalyst.  "Exceed your limits or be exterminated."  Quite the motivator. 

Now we have economic competition, and we have two genders.  One has always fought and run the wars throughout history.  The other has had very little (historically speaking) experience with such responsibilitys.  It seems to me that males have the obvious advantage of being bred to lead and innovate.  Testosterone is a powerful thing.  

I know it's blunt to say these things, but it's also logical.  I don't dare argue with logic.


----------



## habilis (Jul 30, 2003)

azzgunther: thanks, your on point.

Women, unfortunately or not, will never be equal in any way. They might break out of the stigma of being looked at as baby breeders or servants of men, but for biological reasons, they will always be inferior. Their biggest biological problem is the fact that they ovulate every month and it drastically alters their brain chemistry creating irrational logic. Evolution, in this case natural selection, preferred females that were more emotional and attached to their offspring, the females that lacked emotion and didn't care or get attached to their offspring got slowly weeded out over millions of years, because if they didn't bond or care for their children, the children would be neglected and die in extreme times, and times were ALWAYS extreme back then. Hence those genes didn't get passed on.

The other biological problem they have is that their brains can't concentrate the same way a male brain can. Female brains are wired to be able to see what's going on in many different places at once, but not good at concentrating on a single points. Their minds drift. For the reason that male brains can so easily "fixate" this allows males to be geniuses so often and females to very rarely be. In fact, it's a genetic error if a female becomes a genious.

This all came about in the early days of man because we were hunter-gatherers back then, and it benefitted men to have a partner(a female) that could see the little things around them and take care of immiediate needs around the campsite, while men had to see the broader picture out on the plains, had to make decisions on when to migrate and think about the far future of his clan. The men hunted, this took incredible *concentration* and accuracy. Over time, during the extreme times, the men who couldn't concentrate the hardest and hit moving targets with a spear, eventually were weeded out of the gene pool. Natural selection favored the couples that worked together in this symbiotic relationship. Women that today try to break free from this relationship, are trying to be men, and that's how they will always be looked at.



See, it all makes sense now desn't it.


----------



## Reality (Jul 30, 2003)

Or...if your not into evolution and ect. simple bible stories tell ya Man were created in God's image and Women were made because God aid men should not live alone. ect ect ect.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jul 31, 2003)

Male and female brains indeed are hardwired very differently.  The corpus collosum in women is much larger than in men, hence women's two hemispheres are linked to one another more than men's.  Women use BOTH sides of the brain for language, men use one side, typically the left hemisphere for left-brain dominant (right handedness), or the right hemisphere for right-brain dominant (left handedness).  Women are better at multitasking than men.  Men have better spacial orientation and seem to be better at mathematics.  The fact that many geniuses are men seems that certain areas of the brain that are specialized for certain functions may be much more developed perhaps because of genetics, prenatal development, congenital anomalies, environment, etc...

When I was in college, I wanted to know what I would be good at, so I went over to the Counseling Center on campus, asked to meet with a psychologist, and was tested using standardized IQ and MQ (memory quotient) tests.  My MQ results confirmed what I already knew, I was primarily a visual learner and not an auditory learner.  These modalities are hardwired into your brain, there is nothing that can be done to change these parameters.  These parameters also can influence your personality and your way of thinking.


----------



## Giaguara (Jul 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by satanicpoptart _
> *not to sound like an ass but all the women i know are far to unstable to control their own lives, much less that of a social organism. *



I assume you are talking about 'women' of your own age. And as opposed to these, the 16 year old 'men' SURELY are so STABLE to CONTROL their own lives.  

If men are more "stable to control their lives", why there are more men that are violent to other people that women with the same violent tendency?


----------



## Giaguara (Jul 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *Women, unfortunately or not, will never be equal in any way. They might break out of the stigma of being looked at as baby breeders or servants of men, but for biological reasons, they will always be inferior. Their biggest biological problem is the fact that they ovulate every month and it drastically alters their brain chemistry creating irrational logic. Evolution, in this case natural selection, preferred females that were more emotional and attached to their offspring, the females that lacked emotion and didn't care or get attached to their offspring got slowly weeded out over millions of years, because if they didn't bond or care for their children, the children would be neglected and die in extreme times, and times were ALWAYS extreme back then. Hence those genes didn't get passed on. *



Wait, women as inferior due to those reasons?  

1) not all women ovulate, even when they are of the age btw 15 and 40 (without being ever pregnant or breastfeeding). I do not include in that <<< the women who are on birth control pill. Technically  they don't ovulate either.

2) if the ovulation makes women "irrational" and inferior during ovulation, you have been reading too much Freud. Hint: he was a man (and his biggest discovery was that women don't have a 'little borther'). see average results of high schools and universities and compare the notes of female and male students. why in many cases female students have at least in high school better notes? because they are irrational they get better notes in science materials? because all of them do all their exams 'on the days that they are not irrational'? i exclude partly university of this comparison, as in some materials some professors i've seen teaching were extremely sexist: using the scale 0 (failed) - 5 the males got always in media 1,5 grades bigger votes. read: doing his courses as female the highest you could get was 3,5. this was not due to the subject - the other professors doing the same subject lacked this attitude.

3) the evolution preferred emotional women? do you mean the men preferred? or was this 'evolution' something that the men could not avoid. maybe the emotionalism sometimes is the 'irrational behaviour'. i feel i am something between the sexes - i understand better the male logic and get nervous of women that are overly emotional. i hate women touching me (hugging etc), including my mum. and i read the kitchy "men  are from mars, women from venus" and it was a pain: i understand how the man  communicates but i had hard time trying to understand how the women think. so as a banal example of what you as a man should not say (and as a woman i would .. shouldn't) are the stupid questions that are not to be answered honestly, e.g. "do you think this dress makes my butt look big?" > never answer honestly such as "yes, you look like a fat cow in it". Also the "emotionality" of women when they overly explain hoe they FEEL makes me sick. i don't want to listen to anyone's lasting and lasting emotional floods. keep your "feelings" to yourself. similrly some of them irritate me when they insist to ask how i FEEL. basically, my feeling scale is very MALE: i feel either GOOD or not. the not may be tired, depressed, preoccupied, in constant pain, or just something wrong. I'm not able to give 200 different feelings there between. thus good - ok - not. 3 'feelings'. most of the men i know are able to identify OVER 3 emotional states. d'oh!

3) "the females that lacked emotion and didn't care or get attached to their offspring got slowly weeded out over millions of years, because if they didn't bond or care for their children" - wait. the species of homo sapiens is not millions of years old yet.

4) "those genes" = overly emotional behaviour prevalent only on female members of the species and irrational behaviour during ovulation? yea, right. 

5) if the fact of ovulation would make (as you say) women irrational for a ... amount of time (how long does the ovulation technically take time??? ) - those women that do lack this process lack the irrational part of the behaviour. so it's enough to resolve the "biological problem" of 'having to' ovulate each mont. 4 simple ways to do that ... keep enough low bmi, use the pill, or be pregnant, or breastfeed

6) how about the biological problem of being excited? a female can hide it. a male can't. besides a woman can both think with her brain and be excited on the same time, whereas most men i know are completely unable to use their brain (e.g. understand any spoken language) while they are having sex with anyone else than themselves.


----------



## Giaguara (Jul 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *The other biological problem they have is that their brains can't concentrate the same way a male brain can. Female brains are wired to be able to see what's going on in many different places at once, but not good at concentrating on a single points. Their minds drift. For the reason that male brains can so easily "fixate" this allows males to be geniuses so often and females to very rarely be. In fact, it's a genetic error if a female becomes a genious.
> 
> This all came about in the early days of man because we were hunter-gatherers back then, and it benefitted men to have a partner(a female) that could see the little things around them and take care of immiediate needs around the campsite, while men had to see the broader picture out on the plains, had to make decisions on when to migrate and think about the far future of his clan. The men hunted, this took incredible concentration and accuracy. Over time, during the extreme times, the men who couldn't concentrate the hardest and hit moving targets with a spear, eventually were weeded out of the gene pool. Natural selection favored the couples that worked together in this symbiotic relationship. Women that today try to break free from this relationship, are trying to be men, and that's how they will always be looked at. *



7) a female brain is more capable of multitasking. many women are completely able to write 3 documents, have 2 phone calls, organize their or someone else's calendar and play snood on the same time. and many men can't do any more than 1 task at a time. (as a very good example, when they are having sex they are unable to notice anything else happening around them, or are unable to understand speaken languages etc). see what most works require now. you CAN'T concentrate only on ONE thing at a time. 

8) i forgot .. if men die earlier at all ages .. ranging average 52 of 100 newborns being male (excluding china), .. they range 50 to 50 in age of ten, .. if women are likely to a) live longer and b) able to survive in less amount of food for longer periods and c) due to the history, having been always the dominated sex, are far more able to ADAPT to things and circumstances such as new dominations of their tribes etc ... why were the women 'less' again? add also the theorically major acpacity of co-operation ... 

9) you can't take out the cultural background each individual is in. in some arab cultures where they have harems, women coexist rather peacefully (happy? i admit i have no frist hand experiences so i rather not promise too much) also sharing the same man - whereas a normal western woman would about to kill or have an "emotional breakdown" etc when she would discover her male having had other females in his life than she or his mother. 

10) the hunter-gatherer example is a bit too old. if the digestion system and teeth of a human being aren't those of a carnivora but a lot like those of a gorilla for exapmle, why always these "hunting" examples? As the females even in that era were really unlikely to be constantly pregnant or breast feeding, are you perhaps trying to say that ONLY because they were female they were allowed not to participate at all on the food gathering process? well, obviously the remains of the hunter-gatherer must have be still somewhere, of course all the men i know do the grocery shopping ...


----------



## Giaguara (Jul 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lyra _
> *OK guys - go and have a look at a music video channel for a while. Notice any difference in the way women are dressed to the way men are dressed? Wonder who that's meant to appeal to most (if in doubt, check out the 'I never wanted to buy power tools more' thread, just as a single example). Next, have a look at world leaders. Notice anything? Then how about taking a look at leaders of industry and commerce. Just coincidence, you think? *



have a look on the italian tv, that shows all that better. women are always young, pretty, quiet, never say anything intelligent, and mostly are dressed in bikinis or sexy clothing. all men are ugly, old, and "intelligent". because these men have to seem to be intelligent, the women they choose to appear in the shows are the most chicken brained they find.


----------



## nervus (Jul 31, 2003)

Giaguara,

 You are right!! Most men are autistic and just not capable to do more than 1 task a time: very useful for hunting, getting a female and so on.
Being such a brute myself I am still wondering how my wife is capable to endure my whims  
BTW your multichapter article declares you to be feminin?

Regards
nervus


----------



## Giaguara (Jul 31, 2003)

nope. i used the numbering and lettering to point out what i say (like in science etc ... "male"). the feminine "ovulationally irrational" version would have been without chapters and declaring that i feel this or that for 50 rows each.


----------



## nervus (Jul 31, 2003)

I see...    

nervus


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jul 31, 2003)

The take home lesson here kids is that there are good reasons men and women are different mentally and physically.  This is REQUIRED for the survival of the population.  I would never say that one gender is BETTER than the other, but each has its own strengths and weaknesses.  Men and women, I think, are designed to compliment one another, not oppose one another.  If men and women opposed one another, then the human race would have gone extinct long ago.  So it seems that, for the time being, our genetics, behavior, and environmental influences are working well enough together to sustain a human presence on this planet.

For informational purposes, women's brains (EEG waves) do change with their ovulation, sometimes it's more noticeable than others, sometimes it may seem irrational, sometimes it will be displayed in other behaviors, but it WORKS for sustaining the human race.  I remember reading about this when I was working at the Medical College of Ohio (http://www.mco.edu/).  As for men changing their brainwave patterns, while I personally don't know if there is hard evidence to support my suspicion, I would think that men's brains too would show cyclical patterns associated with the ebb and flow of male hormone concentrations (testostrone).  Right when I left that field, there was a lot of qualitative research starting to investigate brainwave patterns using advanced mathematics and statistics.  The reason it is known that women's brain wave patterns change every month is because of the markedly visible difference in EEG.  There could be equally significant and subtle changes in men's brains waiting to be discovered.


----------



## Perseus (Jul 31, 2003)

To make an argument that one gender is better over the other is a waste of time. As chemstry_geek said, everyone has their own strengths and weeknesses.

Nervus, please don't make a joke out of autism, it is not funny at all.


----------



## habilis (Jul 31, 2003)

Giaguara, I wish I had the time to fully respond to you. Civiization is only skin deep. Why do women heighten the tone of their voice when they ask for things, in particular from men? Because it evokes the protective insticts in men that still reside in us today from the days of life on the savannah. The more protective a male was, the more offspring he could propigate into the gene pool, passing on the protective instint into the sea of information. We're still animals, pigs wearing  silk hats, we're not smart, were instict-driven beasts under these suites and ties we wear. The beast is sleeping inside us all, ready to awaken in the times of extremity, this is the time when everything important happens, and the world moves, this is the time when the world changes, and in this time, men are the masters.

I don't mean that men are superior to women _per say_. What I mean is that this world will never have women in an honestly equal role, and lets be honest, it's mainly because they can't achieve it on their own in competition with men, they can only ever have equality given to them by men. Let's not mince words. Until you're bigger, stronger, tougher, or smarter then men as a whole you can't be equal. Physiologically, you are the violated, and we men are the violators. The very act of sex is a violation of a womans space, and a subliminal power grab. Until you can reverse those facts, those genetics, you're not "equal".

Women are the "helpers" of men, and believe me, we REALLY REALLY appreciate it, we can't be as great as we are without you. The sooner you gals realize that this is the case, and always will be, the better the world will be. Stop fighting against genes.


----------



## Giaguara (Jul 31, 2003)

Well. A typical white (and black and many latins) woman is PHYSICALLY bigger (taller, and weights more)  than many oriental (asian) males. THUS they are better? I don't know in what kind of uncivilized pig houses and wearing the silk hats the ohio resided population is but I don't want to waste my time or energy to say anything. While in Rome do as the romans do, I'll keep that on mind if I ever have an urge to go to Ohio.

Remove the "enable img tags" thing from your signature, will you? Or when will you notice that 90 % of the boards here have it allowed anyway. 

I did not choose my sex (i would sure not have chosen the one i have), the society i was born (idem), my parents (idem), my appearance or skin color (idem) or the religion the people around me believed. When i was 18 i could officially not be part of any religion, but the rest ... I will for sure choose something i like a bit more in my next life.


----------



## habilis (Jul 31, 2003)

Pigs in silk hats is an analogy to humans living in modern times, we just don't fit. Not yet anyway.

about the IMG tags, I was talking about in the signature itself, which most other boards allow, except this one for some half-ass reason that no one will explain. Kinda like how no one will explain what the fund drive is for exactly when absolutely no improvements are being made and this board takes almost 0 time to maintain.

Hey, why don't you make the white background on your avatar transparent, that would be much cooler, make it a transparent gif.


----------



## habilis (Jul 31, 2003)

like this:


----------



## Arden (Jul 31, 2003)

1. Habilis, there is a whole thread outvoting you on the image tag in signatures issue.  Read it again if you've forgotten.  (BTW, I've worn plenty of suits, but never any suites.  )

2. G: you sure seemed to get emotional back there, although considering this is an online forum, it's hard to tell with ASCII text.  I mean, 4 large posts in a row speaks worlds to me, even if it's not necessarily the truth.

3. There have been matriarchal societies in the past, though no major ones exist today, else I would probably have heard of them.  Historically, most societies have been male dominated, and most still are, and Habilis is right: men have to give women equality.  When men run the country, make the rules, and form the law enforcement, women have little say in the matter.  Sad but true.  Only in the past few decades have men, in the more advanced countries, began relinquishing some of this power to women.


----------



## nervus (Aug 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Perseus _
> *Nervus, please don't make a joke out of autism, it is not funny at all. *


Just for the record: I certainly did not intend to make a joke out of a psychologic/psychiatric handicap. Perhaps you would care to understand that my remark was aimed at the behaviour of quite a lot of the male population. Maybe the fact that this forum is not in my native language caused erring in the 'correct' choice of words.

Regards
nervus


----------



## chevy (Aug 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> * [...]
> 3. There have been matriarchal societies in the past, though no major ones exist today, else I would probably have heard of them.  Historically, most societies have been male dominated, and most still are
> [...] *



That's because world is still lead by the strongest, not by the smartest. The lack of culture in the population tends to help the strongest to lead his people (usually to total failure), when people will be more educated (all speaking several languages, understanding the basics of philosophy, physics, biology, history, all having had time to learn to understand arts) then the world will be better, smoother and only then women will rule together with men. "Egalité" will not be a discussion anymore, this word will disappear as not required anymore.


----------



## habilis (Aug 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> Habilis, there is a whole thread outvoting you on the image tag in signatures issue.


There is a whole thread of voters that overlooked the fact that you can turn IMG tags off if they bother you.  


> _Originally posted by arden _
> I've worn plenty of suits, but never any suites.  )


ROFL! good call


----------



## Giaguara (Aug 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chemistry_geek _
> *The take home lesson here kids is that there are good reasons men and women are different mentally and physically.  This is REQUIRED for the survival of the population.  [...]
> *



Men and women are different mentally as they are teached differently. If you are a girl, you should play with other girls the little house or colelct barbies, and if you instead climb to a tree or want some boys toys in the societies where the roles are extremely indicated, it does not work. Take a christmas catalog of kids' gifts and you will see. For girls: plastic ovens and tea sets, barbies, baby dolls, everything pink and fluffy and teddy bears. For boys: plastic gun, remote controlled cars, toys etc, puzzles, more cars and toys and monsters and action figures - that do not correspond to the girly barbies as barbie is supposed to do nothing except be dressed, party, and dream of her wedding with the male un-action figure ken; whereas action figure's purpose is to ACT and not care what he is wearing. That diversion in the background teachings in the toys is not required for survival. 

Impossible to see the limits where the culture and other start. Take the kids to an isolation where no adults are seen and where kids are treated equivalently (not given toys according to their sex), and let them grow there - and then see maybe.


----------



## Giaguara (Aug 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *2. G: you sure seemed to get emotional back there, although considering this is an online forum, it's hard to tell with ASCII text.  I mean, 4 large posts in a row speaks worlds to me, even if it's not necessarily the truth.*



Is pissed off emotional?


----------



## chemistry_geek (Aug 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Giaguara _
> *Men and women are different mentally as they are teached differently. If you are a girl, you should play with other girls the little house or colelct barbies, and if you instead climb to a tree or want some boys toys in the societies where the roles are extremely indicated, it does not work. Take a christmas catalog of kids' gifts and you will see. For girls: plastic ovens and tea sets, barbies, baby dolls, everything pink and fluffy and teddy bears. For boys: plastic gun, remote controlled cars, toys etc, puzzles, more cars and toys and monsters and action figures - that do not correspond to the girly barbies as barbie is supposed to do nothing except be dressed, party, and dream of her wedding with the male un-action figure ken; whereas action figure's purpose is to ACT and not care what he is wearing. That diversion in the background teachings in the toys is not required for survival.*



There have been studies on infants and young toddlers.  When male and female infants pull on a string and get a reward (some pleasant visual stimulus), the infants smile.  When the reward is taken away, the male infant will continue to pull incessantly to try to get the reward.  When the female infant pulls the string and doesn't get the reward, she'll pull it for a while longer, give up and scream.  I read about this study while taking a "cultural diversity" requirement course just before getting my B.S. in chemistry.  Researchers don't know why the male infants keep trudging along, hoping to get the reward again.  But it seems that the male doesn't want to give up the endeavor, whereas the female infants became very frustrated.  It is also known that as toddlers, males and female are different.  Males tend to explore the world more, take more risks, and play harder than female toddlers.  Female toddlers tend to be more social where as males tend not to be.  My point is that even from a very young age, infants and toddlers seem to have male and female characteristics hard-wired into their brains.

Social condition does play a role in our behavior, but I think that our genetics may be directing our behavior.

I'm not trying to instigate and prolong any arguments, I'm merely stating some facts from previous medical studies.  And I'm sorry, but I don't have the links for the studies.  Perhaps Google would be useful.


----------



## habilis (Aug 1, 2003)

That study where the girl cries, that was hilarious, and a perfect microcosm of adult reality. 

Ever wonder why women in positions of power, such as managerial or corporate, wear *shoulder pads* in their clothes? Are big thick level shoulders an attractive feature in a female body rather then smooth soft and round? I Think not. What the reality behind this phenomenon is, is that it gives femals a more masculine appearance and they can subconsciously convey more power and authority in the male owned world. It's all subliminal and most women don't even know that they're trying to look like a man.


----------



## adambyte (Aug 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chemistry_geek _
> *There have been studies on infants and young toddlers.  When male and female infants pull on a string and get a reward (some pleasant visual stimulus), the infants smile.  When the reward is taken away, the male infant will continue to pull incessantly to try to get the reward.  When the female infant pulls the string and doesn't get the reward, she'll pull it for a while longer, give up and scream.*



Another interpretation to this might be that the Male child is stubborn/stupid enough to try the same strategy over and over again (pulling), whereas the Female child is intelligent enough to try a NEW strategy, screaming, which is a form of communication, asking for help.

THAT's a perfect microcosm of adult reality: Males doing the same stupid thing over and over, females trying something new.


----------



## Giaguara (Aug 1, 2003)

female toddlers probably find out earlier what is their parents breaking line. cry - and get what you want. male toddlers find that out later? as i said, male and female kids are educated differently so males are encouraged to be more aggressive and play "boys games" where the girls trying the same are discouraged "that is soo boy-like" "you make so much noise! try to be a _ nice girl_"
" _"girls don't do that!!!"_ etc.

habilis, you do like smooth soft and round female bodies as opposed to shoulder pads or *simply* as more linear, non-curvy ones? weird that you like *any* kind of women at all. and me for sure not - swimmers shoulder equipped, more linear than curvy or smooth. at least the low bmi's save from the "irrational behaviour" caused by ovulation.


----------



## chevy (Aug 1, 2003)

a female is not just a curved body.... it's also a brain and a heart. all to be loved.


----------



## Arden (Aug 1, 2003)

G, give little boys a bunch of Barbies and little girls some toy weapons, and the boys are much more likely to start playfighting with the Barbies, either making them fight or fighting _with_ the Barbies, and girls are more likely to coddle the weapons, perhaps play house with them.  Males are naturally more aggressive than females, and it is probably this aggression that has allowed men to dominate over the millenia.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Aug 6, 2003)

Here's a different perspective on a "male dominated society":

Ever wonder why men have nipples (non functional) on their chests?  Because males are "modified" females.  The nipples are so essential for the survival of the species that they are a main component of the body.  Other evidence to support this argument is that males have XY sex determining genes whereas females have XX.  The Y-chromosome is a genetic aberration.  It is the only chromosome for which there is no correspnding match in the other gender.  In fact, the Y-chromosome carries copies of the expressed genes in case the expressed genes get mutated and become non functional, a feature rarely found in chromosomes in general.  ALL humans begin development in the womb as females; it is only after the sex determining genes in the Y chromosome do males differentiate from the default female gender.  What I explain here is undisputed fact from my college Biology course.


----------



## chevy (Aug 6, 2003)

And what is from your point of view the relation between genetics and social behaviour ?


----------



## chemistry_geek (Aug 6, 2003)

They are very much related.


----------



## mfidiothead (Aug 8, 2003)

Hab, post has highlighted is that women are in fact the superior sex.  Man has "evolved" to have an aggressive streak, and has developed weapons capable of destroying the planet.  Try telling your mother how superior men are when your hiding from a male induced rain of death.

Women are responsible for keeping society functioning.  Men, as you rightly state, are aggressive and tend to compete with each other.  Women tend to nurture and pacify.  Which sort of society would you rather live in?  One where roaming bands of "superior" aggressive men do what they want because they're physically stronger?  Or one where you can sleep safely in your home because of feminine pressure to create a safe environment.  Why do you think European culture is responsible for so much innovation and contribution to the species?  Because we have had a stable and comfortable lifestyle since the Vikings settled down.  And that my friend, was purely down to the stabilising influence of women.


----------



## habilis (Aug 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mfidiothead _
> *women are in fact the superior sex.*


You can't back that up properly. I think you read me wrong and allowed yourself to be consumed with hate. I see it every day. Not even a nice try. Please contact Carolus Linnaeus and get back to me with some solid science ASAP.


----------



## Arden (Aug 9, 2003)

Imagine if the Lord of the Flies island had had girls on it...


----------



## mfidiothead (Aug 11, 2003)

Just because someone disagrees with your misinterpretation of "science" doesn't make them hate-filled.

You in fact seem to have a deep distrust and loathing of the female sex.  I feel sorry for you.


----------



## cfleck (Aug 11, 2003)

this is a pretty amazing discussion (if you'll call it that).  my 2 cents on whats going on...



> how about the biological problem of being excited? a female can hide it. a male can't. besides a woman can both think with her brain and be excited on the same time, whereas most men i know are completely unable to use their brain (e.g. understand any spoken language) while they are having sex with anyone else than themselves.



you had a good argument till here.  sorry.  but your emotions (yes pissed off is emotional.  its called anger.) got the best of you.

habilis, your arguments are filled with comments meant to do nothing but piss people off.  whether you meant to or not is another issue, but thats what they have become.  it makes you sound ignorant.  you should probably stop, but thats just my opinion.

let's be frank.  men and women are different.  we live in a male dominated society.  you can make just about every argument as to why that is, but you can rest assured that there is an argument against it.  everyone can quote some psych research that shows this or that, but 99% of the time the researchers will also say that these results could be due to any number of factors beyond their measure and control.  

here is my stance on the subject.  back in the day the men hunted while the women took care of the offspring.  this happened because the women had the babies.  not necessarilly because the men were stronger or more aggressive.  since this organization took place, the men were essentially the ones who went places, saw things, and learned about the world.  very important experiences to have.  the women were kept at "home" and hence weren't granted with the same experiences.

as people become more advanced technologically and evolutionarily (right word?) this system held its course to a certain extent.  it was not until the past couple of hundred years or so that it was even an option for women to get out and "live" so to speak because of the family structure.

society has been evolving  throughout history as the family structure has changed  and technology has allowed us to do so.  it will continue to evolve and it is only a matter of time before you begin to see women leaders doing their jobs  with as much respect as their male counterparts.

in closing, the reason some folk think women are the "lesser" sex is because thats how we have been taught.  life experiences.  thats how you get those sexist opinions.  its what you choose to live that makes you rise above.  i remember my grandfather referring to certain ethnics groups in a rather ugly manner.  am i the same way?  no.  how many of your relatives/friends bent you to their mold?

in other words, times are a changin, and you'd better get used to it.


----------



## habilis (Aug 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cf25 _
> habilis, your arguments are filled with comments meant to do nothing but piss people off.


God forbid I might offend someone in the politcally correct crowd. Maybe I pissed _you_ off, and for that, you'll get no apologies, but don't second guess any other "people" here. I have the decency to provide sound scientific hypothesis for my opinions, and I'm yet to hear a more thought out version. 

When you find a woman who understands her evolutionary place in the world, like I have, it's a beautiful, graceful, natural, stimulating, and highly intellectual relationship that makes a man better then just good, it makes a man Great.

You people who think I don't like women, honestly, you couldn't be any farther from the truth. I've always loved women, and I'm the first to admit that without mine I'd be a ape.


----------



## cfleck (Aug 12, 2003)

not pissed off at all.  more flabbergasted.  its not your argument for evolutionary place that was the target of my comments.  it was the fact that you used your argument as ammunition that men are somehow better humans than women.  

here is another take.  at some point in this thread i believe you made the argument that women lack because they can't focus as well, and hence don't perform as well.  my counter is this, why is it then that women aer becoming more and more prominant in all areas of society?  is it simply beacause of the push for equality?  if so, does that mean that the quality of work has been lowered?  that we have somehow been comprimised by allowing women to take stronger roles?


----------



## mfidiothead (Aug 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *I have the decency to provide sound scientific hypothesis for my opinions, and I'm yet to hear a more thought out version. *



So do you still believe the Earth is flat?  And is blood-letting still de rigeur in your neighbourhood?

You only make yourself look silly and backward when you quote the name of an 18th Century academic.

Although, to be honest, the 18th Century is probably where your "evolved" point of view belongs.

MF


----------



## habilis (Aug 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mfidiothead _
> So do you still believe the Earth is flat?  And is blood-letting still de rigeur in your neighbourhood?
> 
> You only make yourself look silly and backward when you quote the name of an 18th Century academic.



Hypothesis is a best guess based on Scientific Method. So what I'm saying is Science, though the Scientific Method, and Binomial Nomenclature, which was developed by Carolus Linnaeus - hence the reference - is my best guess and the standard of which I made my study. Duh. 

So in the immortal words of Louis Pasteur "have yourself an Iced Tea and smile."


----------



## Arden (Aug 13, 2003)

This thread probably deserves a closin'.  I don't see how anyone is making any headway, or any supportive arguments of anything.


----------



## habilis (Aug 14, 2003)

I say Let it be(Sing the famous Beatles song). The thread hasn't degenerated to that level, _yet_. Somebody else might have something good to say on the subject. In fact, unless there is outright violent racism, I'm never ever a fan of closing a thread, no matter how bad it gets.


----------



## mfidiothead (Aug 14, 2003)

Not sure if your 18th century science has discovered statistics, but some of the more advanced forum readers might be interested in this (from the BBC):

"Boys improved their performance on last year, but girls improved at an even greater rate, maintaining the gender gap in results. 

At A-level, girls increased their lead over boys from 2002 to 2003, in terms of who gets the most A grades, by 0.3 percentage points. 

The pass-rate for girls in the UK is 96.4% this year, while the rate for boys is 94.3%. "

Better start being nicer to women chaps!


----------



## habilis (Aug 14, 2003)

Close this thread.


----------



## cfleck (Aug 14, 2003)

> Close this thread.




are you serious?


----------



## Cat (Aug 14, 2003)

> Hypothesis is a best guess based on Scientific Method. So what I'm saying is Science, though the Scientific Method, and Binomial Nomenclature, which was developed by Carolus Linnaeus - hence the reference - is my best guess and the standard of which I made my study. Duh.
> 
> So in the immortal words of Louis Pasteur "have yourself an Iced Tea and smile."



Too Effing Much Capitals Make Your Statements Look Silly.

Linneaus, to the best of my knowledge, was a biologist who introduced a classification of living beings according to genus, species, regnum, etc. (like felis felis, the cat) of which normally only genus and species are used (hence binomial). Technically this has nothing to do at all with the definition or development of any kind of scientific method. There is no such thing as The Scdientific Method, there are various competing hypotheses on what is the best way to truth, knowledge and understanding. Moreover, AFAIK, Linneaus was opposed to Darwins eveolutionism, but I'd have to check for that.

The classical scientific method to which you seem to refer, is more like that of Sir Francis Bacon.

The "male dominated society" issue could and should probably be tackeld by a discussion of the evolution of social systems, especially concerning laws and finance, not by (partially outdated) biological "arguments". For example for large part of the 19th century it was impossible for women to own property, make financial transactions, vote, etc. The feminism we see today is poor hyped stephdaughter of the suffragism and female movements of that time to insure independence and freedom. Even then, however, the whole discussion was mostly fueled by women of middle/high class / caste, while "normal" people couldn't care less: they had no property, money, etc. to fight for. With the social changes of the last century, the issue became broader and more people obtained a status where such things as ownership and finance really mattered. However, the feminism we mostly see topday in the news is nothing but a post-modern hype concerning the "social-identity" of womanhood. True progress is probably made in this respect by women who do not act hysterically and try to become a sort of alternative male, but are simplyt conscious of their value as human being, in important respects equal to every other human being. As such the only important issues to be tackled are again those concerning laws, wages, etc. which, when penalizing women, are simply discriminatory and wrong.


----------



## habilis (Aug 14, 2003)

Joking entirely. But some newbies here obviously haven't read the forum rules or paid their dues, and think it's ok to commence personal attacks, which as we all know, is a great way to get a thread closed.


----------



## cfleck (Aug 14, 2003)

ok.  you freaked me out there for a sec.


----------



## habilis (Aug 14, 2003)

cat your right about linnaeus, but i'm applying his detailed observation style & methods to the behaviors of our extict homonid ancestors. the question has come up, are homo sapiens "superior" to homo erectus? and why exactly? it all fits in to the puzzle and the debate about "superiority".

this post was entirely cap free!!!


----------



## Cat (Aug 14, 2003)

It is difficult to say which creature is superior to another, within evolutionary theory you can only say (in hindsight) which creature is more apt to its environment. Both creatures and environments change under each others influence, especially when talking about humans. So I think that talking about superiority or even "superiority" in this respect is a category mistake. The most you can claim is that, given a certain constant environment, the species that survives longer, or thrives and grows is superior to that which decays and dwindles, but this is not an absolute, context-free kind of superiority, but only limited to that specifc environment. It is meningless to claim that cockroaches are superior to humans because they could survive a worldwide nuclear fallout, but nevertheless they are more apt to survive in those conditions. Superiority, IMHO, is not proper of the species, but of the individual and can only be judged by the standards one sets for himslef, by the ideals he chooses for his life, by the quality of his actions and words. Superiority, has nothing to do then with survival, hence is unrelated to evolutionism and species as such. A noble death can determine the (moral) superiority of an individual, or the culture that spawned him/her, but says nothing about the species. As you may note, the distinction male/female play no role at all in this. Biologically speaking male and female in a bisexual species must cultivate a sort of symbiosis for the species to survive, hence they are both equally necessary for the continuation of the species and of the same value.

Funny that nobody yet addressed the monogamy/polygamy issue ...


----------



## Giaguara (Aug 14, 2003)

5th page anthe thread hasn't still gone anyhere.


----------



## Arden (Aug 14, 2003)

I think Cat's making some good headway, G...


----------



## mdnky (Aug 14, 2003)

Just a friendly reminder to everyone here, *personal attacks will not be tolerated*.  

Disagree all you want, just keep it polite and courteous.

Thanks, MD


----------



## Giaguara (Aug 14, 2003)

Cat made some good points. So what do you think about the monogamy/polygamy issue? I think it's NOT biological at all that women would be monogamic and men polygamic - just cultural. If women are considered cheap if they have more than 1 man, and men are only 'more masculine' if they have more women - no wonder why women have the surface or impression of being more monogamic - and men trying (to hit a woman) every possible time. Plus - the only truly polygamic societies I can think about are the harems. It's NOT biological difference that arabic women can live together and share the same man, but the western can't.


----------



## chevy (Aug 14, 2003)

western can too...


----------



## Arden (Aug 14, 2003)

Not legally...


----------



## Cat (Aug 15, 2003)

Well, it is illegal to marry before the law more than one woman, but if you really want to and everybody agrees you can live with as much people of any sex you like. Just that they do not have all the rights that a husband or wife would have.

Concerning monogamy/polygamy, it is both a cultural and a biological issue. Due to our genes, 50% of births is male, 50% female (roughly). Two interpretations are possible: we are a monogamous species (for every member of the one sex there is a member of the other sex), or not. If we were polygamous, this would entail heavy competion to possess the males/females and would lead to strenghtening the species from a biological point of view: only the strongest/best mate and produce offspring. Culturally, however, this is unnacceptable, since this kind of poligamy would create large groups of singles, who would lead effectively a life out of society, in a much more radical way than the kind of singles we know now. These would be prevalently singles of one sex, of course, and this would create a lot of social problems (depression, violence, social emargination). Hence polygamy is not desirable (either male or female polygamy).

Regarding the hunting/strong males/superiority point: take e.g. lions. The leader of the pack is the male, but the females are the ones that hunt, and are arguably stronger and more independent than the males.


----------



## mfidiothead (Aug 15, 2003)

I find it bizarre that someone can insult the entire female population of the planet and not have his comments moderated.

If he had said that blacks/gays/asians were genetically inferior, would he have been moderated then?

Just because an insult is general rather than specific doesn't make it OK.


----------



## habilis (Aug 15, 2003)

For all intents and purposes, throughout nature, dominance equals superiority, so you can't erase that word from the discussion, as much as you'd like to. No offense has to be taken from the use of it. You have to look at the situation as if you were a dog breeder, observing and reporting on your specimens. 

Yes female lions do the hunting but I wouldn't go as far to say they're stronger. From what I've seen on TV a male lion keeps his harem in check with his strength and teeth.


----------



## mfidiothead (Aug 15, 2003)

So according to your way of thinking, whites are the superior race as no one can argue that world society isn't dominated by the white european / western culture.

Interesting.

"You have to look at the situation as if you were a dog breeder, observing and reporting on your specimens"

A certain European leader once had that attitude.  He thought whites were superior as well...

You don't seem to understand the concept that people of whatever sex can have different strengths and weaknesses.  It is how society functions as a whole that makes it successful.  Just because men are better at some things doesn't make them superior.  Just different.

If your viewpoints expressed in this discussion are true, I feel sorry for you.  If they are designed to annoy, please stop - you are certainly alienating people, especially newbies such as myself.


----------



## habilis (Aug 15, 2003)

I have no problem observing humans as if they were animals, because that's what they are. Please don't play the race card. Take a hint from Cat, and battle me with supporting scientific evidence, not name-calling.


----------



## mfidiothead (Aug 15, 2003)

Who's name calling?

The "race card" as you put it was played because it's the logical extension of your arguments.

And I do pity people with your point of view I think it must be very hard to be happy in today's society.


----------



## chevy (Aug 15, 2003)

mfidiothead, don't take it too serious... or too first level: habilis is teasing. that's a mix of real questions, scientific experimentation and "café chat'.


----------



## habilis (Aug 15, 2003)

You hit the nail right on the head chevy.


----------



## mfidiothead (Aug 15, 2003)

I thought there were rules against flaming.


----------



## Arden (Aug 15, 2003)

The dearly departed Cellfish was a flamer for posting anti-Mac, pro-Windows posts on numerous occasions.  Habilis and Cat are not flamers, they are trying to come up with reasonable explanations for the noticeable difference between the status of men and women in our modern society.

By accusing anyone of flaming when the torches are all cool, you are in fact condemning yourself to hypocrisy.  Please make sure you actually know what flaming is before you accuse anyone of it.

If you feel uncomfortable in a discussion such as this, then you may want to avoid this thread.  You are a newbie, for sure; but that does not mean you have to have an opinion, or can't have an opinion.  If you disagree with the premise of this thread, then it is not the place for you.  I don't mean to discriminate against you; I'm just trying to help you find a good footing in this site.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 15, 2003)

There are no rules against flaming.  There are rules against trolling, and there are rules against the slandering of one's character, as arden just now barely did.

I'll be watching this closely.


----------



## Giaguara (Aug 16, 2003)

This thread gets now its second change, but is watched very closely. It has potential as a topic - but _all_ of you: _ no excessive flaming, name-calling_, trolling, please. I trust on you on moderating yourselves, please don't hurt the others, and respect the others opinions as much as you want your opinions to be respected


----------



## Cat (Aug 16, 2003)

> From what I've seen on TV a male lion keeps his harem in check with his strength and teeth.



Yes, one by one, but as a social group I think the females can be considered dominant.

However, from a genetical point of view human males are become superfluous, and we all know which way superfluous things go in the flow of evolution ... In fact, since the invention in the mid '70 of certain genetical techniques, males are become superfluous to procreation. An all-female society would hence be technically possible and MANkind be reduced to pets. Through technological innovation we have in fact out-raced ourselves. The aberrant and crippled y-chromosome has corrected its own fault. Isn't it ironic?


----------



## chevy (Aug 16, 2003)

Do we really want to go this path ?


----------



## habilis (Aug 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> However, from a genetical point of view human males are become superfluous, and we all know which way superfluous things go in the flow of evolution ... In fact, since the invention in the mid '70 of certain genetical techniques, males are become superfluous to procreation. An all-female society would hence be technically possible and MANkind be reduced to pets. Through technological innovation we have in fact out-raced ourselves. The aberrant and crippled y-chromosome has corrected its own fault. Isn't it ironic?


Yikes. Well, in fact the reverse is possible in the near future as well, not that I would ever want it to be, it's a dark idea, but it's possible to create an artificial womb to propigate and grow a fetus. A test tube baby that grows entirely in an artificial environment. Of course there will always be a need for eggs and sperm, even if vast ammounts could be frozen in liquid hydrogen and stored.

There's a dark science fiction story waiting to be written here...


----------



## Arden (Aug 16, 2003)

I just want to point out that I wasn't trying to slander anyone before, then move on.

I can think of a couple fictional cases of procreation reduced to technological breeding.  The first is Huxley's Brave New World, in which everyone (except those classified "Alpha") are bred in groups called Bokanovsky Groups, whereby a single fetus is divided multiple times until you come up with around a hundred clones of the same person.

The second comes from Asimov's Solaria, whereby the only living residents of the planet Solaria are male/female hybrids with very small testes and a very small vaginal opening.  Once in their lifetimes these hybrids produce a fertilized egg, which is then bred in a facility, producing an exact clone.

Even today, we have the capabilities to alter our childrens' characteristics before they even become fetuses.  This is unnatural and should be left to chance.  Sure, your kid may have a hot temper or like burning things, but at least he's his own natural self and not some product of your imagination.


----------



## nb3004 (Aug 16, 2003)

i loved the book Brave New World   but i couldnt even imagine a society like in the story, although "the feelies" might be nice


----------



## Arden (Aug 17, 2003)

Yeah, the descriptions of the promiscuos sexual activities kept getting me aroused.  Rather annoying.


----------



## habilis (Aug 17, 2003)

Very soon we'll be able to play God and order abilities, virtues, and traits in our children like you order a large fry at the McDonald's drive-thru. This technology is already available, just not implemented yet because peeps are afraid of it. But what this generation rejects then next will accept, and the next after that will embrace. I can't wait for the geneto-modo culture. Please see the movie Attica for reference of this future awaiting us.


----------



## cfleck (Aug 17, 2003)

with outlooks like the ones we're painting here, that huge reset button that looks like a rock should come hurdling into earth any time now.


----------



## habilis (Aug 17, 2003)

Asteroid-induced mass extinctions(98% of all life wiped out) come something like once every 5 million years, so if you look at the fossil record we're about due for one. But don't worry, by the time a stadium-sized rock starts hurtling our way we'll have anti-meteor nuclear tipped missile defense networks orbiting this planet. So we're gonna need a bigger reset button. And of course you know it's impossible to reset our technological level in the world, since our records will remain long after we die, lying in wait for new caretakers to pick up where humanity left off.

There's another science fiction movie just waiting to be made...

The plot is, humanity is dead, wiped out completely off the face of the earth from a space-born disease, ummm, kinda like 12 monkeys except everyone really is dead, no underground survivors. After 30 or 40 million years, a new intelliegence evolves on Earth, this one's not mammal though, it's reptilian or amphibian, and they find remnants of mankinds culture, learn to dig up our artifacts and read the instruction books and rebuild our technology. Kinda like how we have rebuilt ancient greece in our architecture. Except the twist is, can they somehow not repeat the same mistakes we made - or some other cheesy moral like that.


----------



## cfleck (Aug 17, 2003)

i've read a few documents about how it is that every time an asteroid has gotten "close" to earth and we've detected it, it was after the thing had gone by.  

i seriously doubt our ability to see said rock with enough time to think about it, much less have the power to stop it.  i believe i read somewhere about the power it would take to "stop" and asteroid the size of the ones that have knocked out life previously, and the general concensus was, "no way in hell."

the rebuilding would be difficult to, as i would have to believe that over the period of a couple billion years all traces of our being except those few fossilized would be wiped out.  you have to be pretty damned lucky to be fossilized.  i think the asteroid is our best bet at not sticking around and killing ourselves.


----------



## habilis (Aug 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cf25 _
> i seriously doubt our ability to see said rock with enough time to think about it, much less have the power to stop it.  i believe i read somewhere about the power it would take to "stop" and asteroid the size of the ones that have knocked out life previously, and the general concensus was, "no way in hell."


At least not with _existing_ technology. But I imagine if we knew a year in advance, or even a few months, we might be able to pool all our resources(if we could stop killing each other for a moment) and come up with a good plan.

This reminds me of a Zeta Gundam movie where the meteor was careening towards earth at phenominal speed until all the robots got together, the good ones and the bad ones, and they all worked together by pushing the thing back out into space with the thrusters on their feet. Of course they didn't waste any time getting back to fighting each other on Earth after they were done cooperating for the good of all mankind...


----------

