Janic wrote:It is better, because there, it does not revolt you!As for your "food holocaust by taste of blood", I prefer to refrain from any comment ...
Obviously you still speak without knowing.
Janic wrote:It is better, because there, it does not revolt you!As for your "food holocaust by taste of blood", I prefer to refrain from any comment ...
dede2002 wrote:* To some humans, hence our unequal society ...
sen-no-sen wrote:realistic ecology wrote:By ignoring the innate behaviors that are one of the important causes of these phenomena, we dismiss the possibility of finding solutions.
I have studied bio-sociology enough to understand the question of innate characters ... thank you.
But our innate characters are not modifiable over such short periods of time and the temptation to "tinker" them is not currently possible, and if it were to become possible to do so it could spell the end of our species.
it is good countermeasures that we need today, much more anyway than a plethora of invasive technologies.
Ahmed wrote:This tendency which would push "to consume" everything, immediately "is not observed in predators in a natural environment;
sen-no-sen wrote:By definition, a large society tends to become naturally unequal.]
like the matriarchal tribes. Except that, in general, it is the most competent who are elected to preserve the pack, not the most opportunistic.With almost always the unequaled man - woman.
That's right, no more than you do about me. I just notice the double standard, which is not specific to you, with the defenders of small beasts, like the biggest, against their planetary holocaust, but except when they are on their plate where a kind of loss of consciousness, a black hole, which does not resume until they leave the table.Obviously you still speak without knowing.Janic wrote:It is better, because there, it does not revolt you!As for your "food holocaust by taste of blood", I prefer to refrain from any comment ...
The fact that there are some egalitarian societies, under special conditions does not cancel the general case that history tells and that we observe almost everywhere today.
It seems to me that there has always been a tribal chief, even in the smallest tribes.
realistic ecology wrote:I notice that we are going in circles, with a part of overinterpretation compared to what is written.
Who intends to tinker with the human genome? Certainly not me.
Who does not admit that cultures also weigh on our behavior? Certainly not me.
realistic ecology wrote:It seems to me that there has always been a tribal chief, even in the smallest tribes.
As in a pack of wolves of 20 individuals.
With almost always the unequaled man - woman.
It is more or less the same in monkeys, most of the theses formulated on hierarchical supremacy were carried out on animals in captivity.
Ultra-violent behavior exists, but is observed in the zoo and is induced by the conditions of detention. Obviously, we find the same thing in humans in incarceration ... or society.
Among wolves there is an "alpha couple" which exerts its domination over its offspring, the pack is generally a large family rather than a clan made up of oppressors and oppressed.
sen-no-sen wrote:dede2002 wrote:We note all the same that all animals flee from man, whether he is hungry or not.
Go tell that to crabs!
Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 172 guests