When she was just 5-years-old, Lina Medina (born on 23 September, 1933) was brought by her parents to a hospital, who complained of extreme abdominal growth. After being examined by a doctor, a shocking truth was discovered – Lina was seven-months pregnant. Apparently, Lina was born with a rare condition called ‘precocious puberty’, which, simply put, is the early onset of sexual development. Lina Medina then officially became the youngest documented mother in medical history. She gave birth to a boy on May 14, 1939, by a cesarean section, as her pelvis was too small. The child born was completely healthy and was named Gerardo.

mollwollfumble said:

Precocious puberty alone wouldn’t explain it. There’s another step required. I wonder if he copped any punishment?

Rule 303 said:

mollwollfumble said:

Precocious puberty alone wouldn’t explain it. There’s another step required. I wonder if he copped any punishment?

He didn’t.

mollwollfumble said:

When she was just 5-years-old, Lina Medina (born on 23 September, 1933) was brought by her parents to a hospital, who complained of extreme abdominal growth. After being examined by a doctor, a shocking truth was discovered – Lina was seven-months pregnant. Apparently, Lina was born with a rare condition called ‘precocious puberty’, which, simply put, is the early onset of sexual development. Lina Medina then officially became the youngest documented mother in medical history. She gave birth to a boy on May 14, 1939, by a cesarean section, as her pelvis was too small. The child born was completely healthy and was named Gerardo.

very interesting

not really a record you want to hold.

I remember as a kid I read about that and told my mother about it. She dismissed it immediate, said it was impossible and that I didn’t know what I was talking about. I was hurt about her reaction, but was dismissed with I wouldn’t understand.

My very good friend has precocious puberty she started menses at 8. But no babies until she was much older.

party_pants said:

not really a record you want to hold.

the reality is there’s likely to be a youngest girl

it’s an interesting situation, because the girl would have deserved (and does here) the decency of being credited with being a mother, so the prejudices of age-appropriateness (moral judgement) need be softened, perhaps suspended.

mollwollfumble said:

Rule 303 said:

mollwollfumble said:

Precocious puberty alone wouldn’t explain it. There’s another step required. I wonder if he copped any punishment?

He didn’t.

Well that seems wrong.

Rule 303 said:

mollwollfumble said:

Rule 303 said:

Precocious puberty alone wouldn’t explain it. There’s another step required. I wonder if he copped any punishment?

He didn’t.

Well that seems wrong.

The wiki article states that the father was charged, he denied it, and the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence.

She is still alive, apparently.

I know at least one SciFi story where there’s a society of children who die young and reproduce at an extremely young age. I had dismissed it as pure fiction, but it was probably based on cases like this.

It sort of makes one wonder, suppose living sonditions are so bad that, for example, everyone has precocious puberty and everyone dies from a chronic disease before adulthood. Could such a society be viable, long term? Could such a society remain technological?

It’s possible that T rex had a lifestyle like that. All the skeletons found so far are sub-adult. Do you know of any cases among modern animals?

mollwollfumble said:

When she was just 5-years-old, Lina Medina (born on 23 September, 1933) was brought by her parents to a hospital, who complained of extreme abdominal growth. After being examined by a doctor, a shocking truth was discovered – Lina was seven-months pregnant. Apparently, Lina was born with a rare condition called ‘precocious puberty’, which, simply put, is the early onset of sexual development. Lina Medina then officially became the youngest documented mother in medical history. She gave birth to a boy on May 14, 1939, by a cesarean section, as her pelvis was too small. The child born was completely healthy and was named Gerardo.

did they send the father to jail?

mollwollfumble said:

Rule 303 said:

mollwollfumble said:

Precocious puberty alone wouldn’t explain it. There’s another step required. I wonder if he copped any punishment?

He didn’t.

Well he should have.

sibeen said:

Rule 303 said:

mollwollfumble said:

He didn’t.

Well that seems wrong.

The wiki article states that the father was charged, he denied it, and the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence.

She is still alive, apparently.

What, was it all before DNA testing?

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

Rule 303 said:

Well that seems wrong.

The wiki article states that the father was charged, he denied it, and the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence.

She is still alive, apparently.

What, was it all before DNA testing?

She was born in 1933.

Divine Angel said:

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

The wiki article states that the father was charged, he denied it, and the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence.

She is still alive, apparently.

What, was it all before DNA testing?

She was born in 1933.

Yeah, well. They couldn’t prove anything afainst a man’s word in those days.

She’s never identified the father, and has avoided publicity. She’s still alive. Her son died in the 1970s.

If they had the son’s dna they might be able to establish the father, yeah?

On a side note unrelated to this case I’m guessing that dna can not be obtained from cremated ashes, yeah?

Peak Warming Man said:

If they had the son’s dna they might be able to establish the father, yeah?

If they had the mother’s DNA and the son’s, they could work out whether incest had occurred.

Peak Warming Man said:

On a side note unrelated to this case I’m guessing that dna can not be obtained from cremated ashes, yeah?

Yeah. Unless it was a shoddy job.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

If they had the son’s dna they might be able to establish the father, yeah?

If they had the mother’s DNA and the son’s, they could work out whether incest had occurred.

Peak Warming Man said:

On a side note unrelated to this case I’m guessing that dna can not be obtained from cremated ashes, yeah?

Yeah. Unless it was a shoddy job.

Statue of limitations.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

If they had the son’s dna they might be able to establish the father, yeah?

If they had the mother’s DNA and the son’s, they could work out whether incest had occurred.

Peak Warming Man said:

On a side note unrelated to this case I’m guessing that dna can not be obtained from cremated ashes, yeah?

Yeah. Unless it was a shoddy job.

Statue of limitations.

Statute. And in some cases it can be overturned. But in Peru it is ten years for civil. Not sure about criminal also…
ARTICLE 327. Non-obligation to report.-

No person is obliged to file a complaint against his/her spouse and relatives including up to the fourth degree by blood or second by marriage.

While we are talking social media….

‘Electoral authorities say they are powerless to take further action over a lack of transparency on pro-coal Facebook advertisements linked to a secret Glencore-funded campaign.
Last week, the Guardian revealed that Glencore, the multinational mining giant, had funded a vast, covert campaign to bolster support for coal, run by political operatives at the C|T Group.
One source with knowledge of the project – codenamed Project Caesar – said it was linked to an astroturfing group calling itself Energy in Australia, which spread pro-coal, anti-renewables video, graphics and memes across social media.
Nowhere on Energy in Australia’s website or Facebook page is any link to Glencore disclosed. The pages are authorised to a former Queensland Liberal National Party MP, Matt McEachan.’

From here-
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/12/authorities-can-do-nothing-about-pro-coal-ads-linked-to-glencore-campaign?CMP=soc_567&fbclid=IwAR3t5Mx2CZrLwur3clW7bQJKrWN0drwGDHi_sjbxuYtPWFKmg5SUOPRS8Lo

How did that get there.

Sorry

I am curious as to the cause of death of the ‘child’ at just 40 yo. But I cannot find much info Bout him at all.

Note that positive identifications of paternity only arose in the 1990s. Prior to that you could rule various people in or out based on blood and protein matches but huge swaths of the population remained “ruled in”.

Arts said:

I am curious as to the cause of death of the ‘child’ at just 40 yo. But I cannot find much info Bout him at all.

One source says bone disease

Could it be said that humans are one of very few species without “precocious puberty”?

For example, suppose we equate 1 cat or dog year to 7 human years based on lifespan.

Cats can reach puberty in 6 months (sometimes 5 months) which corresponds to 3.5 human years.

Dogs can reach puberty in 6 months (sometimes 4 months) so ditto.

mollwollfumble said:

Could it be said that humans are one of very few species without “precocious puberty”?

For example, suppose we equate 1 cat or dog year to 7 human years based on lifespan.

Cats can reach puberty in 6 months (sometimes 5 months) which corresponds to 3.5 human years.

Dogs can reach puberty in 6 months (sometimes 4 months) so ditto.

Sometimes, as a scientist, you say the silliest of things.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Could it be said that humans are one of very few species without “precocious puberty”?

For example, suppose we equate 1 cat or dog year to 7 human years based on lifespan.

Cats can reach puberty in 6 months (sometimes 5 months) which corresponds to 3.5 human years.

Dogs can reach puberty in 6 months (sometimes 4 months) so ditto.

Sometimes, as a scientist, you say the silliest of things.

If i call it neoteny, does that make it less silly?

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Could it be said that humans are one of very few species without “precocious puberty”?

For example, suppose we equate 1 cat or dog year to 7 human years based on lifespan.

Cats can reach puberty in 6 months (sometimes 5 months) which corresponds to 3.5 human years.

Dogs can reach puberty in 6 months (sometimes 4 months) so ditto.

Sometimes, as a scientist, you say the silliest of things.

If i call it neoteny, does that make it less silly?

Yes but you are still barking up the silly tree. I suppose you haven’t thought about elephants?

Back to mundane stuff, 28 day rain forecast says only a real chance of rain on one day this month.

roughbarked said:

Back to mundane stuff, 28 day rain forecast says only a real chance of rain on one day this month.

Oops, now I’ve gone and stuffed up this thread.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

Sometimes, as a scientist, you say the silliest of things.

If i call it neoteny, does that make it less silly?

Yes but you are still barking up the silly tree. I suppose you haven’t thought about elephants?

Elephants are exactly why i said “few” rather than “only”.

As a scientist, I enjoy exploring the boundary between stupidity and genius. See Good Scientist Cartoon number 1.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

If i call it neoteny, does that make it less silly?

Yes but you are still barking up the silly tree. I suppose you haven’t thought about elephants?

Elephants are exactly why i said “few” rather than “only”.

As a scientist, I enjoy exploring the boundary between stupidity and genius. See Good Scientist Cartoon number 1.

:) don’t worry, I’m a perfect example myself.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Could it be said that humans are one of very few species without “precocious puberty”?

For example, suppose we equate 1 cat or dog year to 7 human years based on lifespan.

Cats can reach puberty in 6 months (sometimes 5 months) which corresponds to 3.5 human years.

Dogs can reach puberty in 6 months (sometimes 4 months) so ditto.

Sometimes, as a scientist, you say the silliest of things.

If i call it neoteny, does that make it less silly?

If neoteny is the retention of juvenile features in the adult animal, you seem to be looking at this from the wrong end. Something like old people having children, just because they look young.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Could it be said that humans are one of very few species without “precocious puberty”?

For example, suppose we equate 1 cat or dog year to 7 human years based on lifespan.

Cats can reach puberty in 6 months (sometimes 5 months) which corresponds to 3.5 human years.

Dogs can reach puberty in 6 months (sometimes 4 months) so ditto.

Sometimes, as a scientist, you say the silliest of things.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

Sometimes, as a scientist, you say the silliest of things.

If i call it neoteny, does that make it less silly?

If neoteny is the retention of juvenile features in the adult animal, you seem to be looking at this from the wrong end. Something like old people having children, just because they look young.

My thought as well.

in some ways, it can be said, humans are born premature, big brain/fat heads and birth canal/pelvic limitations, cranial deformation etc, + the big brain has extra structure to build, the neural unfolding, all those faculties you know, the computational wetware, that learning contributes.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

If i call it neoteny, does that make it less silly?

If neoteny is the retention of juvenile features in the adult animal, you seem to be looking at this from the wrong end. Something like old people having children, just because they look young.

My thought as well.

Look young or look like old babies

transition said:

in some ways, it can be said, humans are born premature, big brain/fat heads and birth canal/pelvic limitations, cranial deformation etc, + the big brain has extra structure to build, the neural unfolding, all those faculties you know, the computational wetware, that learning contributes.

Requires decent nurturing

transition said:

in some ways, it can be said, humans are born premature, big brain/fat heads and birth canal/pelvic limitations, cranial deformation etc, + the big brain has extra structure to build, the neural unfolding, all those faculties you know, the computational wetware, that learning contributes.

In many ways?

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

If neoteny is the retention of juvenile features in the adult animal, you seem to be looking at this from the wrong end. Something like old people having children, just because they look young.

My thought as well.

Look young or look like old babies

I might look old but I’m still a babe in the woods.

transition said:

in some ways, it can be said, humans are born premature, big brain/fat heads and birth canal/pelvic limitations, cranial deformation etc, + the big brain has extra structure to build, the neural unfolding, all those faculties you know, the computational wetware, that learning contributes.

Yes, big brains and a pelvis adapted for upright walking don’t mix very well. Humans give birth a pretty much the maximum size for a baby’s head to fit through the pelvis. The baby brain is still relatively undeveloped and needs a long time of nurturing till adulthood.

party_pants said:

transition said:

in some ways, it can be said, humans are born premature, big brain/fat heads and birth canal/pelvic limitations, cranial deformation etc, + the big brain has extra structure to build, the neural unfolding, all those faculties you know, the computational wetware, that learning contributes.

Yes, big brains and a pelvis adapted for upright walking don’t mix very well. Humans give birth a pretty much the maximum size for a baby’s head to fit through the pelvis. The baby brain is still relatively undeveloped and needs a long time of nurturing till adulthood.

Keeps the phsyiotherapists and chiropractors bbusy.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

in some ways, it can be said, humans are born premature, big brain/fat heads and birth canal/pelvic limitations, cranial deformation etc, + the big brain has extra structure to build, the neural unfolding, all those faculties you know, the computational wetware, that learning contributes.

In many ways?

the idea of premature, applying the concept, is a way of seeing it, a construction i’m projecting, it’s not necessarily technically true, it’s more a comparative view, for the purpose of considering what evolution might happen upon for extending development of a big brain.

like cymek remarked it needs a lot of nurturing after birth, which is a dependency of sorts, fairly much extending to late teens.

transition said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

in some ways, it can be said, humans are born premature, big brain/fat heads and birth canal/pelvic limitations, cranial deformation etc, + the big brain has extra structure to build, the neural unfolding, all those faculties you know, the computational wetware, that learning contributes.

In many ways?

the idea of premature, applying the concept, is a way of seeing it, a construction i’m projecting, it’s not necessarily technically true, it’s more a comparative view, for the purpose of considering what evolution might happen upon for extending development of a big brain.

like cymek remarked it needs a lot of nurturing after birth, which is a dependency of sorts, fairly much extending to late teens.

human brain I reckon is structurally developing well into the twenties, much later than many once thought.

transition said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

in some ways, it can be said, humans are born premature, big brain/fat heads and birth canal/pelvic limitations, cranial deformation etc, + the big brain has extra structure to build, the neural unfolding, all those faculties you know, the computational wetware, that learning contributes.

In many ways?

the idea of premature, applying the concept, is a way of seeing it, a construction i’m projecting, it’s not necessarily technically true, it’s more a comparative view, for the purpose of considering what evolution might happen upon for extending development of a big brain.

like cymek remarked it needs a lot of nurturing after birth, which is a dependency of sorts, fairly much extending to late teens.

When I compare magpies to butcherbirds and sparrowhawks, I see that the magpies are lacking in the development of nuturing, probably by dint of not necessarily being the sharpest beaks in the university.

I wonder who the youngest father is?

transition said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

In many ways?

the idea of premature, applying the concept, is a way of seeing it, a construction i’m projecting, it’s not necessarily technically true, it’s more a comparative view, for the purpose of considering what evolution might happen upon for extending development of a big brain.

like cymek remarked it needs a lot of nurturing after birth, which is a dependency of sorts, fairly much extending to late teens.

human brain I reckon is structurally developing well into the twenties, much later than many once thought.

Einstein said that it was up to 25. However he was probably talking about a different thing.

Peak Warming Man said:

I wonder who the youngest father is?

Biggus Dickus.

I wonder if nature would consider intelligence a success, possibly an evolutionary dead end, non intelligent (to a human level) animals have existed far longer than humanoids like alone modern humans

Cymek said:

I wonder if nature would consider intelligence a success, possibly an evolutionary dead end, non intelligent (to a human level) animals have existed far longer than humanoids like alone modern humans

Is nature an intellect?
What makes you think we cannot talk to the trees and the birds and animals?

roughbarked said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

In many ways?

the idea of premature, applying the concept, is a way of seeing it, a construction i’m projecting, it’s not necessarily technically true, it’s more a comparative view, for the purpose of considering what evolution might happen upon for extending development of a big brain.

like cymek remarked it needs a lot of nurturing after birth, which is a dependency of sorts, fairly much extending to late teens.

When I compare magpies to butcherbirds and sparrowhawks, I see that the magpies are lacking in the development of nuturing, probably by dint of not necessarily being the sharpest beaks in the university.

You do see, I hope that magpies eventually have to get the shits with the hangers on and actively and agressively tell the ankle biters to piss off or I’ll kill you attitude. Which sounds remarkably like us.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

I wonder if nature would consider intelligence a success, possibly an evolutionary dead end, non intelligent (to a human level) animals have existed far longer than humanoids like alone modern humans

Is nature an intellect?
What makes you think we cannot talk to the trees and the birds and animals?

We probably can but we seem to be unique with our abilities but they might not be a long term advantage

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

I wonder if nature would consider intelligence a success, possibly an evolutionary dead end, non intelligent (to a human level) animals have existed far longer than humanoids like alone modern humans

Is nature an intellect?
What makes you think we cannot talk to the trees and the birds and animals?

We probably can but we seem to be unique with our abilities but they might not be a long term advantage

Well, you clearly are aware that it is almost too late to start now.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Is nature an intellect?
What makes you think we cannot talk to the trees and the birds and animals?

We probably can but we seem to be unique with our abilities but they might not be a long term advantage

Well, you clearly are aware that it is almost too late to start now.

Yes probably have the next 50 years to fix things or the planet will be nothing but a shell of what it was and won’t recover for millions of years

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

We probably can but we seem to be unique with our abilities but they might not be a long term advantage

Well, you clearly are aware that it is almost too late to start now.

Yes probably have the next 50 years to fix things or the planet will be nothing but a shell of what it was and won’t recover for millions of years

We can never say never because our intellect tells us that this cannot be so whilst we still exist.
We have time, less every nanosecond.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Well, you clearly are aware that it is almost too late to start now.

Yes probably have the next 50 years to fix things or the planet will be nothing but a shell of what it was and won’t recover for millions of years

We can never say never because our intellect tells us that this cannot be so whilst we still exist.
We have time, less every nanosecond.

I suppose we could convert our entire economies into fixing the problem similar to what happened in WWII when most resources were used for the war effort. Problem is we’d need a benign superior overlord to get us to do it

roughbarked said:

transition said:

transition said:

the idea of premature, applying the concept, is a way of seeing it, a construction i’m projecting, it’s not necessarily technically true, it’s more a comparative view, for the purpose of considering what evolution might happen upon for extending development of a big brain.

like cymek remarked it needs a lot of nurturing after birth, which is a dependency of sorts, fairly much extending to late teens.

human brain I reckon is structurally developing well into the twenties, much later than many once thought.

Einstein said that it was up to 25. However he was probably talking about a different thing.

I seem to recall that the bones and joints are not really finished until mid twenties. So I imagine other body bits also take as long.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Yes probably have the next 50 years to fix things or the planet will be nothing but a shell of what it was and won’t recover for millions of years

We can never say never because our intellect tells us that this cannot be so whilst we still exist.
We have time, less every nanosecond.

I suppose we could convert our entire economies into fixing the problem similar to what happened in WWII when most resources were used for the war effort. Problem is we’d need a benign superior overlord to get us to do it

Brian Aldiss, Barefoot in the head.

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

human brain I reckon is structurally developing well into the twenties, much later than many once thought.

Einstein said that it was up to 25. However he was probably talking about a different thing.

I seem to recall that the bones and joints are not really finished until mid twenties. So I imagine other body bits also take as long.

Just as the bones absorb exercise and bruising shocks, so too does the brain keep learning.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

We probably can but we seem to be unique with our abilities but they might not be a long term advantage

Well, you clearly are aware that it is almost too late to start now.

Yes probably have the next 50 years to fix things or the planet will be nothing but a shell of what it was and won’t recover for millions of years

The planet won’t care. What we are trying to preserve is the right conditions for humans.

buffy said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Well, you clearly are aware that it is almost too late to start now.

Yes probably have the next 50 years to fix things or the planet will be nothing but a shell of what it was and won’t recover for millions of years

The planet won’t care. What we are trying to preserve is the right conditions for humans.

In that, I’m a bit different from most humans. We have been here a long time and most of us could probably be accused of at least once mentioning the oft used phrase, “I’d love to be able to start again, knowing what I do now”.

buffy said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Well, you clearly are aware that it is almost too late to start now.

Yes probably have the next 50 years to fix things or the planet will be nothing but a shell of what it was and won’t recover for millions of years

The planet won’t care. What we are trying to preserve is the right conditions for humans.

No but it would be shameful to wipe out numerous flora and fauna

Cymek said:

buffy said:

Cymek said:

Yes probably have the next 50 years to fix things or the planet will be nothing but a shell of what it was and won’t recover for millions of years

The planet won’t care. What we are trying to preserve is the right conditions for humans.

No but it would be shameful to wipe out numerous flora and fauna

If a tree falls in a forest after everyone is dead, would it matter?

Cymek said:

buffy said:

Cymek said:

Yes probably have the next 50 years to fix things or the planet will be nothing but a shell of what it was and won’t recover for millions of years

The planet won’t care. What we are trying to preserve is the right conditions for humans.

No but it would be shameful to wipe out numerous flora and fauna

For an overview, try reading The Science of Discworld. The planet just keeps on keeping on.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

I wonder if nature would consider intelligence a success, possibly an evolutionary dead end, non intelligent (to a human level) animals have existed far longer than humanoids like alone modern humans

Is nature an intellect?
What makes you think we cannot talk to the trees and the birds and animals?

Most of the time we don’t know what you are on about.
I very much doubt that trees and animals would do any better (even if they are birds).

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

I wonder if nature would consider intelligence a success, possibly an evolutionary dead end, non intelligent (to a human level) animals have existed far longer than humanoids like alone modern humans

Is nature an intellect?
What makes you think we cannot talk to the trees and the birds and animals?

Most of the time we don’t know what you are on about.
I very much doubt that trees and animals would do any better (even if they are birds).

Is that the royal we?

You probably should refer to the fact that everything else has been here longer than us and most likely will still outlast us.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Is nature an intellect?
What makes you think we cannot talk to the trees and the birds and animals?

Most of the time we don’t know what you are on about.
I very much doubt that trees and animals would do any better (even if they are birds).

Is that the royal we?

You probably should refer to the fact that everything else has been here longer than us and most likely will still outlast us.

Which is why I mentioned human intelligence is probably not an evolutionary advantage, sure we can live just about anywhere and modify the environment to suit us but eventually the equilibrium is tipped too far and the benign world we have is gone. We may just grow up realise this and modify our ways, not sure our aggressive behaviour can be tamed without genetic intervention though

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Most of the time we don’t know what you are on about.
I very much doubt that trees and animals would do any better (even if they are birds).

Is that the royal we?

You probably should refer to the fact that everything else has been here longer than us and most likely will still outlast us.

Which is why I mentioned human intelligence is probably not an evolutionary advantage, sure we can live just about anywhere and modify the environment to suit us but eventually the equilibrium is tipped too far and the benign world we have is gone. We may just grow up realise this and modify our ways, not sure our aggressive behaviour can be tamed without genetic intervention though

learn that nature is to eat to be lived rather than live to be eaten.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Is that the royal we?

You probably should refer to the fact that everything else has been here longer than us and most likely will still outlast us.

Which is why I mentioned human intelligence is probably not an evolutionary advantage, sure we can live just about anywhere and modify the environment to suit us but eventually the equilibrium is tipped too far and the benign world we have is gone. We may just grow up realise this and modify our ways, not sure our aggressive behaviour can be tamed without genetic intervention though

learn that nature is to eat to be lived rather than live to be eaten.

I must be in one of my philosophic moods but I should copy paste some of the quotes i’ve made this arvo and ponder them for significance.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

I wonder if nature would consider intelligence a success, possibly an evolutionary dead end, non intelligent (to a human level) animals have existed far longer than humanoids like alone modern humans

Is nature an intellect?
What makes you think we cannot talk to the trees and the birds and animals?

Most of the time we don’t know what you are on about.
I very much doubt that trees and animals would do any better (even if they are birds).

It is not a race. Don’t you get that?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Is nature an intellect?
What makes you think we cannot talk to the trees and the birds and animals?

Most of the time we don’t know what you are on about.
I very much doubt that trees and animals would do any better (even if they are birds).

It is not a race. Don’t you get that?

Good example, thanks.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Most of the time we don’t know what you are on about.
I very much doubt that trees and animals would do any better (even if they are birds).

It is not a race. Don’t you get that?

Good example, thanks.

rarely required for thanks given but thanks back at you for spotting it.

roughbarked said:

You probably should refer to the fact that everything else has been here longer than us …

Unlikely

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

You probably should refer to the fact that everything else has been here longer than us …

Unlikely

I can always trawl you up from the depths of somnambulance by making any comment that seems a bit sweeping and up you come with a new broom. ;)

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

You probably should refer to the fact that everything else has been here longer than us …

Unlikely

I can always trawl you up from the depths of somnambulance by making any comment that seems a bit sweeping and up you come with a new broom. ;)

actually i have just got home from a transport job.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Unlikely

I can always trawl you up from the depths of somnambulance by making any comment that seems a bit sweeping and up you come with a new broom. ;)

actually i have just got home from a transport job.

Excuses excuses. ;)

Good evening Boris.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

I can always trawl you up from the depths of somnambulance by making any comment that seems a bit sweeping and up you come with a new broom. ;)

actually i have just got home from a transport job.

Excuses excuses. ;)

Good evening Boris.

I’ll leave you with it for a bit. It is those last magic moments in the garden at mo, birds and bees and all that.

Cymek said:

I wonder if nature would consider intelligence a success, possibly an evolutionary dead end, non intelligent (to a human level) animals have existed far longer than humanoids like alone modern humans

That’s an extremely important question.

One that it would be very interesting to know the answer to. During the cold war, a lot of people thought that intelligence was an evolutionary dead end. Certainly Isaac Asimov thought so. It shows for example during his short story “Silly Asses”.