there must be a lot that has not changed through time, that remains fairly much the same today as it was three-hundred thousand years ago, or much of it even three million years ago and further back

like physics hasn’t changed much, I mean the physics of the world and universe, not the formalism, the subject, not the work of humans studying it, no the thing itself, the actual physics of the world that existed extending back before any human had an idea about it, or shared ideas about it

what a fortunate thing it is that the physics of the world has had some continuity about it, sameness through time

like locally here on earth gravity is fairly reliable, it’s probably changed some over time but it does the same sort of thing, nobody needs worry about it reversing suddenly and flinging everything into space

the sun’s up there, or over there a bit now points up over to my right keeping earth in a reliable orbit, well it’s a bit of mutual effort really, earth has mass apparently, so they’re constantly communicating with gravity, earth of course would like to detach and head off in more of a straight line, but the sun has the necessary force of attraction to keep earth in orbit, and has been doing that for a long time

and the earth is spinning they say, which would explain the sun rising in the morning, traversing the sky, then disappearing off the horizon days’-end

sunlight has probably been the same for a long time, of course the power output and spectral distribution may have changed some, what makes it down to the earth surface may have changed some, but the fundamental properties of light and radiation have remained the same

that objects on the earth surface block light and cast shadows is the same

what a fortunate thing shadows have not given up doing what they do, got bored and despondent or something, needed a change, formed a group perhaps, decided they weren’t going to be kept in the dark any longer

which brings me to attributes of biological life, or organic life maybe, that also largely haven’t changed through time

say humans, for example

anyway my question is of the biology of humans, and what of human lives really hasn’t changed, say modern humans have been around for three-hundred thousand years or more, could be quite a lot more, perhaps even half a million years

there’s got to be a lot that hasn’t changed, like just walking between two places, walking is the same, sitting is the same, laying down is the same

sleeping is probably the same, and i’d venture much of the experience of wakefulness is the same

babies crying probably sounds the same

my view is much of the modern world is the same as way back, largely unchanged, which isn’t an altogether bad thing

so i’ve been contemplating whether notions of change lend to an ideological dimension, that it’s an ideological device, or can be, i’m considering the extent it may be

large part of the natural world does as it does with no effort from humans at all, further humans have no influence over much of that, so i’m wondering about the status of all the structure that is nature, the likelihood it might get taken for granted, or worse

no

transition said:

there must be a lot that has not changed through time, that remains fairly much the same today as it was three-hundred thousand years ago, or much of it even three million years ago and further back

like physics hasn’t changed much, I mean the physics of the world and universe, not the formalism, the subject, not the work of humans studying it, no the thing itself, the actual physics of the world that existed extending back before any human had an idea about it, or shared ideas about it

what a fortunate thing it is that the physics of the world has had some continuity about it, sameness through time

like locally here on earth gravity is fairly reliable, it’s probably changed some over time but it does the same sort of thing, nobody needs worry about it reversing suddenly and flinging everything into space

the sun’s up there, or over there a bit now points up over to my right keeping earth in a reliable orbit, well it’s a bit of mutual effort really, earth has mass apparently, so they’re constantly communicating with gravity, earth of course would like to detach and head off in more of a straight line, but the sun has the necessary force of attraction to keep earth in orbit, and has been doing that for a long time

and the earth is spinning they say, which would explain the sun rising in the morning, traversing the sky, then disappearing off the horizon days’-end

sunlight has probably been the same for a long time, of course the power output and spectral distribution may have changed some, what makes it down to the earth surface may have changed some, but the fundamental properties of light and radiation have remained the same

that objects on the earth surface block light and cast shadows is the same

what a fortunate thing shadows have not given up doing what they do, got bored and despondent or something, needed a change, formed a group perhaps, decided they weren’t going to be kept in the dark any longer

which brings me to attributes of biological life, or organic life maybe, that also largely haven’t changed through time

say humans, for example

anyway my question is of the biology of humans, and what of human lives really hasn’t changed, say modern humans have been around for three-hundred thousand years or more, could be quite a lot more, perhaps even half a million years

there’s got to be a lot that hasn’t changed, like just walking between two places, walking is the same, sitting is the same, laying down is the same

sleeping is probably the same, and i’d venture much of the experience of wakefulness is the same

babies crying probably sounds the same

my view is much of the modern world is the same as way back, largely unchanged, which isn’t an altogether bad thing

so i’ve been contemplating whether notions of change lend to an ideological dimension, that it’s an ideological device, or can be, i’m considering the extent it may be

large part of the natural world does as it does with no effort from humans at all, further humans have no influence over much of that, so i’m wondering about the status of all the structure that is nature, the likelihood it might get taken for granted, or worse

> like physics hasn’t changed much, I mean the physics of the world and universe

Unless Douglas Adams is right.

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

> what a fortunate thing shadows have not given up doing what they do, got bored and despondent or something, needed a change, formed a group perhaps, decided they weren’t going to be kept in the dark any longer

Unless Dr Who is right.

“Vashta Nerada · Count the shadows. For god’s sake, remember. If you want to live, count the shadows.”

> what of human lives really hasn’t changed, say modern humans have been around for three-hundred thousand years or more, could be quite a lot more, perhaps even half a million years

Well, if ability to learn goes back 1.6 billion years or perhaps longer.

https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/topics/14988/

> my view is much of the modern world is the same as way back, largely unchanged, which isn’t an altogether bad thing

> so i’ve been contemplating whether notions of change lend to an ideological dimension, that it’s an ideological device, or can be, i’m considering the extent it may be

Perhaps the only problem with the Tao te Ching is that it doesn’t approve of striving for change.

David Attenborough said:

And when you think of it that way. Wheat, by virtue of producing a multitude of nutritious seeds, has achieved the ultimate in success. Monoculture.

It certain beats being poisonous.

certainly

David Attenborough said:

And when you think of it that way. Wheat, by virtue of producing a multitude of nutritious seeds, has achieved the ultimate in success. Monoculture.

It certainly beats being poisonous.

yeah people who eat meat are conservationists at heart wegeddit

SCIENCE said:

yeah people who eat meat are conservationists at heart wegeddit

There are two ways of looking at it. Without meat no stock. Without stock or humans, world animal biomass shrinks by a factor of about five. Therefore meat eaters are conservationists.

Or the conventional way of looking at it.

mollwollfumble said:

SCIENCE said:

yeah people who eat meat are conservationists at heart wegeddit

There are two ways of looking at it. Without meat no stock. Without stock or humans, world animal biomass shrinks by a factor of about five. Therefore meat eaters are conservationists.

Or the conventional way of looking at it.

the conventional way being that meat eaters take meat from ecosystems so the least harmful way of achieving efficient nutrition to the population is to farm stock and thereby again conclude that meat eaters are conservationists

SCIENCE said:

mollwollfumble said:

SCIENCE said:

yeah people who eat meat are conservationists at heart wegeddit

There are two ways of looking at it. Without meat no stock. Without stock or humans, world animal biomass shrinks by a factor of about five. Therefore meat eaters are conservationists.

Or the conventional way of looking at it.

the conventional way being that meat eaters take meat from ecosystems so the least harmful way of achieving efficient nutrition to the population is to farm stock and thereby again conclude that meat eaters are conservationists

I think you are all missing something in this argument.

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

mollwollfumble said:

There are two ways of looking at it. Without meat no stock. Without stock or humans, world animal biomass shrinks by a factor of about five. Therefore meat eaters are conservationists.

Or the conventional way of looking at it.

the conventional way being that meat eaters take meat from ecosystems so the least harmful way of achieving efficient nutrition to the population is to farm stock and thereby again conclude that meat eaters are conservationists

I think you are all missing something in this argument.

uh we do eat plants as well, which again are conserved and lead to environmental conservation if they are cultured in an agri way

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

the conventional way being that meat eaters take meat from ecosystems so the least harmful way of achieving efficient nutrition to the population is to farm stock and thereby again conclude that meat eaters are conservationists

I think you are all missing something in this argument.

uh we do eat plants as well, which again are conserved and lead to environmental conservation if they are cultured in an agri way

our food eats vegetarians food, that’s why they are mad all the time.

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

the conventional way being that meat eaters take meat from ecosystems so the least harmful way of achieving efficient nutrition to the population is to farm stock and thereby again conclude that meat eaters are conservationists

I think you are all missing something in this argument.

uh we do eat plants as well, which again are conserved and lead to environmental conservation if they are cultured in an agri way

um yeah but conventional is more the real issue.

Arts said:

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

I think you are all missing something in this argument.

uh we do eat plants as well, which again are conserved and lead to environmental conservation if they are cultured in an agri way

our food eats vegetarians food, that’s why they are mad all the time.

Heh luv ur werk.

I guess if there’s such a thing that might be called the contemporary social environment, there is also something that can be called the contemporary physical environment, seems fair, and thermodynamics sort of makes sure of it really, so the past and the now don’t get all mixed up, all messed up, courtesy thermodynamic time is it maybe

the past fortunately recedes, seems to anyway, there probably are other ideas, whatever I don’t have a preferred explanation regard that

anyway the backbone of the now is probably a lot of unchanging stuff