Hi, Reggie. Thanks for your response.
reggiesimpson wrote:While previous tribes had flaws that we can now calculate we ourselves overlook the very real flaw that are our strengths i mentioned earlier. That is our inclination to violence and our incredible imagination.............
Is there any evidence that we are more inclined to violence or are more imaginative than Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon (who, like us, were homo sapiens)? Or that such an inclination towards violence contributes to our survival, given our extremely,ridiculously short history as a species to date (a few hundred thousand years)? Or did we, perhaps by serendipity and greater "fragility" of the other groups (and not necessarily because of a "better imagination" or a more violent inclination) , just happen to develop a better weapon? Or did we evolve as better hunters? Or were the other species more susceptible to disease as an accident of evolution? I believe I read a theory that we survived because of our evolved physiognomy, allowing us to run faster than others. I don't know that there is any evidence of our species being intrinsically more or less violent than Neanderthal, or that modern homo sapiens is more or less violent than Cro Magnon homo sapiens, or even if we are, that such an inclination contributed to our survival and to the extinction of the others. But I am not an anthropologist- I am not up on the research in this field- so I could be wrong.
reggiesimpson wrote:I am about to singe a few more hairs. Our imagination has created religion. As i noted in an earlier post regarding the soul the three great religions survive based on the promise that you will move on to an afterlife upon death. In other words you wont be meeting Mr. and Mrs. Worm.
Which are the "three great religions", and what makes them "great"? If you are going by sheer numbers, then I suppose you mean Christianity (33%), Islam (22%), and Hinduism (14%). Of course, that distribution was vastly different a mere 2000 years ago, when only one of the above three existed, and certainly the concept of an "afterlife" in Hinduism (where you could BECOME "Mr. or Mrs. Worm") is far different than in the other two.
reggiesimpson wrote: So my concern is not that we have a proneness to wipe out the earth but that our inherent survival skills (violence and imagination) will wipe us out a lot sooner and leave Mother Earth intact.
One could argue that all of our "skills" are, by definition, "survival skills"... though some may, in some or possibly all situations, have an effect counter to their presumed purpose. Maybe Taleb argues that antifragility is an inherent "survival skill". I will know if and when I get around to reading his books.
reggiesimpson wrote:The writers job should be to make easy for the reader to understand his points and especially if one delves into a 'new' concept. Thats why i have been unable to get past the contents page of Antifragile. Like you, however, i will take a look at The Black Swan.......if its in the library.
This reminds me of Mark Twain's critique of Jane Austen:
"Then is it her purpose to make the reader detest her people up to the middle of the book and like them in the rest of the chapters? That could be. That would be high art. It would be worth while, too. Some day I will examine the other end of her books and see."
Let's see if we make it to the other end of Black Swan. In my case, if I do, that, in itself, will be tantamount to a rousing accolade. Taleb is highly respected by some very smart people here. Then again, so, I would presume, is Austen. In the case of Austen, I have a hard time even sitting through the movies.
reggiesimpson wrote:Thanks for your input.