Agriculture ends up requiring much more labor for worse quality food, but it generates more calories. Which seems very clearly to indicate that being cast out of Eden means that people now must work in the fields and do agriculture. It will produce thorns and thistles for you,Īnd you will eat the plants of the field. Through painful toil you will eat food from it Even Kalahari Bushmen, who had been forced to live in the dessert, were found to average only about 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hours of productive labor a day in a study.
The life of a Hunter-gatherer is, surprisingly, mostly leisure, because of the abundance of food and the low population density. I've always interpreted the Eden myth as a memory of the development of agriculture.īefore agriculture, people lived as hunters and (mainly) gatherers. (As a side-effect, this might also make us more understanding and bearable to talk to for someone on a different bandwagon than ourselves.) I wish more of us techies resisted the urge to see in natural sciences explanatory powers that they do not possess, and instead branched a bit into philosophy-which can actually provide some grounds for meaningful discussions on topics that are out of scope of natural sciences per se. The fact that the model works for some of our purposes makes it useful, but does not grant it explanatory powers. Taking a model, just one metaphor that fits how some aspect of apparent reality behaves in response to input or another observation, and using that metaphor to explain how things are in some objective sense (which is what I take “explanatory” means) is, to me, a misuse of the model. Again, “explanatory limits” makes it sound as if GR or QM (or X or Y) is capable of “explaining” something. I would prefer another term (possibly “predictive limits”).
#Current rainfall totals for anza borrego how to
You can notice how to a religious person this might feel indistinguishable to a competing religion, rather than an orthogonal aspect of worldview (it is completely possible to be both religious and a natural scientist).Ĭome to think about it, even your comment sounds slightly off to me in this way, primarily due to the mention of “explanatory limits”. Sometimes when you point out something similar to this thread (that physics does not make statements of absolute truth, there are only models of which none can be fully provably correct and complete, etc.) you encounter vicious insistence that the world is literally the way it is described in physics textbooks or Wikipedia-and it will stay that way until we are blessed with a new explanation for how things really are. What I find tragic is that STEM-inclined crowd might have sort of triggered that defensive reaction by supplanting religion directly with natural sciences. (The fact that one can only adopt it given values/traits/issues that let one seriously believe in those conspiracies may also make it useful for social signaling.) It is inelegant, illogical, and cannot be stated without involving a host of conspiracies of low probability. It appears to be more focused on finding elaborate ways to deny other theories rather than seeking truth. This is all natural and human and as with all human things it functions well until it fails catastrophicallyįlat Earth is more of a sign of protest masquerading as a theory rather than an actual theory. Some of those people extend their feeling of responsibility to also shame people for not shaming other people.
Other people instead think it's their responsibility to apply some sort of pressure from outside and failure to even attempt to do so extends the responsibility of the inaction to them too.
Some people observe that the issue is under somebody else's direct responsibility but draw the conclusion that the responsibility chain ends there. It generally means that there is not enough collective awareness about an issue for the people involved to have enough incentives to do the right thing.
My point is that this is what it's usually meant by "we are not doing anything about it". What if they don't care? Somebody else should pressure them into caring so they can pressure the ones who can do something about it. Why would these other people make the first group of people take a stand? Because they care. Why would they have to take a stand? Ah because other people would make them take a stand.
0 kommentar(er)
