Common Sense

[Butters 0]

Did common sense become extinct when some humans transitioned from surviving to thriving and then began to help the weaker humans survive?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Niki1 2]

Quote

Did common sense become extinct when some humans transitioned from surviving to thriving and then began to help the weaker humans survive?

For something that's called "Common", It's seem to be hard to find.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[shropshire 0]

+1 - it's about as easy to find as the 'Civil', in civil servant.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[pilotsR4pimps 0]

common sense started to become less and less more common as convenience arose. People are lazy today. All over. More so in western culture. We might be smarter as far as technology, convenience, and living in "society" goes but hunter gatherers (and still today) are innately and survivability smart. They know how to survive. They know the difference between needs and wants. Suicide, money, division of classes, classes in general, greed, depression are things that do not exist in their groups. We have lost all common sense, in the sense of survivability. If something were to happen (cataclysmic speaking) people would not know what to do (except Bear Grylls). Our common sense has been conditioned and rewritten (yes it can happen. It's called conditioning. More specifically it's called K-12) to serve in a hierarchy of power and being forced to pay to exist. Most would not survive without their cell phones that do everything, big screen t.v's, supermarkets (bullshit), fast food, etc.

[airtwardo 7]

Talk about doom & gloom!




I think common sense has more to do with situational adaptability.

Human beans have two modes, do what ya HAVE to do...do what ya WANT to do.

Following the industrial revolution there was a lot more time to do what ya want to do and still survive.

Take away that option, 'force' a person to survive, and that common sense gene kicks back in pretty quick.

It was interesting to watch how people used their common sense skills during the last hurricane here, folks were 'forced' to think about things they hadn't for a while, they coped and adapted.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[pilotsR4pimps 0]

well put

[steve1 5]

I think we are still more or less survivors. We may be spoiled, but most of us could revert back into the survivor mode if needed.

We haven't had enough years of evolution to change that much, in my opinion....

[shropshire 0]

Quote

(except Bear Grylls.

Bwhaaaaaaaaa..... yeah, right, so long as there is a camera crew and a motel near-by

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Did common sense become extinct when some humans transitioned from surviving to thriving and then began to help the weaker humans survive?

I was sort of talking about this around the campfire during a weekend canoe-camping trip. The subject came up about how dumb horses are. And my response was that horses have been around since dinosaur times, so they must be doing something right. But then, maybe it's just their running speed that has allowed them to survive all those eons of threats. So if you have the ability to run real fast, maybe you don't need to be that smart. (Hang in there, I know you're wondering how this story relates to the topic at hand.) And humans, with all of our modern conveniences, have sort of learned the equivalent of "running real fast". We don't have to be real smart any more. We use GPS for navigation instead of map and compass, or stars. We use calculators for math, instead of pencil and paper. We have imbued our machines with common sense, to the point where we don't need it ourselves any more. Take away someone's GPS and calculator, and they can't find where they're going, or balance their checkbook. We're becoming a lot like horses.

[champu 1]

Quote

Did common sense become extinct when some humans transitioned from surviving to thriving and then began to help the weaker humans survive?

Common sense didn't die with the establishment of societies. What died (mostly) was natural selection of the individual in favor of natural selection of the society as a whole (e.g. empires rising and falling.) In other words it set the stage.

Things like distribution of wealth, talent, and "common sense" (which don't always coincide, mind you) didn't become unbalanced as suddenly as people like to think. Like other traits of societies as a whole they emerged over a long time. What has happened revolutionarily (i.e. over the course of just one or two generations) is the emergence of the information age. Suddenly (truly suddenly) as individuals we have access to more information than we know what to do with, and that leaves us doing a double take, rubbing our eyes and shouting, "Holy crap, the middle class is gone, the world is run by idiots, and no one has the common sense to do anything about it!"

Unfortunately, this is not breaking news.

So the information age is kicked off, and just like with other leaps the human race has made, we'll see which societies embrace it successfully and which ones freak out over it and implode upon themselves.

[lawrocket 3]

Hunter gatherers know the difference between needs and wants? Huh?

I don't know how much reading you've done on primitive cultures or world history, but the history of human culture is a history of war, hierarchy, greed, and general treatment of individuals as expendable.

Individuals grouped up in order to survive. To exist you had to provide some value. This is common sense.

Of course, common sense went by the wayside when it was determined that we should pay to allow those who do nothing to exist. Rather than "pay to exist" it became "pay others so they can exist."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

It's interesting, John, to think how GPS and calculators are merely extensions of previous technologies.

Calculators were preceded by the slide rule - a mechanical calculator. Prior to that, the abacus, etc assisted with calculations and developments in math.

The GPS was preceded my maps, compasses and protractors. Technology was necessary to allow a person to utilize the things, though. Compasses and protractors needed accurate graduations. The map was put together with survey technologies showing elevations and features (and highly sophisticated printing presses) and accurate declination. One needed an accurate pace count of properly measured distances.

What these technologies give is the exact same thing as the prior technologies but more quickly, with vastly more precision, and with less effort. If my GPS went down I had my maps and compass and protractor. A GPS is also limited because it will give straight line routes that are often unworkable. A map will comfirm it.

GPS is amazingly useful for telling you exactly where you are. It is limited in other uses for ground travelers.

I do not believe that technology takes away common sense. I think it is a tool used in exercising judgment. Common sense - it's a snake so stay away from it. Google it and red does not touch yellow so it will not harm you and you can safely remove it from your bedroom yourself.

Sense is about information and judgments based upon that. Common sense nowadays means using whatever we have available.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[pilotsR4pimps 0]

as far as we know about hunter gatherers based on research of current TRUE hunter gatherer bands on islands off the coast of papua new guinea they do not. There are NO hunter gatherers left in Africa, South America, etc. There are just a few bands left. They are 100% egalitarian. No social divisions, greed, depression, etc. They have inter-tribal war, but studies show they rarely resulted in death. It is more of a "I am still here" kind of conflict. Native Americans, The Maya, Aztec, Inca were also NOT hunter gatherers either. They built civilizations using war, greed, hierarchy of power, and class division. They are in no way as bad as we are today but they were also not true hunter gatherer. All the native cultures in North and South America stem from very ancient Clovis hunter gatherers. They were true. Many people get confused by the definition of hunter gatherer. Paying to exist does not happen there either. They all take part in providing food, education, etc. It's an honor. We (our totalitarian agriculture, implemented around 10-12 thousand BC, taking about 6000-8000 years to catch on) locked up the food. We created a system of trade and bartering. With that came class division, power, hierarchy, etc. From that, naturally, stems greed, war, conflict. This is why we created religion. Due to the historical evolution of greed, greed based war, population based based disease we created religion out of conditioned necessity. But here is a question: The neolithic revolution (switching from hunter-gatherer to a more sedentary, non-nomadic, farming lifestyle) started in the fertile crescent and then over the span of 10,000 years started happening all over the world in different places at different paces. And with no communication. So is it just innate to choose convenience? That is rhetorical. We now live in a world we hold intrinsic value on humans over the natural world. It is a anthropocentric nightmare we live in. And common sense would tell us to take care of what we NEED to survive but conditioning/politics/law/religions cover that innate drive. The finite planet we live on is being destroyed by a linear production/consumption cycle. And I am not talking about that global warming bullshit either. It is much deeper and more severe than that. Wow, I went on. There is much research anybody can look at regarding TRUE hunter gatherers.

[steve1 5]

Are we on a path of self destruction? It sure looks like it to me. I know this is depressing as hell, but isn't it the truth?

The eskimos in the far north were experts at living off the land. It took a tremendous amount of knowledge and team work to survive in that terrible climate for thousands of years...

Then the price of fur went way up. A person could make a lot of money trapping for a time. Many gave up their traditional ways of survival. Much was forgotten in a very short time.

Then the price of fur dropped again. Many were forced to return to their old ways. Guess what, many died because they had already forgotten what they needed to survive.

Having the right genetics is important to survival. It's also vital to have the right knowledge base. That may take a life time to learn.

I wonder how many Native Americans could survive today if it came to dog eat dog.....

[Butters 0]

You are all talking about common sense in terms of survival. I'm just talking about common sense ... the idea being that it used to be the strongest and or smartest that survived (and replicated) but now even the weak and or dumb survive (and replicate).

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[pilotsR4pimps 0]

I believe we are too. It is depressing and sometimes I wish I didn't care so much. It is quite overwhelming at times. I believe our bodies are crying out (in the form of depression and psychological problems) to return to a more balanced relationship with nature. Or the "real world" as I call it. But instead people base their entire lives, and their families lives, on illusions such as money, time, religion, private property, death, materialism, etc. I think that we will be our own undoing. Remember of every species that has ever walked this planet, 6% went extinct do to a cataclysmic event of some kind. The other 94% died off because they were either A: Incapable of genetic adaptation or B: They were not in complete balance with an incredibly fragile planet. Look around. Anybody who thinks we are in balance with nature is insane. Literally insane. Well, we are all kind of insane as we are all in a "prison system". Our unbalance is so bad that we are affecting the balance of MILLIONS of other species. 200 species a day go extinct (real fact, look it up). That is 1000 times the natural rate. Anybody who wants to watch it, watch "What a way to go: Life at the end of empire. Pretty depressing but true. I do not think people will ever voluntarily give up the dangerous linear production/consumption cycle they have. They dont have too. In time the very finite, geobiochemical planet we live on will take care of the infestation. I hate to call my own species (including myself) but it's true. We need a change in consciousness. A paradigm shift. New programs wont fix it. Efficiency just increases production and consumption, evening out or worsening the situation. We can do our best to educate and promote awareness or just sit back and watch the world burn. Either way we're in for a wild ride.

[pilotsR4pimps 0]

because we make things so easy for survival. Medicine, immunizations/vaccines, police, law. We Live outside the laws of the community of all life and therefore you can be brainless and still survive.

[billvon 3,109]

I think the final nail in the coffin came when people started to leap out of airplanes for fun.

[Butters 0]

Quote

I think the final nail in the coffin came when people started to leap out of airplanes for fun.

I don't understand how leaping out of airplanes for fun is against common sense (unless you do it without a parachute).

PS: Maybe I should have stated minimum intelligence instead of common sense for this thread ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 3,109]

>I don't understand how leaping out of airplanes for fun is against common sense

Common sense is what most people agree on - and most people would not jump out of an airplane at 13,000 feet just for fun.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>I don't understand how leaping out of airplanes for fun is against common sense

Common sense is what most people agree on - and most people would not jump out of an airplane at 13,000 feet just for fun.

I agree. That's just craziness.

I think I'd prefer to stick with something a bit lower--just to be safer.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Butters 0]

Quote

>I don't understand how leaping out of airplanes for fun is against common sense

Common sense is what most people agree on - and most people would not jump out of an airplane at 13,000 feet just for fun.

I understand that common would imply consensus and thus I should have stated minimum sense instead of common sense thus implying minimum conscious awareness or rationality or capacity for effective application of the powers of the mind as a basis for action or response. Sorry ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[quade 4]

Quote

Did common sense become extinct when some humans transitioned from surviving to thriving and then began to help the weaker humans survive?

I know this is going to shock many of you, but I'm going to have to take the opposing view on this.

A society isn't judged on how well it provides for the strongest members, but how much compassion it has for the weakest.

What you're suggesting Butters, is that social Darwinism should rule the day. Let me assure you that if that were in fact the case and taken to its logical conclusion, there would literally be no one left to bury the bodies.

Ok, maybe ONE guy, but I doubt he'd do it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Did common sense become extinct when some humans transitioned from surviving to thriving and then began to help the weaker humans survive?

I know this is going to shock many of you, but I'm going to have to take the opposing view on this.

Doesn't shock me..

Quote

A society isn't judged on how well it provides for the strongest members, but how much compassion it has for the weakest.

What does this have to do with sense?

Quote

What you're suggesting Butters, is that social Darwinism should rule the day. Let me assure you that if that were in fact the case and taken to its logical conclusion, there would literally be no one left to bury the bodies.

You believe that if we stopped helping those who lack sense to survive that everyone would die ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[quade 4]

1) I suspect that sometimes you miss the subtitles of sarcasm.

2 & 3) Your original statement is a commentary on social Darwinism. If you talk about it at all, then it's only logical to take it to it's final conclusion; in a "dog eat dog world," ultimately there can only be one Alpha, one leader of the pack, so yes, our society collapses from a representative democracy or as close an approximation as we have today to a dictatorship.

THAT should be common sense.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver