Favorite Documentary?

[Variety of Cells]

I thought i was the king of sarcasm

Noooo, you are sarcasm made easy.  That's sarcasm so hard that people think he's being serious.  And it's awful funny when they do. 

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

Noooo, you are sarcasm made easy.  That's sarcasm so hard that people think he's being serious.  And it's awful funny when they do. 

I can live with that too

[MarkAndrew]

I'm going to go with Playboy's 'Sexy under hot lights'.  Truly a searing expose, it opened my eyes.  It made me think about life.  It made me a better, more thoughtful human being.

[BEERxTaco]

After the first 10 minutes or so I found myself dozing off...

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

and just what were you thinking about i wonder lol

[gbeenie]

There's an eight-part documentary on the history of computer BBSes that I'm dying to see.

[gbeenie]

Wow, variety. I've seen some Luddites out there, but I can honestly say I've never come across anyone railing against agriculture before. To say that your screed is without intellectual merit is a gigantic understatement.

People didn't "get along fine" hunting and gathering; the human race spent most of its history on the brink of starvation. It was only through the advent of agriculture that people finally started having enough food to allow them time for other pursuits; without agriculture, there would never have been art. There would never have been modern science or any technology beyond basic tool-using.

Without agriculture, there would be no civilization.

Without the foundation of agriculture, your very existence, much less your ability to coherently form your ignorant, ill-informed thoughts, would be very unlikely to even exist (part of the brainpower the human race enjoys now is a direct effect of our nutritional intake); we could not have this conversation, either mentally or technologically, without it. Our continually evolving and improving human civilization stands as proof of agriculture's benefits, whereas your rantings seem like something out of a PETA pamphlet.

Frankly, what you wrote reminds me of what I read of the Unabomber's manifesto, years ago. It verges on the edge between insular ignorance and outright madness.

I'm reminded of Norman Bourlag's (very possibly the greatest human being who has ever lived; a man directly responsible for saving upwards of a billion lives) statement about people pushing aggressively for exclusively "organic farming" which, by BEST estimates, could only feed 4 billion people (of this world's 6 billion) TOPS:

"I don't see two billion volunteers raising their hands; do you?"

[mrbasehart]

I'm reminded of Norman Bourlag's (very possibly the greatest human being who has ever lived; a man directly responsible for saving upwards of a billion lives).

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't he the guy who altered corn or something?

[Variety of Cells]

Wow, variety. I've seen some Luddites out there, but I can honestly say I've never come across anyone railing against agriculture before. To say that your screed is without intellectual merit is a gigantic understatement.

People didn't "get along fine" hunting and gathering; the human race spent most of its history on the brink of starvation. It was only through the advent of agriculture that people finally started having enough food to allow them time for other pursuits; without agriculture, there would never have been art. There would never have been modern science or any technology beyond basic tool-using.

Without agriculture, there would be no civilization.

Without the foundation of agriculture, your very existence, much less your ability to coherently form your ignorant, ill-informed thoughts, would be very unlikely to even exist (part of the brainpower the human race enjoys now is a direct effect of our nutritional intake); we could not have this conversation, either mentally or technologically, without it. Our continually evolving and improving human civilization stands as proof of agriculture's benefits, whereas your rantings seem like something out of a PETA pamphlet.

Frankly, what you wrote reminds me of what I read of the Unabomber's manifesto, years ago. It verges on the edge between insular ignorance and outright madness.

I'm reminded of Norman Bourlag's (very possibly the greatest human being who has ever lived; a man directly responsible for saving upwards of a billion lives) statement about people pushing aggressively for exclusively "organic farming" which, by BEST estimates, could only feed 4 billion people (of this world's 6 billion) TOPS:

"I don't see two billion volunteers raising their hands; do you?"

Oh geeze, I'm sorry.  You're right.  I forgot that Native American's were blithering idiots with no language and no art before we came along and helped them.  I forgot that they were all dying and starving, just struggling to stay alive until we came along and showed them how to farm.  I mean, if it wasn't for the pilgrims helping out the Indians, there probably wouldn't even be any Indians left.  It's a good thing we made it here just in the nick of time.

The fact is, most hunter gatherer societies spent less time hunting and gathering food than a farmer spent farming.  I know that's hard for you to take in with your extremely twisted view of how people lived before the advent of agriculture, but it's true.  They had just as much time to pursue art and religion and entertainment as a farmer had.  Human intelligence hasn't increased since the advent of agriculture.  There were people just as smart and just as dumb then as there are now.  The only thing that's different is the ability to exploit the masses, because now there are masses of people.

And I find it incredibly offensive that you put yourself so much higher than people like Indians that you feel you couldn't even have a conversation with them.  If you could speak their language, you'd be amazed at all the things they knew.  Maybe you just don't realize that these 'primitive' people that you are talking about, that lived before the advent of agriculture, still had rich societies.  They had spoken languages, and they were generally pretty comfortable.  It's true that they didn't sit on their ass all day watching tv, but they weren't starving by any means.

[gbeenie]

I'm reminded of Norman Bourlag's (very possibly the greatest human being who has ever lived; a man directly responsible for saving upwards of a billion lives).

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't he the guy who altered corn or something?

He's a biologist who came up with varieties of corn and wheat which grow well in otherwise inhospitable parts of the third world. When he was nominated for the Nobel prize, it was said that as many as a billion people have been fed due to his efforts. Meanwhile, a couple years back, the government of Zambia, spurred on by scare talk from "environmentalists," turned down tons of donated corn to feed its starving people because it had been "genetically modified" (bear in mind that every single variety of corn that humans currently eat is a hybrid; if you've ever put so much as a single mouthful of corn down your gullet, you've eaten "genetically modified" food). Of course, the "environmentalists" (who, whaddaya know!, had no plan of their own to feed the people of Zambia) are the exact same folks who castigate Dr. Bourlag for championing food science over feel-good "back-to-nature" blather.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

Tone it done guys this isnt IMDB.  

Both of you have points and both of you are missing other things.

If hunter-gathers did so well how come agriculture has brought us most of what we understand of science.  A good show to look up is called Connections.  Its shows how we got from point A) the plow to B) the atomic bomb  That was season one.
What your saying about how they spent their time is true.  also no one is justifying what happened to the indians.  However they werent an advanced civilization, any more than the pilgrims would be now to us.  they couldnt stop disease any more than the pilgrims could.  

What agriculture does that impressive is allows a small family to feed hundreds which allows others to build and work in industry thus the industrial revolution.  Modern farming has problems but it isnt the worst thing in the world.  Its not even in and of itself a problem.  

[Variety of Cells]

I disagree.  I don't buy the notion of 'advanced societies'.  Our civilization has more technology.  Their civilization actually works within the laws of nature.  Is the definition of an advanced civilization a civilization that is doomed to keep growing until its surroundings can't support it?

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

Thats not even close to a decent understanding of advanced or what i was saying advanced was. Being ignorant about diseases plaguing your people no matter how well they normally operate is less advanced than one that isnt. 


Quite frankly this earth has the food to feed the people, its there man, other things are getting than in the way.  War and pestilance arent famines friends they his associates.

the laws of nature

Please define these for me.  They are vague.  What laws are you referring to?  the laws of gravity, the law of entropy, the law of survivial?  Please work down the frame work for me. 


hope the conversation isnt offensive to ya, i like a good discussion and i can usually get one here

[Variety of Cells]

No worries.  You aren't being offensive at all.  I'll define the laws of nature when I edit this.


Ok, we are starting to get way off topic here, so I'm going to move this discussion over to the Ishmael topic http://www.rifftrax.com/smf/index.php?topic=1805.0 in the Books and readin category.  It'll fit quite well in there, because this is what the book is about.  No one will actually read it if I put it there, but oh well.  Best to keep it out of the way.

You guys can have your topic back now.

[gbeenie]

Man oh man. Are you by chance currently enrolled in a college or university? I ask because this is EXACTLY the kind of fashionable idiocy one can generally expect to hear from the modern college campus.

Wow, variety. I've seen some Luddites out there, but I can honestly say I've never come across anyone railing against agriculture before. To say that your screed is without intellectual merit is a gigantic understatement.

People didn't "get along fine" hunting and gathering; the human race spent most of its history on the brink of starvation. It was only through the advent of agriculture that people finally started having enough food to allow them time for other pursuits; without agriculture, there would never have been art. There would never have been modern science or any technology beyond basic tool-using.

Without agriculture, there would be no civilization.

Without the foundation of agriculture, your very existence, much less your ability to coherently form your ignorant, ill-informed thoughts, would be very unlikely to even exist (part of the brainpower the human race enjoys now is a direct effect of our nutritional intake); we could not have this conversation, either mentally or technologically, without it. Our continually evolving and improving human civilization stands as proof of agriculture's benefits, whereas your rantings seem like something out of a PETA pamphlet.

Frankly, what you wrote reminds me of what I read of the Unabomber's manifesto, years ago. It verges on the edge between insular ignorance and outright madness.

I'm reminded of Norman Bourlag's (very possibly the greatest human being who has ever lived; a man directly responsible for saving upwards of a billion lives) statement about people pushing aggressively for exclusively "organic farming" which, by BEST estimates, could only feed 4 billion people (of this world's 6 billion) TOPS:

"I don't see two billion volunteers raising their hands; do you?"

Oh geeze, I'm sorry.  You're right.  I forgot that Native American's were blithering idiots with no language and no art before we came along and helped them.  I forgot that they were all dying and starving, just struggling to stay alive until we came along and showed them how to farm. 

I get it now. YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HISTORY. Native Americans HAD farming and agriculture. They had passed beyond the forager stage that you so mindlessly idolize long before Europeans came along.

The fact is, most hunter gatherer societies spent less time hunting and gathering food than a farmer spent farming. 

CITE. And YET ANOTHER fact you choose to ignore is that there are still farmers and farms a-plenty. Except for a few remote, backward parts of the world, the hunter-gatherer is a dim memory. What does that say about the comparative success of the two methods? Can you honestly say that the modern farmer is forced to devote an amount of time to his basic survival equal to that of the hunter-gatherer in any point in history?

I know that's hard for you to take in with your extremely twisted view of how people lived before the advent of agriculture, but it's true.

Ah, I see. You're arguing against the very civilization that spawned you and allows you to live your life with comfort, freedom and plenty, but I'm the one with the "twisted view." Thanks so much for setting me straight on that.

They had just as much time to pursue art and religion and entertainment as a farmer had.  Human intelligence hasn't increased since the advent of agriculture.

Completely wrong. The human brain's ability to retain and process information is DIRECTLY affected by nutrition. The more stable the food supply, the better able people are to learn.

The only thing that's different is the ability to exploit the masses, because now there are masses of people.

Ah. Now I begin to understand.

And I find it incredibly offensive that you put yourself so much higher than people like Indians that you feel you couldn't even have a conversation with them.  If you could speak their language, you'd be amazed at all the things they knew.  Maybe you just don't realize that these 'primitive' people that you are talking about, that lived before the advent of agriculture, still had rich societies.

First off, I couldn't care less what you find "offensive." Your use of phrases like "exploit the masses" indicates to me pretty clearly that neither your judgment nor standards possess even the tiniest degree of merit.

Second, you AGAIN display a complete lack of knowledge of history by portraying agriculture as some form of imperialism that Evil White Europeans IMPOSED on beautiful, noble indigenous cultures. Once again, the principles of agriculture are universal across ALL cultures, no matter where they originated. That's how they survived long enough to BE cultures.

they were generally pretty comfortable.

That's flat-out BULLSHIT. Until about a hundred years ago, almost everyone on Earth, even with the universal presence of agriculture, had to eat anything they could find in order to avoid starvation.  Unfortunately, in some places in the world, that's still true. The problem then, as now, was technology. Advances in agriculture and food science have resulted in a situation where there can be enough food for everyone. The trick now is in how to get some of the more desolate parts of the world to the point where they are able to produce a stable food supply for themselves. For someone who has never had to wonder where their next meal was coming from to argue that this should not be done, for the sake of some half-assed, vague anti-science "philosophy" is exclusionary and racist.