Force

[akhalteke]

The use of force is one of a final means to carry out one's will once all other means have been exhaustivly and futively tried. There are consequences to the use of force; force itself being one of them.

 

Militants who use force and murder as their only means to deal with disagreements and disputes are being shown this harsh reality; a reality that they and Israel will share for some time to come.

 

I have no sadness for the militants who bomb innocent civilians or civilians who hide such murderors.

 

My prayers go out to the innocent civilians that are caught in the crossfire.

[STP]

As an aside, one way to look at the world as we know it, Darwinian evolution as the history of life has been one of competition, a race between the strong and the weak. The survivors in the realm of action have an advantage such as more efficient senses, mobility, protective shielding, or the most effective means of all: intelligence.

 

There is a tradeoff between traits, for instance, in time the squid lost its shell seen in some other cephalopods so that it could utilize speed. Some creatures drop out entirely from the field of action by retreating to refugia only to reemerge in some future time.

 

The question is whether there is an teleology of life so that Darwinian evolution is informed by something other than chance.

[tvashtarkatena]

That the term 'Darwinism' is associated with pure competition is more layman's misunderstanding than hard truth. Nature is a mix of competition and cooperation; the latter plays a critical role in the survival of any given species. Cooperation in nature is much more than evolutionary symbiosis; it is also conscious decisions of species to cooperate for the common good. By way of example, six different species of African monkeys live together as one troupe; they speak each others' languages, share food, defend each other. Different species of birds have been observed warning each other of approaching raptors. And on and on.

 

In human sociology, it's no secret that cooperative societies; those based on reciprocity, are far more stable than coercive ones; those based on threat of force. We compete in stable societies, but it is cooperation and trust that binds us together at a much higher level.

[akhalteke]

The nagging question is whether those that have based their power and identity on violence can join the rest of us; also whether or not we will in fact join them.

[tvashtarkatena]

That sounds more like a nagging generality. Who is us? Who is them? I would say that the Palestinians and Israelis have 'joined' each other in continual violence. As for the U.S., other than supplying the Israelis and ignoring the Palestinians, I hadn't heard that we're directly involved in the conflict, and so had to make the choice to join anyone.

 

A reciprocal, cooperative society is the only stable future for anyone, so that's the end game, the only choice, every time. It's just a matter of when, not if.

[prole]

The nagging question is whether those that have based their power and identity on violence can join the rest of us; also whether or not we will in fact join them.

 

Don't worry Alkoholeke, reinforcements who base their power and identity on violence are on their way to join you! They may need a couple extra weeks in basic though.

 

To Boost Recruits, US Army Relaxes Weight Rules

 

Washington – The waistlines of America's youth are expanding, shrinking the pool of those eligible to join the US military. But an Army program is giving overweight enlistees a second chance – and helping the military with its own expansion.

 

The recently-introduced waiver program allows enlistees who don't qualify for the military because of their weight a chance to shape up after joining. So far, the program has helped the Army make its recruiting goals in what remains a tight recruiting market.

 

If the economic recession worsens, it could help the military's recruiting efforts as people seek stable employment. That could reduce the need for waiver programs. However, nutritionists don't see the trend of overweight Americans disappearing any time soon, ensuring the continuance of such programs in recruiting an all-volunteer force.

 

"We support any service who comes up with a scientifically defensible way of expanding the market [of recruits]," says Curtis Gilroy, director of accessions policy for the Pentagon.

 

Such waivers had been studied for years but the program wasn't implemented until fiscal 2007, when it admitted about 1,500 individuals through the program (just a small slice of about 80,000 recruits). Recruits must pass a special battery of tests, including a "step test," and do a number of push-ups to demonstrate their physical abilities. If they pass and are enlisted, they have a year to comply with the Army's physical requirements, measured by "body mass index," a formula that estimates body fat based on weight and height.

 

Recruiting struggle

The Army's weight waiver program rests largely on a distinction between individuals who are overweight or obese and those who are physically fit but whose "body mass index," or BMI, doesn't meet Army standards.

 

"The point is to get the football-player kinda kids. It's not to get the couch-potato kids," says Beth Asch, a senior economist at the Rand Corporation who studies military recruiting.

 

The Army program is a "sensible move," says Ms. Asch, but to remain effective it must have oversight.

 

"There can be a temptation, not necessarily at the commanding level but at the ground level with the recruiter, who would want to slip in a kid who is overweight and has no business being in the Army," she says. "There needs to be monitoring."

 

So far, the percentage of those in the program who don't get into shape – and are then discharged from the Army – is low among both men and women. It roughly mirrors the attrition rates of those who don't take the special test, according to data provided by Douglas Smith of Army Recruiting Command.

 

The Army has struggled the most with recruiting. Although it has met its active-duty goals in recent years, it has had to issue other waivers and let in more high school dropouts in order to do so.

 

At the same time, the military is expanding through next year. The Marine Corps, which is not using the weight waiver, is growing to 202,000 and the Army will reach its "end-strength" goal of 547,000 this year.

 

Many experts would like to see the military grow even larger to meet demands.

 

The obesity challenge

Excess weight is the chief reason many individuals can't enlist.

 

It's no secret that today's youths gobble up french fries and suck down Big Gulps. At the same time, fewer are getting exercise. The percentage of young adults considered obese – with a BMI greater than 30 – has grown sharply in recently years.

 

Ten years ago, there were a handful of states across the country where about 25 percent of the population ages 18 to 34 were considered obese. Today, there are 26 such states.

 

"We know that is even going to increase because the [Centers for Disease Control] says the numbers are going to go up," says the Pentagon's Mr. Gilroy.

 

It's a big change from 50 years ago, when there was widespread fear that soldiers were "undernourished," says Linda Van Horn, professor of preventive medicine at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine.

 

Today, Americans live in an age of super-sized proportions. According to the National Institutes of Health, the average-sized bagel 20 years ago was three inches across and had 140 calories. Today's bagels average twice the size and have about 350 calories.

 

And more Americans are eating fast food, which is cheap, plentiful – and generally unhealthy. "There is no question that America is eating out," says Ms. Van Horn. --from CSM 1/5/09

[tvashtarkatena]

My God, they're gonna have to make Humvees even WIDER?

[akhalteke]

That sounds more like a nagging generality. Who is us? Who is them? I would say that the Palestinians and Israelis have 'joined' each other in continual violence. As for the U.S., other than supplying the Israelis and ignoring the Palestinians, I hadn't heard that we're directly involved in the conflict, and so had to make the choice to join anyone.

 

A reciprocal, cooperative society is the only stable future for anyone, so that's the end game, the only choice, every time. It's just a matter of when, not if.

 

"they" as I stated before are those that use violence and fear as their only tools for negotiation. "Us" would be those that desire cooperation and peace. I made no assumption or suggestion what country either side was; nor even that uses and thems were in separate countries.

 

As long as there are those that wish harm upon us and as long as there are people who use violence as the only means to voice their opinions, there will always have to be violent men to take up arms against them.

[prole]

That sounds more like a nagging generality. Who is us? Who is them? I would say that the Palestinians and Israelis have 'joined' each other in continual violence. As for the U.S., other than supplying the Israelis and ignoring the Palestinians, I hadn't heard that we're directly involved in the conflict, and so had to make the choice to join anyone.

 

A reciprocal, cooperative society is the only stable future for anyone, so that's the end game, the only choice, every time. It's just a matter of when, not if.

 

 

 

"they" as I stated before are those that use violence and fear as their only tools for negotiation. "Us" would be those that desire cooperation and peace. I made no assumption or suggestion what country either side was; nor even that uses and thems were in separate countries.

 

As long as there are those that wish harm upon us and as long as there are people who use violence as the only means to voice their opinions, there will always have to be violent men to take up arms against them.

 

Blessed are the peacemakers...

 

[akhalteke]

Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

[prole]

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."--Albert Einstein

[olyclimber]

Force is pacifism leaving the body --olyclimber

[STP]

That the term 'Darwinism' is associated with pure competition is more layman's misunderstanding than hard truth. Nature is a mix of competition and cooperation; the latter plays a critical role in the survival of any given species. Cooperation in nature is much more than evolutionary symbiosis; it is also conscious decisions of species to cooperate for the common good. By way of example, six different species of African monkeys live together as one troupe; they speak each others' languages, share food, defend each other. Different species of birds have been observed warning each other of approaching raptors. And on and on.

 

So let me get this correct, what you're saying is that altruism is an essential part of evolutionary biology. I do believe you're talking out your ass.

[Gary_Yngve]

What about bees and flowers?

[STP]

Well if you invoke altruistic behavior then you're inferring a conscious intent which I don't believe is present.

 

Mutualism is inadvertent. The bacteria in your gut exist because you swallowed something and tried to digest them. Only later did the beneficial effect arise. Similarly with symbiotic zooanthellae in reef corals. The coral's tentacles grasped the photosynthetic plankton but they were not digested. In time the calcareous secreting function of the corals was enhanced by freeing energy previously used in metabolism. Etc.

 

So are you saying that angiosperms and bees evolved simultaneously?

[tvashtarkatena]

That the term 'Darwinism' is associated with pure competition is more layman's misunderstanding than hard truth. Nature is a mix of competition and cooperation; the latter plays a critical role in the survival of any given species. Cooperation in nature is much more than evolutionary symbiosis; it is also conscious decisions of species to cooperate for the common good. By way of example, six different species of African monkeys live together as one troupe; they speak each others' languages, share food, defend each other. Different species of birds have been observed warning each other of approaching raptors. And on and on.

 

 

So let me get this correct, what you're saying is that altruism is an essential part of evolutionary biology. I do believe you're talking out your ass.

 

Well, you didn't get that correct, even though I was pretty clear about it, but hey, you gotta be you. It's a reading comprehension thing.

 

Cooperation (mixed with competition) between species and within species is common in nature. Altruism; now that's a human construct. You may manufacture whatever 'reason' for the cooperative behavior makes you feel better, but I'd guess that, whatever goes on in the minds of said cooperating birds and monkeys, such behaviour results in a greater chance of survival for the participants. It doesn't take a very big brain to imagine why.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Well if you invoke altruistic behavior then you're inferring a conscious intent which I don't believe is present.

 

Mutualism is inadvertent. The bacteria in your gut exist because you swallowed something and tried to digest them. Only later did the beneficial effect arise. Similarly with symbiotic zooanthellae in reef corals. The coral's tentacles grasped the photosynthetic plankton but they were not digested. In time the calcareous secreting function of the corals was enhanced by freeing energy previously used in metabolism. Etc.

 

So are you saying that angiosperms and bees evolved simultaneously?

 

Regarding species with higher brain function (birds, monkeys etc), if you're not aware by now that they have consciousness, emotions, and intents, well, you don't get out much, do you?

 

Little advice here: try sticking to subjects you know at least a little about. You're a smart guy, but you don't know jack shit about animal behavior.

Edited January 6, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[STP]

Ha,ha,ha...sure it could be a reading comprehension thing or you could just be an obtuse writer.

 

You're interjecting your own sociobiology onto animal behavior to justify your beliefs.

 

Isn't it more of an epiphenomenon or emergent property of competition or otherwise antagonistic behavior rather than the other way around?

 

 

[STP]

Well if you invoke altruistic behavior then you're inferring a conscious intent which I don't believe is present.

 

Mutualism is inadvertent. The bacteria in your gut exist because you swallowed something and tried to digest them. Only later did the beneficial effect arise. Similarly with symbiotic zooanthellae in reef corals. The coral's tentacles grasped the photosynthetic plankton but they were not digested. In time the calcareous secreting function of the corals was enhanced by freeing energy previously used in metabolism. Etc.

 

So are you saying that angiosperms and bees evolved simultaneously?

 

Regarding species with higher brain function (birds, monkeys etc), if you're not aware by now that they have consciousness, emotions, and intents, well, you don't get out much, do you?

 

Little advice here: try sticking to subjects you know at least a little about. You're a smart guy, but you don't know jack shit about animal behavior.

 

Right. You're on the cutting edge of atheism. Yes, morality is derived from nature not God. But that doesn't quite explain why you're such an asshole.

[tvashtarkatena]

Well if you invoke altruistic behavior then you're inferring a conscious intent which I don't believe is present.

 

Mutualism is inadvertent. The bacteria in your gut exist because you swallowed something and tried to digest them. Only later did the beneficial effect arise. Similarly with symbiotic zooanthellae in reef corals. The coral's tentacles grasped the photosynthetic plankton but they were not digested. In time the calcareous secreting function of the corals was enhanced by freeing energy previously used in metabolism. Etc.

 

So are you saying that angiosperms and bees evolved simultaneously?

 

Regarding species with higher brain function (birds, monkeys etc), if you're not aware by now that they have consciousness, emotions, and intents, well, you don't get out much, do you?

 

Little advice here: try sticking to subjects you know at least a little about. You're a smart guy, but you don't know jack shit about animal behavior.

 

Right. You're on the cutting edge of atheism. Yes, morality is derived from nature not God. But that doesn't quite explain why you're such an asshole.

 

Dood, I'm not sure I could GET stoned enough to cuisine art together the gibberish you just did for us. You're a regular verbal kaleidoscope.

 

I'm just relaying what I've read and seen presented on various animal behavior documentaries with regards to long observed cooperation and competition in nature, nothing more. I think it's very interesting stuff, particularly with two cats and two dogs at home, each with their own complex personalities and interelationships. Morality, God, and whatever other off topic verbal chaffe you want to throw our way is all about you, brah. You apparently haven't bothered to expose yourself to updated information on the subject, which may explain your inability to focus on it, as well as your 19th century view of the animal kingdom. I'm sorry I'm an asshole, but I can't resist pissing off the pompous...the target area is damn near unavoidable, and with you, its so damn easy to stick a safety pin in that big fat balloon of yours.

Edited January 6, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[STP]

Mea culpa.

 

Sure. there's selective advantage in mutualistic or commensual relationships but the point I made originally when I mentioned "Darwinian" was that these relationships begin as antagonistic behavior.

 

If you want to carry it to the cultural realm, then competition and/or war leads to accelerated technological scientific development. Not that I favor war but paradoxically it can function as a progressive force in history.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Mea culpa.

 

Sure. there's selective advantage in mutualistic or commensual relationships but the point I made originally when I mentioned "Darwinian" was that these relationships begin as antagonistic behavior.

 

If you want to carry it to the cultural realm, then competition and/or war leads to accelerated technological scientific development. Not that I favor war but paradoxically it can function as a progressive force in history.

 

An oversimplification and not a very accurate one. You've focused on non-sentient examples only, avoiding the obvious sticking points of animals that can and do make their own decisions.

 

Even at the microbial level, it's not all antagonistic. Organelles such as mitochondria probably began as autonomous organisms that parasitized larger single cell organisms in a way that eventually became beneficial to both. Various microorganisms symbiotically congregated to form larger, more complex, and more survivable organic structures.

 

Cooperation is more readily apparent at higher levels (monkeys, etc), but it's just as prevalent and necessary at microscopic levels.

 

Regarding the war thing, that's a load of oft parroted shite. War is only one driver out of many for technical innovation at the applied engineering level. War has produced relatively few of our most important, everyday gadgets. Transistor? No. Laser? No. Microchip? No. Computer? No. Internal combustion or steam engine? No. Velcro? No. Airplane? No. Beer? Well, maybe. The Auto Ejack ? Definitely not. War, with few exceptions, has hardly been a driver for basic science at all.

 

Transportation, medicine, agriculture, commerce, religion, entertainment, and other drivers have played a much larger role in technological advancement than war.

Edited January 6, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[pc313]

The nagging question is whether those that have based their power and identity on violence can join the rest of us; also whether or not we will in fact join them.

Native American Indians at Wounded Knee

[JayB]

Ha,ha,ha...sure it could be a reading comprehension thing or you could just be an obtuse writer.

 

You're interjecting your own sociobiology onto animal behavior to justify your beliefs.

 

Isn't it more of an epiphenomenon or emergent property of competition or otherwise antagonistic behavior rather than the other way around?

 

 

Don't get all sciency here, dude. I personally find the idea of pilotfish and sharks, clownfish and sea anenomes, Egyptian Plovers and Nile crocodiles, choosing to participate in cooperative relationships both novel and beguiling. Extend this idea a bit, and it's easy to conceive of them swaying to the strains of "Lion King" scores as after they completed their negotiations and entered into their chosen roles and relationships. "With your tooth under my wiiiiiiiinnng, I don't have to worry about a thinnnnnng..."

 

Beautiful.

[Dechristo]

Mea culpa.

 

Sure. there's selective advantage in mutualistic or commensual relationships but the point I made originally when I mentioned "Darwinian" was that these relationships begin as antagonistic behavior.

 

If you want to carry it to the cultural realm, then competition and/or war leads to accelerated technological scientific development. Not that I favor war but paradoxically it can function as a progressive force in history.

Right. You're on the cutting edge of atheism. Yes, morality is derived from nature not God. But that doesn't quite explain why you're such an asshole.

 

Get used to it.

 

I'm near incredulous by the sheer volume and consistency of untruths, ignorance, and tortured logic delivered in a self-aggrandizing and arrogant manner whose every aim cannot be misconstrued but to demean and insult.

He writes, not in honest rebuttal man-to-man, but as a ham eager for applause.