In 1925 while building a railroad archeologists found urban ruins which were unknown up to that point. They were the remains of two cities: Mohenjo-daro and Harappa. One thing they noticed was that although they had the ability to make sharp tools such as knives, whose size indicates that they were probably for cooking, there wasn't the typical additional application of this technology for warfare.
There was a steady decline and people continued living in the cities, but we do know that around 1500 b.c. the invading Aryans destroyed the city of Mohen-Jordaro. However, what happened to Harappa is uncertain.
You are right that I got the time period wrong, I got out my book written by Dr. Vajpeyi and the Indus civ. existed between 3000-2000 b.c. It came to an end around 1750 b.c. at the latest. Vajpeyi "It is believed that the invading Aryans destroyed the civlization." And Vajpeyi also maintains that "whatever authority controlled the people did so without much force."
On this point, he told our class that they did not have conventional police as we would think of them today.
Vajpeyi has about 3 doctoral degrees, and is a native to a region of India especially valued for having one of the most sacred parts of the Ganga river, making him and most of the residents of the region a rather high Braman caste.
So I'm just telling you, what I said about the Indus valley civilization can be substantiated, but I will concede that much of what we do know may not be universally accepted.
As far as this being non-topical, my original post was in response to someone's post that we should simply kill everyone with a low IQ. And I was merely contrasting such a view with another alternative practiced by a civilization that, perhaps, was more evolved for meeting the needs of its members better than ours does.
I agree with h4rm0ny with a couple of things to add.
At our point in civilization, the greatest societal good seems to be the greatest good for the greatest number, also known as utilitarianism. But I think the true criteria for "advanced" society is the degree to which it provides for all people. A society is only successful when the needs of everyone are met.
Consider that 50,000 people are born every day and 40,000 people die from starvation on a global level. Is civilization "succeeding" because more people born then are dying because of a lack of food? I would say that as advanced as we humans claim to be that our claim to greatness is lacking if as many as 40,000 die from famine each day.
Consider that native american tribes and the hunter-gatherer tribes before them had no "class" of people who were homeless, and only starved in the case that there was no food for anyone.
Capitalism, does not seem to be the best system in place for meeting societies needs. Also consider a civilization of Indians (that is, in India) who existed 1,500 years ago and did not require police, advanced government, or a military to enforce rules. They lived in cities, farmed, and lived in peace until their lack of military means led to their being forced into slavery by their invadors, the Caucasions from the Caucaus mountains.
This ancient civilization was just ahead of its time, it was not stupid, for those of you who will contend that it is. If society today resembled theirs, we would not behave because of the rule of law, we would do good unto our neighbors because we would understand it is in our best interests and the societal good to do so.
Post-Newtonian logic argues that there seems to be an inter-relatedness or oneness to the world. That is, what we do to another, we do to ourselves. If we behave in a self-interested manner we see the obvious evil that arises because of it. This was the main point that both Buddha and Jesus shared: that selfishness and not loving another as you love yourself (in Jesus' case) was the cause of societal woes.
Humanities main problems stem from its short-sighted approach to its needs in that we feel that once we have met the needs of our individual person, we are satisfied.
If a new paradigm were established and societal good and its success were determined on the basis of the degree to which every person in said society is provided for, you would see a very different culture and economy than you see today. Instead of a GREATLY disproportionate distribution of goods that is say, 90% of the wealth being in the hands of the top 5%, you would see wealth be at LEAST more EQUALLY shared among all sectors of society, knowing that societal good is measured in its ability for all to be satisfied.
Also, Rousseau's social theory in part bases itself on a theory that if we were all waiting to be born, and did not know whether we would be born rich or poor, we would, assuming that the rich would be, by far the minority, would rather have a roughly equal society where all are basically provided for. This would seem more logically than playing the "lottery" and merely hoping to be one of the few fabulously rich people in the world yet to be created.
But as for the original point about intelligence, it seems that a society obsessed with production would value innovation and technology which would make intelligence important. However, I know plenty of intelligent people who have somehow missed the point of life and who also think things which are ridiculous becase they fail the wisdom check to make informed observations and form accurate opinions about the facts of life.
And again, the featured article in this story says there is a great deal of variance among those who had the genes just as a group. That means that some who have the altered gene and have an IQ which is 20 pts less than it would be may, in some cases, be smarter than people who don't have the altered gene and therefor and 20 pts more than they otherwise would.
If you think intelligence is key to living the good life,
Slashdot Mirror
What we know:
In 1925 while building a railroad archeologists found urban ruins which were unknown up to that point. They were the remains of two cities: Mohenjo-daro and Harappa. One thing they noticed was that although they had the ability to make sharp tools such as knives, whose size indicates that they were probably for cooking, there wasn't the typical additional application of this technology for warfare.
There was a steady decline and people continued living in the cities, but we do know that around 1500 b.c. the invading Aryans destroyed the city of Mohen-Jordaro. However, what happened to Harappa is uncertain.
You are right that I got the time period wrong, I got out my book written by Dr. Vajpeyi and the Indus civ. existed between 3000-2000 b.c. It came to an end around 1750 b.c. at the latest. Vajpeyi "It is believed that the invading Aryans destroyed the civlization." And Vajpeyi also maintains that "whatever authority controlled the people did so without much force."
On this point, he told our class that they did not have conventional police as we would think of them today. Vajpeyi has about 3 doctoral degrees, and is a native to a region of India especially valued for having one of the most sacred parts of the Ganga river, making him and most of the residents of the region a rather high Braman caste.
So I'm just telling you, what I said about the Indus valley civilization can be substantiated, but I will concede that much of what we do know may not be universally accepted.
As far as this being non-topical, my original post was in response to someone's post that we should simply kill everyone with a low IQ. And I was merely contrasting such a view with another alternative practiced by a civilization that, perhaps, was more evolved for meeting the needs of its members better than ours does.
I agree with h4rm0ny with a couple of things to add. At our point in civilization, the greatest societal good seems to be the greatest good for the greatest number, also known as utilitarianism. But I think the true criteria for "advanced" society is the degree to which it provides for all people. A society is only successful when the needs of everyone are met. Consider that 50,000 people are born every day and 40,000 people die from starvation on a global level. Is civilization "succeeding" because more people born then are dying because of a lack of food? I would say that as advanced as we humans claim to be that our claim to greatness is lacking if as many as 40,000 die from famine each day. Consider that native american tribes and the hunter-gatherer tribes before them had no "class" of people who were homeless, and only starved in the case that there was no food for anyone. Capitalism, does not seem to be the best system in place for meeting societies needs. Also consider a civilization of Indians (that is, in India) who existed 1,500 years ago and did not require police, advanced government, or a military to enforce rules. They lived in cities, farmed, and lived in peace until their lack of military means led to their being forced into slavery by their invadors, the Caucasions from the Caucaus mountains. This ancient civilization was just ahead of its time, it was not stupid, for those of you who will contend that it is. If society today resembled theirs, we would not behave because of the rule of law, we would do good unto our neighbors because we would understand it is in our best interests and the societal good to do so. Post-Newtonian logic argues that there seems to be an inter-relatedness or oneness to the world. That is, what we do to another, we do to ourselves. If we behave in a self-interested manner we see the obvious evil that arises because of it. This was the main point that both Buddha and Jesus shared: that selfishness and not loving another as you love yourself (in Jesus' case) was the cause of societal woes. Humanities main problems stem from its short-sighted approach to its needs in that we feel that once we have met the needs of our individual person, we are satisfied. If a new paradigm were established and societal good and its success were determined on the basis of the degree to which every person in said society is provided for, you would see a very different culture and economy than you see today. Instead of a GREATLY disproportionate distribution of goods that is say, 90% of the wealth being in the hands of the top 5%, you would see wealth be at LEAST more EQUALLY shared among all sectors of society, knowing that societal good is measured in its ability for all to be satisfied. Also, Rousseau's social theory in part bases itself on a theory that if we were all waiting to be born, and did not know whether we would be born rich or poor, we would, assuming that the rich would be, by far the minority, would rather have a roughly equal society where all are basically provided for. This would seem more logically than playing the "lottery" and merely hoping to be one of the few fabulously rich people in the world yet to be created. But as for the original point about intelligence, it seems that a society obsessed with production would value innovation and technology which would make intelligence important. However, I know plenty of intelligent people who have somehow missed the point of life and who also think things which are ridiculous becase they fail the wisdom check to make informed observations and form accurate opinions about the facts of life. And again, the featured article in this story says there is a great deal of variance among those who had the genes just as a group. That means that some who have the altered gene and have an IQ which is 20 pts less than it would be may, in some cases, be smarter than people who don't have the altered gene and therefor and 20 pts more than they otherwise would. If you think intelligence is key to living the good life,