Op 21-7-2023 om 00:34 schreef Samuel B.:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Op 18/07/2023 om 23:22 schreef Samuel B.:
>>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>>> Op 18-7-2023 om 00:40 schreef Samuel B.:
>>>>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>>>>> Op 17-7-2023 om 01:00 schreef Samuel B.:
>>>>>>> [...] the shape doesn't seem like it was made for stabbing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think those swords were not used for stabbing but chopping.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe this will interest you:
>>>>>>
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-trade-blows-in-a-debate-over-whether-ancient-bronze-swords-were-just-for
> -s
>>> how
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, that is interesting. I wonder why there was any doubt, though. [...]
>>>>>
>>>> I think because there still is a lack of knowledge/understanding about
>>>> Bronze Age society. There are no accounts or tales; swords are only
>>>> known in a funeral rite context, so, what to infer? [...]
>>>>
>>> [...] Seems like a waste of precious material, but then again we humans are
> often driven by various (maybe illogical) ideals and weird beliefs ;)
>>>
>> It probably made a lot of sense at the time. Rites and beliefs were and
>> still are the means of knitting together social groups, often in
>> opposition to other groups unfortunately. That is the fundamental
>> problem social animals like ourselves are born with. Chimps are not
>> different in that respect, and herding animals have their own picking
>> order and hierarchies.
> 
> The problem with we humans is that our activities tend to have far-ranging
> effects. Yeah, everything we do can be considered 'natural', but we also possess
> greater reasoning capabilities, and so we have more responsibility compared to
> other creatures... Which would imply a degree of free will, which is a whole
> other conversation. (For instance if the principle of cause and effect reigns
> supreme, how could there be free will? The best I can figure is that there are
> 'tiers' of free will, but ultimately only one outcome per 'timeline'. [Each
> timeline being like a single lightning strike, and all timelines overlapping to
> form a fuzzy probability cloud.])
> 
Those are a couple of interesting questions indeed. So, we may assume 
that - at some point in human development - the impact of our  so-called 
free will(?) governed/controlled by environment, climate, society 
interactions, psychology, religion of course, etc decisions, started to 
increasingly impact on the natural environment of the planet, from local 
to global through human history. We seem not to be well-provided with 
enough foresight to be able to properly analyse our actions/decisions at 
that scale. Or, changes are going too fast for us to adapt in time, I 
don't know. This is food for philosophers and sociologists. We, as small 
individuals, cannot do much besides being conscious of what may or seems 
to be happening before our eyes and - at least individually - try to act 
and live consequently. It is a way of life me and my wife have tried 
more or less successfully of course, to  follow for about the last fifty 
years... Not that it changed the world around us obviously, but I have 
the illusion that every little drop of water finally contributes to fill 
the ocean. Naive, I know.

>> Martians, I have been told, have outgrown the problem (which is why they are
extinct)... ;-)
> 
> Hmm, I would like to know more regarding how something like that would come
> about...
> 
I brought this up half-jokingly, but it would be an interesting exercise 
of what-if analysis. I don't feel really up to the task however.

We seem to be drifting slowly away from the initial goal. ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message