Recent Comments

1. about 11 years ago on [Deleted]

   The “necktie” evolving out of a scarf theory has it’s adherence but it doesn’t explain why it became a marker or higher social status. Status markers usually only evolve out of practical items used by the upper class e.g. swords, wigs, etc.

   It’s more likely ties evolved out of medallion worn on chains around the neck by various city officials in the medieval ages. These where replaced sometime in the 1500s-1600s by colored ribons with the color being a code for the individuals rank and function.

   From there the ribbons evolved to ties whos emain purpose was to distingush those who performed mental work versus those who worked with their hands.

2. about 11 years ago on Endtown

   The “world” has ended many times and in many different places. Until the age of exploration, even the most educated people thought of the “world” as being just a a thousand miles across or more. They were vaugely aware of other lands but in same way today we might think of other planets. Ordinary people e.g. peasants or hunter-gatherers throught of the “world” as being only about 60 miles across.

   It was easy for natural disaster to destroy the “entire world” in the eyes of many. Bronze age Greece, Myoen civilization, and the rest of the civilized mediterrainian fell to a massive volcanic eruption, an earthquake “storm” of successive massive earthquakes that lasted 50 years, and an invasion of the barbaric “Sea People.” It took 200 years for civilizations to rebuild to anything close to the previous era.

   Violence and the urge to dominate and control our fellow humans is innate in genes, hardwired their by natural selection. Only relentless moral education and often practical material necessity keep the genetic behaviors supressed. The “end of the world” removes those constraints causing people to revert to their genetically primed behaviors.

   People tend to be highly cooperative during short intense emergencies or in the face of constant external threats (either man made or natural). But once that pressure lessens, we become internally competative and less cooperative. Endtown’s success in creating a relatively safe environment ironically probably triggered this reversion to genetic behaviors.

3. over 11 years ago on Endtown

   The more I think of it, the more I think Allgood was correct.

   There a phenomena in history called the can-should-must evolution in which what looks at first like a freedom from a existing restriction eventually evolves into just another restriction in which the individual has little choice.

   (Dates of change tipping point approximate)

   The most accessible example would be the cultural evolution of women working outside the home. It started in the 1920s as the idea that women “can” morally and practically work outside the home. Then the great depression and WWII froze it for the 30s years only to resume in the 60s.

   In the 60s it was argued that women should be able to work at home or work outside the home with no cultural or legal bias either way. By the late 1970s, that was largely true. A women could easily shift back and forth with no judgement and her mate and children would support whatever decision she made.

   By circa 1990, however, the cultural message was that although women “could” stay home they really “should” work. Men began to prefer women who contributed substantially and constantly to the families financial success. It became harder for any individual woman to find a mate willing to be the sole support. Many women found themselves pressured by society and culture to work away from the home and their children more than they wished.

   Today, women “must” work i.e. they no longer have much more choice whether to work at home or away from home than men ever did. Unless a woman belongs to a traditional religious subculture, she will trudge to work all her days like a man.

   “Can” work, became “should” work and now is for all practical purposes “must” work. What was briefly a free choice by individuals between two equally culturally/socially supported options has merely tilted over to the opposite extreme, stripping choice from the individual. (Whether any individual or group judges this outcome superior in all or most cases isn’t really the point. The point is that individual’s lost the freedom to choose for themselves.)

   In the case of end town, using products generated by mutant bodies, eggs, milk, spider silk etc could evolve through the can-should-must chain to end in horrific slavery.

   At firt individual mutants “can” offer their bodies products for the use of others. Eventually, just to replace the calories lost in the production they will have to sell the products. Over the years or decades, it will become an accepted and EXPECTED practice. Other mutants will see their access to such products as an entitlement. Social pressure will be brought to bear on bio producing mutants that they “should” provide their bio-products to the general population. After an even longer time, other mutants will become to view themselves as so dependent on the bio-products that they will view any withholding them as extortion or a form of holomodor. At that point, bio-producing mutant “must” offer their body products to others. An society and the state will take concrete action to see that this is so,

   Once the greater population sees that they have a right to control the very bodies of a sub-population, a form of slavery is the inevitable result. Allgood is correct. Using the bio-products of mutants, will lead the culture to use bio-producing mutants as the mere animals they are patterned on.