[Guest]

Are we stronger than ancient people in the following areas?

1) Physically

2) Mentally

3) In Science/Technology

[Guest]

How ancient is ancient. I'm sure I'm stronger than someone aged 100

Olympic records keep on being broken as time moves on which would be evidence towards humans getting stronger, quicker or fitter.

I wouldn't like to comment on mental development as I'm yet to be convinced that this can be measured accurately.

From the science and technology viewpoint, we have the ability to learn from what has happened before which I think has helped a long way towards humans dominating the planet. As there is more to learn from now then there was before simply by the fact more time has passed.

[Guest]

Olympic records keep on being broken as time moves on which would be evidence towards humans getting stronger, quicker or fitter.

Have anybody measured how fast ancient men ran before Olympics?

Here is a museum in my country where a sword of a king has been kept. Two stronger men are required to carry that sword to move to another place. So how strong would the king be?

[Guest]

Have anybody measured how fast ancient men ran before Olympics?

I think the ancient (original) olympics only considered who won rather than how fast / strong they were as they had inaccurate (by modern standards) measuring equipment.

Here is a museum in my country where a sword of a king has been kept. Two stronger men are required to carry that sword to move to another place. So how strong would the king be?

Evidence to further support that is something I read saying knights in full armour used to perform acrobatics!

Unfortunately, nowadays I think our (UK) health and safety laws would insist that full armour must be carried by more than one person because of the weight!

A counter arguement could be that the sword could have been used as an ornament and intimidation tool rather than a fighting weapon.

Another aside: What was the life expectancy during the reign of this king? Are we stronger because we can live longer before dieing of old age?

[Guest]

Physically: well...going way back and talking about the cavemen...they are definitely stronger I would probably say that ancient people are stronger, since they don't have the many luxuries we do now that keeps us away from the real world (point of view of people living in rich areas in places like US and Canada).

Mentally: well, all the knowledge is built over years, so overall, we are smart , but in an another sense, we are the same as people way back...

[Guest]

I think that mentally we probably are much more developed, but that this entirely depends on the quantity and quality of mental stimulation that we receive.

[Guest]

Can we build egyptian pyramids again? I am wondering how those people built those pyramids in those days

[Guest]

That's an interesting question. Did the ancient egyptians know something we didn't? Certainly they did some very clever stuff there, and it shows that the advance of technology is not a straight line. Indeed, prior to the Renaissance, technology and thought in Europe was arguably (in most areas) well behind that of ancient civilisations. But that's mainly due to the influence of Christianity.

Since then we've made up the lost ground, and I think we can now say that ancient people knew little or nothing that we don't know. Building the pyramids may be compared to flying to the moon. People flew to the moon in the 1960s but not any more. Why not? Our knowledge has not slid backwards since then. It's because the undertaking requires vast resources and we lack a good enough reason to do so.

It seems that in ancient times the building of vast and impressive monuments fulfilled a very important role in establishing the status of not only a ruler, but also the country that they ruled. Visiting emissaries would be in awe of their accomplishments, and return home with tales of wonder, which would serve to bolster the international reputation of that country. It's a way of saying "Look at what we can create! Imagine the discipline, the technology, the ingenuity, the vast resources that went into it. Now imagine those resources on the battlefield. Don't mess with us" (incidentally, the lunar landings were justified for the exact same reason).

Nowadays we could, technologically, build the pyramids. We could even do it recreating much the same methods the ancient egyptians did, provided we had sufficient incentive to throw huge amounts of human resources at it (ie. slaves, who would be probably worked to death in large numbers). But we just can't justify doing that.

[Guest]

An interesting popint...

I would have automatically excluded no 3 on the basiss of technology (it's a modern tool). Then I realised we use calculators and computers etc, to do the wrok quicker. So what about the worshipping of things that we found years later by telescope. The Dogon tribe of west africa that worship Sirius A and its 'invivsible twin Serius B for 5ooo years, as well as the rings of Saturn and that planets circle the sun eliptecally and the four moons of jupiter i think. They believe/say that Sirius B is immensely heavy/powerfull/small. And so far it seems to be true according to our (modern) findings. The dogon also claim a third star exists that is larger/lighter than Sirius B and revolves arond sirius A too. But they claim to have been visited by a three legged space ship... are they nuts .

Considering they think Sirius B is the axis of the universe, The Dogon also have described the 'pattern of DNA' ... all soles are produced in a spiral motion and matter too ... More guesses????

<H3 class=post-title>The Dogon tribe and Sirius </H3>

The Dogon are a West African tribe who have known about, and worshipped, Sirius A and its twin the invisible star Sirius B, for the past 5,000 years. They are have also been aware of the planets circle the sun in elliptical orbits, the four moons of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn.

They say that Sirius B is immensely heavy, invisible, very small, yet extremely powerful. Their understanding of the two stars' orbits coincides exactly with modern astronomical findings, yet was arrived at thousands of years before it was scientifically proven. They also claim that a third star Emme Ya - Sorghum Female - exists in the Sirius system. Larger and lighter than Sirius B, this star revolves around Sirius A as well.

The Dogon also believe that approximately 5,000 years ago, Amphibious Gods, called Nommo, came to Earth in three legged space ships from the Sirius Star System. They have described perfectly the DNA pattern made by this elliptical orbit created by the two stars as they rotate around each other. They believe Sirius to be the axis of the universe, and from it all matter and all souls are produced in a great spiral motion.

[Guest]

Where does that info come from? The Wikipedia article suggests that their beliefs are a lot more vague than that....

[Guest]

Where does that info come from? The Wikipedia article suggests that their beliefs are a lot more vague than that....

Mosty memory of something printed and hopefully I still have it coz its the sort of thing I keep - but will search the net too - back to ya soon

edit - BTW it's in a medley of info - from around the time of the other trusted writer E.v Daniken - don't say it, I know!

Edited December 4, 2008 by Lost in space

[Guest]

2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 4, 6, 3, 8, 2, 7, 9, 13, 2, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ... (as far as you want)

Are you comparing individuals exceeding their human potential in both era's of time ?

As in the strongest person back then compared to the strongest person now ?

Without chemicals ? No

With chemical ? Yes

Comparing the average ? lol Absolutely not, over 60% of the US is obese.

[Guest]

Are you comparing individuals exceeding their human potential in both era's of time ?

As in the strongest person back then compared to the strongest person now ?

Without chemicals ? No

With chemical ? Yes

I think consuming chemicals is injurious to our health, isnt it? Now a days we dont have natural foods but foods with chemicals.

[Guest]

Are you comparing individuals exceeding their human potential in both era's of time ?

As in the strongest person back then compared to the strongest person now ?

Without chemicals ? No

With chemical ? Yes

Comparing the average ? lol Absolutely not, over 60% of the US is obese.

and 39% skinny - jk

on topic - its about knowledge too not chemical - we have more information to make better choices (macdonalds or burger king) .... Chemicals are there anyway, its how and when theya re applied that matters .... Genetics are still not fully understood IMOP, and science is not always logical - in the sense that there will always be hiden surprises due to the imbalance of nature - which is why it took 13 billion years so far - now we are trying to race along in one decade.

I think consuming chemicals is injurious to our health, isnt it? Now a days we dont have natural foods but foods with chemicals.

I do

free range / organic - make a choice for healthy body/mind or more expensive toys/gadgets, besides as I said above not all non organic farming is bad - too much of anything is bad, I guess its the so called free market that is not so free or even chep in the long run - save now pay later!

Besides we do on average live longer. Not all about survival of the fitest and leave the weak to go hungry - well not so much in the 'civilised' part of the world.

[Guest]

Are we stronger than ancient people in the following areas?

All of these depends on how you define the various terms; "Ancient" as well as the three below, as well as strength itself; over all, in general, or in specialised circumstances?

1) Physically

In general; no. Not us westerners at least

We may have those few who specialise in sports etc. that have ed to them being very fast over a limited set distance, capable of lifting and throwing a particular weight etc. But in general we have no improved in strength. In fact from a biological standpoint we haven't changed much at all in such a short time (a few thousand years.) And as a group we have tended to focus more on improvements in technology and aids to our continued survival and progress. Faster vehicles not faster legs...

In many culture (all perhaps at some point) our ancestors were in general far superior; running for hours on end was not seen as a great burden, nor did walking for days on end...

2) Mentally

Again from a biological standpoint; no. Little has changed in our mental capacity since civilisation first arose.

But we have developed reasoning to a great extent - highlighted by the advent of first Philosophy and then Science. That does not equate to a strengthening of our mental capacity, rather than better practices at using and exercising that capacity to it's fullest. So Yes in a way we have improved mentally in that we have developed methodologies to strengthen our reasoning abilities, in much the same way as an athlete exercises the right muscles to improve his capability in his chosen sport. In neither case can we improve beyond the natural limits, which has not changed in any significant way since ancient times, but we can get closer to that upper limit.

3) In Science/Technology

Most definitely. But then what else would you expect? Science is a dynamic progressive process. Latter developments rest on that which has gone before, it is all about improving on what we have, not starting from scratch each time.

There is a well known saying on this concept: "On the shoulders of Giants."

It means that one's scientific discovery, and/or technological improvement, is not an isolated event, not something one discovered in a vacuum of all by oneself, but was largely due to all the efforts and discoveries that have gone before - and thus that they too deserve a large portion of the credit.

What this also means is that although yes our science and technology has improved, it does not mean that our human ability to do these things, to think and reason those thoughts have improved in any real way. Was Einstein any smarter than Aristotle? Don't know, but the fact that the former discovered things far more advanced than the latter doesn't mean much due to their places in history. Aristotle simply did not have the resources that were available to Einstein, that's all.

[Guest]

Are you comparing individuals exceeding their human potential in both era's of time ?

As in the strongest person back then compared to the strongest person now ?

Without chemicals ? No

With chemical ? Yes

Comparing the average ? lol Absolutely not, over 60% of the US is obese.

Apparently, somebody just related my earlier riddles to this one... and it makes no sense to me... WHATS UP WITH THAT??

WHERE's MY OTHER SOCK??

[Guest]

Are you comparing individuals exceeding their human potential in both era's of time ?

As in the strongest person back then compared to the strongest person now ?

Without chemicals ? No

With chemical ? Yes

Comparing the average ? lol Absolutely not, over 60% of the US is obese.

Apparently, somebody just related my earlier riddles to this one... and it makes no sense to me... WHATS UP WITH THAT??

WHERE's MY OTHER SOCK??

[akaslickster]

Apparently, somebody just related my earlier riddles to this one... and it makes no sense to me... WHATS UP WITH THAT??

WHERE's MY OTHER SOCK??

Take a wild guess.