An interesting piece in today's WaPo. DISCUSS
QuoteIn the long run, wars make us safer and richer
By Ian Morris, Published: April 25
washingtonpost.com
Ian Morris, a professor of classics at Stanford University, is the author of "War! What is it Good For? Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots."
Norman Angell, the Paris editor of Britain's Daily Mail, was a man who expected to be listened to. Yet even he was astonished by the success of his book "The Great Illusion," in which he announced that war had put itself out of business. "The day for progress by force has passed," he explained. From now on, "it will be progress by ideas or not at all."
He wrote these words in 1910. One politician after another lined up to praise the book. Four years later, the same men started World War I. By 1918, they had killed 15 million people; by 1945, the death toll from two world wars had passed 100 million and a nuclear arms race had begun. In 1983, U.S. war games suggested that an all-out battle with the Soviet Union would kill a billion people — at the time, one human in five — in the first few weeks. And today, a century after the beginning of the Great War, civil war is raging in Syria, tanks are massing on Ukraine's borders and a fight against terrorism seems to have no end.
So yes, war is hell — but have you considered the alternatives? When looking upon the long run of history, it becomes clear that through 10,000 years of conflict, humanity has created larger, more organized societies that have greatly reduced the risk that their members will die violently. These better organized societies also have created the conditions for higher living standards and economic growth. War has not only made us safer, but richer, too.
Thinkers have long grappled with the relationships among peace, war and strength. Thomas Hobbes wrote his case for strong government, "Leviathan," as the English Civil War raged around him in the 1640s. German sociologist Norbert Elias's two-volume treatise, "The Civilizing Process," published on the eve of World War II, argued that Europe had become a more peaceful place in the five centuries leading to his own day. The difference is that now we have the evidence to prove their case.
Take the long view. The world of the Stone Age, for instance, was a rough place; 10,000 years ago, if someone used force to settle an argument, he or she faced few constraints. Killing was normally on a small scale, in homicides, vendettas and raids, but because populations were tiny, the steady drip of low-level killing took an appalling toll. By many estimates, 10 to 20 percent of all Stone Age humans died at the hands of other people.
This puts the past 100 years in perspective. Since 1914, we have endured world wars, genocides and government-sponsored famines, not to mention civil strife, riots and murders. Altogether, we have killed a staggering 100 million to 200 million of our own kind. But over the century, about 10 billion lives were lived — which means that just 1 to 2 percent of the world's population died violently. Those lucky enough to be born in the 20th century were on average 10 times less likely to come to a grisly end than those born in the Stone Age. And since 2000, the United Nations tells us, the risk of violent death has fallen even further, to 0.7 percent.
As this process unfolded, humanity prospered. Ten thousand years ago, when the planet's population was 6 million or so, people lived about 30 years on average and supported themselves on the equivalent income of about $2 per day. Now, more than 7 billion people are on Earth, living more than twice as long (an average of 67 years), and with an average income of $25 per day.
This happened because about 10,000 years ago, the winners of wars began incorporating the losers into larger societies. The victors found that the only way to make these larger societies work was by developing stronger governments; and one of the first things these governments had to do, if they wanted to stay in power, was suppress violence among their subjects.
The men who ran these governments were no saints. They cracked down on killing not out of the goodness of their hearts but because well-behaved subjects were easier to govern and tax than angry, murderous ones. The unintended consequence, though, was that they kick-started the process through which rates of violent death plummeted between the Stone Age and the 20th century.
This process was brutal. Whether it was the Romans in Britain or the British in India, pacification could be just as bloody as the savagery it stamped out. Yet despite the Hitlers, Stalins and Maos, over 10,000 years, war made states, and states made peace.
War may well be the worst way imaginable to create larger, more peaceful societies, but the depressing fact is that it is pretty much the only way . If only the Roman Empire could have been created without killing millions of Gauls and Greeks, if the United States could have been built without killing millions of Native Americans, if these and countless conflicts could have been resolved by discussion instead of force. But this did not happen. People almost never give up their freedoms — including, at times, the right to kill and impoverish one another — unless forced to do so; and virtually the only force strong enough to bring this about has been defeat in war or fear that such a defeat is imminent.
The civilizing process also was uneven. Violence spiked up and down. For 1,000 years — beginning before Attila the Hun in the AD 400s and ending after Genghis Khan in the 1200s — mounted invaders from the steppes actually threw the process of pacification into reverse everywhere from China to Europe, with war breaking down larger, safer societies into smaller, more dangerous ones. Only in the 1600s did big, settled states find an answer to the nomads, in the shape of guns that delivered enough firepower to stop horsemen in their tracks. Combining these guns with new, oceangoing ships, Europeans exported unprecedented amounts of violence around the world. The consequences were terrible; and yet they created the largest societies yet seen, driving rates of violent death lower than ever before.
By the 18th century, vast European empires straddled the oceans, and Scottish philosopher Adam Smith saw that something new was happening. For millennia, conquest, plunder and taxes had made rulers rich, but now, Smith realized, markets were so big that a new path to the wealth of nations was opening. Taking it, however, was complicated. Markets would work best if governments got out of them, leaving people to truck and barter; but markets would only work at all if governments got into them, enforcing their rules and keeping trade free. The solution, Smith implied, was not a Leviathan but a kind of super-Leviathan that would police global trade.
After Napoleon's defeat in 1815, this was precisely what the world got. Britain was the only industrialized economy on Earth, and it projected power as far away as India and China. Because its wealth came from exporting goods and services, it used its financial and naval muscle to deter rivals from threatening the international order. Wars did not end — the United States and China endured civil strife, European armies marched deep into Africa and India — but overall, for 99 years, the planet grew more peaceful and prosperous under Britain's eye.
However, the Pax Britannica rested on a paradox. To sell its goods and services, Britain needed other countries to be rich enough to buy them. That meant that, like it or not, Britain had to encourage other nations to industrialize and accumulate wealth. The economic triumph of the 19th-century British world system, however, was simultaneously a strategic disaster. Thanks in significant part to British capital and expertise, the United States and Germany had turned into industrial giants by the 1870s, and doubts began growing about Britain's ability to police the global order. The more successful the globocop was at doing its job, the more difficult that job became.
By the 1910s, some of the politicians who had so admired Angell's "Great Illusion" had concluded that war was no longer the worst of their options. The violence they unleashed bankrupted Britain and threw the world into chaos. Not until 1989 did the wars and almost wars finally end, when the Soviet collapse left the United States as a much more powerful policeman than Britain had ever been.
Like its predecessor, the United States oversaw a huge expansion of trade, intimidated other countries into not making wars that would disturb the world order, and drove rates of violent death even lower. But again like Britain, America made its money by helping trading partners become richer, above all China, which, since 2000, has looked increasingly like a potential rival. The cycle that Britain experienced may be in store for the United States as well, unless Washington embraces its role as the only possible globocop in an increasingly unstable world — a world with far deadlier weapons than Britain could have imagined a century ago.
American attitudes toward government are therefore not just some Beltway debate; they matter to everyone on Earth. "Government," Ronald Reagan assured Americans in his first inaugural address, "is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Reagan's great fear — that bloated government would stifle individual freedom — shows just how far the continuing debates over the merits of big and small government have taken us from the horrors that worried Hobbes. "The 10 most dangerous words in the English language," Reagan said on another occasion, "are 'Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.' " As Hobbes could have told him, in reality the 10 scariest words are, "There is no government and I'm here to kill you."
To people in virtually any age before our own, the only argument that mattered was between extremely small government and no government at all. Extremely small government meant there was at least some law and order; no government meant that there was not.
I suspect even Reagan would have agreed. "One legislator accused me of having a 19th-century attitude on law and order," Reagan said when he was governor of California. "That is a totally false charge. I have an 18th-century attitude. That is when the Founding Fathers made it clear that the safety of law-abiding citizens should be one of the government's primary concerns."
Quote
The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide.
Is this guy's class one of the ones available online for free?
I'd say it's larger than just war. It's chaos that makes things happen, and war is only one form of that. Structures build up, get too big for themselves and entropy takes it to a simpler state. The transition is some form of chaos, and war is maybe the most common one.
I think Western Europe is not necessarily a typical example of human development. If anything, it's more of a happy accident. Wars don't really make you richer if you live in a hostile environment, and dedicating limited resources to economic development rather than wasteful arms race means getting pillaged by a more militaristic neighbor.
I'd like a Proconsular command. Somewhere sunny but with out islamics or jungle. Maybe Australia.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 28, 2014, 09:32:36 PM
Quote
The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide.
Sounds a little like this - which I've not actually read, but it's on my wishlist:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Tamerlane-Global-Empires-1400-2000/dp/0141010223
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 28, 2014, 09:34:26 PM
I'd like a Proconsular command. Somewhere sunny but with out islamics or jungle. Maybe Australia.
Sun-addled, boozed-up Brits instead? Give me malarial swamps any day.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 28, 2014, 09:39:29 PM
Sounds a little like this - which I've not actually read, but it's on my wishlist:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Tamerlane-Global-Empires-1400-2000/dp/0141010223
I think Darwin's specialty is the British Empire. Most of the stuff I've seen of his in the past have been about that. I might get this on the kindle for the long flights coming up though.
My quote is the opening of San Guo Yan Yi, of course.
Quote"The 10 most dangerous words in the English language," Reagan said on another occasion, "are 'Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.' " As Hobbes could have told him, in reality the 10 scariest words are, "There is no government and I'm here to kill you."
:lol: I liked this line.
Overall, I liked the cut of his statist jib.
Wars are like economic downturns, the longer you don't have a big one, the more likely you are to have one.
Quote from: PJL on April 29, 2014, 02:55:46 AM
Wars are like economic downturns, the longer you don't have a big one, the more likely you are to have one.
And the bigger it will be when it comes? :hmm:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 29, 2014, 03:28:22 AM
Quote from: PJL on April 29, 2014, 02:55:46 AM
Wars are like economic downturns, the longer you don't have a big one, the more likely you are to have one.
And the bigger it will be when it comes? :hmm:
Correct.
Nukes can solve the problem mentioned in the article.
Very muddled argument.
QuoteAs this process unfolded, humanity prospered. Ten thousand years ago, when the planet's population was 6 million or so, people lived about 30 years on average and supported themselves on the equivalent income of about $2 per day.
Thing is, the life expectancy and income levels were basically the same c. 1800, albeit with a larger population. Even in the most develped parts of the world (Western Europe) life expectancy was around 40 or so and income levels in the range of $3-4 per day.
Almost all of the progress in living standards in all of world history has occured in the last 200 years, and the bulk of that has occurred since 1950.
1950-1980, anyway.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 29, 2014, 10:13:53 AM
1950-1980, anyway.
Your birth wasn't the global disaster that your ego would make it to be.
Well the good news I guess is we've been at war nearly non-stop for fifteen years. Are we rich yet?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 29, 2014, 01:16:38 PM
Well the good news I guess is we've been at war nearly non-stop for fifteen years. Are we rich yet?
I can say for sure that it hasn't trickled down this far yet.
So war really is peace :hmm:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2014, 10:10:03 AM
Very muddled argument.
QuoteAs this process unfolded, humanity prospered. Ten thousand years ago, when the planet's population was 6 million or so, people lived about 30 years on average and supported themselves on the equivalent income of about $2 per day.
Thing is, the life expectancy and income levels were basically the same c. 1800, albeit with a larger population. Even in the most develped parts of the world (Western Europe) life expectancy was around 40 or so and income levels in the range of $3-4 per day.
Almost all of the progress in living standards in all of world history has occured in the last 200 years, and the bulk of that has occurred since 1950.
I'm pretty sure a subsistence farmer in 1800 had a higher living standard than a hunter gatherer who lived 10,000 years ago.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 29, 2014, 07:11:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2014, 10:10:03 AM
Very muddled argument.
QuoteAs this process unfolded, humanity prospered. Ten thousand years ago, when the planet's population was 6 million or so, people lived about 30 years on average and supported themselves on the equivalent income of about $2 per day.
Thing is, the life expectancy and income levels were basically the same c. 1800, albeit with a larger population. Even in the most develped parts of the world (Western Europe) life expectancy was around 40 or so and income levels in the range of $3-4 per day.
Almost all of the progress in living standards in all of world history has occured in the last 200 years, and the bulk of that has occurred since 1950.
I'm pretty sure a subsistence farmer in 1800 had a higher living standard than a hunter gatherer who lived 10,000 years ago.
Yes, but according to the Tim metric, a welfare recipient in Detroit circa 20now has a higher living standard than a Viking chieftain...
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 29, 2014, 07:48:27 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 29, 2014, 07:11:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2014, 10:10:03 AM
Very muddled argument.
QuoteAs this process unfolded, humanity prospered. Ten thousand years ago, when the planet's population was 6 million or so, people lived about 30 years on average and supported themselves on the equivalent income of about $2 per day.
Thing is, the life expectancy and income levels were basically the same c. 1800, albeit with a larger population. Even in the most develped parts of the world (Western Europe) life expectancy was around 40 or so and income levels in the range of $3-4 per day.
Almost all of the progress in living standards in all of world history has occured in the last 200 years, and the bulk of that has occurred since 1950.
I'm pretty sure a subsistence farmer in 1800 had a higher living standard than a hunter gatherer who lived 10,000 years ago.
Yes, but according to the Tim metric, a welfare recipient in Detroit circa 20now has a higher living standard than a Viking chieftain...
I think that's a standard held by anyone that's not brain damaged.
Higher living standard does not equal success nor happiness. Never has. Never will, actually.
A higher living standard would make me happier.
Quote from: fhdz on April 29, 2014, 08:12:06 PM
Higher living standard does not equal success nor happiness. Never has. Never will, actually.
The hell it doesn't.
I'm happy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 29, 2014, 07:11:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2014, 10:10:03 AM
Very muddled argument.
QuoteAs this process unfolded, humanity prospered. Ten thousand years ago, when the planet's population was 6 million or so, people lived about 30 years on average and supported themselves on the equivalent income of about $2 per day.
Thing is, the life expectancy and income levels were basically the same c. 1800, albeit with a larger population. Even in the most develped parts of the world (Western Europe) life expectancy was around 40 or so and income levels in the range of $3-4 per day.
Almost all of the progress in living standards in all of world history has occured in the last 200 years, and the bulk of that has occurred since 1950.
I'm pretty sure a subsistence farmer in 1800 had a higher living standard than a hunter gatherer who lived 10,000 years ago.
I know I am going to hate myself in the morning but here it goes.
Why do you think that timmay? Hunter gatherers were healthier and lived longer than the farmers that settled the first cities.
Quote from: fhdz on April 29, 2014, 08:12:06 PM
Higher living standard does not equal success nor happiness. Never has. Never will, actually.
Perhaps not, but lower living standard does tend to equal unhappiness, at least for those aware of it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 29, 2014, 11:18:54 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 29, 2014, 07:11:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2014, 10:10:03 AM
Very muddled argument.
QuoteAs this process unfolded, humanity prospered. Ten thousand years ago, when the planet's population was 6 million or so, people lived about 30 years on average and supported themselves on the equivalent income of about $2 per day.
Thing is, the life expectancy and income levels were basically the same c. 1800, albeit with a larger population. Even in the most develped parts of the world (Western Europe) life expectancy was around 40 or so and income levels in the range of $3-4 per day.
Almost all of the progress in living standards in all of world history has occured in the last 200 years, and the bulk of that has occurred since 1950.
I'm pretty sure a subsistence farmer in 1800 had a higher living standard than a hunter gatherer who lived 10,000 years ago.
I know I am going to hate myself in the morning but here it goes.
Why do you think that timmay? Hunter gatherers were healthier and lived longer than the farmers that settled the first cities.
Yeah, so what? We aren't talking about the inhabitants of the first cities nine thousand years ago, we're talking about people who live in the 19th century.
People with steel tools, and vastly more sophisticated architecture and agriculture.
An actual subsistence farmer in 1800 - say a Russian serf or a Chinese peasant - would probably not have a materially higher standard of living then an Old Stone Age hunter-gatherer. For the reasons Ideologue suggests, it might have been lower. The fact that such a farmer might have access to tools with which he would do more work and yet receive less nutritive benefit is not a plus.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2014, 10:06:00 AM
For the reasons Ideologue suggests, it might have been lower.
Well, I don't go so far as to blame conditions in the Iron Age on Ronald Reagan. :unsure:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2014, 10:06:00 AM
An actual subsistence farmer in 1800 - say a Russian serf or a Chinese peasant - would probably not have a materially higher standard of living then an Old Stone Age hunter-gatherer. For the reasons Ideologue suggests, it might have been lower. The fact that such a farmer might have access to tools with which he would do more work and yet receive less nutritive benefit is not a plus.
Old Stone Age hunter gathers rarely lived older than 30 let alone 40, a Chinese peasant that survived childhood could live into his 50s or even 60s if he's lucky.
Modern hunter-gatherers who live traditional lifestyles can and do live well past 40. There is no reason to think this wasn't true in the Stone Age as well.
Tim, one way of thinking about it is that until recently human populations stayed at roughly their carrying capacity. Improvements in technology improved the carrying capacity of the land, but that just meant that there were higher densities of people living on the brink.
A subsistence farmer was on the brink. In the late 18th/early 19th century, depending on where we are talking about, he didn't have access much technology that would improve his life from a medical or entertainment perspective.
In some ways, hunter gatherers may have been better off. They arguably had more time for leisure and a more varied diet. I think he also had a chance to live into his 50s or 60s if lucky.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 30, 2014, 10:25:53 AM
In some ways, hunter gatherers may have been better off. They arguably had more time for leisure and a more varied diet. I think he also had a chance to live into his 50s or 60s if lucky.
From what I have heard about Hunter-Gatherers is that under normal circumstances they are really good at what they do. They usually have all the food they need by midmorning and just hang out the rest of the day.
There's a few reasons to think that Old Stone Age h-gs might have had longevity problems. One is the hypothesis that violence (raiding) was endemic in this period - but that hardly supports the conclusion that war is good. It's also possible that animal predators were more prevalent during an epoch of much lower density human settlement. In terms of living a peaceful life, it was probably better to be a Russian serf or Chinese peasant c. 1800. Unless of course that village was overrun by French troops or Cossacks. Or unless there was a nasty outbreak of communicative disease.
Living standards in western Europe were significantly higher in 1800 than in the Stone Age. An average income of $3-4/day implies living standards of around double of subsistence. Even taking into account unequal distribution, that is still a lot of people better off. But that needs to be compared to over $10/day by 1913 or over $50/day by 2000. The progress made up from the beginning of time to the early 1800s was glacially slow. If wars were having some kind of beneficial impact, it sure took a very, very long time for it to become manifest.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2014, 10:42:47 AM
Living standards in western Europe were significantly higher in 1800 than in the Stone Age. An average income of $3-4/day implies living standards of around double of subsistence. Even taking into account unequal distribution, that is still a lot of people better off. But that needs to be compared to over $10/day by 1913 or over $50/day by 2000. The progress made up from the beginning of time to the early 1800s was glacially slow. If wars were having some kind of beneficial impact, it sure took a very, very long time for it to become manifest.
Even in early industrial cities? My understanding was that British city-dwellers had a far lower life expectancy than even the rural poor in the early 19th century.
Here is an interesting bit related to life expectancy of stone age hunter gatherers. To the list JR mentioned add infant mortality as a factor which lowers the average life expectancy but as the author notes those that lived past the dangers present in their world went on to live long lives. The article goes on to note the negative impact of leaving the hunter gatherer life for agriculture. Conditions which would be similar to the analogy Timmay proposed.
QuoteConventional wisdom states that life expectancy prior to the Agricultural Revolution was about 18 years and that our distant ancestors rarely survived beyond the age of 30. The first figure is correct but the second is not. Life expectancy is an average, not a maximum. When infant mortality is high it drags down the average life expectancy. Lots of babies died back then for the same reason that they do now in undeveloped countries: no plumbing, vaccines or antibiotics. The presence of any one of those advances sends life expectancy soaring but it doesn't add as much to the length of adult life.
It's no surprise that lots of Stone Agers died of injuries early in life. A disabled hunter has a short future. We can never know how many of our distant ancestors ended up as some leopard's lunch, leaving not a morsel behind for future anthropologists to find.
It's certainly not true that Stone Age people rarely made it to what we would call old age. Anthropologists have known for decades that about 10 percent of humans lived beyond the age of 60 years during the Old Stone Age, the thousands of years that preceded the domestication of crops and animals. Modern-day hunter-gatherers that are untouched by the blessings of civilization also have a low life expectancy but about 20 percent of them do live past 60 years.
Stone-Agers were certainly not a fragile bunch. They were more muscular than all but the most highly trained athletes of the present day. Their skeletons reveal that they were taller than those people that lived after the start of the Agricultural Revolution. It wasn't until the middle of the last century that inhabitants along the shores of the Mediterranean became as tall as their pre-agricultural ancestors.
Humanity paid a price for the remarkable cultural achievements that followed the Agricultural Revolution. Every single group that discarded the hunter-gatherer way of life in favor of farming became smaller in stature, had a shorter lifespan and suffered from iron-deficiency, parasitic diseases, epidemics and high infant mortality.
History may be repeating itself. The 21st century is remarkable for its scientific advances, especially food production and the development of labor saving devices. We are also in the midst of the degradation of our health because of those very same advances. Increased lifespan (77.6 years in the United States) does not mean better health. Our healthspan, the period from birth to the onset of disabling chronic disease, has barely increased at all and it may be decreasing.
By mid-century the life expectancy of future generations will start heading downward unless we can slow down the twin epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes.
There are some signs that we're going to succeed eventually. I see more seniors at fitness centers. Food producers, anticipating government regulation, are finding substitutes for heart-damaging trans fats. School administrators are taking control of what suppliers place in on-campus vending machines. Milk is in; soda is out.
The health revolution has begun. Let's hope that we didn't start too late.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2014, 11:50:17 AM
My understanding was that British city-dwellers had a far lower life expectancy than even the rural poor in the early 19th century.
Urban life expectancy has tended to be lower than rural life expectancy for almost all of history until quite recently, because of disease and sanitation.
I'm a subsistence farmer, motherfucker!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2014, 10:25:35 AM
Modern hunter-gatherers who live traditional lifestyles can and do live well past 40. There is no reason to think this wasn't true in the Stone Age as well.
Today we call them "Hobos".
I want to hit Timmay with a stone.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2014, 10:25:35 AM
Modern hunter-gatherers who live traditional lifestyles can and do live well past 40. There is no reason to think this wasn't true in the Stone Age as well.
Hunter gatherers that ethnographers have had contact with used a neolithic tool kit. You specifically said old stone age, i.e. the paleolithic. It is a fact born out by the fossil record that hunter gatherers almost never lived past the age of 40.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2014, 08:03:36 PM
Hunter gatherers that ethnographers have had contact with used a neolithic tool kit. You specifically said old stone age, i.e. the paleolithic. It is a fact born out by the fossil record that hunter gatherers almost never lived past the age of 40.
You (or your source) misunderstands the evidence, if you believe that enough paleolithic human remains have been found to draw accurate age maps of any paleolithic peoples. Current estimates I have seen indicate that late-Paleolithic man had an adult life expectancy of around 55 (which means, if a stone-age human reached 20 years of age or so, they could expect to live another 35 years or so to reach age 55 or so). Your "fact" seems dubious.
Who the fuck names their kid Gatherer?
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2014, 07:23:29 AM
Who the fuck names their kid Gatherer?
The same dumb fucks that name their kid "Hunter."
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 07:24:08 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2014, 07:23:29 AM
Who the fuck names their kid Gatherer?
The same dumb fucks that name their kid "Hunter."
I don't think anyone does that. :lol:
I want to know where Tim gets his data from. As others have pointed out, there is a difference between average lifespan and a "years to death" measured from a different point than birth. 20-30% mortality drags down the average lifespan and skews the numbers.
'Make Love, Not War'
Right I've done my bit for peace, so where do I hand in my chit for the free sex? :)
Love is a battlefield.
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2014, 07:26:47 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2014, 07:24:08 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2014, 07:23:29 AM
Who the fuck names their kid Gatherer?
The same dumb fucks that name their kid "Hunter."
I don't think anyone does that. :lol:
There are many such people.
:(
FUCKING SIZE COMMANDS
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 01, 2014, 06:47:45 PM
FUCKING SIZE COMMANDS
That is a much better name for a kid.
My favorite size command is the front. It just sounds cool.
A chick I work with named her son 'Conner'. I told her I thought that was a dog's name. She laughed about it, but I'm not sure if she was actually amused or just trying to be polite. :)
Quote from: Caliga on May 01, 2014, 09:04:32 PM
A chick I work with named her son 'Conner'. I told her I thought that was a dog's name. She laughed about it, but I'm not sure if she was actually amused or just trying to be polite. :)
I'd say you'd have to worry about Human Resources, but in your case you don't.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 01, 2014, 01:53:07 PM
:(
Look at it this way, at least you're named "Number One Son" and not "Number One Daughter" which is roughly equivalent to naming your son Gatherer.
Quote from: Caliga on May 01, 2014, 09:04:32 PM
A chick I work with named her son 'Conner'. I told her I thought that was a dog's name. She laughed about it, but I'm not sure if she was actually amused or just trying to be polite. :)
You would be mistaken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conner_%28given_name%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conner_%28surname%29
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 01, 2014, 10:02:03 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 01, 2014, 09:04:32 PM
A chick I work with named her son 'Conner'. I told her I thought that was a dog's name. She laughed about it, but I'm not sure if she was actually amused or just trying to be polite. :)
You would be mistaken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conner_%28given_name%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conner_%28surname%29
Watch out, everybody! Timmay has discovered Wikipedia! He's gonna be laying down "the law according to Wikipedia" like this for a while.
Let's all agree to just smile, pat him on the head, and send him on his way. No need to point out that Wikipedia is utterly non-authoritative - I don't think he'll get to that idea until 8th grade or so.
:D
Not to mention that his link suggests that the -er spelling is atypical.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2014, 09:16:58 AM
Not to mention that his link suggests that the -er spelling is atypical.
"According to Wikipedia, only two people have ever been named 'Conner'."
One of the boys on ny son's basketball team is named Connor. I dont know anyone named Conner.
Quote from: Caliga on May 01, 2014, 09:04:32 PM
A chick I work with named her son 'Conner'. I told her I thought that was a dog's name. She laughed about it, but I'm not sure if she was actually amused or just trying to be polite. :)
I have a cousin named Conner. Our grandfather was not at all happy when he first heard that name, he said it was an Irishman's last name and should be preceded by an "O'".
It didn't seem that unusual in time. Once he got to the age when he started talking it seemed a name just like any other. We had to go through the same thing again with my grandfather when my aunt named her next son Spencer.
Quote from: Savonarola on May 02, 2014, 12:16:39 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 01, 2014, 09:04:32 PM
A chick I work with named her son 'Conner'. I told her I thought that was a dog's name. She laughed about it, but I'm not sure if she was actually amused or just trying to be polite. :)
I have a cousin named Conner. Our grandfather was not at all happy when he first heard that name, he said it was an Irishman's last name and should be preceded by an "O'".
It didn't seem that unusual in time. Once he got to the age when he started talking it seemed a name just like any other. We had to go through the same thing again with my grandfather when my aunt named her next son Spencer.
I like your grandpa :)
If he grows up to be tall, he can be Long Con.
Quote from: Norgy on May 02, 2014, 01:38:23 PM
If he grows up to be tall, he can be Long Con.
If he becomes a ruler, he can be King Con.
If he joins French band Air, he can be Con Air.
If he goes to prision, he can be just plain "Con".
Prision? It's called gaol.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 02:05:07 PM
If he goes to prision, he can be just plain "Con".
As an undergraduate Conner studied writing at the University of Michigan. In prison he could deliver: prose and cons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ0up_MjsLk).
Quote from: Savonarola on May 02, 2014, 02:24:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 02:05:07 PM
If he goes to prision, he can be just plain "Con".
As an undergraduate Conner studied writing at the University of Michigan. In prison he could deliver: prose and cons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ0up_MjsLk).
Politically, I suppose he's a natural Conservative.
If he goes to prison it will be because he Conned the wrong person.
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2014, 02:28:04 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on May 02, 2014, 02:24:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 02:05:07 PM
If he goes to prision, he can be just plain "Con".
As an undergraduate Conner studied writing at the University of Michigan. In prison he could deliver: prose and cons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ0up_MjsLk).
Politically, I suppose he's a natural Conservative.
He has been since his conception.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 03:07:58 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2014, 02:28:04 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on May 02, 2014, 02:24:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 02:05:07 PM
If he goes to prision, he can be just plain "Con".
As an undergraduate Conner studied writing at the University of Michigan. In prison he could deliver: prose and cons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ0up_MjsLk).
Politically, I suppose he's a natural Conservative.
He has been since his conception.
Many thought his coniving nature made him a natural politician.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2014, 03:10:10 PM
Many thought his coniving nature made him a natural politician.
Not so; he was shy until he converted.
These puns are very contrived.
Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2014, 03:25:28 PM
These puns are very contrived.
You have me convinced.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2014, 11:14:48 AM
One of the boys on ny son's basketball team is named Connor. I dont know anyone named Conner.
My son has a classmate named Connor. One of many kids with last names as first names :mellow:
I tell you when BB becomes Lord Crown Prosecutor For Life you guys will pay for this.
Quote from: derspiess on May 02, 2014, 03:38:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2014, 11:14:48 AM
One of the boys on ny son's basketball team is named Connor. I dont know anyone named Conner.
My son has a classmate named Connor. One of many kids with last names as first names :mellow:
Well you cannot have the name O'Connor without there being some dude with the first name of Connor...or more probably Coneiailuchbor or whatever.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
I tell you when BB becomes Lord Crown Prosecutor For Life you guys will pay for this.
We are hoping for the much-coveted and little-awarded "triple head bashing smilie".
If he gets a car, he'll cause Congestion. If he was American, he could run for Congress. And if he skips on his diet, he'll become Constipated.
Okay, I'm done now.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
I tell you when BB becomes Lord Crown Prosecutor For Life you guys will pay for this.
Are you saying there will be consequences?
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2014, 04:11:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
I tell you when BB becomes Lord Crown Prosecutor For Life you guys will pay for this.
Are you saying there will be consequences?
BB will not stop until he is content.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2014, 04:11:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2014, 04:11:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
I tell you when BB becomes Lord Crown Prosecutor For Life you guys will pay for this.
Are you saying there will be consequences?
BB will not stop until he is content.
And he will only be content when we conform.
Constable, please make them stop!
Pray, continue.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2014, 04:11:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2014, 04:11:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
I tell you when BB becomes Lord Crown Prosecutor For Life you guys will pay for this.
Are you saying there will be consequences?
BB will not stop until he is content.
He'll have a conniption.
Okay, that's enough.
I am not convinced.
Quote from: Norgy on May 02, 2014, 06:57:50 PM
I am not convinced.
That's because you are still conniving to protect your conspiracy.
I had Chili Con Carne.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 02, 2014, 07:03:10 PM
I had Chili Con Carne.
Careful you dont get constipation.
Sav used to make doodles about his cousin. He called them "Comic Con".
Cousin's name? Comic Sans.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestaccountingdegrees.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F05%2Fbroken-window-fallacy.png&hash=e02645be1ed9c906d5a3f20d09f9ee62c0ff3a01)
Aren't we all supposed to be dead in the long run? :unsure:
What if the guy had a million to spend and he fixes the window, buys the shoes, and gives the rest to me? Ever thing about that one, Mr. Smarty Pants?
Quote from: PDH on May 09, 2014, 07:36:05 AM
What if the guy had a million to spend and he fixes the window, buys the shoes, and gives the rest to me? Ever thing about that one, Mr. Smarty Pants?
:hmm:
I think this forum needs a simpleton smilie just for me. :)
Quote from: mongers on May 09, 2014, 08:15:05 AM
I think this forum needs a simpleton smilie just for me. :)
We've already got one for you. :bowler:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 28, 2014, 09:39:29 PM
Sounds a little like this - which I've not actually read, but it's on my wishlist:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Tamerlane-Global-Empires-1400-2000/dp/0141010223
Halfway through this. Drinking game: take a drink every time he uses the word "entrepot". Take two drinks every time he uses it in a situation of questionable application.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 04:15:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2014, 04:11:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2014, 04:11:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
I tell you when BB becomes Lord Crown Prosecutor For Life you guys will pay for this.
Are you saying there will be consequences?
BB will not stop until he is content.
And he will only be content when we conform.
:frusty:
Why must you drag me into your nest of puns and depravity! :mad:
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2014, 01:12:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 04:15:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2014, 04:11:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2014, 04:11:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
I tell you when BB becomes Lord Crown Prosecutor For Life you guys will pay for this.
Are you saying there will be consequences?
BB will not stop until he is content.
And he will only be content when we conform.
:frusty:
Why must you drag me into your nest of puns and depravity! :mad:
It's a constant conundrum.
Quote from: Jacob on June 02, 2014, 01:30:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2014, 01:12:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 04:15:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2014, 04:11:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2014, 04:11:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
I tell you when BB becomes Lord Crown Prosecutor For Life you guys will pay for this.
Are you saying there will be consequences?
BB will not stop until he is content.
And he will only be content when we conform.
:frusty:
Why must you drag me into your nest of puns and depravity! :mad:
It's a constant conundrum.
Or, conceivably, a cornucopia of crap. :D
Quote from: Malthus on June 02, 2014, 02:06:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 02, 2014, 01:30:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2014, 01:12:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 04:15:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2014, 04:11:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2014, 04:11:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
I tell you when BB becomes Lord Crown Prosecutor For Life you guys will pay for this.
Are you saying there will be consequences?
BB will not stop until he is content.
And he will only be content when we conform.
:frusty:
Why must you drag me into your nest of puns and depravity! :mad:
It's a constant conundrum.
Or, conceivably, a cornucopia of crap. :D
BB has much to contemplate as he considers his constant condemnation of our conversational conventions.