Larian Studios Forums General Chat Chat (Anything) The Serious Topic or GIT (part 2)

[color:"orange"] The univeral language doesn't need to be a "rich" language, imo; the goal here is for the different peoples of the world to be able to communicate, not to create a universal culture. [/color]
I have a dissenting opinion here - communication, more so the communication between different cultures, is complex and prone to misunderstanding. The 'tool' language must be adequate to express feelings, insinuations, humour, impressions - not only the factual transfer of information.

Whatever language is used - the act of communicating constantly with each other WILL create a culture.

As to Latin - in the course of reporting from the conclave THE latin teacher of the Vatican has been interviewed - and he made the entire interview in Latin, just to prove that, for him, Latin is a living language. Thankfully for the reporter he also made the translation into English, which was easy for him - he is native US American (now that was a surprise!)

As Glance already knows well, the reason why
the American reporter was able to translate
the Latin without much difficulty is because
American English is mainly rooted in Latin and Greek;
Latin primarily.
Slang aside, if you do not know an American English word,
but you know a bit of Latin or Greek,
you can usually figure out the words meaning
through its root; hence why no one in my whole family
will play "Tony Randall's board game Word Quest" with me. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cry.gif" alt="" />

But America also has a potluck of other country languages
that are part of the American language;
French being one part mainly because of Jean Lafitte;
as well as Spanish for obvious reasons. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />

True in one way.
But that also makes it dangerous/complex in another way.
Tests done in the UK and Finland show that it takes English children 3 years to reach the same level in reading as Finnish children in 1 year.
Languages differ in the way sound and signs are connected.
In Finnish every sound is connected to a sign.
While in English (and most other countries, apart from Scandinavia) a sound can be written in differend ways. And can mean completely different things.
Take the word sea fi. When you ask me to write sea,
I can write sea or see. (In Dutch you have that fi with bij and bei or kouw and kauw)
In Finnish you don't have that. A sound can only be written in one way and everybody knows what you mean. That's why most languages are called turbid/cloudy languages and Scandinavian languages clear languages.
People with dyslectia or other learning/reading problems have a much harder time getting by in most countries than in Scandinavia.
English is simple in a way, but just that simplicity makes it hard sometimes. While Finnish might look and sound hard/complex to a stranger, it's much more simple when you get to know it.
One sound means only one thing. Can't get more simple. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Ehem, Tsel - while what you are saying is correct, I did NOT say that the American reporter was able to translate - it was the American Latin Teacher that did all the work. Personally I had the impression that the reporter was somewhat - impressed - by four syllable words (of which the English language indeed has more than most are aware <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />)

I sure buggered my read of your post didn't I? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" />

Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

I agree. And further than that, it is the medium that makes the spirit of pure culural products: Tsel mentionned the songs, but there are also poetry and some writings. Personally, I find that when those artworks are traducted they most always lose something.


Yeah, it would be worth considering, imo; although I don't know if it's a hard language or not. And since very much languages origin from it, it is a kind of key to understand them. Like knowing english + french allows to roughly understand spanish. As for the new words to incorporate for new concepts & technologies, most of them come from old language's words (and very much from latin roots) or from proper names, so it's not a big problem. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />


True. But most languages (again I don't know much so I may be wrong) are set up so you can express everything, even the "simple" ones. If no word exists for what you mean, you can explain it with other words. It's longer but you have the same result. Having a language with very precise words for everything makes a language difficult to learn (apart from the capricious grammar, that is a point that makes french a difficult language; in french there is a word for quite everything).


It could be another worth considering choice. But it is another one that is unknown to me. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Well, I don't know if you'll regret to have said that... But here it is. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

My question(s) is (are) about mankind and its evolution, now on and in the future.
In some places women give birth to 6-7 and more kids and in some other places (the majority of industrialised countries) people quite have no kids anymore; 6 persons out of 10 live in the small part of lands that is Asia. When is there too much humans on Earth? What should be the balance in demography and how could we reach it?
And in today’s societies the focus and goal is on accretion/growth in economy, “life quality” (comfort), etc. What is the threshold in that? How should things be?
Mankind tend to bend less and less to the “laws of the nature,” in a general way, with all the technical progresses we made and continue to make. Do we still obey to some Natural Selection? And is it a good thing? At what point should medicine stop intervene to heal, improve/save/give lives? Where are we going as specie?

Yeah, these are lots of questions (and very tough and complex ones, not so accessible imho)... but they’re all connected in some way. Just give your thoughts about any aspect of it; your reflexions interest me greatly.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />

We're stuffed.

By our habit, we are determined to make life as easy as possible for ourselves. We will continue to fight nature to bring about our "quality of life". But everything we do damages nature more. This damage creates larger and more fierce natural disasters, including plagues, storms and inhospitable weather conditions. We fight back and use our technology to defend ourselves. And again nature fights back.

Who will win? Somehow I think that nature is slightly more infinite than the resources of our planet. Nature will break what we have made and people who have grown weak from their several milenias of relying on technology will fall.

So why do I use technology if I do not support the concept of it? I have decided that turning the world around is a lost cause. I do care about the environment and do what I can to help, but I'm not going out of my way to convert others. I intend on enjoying what life I have without wasting more resourses than I need to.

that is a very heavy thought, Fille. it might make lemons sour, u know? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> u must have watched some films/documentaries or read some books/other reading materials to come up with that subject or must have thought of this for quite some time now.

as for humanity crowding the earth, well ultimately it's our choice to re-produce, restrain reproduction & regulate reproduction. hence birth control. war. genocide. deaths in so many ways but always in big numbers; humanity in its own ways will thin itself out somehow. but your worries is how it can be done reliably & efficiently? such way i know is only through force. one can look at China's one-child policy plus the traditional view of gender preference (wanting sons but not daughters).

[color:"pink"] And in today’s societies the focus and goal is on accretion/growth in economy, “life quality” (comfort), etc. What is the threshold in that? How should things be?

Do we still obey to some Natural Selection? And is it a good thing? At what point should medicine stop intervene to heal, improve/save/give lives? Where are we going as specie?
[/color]

balance. i can't (not yet) tell u how to achieve the balance & with what (at least humanity & nature) as i don't know enough & have yet to think it through.

will do once i'm free. *janggut's busy as heck*

[color:"orange"] Mankind tend to bend less and less to the “laws of the nature,” in a general way, with all the technical progresses we made and continue to make.[/color]

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

What an arrogant presumption - so very human!
The 'laws of nature' are universal and fundamental. Assuming a million years of human life on this planet Sol 3, that is roughly 0.02% of this (young!) planet's life span to date. The dinosaurs had 250 times that much.

That humanity developped technology, the possibility to exploit resources, is a natural evolutionary process. So is the development of 'sentients' with the capability to think about the consequences of their doing.

Not to bend to laws of nature is not an available option.

[color:"orange"]Do we still obey to some Natural Selection? [/color]
Obedience is acceptance of a higher authority - so for me the answer is: It is not a choice we really have. We are part of a natural selection process, which is pragmatic, emotionless, functional, merciless - and extremely long (I hate to state 'eternal')

The consequence?

Humanity will evolve. It will push the limit as to what the planet can support, but it will have to accept that there is a limit - somewhere. On the way, there will be fights for resources; and there will be tremendous losses of human, and other, life.

The preservation of a status quo of current 'civilized' living conditions for mankind as a whole is a comforting vision, but it is an illusion (a delusion?).

Will mankind survive? I am confident.

Will humanity survive? Not in its present form or self-understanding.

Will current political, national entities survive? I have me doubts - actually no, I am positive that the answer is: NO!

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

I have always seen our Tech advancements to ultimately enable us to go to and populate other planets.

Okay, before someone jumps into we as humans are destroying our planet and such, consider this, we are a lot better today in preserving our planet, than what we were in the 1800's. If we still did some of the things today that we used to back then, example, almost every water supply we have would be most likely be lead or mercury based.

Of course we have a long, long ways to go before we start moving to other planets, but I think that would be a great idea.

I tend to see the phrase, as you're expressing it, "Laws of Nature" more as "Universal Balance". In other words for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Elder Asian philosophy uses the term, butterfly wings on one side of the world creates tornados on the other side. In our bending to it we can choose a couple of paths. We can either choose not to do some action. Thereby not disturbing the balance or we can proceed with an action and disturb the balance. If we proceed with an action it is up to us to foresee the possibilities of the reaction. Example, if you build a house in a hillside ravine you should realize that one day it might rain, or snow greatly, and that house could possibly be demolished by flood, mudslide, or avalanche.

Do we obey "Natural Selection"?
Yes, we do.
We as human beings have been selected naturally, at least for this moment in time, to be at the top of the food chain.
I enjoy our tech advancements and I look forward to a Jetson or Gattaca future.

Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[color:"orange"] ...not disturbing the balance or we can proceed with an action and disturb the balance [/color]
Though every tipping of the balance will lead towards a new balance - the greatest problem of our times is, IMO, that the 'tipping' is so fast that a stabilizing effect has no time to occur. Therefore we are in a constant turmoil, and in the short time period we can overlook, it appears frighteningly unstable.

But if we 'zoom out', and look from a greater distance, over a longer period, the effect is noticeable. Whether we like the effect, is another question.

Mankind into space? Well, in the long run, inevitably so, as a question of survival. We know already that in some billion years our galaxy will explode in a supernova. But I think LaFille's question targets a more imminent, and interestingly less foreseeable or predictable, future <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

You can always try to push it up to the geological time scale if you want (or more: if you feel able to). <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

@janggut
All your suppositions are right. I'm into biology and ecology; these are questions of philosophy and ethics related to concepts of my field. So yes I went through pretty much material related to that (and still do, and will continue to), and think of it since a little while. It is also an issue touching a young woman just stepping into this world and who has everything to build. Athough the answers are probably out of reach, thinking about it forces to see things differently, from other points of view; wich is good, imho. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


*LaFille’s philo teacher pops up in her head...* <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" />
Let’s bounce to rectify the shot here, and begin with the “laws of life” or “mecanisms of evolution” in how it uses to be for the other forms of life (except the case of domesticated ones, of course).

The principle of natural selection in biology (one of the evolution mecanisms) is based on the differential reproductive success:
1- Every population has several variations of hereditary characters.
2- Every population has the potential to reproduce too much towards the ressources aviable, what brings a competion for survival into the population.
That brings the differential reproductive success: individuals having the characters adapted best to their “milieu de vie” have generally more fertile progeny than the others, what increases the frequency of these hereditary characters in the next generation; and so on. That results, after several generations, in the “modified descent” (adaptation).

In the case of humans, in industrialised societies especially, there are points related to that that don’t work much the same anymore: the competition for survival (the essential needs, related to survival such as feeding, sheltering, etc. are filled for quite everyone) and the way we reproduce (people much have kids by choice; progresses in techniques, medicine allow people to survive and reproduce with physical limitations that would probably much prevent them to in a context of fight for survival as it is for the other life forms; contraception and birth control means & politics change much things too; etc.).
You see where I’m going? And the possibilities that can lead to? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />



It is an idea that I share; that is, if we don’t get extincted because of whatever may happen/may we do and if we come to get the techniques that allow us to do so. It’s a very interesting (and complex) idea. I want to read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars serie (It's exactly on that context) when I'll get back into reading. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

If something is arrogant, that answer sure is.
Typical human presumption that humans rule everything and that everything should bend to human will. Justifying human behaviour.
That humans (ab)use techology and exploit (in a destructive way) earth and nature has nothing to do with evolution.
That dinosaurs had more time also means nothing. Dinosaurs lived in and with nature. Humans live above nature and only overexploit and destroy it. Humans probably won't make it as long as the dinosaurs becouse at the rate humans are going their will be nothing left anymore.
Humans are a freak, a fault, in evolution. Humans stand outside evolution. They probably don't even belong on this planet.

What did I put <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> in front for?

No prob. Glance. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Infact, I would be surprised if an intelligent person, who doesn't personally gain from exploits, could still feel that way in this day and age.
I had my answer on my mind (more or less like I posted it) for a while. And your post gave me the chance to finally put it up there. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I tend to believe the same.

[color:"orange"] I would be surprised if an intelligent person, who doesn't personally gain from exploits, could still feel that way in this day and age. [/color]
Well, I would not - and that's why I threw it in the discussion. The underlying attitude is present in a lot more minds than I'd be comfortable with.

[color:"orange"] That humans (ab)use techology and exploit (in a destructive way) earth and nature has nothing to do with evolution. [/color]
That I'd argue - abuse and destructive exploitation can be seen as part of the normal evolutionary process; it will be successful or not, and therefore prevail or not.

The point, for me, rather is that Man not only has the capability to recognize the consequences, but even to make a realistic prognisis for the future. And then we hit Humanity's characteristic trait - its very specific feature, and its curse - individualism.

Mankind, as a whole, is not an entity, but an agglomeration of individuals. The diversity is its strength - but when it comes to 'what is best for Man and future generations?', the discussion boils down to 'what do I lose (or gain) in that process?'.

Of course the dinosaur example as such is nonsense. In the 250 million years of 'dinosaur reign' an enormous evolutionary change developped, and a lot of races became extinct in that process, respectively changed totally by adaption.

[color:"orange"] Humans are a freak, a fault, in evolution. Humans stand outside evolution. They probably don't even belong on this planet. [/color]
A freak? Maybe - A fault? Yet to be proven - Outside evolution? No

Mankind is the only race (so far) with the potential to leave the planet. Now that in itself could be argued as an evolutionary process. Does the planet in its consciousness of its long, though definitely limited, lifespan create the seed for 'reproduction'? (OK, that's stretching it, I concede, but a tempting thought).

That triggers another thought - in Star Trek they have this 'main directive' (I am not an expert on Star Trek), roughly stating that 'You shall not interfere in the development of cultures or societies of other planets'.

If and when Mankind travels into space, that should be expanded into '...nor the ecological balance and evolutionary process of another planet'.

I think sometimes they don't want to ponder about consequences - selling slaves, slaughtering south-american natives or the inhabitants of Jerusalem during the crusades instead.

They don't want to see consequences when they say that the great forests of this world should be hacked down - to make money.

We are just about to face the consequences. The weather tends more and more into chaos.

Hurricanes destroying american towns ? Fine, that gives the building companies enough jobs and money !

Human evolution is like a rollercoaster ride.
It has its ups and downs, but I believe we (humans) are always gaining higher grounds in our evolutionary process.
And what would that be?
Basically the only thing that has evolved in us is thought.
We have not naturally evolved health wise and other things.
We have evolved with the crutch of tech and science.
Tech and Science came via our evolution of thought.
Then there are periods in time when we went downhill on that rollercoaster.
Like believing the earth was flat, bigotry, and hate, and so on etc...
But we have become more conscious of actions like these and actions that previously were trained instinct have become a conscious thought in most people nowadays.
Meaning they know better and choose instead of it being a knee jerk reaction.

Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />