[charles brough]

senexa, on 9 September 2005 - 02:44 PM, said:

Perhaps a new topic could be introduced. It could be called Ponderables, for those of us who like to nibble at the edges of the unknown and share those thoughts with others.

If you and the others really want to consider a new theory, I'll do my best because I have worked on one for decades. It involved amassing an understanding of the data of some 24 social and natural sciences.

It involves social evolution. As of now, the social theory consensus, such as it is, has no viable explanation of what civilizations and societies are and both how and why they rise and fall, no theory other than a really hopeless one dealing with "memes."

What I theorize, in a nutshell, is that "societies" and their civilizations are a type of organism in that they have a life cycle and a non-genetic way of evolving through natural selection. They compete with each other and ultimately the older (weaker) is natural-selected out. A new one develops based upon a new and advanced (for the times) ideology ("religion").

I can support this vital role of ideology by reminding everyone that we evolved through millions of years of evolution as small-group primates (hunter/gatherers). We are still small group primates and unable to funtion successfully without the use of language and religion (the newer the better) to bind us into larger groups (nations and their "societies").

Any questions?

[swansont]

charles brough, on 6 August 2011 - 07:00 PM, said:

If you and the others really want to consider a new theory, I'll do my best because I have worked on one for decades. It involved amassing an understanding of the data of some 24 social and natural sciences.

It involves social evolution. As of now, the social theory consensus, such as it is, has no viable explanation of what civilizations and societies are and both how and why they rise and fall, no theory other than a really hopeless one dealing with "memes."

What I theorize, in a nutshell, is that "societies" and their civilizations are a type of organism in that they have a life cycle and a non-genetic way of evolving through natural selection. They compete with each other and ultimately the older (weaker) is natural-selected out. A new one develops based upon a new and advanced (for the times) ideology ("religion").

I can support this vital role of ideology by reminding everyone that we evolved through millions of years of evolution as small-group primates (hunter/gatherers). We are still small group primates and unable to funtion successfully without the use of language and religion (the newer the better) to bind us into larger groups (nations and their "societies").

Any questions?

If you want to discuss it, it belongs in its own thread.

[genraven]

I love "Calling the people in who challenge you "brainwashed" or "stupid" does not further your argument. Neither does throwing a tantrum."

[Jiggerj]

YT2095, on 9 June 2005 - 05:48 PM, said:

USE OUR SEARCH ENGINE FIRST!!! before posting.

you`de be surprised what might have been thought of before you

Not being argumentative, YT, but I have to ask: What if people just want to come here and chat while tossing around ideas? Do we really need to do our homework (use the search engine) in order to post anything? I guess what I'm asking is, is this a chat forum first, or a science forum first? There is a section on religion, so it can't be all about big brains hammering out complex equations to one another. I enjoy the chats here, but I'm no big brain. <-- Does that disqualify me from posting anything?