ofgreenstar

I would like an Anthropology section... You can break it up into four sections: Physical (biological) Cultural Linguistic Archaeology

How much do you think they'd give me? There are some more kids in the neighborhood i could round up as well... (the above was a joke for anyone who didn't catch the sarcasm) The idea that second hand smoke will harm your clothing is crazy. Unless you find yourself in sweat lodge with your children i think you can drop the hysteria. Think before you jump on the bandwagon. Second hand smoke is consumed by the smoker along with, what seems would be a more imposing treat, FIRST hand smoke.

Good point. I've been a smoker for about three years now. I've decided to quit on many occasions due to health risk involved with smoking. But then i don't. I don't even make it a day. I smoke about 7 to 10 a day. Its not that much and i dont feel I need them, I just love to smoke. America is so motivated. We are always running around, worrying about this or that, working 70 hour weeks, and we forget that life is more than that. Stopping to have a cigarette seems to break that cycle, if not for more than ten minutes. So my suggestion would be that if you don't want to smoke, thats fine. If my smoke bothers you, leave. As I will do the same if you do something that bothers me. In most major cities, you should be less worried about second hand smoke and more about the pollutants EVERYONE is contributing. Anyone else smoke American Spirits(premium brand)? These damn anti-smokers are making me pay more and more each year for these things. I'm going to have to sell my children into slavery if they keep going up. Is that what you want?!?!?!

How do you tell if a plant is C3 or C4? Are there plants that can do both?

yes

Why hasn't this been able to happen? What would it do if we could do this?

all relative to the individual who survived. My point is i would like to be able to have discussions about this, rather than being a statistic in one of these discussions. On a purely naturalistic level we need to be able to defend ourselves. Granted this doesn't always happen, but thats why we try to distinguish between those who seek harm, and those who are forced to harm.

The point being made is you give your right to survival up when you decide that under such an instance you will rely on the police. Because if the police were the intruders who would you call? What if you couldn't call anyone? Personally i would never want to have a violent encounter, but if forced into such a point, i would guess that my instinct would be to survive. On top of that you put a lot of trust into the authorities. This is stupid, especially in the system we have now. Our principles may be good, but our government is crap and we have trouble following what we each thinks is right.

careful to write it off so easy. The assimilates won't fear the police. its those who think differently that will. It doesn't make them wrong. Just hope that whatever majority is in power always agree with your philosophy.

I'm in a human bone class and we were discussing c3 and c4 pathways in relation to determining diet in ancient people's. What is the actual process taking place? Why do they have distinctive qualities?

What do you do when the police come for you?

Do you know what amount it is? Does it stick around in the body and accumulate over a long period of time?

Guns are merely a more efficient way of killing people. The reason we are allowed to bear arms is for the people to defend themselves against their government. Which means that the people should be able to own any weapon the government has. I think we can all see the problem with this. We have become too efficient at killing each other. I think we need to live with the idea that more and more people are going to die from guns and other improved technologies, or we need to come to some mutual agreement and destroy weapons. I don't see either happening.

I think that we cannot escape nature and everything we do is within the parameters of nature. We think we have escaped nature or beaten it, but the simple fact is there is going to be a point when humans hit a carrying capacity and have to level off like every other animal. Every animal has specialized abilities. Our is the neocortex. We came from nature and we will return to nature. When the neocortex is no longer a favorable trait, we will die and something will replace us.

I agree, but i still find problems with it. Such as, as westerns we want to seek a Utopian society, but under a different group they wish something completely different. It wouldn't even have to be opposite, just something else, like they are an isolationist hunter gather band and wish nothing of modern troubles. Or it could be a group that think God put them on this planet and their survival comes before anyone else's, so to ensure that they want everything and want to kill everyone. My point is who's to say who's right or wrong? If westerns decide that a Utopian society is best because it will provide the most amount of freedom to the most amount of people, and there is dissent, what do you do? How do you enforce something like that? And of course, What would the moral codes be?