charles brough

Here's another one: there is an ameba size cellular organism called the "slime-mould slug. These amebas gather together in long strands when their food source shrinks. These strands act like worms that move away from the water to a high point, splitting the worm to go around both sides of things. Then they compact themselves one upon the other into an upward-like worm so that those on the top are exposed to any animal that walks by. They are picked up in the animals fur and, like a bee taking pollen, it is spread to a new territory for the slime mold slug.

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?

Hail, I am here! I am a social theory addict who has actually developed the theory of social evolution . . Yes, actually! Incidentally, I believe words should be able to be spelled in different ways. I always do . . .

Yes, I agree. My experience in posting in other forums is that someone will respond by taking every one of my paragraps in order and insert nit-picking comments between each one. At or near the end, they then make over-all condesending comments about my post and my "intellectual undercapacity." My take on this is that these posters are semi-retired professors who are used to showing off their "amazing genius" to their "lowly students." The practice is expecially bad in the social sciences. Perhaps that is because social theory consists of enough rationalizing that they are sensitive about it enough to deveop this defensive mechanism.