Hi
So I've just listened to this : http://mises.org/media/4691
Hoppe says that one of the explanation for the industrial revolution is that Europeans were simply more intelligent. According to him, there's a long natural selection that tooks place until the Welfare state grown bigger and bigger : people who were more intelligent were more successful and earned more money than those who were stupid, so they could die older and have more children.
So centuries after centuries, this took place, but only in northern countries. Why ? Because living conditions are "harsher" in these places, and living is easier than in the so-called third world countries, where "every days look the same".
And now I wonder, how can he says that living was harsher in northern countries than in... Africa for exemple ? We've all watched reports on TV where we see people in villages in Africa eating dirt, dying from deseases, having no water, having to walk 6 hours each day to seek waters or to go to the nearest school... so how was it harder than peasants in England ?
EDIT : subsidary question : I have an economic history exams in 10 days about the industrial revolution. Can I write that northern people (French, yeay !) are more intelligent that african/asian/indians and that's why the industrial revolution happened in Europe ? =D
But being skinny isn't a disease or genetic disorder,
Who said anything about diseases or genetic disorders? Lacking inate athletic ability is not a disease or disorder. It is simple biological variation. Im not sure where you are coming from.
a skinny person isn't stuck at that weight forever they CAN gain lots of muscle mass if they wanted to, it requires specific training and a complete change in diet, which is hard work
Wrong. Some people can gain lots of muscle mass. Some people can gain only a little. It depends on body type and frame. Once again I can tell that you have never weight trained or competed in athletics.
Ok, I know a lot of black kids who are absolutely terrible at physical sports. How can they possibly exist? Are they just anomalies?
What does this have to do with anything that we have discussed? You are really off in left field.
Sure some will improve faster than others, I take that to mostly come from their activities and experience before they began training. Do some people gain muscle faster than others? Yes. Do some people learn a bit quicker than others, yes. But is any of it something that the proper training and mindset can't fix? no.
Some will also improve more than others. Your theory would mean that anyone who worked as hard as Micheal Jordan could dunk like Jordan. That anyone who trained as hard as Ali could have his quickness and hand speed. Or anyone who worked as hard as gale sayers could run like him. False, there are thousands of people putting in as much time and work as they did, but will never acheive what they did.
To be those guys you have to work hard and have talent. Anyway this is way off topic and there is no way I will change your "little engine that could" mentality.
I can not train as hard as Jordan if I do not have his body. If I had an inferior body I will have to dedicate double the amount of training. Eventually I will reach his capacity. The difference lies in dedication and time, depending on my body. Want proof? Google Shaolin Monks. Edited I will only agree that only a few human beings who will have such an inferior body or a disability that given two lifetimes will not match Jordan physical attributes or talent. But The Majority of those "few," who are dedicate, will probably have talents that will compensate for their weakness and still compete at his level.
I can not train as hard as Jordan if I do not have his body. If I had an inferior body I will have to dedicate double the amount of training. Eventually I will reach his capacity. The difference lies in dedication and time, depending on my body. Want proof? Google Shaolin Monks.
This is the stuff of childrens books. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Engine_That_Could
I can not train as hard as Jordan if I do not have his body. If I had an inferior body I will have to dedicate double the amount of training. Eventually I will reach his capacity. The difference lies in dedication and time, depending on my body.
I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing about here (I haven't been really following the thread), but this statement is wrong from an exercise-science point of view. If you're not as genetically adept as "Jordan," that means you have to train less frequently and with less sets. This is because people with good genetics have quicker recovery times than normal people or people with bad genetics. Thus, the likes of "Jordan" can exercise more than genetically normal people.
I'm sure this doesn't detract from the premise of your argument though.
Political Atheists Blog
The agrument is that with ridiculous training and dedication anyone could achieve a goal, but timing has to do with everything ( Shaolin Monks start to train at age 3). Southern you could ridicule all you want but I did give you a real life example. All you gave back was your pompous huffs and scoffs.
The monks are not proof of anything. They are not all equally skilled for one. Yet they all dedicate their lives to training. This shows that there is some wild card. That wild card is natural ability. Second because a small group of people have trained to do some impressive acrobatics doesnt mean that anyone can. It proves nothing. Now address my points below.
Proof of my claims are all around you. You dont want to acknowledge it for some reason. There are real limits on people and what they can achieve. These limits are both metal and physical. These limits are both environmental and genetic. You want to deny genetic limitations and only see environmental. This is not reality.
To accel at a sport or physical activity you must have the proper physical make up. The examples I have used are Professional boxing, football, and basketball. To be lineback in the NFL you have to have certain physical characteristics. If you were not born with these characteristics you will not be a NFL linebacker no matter how much you want or work at it.
If you are 5' 5'' 125 lbs and run 6 flat fourty, no matter how much you want it. No matter if you dedicate every waking moment to training. You will not grow a foot, gain 100lbs and run a 4 4 fourty. YOU WILL NOT BE AN NFL LINEBACKER. Watch the movie "Rudy" it illistrates this point very well.
If you are 6'4 250lbs and are clumsy. No matter how much you want it. No matter if you dedicate every waking momnent to training. You will never become an olympic gymnast. Period you dont have the proper physical tools to do so.
People are not interchangeable cogs that can be molded into whatever function through environment or training. There is nothing wrong with accepting our limitations.
That's why they are different positions in NFL where I will be able to compete with Mr. Line Backer. Like they are monks where they would be able to excel in some different aspects but still be able to compete agianst each other.
That's why they are different positions in NFL where I will be able to compete with Mr. Line Backer.
So now you admit that physical limitations cannot be overcome by rigorous training. That your goal of becoming an NFL linebacker is one that is out of reach no matter the training or dedication.
Like they are monks where they would be able to excel in some different aspects but still be able to compete agianst each other.
Why would this happen? Why would some beable to excel and others not? If the training is the same all performance should be the same. But its not is it. There is some other factor that you choose to ignore.
Could you guys take the junk about IQ tests to another thread? Very little so far has even been relevant to the OP.
This video might be of interest to those of us interested in the actual topic.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
The junk about athletics is definitely off topic. But the discussion of IQ is very relevant to the OP.