Presidential candidate Romney very likely professes this belief.
However most residents of Missouri would likely not believe this unless the tree were shown to them because Missouri residence have the reputation expressed by their U.S. Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver, that “frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me”.
It is not clear what the other Presidential candidates believe, or what type of eloquence satisfies them, but Santorum is known to have a special relationship with things that are frothy.
Supposedly, the trees of Knowledge and Life are behind a heavily-guarded gate somewhere in Iraq. If that were true, though, you'd expect people to be sweeping the area with military forces all the time (under various pretexts) until they found it.
One of the prevailing ideas in some circles is that humans wear clothes because they feel shame at being naked because the first two humans ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge against prior instruction. Eating that fruit is what caused humans to become self-aware and so to become self-conscious and ashamed at being naked and hence the need/desire to cover up their nakedness by wearing clothes.
It is not an idea that I subscribe to, but many people do (or claim that they do).
Nice. This lends support to the clothing as signalling theory. As we became more social (farmers), we evolved more ways to signal. It also matches the observation that as we go back to our forager ways (in industrial nations) we've become more comfortable with nudity.
Interesting: as clothing has become cheaper, the new signalling mechanism has become the body itself. Hence, the development of fashion that shows a lot of skin, and also the obsession with perfect bodies.
Aardvarks are land mammals that aren't aquatic, live in Africa and have almost no hair and last time I checked they're still doing just fine... The same goes for rhinos and elephants (though they are bigger than humans and can thus hold on to their body heat more easily, while aardvarks are smaller than humans).
So Robin, I recommend asking your question to a biologist who has studied aardvarks.
Well, that theory has an unfortunate name, but I would put it this way: Our ancestors may have done a lot of swimming at one point in their history. This is the most common reason for mammals to lose fur and develop subcutaneous fat (chimps don't have it). Nobody suggested we lived in the sea, just that we foraged there a lot, both wading bipedally and swimming. Newborn humans can swim; not so for any of our primate relatives. It's hard to believe that's just a strange epiphenomenon of dry savanna evolution.
Given his other books I'm skeptical about your conclusions about his ethics.
Generally, he is very positive about ems and even ems that have significantly changed their 'brain' structure from humans.
You have to understand about Egan that his scifi is just about the ideas. I think the plot and the charachters are just constructs to communicate them and generally not very well done.
I have no doubt the hacker league is unconvincing and improbable. I read Egan because he communicates new ideas and feel that's a lot better than good plot or characters who do nothing but push a bunch of evolutionary buttons that make me feel good (though I like that too).
Some believe the tree to have been in Missouri.
http://4mormon.org/mormon-b...
Presidential candidate Romney very likely professes this belief.
However most residents of Missouri would likely not believe this unless the tree were shown to them because Missouri residence have the reputation expressed by their U.S. Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver, that “frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me”.
It is not clear what the other Presidential candidates believe, or what type of eloquence satisfies them, but Santorum is known to have a special relationship with things that are frothy.
Supposedly, the trees of Knowledge and Life are behind a heavily-guarded gate somewhere in Iraq. If that were true, though, you'd expect people to be sweeping the area with military forces all the time (under various pretexts) until they found it.
So where is this tree of knowledge?
Clothing existed tens of thousands of years before the invention of agriculture.
One of the prevailing ideas in some circles is that humans wear clothes because they feel shame at being naked because the first two humans ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge against prior instruction. Eating that fruit is what caused humans to become self-aware and so to become self-conscious and ashamed at being naked and hence the need/desire to cover up their nakedness by wearing clothes.
It is not an idea that I subscribe to, but many people do (or claim that they do).
Please explain how.
Please explain.
Nice. This lends support to the clothing as signalling theory. As we became more social (farmers), we evolved more ways to signal. It also matches the observation that as we go back to our forager ways (in industrial nations) we've become more comfortable with nudity.
Interesting: as clothing has become cheaper, the new signalling mechanism has become the body itself. Hence, the development of fashion that shows a lot of skin, and also the obsession with perfect bodies.
Aardvarks are land mammals that aren't aquatic, live in Africa and have almost no hair and last time I checked they're still doing just fine... The same goes for rhinos and elephants (though they are bigger than humans and can thus hold on to their body heat more easily, while aardvarks are smaller than humans).
So Robin, I recommend asking your question to a biologist who has studied aardvarks.
You commented on the wrong post! I believe you meant to comment on this one.
Great, this is going along perfectly with my Ancient Aliens Aquatic Apes Theory (AAAAT).
Well, that theory has an unfortunate name, but I would put it this way: Our ancestors may have done a lot of swimming at one point in their history. This is the most common reason for mammals to lose fur and develop subcutaneous fat (chimps don't have it). Nobody suggested we lived in the sea, just that we foraged there a lot, both wading bipedally and swimming. Newborn humans can swim; not so for any of our primate relatives. It's hard to believe that's just a strange epiphenomenon of dry savanna evolution.
Given his other books I'm skeptical about your conclusions about his ethics.
Generally, he is very positive about ems and even ems that have significantly changed their 'brain' structure from humans.
You have to understand about Egan that his scifi is just about the ideas. I think the plot and the charachters are just constructs to communicate them and generally not very well done.
I have no doubt the hacker league is unconvincing and improbable. I read Egan because he communicates new ideas and feel that's a lot better than good plot or characters who do nothing but push a bunch of evolutionary buttons that make me feel good (though I like that too).
So does the "eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge" idea.
So does the "our ancestors were created by aliens" theory...
Aquatic ape theory gives a good reason: wearing clothes in water is very cumbersome.