Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by blackjackreviewtime (U7153099) on Wednesday, 28th March 2007
Why is it that we aren't as brutal as say... the saxons? Humans now-a-days dress up in nice clothes with their briefcasses, working around the place. But 600 years ago it would have been a bit different! Are we more evolved? Or are we still as brutal as we once were, just in different ways, e.g: racism, politics...
BJLink to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 2
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Wednesday, 28th March 2007
its called the court system if you are brutal they lock you up for years,
personaly i think that society has become more violent in the last 100 years,
we do not hunt or gather anymore we go to the supermarket,
we are slaves to our jobs and cannot leave them if we want to.
we fear young people who wear hoods who rule our streets,
half of the crimes we see commited today were unheard of years ago.
any person who defends himself or his property will go to jail for it,
we are victims of anybody who wants to walk into our life and do what they want.
if you brutalise someone they give you a playstation and dvd player in your cell and the victim is called a rat for calling the police,
the sooner vigilantes take the streets back the better.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 3
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Wednesday, 28th March 2007
Not as brutal? Ask the family of that poor fella who was first slashed across the face for confronting thugs who threw stones at his car. One of the scum then returned to his house months later and shot him dead thru' the heart before running off and phoning his mates. Kids shot and stabbed to death on our streets daily. Religious fanatics everywhere blowing us up because we dont belive in the same fairy tales as them. I tell you I despair at times.
What's the answer tho'? Poss national service, a return to disciplined punishment of children, ban relious schools. I dunno.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 4
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Wednesday, 28th March 2007
flippin 'eck. I was in rant mode there. To answer in a more historical context, I wopuld have thought that the 20th century would prob go down as the bloodiest in history. Obviously there are few if any records of this apart from anecdotal from the past but it would be hard to imagine death on the scale of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot in the past.
Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 5
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Wednesday, 28th March 2007
The race is naturally brutal. At least in the past we found practical reasons for not killing people. Also almost all individuals had strong moral convictions which made it quite difficult to get them to kill others.
Since the onset of the 20th century it's been much easier to get the people to unite for genocide. Many, many millions were murdered in the 20th century which was, by far, the bloodiest century in history. It doesn't look like anything has changed in this one.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 6
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 28th March 2007
Brutal
yes indeed nowadays we have brutal people who can batter a gran for her pension - or on the way back from the pub will willingly batter a father who just happens to pass on his way home after a game of pool and a few pints
what i want to know is how the saxon fyrd who were farmers and artisans stood against the professional norman army for about 8 long hours and didnt break - huscarles were happy to be there - and trained to be there
there is NO way that i could have put up with it - how did they ??
stLink to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 7
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 28th March 2007
cladking,
"the 20th century by far the bloodiest century in history"
I came to this http's by reseach for another item for these boards. If one does research in a particular field one comes always at the end to the same "sources"
on the internet. It is not the first time that that happens to me.
I many times supposed on these boards that the 20th century was not worser than other centuries as about percentage of war casualties against the worldpopulation of the concerned times.
This guy: Matthew White from the South of the US if I understand it well, does an honest attempt to solve my question.
And again if I understand it well the percentage is higher in the 20th century than before, although only in one or two percent?
I saw about the Congo Freestate 8 million. I did an in depth research about the Congo Freestate for Tim of Aclea and found considerable less than Hochschild proposed. But yes as with he Armenian deads the numbers aren't that important, as in comparison with the gruesome reality of that time.
But again "percents" don say it all IMO as the "mechanisation" of killing was, as the industry and science, growing in the last centuries also in an exponentional manner.
Given the opportunities to kill by always more sophisticated warmachines, perhaps the 20th century was more restricting than the given possibilities. I only try to "save" my former "supposition".
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 8
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 28th March 2007
Addendum message 7.
It is not easely to have a table about the percents from the two http's from Matthew White. And he agrees that it are only estimates researched as honest as possible.
18th century: 0.6 %
19th century: 1 % or 2 % if you are including man caused famine.
20th century: 4.5 %.
So I have to correct my sentence: "the percentage is higher in the 20th century than before although only in one or two percent?"
Compared to the 19th century it has to be then: 3.5 or 2.5 %.
Warm regards again.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 9
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Wednesday, 28th March 2007
Your supposition can be saved perhaps by merely excluding the couple dozen genocides which occured in the 20th century. These are mostly without precedent and are not the result of technology. It's always been easy to kill people and primitive and barbaric means were often used in these mass murders. In one recent one, bullets were too expensive so millions were clubbed or machetied to death. They were sometimes left without feet to bleed to death.
I believe this barbarism is the result of the general belief in the subconscious. This belief thins the veneer of civilization and allows individuals to give in to the most basic instincts as well as to act on their hatreds.
Man is probably more civilized than in the past because much of the needs of civilization is becoming instinctive. Even tool use is becoming instinctive. Still, as always, anything can come to be seen as normal by people. The ability of people to cooperate in complex situations has always been dependent on the maintenance of many givens (such as a full belly). When any of these givens are disturbed even slightly there is a tendency for cooperation to break down entirely.
I would also suggest that while increasingly civilized, man is actually devolving. Strenghts and abilities no longer have great utility to the individual and are actually inclined to reduce reproduction by such individuals. Meanwhile we are copies of copies and unless a change comes along we will contiue a downward path.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 10
Posted by irene (U2450323) on Thursday, 29th March 2007
I entirely agree with "goodbad" here. I think the thing is we have become far too soft & that is why things have deteriorated so much in our country. There is no disclipine either in the home or in the schools so kids are growing up not being aware of what is right & what is wrong. We see day after day, criminals (both young & old) getting away with it whilst the victims get no sympathy whatsoever from the courts. I think in a way we have gone back to being "barbarians". Bring back the Romans to sort us out.
Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 11
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Thursday, 29th March 2007
"I entirely agree with "goodbad" here. I think the thing is we have become far too soft & that is why things have deteriorated so much in our country. There is no disclipine either in the home or in the schools so kids are growing up not being aware of what is right & what is wrong. We see day after day, criminals (both young & old) getting away with it whilst the victims get no sympathy whatsoever from the courts. I think in a way we have gone back to being "barbarians". Bring back the Romans to sort us out."
There is no concept of personal responsibility. Leaders don't accept it and the people don't expect it. No one cares about outcomes so long as everything was done "by the book".
I still believe this is the result of blaming the subconscious, the enviroment, or everyone but the individual.
Certainly the pendulum has been too far the other way in the past but it has been swinging only one way since the days of Freud.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 12
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 29th March 2007
Cladking,
thank you for your thought-provoking reply.
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 13
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Friday, 30th March 2007
cladking your reply was brilliant,maybe one day i will be able to under stand it,but at the moment you have lost me.
Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 14
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 30th March 2007
Tool use is becoming instinctive? Erm, I think it may well have been instinctive for at least the last three and a half million years, if not longer. As such it might be regarded as one of the defining features of hominyms for example aAstralapithicines and their use of stone implements to dig up roots and tubors. One might even stretch this to modern geat apes like chimpanzees and gorrillas.
As for the humanity devolving. I think you misundersatnd that evolution just involves change to fit a particular niche in the environment. Suggestions of whether that change is for better or worse are more value based judgements. Humanity is not like a photopcopy of a photocopy of an original document with a decreasing level of clarity on each reproduction as your allusion to Platonic forms would seem to suggest.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 15
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Friday, 30th March 2007
To put is quite simply, human nature is the same as it has always been and it will never change.
Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 16
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Friday, 30th March 2007
"Tool use is becoming instinctive? Erm, I think it may well have been instinctive for at least the last three and a half million years, if not longer. As such it might be regarded as one of the defining features of hominyms for example aAstralapithicines and their use of stone implements to dig up roots and tubors. One might even stretch this to modern geat apes like chimpanzees and gorrillas.
As for the humanity devolving. I think you misundersatnd that evolution just involves change to fit a particular niche in the environment. Suggestions of whether that change is for better or worse are more value based judgements. Humanity is not like a photopcopy of a photocopy of an original document with a decreasing level of clarity on each reproduction as your allusion to Platonic forms would seem to suggest."
I beg to differ on all points. Man is not significantly different than other animals in intelligence. It is only knowledge which truly sets man apart. This knowledge is primarily the result of language which is solely the result of a chance mutation imparting a supersized speech center to the species. Not only did language allow successive generations to learn the subtleties of hunting or farming but when written language was invented it became possible to build on the work of previous generations in a systematic way.
It's often said that mankind has no instincts, but this is not true. It's more true that each individual's instincts are suppressed in almost every circumstance by either rational thought or previous learning. Tool use is largely a function of need and individual intelligence in non-human species. It is universal in humans because of culture but it appears increasingly that many people have a "natural understanding" of tools. The fact that infants use tools might support this.
Even without the evidence of degradation of the species which is all around us, even without processes which used to assure only survival of the fittest, there is still research which says the Y chromosome is breaking down. While the most recent research is a little more encouraging the fact remains that evidence points to a spiraling down and one that is accelerating. On the bright side a mutation will appear to save most of what comprises the human species in all probability.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 17
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Friday, 30th March 2007
"To put is quite simply, human nature is the same as it has always been and it will never change."
I couldn't agree more.
But it's much like the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Obviously all chickens come from eggs by definition so it must have been a chicken-like animal that laid the egg. Humans became humans when they began developing language. Culture plays a huge role in the developement of virtually all individuals. It affects their perspectives and beliefs. Cultural and temporal differences can be quite extreme.
Anything can come to be seen as normal to people.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 18
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Saturday, 31st March 2007
I never said modern people were significantly different to other animals although it does seem to be the crux of your argument when you maintain that we are moving away from survival of the fittest. You have yet to explain what they should be fit for. I would also like you to suggest just how this degredation of the species is apparent all around us. Presumably you would include yourself in this decline. So far as I can see there appears to be an inherent contradiction in the belief that evolution is a process governed by chance and the idea that a species devolve. Far from suggesting the vaguaries of chance the latter view implies some pre-set target that we fail to match up to.
Mind you I am not sure what the whole knowledge and language business has to do with this as so far as I can see there are plenty of species that are capable of learning and passing on information. Have humans somehow lost the ability to communicate? Further I wonder what you mean by individuals have a natural understanding of tools. Surely if you suggest that the specifics of how tools are created and used is a product of the cultural mores of a community this is learnt behaviour. One could state the the creation of composite tools and the investment of particular attributes to such implements is part of the instinctive behaviour of modern humans but given that we have been doing this for tens of thousands of years I'm not sure that is only just begginning, unless you are looking at this over a much longer timescale than I am.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 19
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Sunday, 1st April 2007
Survival of the fittest usually means the fleetest of mind and body, the healthy, quick, and strong of spirit and limb. Such traits don't tend to assure the greatest reproduction any more. Indeed, in most advanced cultures there's actually a small negative correlation between reproduction and intelligence, i.e. the less intelligent have more babies. Today congenital weaknesses and abnormalities which would have killed in the past are now corrected and passed on to future generations.
There are no individuals involved in such a decline. Life is always the same as it's always been. It's the average intelligence and the average health which are declining. It is the average depth of civilization's veneer which is decreasing. It is an increasing number of individuals who reject responsibility or believe in the subconscious. I'm no more or less responsible for such things than an imbecile or an axe murderer. I'm responsible only for my own actions.
There's no target as such. There are only historic gauges, and it is in comparison to these that a steady decline appears in place. This decline progresses despite and because of our increased technology and ability to modify and exploit our enviroment. It progresses in virtually all cultures.
Other species do pass on complex tasks such as hunting and nest building but these are normally taught through example rather than language. If tommorrow a bird were to discover a better means of nest building it would take many generations to spread among the population and might die out with that family in the interim. If a man invents a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to his door. Cats teach hunting through example. There are some behaviours which are probably passed on through language in other species but such axamples tend to be simpler behaviours. Essentially without a supersized speech center there can be no complex language and hence complex thought can not be expressed except through example. Imagine learning the calculus through pantomime.
I suspect tool use, math abilities, and logic might all be becoming a little more instinctive in some individuals. I believe this has been only in the last couple centuries. It's too early to draw hard conclusions and is merely an observation.
Instincts are knowledge in the more primitive parts of the brain. These are acquired through natural selection. Thise who's brains are wired to respond appropriately are more likely to survive and reproduce. A rat that is cornered will charge the attacker; this usually will be so surprising that the rat can escape. The rat won't do this from too great a distance nor if there's another option. Enough individuals have succeeded through the use of tools, math or reason that these might be becoming instinctive.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 20
Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Sunday, 1st April 2007
I suspect tool use, math abilities, and logic might all be becoming a little more instinctive in some individuals. I believe this has been only in the last couple centuries.Β
I think you are right, and this is why Western civilisation progressed, because Western people were becoming more instinctively responsive to math and logic.
But today, all that is being thrown away.
Isn't it now "Rap", "Hip-Hop", and a return to the jungle?Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 21
Posted by WinstonSmith (U2786594) on Monday, 2nd April 2007
I agree: we are wasting it all away.
Western individuals should start asking themselves these questions:
Who are we?
How can we neutralise the traitors in our midst?
How can we discipline our children to work for the progress of our civilisation?Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 22
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 2nd April 2007
Return to the jungle, erm, Into the Valley of the Shadows, Origin Unknown?
Don't you start you Lamarkian lunatic, you manage to contradict your assertions about the increasingly instinctive rational nature of western people every tine you post.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 23
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 2nd April 2007
Survival of the fittest means no such thing, to quote Darwin it is not the strongest of the species that survives but the one most responsive to change. Tell me, are you desperate to prove Godwin's law correct? Genetics doesn't care about how many qualifations you have. I heard Steve Jones, a proffessor of genetics state that some have suggested that higher levels of intellect made certain individuals more attractive to the opposite sex and thus more likely to want to sleep with them but unfortunately his empiracle experince did not bear this out. I have also heard a similar claim made about those who can make people laugh with a similar tale of regret about it seemingly not being quite as simple as that from John Cleese. In fact if anything I think you are better off being a poet or musician of some kind as many a blues guitarist will attest. Just don't try the Riddle song around me.
Musicians also seem to use their instruments to advertise their status. In fact this use of devices to display social status appears to part of modern humanities instinctive behaviour. the fact that we have a greater range of material goods to display this with is neither here nor there. At the more functional end of the scale one might alos consider tha maodern humans have had quite an impact on their environment be it the use of fire to clear scrubalnd or forest to encourage favoured wild staples to the selection of particular strands of certain species that lead to domestication. The hoe and the plough are as much tools as any modern computer.
I keep coming back to the same question of how these congenital weaknesses that you constantly skirt around manifest themself. You cannot state that there are no individuals involved in such a decline and then comment the population as a whole is subject to this process as last time I looked populations were made up of collections of individuals.
In any case the whole business of supersized speech centres in the brain seems a bit of non seceter. The fact that the two of us are having this discussion highlights that whatever decline you suggest is happening, it is not in the realm of communication. The fact that paryticular ideas can be passed on is one thing but for the most part conversations do not consist of people having blinding insights about this that or the other but generally consist of ephemeral matters and help to contribute to social bonding. In fact those who seem to talk about astounding insights are seen as a bit intense and often a touch antisocial. That and instaed the inventor of a better mousetrap having the world beat a patch to their door, they would have to beat their way to everybody elses door to tell them why they ought to give up their existing methods of catching mice for this new fangled system. I hate such trite statements.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 24
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 2nd April 2007
cladking,
I wouldn't interfere in this debate, while I am not up to that level...I think...
But: "Man is not significantly different than other animals in intelligence" I thought to have read that a child from 6 months had more intelligence than the most advanced animal? There seems to be a difference between the brain of an animal and a modern human?
"evidence of degradation of the species which is all around us" On the contrary I think to see an increasing evidence that we become average more and more intellectual, clever and smart? From what I see around me? Or am I wrong?
About that Y chromosome: I am not clever enough to understand what you mean.
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 25
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Monday, 2nd April 2007
"But: "Man is not significantly different than other animals in intelligence" I thought to have read that a child from 6 months had more intelligence than the most advanced animal? There seems to be a difference between the brain of an animal and a modern human?"
People assume that we are very smart but they base that on assumptions that don't stand up to real scrutiny. For instance, it required the human race 40,000 years to invent the wheel. I suspect the inventor was much smarter than the average person today. But even if this isn't true the fact remains that many people today don't really understand the concept. Anyone can get in his car and drive off but this tool is the result of many centuries of improvements made by tens of thousands of individuals. Consider that more than half of airline pilots believe that a plane couldn't take off from a conveyor belt if it ran against the plane at the same speed. This is a very basic lack of understanding of the nature of wheels though in some cases it might be a linguistic problem.
One can find numerous examples of animals displaying intelligence and humans not. We tend to be somewhat more intelligent but this difference is not extreme. We are able to use logic and more complicated thought but this is largely a function of language. Animal thought is much different but it is dependent on species and individual differences, it is not primarily a matter of native intelligence.
My understanding (I'm no biologist) is that there are errors creeping into the chromosomes. These are apparently becoming greater with time according to the experts. The most recent work in this field is downplaying this a little.
It seems that if the ancients could design and build the pyramids for reasons we can't imagine and using techniques we can't discover or duplicate, and do all this with only the most primitive written language then this alone implies they were smarter than we. There are other reasons as well to suppose that our ancestors tended to be brighter. If nothing else it should be remembered that in the distant past there were many real world trials that needed to be passed even for survival. The slow, weak, and dull would be often culled from the gene pool. Much of true intelligence requires attention and when you are dinner for many types of animals the one thing you'll usually do is pay attention.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 26
Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Tuesday, 3rd April 2007
Consider that more than half of airline pilots believe that a plane couldn't take off from a conveyor belt if it ran against the plane at the same speed. This is a very basic lack of understanding of the nature of wheels though in some cases it might be a linguistic problem.Β
Aren't the "more than half of the pilots" right?
The nature of wheels has nothing to do with it.
The plane takes off because it moves forward through the air.
As it moves more quickly forward, the flow of air over its wings quickens. This generates a lifting effect over the wings. And so lifts the plane into the air.
If the plane is not moving forward, because it's on a conveyor belt running backwards, doesn't that keep the plane stationary? So how can it take off?
No matter how madly the plane's wheels are spinning?
There's no airflow over the wings!Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 27
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 3rd April 2007
Re: Message 25.
Cladking,
I am not up to "your logic". I let it better to my friend lol beeble, whose logic I better understand.
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 28
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Tuesday, 3rd April 2007
"Aren't the "more than half of the pilots" right?"
No.
I'm not going to get caught up in derailing threads and planes but...
Consider that if the entire airport is on a huge conveyor many miles wide and circling the planet you would hardly be surprised to see a plane take off in any direction. The entire planet spins yet planes take off.
The ancients knew they weren't so smart and that's a part of the message in the pyramid; that they weren't so dumb either.
And these were people who didn't even have the wheel.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 29
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 3rd April 2007
Re: Message 28.
Cladking that are complete nonsens.
A plane moves by its propellers or by its jets. And by the wings it is brought by the support on the air movement into the air, whatever the ground is, stationary or moving.
Regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 30
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Sunday, 8th April 2007
[quote]I think you are right, and this is why Western civilisation progressed, because Western people were becoming more instinctively responsive to math and logic.[/quote]
Certainly having more instinctive understanding of tools and concepts might be advantageous to the individual but it can help "progress" only to the degree that the individual requires such instinct to advance the race.
This might be a significant factor only to the degree that it propels some individuals into fields which lead to advancement.
I would maintain that much of progress is not entirely dependent on individuals anyway. It is simply a result of previous progress which is very much just the power of the written language. Many of the big breakthroughs in history have come from numerous places at the same time. The individuals involved are simply racing to adapt new knowledge or to technology in new ways.
But none of this requires greater intelligence necessarily. Most disciplines are just studying smaller and smaller parts of the forests and the trees while seeing less and less of either.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 31
Posted by WinstonSmith (U2786594) on Tuesday, 10th April 2007
Cladking
You say the Ancients weren't that smart.
I think that they were very smart -- in difficult circumstances surviving much better than we would with our soft ways.
But we aren't so brutal because we forgo some of our personal freedoms for the common good of being in a sophisticated society with all its exciting possibilities. Those who do not conform are punished (at least in theory -- sometimes we are too soft on them) by a society which demands that the use of force is held solely by itself through the process of law. And our political systems have found more rational and effective ways of imposing the groups mores than the Romans or other ancients did with their brutalities.
On the other hand, when Law fails, the Brutality of the Tribe restarts.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 32
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Tuesday, 10th April 2007
>"You say the Ancients weren't that smart.
I think that they were very smart -- in difficult circumstances surviving much better than we would with our soft ways.
But we aren't so brutal because we forgo some of our personal freedoms for the common good of being in a sophisticated society with all its exciting possibilities..."
The ancients weren't vey smart but they were, probably, quite a bit smarter than we are.
They were probably less brutal than we've been for the past 94 years as well.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 33
Posted by banned user - L (U8072201) on Wednesday, 11th April 2007
i think we are brutal so many phsycopaths walking the streets of our cities really scary eh
Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 34
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Wednesday, 11th April 2007
re 33
Is that ullet road off smithdown, kidder?Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 35
Posted by Xenos5 (U1814603) on Friday, 13th April 2007
I think I can solve this one ! I am quite good at physics.
The jets push the plane forward. They do this whether the plane is standing on the ground, on a conveyor-belt or even suspended in the air.
If there is a conveyor belt going the opposite way this just means the wheels will turn twice as quickly. It doesn't mean the plane won't be pushed forwards by the jets. Of course the plane will be pushed forwards - there is no equal and opposite force to the force of the jets.
The plane will move forwards and take off in the normal way. But while it's on the ground the wheels will turn twice as quickly as they would normally do.
Did I solve it ?Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 36
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 14th April 2007
Lisa,
I see that we have the same thinking (message 29).
I wanted to welcome you as reading your message on slavery, but I see now by clicking on your name that you was already many times around on these boards.
Wanted also to say that I like your approach to these boards too, as your last message to the slavery thread.
Cheers from a virtual washed-ashore in Britain Belgian.
Paul.Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
-
Message 37
Posted by mickeymay (U3600416) on Monday, 28th May 2007
Protest, revolts (and over the last couple of centuries media) are my thoughts. If you protest and demonstrate long enough and hard enough, despite ridicule and threats, it causes change. ie, drink drivers have become social pariahs over the last forty years. Although it was once viewed as a bit of stupidity, even if illegal. Other examples are progress in racism and sexism
Link to this forum: Why aren't we as brutal as we once were?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.