Agreed Yabby. Especially; “It is exactly because people think that we are above the laws of nature, that we are heading for disaster.”

Yabby,

You are basically talking about physical interactions in the world of "gross" matter. That we are not above the laws of nature is true.

OTOH, CJ is talking about thoughts, ideas, culture and the sorts of things that operate in the world of "finer" physical matter. The latter, being finer, is freer to move about much more quickly compared with those activities in the grosser world. In that context, he is right as well.

The way I would reconcile what you and CJ have said is that, at any point in time, what happens in the gross material world lags behind those in the world of thoughts and ideas. Not saying anything new there! His ideas will be good for the future while yours, based on experiences from the past, are useful in understanding the consequences of what's about to happen. It's lucky humans are so diverse so that we can cover all our bases.

What this debate shows is the different emphases of the debaters. IMV, it doesn't prove one idea/debater is intrinsically better or more right than the other but that the things they describe are all real and happening all the time.

As to which idea is the best one for the current times, only events will decide.

Yabby, I do wish you'd stop misrepresenting what I write. If you manage to misconstrue my simple comments, it's hardly surprising that you misunderstand complex texts.

<< As CJ admits, when he did not like what his university was teaching, he changed universities >>

I didn't say that at all. I studied for one degree, and then some years later enrolled in another because I was more interested in humanity than in 'rats and stats'. Unlike your amateur dabbling, my intellectual investigation involved a couple of decades of hard work, systematic study and years of field research.

At any rate, I've got no problem with what you've gleaned from your pop psychology and primatology books, if only you'd stick to your professed belief that human biology influences what people do, rather than doggedly and dogmatically claiming that how our brains are wired determines what we do and think.

Society and culture constitute a bit more than a thin veneer for humans - rather, they are all that distinguishes us from other animals.

Ludwig: << So I take it then that you agree that the broadening of the role of women in our society since about the 50s has not helped at all when it comes to securing a healthy future, despite the large resultant reduction in the birthrate that it triggered? >>

I take it that you agree that the broadened role of women in our society has been directly involved in reducing our birthrate. Now, if only we can encourage other societies where women remain uneducated and unemancipated to follow suit, then we might be getting somewhere near sustainability as a species.

* Unlike your amateur dabbling, my intellectual investigation involved a couple of decades of hard work, systematic study and years of field research.*

LOL CJ, you would not be the first person to spend years and years,
barking up the wrong tree, when it comes to understanding humanity.
Modern neuroscience is showing that tens of thousands of so called
academics, did exactly that!

But you are free to shoot the messenger. The thing is, what we know
so far is that you don't seem to have the foggiest about what people
like Restak and Greenfield are actually claiming. Its well out of
your field of expertise and your knowldege is frankly largely
outdated by modern neuroscience.

*Society and culture constitute a bit more than a thin veneer for humans - rather, they are all that distinguishes us from other animals.*

CJ, in that case you need to swat up on primatology, there is a fair
bit published out there these days, by people like de Waal etc.

The basic behaviour of a pack of chimps is frankly not that different
from a tribe of humans. They all get along just fine in times of
plenty, but see what happens when resources became scarce!

Cut off the power to any major city and what do you think would
happen, as water and food ran out?

The only way they got New Orleans back on track was by the power
of the gun.

Australia and the Western world thrive because we are like chimps
having a feast, with more then enough for all. Take that away
and it would go back to the laws of the jungle, as exists in so
much of the third world.

“I take it that you agree that the broadened role of women in our society has been directly involved in reducing our birthrate. Now, if only we can encourage other societies where women remain uneducated and unemancipated to follow suit, then we might be getting somewhere near sustainability as a species.”

Absolutely CJ.

I asked; ‘So I take it then that you agree that the broadening of the role of women in our society since about the 50s has not helped at all when it comes to securing a healthy future, despite the large resultant reduction in the birthrate that it triggered?’

I’ll take your response as a yes.

“Society and culture constitute a bit more than a thin veneer for humans - rather, they are all that distinguishes us from other animals.”

Not much more than a thin veneer. There is much more than this that distinguished us from other animals.