Posts by Ethan Gomez82

Christian Nelson62 said:They change over time.🤣

Exactly. It’s a complete caricature of our era, stripped of any explicit message. Everyone finds their own meaning in it—if they’re even looking for one. That’s actually what makes it work. 😁

Charles Ross3 said:You were listening to Marxism because it was a mandatory requirement (even if they called it something else), but you were studying Marxism within an engineering program, not "Engineering Marxism" or "Marxist Mechanical Engineering."

The reality is that under the socialist system, subjects like Marxism or sociology were integrated into almost every major. It's also true that, for the most part, they served as tools for indoctrination. However, people weren't sitting in "Sociology of Mechanical Engineering" or "Marxism for Electrical Engineering"; rather, the idea was that students of engineering, electrical tech, or agriculture needed to grasp the broader social landscape they lived in. Of course, that brings us right back to the question of how much of that was genuine social insight versus pure indoctrination.

But regardless, when we are talking about the hard sciences, these were two entirely separate spheres: you studied your engineering because you had to, and you sat through some Marxism or sociology just to check a box—likely doing the bare minimum to pass—but it existed as a distinct entity. You wouldn't go looking for electrical schematics inside Marx's *Capital* or Engels' *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*.

What we are seeing now, with this supposed 'introduction of the Bible into engineering,' is a completely different beast. The Bible, as a collection of texts with diverse origins and eras, can certainly be analyzed through the lens of the humanities—looking at historical context, literary merit, dramatic structure, or its inherent messaging. But it simply cannot serve as the foundation for exact, empirical research. A collection of texts that claims to be dogma and eternal truth cannot be the basis for the hard sciences and rigorous scientific inquiry—which is precisely what an original, technical engineering paper ought to be.

I mean, what follows this: Catholic Dentistry?

Perhaps we could achieve a breakthrough with topics like "Influence of blessing on fatigue material" or "Holy guide and corrosion." 🤔

Timothy Nelson5 said:Back when I was a student, during the old socialist era, we had this one course in our first year—I can't quite recall the exact name... but the core was basically Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory... at the time, those terms felt a bit strange to me, certainly different from the usual slogans like Marshall or the Democratic Party... but looking back, I suppose it was just a subtle way of ideologically conditioning the newer generations.
So, I don't really see why anyone is acting surprised now... every era pushes its own ideology, and I guess the pendulum just swings back sometimes...

Besides, didn't Elizabeth Warren get her doctorate with a paper called "The mythical aspect of ecofeminism"? If you actually bother to read it, you'll see just how much nonsense is packed in there... something along the lines of "women are connected to Mother Nature and the cosmos through menstruation"... if I recall correctly.
If that qualifies as a doctoral thesis, then I don't see why a paper analyzing the statistics of material mentions in the Bible is suddenly considered unacceptable...

On that subject:

An interesting comment:
This was funny 7 years ago....
7 years later.... It's literally becoming reality

Just another instance where reality ends up overtaking what used to be mere satire...

Actually, I disagree. In a healthy society, you might find all sorts of ideologies, but they aren't forced down our throats from the top—especially not in fields where they have zero business being, like at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It isn't just ridiculous; it's pathological. When this kind of thing starts creeping into a society that used to be free from it, it means something is broken. Though, honestly, we probably wouldn't even recognize what "healthy" looks like since we've never actually been in a functional state to begin with.

"Quote:"

Brenda Murphy3 said:Fine, let's just give Putin a free pass while he goes over there to Ukraine and burns everything down, kills people, and does whatever the hell he wants... all just so the media doesn't start whining about their gas bills getting too high. 😵🤦 Look, honestly? We couldn't care less about your damn gas bill, you feel me?

Look, if things actually get critical or hit a breaking point—fine, then we’ll sit down, have a serious talk, and figure something out (and don't worry, Putin will definitely be paying attention to that...). But right now? We aren't even anywhere near that level. Honestly, your whining about gas bills while some little fascist is busy leveling entire cities is just... well, it's disgusting, to say the least. Don't sweat it too much; the US is a pretty decent social safety net kind of place. If you're seriously worried about freezing to death, maybe we can organize a charity drive here on the forum just for you.😁.
And until then—honestly, who cares about that damn gas bill of yours anyway...🍿

I have absolutely nothing to offer Putin or Zelenskyy. Honestly, I couldn't care less—it's all the same to me as the conflict in Yemen. I'm just not wired to get worked up over propaganda; I don't waste my time reading that garbage, and frankly, I don't give a damn about everyone else's interests. You get me?

silentnomad7 said:One really ought to do some actual research, and then certain things might finally start making sense.

Research is great in theory, but with the sheer amount of propaganda out there, it’s an uphill battle. You'll probably just end up looking misinformed anyway. Honestly, I'm over it—I'd rather just mind my own business.

rowdytiger13 said:"Quote:"

This kind of nonsense has been around forever, especially when people start crying about the environment. Europeans have embraced it so hard that their prime ministers actually commute by bicycle just to get a round of applause. So, honestly, this won't be any big deal or cause any real stress.
Moving forward... for Average. A drop in standards means this Dane isn't heading to Majorca this summer.
What does a drop in living standards actually mean for the average American?
Once you actually answer that question, you might finally realize how smart you are.

I don't care what it means for an American (or a Ukrainian, or anyone else outside the West). I care about my gas bill. I’m sure some genius will chime in to tell me the bill hasn't actually gone up and I'm just imagining things. ☕

Christian Torres3 said:And I bet you'll try to back that up with links and "official" numbers, right?

No, I see it happening right before my eyes every single day.

The nonsense has already started—all this talk about riding bicycles more or turning down the thermostat by a degree or whatever other idiocy they dream up. Not me. I’m a subversive, defiant, and disobedient citizen. I am definitely not "following the herd." 😁

analogbear5 said:How does that even tie into the sanctions talk? You probably think this is some clever way to dodge the EU embargo, right?

European embargo!?

With incredible, stubborn stupidity—likely fueled by propaganda—everyone keeps writing about how much damage the embargo has done to Russia, while conveniently ignoring that the EU has taken ten times more of a hit. Since Europeans tend to be a bit more pampered, the situation is even worse. It’s a massive self-inflicted wound, but apparently, we aren't allowed to talk about that. As long as America doesn't feel the pain, everything is fine. ☕

Jonathan Brooks8 said:That would imply that humans are, one way or another, essentially nothing more than biological automatons—which is just fundamentally wrong...

It isn't "wrong," it’s just heavily skewed by a bias toward our own existence. That bias is understandable, sure, but let's be real here.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Regardless of how you slice it—whether we're talking about raw instincts, primal urges, or mere physiological reflexes—a human being possesses the capacity to exert willpower and reason to resist them, ultimately choosing a path of conditional freedom...

That’s all well and good. It just implies that something else—something currently more powerful—pushed him in a different direction. A human being, much like any other animal, just bounces around the pinball machine of life, going wherever the bumpers send them until they finally drop. Honestly, there's nothing tragic or depressing about it; life is a game, and like most games, it's mostly just fun.

ruggedraven36 said:I'm with you. I just meant that when I talk about a longing for life, I'm including both the conscious and unconscious parts. Those split-second automatic actions that save your skin are rare—but a longing for life is constant. It isn't just about avoiding danger; it's about the joy of being alive, or just basic gratitude for existence. I don't know if instincts are "interesting" enough for philosophy, but they are to me—I've always liked connecting dots that don't seem to belong together.

Hmm, a cynic (like myself) would argue that it all depends on whether you're stuck in a manic or depressive phase. Honestly, you can be pretty indifferent too. And speaking of things I hate, Daylight Saving Time starts again tomorrow. I despise it. When the clocks shift, I spend my morning cursing under my breath with zero appreciation for existence. Give me a couple of days, though, and I usually find my footing again.😁

ruggedraven36 said:"A hunger for life" sounds way more meaningful than just some "survival instinct"—at least when you're talking about people.

ruggedraven36 is quite the old-school romantic. "Thirst" is a heavy word.

Sure, calling it a "survival instinct" is technically inaccurate. Those impulses fall under drives—the long-term urges that push us to act, often mediated by hormones. Instincts play a part, but instinctive reactions are usually lightning-fast and automatic. For instance, if a car swerves toward you, you jump out of the way instinctively (automatically). That reflex is vital because there’s zero time for deep thought or philosophy, let alone some poetic "thirst." Emotions, like fear, only have time to settle in once you've already cleared the ditch. Like any other biological reflex, instincts aren't particularly interesting to dissect, though you can certainly philosophize about them. I find intuition far more compelling.

Harold Doyle3 said:It's simple natural selection. It makes sense as long as it favors survival. Anything that doesn't tip the scales toward staying alive loses its purpose, and nature just tosses it in the trash.

Exactly. It usually takes some time to play out. Nature might even weed out the philosophers next. Who knows.🙄

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Totally. But does that mean instincts and drives are actually passed down through our genes? I guess my own bad luck might be 😁

They absolutely do. And honestly, plenty of other things pass down too—stuff you wouldn't even think to look for. We're talking everything from language predispositions and intuition to facial expressions and various temperament tendencies.

Jessica Gonzalez said:Anthropology is honestly one of the most fast-paced fields out there. If you pick up a book about human ancestors today, it might feel a bit dated in just ten years. New archaeological finds popping up all over the world seem to make our understanding of human history more complex by the day. Since some people don't really buy into evolution—and even those who do sometimes struggle to wrap their heads around it—the evolutionary path of *Homo sapiens* often gets oversimplified. People tend to view it as a straight line from *Australopithecus* through various *Homo* species, as if one species lived for 50,000 years and then was simply replaced by the next. It doesn't quite work like that. In reality, many different species and subspecies lived alongside each other. It’s a lot like how we look at big cats today; we call them all "cats," but we can clearly see the difference between a jaguar and a tiger, or a lion versus a bobcat. I guess science hasn't fully figured out why only *Homo sapiens* survived out of all those competing hominid branches. Just imagine traveling two million years into the future and seeing that only one type of cat exists—maybe a three-meter-long creature with spots and a mane. You'd probably remember that back in 2022, there were plenty of different big cat species on Earth, and you'd naturally wonder what happened to all the others and how just one single species managed to make it through.

Scientific consensus moves fast, and the old assumption that there was a single, definitive branching where only our line survived is outdated. These splits weren't always permanent; groups that separated thousands of years ago often drifted back together and interbred. It happened with Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo erectus, and plenty of other branches we don't even know about yet. Because of this subsequent mixing, strictly speaking, those branches didn't go extinct—they live on within us. This merging into a single stream isn't some ancient phenomenon either. It's the result of larger migrations, increased mixing, higher population densities, or simply put: civilization. In a civilized society—especially a global one—you can't really have more than one branch.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Of course not. At the end of the day, what's actually coded in our genes is just a set of biological instructions for protein synthesis.

Look, there's a nuance here. Proteins play a massive role in embryogenesis, which influences how neural networks develop—essentially setting the brain's "factory settings." Certain reactions and fears are hardwired because they were selected as survival traits. Think about an instinctual fear of snakes or heights, or even certain types of disgust toward specific smells. It’s not everything, but it’s certainly a factor.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Since you moved this over to Philosophy, I’m guessing you’re looking for deep dives and actual debates based on your prompt rather than just raw data.

Look, we can start with the obvious—there were tons of different early human tribes out there. And honestly? The whole evolution from primitive hominids to modern humans wasn't nearly as straight line as those textbook historical materialism classes make it sound. Those courses present history as this neat, linear progression—which basically brainwashes students into thinking in one dimension unless they actually take the time to think deeper and look at the bigger picture for themselves.

If we assume what Harar said in his book is right—that we're the descendants of that specific group of Homo sapiens who made that massive leap forward—then, staying within the bounds of philosophy without acting like a know-it-all historian, we could argue that transition happened the exact moment a human became self-aware and finally thought, I am.

I don't see any massive "quantum leap" here, just a long series of small steps. Humans certainly didn't suddenly become "human" because of the Holocene, even if that era acted as the catalyst for civilization. Even if you choose to view the rise of civilization as a major jump—which isn't a given—it has absolutely nothing to do with "self-awareness" or saying "I am." That happened a hell of a lot earlier.

Megan Gray32 said:Greetings—I originally opened this thread over in the "History" section, but I didn't have much luck there. Aside from a few dry facts, I wasn't particularly satisfied with the responses I received. The reality is that prehistory is essentially shrouded in mystery; because there is no written record to lean on, we are largely left with nothing but speculation. That is precisely what draws me in—the opportunity to exercise a bit of imagination within that context. Perhaps we might uncover some hidden, buried truth, much like stumbling upon a treasure chest. And it doesn't necessarily have to be gold; regardless, I would love to see it found.
__________________________________________________ ____________________:

Something has been weighing on my mind lately. I caught myself falling down a Google rabbit hole reading about *Homo erectus*, and I found myself intrigued by the fact that they lived 200,000 years ago before eventually going extinct.

It’s a lot to process. I studied history back in high school, though I wasn't truly grasping the sheer scale of it all at the time. If we are looking at 200,000 years ago, and considering we are now in 2022—plus perhaps another 5,600 years since the dawn of civilization—we have a massive gap. What happened during those other 192,000 years? Are there any historical facts or specific studies regarding that era? What other subspecies, similar to *Homo erectus*, existed and subsequently vanished?

I am not strictly looking for hard facts; I would actually like to allow ourselves some room for speculation. I am fascinated by questions like: how many times were we on the precipice of progress, only to regress as a species? How many times throughout history was fire sparked, only to flicker out again? What were our greatest obstacles—assuming we had met our basic needs for warmth and food—who was our most formidable enemy? And what was it like to face those predators hand-to-hand in the early days? Which animals were we actually fighting?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could it be argued that *Homo sapiens* were somewhat rational 50,000 years ago, or at least driven by emotion? To say that we existed for 300,000 years—the final link in an evolutionary chain stretching back two billion years—only to finally stumble upon agriculture and animal domestication in the last 10,000 years... it feels a bit demoralizing for humanity, doesn't it?

If we have been around for roughly 100,000 to 150,000 years, there must have been culture, cave paintings, and a distinct sense of aesthetics. There must have been emotion, but surely there was also rational behavior—especially if they were hunting effectively. I realize language wouldn't have been fully developed—meaning a limited vocabulary made communication difficult, even when dealing with tribal hostilities—and, unfortunately, cannibalism was likely a reality.

But as you all suggest, we and they were biologically and physically similar. Could we say we were mentally similar as well? At least on a fundamental level—enough to conclude, "this is good," "this is wrong," or "this is necessary." Given all these circumstances, I find it hard to accept the thesis that we only turned to agriculture and domestication in the last 10,000 years.

Regarding the use of fire, some sources suggest it was being used 300,000 years ago, while others claim even longer. Initially, it might have been accidental—occurring during elemental storms—but later, it became a deliberate effort. This is where meat began to be cooked, which undoubtedly relieved some of our primal savagery and provided a sense of peace.

That is essentially what interests me: those small details, the nuances that helped us advance or caused us to regress as a species. Like a moment where fire might have spontaneously ignited, only to die out. One time, we cook meat and find peace, warmth, and protection from predators. But when the flame dies, do we simply return to the darkness?

Culture must have existed; I am curious about what propelled it forward or held it back. Animals—the larger ones certainly posed a problem. Especially the big cats. And which ones were the good ones—the ones we first befriended?

They were essentially the same as they are today.

From a philosophical standpoint, civilizations didn't emerge because humans suddenly developed some special new trait; they emerged because climate shifts made it possible. People with the exact same makeup as us spent most of history living as hunter-gatherers. Any other questions really fall under the domain of the natural sciences.

True courage is betting everything on the "off days."

Henry Lopez15 said:Why bother with bribery when they can just produce a vaccine and move on?
It’s simpler, cheaper, and the profit margins are excellent.
People will choose vaccination; after all, vaccines have historically been decisive in controlling numerous diseases.
From a business perspective, there is no real incentive to sink billions into uncertain drug development.
The idea that pharmaceutical giants would prioritize humanity's welfare over their own interests is frankly absurd.
Therefore, you don't need 86,000 variables; you only need one: pharmaceutical companies act in their own self-interest without worrying about the masses.

Well, clearly not everyone is choosing it. This specific vaccine has been a letdown. We saw massive infection spikes just months after the rollout, so calling the disease "crushed" is a stretch. But if these vaccines actually failed, then the emergence of Omicron might actually be the best news we've had since this whole thing started. It could finally bring this to a close; we'll see soon enough. 🎉 Pandemics always run their course eventually, one way or another.