Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

The physical devolution of men

The physical devolution of men
October 14, 2009, 12:16:10 PM
Quote
* Roman legions completed more than one-and-a-half marathons a day carrying more than half their body weight in equipment.

* Athens employed 30,000 rowers who could all exceed the achievements of modern oarsmen.

* Australian aboriginals threw a hardwood spear 110 meters or more (the current world javelin record is 98.48).

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE59D0BR20091014?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11564

The study compares ancient warriors' achievements to current world records.

But in how many tests would the average modern man fail to meet the standards of his ancestor from 2000 years ago?

Re: The physical devolution of men
October 14, 2009, 09:47:11 PM
It's funny how he presents all these complicated hypotheses and yet omits the simple fact of dysgenics. Is it so obvious that is it a given, or what?

Re: The physical devolution of men
October 15, 2009, 07:32:21 AM
Problems I have with this:

1) The first feat while impressive is certainly not unheard of in the modern world. Any special forces unit from practically any modern nation could accomplish such a feat and would indeed be expected to. In fact I would imagine such a feat could be accomplished by even the regular army in many countries.

2) The boats and number of rowers and even types of oars (not to mention the sails) are very different from that of modern day vessels which defeats the point of comparison.

3) What is the weight of the modern Olympic Javelin compared to the wooden spear?  Where does this figure for the Aboriginal spear throw come from? Was this an isolated incident or an average amoung many thousands of recorded throws? If it was just one throw what were the conditions, what kind of wood was it etc? 

Re: The physical devolution of men
October 15, 2009, 08:28:57 PM
I believe that the spiritual devolution is much worse, and that this also shows in the physical (or biological) realm.

In fact, why not admit that mankind is altogether headed south?
Whatever you honor above all things, that which you so honor will have dominion over you.

Re: The physical devolution of men
October 16, 2009, 06:53:13 PM
In "Nazi Occultism", apparently, the South Pole is the spring of all Evil, and the North Pole is the spring of all that is Good, which is why African-Americans steal.

Re: The physical devolution of men
October 17, 2009, 12:30:09 AM
Every enlightenged individual knows that Hitler escaped to New Aldebaran haha, jokes aside, I don't care how physical other people are. As a bourgeouis (sp?) kid I just play the games I am adjusted to.

Re: The physical devolution of men
October 17, 2009, 02:29:06 AM
Men today are not trained for a very physical lifestyle.  This sedentary lifestyle eventually affects genetics and future generations.  If people were trained from a younger age for physically demanding work and leisure, they could over a few generations make up for those gains.  If our physical prowess is less than that of our agricultural ancestors, think of what our more distant ancestors were capable of.  The Mongols, Manchus, Turks, Plains Indians, and others were able to achieve great deeds because of their lifestyles, religious systems, and cultures.  Our ancestors were cro-magnon, hunter-gatherers with robust bone structure capable of great strength in fighting and labor, and the indo-europeans, invaders with a technological edge.  The two mixed in varying proportion throughout Europe and Asia, but the strongest people have more cro-magnon influence.  We can recover a semblance of the power of our ancestors if we commit to training.

Your body is in fact made to make great gains in a short period of time even if not to the caliber of athletes.  Four hours of exercise a week can do a lot.  Now, visualize if your lifestyle revolved around physical exertion.
Let us tear are hearts to pieces so that we may reveal our souls to God.  Let us immerse ourselves in the light to burn our lesser selves away.

Re: The physical devolution of men
October 17, 2009, 03:14:54 AM
Man is much physically devolved from the tasks that were prevalevalent i the 19th century, I cant see much wrong in the 18th century. What is wrong in black pan-nationalism, back to Africa?

NHA

Re: The physical devolution of men
October 17, 2009, 09:41:19 AM
I get the impression that people here like gravitating towards the most negative outlook possible.

Power is the ability to exercise influence and control over others and your environment.

* Man has always been a physically weak species compared to other apex predators.
* Man's power is rooted in collectivist behavior, intelligence and the ability to use tools.
* Man's intelligence and tools are stronger now than they were then.
* It follows that man is now more powerful

But then there is the issue of quality of experience. Turning into a hunchback from spending too much time slouched in chairs is hardly preferable.

Organisms will always expend the least amount of effort needed, for the sake of energy conservation. Bipedal locomotion is a good example - increased efficiency at the cost of upper body strength.

The issue now is how to create a utilitarian need for exercise in modern societies - the aesthetic and health aspects realistically aren't large enough motivators. I think city planning plays a big part in this. Take Los Angeles for example, its a city built for cars not people, and is consequently a pretty asocial place. If you design a city where people have to walk everywhere they go, not only does it improve health but allows for stronger social networks.

Put the airport and carport outside of town and have a decent railway system.


Re: The physical devolution of men
October 17, 2009, 10:39:59 AM
NHA has some good points. Personally I'd turn drivers licenses into driving permits, and one of the criteria would be do you really need a car?

I'd also add two hours of physical training at work as compensation for dull jobs that don't require much physical activity. I think the fact that humans (are expected to) spend all their energy slaving away at their jobs has a lot to do with the physical devolution of men. So it would only be logical to expect the employer to come up with a solution to keep his workers fit. If there's physical exercise in schools then why not at work? If smoking kills then what about sitting in a cubicle eight hours each day?


Re: The physical devolution of men
October 17, 2009, 09:23:01 PM
Problems I have with this:

1) The first feat while impressive is certainly not unheard of in the modern world. Any special forces unit from practically any modern nation could accomplish such a feat and would indeed be expected to. In fact I would imagine such a feat could be accomplished by even the regular army in many countries.

Or by your average bum ass hipster.  Romans did most of their campaigning in the summer, so figure, 10-12 hours of marching at 15-20 minute miles (3-4 mph), which is a pretty standard walking pace.  I've made 47 miles in one day on the AT, and that's over rough terrain from a guy who isn't in fantastic shape.  It's also worth mentioning that a 40 mile/day march for a field army is a "forced march," and Roman armies actually rarely made more than 12-15 miles a day under normal conditions.  As a practical matter, the real limitation for a forced march is not the limits of human endurance, but the limits of the army's animal transport and cavalry element.  A young adult male in good physical condition can easily maintain a 3-4 mph pace for 18 or 20 hours - if they absolutely had to - over even ground.  A horse - especially an unshod horse (like the Romans used) - can't give you much more than 10-12 hours at that kind of pace.


Re: The physical devolution of men
October 18, 2009, 12:32:26 PM
Men today are not trained for a very physical lifestyle.  This sedentary lifestyle eventually affects genetics and future generations.  If people were trained from a younger age for physically demanding work and leisure, they could over a few generations make up for those gains.  If our physical prowess is less than that of our agricultural ancestors, think of what our more distant ancestors were capable of.  The Mongols, Manchus, Turks, Plains Indians, and others were able to achieve great deeds because of their lifestyles, religious systems, and cultures.  Our ancestors were cro-magnon, hunter-gatherers with robust bone structure capable of great strength in fighting and labor, and the indo-europeans, invaders with a technological edge.  The two mixed in varying proportion throughout Europe and Asia, but the strongest people have more cro-magnon influence.  We can recover a semblance of the power of our ancestors if we commit to training.

Your body is in fact made to make great gains in a short period of time even if not to the caliber of athletes.  Four hours of exercise a week can do a lot.  Now, visualize if your lifestyle revolved around physical exertion.

Certainly not in a period of 2000 years.

I saw an article - don't know if it's the same one - that talked about ancient man's athleticism being far greater than modern man's. On one hand, we have, obviously, a far better understanding of physics, anatomy, diet, training etc and so we have people like Usain Bolt whose athletic achievements were equalled by no man before him - modern or ancient. Similarly, we have far better access to crap food and effortless entertainment, and we have people so fat they can't leave their bedroom - their obesity certainly not rivalled by any ancient human. As has been pointed out, it's a devolution of culture and spirituality, and has nothing to do with genetics.

Re: The physical devolution of men
October 18, 2009, 08:34:52 PM
The average man of today cannot match up to the greatest men of history.  That would be stupid.

Re: The physical devolution of men
October 30, 2009, 06:52:13 AM
"Or by your average bum ass hipster.  Romans did most of their campaigning in the summer, so figure, 10-12 hours of marching at 15-20 minute miles (3-4 mph), which is a pretty standard walking pace.  I've made 47 miles in one day on the AT, and that's over rough terrain from a guy who isn't in fantastic shape.  It's also worth mentioning that a 40 mile/day march for a field army is a "forced march," and Roman armies actually rarely made more than 12-15 miles a day under normal conditions.  As a practical matter, the real limitation for a forced march is not the limits of human endurance, but the limits of the army's animal transport and cavalry element.  A young adult male in good physical condition can easily maintain a 3-4 mph pace for 18 or 20 hours - if they absolutely had to - over even ground.  A horse - especially an unshod horse (like the Romans used) - can't give you much more than 10-12 hours at that kind of pace."
Satan is my Stewardess;
I agree.  Did 10 miles a day this summer with 60lbs on my back (I weigh about 135) at 9000 feet (I live at sea level) and I am a smoker.  In 1914 the German armies in France marched 30+ miles a day for almost two months... and engaged and defeated larger French forces both during the advance and at the end of the advance.  A British SAS squad sent behind Iraqi lines in Desert Storm ran 150 kilometers in two nights (hiding from the Iraqis during the day) with 200 pounds of shit on their backs... well, the dumped their main packs after the first night and only carried ammo and water but two gallons of water and 1000 rounds of ammo are still going to weigh about 50 pounds.  In our current war in Afghanistan US Delta operators hiked 20 miles at night, at 10,000+ feet elevation, in chest deep snow carrying 150 pounds of shit on their backs to get into position to call in air strikes on Taliban positions.  Many more modern examples abound, try reading up on British marching exploits in the Falklands War, or about the Mujahideen in Afghanistan (current war or the Soviet war, although this is probably a bad example as Afghanistan is still largely a primitive society in the physical sense).  Many German units on the Ostfront in WW2 marched 40+ miles a day (either advancing at the beginning or retreating at the end) with full kit while engaging (and often defeating) vastly superior Soviet forces (10-1 by the end of the war) and many with chronic dysentery, malnourishment, wounds, jaundice, etc.
The point is, I think that among our best the potential for great strength and endurance is still there, it just lies more or less dormant, and because of herd politics and 'rising living standards' the overall mean fitness and potential fitness have probably gone down.
"Just like your ancestors
you will fight today."

-Rob Darken