Is Technology making people stupid?

According to Webster: stu·pid, Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.

 

                       

..or have people always been stupid?

Humans (known taxonomically) as Homo sapiens, Latin for “wise man” or “knowing man”) are the only living species in the Homo genus.

Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full (behavioral modernity) around 50,000 years ago.

Humans have a highly developed brain and are capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the hands for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other living species on Earth.

Other higher-level thought processes of humans, such as self-awareness, rationality, and (sapience,) are considered to be defining features of what constitutes a “person”.

(Sidebar) sa·pi·ent, Having great wisdom and discernment.

Continuing…

Humans are uniquely adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families and kinship networks, to nations.

Social interactions between humans have established an extremely wide variety of values, social norms, and rituals, which together form the basis of human society.

With individuals widespread in every continent except Antarctica, humans are a “cosmopolitan” species.

As of November 2011, the human population was estimated by the United Nations Population Division to be about 7 billion, and by the United States Census Bureau to be about 6.97 billion.

Humans are noted for their desire to understand and influence their environment, seeking to explain and manipulate phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology, and religion.

This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills, which are passed down culturally; humans are the only species known to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and create and use numerous other technologies and arts.

The study of humans is the scientific discipline of anthropology. (Source Wikipedia)

 

Anthropology, is the academic study of humanity. It deals with all that is characteristic of the human experience, from physiology and the evolutionary origins to the social and cultural organization of human societies as well as individual and collective forms of human experience. It has origins in the humanities, the natural sciences, and the social sciences.

The term “anthropology” is from the “Greek” anthrōpos (ἄνθρωπος), “man”, understood to mean humankind or humanity, and -logia (-λογία), “discourse” or “study.” (Source Wikipedia)

50,000 years, “at least in my opinion.” Is an impressive block of time, (at least until you compare it with the hundred and 65 million years that “Dinosaurs” roamed the earth.)

 

Incisorsosaurus Rex

With the emphasis of course on, “WREAKS!” A little humor there. Not that I actually find dinosaurs humorous, ..albeit I have always found them interesting and fascinating.

Probably because at my age, I have more in common with the dinosaur. Accordingly I would tout that I have a greater understanding of the dinosaur than I will ever have with our 21st-century technology.

 Lunar  Rover

Consequently, it’s a good thing that I’m a member of the genus “Homo sapiens.” Which of course allows me to utilize technology without actually understanding it?

 

People, i.e., (Homo sapiens) left to their own devices, i.e., (common sense) to assimilate, survive and prosper have no equal in nature other than nature.

With that said, you must also understand that man with all his qualities for survival is no match for the unnatural. It is natural for man, (Homo sapiens) to gather and share.

It is natural for men to work together to achieve a goal, man is the greatest tool for survival the world has ever known.

With that said, you must also understand that the same qualities that elevated man to the top of the food chain, (trust and communication) are his destruction. Man is (blinded by his trust) and (corrupted by communication.)

Lying, bigotry, hate, greed and corruption are not natural to man, they are learned modalities.

According to Webster: mo·dal·i·ty, The tendency to conform to a general pattern or belong to a particular group or category.

When you ask your child whether he or she succumbed to the temptation of a Tollhouse cookie prior to dinner, and he or she replies with fresh crumbs huddling and visible at the corners of his or her mouth, replies; “no, ..it wasn’t me.” You know exactly how to respond, (for the sake of honesty) and (for the sake of the child), you don’t hesitate to correct the situation.

So why is it? That when Bill Clinton said in front of God and in front of the Nation; “I did not have sex with that woman.” When in fact, in “both our hearts and in our minds” we knew that Bill Clinton was (lying) through his teeth.

Have we, (man) “Homo sapiens” (the greatest tool for learning and understanding the world has ever known) have we becomes so programmed and dependent outside of ourselves, ..that we are (destined to extinction) like the dinosaur?

Why is it that we correct our children, as well as each other when lying is as obvious as the nose on your face, yet we search the length and breath of our knowledge to find an alternative word for (lying,) when the lie is issued from the mouth of someone traditionally held in high esteem.

Richard Nixon, albeit historically, “at least in my opinion,” was one of America’s more accomplished leaders, he was indeed responsible for the Watergate travesty.

Charlie Rangel, by the standards that you and I would be held to, ..is a “liar and a thief.” Yet no one, at least publicly, has ever referred to Congressman Rangel as a liar or a thief.

Our mainstream media, ..the folks that I enjoy referring to as (teleprompterologists) ..and “buffoons,” ..offered the fact that they did not believe Congressman Rangel was being completely forthcoming with the truth?

As for calling Congressman Rangel a thief, ..it is and has always been my understanding that anytime anyone acquires something via breaking the law, ..he or she is a thief.

Congressman Rangel was adjudicated by his peers and it was decided by his peers that he had behaved in a manner “unbefitting” a member of Congress and he was sanctioned.

According to Webster: sanc·tion; …

1. Authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action valid.

2. Support or encouragement, as from public opinion or established custom.

3. A consideration, an influence, or a principle that dictates an ethical choice.

..and at the bottom;

4. The penalty for noncompliance specified in a law or decree.

5. A penalty, specified or in the form of moral pressure, that acts to ensure compliance or conformity.

  

..WHAT THE HELL IS THAT!

And if Merriam Webster’s definition of (sanctioned) isn’t “doublespeak,” ..I’ll kiss your elbow on network television.

Charlie Rangel, if adjudicated by the laws set forth by our founding fathers in the U.S. Constitution, ..would be in jail today instead of drawing a paycheck from the people he swindled.

Question: Do I hate Charlie Rangel?

Response: Absolutely!

I hate corruption, ..I hate people (anyone without exception) who promote corruption, ..and I hate people who allow corruption. Which is not only a “God-given right,” ..it is a “God Demanded principal.” Not to mention the fact that the First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees me the right to express and publish my opinion.

Our government is not spending our tax dollars wisely or efficiently, “come on people,” …  (get your heads out of your armpits,) ..”our” government is spending “our” money.

The good folks in Boston that threw the Tea into the harbor, ..did it for good reason, (taxation without representation) ..didn’t anyone go to school that day?

Are 21st-century Americans so closeted by their cell phones and iPads that they can’t see the handwriting on the wall?

 Prisoners of Technology! 

According to Webster: pris·on·er, (in context) One deprived of freedom of expression or action.

 

 Question: What about this guy?

Think about it, I’ll be back tomorrow

Crusader Rabbit…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: