So, essentially, the "story of clothing" in the West (i.e. Christianity) takes off with the Hebrews distinguishing themselves from the Egyptians by the clothes they wore. Does this go back far enough to explain today's standard of clothing in the Middle East? What about the Far East, and other parts of the world? Does each region/religion have its own "tale of clothing?" Did clothing evolve in the colder regions of the world strictly as a practical necessity, or did they ever accumulate religious or social connotations?
Just out of curiosity, are we all (on this thread) officially agreed that public breastfeeding is fine to do (even if some perspectives vary a bit on whether it might ever be at all sexual)? I'm thinking yes? ColorsWolf, you don't mind public breastfeeding do you? Even if so, do you see that subject as opening a larger can of worms, and if so, what's the nature of said worms?
Okay now I'm curious as to whether public breastfeeding is allowed in the Middle East. (Let me guess: No?)
Re: the foreskin as an accessory of modesty ... interesting and certainly a new idea for this guy.
, I am hearing you say that emotional matters have tended to overwhelm logical matters in our society.
"The color of some one's skin makes only makes a difference between individual Humans based upon temperature and climate, it only becomes a *huge* 'problem' when people obsess so much over it to the point of being illogical that it then becomes a problem."
Okay well, now that we as a society have managed to "make" it such a huge problem, what are the best ways to reduce the size of the problem now?
So homosexuality is only a "logical" problem if it leads to the end of procreation in the human species, whereas you estimate the size of the "hetero" (or at least "bi") population to be large enough to keep procreation going at an adequate (ample?
) rate. That and technology such as in vitro fertilization negates the "procreation threat."
But various people perceive homosexuality as threatening humanity for quite a range of "emotional" reasons, including ideas like homosexuality being a slippery slope leading to the end of all morality and civilization.
Religion is largely an "emotional" experience for most zealous believers, at least that's my take on it. Is it just organized religion that inflates the proportion of emotion in the social debate, or does any belief at all in the mystical/divine have that hazard? After all, any lone nut job can grab a gun and say, "God told me to kill a bunch of people," can't he?
I am also hearing you say that we (as a society) are over-focused on trivial/impractical issues and as a result are missing the big picture. I see some of your examples of the trivial/emotional/illogical matters blocking our vision. Can you give me some examples of the larger/logical matters that we're (collectively) overlooking?
"Someday we may try to destroy each other in a giant war over 'plaid t-shirts versus plain t-shirts!'"
That sounds a bit tongue in cheek; if the "classic" version of WWIII takes place, I expect politicians will come up with a "better excuse" to start the war, or an excuse that *sounds*
better. "God told me/us to do it" tends to sound like a great excuse, so I wouldn't be surprised if WWIII was a religious war, perhaps even a continuation of the Crusades. In which case, it might be a giant war over "army hats" versus "towel hats?"
"When will this madness stop?! When there is absolutely *nothing* left of us as a species?!"
I imagine we'll all agree that would stop the madness. If humanity per se is the problem, then does it matter if humanity disappears?
The one good thing about an insane tyrant is that he needs living people to rule over (not counting zombie empires
). So, as twisted as his motivations are, it's still not in his best interest to initiate the destruction of all living peoples (and all life) in the world. If he does that, then he now rules a world empty of people. That's not very fun for any tyrant. Therefore, even the suckiest leaders in the world will have a motivation to "play the political game" sufficiently to stave off a chain reaction of nuclear annihilation. They might love to nuke another country, but they know their country and all countries would probably also be nuked in the process.
The only danger here is if someone shows up on the scene just insane enough to not care whether all life (including their own) is destroyed. Then we might see an unstoppable global disease unleashed on humanity (think the ending in the movie 12 Monkeys), or something like that.
Given our current level of technology, we have just enough rope to hang ourselves, and just enough lack of sense to use that rope. The next, oh, thousand years, will probably be a crucial test for humanity. If we can survive that long, we might then develop enough ethical wisdom to start cooperating with each other, and stop destroying each other.
In the meantime, is there anything we can do to stop the madness now? Can you venture any suggestions?