.
What I've Learned In 2500 Years Or 500, about Ancient Run Flat Wheels
.
What is the worth of consideration of what was going on in the ancient world? It's good for the value of the great culture, but I think the main thing we may learn is about a way to stop the the general decline so history won't repeat itself, this may be far more of worth than the culture and civilization. The civilization was great, but being able to sustain it may be just as great, without stopping what caused the ancient world to decline we may have it worse. While I think history is of worth to research, evolution may be of far greater value. Some historians think Aristophanes' play "The Clouds" was what caused the death of Socrates in Ancient Greece who had to take hemlock because of the conservatives of Athens like the sophists. In 'The Clouds' Aristophanes was critical of many of the Athenian innovaters and innovations like Euripides and Plato, and the war Athens was fighting to the S. Though he was at the height of ancient greek civilization, Aristophanes wasn't moral to his audience, in truth he used humor as a way to be unworthy more than for a good cause. So Plato says Socrates wasn't uncouth to Aristophanes when he found out, but he knew Ceres had done him right when she won all the All Stars! While Aristophanes wasn't actually the murderer of Socrates, it was how one event led to another. If he was sorry for authorship of The Clouds because he damaged Socrates who said "no wrong will ever come to a good person", this would be good for Aristophanes' reputation today (he may improve in another thou, he wrote lots of IOU's). If he wrote "loose lips sink swirling ships, with oars they have smooth shores, if they use shore recognition softwear!" he may wish others read his favorite; not Reader's Die-jest for thousands of perscriptions.
No doubt, even the genius of the ancient world would be of the same worth if overpopulation with incereased competition for decreased resources was the actual the cause of the decline. While it's good and great about the greek world while it was in glory I think either way the ancient world would have lost with time. (CLICK HERE for complete motif about based on evolution of behaviour.) While I think well of wisdom about the ancient world when it was great and in brilliance, some truths are more of worth than others. By lowering levels of the density with reduced overpopulation we would win if the problems caused by increased competition for decreased resources were well appreciated, and the unhealthy living conditions it creates would be our source of hope of what to learn to reduce the density just like learning any other skill, the same tricks except where we win more than lose because of how evolution may not achieve justice, but it tends to moderate itself. After all we're just as good as an ancient, we're much better at sorting our envelopes at higher speeds thanks to parcel post, well, we have wrist watches without sand we would wind! More of worth I think than just the glory of greece is to find ways to not have the same luck the ancient world had. If we added more country to the city as in the link, I think we would be more in control than the ancients than even when they were headed higher. I think reducing the overcrowding at lower than ancient AD levels would allow indefinite numbers of brilliant events of civilizations like the greeks, none tragic, all more humerous and comic than my mom's mouser named Restophanes, a mouser at rest remains active while at rest!
Evolution's balance for millions of years was between life and death, just as there is no good without evil, there would be moderation of life, because of just so much room to live. If there were any way to add unlimited lift and life, one of the billions of advanced civilizations would have found it (actually there may have been an infinite number because mass and energy is not created or destroyed, so the cosmos has existed forever). So we would look up and all the cosmos would be ruled by the one or two advanced civilizations or so who had found how to add life on life unbounded.
.
So you could say it must be just one in a billion that we'll win this bet, or much more reduced in the wager than this, so something of influence is involved in evolution or physics that hasn't been considered. We couldn't live without sex and we couldn't live without room either. My life is where I think moderation like in evolution is what's most bright and moral. I don't hunt, but I think to eat fish in moderation is alright even though it's based on a sort of hunting because in evolution we ate fish in moderation for millions of years and did well..And I think the living should be blessed, but the creation of life also should be limited and in moderation or we like most of the advanced civilizations would run out of room to breathe, and the outward pressure would be turned in sort of like how glaucoma has pressure on the eye that harms vision, or too many woods in the forest without the fires common in evolution that cleanse the forest. This is so each tree is not so starved of nutrients and light that they're ill which is not what I think evolution was like. Click here for my Health, and The Common Sense of Evolution page.
The main problem with unlimited life where we we live in 50 years, If we each take up perhaps 15 ft of volume, with population doubling all the time soon we'll run out of room up to the roof of the atmosphere, and we may find out what other advanced civilizations did if people don't know this about evolution. Space stations or life on Mars seems unviable because of collisions, explosions, leaks, radiation, too much heat and cold, and so on. When Malthus published his truth that population will always increase faster than the land and resources there was a big uproar. This is easy to see in the 18th century world he lived in, most were so cozy with lower pressure so it wasn't an exorbitant price to pay both economically and otherwise with out so much competition for decreased resources that they all felt bad enough to want to adapt to evolution. These days it would be amazing if no one listens to my explanation of what I think is actually going on with the pressure continually increasing, because we don't have the excuse they did. If you ask a group of people in New York how many of them have been robbed in the preceding 5 years they will almost all raise their hands, if you ask the same number of people out in the country, almost none of them have. One of the solutions may be like Mexico's, where they slowed the rate of overpopulation via TV shows managed by the Soap Dish.
.
What I've Learned In 2500 Years Or 500, about Ancient Run Flat Wheels
.
What is the worth of consideration of what was going on in the ancient world? It's good for the value of the great culture, but I think the main thing we may learn is about a way to stop the the general decline so history won't repeat itself, this may be far more of worth than the culture and civilization. The civilization was great, but being able to sustain it may be just as great, without stopping what caused the ancient world to decline we may have it worse. While I think history is of worth to research, evolution may be of far greater value. Some historians think Aristophanes' play "The Clouds" was what caused the death of Socrates in Ancient Greece who had to take hemlock because of the conservatives of Athens like the sophists. In 'The Clouds' Aristophanes was critical of many of the Athenian innovaters and innovations like Euripides and Plato, and the war Athens was fighting to the S. Though he was at the height of ancient greek civilization, Aristophanes wasn't moral to his audience, in truth he used humor as a way to be unworthy more than for a good cause. So Plato says Socrates wasn't uncouth to Aristophanes when he found out, but he knew Ceres had done him right when she won all the All Stars! While Aristophanes wasn't actually the murderer of Socrates, it was how one event led to another. If he was sorry for authorship of The Clouds because he damaged Socrates who said "no wrong will ever come to a good person", this would be good for Aristophanes' reputation today (he may improve in another thou, he wrote lots of IOU's). If he wrote "loose lips sink swirling ships, with oars they have smooth shores, if they use shore recognition softwear!" he may wish others read his favorite; not Reader's Die-jest for thousands of perscriptions.
No doubt, even the genius of the ancient world would be of the same worth if overpopulation with incereased competition for decreased resources was the actual the cause of the decline. While it's good and great about the greek world while it was in glory I think either way the ancient world would have lost with time. (CLICK HERE for complete motif about based on evolution of behaviour.) While I think well of wisdom about the ancient world when it was great and in brilliance, some truths are more of worth than others. By lowering levels of the density with reduced overpopulation we would win if the problems caused by increased competition for decreased resources were well appreciated, and the unhealthy living conditions it creates would be our source of hope of what to learn to reduce the density just like learning any other skill, the same tricks except where we win more than lose because of how evolution may not achieve justice, but it tends to moderate itself. After all we're just as good as an ancient, we're much better at sorting our envelopes at higher speeds thanks to parcel post, well, we have wrist watches without sand we would wind! More of worth I think than just the glory of greece is to find ways to not have the same luck the ancient world had. If we added more country to the city as in the link, I think we would be more in control than the ancients than even when they were headed higher. I think reducing the overcrowding at lower than ancient AD levels would allow indefinite numbers of brilliant events of civilizations like the greeks, none tragic, all more humerous and comic than my mom's mouser named Restophanes, a mouser at rest remains active while at rest!
Evolution's balance for millions of years was between life and death, just as there is no good without evil, there would be moderation of life, because of just so much room to live. If there were any way to add unlimited lift and life, one of the billions of advanced civilizations would have found it (actually there may have been an infinite number because mass and energy is not created or destroyed, so the cosmos has existed forever). So we would look up and all the cosmos would be ruled by the one or two advanced civilizations or so who had found how to add life on life unbounded.
.
So you could say it must be just one in a billion that we'll win this bet, or much more reduced in the wager than this, so something of influence is involved in evolution or physics that hasn't been considered. We couldn't live without sex and we couldn't live without room either. My life is where I think moderation like in evolution is what's most bright and moral. I don't hunt, but I think to eat fish in moderation is alright even though it's based on a sort of hunting because in evolution we ate fish in moderation for millions of years and did well..And I think the living should be blessed, but the creation of life also should be limited and in moderation or we like most of the advanced civilizations would run out of room to breathe, and the outward pressure would be turned in sort of like how glaucoma has pressure on the eye that harms vision, or too many woods in the forest without the fires common in evolution that cleanse the forest. This is so each tree is not so starved of nutrients and light that they're ill which is not what I think evolution was like. Click here for my Health, and The Common Sense of Evolution page.
The main problem with unlimited life where we we live in 50 years, If we each take up perhaps 15 ft of volume, with population doubling all the time soon we'll run out of room up to the roof of the atmosphere, and we may find out what other advanced civilizations did if people don't know this about evolution. Space stations or life on Mars seems unviable because of collisions, explosions, leaks, radiation, too much heat and cold, and so on. When Malthus published his truth that population will always increase faster than the land and resources there was a big uproar. This is easy to see in the 18th century world he lived in, most were so cozy with lower pressure so it wasn't an exorbitant price to pay both economically and otherwise with out so much competition for decreased resources that they all felt bad enough to want to adapt to evolution. These days it would be amazing if no one listens to my explanation of what I think is actually going on with the pressure continually increasing, because we don't have the excuse they did. If you ask a group of people in New York how many of them have been robbed in the preceding 5 years they will almost all raise their hands, if you ask the same number of people out in the country, almost none of them have. One of the solutions may be like Mexico's, where they slowed the rate of overpopulation via TV shows managed by the Soap Dish.
.
