Imagine The End Of The World

[bcuzbcuz]

Have you ever read Heinlein's Starship Troopers (not the movie, don't watch the movie). You really should.

I've read all of Heinlein's work and Starship Troopers is my least favorite. I enjoyed "Stranger In A Strange Land" but that was back in the 60's, way back when. The movie made to Starship Troopers was more like a propaganda commercial for Hitler Jugend. I thought it mirrored the book quite well.

[bcuzbcuz]

Your disagreement or agreement is not relevant. It is the basis of civilization that the enforcement of law is generally removed from the individual and delegated to the polity of which the individual is a part. It is part of the "social compact" and you are stuck with it. When they say that the political leaders and their agents are your "public servants" it isn't just a euphemism. They are ultimately your agents.

Whether the average patrol cop carries a weapon or not is beside the point. The police have firearms at their disposal, when and if they need them. They just keep them locked up at the station. If an officer is faced with a criminal bearing a firearm, and cannot persuade the criminal to give up the deadly force, he or she must call for backup, and given the presence of weapons, that backup will arrive armed. Or else you've got a very foolish system.

You think that also isn't true in the U.S.? Of course they do the same here.

That "someone else" was me. And I was speaking in particular of Great Britain.

The problem with the situation in the UK is that self-defense is no defense. If you are assaulted and are in fear of grievous bodily harm or death, you are nevertheless not justified in defending yourself. I guess they figure that if you can run, then run. If you can't run, then you have no other option but to submit to the violence and whatever outcome the assaulter wishes to dish out. Because defending yourself is "taking the law into your own hands." Darn, you might hurt the guy who's trying to kill you, and that just isn't justiable.

I have no words to describe this heinous legal fiction, that self-defense is out the window and submission to the perpetrator is the word of law.

You used to have the common law in the UK, where the law was in force in all cases, except where necessity dictated otherwise. The common law dictum was that "necessity knows no law". Which means that if, in an emergent situation, recourse to the law (i.e. the police) was not available in a timely manner, then you were justified in taking the law into your own hands. Always of course with the proviso that you were restricted to that application of force which a "reasonable person" would consider not out of line with the perceived threat.

I'm sorry, but you sure seem that naive. When you said you were working towards peace in Syria and Gaza, but not that you send weapons to help the Syrian people to defend themselves against their own government, or to do something to stop Hamas from firing rockets into Israel from Gaza, it sounded so self-contradictory that the only way to describe it was Koom-by-Ya.

The situation in Syria is a lot less complicated than that in Gaza. Violence will ultimately solve the current impasse, and that is not subject to contradiction. Assad has no choice but to fight to retain power. Once he breaks, there will no longer be an opposition for the people to worry about getting back on its feet. He and his supporters will be just as dead as Ghaddafi. It will be game over.

Gaza is a greater puzzle. Israel has no interest in or desire to fighting a war with Gaza, or with Hamas. All Israel wants is for Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel. They are very easily mollified; stop shooting and they're good to go.

Unfortunately, Hamas has no interest in or desire to let Israel continue to exist. Their stated goal, and they are very open about it, is to destroy Israel as a country, and they are not averse to killing every Jew who lives there, if that's what it takes.

Now, how is Israel supposed to deal with this? Just keep shooting down the rockets and take no further action? Just submit, in other words? Allow them to kill as many Israelis as they can reach? That's their only option? Because Hamas doesn't care how many Gazans die in their cause -- in fact, dead Gazans are a plus! This means more outrage against Israel, and more support for their campaign of terror. Israel can't win, unless somehow Hamas can be made to disappear. Unfortunately, their reason for existence is to kill Israel: there's no compromise possible; there's only temporary ceasefires while they resupply rockets.

And what is your solution to the problem? Besides hoping for Koom-by-Ya?

I don't blame you for your view of the world, I assume you are a product of modern US culture of the 60's, 70's and such. Peace was never a real theme of American culture or TV. It's not an idea that fits comfortably into a half hour time frame. "Better dead than red", "the only good indian is a dead indian" and "bomb them back to the stone age" makes much more entertaining programs.

I still believe that the pen is mightier than the sword. Culture took its first grown-up steps when writing, writing that was more than just shopping lists, began to develop. I believe that a real peace solution for the Middle East will only come about in the written form and not from bombs. As much as Americans enjoy the sagas of revolutionary battle, the real winning of democracy came about in stormy sessions that wrote the constitution. Battles that won democracy in many European countries were more economic than military.

[volgadon]

[Calm]

Artist please?

[Nathair/|\]

[media=]

To that I reply:

[volgadon]

Artist please?

Martin Carthy.

As well as being a legend in his own right, he influenced Bob Dyland and Paul Simon at an early stage in their carreers. There was a bit of ugly business over crediting the arrangement of Scarborough Fair, but Paul Simon has since apologised. The rest of the Carthy:Waterson family are amazing, too. I highly recommend their album , "Holy Heathens and the Old Green Man," which has a lot of lesser-known seasonal songs.

Anyway, the song I posted is Carthy's adaptation of a 17th c. poem set to a Basque tune. I always like to compare it to what the Book of Mormon says is more powerful than even a sword.

[Stargazer]

I've read all of Heinlein's work and Starship Troopers is my least favorite. I enjoyed "Stranger In A Strange Land" but that was back in the 60's, way back when. The movie made to Starship Troopers was more like a propaganda commercial for Hitler Jugend. I thought it mirrored the book quite well.

What I said.

One must look through quite a distorted lens to be able to see Hitler Jugend in Heinlein in general, let alone Starship Troopers in particular. And the lens you were gazing through in order to say you thought the movie "mirrored the book quite well" is the exact same lens Paul Verhoeven (the director) was looking through. The mirror you speak of is a funhouse mirror, not something that yields a true-to-life image.

Verhoeven's vision of SST (and Heinlein) was antithetical to what Heinlein himself believed at his core and what he expressed in those books (such as SST) that were set in the same Future History. Heinlein was not a fascist. He was a libertarian. The philosophy that he expressed so often in his books was that of extreme individuality, the kind of freedom that may never actually have been enjoyed even in the early United States's heydey. A kind of Jeffersonian liberty that is frequently highly spoken of, but seldom if ever actualized or sought. When Verhoeven gave his military officers Nazi-style uniforms he was very unsubtlely saying that he knew nothing of what Heinlein was, and the kind of society that he was suggesting was nothing more nor less than anti-Heinleinian (from the Wikipedia article):

There are many differences between the original book and film. While the original novel has been accused of promoting militarism, fascism and military rule; the film satirizes these concepts by featuring news reports that are intensely fascist, xenophobic and propagandistic. Verhoeven stated in 1997 that the first scene of the film (a conscription advertisement for the mobile infantry) was adapted shot-for-shot from a scene from Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will, specifically an outdoor rally for the Reichsarbeitsdienst. Other references to Nazism in the movie include the Gestapo-like uniforms of commanding officers, Albert Speer-style architecture and the propagandistic dialogue. (Violence is the supreme authority!)

A report in an American Cinematographer article states that the Heinlein novel was optioned well into the pre-production period of the film, which had a working title of Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine; most of the writing team reportedly were unaware of the novel at the time. According to the DVD commentary, Paul Verhoeven never finished reading the novel, claiming he read through the first few chapters and became both "bored and depressed."

Verhoeven said that in this movie he was "...playing with fascism or fascist imagery to point out certain aspects of American society... of course, the movie is about 'Let's all go to war and let's all die.'" In short, Verhoeven saddled up on Starship Troopers (and though it, on Heinlein) and rode off with him into places Heinlein would never have gone.

It's about as faithful to the philosophy of Heinlein as Jesus Christ, Superstar was faithful to the message of the Gospel. A man who hated a book (SST) and a country (USA), used a distorted retelling of the book to tell lies about the country.

But I believe I am expecting too much if I expect you to be able to see that.

[Stargazer]

Dupe

Edited November 28, 2012 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

I don't blame you for your view of the world, I assume you are a product of modern US culture of the 60's, 70's and such.

Kind of a scatter-shot assumption, wouldn't you say?

I am a product of old US culture, going back to the founding of Jamestown, and before. My heritage is both European and Native American. The European part emigrated from Old World oppression. Half of me am descended from German peasant farmer stock; another 7/16th comes from England and France; with the final puzzle piece (1/16th) originating from Northern California, among the Konkow Maidu. Of the whites of my ancestors who arrived on these shores well before Independence, most of them were working to escape servitude of varying degrees, because here they could be something other than subjects to one or another feudal prince and in some cases bound to the land. Nobody of my ancestors, at least, were forced to come here -- they had to work to get here, and work they did.

Peace was never a real theme of American culture or TV. It's not an idea that fits comfortably into a half hour time frame. "Better dead than red", "the only good indian is a dead indian" and "bomb them back to the stone age" makes much more entertaining programs.

You are clearly of the "Dis America First" crowd. No mystery then why you don't live here any more. As to the themes you mention for TV shows? I cannot remember any of them as the basis for any half-hour TV series in the US. You're just taking bad and overworn stereotypes and throwing them out as if they meant something.

Well, TV is pretty much the same all over, really. Take British television for starters: "Fawlty Towers"; "Keeping Up Appearances"; Benny Hill; "Black Adder"; "Red Dwarf"; "Dr. Who". Let's see what howls of protest it brings when I name the last two as examples of maudlin British TV culture. In fact, nothing I've seen on TV anywhere in the world seemed to suggest that peace is a real theme of any culture.

The fact that conflict drives most entertainment should not be such a surprise. If "peace" per se were so interesting, we would have half-hour programs uninterrupted by commercials, where an idyllic forest scene could be viewed for 30 straight minutes, along with soft music. At least that would put the insomniacs to sleep.

I still believe that the pen is mightier than the sword.

While it doesn't surprise me hearing you say this, the pen is in fact a very weak reed to rely upon without a sword to back it up. Some of my Native American cousins relied upon the pen, thinking that it somehow protected them. They then found out that without credible force to back them up, their treaties were worthless. Because they were dealing from weakness, not strength.

Culture took its first grown-up steps when writing, writing that was more than just shopping lists, began to develop. I believe that a real peace solution for the Middle East will only come about in the written form and not from bombs.

The only word that comes to mind hearing this is "Pollyanna". Did you read a word of what I wrote earlier? What could be written down that could extinguish the desire of Hamas to destroy Israel utterly? I can think of some writing that would do it, but you wouldn't like what that particular pen wrote.

As much as Americans enjoy the sagas of revolutionary battle, the real winning of democracy came about in stormy sessions that wrote the constitution.

No, sadly enough, it wasn't the "stormy sessions" of the Constitutional Convention that won democracy. Democracy already existed in the form of freely-elected colonial legislatures. There is only thing the colonists lacked (and that would probably have prevented the Revolution, if they had had it) was representation in Parliament. Remember "No taxation without representation"? That was the chief sticking point in the beginning. The colonists had representative government already, but had no voice in the levying of taxes by the mother country.

I know what you are trying to say, though. That it was the Constitutional Convention that created the United States, and through a peaceful debate process. Sounds so peaceful, doesn't it? But it is a false notion. The Constituion only secured the democratic republic that the Revolution won through blood. Without that blood, the Constitution would never have been conceived, let alone written.

Battles that won democracy in many European countries were more economic than military.

You don't read history much, do you? If you did you would realize how very seldom democracy was won peacefully in Europe.

Great Britain - the English lords force King John at sword-point to sign the Magna Charta at Runnymede in 1215. Later, the English Civil War (1642–1651) pitted Cavaliers and Roundheads against each other, and decisively put down the notion of "divine right of kings", and placing an elected Parliament into ascendancy over the crown.

Spain - the history of Spain from the Spanish-American war (1898) to the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) was a violent series of events which culminated in a fascist dictatorship, that only with the death of Franco allowed Spain to transition to a true representative democracy.

France - from Bastille Day through the Reign of Terror and beyond, France was a basket case of blood and terror before you could say that peace had finally broken out and there was a true representative democracy. I'm not sure even the French can count how many revolutions they have had between Bastille and today.

Germany - a country that didn't exist before 1834, when the German Confederation was founded from 39 squabbling sovereign states (all with nobility or monarchs leading them), didn't get true democracy until the debacle of WW1 and the German Revolution of 1918-1919 caused the Emperor and all other ruling princes to abdicate, which led to the short-lived Weimar Republic. And you'll note that they didn't get shut of Wemar's successor Hitler until after 6 years of bloody war.

A few smaller countries, such as the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway, made peaceful transitions to democracy, but most of the rest didn't arrive there without at least some violence. Italy is a strange bybrid case, having not really existed before Garibaldi united it under a single King in the mid-1800's, by way of a series of wars. Universal male suffrage only arrived in 1914, but at least it was done peacefully. I guess this doesn't address Mussolini and the blood that had to be spilled to get rid of him, so... I guess that puts Italy into the same category as Germany, after all.

In the main, transition to democracy has been by violence, world wide. For example, there isn't one Spanish American country that didn't win independence through war (and some of them keep repeating the process every few years). This notion that you have that the pen is mightier than the sword is the most misleading idea that has ever been advanced by any ivory tower philosopher (except possibly for Karl Marx's Labour Theory of Value). You may believe in its efficacy if you wish, but when stacked up against the evidence of history, you have very little to stand upon. The pen must always be backed by the sword, or the documents that it writes are not worth the paper they are written upon.

Even the great literature that spawned or supported great and noble events could not stand alone. Works such as Uncle Tom's Cabin or Common Sense were were worth battalions and divisions of troops in both the US Civil War and the American Revolution, but note carefully: without force of arms they were noble, but dead, letters. It took blood before the ideals they strove for were accomplished.

When Heinlein wrote in Starship Troopers that "[v]iolence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor," he was stating an uncomfortable but very bald fact. You can choose to ignore the facts of history if you wish; or you can open your eyes to reality.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Stargazer

[Nathair/|\]

@Bcuzbcuz, writing began at the temple, in fact all civilization begins at the temple.

[bcuzbcuz]

You are clearly of the "Dis America First" crowd. No mystery then why you don't live here any more.

I don't live in the US because I am not, never have been, never want to be, a US citizen. The US military "kindly" offered me citizenship by serving in the army in Viet Nam when I studied in the US. I respectfully turned down the offer. If you define criticism as "dis-sing" America, that is your problem. The US has earned its criticism.

The fact that conflict drives most entertainment should not be such a surprise. If "peace" per se were so interesting, we would have half-hour programs uninterrupted by commercials, where an idyllic forest scene could be viewed for 30 straight minutes, along with soft music. At least that would put the insomniacs to sleep.

You seem to define peace as the boring interlude between wars. I hear Mormons believe there will be peace in the afterlife. You're about to be 'bored to death'.

While it doesn't surprise me hearing you say this, the pen is in fact a very weak reed to rely upon without a sword to back it up. Some of my Native American cousins relied upon the pen, thinking that it somehow protected them. They then found out that without credible force to back them up, their treaties were worthless. Because they were dealing from weakness, not strength.

Your politics of 'might makes right' is nothing more than schoolyard bully tactics. It works only when the supposedly weaker power submits, because they believe they are facing insurmountable odds. But the weaker forces have been known to win, in Viet Nam for example and Afghanistan most recently. The First Nation treaties failures have nothing to do with force and power but rather treachery and deceit. Unless, of course, you see it as the mightiful's right to exploit others. Winner takes all hardly seems to fit into democracy.

You don't read history much, do you? If you did you would realize how very seldom democracy was won peacefully in Europe.

Great Britain - the English lords force King John at sword-point to sign the Magna Charta at Runnymede in 1215.

On the contrary, I read a lot of history. What you fail to realize, even when you write it yourself, is that when the Magna Carta came into being, sword points gave way to pen quills. The victory would have had no force, would have been an immemorable footnote in history, had it merely been a battle and sword fight.

History has also ample evidence, for those willing to look, when the winner of a battle has lost the war. The winner of a war can equally lose the history. The UK would be a more recent example of this. The UK moved from being a world power to being an asterisk in current affairs following WWII.

[bcuzbcuz]

@Bcuzbcuz, writing began at the temple, in fact all civilization begins at the temple.

Well, no, not really. Check out Sumerian clay tablets. The story of Gilgamesh may be of interest. The British Museum has more than 3000 such clay tablets that all pre-date anything in scripture.

[Nathair/|\]

Well, no, not really. Check out Sumerian clay tablets. The story of Gilgamesh may be of interest. The British Museum has more than 3000 such clay tablets that all pre-date anything in scripture.

The Sumerians had temples.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=103&chapid=1157

[Stargazer]

I don't live in the US because I am not, never have been, never want to be, a US citizen. The US military "kindly" offered me citizenship by serving in the army in Viet Nam when I studied in the US. I respectfully turned down the offer. If you define criticism as "dis-sing" America, that is your problem. The US has earned its criticism.

My apologies. What you chose to gate to us in the discussion led me to conclude that you were a US citizen who was living as an ex-pat by choice because of disdain for your native land. You've not been here in this forum long enough for me to have acquired a knowledge of your background and current status.

I tend to have some disdain for those citizens of the US who sit in foreign lands mouthing disrespectful platitudes about their country. A personal failing of mine that stems from my love of this country and its institutions and people. An ex-pat dissing his native land seems rather like a person who talks disrespectfully about his family to outsiders, or a husband talking disrespectfully about his wife behind her back.

You may be correct that the US has earned criticism, but find me a country which hasn't.

You seem to define peace as the boring interlude between wars. I hear Mormons believe there will be peace in the afterlife. You're about to be 'bored to death'.

And you seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth. As some clever chap has once observed, peace can of course be inferred from the fact that the there have been intervals between wars, but that is not how I would define it.

As to what you hear the Mormons believe, there will of course be peace in the afterlife, but that peace will not be boring in the least. This is because there will be much work to do; and it will be work that builds, not destroys. I look forward to it.

Your politics of 'might makes right' is nothing more than schoolyard bully tactics.

I never said "might makes right," and that isn't my politics, thanks for the words put into my mouth once again.

What I did say, and I will try one more time to get it past your guard, is that peace, in this benighted world, which is not secured by might will be strangled in its cradle. I desire to live in peace, as do you, but neither of us can hope to do so unless men with guns are prepared to stand guard in some vigilence to secure it. You may choose to ignore those men, and pretend that the peace comes about because of some ineffable characteristic of your society, but your ignorance is self-deception and that is all.

It works only when the supposedly weaker power submits, because they believe they are facing insurmountable odds. But the weaker forces have been known to win, in Viet Nam for example and Afghanistan most recently. The First Nation treaties failures have nothing to do with force and power but rather treachery and deceit. Unless, of course, you see it as the mightiful's right to exploit others. Winner takes all hardly seems to fit into democracy.

Of course it only works when the weaker power submits due to insurmountable odds! That's the whole point! And while it is true that weaker forces have won on occasion, this has only happened when the cost to the stronger forces exceeded their willingness to pay. The loss in Viet Nam was exactly a matter of one side being willing to pay more than the other -- that was their entire strategy, which was played out both in Viet Nam and by their agents in the United States. And as you point out, in Afghanistan versus the Soviets (although US military assistance certainly helped in that case). And making this point a little closer to home, there is no way that Great Britain could have lost to the 13 colonies in North American except that the cost exceeded their willingness to pay -- with the great gulf of the Atlantic providing a good deal of that cost.

I gather you must be Canadian, since I haven't heard Brits referring to the Indians as First Nations. Am I correct, or barking up the wrong tree?

And as to First Nation treaty failures being due to treachery and deceit, well of course! And it has everything to do with force and power. If the FN peoples had been dealing from strength, and the Europeans had had reason to fear the result of treaty breaking, the treaties would not have failed. In fact, the treaties would not have promised so little nor demanded so much in the first place.

Every hear of the Maoris in New Zealand? Contrary to similar situations in the US and Canada, the Maoris signed the major peace treaty with the British more or less as equals, and they remain a significant force in New Zealand culture and politics, and make up a far larger percentage of New Zealand's population than do the native peoples of North America. And why was this? Because the Maori successfully adopted European weapons and tactics, and could not be overwhelmed by force. Their treaty did not fail. Because it was backed by force.

On the contrary, I read a lot of history. What you fail to realize, even when you write it yourself, is that when the Magna Carta came into being, sword points gave way to pen quills. The victory would have had no force, would have been an immemorable footnote in history, had it merely been a battle and sword fight.

I fail to realize nothing of the sort. I never said the pen had no role, I simply said that without the sword backing it up the pen was merely a writing instrument, and without the threat of force represented by the sword points, King John wouldn't have signed the document, and more to the point, he wouldn't even had come to Runnymede. Had he had superior force, the barons would have been unable to obtain their desire. And might have paid with their lives and fortunes.

Reading history is fine, but learning the correct lessons from it is another question entirely.

History has also ample evidence, for those willing to look, when the winner of a battle has lost the war. The winner of a war can equally lose the history. The UK would be a more recent example of this. The UK moved from being a world power to being an asterisk in current affairs following WWII.

Absolutely true. As some wise man or other has pointed out, war doesn't determine who is right, only who is left. Although I would hardly describe the UK as an asterisk. That "asterisk" can singlehandedly turn any given country of equal size into a glowing parking lot, and it can still project enough power 8,000 miles to retake an island group from another country of somewhat equal size. Whether they should have done so in this particular case isn't the question, but the fact is they could do so.

Nothing you have proposed detracts from my point at all, bcuzbcuz. Great Britain was already on the way towards becoming what amounts to a second-class power even before WW2. The source of its economic power (and therefore of its military power), which was its Empire, was transforming inexorably into the Commonwealth, which wasn't the same thing at all. I actually admire Great Britain a great deal because of this -- it was a noble thing to give up its Empire peacefully, with its components essentially given the power to be themselves to stand on their own among the nations of the world. The rulers of GB were well aware that their ability to project power had degraded so much that they wisely chose to dis-Imperialize.

Great Britain did not make the mistake that Spain made in the same situation. The Spanish attempted to maintain their empire, such as it was, without having the capability of defending it. And then it got taken away from them. By that United States which you feel so free to criticize. Incidentally, that United States, which could have bloody well kept what it took, planned from the beginning to give the major portions of what they took back to the people living there. Cuba and the Phillipines. Cuba fairly quickly and the Phillipines a bit later (and delayed by WW2). The few territories which remained were far too small to remain independent had they been given to themselves (the little minor islands in the middle of the Pacific).

Well, I wanted to go on and on, but I suspect it would be a pointless exercise.

[bcuzbcuz]

The Sumerians had temples.

http://maxwellinstit...103&chapid=1157

But not temples as in "LDS temples" nor even Judean temples. The first written tablet I know of (and I hope my memory isn't letting me down) was a beer list from about 3100-3000 BCE. This clay tablet is on display at the British Museum in London and contains what would amount to a rations card for beer. It has a symbol representing a flagon of beer and then wedge markings, like stamps, to mark the number of beers consumed. Hardly seems the stuff of temples.

[Nathair/|\]

But not temples as in "LDS temples" nor even Judean temples. The first written tablet I know of (and I hope my memory isn't letting me down) was a beer list from about 3100-3000 BCE. This clay tablet is on display at the British Museum in London and contains what would amount to a rations card for beer. It has a symbol representing a flagon of beer and then wedge markings, like stamps, to mark the number of beers consumed. Hardly seems the stuff of temples.

They were still temples. I never claimed anything about LDS or Judean temples, I simply said temples.

[bcuzbcuz]

They were still temples. I never claimed anything about LDS or Judean temples, I simply said temples.

I guess I'm going to have to call for some references to your proposition. You say writing started at the temples, in fact you state that all civilization began at the temples. I can find over 100,000 clay tablets registered at various museums around the world and there are over a million fragments in the same collections. How many clay tablets are in private collections, no one knows. The majority of these tablets have to do with counting or bill paying.

The oldest examples of Sumerian writing were bills of sales that recorded transactions between a buyer and seller. When a trader sold ten head of cattle he included a clay tablet that had a symbol for the number ten and a pictograph symbol of cattle.

http://factsanddetai...56&subcatid=363

Or they could have been riddles: 'The deflowered girl did not become pregnant. The undeflowered girl became pregnant. What is it?'

Apparently the answer is: Auxiliary forces. The term for a group of soldiers

I just don't see any of this having to do with temples.

Edited December 2, 2012 by bcuzbcuz

[Calm]

Not specific to the claim but as far as "civilizing" mankind having to do with temples:

http://www.smithsoni...html?c=y&page=2

To Schmidt and others, these new findings suggest a novel theory of civilization. Scholars have long believed that only after people learned to farm and live in settled communities did they have the time, organization and resources to construct temples and support complicated social structures. But Schmidt argues it was the other way around: the extensive, coordinated effort to build the monoliths literally laid the groundwork for the development of complex societies.

The immensity of the undertaking at Gobekli Tepe reinforces that view. Schmidt says the monuments could not have been built by ragged bands of hunter-gatherers. To carve, erect and bury rings of seven-ton stone pillars would have required hundreds of workers, all needing to be fed and housed. Hence the eventual emergence of settled communities in the area around 10,000 years ago. "This shows sociocultural changes come first, agriculture comes later," says Stanford University archaeologist Ian Hodder, who excavated Catalhoyuk, a prehistoric settlement 300 miles from Gobekli Tepe. "You can make a good case this area is the real origin of complex Neolithic societies."

Edited December 2, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

The first examples of writing were pictograms used by temple officials to keep track of the inflows and outflows of the city's grain and animal stores which, in the bigger Sumerian urban centers such as Ur, were big enough to make counting by memory unreliable.

http://www.livescience.com/2283-writing-changed-world.html

Unfortunately it provides no footnoting for sources to follow the claim.

[volgadon]

But not temples as in "LDS temples" nor even Judean temples. The first written tablet I know of (and I hope my memory isn't letting me down) was a beer list from about 3100-3000 BCE. This clay tablet is on display at the British Museum in London and contains what would amount to a rations card for beer. It has a symbol representing a flagon of beer and then wedge markings, like stamps, to mark the number of beers consumed. Hardly seems the stuff of temples.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/t/tablet,_allocation_of_beer.aspx

[Calm]

The earliest tablets with written inscriptions represent the work of administrators, perhaps of large temple institutions, recording the allocation of rations or the movement and storage of goods.

[volgadon]

Exactly. Beer also had an important, sacral function in Mesopotamian society as it was used for pouring out libations, too.

[bcuzbcuz]

Not specific to the claim but as far as "civilizing" mankind having to do with temples:

http://www.smithsoni...html?c=y&page=2

Schmidt puts forth a true chicken or egg proposition. Did farming or structures come first? I think the an appropriate response is, as stated on the wikipedia site about Schmidt: At present, Göbekli Tepe raises more questions for archaeology and prehistory than it answers.

[thesometimesaint]

The actual end of the world.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-sun-will-eventually-engulf-earth-maybe

[bcuzbcuz]

The actual end of the world.

http://www.scientifi...ulf-earth-maybe

The Sun Will Eventually Engulf Earth--Maybe

The future looks bright—maybe too bright.